Are Catholics Christians?

infant baptism is assumed

Click to expand...

Not into assumptions.

Romans 5:12 indicates that Adam brought sin (and thus death) into the world. It says all MEN have sinned. The Jews of the day did not consider a child a "man". It was as much a distinction then as it is now.

In Romans 5:18 the Greek is just a tad tricky... in actuality it does not say "by one man's sin", It truly read's "by the first sin" which is all it takes to spiritually die. The translators for the NIV back this up:
Romans5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
It definitely does not refer to Adam's sin, but to the individual's first sin.

You see, I would rather speak where the Bible speaks when it comes to God's word. I don't accept the other works of men as "inspired" and maybe that's what really seperates us. I also try to remain silent when the Bible is silent about certain subjects. Not that I can't have an opinion, but I try to not speak that opinion as though it were gospel.

Only the holy Spirit can cause us to understand, and that only happens as we open our heart to God's word and obey what we have come to understand. BTW, I am niether protestant nor Catholic, just Christian.

NetDoc,
First of all, God bless you for the love that you have shown in your short time here at RF.... I hope you stay for a long, long time.

You see, I would rather speak where the Bible speaks when it comes to God's word.

Click to expand...

He he he..... you asked for it!

Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died. Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.

www.scripturecatholic.com

I see our differences are broader than just baptism!

Paul warned us about the "Judaizers" those who would have us revert to the Old Testament as a pattern of worship.

The Old Testament was about a corporate or national relation to God.

The New Testament is about a personal relationship to God's only Son, Jesus Christ.

The Old Testament dealt with the outward and the physical.

The New Testament deals with the heart and the spiritual.

Jesus told us that UNLESS we became as little children, we shall not see the Kingdom of God. Little children have the run of the Kingdom, my friend. Their hearts are pure. Jesus loved dealing with children for their hearts were like his... eager to do what was right.

Infant baptism came on the early church, but it was never thought to be a part of the New Testament churches. This was man thinking that he knew what was best rather than listening to God.

As for your "interpretation" of Acts 2:38... the Greek for repentance and Baptism are both conjugated as commands, not as conditionals. There is no "if" in that scripture.

Since you used Grace in your polemic, I would be interested in what you felt it meant. Did the translators get it right?

SOGFPP said:

All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
289 Rom 5:12,19.
290 Rom 5:18.

Click to expand...

I guess you are interpreting these passages as meaning a genetic transfer of the concept of sin (correct me if I'm wrong there). As you know, our opinions mean nothing in convincing the other of the other side of the issue. My interpretation is different. I see it as saying that sin came into the world because of Adam. Since Adam sinned, all men have the ability to sin. But that is only an opinion. Anyway...

SOGFPP said:

A baby can't sin. A baby is born WITH sin.
Read my response above. Sin came into the world (to all of humanity) and there was only one who could save us.... Jesus.

Click to expand...

So sin is whithin us? But the passage says that all have sinned. It doesn't say all have sin. "All have sinned" means that all have commited a sin(at least one), not that sin is within everyone. Afterall, Acts 2:38 says to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins", not sin.

SOGFPP said:

Like little children means to me another thing. Hardly a convincing argument for your position.

Click to expand...

Would you care to explain what you think it means? I would love to hear it.

SOGFPP said:

What I mean is that if it was possible, as you contend, for a child to be born without sin, simple logic would dictate that at least one of these children at some point in history would CONTINUE to live his/her entire life without sin. Christians believe differently.... because the Bible teaches us that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. If it was possibly for us to be born without sin.... then it would be possible to live a life without sin and thus make the sacrifice of Jesus unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Using your "simple logic" the same could happen after baptsim, could it not? Baptism takes away all sin. Therefore, you are technically sinless after baptism. And following your logic, we could all technically live sinless lives. If we are born sinless, and we could all live sinless lives. But if we are born with sin and are baptized (have our sins washed away) then we could still live sinless lives. Does that make any sense?

NetDoc said:

I see our differences are broader than just baptism!

Click to expand...

