Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Where in the Bible does it state that children cannot be baptized?
- Status
B
banjo
Guest
“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so sin spread to all men because all men sinned-sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” Romans 5:12-14
Death is the consequence of sin. Yet sin is not counted where there is no law (i.e., from Adam to Moses). This being the case, why did people in that time period experience death? Sin was not counted. Why did children who had not yet reached the age of reason die if death is the consequence of sin? In both cases the answer is original sin.
T
trrocks03
Guest
I took out the rest cause I just want to talk about the “forcing infants to be baptized”
The Luke and Matthew verses were talking about preventing infants from coming to Christ. It sounds allot like what you are implementing. Preventing infants from joining into the communitry of Christ. Lets consider for now that you are not insenuating that, and that you think they are already in the community without being baptized…
You say that we should not baptize them because they don’t willingly want to, or even know they want to. Thats a valid point. They are not intelligent enough to know about Christ yet, they are indeed just infants. They also don’t have the power to get up and say “I want to be baptized”. Those are good points.
Now none of the infants I have ever been around have ever asked for anything. They might cry for food or whatever, but generally, they just lay around and move their body this way and that. So since they cannot ask for things, should we not allow them to have them? So we should not clothe them because they didn’t ask for it? We shouldn’t take them to the doctor? We shouldn’t put them to sleep? We should rock them? Humor them? Comfort them? Hug them? Talk to them?
Where do we draw the line? We can do any human (natural) thing to them but no Christ (spiritual) acts? Why do you say “here is food, but you must wait till you are 7 to have Christ”?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Since you don’t appear to have read the article link I posted. I’ll use it to respond to your errant theology.
The imperative is the fact that Jewish babies were circumcised on the 8th day by the command of God and since Paul & Peter both compare baptism to circumcision, that we see the type and example. The fact that the parents had the child circumcised as an entrance into their faith and professed their faith on behalf of the child while accepting the responsibility of seeing that they were raised in their faith, carries over into Christianity. It’s as scriptural as “Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The more relevant passages are those that show that entire households were baptized, which implies that people of all ages were included. If God commanded that babies be brought into the faith in the OT, why would that logical and family oriented practice cease with the coming of the Messiah? ALL Christianity is about family…that’s about as NT as it gets.
If you think that one has to make a profession of faith to enter the Kingdom of God, but then don’t believe that baptism is crucial for salvation, there is something scripturally wrong with your belief…yet the NT is almost adamant about that.
Acts 2:37-38.
[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
and also. Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? **Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, **calling on his name.’
Yet here you are in direct opposition to a fact of Christian history that long predates the “Baptist” belief system. Look at what Bishop Polycarp said at his trial. CHAPTER 9 (LINK) Two things are important here.
- He was 86 years old when he made that statement.
- He was a close friend and disciple of St. John the Evangelist, so he got his doctrine from an apostolic source.
to have any more a say of authority then the local church down the street.I’d appreciate it if you’d avoid the pejoratives since I feel sure that you’d be offended by similar language about your beliefs.
In addition, you have no authority to appeal to. None whatsoever. So long as you hold to the fundamental doctrinal error of Sola Scriptura, declaring as you do…
Which you cannot even support from the Bible because it is not in it.
What you have then is an anarchy of interpretations of men that allows every other kind of error and cult to devolve from it.Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?
I can’t tell…all I see is your own or some other man’s teaching as opposed to what the Word of God teaches.
Since you reject all authority but your own interpretation, and that is not even scriptural, you condemn yourself with your own profession.I doubt you can even see the ironic contradiction of it.
This always sounds good, but since when did the Bible become perspicacious?
Don’t you suppose that you should establish that supposed authority first before trying to deal with anything else?
It never ceases to baffle me just how someone can profess some errant modern form of Christianity and contend against things that are right there in the Bible and the clearly documented in Christian history.
