Baptism

[Ora et Labora]

Thank you so much, Jake. I understand a lot more about it now.

[Ora et Labora]

Even though you wernt talking to me....

So, if your Bapized, you become a child of God? Thats a very nice way of saying it....

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='tomasio127' date='Nov 29 2005, 02:45 AM']Careful with the blanket statements. Lutherans, Episcopalians (Anglicans), and most Reformed, Presbyterians, and Methodists baptize infants, and they are all "Mainline" Protestants, as opposed to "Evangelical Protestants," most of which do not baptize infants.

Anyways, in the Evangelical Protestant mindset, baptism doesn't confer grace or wash awat sin, but is a public "re-enactment" of what Christ did (wash away their sin) when ther were saved (fully trusted in Him as their Lord and Savior for salvation).

The idea is that since they believe that children under the age of reason cannot truly, fully trust in Christ for salvation and submit to His Lordship, their sins haven't been wash away, so  a (baptism) public declaration of faith and re-enactment of their sins washing away cannot be done, since it hasn't happened.

To Evangelicals, infant baptisms are meaningless, since their baptisms derive meaning from a previous choice to follow Christ, which infants cannot make. Thi sis why ex-Catholic Evangelicals are usually rebaptized, along with the curious notion that this inherently meaningless symbol must be done by full immersion, to properly symbolize the washing awoy of sin which isn't happening then anyways.
[right][snapback]803629[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

oops.

yeah i meant to say most evangelicals. a lot of my mainstream protestant friends were baptized as infants.

[Ora et Labora]

okay...what is origional sin then? i know it is what out first father adam had and it has been sor of "handed down" you could say. right? but why do we have it? what does it mean?

i think i went a little to fast. baptism takes away origional sin...okay? so what does that mean?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

basically Adam sinned against God. So original sin is passed down to all men. basically it means that people will always sin. Baptisim gets rid of that sin.

heres some stuff from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.


Original Sin

Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM
Contains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly.
Get it here for only $29.95

I. Meaning
II. Principal Adversaries
III. Original Sin in Scripture
IV. Original Sin in Tradition
V. Original Sin in face of the Objections of Human Reason
VI. Nature of Original Sin
VII. How Voluntary

I. MEANING

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.

II. PRINCIPAL ADVERSARIES

Theodorus of Mopsuestia opened this controversy by denying that the sin of Adam was the origin of death. (See the "Excerpta Theodori", by Marius Mercator; cf. Smith, "A Dictionary of Christian Biography", IV, 942.) Celestius, a friend of Pelagius, was the first in the West to hold these propositions, borrowed from Theodorus: "Adam was to die in every hypothesis, whether he sinned or did not sin. His sin injured himself only and not the human race" (Mercator, "Liber Subnotationem", preface). This, the first position held by the Pelagians, was also the first point condemned at Carthage (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", no 101-old no. 65). Against this fundamental error Catholics cited especially Rom., v, 12, where Adam is shown as transmitting death with sin. After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death -- this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases- but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", IV, iv, 6). And when St. Paul speaks of the transmission of sin they understood by this the transmission of death. This was their second position, condemned by the Council of Orange [Denz., n. 175 (145)], and again later on with the first by the Council of Trent [Sess. V, can. ii; Denz., n. 789 (671)]. To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam. This was their third position, to which is opposed the definition of Trent that sin is transmitted to all by generation (propagatione), not by imitation [Denz., n. 790 (672)]. Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)]. The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.

III. ORIGINAL SIN IN SCRIPTURE

The classical text is Rom., v, 12 sqq. In the preceding part the apostle treats of justification by Jesus Christ, and to put in evidence the fact of His being the one Saviour, he contrasts with this Divine Head of mankind the human head who caused its ruin. The question of original sin, therefore, comes in only incidentally. St. Paul supposes the idea that the faithful have of it from his oral instructions, and he speaks of it to make them understand the work of Redemption. This explains the brevity of the development and the obscurity of some verses. We shall now show what, in the text, is opposed to the three Pelagian positions:

1. The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. first, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wis., ii, 24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Gen., ii, 17; iii, 3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, I Cor., xv, 21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
2. Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
3. Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).

