Do These Verses Contradict Original Sin?

[Xeno.of.athens]

There is only salvation by grace/ mercy/Love/ Charity/ Forgiveness throughout time.

Okay, let me get this in chronological order.
You asked:

"Why do Catholics see the need to baptize babies, if it is not to escape the punishment for someone's sins or do they sin?"​

to which I replied:

"So that infants can be born from above as Jesus taught Nicodemus: ""Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5"​

then you replied:

"Jesus said this prior to the Christian dispensation and to a Jew, so was He teaching baby baptism at this time?​

Did John the Baptist teach baby baptism?​

Did Jews baptize their baby girls and boys at this time?​

Why was Nicodemus not already baptized if Jews were doing it?"​

and I observed that:

"He also taught salvation by grace, to the same Jew, at the same time; is that problematic?"​

and you say, among other things:

"NO!!! There is only salvation by grace/ mercy/Love/ Charity/ Forgiveness throughout time."​

with which I am in agreement. We've begun to stray from the question you asked at the start, it is my fault. I need to clarify the reason for my last reply. So, here goes.

Why do Catholic baptise infants? We do it because it is through baptism that God gives salvation. Salvation being a grace, a gift that the receiver does not earn, nor deserve as a reward for things done, nor for doctrines believed, nor for faith invested.

[Catholics do not believe that a splash of water on a baby's head with some words from scripture said as the splashes are performed earns or 'magically' saves the baby, ​

Catholics believe that God saves the infant. And Catholics baptise infants because of apostolic example, and because of the meaning of baptism which Jesus explained to Nicodemus, and which is further explained by the apostles in their writings, as well as in saint Pau's letters.]​

So, Catholics believe that baptism saves and has nothing whatever to do with babies sinning or not. What it saves from is the consequences of fallen human nature, which is:

• the liability to death,
• separation from the eternal-life, which is in Christ,
• concupiscence (the tendency towards sin and inclination towards rebellion against God),
• and anything else that I haven't mentioned but that ought to be included (my memory is fallible, so I don't claim to be defining Catholic theology exhaustively here)

I hope this will restore my answers to the proper theme in your question.

 

[bling]

Okay, let me get this in chronological order.
You asked:

"Why do Catholics see the need to baptize babies, if it is not to escape the punishment for someone's sins or do they sin?"​

to which I replied:

"So that infants can be born from above as Jesus taught Nicodemus: ""Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5"​

then you replied:

"Jesus said this prior to the Christian dispensation and to a Jew, so was He teaching baby baptism at this time?​

Did John the Baptist teach baby baptism?​

Did Jews baptize their baby girls and boys at this time?​

Why was Nicodemus not already baptized if Jews were doing it?"​

and I observed that:

"He also taught salvation by grace, to the same Jew, at the same time; is that problematic?"​

and you say, among other things:

"NO!!! There is only salvation by grace/ mercy/Love/ Charity/ Forgiveness throughout time."​

with which I am in agreement. We've begun to stray from the question you asked at the start, it is my fault. I need to clarify the reason for my last reply. So, here goes.

Why do Catholic baptise infants? We do it because it is through baptism that God gives salvation. Salvation being a grace, a gift that the receiver does not earn, nor deserve as a reward for things done, nor for doctrines believed, nor for faith invested.

[Catholics do not believe that a splash of water on a baby's head with some words from scripture said as the splashes are performed earns or 'magically' saves the baby, ​

Catholics believe that God saves the infant. And Catholics baptise infants because of apostolic example, and because of the meaning of baptism which Jesus explained to Nicodemus, and which is further explained by the apostles in their writings, as well as in saint Pau's letters.]​

So, Catholics believe that baptism saves and has nothing whatever to do with babies sinning or not. What it saves from is the consequences of fallen human nature, which is:

• the liability to death,
• separation from the eternal-life, which is in Christ,
• concupiscence (the tendency towards sin and inclination towards rebellion against God),
• and anything else that I haven't mentioned but that ought to be included (my memory is fallible, so I don't claim to be defining Catholic theology exhaustively here)

I hope this will restore my answers to the proper theme in your question.

You maybe doing a good job explaining: “Why Catholic’s baptize babies” which I do understand better now, but the scripture you are using like John3:5 does not support the doctrine. I understand Nicodemus’ need to be baptized, but that was John’s baptism at that time.

Taking Jesus’ words, prior to His going to the cross, were said mostly to Jews prior to Christianity and the problems you say infant baptism is to resolve are the same problems Jewish babies (unless Jewish babies do not have this problem or really no baby have these problem). So, my question is: did the Jews prophets of old including John the Baptist and Christ before His death, teach infant baptism and if not why not?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You maybe doing a good job explaining: “Why Catholic’s baptize babies” which I do understand better now, but the scripture you are using like John3:5 does not support the doctrine. I understand Nicodemus’ need to be baptized, but that was John’s baptism at that time.