There’s some kind of disconnect there apparently…
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Jesus performed miracles of physical healing on people because of their faith. However, Jesus also performed miracles of physical healing on people because of the faith of others; he healed children because of the faith of their parents and he healed servants because of the faith of their masters. Similarly, Jesus blessed infants because of the faith of their mothers.
The miracles of physical healings related in the Gospels prefigure the greater miracle of spiritual healing that occurs in Baptism.
Like the miracles of physical healing that Jesus performed on people because of their own faith, the miracle of spiritual healing in Baptism occurs because of the faith of those being baptized. However, since Jesus also performed miracles of physical healing on people (children and servants) because of the faith of others (parents and masters) and also blessed infants because of the faith of their mothers, it logically follows that the spiritual healing of Baptism also occurs in infants because of the faith of their parents.
If you consider the other arguments presented by other posters about baptism replacing circumcision on Jewish infants and about whole households being baptized in the New Testament, as well as the explicit mention of infant baptism by Christian writers of the 2nd and 3rd century, the case for infant baptism is rather convincing.
The miracles of physical healings related in the Gospels prefigure the greater miracle of spiritual healing that occurs in Baptism.
Like the miracles of physical healing that Jesus performed on people because of their own faith, the miracle of spiritual healing in Baptism occurs because of the faith of those being baptized. However, since Jesus also performed miracles of physical healing on people (children and servants) because of the faith of others (parents and masters) and also blessed infants because of the faith of their mothers, it logically follows that the spiritual healing of Baptism also occurs in infants because of the faith of their parents.
If you consider the other arguments presented by other posters about baptism replacing circumcision on Jewish infants and about whole households being baptized in the New Testament, as well as the explicit mention of infant baptism by Christian writers of the 2nd and 3rd century, the case for infant baptism is rather convincing.
J
jmcrae
Guest
They were being blessed by Jesus - if they were not worthy for baptism (being dead in their sins), then how could they be worthy to receive a blessing, or to be called “innocent” by Jesus Himself?
The unbaptized are not innocent; they are dead in the sin of Adam - therefore, if the children were innocent, it means that they had been baptized.
A
Angainor
Guest
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16
I believe the promise that if I believe and am baptized, I will be saved. I was baptized as a child. That promise is no less trustworthy because I was baptized as a child. I believe and I was baptized. I can be assured by that promise that I will be saved.
Why would I also not choose to baptize my child? I want my child saved. I am promised that if my child believes and is baptized she will be saved.
Mark 16:16
I believe the promise that if I believe and am baptized, I will be saved. I was baptized as a child. That promise is no less trustworthy because I was baptized as a child. I believe and I was baptized. I can be assured by that promise that I will be saved.
Why would I also not choose to baptize my child? I want my child saved. I am promised that if my child believes and is baptized she will be saved.
A
atmmgraves
Guest
Excellent information. GM, CentralFL, etc. Fantastic! I’m learning much from this forum thanks to folks like you. And in an odd way, thanks to you, ibetrippin07, for your objections which have elicited such fine responses. Hopefully these answers are serving to enlighten and expand your thinking, to help you find the truth. God bless.
N
narrowpath
Guest
In pagan Rome, Christians were accused of two crimes: one was cannabalism, which was a misunderstanding of the Eucharist, and the other was drowning babies! This was because pagans thought that babies were sacrificed through drowning
when actually they were being baptized!
when actually they were being baptized!
L
Leeann
Guest
Hello - it’s my first time in here.
I have been reading the posts and I’m not certain if my comments fall into this thread “infant baptism” or not - as my comments have more to do with my questioning the apparent “certainty” of most of the replies, based on how they view the church’s (RC) teaching as being “absolutely correct”.
The reason I wonder at their certainty of absolute correctness in how this particular practice is administered and why, is due to the recent retraction by this same church, of the teaching of the “theory” of limbo for “infants who die without being baptized”,
Does it not raise concerns as to the validity of other doctrines and practices that are or have been taught in the past as being “absolutely correct”…when a “theory” - not an “official doctrine” has been just left there and allowed to be taught for so many years…and then is retracted?
