I have repeatedly and** clearly** stated that limbo is not and has never been a dogma - in the post you reply to here even!Yes, I deny it. I have absolutely no doubt it is not a dogma. …
Sorry to jump in late, and not to derail, but I am not sure I would agree that we can find the absolute necessity of baptism in Scripture alone. I think that it is rooted in Scripture, specifically John 3:5, but I think that we read John 3:5 to require baptism because we read it in the light of Tradition, consistent Church teachings, liturgy and practices. John 3:5 alone is not really explicit about the necessity of baptism, even when read together with the discussion of baptism in 3:22-24. I think that 3:15-18 arguably contradicts the absolute necessity of baptism from a strictly Scriptural standpoint (although doing nothing for unbaptized infants).Based on Scripture alone - apart from Tradition and Magesterial Teaching - would be the pit of hell for all unbaptized infants. Unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Tradtiion enlightens us about the nuanced understandings of baptism of desire and blood -
I will tell you why I adhare to that belief.Dustin Dad,
The contemporay theological thought on Limbo, which has lead to the statements of Popes Benedict XVI and John Paul II, has been that the concept of Limbo is primarily a philosophical conclusion and it does not have the strong scriptural basis necessary to be a doctrine, let alone dogma, that can be said to have come from the “Apostolic Tradition”. If Limbo had a stronger scriptural basis and wider acceptance of the whole Church (Western and Eastern Traditions) then I doubt we would have experienced the movement away from the concept of Limbo which we have experienced these past 5 or 6 decades.
There are those who, for sound reasons of their own, adhere to this belief and if I am not mistaken are allowed by the Magisterium to continue to believe in the existence of Limbo, however, I think we should all give a little more study to contemporary theology on this matter and come to a better understanding how the theology of the post Vatican II era compares and contrast to the theology on Limbo of pre-Vatican II thought and teachings.
How does John 3:5 contradict tbe absolute necessity of baptism?Sorry to jump in late, and not to derail, but I am not sure I would agree that we can find the absolute necessity of baptism in Scripture alone. I think that it is rooted in Scripture, specifically John 3:5, but I think that we read John 3:5 to require baptism because we read it in the light of Tradition, consistent Church teachings, liturgy and practices. John 3:5 alone is not really explicit about the necessity of baptism, even when read together with the discussion of baptism in 3:22-24. I think that 3:15-18 arguably contradicts the absolute necessity of baptism from a strictly Scriptural standpoint (although doing nothing for unbaptized infants).
Right, we can hypothesise about these things but in the end it is necessary to always return to the core facts which we were given and not end up moving around in the empty space. I think there is a certain danger of overephasizing this kind of possibility in that it may not only become a general attitude but that it also may spread in all kinds of directions and eventually even downlay all other teachings that the Church has always taught and even dogmatically proclaimed, leading to indifferentism and all forms of modernism.I also believe that Christ may save people in many other ways that we do not really understand. But the only sure way is baptism with water, which is why we make sure that babies are baptized as soon as possible.
I didn’t say John 3:5 contradicts anything. I said that John 3:5 does not compel the conclusion that baptism is absolutely necessary. I also said that John 3:15-18 arguably contradicts the absolute necessity of baptism because Christ says:How does John 3:5 contradict tbe absolute necessity of baptism?
This clear formula for salvation says nothing about the necessity of baptism, but clearly says that everyone of faith will be saved. I am not arguing that this proves that there is no need for baptism, I am just saying that the teaching that baptism is necessary is not derived solely from Scripture.For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
I don’t know what you believe, and it is of no concern to me.I didn’t say John 3:5 contradicts anything. I said that John 3:5 does not compel the conclusion that baptism is absolutely necessary. I also said that John 3:15-18 arguably contradicts the absolute necessity of baptism because Christ says:
This clear formula for salvation says nothing about the necessity of baptism, but clearly says that everyone of faith will be saved. I am not arguing that this proves that there is no need for baptism, I am just saying that the teaching that baptism is necessary is not derived solely from Scripture.
I’m not sure what makes John 3:15 the “clear formula” and John 3:5 not.…This clear formula for salvation says nothing about the necessity of baptism, but clearly says that everyone of faith will be saved…
OK, my mistake. How does it not compel the conclusion that baptism is absolutely necessary? Of course I’m asking just because I’m curious. The church has already ruled out on the necessity of baptism.I didn’t say John 3:5 contradicts anything. I said that John 3:5 does not compel the conclusion that baptism is absolutely necessary. I also said that John 3:15-18 arguably contradicts the absolute necessity of baptism because Christ says:
…
This clear formula for salvation says nothing about the necessity of baptism, but clearly says that everyone of faith will be saved. I am not arguing that this proves that there is no need for baptism, I am just saying that the teaching that baptism is necessary is not derived solely from Scripture.
