“Not as many as you’d think.”
Seriously, if a Martian really is peaceable enough to want to be baptized (and/or, in our case, have his kids baptized), why not?
Posted on 05/12/2014 6:52:28 PM PDT by Gamecock
Edited on 05/12/2014 6:57:47 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
VATICAN CITY - Pope Francis on Monday declared that everyone has the right to be baptized, even aliens should they come knocking on the church's door.
Christians cannot "close the door" to all those who seek baptism even if they are "green men, with a long nose and big ears, like children draw," the pope said at his daily Mass, according to Vatican Radio.
(Excerpt) Read more at gmanetwork.com ...
Yep, that's what I said. They wrote, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Seems you agree with my position. So if I am "minimizing" so are you.
Do you think God would punish an unbaptized baby if the parents chose not to have him baptized?
Not for some. It was lost - for some - beginning with Zwingli in the 16th Century.
The logical inference of you position is that baptism has no effect unless it is done after the age of reason. This isn’t our belief.
We believe baptism is a sacrament, and it has effects - good effects.
It’s not something that we believe a parent should chose not to do for their child. Or take a chance and wait until later.
Another way to help understand is to realize that our Sacrament of Confirmation is in some ways parallel to your, I believe it is your, view of Baptism.
The whole “aliens need baptism” thing is just another attack on the historicity of Genesis. Nothing more.
DING DING DING! We have a winner!
It’s not something that we believe a parent should chose not to do for their child. Or take a chance and wait until later
.............................
What ‘chance’ would the parent be taking?
I understand: our views of baptism are different. The age of reason/choice sacrament for Catholics is Confirmation. In some ways this relates more to your view of baptism - the age, the choice..
>>”What ‘chance’ would the parent be taking?”
The chance that the child would die without being baptized.
imardmd1 (Post #73): Adam and Eve and Cain were baptized?
blackpacific (Post #140): From what context does your question arise?
The context of your answer to Post #55 seems to say that one has faith to exercise only through married parents who get their infant children baptized.
In contrast, the implicit question is, 'What is the requirement to enter The God's Heaven?'
From the whole context of the Bible, salvation depends only on faith alone in the Savior alone, in the Messiah and Coming King.
So, reaching back to the first earthlings saved or not saved, was baptism required to receive the 'gift of faith' so that when it was exercised, Elohim would be required to impart salvation? There is no record that neither Adam, nor Eve, nor Cain were baptized, But were not Adam and Eve saved? And if so, upon what basis?
(Just a wandering thought on what situation water baptism was meant to address. I suspect it is only a ritual of induction for those who have already received the gift of salvation, of Eternal Life and fellowship with The God.)
That was obvious. The question is what would the repercussions be of the child dying without being baptized?
“Not as many as you’d think.”
Seriously, if a Martian really is peaceable enough to want to be baptized (and/or, in our case, have his kids baptized), why not?
Are you familiar with the term "verbal plenary inspiration"? Do you know what the official Roman Catholic Church view is on the inspiration of Scripture? Here is one example from Inspiration of the Bible:
If you disagree with this view - and it sounds to me like you do - then that is something you must work out in your own mind. I DO believe in Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture which is defined as:
The Catholic view doesn't sound all that different to me. That is why I would agree with someone who said, "the Bible is really the words of God" because it recognizes that, like St. Peter said, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The wonderful thing about this is that God was STILL able to utilize each writer's personality and experience, while ensuring His revealed truths were expressed in a way that was both authoritative and powerful. God's word is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12) That doesn't sound "finite" to me.
Whether you see that as bibliolatry or not is not my concern. I will obey God.
And the answer is as obvious: the child would not have the benefits of baptism. Again, the alternative view is that the Sacrament of Baptism is of no value, no benefit, meaning or effect. That's the only alternative I can see; is there another?
No I don't, it's entirely consistent with my position. If you agree then your view agrees with the Church and is not Bibliolatry. Congratulations. :)
Again, the alternative view is that the Sacrament of Baptism is of no value, no benefit, meaning or effect. That’s the only alternative I can see; is there another?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The alternative is that a God would not punish a baby that has no conscious will to make a decision about baptism.
