dead babies go to heaven without baptism?

[north_malaysian]

Do dead babies can go to heaven without baptism in Christianity?

[north_malaysian]

bump!:exhausted

[------]

:salamext:

Will Non-Baptized Go To Heaven

Unbaptised babies

[IbnAbdulHakim]

lol i heard stories of limbo being a hell for kids at the center of the earth.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[------]

:salamext:

^not a story, according to christianity, tis a fact.

Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having Original Sin alone, they do not deserve Paradise, but neither do they merit Hell or Purgatory.

Source

Quite silly if u ask me :ooh:

[ddz]

yeahh I dont really beleive that nonsense and Im a christian myself... I dont know where they came up with that, but even the pope I beleive has banned the talk about limbo within schools and cirriculums, dont think he likes the idea himself :P

I beleive, and maybe this perhaps maybe a personal beleif- that when babies die, whether baptized or unbaptized, they will be sent to heaven- Babies are born free of sin, they know no sin and are pure, to have someone as inoccent and vunerable as that go to ''limbo'' is down right nonsense.. :P

Imagine a priest having told a mother who has had a miscarriage or has lost her child after birth.. that 'your child has gone limbo' how would she feel?! its just creul in the scenario such as this, but yeahh, the harsh fact is that this so called limbo does exist in some denominations of christianity :P buut personaly I think its a load of rubbish :D

[------]

:salamext:

Islam#s stance on this is better :D Babies go straight heaven, no other nonsense

[IbnAbdulHakim]

yeahh I dont really beleive that nonsense and Im a christian myself... I dont know where they came up with that, but even the pope I beleive has banned the talk about limbo within schools and cirriculums, dont think he likes the idea himself :P

I beleive, and maybe this perhaps maybe a personal beleif- that when babies die, whether baptized or unbaptized, they will be sent to heaven- Babies are born free of sin, they know no sin and are pure, to have someone as inoccent and vunerable as that go to ''limbo'' is down right nonsense.. :P

Imagine a priest having told a mother who has had a miscarriage or has lost her child after birth.. that 'your child has gone limbo' how would she feel?! its just creul in the scenario such as this, but yeahh, the harsh fact is that this so called limbo does exist in some denominations of christianity :P buut personaly I think its a load of rubbish :D

can you reject a lot of fundamental christian beliefs and still be christian? just out of curiosity...?!
becoz there are christians that dont believe in trinity or jesus being son of God etc etc.. i wonder sometimes why they call themselves christian..

[Abdul Fattah]

Is this also in Christianity? I was under the impression this was only so in catholicism...

[ddz]

can you reject a lot of fundamental christian beliefs and still be christian? just out of curiosity...?!

There are different denominations within Christianity.. I suppose on the basis of what you said, then perhaps you arent a christian by action - you said

'if you reject A LOT of FUNDAMENTAL beleifs'

Now, the 2 commandments Jesus left us, to sum up all the 10 commandments within the Torah, were 'Love your Neighbour as you Love yourself' and 'Love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might and strength' I think this is an overall fundamental christian beleif. if one was to not beleive this then they are just christian by name.

Also, different denominations hold different fundamental beleifs - I think if you have your own opinion, its not a drastic doubt within your faith, nor does it make you less of a Catholic, Protestant etc..

My curiousity is the same with Islamic beleifs within people, can they call themselves muslims if they dont beleive in something the Koran says?

becoz there are christians that dont believe in trinity or jesus being son of God etc etc.. i wonder sometimes why they call themselves christian..

As previously mentioned there are different denominations, and some indeed beleive Jesus was part of the trinity where as some do not. Christianity is like an umbrella I suppose.. lol or like a Tree, there are different branches with different beleif, but the fundamentals I think can be agreed upon by all these branches because they all beleive following the footsteps and actions of JEsus and submitting yourself to God Almighty are the Christian Way.

When Christians in a denomination reject the trinity, it could very well be within their fundamental beleifs as the denomination they are within. It doenst mean they are christian no more - for example, if I were to say I dont think JEsus is the Son of God, nor is he part of the trinity- there is no trinity... me being a christian.. you'd try to figure out what denomination I am a part of within christianity where what I say is beleived fundamentally by others. It does not make me a Jew or Muslim in rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, Trinity etc

I hope this has helped :)


I dont beleive Limbo is a fundamental beleif within christianity.. because there are different denominations within christianity, the key denomination who FIRST beleived there is limbo is the Roman Catholic. Eastern Christianity and Protestants reject limbo, Jehovahs Witnesses do not beleive in it either

heres something I got off wikipedia -

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, which is not an official expression of the Church's teaching,[24] but only one of the opinions that the Catholic Church does not condemn, allowing them to be held by its members. Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo"[25] are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion".

