Baptism Apologetic

[thessalonian]

I was listening to a discussion of the "Catholics and Evangelicals Together" document by RC Scroll, John McCarthur and some other guy that was aired on a local radio station. One part caught my ear and I sent the following email to the host. I thought some of you might be interested. The issue is how we as Catholics believe we are justified and they essentially got in to infant baptism.

David,

This caught my ear the first time I listened to your ecumenism Part II. I find it rather odd. Wonder what you think?

RC Scroll is speaking about justification and baptism. Mr. Scroll says that Catholic justification is in the first place:

"Beging baptized - ex oper operato - automatically infusing grace in the soul - effecting regeneration. "

This is fine.

Then the moderator asks him about the baptism of infants. He says:

"The instrumental cause of justication is not faith."

Actually this is true. The instumental cause of justification is not our faith but the washing away of sin by the action of the Holy Spirit on our soul.

Tit.3

[5] he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,



Now that is a true gift. Mr. Scrolls commentary that there is something wrong with the Catholic view here is rather telling if you ask me. He then goes on to say with regard to infants being baptized:

"They would assume that the the faith would come later as a result of justifying grace."

Actually this is a distortion. If you read the baptismal rite of the Catholic Church the faith comes in with regard to infants as the faith of their parents. This is the same way that a young Israelite was brought in to the faith community, being circumcised on the 8th day. Hardly a day in which he can choose his own religion and have his own faith. Circumcision was actually a forshadowing of baptism. Baptism is circumcision of the heart.


Col 2
[11] In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
[12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.


Then he says. "A person can be saved through the sacraments without faith. "

This is with regard to infants, for he says later that



"They not only must go through the sacrament of penance but must have faith.

So faith is a requirement with regard to adults."

Now this really strikes me as funny. They are talking about justification and they have a problem with infants being saved "without faith". They complain that someone can be saved "without faith" yet that is exactly what they believe since they have previously said an infant cannot have faith. Yet do they beaver dam infants to hell? I doudt it. Of course the matter of original sin (which some protestants accept and some don't) comes in to play. Now at least the Catholic position is consistent, i.e. that it is the washing of the soul by the power of the Holy Spirit of which the waters of baptism are an outward sign of the inward reality that brings about actual justification, not our personal act of faith (though that is the starting point, in the case of infants, the parents faith). That this can happen for infants as well as adults makes the Catholic position consistent and provides one way of salvation which has it's foundation in Christ. This as opposed to the Evangelical position of Mr. Scroll and the others on the panel that say that an infant cannot have faith and so must have some other undescribed mode of salvation, and then another method of salvation for adults. i.e. justification by faith alone.

Is it that babies don't need Christ?

Blessings

Then a PS.

One more thing David,

With regard to baptism and infants and faith, I forgot to mention that in the rite of baptism it is impressed upon the minds of the parents at the baptism that bringing the child up in the faith is the responsibility of the parents. This of course is as it was in ancient Israel as well.

Ps 78
1] Give ear, O my people, to my teaching;
incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
[2] I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings from of old,
[3] things that we have heard and known,
that our fathers have told us.
[4] We will not hide them from their children,
but tell to the coming generation
the glorious deeds of the LORD, and his might,
and the wonders which he has wrought.

An aspect of faith is that it is passed on by parents. This of course is by the grace of God as well.

Hope this clarification helps.

Peace.

Gerald

Edited May 9, 2005 by thessalonian

[franciscanheart]

where do those passages come from? you give verse numbers but not books or chapters.

[thessalonian]

[ By the way, if your interested the radio show I am referring to can be found at:

[url="http://www.davidwheaton.com/Radio.htm"]http://www.davidwheaton.com/Radio.htm[/url]

It's the April 16th show.

Edited May 9, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='May 9 2005, 10:04 AM'] where do those passages come from? you give verse numbers but not books or chapters. [/quote]
Fixed. It was Ps 78. & col 2.

Edited May 9, 2005 by thessalonian

[franciscanheart]

[thessalonian]

Here is the response I got back.

Gerry,

I'm going to recommend you go to Mike Gendron's website (http://www.pro-gospel.org/main/newsletters.php). He was a guest on Jan Markell's show a couple weeks ago. While I am not intimately familiar with his work, I'm confident that he will give the biblical Christian position on topics you have brought up like the Eucharist, infant baptism, justification by faith. I apologize, but I just do not have the time to respond to each of your queries.

David.

And my response:

I find your email very odd. Your telling a Catholic to go to a non-catholic, ex-catholic with an axe to grind to have his faith explained to him?
I heard the Jan's show and am quite familiar with Mr. Gendron. I have been there and have even read a book by Mr. Gendron. Mr. Gendron presents himself as an expert on Catholicism. Yet at one point in his book he says he was a faithful Catholic and still in another part he says he was leading a hedonistic lifestyle. The two simply are not compatable. My point in all of this is that you simply cannot rely on what Protestants tell you about Catholic theology. They twist it and present it in the worst possible light, neglecting important details.

I am sorry my emails frustrate you. Are you telling me you no longer want my commentary on your programs? Am I not using enough scripture in my defense of the Catholic position?

Blessings


He does encourage feedback. But seems to be a bit frustrated that I am giving him some.

[thessalonian]

I might be pushing it a bit but I sent the following as well:

David,

I am sorry that I am aggravating you. However I have to find it rather perplexing that you are unwilling to accept responsibility for the content of your show. If I were distorting or presenting material that distorts someone else's religion, regardless of whether I thought that religion was true or not, I would want to know. Bearing false witness is not just bearing false witness against those people God "likes". Sorry for the criticism as I am sure I have a few planks in my eye as well but this is the way I see what your two shows on "ecumenism" have done and I think you are responsible for them. I think if you are going to be presenting information on someone else's religion you should have it reviewed by someone who knows what they are talking about first. I do wish you peace and these emails are not sent out of animosity as I do think you have a good heart from what I have heard on your shows.

God bless

[thessalonian]

By the way, for those of you who might question the ethics of posting his responses, generally I would not post "private" emails but he takes the liberty of doing so on his website so I feel in this case it is waranted. I won't however post his next one to me as he is quite testy in it. I was quite right. I pushed it a bit too much.

Thess

[franciscanheart]

eek.

[phatcatholic]

you gotta watch that bro if you are too pushy, then the pushiness can cause a person to totally ignore what you are really trying to say. you sent an email to him requesting the evangelical reply. he sent you to a site where you can get the evangelical reply. in my opinion, it probably should have ended there.

just some constructive criticism from someone who has MUCH to learn as well......

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='May 10 2005, 10:45 AM'] you gotta watch that bro if you are too pushy, then the pushiness can cause a person to totally ignore what you are really trying to say. you sent an email to him requesting the evangelical reply. he sent you to a site where you can get the evangelical reply. in my opinion, it probably should have ended there.

just some constructive criticism from someone who has MUCH to learn as well...... [/quote]

First of all I was not requesting information but he offered it in the form of an anti-Catholic's opinions. His show already presented the "evangelical position" from RC Scroll and John McArthur so I am not sure why he responded the way he did. What did he think Mr. Gendron would add to these "pillars".

I felt a need to discredit his source. I think the most effective part of apologetics is planting the seed of mistrust in their "Apologists". I think it important to give him reason to be more critical of these "experts" in Catholicism. That is why I replied as I did. Immediate reactions are not for me an indication of long term effects of a comment. Peter and Paul got a good beating and they still went out in the streets and back to the synagogues the next day with likely many of the same people hearing their words.

Criticism acknowledged and I will keep it in mind.

Edited May 10, 2005 by thessalonian