It is an honest and sincere question?
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I have been reading the posts and I’m not certain if my comments fall into this thread “infant baptism” or not - as my comments have more to do with my questioning the apparent “certainty” of most of the replies, based on how they view the church’s (RC) teaching as being “absolutely correct”.
The reason I wonder at their certainty of absolute correctness in how this particular practice is administered and why, is due to the recent retraction by this same church, of the teaching of the “theory” of limbo for “infants who die without being baptized”,
Does it not raise concerns as to the validity of other doctrines and practices that are or have been taught in the past as being “absolutely correct”…when a “theory” - not an “official doctrine” has been just left there and allowed to be taught for so many years…and then is retracted?
It is an honest and sincere question?
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
F
fellowChristian
Guest
On a more serious note…
Genesis 17:12
"And every male among you who is** eight days old **shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.
Leviticus 12:3
'On the **eighth day **the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
notice what God **doesn’t **say…
When the child is old enough to decide for himself, that he wants me to be his God, he should be circumcised.
No no no no:tsktsk: God does not say wait let the child become of age then decide. And when the parents don’t circumcise their child …
Genesis 17
14"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."
**Colossians 2:11-12 **
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant.
Babies only 8 days old were included in the Old Covenant why would God suddenly leave them out of the New Covenant?
“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).
“And they shall** baptise the little children first**. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.”
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c**. A.D. 215**).
“[T]herefore children are also baptized.”
Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of** baptizing infants too**.”
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”
Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post** A.D. 244**).
Notice the years! These are Early Church Fathers’ writtings and infant baptism was being taught even then.
The **Book of John **is dated to c **90–100 a.d. and Irenaeus writtings, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180). is dated around 80 **years later!
So don’t tell me now that at over **1,828 **years later we got it wrong.
Genesis 17:12
"And every male among you who is** eight days old **shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.
Leviticus 12:3
'On the **eighth day **the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
notice what God **doesn’t **say…
When the child is old enough to decide for himself, that he wants me to be his God, he should be circumcised.
No no no no:tsktsk: God does not say wait let the child become of age then decide. And when the parents don’t circumcise their child …
Genesis 17
14"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."
**Colossians 2:11-12 **
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Baptism is the new “circumcision” for all people of the New Covenant.
Babies only 8 days old were included in the Old Covenant why would God suddenly leave them out of the New Covenant?
“For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).
“And they shall** baptise the little children first**. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family.”
Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c**. A.D. 215**).
“[T]herefore children are also baptized.”
Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).
“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of** baptizing infants too**.”
Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”
Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post** A.D. 244**).
Notice the years! These are Early Church Fathers’ writtings and infant baptism was being taught even then.
The **Book of John **is dated to c **90–100 a.d. and Irenaeus writtings, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180). is dated around 80 **years later!
So don’t tell me now that at over **1,828 **years later we got it wrong.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Welcome Leeann.
The church’s de-emphasis on the speculation of Limbo should not be a cause for concern or loss of confidence in the Church. The reason is because it was NEVER official dogma but just a theological speculation. Catholic dogma will never change. Catholic Dogma’s are things all Catholics MUST believe as a condition for being in The Church. This includes things like the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead. the communion of the saints, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist etc. But limbo was never a dogma - it was something that Catholic theologians came up with the explain the apparent contradiction between the innocence of unborn children who admittedly have original sin (and the necessity of baptism to gain heaven) and the recognition that a Merciful God would find a way to save or mitigate eternal damnation from those unbaptised infants (including those lost before coming to full term) who never committed a personal sin. The Church however admits it has not received direct revelation and so never codified this “hope” into its dogma since only God can reveal this and rule on this.
