Original Sin.

JimiTime

If Original sin is not a 'stain' which every son and daughter of Adam in born with, and you say that a baby is innocent, i.e. Sinless, then how can the killing of such innocents be justified? I.E. Egypt, The Flood, Sodom, the ammorites etc?

chozometroid

I'm not sure I agree that we are NOT born with original sin, but even if babies are indeed innocent, their death does not need to be justified. There is no unfairness in the death of a temporal being. We are all born INTO sin, and we are all physical beings who will inevitably die. God's choosing to end our life is not unjust, at any time, IMHO.

JimiTime

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree that we are NOT born with original sin,

Same here. I'm not sure.

but even if babies are indeed innocent, their death does not need to be justified.

The thing is, we have elsewhere being talking about sending Jesus to pay for our sins. This satisfied Gods justice etc. Sure, we can say, 'Well God doesn't have to justify his actions', however, it seems clear that he 'is' just, and injustice is not found in him.

There is no unfairness in the death of a temporal being. We are all born INTO sin,

Could you elaborate on this. It all makes sense in we take the 'Everyone is born in guilt, for we are all from Adam', but there are some that say we are born sinless but with a propensity to sin. If this is the case, then God killing a baby is killing someone who did not have a blemish, which I feel needs explaining from those who believe this to be the case.

and we are all physical beings who will inevitably die. God's choosing to end our life is not unjust, at any time, IMHO.

It is unjust if we are without sin though. Thats not my justice, thats Gods justice. Knowing Gods ways, we know that if Adam never sinned, he wouldn't just decide one day, 'Actually, I'm going to kill Adams kids.' It was on account of sin, that we inherited death. Maybe its not a 'stain' we are each born with, but more of an inheritance of consaquence. I.E. We are not born with sin, but are born with the consaquence of sin, I.E. God removed his spirit from man, and whether we sinned or not, it was too late. This may lead then to 'Everyone' being, for want of a better term, 'Not part of him anymore'. So then it just becomes about who he decides to Choose and who he doesn't?

Like to hear opinions on it.

chozometroid

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you elaborate on this. It all makes sense in we take the 'Everyone is born in guilt, for we are all from Adam', but there are some that say we are born sinless but with a propensity to sin. If this is the case, then God killing a baby is killing someone who did not have a blemish, which I feel needs explaining from those who believe this to be the case.

I have two ways of looking at this.

1. God has never killed an innocent child. There is no one without blemish. Babies may not have yet knowingly committed an act of sin, but this does not make them acceptable to God. They have never chosen to be "good" and have not been born again. Perhaps they are considered by God to be sinful or just "neutral." I think Jesus was "without blemish" because He reached the age of accountability and yet still sinned not. He was also born again.
I think physical death is overrated by us, making this much more touchy than it needs to be. When someone dies, nothing incredible has happened in the grand scheme of things. God is waiting for us to spend eternity with Him. The only real "negative" is the sadness of the people left behind.

Psalm 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

2. God gives the breath of life, and it is His to take back at any time. There is nothing unjust about it. This temporary physical life is just a chance to get to know God and show that we are ready to be in His presence. I think God allows people, or babies even, to die, knowing what would have happened if they were to continue to live. This could be seen as mercy, not injustice.

Isaiah 57:1
The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.

Antbert

Original Sin has always very much confused me. As a non-Christian could someone just explain it to me in really plain terms? (No offence to the indecipherable biblical style of writing I see a lot of on this forum).

It was actually being constantly told as a child in school (say aged... 5-12) that I was a sinner that really put me off Christianity (I doubt I'd ever have been religious, but I mightn't have such an avid dislike if it weren't for that).

Anyway, I'm not looking for a flame war, I just really want to know once and for all how you can justifiably call a child a sinner. And I apologise if I completely missed the point of the thread (which I think I did... But I got quite confused) and by all means let me know.

chozometroid

Antbert wrote: »

Original Sin has always very much confused me. As a non-Christian could someone just explain it to me in really plain terms? (No offence to the indecipherable biblical style of writing I see a lot of on this forum).

It was actually being constantly told as a child in school (say aged... 5-12) that I was a sinner that really put me off Christianity (I doubt I'd ever have been religious, but I mightn't have such an avid dislike if it weren't for that).

Anyway, I'm not looking for a flame war, I just really want to know once and for all how you can justifiably call a child a sinner. And I apologise if I completely missed the point of the thread (which I think I did... But I got quite confused) and by all means let me know.

