Posted on 02/28/2008 6:25:40 AM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I wasn't aware that Christianity hinged only on what Quix could tease out of Scripture.
It doesn't matter a hill of beans whether you personally see it there or not. The VAST majority of Christians over 2000 years have held it, taught it, did it. Are Lutherans heretics? Are Anglicans heretics? Are Presbyterians heretics? Was Calvin a heretic? I just read his Institutes of the Christian Religion on precisely this point arguing for infant baptism.
Yep.
You have captured the essence of protestantism in one pithy sentence.
If someone asks ‘who killed Christ,’ I always reply ‘I did.’
You: I do not engage in discussions of genealogies or other such issues and thus will not be answering your questions:
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. – Titus 3:9
Now you're just being silly, wedging a Scripture passage into an area that it doesn't fit. I'm not asking for "genealogies"; I'm asking you to connect your denominational teachings that are at variance with Catholicism to the Apostolic Era. It's a fair question, because, if you can't do it, it shows fairly convincingly that your doctrinal novelties do not have the warrant of Christ or the Apostolic Church.
As for hiding behind the word "genealogies" found in Titus 3:9, I can only say that your concern for the purity of your adherence to Scriptural mandates is not only somewhat out of context, but highly selective, too. Just by being here on FR's religion forum, you are willing enough to engage in "contentions," are you not? Whenever one person disagrees with another, and goes around and around with that person to try to make his or her point, that is engaging in "contention." We all do that here! So, a willingness to engage in contentions while scrupulously avoiding genealogies is a rather haphazard application of the passage, it seems to me. I would say that asking for an answer to an honest, fair question is not contentiousness, but I agree that things often quickly escalate here into just the sort of contentiousness that St. Paul is clearly condemning.
Indeed, as some of my other posts on recent threads will indicate, I have some uncomfortable feelings about my participation in this vein as well. But not so much because of Titus 3:9, rather, I find verses 10 and 11 to be more problematic: "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned."
The ill-will that pervades these threads in the form of hijacking, name-calling and general ugliness, and the responses to such that can also get out of hand, certainly are an indictment to just about everyone here at some point or another, based on Titus 3:10-11. We should all take pause, and consider whether honest presentations and honest, respectful questions about those questions can be better realized, in consideration of this very passage.
Having said all of that, I do not feel that it is a matter of contentiousness to ask for evidence that ties the author's Gospel stance, or that of his theological allies, to a continuum of belief back to the Apostolic Era. Especially when this thread implies that the Catholic Church, though clearly and demonstrably older, is guilty of preaching a "different Gospel." If you cannot demonstrate that your own take on the Gospel can, despite a 1500 year gap from Christ to its inception, be clearly shown to be what He had in mind, then the entire premise of this thread is destroyed. The reference atandard of the author is his own Gospel. If it is disconnected from the continuous teaching of the Christian Church for 3/4 of the Era up to now, then it is arrogant to claim that the Catholic Church's teaching, which can credibly claim continuity, is not the reference standard. It would be nice if you or Manfred (he was the originator of the thread, after all) could just answer my question or repudiate the strongly implied premise of the thread. Don't worry, I shall not ask you again, Titus 3 and all that!
That's correct, but with qualifications.
One needs to be baptized to be saved--this is an article of the faith. However, it may not necessarily need to be a sacramental Baptism. We know, for instance, that the good thief went to heaven. We know the Jewish patriarchs are in heaven. And there is one saint, St. Emerentiana, who was martyred before she could be baptized. Catholic tradition says that in addition to sacramental Baptism, there can be Baptism of Blood, where someone dies for the faith before baptized, and Baptism of Desire, where someone who wants to be baptized is prevented for some reason.
Also, I should point out that even those pagans who go to Hell do not necessarily wind up in the fires thereof. If you are familiar with Dante's Divine Comedy, which gives a very Catholic view of heaven and hell, there were a bunch of good pagans like Vergil who were unbaptized but who enjoyed natural happiness in Limbo. Natural happiness meaning a comfortable existence with no pain or anything like that. As opposed to supernatural happiness which is heaven--the beatific vision of God.