So after a lot of thought and study and prayer the Church decided to come up with an official teaching for what happens to unbaptised children. Thus in 1992, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, while affirming that “the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude”, but also stating that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”,[18] stated: “**As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’[19] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. **All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”[20]
Catholics are still permitted to believe in a limbo state but it is not a required dogma nor ever has been. So in essence, the original opinion was just that - an opinion that was not necessary for personal salvation but given as supplemental information to comfort worried parents of children dieing before baptism that God’s Mercy would find a way.
If you are worried about what happens to these children let me offer my own personal insights. My own personal opinion is that there would be a natural expectation for a “baptism by desire” granted by God through the authority inherent and obligatory through the faith extending from the children’s Christian parent’s matrimonial vows. That is all Catholics marriage vows or sacramental precana expectations require spouses to accept children if God so blesses and agree to raise them in the faith. Thus to me, there is essentially a parental covenant with God implicit in the marriage vows that pre-expresses a desire to raise children in the faith. This implies the requirement to baptise their children. So, certainly there is a strong hope and compelling case that a merciful God would honor this implicit baptism by desire. Further more the church codifies this hope and trust in God to “do the right thing” in its official Catholic Teaching.
Bottom Line - Limbo should not leave anyone in doubt about the Church’s commitment to its core teaching and dogma. **Limbo is just a “name” for the hope **we have that God will be merciful to children who had no opportunity to be baptised and have no personal sin and only original sin.
I hope that helps.
James
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I must disagree.
Matthew 11
7As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. 9Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10This is the one about whom it is written:
" 'I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.'c] 11I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear.
John the Baptist was a prophet according to Jesus.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Bible never says infants were not baptized, either. However, the language in many passages suggests that they were. Consider the following:
INFANT BAPTISM PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE
Old Covenant
Genesis 17:9-14
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.
These texts show the circumcision of eight-day-old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.
Connection to New Covenant
Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.
Do Infants Need Baptism?
Job 14:1-4
1 "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. 2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 3 Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring him before you for judgment? 4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!
Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
We are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the need for baptism from the moment of conception.
Jesus Extols Child-like Faith
Matthew 18:2-5
2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?
Jesus Receives Little Children and Infants
Matt 19:13-15
13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.
Mark 10:13-16
13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.
Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.
Luke 18:15-17
15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
The Church Begins to Preach Baptism
Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Peter did not say, “Every one of you adults”; he said, “Every one of you” without qualification and added “the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children”. Baptism and the Holy Spirit are frequently connected throughout the Bible (cf. Ez. 36:25-27, Mt. 3:16, Jn. 3:5).
Acts 10:47-48
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius which probably included infants and young children. There is not one word in this passage (or any other in scripture) about baptism being limited to adults.
Acts 16:15
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.
Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. Further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The Baptism of infants
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51
1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52
1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Leeann-
Good question.
Some things are in the realm of theological speculation…limbo is in this category. So is the question of HOW God created the world as we know it…you can believe in evolution if you want to, for example, provided that you acknowledge God as the originator and that we are descended from single pair of parents.
Other things are certain, and since the Church cannot err in teaching matters related to faith and morals, we can be confident of these doctrines. Limbo was never in this category.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
L
Leeann
Guest
To CentralFLJames - Thank you for your response.
Originally Posted by Leeann
Hello - it’s my first time in here.
I have been reading the posts and I’m not certain if my comments fall into this thread “infant baptism” or not - as my comments have more to do with my questioning the apparent “certainty” of most of the replies, based on how they view the church’s (RC) teaching as being “absolutely correct”.
The reason I wonder at their certainty of absolute correctness in how this particular practice is administered and why, is due to the recent retraction by this same church, of the teaching of the “theory” of limbo for “infants who die without being baptized”,
Does it not raise concerns as to the validity of other doctrines and practices that are or have been taught in the past as being “absolutely correct”…when a “theory” - not an “official doctrine” has been just left there and allowed to be taught for so many years…and then is retracted?