On this account, several recent Protestants have thus modified the Pelagian explanation: "Even without being aware of it all men imitate Adam inasmuch as they merit death as the punishment of their own sins just as Adam merited it as the punishment for his sin." This is going farther and farther from the text of St. Paul. Adam would be no more than the term of a comparison, he would no longer have any influence or causality as regards original sin or death. Moreover, the Apostle did not affirm that all men, in imitation of Adam, are mortal on account of their actual sins; since children who die before coming to the use of reason have never committed such sins; but he expressly affirms the contrary in the fourteenth verse: "But death reigned", not only over those who imitated Adam, but "even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam." Adam's sin, therefore, is the sole cause of death for the entire human race. Moreover, we can discern no natural connexion between any sin and death. In order that a determined sin entail death there is need of a positive law, but before the Law of Moses there was no positive law of God appointing death as a punishment except the law given to Adam (Genesis 2:17). It is, therefore, his disobedience only that could have merited and brought it into the world (Romans 5:13, 14). These Protestant writers lay much stress on the last words of the twelfth verse. We know that several of the Latin Fathers understood the words "in whom all have sinned", to mean, all have sinned in Adam. This interpretation would be an extra proof of the thesis of original sin, but it is not necessary. Modern exegesis, as well as the Greek Fathers, prefer to translate "and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned". We accept this second translation which shows us death as an effect of sin. But of what sin? "The personal sins of each one", answer our adversaries, "this is the natural sense of the words `all have sinned.'" It would be the natural sense if the context was not absolutely opposed to it. The words "all have sinned" of the twelfth verse, which are obscure on account of their brevity, are thus developed in the nineteenth verse: "for as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners." There is no question here of personal sins, differing in species and number, committed by each one during his life, but of one first sin which was enough to transmit equally to all men a state of sin and the title of sinners. Similarly in the twelfth verse the words "all have sinned" must mean, "all have participated in the sin of Adam", "all have contracted its stain". This interpretation too removes the seeming contradiction between the twelfth verse, "all have sinned", and the fourteenth, "who have not sinned", for in the former there is question of original sin, in the latter of personal sin. Those who say that in both cases there is question of personal sin are unable to reconcile these two verses.

IV. ORIGINAL SIN IN TRADITION

On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time. It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, "De peccat. meritis", I, xviii). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, "Confiteor unum baptisma in remissiomen peccatorum". They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Aug., loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)].

V. ORIGINAL SIN IN FACE OF THE OBJECTIONS FROM REASON

We do not pretend to prove the existence of original sin by arguments from reason only. St. Thomas makes use of a philosophical proof which proves the existence rather of some kind of decadence than of sin, and he considers his proof as probable only, satis probabiliter probari potest (Contra Gent., IV, lii). Many Protestants and Jansenists and some Catholics hold the doctrine of original sin to be necessary in philosophy, and the only means of solving the problem of the existence of evil. This is exaggerated and impossible to prove. It suffices to show that human reason has no serious objection against this doctrine which is founded on Revelation. The objections of Rationalists usually spring from a false concept of our dogma. They attack either the transmission of a sin or the idea of an injury inflicted on his race by the first man, of a decadence of the human race. Here we shall answer only the second category of objections, the others will be considered under a later head (VII).

(1) The law of progress is opposed to the hypothesis of a decadence. Yes, if the progress was necessarily continuous, but history proves the contrary. The line representing progress has its ups and downs, there are periods of decadence and of retrogression, and such was the period, Revelation tells us, that followed the first sin. The human race, however, began to rise again little by little, for neither intelligence nor free will had been destroyed by original sin and, consequently, there still remained the possibility of material progress, whilst in the spiritual order God did not abandon man, to whom He had promised redemption. This theory of decadence has no connexion with our Revelation. The Bible, on the contrary, shows us even spiritual progress in the people it treats of; the vocation of Abraham, the law of Moses, the mission of the Prophets, the coming of the Messias, a revelation which becomes clearer and clearer, ending in the Gospel, its diffusion amongst all nations, its fruits of holiness, and the progress of the Church.