I dont beleive in Limbo also because the reason that kids or babies go there, is beleived to be because of 'original sin' which is Adam and Eve. WHY should a baby have to go to such a place on behalf of Adam and Eve going against God?! I find it harsh

[ddz]

Is this also in Christianity? I was under the impression this was only so in catholicism...

Yup, just in Catholicism.. but its a delicate matter, and isnt a cannon beleif within the denomination, its classed as a theological theory..

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

My curiousity is the same with Islamic beleifs within people, can they call themselves muslims if they dont beleive in something the Koran says?

Do you mean, if you read something in the Qur'aan, and you disbelieve in it? Then no, this is apostasy.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

so how does Jesus come into the fundamentals of christianity?

[ddz]

Do you mean, if you read something in the Qur'aan, and you disbelieve in it? Then no, this is apostasy.

Just that, if you have a personal beleif rather than what the Koran says, does it make you less of a muslim?

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Just that, if you have a personal beleif rather than what the Koran says, does it make you less of a muslim?

It does a little bit more than that. It takes you outside the fold of Islaam. To deny even a single verse or command of Allaah is kufr (apostasy).

[Abdul Fattah]

My curiousity is the same with Islamic beleifs within people, can they call themselves muslims if they dont beleive in something the Koran says?

Declaring a person that believes that he is Muslim as non-Muslim is a very serious matter. There is actually a school of thought behind it. First of all, only scholars which fit certain criteria have the authority to make such claims. Secondly, there are only a few cases that give them ground to judge a person as non-muslim. For example a Muslim who drinks, is still a Muslim. A Muslim who sinned, but nevertheless still a Muslim. A Muslim who starts worshiping a false deity on the other hand, can by all logic no longer be called "Muslim".

When Christians in a denomination reject the trinity, it could very well be within their fundamental beleifs as the denomination they are within. It doenst mean they are christian no more - for example, if I were to say I dont think JEsus is the Son of God, nor is he part of the trinity- there is no trinity... me being a christian.. you'd try to figure out what denomination I am a part of within christianity where what I say is beleived fundamentally by others. It does not make me a Jew or Muslim in rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, Trinity etc

Unitarians, Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses for one don't believe in trinity. There used to be a lot more Christian denominations who didn't believe in trinity, but most became extinct by the crusades after Constantine declared all other denominations (all that didn't agree with his vision of Christianity) as herracy in the council of Nicea

http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...fs/trinity.htm

I dont beleive in Limbo also because the reason that kids or babies go there, is beleived to be because of 'original sin' which is Adam and Eve. WHY should a baby have to go to such a place on behalf of Adam and Eve going against God?! I find it harsh

Well it's interesting that you brought this up, because if one takes a step back, you can really see a chain of thoughts.
1. If babies don't go to limbo => there is no original sin
2. If there is no original sin => there is no need for a savior
3. If there is no need for a savior => there is no trinity

All these concepts are closely nit together, I grant that my chain is a bit of a slippery slope. But I think you'll see how from an Islamic perspective, we suspect that one wrong view is likely to be the direct result of another. If you reject all of these concepts that lie close to one another at once, one could argue that one is then closer to Islam or Judaism then one is close to Christianity.

[Tania]

1261 "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. "
Source

[ddz]

Well it's interesting that you brought this up, because if one takes a step back, you can really see a chain of thoughts.

Lets have a Lookie then :) lol

1. If babies don't go to limbo => there is no original sin

2. If there is no original sin => there is no need for a savior

3. If there is no need for a savior => there is no trinity

Slightly True in the sense if you were to give both credibility AND reality to limbo, but its just a THEORY, and remains a Theological Hypothesis.. and who is to say that Limbo is a form of 'Hell' from what I know of it, apparantley its a place where people remain whom are unjudged for the time being because they are of no sin but Original Sin..
How can you eliminate original sin if it means a baby doesnt go to limbo? Original Sin still exists within us does it not? Isnt it because of Original Sin, that we humans continue on to Sin? Original Sin exists regardless, and your right in saying if there is no original sin there is no saviour, but if there was no original sin, there would be no sin meaning there would be no evil meaning there would be no need for prophets or as you have said - saviour or trinity for that matter

[Muslim Knight]

I dont beleive in Limbo also because the reason that kids or babies go there, is beleived to be because of 'original sin' which is Adam and Eve. WHY should a baby have to go to such a place on behalf of Adam and Eve going against God?! I find it harsh

Then, what are you waiting for?

