Colin and Baptism.

[Paphnutius]

My response from the other thread:[quote name='Colin' date='Feb 12 2006, 08:57 PM']This is not something someone else can do for you.
[/quote]
Hi Colin, welcome back.

I agree, but my point was that when one is unable to answer for onesself another (as in the case of the centurion and publican) may answer for you if it is reasonable that you would have chosen Christ. Thus your point about infant Baptism is not earth shaking since we have seen biblically that others may call on the healing power of Christ for them.

[quote]You may introduce me to Jesus - witness if you like, but until I accept him as lord of my life, we have no personal relationship - I am not saved. You cannot have a personal relationship for me. Augustine's mum prayed for her son, but until he made the decision himself, he was not saved.
[/quote]But in the case of Augustine he was making positive steps away from our Lord and was able to answer for himself. I am not downplaying the process nor the personal relationship, but I am saying that in some cases, another may speak.

[quote]Can you repent of a babies sin? Can someone else die to sin and live for Christ on behalf of that baby? "that whoever believed on him should not perish but have everlasting life" - why would you even want to argue for a salvation which required no personal relationship? "Christ in you" is the glory of our faith - not water on you! This simply and beautifully represents what has already happened! It is in and of itself meaningless.
[/quote]Then what would you say happens to an infant that dies? An infant is incapable of having a personal relationship as we have, and you imply that is required. Furthermore Baptism is necessary for salvation because it has real efficacious grace (Jn 3:5, Col 2:11-12, Acts 16:31 just to name a few). I do not mean to get into Scripture slinging, but those point to the necessity of Baptism. Why? Because it conveys objective, cleansing grace.

Just say the word and my servant (in this case infant) shall be healed

[quote]It is not ONLY a symbol[/quote]I am glad we agree.

[quote]So, baptism is important, because of what it represents, not because of any intrinsic merit. [/quote]It is important because it, due to its intrinsic merit, cleanses us from sin. See Acts 22:16. It is not only because of the outward sign of faith, but because it is a death to self into new life (Rom 6:4). It is Baptism that was responsible for salvation in 1 Pet 3:21. And we learn from Paul in 1 Cor 6:11 that it is through Baptism that we begin justification (the proccess being disucssed).

[quote]If baptism can save a baby, why not a sleeping sinner? Sneak into a hospital and baptise some athiest. If the baptism works as you claim, the athiest will wake up changed, filled with the Holy Spirit, repentant of sin. That is what you claim for babies.
The Bible teaches you must believe to be saved. Infant baptism says others can believe for you.
[/quote]You are ignoring the vital part about it being within reason. You also have not spoken to my examples about the centurion and so forth.

Just say the word and my servant (in this case infant) shall be healed (Lk 7:1ff)

[Colin]

Hi there,
I would have thought that physical healing was quite different to salvation - you do not need a personal relationship with your doctor to be healed.
Acts 16:31 simply states that you must believe on Jesus to be saved. As a result of being saved. Acts 8:36-9 makes this abundantly clear. The eunuch believed, therefore he was a fit subject for baptism. Philip did not say, I believe for you, or the water itself will save you. He checked that he believed, then he baptised him.

The New Testament knows only salvation by personal faith. Your ideas of objective grace overturn this. They are not Biblical.
Take care, Colin

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Colin' date='Feb 13 2006, 04:05 AM']Hi there,
I would have thought that physical healing was quite different to salvation - you do not need a personal relationship with your doctor to be healed.
[/quote]The point with the examples was to show that in cases others have through their own faith asked for Christ's grace to be imparted on those who could not answer or respond for themselves when it was reasonable that they would have could they have. This is not something you can deny or just overlook. Christ healed these people by imparting grace and this grace was "attained" (I use that word loosly because it does hinge on it being reasonable the one healed would have responded in the same way) by another. You are correct that physical healing is different than salvation, but [i]at the very least [/i] these stories in the Bible show us cases where Christ imparted some type of saving grace (in this case physical) to someone at the request and faith of another.

[quote]The eunuch believed, therefore he was a fit subject for baptism. Philip did not say, I believe for you, or the water itself will save you. He checked that he believed, then he baptised him.
[/quote]Once again you are using an example of a grown adult that has the use of reason and will here. I thought you were talking about infants. Please make up your mind.

[quote]Acts 16:31 simply states that you must believe on Jesus to be saved. As a result of being saved. Acts 8:36-9 makes this abundantly clear[/quote]I am glad you brought up acts, especially 16:31 which reads:[quote]16:31. But they said: believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
[/quote] Notice if you believe you and your house shall be saved....does that mean infants as well? Perhaps it would help to discuss this verse for in the previous verse the man asked "what must [b]I[/b] do to be saved?" Then Paul responded with him and his house being saved.

Regardless, why did Paul not mention Baptism? That is indeed an interesting question. I have found it is because he told him to believe keeping in mind that the rest will naturally follow. If you truly believe in Christ you naturally seek His grace through sacraments. You will turn to find Christ wherever you can due to your love, which includes becoming baptized. Paul knew that if this guard believed in Christ earnestly he would end up being saved because the love of Christ moves one to the channels of grace that Christ has provided for us. So in reality, Paul [b]did not all say [/b] "[i]the only thing you must do is believe[/i] and you will be saved." No. All that Paul was saying was "if you believe you will be saved," which means if you believe you will seek Christ and His grace with your whole heart, whole soul, and whole strength. Paul did not say "just believe and all is done for you." (Do not forget that he mentioned his house being saved...)

