Diocese of Pittsburgh to vote on leaving TEC

[peter_speckhard]

I don't know her personally myself, but I've seen and heard enough from her to indicate that the gospel is reduced to acceptance and no repentance/new life -- that is, of course, unless you stand firm in the faith on orthodox/traditional teachings and practices of the faith.

So if a baptized infant dies before reaching the age of being able to repent by confessing sins and receiving forgiveness, they cannot be saved by God? Does God accept infants before they are able to repent and receive the new life given in Christ or does God's acceptance depend on something we do first?

Perhaps what might be more applicable is would God punish a child whose parent(s) didn't take the time to see that the child was baptized?

John Dornheim

Would the angel of death kill the firstborn son of parents who didn't take the time to put the blood of the lamb on their doorpost?

[edoughty]

I don't know her personally myself, but I've seen and heard enough from her to indicate that the gospel is reduced to acceptance and no repentance/new life -- that is, of course, unless you stand firm in the faith on orthodox/traditional teachings and practices of the faith.

So if a baptized infant dies before reaching the age of being able to repent by confessing sins and receiving forgiveness, they cannot be saved by God? Does God accept infants before they are able to repent and receive the new life given in Christ or does God's acceptance depend on something we do first?

Perhaps what might be more applicable is would God punish a child whose parent(s) didn't take the time to see that the child was baptized?

John Dornheim

Would the angel of death kill the firstborn son of parents who didn't take the time to put the blood of the lamb on their doorpost?

Does your question presume a specific model of atonement?

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

[Scott4]

Perhaps what might be more applicable is would God punish a child whose parent(s) didn't take the time to see that the child was baptized?

John Dornheim

Would the angel of death kill the firstborn son of parents who didn't take the time to put the blood of the lamb on their doorpost?

Does your question presume a specific model of atonement?

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

My guess would be that Peter's question presumes that God is God.  But it's just a guess.

[edoughty]

Perhaps what might be more applicable is would God punish a child whose parent(s) didn't take the time to see that the child was baptized?

John Dornheim

Would the angel of death kill the firstborn son of parents who didn't take the time to put the blood of the lamb on their doorpost?

Does your question presume a specific model of atonement?

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

My guess would be that Peter's question presumes that God is God.  But it's just a guess.

My guess would be that we all wouldn't be chatting on this list unless we all presumed that God is God.  But that's also just a guess.

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

[Brian Stoffregen]

I don't know her personally myself, but I've seen and heard enough from her to indicate that the gospel is reduced to acceptance and no repentance/new life -- that is, of course, unless you stand firm in the faith on orthodox/traditional teachings and practices of the faith.

So if a baptized infant dies before reaching the age of being able to repent by confessing sins and receiving forgiveness, they cannot be saved by God? Does God accept infants before they are able to repent and receive the new life given in Christ or does God's acceptance depend on something we do first?

Not even related to what I was saying....  Can God make a stone too big for Him to lift?

It is most certainly related. You seemed to indicate in your post that "no repentance" = no salvation. Thus salvation depends on our repentance. If so, an infant is doomed.

[Pr. Jerry]

I don't know her personally myself, but I've seen and heard enough from her to indicate that the gospel is reduced to acceptance and no repentance/new life -- that is, of course, unless you stand firm in the faith on orthodox/traditional teachings and practices of the faith.

So if a baptized infant dies before reaching the age of being able to repent by confessing sins and receiving forgiveness, they cannot be saved by God? Does God accept infants before they are able to repent and receive the new life given in Christ or does God's acceptance depend on something we do first?

Perhaps what might be more applicable is would God punish a child whose parent(s) didn't take the time to see that the child was baptized?

John Dornheim

Would the angel of death kill the firstborn son of parents who didn't take the time to put the blood of the lamb on their doorpost?

Peter, I'll bite on your question and I'll probably tick some people off, but hey...  I'd answer an unequical "yes" to your question and a more dubious "I don't know" to John's.  Contrary to Erik's rejoinder, I don't think any sense of atonement is operable in the Exodus account of the plagues.  The firstborn are not killed as payment, but rather as a consequence of Pharoah's refusal, so yes an Israelite family that refuses--out of laziness or stubbornessm or fear-- to place the blood on the doorpost would suffer the same fate as the Egyptians.  The real question that perhaps should have been asked is, "If an Egyptian household placed the blood upon their lintels, would the angel of death have passed over them, even if they could not have appreciated why they were doing the act?"  Hmmmm....

As to John's question, a question that is far more dire than mere death, we know that God's grace and mercy far outstrips his wrath.  Can a child, whose parents were negligent in their Christian duties, be punished?  Sure.  Does that mean that God will act in such a fashion?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  God's mercy would seem to indicate "No," or at least "Not necessarily..." but why tempt God?  Why not do the sure thing and have the child baptized?  I will trust God's mercy and forebearance in the hypothetical case John brings up.  But I sure didn't leave that to chance with my own children.