I’m really curious and hoping to get a clear answer in practical, easy to understand terms:
Two babies that are not baptized are with their parents on a Sunday morning. One baby goes to church and is baptized. One baby goes to brunch. On the way home there is a car accident between the two families and both babies die.
Please be as clear and specific as possible and describe what happens to the two babies after they die.
We live in times where infant mortality is at an all time low. The Church’s attitude concerning the Sacrament of Baptism has been consistent:
“In this matter we must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults. For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion. Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.
On the other hand, adults have a remedy in the mere desire for Baptism, as stated above (Article 2). And therefore Baptism should not be conferred on adults as soon as they are converted, but it should be deferred until some fixed time. First, as a safeguard to the Church, lest she be deceived through baptizing those who come to her under false pretenses, according to 1 John 4:1: “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, if they be of God.” And those who approach Baptism are put to this test, when their faith and morals are subjected to proof for a space of time. Secondly, this is needful as being useful for those who are baptized; for they require a certain space of time in order to be fully instructed in the faith, and to be drilled in those things that pertain to the Christian mode of life. Thirdly, a certain reverence for the sacrament demands a delay whereby men are admitted to Baptism at the principal festivities, viz. of Easter and Pentecost, the result being that they receive the sacrament with greater devotion.
There are, however, two reasons for forgoing this delay. First, when those who are to be baptized appear to be perfectly instructed in the faith and ready for Baptism; thus, Philip baptized the Eunuch at once (Acts 8); and Peter, Cornelius and those who were with him (Acts 10). Secondly, by reason of sickness or some kind of danger of death. Wherefore Pope Leo says (Epist. xvi): “Those who are threatened by death, sickness, siege, persecution, or shipwreck, should be baptized at any time.” Yet if a man is forestalled by death, so as to have no time to receive the sacrament, while he awaits the season appointed by the Church, he is saved, yet “so as by fire,” as stated above (2, ad 2). Nevertheless he sins if he defer being baptized beyond the time appointed by the Church, except this be for an unavoidable cause and with the permission of the authorities of the Church. But even this sin, with his other sins, can be washed away by his subsequent contrition, which takes the place of Baptism, as stated above (Question 66, Article 11). “ a Friend of Christ
Oops, here is a more pertinent passage:
“Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii): “Our heavenly guides,” i.e. the Apostles, “approved of infants being admitted to Baptism.”
I answer that, As the Apostle says (Romans 5:17), “if by one man’s offense death reigned through one,” namely Adam, “much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.” Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which “passed upon all” on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (Romans 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ. Moreover it was fitting that children should receive Baptism, in order that being reared from childhood in things pertaining to the Christian mode of life, they may the more easily persevere therein; according to Proverbs 22:5: “A young man according to his way, even when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This reason is also given by Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii). “
Here are the thoughts of one of my favorite editors, he brings up the same points as you:
“At no time, not even before the coming of Christ, could men be saved unless they became members of Christ: because, as it is written (Acts 4:12), “there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” But before Christ’s coming, men were incorporated in Christ by faith in His future coming: of which faith circumcision was the “seal,” as the Apostle calls it (Romans 4:11): whereas before circumcision was instituted, men were incorporated in Christ by “faith alone,” as Gregory says (Moral. iv), together with the offering of sacrifices, by means of which the Fathers of old made profession of their faith. Again, since Christ’s coming, men are incorporated in Christ by faith; according to Ephesians 3:17: “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts.” But faith in a thing already present is manifested by a sign different from that by which it was manifested when that thing was yet in the future: just as we use other parts of the verb, to signify the present, the past, and the future. Consequently although the sacrament itself of Baptism was not always necessary for salvation, yet faith, of which Baptism is the sacrament, was always necessary. “
The Roman Catholic church's position on infant baptism has NOT been consistent, but has varied over time and depending upon which church "father" is followed at any one time. We can see that this nebulous view concerning where unbaptized babies who die spend eternity explained here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm:
The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see BAPTISM, subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Romans 5:12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq., 2 Corinthians 5:10; see also APOCATASTASIS). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo." The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.
