Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pope says fate of unbaptized babies touches important beliefs
Catholic News Service ^ | Oct-7-2004 | Cindy Wooden

Posted on 10/10/2004 4:38:20 PM PDT by Stubborn

The Second Vatican Council's reforms and the new theological challenges it posed placed the question of unbaptized babies on the back burner for most theologians, but many bishops around the world have asked the doctrinal congregation for guidance on the question.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-233 next last
To: PetroniusMaximus

The Orthodox simply do not define many doctrines which the Roman church does define. There is a vehement hatred of all things Roman by certain Orthodx, who are very well-represented on this site. Hence, if one doctrine can be associated with Roman speculation or post-schism doctrine, its antithesis is immediately put forth as Orthodox doctrine. Which is silly, of course, because the point is usually that the Orthodox do not so much oppose Roman teaching, but find the doctrines put forth by Rome to be unwarranted speculation.


41 posted on 10/11/2004 10:21:08 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Stubborn; armydoc
"Once again, the good thief was not baptised because Christ did not institute baptism as a requirement until after He was crucified. Until He instituted it, how could it have been a requirement."

On the contrary, people were thronging to John's Baptism, including Jesus the Christ Himself. It was the in thing to do in those days.

What is the more likely assumption to make is that the process was not complete for mankind until the Lamb of God made His Sacrifice.

Since John's Baptism was such a phenomenom in those days, why would we speculate that Dismas was also not Baptized? Because he was a thief? I say we have Baptized theives among us even today.

42 posted on 10/11/2004 10:25:49 AM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Stubborn; armydoc
"Once again, the good thief was not baptised because Christ did not institute baptism as a requirement until after He was crucified. Until He instituted it, how could it have been a requirement."

On the contrary, people were thronging to John's Baptism, including Jesus the Christ Himself. It was the in thing to do in those days.

What is the more likely assumption to make is that the process was not complete for mankind until the Lamb of God made His Sacrifice.

Since John's Baptism was such a phenomenom in those days, why would we speculate that Dismas was also not Baptized? Because he was a thief? I say we have Baptized theives among us even today.

43 posted on 10/11/2004 10:27:29 AM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican

Baptism is a public statement that a person makes to show what they are confessing to believe:

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Becky


44 posted on 10/11/2004 10:44:52 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain (I have a plan......vote for Bush:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
St. Dismas, the good thief, may have been baptized, we have no way of knowing if he was or if he wasn't since there is no account of it either written in the Bible or the unwritten teachings of the Apostles.

We are however, certain of a few things; namely that he is now in heaven because Jesus told him so and that Christ did not establish the necessity of Baptism till after His ressurection.

Since Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Baptism until after His ressurection, whether or not the good thief was actually baptised or not is of no consequence.

45 posted on 10/11/2004 11:11:46 AM PDT by Stubborn (It Is The Mass That Matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dangus
"There is a vehement hatred of all things Roman by certain Orthodx, who are very well-represented on this site. "

Probably true, but even now there is a thread on these boards up to post 320 where RCs and Orthodox have been discussing re-union of the Churches with a focus on dogmatic and doctrinal matters, among other things, with an enlightening, challenging and respectful tone...and most of the Orthodox on this site have been posting there with regularity. And as I remember it, we haven't been accused of being heretics even once, schismatics occasionally, and none of us have been warned that we are doomed to Hell if we don't submit to the Pope. I'd call that a great discussion! :)
46 posted on 10/11/2004 12:05:58 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Stubborn; Arguss; PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain

***Since Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Baptism until after His ressurection...***


I find this difficult to believe in light of the following passage...

"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), He left Judea and departed again for Galilee."

-John 4


It is clear from the above that Jesus' disciples were baptizing quite early in his ministry. Now unless you think they were doing this of their own accord, it is fair to assume they were doing it with Jesus blessing.



Also...

If baptism is so critically important in terms of salvation and spiritual new birth, why do we find Paul with such an unconcerned attitude towards it?


"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

- 1st Cor 1


Spiritual birth must be accomplished without the necessity of baptism for Paul, in the same epistle, to the same readers, claims...


"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."

- 1st Cor 4


In other words, through Paul's preaching of the gospel to them something happened that was powerful enough to transfer them into the family of God (i.e. new birth) - and this without then necessity of baptism as seen in the first chapter.


47 posted on 10/11/2004 12:16:46 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Stubborn

***Thats correct. Every unborn child who dies without Baptism as well as every infant or child who dies before the age of reason without first being baptized will never see the face of God ***

Your theology necessitates a theoretical construction (limbo) that is never mentioned in the Scriptures and does not reflect the character of the God of the Scriptures.



This is the God of the Scriptures...


Matthew 19

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And he laid his hands on them and went away.



Mark 10

And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.



