Note: The following was written before my conversion to Orthodoxy and no longer represents my own opinions.
Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear…
These plain words teach us one thing: we don’t maintain our salvation with works or outward sacraments. We stand by faith and faith alone.
As we already covered earlier, Catholic writers predating Luther used the term “faith alone” to speak of how Christians are saved. Some Roman Catholic apologists respond that we are justified initially by faith, but that Christians are continually justified with their faith and works both playing a role.
While Protestants will not disagree over the necessity of works (“faith, if it has no works, is dead,” James 2:17), they argue that faith is synonymous with works. This means that faith actually saves but the works are the fruit of faith. No serious Protestant is saying one can have faith alone and then live a life of blatant sin, as that would not be faithful living at all!
So, the real disagreement is not over works, but over the role of sacraments. Most Protestants, aside from Baptists and their offshoots, believe that God has given to the Church sacraments as a means of dispensing additional grace to believers.
God gives all sorts of grace. For example, God gives grace to both the wicked and righteous by giving them food. Further, He gives the grace of belief, and to those same believers, He gives grace upon grace so that they grow in faith and good works. In this context, the sacraments are a means of greater grace, though not of greater salvation.
We may glean this from how Cyril of Jerusalem writes of Rom 11:20 in light of baptism:
If you stand in faith, blessed are you; if you have fallen in unbelief, from this day forward cast away your unbelief, and receive full assurance…For He is present in readiness to seal your soul, and He shall give you that Seal at which evil spirits tremble, a heavenly and sacred seal, as also it is written, In whom also ye believed, and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Yet He tries the soul. He casts not His pearls before swine; if you play the hypocrite, though men baptize you now, the Holy Spirit will not baptize you. But if you approach with faith, though men minister in what is seen, the Holy Ghost bestows that which is unseen (Catechetical Lecture 17, Chapters 35 and 36).
The historical teaching of the Church has been that if one dies before receiving baptism, that one is baptized (i.e. “surrounded”) by the Holy Spirit through faith. This is because faith alone saves a man from his sins, not merely water that cleans the outside of one’s body (1 Pet 3:21).
Cyril writes that because we stand by faith, the sacrament apart from faith is void of the Spirit and powerless. Some argue that “baptism now saves you,” but Titus 3:5 is talking specifically about baptism by the Holy Spirit (accompanied by water, blood, or chiefly desire). This is because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the true baptism and this as Cyril points out comes about only by faith. We signify this baptism with water. The “seal” of the Holy Spirit which is given to believers by baptism guarantees salvation (2 Cor 1:22, Eph 4:30).
Why this long discussion on sacraments? Because when some Roman Catholics (or Eastern Orthodox, among others) invoke James 2:24 that we are “saved by works and not by faith alone,” what they have in view is that the sacraments are needed for salvation.
So, while faith initially justifies a man, it merely is his initiation into the salvation club (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, etc.) In order to maintain that salvation and stay in the club, God has given sacraments as means of grace and they can only be meted out through the Church (i.e. the RCC, EO, etc.) Therefore, faith alone really does not save, because sacraments are needed too.
However, how does this make sense with Rom 11:20? “[T]hey were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith.” In the sacradotal view, we don’t stand by faith but by performing sacraments.
This is not a gross generalization. Augustine, as do modern Catholic thinkers, teach that apart from faith an infant is saved by virtue of the sacrament of baptism…that very same sacrament which according to Cyril was powerless apart from faith!
Perhaps it is not coincidental that Cyril, who wrote more on baptism than any other Church Father, never once mentioned infant baptism in his writings. If he did, it would contradict his view of the sacraments!
Hence, any view that sacraments save men, is at best radically inconsistent. Case in point: Apologists that argue sacraments are performed by faith will, at the same time, argue that baptism can save unbelieving infants. How can the sacrament of baptism, under this faithless circumstance, be a faithful sacrament?