Now to look at Acts 8:36-39. I must presume that you are honing in on Paul saying that the eunuch must believe with his whole heart. Once again, as I mentioned above, we are speaking about an adult that is able to respond freely. This is not speaking about an infant, nor is this a universal application. Furthermore, this only speaks to the necessity of Baptism and how it imparts objective grace. If there was no grace imparted then why would the eunuch be asked about his faith? This was not a public show, it was done almost privately. Furthermore, believing with one's whole heart would encompas believing in all that is necessary for salvation.

I have discussed your scripture references. I would appreciate the same respect with what I cited. You continue you refer back to adults and different cases to refute infant Baptism ignoring the differences I have pointed out. Tit 3:5 tells us that we are saved through bath of rebirth and renewed by the Holy Spirit (grace from Baptism), and later in Acts 22:16 we are told to get ourselves Baptized and our sins washed away (because of the grace of Baptism), and furthermore in 1 Cor 6:11 we are told how Baptism is justifying (grace?). All these point to an objective grace in Baptism which fruits depend on the recepient.

Saying that there is objective grace in a sacrament does not downplay the necessity of a personal relationship. This is because, as we have said, it is Christ who is acting in a sacrament. It is like saying that when Christ acts it is not always efficacious. The personal relationship is needed for that grace to be fruitful.

[Briguy]

Hi all, saw this thread and just wanted to ask a question I have asked Catholics before but have never gotten a genuine answer for. I ask this sincerely. If the act of Baptizing an infant washes away their sin and makes them a new person in Christ, why do hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people who were Baptized as infants have no reletionship with Jesus now? In fact, for many they were Baptized and never thought much about God after that, as children or adults. What did that cleansing really do for them? Were they filled with the Holy Spirit and He left them? This is a harsh reality for those who believe infant Baptism has saving Grace associated with it. I hope this post is a challange to some of you and not taken to be an attack on Catholic doctrine, for it truely is not meant as such.

In Christ,
Brian

P.S. Colin, I have really enjoyed your posts

[ReinnieR]

Baptism is not something magical that changes a person.

Baptism does not take a way a person's free will.

the person is still able to deny Christ if he/she chooses to.

i'm at work right now and can't give you a long response but i'm pretty sure somebody here will

[Brother Adam]

[quote]Hi all, saw this thread and just wanted to ask a question I have asked Catholics before but have never gotten a genuine answer for[/quote]

Then you haven't been listening Brian.
Good to see you again. You're not around often enough.


[quote]If the act of Baptizing an infant washes away their sin and makes them a new person in Christ, why do hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people who were Baptized as infants have no reletionship with Jesus now?[/quote]

Through the choice of their own free will, they have decided not to follow Christ.

Why do millions of Baptists have to be saved over and over again? Once Saved Always saved is an invention of heretics and is not biblical, nor even seen in any kind of biblical scholarship for over a thousand years. You need to study the Bible within its whole context, not missing the forest for the trees. Woudl you like to have another discussion on covenantal theology and why salvation is 'filial' and not 'legalistic'?


[quote]
In fact, for many they were Baptized and never thought much about God after that, as children or adults. What did that cleansing really do for them?[/quote]

It did for them what it does for every child. It is the entrance into the New Covenant, they are born again, the problem of original sin is dealt with, and they are adopted children of God through Jesus Christ.

[quote]  Were they filled with the Holy Spirit and He left them?  [/quote]

No, they left God.

[quote] This is a harsh reality for those who believe infant Baptism has saving Grace associated with it. [/quote]

There is no harsh reality. It's the false reality that you live in as a Fundamentalist.

[quote]I hope this post is a challange to some of you and not taken to be an attack on Catholic doctrine, for it truely is not meant as such.[/quote]

It is not a challange at all. It is answered quite easily with no trouble at all.

Sorry Brian, we believe in Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Church, not in a group of disgruntled fella's who decided to become their own authority on the scriptures over 1600 years removed from the time of Christ.

[quote]In Christ,
Brian[/quote]

Yes, by your baptism.


Blessings,
Adam

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Feb 13 2006, 01:31 PM'] If the act of Baptizing an infant washes away their sin and makes them a new person in Christ, why do hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people who were Baptized as infants have no reletionship with Jesus now? In fact, for many they were Baptized and never thought much about God after that, as children or adults. What did that cleansing really do for them?  Were they filled with the Holy Spirit and He left them?  This is a harsh reality for those who believe infant Baptism has saving Grace associated with it. I hope this post is a challange to some of you and not taken to be an attack on Catholic doctrine, for it truely is not meant as such.[/quote]
The same thing could be asked about adults, or teenagers who were baptized. Baptism washes us of our previous sins and opens us up to being filled with grace and the Holy Spirit. If someone after he is baptised chooses to fall away from our Lord, that does not mean that the baptism was wrong or did not communicate grace, it is simply that the person chose to reject Christ later.

