Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Stubborn
Thank you also for posting this.

I have been studying the situation regarding the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for some time (years, in fact). One objection that is thrown at me is this. I assume the new covenant (i.e. the necessity of baptism) was brought in on the day of Pentecost, when the Church herself was born. However, was it then universal, or was it only when the gospel was preached? The difficulty (if there is one) lies in the fact that between one day and the next, a pagan in a far away land may be saved under the old law, but damned under the new. To a skeptic, this does not appear either feasible or possible with a just and loving God.

I am genuinely trying to find out here, and I am presenting a talk on the "Boston Hersy Case" to a group of fellow trads soon, so I'd better be prepared!! Many thanks for any light you shed on this.

31 posted on 11/23/2004 1:47:10 PM PST by davidj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: davidj
You're all quite welcome!

Ahh, the Good Old Boston Heresy Case hey? Well, I hope you have better luck that Fr. Feeney did.

At any rate, Baptism did not become part of the new law, necessary for salvation till sometime after the Crucifiction just before the Ascension. Which is why the Holy Innocents are in Heaven without Baptism - they were killed when Jesus was still a baby Himself and had not yet instituted Baptism - same goes for St. Dismas, the Good Thief.

A Pagan would not have been saved if he died regardless of old or new law. For those who were "Just souls" in "far away lands" who died between the old law and the promulgation of the new law, may have had one of two things happen: 1) God sent someone to baptise them before they died or 2) They did not die until the "news" reached them, at which time they were Baptised.

Of course, we could assume that He allowed salvation to those who had not been baptised because they had no way of knowing, but if we assume that to be the case, then we can also assume that 3)He allowed provisos and did mean what He said, 4)It was impossible or inconvenient for Him to send someone to Baptize just souls in far away lands.

Items one and two would be examples of God's mercy and Divine Providence, items three and four would be examples of God's........laziness?

32 posted on 11/23/2004 2:30:52 PM PST by Stubborn (It Is The Mass That Matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

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