Which Church??

[joe371]

Why can it possibly not be known that innocent babies go to Heaven when we consider Scripture?

Are you saying that some innocent babies could go to hell while others do not? Shouldn’t this be an all or nothing thing?

Either they all do or they all don’t; and of course Jesus and the Apostles knew they go to Heaven. It’s Biblical.

I did not suggest that it cannot possibly be known that innocent babies go to Heaven, when we consider Scripture? Scripture clearly indicates that they do. I simply said: The CC would never say that those people (adults, children or babies) who have never been baptised - go to hell. Just because Jesus said - “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” does not mean that non-baptised people go to hell. Do I think babies that die go to heaven - without a doubt!!! I have family members that have never been baptised, who have died. You know, no one would ever claim that innocent babies (by the way, all babies are innocent) could go to hell. Do you really believe that the magisterial leaders would claim that babies could go to hell? Of course not. I am simply telling you what the CC has to say on the matter:

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,"64 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. CCC

 

[Randy_Carson]

We believe babies go to Heaven.

So do I, and Luke 18 is a verse I commonly quote in support of infant baptism.

Moving on, do you think that after one reaches the age of reason, baptism is necessary for salvation? Specifically, does baptism regenerate or not?

 

[zz912]

Does this mean that Peter, James, John and Paul all thought of themselves as members of the Catholic Church in the same way that I do today?

Well, yes and no. No, they would not have recognized all of the structure that has developed as the needs of the Church have required, but yes, they would have considered themselves, just as I do, to be members of the one body of Christ which is today known as the Catholic Church.

What is interesting is they wouldn’t have understood what you meant by “New Testament”. When they referred to the “New Testament”, they were referring to the Eucharist. The 27 books of the NT began to be called the “New Testament” because they told of the Eucharist, and His “new covenant”. (The word covenant means “testament”)

 

[dronald]

So do I, and Luke 18 is a verse I commonly quote in support of infant baptism.

Moving on, do you think that after one reaches the age of reason, baptism is necessary for salvation? Specifically, does baptism regenerate or not?

Specifically do we need to be Baptized in order to attain Salvation? That would differ from person to person. Why anyone would disobey God and not immediately seek Baptism after conversion is beyond me. But for those that do, I assume they must answer to God.

If a child is told that Baptism is no big deal (again for whatever reason) and it is delayed and the child dies, I do not believe God would blame the child for the parent’s ignorance.

I would most certainly point to the thief on the cross as an example of one who was not Baptized and was promised Heaven.

 

[dronald]

I did not suggest that it cannot possibly be known that innocent babies go to Heaven, when we consider Scripture? Scripture clearly indicates that they do. I simply said: The CC would never say that those people (adults, children or babies) who have never been baptised - go to hell. Just because Jesus said - “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” does not mean that non-baptised people go to hell. Do I think babies that die go to heaven - without a doubt!!! I have family members that have never been baptised, who have died. You know, no one would ever claim that innocent babies (by the way, all babies are innocent) could go to hell. Do you really believe that the magisterial leaders would claim that babies could go to hell? Of course not. I am simply telling you what the CC has to say on the matter:

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,"64 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. CCC

If to you, Scripture clearly states that they do in fact go to Heaven; why then won’t the CC make an official declaration if it’s so obvious?

 

[joe371]

If to you, Scripture clearly states that they do in fact go to Heaven; why then won’t the CC make an official declaration if it’s so obvious?

I said: I did not suggest that it cannot possibly be known that innocent babies go to Heaven, when we consider Scripture i.e. there is a possibility? From that you got: "If to you, Scripture clearly states that they do in fact go to Heaven…? Nowhere does scripture tell us that unbaptised adults, children or babies, go to heaven, so it’s not obvious. The church to which you belong: have they made an official declaration on the matter? If you are referring to what I said, well, who am I to make official declarations on behalf of any church? No one! That authority was not given to me.

 

[joe371]

dronald;12636900]Specifically do we need to be Baptized in order to attain Salvation?

I do not possess the God-given authority to say one way or the other i.e. I cannot make a declarative statement on the matter, on behalf of the church. You tell me? “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit”?

If a child is told that Baptism is no big deal (again for whatever reason) and it is delayed and the child dies, I do not believe God would blame the child for the parent’s ignorance.