I think there is a difference in "original sin" and saying that infants have actually committed acts of sin.
Remember Jesus was without sin His whole life, so either He wasn't born a sinner, or simply didn't inherit sin because of being conceived by the Holy Spirit.
I'm thinking Adam's sin just changed the human condition. We are not born with his sin, but we are born in a sinful condition. I do not think babies are sinners, but they are sinful by nature.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Ezekiel 18
19Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Antbert

chozometroid wrote: »

I think there is a difference in "original sin" and saying that infants have actually committed acts of sin.
Remember Jesus was without sin His whole life, so either He wasn't born a sinner, or simply didn't inherit sin because of being conceived by the Holy Spirit.
I'm thinking Adam's sin just changed the human condition. We are not born with his sin, but we are born in a sinful condition. I do not think babies are sinners, but they are sinful by nature.

I get that you don't say a child has sinned, but you're still implying they're a sinner. Isn't that pretty unfair? They have absolutely no control over it. Some people are witty/loud/murderous by nature, that doesn't mean 'people are murderous'.

I still just don't get it. I always thought it was because your parents had sex to have you, but wikipedia tells me no.

JimiTime

chozometroid wrote: »

I have two ways of looking at this.

1. God has never killed an innocent child. There is no one without blemish.

I agree with this premise, its the 'how' I suppose thats up for discussion.

Babies may not have yet knowingly committed an act of sin, but this does not make them acceptable to God.

Again, I agree, I think the evidence teaches us this. The question is more, Why?

I think Jesus was "without blemish" because He reached the age of accountability and yet still sinned not

He also was not concieved by a son of Adam. Thus making him 'The second Adam'. He then, unlike Adam, led a sinless life.

He was also born again.

In what context to you say this? Having been concieved by Spirit, he had no need to be born again in the way we would talk about it as Christians.

I think physical death is overrated by us, making this much more touchy than it needs to be. When someone dies, nothing incredible has happened in the grand scheme of things. God is waiting for us to spend eternity with Him. The only real "negative" is the sadness of the people left behind.

I wholeheartedly agree. Some non-believers though, in their ignorance, are very uneasy about this, so I don't tend to talk about it much. I've seen some equate it with, 'It promotes an attitude of apathy towards issues of this life.'

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Some non-believers though, in their ignorance, are very uneasy about this, so I don't tend to talk about it much. I've seen some equate it with, 'It promotes an attitude of apathy towards issues of this life.'

Careful now.

This thread is quite interesting, I've never found a satisfying answer from Christians as to this question, so interested to see Christian to Christian debate. Would be shame to see it derailed by ignorant non-believers defending their position :P

chozometroid

JimiTime wrote: »

In what context to you say this? Having been concieved by Spirit, he had no need to be born again in the way we would talk about it as Christians.

Well, that true. I guess I was thinking of His "born again" status, but His baptism was more or less symbolic.
I leaned toward this in my reply to Antbert.

Babies may not have yet knowingly committed an act of sin, but this does not make them acceptable to God.

---

Again, I agree, I think the evidence teaches us this. The question is more, Why?

I'm on the fence here. Perhaps they are not repulsive to the Lord in that they are sinful, but there is fact that they are essentially spiritually dead. They have not yet come to the knowledge of God, and are not filled with the Holy Spirit.

So you're main issue is "if" a baby is sinless, and God has "killed" it, then it demands explanation...

I'm thinking that babies are innocent as far as their deeds, but sinful in their human condition in that they have sin in their future via free will. It's something we all will do, no question, which is why Jesus had to die for us. The fact that all babies will eventually sin is not a problem or unfair, would you agree?

Does God ever "kill" a baby? I'm guessing you're referring to the death of Egypt's first-born. The problem it seems is that the babies are paying for the decisions the Pharaoh made, and they are indeed, innocent. One could argue that they would lead a life of idol worship and sin, living where they did, but that opens up a new can of worms. Let's say that they all indeed had the opportunity to live a "Christian" life. When God sent the angel of death to come take their lives, what actually happened?
Was there anything unjust about it?
Is the issue that an innocent life being ended is somehow seen as a "positive" on the scales of justice in the same way that Jesus' perfect sacrifice paid for our sins? Is it the same at all, though?

It would seem that the idea of inherited original sin would make more sense of it, however unfair it may seem.

I think the attention should be shifted toward the blood that is involved. Life is in the blood. Much importance is placed on blood in the Bible. Jesus' blood was pure/uncontaminated, and because it was offered for our sins, we can all be forgiven.
Adam sinned, and his life/blood was tainted. All of mankind, babies included, have the tainted blood of Adam running through their veins. So the idea of inherited/original sin makes sense in this way.

