Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You clearly gave a warning to those who thought infants were without sin, I think your warning is baseless, because you can find no sin in infants. Instead you must rely on the concept of original sin. I prefer to acknowledge that infants have no sin.
You warned those who think infants are born without sin, you likened them unto an earlier heresy, I said well then, add me to the list of heretics. So, what I said still stands, I don't think infants have sin, and I don't agree with original sin, so, add me to your list of heretics. But, don't lump me together with every heretic as I am perfectly able to say that infants are without sin, and still disagree with ( complete ) earlier heresy. In other words, while Pelagius might have tought only Adam suffered for his sin, obviously the entire human race has suffered--in death. But, I don't think infants have sin, so while my stance may resemble his, in fact I differ in a very important way.Well for one thing Sean, you do not know what the Church has always taught. AND you do not understand what the Apostolic Churches mean when we discuss arguments of the past against unorthodox theologies.
Who is Pelagius, sean?
Why doesnt the Church accept these teachings sean?
Do you really understand what Tradition is?
You warned those who think infants are born without sin, you likened them unto an earlier heresy, I said well then, add me to the list of heretics. So, what I said still stands, I don't think infants have sin, and I don't agree with original sin, so, add me to your list of heretics. But, don't lump me together with every heretic as I am perfectly able to say that infants are without sin, and still disagree with ( complete ) earlier heresy.
- The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. first, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wis., ii, 24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Gen., ii, 17; iii, 3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, I Cor., xv, 21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
- Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
- Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).
WHY were we and still can be in bondage...without regard to age as a matter of importance, in bondage without 'baptism'??
FOR we know that without baptism...there is NO salvation. Is there?
We are baptized into Christ's death.... without which we will not be saved.
THIS is without regard to age...so an infant MUST be baptized...and yet a baby has never sinned on their own.
Yes, I know. But what about the original sin in babies?
SO then, is baptism a mere symbol?
Being weak is not a sin. Having sin however; will keep us from the entrance of Heaven. Hence the souls of all who waited for Christ could not enter without His death and resurrection.
Careful where this is leading. Was it not Donatist who also did not believe infants had no sins?
IV. ORIGINAL SIN IN TRADITION
On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time. It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, "The International Critical Commentary: Romans", 134, 137; Hastings, "A Dictionary of the Bible", I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.
That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine's time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children. The Pelagians held that baptism was given to children, not to remit their sin, but to make them better, to give them supernatural life, to make them adoptive sons of God, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven (see St. Augustine, "De peccat. meritis", I, xviii). The Catholics answered by citing the Nicene Creed, "Confiteor unum baptisma in remissiomen peccatorum". They reproached the Pelagians with introducing two baptisms, one for adults to remit sins, the other for children with no such purpose. Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Aug., loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)].V. ORIGINAL SIN IN FACE OF THE OBJECTIONS FROM REASON
We do not pretend to prove the existence of original sin by arguments from reason only. St. Thomas makes use of a philosophical proof which proves the existence rather of some kind of decadence than of sin, and he considers his proof as probable only, satis probabiliter probari potest (Contra Gent., IV, lii). Many Protestants and Jansenists and some Catholics hold the doctrine of original sin to be necessary in philosophy, and the only means of solving the problem of the existence of evil. This is exaggerated and impossible to prove. It suffices to show that human reason has no serious objection against this doctrine which is founded on Revelation. The objections of Rationalists usually spring from a false concept of our dogma. They attack either the transmission of a sin or the idea of an injury inflicted on his race by the first man, of a decadence of the human race. Here we shall answer only the second category of objections, the others will be considered under a later head (VII). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Pelagius was acquitted at this council. And some may not fully understand the subjects addressed. Pelagius made no claim that infants are in the state that Adam was before the fall. Nor have I made any such claims.
Teke what are sacraments, and what are they for??
THEY are means of salvation through Christ our Lord.
To which scripture and history shows us that all must be baptized to be saved.
The is only One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. ...
In context all these verses are relating the mystery of baptism. Just in different ways.Romans 6
4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.
1 Peter 3
21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Mark 16
16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Romans Chapter 5
5:12. Wherefore as by one mans sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.*
[SIZE=-1]Propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt[/SIZE]
5:16. And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation: but grace is of many offences unto justification.
[SIZE=-1]Et non sicut per unum peccantem ita et donum nam iudicium ex uno in condemnationem gratia autem ex multis delictis in iustificationem[/SIZE]
5:17. For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.
[SIZE=-1]Si enim in unius delicto mors regnavit per unum multo magis abundantiam gratiae et donationis et iustitiae accipientes in vita regnabunt per unum Iesum Christum[/SIZE]
5:18. Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life.
[SIZE=-1]Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in iustificationem vitae[/SIZE] 5:19. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.
[SIZE=-1]Sicut enim per inoboedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi ita et per unius oboeditionem iusti constituentur multi[/SIZE]
Orthodox don't have this problem. A doctrine of original sin isn't necessary to explain what the scriptures declare.Many Protestants and Jansenists and some Catholics hold the doctrine of original sin to be necessary in philosophy, and the only means of solving the problem of the existence of evil.
I love ya bunches...but logically this would mean that infant baptism was unnecesary. Since infants have no sins of their own.
But because the sins of A&E we have a division from God, to which baptism yields our washing ourselves in the blood of Christs death.
We would have no need to be baptized at all, until we sinned if ever we did sin, it were not for the fallen nature of humanity due to the origin of sin...which was the first sin.
To differentiate from the CC, many Orthodoxes say that the 'original sin' is not a sin but a ill of the man: we say that the original sin is a state of wound: I see no difference in these two view.
I have read your enlightening posts after this as well. Infant baptism is viewed as a restoration of grace. I think we would both agree on this. Teke also made some good comments about the how it facilitates the priesthood of believers. As I have said before, even if one had no sin, they would need baptism and the Eucharist. Not because of the disobedience of Adam, but because of the results of that disobedience. I know this is splitting hairs, but I think we agree on this.
The pelagius heresy was basically a denial for the need of Christ and ended up embracing the stoic position. At least that is my limited understanding. I do not believe the innocence of infants takes that road.
In Orthodoxy, baptism is immediately followed by chrismation and communion. And before there is an excorcism. The devil is renounced and literally spat upon. These sacraments are to bring the child into the Church. They bestow grace and sanctify. It is the power for the battle. It is seen as bestowing life and much more than just washing away sin, in an infant's case. In many ways, the infant's baptism is a type of the baptism of Christ. In Christ's mystery of baptism, He had no sin, yet the Spirit descended on Him, and then He went and battled the evil one. This is why we chrismate and commune infants.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?