Pope says fate of unbaptized babies touches important beliefs

Catholic News Service ^ | Oct-7-2004 | Cindy Wooden

[Stubborn]

In an earlier post, you mentioned that a discussion from both sides was in process here on the freep - can you post a link please when you get a chance? thanks

[Kolokotronis]

"Well, I appreciate your positivity. I do hope that you noticed the inclusion of the word, "certain.""

Oh, I noticed!

"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."

As things stand right now, there would be no value in reconcilliation. Your beliefs are not ours, nor ours yours in too many areas. One side or the other would have to either surrender deeply held positions or pretend they make no difference. The only way there will be a reunion between the Roman Church and the Eastern Church will be because of an Ecumenical Council of the whole Church where neither side is under any compulsion. We know what we agree upon and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we, hierarchs, clergy and laity, probably under the presidency of the Pope as primus inter pares, can take up the other issues which have divided us and /or arisen since the schism. Believe me I have no idea how this can work, but at some point in the future it will work. Praying for it is the best place to start. In the meantime, as I suspect we all know down deep, there is little point in throwing anathemas at each other. I mean, even the hierarchs have given that up and there was a time when they spent most of their time slingng those things around.

[Kolokotronis]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1223778/posts?q=1&&page=1

[Arguss]

Paul was most certainly not downplaying the importance of Baptism, indeed it must have been important enough to him that he baptized the people that he told us of.

""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"

What he seems to be saying is that if more people were baptized by him they would be bragging of that fact, since he was so popular, rather than being content to just be baptized.

I liken the statement as the same as if a person were baptized by the Pope. They would go around telling everybody of that fact. Probaby why the Pope doesn't baptize people. Just lke Paul, he has too many other things to do.

Anybody can argue all they want to about the necessity of Baptism. It is clear in the Bible of it's necessity, and you twist the words, or accept the advice of those that do, at your own peril.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that baptism is not necessary, just not necessary for salvation. Baptism is a commad that should be obeyed. The REASON for baptism is what is at debate.

Becky

[PetroniusMaximus]

***I never once said that Baptism is salvation, I said, and quoted Jesus, that it is a necessary requirement for salvation.***


How can it be a REQUIREMENT for something (Salvation) that PRECEEDS it?

See Acts 10

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"

The fact that they recieved the Spirit shows clearly that they were saved - saved by faith in Peter's message - right there while people watched.

Did the get baptised? No doubt. Was baptism a requirement for them to receive the Holy Spirit (i.e. the new birth)? Apparently not, because the received the Spirit BEFORE they were baptized.




I think, if you will carefully look at the scriptures, you will find that baptism is an act of obedience on the part of those who have turned from their sins and submitted their lives to Jesus Christ. These people have experience the miraculous change of heart refered to in the NT as the "new birth".

It is not the water that is important but the clear conscience before God that comes as a result of turning from sin and placing the whole weight of ones trust one Jesus and his death on our behalf.

[Stubborn]

You base your belief on your private interpretation of scripture, which is in itself, contrary to scripture. At any rate, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven".

[PetroniusMaximus]

***What he seems to be saying is that if more people were baptized by him they would be bragging of that fact, since he was so popular, rather than being content to just be baptized. ***

According to your theology, what he seems to be saying is something like, "I'm glad I didn't take part in anyone's salvation through baptism in case they might boast about it." (I guess he would rather see them perish then run the risk that some might boast).


...which is clearly preposterous. We know Paul would have never thought such a thing.


Let this statement sink in...

"I thank God that I baptized none of you..."




If baptism is a requirement for salvation then Paul is THANKING GOD that he didn't help people get saved!



But did he help these exact people experience the new birth? Yes. He clearly stated he did here:

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."


"...through the Gospel", not through baptism.







***It is clear in the Bible of it's necessity, and you twist the words, or accept the advice of those that do, at your own peril.****


I am not denigrating the importance of baptism. I am saying that baptism is an outward act that symbolizes an inward change. The outward act with out the inward change means nothing. The inward change is not dependent on the outward act, but rather, it is a public expression of it.

Just like circumcision in the OT. One could be outwardly, physically circumcised but not inwardly circumcised. That is why God said...