This is what the Catholic Church has to say on the matter; what does your church have to say on the matter?

CCC847 *“This affirmation 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 or 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.”
*

I would most certainly point to the thief on the cross as an example of one who was not Baptized and was promised Heaven.

:clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

If to you, Scripture clearly states that they do in fact go to Heaven; why then won’t the CC make an official declaration if it’s so obvious?

Does it actually say that they “go to heaven”? Or are you stretching it to fit your view?

Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Jesus is saying that anyone who is like a little child will enter heaven.

Matthew 18:3
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So, there is NO explicit reference to children automatically going to heaven. There are implicit statements given in the context of a bigger point Jesus is trying to make, but no one is disagreeing with you on this.

dronald, Is this really the best anti-Catholic argument you have?

If so, you have nothing. :nope:

 

[joe371]

Does it actually say that they “go to heaven”? Or are you stretching it to fit your view?
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."Jesus is saying that anyone who is like a little child will enter heaven.
Matthew 18:3
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.So, there is NO explicit reference to children automatically going to heaven. There are implicit statements given in the context of a bigger point Jesus is trying to make.

dronald, Is this really the best anti-Catholic argument you have? If so, you have nothing. :nope:

I think we all agree that unbaptised babies go directly to heaven. However, you make a good point. In terms of people who have never been baptised, the Catholic Church is willing to say a lot more than most Protestant Churches, speaking as a former protestant:

CCC847 *“This affirmation 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 or 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.” *

 

[spina1953]

For me I do not know whether or not Babies go to heaven, but I hope that they do as I hope all will go top heaven, but to me its God’s call not us.

 

[dronald]

dronald, Is this really the best anti-Catholic argument you have?

And to think I had been enjoying this particular conversation with you.

 

[dronald]

I said: I did not suggest that it cannot possibly be known that innocent babies go to Heaven, when we consider Scripture i.e. there is a possibility? From that you got: "If to you, Scripture clearly states that they do in fact go to Heaven…? Nowhere does scripture tell us that unbaptised adults, children or babies, go to heaven, so it’s not obvious. The church to which you belong: have they made an official declaration on the matter? If you are referring to what I said, well, who am I to make official declarations on behalf of any church? No one! That authority was not given to me.

I’m a little confused by the bolded:

I did not suggest that it cannot possibly be known that innocent babies go to Heaven, when we consider Scripture?** Scripture clearly indicates that they do. **I simply said: The CC would never say that those people (adults, children or babies) who have never been baptised - go to hell. Just because Jesus said - “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” does not mean that non-baptised people go to hell. Do I think babies that die go to heaven - without a doubt!!! I have family members that have never been baptised, who have died. You know, no one would ever claim that innocent babies (by the way, all babies are innocent) could go to hell. Do you really believe that the magisterial leaders would claim that babies could go to hell? Of course not. I am simply telling you what the CC has to say on the matter:

To me it seems obvious to you.

 

[benhur]

Forget succession. Certain men, taught first-hand by the apostles, belonged to the Catholic Church.

Really ? That is not self serving or circular ?

Forget succession. All of these people, spanning the centuries from the first century (107 AD) to the fifth century, belonged to the Catholic Church - right?

Another thread would be needed. Never the less, Vat 2 says you can add a whole bunch of saints form "other " churches to that list. We are all catholic .

 

[joe371]

dronald;12637773]I’m a little confused by the bolded:

You know, you are right; I misspoke. it’s impossible for any human to know if unbaptised adults, children or babies, end up in hell, or if they all go to heaven, especially in light of passages like this, which is why the CCC says what it says. No one knows who goes to hell, and who does not: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit”.

I said: who am I to make official declarations on behalf of any church vis-a-vis doctrine or anything? No one! That authority was not given to me.

What I meant: God did not charge me with the mission of settling disputes, doctrine or otherwise, on behalf of the church i.e. the Holy Spirit is not guiding me into all truth.

To me it seems obvious to you./]

My personal opinion: no doubt. :yup:

 

[joe371]

Really ? That is not self serving or circular ?

Another thread would be needed. Never the less, Vat 2 says you can add a whole bunch of saints form "other " churches to that list. We are all catholic .

