This is not the LDS Christian view at all. Individuals hold ZERO blame for the sins of their forefathers, though they may have to face consequences of those actions. For example, a mom is addicted to drugs and lives in poverty because of it. Her child is NOT responsible for her sins and bears no guilt of it, but still has to deal with the poverty environment growing up.
Yes, thank you for answering my question. I do understand that the current Catholic consensus is that unbaptized babies are in God’s merciful hands. I am just not sure if that is different from baptized babies. Are they also in “God’s merciful hands,” or are they definitely in heaven? I know in the past there was a belief that the unbaptized were unsaved or in a separate pleasurable place “limbo(?).” I believe there has been no official teaching on this. I just wonder if some think they are boosting their child’s chance at a different afterlife when they baptize their child.I believe I answered this question.But it’s the same for babies who die before birth. Having said that anyone may baptize with water so if the opportunity arises, the infant should be baptized. After all, we don’t know precisely when the soul leaves the body. Besides this there are other forms of baptism that may apply–baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Only God would know if either applied to an infant who dies before birth (as in the case of abortion). Knowing that God is merciful and just, we give all such infants into God’s loving arms. He desires that all be saved, and he is able to operate outside the sacraments as he pleases, so we don’t have to believe that God is mere a stickler for rules. But he does expect us to do our part if we are able.
I don’t know about the age of accountability specific to LDS. I think they have specific guidelines. I have wondered about the right age of accountability for Christianity in general.
It’s a Christian thing not a Jewish thing.
Deceased baptized babies are in heaven since the stain of original sin was removed in baptism, and they were full of the grace of their baptism, having been unable to commit any personal sins.
Even the Jews before Jesus day weren’t sure of the fate of deceased infants. They never believed that infants were “innocent” in the way you mean:
The age of responsibility/coming of age is 13 for boys and 12 for girls.
Thanks D,
Your question prompted me to do a bit of research. From what I could find, there was no formal denial of burial of unbaptized infants born of baptized parents. For those denied, the concern was desecration of Church property, not a judgment passed on the souls of the unbaptized, although it’s understandable that people might take it that way. And it was no doubt too rigorously applied in some places, but there was no Church mandate to deny burial to unbaptized infants that I could find.
The CC accepts Jesus’ words “he who is baptized will be saved” are valid in the case of infants.
You are right, trusting their souls to a faithful creator used to be called “limbo” but it was a theological speculation and never part of the doctrine of the faith, though it was taught as if it was.
Yes, they were under a different covenant, where sins were paid with animal sacrifice. Babies were brought into that Covenant at 8 days (which is one reason the Church continued the practice of initiating infants into the covenant.
Yes, anyone can baptize, and you are right, there were some strange rules about the use of “consecrated ground”. People who were not believed to have died in a state of grace would not be buried on the Church property, like suicides and unbaptized infants. The truth is that only God can know the STate of the soul, and when we look at outward appearances, mistakes are made.
This is a good question, because it has changed over the years. Yes, currently it is at the time of first confession. There would be nothing to confess if they could not be personally responsible. Confirmation used to happen much younger, and the Eastern Catholics follow the Orthodox practice of all the rites of initiation (baptism, communion and confirmation) all occur at the same time in infancy.
I think you are right, and the Bishop can allow whatever is prudent and fitting for that reason.
I believe the Church teaches that John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother’s womb when Jesus’ mother came to visit, and thus was conceived in original sin, but born cleansed.
Are Jesus’ words you are speaking of Mark 16:16? "16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
The CC teaches that no one can be baptized without a profession of faith. For infants and young children, the profession by their parents and godparents is acceptable (they also take vows to raise the child in the faith).
The CC reads and understands the Bible from the point of view of those who wrote it. For the Apostles “only belief to be saved” does not mean what it does to modern Bible Christains (praying the sinners prayer). “Beleive” for the Aposltes meant clinging to all that Jesus taught.
Not for Catholics, it is not. “Belief” means a commitment to become a disciple, at baptism, the parents are taught what this obligates them to do for the baptized child. It also requires that at least one parent be in good standing with the church. Maybe I misunderstand what you have written, but what would be the point of baptism classes if “belief alone is adequate”? If it were, the parents would not be required to come to the class!
That is just it, though, the baptism is not “alone”. It is accompanied by obligations to raise the child in the faith. The CC believes that saving faith is faith that works.
It is not up to us to judge the state of another persons’ soul before God. It is true that a number of Catholics fall away from the faith into which they were baptized (I was one of them).
We believe that baptism is salvific. I don’t know what you mean by “faith alone” so I can’t respond to that part. CC don’t believe in faith alone. Saving Faith is always accompanied by love and hope. Saving faith is faith that works - faith that produces fruit.
It is really simple. Either God meant what he said that the wages of sin is death, or not. Original sin results in us being in a state of separation from God. Baptism restores that relationship.
I don’t think it is fair to say the last paragraph about Protestantism as a whole. They may interpret some teachings differently, but the vast majority do “cling to teaching” and strive to live a Christian life. A few modern churches in the past few decades may have started going astray into hyper-grace. My Catholic friend already told me all about this last year, but this isn’t common. I only know about if from Catholics. It must be common for Catholics to talk about.
I am just referring to Mark 16:16 with the requirements for salvation being belief and baptism. Is someone is in RCIA preparing for baptism, but passes away while in the class, it would be believed that they could probably be saved even though they haven’t been baptized. Therefore they only fulfilled one requirement specific to Mark 16:16. (This part of Mark isn’t even in the oldest manuscripts either.)
That sounds similar to what the reformers taught. “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” ― Martin Luther
I think I am learning more about original sin, but becoming more confused. I hear in posts that infants aren’t born guilty, but they are born separated from God and in need of baptism to forgive them and bring then back to God. Doesn’t mean they are born guilty? They have no personal sins, but they aren’t pure and sinless either. Is Original Sin the primary reason for infant baptism?
Unless one is baptized (by water, desire, or blood) there will not be the Beatific Vision after death, because there will not be a state of sanctifying grace present. Adam and Eve were given the initial state of sanctifying grace, which we are not.
I don’t either, which is why I did not.
I did not encounter people who thought this way until after I left the CC.
Oh I thought you were talking about required baptismal classes for parents! Yes, this is called a “baptism of desire”, where the individual would have been baptized had the opportunity not been snatched away by an untimely death.
It is frightening how much drift there has been away from the thought and practices of the Reformers. At least the CC has been able to restore some of the tears that occurred over the misunderstood concept of salvation by “faith alone”.
Yes. We are not guilty of original sin (we are not personally responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve) but we suffer the consequences, which is that we are born into a fallen world, in a state without the right relationship with God (justice) for which we were created.
Thank you for this explanation.
Thank you for your response. I have heard Genesis 3:21 “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” as an example of the first time blood had to be shed to “cover” mankind’s sin. This would seem to go along with this understanding of forgiveness given personally to Adam and Eve (along with earthly consequences).We muslims don’t believe in Original Sin. We believe that when Adam and Eve sinned [peace be upon them], they repented and God forgave them. There’s a sense in which you could say that we believe in Original Forgiveness.
Well, infant baptism has been taught since the time of the Apostles:
Hi g,