Therefore, it is clear that faith alone both saves a man and maintains that saved state. Jews were broken off for their unbelief, but Christians stand by faith. Sacraments may be a means of additional grace to the faithful, but they in of themselves are void and do nothing to save a man.
If someone trusts in Christ like the thief on the cross and dies before receiving any sacraments, he is still saved. However, if one trusts in Christ and like most others lives for a time, will he seek baptism and the Lord’s Supper? Of course. No true believer, guided by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writers of the Scriptures, will desire not to do something that the Holy Spirit commands in the Scripture. So, sacraments do not save, nor do they make us stand as it is faith that does. But, faith will encourage the believer to receive sacraments from the Church.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
I think, again, you are mischaracterizing “sacerdotalism” “as it is presently practiced” — attacking straw men. I think we already beat up this one side and down the other — but this idea of the Sacraments “maintaining salvation” is not actually what the Catholic Church teaches. Further, the context of Romans 11:20 does not support the argument you are trying to make with it at all. Paul is not declaring that “it is only by faith that you stand” — i.e. that “faith alone sustains you” — as a rejection of doing anything else — any more than he declares anywhere else that we are saved by “faith alone.” He juxtaposes “unbelief” and “faith”: it is because of unbelief that some (Jews) were broken off, and because of faith Gentiles were grafted in. But he warns them “not to be proud” (v. 20), and in verse 22, he warns that believers remain grafted in “provided [they] continue in His kindness.” Is this really “by faith alone,” or does “continuing in His kindness” not also entail submission to His commandments (1 Corinthians 7:19) and “life by the Spirit” (Romans 8:13-14, Galatians 5:16-24)?
So, while faith initially justifies a man, it merely is his initiation into the salvation club (i.e. the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, etc.) In order to maintain that salvation and stay in the club, God has given sacraments as means of grace and they can only be meted out through the Church (i.e. the RCC, EO, etc.) Therefore, faith alone really does not save, because sacraments are needed too.
This is a straw man through and through: This is neither what the Catholic Church (or any Orthodox church) teaches, nor the character of that teaching. As I have written to you at length already, Catholics do not view “salvation” as a “club” or as an accomplished binary state at all. Baptism does accomplish a regeneration by the Holy Spirit through faith and an incorporation into Christ. If you equate regeneration with salvation, then this grace cannot be lost or undone at all.
Concerning the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation: God’s grace is what it necessary for salvation. As the Church Fathers including Cyril maintain, the Sacraments of the Church are the ordinary means of God giving grace to believers, but they are not at all the only means: God gives grace however, whenever, and to whomever He pleases.
The historical teaching of the Church has been that if one dies before receiving baptism, that one is baptized (i.e. “surrounded”) by the Holy Spirit through faith. This is because faith alone saves a man from his sins, not merely water that cleans the outside of one’s body (1 Pet 3:21).
Who exactly in the history of the Church teaches this? It’s quite true that the Church has always held (and holds today) that God grants the grace of baptism to those believers who die before receiving baptism (the baptism of desire) — but it is God’s grace that saves them, not their “faith alone,” which is itself a gift of grace. Similarly, of course it is not merely water that saves anybody, but the washing of water with the Word (Ephesians 5:26). 1 Peter 3:21 teaches exactly this, that baptism saves not because it washes away sin physically, but because it is a pledge and an appeal for a spiritual cleansing.
Cyril teaches, among many other teachings on Baptism which are inconsistent the conclusions you seek to draw from him:
Thus Cyril maintains, just as firmly as every Church Father and the Catholic Church today, that baptism is necessary, except when God should grant the grace of baptism by other means.
This is because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the true baptism and this as Cyril points out comes about only by faith. We signify this baptism with water.
This is not what Cyril argues at all, but as my quote shows, the two — the invisible cleansing by the Spirit and the visible cleansing by water — are inseparable. This is basic Catholic sacramental theology: a sacrament is a visible sign that accomplishes an invisible grace.
