S
steve_b
Guest
Considering ποιεῖτε / do, has this large meaning, and considering it is Jesus that is the one “doing”, I’d say your protestations on this matter are going no where
- Status
J
jinc1019
Guest
Usagi,
I urge you to read the passage again. It is blatantly obvious what Augustine is saying and it opposes your previous statements.
Right there says it all. “God is present in His sacraments to confirm His words BY WHOMSOEVER the sacraments my be administered…both the sacraments of God are everywhere valid.” Where does he qualify these statements with apostolic succession authority? Nowhere. He says “WHOMESOEVER,” meaning ANYONE.
This final bolded part is the most important part of the passage…If I am wrong, and everything in this passage, as you claim, requires valid Holy Orders, then WHY does Augustine say, “even within, the Church itself”? Obviously he ALSO means outside of the Church itself.
Now, I suppose you could argue “you can be outside the Church and still have valid Holy Orders,” but there are two problems with this logic. The first is, there is no indication anywhere in here that holy orders are required at all…you are assuming that in the passage. Secondly, he clearly says at the very start of the passage, “But if God is present in His sacraments to confirm His words by whomsoever the sacraments may be administered, then both the sacraments of God are everywhere valid, and evil men whom they profit not are everywhere perverse.”
Further, I want to make the point that just because Augustine is saying that WHOMSOEVER administers the sacraments does so validly because it is the work of the Holy Spirit, I am not saying I agree with that…All I am saying is that this is what Augustine points out in this passage. The whole point of my argument is not that Augustine is right about everything, or anything. My argument is that he held a different view; different from other Church fathers and different from the teachings of the Catholic Church.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Again, you never once pointed out a single time before 200 AD where infant baptism is clearly expounded. You are ASSUMING, based on the fact that you already believe in infant baptism, that infant baptism is valid. You are ASSUMING terms like “household” include infants, which is not necessarily true and there is no evidence to suggest it is. You are assuming “children” means infants when children are old enough to sin but babies are not. I already showed numerous quotes from Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, etc. which shows that many in the Early Church did not think infants had any personal sin at all, a fact which you completely ignored. Even in the passage you cite it says “for the forgiveness of sins.” What sins? Are you saying a 3 day old baby is guilty of personal sins? Where do you get that teaching from before 200 AD? I already showed you several passages that prove Early Church fathers believed babies were sinless so you need to show me proof from the early Church fathers that babies were GUILTY of committing personal sins.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Even in the above passage you have numerous problems. First, nowhere does it say anything about infants. Secondly, it says “repent and be baptized, every one of you.” How can a baby repent? How can a baby, incapable of forming a complex repentance abide by that command? He doesn’t say “repent, except for the babies.” He says “repent and be baptized, every one of you.”
I don’t deny that baptism has replaced circumcision in SOME SENSE, but not in the “eye for an eye” way you seem to suggest. Baptism does fulfill some of the obligations once applied to circumcision (such as Christian membership vs. Jewish membership) but it is not a direct replacement and this is obvious, as I already pointed out, because Christians for at least 30 years (one full generation) in Israel BOTH baptized AND circumcised their children. How do you explain that? How can you say it was a direct replacement when it was still conducted for 30 years (one full generation). Thousands of Christians would have been both baptized and circumcised in Israel, where the Apostles themselves were preaching the Gospel! It took 3 years to determine that circumcision was no longer necessary. Obviously they didn’t just assume it was a replacement. If they did, Christians would have immediately stopped circumcision.
Secondly…Let’s assume baptism and circumcision was a DIRECT REPLACEMENT as you suggest…Why does that mean the same rules for circumcision about infants applies to baptism? That is another assumption that is easily disproved by looking at ANOTHER replacement for an Old Testament practice: the Passover. Christians no longer needed to practice the Passover…It was replaced with the Lord’s Supper. Yet, the rules that applied to the Passover did not carry on to the Lord’s Supper! If Passover was replaced by the Eucharistic feast (and there is ample evidence that shows that. Read Brant Pitre’s book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, for Catholic proof of this point.), then why is it that the rules applied to the Passover did not pass along to Lord’s Supper in the same way you say the rules of circumcision passed along to baptism? Also, how do you explain the fact that Jewish sects were ALREADY baptizing before Jesus came along? How can it be a direct replacement if Jews were already doing it?!