Let us say that a teenager in some non-Catholic church decides to become baptized at the age of 17. He then goes of to college and forgets about his Baptism and Jesus falling into the wrong crowd and sins excessivly. What would you say about his Baptism? Did the Spirit decide to leave him at college? I think not. You must realize that while the sacraments communicate grace objectivly, they do not force us to act a certain way. We as humans have the gift of free will. We can either give assent of our will to God and His grace, or we can reject. It is quite possible that a person rejects God after Baptism. Many people do that, and infant Baptism is no different in this regards.

It is not that they were filled with the Holy Spirit and the Spirit left the person. It is that the person left the Holy Spirit. My point is that simply because one has been baptized or has received grace in another sacrament does not mean that the person looses his free will. He is still able to reject God and thus we have the situation we describe.

What did Baptism do? It washed them of Original Sin and brought them into the Church. Baptism is the first sacrament of Christian initiation. One is made a member of the Church only after Baptism. After that, the person must daily reaffirm his "yes" to God. It is not that once you are baptized you are in forever. No. You are baptized and accepted into the Church, but you must make the decisison to remain in it.

I would also like to see some statistics about millions of baptized infants never having a relationship with Christ after they have matured.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Feb 13 2006, 01:45 PM']Then you haven't been listening Brian.
Good to see you again. You're not around often enough.
Through the choice of their own free will, they have decided not to follow Christ.

Why do millions of Baptists have to be saved over and over again? Once Saved Always saved is an invention of heretics and is not biblical, nor even seen in any kind of biblical scholarship for over a thousand years. You need to study the Bible within its whole context, not missing the forest for the trees. Woudl you like to have another discussion on covenantal theology and why salvation is 'filial' and not 'legalistic'?
It did for them what it does for every child. It is the entrance into the New Covenant, they are born again, the problem of original sin is dealt with, and they are adopted children of God through Jesus Christ.
No, they left God.
There is no harsh reality. It's the false reality that you live in as a Fundamentalist.
It is not a challange at all. It is answered quite easily with no trouble at all.

Sorry Brian, we believe in Jesus Christ and His Bride, the Church, not in a group of disgruntled fella's who decided to become their own authority on the scriptures over 1600 years removed from the time of Christ.
Yes, by your baptism.
Blessings,
Adam
[right][snapback]886093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Is there an echo in here? (see my response below. We must have been typing at the same time)

Good job Br. Adam.

[ReinnieR]

thank you both

i'm just scared i'd get caught PMing instead of doing work

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, I haven't checked this site for a long time and just decided to see if any topic sparked my interest. Maybe God sent me here. Possibly there was something He wanted you to learn or possibly something He wanted me to learn.

Thank you for the honest answer to my questions. I do feel you dodged a little. I won't respond to OSAS on this thread but if you start another i will be happy to share some things I have learned in recent months. Anyway, back to Baptism. Above it was said by Pap...... that "it was baptism that was responsible for salvation" In infant Baptism the logic breaks down in this way. The salvation is sure when it happens but then goes away for many at some point, right? You said those who choose to walk away from Christ are unsaved. They were saved when they didn't know it and they could walk away from Christ and still not know it. If they are in a family that has their chidren baptized but then really doesn't follow jesus or go to mass very often the child and then adult will never know he was really saved and then walked away. This great salvation, which biblically speaking makes a new creation out of a person, which cleanses them from ALL sin, as 1 John says, can never be known to a person, even though he has it and loses it. What I am getting at is that Jesus spilled His very own blood to save the souls of many. He then takes His blood and covers the baptized infant and then the infant walks away from God and never even knew He was covered by the Blood. Also, at what dynamic second is the salvation of baptism lost. If a child by age 6 never comes to church and never thinks about God, does it happen then? or is it age 8? what about age 3? Does salvation go away in the twinkling of an eye, just poof, or do you lose it in a process? You see there are just all sorts of unanswered issues with this. Of course I am confident that you, Adam, or someone else will answer me. Thanks for the first answers, I look forward to the next set.

In Christian Love,
Brian

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Feb 14 2006, 06:52 AM'] Above it was said by Pap...... that "it was baptism that was responsible for salvation" In infant Baptism the logic breaks down in this way. [/quote]I did? I said that it brought one into the Church and cleansed one from previous sins. It does convey objective grace, but it alone is not responsible for salvation. The one who has received must also respond if able. (that is the key here [b]if able[/b]. I feel like a borken record repeating the same thing. There is a real difference in the use of will and reason between an infant and an adult that Colin and you are overlooking consistently. Do we need to go over the use of will and reason and its impacts?) Furthermore, I would love to hear what you think happens to unbaptized infants.

