How are infants justified before God?

Hi Taufgesinnter,

You wrote, ".. which is also a teaching absent from the ante-Nicene writers"

Why are you concerned with the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers? With regard to infant baptism, this is like being a Lutheran and saying, ".. which is also a teaching absent in Catholic theologians after Trent". Your aside just doesn't follow for the precise reason that all Ante-Nicene Fathers advocated infant baptism (except for the sole opponent: Tertullian, who held that sinfulness began at puberty circa age 14 [De Anima 38:2], which explains his departure) just as all Tridentine theologians repudiated Sola Fide. You're pointing to a whole host of writers who are Catholic through and through.

According to Dennis Kastens, a Lutheran pastor in St. Louis, Polycarp - a disciple of the Apostle John - was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, and the witness of the Catacombs all advocate infant baptism. See:

http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/kastens.htm

to the extent that we can say that in Adam all men die, so in Christ are all men made alive; the provision of the atonement extends exactly as far as the effects of the fall. Therefore, yes, all infants are covered by the blood of Christ until like Paul

Why would immaculate infants require covering by the blood atonement of Christ? This is like purchasing car insurance when you don't have a car or signing up for a menstrual evaluation when you're a male. The nature of the situation doesn't call for the remedy.

 

Hi Yelsew,

If Salvation consists in the Trinity indwelling our souls, then are individuals born automatically with this indwelling presence of the Godhead in their souls?

Being conceived in iniquity essentially means that one is conceived with the privation of this indwelling presence of God. It does not mean that one has committed actual sins by means of personal choice. Original Sin is a privation, not a presence.

 

Hi Yelsew,

You did not answer my question. I asked you, "If Salvation consists in the Trinity indwelling our souls, then are individuals born automatically with this indwelling presence of the Godhead in their souls?"

You wrote, "Original Sin is disobedience not privation."

Hey, the Catholics are the ones proposing the doctrine of Original Sin (a phrase not found in Scripture), so you should respect how Catholics use the term. You can't redefine a Catholic phrase, telling the Catholics what their own language means.

Original Sin refers to the privation of grace in the souls of all human beings when they are conceived due to the sin of Adam and Eve. Original Sin is a phrase that denotes this ongoing deprivation of the indwelling presence of the Blessed Trinity within the human soul.

Before Adam & Eve's Sin, man enjoyed this indwelling presence of God's life within the soul. This is the Catholic interpretation of Gn 2:7:

"the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath [ruah] of life, and so man became a living being.

Ruah means both "breath" and "Spirit", and Catholics interpret this verse as meaning that God breathed his own Spirit into man, thus endowing man with the very life of God.

We call this sanctifying grace. When Adam & Eve sinned, they lost sanctifying grace ("the day you eat from it, you are surely doomed to die"). When they ate the forbidden fruit, they didn't die physically, but they died spiritually. God didn't lie. What he said actually happened. They lost the ruah of God in that moment for mankind, and thereafter, mankind awaited the saviour prophesied in Genesis 3:15, who would win sanctifying grace back for the human race, thus allowing for humanity to enjoy this intimate relationship with God once again: that is, the indwelling presence of God within the soul.

The doctrine of Original Sin is the Church's infallible interpretation of Scripture. The passage being interpreted is Paul's typological discourse in Romans 5:12ff, wherein Paul tells us:

"Therefore, just as through one person, sin entered the world, and through sin, death and thus death came to all, in which all sinned" (5:12)

Look it up in the Greek:
http://www.bju.edu/bible/rom.5

For Paul, Adam's sin brought spiritual death to all men, and in Adam, all men sinned. This is the mystery of iniquity. This is the grave truth that all men are condemned in Adam:

"through one transgression, condemnation came upon all" (5:18)

 

Hi Taufgesinnter,

You didn't answer my question. I asked you, "Why would immaculate infants require covering by the blood atonement of Christ?" What is the purpose for receiving atonement if one is innocent? As I've pointed out, the application of a remedy presupposes the existence of something to be remedied.

You asked, "Why would innocent children incapable of faith need a symbolic water ritual they don't comprehend?"

Your question presupposes that (1) infants are innocent, (2) infants are incapable of faith, and (3) baptism is merely a symbolic water ritual.

I disagree with you on all three points.

(1) Infants are condemned in Adam's transgression, as I pointed out to Yelsew above.

(2) Infants are certainly capable of the theological virtue of faith, which is a gift received in baptism, when the soul receives the indwelling presence of the Blessed Trinity.

(3) Baptism is not merely a symbolic water ritual. It is the means of rebirth, wherein men of any age are able to enter the kingdom of God.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

The debate in the Apostolic Church pertained to whether infants should be baptized on the eighth day after birth or whether they could be baptized immediately after birth - a far cry from whether infants should be baptized. This debate took place because the early Church understood baptism to be the means of incorporation into the New Covenant - the oath by which the pagan enters into covenant with the Father through the sacrificial offering of the Son, thus becoming a Christian. As in the Old Testament, circumcision was given to infants, so in the New Testament, baptism is given even to infants, for it is the means of incorporation into the New Covenant. You will not find a single author Ante or Post-Nicene who teaches contrary to the interpretation that baptism is our means of spiritual regeneration. The depleted and wholly symbolic view of the Anabaptists runs contrary to the entire gamut of Christendom as well as proper exegesis of Scripture.

