Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe; RnMomof7; xzins

Catholics as well as some orthodox Lutherans and Anglicans believe that baptism absolutely necessary for the forgiveness of sins in EVERYONE including infants and without this the infants are quite possibly damned.

There are some varying theological beliefs regarding aborted and stillborn babies and there is the question of whether we are born into sin or conceived into sin.

Nevertheless, it seems odd that God would have a plan for salvation where events that would take place AFTER His Sacrifice would benefit some and not others. What is mean is, prior to about a hundred years ago a sizable percentage of children died in infancy or within a few years of birth, in some countries this is still the case. Today, at least in the west, this is not a real factor.


313 posted on 03/03/2010 12:20:44 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee; RnMomof7; xzins; blue-duncan; raynearhood
Catholics as well as some orthodox Lutherans and Anglicans believe that baptism absolutely necessary for the forgiveness of sins in EVERYONE including infants and without this the infants are quite possibly damned.

Is that doctrine or dogma? Most children who die are NOT baptized. In Islamic Countries, it is effectively prohibited. So any doctrine that claims that the mere absence of some ritual performed by some other human being condemns a child to eternal damnation is clearly as offensive to the human spirit as any claim by Calvinism that God elects his chosen for no other purpose than his good pleasure. Such a doctrine or dogma clearly assigns a substantial portion of infants to eternal hell merely by the accident of their birth.

How is that any less offensive than a doctrine which states that God alone chooses who will or will not be sent to heaven and hell merely by virtue of his own unconditional application of grace to whom he so chooses?

In this case I think that the Calvinist position, although clearly inconsistent with its own theological construct shows a more merciful and just God than the Catholic or Lutheran understanding.

317 posted on 03/03/2010 12:33:36 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee
Nevertheless, it seems odd that God would have a plan for salvation where events that would take place AFTER His Sacrifice would benefit some and not others. What is mean is, prior to about a hundred years ago a sizable percentage of children died in infancy or within a few years of birth, in some countries this is still the case. Today, at least in the west, this is not a real factor.

Did it seem "odd" that God would save Noah and not the rest of humanity? Or lot and not the rest of Sodom or that He choose israel out of all the nations to bless ?

The Bible tells us that God has a remnant not that he has a whole "bolt" :)

There is much that remain a part of the secret counsel of God ...we do not need to know the answer, we just need to trust God knows what is right

321 posted on 03/03/2010 12:40:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | 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