No forgiveness of sins where there is no repentance, and thus faith


#1

This issue came up in a thread on infant baptism, where it was suggested that one person’s faith was not taken into account for the salvation of another.


#2

Colossians 2:11-12 In Him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with the circumcision done by the hands of men, but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through your faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Baptism replaces circumcision. God had instructed that infants be circumcised at 8 days old.

John 3:5 “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God, unless he is born of water and the spirit.”

Jesus does not make an exception for infants.

If the early Christians accepted that baptism replaced circumcision, it would naturally follow that their children would be *baptised *as infants, since previously their children had been circumcised as infants.


#3

Sorry, looks like I missed the point.

Might check out 1 Corinthians 7:14
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, *but as it is, they are holy." *

Does that help?


#4

It seems to me, that there is no forgiveness of actual, mortal sins where there is no repentance, and thus at least an implicit faith.

Infant baptism is not concerned with the forgiveness of actual, mortal sins committed by infant but with Original Sin.


#5

Original sin, by definition, is mortal.

Why else the rush to baptise?

No other reason…at least historically.


#6

Original Sin does not condemn the infant to Hell. Only actual, personal sins without true repentance condemn to Hell. However, we baptize infants because baptism is the new circumcision. A person is only responsible for sins he or she commits, whether they be venial sins or mortal sins. People are not responsible for their nature which is brought down from the Fall of Adam and Eve.

Baptism on the other hand washes away our imperfect nature by uniting us to Him through His death and resurrection and we are born from above at Holy Baptism. Baptism is a sacrament, i.e. an outward sign of inward grace. As with all sacraments, Jesus is the one who established the seven sacraments and commanded us to perform them, so we obey and baptize all (circa Mat 19:14) in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

[quote=Catechism of the Catholic Church]404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
[/quote]


#7

I understand you believe that now, but that is not the historical position or teaching of the RCC.

Again, the rush to baptise little babies is for a reason.


#8

Yes, the rush to baptize infants is because it was commanded by Christ (suffer not the little children to come unto me) to make them partakers of the new covenant, as was the custom to circumcise Jewish infants on their 8th day.

If it’s what the Catholic Church taught previously then why was there the theory of limbo throughout some schools of Western Catholic thought? I would truly appreciate it if you would stop making blanket statements about Catholic theology without citing historical church documents to back those statements up.


#9

This avoids the issue.

The rush to baptise infants is because it is taught they are guilty of sin that needs God’s forgiveness…lest they die unforgiven.

If it’s what the Catholic Church taught previously then why was there the theory of limbo throughout some schools of Western Catholic thought?

As you said it was a theory…and it developed.

Other than that, this does not contradict what I posted.

I would truly appreciate it if you would stop making blanket statements about Catholic theology without citing historical church documents to back those statements up.

I apologize. I assumed most here are aware of their church’s historical postition regarding this subject of Original Sin.


#10

If you’re going to make a claim, then give some sources. In other words, give the definition of mortal sin and show me how an original sin must necessarily be a mortal sin.


#11

Source? We are only guilty of our own personal sins. We can’t be guilty of sins we didn’t commit.

[quote=Atemi]As you said it was a theory…and it developed.
[/quote]

I don’t know what you mean by “and it developed”.

[quote=Atemi]I apologize. I assumed most here are aware of their church’s historical postition regarding this subject of Original Sin.
[/quote]

Again, please drop the smug attitude and show me official documents from the Church that backup your claim else I’ll assume it’s false.


#12

I am not making any “claim.”

I am just repeating the historical RC position.

I don’t even believe it, so I am making no “claim.”

In other words, give the definition of mortal sin and show me how an original sin must necessarily be a mortal sin.

Original sin is mortal because it is deadly.

Simple.

That is what mortal means.


#13

You are repeating what you believe to be the historical Catholic position. Hence, we are asking you to provide us with the sources where you got this supposed “historical belief” of the Church from. If it was a “historical belief” it should be easy to get it from official church documents.


#14

There has never been an official position on where infants who were unbaptized went because we cannot know or proclaim who is in Hell or not. If it was the “historical Catholic position” that all unbaptized infants go to Hell as Atemi claims, then limbo wouldn’t have been allowed to be expressed as a theory, and would have most certainly been held as heretical. The normative position now and in the past is that we cannot know for sure the state of the unbaptized whether they be infants or adults, so we leave them to the Grace of God.


#15

A mortal sin is a sin that has met these three conditions:[LIST=1]
*]its subject must be grave (or serious) matter;
*]it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
*]it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.[/LIST]How does original sin fall into the definition of the above? Original sin is a personal sin that Adam and Eve committed that affected the human nature. We are not responsible for our nature and thus Christ came to bring us back to the vine through baptism.