This also brings up the idea that the animal sacrifices used in the OT did not have blood tainted with the sin of mankind, which is why they were used.
Sin requires death, life is in the blood, so blood satisfies the sin requirement.
This brings me to the problem some people have with Jesus dying on our behalf, as if we are not taking responsibility for ourselves. This sort of practice was instituted with the first animal sacrifice. An innocent lamb was slain to pay for the sin of man. Man himself did not have to die. This is the mercy of God, and shows how much He cares for us.

So anyways, JimiTime, I'm leaning toward original sin being inherited. Perhaps we should discuss how fair/unfair this is.

The potter has power over the clay. Who is the clay to question why he was made any certain way?

Just because we inherit sin, it does not mean we are doomed. I think this is the most important thing to remember. We are a fallen race, but God has made provision for us. We have to accept what we are, and what God has called us to do.
People are offended when a baby is called a sinner, as if the baby doesn't deserve to be labeled as such. Perhaps you should replace the word "sinner" with the word "human" and see if it sounds better. Being human means we are going to be a certain way, whether we like it or not. We can be a different human than the next person, but a human nevertheless. The same applies to being a sinner. It's just what we are.

Phototoxin

There is no unfairness in the death of a temporal being. We are all born INTO sin, and we are all physical beings who will inevitably die. God's choosing to end our life is not unjust, at any time, IMHO.

I disagree. God has consciously made people suffer for no good reason. This is inherently evil. the bible itself states that 'god repeneted of the evil he hath done' at one point. . . so even if god exists why would one worship such a capricious deity?

1. God has never killed an innocent child. There is no one without blemish. Babies may not have yet knowingly committed an act of sin, but this does not make them acceptable to God.

no offence to Christians but if this is true then he is an @$$.

I'm thinking that babies are innocent as far as their deeds, but sinful in their human condition in that they have sin in their future via free will. It's something we all will do, no question,

that's pre-empting and not respecting our free will. If the baby is aborted, if it dies just after being born it still hasn't done anything other than be born.

All of mankind, babies included, have the tainted blood of Adam running through their veins. So the idea of inherited/original sin makes sense in this way

Also wasn't it Eve who ate the apple ? we all have some of her mtDNA ya know..

JimiTime

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm on the fence here. Perhaps they are not repulsive to the Lord in that they are sinful, but there is fact that they are essentially spiritually dead. They have not yet come to the knowledge of God, and are not filled with the Holy Spirit.

I certainly think that is closer than the belief of being born with a propensity to sin. Man, through Adam, rebelled from God. God withdrew his spirit from Man. So mankind as a whole is lost from God. So rather than talking about 'sinlessness' or 'innocence'; Mankind, be they babies, children or adults are 'cut-off' from God. However, God enacted a plan to reconcile mankind to his bosom, this being the coming of Jesus Christ. Its why in faith, that we are recognised through Christ rather than through Adam.

So you're main issue is "if" a baby is sinless, and God has "killed" it, then it demands explanation...

I think my explaination above covers the why question. Again, I'm not conclusive at the moment, but what I said above seems to make sense. (Though its there to be deconstructed)

I'm thinking that babies are innocent as far as their deeds, but sinful in their human condition in that they have sin in their future via free will.

I am not too comfortable with this notion of, 'They are not innocent in that they 'will' sin.', I must say. It just doesn't sound right to me. I don't see any incidents in scripture of God saying, 'I'm destroying such and such because they are going to sin in the future.' I really don't get the impression that this is how he operates. A kinda 'Minority report' method.

It's something we all will do, no question, which is why Jesus had to die for us.

Here's the thing, Jesus says we must be 'Reborn'. Why does he use this phrase? Well here's a notion. When we are born, we are born to the seed of Adam, and thus part of the 'Cut off' people. Rather than it being about our personal sins, or indeed our propensity to sin, maybe its that we are born simply 'cut-off'. We must be born 'again', but this time in 'Christ' rather than Adam in order to be reconciled with God.

Does God ever "kill" a baby? I'm guessing you're referring to the death of Egypt's first-born.

Or Davids child with Bathsheeba, or Sodom and Gomorrah, or The Great Flood etc.

The problem it seems is that the babies are paying for the decisions the Pharaoh made, and they are indeed, innocent.

This is precisely my point. A baby, is guilty of nothing of its own accord. However, if its about being cut-off due to 'Mans' sin (Adam), then it makes more sense IMO.

One could argue that they would lead a life of idol worship and sin, living where they did, but that opens up a new can of worms. Let's say that they all indeed had the opportunity to live a "Christian" life. When God sent the angel of death to come take their lives, what actually happened?
Was there anything unjust about it?