Yes, immersion WAS required UNLESS it couldn’t be done because no water source existed that allowed for it…which is exactly what I said earlier. It is a well known fact that “running water” was a river or stream, “cold water” was a lake or sea, and “warm water” was some kind of a manmade structure like a well. The Didache is clear that if you have ANY of those things…baptize in that. Only if none are available should you “pour out” water three times on the head.
J
jinc1019
Guest
This is a very interesting point! I like this argument from your perspective a lot. However, on its own, I don’t think it means much because again, you are assuming that they practiced infant baptism. The idea that fasting was not required for children under a certain age MAY disprove that one part of the argument I made but it certainly doesn’t prove infant baptism. In fact, nothing you have presented proves infant baptism…you haven’t showed a single case that CLEARLY articulates that infants were baptized. That’s because there isn’t an example of that prior to 200 AD.
I admit that no age is specified, but infant baptism is not implied into that statement either. At best, it’s neutral and its the argument you used, not me, to prove that infant baptism exists. I never said it disproved infant baptism, only that it never proved it. And it doesn’t. Don’t you think it is strange that in all of the early Church writings before 200 AD there isn’t one explicit example of infant baptism? Not one!? How is that possible? Baptism was brought up MANY times.
J
jinc1019
Guest
I am sorry but that is obviously not correct, especially if you read the entire passage in context. The passage is about Gnostics who claim to have secret knowledge passed down to them from the Apostles. So Tertullian says to them (paraphrasing), “Ok, if the Apostles really did pass down secret knowledge to you then show us proof you can trace your succession back to the Apostles (they couldn’t). And show us that your teachings match the teachings of Church who are known to teach what the Apostles taught”:
J
jinc1019
Guest
There are MANY Church Fathers who supported the Catholic doctrine of apostolic authority being handed down…but Tertullian was definitely not one of them.
S
steve_b
Guest
baptism.
- It’s not age restricted.
- The OT sign of entrance into the covanent was circumcision which usually happened 8 days after birth. When it was first instituted by God to Abraham, Abraham was ~99 years old… Imagine hearing from God, Hay Abe I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is, I’m going to make a covanent with you. The bad news is, you have to cut off the foreskin of your manhood as a sign of the covanent .
To which I’m reading the bubble over Abe’s head, as he’s thinking about this ("Lord, could I think about this and get back with you in the morning?) 
Afterall, It’s not like you have experts in the camp to do this procedure. And Abe is a really old guy, not that age makes this any better. I’m sure Abe after agreeing with this, went to find the guy with the steadiest hand and sharpest knife to perform the procedure. Bottomline, this is what happens when a new procedure is introduced by God. Somebody has to go first. Then as Abe I’m sure being all bent over and walking slowly after the procedure, says to the males in the tribe, Hey guys, gather round, I have some good news and some bad news…
ergo scripture indicates this OT type of sacrament, was administered in an age group from 8 days old to 99 years old. - The NT sign of entrance into the covanent is baptism …much easier and infinitely MORE powerful than the OT sign. But like any new sacrament that God introduces, it was given to adults first, then to the entire family.
- Now YOU put an age limit on getting this sign when scripture doesn’t?
The scriptures already teach the need for baptism for…every soul. There is no age restriction to enter the covanent. Not in the OT, not in the NT. It’s you who are placing an age restriction.
putting this simply, A & E were given everything including a sinless condition at their creation. They were made perfectly. They lost that perfection with their sin. They couldn’t get what they lost back. Which is why they were thrown out of the garden. Which means they couldn’t pass on to us what they lost. Any more than if you had a fat dowry, but lost it all in Vegas on one roll of the dice. Ergo you can’t pass onto your kids anything from that fat dowry. You lost it. Can your kids complain? sure. Does it do any good? No. They can complain It wasn’t THEIR fault, that the fault was with you. The reality is, they suffer for your mistake, as a result of them being your kids and you being their father.
Spiritually then, as a result of A & E sin, we are born poor. Without sanctifying grace in our soul.
j:
We have no actual sin at birth that we are guilty of. If you read Catholic teaching on this you would already know that. It’s called original sin, because we are born with the effects of our first parents sin.