If we agree, both protestant and catholic, that certain men, taught first-hand by the apostles, belonged to the Catholic Church, then it’s not the claim of the present-day catholic church but a historical fact. If it’s a historical fact, as opposed to an unsubstantiated and bogus claim of the present-day CC then it might be safe to say that the apostles belonged to the CC as well.

You and I do not belong to the same catholic church.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Again, you miss the point. I see no value in doing so. My intentions are not to tear down any one Catholic or Catholicism in general. It isn’t why I’m here. I’ve not practiced that type of polemic, and don’t intend to start.

Jon, why would you infer that I am somehow suggesting that you ‘tear down any one Catholic or Catholicism in general’? The actual point IS that you are being given an opportunity to defend Luther, Melanchthon, and in fact, Lutheranism in general, and you chose not to do so. My comments and the facts I present DO NOT call for you to comment on Catholics or Catholicism.

One of the reasons I post what I do is to see IF there is any kind of credible compelling Protestant response to the historical facts I reveal and the arguments I present. Your avoidance of the actual facts indicates that there is not.

BTW, if you would like to continue to refer to my ‘polemical style’ we can arrange to have a discussion in which MY ‘style’ is compared to the actual text of Luther’s. If you want to ‘go there’, just say so.

Topper, that’s your view. You’re welcome to it, but it doesn’t make it true.

As you are to yours Jon. The difference though is that I support my position with actual historical facts, and logic and reason. Your contentions are, from what I can tell, almost completely based on opinion. As you have learned here on these threads, Luther’s ‘style’ was very similar. In regards to Luther’s dealings with his opponents, and Luther’s “talents as a polemicist”, Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards comments:

**“Moreover, with their impassioned language, abusive characterizations of opponents, and almost summary discussions of the theological issues involved, they were obviously intended to be treatises of exhortation rather than explanation.” **Edwards, “Luther’s Last Battles”, pg. 36

IOW, Luther didn’t really EXPLAIN his position, rather he simply stated it, and as we know from other Edwards quotes, when people refused to see things his way, he villainized them and claimed that they were willingly in league with Satan.

I guess there is a completely different POV between calling someone a liar, as you did, and saying that I believe someone is misguided. There are a number of things that I do not believe is confessional regarding the ELCA, female ordination being one. Our synod opposes it on scriptural and confessional grounds. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their sincerity, as you have continued to do here about Melanchthon, in particular.

And yet Jon, you have refused to say that Melanchthon’s statement about not having any dogmas different than the Church was HONEST.

This approach is much more like Luther than Melanchthon.

Please explain this if you would. It sounds like you could be saying that Luther was more prone to dishonesty than Melanchthon. I doubt if you are actually saying that but I must admit that I don’t understand what you actually meant here.

No, it isn’t the point. The point is that which was stated on this thread regarding private interpretation of scripture. Since the time of the CA, and since, it has not been the practice of Lutherans to use private interpretation regarding doctrine. That was the point of my post.
Whether you think Melanchthon was a liar and coward isn’t the point.

With all due respect Jon, whether Melanchthon lied about Lutheran beliefs is VERY MUCH the point, as is whether the Augsburg Confession was a much less than honest representation of Lutheran belief. You might prefer to discuss my ‘polemical style’ instead, but I would suggest that the honesty of the CA is FAR MORE important issue. I would agree though, what I think is of relatively little importance. What IS important is the FACTS and whether they point to my conclusion – which of course they do. If you have facts which support your position, by all means, you should post them.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Topper17]

The CA answers this in the conclusion.

If you think it does Jon, then quote the conclusion and make an actual statement as to why it ‘answers’ the conclusion. Actually the conclusion of the CA does not give even a HINT as to why it didn’t deal with those dozen or so issues on which the Lutherans were in disagreement with the Church. If you think differently, then please explain why – specifically.