Cyril writes that because we stand by faith, the sacrament apart from faith is void of the Spirit and powerless.
The Catholic Church in fact holds and teaches this to this day.
Augustine, as do modern Catholic thinkers, teach that apart from faith an infant is saved by virtue of the sacrament of baptism …
This is not what Augustine or modern Catholic thinkers teach: It is only by our faith that baptism saves. In the case of an infant, the needed faith follows the act of the sacrament. “Baptism is the sacrament of faith. …. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop” (CCC 1253). “For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism” (CCC 1254). When an infant is baptized, the parents, godparents, and the whole church promise in good faith to raise the child in the faith and nurture and build up his or her faith.
Apologists that argue sacraments are performed by faith will, at the same time, argue that baptism can save unbelieving infants. How can the sacrament of baptism, under this faithless circumstance, be a faithful sacrament?
Whoever said that circumstance was “faithless”?
Again, I think you should work on gaining a clearer understanding of Catholic and sacramental theology. I do not think it is as opposed to your thinking as you maintain.
“I think, again, you are mischaracterizing “sacerdotalism” “as it is presently practiced” — attacking straw men.”
I am neither too intelligent nor too well read to have gotten something so simple wrong. However, I don’t think it is a good use of yours or my time to beat around the rhetorical bush. So, I am not going to mince words or painfully test logic in my reply. I am going to cut to the point, and you are going to have to answer for yourself in light of the logic presented in the article that you have responded to.
“I think we already beat up this one side and down the other — but this idea of the Sacraments “maintaining salvation” is not actually what the Catholic Church teaches.”
Actually, it essentially is. Taking part in the sacramental life gives the Catholic assurance (or at least, a higher degree of such) in their salvation. I have faith in Christ, but do not take advantage of Catholic sacraments. In a very real way, this puts me at an immense disadvantage.
Nonetheless, this is besides the point. A sacrament done in faith is efficacious because FAITH is efficacious. A sacrament done apart from faith has no power. Yet, the RCC teaches the baptismal regeneration of infants. This contradicts their teaching that sacraments are void apart from faith.
This is far too glaring an error in logic to ignore, nor will I allow you to ignore it in a long-winded, meandering reply. Take this head on and tell us all whether baptism, apart from faith, saves anyone. This cuts at the core of the efficacy of sacraments.
“Further, the context of Romans 11:20 does not support the argument you are trying to make with it at all. Paul is not declaring that “it is only by faith that you stand” — i.e. that “faith alone sustains you” — as a rejection of doing anything else — any more than he declares anywhere else that we are saved by “faith alone.””
Actually, you would disagree with the rendering of Catholic translations:
” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe” (Rom 11:20, RSVCE).
“That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not taste high things, but stand in awe” (Rom 11:20, Aquinas Study Bible).
Now, I am aware that the word “only” is not in the Greek, nor the Latin in the Vulgate. However, to say that context does not support standing “only through faith” would put you in disagreement not only with my interpretation, but the interpretation of Catholic translators.
For what it is worth, I purposely quoted the NASB, and not the Catholic translations, simply because that’s my standard practice here. I don’t pick translations that suit me. However, I am not a batty crazy guy who infers the word “only,” unless Catholic scholars are equally crazy.
“This is a straw man through and through…”
No it is not, I linked the Catholic blog in question and this was their contention. In fact, I linked to your very comments that said as much.
“Concerning the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation: God’s grace is what it necessary for salvation. As the Church Fathers including Cyril maintain, the Sacraments of the Church are the ordinary means of God giving grace to believers…”
Wrong, faith is the normative means of having God’s grace. The Scripture is clear, “You are saved by grace, through faith.” Grace is not achieved through sacraments apart from faith, because it is through faith grace is given. There was no circumcision, sabbath, or sacrament for Abraham when he was saved. He merely believed.