[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm)
J
jinc1019
Guest
I don’t put an age restriction limit on it at all. What I want to do is find out what the Apostles taught. How do I do that? First by looking at the Bible. There is basically no evidence there which says infants were baptized. You can INFER, as you already have pointed out, that some passages do INCLUDE infants when they say things like “household” or “children,” but that isn’t good enough for me to discount all of the other evidence.
The next place I look is the Church Fathers. Prior to 200 AD, which is a very LONG time after the death of Jesus, there is no mention of infant baptism. After 200 AD, people like Tertullian advocated AGAINST infant baptism and MANY Christians waited until later in life to get baptized. In fact, I have read that many of the Early Church Fathers of that era were only baptized after becoming adults (including those who grew up Christian). However, I admit I have never actually looked to verify that.
Third, all of the arguments you make are refuted by the fact that Christians for an entire generation did BOTH baptism and circumcision. If you are right and everyone agreed it was simply a replacement, why did they do both for 30 years? You have yet to explain that.
Again, I am trying to find out what the Apostles taught and based on the evidence that exists in the early Church, at very best (from your side of the argument), we don’t know. And if we don’t know, I would prefer to simply do only what we know occurred in the time of the Apostles, not create a practice which MAY or MAY NOT have actually occurred.
Further, I think the lack of evidence IS STRONG EVIDENCE in and of itself. If you were looking for a location where a fire once burned down half a forest but couldn’t find any signs that one existed, you wouldn’t assume that a future fire is evidence of a past fire. You are using the LACK OF EVIDENCE as evidence IN FAVOR of a practice. That makes no sense. There are all kinds of things that we can’t definitively say the Apostles did or did not do. That doesn’t mean we should practice those things too!
I am well aware of what Catholics teach regarding original sin. However, as I already pointed out, many early Church Fathers taught that infants did NOT have any personal sin and that they were blameless. Yes, infants have corrupted and sinful natures, but they do NOT have any personal blame worthy of making them go to hell or limbo or purgatory or whatever. That is NOT the teaching of the early Church Fathers.
Again…we find ourselves in a situation where the early Church Fathers clearly disagree with your point and what is your response? You basically say “Who cares?! I have the scriptures which tell me it existed.” But if your interpretation of the scriptures is true and accurate, which is to say Apostolic, then why is it that Church fathers who lived in very close proximity to the Apostles themselves, such as Justin Martyr, clearly disagree with you? I thought this is how Catholics were supposed to interpret the scriptures? By using the teachings of the ancient church?
You will also note that the Eastern Orthodox agree with my view on original sin (although they disagree on whether infants should be baptized). Go read anything about Eastern Orthodox baptism and you will find the reason they agree with me is because that is what the early Church Fathers wrote. If I am wrong, so is the EO (which is possible), and so is Justin Martyr, Tertullian, etc…(this is unlikely). You are being rather hypocritical here. In one moment, you claim that Church Fathers are authoritative, then the next minute you say they don’t matter at all because your interpretation of scripture is true and presumably Justin Martyr is wrong? Who sounds like the sola scriptura Protestant now?
U
Usagi
Guest
Er, I hope no Christian writer has ever taught that babies are guilty of personal sin, because that’s just silly. (Augustine thought unbaptized infants would go to hell because of original sin, but even he did not ascribe to them personal sin.)
That “sinful/corrupt nature” you speak of, not personal sin, is what infant baptism is supposed to be addressing.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
What is not correct? All I said was that Tertullian does not address holy orders in the passage. You seem to be assuming that when he refers to churches being founded daily, he means those churches are without ordained bishops and priests. There is no indication that he means that.
As I said to you in another thread awhile back, my own church (diocese and parish) in Lexington, Kentucky was founded fairly recently, certainly by neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man of the early Church (since they are all dead and never even knew about the entire continent my church exists on). As Tertullian states, it is apostolic because it adheres to the apostolic tradition. It ALSO has a bishop and priests in direct succession. The two are not opposed in any way.
I agreed with all that. Yes, he emphasizes the agreement in doctrine, because (as you note) he is talking to people who claim to have gotten seekrit teachings that the Apostles withheld from most folks. But he nowhere indicates that the churches he describes do not ALSO have succession in the sense of a chain of laying on of hands. I assume they do (given that both Paul and Clement well before Tertullian spoke of that way of handing on authority through generations), you apparently assume they do not, but Tertullian himself does not address the topic.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
I obviously disagree, but I will read the passage again.