(2) It is unjust, says another objection, that from the sin of one man should result the decadence of the whole human race. This would have weight if we took this decadence in the same sense that Luther took it, i.e. human reason incapable of understanding even moral truths, free will destroyed, the very substance of man changed into evil. But according to Catholic theology man has not lost his natural faculties: by the sin of Adam he has been deprived only of the Divine gifts to which his nature had no strict right, the complete mastery of his passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace, the vision of God in the next life. The Creator, whose gifts were not due to the human race, had the right to bestow them on such conditions as He wished and to make their conservation depend on the fidelity of the head of the family. A prince can confer a hereditary dignity on condition that the recipient remains loyal, and that, in case of his rebelling, this dignity shall be taken from him and, in consequence, from his descendants. It is not, however, intelligible that the prince, on account of a fault committed by a father, should order the hands and feet of all the descendants of the guilty man to be cut off immediately after their birth. This comparison represents the doctrine of Luther which we in no way defend. The doctrine of the Church supposes no sensible or afflictive punishment in the next world for children who die with nothing but original sin on their souls, but only the privation of the sight of God [Denz., n. 1526 (1389)].

VI. NATURE OF ORIGINAL SIN

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is "the death of the soul", it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, "Istoria del Concilio di Trento", vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a "privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception" (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls "justice" what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice. We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin". This principle is developed by St. Anselm: "the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect" (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam's fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

1. Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.
2. Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).
3. The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='tomasio127' date='Nov 29 2005, 03:45 AM']
Anyways, in the Evangelical Protestant mindset, baptism doesn't confer grace or wash awat sin, but is a public "re-enactment" of what Christ did (wash away their sin) when ther were saved (fully trusted in Him as their Lord and Savior for salvation).

[right][snapback]803629[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Another way I've heard the previous infomration stated is that baptism for a Protestant is his/her declaration to be [b]publicly identified[/b] with Christ.

I understand that the Catholic view is that a baby who has been baptized has been cleansed from original sin and is now a child of God. But what I don't understand is how salvation can be imparted from this. Someone please explain.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Nov 29 2005, 09:21 PM']Another way I've heard the previous infomration stated is that baptism for a Protestant is his/her declaration to be [b]publicly identified[/b] with Christ.

I understand that the Catholic view is that a baby who has been baptized has been cleansed from original sin and is now a child of God.  But what I don't understand is how salvation can be imparted from this.  Someone please explain.
[right][snapback]804555[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thank you for the question!

What we have to ask ourselves then, is, what is salvation and why does it need to be imparted?

In the beginning God made us GOOD. When he saw us before the fall he did not see sin but He had made us, in His image and likeness, good!

When we fell we lost our relationship with God, we were cut off from the perfect life of God. We need to be redeemed from our rebellion against God and once again made sharers in the life of God. Our relationship with God needs to be restored.

Throughout the Old Testament God made covenants with man in order to restore the relationship with God, but becuase these old covenants were based on a oath where our salvation is dependant on holding perfectly to the Mosaic law, we are doomed by the old covenants (Deut 30:1-6 is the lynchpin of the Old Testament, I believe I have written extensively on it on a thread in the open mic.

Jesus Christ established a new covenant, one that does not require us to hold to the Mosaic law, but allows us to become adopted children of God through faith in Christ. That faith is an obedient faith. Christ calls us first to baptism in which we are made adopted children of God - our relationship with God and our share in His life is restored. This is what was lost at the fall, so when it is restored, we are saved. But the restoration to the life of God continues through a life of holiness until the day that we are perfectly united with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ before the Beatific Vision in heaven. In the mean time through our baptism Christ 'lives in us".

Hope this helps!

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Nov 28 2005, 06:54 PM']in the protestant relegion they are not baptized unitl the age of reason. they put much more emphasis on accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior when baptized.
[right][snapback]802954[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
SOME Protestants... others baptize infants...

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 30 2005, 11:51 AM']Thank you for the question!

What we have to ask ourselves then, is, what is salvation and why does it need to be imparted?

In the beginning God made us GOOD. When he saw us before the fall he did not see sin but He had made us, in His image and likeness, good!

When we fell we lost our relationship with God, we were cut off from the perfect life of God. We need to be redeemed from our rebellion against God and once again made sharers in the life of God. Our relationship with God needs to be restored.

Throughout the Old Testament God made covenants with man in order to restore the relationship with God, but becuase these old covenants were based on a oath where our salvation is dependant on holding perfectly to the Mosaic law, we are doomed by the old covenants (Deut 30:1-6 is the lynchpin of the Old Testament, I believe I have written extensively on it on a thread in the open mic.

Jesus Christ established a new covenant, one that does not require us to hold to the Mosaic law, but allows us to become adopted children of God through faith in Christ. That faith is an obedient faith. Christ calls us first to baptism in which we are made adopted children of God - our relationship with God and our share in His life is restored. This is what was lost at the fall, so when it is restored, we are saved. But the restoration to the life of God continues through a life of holiness until the day that we are perfectly united with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ before the Beatific Vision in heaven. In the mean time through our baptism Christ 'lives in us".