Here's the thing. I 'Know' there was nothing unjust about it, for in God, injustice is not found. I am merely trying to get to know the whys? of the matter. I think 'WHY?' is such a great way to actually get to know God. For 'WHY?' reveals motive, and where you see motive, you see heart.

It would seem that the idea of inherited original sin would make more sense of it, however unfair it may seem.

Again, maybe the word 'sin' throws the issue a bit. Rather than being born 'with' original sin, we are born with the 'consaquence' of 'the' original sin. I.E. We are cut-off from our creator.

So anyways, JimiTime, I'm leaning toward original sin being inherited. Perhaps we should discuss how fair/unfair this is.

I certainly don't mind that being brought into the discussion. However, just to clarify again; I have no issue with what God has done. Whatever God has done, I'm not saying it is 'unfair'. What I am trying to get to the bottom of, is what explaination of 'Original sin' is most consistant with God.

Phototoxin

Again, maybe the word 'sin' throws the issue a bit. Rather than being born 'with' original sin, we are born with the 'consaquence' of 'the' original sin. I.E. We are cut-off from our creator.

but why is this a problem if he seen fit to leave us cut off?

chozometroid

JimiTime wrote: »

I am not too comfortable with this notion of, 'They are not innocent in that they 'will' sin.', I must say. It just doesn't sound right to me. I don't see any incidents in scripture of God saying, 'I'm destroying such and such because they are going to sin in the future.' I really don't get the impression that this is how he operates. A kinda 'Minority report' method.

I see what you are saying, but it depends on how you look at it. I wasn't trying to say, "God will condemn you for your future crimes." I was just pointing out(not fully addressed in that quote of mine) that we are all born with this sinful nature, and all we will ever do IS sin, unless we are brought back into a relationship with God.

I completely agree with the idea that we are "cut off" from God. The reason why though, is because of sin. Saying that a baby "will" sin is nothing more than stating a fact about their nature. Is is the condition they are in, and as such, they must be born again, and reconciled with God. It is because of sin, and having the free will to choose God or not, that makes us separated from God. Once we choose Him, then all is well.

JimiTime wrote: »

Here's the thing, Jesus says we must be 'Reborn'. Why does he use this phrase? Well here's a notion. When we are born, we are born to the seed of Adam, and thus part of the 'Cut off' people. Rather than it being about our personal sins, or indeed our propensity to sin, maybe its that we are born simply 'cut-off'. We must be born 'again', but this time in 'Christ' rather than Adam in order to be reconciled with God.

I like this explanation.

JimiTime wrote: »

Here's the thing. I 'Know' there was nothing unjust about it, for in God, injustice is not found. I am merely trying to get to know the whys? of the matter. I think 'WHY?' is such a great way to actually get to know God. For 'WHY?' reveals motive, and where you see motive, you see heart.

I think the "why" is a good question, but I'm not sure we can know the specific (person to person basis) "why's" involved in God's dealings with Egypt, David's son, the Flood. The more general "reasons" for those events could be just the elimination of sin, or the fulfillment of His promise. The fact that babies are involved complicates it merely because we don't understand how exactly they are judged, or because it seems that they were somehow robbed of a chance at doing something with their life. We can trust they are judged fairly, didn't miss out on anything, and accept that babies had to die as a result of the fulfillment of a greater purpose. We don't have a problem with Jesus' death, because we know why it happened. I guess it would be the same if we had explanations for the death of every seemingly innocent person. There is much less of a "why" question if we know their "untimely" death was not actually "untimely" through God's eyes.

kelly1

All, sorry for not taking the time to read all the replies but I'd like to throw my understanding of original sin into the mix if I may.

Original sin is not actual "positive" sin that we inherit. Rather it is a deprivation of the supernatural and preternatural gifts that we would have inherited had Adam not sinned.

The "Preternatural gifts" include:

- Bodily immortality/freedom from illness
- Freedom from concupiscence/Integrity
- Infused knowledge

The supernatural gift is justification through sanctifying grace.

There is no actual sin unless we deliberately commit an act which we know to be against God's will or against our conscience. So infants are free from actual sin. But without sanctifying grace, we cannot enter Heaven and hence the need to be baptized (by water, desire or blood).

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

All, sorry for not taking the time to read all the replies but I'd like to throw my understanding of original sin into the mix if I may.

Original sin is not actual "positive" sin that we inherit. Rather it is a deprivation of the supernatural and preternatural gifts that we would have inherited had Adam not sinned.

