Posted on 12/01/2005 8:23:17 PM PST by dangus
Pope: No Limbo For Babies, Only Heaven Protestants have never believed in limbo. Limbo is where babies who have not been baptized go when they die as infants. That was taught for many years in the Roman Catholic Church.
Protestants never bought into limbo because there is no mention of limbo in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says that Jesus stated that babies go to heaven. As He was ministering to little children, Jesus said of the children: ". .of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Therefore, Protestants, with that biblical information from the lips of God incarnate, have never held to a limbo state for unbaptized babies. Instead, they have always believed that infants who die go directly into the presence of the loving God. The children have had no power of choice, deciding right or wrong, for their cognitive powers have not matured to that level. Therefore, in their innocence, they are welcomed into eternal bliss.
Catholics have formed limbo as an hypothesis, according to the present Pope. He says that the teaching does not have a firm footing; therefore, he is about to abandon the belief held for years by Roman Catholics. Instead, he agrees with the Protestant conclusion, that is, that infants who die are entranced into heavenly portals.
Some Protestants wonder then if purgatory is the next Roman Catholic position to be eliminated. There is not much talk today about purgatory in many Catholic parishes.
Protestants have held that purgatory too is an hypothesis with no biblical data. Instead, there is only a heaven to gain and a hell to avoid, they preach. Protestants hold to these two dimensions of eternity for that is all that is stated in the divine revelation - the Holy Scriptures.
Further, because Protestants believe that one is saved by faith alone and not works, there is no need for a purging place to burn off sins not dealt with in earthly existence. Protestants hold that Jesus' sacrificial death on the Calvary cross is all sufficient to erase every sin when sincerely repented of; therefore, there is no need for a purging state for sins to be burnt off after death.
Roman Catholics have held that salvation by Jesus' death alone is not enough. There must be human works that help the soul get into heaven. Since few persons accumulate enough works in this life to go directly to heaven, there must be a purgatory where sins are burnt off the soul in order for the soul to be fit enough to enter heaven.
Protestants point that this is a dogma manufactured by the Roman Catholic Church, without base in the Bible. Roman Catholics state that they don't care if it's not in the Bible. They believe in two means of authority for deciding dogma - one being Scripture and the other being church tradition. Therefore, if church tradition has pronounced a dogma, then it is on the par with the Holy Scriptures.
In fact, if church tradition contradicts the Bible, church tradition holds precedence over God's Word. For instance, the Assumption of Mary is not mentioned in the Bible; however, it is believed by Roman Catholics. Another example: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not mentioned in the Bible; instead, Mary is stated as having other children after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25; Mark 6:3). Nevertheless, though the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is cancelled out by the Bible, Roman Catholics still hold to that dogma.
Protestants protest such positions. They do not hold that traditions of mankind can be equal to or supersede divine revelation. In other words, if the teaching has no biblical base in God's Word, then it does not exist for Protestants.
Regarding limbo, The Scotsman's Stephen McGinty reports that "the Catholic Church is preparing to abandon the idea of limbo, the theological belief that children who die before being baptized are suspended in a space between heaven and hell.
"The concept, which was devised in the 13th century and was depicted in numerous works of art during the Renaissance, such as Descent into Limbo by the painter Giotto, and in Dante's masterpiece, the Divine Comedy, is of a metaphysical space where infants are blissfully happy but are not actually in the presence of God.
"The idea of limbo was developed as a response to the harshness of early Church teachings which insisted that any child who died before he or she was baptized would still be stained by Original Sin and so would be condemned to hell.
"The belief, which is unique to the Catholic Church, has fallen out of favor over the past 50 years. It is rarely mentioned and until recently has been left in its own kind of limbo. However, an international commission of Catholic theologians, meeting in the Vatican this week, has been pondering the issue and is expected to advise Pope Benedict XVI to announce officially that the theological concept of limbo is incorrect.
"Instead, the new belief is expected to be that unbaptized babies will go directly to heaven. Pope Benedict had already expressed his doubts about limbo when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church's doctrinal watchdog.
"In an interview in 1984, he said: 'Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith. Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis.'"
why?
I spent a lot of time in New Mexico on a job once. Limbo isn't quite the term I would use to describe it! /:)
This is the logical view. What a waste of time it is to debate the unknown. Our beliefs don't change spiritual realities, which at this point, are really unknown to us.
Ping for later reference. Unless I'm mistaken, "Grant Swank" is the alias of a FReeper I know.
As a second string, unofficial Swarm representative, I'll take a moment and jump in. ;-)
Orthodox Protestantants of all stripes firmly believe in the doctrine of original sin. This is the foundation of the Calvinist doctrine of the Total Depravity of man. All five points of our soteriology rest on this doctrine, so you better believe we think it is important!
Because of the lack of scripture that speaks directly to infant salvation, it has become a bit of a noman's land in Proddy theology. Harley vocalized the most theologically conservative opinion-that the matter is in the hands of God. I personally fall into this camp as well.