Yes, he could mean literally anyone. I doubt that he does, but he could.
He could also mean “whomsoever” in the context of the people he is talking about. He addresses sinners and heretics and states (in opposition to some other Fathers, there you are correct) that their sacraments remain valid.
Unless you insist on an absolute reading of “whomsoever” (to include Joe the Pagan down the street, not just every Christian), he simply does not mention other qualifications that might be required for valid sacraments.
I actually agree, as I mentioned in my original reply, that of course the power to effect the sacraments belongs to God and He can bestow it where he wills, to lay Christians or even Joe the Pagan if He wants. If that’s where we want to go with Augustine’s words, I agree with him and so does the Catholic Church. However, unless God also deigns to perform a visibly obvious Eucharistic miracle, the only way we can safely know we are getting the Blessed Sacrament is to stick with His ordained priests.
Yes. The heretics he speaks of, who set up their “heretical altars” and yet still confect the Eucharist, would exist outside the Church by his reckoning. If they are setting up altars to confect the Eucharist, I’m guessing they also have heretical priests. Now, maybe they are “real” priests (validly ordained by a Christian bishop) and maybe they are self-proclaimed priests, in which case Augustine claiming validity for their sacraments would reinforce your position. But he doesn’t actually say which, and we don’t know.
Look at the argument, and envision the argument he is responding to. (It might even be summarized earlier in the document.) His interlocutors are denying that serious sinners and heretics retain valid sacraments. He is replying that they do, because the power for the sacraments comes from God and not from the holiness of the minister, whether inside or outside the Church. We have no indication that his interlocutors have also said, “These guys don’t have valid sacraments because they are all lay people and self-proclaimed priests,” nor do we have Augustine stating outright that an organization made up of lay people and self-proclaimed priests would still have valid sacraments. That’s just not what this passage is about.
Also, depending on how you read the structure of that last bit, “even within the Church” may refer to the haters and murderers he’s talking about. That is, we have terrible sinners even within the Church and yet the sacraments remain valid, so why would you immediately assume that the terrible sinners outside the Church cannot also retain the sacraments?
And you are assuming that Holy Orders are not required. Augustine himself does not address that topic, as I have stated repeatedly. He provides no direct support for either position. I have addressed the “whomsoever” language above.
You realize, I’m sure, that even if you are entirely right about what Augustine meant, it is entirely possible that he is simply wrong on this point (as others were wrong on the question of whether heretics’ sacraments were valid). Heck, you don’t believe in infallibility at all, and surely you recognize that we don’t think any single bishop is incapable of getting things wrong.
Overall, I think there’s good evidence that succession by “the laying on of hands” goes back all the way to the New Testament, so yes, I’m going to assume it was there when later writers don’t mention it at all. To overturn that you’d have to show me someone actually stating it’s not necessary. I believe you had an example of congregations in some locale appointing bishops with no indication of existing bishops being available to ordain them, or something along that line?
Usagi
J
jinc1019
Guest
Usagi, with all due respect, I think you are wrong. Augustine did teach that babies would go to hell because they were imputed with Adam’s personal sin. He did not believe they had simply “sinful natures.” All people, even those who have been baptized, still have sinful and fallen natures. For Augustine, all of humanity existed in Adam and was therefore guilty of Adam’s sin the same way we are guilty of sins we commit on our own. Read this for an overview: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Augustine
Thus, Augustine did teach that we are ALL “guilty” of sin and unless we are baptized, we are going to hell for it. This obviously includes babies. Eastern Orthodox teach that we are not gilty of Adam’s sin at all, but instead that our natures have been corrupted which causes us to sin WHEN WE ARE ABLE. Infants are not able to sin.
J
jinc1019
Guest
We obviously do not agree on everything but I think we agree on a great deal, and the parts we disagree on, I fairly admit could be interpreted either way.
I also admit that you are correct in saying that even if my interpretation of Augustine is correct, it really doesn’t matter because he could be wrong. My point was NOT to show that Augustine said one thing, therefore it must be true. My point was to show that the Church Fathers taught many different things on many different issues and UNLESS you believe in the Roman Catholic Church’s ability to teach infallibly, you cannot make the argument (on many topics) that history clearly shows what the Apostles taught. On many doctrines (the one’s that separate denominations), there are a wide variety of views. You have already essentially agreed with me on this point.