Taking Jesus’ words, prior to His going to the cross, were said mostly to Jews prior to Christianity and the problems you say infant baptism is to resolve are the same problems Jewish babies (unless Jewish babies do not have this problem or really no baby have these problem). So, my question is: did the Jews prophets of old including John the Baptist and Christ before His death, teach infant baptism and if not why not?

The debate between Catholics and Baptists (for example) about the rightness of pedobaptism is covered in a host of threads on CF and we will not solve it here since no one in CF appears to have solved it in those other threads, and this thread is about original sin rather than pedobaptism.

 

[bling]

The debate between Catholics and Baptists (for example) about the rightness of pedobaptism is covered in a host of threads on CF and we will not solve it here since no one in CF appears to have solved it in those other threads, and this thread is about original sin rather than pedobaptism.

I did feel everyone infant baptizing, were using the doctrine of original sin to support infant baptizing.

You say: “it is through baptism that God gives salvation” and “Catholics believe that baptism saves and has nothing whatever to do with babies sinning or not.”

The Old Testament Jewish doctrine was salvation by not sinning (there was never infant baptism) and newborn babies did not sin by being born (there is no “Law” against being born). Jews had to mature to have sins held against them, so when were these added “Laws” for babies given?

Individual sins caused the Jews of the OT to be lost.

I do not see a baby being (Jews of old babies included) lost and in the need of being “saved”, if the baby does not sin, so the baby is in a “safe” situation, yet has not fulfilled his/her earthly objective.

You go on to present the idea: it (a baby) saves from is the consequences of fallen human nature, which is:

the liability to death,

separation from the eternal-life, which is in Christ,

concupiscence (the tendency towards sin and inclination towards rebellion against God),

and anything else that I haven't mentioned but that ought to be included (my memory is fallible, so I don't claim to be defining Catholic theology exhaustively here)

Everyone goes on to rebel against God and physical death, so infant baptism does not help with that.

The separation from God/Christ comes with the person’s own sins and not something someone else did, Jesus did not need infant baptism or to be baptized at all, but did it as an example for all of us.

 

[Jerry N.]

Original sin is mostly referring to the propensity to sin. We are not born of God but the flesh. We are corrupt in body and spirit, which is to say we are less than our ancestors. I don’t accept that child baptism is a sacrament, but there is much good to say about its function. Child baptism dedicates the child to God and makes the parents promise to support that.

If we have parents with sinful traits, we will not grow up quite right, and we tend to pass those traits on to our children by example. This makes their lives harder and is likely to be repeated in future generations.

 

[bling]

Original sin is mostly referring to the propensity to sin. We are not born of God but the flesh. We are corrupt in body and spirit, which is to say we are less than our ancestors. I don’t accept that child baptism is a sacrament, but there is much good to say about its function. Child baptism dedicates the child to God and makes the parents promise to support that.

If we have parents with sinful traits, we will not grow up quite right, and we tend to pass those traits on to our children by example. This makes their lives harder and is likely to be repeated in future generations.

Kids of alcoholics and chain smokers do not necessarily grow up to be drunks and chain smokers.
Did our propensity to sin increase after Adam and Eve sinned due to our nature changing from their nature (they did sin with their nature and only one way to sin) or because with the new knowledge we have there are tons of ways to sin?

 

[timothyu]

Consider that animals sin in the same way we do, they follow selfish instincts to survive. The difference is they are not aware. If man had remained the same all would be well, but once we realized we could use our selfish ways way beyond the original needs, our selfishness knew no bounds.

 

[Jerry N.]

Kids of alcoholics and chain smokers do not necessarily grow up to be drunks and chain smokers.
Did our propensity to sin increase after Adam and Eve sinned due to our nature changing from their nature (they did sin with their nature and only one way to sin) or because with the new knowledge we have there are tons of ways to sin?

It is not so much as children of alcoholics becoming alcoholics, but that their life lessons are warped by their situation at home. They start adult life at a disadvantage. If one’s father is financially successful, then it is easier to become successful, because you start with an advantage.

Adam and Ewe probably had a propensity to sin, but the curse of committing that sin affected their children. However, mankind has used his creativity to come up with new ways of sinning. This is partly what the first chapter of Romans is all about. The desire for sin increases, unless God saves their soul. If Adam and Eve resisted sin, the direction would have gone the other way.