Hope this helps!
[right][snapback]805324[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That did hepl...thanks! So, if we never fell with Adam and if Adams sin didnt effect us, we wouldnt need to be Baptized, right? I think I got it now.

And God makes ecceptions with other people who lead a good life. Throught his grace they ones who lead a virtuous life can be saved?

What is the Mosaic Law?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Nov 30 2005, 01:42 PM']That did hepl...thanks! So, if we never fell with Adam and if Adams sin didnt effect us, we wouldnt need to be Baptized, right? I think I got it now. 

And God makes ecceptions with other people who lead a good life. Throught his grace they ones who lead a virtuous life can be saved?

What is the Mosaic Law? 
[right][snapback]805431[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In theory, yes if we did not fall we would not need baptism, but the whole idea of there having been no fall is a sticky theological situation.

To your second question, we are confined to the box, God is not. Baptism is necessary for salvation, though there is a such thing as 'baptism by desire' and 'baptism by blood'. I would read up on what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on this.

Mosaic law is the law handed down from Moses to the Israelites. Part of the old covenant that the people had with God was to follow the precepts of the law (The New Testament talks about how the "works of the law" cannot save us, this is refering to the Mosaic law of the old covenant. I have class but I will try to write more on this later.

[Ora et Labora]

I know the other 2 kinds of Baptism already. Thanks.

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 30 2005, 12:51 PM']Jesus Christ established a new covenant, one that does not require us to hold to the Mosaic law, but allows us to become adopted children of God through faith in Christ. That faith is an obedient faith. Christ calls us first to baptism in which we are made adopted children of God - our relationship with God and our share in His life is restored. This is what was lost at the fall, so when it is restored, we are saved. But the restoration to the life of God continues through a life of holiness until the day that we are perfectly united with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ before the Beatific Vision in heaven. In the mean time through our baptism Christ 'lives in us".
[right][snapback]805324[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

O.K. Two questions regarding the above:

re: Jesus Christ established a new covenant, one that does not require us to hold to the Mosaic law, but allows us to become adopted children of God through faith in Christ. That faith is an obedient faith. Christ calls us first to baptism in which we are made adopted children of God

Obedient faith is an act of the will. Following the logic of your above post, if Christ first calls us to baptism as a sign of our restoration in his family, then how can an infant have obedient faith? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

The second question stems from the above question. What happens to a Catholic who is baptized as an infant, but has blatantly lived a lifestyle that rejects God? According the your above post, "But the restoration to the life of God continues through a life of holiness until the day that we are perfectly united with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ before the Beatific Vision in heaven..." You have said that salvation is imparted at baptism and is continued through a life of holiness. So, then, technically couldn't a baptized Catholic (in the above suggestion situation) lose the salvation that God imparted at his/her baptism?

[jmjtina]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Nov 30 2005, 09:00 PM']The second question stems from the above question.  What happens to a Catholic who is baptized as an infant, but has blatantly lived a lifestyle that rejects God?  ....

So, then, technically couldn't a baptized Catholic  (in the above suggestion situation) lose the salvation that God imparted at his/her baptism?
[right][snapback]806377[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You have answered you own question: They have rejected God and the salvation He has offered them through baptism.

As some see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation (as you understand it) of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). [b]But he did not restrict this teaching to adults[/b]. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults.

Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." [b]Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law[/b]; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. [i]If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism. [/i]

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.


Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Edited December 1, 2005 by jmjtina

[Brother Adam]

[quote]Obedient faith is an act of the will.  Following the logic of your above post,  if Christ first calls us to baptism as a sign of our restoration in his family, then how can an infant have obedient faith?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.[/quote]

An infant cannot live out their faith through an act of their will until the age of reason, when they are capable of making decisions for themselves. Christ does not merely call us to baptism as a 'sign' of restoration.

Salvation is not an 'individual act' of prayer where we save ourselves by praying to God. It is a covenantal, or family act. The outward signs of baptism (water and Word) show the reality of an inward change, a change that we cannot do ourselves, but only the Holy Spirit can do within us. We cannot save ourselves! Salvation is an act of God that we freely cooperate in through Jesus Christ, our mediator. Titus 3:5 says that baptism saves us because it is a literal washing away from our sins. In some cultures they genuflect before a newly baptized person because they are literally a saint - they have no sin immediately after their baptism.