 

Taufgesinnter,

You wrote, "OK, let's say that infants are not innocent: they are dastardly murderous wretches who simply lack the physical ability and coordination to carry out their nefarious schemes, let alone the intellectual wherewithal.

That would be a mischaracterization of the plight infants find themselves needing to escape. Infants are not "dastardly murderous wretches who simply lack physical ability"; they are lacking the indwelling presence of God in their souls, because in Adam, they have died spiritually. The resulting concupiscence due to Original Sin is itself not sin, but rather, the propensity to sin, and irregardless if one commits actual sin, one is still born without the indwelling presence of God in one's soul due to the transgression of our forefather. This is the spiritual life which our First Parents forefeited, and which Christ has won for us through his infinite merits upon the Cross of Calvary.

This spiritual death of humanity in Adam's sin is what St. Paul teaches in Romans:

"Therefore, just as through one person, sin entered the world, and through sin, death and thus death came to all, in which all sinned" (5:12)

Look it up in the Greek:
http://www.bju.edu/bible/rom.5

St. Paul says that in Adam, all have sinned - not that death comes to us insofar as we sin. That's a misreading of the Greek, which - at face value in its manuscript form - bespeaks of Adam serving as the representative figure of the entire human race; all sinned in him. This is what theologians refer to as the mystery of iniquity.

You wrote, "I cannot see how you can believe, though, that a newborn infant's brain is capable..."

I do not believe that the infant's brain is capable; I believe that the infant's soul is capable of receiving the infused theological virtues of faith, hope, and love, which is part and parcel with the reception of the indwelling presence of the Blessed Trinity.

Our mental development has no bearing upon the fact that our soul is capable of receiving grace irregardless of our physical 'capability' to express the powers of the soul.

To equate the soul with the brain is to confuse the nature of man who is composed of soul and body. The brain is the instrument whereby the soul expresses its powers as the live-giving principle of the body.

You must also take Paul's note that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12) into consideration. In that passage, Paul refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism or he would have made specific mention of the exclusion of infants from baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" — that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

You wrote, "no source outside of Scripture can be trusted for support of faith and practice"

Your admission admits too much, for you wouldn't know the nature and structure of Scripture if it weren't for extra-Biblical sources. For instance, the non-Chalcedonian churches that still exist today (namely in Syria, India, and Egypt) only have a 21 book canon of the New Testament. Why do you accept 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, James, Hebrews, Revelation, and Jude as inspired Scripture when these churches do not? (The answer is simple; you follow the canon chosen by those bishops united with the bishop of Rome; if you disagree, I encourage you to look up the actual canons of the Council of Hippo in 393 and read them for yourself, esp. with regard to the reference to the "transmarine church" [the Roman Church] which is called upon to ratify the canonical decision made by the bishops of that particular, regional council)

As well, as we can see on this board, we have individuals who take considerably different paths, which I would term Christological and Trinitarian heresies akin to those condemned in early ecumenical councils. As an Anabaptist, you rely upon the formulations of these councils in your interpretation of Scripture, whereas these other individuals expressedly do not. You may claim not to, but in practice, you are. The Christological Definition of Chalcedon (451) and the Trinitarian formulations of Nicea and Constantinople are fundamental to your brand of theology. We could also include the practice of Sunday worship, which while hinted at in the New Testament, is nowhere explicitly touched upon.

With regard to your disregard for the Ante and Post-Nicene Fathers, you must admit that if you were to stand in the milieu of early Christianity with your Anabaptist view of baptism, you would be seen as proporting a novelty. The Church Kataholos (i.e., "universal") would look at you as a lone heretic among the numerous apostolic bodies lead by bishops who taught and practiced baptismal regeneration for indidivuals of every age, infants included. How are you able to stand in such intellectual comfort with this knowledge? Are you so confident in your predecessors' Scriptural interpretation (15 centuries removedfrom Christ) as to disregard the universal practice of the early Church?

 

Hi Taufgesinnter,

It's simple for you to give a list of those practices and believes that you practice and believe which simply coincide with the early Church, but you are making significant omissions. What about Artificial Contraception? What about Baptismal Regeneration? What about Apostolic Succession? What about Apostolic Tradition? What about the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist?

On a great number of issues, you stand a world apart from the Catholic Church of the Second Century.

You wrote, "But we also stand on Scripture alone as the only trustworthy source"

Yet, this adherence to Scripture alone as the only trustworthy source of divine revelation runs contrary to what Scripture itself asks and commands of the Christian. Even then, you rely upon the Catholic Church and her alone with regard to the faithful and pristine transmission of the manuscripts from the original autographs, for she alone held and perpetuated the very existence of the Scriptures through the Dark Ages.