The "Preternatural gifts" include:

- Bodily immortality/freedom from illness
- Freedom from concupiscence/Integrity
- Infused knowledge

The supernatural gift is justification through sanctifying grace.

There is no actual sin unless we deliberately commit an act which we know to be against God's will or against our conscience. So infants are free from actual sin. But without sanctifying grace, we cannot enter Heaven and hence the need to be baptized (by water, desire or blood).

Hi Noel,
My understanding of Catholic teaching is that original sin is washed away by baptism. How does this work if original sin is a deprivation of the supernatural and preternatural gifts that we would have inherited had Adam not sinned?

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Hi Noel,
My understanding of Catholic teaching is that original sin is washed away by baptism. How does this work if original sin is a deprivation of the supernatural and preternatural gifts that we would have inherited had Adam not sinned?

Baptism only confers the gift of sanctifying grace making us just before God. Unfortunately we are still left with concupiscence and are subject to the desires of the flesh which often overcome our reason!

Phototoxin

But without sanctifying grace, we cannot enter Heaven and hence the need to be baptized (by water, desire or blood).

I guess this ties in with my other threads but why? I think that if god does not think us good enough as we are when we are born then how can he truely love us? His love s conditional.

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

I guess this ties in with my other threads but why? I think that if god does not think us good enough as we are when we are born then how can he truely love us? His love s conditional.

Are you basically asking why we inherit original sin? I'd love to know the answer to that! It's probably because we don't deserve it. Sanctifying grace is a VERY special gift. It basically "divinizes" us i.e. makes us like God. It gives us a share in the life of God. One theologian I read basically said that receiving sanctifying grace is greater than the creation of the entire universe because the universe is only material while grace is a share in God's very life/self.

Jesus didn't just come to save us from damnation. He came to give us a share in the life of the Holy Trinity. God has already proved His love for us by sending His Son to die so that we can share in His inner Life. So there no question of God not loving us. It's just that we don't have the "equipment" to exist in God's presence when we're born. Thankfully Jesus made this gift available to all of us and it's a matter of rejecting or accepting it.

Slav

Noel, could you please clarify something for me?

If we define:

a) Original Sin as deprivation of the supernatural and preternatural gifts (which include immortality, freedom from illness, freedom from concupiscence, infused knowledge, etc) and

b) Baptism as confering of the gift of sanctifying grace,

does Baptism washes away the Original Sin then or it does not? If it does then what stops us from living a sinless life, why we are not free from illness and why our body eventually dies? If it does not then where that idea of Original Sin being washed away is coming from and how should we understand/interpret it?

And one other question about baptism if you and JimiTime don't mind:

kelly1 wrote: »

without sanctifying grace, we cannot enter Heaven and hence the need to be baptized (by water, desire or blood).

In case of an infant being baptised by water, why she receives the gift of sanctifying grace? How the presence or other parties, i.e. the priest and godparents, makes it possible? Why does God need few other humans instead of giving the gift of sanctifying grace directly to her and unconditional of Church sacraments?

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

Noel, could you please clarify something for me?

If we define:

a) Original Sin as deprivation of the supernatural and preternatural gifts (which include immortality, freedom from illness, freedom from concupiscence, infused knowledge, etc) and

b) Baptism as confering of the gift of sanctifying grace,

does Baptism washes away the Original Sin then or it does not? If it does then what stops us from living a sinless life, why we are not free from illness and why our body eventually dies? If it does not then where that idea of Original Sin being washed away is coming from and how should we understand/interpret it?

Baptism partially "washes" away the effects of original sin. Like I said, it justifies us before God through grace but it doesn't remove the tendency to sin or make us immortal, obviously.

And one other question about baptism if you and JimiTime don't mind:

Slav wrote: »

In case of an infant being baptised by water, why she receives the gift of sanctifying grace?

Because God wants to give us the gift of grace and Christ's death on the cross removed the barrier between us and God by atoning for our sin.

Slav wrote: »

How the presence or other parties, i.e. the priest and godparents, makes it possible? Why does God need few other humans instead of giving the gift of sanctifying grace directly to her and unconditional of Church sacraments?

In Mark 16:16, Jesus said that we must believe and be baptized to be saved. Wouldn't it make sense in a Christian community to be baptized by another person, who would be priest in most cases.

The fact is, we don't know the fate of unbaptized infants and we can only appeal to God's mercy. In the case of adults, baptism is also a public declaration of faith in Christ.

Slav

Thanks Noel!

kelly1 wrote: »

Baptism partially "washes" away the effects of original sin. Like I said, it justifies us before God through grace but it doesn't remove the tendency to sin or make us immortal, obviously.