Since you continue to disagree with the facts, there is more evidence. (There is ALWAYS more evidence)

(The Great) Jaroslav Pelikan, writing before he abandoned Lutheranism, on the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession:

“The conclusion of the confession therefore made the claim that ‘in our circles nothing has been accepted in doctrine or in ceremonies that is opposed to Scripture or the Catholic Church, since it is evident that we have been most careful to keep new and wicked dogmas from creeping into our churches.’ And in the conclusion to its** first part the confession even claimed to contain ‘nothing that departs either from Scriptures or from the Catholic Church or from the Roman Church, insofar as this is known to us from its writers. **** Both of these claims were an effort to drive a wedge between Rome and the Catholic tradition**, or between the Rome of tradition and the Rome of Eck and Cochlaeus. That effort helps to account for the conservatism of the confession in form and content. Thus its statement concerning the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist almost won the approval of the Roman Catholic opponents………………Pelikan, “Obedient Rebels”, pg. 45-6

Rather than the conclusion of the Confession providing an answer as to why all of those important doctrinal differences were ignored, it appears to confirm that it was a dishonest representation of Lutheran belief.

(Yale Professor of History and first President of the American Historical Association) Hajo Holborn supplies additional facts and comments, and of course the facts are the facts.

“Melanchthon, who had brought [to Augsburg] with him a brief written defense of the Wittenberg Church, in which he declared the religious differences as variations of practice rather than of faith, was now driven to expound on both faith and practices at greater length.” Holborn, “A History of Modern Germany, The Reformation”, pg. 212

This reveals that Melanchthon actually brought a written document with him to Augsburg that was an intentional falsehood. Obviously he knew that there were differences of faith rather than practice. Intentional deception is a lie.

“Some of the fundamental tenents of Lutheran faith were stated in the Confession with the lucidity that Melanchthon commanded, **but for diplomatic reasons other essential elements were left out or toned down. ** Universial priesthood was not mentioned, nor were papal supremacy, indulgences, purgatory, and the existence of seven sacraments challenged. On the other hand, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was treated in a way that left a Catholic interpretation open, while excluding any Zwinglian or sectarian position.

Melanchthon wanted to separate the Wittenberg group radically from Swiss and sectarian Protestantism. One of his main objectives was to make the Saxons and their friends appear as loyal members of the old Church and not as basically different in faith, though they had discontinued certain abuses and medieval interpolations.” Holborn, pg. 212

The basic question at hand is WHY, specifically and exactly, was Melanchthon and the Augsburg Confession SO dishonest about the actual beliefs of Lutheranism?

Melanchthon’s reaction to the Catholic response to the “Confession” is rather telling:

“While the Catholic theologians worked in grim determination on their critique [of the Augsburg Confession] and the emperor remained silent,** Melanchthon, in his sorrowful panic, made contact with the emperor’s confessor and even with the papal nuncio in order to find out what concessions the Lutherans might receive if they returned to the jurisdiction of the Roman Church. He insisted eventually only on communion in both kinds, marriage of priests, and a few changes in the mas ritual.”** Holborn, pg. 213

Jon, what percentage of Lutherans know these details about the Augsburg Confession?
Does this or does this kind of information lend credibility to the Confession or not?

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[benhur]

ben-

As early as the end of the first century, the believers who were known originally as “the Way” began to call themselves “Christians” beginning at Antioch.

Interestingly, in AD 107 Ignatius of Antioch, used the term “Catholic Church” in an off-hand manner which suggests that he was not coining a new phrase and that his audience was already familiar with it.

This means that within the lifetime of the last living apostle, John, Christians were thinking of themselves as members of the one, universal or catholic Church.

Does this mean that Peter, James, John and Paul all thought of themselves as members of the Catholic Church in the same way that I do today?

Well, yes and no. No, they would not have recognized all of the structure that has developed as the needs of the Church have required, but yes, they would have considered themselves, just as I do, to be members of the one body of Christ which is today known as the Catholic Church.

Totally agree just that "catholic’’ was an adjective not a noun early on . As an adjective then one must determine when it historically became “proper” to capitalize. It is pure speculation to say the apostles would have “capitalized”, as in apart from “others” ( in the Body- not gnostic) as mentioned in Vat 2

 

[benhur]

You and I do not belong to the same catholic church.

You are at odds with the pope and bishops since Vat 2.

 

[joe371]

You are at odds with the pope and bishops since Vat 2.

The pope and bishops since Vat 2 claim that you and I belong to the same Roman Catholic church? Do you belong to the Roman Catholic Church to which I belong, now? I thought you were Protestant?