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]
My query was sustained under "General Discussion," but since the topic is also flagged as "Catholic" and "Ecumenism," no contradiction will be here offered.
Thank you for your diligent response.
You would be better off reading St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine directly, rather than have someone else tell you what they said. In the Summa, Thomas does a good job of bringing in positions of the Early Church Fathers, ancient viewpoints, and the Sacred Scriptures. The City of God and Confessions by Augustine are good resources as well.
Thomas and Augustine are great theologians, and their understanding of sacred theology, the science which flows from divine revelation, is commendable. But it does not constitute “Church teaching”. Theologians can disagree, and put forth arguments that are later corrected by the Magisterium. Theologians also speculate, the concept of limbo is an example of such speculation.
Church practices in matters of discipline can vary over time. I can give you a recent example. When I was a child, the Byzantine Rite in America did not give Holy Communion to children under the age of reason. Over the last 40 years we have seen the Byzantine Rite adopt the practice of giving Holy Communion to every child regardless of age. It is a sweet tradition and we were happy to see it come about.
I hope this helps you. God bless you.
It was not me speaking, it was Thomas Aquinas. He has a very thorough discussion of Baptism in his Summa, and many of the viewpoints being tossed around in this thread have already been covered there. We moderns tend to reinvent the wheel on these ancient controversies.
I appreciate your reply but if you read my post #156 again, I simply ask for a specific answer to a specific question:
What would happen to the two babies in the scenario I presented?
That does not mean that the effort is wasted. Better the flaws in doctrine are found, re-found, and rediscarded, than that they be perpetrated and expanded without questioning.
Nothing new under the sun, eh? That's why the Sola Scriptura approach is important--nay, essential--to a true access to The Faith.
We don’t know what happens to them, we trust in a just and merciful God whose wisdom transcends our ability to comprehend. A God who has given us the Sacrament of Baptism to enter into the Body of Christ. And given us the choice to participate in it - or go to brunch. Do this choice matter? Do parent’s choices matter to their children?
Now a similar question for you, one I think more in line with your views.
Take the brunch family. Each Sunday they ask their child “God or brunch?” Each time he answers “McDonalds!”. Week after week, year after year, the same thing happens, the parents give him the choice, he makes the same choice. Can you tell me precisely which Sunday, should they have a fatal accident, would the parents actions and his choice make any difference to what happened to him after he died?
The direct answer to your question is ‘no’.
The relevant question is if the parents have accepted Christ as their Savior and the same for their child if he is able to understand who Jesus is.
Can you say precisely what understanding is sufficient at what level at what age?
I think the answer again is no.
I don't think we will ever agree on Baptism, but I'm wondering about one aspect: in your view does Baptism matter, benefit, make any difference?
All other things being equal, is there any significance whether one is baptized or not?
Mark 16:15-16
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Note that belief/exercising personal commitment to Christ precedes baptism in this formula. You may also take it that whosoever does not (or has not yet come to accountability) belief, even though baptized, will be condemned if there is no change in attitude.
It seems that a human-executed superficial ritual cannot save, if Scripture is reliable sans traditional presumptions, eh? And, if (and it is not very likely) there are ETs, were they then not made by the Lord Of All?
That’s fine so long as they’re not in my partofo the heavenly city.
I don’t want to spend eternity listening to Rover next door barking all day while his mommy is at work.
Thanks. Hey we do agree on something!
I think that some of the questions you raised earlier would apply to both also, albeit at a different age range for you.
I tend to think we agree on much more than that!
That would be one of them-there straw men arguments.
Here is a clip from the Summa I already posted to you, in case you did not see it:
“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).”
So if some parents through negligence failed to get the child baptized, the child would die without the benefit of receiving the gift of Faith that comes with the Sacrament. The Church has made a practice of making parents wait until they have finished Baptism training classes, much like traffic school, before the child can be baptized in some parishes. There should be no reason to delay.
What God does with the soul of an unbaptized child is a matter of speculation on the part of theologians. The Church’s position is that we are saved by Faith.
There are seven positive rules of Faith, and one negative one. The Sacred Scriptures are one of the seven. Errors in doctrine are best corrected by the Magisterium, which has the mission and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The biggest problem with Sola Scriptura is that it uses the one negative rule of Faith, human reason, in a positive manner. Like using a screwdriver to pound in a nail. If you make yourself aware of the many controversies that have beset the Church from its foundation, and the many Councils which were called to address the heresy of the day, the ability of the Magisterium to correct the errors has always been the best route. Having private individuals take up the Sacred Scriptures, and through the lens of private interpretation arrive at the Truth has never been a successful path. It results in faction, tens of thousands of splinter churches. If unity in the Truth is the goal, sola scripture is not going to get you there.
Well stated.
Actually, Romanism is just one splinter, forming early on in the history of Christendom, whose initial deviates finding out that reason alone could not solve such problems, and not willing to admit that their time in history was similar to that of wise Daniel (see Daniel 12; esp. 4,8,9) (who wrote through faith alone), instead introduced the anti-Scriptural concept of faulty allegorical devices to hide their ignorance.
This left them with a Platonistic rationale producing a theology replete with even greater inconsistencies, defeating The God's plan of progressive revelation, and sustainable only by murderous suppression of those reliant upon salvation by faith alone received from the proclamation of The Written and Spoken Scriptures alone.
The Holy Ghost truly operating guides each individual into easily recognizable Truth when taught by His resolved and spiritually matured regenerated believer-disciples, and draws the seeker's attention to the Christ of The Cross Who Redeems. Salvation is by grace, through faith, and not of works of any kind of the disciple except to utterly submit to the Christ of The Bible.
Applying [yourself] to this only sets [yourself] as an authority greater than the Holy Scriptures.
Nope. Not greater than the Holy Spirit. But for me, you want to determine that what you say about the Holy Scriptures is greater than what the Holy Scriptures say about itself. And I refuse to accept your slant. Neither do I ask that you believe that what I say about the Holy Scriptures is more authoritative than the Bible itself. I wish you to go to the Scriptures, and find out what they say about your approach, not what the Magisterium says about your approach.
For me:
"The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple" (Ps. 119:130 AV)
With the authoritative Scripture behind it, that makes my understanding spiritual, and makes it authoritative.
For me, I feel in the spiritual sense like the man physically blind from birth speaking to the errant religious authorities of his day:
"Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing" (Jn 9:30b-33 AV).
And in the same passage, Jesus spoke of the spiritual state of these religionists:
"Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth" (Jn. 9:41 AV).
Since the Cross, The Scriptures have opened humans' spiritual eyes (like mine) and instructed them without the Magisterium, Paul writing to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:15) and Peter writing to the Diaspora (2 Pe. 3:15-16).
The point of view, which you apparently reject, sets the Holy Scripture over all mankind, including me. And you. And Francis.
I've only reiterated the themes illustrated in the Scriptures by the Scriptures. If there is an error in the idea of Platonism carried out in and by its catholicism, prove otherwise. I come under the rule of The Christ and His Written Word, not over Him.
But the issue at hand is the one defined by Francis, the Bishop of Rome, which is administering some form of baptism onto Martians, if there were any.
There are seven baptisms mentioned in the New Testament (actually eight, if one counts ritual immersion in the mikvah), only one of which is the form of baptizing regenerated disciples on the basis of forgiven sins, and is barely emulated let alone duplicated by denominations today, who might well baptize infants or putative Martians, outside constraints of the Great Commission.
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.