By "partially" do you mean it washes away just some of the effects or all of them but not completely? Am I right that by effects we understand things like mortality, illness, concupiscence and fused knowledge?

Also could you please elaborate how and why the sacrament justifies us before God? Especially in the case of infant baptism: if it's not faith in Christ that justifies them then what is it?

In Mark 16:16, Jesus said that we must believe and be baptized to be saved.

But we cannot say that infants believe, can we?

Wouldn't it make sense in a Christian community to be baptized by another person, who would be priest in most cases.

Well, this is exactly the question I was asking. In the matter of salvation why we're making Omnipotent God somehow dependent on the actions of other humans? Or in other words how exactly a delay (or refuse) to baptise an infant prevents Almighty God to give her the gift that He is so willing to present to her?

kelly1

Slav wrote: »

By "partially" do you mean it washes away just some of the effects or all of them but not completely? Am I right that by effects we understand things like mortality, illness, concupiscence and fused knowledge?

Baptism only justifies us by washing away all guilt incurred from actual sin and then giving us the gift of the in-dwelling Spirit thereby putting us in a state of grace. Only in Heaven will we have the preternatural gifts that I mentioned.
While we're on earth we're subject to temptations and weaknesses of the flesh. As Jesus said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak".

Slav wrote: »

Also could you please elaborate how and why the sacrament justifies us before God? Especially in the case of infant baptism: if it's not faith in Christ that justifies them then what is it?

It all hinges of Jesus Passion, death and resurrection. Without this event, nobody could be saved. Jesus paid the price of our sins allowing the Father to give us the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the case of an adult, we acknowledge before God and the Christian communinity that we're sinners and the we need Christ to be saved. We demonstrate faith in Christ in doing so. The actual justification happen when the priest/deacon/minister baptizes the person in the name of the Holy Trinity. Of course it's not the water that cleanses the soul but the action of the Holy Spirit within the soul.

In the case of infants, they have no actual guilt on their souls but before baptism they lack sanctifying grace. Baptism confers this grace which was won for all of us by Christ. There is no reason why God would with-hold this gift just because the child doesn't know what's happening. Infants are incapable of faith in Christ. In adults, we have to make a conscious decision to follow Christ.

Slav wrote: »

Well, this is exactly the question I was asking. In the matter of salvation why we're making Omnipotent God somehow dependent on the actions of other humans? Or in other words how exactly a delay (or refuse) to baptise an infant prevents Almighty God to give her the gift that He is so willing to present to her?

I said earlier that there a 3 type of baptims - by water, desire and blood. Baptism by water is the normal way. But in cases where someone is facing iminent death and they repent of their sins and there's no water or minister available, sincere repentance for one's sins and a desire to be saved is sufficent to be saved I believe. e.g the good thief on the cross - he wasn't baptized with water. He desired to be saved. Baptism by blood is martyrdom for the sake of Christ.

I hope that's of some help!

God bless,
Noel.

Phototoxin

washing away guilt? are we supposed to have guilt for being born?

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

washing away guilt? are we supposed to have guilt for being born?

Please read the sentence again. I wrote "...washing away all guilt incurred from actual sin". Obviously this doesn't refer to infants.

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

Baptism only justifies us by washing away all guilt incurred from actual sin

So it has nothing to do with the original sin? The actual sins commited prior to baptism are washed away but we still experience the deprivation of the supernatural and preternatural gifts as you defined then in post #15, i.e. the Original Sin is to stay with us, right?

and then giving us the gift of the in-dwelling Spirit thereby putting us in a state of grace.

This is another interesting point! Is it Baptism or Confirmation you are talking about? If it's the former could you point me out a Catholic source where I can read more about it, i.e. the gift of Holy Spirit at Baptism?

While we're on earth we're subject to temptations and weaknesses of the flesh. As Jesus said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"

Flesh is weak and can be a source for temptations but does it necessaryly lead to sins? If sin is unavoidable by a mere fact of a strong spirit being attached to a weak body then how did Jesus manage to live a sinless life? If Adam and Eve's bodies unavoidably lead them to sin then they were of a bad design, weren't they?

It all hinges of Jesus Passion, death and resurrection. Without this event, nobody could be saved. Jesus paid the price of our sins allowing the Father to give us the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

So by saying that baptism washes away the guilt you mean the guilt in the eyes of God's justice and therefore the justification is completely down to the substitutionary sacrifice view on atonement? It would be against God's justice to give away the gift(s) of Holy Spirit without the price for the sins being paid, right?