I prefer to celebrate them! Talking about our differences in faith is, to me, much better than those who muddle through life never giving it a thought.

Linus said:

I guess you are interpreting these passages as meaning a genetic transfer of the concept of sin

Click to expand...

Wrong.
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.

Since Adam sinned, all men have the ability to sin.

Click to expand...

Then, all men also have the ability NOT to sin......... You keep missing the implications of your statements and did not answer my questions.

Using your "simple logic" the same could happen after baptsim, could it not? Baptism takes away all sin.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I assumed you had a better understanding of what sin means to a Catholic. Baptism takes away all sin, but: As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). We all win sin.

I have made great efforts to explain this to you.... why don't you do me the favor of answering my questions now.

Scott

huh? if adam had the ability to sin before he actually sinned, then why would he suddenly have the ability to sin after he sinned? the cart comes after the horse. no sense. bagh!

NetDoc said:

Paul warned us about the "Judaizers" those who would have us revert to the Old Testament as a pattern of worship.

Click to expand...

I don't recall telling anyone to get circumsized or to follow Jewish dietary laws...... Judaizers? Hardly..... wondering where you got this idea from?

Since you used Grace in your polemic, I would be interested in what you felt it meant. Did the translators get it right?

Click to expand...

Hehehe.... I posted 20+ verses and you choose to pick this one out and try to change the subject? :tsk:
I'll pass.

Babies being baptised on the eight day is obviously a throw back to the rite of circumcision.

MOST of the verses you quoted dealt with "Let the children come to me" and I addressed those in one fell swoop.

But since I figured that we would just bash heads over baptism that I would try to find a common ground from which we may proceed.

On top of that, I am a simple man. I would rather discuss a few scriptures thouroughly, than many superficially. Once we can come to grips with a few scriptures, then we can move on to a few more. When you throw up so many at once, I feel that I am being attacked or "flooded". This is just one of many flaws that I suffer from.

NetDoc said:

Babies being baptised on the eight day is obviously a throw back to the rite of circumcision.

Click to expand...

Yep.
128 The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone." Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God's plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

MOST of the verses you quoted dealt with "Let the children come to me" and I addressed those in one fell swoop.

Click to expand...

Sure, you addressed them, but you did offer any evidence to support your view using scripture..... you gave an opinion.

But since I figured that we would just bash heads over baptism that I would try to find a common ground from which we may proceed.

Click to expand...

I'm a HUGE fan of common ground. Any time you'd like to end this thread and start another about what we have in common, please do!

This is just one of many flaws that I suffer from.

Click to expand...

Not a flaw at all. Go one at a time if you'd like!

I forgot about this in your last thread:

Infant baptism came on the early church, but it was never thought to be a part of the New Testament churches. This was man thinking that he knew what was best rather than listening to God.

Click to expand...

Where did you come by this information.... contrary to the examples I have provided.... please tell me you're not using the Bible to try and prove your views of the Bible.

Peace in Christ,
Scott

please tell me you're not using the Bible to try and prove your views of the Bible.

Click to expand...

What you find as anathema, I hold as sacrosanct.

I Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I Corinthians 2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16 "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

It's called circular logic.... and I read your reply to my friend The Voice of Reason after I wrote this.... and I enjoyed reading your honest reply.

It's very refreshing for someone to not hide the fact that they can not defend what they believe in, yet seem to have strong faith nonetheless.... amen for your strong faith.

Peace,
Scott

First of al I want to say I'm sorry for not answering any questions. But the only question, SOGFPP, that you have asked (to me at least) is, "if we are not born with sin, why do all people sin?"

The answer is simple. Humans are selfish. We sin because we want to. I will admit that there are sins that we commit in ignorance (i.e. not knowing that a particular sin is, in fact, a sin), but humans sin, for the most part, because we feel that we can't help ourselves. In my opninon the biggest problem is the little things that we overlook such as gossip, thinking a negative thought about someone else, letting our tempers flare up over that one little, insignificant incident. But all have sinned simply because we are selfish and want to do what we feel like doing instead of what God asks of us. Does that help?