It is an honest and sincere question?
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Your response:
Welcome Leeann.
The church’s de-emphasis on the speculation of Limbo should not be a cause for concern or loss of confidence in the Church. ( this is what I don’t understand….why shouldn’t it be?) The reason is because it was NEVER official dogma but just a theological speculation. ( yes…never official dogma – just a theological speculation or theory…but nevertheless it was allowed to be “taught”) Catholic dogma will never change. Catholic Dogma’s are things all Catholics MUST believe as a condition for being in The Church. (specifically the RC Church) This includes things like the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead. the communion of the saints, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist etc. But limbo was never a dogma - it was something that Catholic theologians came up with the explain the apparent contradiction between the innocence of unborn children who admittedly have original sin (and the necessity of baptism to gain heaven) and the recognition that a Merciful God would find a way to save or mitigate eternal damnation from those unbaptised infants (including those lost before coming to full term) who never committed a personal sin. The Church however admits it has not received direct revelation and so never codified this “hope” into its dogma since only God can reveal this and rule on this.
(……but then why would The Church allow it to be taught to it’s people for over such a longggggg period of time? We’re not talking a couple of years or so…we’re talking centuries…right up until the 20th century. Throughout these years, some agreed with this “theory” and taught it…some didn’t agree with this “theory” and didn’t teach it…
A quote from the International Theological Commission – THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED (as found on the www.vatican website) states this:
It is a very long document, but worth the reading in full.
**1.5. The Modern/Post-Tridentine Era
26. Augustine’s thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century, and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness.[51] One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)[52] defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins. On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of “fire”). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century. **
If The Church and it’s official leaders had not received this “theological speculation” by direct revelation……surely it should not have been allowed to be “taught”, The consequences of severe distress and agony that the parents of these babies experienced due to such a “teaching” and the confusion as to the authenticity of such a “teaching” brings to mind that there should indeed be “cause for concern or loss of confidence” in the “Church” and it’s “authority”……whether it be in relation to “dogma” or the “allowing” of teaching “theories” as fact.
So after a lot of thought and study and prayer the Church decided to come up with an official teaching for what happens to unbaptised children. Thus in 1992, (that’s a long time…) the Catechism of the Catholic Church, while affirming that “the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude”, but also stating that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, **but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”,**18] (the latter part of that sentence is something that believers already are innately assured of, but it’s good to see “The Church” has taken the time and “codified” it) stated: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’[19]
(for let’s say….oh….centuries???)
allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
Catholics are still permitted to believe in a limbo state but it is not a required dogma nor ever has been. So in essence, the original opinion was just that - an opinion that was not necessary for personal salvation but given as supplemental information to comfort worried parents (what possible type of comfort did all the worried parents in the centuries gone past derive from the “teaching” of an “opinion” that states: “ infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins.” Do we just forget about them?
Oops?of children dieing before baptism that God’s Mercy would find a way.
Originally Posted by Leeann
Hello - it’s my first time in here.
I have been reading the posts and I’m not certain if my comments fall into this thread “infant baptism” or not - as my comments have more to do with my questioning the apparent “certainty” of most of the replies, based on how they view the church’s (RC) teaching as being “absolutely correct”.
The reason I wonder at their certainty of absolute correctness in how this particular practice is administered and why, is due to the recent retraction by this same church, of the teaching of the “theory” of limbo for “infants who die without being baptized”,
Does it not raise concerns as to the validity of other doctrines and practices that are or have been taught in the past as being “absolutely correct”…when a “theory” - not an “official doctrine” has been just left there and allowed to be taught for so many years…and then is retracted?
It is an honest and sincere question?
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Your response:
Welcome Leeann.