Luke 18

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. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."


48 posted on 10/11/2004 12:24:02 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus; Arguss; Stubborn

Paul also said:

1 Cor. 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel. The gospel is what saves, not baptism.

Becky


49 posted on 10/11/2004 12:37:24 PM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain (I have a plan......vote for Bush:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
As I said, Christ did not make Baptism the requirement till after His ressurection:

Mat: 28:5 And the angel answering, said to the women: Fear not you; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 28:6 He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Come, and see the place where the Lord was laid.....

......28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

Again, in Mark 16:6 Who saith to them: Be not affrighted; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified: he is risen, he is not here, behold the place where they laid him......

......16:15 And he said to them: "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

It is this explicit command of Christ that not only instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, but also declared it as being wholly necessary for our salvation.

Prior to this, His command, the old law, i.e. the law of the OT was still the requirement. Now, if you want to debate what happened to people who, not hearing this command, died shortly after this command was given, I would hazzard to guess that if they were just, they made it at least to Purgatory, but I do not know and seriously doubt any one knows exactly how God judged those particular people.

50 posted on 10/11/2004 12:43:52 PM PDT by Stubborn (It Is The Mass That Matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Stubborn; PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain

***As I said, Christ did not make Baptism the requirement till after His ressurection: ***


What was it before hand, an elective?



You didn't address my question...

"If baptism is so critically important in terms of salvation and spiritual new birth, why do we find Paul with such an unconcerned attitude towards it?"


And we know that Paul was writing "post resurrection".




***16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.***

Interesting to note here that damnation is a result of failure to believe, not of a failure to be baptized.


51 posted on 10/11/2004 1:02:14 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
That is your private interpretation of that scripture, the Catholic interpretation of that particular scripture from the Haydock Bible says:

not to baptize That is, the first and principle intent in my vocation to the apostleship, was to preach the gospel before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel (see Acts 9:15). To baptize is common to all, but to

preach is peculiarly the function of an apostle.

52 posted on 10/11/2004 1:03:48 PM PDT by Stubborn (It Is The Mass That Matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
"If baptism is so critically important in terms of salvation and spiritual new birth, why do we find Paul with such an unconcerned attitude towards it?"

See post 52

53 posted on 10/11/2004 1:05:54 PM PDT by Stubborn (It Is The Mass That Matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Stubborn
How do you interpret Acts 10: 44-48:

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

These Gentiles obviously received the HS BEFORE baptism.

Becky
54 posted on 10/11/2004 1:13:28 PM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain (I have a plan......vote for Bush:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
I agree. If there is to be a true reunion of the various sects of Christianity, there will need to be a grand council with everything since the 7th on the table (that being the one where most people end up agreeing on).

By God's grace it can happen, but how it can eludes me.
55 posted on 10/11/2004 1:21:02 PM PDT by redgolum (Molon labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Well, I appreciate your positivity. I do hope that you noticed the inclusion of the word, "certain." Sadly, it seems to ME that any discussion I read about reconciliation ends up with several of these people declaring that they find no value in reconciliation. I'm glad your experience is better.


56 posted on 10/11/2004 1:22:54 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Stubborn; PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain

It is clear from the context...

"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

... that Paul wasn't too concerned terribly about baptism.

This is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with your believe that baptism IS salvation.


The water of baptism isn't magical. Baptism is not salvation. It is the outward sign of a repentance and turning from sin that has taken place IN THE HEART. If that hasn't happened, then no salvation has happened - no matter how much water you put on your head.


Would you believe it if Peter himself told you?


57 posted on 10/11/2004 1:46:54 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
The Holy Ghost fell upon all them and made His coming known in some visible manner and exterior signs, as on the day of Pentecost.

Can any man forbid water or doubt that these on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended may be made members of the Christian Church by Baptism, as Christ ordained?

58 posted on 10/11/2004 2:10:39 PM PDT by Stubborn (It Is The Mass That Matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
This is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with your believe that baptism IS salvation.

I never once said that Baptism is salvation, I said, and quoted Jesus, that it is a necessary requirement for salvation. IOW, as Jesus said, without it, no one gets to heaven.

59 posted on 10/11/2004 2:13:44 PM PDT by Stubborn (It Is The Mass That Matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

" By God's grace it can happen, but how it can eludes me."

Well, I'm not holding my breath! From the Orthodox side, we've been kicking around a Pan Orthodox Council since at least the 20s and haven't gotten anywhere that I can see except mad at each other! All in God's good time, I suppose. In the meantime, counting coup on each other just makes matters worse, but a good, open and respectful discussion at least has the value of teaching us where the other guy is coming from and that's no small thing.


60 posted on 10/11/2004 2:21:46 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Nuke the Cube!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-233 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson