Original sin

[Francine]

I am also offended by your continual references to what "Christians" believe about "Mormons." I am a Christian, Athanasius, whether you like it or not.

Athanasian Creed (extract)

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally...

We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being...

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.​

 

[Katzpur]

Athanasian Creed (extract)

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith. Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally...​

We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being...​

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.​

The Holy Bible (extract)
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

In the end, it will be between me and God, not between me and Athanasius anyway.

 

[Quiddity]

Athansius, what makes you think you could deny an infant Christ's grace, even it you wanted to?

**waves** in anticipation he doesn't get ignored this time.

You might want to listen to this. It will help you understand how we view grace and soteriological issues.

We may have a different understanding of how grace is poured on people. It's not something that's passed out like candy. It is free, but just like anything else that's free, you must a) want it. b) put the effort into maintaining it (a response to the "want"). We believe this and all catholics go through this in their life time via the sacraments. I suppose it could be akin to God giving a blind man vision only to have the blind man keep his eyes closed. That would be like someone accepting the gift of grace only to continue to live like the past. The gift must cause a change in you. Now, I expect we agree so far; our disagreement lies in the order of things. For many Protestants and LDS (since you guys basically come from the same tradition) the order must be in a specific way but for catholics the order isn't so important. What is important is that we receive the gift. That's why it doesn't matter to us that a person must be of the age of reason to receive God's gift.

Now for LDS and protestants (although some of the early protestants thought differently) who tend to make a fuss of any sacraments before the age of reason, they do so because they don't think any child before this time can possibly make a conscious choice to enter into a relationship with God or at the very least say "yes" to the gift (baptism). So the obvious thing to do is have them wait until they can. But when push comes to shove most of you will say that a small child is already in grace and hence will go to heaven if he died. Which then raises the question of what's the point of baptism for you guys?

Anyways, the point is that God has never had any problem with having small children and even infants be part of his covenants; and yet they didn't have a choice. Think of circumcision. So what gives? In fact, the book of Colossians chapter 2 it parallels circumcision with baptism. For free tuperware try to guess at what age someone entered the covenant of circumcision? That is correct! 8 days old is the right answer.
Remember, God entered convenants with families just as he did on an individual level. Any individual wishing to void the contract can do so anytime they wish. Just as I can make the choice to be in a state of Grace and hence void my relationship with God. Baptism gets you into a state of Grace and there is nothing in the Bible that says we are born with it. That's just 19th century Protestantism there. Not even John Calvin himself believed it. Listen to what he said:

Now seeing that the Lord, immediately after making the covenant with Abraham, commanded it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament [Gen. 17:12], what excuse will Christians give for not testifying and sealing it in their children today? . . . After circumcision was abolished, the same reason for confirming his covenant (which we have in common with the Jews) still holds good . . . Only the manner of confirmation is different - what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism.
{Book IV, ch. 16, sec. 6, entitled "Difference in the Mode of Confirmation Only," v. 2, 1329}

And that's coming from a Protestant. So the question isn't whether we should be baptism is necessary or even if we should extend that to children because I think that's clear (even if you don't). But rather what happens to those people who never got a chance to be baptized. Are they saved? Do they all have grace or only some of them? We simply "we don't know". As the normative means to salvation is being in Grace, being in a relationship with God, being in the covenant, etc. we don't know what happens to people who don't have any of those. One of the few examples we do have is the thief in the cross. He wasn't under any covenant, nor did he get baptized or any of that; yet he was saved. So does that mean that the covenants, Grace, and all the things God does with his people are bunk and that people get saved anyways? That's it's all unnecessary? Some would say so. But I think it's bad theology to follow exceptions and not the rules. The thief on the cross was not the normative way people would start off there relationship with God.

Remember, God is not bound by his sacraments; but we are. If He tells us to get baptized, we don't use the exception (the thief) and make it rule; we stick to the rule and leave the exceptions to Him. If the story in the thief tells us anything, it's that God is a just and loving God.

 

[athanasius]

**waves** in anticipation he doesn't get ignored this time.

You might want to listen to this. It will help you understand how we view grace and soteriological issues.

