Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
The Baptism of infants
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51
Actually, the theologians who postulated Limbo don't say "for eternity." There was an argument about whether those souls would be released from Limbo at the Final Judgment.
That would be because salvation is through faith in Christ, not of works. Baptism has been elevated to a work in many churches, not just the Catholic one.
It does not detract from the necessity of baptism if you believe that baptism is necessary for salvation and that one is not held accountable is one has not sinned. Some churches maintain that baptism is necessary for salvation AFTER the person has made their own profession of faith. That inflicting baptism on someone cannot save them.
RNMomof7 is right. It is a kind of election, only by the parents and the church, not by God.
"the person they are demeaning???"
For the umpteenth time we see that ANY criticism of a Roman Catholic practice or belief is taken PERSONALLY by Roman Catholic apologists.
Then they say, We don't hate you, you despicable hypocrite whom we feel free to treat as though you were a prisoner and we the DA
All the florid verbiage is coming from your side, such as "The purpose of the hostile, demeaning, derogatory, insulting and condescending cross-examination..."
The purpose of cross-examination is to get to the truth. Some can't handle the truth, so they complain about the questions.
Rome has always wanted to shout down the debate because Rome cannot defend its errant practices and beliefs from Scripture.
There is "no co-redeemer." There is no "other mediator." There is no "alter Christus." There is no "head of Christ's church on earth" but Christ. There is no "infallible" priest nor magisterium. There is no "re-sacrifice of Christ." There is no "confession for sins forgiven by men." There is no one else who hears and grants our prayers but the one true God.
Perhaps you are, as you have described yourself, a "prisoner."
You don't have to be. Read the Bible and look for the assurance of your salvation that God's word provides. If He frees you, you will be free indeed.
I’m content to follow Paul who tells us in 1 Corinthians 7 that the children of one believing parent are holy, and that even the unbelieving spouse of a believer is holy to God.
That’s an amazing statement for Paul to make. It must be because Paul realizes God gives us our children and our spouse, and He does that in love. Therefore, because God loves the believer, He will cover the believer’s family with His grace.
That’s enough assurance for me. That tells me that while my responsibility is to raise strong Christians who kneel to none but Christ I have His promise that He will not let the feet of my children slip so far away that they will not be brought back to Him.
One way or another.
Christians need to rejoice in this promise. It was given to us to strengthen us and keep us focused on Christ from whom all blessings flow.
“I’m content to follow Paul who tells us in 1 Corinthians 7 that the children of one believing parent are holy, and that even the unbelieving spouse of a believer is holy to God.”
Now, now, now. There are no legacy christians nor affinity christians!
Perhaps the western Church doesn't, but I have never heard the Eastern Church speculate that chilidren who die in infancy are in hell. As far as the East is concerned, the Augustinian notion of the ancestral sin is an innovation unknown to the Church, and Calvinism is a distortion of orthodox Christianity to the point of nonrecognition.
The Church is quiet because we do not know
Sure we do. Christ says "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." [Mat 19:14] he obviously found no fault in them that would hinder them from inheriting the kingdom of heaven.
What he night have meant by the "kingdom of heaven" is an other issue.
“But then again, perhaps you think the man Peter is the rock.”
There you go again. In post 5262 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2578704/posts?page=5262#5262), I gave you my answer on this question at length, largely via a long quote from Albert Barnes. And anyone reading it would see I disagree with Catholics on the meaning of the passage in Matt 16.
But it doesn’t matter what I say I believe. My tagline is not an unChristian one. Jesus said, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” - Matt 7
Mr Barnes comments on it thus:
“Verse 6. Give not that which is holy, etc. By some, the word holy has been supposed to mean flesh offered in sacrifice, made holy, or separated to a sacred use. But it probably means here anything connected with religion—admonition, precept, or doctrine. Pearls are precious stones found in shell-fish, chiefly in India, in the waters that surround Ceylon. They are used to denote anything peculiarly precious, Revelation 17:4; 18:12-16; Matthew 13:46. In this place they are used to denote the doctrines of the gospel. Dogs signify men who spurn, oppose, and abuse that doctrine; men of peculiar sourness and malignity of temper, who meet it like growling and quarrelsome curs, 2 Peter 2:22; Revelation 22:15. Swine denote those who would trample the precepts under feet; men of impurity of life; corrupt, polluted, profane, obscene, and sensual; who would not know the value of the gospel, and who would tread it down as swine would pearls, 2 Peter 2:22; Proverbs 11:22. The meaning of this proverb then is, do not offer your doctrine to those violent and abusive men, who would growl and curse you; nor to those peculiarly debased and profligate, who would not perceive its value, would trample it down, and abuse you.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=007
There comes a point where someone has to decide if the other person is listening or not...and if not, then my tagline is good advice on how to proceed.
Here's what Barnes says...
Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it....Others have thought that he (Jesus) referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah—upon myself as the Messiah—I will build my church.”