In the case of an adult, we acknowledge before God and the Christian communinity that we're sinners and the we need Christ to be saved. We demonstrate faith in Christ in doing so. The actual justification happen when the priest/deacon/minister baptizes the person in the name of the Holy Trinity. Of course it's not the water that cleanses the soul but the action of the Holy Spirit within the soul.

Why does it happen only at the time the person is baptised by the priest and not at the time the conscious decision to accept the sacrifice of Christ is made? Would not it be the case with baptism by desire? What makes baptism by water different?

In the case of infants, they have no actual guilt on their souls but before baptism they lack sanctifying grace. Baptism confers this grace which was won for all of us by Christ. There is no reason why God would with-hold this gift just because the child doesn't know what's happening.

Why does it make sense then to withhold the gift if there is no priest around or the parents are not Catholics, etc?

Well, this is exactly the question I was asking. In the matter of salvation why we're making Omnipotent God somehow dependent on the actions of other humans? Or in other words how exactly a delay (or refuse) to baptise an infant prevents Almighty God to give her the gift that He is so willing to present to her?

I said earlier that there a 3 type of baptims - by water, desire and blood. Baptism by water is the normal way. But in cases where someone is facing iminent death and they repent of their sins and there's no water or minister available, sincere repentance for one's sins and a desire to be saved is sufficent to be saved I believe. e.g the good thief on the cross - he wasn't baptized with water. He desired to be saved. Baptism by blood is martyrdom for the sake of Christ.

I was specifically talking about infant baptism by water. Why God's freedom is somehow restricted by actions of other humans?

kelly1

Apologies for not explaining myself very well.

Slav wrote: »

So it has nothing to do with the original sin? The actual sins commited prior to baptism are washed away but we still experience the deprivation of the supernatural and preternatural gifts as you defined then in post #15, i.e. the Original Sin is to stay with us, right?

What is mean is that baptism doesn't restore the preternatural gifts but it does grant the most important one which is sanctifying grace. Through original sin we are born unjust before God. Baptism justifies us by washing away sin, this making us fit for the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Slav wrote: »

This is another interesting point! Is it Baptism or Confirmation you are talking about? If it's the former could you point me out a Catholic source where I can read more about it, i.e. the gift of Holy Spirit at Baptism?

I mean baptism:

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Slav wrote: »

Flesh is weak and can be a source for temptations but does it necessaryly lead to sins?

No because sin involves a choice to do wrong. We're not compelled to sin, we always have a choice.

Slav wrote: »

If sin is unavoidable by a mere fact of a strong spirit being attached to a weak body then how did Jesus manage to live a sinless life?

Because Jesus was born without original sin, which means he had the preternatural gifts (and probably more to boot) and had a special union with the Holy Trinity that we don't have.

Slav wrote: »

If Adam and Eve's bodies unavoidably lead them to sin then they were of a bad design, weren't they?

It wasn't unavoidable, it was just possible.

Slav wrote: »

So by saying that baptism washes away the guilt you mean the guilt in the eyes of God's justice and therefore the justification is completely down to the substitutionary sacrifice view on atonement? It would be against God's justice to give away the gift(s) of Holy Spirit without the price for the sins being paid, right?

Yes, God's justice must be satisfied.

Slav wrote: »

Why does it happen only at the time the person is baptised by the priest and not at the time the conscious decision to accept the sacrifice of Christ is made? Would not it be the case with baptism by desire? What makes baptism by water different?

As I said already, baptism by water is the normal way. Jesus said we must be baptized to be saved and Peter tells us in Acts 2:38 that baptims remits sin.

Slav wrote: »

Why does it make sense then to withhold the gift if there is no priest around or the parents are not Catholics, etc?

I was specifically talking about infant baptism by water. Why God's freedom is somehow restricted by actions of other humans?

Good question, I don't know really. The bible doesn't deal with this and neither does the Church have a definitive stance on it. We can only hope in God's mercy.

postcynical

Very interesting thread. Can I add another question perhaps to Slav and kelly1 in particular. (Sorry JT to make it very Catholic) Jesus himself was baptised. John was reluctant to baptise Him initially. Why did Christ Himself need baptism, especially since He was free from original sin? And presumably full of grace, like His mother:cool:

kelly1

postcynical wrote: »

Very interesting thread. Can I add another question perhaps to Slav and kelly1 in particular. (Sorry JT to make it very Catholic) Jesus himself was baptised. John was reluctant to baptise Him initially. Why did Christ Himself need baptism, especially since He was free from original sin? And presumably full of grace, like His mother:cool:

Jesus didn't need baptism because He never sinned and wasn't subject to original sin. I think He underwent baptism in order to show humility and to give us a good example.