[ddz]

Then, what are you waiting for?

im waiting for you to give me a better explanation of what you meant lool naa seriously bro, what did u mean by that

[Tania]

im waiting for you to give me a better explanation of what you meant lool naa seriously bro, what did u mean by that

May be its pointing out to move to other religion :?

[ddz]

May be its pointing out to move to other religion :?

Hmm.. I shall wait for the brother to answer and we'll see :) God Bless

[Abdul Fattah]

Well first of all, I admitted that my chain was a slippery slope, I merely presented it since it represents my personal interpretation not because I hold it to be a self evident.

About Limbo, I thought it was one of the 7 layers of hell? I think you might have it confused with purgatory?

About original sin, the original sin I was thought in catholic schools was not merely that humans are born with a tendency to sin, but also that humans are born with an inherited guilt from Adam and Eve. In other words, we are partly responsible for their sins. I remember one teacher I had even went that far that he interpreted Genesis in such a way that a woman's period is a punishment for Eve's sin. Because according to him; since her sin, mankind became mortal; due to their mortality they need to create offspring; and finally due to their need for offspring woman have periods. As the chain continues, accepting the savior would not only erase your own sins, but also the inherited guilt you have when being born. Therefor a child who has not yet had the opportunity to sin, but also not had the opportunity to accept Jesus (peace be upon him) as savior still has to account for his inherited guilt and thus has to burn. So not accepting Limbo means not accepting the inherited guilt (a.k.a. original sin). As for the other interpretation of original sin (mankind is born with an inclination toward sin); I'd argue that this isn't enough to require a savior. Even with an inclination people still have a choice, so even though a savior would still be easy, one couldn't argue that it's a necessity. With the more dogmatic view of original sin though, where people are born guilty, there the concept of a savior really is the only way out of a guilt that you haven't had any choice in in the first place.
Btw, just so we're clear, I do realize most Christians don't believe this, I'm just saying this is how it was thought on catholic school, and if I'm not mistaken this is also how the Vatican presents it.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Declaring a person that believes that he is Muslim as non-Muslim is a very serious matter. There is actually a school of thought behind it. First of all, only scholars which fit certain criteria have the authority to make such claims. Secondly, there are only a few cases that give them ground to judge a person as non-muslim. For example a Muslim who drinks, is still a Muslim. A Muslim who sinned, but nevertheless still a Muslim. A Muslim who starts worshiping a false deity on the other hand, can by all logic no longer be called "Muslim".

Just to make things clear, I am not making takfeer of anyone. Not everyone who commits kufr is a kaafir, in the same way that not everyone who commits shirk is a mushrik. But the general principle is, denying/disbelievng in a part of Islaam is kufr.

There are different types of kufr, and one of them is the kufr of ta'teel (the kufr of denial), as referred to in the following verse:

"And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allaah, or rejects the truth when it comes to him? Is there not an abode in Hell for those who disbelieve (kaafireen)?" [29:68]

But ofcourse, there are conditions to be met - such as, the actual rejection of which itself constitutes kufr, and there is no confusion in the mind of the ignorant person or who is misinterpretting the sharee'ah. And as you stated, in such cases takfeer is performed by one who is able to do so, i.e. a person of knowledge.

Ibn Taymiyyah states: "Whoever's Islaam was affirmed with certainty, than it cannot be removed from him with doubt. Rather, his Islaam will never cease until after the proof has been established against him and any doubt [concerning his case] has been removed." - Majmoo' al-Fataawa (12/467)

Here is a nice article on the principles of takfeer.

[ddz]

I do realize most Christians don't believe this,

Yh, most dont

I'm just saying this is how it was thought on catholic school,

I've been to a catholic school, though the teacher never told me of such things and there were many teachers, I have come accross what you said by a student who told me, but I thought it was just his opinion at the very most :P

and if I'm not mistaken this is also how the Vatican presents it.

Have you got any source as to the Vatican presenting it like this? because Im not sure on that entirley

[Ahmed.]

