"We are travellers…not yet in our native land" – St. Augustine
Today is the March For Life in Washington DC. This past Sunday, my priest noted the providential intersection between this event and the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity which began last week.
Although it can sometimes be a source of conflict, protection of the unborn and the pro-life cause is really an issue which can unite Christians of all denominations together, as well as with people of good will…
Today’s post is another entry in response to a recent Facebook conversation. This post won’t be as long as yesterday’s post, but I would like to say a few words about Jesus’ unsettling teaching in Chapter 18 of Matthew’s Gospel:
“…if your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. – Matthew 18:7-9
This passage from Matthew’s Gospel is rather interesting in that, in my experience, it’s a verse which fundamentalists never take literally (along with John 6 and Acts 2:38). Now, you’ll find pockets of Christians who handle snakes (Mark 16:18), but I have yet to meet someone to apply the same literalistic hermeneutic to that passage. The funny thing about this passage is that the literal sense here is clear – it is better to lose everything in this life rather than to lose Heaven – even hands and eyes.
The central message Jesus teaches here is that we can’t take sin lightly. You can’t treat sin as though it were something with which you can negotiate. You don’t negotiate with cancer! You don’t sit down with a tumour and ask it not to grow too large. No, you cut that stuff out! You eradicate it as quickly as possible because, if left unchecked, it’ll be your ruin. The same is true with sin.
What might be an application of this passage? Well, I would say that we can understand this passage in the context of what is known in Catholic circles as “the near occasions of sin”, which the times and places where we know we can easily fall from grace. In particular, I’d like to apply this passage to the issue of porn.
If you know you are tempted to watch porn when staying a hotel, the best thing to do is cut it off at the source, literally, by phoning ahead and asking the hotel to put a block the channels on the TV. I remember Matt Fradd referencing this passage when speaking about the temptation to watch porn on a smart phone:
“If your iPhone causes you to sin, disconnect it and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with a dumb phone and poor connectivity, rather than to be thrown into the eternal fire with a touchscreen and wifi access”
Yesterday, I had a conversation on Facebook about a passage concerning the “eunuchs” in Matthew’s Gospel:
10 The disciples said to him [in response], “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.”
11 But [Jesus] said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
– Matthew 19:10-12
What does this text mean? Here’s a five minute explanation…
For the past few days (Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3) we’ve been looking at the case for infant baptism. Today I would like to conclude the series.
So far in our study, we’ve looked at the implicit inclusion of infants in household baptism. We’ve examined how baptism actually affects the soul of the one being baptized. Yesterday, we also briefly looked at how baptism parallels, and is the fulfillment of, the circumcision of the Old Covenant.
Up until this point, I have tried to address the question of infant Baptism as though I were a Protestant, restricting myself to the testimony of Scripture. However, as a Catholic, I do not hold to the Bible alone, but also to Sacred Tradition, the oral teaching of the Church passed down through the generations.
Even for a Protestant, who doesn’t hold to belief in Sacred Tradition, the witness of the Early Church in the centuries following the Apostles is a significant, albeit less important, consideration. So, today I would like to ask a simple question: Did the Early Church baptize babies?
Over the last two days I have been looking at infant baptism. On Day 1 I looked at the evidence of infant Baptism in the New Testament. On Day 2 I demonstrated how the earliest Christians believed that Baptism actually does something to the soul of the one being baptized, thereby making it something that parents would naturally desire for their children.
Today’s entry will be a short post. All I would like to do is very briefly show the relationship between the circumcision of the Old Covenant and the Baptism of the New Covenant…
Yesterday I began to look at the question of infant baptism. We saw how, although we don’t have explicit references to infant baptism in the New Testament, that there are passages which strongly suggest that infants and children were baptized. Today I would like to continue looking at this issue, but from a slightly different angle…
Over the last six months, many of my non-Catholic Christian friends have given birth to their first child. This was brought about, presumably, through the combination of an extremely poor TV lineup last summer and an abundance of free time on their part.
With this wonderful addition to their family, several of these new parents are now facing a dilemma: should they baptize their newborn child?
You see, in many cases, one spouse comes from a denomination where infant baptism isn’t performed (Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, non-denominationals) and the other has come from a denomination where it is standard practice (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist). The parents typically make the choice to either baptize their child or to have some kind of dedication ceremony.
This is an important issue to me. I was once a member of Protestant congregation where they did infant baptisms, but they also carried out child dedications, depending upon the wishes of the parents. This inconsistency was an important catalyst in my study of the ancient Christian faith and my eventual reversion to the Catholic Church.
So, in the next few posts I would like to present the basic case in favour of infant baptism…