Baptism

[Ora et Labora]

I know the other 2 kinds of Baptism already. Thanks.

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Nov 30 2005, 12:51 PM']Jesus Christ established a new covenant, one that does not require us to hold to the Mosaic law, but allows us to become adopted children of God through faith in Christ. That faith is an obedient faith. Christ calls us first to baptism in which we are made adopted children of God - our relationship with God and our share in His life is restored. This is what was lost at the fall, so when it is restored, we are saved. But the restoration to the life of God continues through a life of holiness until the day that we are perfectly united with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ before the Beatific Vision in heaven. In the mean time through our baptism Christ 'lives in us".
[right][snapback]805324[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

O.K. Two questions regarding the above:

re: Jesus Christ established a new covenant, one that does not require us to hold to the Mosaic law, but allows us to become adopted children of God through faith in Christ. That faith is an obedient faith. Christ calls us first to baptism in which we are made adopted children of God

Obedient faith is an act of the will. Following the logic of your above post, if Christ first calls us to baptism as a sign of our restoration in his family, then how can an infant have obedient faith? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

The second question stems from the above question. What happens to a Catholic who is baptized as an infant, but has blatantly lived a lifestyle that rejects God? According the your above post, "But the restoration to the life of God continues through a life of holiness until the day that we are perfectly united with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ before the Beatific Vision in heaven..." You have said that salvation is imparted at baptism and is continued through a life of holiness. So, then, technically couldn't a baptized Catholic (in the above suggestion situation) lose the salvation that God imparted at his/her baptism?

[jmjtina]

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Nov 30 2005, 09:00 PM']The second question stems from the above question.  What happens to a Catholic who is baptized as an infant, but has blatantly lived a lifestyle that rejects God?  ....

So, then, technically couldn't a baptized Catholic  (in the above suggestion situation) lose the salvation that God imparted at his/her baptism?
[right][snapback]806377[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You have answered you own question: They have rejected God and the salvation He has offered them through baptism.

As some see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation (as you understand it) of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). [b]But he did not restrict this teaching to adults[/b]. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults.

Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." [b]Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law[/b]; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. [i]If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism. [/i]

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.


Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

Edited December 1, 2005 by jmjtina

[Brother Adam]

[quote]Obedient faith is an act of the will.  Following the logic of your above post,  if Christ first calls us to baptism as a sign of our restoration in his family, then how can an infant have obedient faith?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.[/quote]

An infant cannot live out their faith through an act of their will until the age of reason, when they are capable of making decisions for themselves. Christ does not merely call us to baptism as a 'sign' of restoration.

Salvation is not an 'individual act' of prayer where we save ourselves by praying to God. It is a covenantal, or family act. The outward signs of baptism (water and Word) show the reality of an inward change, a change that we cannot do ourselves, but only the Holy Spirit can do within us. We cannot save ourselves! Salvation is an act of God that we freely cooperate in through Jesus Christ, our mediator. Titus 3:5 says that baptism saves us because it is a literal washing away from our sins. In some cultures they genuflect before a newly baptized person because they are literally a saint - they have no sin immediately after their baptism.

I can write more, but I want you to ask questions as they come up, so I'm going to leave it at that for now.

[quote]The second question stems from the above question.  What happens to a Catholic who is baptized as an infant, but has blatantly lived a lifestyle that rejects God?  According the your above post, "But the restoration to the life of God continues through a life of holiness until the day that we are perfectly united with all of our brothers and sisters in Christ before the Beatific Vision in heaven..."  You have said that salvation is imparted at baptism and is continued through a life of holiness.  So, then, technically couldn't a baptized Catholic  (in the above suggestion situation) lose the salvation that God imparted at his/her baptism?[/quote]

Yes. "Once Saved Always Saved" is an anti-biblical doctrine. Not only is it found no where in the Bible, Christ teaches specifically against it. See Matt 7:21 and Matt 19:16-17. Also Gal 5:4-6, Eph 2:8-10, Phil 2:12, James 2:14-24, Romans 2:2-8

[rkwright]

Brother Adam -> Did I read somewhere that you were taking classes from Scott Hahn? The way you use the covenants sounds like some of his talks I've heard....

I like it! its a very interesting way of looking at it; breaking from the legalistic, contractual view that can lead to many problems.

[N/A Gone]

yea, ironically hahn is considered fundie by most proto theologians

[djc08]

This really doesn't answer a question but it was the best arguement for infant baptism that I've heard. It came from one of Martin Luther's rightings defending infant baptism. He said that how can it not be good if the church has been doing for so many years and the church is so as grand and full of God's grace as it is today.

I think that defense was for him and talking about his break-up of the Church or something. But a website also said that Protestants were the ones who first used infant baptism and that Catholics don't even believe that Baptism saves a person so I don't know how reliable it is.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 1 2005, 03:46 PM']Brother Adam -> Did I read somewhere that you were taking classes from Scott Hahn? The way you use the covenants sounds like some of his talks I've heard....