We may have a different understanding of how grace is poured on people. It's not something that's passed out like candy. It is free, but just like anything else that's free, you must a) want it. b) put the effort into maintaining it (a response to the "want"). We believe this and all catholics go through this in their life time via the sacraments. I suppose it could be akin to God giving a blind man vision only to have the blind man keep his eyes closed. That would be like someone accepting the gift of grace only to continue to live like the past. The gift must cause a change in you. Now, I expect we agree so far; our disagreement lies in the order of things. For many Protestants and LDS (since you guys basically come from the same tradition) the order must be in a specific way but for catholics the order isn't so important. What is important is that we receive the gift. That's why it doesn't matter to us that a person must be of the age of reason to receive God's gift.

Now for LDS and protestants (although some of the early protestants thought differently) who tend to make a fuss of any sacraments before the age of reason, they do so because they don't think any child before this time can possibly make a conscious choice to enter into a relationship with God or at the very least say "yes" to the gift (baptism). So the obvious thing to do is have them wait until they can. But when push comes to shove most of you will say that a small child is already in grace and hence will go to heaven if he died. Which then raises the question of what's the point of baptism for you guys?

Anyways, the point is that God has never had any problem with having small children and even infants be part of his covenants; and yet they didn't have a choice. Think of circumcision. So what gives? In fact, the book of Colossians chapter 2 it parallels circumcision with baptism. For free tuperware try to guess at what age someone entered the covenant of circumcision? That is correct! 8 days old is the right answer.
Remember, God entered convenants with families just as he did on an individual level. Any individual wishing to void the contract can do so anytime they wish. Just as I can make the choice to be in a state of Grace and hence void my relationship with God. Baptism gets you into a state of Grace and there is nothing in the Bible that says we are born with it. That's just 19th century Protestantism there. Not even John Calvin himself believed it. Listen to what he said:

Now seeing that the Lord, immediately after making the covenant with Abraham, commanded it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament [Gen. 17:12], what excuse will Christians give for not testifying and sealing it in their children today? . . . After circumcision was abolished, the same reason for confirming his covenant (which we have in common with the Jews) still holds good . . . Only the manner of confirmation is different - what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism.
{Book IV, ch. 16, sec. 6, entitled "Difference in the Mode of Confirmation Only," v. 2, 1329}

And that's coming from a Protestant. So the question isn't whether we should be baptism is necessary or even if we should extend that to children because I think that's clear (even if you don't). But rather what happens to those people who never got a chance to be baptized. Are they saved? Do they all have grace or only some of them? We simply "we don't know". As the normative means to salvation is being in Grace, being in a relationship with God, being in the covenant, etc. we don't know what happens to people who don't have any of those. One of the few examples we do have is the thief in the cross. He wasn't under any covenant, nor did he get baptized or any of that; yet he was saved. So does that mean that the covenants, Grace, and all the things God does with his people are bunk and that people get saved anyways? That's it's all unnecessary? Some would say so. But I think it's bad theology to follow exceptions and not the rules. The thief on the cross was not the normative way people would start off there relationship with God.

Remember, God is not bound by his sacraments; but we are. If He tells us to get baptized, we don't use the exception (the thief) and make it rule; we stick to the rule and leave the exceptions to Him. If the story in the thief tells us anything, it's that God is a just and loving God.

This was perhaps one of the best explanation I heard in regards to the age thing. Very good!

 

[Katzpur]

**waves** in anticipation he doesn't get ignored this time.

Did I ignore you, Victor? :sorry1: It wasn't intentional. I just wanted to let you know that I've read your post. I don't have time to respond right now, but I will later today.

 

[Francine]

Remember, God is not bound by his sacraments; but we are. If He tells us to get baptized, we don't use the exception (the thief) and make it rule; we stick to the rule and leave the exceptions to Him. If the story in the thief tells us anything, it's that God is a just and loving God.