[quote]The salvation is sure when it happens but then goes away for many at some point, right? You said those who choose to walk away from Christ are unsaved. They were saved when they didn't know it and they could walk away from Christ and still not know it.[/quote]Like you said, we will not go into OSAS here, but I will entertain this to some extent anyway. Salvation "goes away" when that person sins mortally. That is when a person chooses against God with full assent of will and intellect. Those that choose to walk away from Christ are "unsaved" I do not really like that term because we agreed at the beginning that it was a process, when they choose against Christ yes. We prefer to say that the person has cut himself off from God. You bring up now knowing that you are saved...you really are skating OSAS arent you? Anyway, please see my note about the difference in use of will between adults and infants. Oh and believe me, you know it when you walk away from Christ. The fact of the matter is that you have to have use of the will and reason to choose against Christ, so you know that you are making a choice. Perhaps it would help to go into some discussion on sin and its effects?

[quote]If they are in a family that has their chidren baptized but then really doesn't follow jesus or go to mass very often the child and then adult will never know he was really saved and then walked away. This great salvation, which biblically speaking makes a new creation out of a person, which cleanses them from ALL sin, as 1 John says, can never be known to a person, even though he has it and loses it.[/quote]Yes we agree that it covers all sin, but we disagree that it covers all future sins as well. That is like saying "it is okay for me to sin in the future for Christ has my back, sinning no longer matters to me!" That is incorrect and I would be happy to discuss why. Regardless, about the child not knowing about Christ. That is a matter different from Baptism. What you are describing is a failure on the parents part to raise their child in the faith, not a failure in Baptism. I agree with you, some parents have their kids baptized simply to go through the motions and it is a tragedy, but that is by no means the majority for I am still waiting on your statistics on millions of kids leaving Christ. We can say the same thing about any other Christian faith, people go to Christ and be baptized only to leave Him later in life. I am failing to see the point you are making here.

[quote]What I am getting at is that Jesus spilled His very own blood to save the souls of many. [/quote]We will not get into the many vs. all debate here unless you really want to. I have not argued against double predestination in some time.

[quote]He then takes His blood and covers the baptized infant and then the infant walks away from God and never even knew He was covered by the Blood.[/quote]You are assuming a lot here. The infants that are baptized almost always know about their Baptism and the faith, some (as just with all other Christians) just choose the wrong side. To say that someone never knew that they were baptized is far fetched. Almost all kids by the first grade are taught about Baptism and the like, so please do not assume that they just walk away completly unaware. If they did, then the fault lies with the parents for failing to raise their kids in the faith.

[quote]Also, at what dynamic second is the salvation of baptism lost. If a child by age 6 never comes to church and never thinks about God, does it happen then? or is it age 8? what about age 3?  Does salvation go away in the twinkling of an eye, just poof, or do you lose it in a process? [/quote]These questions have actually been answered for some time in the Church, but I would be happy to go over them with you. At what dynamic second is the salvation of Baptism lost? Well your Baptism can never be lost, it places an indellible mark on your soul, but what people can do is reject their Baptism. This is done through mortal sin or some show of detest for God or His laws. When a person sins mortally it is a sin that leads to death, death of the soul in that person (1 Jn 5:16-17). If a person has not sinned mortally, but only venially with no repentance or turning back to God, that can eventually lead to death because when venial sin matures it leads to mortal sins (Jam 1:14-15). I hope that approaches your questions about what second. It depends on the person and circumstances. One never looses one's Baptism, but one may reject Christ and the grace from it. I do believe that discussing sin would be an aid in this thread because both you and Colin are overlooking important distinctions between infancy and adulthood, not to mention how sin affects us.

As far as the age. Someone cannot sin until that person has reached the age of reason. This is because a sin, in essence, is choosing against God or God's will. Sin is a choice that people make, but a person cannot make choices with responsibility until a person has come to the age of reason for it requires will and intellect as I have said earlier. The time when each person comes to the age of reason is different, depending on the person, maturity, upbringing, etc... So that is almost a purely subjective question. For most, however, we say around the age of seven is the age of reason. But it differs as said. I hope that helps

Pax Christi

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='ReinnieR' date='Feb 13 2006, 02:55 PM']thank you both

i'm just scared i'd get caught PMing instead of doing work
[right][snapback]886109[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please don't PM at work if they don't want you to. It's the internet. It isn't going anywhere.

------------------------------------------------

Okay Brian,

We're both old Bible pros. I'll go ahead and answer this post, but then I feel that we really need to take a few steps back, and look at this thing from a distance. Myself and a friend recently went after it on another topic [Salvation by faith (Catholic) vs. Salvation by faith alone (Protestant) vs Salvation by faith sans works (semi-Pelagian) ] and finally he came to a conclusion I tried to get across to him a while ago - it really comes down to authority, interpretive principles of the Bible, and how we see salvation history as a whole. Else all we will ever do is argue and never make much progress. This is after all ecumenical dialogue, and as you said, hopefully we are here to learn and grow.

Paphnutius basically nailed down the specific errors we believe you are making, because your thought isn't any newer than my thoughts are. We are learning from those before us. Paphnutius and I believe that there is absolute truth that can be known with certainty today, through the bulwark and pillar of truth, something that is lacking in Protestantism, because you have to figure out if your set of doctrines is right when you line them up to the next guys set of doctrines. There is only so much depth you can attain this way.