But you haven't answered my question. That being, what do you think Jesus means when He says to become like little children inorder to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Maybe you did answer it and I just missed it. If that is the case please point me to your response.

SOGFPP said:

original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

Click to expand...

A sin "contracted" is a sin that is of no fault of the sinner. This means that we cannot be justifiably judged by our sinful actions because they would not be our own fault. How can you be judged for something that is not your fault? This turns God into someone who is unjust and unfair, and I think we can both agree that He is neither of those things.

SOGFPP said:

Then, all men also have the ability NOT to sin......... .

Click to expand...

So? Who cares if someone lives without sinning anyway? That would bring us closer to God I would think, to abide by His word perfectly. God hates sin because sin separates us from Him. So having the ability not to sin would be better than sinning in any case. Jesus came to earth to "seek and save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). Not that which was innocent.

SOGFPP said:

I'm sorry, I assumed you had a better understanding of what sin means to a Catholic. Baptism takes away all sin, but: As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). We all win sin.

Click to expand...

Sin is a choice. Whether original sin affects our decision or not, we still have the choice to sin. We also have the choice not to sin. Its not like we have to sin every time we are tempted. We, in every case have the ability to resist. It is possible (although highly unlikely) to resist all sin. The reason human nature is weakened by its own greed and selfishness.

The question at hand is an excellent one that is addressed to a select group ,however why not broading that margin and asking, Are Christians really CHristians ? ,

Are you a mechanic just because you take your car to a garage, or are you a mechanic, technically I might add, because your father raised you in and around cars all your life.
I think not, you may have the knowledge, experience and the understanding thru practical application but you have not passed or met the standards required to qualify as a certified mechanic. Have you met God 's standard not the churches
Many go to church ,assume a title or position in the church, have become confirmed baptized etc. but have no inclination as to what God's standards are to enter Heaven .

I ask a typical question when I talk to people where ever I am and that is
Are you good enough to go to heaven?
The vast majority will indeed say , yes,followed by because I am a good person, I go to church , I was baptized, confirmed ,I am a Catholic, I don't do this and I don't do that
Jesus says many on that day will say, Lord Lord, I did this, I did that, and He will say to them depart from me I never knew you
You see many worship with their mouths but their hearts are far from God and He judges the hearts, man judges outward appearances,

Are Catholics Christian just because ,no I say, but only by being born again spiritually by faith and obedience in Jesus Christ and some indeed may very well be.
I think we must define the term Christian prior to placing a label on ourself or others
A C hristian is refered to as a follower of Christ one who is strict to adhere to obey and follow Christs teachings having no devotion to any idols, as God is a jealous God.
It is by grace you have been saved thru Faith, this is not of yourself it is a gift from God so no man can boast and say ,I did it.

This was the premise for the whole REFORMATION, Luther understood that it is by grace you are saved ,thru faith ,not adherences to laws or church membership guidelines or manmade rules.
When you say,"I am a christian" I feel it is used to loosely with many people groups and must be more defined and understood before assuming affiliation to Jesus Christ by mere observance and adherence but thru a personal incounter with a LIVING GOD

Linus,

The answer is simple. Humans are selfish. We sin because we want to.

Click to expand...

Again, the problem is, that you keep looking past the implications of your beliefs.

If we sin because we want to....... we can do the opposite: Live a life without sin.

That is impossible. Romans 3:23

Also read Romans 5:8.... or did Christ not die for all.... but just the sinners?

You keep missing the point... if we can choose not to sin.... we don't need Christ. Christ's sacrifice on the cross saves us from sin (Romans 6:23)... the wages of sin being eternal death.... but I guess your faith teaches that some don't need this.... we can choose not to sin and will not have to face the wages of sin, and will live life eternal because of our individual holiness. :tsk: What the heck church tought you this?

That being, what do you think Jesus means when He says to become like little children inorder to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Click to expand...

It could mean several things.... innocence, purity, unselfish love.... etc... you obviously have a point you are dying to make, so just post it.

