No, you specifically stated that babies are born in a state of grace. That is Pelagianism. You don't seem to have read the entire article on Pelagianism. The list you gave was not from Pelagius himself, but one of his co-horts named Celestius. Pelagius' heresy went deeper than those 6 points. The whole basis of his heresy was his denial of DIVINE GRACE and the belief that man, by his OWN natural power, could become holy in the eyes of God. Pelagius' heresy (as distinct from the basics of Celestius' own opinion) as regards point#3 is that he believed exactly as you stated - that every person is born in a NATURAL state of grace, and did not need DIVINE intervention to be holy. Thus, he denied original sin and the necessity of infant baptism. You claim that Baptism is necessary, yet you simultaneously claim that babies are born in a state of grace, which are contradictory statements. What I am asking of you is the source of your belief. Is it your own interpretation, or were you taught by your EO teachers that babies are born in a state of Grace? The Catholic and Oriental Orthodox and patristic teaching is that babies are not born in a state of grace, but rather that it is baptism that confers this much-needed grace on individuals.AlexanderOfBergamo said:On point 3: we believe that the condition of children is not identical to that of Adam before the sin, in that they are bound to concupiscence (but no actual sin or personal condemnation for a sin they never committed) Once again, NO HERESY
Well, you would have a point, if your relation of point#6 was accurate. In fact, what point #6 states is not that one is born without sin, but rather merely that there were men without sin before the advent of Christ. Why you needed to change the actual text in order to make your point. ??? ??? Doesn't that demonstrate right away that you don't really have an argument against the IC based on this?On point 6: there has been no son of man before Jesus born without seen. NO HERESY
Curiously enough, this same definition of Pelagianism shows how the IC contradicts point 6... since you believe that at least one individual (Mary) was born without sin...
In any case, as stated, the whole basis of Pelagianism is his denial of grace. In order to truly understand what was condemned, you need to relate point #6 to that fact (recall that the points you enumerated are not actually from Pelagius, but from his co-hort Celestius). So point#6 is not ad dictum a condemnation against the belief that men were without sin even before the advent of Christ (otherwise, the Church would be condemning itself for its ancient belief in the sinlessness of Sts. Jeremiah and the Forerunner). Rather, the condemnation is about the Pelagian belief that men were able to be sinless EVEN WITHOUT THE GRACE OF GOD.
I never realized that's what EO believe - that children are baptized soon after their birth because they are actual sinners. In my Oriental Tradition, we baptize to cleanse babies of original sin (among other reasons) and do not believe that small babies are capable of sinning. I learned the same as a Catholic. What you have just stated is really foreign to me, and I've never read anything resembling such a belief from the early Fathers. I want to ask you again - is this your own personal belief, or is this what your EO teachers have taught you?On the question of Baptism for infants: it is necessary since children begin to sin soon after their birth, when their natural concupiscence begins to work, corrupting their souls. The fact that some Churches in the past delayed Baptism even to the 40th day for males and the 80th day for females clearly shows how no urgency for baptism is needed in the first days of their lives. After all, even RC's don't baptize children immediately at their births, do they?
The fact that some Churches in the past delayed baptism is because of the belief that it should match the Jewish prescriptions for circumcision, as Scripture states that baptism replaces circumcision. The delay in no way occurred because the Church somehow did not believe in the utter importance of Baptism of babies and that such baptism was for the sake of their very salvation. The fact that the Church changed its practice is evidence to the contrary of your statement that no urgency existed.
And as to brother Isa's claim that many delayed their baptism in the early Church --- SO WHAT? That was the decision of individual Christians, not the teaching of the Church. You see, in the early Church, the Sacrament of confession was normatively permitted only once in your life, or very rarely. People were afraid that they might die without a chance to go to confession, and a person who is baptized would have a greater condemnation than one who was not. Since Baptism was understood to remit sin, then people opted to wait. But, once gain, this was the choice of individual Christians, but it was not the teaching of the Church that people should delay their baptisms. So Isa's example was a departure from Christian practice, and never considered a norm, but may have been allowed by economy.
As regards to Catholic baptism, the Church teaches that babies are to be baptized ASAP with no unreasonable delay.
Hope to have a response from you soon.