The church’s de-emphasis on the speculation of Limbo should not be a cause for concern or loss of confidence in the Church. ( this is what I don’t understand….why shouldn’t it be?) The reason is because it was NEVER official dogma but just a theological speculation. ( yes…never official dogma – just a theological speculation or theory…but nevertheless it was allowed to be “taught”) Catholic dogma will never change. Catholic Dogma’s are things all Catholics MUST believe as a condition for being in The Church. (specifically the RC Church) This includes things like the virgin birth, the resurrection of the dead. the communion of the saints, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist etc. But limbo was never a dogma - it was something that Catholic theologians came up with the explain the apparent contradiction between the innocence of unborn children who admittedly have original sin (and the necessity of baptism to gain heaven) and the recognition that a Merciful God would find a way to save or mitigate eternal damnation from those unbaptised infants (including those lost before coming to full term) who never committed a personal sin. The Church however admits it has not received direct revelation and so never codified this “hope” into its dogma since only God can reveal this and rule on this.
(……but then why would The Church allow it to be taught to it’s people for over such a longggggg period of time? We’re not talking a couple of years or so…we’re talking centuries…right up until the 20th century. Throughout these years, some agreed with this “theory” and taught it…some didn’t agree with this “theory” and didn’t teach it…
A quote from the International Theological Commission – THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED (as found on the www.vatican website) states this:
It is a very long document, but worth the reading in full.
**1.5. The Modern/Post-Tridentine Era
26. Augustine’s thought enjoyed a revival in the 16th century, and with it his theory regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, as Robert Bellarmine, for example, bears witness.[51] One consequence of this revival of Augustinianism was Jansenism. Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo. During this period the popes (Paul III, Benedict XIV, Clement XIII)[52] defended the right of Catholics to teach Augustine’s stern view that infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins. On the other hand, when the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of “fire”). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century. **
If The Church and it’s official leaders had not received this “theological speculation” by direct revelation……surely it should not have been allowed to be “taught”, The consequences of severe distress and agony that the parents of these babies experienced due to such a “teaching” and the confusion as to the authenticity of such a “teaching” brings to mind that there should indeed be “cause for concern or loss of confidence” in the “Church” and it’s “authority”……whether it be in relation to “dogma” or the “allowing” of teaching “theories” as fact.
So after a lot of thought and study and prayer the Church decided to come up with an official teaching for what happens to unbaptised children. Thus in 1992, (that’s a long time…) the Catechism of the Catholic Church, while affirming that “the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude”, but also stating that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, **but he himself is not bound by his sacraments”,**18] (the latter part of that sentence is something that believers already are innately assured of, but it’s good to see “The Church” has taken the time and “codified” it) stated: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’[19]
(for let’s say….oh….centuries???)
allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
Catholics are still permitted to believe in a limbo state but it is not a required dogma nor ever has been. So in essence, the original opinion was just that - an opinion that was not necessary for personal salvation but given as supplemental information to comfort worried parents (what possible type of comfort did all the worried parents in the centuries gone past derive from the “teaching” of an “opinion” that states: “ infants dying with original sin alone are damned and punished with the perpetual torment of the fire of hell, though with the “mildest pain” (Augustine) compared with what was suffered by adults who were punished for their mortal sins.” Do we just forget about them?
Oops?of children dieing before baptism that God’s Mercy would find a way.
L
Leeann
Guest
(continuation and completion of previous post to James)
If you are worried about what happens to these children let me offer my own personal insights.
(I am not worried at all – since becoming a believer I’ve always had the “hope” of God…of His grace and His authority and His ability to do anything He sees fit)
My own personal opinion is that there would be a natural expectation for a “baptism by desire” granted by God through the authority inherent and obligatory through the faith extending from the children’s Christian parent’s matrimonial vows. That is all Catholics marriage vows or sacramental precana expectations require spouses to accept children if God so blesses and agree to raise them in the faith. Thus to me, there is essentially a parental covenant with God implicit in the marriage vows that pre-expresses a desire to raise children in the faith. This implies the requirement to baptise their children. So, certainly there is a strong hope and compelling case that a merciful God would honor this implicit baptism by desire. Further more the church codifies this hope and trust in God to “do the right thing” in its official Catholic Teaching.