Again, through the whole post you are coming from a salvation world view that says that faith is by an act of prayer in which Christ effects salvation in the soul ontologically, a change in being takes place and then that indelible mark can never go away - you know your saved, before that moment you were not saved and after that moment you are saved period, no matter what. A legal exchange has taken place. At once you were under the law of condemnation and then at once you are under the law of Christ, and have effected this salvation which defeats death in you. Infants incapable of making any intelligent process on salvation remain lost through original sin. There is more to the common reformed thought, but from here I digress since this obviously isn't the view of Christianity I would take.

As I mentioned before the view of Christianity that I must put forth confesses a filial salvation. It may not be immediately clear what this means. To help you, and hopefully others understand Catholic teaching, as confusing as it can be coming from a trained fundamentalist background, I would like to walk through, briefly, salvation history. I realize you know all of the events of salvation history, but there is such a way that they meet as an organic whole that makes up our Catholic faith that is easily missed in the minor points. Even in its brevity it is long, so please forgive the length. I did spend the time to type all this out, this isn't a cut and paste.

This is the Catholic story of salvation, as we tell it to those who come into the Catholic faith through the RCIA process (our membership classes). It is the same story that is recorded in Augustine's "First Catechetical Teaching"

God is. (Exodus 3). Moses evokes from God his divine name. And through the theophany of Exodus 3 we learn something of the nature of God through the Old Testament. God says that "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM THAT I AM". God is being. What a radical statement. God existed before anything else existed and God exists in a Tri-une nature. A Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Complete, perfect, and happy God lacks absolutely nothing. In love though God creates angelic beings to serve and love him and to have a share in His divine family life. Some of those angels however chose to rebel, amongst them Lucifer, who was high in heaven, chose to seek a higher place of pride.

After this even God, in his infinite love, for reasons beyond our own understanding chose to create man out of love to participate in His life. He created us body and soul, complete beings. He created us good, not evil, with no blemish, and created us with a free soul.

Satan came and tempted man. Man choosing not God, fell into sin. This sin caused a deep lose in man. His relationship with God, a family relationship, was cut off, man was severed from God, incurred the penalty of sin, death, and was cast out of Eden. This sin that man incurred, is passed on generation to generation. Even when the problem of sin is taken care of, as we will learn later, concupiscence remains, that is, the inclination of sin, and is something that while here on earth we seek to remove from out lives, growing in holiness, but will not be perfected until heaven.

God, though we sinned against him, loves us with an unending love and does not abandon man to eternal death without hope. Even at the beginning God makes a promise to deal with sin and plans for our salvation (Genesis 3:15).

Over the whole of the Old Testament God gradually reveals himself and gathers a people to Him. Throughout the Old Testament we go through a series of covenants in which a wider and wider circle of people are brought into God’s family. Here is a chart of the covenants, starting with Adam and Eve

Mediator – Adam
Covenant – Marriage
Scripture – Genesis 1-2

Mediator – Noah
Covenant – Extended Family
Scripture – Gen 9

Mediator Abraham
Covenant – Tribe
Scripture – Gen 15,17,22 according to the promise in Gen 12:1-3

Mediator – Moses
Covenant – Nation
Scripture – Exodus 19-24

Mediator – David
Covenant – Kingdom
Scripture – 2 Sam 7

Prophetic Interlude (foreshadowing) – Son of David, Son of man
Covenant – Zion, Kingdom
Scirpture Jer 31:31-35

Mediator – Jesus
Covenant – Church (Jew AND Gentile)
Scripture – Luke 22:14-32, esp. 20

The only thing I will spend any time on in the Old Testament is an often forgotten passage, but the linch-pin of the Old Testament. If you only have time to spend on one verse in the Old Testament I would spend it on Deuteronomy 30:1-6, because it bespeaks of the sin problem, the Mosaic law, and what God is going to do about sin.

AND when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, 2 and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you this day, with all your heart and with all your soul; 3 then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes, and have compassion upon you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4* If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there he will fetch you; 5 and the LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, that you may possess it; and he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Moses is about to kick the bucket and has issued the law in its final concessionary form to the Israelite people. Previously he announced the curses for not following the law and the blessings for following the law. Look at how many more curses there are than blessings. But here is what is most important. The Old Testament has built into it a planned obsolescence – planned failure. The Israelites will fail to follow the Lord according to Moses and they will incur exile and their people will be scattered. Look at verse 6, it says that the Lord will gather them again one day and circumcise their hearts. Now look at Peter’s confession in Acts 2. What is the reaction of the Jewish people, who have been gathered back from all nations to hear Peter preach of a new covenant – THEY WERE CUT TO THE HEART! The Old Covenant moves into the new in a pattern of continuity, not of discontinuity. It is not Law pitted against Gospel as Luther confessed, but the law fulfilled in the Gospel as Jesus confesses and as this series of scriptures confesses.

But I digress to move on here.

Mary agrees to the angels request and the incarnation takes place. God becomes man. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, becomes fully God and fully man. He is conceived in Mary’s womb. Existing from all eternity he humbles himself to be born of a virgin. Mary, the mother of God (for Mary is not the mother of a nature, but of a person), gives birth to the Savior of the world. For Jesus is in himself a covenant as it has been prophesied. The covenants made between God and man didn’t pan out to well with the law, so Jesus, radically and uniquely is a covenant and mediator, the only mediator of the covenant.