Excellent, Victor. But I think the Church already grants an exception for catechumens who die before Easter Vigil, and calls it the baptism of desire (the death of the thief on the cross was punishment for his crime and could not be interpreted as martyrdom). Also, it is possible the "Good Thief" was a follower of Jesus who coverted and was baptized, but still had to answer to the authorities for his past crimes.

 

[athanasius]

Excellent, Victor. But I think the Church already grants an exception for catechumens who die before Easter Vigil, and calls it the baptism of desire (the death of the thief on the cross was punishment for his crime and could not be interpreted as martyrdom). Also, it is possible the "Good Thief" was a follower of Jesus who coverted and was baptized, but still had to answer to the authorities for his past crimes.

Interesting take on the thief. I have never heard that theory before. But I suppose it is possible as we no little about the thief. Either way it is either that or the baptism of desire that saved him as you pointed out. Good speculation. I have to do further research on this.

 

[gnostic]

Not "must" but rather "should be". Why deny Christ saving grace to a child? The sacrament of baptism really does make you a Christian by entering you into communion with Christ, washing away your sins, uniting your nature to his so as to become Trinified, sanctified, and justified, and infuses your soul with life giving grace.

What "sins"? What sort of sins could a baby possibly commit?

If I even remotely believe in the afterlife and judgement, then any baby or young child would (and should) have grace given regardless.

 

[Katzpur]

We may have a different understanding of how grace is poured on people. It's not something that's passed out like candy. It is free, but just like anything else that's free, you must a) want it. b) put the effort into maintaining it (a response to the "want").

I like that explanation of grace, Victor. Obviously, anyone who believes the doctrine of Sola Fide would say that if we must put the effort into maintaining grace, it's not free. I disagree with their reasoning. Yours seems to much more closely resemble mine.

I suppose it could be akin to God giving a blind man vision only to have the blind man keep his eyes closed. That would be like someone accepting the gift of grace only to continue to live like the past. The gift must cause a change in you. Now, I expect we agree so far...

Yes, we do.

...our disagreement lies in the order of things. For many Protestants and LDS (since you guys basically come from the same tradition) the order must be in a specific way but for catholics the order isn't so important. What is important is that we receive the gift. That's why it doesn't matter to us that a person must be of the age of reason to receive God's gift.

Well, I don't see us as coming out of the Protestant tradition, but since that's not the topic of this thread, I won't comment on it. As our fourth Article of Faith explains, "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and fourth, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If I'm understanding you correctly, Catholics believe that an infant receives the gift of God's grace through baptism. We believe that an infant is born in a state of grace, so to speak. We don't believe it's necessary for an infant to be baptized, because we believe that he is as pure and clean without having received this ordinance as he would be having received it.

Now for LDS and protestants (although some of the early protestants thought differently) who tend to make a fuss of any sacraments before the age of reason, they do so because they don't think any child before this time can possibly make a conscious choice to enter into a relationship with God or at the very least say "yes" to the gift (baptism). So the obvious thing to do is have them wait until they can. But when push comes to shove most of you will say that a small child is already in grace and hence will go to heaven if he died. Which then raises the question of what's the point of baptism for you guys?

For us, baptism is the means by which we enter into a covenent relationship with our Savior. As a result of Adam's Fall, each of us is subject to the natural conditions of mortality. In a nutshell, this means that we are inclined to be sinful. But we cannot sin until we are capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, and we cannot repent until we have something for which we need to repent.

When we are baptized, we agree to put him first in our lives, to renounce all competing loyalties, to take upon ourselves His Name, and to obey His commandments. He agrees, in return, to make us as pure and clean in God's eyes as we were the day we were born. Of course, we will continue to fall short, but that isn't the point. The point is that we have formed a partnership and have done so in good faith. As long as we continue to repent when we sin, the terms of the covenant will remain in effect. But to us, the bottom line is that it must be our choice. We have to understand what we are doing when we are baptized. If someone else (a parent, for example) were to agree to the terms of the covenant for us, that person would be responsible for keeping the terms of the covenant.