#16

Yes you are. You are claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that original sin is a mortal sin.

Original sin is mortal because it is deadly.

Simple.

That is what mortal means.

No. That is not the definition of a mortal sin. Give the RC definition of a mortal sin and then demonstrate that it includes original sin. Cite your sources please.


#17

**I am not making any “claim.” **

Yes you are. You are claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that original sin is a mortal sin.

No. I am saying that the RCC has taught that Original Sin is mortal.

That is not my claim. That is the claim of the RCC.

I don’t subscribe to it myself.

I don’t see why I must defend Catholic teaching as a non-Catholic.

**Original sin is mortal because it is deadly.

Simple.

That is what mortal means.**

No. That is not the definition of a mortal sin.

I said Original Sin is mortal.

This is what the RCC has taught.

Give the RC definition of a mortal sin and then demonstrate that it includes original sin. Cite your sources please.

Original Sin, by definition, is sin.

Mortal, by definition, is deadly.

mortal - Liable or subject to death; Of, relating to, or accompanying death; Causing death; fatal

American Heritage Dictionary

Very simple.

Is not water baptism for the forgiveness of sin?

Does this exclude the infant?


#18

This is incorrect.

The supposedly infallible and 17th Ecumenical Council clearly defined this:

“the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to Hell to be punished

The Catholic Encyclopedia with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur confirms this:

“Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment…”

Catholic Encyclopedia "Particular Judgment"
newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm

Dying with the guilt and stain of Original Sin alone damns one to an eternity in Hell. For centuries this was the case in RCC teaching and thought. Augustine confirms that this was the whole church’s teaching in his day and to deny it is to attack the Apostolic witness.

These are not my ideas so don’t blame me.

I am sorry if you never heard of this before. Somebody should have told you, I guess.


#19

**This avoids the issue.

The rush to baptise infants is because it is taught they are guilty of sin that needs God’s forgiveness…lest they die unforgiven.**

Source? We are only guilty of our own personal sins. We can’t be guilty of sins we didn’t commit.

If I supplied a source, would it matter?

What would it change?

You speak like I am making some false charges up.

No.

It is the RCC’s historical position that all people are conceived GUILTY of original sin.

If this has now changed, I cannot be held responsible for that.

Original sin is guilt, not just consequences. When babies are baptized, the guilt of original sin is remitted, not the consequences. Otherwise, nothing gets remitted in baptism.

Actually, that is the WHOLE purpose of baptism in Catholicism, so babies can be forgiven:

Under: The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

CCC 403 “Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.”

There is NO other purpose.

Obviously, concupiscence is not remitted. That is plain. Only guilt can be remitted.

Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. There can be no forgiveness where there is no guilt.

New Advent explains further:

“Concupiscence, which remains after the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism, is not sinful so long as consent is not given to it”

Trent made it abundantly clear:

“If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted…let him be anathema”

If one says that very real guilt of original sin is not remitted in baptism, they are anathema. That’s how serious Trent took this subject.

Guilt…guilt…guilt.

This does not even mention the witness of the ECFs.

No. I did not manufacture this.

If I cannot believe sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Council of Trent, then no sources can be trusted, IMV.

But then again, does it matter?

What does this change?


#20

Right, your claiming that this is what the RCC teaches. And your claim was made in response to this post:

It seems to me, that there is no forgiveness of actual, mortal sins where there is no repentance, and thus at least an implicit faith.

Infant baptism is not concerned with the forgiveness of actual, mortal sins committed by infant but with Original Sin.

The poster claims that original sin is not the same thing as mortal sin. Either you are disagreeing with the poster or you are talking about something else. Are you disagreeing with him or not?

Original Sin, by definition, is sin.

Mortal, by definition, is deadly.

mortal - Liable or subject to death; Of, relating to, or accompanying death; Causing death; fatal

American Heritage Dictionary

Very simple.

So then it is your contention that this is what the RCC teaches is mortal sin. Unbelievable. I’ll tell you what, how about I go to the American Heritage Dictionary and look up the word “scripture” and the word “alone” and tell you what Protestants mean by sola Scriptura. Intellectual honesty and scholarship has reached a new low here.

Is not water baptism for the forgiveness of sin?

Does this exclude the infant?

The Church has always taught that baptism is necessary for salvation. It has also taught that there are exceptions to actual baptism by water in special circumstances. But as you’ve just shown here, you aren’t really interested in what the Church teaches.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.