I think there may be a difference of opinion on this issue from an Islamic point of view; one is that babies go straight to heaven and the other is that, Allah knows best [meaning that it may not be the case that babies and children go to heaven].

Here is an article on this issue:

‘A’isha, the mother of the believers, said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was called to lead the funeral prayer of a child of the Ansar. I said: Allah's Messenger, there is happiness for this child who is a bird from the birds of Paradise for it committed no sin nor has he reached the age when one can commit sin. He said: ‘A’isha, per adventure, it may be otherwise, because God created for Paradise those who are fit for it while they were yet in their father's loins and created for Hell those who are to go to Hell. He created them for Hell while they were yet in their father’s loins. (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6436)


Narrated ‘Imran:

I said, “O Allah's Apostle! Why should a doer (people) try to do good deeds?” The Prophet said, “Everybody will find easy to do such deeds as will lead him TO HIS DESTINED PLACE FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN CREATED.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 641)

...........

There exists difference of opinion concerning the fate of the children [who die as children] of the kuffar [disbelievers], some say they are in Jannah [paradise] and others say they are in Jahannum [Hell], while others hold other views. The preffered view is that we hold back from giving an opinion and rather say that Allah knows best. [Fatwa by Mufti Ibraheem Desai, ask-imam.com, # 11190]

Peace. :)

[Abdul Fattah]

Have you got any source as to the Vatican presenting it like this? because Im not sure on that entirley

I wouldn't even know where to look for such sources. I'm just saying this is how we were thought, and we were were also thought that that specific way is the way the Vatican presents. So the best source I can offer is my teacher.

[Tania]

I wouldn't even know where to look for such sources. I'm just saying this is how we were thought, and we were were also thought that that specific way is the way the Vatican presents. So the best source I can offer is my teacher.

www.vatican.va :) there you can look after references

[Abdul Fattah]

www.vatican.va :) there you can look after references

Thx for your link, very interesting. I found this to back me up.

The inherited guilt by original sin:

How to read the account of the fall:

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
source

The link between original sin and the savior concept:

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith.

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. the Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. the Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
source

Why infants need batism:

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
source

I haven't found any good references for Limbo though. But I have found that apparently some view Limbo as a synonym for purgatory rather then a different place altogether.
(btw, the number in the text are indexes with references at the bottom of the page. Most of them to biblical verses, I won't copy them all, you can navigate to the source I posted and use the browser search function for those interested)

[barney]

Why are we talking about Limbo?
Limbo dosnt exist, the Vatican cancelled it in 2007.

Limbo was invented by the Infallible Popes centuries ago on the revalation of God. It was scrapped by the infallible Pope on the revalation of God.
Since the Pope's involved were both infallible, Limbo never happned and was never a teaching. If it was, then that would mean catholicism was wrong.

Simply delete any references to limbo from any book you read please and have the website mentioning it closed. Within 70 years nobody will remember it and , like the libary of Alex, there will be no records to disprove it, except in the vatican vaults.

Your cooperation is appreciated, (since burning heretics was banned). :D

[truemuslim]

Babies aint gotta choice. ther parents non muslims, they considered nonmuslims, but they cant really think or choose yet now can they... besides they prolly sittin ther while they parents saying "oh jesus" and the baby thinkin "oh allah, why my parents like dis. im smarter den dem" lol
anyway
WaSalaam

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Babies don't know sin. they are pure as ever Mashallah.

On a side note...

It beats me how a religion can be true if your adding and subtracting from it so much. If it was the truth...you wouldn't need to change a single bit of it. Thank Allah for Islam....


:sl:

[barney]

Babies don't know sin. they are pure as ever Mashallah.

On a side note...

It beats me how a religion can be true if your adding and subtracting from it so much. If it was the truth...you wouldn't need to change a single bit of it. Thank Allah for Islam....


:sl:

Ever hear of Abrogation? :D

[Tania]

It beats me how a religion can be true if your adding and subtracting from it so much. If it was the truth...you wouldn't need to change a single bit of it. Thank Allah for Islam....


:sl:

The babies will be judge by God. Catholic church its a true religion and Limbo is still there:

Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals
Source

[Tania]

The catholic church position over the issue:

"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”. "

Source

[north_malaysian]

But dead people can be baptised too right?:?

[Tania]

But dead people can be baptised too right?:?

Do you ask if we can baptise a dead people :?