Jesus fulfills what is written about him and becomes the Paschal Lamb, slain for the sins of the world, that all may be saved because God desires salvation for all, though God knows that only a few will accept this salvation and walk through the narrow Gate. ( the efficacious life and sacrifice of Christ in RCIA of course would have at least two if not three lessons devoted to it).

Jesus Christ establishes a Church. He does not establish a Bible, and he does not establish a commission of authors. The Church serves as God’s family on earth. It is visible. It is the Way. It is united with the Church in heaven in a mystical way. Salvation is dependant on membership in this Church because those who are believers are members of the Church. One cannot become a believer and not be a member of the Church, though some are united to the Church imperfectly. To be saved, to be liberated from sin and death is to have faith in Christ. Faith in Christ however is more than crying out ‘Lord, Lord’. It is more than mere belief. Salvation is filial. It is covenantal. It is about family. Take the example of Luke 5:18-26. Jesus taught that we are saved by faith, but not by faith alone. Jesus taught, as well as Paul, that we are saved by faith, but not faith and works (a conversation for another thread).

We are now on a pilgrimage from here on earth to our heavenly kingdom. To be a member of the Church is to be a member of the kingdom of Christ. To be a member of the Church the bride of Christ. One becomes a member of the body of Christ by taking care of original sin. By our faith in Christ we are born anew through baptism. Not the working of man, but the act of God. (John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21). The Bible teaches as an organic whole that we become adopted sons of God not through our own action, but through the action of God and dispensed through the Church, whom Christ gave authority to, especially those who lead the Church and handed on their authority through the laying on of hands. Salvation, liberation from evil and the renewed relationship doesn’t end until we live in complete union before God in heaven having taken up our inheritance, eternal life. It is a process that continues. Catholics have been saved, and are being saved (Phil 2:12; 1 Peter 1:9), and will be saved (Matt 10:22, 24:13, Romans 13:11, 1 Cor 3:15, Heb 9:28). Catholics have a great assurance of salvation, because, we believe, as the Bible says that we have the full hope of heaven. I can know if I have strayed from that path or am on that path without any doubt. If I fall into grave, serious sin, I don’t have to wonder if I really said a good enough prayer the first time, but know that God created me with a free will as a free being and I can choose, even as a child of God, to become the prodigal son as Jesus taught and as recorded in Luke.

Infants are baptized because salvation is the work of God, not man and is filial and covenantal, not legal. In a way we celebrate now the heavenly worship in heaven (we can have a discussion revelation later) at mass. We participate in the work of God, we cannot save ourselves, but only cooperate with God in faith and we will have eternal salvation.

Jesus will come again. Jesus will judge us. We will be members of the new heavenly Jerusalem, and those who are believers will have eternal life.

I know that this is long, but it seems useless to me to talk about minute points until we see the whole entire picture. Everything is central to Christ and the cross.

Blessings, Adam

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Feb 14 2006, 03:50 PM']Please don't PM at work if they don't want you to. It's the internet. It isn't going anywhere.


[right][snapback]887452[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


it's not that they don't want me to. it's just that common sense tells me that i'm at work i should be doing work.

some of my bosses are cool some are pricks i didn't wanan hear anybody's mouth is all.

[Briguy]

Adam, thanks for all that work on your post. Let me digest some of what you said so I can respond later. I agree with a lot of what you said and have some serious issues with a couple things. I am sure you expected that. I may have to respond to the post above yours first as there was issues left open there.

I'LL be back!!!

In Christ,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Feb 15 2006, 07:50 AM']Adam, thanks for all that work on your post. Let me digest some of what you said so I can respond later. I agree with a lot of what you said and have some serious issues with a couple things. I am sure you expected that. I may have to respond to the post above yours first as there was issues left open there.

I'LL be back!!!

In Christ,
Brian
[right][snapback]888037[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[img]http://www.arnoldnumerouno.com/arnold.JPG[/img]
Course. It can help as well to identify points of agreement to know where disagreement lies. I've only ever asked of anyone intellectual honesty. If Catholics confess that they do not believe in the Muslim God, than I would expect that no one would try to teach that. And visa versa. A young seminarian friend of mine asked what Baptists believe since he knew that was part of my background and I printed off the 'baptist distinctives' from the GARB to allow in a way, for baptists to speak for themselves.

Take your time though. You aren't exactly on Baptist territory, and you can't answer everything as fast as we could get it out to you.

Blessings, and we will see you when you get back as we continue to talk about our disagreements.

[i]6. Christocentricity in catechesis also means the intention to transmit not one's own teaching or that of some other master, but the teaching of Jesus Christ, the Truth that He communicates or, to put it more precisely, the Truth that He is. We must therefore say that in catechesis it is Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God, who is taught-everything else is taught with reference to Him-and it is Christ alone who teaches-anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ's spokesman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips. - Catechesie Tradendae[/i]

Edited February 15, 2006 by Brother Adam

[Colin]

Hi there,
concerning the household baptisms of Acts, two things need to be noted, firstly, apostolic practice must agree with apostolic teaching, and secondly, in almost every case, Acts specifically notes that the people involved were first preached to, second believed, and only then were baptized. That is, apostolic practice does conform to apostolic teaching. All who heard and believed were baptized. Babies are not the subject of these verses. Jesus baptized adults, he did not baptize children. He blessed them, he cared about them, but he did not baptize them. Neither did the apostles.