The difference between us is in regards to the authority of the Catholic Church (or validly ordained bishops in the case of the EO) and the issue of infallibility. I don’t believe that infallibility in any sense exists (and yes, I know it is limited to a small number of situations). I am willing to admit that I have always been on the fence (albeit leaning away from the Catholic and EO position) in regards to authority. The Didache and the Bible leads me to believe (when all of the evidence in each is weighed) that authority exists in the teachings themselves, not in a hierarchy of men. I believe the Bible does grant authority to bishops, but only when the bishops are maintaining the true faith of Jesus. I also don’t believe bishops are given authority from other bishops in a chain of apostolic succession but are instead given authority from their teachings and from the calling they receive from local congregations.
However, I admit that some Church Fathers very clearly supported the authority of bishops in apostolic succession alone in the early Church. Others are less clear, and some I believe firmly argue against it. With that said, the evidence from Church history leans on the side of the Catholic Church/Eastern Orthodox Church on the issue of authority.
S
steve_b
Guest
You insist on seeing the word infant when it comes to baptism. If the name infant, or baby, etc etc in the description of baptism doesn’t appear somewhere you reject infant baptism. Are you by chance Baptist?
To fulfill the law, Jesus was circumcised as a baby on the 8th day after His birth Luke 2:21** .** Baptism which Jesus established is infinitely more powerful that circumcision. And somehow you think this circumcision ritual which Jesus endured as an infant, is more important to Jesus to do as an infant, than baptism would be for an infant in the NT? Since baptism replaces circumcision Colossians 2:11-12 and that means for infants also, know that , you are the one putting age restrictions on baptism. As Jesus said, Mt 19:14 don’t keep the children παιδία ] from me, i.e. even infants as that word means.
You’re not connectiong the dots my friend because you’ve been told by someone (maybe the Baptists) not to connect those dots. And you choose to believe THEM rather than the Church Jesus established…The Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
j:
Let’s be clear. You’re refusing to see what is absolutely clear in scripture.
baptism replaces circumcision.
Luke 2:21** , **Colossians 2:11-12
That’s why “all” in housholds / families, were baptised. When you see “all” that means ALL in the family. You are the one putting age restrictions on “all” where neither scripture, Tradition, or the teaching majesterium of the Church put such restrictions.
j:
Nonsense. I gave you that answer already. Remember the Judaizers I mentioned? Remember I said Peter corrected them re: circumcision IN COUNCIL? Maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Here’s what I was driving at. Acts Of Apostles 15:1-12 Peter said (regarding circumcision) we aren’t to put that yoke of the law (circumcision and what that meant) around anyone’s neck. So iow, for religious purposes, circumcision is OUT. It is NOT to be a requirement. If someone wants to still circumcise boys for heigene reasons, that’s another issue. But for religious reasons, it is no longer a requirement.
Paul wasn’t able to settle this argument with the Judaizers, so as one can see, Peter settled the issue. Circumcision is OUT as entrance into the Church and the covanent.
I think you need to read up on baptism
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
j:
Our authority is
*]scripture,
*]Tradition,
*]the teaching majesterium of the Church.
I’ve never said anything differently.
The history of this argument against infant baptism didn’t come till much later. The Waldenses and Cathari and later the Anabaptists, rejected the doctrine that infants are capable of receiving valid baptism.
j:
I said nothing about the EO. Although it’s my understanding they give all 3 sacraments (baptism, confirmation and Eucharist) to infants coming into their churches.
j:
appears you have me confused with someone else.
S
steve_b
Guest
Not implied? infants are presumed to get baptism. They circumcised 8 day old infants into the covenant relationship with God, but not baptise infants into the covenant when baptism replaced circumcision? Are you kidding me?
J
jinc1019
Guest
You insist on seeing the word infant when it comes to baptism. If the name infant, or baby, etc etc in the description of baptism doesn’t appear somewhere you reject infant baptism. Are you by chance Baptist?
You’re not connectiong the dots my friend because you’ve been told by someone (maybe the Baptists) not to connect those dots. And you choose to believe THEM rather than the Church Jesus established…The Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Let’s be clear. You’re refusing to see what is absolutely clear in scripture.
baptism replaces circumcision.
