We could argue about infants being baptised. Did you know that the church has considered only adult baptism but feels it would be rejected and there's enough going on anyway.
The Church never excluded children from baptism. As I posted earlier, Scripture attests to entire households being baptized (cf. Acts 16:15; Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16) as well as St. Peter explicitly stating baptism is “for you and for
your children.” (Acts 2:38-39)
Recall also the words of our Blessed Lord Himself…
“Now
they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘
Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.’” (Luke 18:15-16)
I am not sure why you would seek to put an age restriction on who can enter the kingdom of God. Would you force your children to live outside of your house until they are old enough to profess membership in your household? I would hope not. So too Christian parents do not exclude their children from the household of God.
I'm not sure Jesus meant for infants to be baptised. In the Great Commision of Mathew 28, He tells the Apostles to teach all nations...an infant can't be taught. Acts 2:39 says the promise is also to the children...the promise of the Holy Spirit...when they could understand?
All nations nations means the entirety, the whole, no exceptions. By your logic, the mentally handicapped should not be baptized either, as they may be incapable of being taught.
Again, you are putting restrictions on who can enter the kingdom of God. (Mt. 23:13)
Augustine made baptism necessary because the church accepted his theology, which was not iron-clad in the centuries before him.
St. Augustine didn’t make baptism necessary, Jesus did.
—-> “Jesus answered, ‘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)
—-> “
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
You could read CCC no. 405 and 406.
405 seems to say that O.S. is NOT imputed to each individual.
But the CCC gives me many problems because, quite frankly, I don't find it to be very clear in its teachings - and trust me, I know this for sure.
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).
The underlined in paragraph 405 does suggest that O.S. is not imputed....in other paragraphs it seems that it is.
Correct. Imputation is not an orthodox Christian concept. It is a Protestant one.
Because of Augustine, the church now teaches that it is.
If the Church now teaches that sin is imputed, please post the source for your claim.
Agreed that he didn't invent it...but it's BECAUSE of him that infants are now baptised.
This is demonstrably erroneous
because the Church baptized infants centuries before St. Augustine was even born! You have the Scriptures testifying to it in the first century, and we have the testimony of history in subsequent centuries prior to St. Augustine's. For example...
2nd Century
“
For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.” (St. Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, 2:22:4)
3rd Century
“
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (Hippolytus,
The Apostolic Tradition, 21:16)
“
In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” (Origen,
Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3)
“
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9)
“Moreover, belief in the divine Scriptures declares to us, that among all, whether infants or those who are older, there is the same equality of the divine gift…
And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell.” (St. Cyprian,
Epistle 58 to Fidus on the the baptism of infants)
Impute is an english word...no matter which denomination uses it. It's for what you state above,,,,but this only happens because of the elimination of O.S.
Protestants believe we are affected by O.S., but are not personally responsible for it. (the affect is concupiscience)
Paragraph 405 sounds to me like the CC agrees.
Again, original sin is a deprivation, not an imputation. Paragraph 405 explains it perfectly.
Those that came after Augustine will, of course, be more in agreement with infant baptism. Those that came before thought differently about O.S.
If you just read the first on your list, you'll see what I mean.
Iraneaus had different ideas about O.S.; he was much softer in describing the condition of fallen man.
Again, this is demonstrably erroneous since history testifies to the practice of baptizing children preceding St. Augustine. Here is the doctor of grace himself...
“It was not I who devised the original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you, who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic. In the judgment of God, all are in the devil's power, born in sin,
unless they are regenerated in Christ.” - St. Augustine,
On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book II:25
Augustine gave rise to Calvinism.
Hardly. St. Augustine is the antithesis of Calvinism.