Anyways, the point is that God has never had any problem with having small children and even infants be part of his covenants; and yet they didn't have a choice. Think of circumcision. So what gives? In fact, the book of Colossians chapter 2 it parallels circumcision with baptism. For free tuperware try to guess at what age someone entered the covenant of circumcision? That is correct! 8 days old is the right answer.

I'm sorry, Victor. I just don't agree. I don't know what more I can say.

Remember, God entered convenants with families just as he did on an individual level. Any individual wishing to void the contract can do so anytime they wish. Just as I can make the choice to be in a state of Grace and hence void my relationship with God. Baptism gets you into a state of Grace and there is nothing in the Bible that says we are born with it.

Again, we just see this differently. I don't believe that God would hold an infant responsible for something that Adam did. I believe we will be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Heaven knows, we have enough of them without adding one more.

That's just 19th century Protestantism there. Not even John Calvin himself believed it. Listen to what he said:

Now seeing that the Lord, immediately after making the covenant with Abraham, commanded it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament [Gen. 17:12], what excuse will Christians give for not testifying and sealing it in their children today? . . . After circumcision was abolished, the same reason for confirming his covenant (which we have in common with the Jews) still holds good . . . Only the manner of confirmation is different - what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism.
{Book IV, ch. 16, sec. 6, entitled "Difference in the Mode of Confirmation Only," v. 2, 1329}

And that's coming from a Protestant.

How about we leave the Protestants out of this one, Victor. It's complicated enough to debate our own perspectives.

So the question isn't whether we should be baptism is necessary or even if we should extend that to children because I think that's clear (even if you don't). But rather what happens to those people who never got a chance to be baptized. Are they saved? Do they all have grace or only some of them? We simply "we don't know".

I know that you are comfortable saying, "we simply don't know," but I believe we do know. I believe that any child who dies in infancy or early childhood has committed no sins, and will not be punished for something he did not do. I believe that anyone who dies as an older child or as an adult will have the opportunity to accept a proxy baptism done on his behalf.

As the normative means to salvation is being in Grace, being in a relationship with God, being in the covenant, etc. we don't know what happens to people who don't have any of those. One of the few examples we do have is the thief in the cross. He wasn't under any covenant, nor did he get baptized or any of that; yet he was saved. So does that mean that the covenants, Grace, and all the things God does with his people are bunk and that people get saved anyways? That's it's all unnecessary? Some would say so. But I think it's bad theology to follow exceptions and not the rules. The thief on the cross was not the normative way people would start off there relationship with God.

God doesn't need to make exceptions to His own rules. He has given us commandments and has given us the means to obey them. He has commanded us (1) to have faith in Jesus Christ, (2) to repent of our sins, (3) to be baptized by immersion for the remission of those sins, and (4) to receive the Holy Ghost to be our constant companion by the laying on of hands.

Remember, God is not bound by his sacraments; but we are. If He tells us to get baptized, we don't use the exception (the thief) and make it rule; we stick to the rule and leave the exceptions to Him. If the story in the thief tells us anything, it's that God is a just and loving God.

According to LDS scripture (D&C 82:10), "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."

I don't see the story of the thief on the cross as an exception to the rule. First of all, we don't know for sure whether he had been baptized or not. The fact that he addressed Jesus as "Lord," certainly implies that he might not have been seeing Him and hearing Him for the first time. Lots of baptized Christians are sitting on death row today. Let's assume for the sake of argument, however, that the thief had not been baptized. Jesus did not tell the thief that He would see him that day in Heaven. He said He would see him in Paradise. Since He told Mary on Easter morning not to touch Him since He had not yet ascended to His Father in Heaven, we can conclude that Paradise and Heaven are not the same place at all. If the thief genuinely repented (as I believe was the case), he would be able to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ taught in Paradise after he died. He would then have the opportunity to accept a proxy baptism that would be done on his behalf. God would have not had to make any exceptions to His commandments.

 

[Francine]

What "sins"? What sort of sins could a baby possibly commit?

Coveting his twin's milk bottle. Mixing cotton diapers with polyester pajamas. Putting the breast goddess first in worship before the LORD of Israel. Crying during a very important sermon.