Bottom Line - Limbo should not leave anyone in doubt about the Church’s commitment to its core teaching and dogma. Limbo is just a “name” for the hope we have that God will be merciful to children who had no opportunity to be baptised and have no personal sin and only original sin.
Isn’t that a fundamental acknowledgement that comes as soon as every believer experiences God’s grace and mercy in one’s own life? To have “hope” in God and His unfathomable grace……if it is…then we can be assured of not becoming entangled with inappropriate teachings that are allowed by any “Church”.
So the Bottom Line is this: apparently the RCChurch has “allowed” - a “theory” – a “theological speculation” to be taught for many, many years – something that apparently wasn’t “revealed”, because now, since they are finally coming to a realization of the fullness of God’s mercy, love and grace… and realizing that its fullness can’t be measured or contained…or dispensed or controlled by any of us…or at whatever time we think is appropriate …and not in any one devised formula that we think is the one and only “true” way.
Isn’t it wonderful to realize that He is God and can and will do whatever He deems fit, whenever He wants and to whomever He wants to do it too…with or without our help.
For those things that we don’t think are covered in the bible, or perhaps haven’t yet been “revealed” by our discernment or understanding or knowledge…and for those things where there are no “traditions” to look back on…we must surely have to trust and place our hope in God.
And yet it has taken this long for an “official document” to come into being presenting this as a “new” way of defining this “teaching”.
He is still in control…He never changes to suit the times…His grace and love and mercy does not need to allow for any “evolution of any teaching”…His grace has always been there…always will be…and is always sufficient…if we get out the way and allow it to happen.
The Holy Spirit will reveal this to one’s heart and mind and spirit…if He’s not thwarted by our own human endeavours of trying to contain the fullness of His grace and make it fit into our agenda. No matter “who” we are or what “faith” we follow…ALL of us.
This is why I wonder at the “your absolute certainty” of the correctness and authority of ANY of the dogmas or “teachings” of “The Church” and of the ones who “codify” things.
God Bless
If you are worried about what happens to these children let me offer my own personal insights.
(I am not worried at all – since becoming a believer I’ve always had the “hope” of God…of His grace and His authority and His ability to do anything He sees fit)
My own personal opinion is that there would be a natural expectation for a “baptism by desire” granted by God through the authority inherent and obligatory through the faith extending from the children’s Christian parent’s matrimonial vows. That is all Catholics marriage vows or sacramental precana expectations require spouses to accept children if God so blesses and agree to raise them in the faith. Thus to me, there is essentially a parental covenant with God implicit in the marriage vows that pre-expresses a desire to raise children in the faith. This implies the requirement to baptise their children. So, certainly there is a strong hope and compelling case that a merciful God would honor this implicit baptism by desire. Further more the church codifies this hope and trust in God to “do the right thing” in its official Catholic Teaching.
Bottom Line - Limbo should not leave anyone in doubt about the Church’s commitment to its core teaching and dogma. Limbo is just a “name” for the hope we have that God will be merciful to children who had no opportunity to be baptised and have no personal sin and only original sin.
Isn’t that a fundamental acknowledgement that comes as soon as every believer experiences God’s grace and mercy in one’s own life? To have “hope” in God and His unfathomable grace……if it is…then we can be assured of not becoming entangled with inappropriate teachings that are allowed by any “Church”.
So the Bottom Line is this: apparently the RCChurch has “allowed” - a “theory” – a “theological speculation” to be taught for many, many years – something that apparently wasn’t “revealed”, because now, since they are finally coming to a realization of the fullness of God’s mercy, love and grace… and realizing that its fullness can’t be measured or contained…or dispensed or controlled by any of us…or at whatever time we think is appropriate …and not in any one devised formula that we think is the one and only “true” way.