What "difficulty?" That Christ is the rock? Of course Christ is the rock, as Alamo-girl's excellent research thread reminds us...
Barnes continues...
Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles.
Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9.
That's not what the Scriptures teach. That is what Rome teaches. I doubt you could find even one Baptist on this forum who would agree with you on this.
It was a good sales job, wasn't it, considering the customers he had to deal with, i.e. mixed families? He knew nothing would turn a mother interested in Christianity away more then to tell her that her children are not saved by an all-loving God just because her husband is a life-long pagan! That would have been quite counterproductive.
So, being clever, he told them what they wanted to hear. After all Paul sought to "please all men in all things," and I am content to see him in light of his own brutally honest words:
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." [1 Cor 9 :19-22]
So, you suggesting that the children of Christians are automatically saved? Oy!
Where is this responsibility mentioned in the Bible? If God decided to save your children that would be a decision he had made before you even existed and certainly irrespective of your works. You might as well just sit back and relax and the end result will be the same.
If they are "saved" the Spirit will tell them what to do. Your responsibility ended when you gave birth. The Bible says be "fruitful and multiply." It says nothing about raising children to kneel before Christ.
"Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
-- Isaiah 44:8
Dr E:Certainly he does
Calivn says very explicitly that there are babies in hell.
AMEN, Alex! Saints spouting Scripture come through again!
How about the bible?
I'll take Calvin at his word...
"I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish except on account of actual sin; and to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested."(Institutes, Book 4, p.335). "I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit." (Amsterdam edition of Calvin's works, 8:522).
The only way this cannot contradict your church’s doctrine in the Westminster Confession is if all “the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants” are predestined elect.
Good trees produce good fruit, as Christ told us.
It says nothing about raising children to kneel before Christ.
Apparently you've never read Proverbs. Or...
"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." -- Ephesians 8:6"For if ye turn again unto the LORD, your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that lead them captive, so that they shall come again into this land: for the LORD your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if ye return unto him. " -- 2 Chronicles 30:9
So how come the teaching arm of the church (magisterium ) never did one?
I believe that God is sovereign over life and death..ya have to wonder why God did not want that work finished??
Is it built on scripture as the base or the work of men?
what the NT says Christ said an observant Jew would never say.
Something here doesn't jive. Whether one believes in the divinity of Christ or not, you have to admit, he spoke some brilliant theological ideas. He doesn't appear to be slow witted by any stretch of the imagination, but there's this bit about him coming to straighten out Jews. That just seems ridiculous. Shouldn't a guy seemingly as bright as Jesus realize that he's going to hit a serious brick wall when he brings his new ideas to this very old set of beliefs? Surely he would know the guys in the big hats would frown on his Jewish "innovations".
I know that there have been groups of men that have tried to decipher just what Jesus actually said, and what was later embellished or paraphrased by the guys that took quill to scroll. Is it pretty much agreed upon that Jesus believed his message was only for the Jews, or does anyone consider that an example of the scribes taking some artistic license? It feels like there's a part of the story missing here... or am I just benefiting from 2000 years worth of hindsight?
“What “difficulty?” That Christ is the rock?”
Actually, as I pointed out earlier, Christ the foundation and Barnes cites two passages where Jesus is called the rock. However, this passage reads:
“15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.”
Now note, immediately before and after “on this rock I will build my church”, Jesus is talking to Peter: “you are Peter” and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.
So unless Jesus was stupid or deliberately misleading, the phrase in between was NOT referring to himself, but Peter.
Does that mean the Catholic interpretation is correct?
Well, the difficulty Barnes spoke of was, as Barnes wrote, “had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for...”
Barnes went on to comment, “But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed—a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church.”
So the claim Barnes agreed with Catholics is simply weird. He expressly disagreed with Catholics, and noted it very plainly. I doubt Mad Dawg agrees with Barnes, or that wagglebee does - but it is a respectful disagreement, with Barnes and with me. Respectful because we are honest about our disagreement, and neither expects the other to shout “WOW! I never saw that passage before...”
Matthew Henry gives three meanings to rock: Christ, Peter, and the confession.
But Barnes is right. It does violence to the text to pretend that Peter is just another bystander. It does violence to history to forget that Peter opened the door of the Kingdom to the Jews at Pentecost, and to the Gentiles in the home of Cornelius.
And I suspect I could find many Baptists who recognize the truth of that...in fact, I know it, since I’ve taken part in discussions about this passage in more than one Baptist Sunday School. Only Cathophobics refuse to give Peter credit when it is deserved. And only the delusional can go from there to claim that Barnes and I are beating a path to Rome with this commentary!
And for those who haven’t heard of Barnes: “BARNES, ALBERT (1798-1870), American theologian, was born at Rome, New York, on the 1st of December 1798. He graduated at Hamilton College, Clinton, N.Y., in 1820, and at the Princeton Theological Seminary in 1823, was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor successively of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey (1825-1830) and of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (1830-1867).”
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.