 

[gnostic]

Coveting his twin's milk bottle. Mixing cotton diapers with polyester pajamas. Putting the breast goddess first in worship before the LORD of Israel. Crying during a very important sermon.

:biglaugh:

 

[madhatter85]

Not "must" but rather "should be". Why deny Christ saving grace to a child? The sacrament of baptism really does make you a Christian by entering you into communion with Christ, washing away your sins, uniting your nature to his so as to become Trinified, sanctified, and justified, and infuses your soul with life giving grace. The Sacrament applies the work of Christ on the Cross to the individual personally via baptism. It is the greatest gift one could ever give. Why on earth would I hold that back from my infant child?

why take away a person's free will to enter into a covenant?

 

[athanasius]

why take away a person's free will to enter into a covenant?

How does giving a child a gift take away their free will? Especially if that child can reject it later on? I guess those Evil Jews took away thier infants free will by covenanting them to Yahweh in circumcision.! If you use your own logic then you yourself would be in trouble. Why do you Mormons proxy baptize the dead non-Mormons in your temples? Doesn't that take away free will??

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How does giving a child a gift take away their free will? Especially if that child can reject it later on?

Doesn't the Catechism of the Catholic Church say that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul? Effectively, isn't the effect of baptism a sort of tattoo that only God can see? I'd say that getting a child tattooed would take away a choice on which they might want to decide for themselves later on in life.

Also, historically, whether a person had been baptised (either as a child or as an adult) was used as the determining factor on deciding whether the Church had authority over him or her. For example, an unbaptised Jew was beyond the authority of the Inquisition. A baptised Jew (even if baptised in secret by a servant or a relative who had converted to Christianity), though, was considered a "Judaizer" and a heretic, who was subject to the full power of the Inquisition.

Even today, the Catholic Church considers every baptised person a Christian, correct? They may be lapsed, not in full communion, or even excommunicated, but aren't they still held to be "Christian"?

 

[Quiddity]

Well, I don't see us as coming out of the Protestant tradition, but since that's not the topic of this thread, I won't comment on it. As our fourth Article of Faith explains, "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and fourth, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


If I'm understanding you correctly, Catholics believe that an infant receives the gift of God's grace through baptism. We believe that an infant is born in a state of grace, so to speak. We don't believe it's necessary for an infant to be baptized, because we believe that he is as pure and clean without having received this ordinance as he would be having received it.

I’d show you 1st century Christians that believe otherwise, but anytime I do use history it’s discarded as “Apostasy”. I used to think it could at least make a difference when I was told that you guys would be open to 1st century writings. But really what you guys meant was “Show us a 1st century writings that conform to our teachings”. God forbid I actually find a 1st century Christian who believed in infant baptism. What would you make of that? That’s it’s the early signs of Apostasy? So it’s sort of pointless for me to use history on you guys. Scripture I could use, but you know where that goes.

What I don’t get is how LDS can believe Adam's transgression affected the human race, inclined us to sin and yet we are still born in a righteous state? So which is it? I just don’t get this. Perhaps you can explain. Especially since you guys also believe that baptism is the entering into a relationship with Christ. Which is of course necessary.

Maybe I you clarify this we can move further in the discussion.

I'm sorry, Victor. I just don't agree. I don't know what more I can say.

You don’t have to. The least you can do is tell me why you think such a clear parallel was used. Or......you can ignore it and I'll just leave it for you consideration.

Again, we just see this differently. I don't believe that God would hold an infant responsible for something that Adam did. I believe we will be punished for our own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. Heaven knows, we have enough of them without adding one more.

So are infants born with: the natural conditions of mortality?

I know that you are comfortable saying, "we simply don't know," but I believe we do know. I believe that any child who dies in infancy or early childhood has committed no sins,

No, but you do believe this: As a result of Adam's Fall, each of us is subject to the natural conditions of mortality. In a nutshell, this means that we are inclined to be sinful.

Which is all we are saying. I’d be surprised if you’ve heard any catholic say an infant or small child has committed any sin.