So, you sacradotalism actually obscures the Biblical Gospel and it convinces many that that by partaking in sacraments they are “living by faith.” However, it is not the doing of sacraments that is the life of faith, but it is the life of faith that compels one to take part in the sacramental life. Being, that most of life really is not sacramental, this means sacraments are not the ordinary means of grace, but rather the extraordinary. We don’t get the Lord’s Supper or baptism on a regular, ordinary basis. Yet, we make all sorts of decisions and do all sorts of things predicated by faith throughout the day. Hence, it is the faith that is ordinary, the sacraments are the extraordinary exercise of such faith.
“Who exactly in the history of the Church teaches this? It’s quite true that the Church has always held (and holds today) that God grants the grace of baptism to those believers who die before receiving baptism (the baptism of desire) — but it is God’s grace that saves them, not their “faith alone,” which is itself a gift of grace.”
Baptism by desire teaches just what I said. Desire for baptism is faith, it is belief at its core. This desire for the grace of baptism is the result of faith. No one faithless desires baptism. I don’t view it as necessary to list exhaustively every person in the Church that has taught baptism by desire.
“Cyril teaches, among many other teachings on Baptism which are inconsistent the conclusions you seek to draw from him…”
Again, Cyril is no more my sole authority than he is yours. If he were yours, you would have to conclude the infants, though baptized, do not benefit from the sacrament as they are faithless when receiving it.
“This is basic Catholic sacramental theology: a sacrament is a visible sign that accomplishes an invisible grace.”
And it is simple enough to say that no invisible grace is achieved apart from faith.
“This is not what Augustine or modern Catholic thinkers teach:”
That’s not true. ” In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.” (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html) Prosper of Aquataine, Augustine’s “best student” summed it up quite nicely:
“But for infants who lack altogether the merit of a will to do good and who, just like all other mortals, are wounded with original sin, they can offer no explanation whatever. Why are some of them regenerated in baptism and saved, while others fail to be reborn and are lost” (Call of the Nations, Book 1, Chapter 22)?
“It is only by our faith that baptism saves. In the case of an infant, the needed faith follows the act of the sacrament.”
Sorry, that doesn’t work. Unless faith precedes the sacrament, as Cyril pointed out, it does not doing anything…unless you posit the one exception is infant baptism, which as I pointed out is radically inconsistent.
“When an infant is baptized, the parents, godparents, and the whole church promise in good faith to raise the child in the faith and nurture and build up his or her faith.”
Again, Cyril pointed out that unless the specific individual has faith preceding his baptism, his baptism is void.
“Whoever said that circumstance was “faithless”?”
The faith of Godparents and what not is not a substitute. That would be like you taking the Lord’s Supper or Confessing on behalf of myself. Sorry, it doesn’t work.
“Again, I think you should work on gaining a clearer understanding of Catholic and sacramental theology.”
I think you need to be clear and say, “I think Cyril and Augustine are wrong, I chose to believe this!” What I said still stands. Your view of baptism is radically inconsistent. And, without rehashing how we are saved by grace, through faith, the fact that you hold that infants can be saved by grace through the faith of other people shows that you do not understand the Gospel. May God have mercy on your soul.
God bless,
Craig
Actually, it essentially is. Taking part in the sacramental life gives the Catholic assurance (or at least, a higher degree of such) in their salvation. I have faith in Christ, but do not take advantage of Catholic sacraments. In a very real way, this puts me at an immense disadvantage.
It is your misunderstanding of the “essentials” that I am challenging. Yes, the Sacraments are reassuring, refreshing, and renewing. But to say that “salvation” is something that must be “maintained” like a car is not something that the Catholic Church teaches. It implies — and this is the key — that Catholics believe that salvation decays, that there is some defect in God’s grace. Catholics do not believe this. There is no defect in God’s grace: the defect is in our sinfulness. If I receive God’s saving grace, what He is given me is more than enough, in itself, to save me and sustain me to the end of life. There is no need of “maintenance” — unless I muddy myself with sin. That is the essential element you are continuing to overlook.