In the end, both John and Peter's questions (not to mention my question...) are good examples of scholastic/Thomist excercise.  "How many angels dance on the head of that pin, anyway?"  All of them or none of them?

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS  

[Scott4]

My guess would be that we all wouldn't be chatting on this list unless we all presumed that God is God.  But that's also just a guess.

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

Sorry to not be clear enough.  I think what Peter was getting at was that God does things that we may not happen to like, but it's still God doing them.  John had mentioned something about the fate of babies (i.e., "would God punish a child whose parent(s) didn't take the time to see that the child was baptized?") to which Peter responded by pointing to the angel of death killing the firstborn of Egypt according to God's command.

So our thoughts as to what God may or may not do are largely irrelevant when our mores are projected back upon God, the same God who killed the firstborn of Egypt.

God is God.  We're not.  To which we always answer: Don't seem right.  The consequence of which is making a god according to our image, according to our likeness.

Is that more helpful (though it still may not be Peter's point, but that's how I read it anyway)?

[revklak]

I don't know her personally myself, but I've seen and heard enough from her to indicate that the gospel is reduced to acceptance and no repentance/new life -- that is, of course, unless you stand firm in the faith on orthodox/traditional teachings and practices of the faith.

So if a baptized infant dies before reaching the age of being able to repent by confessing sins and receiving forgiveness, they cannot be saved by God? Does God accept infants before they are able to repent and receive the new life given in Christ or does God's acceptance depend on something we do first?

Not even related to what I was saying....  Can God make a stone too big for Him to lift?

It is most certainly related. You seemed to indicate in your post that "no repentance" = no salvation. Thus salvation depends on our repentance. If so, an infant is doomed.

Okay -- first of all, I put "no repentance" in a / combination with "new life."  Point being --as my old sem theology prof would say -- there is more than one side to this thing called the gospel.  More than simply acceptance -- it is forgivneness (that's what "accepts" us) either through or resulting in (I've heard enough arguements both ways not to want to dissect that at this point and cloud any more my already murky explanation -- which always happens when we try to explain in too fine a detail) repentance from the old ways of living and the visible fruit of a new life that witness clearly to the power of God.  Justification and sanctification.

Second, I suppose it would have been easier to have said that she strikes me as type of person who stands firm on "God loves you the way you are," but never gets around to the second part -- "But He loves you enough not to leave you the way you are."  (except in a few circumstances - like holding the line on traditional teachings -- that seems to need repenting of)

[grabau14]

Forgive the Zen-ish musing, but....
Might Jesus be the way for people reaching God (and successfully finding God) even if they don't know he iis the way?
I don't think I'd preach that, but I might wonder about it.

Exactly my point when I said, "When I get to heaven, I will believe that all the people are there because of Jesus."

Similarly, whether people believe it or not, they are created by God. Their beliefs about a god, or gods, or no gods, doesn't change the fact that the Triune God was involved in their creation -- and, if we follow Luther's explanation of the First Article -- God is involved in providing all people what they need from day to day -- whether they recognize it or not, whether they thank and praise God for it or not.

Brian,

Just curious, do you confess the Athanasian Creed?  BTW, I was agreeing (scary) with you about the need of the Church to inform our views of Scripture and to tell the wackos to knock it off.  You lost with your understanding of salvation. that is "all people are there because of Jesus." 

Rev'd. Matthew J. Uttenreither  SSP

[revklak]

Forgive the Zen-ish musing, but....
Might Jesus be the way for people reaching God (and successfully finding God) even if they don't know he iis the way?
I don't think I'd preach that, but I might wonder about it.

Exactly my point when I said, "When I get to heaven, I will believe that all the people are there because of Jesus."

Similarly, whether people believe it or not, they are created by God. Their beliefs about a god, or gods, or no gods, doesn't change the fact that the Triune God was involved in their creation -- and, if we follow Luther's explanation of the First Article -- God is involved in providing all people what they need from day to day -- whether they recognize it or not, whether they thank and praise God for it or not.

Brian,

Just curious, do you confess the Athanasian Creed?  BTW, I was agreeing (scary) with you about the need of the Church to inform our views of Scripture and to tell the wackos to knock it off.  You lost with your understanding of salvation. that is "all people are there because of Jesus." 

Rev'd. Matthew J. Uttenreither  SSP

Not to interpret for Brian - but I would agree if he meant to say that "all the people THAT ARE THERE/SAVED are there because of Jesus."

[Dave_Poedel]

As i opened this thead tonight, I had to smile. I just spent the past 2 hours with a 15 year old young man, not from my parish or Tradition, whose mom asked me to speak with him.  His little brother died a month before birth 5 years ago and this boy has been mad at God ever since.  Since I lost my son the same week and mom and I used to work together, she remembered me and looked me up again.