I can write more, but I want you to ask questions as they come up, so I'm going to leave it at that for now.

[quote]The second question stems from the above question.  What happens to a Catholic who is baptized as an infant, but has blatantly lived a lifestyle that rejects God?  According the your above post, "But the restoration to the life of God continues through a life of holiness until the day that we are perfectly united with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ before the Beatific Vision in heaven..."  You have said that salvation is imparted at baptism and is continued through a life of holiness.  So, then, technically couldn't a baptized Catholic  (in the above suggestion situation) lose the salvation that God imparted at his/her baptism?[/quote]

Yes. "Once Saved Always Saved" is an anti-biblical doctrine. Not only is it found no where in the Bible, Christ teaches specifically against it. See Matt 7:21 and Matt 19:16-17. Also Gal 5:4-6, Eph 2:8-10, Phil 2:12, James 2:14-24, Romans 2:2-8

[rkwright]

Brother Adam -> Did I read somewhere that you were taking classes from Scott Hahn? The way you use the covenants sounds like some of his talks I've heard....

I like it! its a very interesting way of looking at it; breaking from the legalistic, contractual view that can lead to many problems.

[N/A Gone]

yea, ironically hahn is considered fundie by most proto theologians

[djc08]

This really doesn't answer a question but it was the best arguement for infant baptism that I've heard. It came from one of Martin Luther's rightings defending infant baptism. He said that how can it not be good if the church has been doing for so many years and the church is so as grand and full of God's grace as it is today.

I think that defense was for him and talking about his break-up of the Church or something. But a website also said that Protestants were the ones who first used infant baptism and that Catholics don't even believe that Baptism saves a person so I don't know how reliable it is.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 1 2005, 03:46 PM']Brother Adam -> Did I read somewhere that you were taking classes from Scott Hahn? The way you use the covenants sounds like some of his talks I've heard....

I like it! its a very interesting way of looking at it; breaking from the legalistic, contractual view that can lead to many problems.
[right][snapback]807229[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, I'm not taking any classes by Hahn. My biblical studies class is taught by Dr. Bergsma, a former Calvinist Protestant clergy from my hometown of Grand Rapids. He was the pastor at a church just down the block from my Baptist one. Dr. Hahn does teach (and has popularized) covenant theology, but he is hardly the first pioneer. It's been about 8,000 years in the making. I don't see how it is possible to believe in the Bible and think salvaiton is about legal contracts. God deals with man through covenants. it can even be said that the very first covenant was the marriage covenant between Adam and Eve in perfect union with God. But the very hinges of the Old and New Testament are covenental - the New Covenant in Jesus (Eucharistic) and the old covenants through Adam, Noah, Moses, and David.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 1 2005, 04:13 PM']yea, ironically hahn is considered fundie by most proto theologians
[right][snapback]807261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Most theologians don't like Hahn because he does not submit his work to be reviewed by other theologians. The work he is doing though doesn't necessarily require this. He is taking rather lofty concepts and bringing them to a level that most people can grasp. Making complicated concepts understandable without losing content or authenticity is the mark of an excellent teacher. There is nothing wrong or unorthodox about Hahn's work that I've ever read, but at the same time if you are looking for Belloc, Hans Von Balthasar, Chesterton, Von Hildebrand, or such, then so be it. They are different types of theologians.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 1 2005, 08:32 PM']Most theologians don't like Hahn because he does not submit his work to be reviewed by other theologians. The work he is doing though doesn't necessarily require this. He is taking rather lofty concepts and bringing them to a level that most people can grasp. Making complicated concepts understandable without losing content or authenticity is the mark of an excellent teacher. There is nothing wrong or unorthodox about Hahn's work that I've ever read, but at the same time if you are looking for Belloc, Hans Von Balthasar, Chesterton, Von Hildebrand, or such, then so be it. They are different types of theologians.
[right][snapback]807669[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I like Dr. Hahn. Sometimes I'll run into him at St. Peters and then when I get home I'll turn on EWTN and see him on there and be like, "wait, wasn't he just at st. pete's?". hehehe

He must have a transporter in his house that leads to the EWTN studios.

j/k, I'm not that dumb. I'm sure they pre-record everything. I'm still amused by it.. Maybe I'm just easily amused.