As an aside, as a Catholic, my trust is not placed in man. My trust is placed in the Holy Spirit who uses man. I trust Him Who inspires Sacred Scripture, animates Sacred Tradition, and protects the Successors of the Apostles from teaching error in ecumenical councils and in select official capacities (e.g. ex cathedra). Without the faithful animation of Sacred Tradition and the faithful protection of the Magisterium, you - Taufgesinnter - would not have that pretty 27 book New Testament bound between those two clean pieces of leather.

You wrote, "Scripture teaches salvation is by grace through faith, not by magic rituals"

And I wholeheartedly believe that we are saved by faith. John tells us in the end of John 2 that many believed in Jesus, yet Jesus didn't believe himself unto them, for he knew what was in man. Then, in John 3, John gives the famous "Born Again" discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus. John's point? Natural faith doesn't save, but only the supernatural faith of the recreated man, who has been born from above (Gk. anothen) in the waters of baptism.

 

Hi Taufgesinnter,

You wrote, "Neither IUDs nor diaphragms nor the Pill existed at the time of the early church; my understanding is that condoms were very rare."

You're right in saying that these particular forms of Artificial Contraception were non-extant at that particular time in history, but other forms of Articificial Contraception were, and the Early Church universally condemned the use of these.

You wrote, "Well, I reject [Baptismal Regeneration of course.

In rejecting it, you are rejecting a fundamental and universal teaching of the Early Church. This is such a basic and foundational doctrine to the Christian deposit of revelation, and the early Church was unanimous in its nature as a regenerative sacrament.

You wrote, "Succession in faith is all that matters, not some imagined physical succession."

Well, that's your opinion, but it doesn't fit the Biblical model, which tells us that the office of Apostle was that of a bishoprick (See Acts 1:20), which required a successor to fill the office - and the universal testimony of the Early Church, which shows that the bishops were direct successors to the Apostles, thus holding a successive, visible office.

For example, we read in St. Irenaeus of Lyon's Adversus Haereses, written in 180 A.D.:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,6 that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere" (Adversus Haereses 3:3:2).

You wrote, "Scripture contains all of it we need to know; no other source pretending to have it is trustworthy."

But that's not what Scripture teaches. Scripture teaches us to stand firm and hold fasst to the traditions that we are taught, whether by an oral statement or by letter (2 Thess 2:15).

You point to the Bible and the Bible points to Tradition.

You wrote, "Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father. The Holy Spirit indwells each true believer, though."

I wholeheartedly agree. And then what about his presence in the Church (Acts 9:4), and his presence which confirms the decision of witnesses who admonish the recalcitrant sinner? (Mt 18:20)? Simply stating different modes of Jesus' presence in no way automatically precludes his substantial presence in the Holy Eucharist, which is attested to throughout the Early Church writings.

You wrote, "The Catholic Church, that is, the institution with that name today, did not yet exist in the second century."

Yes, it did. You need to back up your assertions with evidence. See the statement I copied above in this same post, written by St. Ireaneus' of Lyons in 180 A.D. - that is certainly 2nd Century.

The term as it was used in the early church did not refer to people who bowed before idols

Statues are in no way idols. An idol is an image, which is worshipped for the divinity, which resides within it. No faithful Catholic believes this, and to assert that Catholics do is essentially to misrepresent Catholic teaching and to construct a straw man. As well, if you equate a statue with an idol, then you must deal with the fact that God commanded for his People to construct engraved images when giving the architectural plans for the Ark in Exodus 25:18ff.

or prayed to dead people

I encourage you to read up on the early Church. The first Christians certainly invoked the aid of the intercession given by those saints in the heavenly court, and there is ample evidence of this.

The Sub Tuum Praesidium (Latin for "Under Your Protection") was found on an ancient 3rd century manuscript. It reads:

"We fly to your patronage, O Holy Mother of God:
despise not our petitions in our necessities,
but deliver us always from all dangers,
O Glorious and Blessed Virgin."

Origen wrote:

"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote:

"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy" (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

or imagined Christ's sacrifice was so useless that further purgation of sin after death was still necessary.

That is to misunderstand the Doctrine of Purgatory. It is our purgation, which is the work of Christ. This is our sanctification, which is essentially Christ making us holy, and Purgatory is taught explicitly by St. Paul in 1 Cor 3:15 and by Christ in Matthew 5:26.

the only reason to discuss faith with a Catholic should be to bring him to Christ

Your statement implies that you believe I haven't been brought to Christ when all the while, I have been preaching Christ on this board. How are you able to judge my heart so quickly, which is an action specifically forbidden by our Lord?

It bespeaks of a prejudice, which is fundamentally ignorant of Catholic doctrine, and I am here to help. I will be patient with your questions, and I am glad to answer your misconceptions and grow in dialogue. This is a wonderful reason to communicate with me, a Catholic, over this web board.