This thread mirrored, in many respects, the conversation that this young man and I had.  Bottom line: God is God, we are not, thanks be to God.  The resurrection of the dead is one of God's many gifts to us for the sake of Jesus; praise God.  God can handle our anger toward Him and remain faithful and loving to us: Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound.

Yes, sisters and brothers, this theological stuff actually does "teach" as well as "preach".  Deo gratias!

[peter_speckhard]

I don't know her personally myself, but I've seen and heard enough from her to indicate that the gospel is reduced to acceptance and no repentance/new life -- that is, of course, unless you stand firm in the faith on orthodox/traditional teachings and practices of the faith.

So if a baptized infant dies before reaching the age of being able to repent by confessing sins and receiving forgiveness, they cannot be saved by God? Does God accept infants before they are able to repent and receive the new life given in Christ or does God's acceptance depend on something we do first?

Perhaps what might be more applicable is would God punish a child whose parent(s) didn't take the time to see that the child was baptized?

John Dornheim

Would the angel of death kill the firstborn son of parents who didn't take the time to put the blood of the lamb on their doorpost?

Does your question presume a specific model of atonement?

Erik Doughty
Minneapolis, MN

My question assumes that God cannot be unjust whether he gives or takes life, whether He damns or saves. Since we all confess to having been born in sin and that we "justly deserve Thy temporal and eternal punishment" (well, those of us who grew up on TLH do, at least) what we're saying that is that pure justice leads us to the conclusion of universal damnation, not universal salvation. What is impossibly good, inexplicable to reason, is that we are saved by grace through faith. The question of whether God would damn a baby because the parents were too lazy or foolish to get the child baptized frames the whole thing wrong due to the word "because". No, He wouldn't damn anybody because of that; He would damn them, if He did, because they were damnable sinners (which we know we all are, including the baby the question). Framing the question in this way confuses mercy with justice, as though since some are saved by mercy, it is a matter of justice that all must be saved by mercy. Romans 9 ought to puit an end to such speculation. Universalism is the ultimate perversion of law and Gospel, at least in this sense, in that it makes salvation a function of God's justice-- how could he be so unfair as to save one and not another-- rather than grace. Now, in order to avoid that pitfall, rather than asking why God would damn anyone, we might ask on what basis God would save anyone. And the only thing that satisfies justice and mercy is a sacrificial model of atonement and the righteousness of Christ given by grace and received by faith. If we simply assume that God saves the unbaptized, we're making baptism meaningless. Might He save them? Sure. If you jumped off a pinnacle, He might send the angels to bear you up lest you strike your foot against a stone.

Chesterton made the point somewhere that when we object to the possibility of eternal consequences for this or that ritual or act, we're really objecting to the whole idea of real consequences to any action and therefore to the divine condescension of human agency. Unless it is a matter of dogma that all are saved, with or without repentance or faith, whether they want to be or not, or unless even what God has revealed remains unsure such that everything that happens is truly random, then we're stuck with the idea that a simple ritual, as far as we know, has eternal consequences, but paradoxically, only one way. Baptism saves, but lack of baptism does not damn. If there is any drama to the Passover, then the blood on the door really means something. The Hebrew really is saved by the blood of the Lamb, but the Egyptian does not die for want of such blood, but because of Pharoah's hard-heartedness. God calls the blood, just like the rainbow, not so much a sign for us (though it is that, too) but a sign for Him. When He sees it, He will act according to the promise He attached to it. The same, it seems to me, applies to Baptism.

BTW there is an interesting set of prayers in the TLH Liturgy edition that distinguishes the death announcements for adults and young children. I was thinking of writing an article on it sometime. If anyone wants to look it up and comment, I would welcome your thought. I don't have it with me right now or I would post it. Anyway, good night.

[Gladfelteri]

I don't know that she goes that far, at least not what I've read.  What I've seen is more along the lines of an admission that she does not completely know the mind of God and that she chooses to not assume the way that is The Way for Christians is the way for everybody else.

I'm not sure how that would be different than what David has described above.

But saying that she chooses to not assume that the way that is The Way for Christians is the way for everybody else sure seems like Unitarian Universalism to me. . .   

Blessings,
Irl

[Brian Stoffregen]

Just curious, do you confess the Athanasian Creed?

Yup, nearly every Trinity Sunday.

BTW, I was agreeing (scary) with you about the need of the Church to inform our views of Scripture and to tell the wackos to knock it off.  You lost with your understanding of salvation. that is "all people are there because of Jesus." 

If some people are not in heaven because of Jesus, how else do they get there?

[Terry W Culler]

I truly hate to say it, but some of the conversation here sounds just like the sort of things 14 year olds bring up in confirmation.  Let's move along now
Soli Deo Gloria
Terry