I like it! its a very interesting way of looking at it; breaking from the legalistic, contractual view that can lead to many problems.
[right][snapback]807229[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, I'm not taking any classes by Hahn. My biblical studies class is taught by Dr. Bergsma, a former Calvinist Protestant clergy from my hometown of Grand Rapids. He was the pastor at a church just down the block from my Baptist one. Dr. Hahn does teach (and has popularized) covenant theology, but he is hardly the first pioneer. It's been about 8,000 years in the making. I don't see how it is possible to believe in the Bible and think salvaiton is about legal contracts. God deals with man through covenants. it can even be said that the very first covenant was the marriage covenant between Adam and Eve in perfect union with God. But the very hinges of the Old and New Testament are covenental - the New Covenant in Jesus (Eucharistic) and the old covenants through Adam, Noah, Moses, and David.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 1 2005, 04:13 PM']yea, ironically hahn is considered fundie by most proto theologians
[right][snapback]807261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Most theologians don't like Hahn because he does not submit his work to be reviewed by other theologians. The work he is doing though doesn't necessarily require this. He is taking rather lofty concepts and bringing them to a level that most people can grasp. Making complicated concepts understandable without losing content or authenticity is the mark of an excellent teacher. There is nothing wrong or unorthodox about Hahn's work that I've ever read, but at the same time if you are looking for Belloc, Hans Von Balthasar, Chesterton, Von Hildebrand, or such, then so be it. They are different types of theologians.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 1 2005, 08:32 PM']Most theologians don't like Hahn because he does not submit his work to be reviewed by other theologians. The work he is doing though doesn't necessarily require this. He is taking rather lofty concepts and bringing them to a level that most people can grasp. Making complicated concepts understandable without losing content or authenticity is the mark of an excellent teacher. There is nothing wrong or unorthodox about Hahn's work that I've ever read, but at the same time if you are looking for Belloc, Hans Von Balthasar, Chesterton, Von Hildebrand, or such, then so be it. They are different types of theologians.
[right][snapback]807669[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I like Dr. Hahn. Sometimes I'll run into him at St. Peters and then when I get home I'll turn on EWTN and see him on there and be like, "wait, wasn't he just at st. pete's?". hehehe

He must have a transporter in his house that leads to the EWTN studios.

j/k, I'm not that dumb. I'm sure they pre-record everything. I'm still amused by it.. Maybe I'm just easily amused.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:35 PM']I like Dr. Hahn. Sometimes I'll run into him at St. Peters and then when I get home I'll turn on EWTN and see him on there and be like, "wait, wasn't he just at st. pete's?". hehehe

He must have a transporter in his house that leads to the EWTN studios.

j/k, I'm not that dumb. I'm sure they pre-record everything. I'm still amused by it.. Maybe I'm just easily amused.
[right][snapback]807671[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:28 PM']No, I'm not taking any classes by Hahn. My biblical studies class is taught by Dr. Bergsma, a former Calvinist Protestant clergy from my hometown of Grand Rapids. He was the pastor at a church just down the block from my Baptist one. Dr. Hahn does teach (and has popularized) covenant theology, but he is hardly the first pioneer. It's been about 8,000 years in the making. I don't see how it is possible to believe in the Bible and think salvaiton is about legal contracts. God deals with man through covenants. it can even be said that the very first covenant was the marriage covenant between Adam and Eve in perfect union with God. But the very hinges of the Old and New Testament are covenental - the New Covenant in Jesus (Eucharistic) and the old covenants through Adam, Noah, Moses, and David.
[right][snapback]807664[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yea when I heard his talk (a CD a group gave me) it was obvious that he isn't the pioneer of this, but on the other hand he was the first person I've heard about it from. It doesn't seem to be something we hear about in our homilies...but I after hearing the talk, parts of the mass have taken on new meaning for me "the blood of the new convenant".

This is a little off topic, but I had one other real quick question... during this CD (his conversion talk) he says that at the first time at his mass he wanted to stand up and explain all the prayers we use and where they come from in the Bible. Obviously during consecration it comes from the last supper, and the our father, but what about all the other prayers? anyone know off the top of their head where they are in the Bible? just curious...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 1 2005, 08:37 PM']
[right][snapback]807674[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
do you remember Crosby's show on EWTN several years back? I don't know what it is, but seeing people on TV who are from real life just cracks me up every time.

Did you go to Raymond Arroyo's thing the other day? I missed it

hmm.. phatmass should have its own TV show. that would be cool.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 1 2005, 08:46 PM']yea when I heard his talk (a CD a group gave me) it was obvious that he isn't the pioneer of this, but on the other hand he was the first person I've heard about it from.  It doesn't seem to be something we hear about in our homilies...but I after hearing the talk, parts of the mass have taken on new meaning for me "the blood of the new convenant".

This is a little off topic, but I had one other real quick question... during this CD (his conversion talk) he says that at the first time at his mass he wanted to stand up and explain all the prayers we use and where they come from in the Bible.  Obviously during consecration it comes from the last supper, and the our father, but what about all the other prayers? anyone know off the top of their head where they are in the Bible? just curious...
[right][snapback]807682[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There are books that get into that. That's actually why I prefer the Tridentine Mass, its more rich Biblically speaking. I wonder what Hahn thinks of it.

[rkwright]

n\m while browsing another section I found a link for it
[url="http://www.catholicfiles.com/soom.html"]http://www.catholicfiles.com/soom.html[/url]

I also like the Tridentine Mass better for the prayers, but I also like being able to hear the priest during consecration.