BTW, it is bad theology to form one's beliefs on "comfort". If I did base it off comfort, I'd tell you that all the unbaptized are going to heaven. But we don't believe that. And we also don't believe they are all going to Hell. As I said, we just don't know.

God doesn't need to make exceptions to His own rules. He has given us commandments and has given us the means to obey them. He has commanded us (1) to have faith in Jesus Christ, (2) to repent of our sins, (3) to be baptized by immersion for the remission of those sins, and (4) to receive the Holy Ghost to be our constant companion by the laying on of hands.

If God doesn’t need to make exceptions, perhaps you can point me to when the thief on the cross was immersed for the remission of his sins?

I don't see the story of the thief on the cross as an exception to the rule. First of all, we don't know for sure whether he had been baptized or not. The fact that he addressed Jesus as "Lord," certainly implies that he might not have been seeing Him and hearing Him for the first time. Lots of baptized Christians are sitting on death row today. Let's assume for the sake of argument, however, that the thief had not been baptized. Jesus did not tell the thief that He would see him that day in Heaven. He said He would see him in Paradise. Since He told Mary on Easter morning not to touch Him since He had not yet ascended to His Father in Heaven, we can conclude that Paradise and Heaven are not the same place at all. If the thief genuinely repented (as I believe was the case), he would be able to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ taught in Paradise after he died. He would then have the opportunity to accept a proxy baptism that would be done on his behalf. God would have not had to make any exceptions to His commandments.

I actually agree that paradise doesn’t mean heaven for very similar reasons as yours. The difference is that we don’t believe that once someone has reached paradise (which means something different to us then you guys) that baptism is needed. What purpose would it serve? You’re already in paradise!

 

[athanasius]

Doesn't the Catechism of the Catholic Church say that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul? Effectively, isn't the effect of baptism a sort of tattoo that only God can see? I'd say that getting a child tattooed would take away a choice on which they might want to decide for themselves later on in life.

Also, historically, whether a person had been baptised (either as a child or as an adult) was used as the determining factor on deciding whether the Church had authority over him or her. For example, an unbaptised Jew was beyond the authority of the Inquisition. A baptised Jew (even if baptised in secret by a servant or a relative who had converted to Christianity), though, was considered a "Judaizer" and a heretic, who was subject to the full power of the Inquisition.

Even today, the Catholic Church considers every baptised person a Christian, correct? They may be lapsed, not in full communion, or even excommunicated, but aren't they still held to be "Christian"?

Yes that is true. But getting your child baptized is not the same as getting tatooed. getting your kid tattooed and getting baptized does not take away their free will at all. If a person grows up and becomes a atheist or some other religion and he formally rejects his baptism, he uses his free will(It is not gone) and he is no longer Catholic yet he does still have a indelible mark. But to the person who rejects it anyway it doesn't matter because they think its all bologna anyway and they think there is no mark at all. You cannot see it or feel it. and it isn't real to them anyway! However if one says that about baptism then one must also say it about circumcision(which baptism fulfills according to St. Paul).Those Darn Jews just didn't know anything and we followed??

 

[athanasius]

I’d show you 1st century Christians that believe otherwise, but anytime I do use history it’s discarded as “Apostasy”. I used to think it could at least make a difference when I was told that you guys would be open to 1st century writings. But really what you guys meant was “Show us a 1st century writings that conform to our teachings”. God forbid I actually find a 1st century Christian who believed in infant baptism. What would you make of that? That’s it’s the early signs of Apostasy? So it’s sort of pointless for me to use history on you guys. Scripture I could use, but you know where that goes.

What I don’t get is how LDS can believe Adam's transgression affected the human race, inclined us to sin and yet we are still born in a righteous state? So which is it? I just don’t get this. Perhaps you can explain. Especially since you guys also believe that baptism is the entering into a relationship with Christ. Which is of course necessary.

Maybe I you clarify this we can move further in the discussion.

You don’t have to. The least you can do is tell me why you think such a clear parallel was used. Or......you can ignore it and I'll just leave it for you consideration.

So are infants born with: the natural conditions of mortality?