A sacrament done in faith is efficacious because FAITH is efficacious. A sacrament done apart from faith has no power. Yet, the RCC teaches the baptismal regeneration of infants. This contradicts their teaching that sacraments are void apart from faith.
This turns the entire tradition of sacramental theology on its head, placing all the power and efficacy and initiative in our human faith. You are placing the cart before the horse: God gives us His grace because of our faith, but our faith apart from His grace is of no avail. Taking to its logical end, your argument has us saving ourselves by our faith. This is why you are seeing a contradiction. If God saves us by His grace, then it is His power and His prerogative to give that grace to whoever and however He wants: to a faithful believer, to a innocent babe. Your argument limits God’s power and authority.
Baptism by desire teaches just what I said. Desire for baptism is faith, it is belief at its core. This desire for the grace of baptism is the result of faith. No one faithless desires baptism. I don’t view it as necessary to list exhaustively every person in the Church that has taught baptism by desire.
Again, the Catholic Church teaches and has always had faith in a baptism of desire. But it is not our faith that effects our salvation, as you seem to argue above, but only the working of God’s grace.
This is far too glaring an error in logic to ignore, nor will I allow you to ignore it in a long-winded, meandering reply. Take this head on and tell us all whether baptism, apart from faith, saves anyone. This cuts at the core of the efficacy of sacraments.
I have stated what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about baptism. I have quoted verbatim from the Catechism. Do not accuse me of “ignoring” or committing logical errors: if there is an error, it is in the Church’s own teachings.
In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.
What of it? Yes, Augustine believed, as the Church has always believed, that baptism saves infants. But he did not believe, and neither does the Catholic Church today, that baptism apart from faith is effectual. Your quotes do not show that and you will not find any other that does. You insist this is a contradiction; you’re welcome to believe that. But do not misstate or mischaracterize what the Church believes and teaches.
Sorry, that doesn’t work. Unless faith precedes the sacrament … it does not doing anything … unless you posit the one exception is infant baptism, which as I pointed out is radically inconsistent.
This is your argument. It is not taught by Cyril or any other Church Father that I know of. And no, infant baptism is not an exception. If you find the Church’s teachings “radically inconsistent,” you’re welcome to argue that, but please be honest about what it is the Church teaches.
The faith of Godparents and what not is not a substitute. That would be like you taking the Lord’s Supper or Confessing on behalf of myself. Sorry, it doesn’t work.
No, the faith of godparents is not a substitute. That is not what I said and not what the Church teaches. Baptism saves because of the faith of the person being baptized. As the Catechism says, it needn’t be “a perfect and mature faith, but [rather] a beginning that is called to develop.” If you don’t believe it works, then you’re welcome to make that argument, but this is in fact what the Catholic Church believes.
Again, Cyril is no more my sole authority than he is yours.
You certainly held him in enough authority to quote from him and feature his image in your post. I have shown conclusively that he does not teach what you imply he teaches. Do you no longer find him of value?
Actually, you would disagree with the rendering of Catholic translations.
The RSVCE is my translation of choice and I know and affirm exactly what it says. When you take a few words out of context, yes, you can fashion any sort of argument you would like. My argument, again, was that your argument was not the argument Paul was making at all. And it is not.
I think you need to be clear and say, “I think Cyril and Augustine are wrong, I chose to believe this!” What I said still stands. Your view of baptism is radically inconsistent. And, without rehashing how we are saved by grace, through faith, the fact that you hold that infants can be saved by grace through the faith of other people shows that you do not understand the Gospel.
I agree with Augustine and Cyril; their teachings continue to be taught in the Catholic Church. If you find this inconsistent, then so be it, but you should be honest about what the Church teaches. Infants are not saved “through the faith of other people,” but by their own faith. And yes, that means that their salvation is not complete at baptism, but only beginning.