Pre-Augustinian tradition
There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural. Explicit references to the subject are rare, but for the Greek Fathers generally the statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus may be taken as representative: It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Oration 40, no. 23] Thus, according to Gregory, for children dying without baptism, and excluded for want of the "seal" from the "honor" or gratuitous favor of seeing God face to face, an intermediate or neutral state is admissible, which, unlike that of the personally wicked, is free from positive punishment. And, for the West, Tertullian opposes infant baptism on the ground that infants are innocent, while St. Ambrose explains that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense, and that it need occasion no fear at the day of judgement; and the Ambrosiaster teaches that the "second death," which means condemnation to the hell of torment of the damned, is not incurred by Adam's sin, but by our own. This was undoubtedly the general tradition before St. Augustine's time.
Post-Augustinian teaching
After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm (d. 1109), who maintained that it was not concupiscence, but the privation of original justice, that constituted the essence of the inherited sin (De conceptu virginali). On the special question, however, of the punishment of original sin after death, St. Anselm was at one with St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned; and Abelard was the first to rebel against the severity of the Augustinian tradition on this point. According to him there was no guilt (culpa), but only punishment (poena), in the proper notion of original sin; and although this doctrine was rightly condemned by the Council of Soissons in 1140, his teaching, which rejected material torment (poena sensus) and retained only the pain of loss (poena damni) as the eternal punishment of original sin (Comm. in Rom.), was not only not condemned but was generally accepted and improved upon by the Scholastics. Peter Lombard, the Master of the Sentences, popularized it (Sent. II, xxxiii, 5), and it acquired a certain degree of official authority from the letter of Innocent III to the Archbishop of Arles, which soon found its way into the "Corpus Juris". Pope Innocent's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii — Majores). It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness. No reason can be given — so argued the Angelic Doctor — for exempting unbaptized children from the material torments of Hell (poena sensus) that does not hold good, even a fortiori, for exempting them also from internal spiritual suffering (poena damni in the subjective sense), since the latter in reality is the more grievous penalty, and is more opposed to the mitissima poena which St. Augustine was willing to admit (De Malo, V, art. iii). Hence he expressly denies that they suffer from any "interior affliction", in other words that they experience any pain of loss (nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae — "In Sent.", II, 33, q. ii, a. 2). At first ("In Sent.", loc. cit.), St. Thomas held this absence of subjective suffering to be compatible with a consciousness of objective loss or privation, the resignation of such souls to the ways of God's providence being so perfect that a knowledge of what they had lost through no fault of their own does not interfere with the full enjoyment of the natural goods they possess. Afterwards, however, he adopted the much simpler psychological explanation which denies that these souls have any knowledge of the supernatural destiny they have missed, this knowledge being itself supernatural, and as such not included in what is naturally due to the separated soul (De Malo loc. cit.).
It should be added that in St. Thomas' view the limbus infantium is not a mere negative state of immunity from suffering and sorrow, but a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature's capacity. The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period. The very few theologians who, with Gregory of Rimini, stood out for the severe Augustinian view, were commonly designated by the opprobrious name of tortores infantium. Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching — for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity.
At the Reformation, Protestants generally, but more especially the Calvinists, in reviving Augustinian teaching, added to its original harshness, and the Jansenists followed on the same lines. This reacted in two ways on Catholic opinion, first by compelling attention to the true historical situation, which the Scholastics had understood very imperfectly, and second by stimulating an all-round opposition to Augustinian severity regarding the effects of original sin; and the immediate result was to set up two Catholic parties, one of whom either rejected St. Thomas to follow the authority of St. Augustine or vainly try to reconcile the two, while the other remained faithful to the Greek Fathers and St. Thomas. The latter party, after a fairly prolonged struggle, has certainly the balance of success on its side.
The Roman Catholic church today has all but tossed out even using the word "Limbo" and now the Catechism says:
In truth, we all should understand that God is gracious and merciful and no innocent human - infants, young children, mentally handicapped, etc. - who cannot, through no fault of his own, comprehend his sin and need of a savior, WILL be covered under the blood of Christ and will be in heaven with God at death. This is what God has revealed to us about His matchless grace through His sacred Scriptures.
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.