Slav

kelly1 wrote: »

What is mean is that baptism doesn't restore the preternatural gifts but it does grant the most important one which is sanctifying grace. Through original sin we are born unjust before God. Baptism justifies us by washing away sin, this making us fit for the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Ok, I see! So can I put it this way: baptism does not fully wash away the original sin but it restores sanctifying grace for us. Living in sanctifying grace would give one a chance to be forgiven at the final judgment (and until final judgment we cannot say that the original sin is washed away completely). Would that be correct?

I mean baptism:

Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

In the first century anointing immediately followed baptism. A custom of separating baptism and anointing in time developed later in the Roman Church (mainly due to the fact that in the West only bishops can do Confirmation). In modern Roman Catholic Church there could be as many as 12 years between Baptism and Confirmation so my question was whether baptism alone gives us "the gift of the in-dwelling Spirit" and if it does where can I read more about it.

Good question, I don't know really. The bible doesn't deal with this and neither does the Church have a definitive stance on it. We can only hope in God's mercy.

Yes, that's what somehow puzzles me. The issue of giving infant baptism a rational explanation is something the RCC is dealing with for centuries. Even things like Limbo were suggested. So I would expect there should be detailed explanation of what is happening at baptism and why things work this way. If Church thinks that it's in some way restricting God's freedom in availability of sanctifying grace to innocent infants then I believe it should have an explanation for it...

Slav

postcynical wrote: »

Very interesting thread. Can I add another question perhaps to Slav and kelly1 in particular. (Sorry JT to make it very Catholic) Jesus himself was baptised. John was reluctant to baptise Him initially. Why did Christ Himself need baptism, especially since He was free from original sin? And presumably full of grace, like His mother:cool:

I'll try to give my interpretation though I don't know if it's 100% compatible with Catholicism.

The main question is not why Jesus Christ was baptised by John but into what He was baptised. And the obvious answer is into His own death. It's essentially the same thing we are baptised into: the Christ's death.

In the matter of our salvation the incarnated God is the guide and infected by sin humans, the lost sheep, are guided. As a good guide He accompanies the guided all the way from the beginning (baptism) to the destination (resurrection). The nature of this path (human life) is exactly the same for us and for Him though we approaching it from different places: He's from his divinity and we're from our sinfulness.

Now with the above in mind I think I can come up with the following answers to the question why He was baptised (in no particular order):

1) Exactly because He is free from sin and is the source of grace,

2) So we also can be baptised into His death,

3) To start His mission (or in another words to take all our sins and bring them to Calvary to be destroyed),

4) To reveal the Holy Trinity for us,

5) "To fulfill all righteousness" (Matt 3:15) so mankind can inherit what they were created for.


That's how I see it.

postcynical

kelly1 wrote: »

Jesus didn't need baptism because He never sinned and wasn't subject to original sin. I think He underwent baptism in order to show humility and to give us a good example.

I see that He would institute baptism but I still wonder why He insisted on being baptised. Also, who was John baptising and in whose name? Do Jews have a form of baptism today (for cleansing of sins rather than initiation)?

My 2c for what it's worth is that John baptised as the R Catholic Church does as preparation for the baptism to come in Christ (what we call confirmation, the sealing of baptism). However the baptism of fire, which is a zealous turning towards God seems extra-sacramental to me. I understand that our church's position is that these sacraments of baptism and confirmation do not confer immediate grace, but rather the tinder which the spirit will inflame later. (This is a bit naive and my current opinion rather than based on dogma or scripture.)

To me, confession acts as a form of baptism, as I feel reborn in Christ each time I confess my sins.

postcynical

OP - can't comment with authority on baptism and original sin. Why though do we still sin, even with a close relationship to Christ? My 2c.

1. Our sins bring us closer to Christ, by realising that we need Him. If we didn't sin, we might feel we didn't need Him.

2. Our sins bring us back down to Earth and nip judgementalism in the bud.

3. My sins remind me of God's mercy and my own lack of it when dealing with people who hurt me.

4. Sin can be pervasive. I am always becoming aware of new forms of sin in my life, some of it very deeply rooted and habitual. Some things I used to do and never thought any wrong of them I now think were/are sinful. This is a kind of original sin since I did not consciously choose wrong at the time I developed these sinful habits and I was not educated or aware enough to realise what was wrong. There are bad aspects to my character that I did not choose and that I would not choose, but yet have developed. This is a form of original sin. Innocent people can still acquire sin, perhaps by the same logic so too can infants.

postcynical

@Slav, thanks for the reply. Maybe a little over my head at the moment though. Will ponder it.