Many modern Calvinists go a step further and claim to descry God's method: becuase He has chosen Christ's elect from before the foundation of the world, and because saves then out of His own good pleasure without respect to their persons (i.e. their actions or even their capacity for action), it follows that He may freely elect to salvation as many infants or unborn as He choses, applying the blood of Christ to them just the same as if they had the capacity to respond.
Some prominent Calvinists modify this further by holding that God elects ALL infants and unborn children without exception, but this claim lacks convincing scriptural proof.
The popular non-Calvinist formulation of an "age of accountability" (usually 12) below which God will not condemn is scripturally void, theologically spurious and does not withstand even a cursory examination.
Gamey, feel free to beat me up if I got any of this wrong.
Because they are the handful of innovations and less than clear doctrine which entered into Roman teaching after 1054, and are amoung the obstacles to healing the great schism.
Can you give me some specifics? if it is limbo, well there isnt really any biblical teaching to back it up. Purgatory, however, not mentioned as "purgatory" is in the bible. Hardly an inovation. what else is troubling you?
It's not really troubling me. The Orthodox and Catholics have similar ideas on the afterlife, the big difference between what is called purgatory and orthodox beleif seems more semantics than substantial discord.
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Roman_Catholic_Church
The filioque is still quite a dispute however.
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
The Orthodox also don't have a doctrine of the Immaculate conception because they don't beleive that guilt for the original sin is passed on from generation to generation thus there is no need for a doctrine to exempt Mary from it.
(Interestingly the Immaculate conception, the Roman teaching on the original sin, and the filoque all trace back to some extent to St Augstine.)
No need, ya done good! The answer I have been composing in my head over the last couple of hours is almost identical to your post!
I would add that under the covenantal understanding children of believers are considered Holy. (see 1 Corinthians 7:14)
I really don't see a clear teaching on the children of unbelievers, but what I do know is that a perfect God will do whatever is right and just.
Do you have a primary source for this bizaar assertion? :)
Okay, let me see if I've got it right. I'm new to Reformed theology so I'm trying to learn.
Man is totally depraved - that includes babies, old people, me, my six year old daughter, you, everybody.
God extends His grace to whoever He wills in His sovereignty, for His good pleasure.
So, the age of the person in question is really irrelevant, right? God can choose to save anyone He chooses, regardless of their age.
Heh, thank! I'm glad I didn't hose it up too bad. This issue is always a minefield-too much emotion involved. Good point about parents and children. I'm still trying to wrap my head around Covenant theology. It's gonna take a while to get 37 years of Schofield out of my system.
I do not know what happens to the souls of the aborted unborn, to the miscarried, to the infants and young who die in their sleep. I do not challenge God with Abraham's words, however - "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" - because I know that the Judge has done, and will do what is right for all of them, whether or not He makes it known to us.
The catholic church teaches of original sin, the kind that adam and eve bestowed upon the entire human race. When I attended catholic school, we were taught that if an infant was NOT baptized, to remove original sin, they went to LIMBO, for a period of 'undisclosed' time to pay for the original sin, Now, New belief is stating otherwise??? weird....
Limbo was never officially taught by the Magesterium, never declared as official in a Council, and certainly not declared ordinary teaching by the Church.
As to the others, we are closer than you think...
Regards
Why would anyone want to do such a thing?
It is not given us to know everything. I am content with His mysteries.
I think we are close but there will need to be an official clarification probably by both sides as to the official interpretation before end-of-schism festivities get under way.
Actually, this is the way that doctrine has ALWAYS developed. Even such beliefs that we take for granted as "Jesus is of the same essence as God" was not always a slam-dunk theologically. It took CENTURIES before the Church actually defined the issue and rejected teachings that went against the mainstream of Catholicism. Thus, theologians are free to teach what they believe is the truth on issues that are not defined yet, as long as they are within the realm of allowable teachings. Thus, Limbo is a speculative teaching, since the Church hadn't defined what happens to babies not baptized. There seemed to be a question as a result of St. Augustine's "mass damnatia" idea - which specifically condemns such infants to hell. The Church specifically overruled that idea, but no subsequent answer was provided. Thus, the future speculation that was called Limbo.
Limbo was never an official teaching. It is probably over-zealous nuns and priests who pushed the idea forward, perhaps under the influence of Jansenism, perhaps under the misconceived idea of focusing on the Decalogue in moral theology (which then focuses on rules and regulations, rather than on love - the supreme virtue). Who can say. But the Church is not stating a new belief. It is still "speculating". Until the Church comes forward and proclaims one way or the other in an official release of teaching, one can still hold to Limbo and not be considered a heretic.
Regards
Well said. Truly, I think much of our disagreement is within the allowable flexiblity of Catholic teaching as the Fathers displayed, esp. on original sin. I still believe the Filioque is a misunderstanding and poor taste from the West to disregard the feeling in the East when the "and" was added. The belief itself, though, is the same.
Regards
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.