Heaven or hell.

Dedesmond's picture

If a baby (child) died immediately after birth. Where will the child go?

De Maria's picture

RE: Here an article I found, that seemed well rounded...

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the article. I understand the entire thing. But really my concern is summed up in this sentence:

....Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem.....

And my question is, "who decides what is an 'unbiblical tradition'?

After all, you and I, if I understood your statement on infant baptism correctly, believe that infant baptism is thoroughly biblical.

Yet, let me quote some of our Protestant brethren:

What does the Bible say about infant baptism?
The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the ... This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the ...
www.gotquestions.org/infant-baptism.html - Cached - Similar

Why infant baptism is not biblical
Oct 7, 2007 ... This passage is often used in a vain attempt to justify the unbiblical practice of infant baptism. But if one actually reads the passage ...
www.bebaptized.org/ButIwasbaptizedasaninfant.htm - Cached - Similar

The Unbiblical Practice of Infant Baptism « FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANITY
Jun 30, 2008 ... The Unbiblical Practice of Infant Baptism. By Dr. Max D. Younce, Pastor. HERITAGE BAPTIST BIBLE CHURCH po Box 573| Walnut Grove, ...
onetruegod.wordpress.com/.../the-unbiblical-pactice-of-infant-baptism/ - Cached - Similar

They also go by Scripture alone. Which you defend. Yet they have a radically different understanding of "infant baptism" as it is taught in the Bible.

So, your article says:
Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible.

So it would seem that this statement is false. Since, going by Scripture alone, you and other Scripture alone adherents, do not agree on this doctrine.

So I would ask you to compare the Catholic viewpoint to the one of Sola Scriptura.

Scripture says:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Scripture also says:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

And finally Scripture says:
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

In defending this doctrine (infant baptism) we say, this is what the Church tells us (hear the church) and we can prove from Christian history that it is a Tradition held by the Church since the beginning. And of course, we produce the same proof texts you provided as well.

Therefore, I believe we comply with Scripture completely.

Yet what are you and other Sola Scripturists left with when you disagree with each other.

We can see how this dilemma was handled in the early Church. When Athanasius and Arius disagreed. They each had Scripture to backup their views. So, it was a stalemate. Both being bishops, neither had more authority. So they took their argument to the Church for judgement in accord with Matt 18:17.

The Church judged in favor of Athanasius because his view agreed with Church Tradition.

But what do you and other Sola Scripturists have left? You have already appealed to your highest authority. You and Scripture vs. they and Scripture. At this point, who is right, the one who yells loudest or the one who persists longer?

Sincerely,

De Maria




Advertisements