Since Baptism removes original sin, why do the baptized still die?

[Ana_v]

I’m sorry if I’m asking a rather rudimentary question that I should already know the answer to.

A while back I read a very handy blog post (Does Original Sin = Guilty Babies) that addresses the common misconception which claims that Catholics believe that babies are born guilty. It explains the distinction between culpability – personal fault – and penalty – consequences of fault. (I would add that from basic human experience, we learn that one person’s wrongdoing does is not isolated, it affects the lives of others).

I’m confident that most of the people who have the misconception already understand the distinction between fault and consequence; they simply – consciously or not – fail to apply it to the Catholic doctrine of original sin.

To the point of my post:

We say that the stain of original sin is the consequence or penalty inherited by Adam’s descedants. Therefore, in saying “baptism removes original sin” we mean “baptism removes the penalty of original sin”.

I understand this insofar as sanctifying grace is concerned (that one of the consequences of Adam’s personal sin was the loss of sanctifying grace, and sanctifying grace is restored through baptism).

But the penalty of original sin consists of *more *than the loss of sanctifying grace (e.g includes death to the body), so that the removal of original sin would (correspondingly) seem to consist of more than restoration of sancityfing grace. Yet we die (even if our souls are in a state of grace). Why is this?

Is it more accurate to say that only *part *of the penalty inherited by a descendant of Adam is removed by baptism? Why/why not?

 

[Nicea325]

I’m sorry if I’m asking a rather rudimentary question that I should already know the answer to. A while back I read a very handy blog post (Does Original Sin = Guilty Babies) that addresses the common misconception which claims that Catholics believe that babies are born guilty. It explains the distinction between culpability – personal fault – and penalty – consequences of fault. (I would add that from basic human experience, we learn that one person’s wrongdoing does is not isolated, it affects the lives of others). I’m confident that most of the people who have the misconception already understand the distinction between fault and consequence; they simply – consciously or not – fail to apply it to the Catholic doctrine of original sin. To the point of my post: We say that the stain of original sin is the consequence or penalty inherited by Adam’s descedants. Therefore, in saying “baptism removes original sin” we mean “baptism removes the penalty of original sin”. I understand this insofar as sanctifying grace is concerned (that one of the consequences of Adam’s personal sin was the loss of sanctifying grace, and sanctifying grace is restored through baptism). But the penalty of original sin consists of *more *than the loss of sanctifying grace (e.g includes death to the body), so that the removal of original sin would (correspondingly) seem to consist of more than restoration of sancityfing grace. Yet we die (even if our souls are in a state of grace). Why is this? Is it more accurate to say that only *part *of the penalty inherited by a descendant of Adam is removed by baptism? Why/why not?

Because we are also baptized into the life,death and resuurection of Christ, unless I am totally wrong? Baptism is part of salvation,not the only solution.

 

[Robertanthony]

I’m sorry if I’m asking a rather rudimentary question that I should already know the answer to.

A while back I read a very handy blog post (Does Original Sin = Guilty Babies) that addresses the common misconception which claims that Catholics believe that babies are born guilty. It explains the distinction between culpability – personal fault – and penalty – consequences of fault. (I would add that from basic human experience, we learn that one person’s wrongdoing does is not isolated, it affects the lives of others).

I’m confident that most of the people who have the misconception already understand the distinction between fault and consequence; they simply – consciously or not – fail to apply it to the Catholic doctrine of original sin.

To the point of my post:

We say that the stain of original sin is the consequence or penalty inherited by Adam’s descedants. Therefore, in saying “baptism removes original sin” we mean “baptism removes the penalty of original sin”.

I understand this insofar as sanctifying grace is concerned (that one of the consequences of Adam’s personal sin was the loss of sanctifying grace, and sanctifying grace is restored through baptism).

But the penalty of original sin consists of *more *than the loss of sanctifying grace (e.g includes death to the body), so that the removal of original sin would (correspondingly) seem to consist of more than restoration of sancityfing grace. Yet we die (even if our souls are in a state of grace). Why is this?

Is it more accurate to say that only *part *of the penalty inherited by a descendant of Adam is removed by baptism? Why/why not?

Was the Tree of Life a literary device or was there an actual tree, the consumption of whose fruit was required to gain immortality? The main spiritual effect from the Fall was the loss of friendship with God, the relationship was severed, I’d say the main effect of baptism is to put us in a favorable position to rekindle that relationship and gain an Eternity with God. I’ll let others chime in and correct me (charitably!) if need be.

 

[thistle]

Because we are also baptized into the life,death and resuurection of Christ, unless I am totally wrong? Baptism is part of salvation,not the only solution.

That’s right. Baptism is necessary for salvation but does not ensure it. A person must also be Catholic and die in a state of grace.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Is it more accurate to say that only *part *of the penalty inherited by a descendant of Adam is removed by baptism? Why/why not?

The way I understand it, the eternal punishments are gone. Temporal punishments remain until Christ comes again. Temporal death is one of those. So are other forms of suffering. It remains a fallen world.

Incidentally, you’ve stumbled upon an apologetic that refutes those who argue that we don’t need sanctification or Purgatory because Christ “paid it all.” Yet they still die.

 

[Joe_5859]

From the Catechism:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. [66] In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.” [67] Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.” [68]

[66] Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1316.
[67] Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515.
[68] 2 Tim 2:5.

 

[Evan]

In a spiritual sense, you don’t die if you have been baptized (and remain in Christ)

Matt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

So Jesus saves us from the eternal death of damnation. Eating of the fruit of disobedience (original sin) subjected us to damnation. Baptism removes this consequence.

It is possible, that even without eating the fruit, Adam and Eve would have suffered physical death, but not spiritual death. It can be very difficult to determine, in the bible, which death is referred to in each location. Sometimes it can be both or just one or the other.