In Acts 2:41; “they that gladly received his message were baptized”
In Acts 8:12; “but when they (“the people”- verse 8) believed Philip preaching,… they were baptized.”

In Acts 10, Peter preaches, they hear the word “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name (10:43)” and then the Holy Spirit falls on them, and only after that are they are baptized. They are baptized because Peter realizes that they have already been saved/converted (10:47, Ephesians 1:13 – “In whom you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after you believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise”). Note also 11:14, “he will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved”. As Romans 10 says, “’everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’ how then can they call on the one they have not believed in? and how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? and how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” Peter preaches the message through which they shall be saved, the Holy Spirit falls, showing they have repented and believed (11:17), then they (“all your household”) are baptized. Baptism follows salvation, it is not the means of it.

In Acts 16 Paul likewise preaches to “him and all the others in his house” and then they are all baptized, and the jailer is filled with joy because “he and his whole family” had “come to believe in God”. Again, as his whole household are said to have listened to Paul, believed in God, and then been baptized. Babies are not the subject here.
In Acts 18, “Crispus and his entire household believed in the Lord (verse 8)”, and in verse 9, “many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.”
So Crispus and his household heard the message Paul preached, believed, and only then were baptized. If we go to 1 Corinthians, Paul is glad he didn’t baptize more Corinthians, but rather preached the Gospel to them. Now, if baptism were essential to salvation, why would he be glad he had not baptized them? But as Paul declares, “the preaching of the Cross (not baptism) is the power of God”. 1 Corinthians 16:15 furthermore notes that the “household” of Stephanas have “appointed themselves to the ministry of the saints.” Now, if “household” includes babies, were day-old babies ministering to the saints? Those who heard the message and believed the message were saved and baptized, and ministered to the needs of the saints. Again, babies clearly are not the focus here.

The apostolic practice confirms the apostolic teaching. To be saved, you need hear and believe the message of salvation. The New Testament knows no other way to be saved.
God bless, Colin

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Colin' date='Feb 16 2006, 03:52 AM']The apostolic practice confirms the apostolic teaching. [b]To be saved, you need hear and believe the message of salvation[/b]. The New Testament knows no other way to be saved.
God bless, Colin
[right][snapback]889043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I only have a few moments to respond. I will print this off and take it with me to respond to later, but I still would like an answer to this question: What do you think happens to unbaptized babies? From the sound of it, you believe they go to Hell.

[Paphnutius]

[quote] Now, if baptism were essential to salvation, why would he be glad he had not baptized them? But as Paul declares, “the preaching of the Cross (not baptism) is the power of God”.[/quote]Let us work on the big things first and then the rest will soon click. You believe that Baptism is not necessary for salvation. That is directly contrary to what we are told in John 3:5 [list]3:5. Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God
[/list] What else is being born of water and the Spirit than the sacrament of Baptism? I am sorry, but what you said is unbiblical. Our Lord Himself declared the necessity of Baptism in this passage as also in Matthew 28:[list]28:19. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
[/list]He commanded the Apostles to go and teach and baptize. This is Christ we are speaking about giving His apostles a direct command. Here our Lord is emphasizing the necessity of Baptism by commanding His very own apostles to baptize the nations. Why would He command them this [i]as part of their mission of being sent[/i] if it were not necessary?

Moreover, as we are told in Romans,[list]5:15. But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
[/list] and in Corinthians [list]15:21. For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead.15:22. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
[/list] because Adam sinned, we are marked for death. Why is this? Because of Original Sin. All are born with Original Sin because we are all descendants from Adam. We all suffer the inclination to sin, and the physical consequences. Even while the tiny infant has committed no personal sin, he still has the stain of Original Sin because of the first sin of Adam and Eve. It was through one that all were condemned, and so it is through One that all are saved. So we see that there is a need for cleansing due to sin, I think we can all agree on that much, but why Baptism?

This is because we are told that Baptism has the power by the grace of God to cleanse us from sin. Let us look at Acts:[list]22:16. And now why tarriest thou? Rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.
[/list] In Baptism we baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In Christ's name. It is this invoking of Christ, this calling upon His grace that makes Baptism effective and able to wash away sins. Here again we see how sacramental the Bible is. We have Baptism with water (the matter of the sacrament) and the calling of Christ's name (the form). This shows us that Baptism does convey objective grace for it takes away sins. Moreover in Corinthians, [list]6:11. And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.
[/list]We are washed and sanctified, and justified. We are washed in Baptism, that is the sacrament, and thus we are justified because of the conveying of grace. And so here in no uncertain terms we are told how Baptism has the power to convery the grace of Christ. It is quite necessary for salvation as Christ said in John and told His apostles to do. Just incase we missed something; 1 Peter[list]3:21. [b]Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also[/b]: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.*
[/list]Here Peter tells us that Baptism saves us. Is it because it is a mere ritual that we only go through the motions? Not in the least! It is because it is a covenant, a sacrament that Christ has chosen to pour out His love and Grace into us. It is because at Baptism we die with Christ and rise with Him. Baptism is necessary and it saves as we are told by Jesus the Christ, St. Paul, and St. Peter.