Excellent post Gandalf. Excellent.I will tell you why I adhare to that belief.
The Church dogmaticaly teaches that baptism is absolutelly necessary for salvation and God has revealed to us only three forms of baptisms. The standard water baptism and then baptism of blood and desire. Taking these truths into consideration and applying them to unbaptised infants, we can only come up with one logical answer - that they will not enter heaven because of their Original Sin. You simply have to admit that everything we know points to this fact. Sure, it might be possible that God created some additional way to allow those poor infants into heaven, but we have have obsolutelly no clue about that. All we can do is to hope, and the Church currently indeed allows such hope. But we also can’t make up a solution and tell God to use it. I undestand that it feels better to believe that infants are saved. We all love them. But if I were to decide people’s ultimate faith, many people who will be saved could possibly end up in hell and some of those who will not be saved I could be in the lot that I would surelly send to heaven. Notice that at this point limbo still hasn’t yet entered the discussion.
Now, when as we look at the conclusion we reached might want to ask the following question. What happens to those infants who do not enter heaven because of the Original Sin? The simplified answer we reached is that they go to hell. When we start discussing the nature of Hell they will spend all eternity in is the point when Limbo comes into discussion. Are they going to suffer like the rest of people who are condemned or not? Because God is just and all loving, I think that it makes sense to believe that God will not punish those who have no personal sin. The consequence of the Original Sin is the loss of beautific vision, but their othewise innocent nature will mean that they will enter of state of natural happiness.
The issue here isn’t whether unbaptised infants end up in Limbo or go to Heaven. The issue is whether they will suffer in Hell or enjoy Limbo. While I would love to see those babies saved, we really have nothing revealed to us that would allow us to make such claims. Inocence itself is not a good reason because the Church teaches that the stain of Original Sin is inherited and has nothing to do with lack of sin. If God has another path to possible salvation prepared for them, good, but I think that whatever God does is good, just and perfect by the very fact that it is of God.
In conclusion, I agree that Limbo is a theological conclusion, but it is a logical conclusion based on clearly laid out dogmatic teaching and the idea of a loving and just God. It has been endorsed by the Church through out the centuries and so I think it’s perfectly sound to believe that absence of personal sin means no suffering and that there is no need for hoping that infants will not burn in hell for all-eternity.
Peace
It is clear from Scripture that God wills the salvation of all men.
I agree that when Jesus says those who believe in him are saved, He means more than acknowledging his existence. But I don’t think that one can read baptism into this passage from Scripture alone, but only with the help of Tradition and the deposit of faith. I am not denying in any way the need for baptism, I’m just saying that I don’t think you can get it from Scripture alone. John 3:5 does not compel the conclusion that baptism is necessary because it doesn’t say that it is. It says that we must be reborn of water and the spirit. Jesus does not tell us in this passage how that must be accomplished. Tradition tells us what John 3:5 means, John alone does not say baptism is necessary.OK, my mistake. How does it not compel the conclusion that baptism is absolutely necessary? Of course I’m asking just because I’m curious. The church has already ruled out on the necessity of baptism.
Now, as for John 3:15-18, you need to keep in mind that to believe in a person didn’t always mean that you simply believe in his existence. This is something Jesus isn’t asking from us because even some atheists would then fall in that category. It has a much deeper meaning in the Bible - perhaps more like ‘believe in him, recognize him for who he is and follow his commandments’. Jesus told us that we must get baptized and thus those who reject it do not truly have faith in him.
I believe you are wrong. The need for baptism for salvation is clear from Scripture. It is not John saying it, it is Jesus saying it, quoted by John.I agree that when Jesus says those who believe in him are saved, He means more than acknowledging his existence. But I don’t think that one can read baptism into this passage from Scripture alone, but only with the help of Tradition and the deposit of faith. I am not denying in any way the need for baptism, I’m just saying that I don’t think you can get it from Scripture alone. John 3:5 does not compel the conclusion that baptism is necessary because it doesn’t say that it is. It says that we must be reborn of water and the spirit. Jesus does not tell us in this passage how that must be accomplished. Tradition tells us what John 3:5 means, John alone does not say baptism is necessary.
Each of these speaks of the power of baptism. None mention its necessity.I believe you are wrong. The need for baptism for salvation is clear from Scripture. It is not John saying it, it is Jesus saying it, quoted by John.
Not only John 3:5, but elsewhere:
Matt 28:18-20
Mark 16:15-16
John 1:12
Acts 2:38
There are probably other Scriptural quotes. I think those are enough.
peace
Of course, Baptism is necessary for salvation.Each of these speaks of the power of baptism. None mention its necessity.