Isn’t it wonderful to realize that He is God and can and will do whatever He deems fit, whenever He wants and to whomever He wants to do it too…with or without our help.
For those things that we don’t think are covered in the bible, or perhaps haven’t yet been “revealed” by our discernment or understanding or knowledge…and for those things where there are no “traditions” to look back on…we must surely have to trust and place our hope in God.
And yet it has taken this long for an “official document” to come into being presenting this as a “new” way of defining this “teaching”.
He is still in control…He never changes to suit the times…His grace and love and mercy does not need to allow for any “evolution of any teaching”…His grace has always been there…always will be…and is always sufficient…if we get out the way and allow it to happen.
The Holy Spirit will reveal this to one’s heart and mind and spirit…if He’s not thwarted by our own human endeavours of trying to contain the fullness of His grace and make it fit into our agenda. No matter “who” we are or what “faith” we follow…ALL of us.
This is why I wonder at the “your absolute certainty” of the correctness and authority of ANY of the dogmas or “teachings” of “The Church” and of the ones who “codify” things.
God Bless
P
Popes_Soldier
Guest
The problem with your statement is that “Limbo” was never a doctrine, let alone a dogma. So no doctrine was changed.
Another good example of this is the seven-day account of Creation. Many popes believed it. But it is not doctrine: The Church has never infallibly defined whether the days in Gen 1 are actual days or periods of time. Therefore, a faithful Catholic is free to go either way. Same with Limbo. Many Catholic theologians may have taught it, but it was never Dogma
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Leeann, I can “feel” your conviction in your trust in God at the same time I can “feel” a certain passion and anger or resentment for The Catholic Church. I present that you are misdirecting your passions here. There are MANY, perhaps hundreds, of apparent contradictions (to those not initiated into the apostolic tradition)in scripture. This is why private interpretation of scripture is so dangerous. The Catholic Church is under no new discovery of God’s Mercy. This has always been a core teaching of The Church - this is in fact central to the teaching on the sacrament of confession for example. We know from apostolic teaching that even a complete traitor like Judas can be forgiven if he seeks pardon, confesses and repents. So God’s mercy is nothing new to Catholics - although on an individual basis I am certain each person rediscovers it over and over in their lives and in personal ways.
Again, Limbo was never intended to be a substitute theology for God’s Mercy. No, not at all. Limbo, in a sense was no different than the subject of a sermon and an illustration of how God’s Mercy might accommodate the apparent contradiction in the scriptural truths that one must be baptised. Clearly, the Church can not contradict the words Jesus himself used in scripture. So when mourning parents came to the priest in agony asking what was the fate of their unbaptised and deceased children they consoled them with the Hope we call “limbo” that God would reconcile the words in scripture about necessity for baptism with His Mercy. This again, was not and is not an official teaching - it is an attempt to express a plausable hope in God’s Mercy. The Church never taught Limbo as an absolute. It was always an expression of hope - more like a sermon that is not materially different than describing the Trinity with the imagery of a 3 leafed shamrock. Just as the trinity is a supernatural mystery that we can never fully know with finite and created minds we will never know precisely how God resolves His Mercy with His Justice and His inspired word. Somehow it must all reconcile. That is God’s job.
I really think you are getting yourself worked up over nothing important on this topic. For all we know there could be a real place or state that is representative of “Limbo”. In fact many theologians believe it to be real and in a spiritually proximate locale (relatively speaking) to “paradise”. We just do not believe that God permits those not baptised to fully commune with the beatific vision.
Observe or consider too, that some of the emotion and frustration you are directing here at the Church is really more directed at God. The Church can not change God’s words nor His ways. No human can possibly empathize with just how offensive original sin is to the eternal God. What may seem unjust to us - is simply not our place to judge. That is God’s domain and His ways are His ways - not our ways. We trust and we hope.
God Bless,
James
- Status