[Abdul Fattah]

hi tanya, I find that a bit of a troublesome explanation.
Troublesome because it's like the Church is hiding between ambiguity. It doesn't say that babies go to hell because of original sin, but it also doesn't deny it. Basically what they say is: we hope that God will make an exception for them. So, will there or will there not be babies in limbo? Do babies have original sin or not? And if they do, is this double standard justifiable?
It's ok for to be forgiven for there inherited sin which they had no choice in but not ok for adults to be forgiven for there inherited sin which they had no choice in if they don't accept Jesus as savior?

I guess what this shows is not so much that there is a double standard, but more that the whole idea of being guilty bu birth is illogical. Guilt implies wrong choices. A baby didn't make any choices, so people cannot be held responsible for their parent's sins.

Anyway, Tania, I have another question, please don't take this as sarcasm, it's meant as a genuine question. Do you also believe that women's period is a punishment for Eva's sin?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

The babies will be judge by God. Catholic church its a true religion and Limbo is still there:

Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals
Source

Ehhh....lol

[truemuslim]

Lol
some people try to make allah look lyk he gots no mercy that in the hell he created ther is tiny lil babies in ther.... i juss got one thing.... :rolleyes:

Wasalaam

[Keltoi]

As Tania mentioned, this issue was a theological theory, as all human beings are born with original sin. Since the answer will lie with God, as all answers do, the Catholic Church left the issue in the hands of God. Which should have been the stance to begin with, but scholars need to debate and theorize.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Blah I dont see why it should be left to God...for a baby? Comeon =/

[truemuslim]

As if babies have a choice :rolleyes:

THey cant think now can they?
they born and thinkin the same way...nvrmind i dunt want no body jumpin at me...but u prolly kno wut i was gna say...lol :X

Wasalaam

[Keltoi]

Blah I dont see why it should be left to God...for a baby? Comeon =/

Everyone's salvation is left to God. Unless you have some power I'm not aware of

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Relax...Im not trying to start anythin.

We are talking about babies here. Not someone who knows right from wrong. Like truemuslim said, they wouldn't know anything. Thats why I dont agree with original sin....each to their own....

[Keltoi]

Relax...

We are talking about babies here. Not someone who knows right from wrong. Like truemuslim said, they wouldn't know anything. Thats why I dont agree with original sin....each to their own....

Original sin describes a loss of grace which can only be obtained again through Jesus Christ. Since the issue of infants who pass wasn't addressed in particular, it left many things open for theological theories. The majority of people wouldn't expect God to hold infants accountable for anything, and as far as we know they get a one-way ticket to Heaven. Do we have evidence of that? No. So we leave it in the hands of God, as all things. Since our God is one of mercy and justice it would stand to reason that infants are not held accountable. Which I'm sure is the belief of the vast majority of faithful Christians.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^Yes I get it...which is why I said I don't understand the reason for original sin and I don't agree with it. But then again, it's so closely fit together with your other beliefs. So to leave one means to leave others.

[barney]

The babies will be judge by God. Catholic church its a true religion and Limbo is still there:

Limbo, 1261. See also Baptism; Funerals
Source

Blimey! Dont you listen to the popes own words!?

http://www.cathnews.com/news/704/108.php

Benedict had revalation from the lord that Limbo was nuts, and scrapped it, even thought it had obviously never existed through papal infallibilty.

[Abdul Fattah]

Barney, I'm afraid your link is 404 :(

[truemuslim]

Barney, I'm afraid your link is 404 :(

hm...it works for me..?

its full of errors tho..but i can still read the article thing...but i wont...coz it seems too boring...and i dunt wanna fall asleep yet :D

[MustafaMc]

As Tania mentioned, this issue was a theological theory, as all human beings are born with original sin.

Well, this is not 100% correct - weren't both Mary and Jesus born without the stain of "original sin"?

Wikipedia:
The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain of original sin, in her mother's womb: the dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace.

Since the answer will lie with God, as all answers do, the Catholic Church left the issue in the hands of God. Which should have been the stance to begin with, but scholars need to debate and theorize.