I'd argue, then, that what pagans think of as the afterlife of the good--the Elysian Fields, Happy Hunting Grounds and all that--is actually Limbo. Our heaven as Christians is higher and infinitely more noble than that, but I don't think it's doing a pagan any injustice to simply give them what they ask for!
We really don't disagree about this.
I cannot show you scripture (and I am a Lutheran by the way) that states that the Holy Spirit indwells in a nonbeliever
I can't find any either.
If we are not given any examples of this, why would we believe infant baptism will cause the Holy Spirit to indwell a baby?
There is absolutely NOTHING that prohibits this for infants in scripture.
If it is not resulting in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but rather is a sign of a child being brought into a Christian community I completely agree. Where I am drawing the distinction is if this ordinance is believed to trigger the indwelling Holy Spirit it should not be administered to infants who have not yet believed.
All the examples we have in Scripture are of adult believers who have first come to Faith and are then baptized. It was stated earlier on this thread that you must be baptized to be saved. I am disagreeing with this premise and the idea that the indwelling Holy Spirit occurs with Baptism.
By your reasoning a child who dies before say 2-4 years old has no chance of salvation as they are incapable of believing in Christ’s sacrifice, is that correct? Do you contend the Holy Spirit does not indwell in these children?
I would refer you back to your first sentence in this post.
"The Holy Spirit knows who are his."
I believe that the LORD treats those that have not matured to the age where they can believe as he did David's son differently. David said he would see him again.
Perhaps, but those denominations still do infant baptism today, so it's no longer just a question of history. So what right does a Baptist have to tell a Lutheran he's a heretic on that score? Why are Baptists more indwelt with the Spirit and able to discern Scripture better than Presbyterians?
“That’s correct, but with qualifications.”
All the examples you gave were of adults. The question concerns infant baptism. Again I ask , If I follow the argument, then only those infants that are baptized have this special “indwelling Spirit”?
Thanks for posting. If I understand this correctly, your church believes the Holy Spirit does indwell babies at baptism as it is a sacrament and as such confers Grace. If I am correct, it is a fundamental difference we have and thus we do have different core beliefs and as such teach different Gospels.
Is it fair to say I am relying on Scripture and you are relying on your church having it right? If I'm wrong where in Scripture do we see unbelieving babies indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
Sorry, yes. An infant who is baptized is marked with a special, permanent, and indelible seal of the Spirit that an unbaptized infant does not have.
Sir,
You write:
But the issue is simple: If, as taught the Church of Rome, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without “the new birth in baptism” then we are now in hopeless contradiction with the Gospel contained in Holy Scripture. [I assume you meant to type “as taught by the Church of Rome”.]A few sentences later you write:
By not telling the Truth we aren’t doing anyone a service.Let us turn to the Catechism:
§847 This affirmation [that those who know the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ and still refuse to join her “could not be saved”] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church.:Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ of his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience ―those too may achieve eternal salvation. [This is from Lumen Gentium 16]Later on we read §1258 and §1259 which deal with so-called “Baptism of blood” and “Baptism of desire”.
Then in §1260 we read what amounts to a restatement of §847. The following quote from Gaudium et spes is of particular relevance:
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.I am no scholar. To find this information I merely looked in the index of my Catechism. I found the heading “Baptism”, and then looked for “necessity”, and went to the pages to which the index directed me. This brief and easy search led me to the evidence that what you wrote about the teaching of the Church is untrue.
Since it is so very easy to find the relevant matter in the Catechism, the untruth you published is, at the very best, an instance of negligence.
May I ask exactly what service you hoped to perform by carelessly promulgating a falsehood?
Yours faithfully in Christ,
There are several other saints, in addition to Saint Emerentiana, who were catechumen-martyrs. One was Saint Victor of Braga, whose feastday is April 11. There are at least two others, but my ol’ head isn’t coming up with their names just now. ;-)
Thank you BD, great point.
I hope that those who disagree understand I am not arguing against Baptism or the Lord's Supper. I am saying they do not confer the Grace of God. They do not trigger the Holy Spirit indwelling a believer and they are not absolute requirements to be saved.
“Sorry, yes.”
What is your church’s position on unbaptized infants who die, born to pagan or unbelieving (by unbelieving I mean not Christian) parents?
FWIW, I agree.
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.