 

[bling]

It is not so much as children of alcoholics becoming alcoholics, but that their life lessons are warped by their situation at home. They start adult life at a disadvantage. If one’s father is financially successful, then it is easier to become successful, because you start with an advantage.

Adam and Ewe probably had a propensity to sin, but the curse of committing that sin affected their children. However, mankind has used his creativity to come up with new ways of sinning. This is partly what the first chapter of Romans is all about. The desire for sin increases, unless God saves their soul. If Adam and Eve resisted sin, the direction would have gone the other way.

First off: what determines "success" for you? Was the one thief on the cross successful? Where the parents of the thief successful in raising a thief that will be with Christ in Paradice?
Without the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit will we continue to sin all the more?
I have worked with young men in the intercity and in prison plus kids from really nice neighborhoods, there are advantages and disadvantages for both groups.
What I see: is all mature adults have not the exact same opportunity, but equal opportunities to fulfill their earthly objective.

 

[Jerry N.]

First off: what determines "success" for you? Was the one thief on the cross successful? Where the parents of the thief successful in raising a thief that will be with Christ in Paradice?
Without the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit will we continue to sin all the more?
I have worked with young men in the intercity and in prison plus kids from really nice neighborhoods, there are advantages and disadvantages for both groups.
What I see: is all mature adults have not the exact same opportunity, but equal opportunities to fulfill their earthly objective.

I was referring to economic success to illustrate how the situation of the home affects the opportunities for the child when they become adults. It doesn’t always work out that way, but it seems to happen more often than not. However, a better example would have been growing up in a loving family with both a mother and father.

It is evident that sin increases without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, non-Christians can live socially good lives if they have love. Since love comes from God and is a key part of His nature, it is hard to separate it from the Holy Spirit. It is not that the non-Christian who has love is filled with the Holy Spirit unto salvation, but a measure of God’s nature slows or stops the spiral into deeper and deeper sin.

What do you mean by “equal opportunities to fulfill their earthly objective?” I’m sure you mean something positive, but it is not clear to me.

I was trying to explain how there is a natural and “built in” curse in Exodus 34:7, but it does not mean that God will not impose a spiritual curse on families who reject Him. The other side is that God has mercy on those who repent, but the forgiveness does not often erase the damage the sin has caused to the sinner and those around him.

 

[bling]

I was referring to economic success to illustrate how the situation of the home affects the opportunities for the child when they become adults. It doesn’t always work out that way, but it seems to happen more often than not. However, a better example would have been growing up in a loving family with both a mother and father.

It is evident that sin increases without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, non-Christians can live socially good lives if they have love. Since love comes from God and is a key part of His nature, it is hard to separate it from the Holy Spirit. It is not that the non-Christian who has love is filled with the Holy Spirit unto salvation, but a measure of God’s nature slows or stops the spiral into deeper and deeper sin.

I agree “Love” ,an Agape type Love/ Godly type Love/ unselfish Love, is a pure undeserved gift from God, so how do we first obtain this “Love” if it is way beyond being: natural, logical, learned, developed, deserved, earned, or paying God back for having?

Christ being deity would automatically have Godly type Love from the beginning, but this is something man must obtain as a gift from God, but Godly type Love cannot be made instinctive to humans, since that would make it a robotic type Love, so this Love is not instinctive to man. God could not force this “Love” on human like some shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun, since a “love” obtained that way would not be Godly type Love.

There is only one way I see man initially obtaining Godly type Love, which Jesus taught us in Luke 7, which does not require wonderful parents and seems to require sinning.

What do you mean by “equal opportunities to fulfill their earthly objective?” I’m sure you mean something positive, but it is not clear to me.

Where do you find people who can most easily, humble themselves to the point of accepting pure undeserved charity as pure charity?

I was trying to explain how there is a natural and “built in” curse in Exodus 34:7, but it does not mean that God will not impose a spiritual curse on families who reject Him. The other side is that God has mercy on those who repent, but the forgiveness does not often erase the damage the sin has caused to the sinner and those around him.

What do you say to the newborn again prisoner who just came out of the water’s of baptism asking: “Why am I not immediately paroled, since my sins are washed away and I am a new person.”

I have seen some pardoned shortly after becoming a Christian and other remain full term, so what is the difference?

The reason I have seen and give to them is the same for all Christians: “You are not here for what you did or did not do in the past, but you are here for what you can do.” I saw those who stayed being strong examples, serving their fellow prisoners, jumping in between those being unjustly beaten, studying, fellowshipping, mentoring, being mentees and teaching others with a real 24/7 commitment among snitches wanting to see them do one un-Christly thing. That group grew from one prisoner to 40 in three years, but not without lots of blood being shed.