May God have mercy on your soul.
And also on yours.
“But to say that “salvation” is something that must be “maintained” like a car is not something that the Catholic Church teaches. It implies — and this is the key — that Catholics believe that salvation decays, that there is some defect in God’s grace.”
The doctrines revolving around infused grace amount to this, however. If I need Confession in order to absolve sins or it can throw me into hell or more years in purgatory, it is a lot like getting your oil changed often so that your engine lasts.
“This turns the entire tradition of sacramental theology on its head, placing all the power and efficacy and initiative in our human faith. You are placing the cart before the horse…”
1. God is the author and perfecter of faith, so no this does not make a sacrament dependent upon the actions of men if my contention, that fith must precede a sacrament, is true.
2. You’re backing down from something you, yourself rote: “[F]aith is even the ground on which Christ works in the Sacraments.” If there is no faith in baptism, then the sacrament has no grounds. It becomes void, as Cyril argued.
So, I see some contradiction here.
“faith apart from His grace is of no avail.”
Faith apart from grace is not faith at all.
“Taking to its logical end, your argument has us saving ourselves by our faith.”
This obviously is not the logical end of my argument, and this is a very poor distraction from the fact that you believe, and teach, that if a man baptizes an infant that does not believe, that the actions of one man onto the infant save that infant. That, by definition, is a mankind performing some work to save another member of mankind. There’s no avoiding it, and I won’t let you get away with it, you have to meet this head on and not ignore it.
“Again, the Catholic Church teaches and has always had faith in a baptism of desire. But it is not our faith that effects our salvation, as you seem to argue above, but only the working of God’s grace.”
Again, the grace causes the faith in the heart of the believer, who then desires baptism because this is a faithful desire. Hence, that sacrament of baptism by desire is received by grace, through faith.
“[I]f there is an error, it is in the Church’s own teachings.”
Indeed.
“What of it? Yes, Augustine believed, as the Church has always believed, that baptism saves infants. But he did not believe, and neither does the Catholic Church today, that baptism apart from faith is effectual.”
I wrote: “Augustine, as do modern Catholic thinkers, teach that apart from faith an infant is saved by virtue of the sacrament of baptism.”
You replied: “This is not what Augustine or modern Catholic thinkers teach: It is only by our faith that baptism saves. In the case of an infant, the needed faith follows the act of the sacrament.”
You are actually not addressing my point. Obviously, if an infant were baptized by a faithful priest, the necessary re-condition of faith would be met. Yet, the Catholic Church does not require re-baptism in the case of being baptized by a heretical sect. So, in all honesty, the faith of the party subjecting the child to baptism is in fact irrelevant. It is the power of the Holy Spirit, in of Himself through the sacrament, that is important. This is why Augustine and Prosper were able to easily say that all unbaptized infants were damned, so high was their regard for the sacrament.
However, as I pointed out, this makes baptism unlike every other sacrament…that it does not require faith going into the sacrament. An adult can receive baptism by a faithful priest, but that does not avail him if he is faithless as Cyril said. So, basically you posit different rules for babies and adults. They are obviously not consistent with one another, or they would be the same. Hence, your views on this are obviously inconsistent.
“And no, infant baptism is not an exception.”
I showed how it was inconsistent. Your reply, “No, it’s not.” Your reason? … No reason given. Why? Probably because your logic requires that there be an exception, as I have shown, despite your preceding claim here.
“No, the faith of godparents is not a substitute. That is not what I said and not what the Church teaches. Baptism saves because of the faith of the person being baptized.”
…unless he is a baby, who does not have faith when he receives the sacrament.
“As the Catechism says, it needn’t be ‘a perfect and mature faith, but [rather] a beginning that is called to develop.'”
So, to be clear, do you believe all infants that are baptized into the Catholic Church, have some level of faith preceding the baptism? This is not what you were just arguing when you were talking about the faith of parents, and the faith of the infant in the future.