I believe that is suffecient for now. I will now discuss your comment about Corinthians.
[quote]If we go to 1 Corinthians, Paul is glad he didn’t baptize more Corinthians, but rather preached the Gospel to them.[/quote] Since you did not give me a citation I presume that you are reffering to [list]1:16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanus. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1:17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.
[/list]This can be perplexing especially since we just read about how Christ commanded His apostles to go out and baptize the nations, but I assure you that if we read it in context it will make sense. We must remember that just a few verses above Paul was reminding them that there ought to be no divisions in the Church. No "I belong to Appolos," or "I belong to Paul." Apparently people were making distinctions and special allegiance to the one who initiated them into the Church. Paul here reminds them, though, that he only baptized one house, but we are all one in Christ. He is in no way denying the necessity of Baptism, but saying that He came to preach the Gospel. He is making a point that while one might be baptized by different people, it is the Gospel that makes them one. Paul never denies the necessity of Baptism, especially here.

It would help to have an understanding of vocations here. God calls people to certain tasks or certain jobs according to His will. Paul here mentions that his primary vocation was to preach the Gospel, not to baptize. That is someone else's vocation, but that does not degrade the necessity in the least bit. I hope that helps.

[quote]concerning the household baptisms of Acts, two things need to be noted, firstly, apostolic practice must agree with apostolic teaching,[/quote] Much like Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand.


[quote]and secondly, in almost every case, Acts specifically notes that the people involved were first preached to, second believed, and only then were baptized. [/quote]I can only say once again that you are missing the difference between infants and adults. One cannot preach to an infant and expect the 5 month old to respond. If you are going to refute infant Baptism you will need to produce something that states against baptizing infants. Here you have only produced items speaking to adults. I will go ahead and break this down a bit for you.

A normal adult has the use of reason and will. An infant does not. An adult is able to respond and so is able to be held accountable for responding. An infant cannot. An adult is able to speak for himself. For an infant the parents or guardian has speaking priveliges.


[quote]In Acts 2:41; “they that gladly received his message were baptized”
In Acts 8:12; “but when they (“the people”- verse 8) believed Philip preaching,… they were baptized.” [/quote]We do not disagree that faith must prelude Baptism, but we disagree on whether parents may speak for their children who are unable in this regard. Remember as you said, only those who believe are saved.


[quote]They are baptized because Peter realizes that they have already been saved/converted [/quote]Converted is a better word because we would more than likely have differing views on salvation. And once again, you are correct. An adult must have faith and be converted before Baptism. But what about the infant that cannot respond? The mentally ill person who cannot comprehend faith? Has God left them to perish in Hell because they were not smart enough to believe?


[quote]In Acts 16 Paul likewise preaches to “him and all the others in his house” and then they are all baptized, and the jailer is filled with joy because “he and his whole family” had “come to believe in God”. Again, as his whole household are said to have listened to Paul, believed in God, and then been baptized. Babies are not the subject here.
[/quote]I will respond to this instead of all of them if you will allow me for this seems to summarize your point. I believe, friend, that you are engaging in some eisigesis. You are reading something into Scripture. The term household means all who are in the house, including children. The Scrpture did not say: "All those in his household that believed were baptized." No. It says that all were baptized. You are adding a qualification that does not exist. Even if it did, I have shown you examples of where one's faith was able to speak for one who was not able to respond and Christ shed His healing grace upon the other. You have decided to ignore this in your response. It is of the utmost importance that you reconcile this because it does have profound consequences. The centurion had faith and that faith saved his servant's life. The infant's parents had faith, and that faith saved the infant that was not able to choose Christ due to the limitation of its own power of reason.


[quote]To be saved, you need hear and believe the message of salvation.[/quote]We agree. You must believe for salvation (Baptism of Desire can be a different topic). But how do we understand this? If you understand this as an inflexible rule, the child that dies 5 hours after birth is condemend to eternal punishment in Hell for that child never heard nor believed. The person that cannot comprehend the need for salvation due to a mental illness is damned to Hell because he cannot understand to believe. You are not describing a God of mercy and love, but one of pure legalism. A personal relationship is indeed a must, but for those that have not the capability for it, is it not possible as shown by the centurion and publican for someone else to speak for them?

Edited February 17, 2006 by phatcatholic

[Brother Adam]

Is it just me or are your 'quote' boxes not working in that last post?

Thank you for posting also though.

Colin, Jesus said "Why do you call me good, no one but the Father is good"

Did Jesus mean that he is not God and is subordinate to the Father? If we are going to read the bible literally, each and every passage must be taken literaly. This is what Arius did and we got the heresy of Arianism, which I think even Briguy would agree with me is indeed heresy. We can't force the Bible to 'interpret itself' by making passages say what we want them to say by assigning a certian bias to them. The Bible is an organic whole and must be read as such.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Brother Adam

[Paphnutius]

Blast..! That will make it hard to read.....my apologies guys.