No, but you do believe this: As a result of Adam's Fall, each of us is subject to the natural conditions of mortality. In a nutshell, this means that we are inclined to be sinful.

Which is all we are saying. I’d be surprised if you’ve heard any catholic say an infant or small child has committed any sin.

BTW, it is bad theology to form one's beliefs on "comfort". If I did base it off comfort, I'd tell you that all the unbaptized are going to heaven. But we don't believe that. And we also don't believe they are all going to Hell. As I said, we just don't know.

If God doesn’t need to make exceptions, perhaps you can point me to when the thief on the cross was immersed for the remission of his sins?

I actually agree that paradise doesn’t mean heaven for very similar reasons as yours. The difference is that we don’t believe that once someone has reached paradise (which means something different to us then you guys) that baptism is needed. What purpose would it serve? You’re already in paradise!

great points!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes that is true. But getting your child baptized is not the same as getting tatooed. getting your kid tattooed and getting baptized does not take away their free will at all.

It takes away their free will to decide whether to get or not get the indelible mark in question.

If a person grows up and becomes a atheist or some other religion and he formally rejects his baptism, he uses his free will(It is not gone) and he is no longer Catholic yet he does still have a indelible mark. But to the person who rejects it anyway it doesn't matter because they think its all bologna anyway and they think there is no mark at all. You cannot see it or feel it. and it isn't real to them anyway!

But you think it's real to God, don't you? Isn't that what matters?

However if one says that about baptism then one must also say it about circumcision(which baptism fulfills according to St. Paul).Those Darn Jews just didn't know anything and we followed??

I'm willing to say the same thing about circumcision: it takes away a decision from the infant that they might want to make for themselves later in life. The fact that Jews have a ceremony for infants too doesn't make infant baptism automatically the right thing to do, though.

 

[Quiddity]

It takes away their free will to decide whether to get or not get the indelible mark in question.

Unlike real tattoos, the Christian mark can easily become meaningless via your own choice when you so choose to.

Or are you just bothered that parents get to pick things for there kids?

But you think it's real to God, don't you? Isn't that what matters?

The mark is real to God alright, it will just become meaningless based on your decision to not have the mark become a part of your daily life.

I'm willing to say the same thing about circumcision: it takes away a decision from the infant that they might want to make for themselves later in life. The fact that Jews have a ceremony for infants too doesn't make infant baptism automatically the right thing to do, though.

Of course not, but it sure makes a difference in discussions that revolve around whether God includes infants (via the parents) into His convenants. The parallel is there.

BTW, I'm not sure why you think a decision is being taken away when we clearly believe a person can choose not to be Catholic or religious for that matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unlike real tattoos, the Christian mark can easily become meaningless via your own choice when you so choose to.

Or are you just bothered that parents get to pick things for there kids?

Not at all... I realize it's the choice of a parent how to raise their children. I also know enough of the idea behind it to know that it's supposed to represent something permanent. IMO, saying that baptism doesn't really matter if the kid decides not to be Catholic minimizes the importance of baptism.

The mark is real to God alright, it will just become meaningless based on your decision to not have the mark become a part of your daily life.

I wish I could remember the verse, but I recall something in the Gospels where Jesus is quoted as saying that those who follow Him and then turn away will receive a worse fate than those who had never followed Him at all.

It just seems like there's a reversal of roles going on here: normally, it's the Christian who tells the non-Christian that what matters will be made apparent in the hereafter, and the opinion that counts most is God's. In this case, it seems to me like you and athanasius are downplaying the hereafter and God, and I wonder why.

BTW, I'm not sure why you think a decision is being taken away when we clearly believe a person can choose not to be Catholic or religious for that matter.

If you think that baptism actually has any effect, then there's a decision that's being made for the child. I can see how, in the Catholic contex, the idea of depriving my child of this choice of faith would be a reasonable one, just as I would consider depriving my child of the choice of what to have for dinner would be reasonable (especially if the child's choice would be marshmallows). Still, though, if baptism matters at all, you are making a decision for the child... even if you consider it to be a positive one.