UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Does baptism only forgive sins you have committed up to the point of your baptism? What becomes of the sins you commit after you're baptized?
Originally posted by Forthview:
But obviously we can physically enter the church through the door from the street.Yes, I agree with you that it gives us an entrée into the actual family of the Church and makes us formally a Child of God.But do we need baptism at a tender age if we have not committed sin ?
quote:However, that is not what the RCC says about it. See Aquinas. All that has happened is that an inheritance has been lost by an ancestor. If a king grants a landed title to someone, but later revokes it because of some misdeed of that person, then the descendants of that unfortunate man are not in any sense guilty of his crime. They are also not in any direct sense punished for that crime of their ancestor. And yet, they do not own that land because the title has been revoked and is not being passed onto them. Compared to what could have been, they suffer, and so because of their ancestor's misdeed. Still, they suffer no injustice in this, just consequence. That's the basic idea of original sin in Catholicism. Baptism then basically reinstates this title. Thus in some sense it "takes away" original sin. But not because original sin somehow was attached to that person as guilt, rather simply because the consequences suffered have been reversed.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
It depends what you mean by original sin. If you mean that the guilt of that sin is imputed, then we would reject such an idea.
quote:Leaving aside arguments about how literal immersion has to be, I thought all traditions taught this. Is there someone somewhere who doesn't?
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Some church traditions teach that baptism is dying to sin and self and rising to new life in Christ, particularly where total immersion is practised. First the candidate is lowered into the water symbolising dying to the old self, but by being raised up out of the water, to a new resurrected life in Christ. ...
quote:Be aware however that not everybody defines "sacrament" thusly.
Originally posted by Keromaru:
Best explanation I've heard, from a priest at my old church teaching a small class on the BCP catechism: Baptism is a sacrament, which means it's an outward sign of an inward grace.
quote:Sorry if this was not clear. As far as I am aware, all traditions teach about baptism constituting new life in Christ, but I will leave others to say if there is someone somewhere who doesn't.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Leaving aside arguments about how literal immersion has to be, I thought all traditions taught this. Is there someone somewhere who doesn't?
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Some church traditions teach that baptism is dying to sin and self and rising to new life in Christ, particularly where total immersion is practised. First the candidate is lowered into the water symbolising dying to the old self, but by being raised up out of the water, to a new resurrected life in Christ. ...
quote:No, that's not what the RCC teaches. "Total Depravity" is the the "T" in the Calvinist "TULIP", but is not a RC teaching. Human nature was damaged in the fall, but certainly not totally corrupted. To quote from the
Originally posted by Jude:
Ingo B - I thought that St Augustine taught that through the sin of Adam we are all tainted and therefore thoroughly depraved. Isn't this what the RC church teaches?
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
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).
quote:I'm not a Calvinist, but I don't think that's what 'total depravity' originally meant. It's both the meaning of 'total' and possibly the wrong choice of the word 'depravity' that are problems. The 'total' here, does not represent a statement that we are utterly and completely without virtue. It means that there is no part of human nature that is not affected by sin. Unlike Achilles, the term indicates a belief that there is not a part of us that is somehow untainted.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, that's not what the RCC teaches. "Total Depravity" is the the "T" in the Calvinist "TULIP", but is not a RC teaching. Human nature was damaged in the fall, but certainly not totally corrupted. ....
Originally posted by Jude:
Ingo B - I thought that St Augustine taught that through the sin of Adam we are all tainted and therefore thoroughly depraved. Isn't this what the RC church teaches?
quote:Correct, and that as a result, we are unable to save ourselves.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I'm not a Calvinist, but I don't think that's what 'total depravity' originally meant. It's both the meaning of 'total' and possibly the wrong choice of the word 'depravity' that are problems. The 'total' here, does not represent a statement that we are utterly and completely without virtue. It means that there is no part of human nature that is not affected by sin. Unlike Achilles, the term indicates a belief that there is not a part of us that is somehow untainted.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, that's not what the RCC teaches. "Total Depravity" is the the "T" in the Calvinist "TULIP", but is not a RC teaching. Human nature was damaged in the fall, but certainly not totally corrupted. ....
Originally posted by Jude:
Ingo B - I thought that St Augustine taught that through the sin of Adam we are all tainted and therefore thoroughly depraved. Isn't this what the RC church teaches?
quote:Well, I'm not a Calvinist and I have no intention to misrepresent Calvinism, about which I know little. My main point was that a doctrine of literally "total depravity" is not Catholic. What you explain there sounds rather compatible with Catholic teaching though.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not a Calvinist, but I don't think that's what 'total depravity' originally meant. It's both the meaning of 'total' and possibly the wrong choice of the word 'depravity' that are problems. The 'total' here, does not represent a statement that we are utterly and completely without virtue. It means that there is no part of human nature that is not affected by sin. Unlike Achilles, the term indicates a belief that there is not a part of us that is somehow untainted.
quote:Has there ever been a Christian who has said otherwise? This is such a straw man. It's not even clear that Pelagius himself believed we can save ourselves.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Correct, and that as a result, we are unable to save ourselves.