As for the remainder of your post, your opinions mean nothing to me....

Back it up with Scripture.

Scott

roli said:

The question at hand is an excellent one that is addressed to a select group ,however why not broading that margin and asking, Are Christians really CHristians ?

Click to expand...

Because that would be off-topic. You can start another thread about Christians in general or post something in the Christianity forum if you would just like to post your opinion.

Peace,
Scott

Roli...

think about the question. It's "Are Catholics Christian?" not "Are Catholics Saved?" Major difference.

I would also ask you, as I did Scott, just what is "grace". The answer may just amaze you! I will give you a hint, we get the words "character" and "charismatic" from it. But that would probably be best for another thread.

NetDoc said:

I would also ask you, as I did Scott, just what is "grace".

Click to expand...

Ooooops. Sorry, I must have missed that.

Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

SOGFPP said:

Again, the problem is, that you keep looking past the implications of your beliefs.

If we sin because we want to....... we can do the opposite: Live a life without sin.

That is impossible. Romans 3:23

Click to expand...

I fully realize the implications of my statement. All have the choice to sin, and all have the choice NOT to sin. I already said that. The problem is that (because we are selfish) we sin. We choose to sin. There are times when we choose not to. THere ARE times when we resist temptation, but the fact of the matter is that we all choose to do it eventually, whether we know it or not. Romans 3:23.

SOGFPP said:

Also read Romans 5:8.... or did Christ not die for all.... but just the sinners?.

Click to expand...

Christ died for all sinners. But, if there is one who has no sin, then He did not die for that person. It's that simple. The problem is that there is no person who has not commited a sin (again, Romans 3:23).

SOGFPP said:

You keep missing the point... if we can choose not to sin.... we don't need Christ. Christ's sacrifice on the cross saves us from sin (Romans 6:23)... the wages of sin being eternal death.... but I guess your faith teaches that some don't need this.... we can choose not to sin and will not have to face the wages of sin, and will live life eternal because of our individual holiness. :tsk: What the heck church tought you this?

Click to expand...

No church taught me this. The whole topic was based on a hypothetical scenario. IF there were a sinless person, that person would not need Christ's sacrifice. Since He came to save the lost (Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10), and, according to Romans 6:23, to save us from sin, I'm saying that if it is possible to live without sin, then you wouldn't need to be baptized since you would not be lost nor have sin. But the simple fact remains that (Romans 3:23) we all have sinned.

SOGFPP said:

It could mean several things.... innocence, purity, unselfish love.... etc... you obviously have a point you are dying to make, so just post it.

Click to expand...

I already did. My point was that I believe Jesus implied that children are innocent (sinless) in Matthew 18:3. I said that a few posts ago.

Linus said:

THere ARE times when we resist temptation, but the fact of the matter is that we all choose to do it eventually, whether we know it or not.

Click to expand...

Hehehe.... we're so close it hurts!

Why will we all sin eventually? Kinda hard to believe it will happen at random to all of humanity..... without........ you guessed it: original sin and the consequence of it: a proclivity towards sin.

We agree, but just can't seem to overcome the barrier of the English language!

God bless!
Scott

Ha ha. indeed. We seem to agree on the effect, but we can't agree on the cause of thereof.

SOGFPP said:

Why will we all sin eventually?

Click to expand...

I said before that I beleve it is because human nature itself is greedy and selfish. We sin because we want to.

SOGFPP said:

Kinda hard to believe it will happen at random to all of humanity..... without........ you guessed it: original sin and the consequence of it: a proclivity towards sin.

Click to expand...

Maybe you call it original sin, but I call it human nature. I find it hard to believe that we are born with a sin that we did nto commit and was recieved from a man who died thousands of years before I was born. Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned, implying that all have commited a sin. It does not say that all have sin within them. If original sin is a

SOGFPP said:

sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

Click to expand...

then Romans 3:23 cannot be used to prove original sin. If you blame your sins on original sin then they become not our own fault. Therefore we can't be rightly judged by our actions (Revelation 20:13) because they are not our own fault.