Since according to Catholic doctrine man is born with the sin of Adam and therefore co-guilty, even infants need to be baptized. The Roman Catholic Church considers baptism, even for infants, so important that "parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks" and, "if the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay." but yet The Church has no official teaching regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism, and theologians of the Church hold various views (for instance, some have asserted that they go to Limbo, which has never been official Catholic doctrine). "The Church entrusts these infants to the mercy of God." (Wikipedia infant baptism)

...and yet surely the dead infants have never believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died on the cross for their (yet to be committed) sins and hence never accepted Jesus as their personal Saviour. Didn't these infants die outside the realm of Christianity but for infant baptism?

[barney]

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.c...dline=s3i17800



Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.


In a long-awaited document, the Church's International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an "unduly restrictive view of salvation," according to the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which obtained a copy on Friday.

The thumbs-down verdict on limbo had been expected for years and the document, called "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised," was seen as most likely to be final since limbo was never formally part of Church doctrine.

Pope Benedict authorized the publication of the document.

According to the CNS report, the 41-page document says the theologians advising the Pope concluded that since God is merciful he "wants all human beings to be saved."

It says grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for children, CNS, which is owned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, quoted the document as saying.

Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning "border" or "edge," was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptised dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.

"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision (of God)," the document said, according to CNS which is part of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference.

The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stained all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

The commission has been working on the document for some time and members have said in the past that it would recommend that the concept of limbo be scrapped.

In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was "only a theological hypothesis" and "never a defined truth of faith."

The Catholic Church's official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267420,00.html

[Keltoi]

Well, this is not 100% correct - weren't both Mary and Jesus born without the stain of "original sin"?

Wikipedia:
The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain of original sin, in her mother's womb: the dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. Since according to Catholic doctrine man is born with the sin of Adam and therefore co-guilty, even infants need to be baptized. The Roman Catholic Church considers baptism, even for infants, so important that "parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks" and, "if the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any delay." but yet The Church has no official teaching regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism, and theologians of the Church hold various views (for instance, some have asserted that they go to Limbo, which has never been official Catholic doctrine). "The Church entrusts these infants to the mercy of God." (Wikipedia infant baptism)

...and yet surely the dead infants have never believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died on the cross for their (yet to be committed) sins and hence never accepted Jesus as their personal Saviour. Didn't these infants die outside the realm of Christianity but for infant baptism?

You are correct about Christ and Mary, I excluded them because I assumed that needed no explanation.

As for infants, when we speak of original sin it has nothing to do with sin that will be committed. It refers to a loss of grace for all(exluding Christ and Mary) human beings. It was Christ who returned that grace to us. That is why the theory of limbo doesn't hold up in relation to infants, because grace was returned through Christ. Which I'm sure was the Pope's line of reasoning when he scrapped the idea.

[MustafaMc]

...and yet surely the dead infants have never believed that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died on the cross for their (yet to be committed) sins and hence never accepted Jesus as their personal Saviour. Didn't these infants die outside the realm of Christianity but for infant baptism?

As for infants, when we speak of original sin it has nothing to do with sin that will be committed.

Yes, I know - I was just pointing out that infants have no concept of the Christian plan of salvation or of original or personal sin. Growing up as a Baptist, I had no concept of original sin, but was guilty of my own sin once I hit puberty. Without infant baptism, my limited understanding of Catholicism is that, the dead infants retain the stain of Adam's original sin and Christian doctrine teaches that there must be atonement for sin because God can't be in the presence of sin. "No one comes to the Father, but through the Son."

Is there any Biblical evidence for Mary and Jesus not being born with original sin of Adam's disobedience?

[barney]

So prior to Christs Birth, Original sin existed for all except mary or was the act of giving birth the point where marys original sin vanished?
Or was she chosen for the task, because she was untainted by sin. If so-How so?

[MustafaMc]

So prior to Christs Birth, Original sin existed for all except mary or was the act of giving birth the point where marys original sin vanished?
Or was she chosen for the task, because she was untainted by sin. If so-How so?

I understand that Mary was born into a unique "state of Grace". Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings. http://www.catholic.com/library/Imma..._and_Assum.asp

If one considers that Jesus is God, then how could God be born to a sinful creature? Since Jesus was also a human then he must have also been shielded from the stain of "original sin" else God would bear that sin too.

[barney]

That sounds about right for Christian Doctrine.
Definatly need more christians about to give a wider veiw on it. :)

[Keltoi]

So prior to Christs Birth, Original sin existed for all except mary or was the act of giving birth the point where marys original sin vanished?
Or was she chosen for the task, because she was untainted by sin. If so-How so?