Luke 2:21** , **Colossians 2:11-12
That’s why “all” in housholds / families, were baptised. When you see “all” that means ALL in the family. You are the one putting age restrictions on “all” where neither scripture, Tradition, or the teaching majesterium of the Church put such restrictions.
Nonsense. I gave you that answer already. Remember the Judaizers I mentioned? Remember I said Peter corrected them re: circumcision IN COUNCIL? Maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Here’s what I was driving at. Acts Of Apostles 15:1-12 Peter said (regarding circumcision) we aren’t to put that yoke of the law (circumcision and what that meant) around anyone’s neck. So iow, for religious purposes, circumcision is OUT. It is NOT to be a requirement. If someone wants to still circumcise boys for heigene reasons, that’s another issue. But for religious reasons, it is no longer a requirement.
Paul wasn’t able to settle this argument with the Judaizers, so as one can see, Peter settled the issue. Circumcision is OUT as entrance into the Church and the covanent.
I think you need to read up on baptism
newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
Our authority is
*]scripture,
*]Tradition,
*]the teaching majesterium of the Church.
I’ve never said anything differently.
The history of this argument against infant baptism didn’t come till much later. The Waldenses and Cathari and later the Anabaptists, rejected the doctrine that infants are capable of receiving valid baptism.
I said nothing about the EO. Although it’s my understanding they give all 3 sacraments (baptism, confirmation and Eucharist) to infants coming into their churches.
appears you have me confused with someone else.
You have added nothing new to the conversation Steve. Your comments lead me to believe you are not reading my posts fully, and if you are, then you are obviously unwilling or incapable of getting what I am trying to say. You continue to insist that babies have personal sin that need to be cleansed with baptism when I have shown the Early Church Fathers refuted that nonsense. You continue to assert that infant baptism appears in the Bible when it ONLY appears if you assume, as you do, that “children” and “household” means infants too. You continue to assert that baptism is a direct replacement for circumcision when FOR 30 YEARS IN JERUSALEM the evidence shows both existed. And your response is to bring up the council which resolved it, not explain how your argument makes sense for those 30 years prior to the council. That’s the whole point. If Christians believed what you do in the early Church, why did they practice BOTH baptism and circumcision for 30 years??? You can’t answer that question and you have not even tried. Further, you have yet to show me WHY babies need to be baptized when all of the early church quotes I have showed you displays they did not believe babies had any sins to forgive!
You keep bringing up the same tired points without actually refuting any of my own. I feel that we are an impasse and there is no point in continuing the debate. If you are unwilling to acknowledge that: 1. Early Church Fathers believed babies were “blameless” and “innocent.” 2. There is NO specific reference to infant baptism before 200 A.D. 3. For the first 30 years of Christianity, Christians were baptized AND circumcised in Jerusalem, with all the Apostles watching and not putting a stop to it. 4. If circumcision was simply replaced directly and wholly by baptism and the rules and guidelines for each were simply transferred as you claim, WHY didn’t the same thing happen for the Passover and the Lord’s Supper? Why, if your version of Original Sin is true, did the Jews reject it?! Don’t you think the Jews themselves would have been teaching original sin too since all of the evidence the Church uses to claim it exists is based in the Old Testament, which the Jews had? There is NO mention whatsoever of any prophet coming to deliver the Jews for the sins of Adam anywhere in the Old Testament or from a Jewish writer that I know of…and you are taking statements by Paul too literally, insisting it was a perfect swap when it could not have been considering that they did BOTH for a whole Christian generation!
J
jinc1019
Guest
I want to clarify just to be clear…I believe original sin exists in that we all have a corrupted sinful nature. I reject, however, that we are all “guilty” of Adam’s sins and that is what Augustine and the Catholic Church teaches. It is the ONLY reason why infant baptism is necessary.
AND no, I am not Baptist, nor have I ever been one. I grew up in the Catholic Church.
AND no, I am not Baptist, nor have I ever been one. I grew up in the Catholic Church.
S
steve_b
Guest
The Catholic Church
- doesn’t teach we are “guilty” of original sin.
- teaches baptism is necessary for EVERYONE…that means infants too.
S
steve_b
Guest
The Catholic Church started by Jesus, refutes your position. Enough said
- Status