If you do not mind me asking, why all of the sudden are you changing your tune? Be honest.
“I have shown conclusively that he does not teach what you imply he teaches.”
Conclusively? You mean your meandering reply where you went from the the faith of infants after baptism and the faith of the infants parents being efficacious to infants have faith preceding baptism? What is your conclusion, that you can hold three contradicting opinions at once?
“The RSVCE is my translation of choice and I know and affirm exactly what it says.”
Perhaps now that I quoted it word for word and showed that it shows what I said, you suddenly affirm what it says even though you just said, “Paul is not declaring that ‘it is only by faith that you stand.'”
Now that I quote that the RSCVE says “you stand fast only through faith,” it begs the question why you would deny two days ago that “it is only by faith” when your revered translation says “you stand fast only through faith?”
If you are trying to beat me in an argument, you are wasting my time and yours. Argument is meaningless if one is not being honest with what he believes and not trying to understand what his opposition is saying. It seems to me you are changing your mind on things in every reply. Look into your own soul and perceive if this be the case. Because what you are writing here looks extremely hypocritical.
“My argument, again, was that your argument was not the argument Paul was making at all. And it is not.”
Yet, you paraphrased the verse, rejected it, and did so only to find out their your rhetorical false paraphrase actually summed up quite well the RSVCE rendering.
“Infants are not saved “through the faith of other people,” but by their own faith.”
When? After? Years later? If I take the Lord’s Supper this Sunday and mock it, but become Catholic ten years from now, does that sacrament ten years ago absolve me of venial sins?
May God have mercy on your soul.
Craig
The doctrines revolving around infused grace amount to this, however. If I need Confession in order to absolve sins or it can throw me into hell or more years in purgatory, it is a lot like getting your oil changed often so that your engine lasts.
That’s your analogy, not what the Catholic Church teaches.
If there is no faith in baptism, then the sacrament has no grounds. It becomes void, as Cyril argued. So, I see some contradiction here.
As I’ve said several times, yes, baptism works through faith. I think we are in agreement here. What contradiction?
This is a very poor distraction from the fact that you believe, and teach, that if a man baptizes an infant that does not believe, that the actions of one man onto the infant save that infant. That, by definition, is a mankind performing some work to save another member of mankind. There’s no avoiding it, and I won’t let you get away with it, you have to meet this head on and not ignore it.
The actions of a man have nothing to do with it. All that matters is the grace of God.
Hence, that sacrament of baptism by desire is received by grace, through faith.
Yes, we are in agreement. The distinction — what I was arguing before — was that it is God’s grace that works, effecting both faith and regeneration, not faith efficacious of itself, which is what you seemed to be arguing before. If that wasn’t your intention, then I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.
Obviously, if an infant were baptized by a faithful priest, the necessary re-condition of faith would be met. Yet, the Catholic Church does not require re-baptism in the case of being baptized by a heretical sect. So, in all honesty, the faith of the party subjecting the child to baptism is in fact irrelevant. It is the power of the Holy Spirit, in of Himself through the sacrament, that is important. This is why Augustine and Prosper were able to easily say that all unbaptized infants were damned, so high was their regard for the sacrament.
The faith of the priest has nothing at all to do with it — only his intention to “do what the Church intends to do” by baptism. I think we are in agreement here.
However, as I pointed out, this makes baptism unlike every other sacrament…that it does not require faith going into the sacrament. An adult can receive baptism by a faithful priest, but that does not avail him if he is faithless as Cyril said. So, basically you posit different rules for babies and adults. They are obviously not consistent with one another, or they would be the same. Hence, your views on this are obviously inconsistent.
Your presumption that an infant is “faithless” is invalid. You equate “faith” with an mature, adult intellectual belief, but this has never been the understanding of the Church. Faith is a gift of God’s grace (Ephesians 2:8). Why would God deny His gifts to the children of His faithful? Again, if you see an inconsistency here, it is not with “my” views, but with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I showed how it was inconsistent. Your reply, “No, it’s not.” Your reason? … No reason given. Why? Probably because your logic requires that there be an exception, as I have shown, despite your preceding claim here.