"Circumcise yourselves to the LORD;
remove the foreskin of your hearts,
O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem;
lest my wrath go forth like fire,
and burn with none to quench it,
because of the evil of your deeds."


You can have outward circumcision but not inward circumcision.

You can have outward baptism, be physically washed in water, but not have the inner baptism - the baptism of the Spirit. That is the baptism which washes the heart clean.

The ones who are truly at peril are the one who think a physical ritual will save them when they have never experienced the life-changing baptism of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***You base your belief on your private interpretation of scripture,***

Again, would you believe it if Peter himself told you???




***At any rate, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven".***

When were you born of the Spirit?

[Stubborn]

Again, would you believe it if Peter himself told you???

Again, your interpretation of scripture contradicts scripture itself.

When were you born of the Spirit?

When I was baptized and initiated into the life of the Church, same as everyone who is baptized.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Why do you think this verse is speaking of baptism??? Is it just because of the mention of water?

Becky

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Again, would you believe it if Peter himself told you???***

Here is my statement which you said contradicts scripture...

"It is not the water that is important but the clear conscience before God that comes as a result of turning from sin and placing the whole weight of ones trust one Jesus and his death on our behalf."



Here are the very words of Peter...


"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body (i.e. water) but as an appeal to God for a good conscience (i.e. repentance from sin), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

-Peter



***When I was baptized and initiated into the life of the Church, same as everyone who is baptized.****

What is the proof in your life that you were actually spiritually reborn? What is the evidence?

[sempertrad]

Many years ago, my sister mis-carried in her 7th or 8th month, as soon as that baby's skin started to show, before it (he) was even fully out of the womb, the nurse, anxiously waiting, instantly baptised that infant because ya just never know.

Though you say it was many years ago, I'm very sorry for your family's loss.

How blessed your sister was to have the nurse she did! Sadly, I don't think there are too many who would have made baptism the top priority.

if God chooses to grant those infants with original sin into heaven, he never made mention of it and the Church has been cautiously quiet about it for a long time.

I wonder if it's possible that Our Lord allowed His Passion and death to suffice for all babies and children who would die without Baptism...

You offered good food for thought in your post. Thanks, Stubborn.

[Stubborn]

Well, to start with, its meaning is noted in my bible, aside from that, it has been infallibly defined numerous times - the Council of Trent taught: CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.

Again, Trent teaches us: CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.

[Stubborn]

Evidence? Perhaps in the am, time for bed.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

Bump!

[kosta50]

I realize I am jumping on this thread a little late, but here is some food for thought:

Orthodoxy does not believe in the "original sin" as something we inherit; we inherit mortality and propensity to commit sin as a consequence of Adamn's sin, and not the sin inself.

Our salvation is based not on merit but on God's mercy. It has nothing to do with how many Hail Marys we recite, or how much money we donate or how many homeless shelters we build. You can't earn ot buy you way to Heaven!.

If I believe that God can save people thieves who, at their last moment repent, or me who was an unbeliever for many years, or somone like Saint Paul, who was guilty of stoning Christians, I have every reason to believe that God's mercy will prevail over those who have never sinned.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Orthodoxy does not believe in the "original sin" as something we inherit; we inherit mortality and propensity to commit sin as a consequence of Adamn's sin, and not the sin inself.

That's exactly what Catholicism teaches.

Original sin is the death of the soul. It is the absence of grace and the lack of a connection to the divine life of God in Christ in every newborn person.

It is not a personal or actual sin for anyone besides Adam and Eve.

Don't confuse our legalistic terminology like guilt, stain, merit and the rest for things that they are not.

[MarMema]

Good post Kosta! And I wanted to break in here and ask the RC reading, has anyone heard from Siobhan lately?

Just wondered how she is...I have been trying to offer my miserable prayers for her when I remember.

[kosta50]

That's exactly what Catholicism teaches

Well, then, there is no argument.

But that does not tell me why the Catholics then need the Limbo. We are to be judged for that which we have done. The unbaptized infants had done nothing to be judged for, nor anything to repent for. Do you not think that God in his infinite love for humanity can not find room for Grace for unbaptized infants if he can save repentant murderers? Better yet, why speculate and confuse, as if we really know the essence of God's salvation?!