quote:In the sense of many of those since who have claimed to be out and out Calvinists, I'm not convinced Calvin was one either.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I'm not a Calvinist and I have no intention to misrepresent Calvinism, about which I know little. My main point was that a doctrine of literally "total depravity" is not Catholic. What you explain there sounds rather compatible with Catholic teaching though.
quote:You'll have to ask tvose who don't brlieve in a literal Adam. All I said was that I'm not sure.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So if it's not necessary to believe in a literal Adam, who did the original sin?
quote:Well, the implications can certainly be fleshed out a bit, but I don't know that it's a straw man. Enoch has it right—popular understanding of "total" and "depravity" notwithstanding, Calvin intended to express the Augustinian understanding of original sin.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Has there ever been a Christian who has said otherwise? This is such a straw man. It's not even clear that Pelagius himself believed we can save ourselves.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Correct, and that as a result, we are unable to save ourselves.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:In the sense of many of those since who have claimed to be out and out Calvinists, I'm not convinced Calvin was one either.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I'm not a Calvinist and I have no intention to misrepresent Calvinism, about which I know little. My main point was that a doctrine of literally "total depravity" is not Catholic. What you explain there sounds rather compatible with Catholic teaching though.
quote:You haven't answered my question. I really don't give a fuck what Calvin said; leave him aside. Who says we can save ourselves? Who? What group, what historic church, what theologian?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Well, the implications can certainly be fleshed out a bit, but I don't know that it's a straw man. Enoch has it right—popular understanding of "total" and "depravity" notwithstanding, Calvin intended to express the Augustinian understanding of original sin.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Has there ever been a Christian who has said otherwise? This is such a straw man. It's not even clear that Pelagius himself believed we can save ourselves.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Correct, and that as a result, we are unable to save ourselves.
quote:You seem to be assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not making. I didn't suggest that any theologian or group has taught otherwise (though I think Pelagius comes very close), or at least I didn't intend to. I was simply confirming Enoch's response to IngoB about what is meant in Calvinism by total depravity. I wasn't suggesting any other Christians think people can save themselves; I was stating what is meant in the Reformed tradition by that particular, often misunderstood term—which means that what Calvin said really can't be left aside. It's central to the point I was making.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You haven't answered my question. I really don't give a fuck what Calvin said; leave him aside. Who says we can save ourselves? Who? What group, what historic church, what theologian?
quote:If nobody has ever said this, then bringing it up in any argument is a straw man. Pretty much by definition.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:You seem to be assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not making. I didn't suggest that any theologian or group has taught otherwise (though I think Pelagius comes very close), or at least I didn't intend to. I was simply confirming Enoch's response to IngoB about what is meant in Calvinism by total depravity. I wasn't suggesting any other Christians think people can save themselves; I was stating what is meant in the Reformed tradition by that particular, often misunderstood term—which means that what Calvin said really can't be left aside. It's central to the point I was making.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You haven't answered my question. I really don't give a fuck what Calvin said; leave him aside. Who says we can save ourselves? Who? What group, what historic church, what theologian?
quote:Sure, if one actually is making an argument, which I wasn't. I wasn't arguing in favor of total depravity or even comparing it to any other understanding of human nature or original sin. I wasn't arguing anything at all.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:If nobody has ever said this, then bringing it up in any argument is a straw man. Pretty much by definition.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:You seem to be assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not making. I didn't suggest that any theologian or group has taught otherwise (though I think Pelagius comes very close), or at least I didn't intend to. I was simply confirming Enoch's response to IngoB about what is meant in Calvinism by total depravity. I wasn't suggesting any other Christians think people can save themselves; I was stating what is meant in the Reformed tradition by that particular, often misunderstood term—which means that what Calvin said really can't be left aside. It's central to the point I was making.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You haven't answered my question. I really don't give a fuck what Calvin said; leave him aside. Who says we can save ourselves? Who? What group, what historic church, what theologian?
quote:Total depravity as understood by the Reformed is the doctrine that, as Enoch said, because of original sin there is no part of human nature that is not touched or distorted (some would say enslaved) by sinfulness, and that as a result, even when we sincerely try to serve God, do good and lead holy lives our efforts are infected by sin and we are unable on our own to escape the effects of sin. It is only grace, offered freely and without any merit on our part, that can overcome this pervasive sinfulness and can enable us to accept salvation.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
quote:A contrast would be with the kind of Platonic view you get in, say, Golding's Lord of the Flies. That states that humanity is a mass of vicious and violent impulses that are only kept in check by civilization. So, vicious impulses, evil, reason and civilization, good. Where civilization means some group or other of people able to exert control by force. Total depravity says that the civilization is as flawed as the impulses that are kept under control.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
quote:I may be mistaken, but I always understood the difference to lie in the idea that human beings were made in the "image and likeness" of God. In Orthodoxy, the likeness is spoiled as a consequence of "Adam's" sin, but the image remains. In the doctrine of total depravity, both image and likeness are effaced.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
quote:I seem to remember about 40 years ago some Reformed theologians accused some other traditions of teaching or implying that there was a part of human nature that was untainted by sin, that there was a bit that was like Achilles's heel. Some were accused of arguing that this was reason. It was untainted - which meant that they claimed or implicitly accepted that its conclusions could be trusted. Others were accused of arguing that this was the bit of us that believes. It must be untainted because otherwise how could we believe.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
quote:Yes, humans are still image-bearers of God, according to the Orthodox, even though we're not very much like him anymore. I'd be afraid of someone who said we are not icons of God. That would too easily lend itself to morphing into treating humans as means and not ends, or as mere animals.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:I may be mistaken, but I always understood the difference to lie in the idea that human beings were made in the "image and likeness" of God. In Orthodoxy, the likeness is spoiled as a consequence of "Adam's" sin, but the image remains. In the doctrine of total depravity, both image and likeness are effaced.
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
I think I got that from Kallistos Ware, but I may be misremembering.
quote:No, the image of God (which is not distinguished from the likeness) is not effaced according to total depravity; it is distorted or marred. If one thinks of the image as a reflection in a mirror, total depravity would say the mirror is shattered—the reflection can still be seen, but it is a complete distortion.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In Orthodoxy, the likeness is spoiled as a consequence of "Adam's" sin, but the image remains. In the doctrine of total depravity, both image and likeness are effaced.
quote:According to the CofE's canon B28, a person seeking entry into the CofE, and who has been baptised but not episcopally confirmed (the canon makes a point of specifying this), must be confirmed at the hands of an Anglican bishop.
Originally posted by Forthview:
On another thread there was discussion about Catholic confirmation being carried out by priests
and not always by the bishop.
At the Easter vigil a parish priest is automatically allowed to confirm a candidate for full communion with the Church.At other times the parish priest can be delegated by his bishop to administer the sacrament of confirmation.Someone said that former RCs who convert to CofE have to be confirmed by a CofE bishop,if not already confirmed by an RC BISHOP.
What happens to orthodox who may convert to Cof ?.They will normally have been confirmed/chrismated by parish priest instead of the bishop.
quote:According to the CofE's
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
According to the CofE's canon B28, a person seeking entry into the CofE, and who has been baptised but not episcopally confirmed (the canon makes a point of specifying this), must be confirmed at the hands of an Anglican bishop.
The plain reading of that is that those presbyterally confirmed/chrismated in the Catholic and Orthodox churches would need to be confirmed again if seeking entry into the CofE.
I once pointed this out on a thread where Orthodox baptism or at least chrismation of those already confirmed coming from elsewhere was being criticised by Anglicans, and was told that this was nonsense.
Whether or not this may be generally disregarded on the quiet by individual priests doesn't change the fact that that's the rule.
quote:If that interpretation is stated on the website I suppose it must represent an authoritative reading of the canon. It seems an imaginative reading of the word episcopally. Nonetheless, I sit corrected. Thank you, Stranger in A Strange Land.
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
quote:According to the CofE's
Whether or not this may be generally disregarded on the quiet by individual priests doesn't change the fact that that's the rule.
website
'Those who have been confirmed in a church whose ministerial orders are recognised and accepted by the Church of England and in which confirmation is performed by a bishop, or by a priest acting on the bishop's behalf and using chrism blessed by the bishop, do not need to be confirmed. They are simply received into the Church of England instead.'
I'm sure I've seen a more authoritative statement somwhere defining the the meaning of 'episcopally' in the Canon, but I don't recall where for the moment.
quote:What does FB stand for in this context please?
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I made the mistake recently of joining & attempting to engage with FB groups entitled roughly "Discussions about Orthodoxy" - anything of the sort - came away with a bloody nose & threats of hell if I didn't benefit from the blessings of a bullet first...!
quote:The theology, in those parts of the CofE that care about such things, is that priests act on behalf of the bishop, using powers delegated to them.
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
It seems an imaginative reading of the word episcopally.
quote:So something is "episcopal" if the priest does it on behalf or instead of the bishop, such as confirmation, but is not episcopal if the priest does it... what? On his own authority? Like celebrate mass/communion/eucharist? Is there ANYTHING that a priest does that is not by licensure by the bishop?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The theology, in those parts of the CofE that care about such things, is that priests act on behalf of the bishop, using powers delegated to them.
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
It seems an imaginative reading of the word episcopally.
quote:Thank you. And there was I wondering what ecclesiastical in-crowd the initials might stand for 'Full Believers', 'Favoured Brethren', 'Fearful Bogomils' or what?
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:Of course you can't prevent that. Nor could you prevent a priest (or "priest") not using one at all but going through the same words and motions -- given the way an Orthodox church is set up, ad orientam (facing east), the antimension is generally not visible to the congo.
Originally posted by Jude:
How would a priest be prevented from using another's antimension? Of course, a genuine priest wouldn't think of doing so, but how could a false priest be prevented?