Mary is thought to have been in a state of grace. I say "thought" because it is a matter of reason and not based on anything scriptural, at least not specifically. It would stand to reason that if God chose Mary as the vessel that would bring Christ into the world she would be in a state of grace as a result of that.

[barney]

Mary is thought to have been in a state of grace. I say "thought" because it is a matter of reason and not based on anything scriptural, at least not specifically. It would stand to reason that if God chose Mary as the vessel that would bring Christ into the world she would be in a state of grace as a result of that.

Ok, thanks Kelt. Happy with that.:)

[MustafaMc]

Everyone's salvation is left to God. Unless you have some power I'm not aware of

If Christians are saved (past tense) when they accept Jesus as their personal Saviour, isn't it a foregone conclusion that they will go to Heaven? I mean haven't they already accepted (past tense) the free gift of Salvation? The Christians that I know, claim there is no doubt in their heart that they will go to Paradise, nor is there any fear of the Hellfire.

With that said, what does the Judgment Day mean for Christians? Will they be judged or bypass that process altogether? How will babies enter Heaven if they haven't accepted the free gift of Jesus' cleansing blood or been cleansed of the sin of Adam?

[Muslim Knight]

How will babies enter Heaven if they haven't accepted the free gift of Jesus' cleansing blood or been cleansed of the sin of Adam?

I myself have asked that question in the board during which time Nicola was around. The only answer I get was about sacrificing goat blood or something.

[wth1257]

:salamext:

^not a story, according to christianity, tis a fact.


Source

Quite silly if u ask me :ooh:

Not exactly.

Augustine, an early Christian Philosopher and one of the two biggest human influences in Western Christian thought(the other being Thomas Aquinas) really hammerd home the doctrin of Origional Sin, like a heriditary sin every human is born into. The Christians of this time also ramped up the doctrin of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Outside the Church[Roman Catholic] there is no salvation), this led to the necessary problem.

If we are all born in origional sin, seperated from God, and only Baptism can bring one into Christs' Church and hence salvation, then what of unborn Children, unbaptised babies, and rightous pagans(read non-Christians) etc.

Well, The Western Church is fairly axiomatic, like a great deductive system, as their axiomatic basis said these people could not possible be in the presence of God, in heaven, they must be somewhere else, yet God is All Mercyful, how could a just and mercyful God **** Children to hell fire for something utterly beyond their control?

The medeval Scholastics postulated "Limbo" to answer this. It is not exactly heaven, but a part of hell(hell is simply the absence of God, so this dosen't mean fire and brimstone necessairly), this part of hell is indeed seperate from God, but not torture, rather it is a place of "perfect natural happiness".

Now things are changing of course, as seen with Benedict XVI's big announcement.

It's really a doctrin of Traditional Catholics, it's never been infalible doctrin, but "in the mind of the Church", some "High" Protestans observe it as well.

This might help

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

[wth1257]

^^Yes I get it...which is why I said I don't understand the reason for original sin and I don't agree with it. But then again, it's so closely fit together with your other beliefs. So to leave one means to leave others.

It's changeing, remember Augustine was a gnostic for a long time, Karl Rahner(important Jesuit Theologian) began describing it as a social reality rather than biological, hereditary "stain"

they seem to be slowely nutering it/phasing it out.:-[

The Catholic Church is sneaky like that:omg:

I don't know to what extent they have infalibly defined Origional Sin actually

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Yea and then it falls back to the deal with the "correct" religion. The real one wouldnt need cut and paste....but that's a separate topic all together.

[Ninth_Scribe]

All INNOCENT souls go to heaven. Infants do not sin, therefore they are innocent souls. So, yes, they go straight to heaven.

The Ninth Scribe

[------]

Hey

@ wth1257 - It's still a silly concept...

[Ninth_Scribe]

An infant would have to commit a spiritual sin (eg: lying or stealing). Since they are not capable of such things, they are spiritually unblemished (eg: no spiritual conflict). This is a much higher state than - what's the Arabic for a sin commited out of ignorance?

"Peace be upon you: Your Lord has decreed for Himself (the rule of) mercy: truly, if any of you committed evil in ignorance, and thereafter repented, and mended his ways, he would find God Oft-forgiving and Most Merciful." (Al-An`am 6:54)

The Ninth Scribe

[Umar001]

I was wondering why babies die in the first place, if sin is the cause of death, then unless babies sin why would they die?