I honestly am not interested in arguing with you, only in pointing out that you are misunderstanding and misstating Catholic doctrine. But no, there is no exception for infants: God gives them the grace of faith and regeneration same as anyone else.
So, to be clear, do you believe all infants that are baptized into the Catholic Church, have some level of faith preceding the baptism? This is not what you were just arguing when you were talking about the faith of parents, and the faith of the infant in the future.
Stating not my beliefs, but the teachings of the Catholic Church: Yes, God gives the gift of faith to infants. That faith is a seed, and it has to grow, and as the child grows and his faith grows, he also grows in God’s grace. I mentioned the faith of parents and godparents and the community of faith not because their faith is of any effect in the child’s baptism, but because their promise to faithfully raise the child in the faith is a surety that the child will grow in faith, and that the baptism will be effectual.
“Infants are not saved “through the faith of other people,” but by their own faith.”
When? After? Years later?
I think your mistake, as we’ve discussed before, is in trying to make “salvation” an accomplished binary state at the moment of baptism. Yes, in a sense the infant is “saved” at the moment of baptism: washed clean of original sin and incorporated into the Body of Christ. But the journey of faith follows the course of one’s whole life, and the child will grow in faith and grace if he is raised well by his parents and church. When is he “saved” in the Protestant sense of something that is complete? When is any one of us? At the judgment seat of Christ, when we at least come into our inheritance (Ephesians 1:14) and are saved even from death.
If you do not mind me asking, why all of the sudden are you changing your tune? Be honest.
I don’t think I’ve changed my “tune” at all.
Conclusively? You mean your meandering reply where you went from the the faith of infants after baptism and the faith of the infants parents being efficacious to infants have faith preceding baptism? What is your conclusion, that you can hold three contradicting opinions at once?
I never said that the faith of parents had any effect. You’ve made an incorrect inference. Infants are saved because of their faith: the faith God gives them at baptism and the faith that grows after baptism. I didn’t make any argument of my own here, but only paraphrased and quoted the Catechism.
Regarding the quote from Cyril, you argued that he believed that “the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the true baptism” and that the water is only a symbol. I’ve shown this isn’t the case: For Cyril, the washing with both water and the Spirit are effectual and essential elements of the sacrament.
If you are trying to beat me in an argument, you are wasting my time and yours. Argument is meaningless if one is not being honest with what he believes and not trying to understand what his opposition is saying. It seems to me you are changing your mind on things in every reply. Look into your own soul and perceive if this be the case. Because what you are writing here looks extremely hypocritical.
I am not trying to “win” an argument. I replied because you are misstating Catholic doctrine and arguing against views the Catholic Church does not hold and has never held. I don’t think you mean to. It’s clear, as this discussion has revealed, that you actually agree with the Catholic Church on several important points. I want the same thing you want, presumably, to better understand and share the faith of Christ. I don’t know how this discussion has turned so sour. I’ve done my best to be polite and rational and honest and consistent. I have not changed my mind or my argument, and I have not meant to attack you or offend you.
May God have mercy on your soul.
And also on yours. I do pray God’s grace and peace and mercy for you. I am not your enemy or your opponent and I don’t know how we’ve gotten off on that foot. I thought our earlier discussions were graceful and encouraging.
By the way, I’m sure you know that most Reformed Christians (namely most Presbyterians) accept infant baptism. Have you studied their theological considerations? I don’t hold this up as any sort of exemplar, but I read a fascinating piece by a self-proclaimed Reformed Baptist this week in support of infant baptism. He hits on many important points from a Protestant and Reformed perspective, and even affirms the traditional doctrines and understandings I’ve stated above in several respects. I thought I would share it with you:
Does God’s Grace Work in Baptism?