Posted on 10/04/2006 6:41:15 AM PDT by NYer
Do you really want to use 2 Peter 3:16 to defend sola scriptura? Of all the verses in the New Testament, this is the one which most specifically discredits it.
Please explain.
Isn't that what Jesus did?
If not, then was God just messing with everyone from Adam to John the Baptist? My position is that the NT does not and cannot contradict the OT. New doctrine can't contradict scripture - isn't this what Paul was saying?
Of course new doctrine can't contradict scripture, so can you identify a single Catholic dogma that does?
Our Lord did a lot more than define our beliefs based on OT scripture.
Nope. No Catechism is infallible.
SD
In third grade, the teacher read the famous "destroy this temple and in three days, I will build it up".
My daughter dutifully wrote her summary of the days lesson:
"Anybody knows that you can't build a temple in three days".
She got an A plus and a BIG smiley face.
Peter goes on to say that (and this will differ by translation) that unlearned people will become confused by Paul's writings and the rest of scripture, and that this confusion will destroy them. That alone demonstrates the error of sola scriptura.
Elimination of the 2nd commandment and changing the 4th.
I can't aruge with that.
SD
Explain.
It's in the Catechism, read it for yourself.
Does it make more sense than Matthew 18:10, "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."
Their angels in heaven.
All of these little angels were unbaptized.
And they ALWAYS see the face of the Father.
What kind of God would turn away these little ones, after He sent His son to tell us just the opposite?
Oh, sorry, I forgot that I'm not a Methodist anymore. Catholic theology isn't determined by popular demand -- at least not for now.
The verse teaches that those who are unlearned (or ignorant) and unstable (or unsteadfast) wrest (or twist,or pervert) Paul's writings, just like they do with the rest of Scripture. Peter is referring to false teachers here. I fail to see how this denies that God's final and full revelation to man is in the Word of God.
To me, paragraphs 818 & 819 of The Catechism say that baptized non-Catholics can be saved but that the power of non-Catholic churches to partake in the plan of salvation, derives ultimately from the Catholic Church.
Is that not the case? If not, what should the Catechism be saying?
That all Jews, Protestants and Orthodox not to mention pagans, go to hell? Your quote from the Papal Bull makes no distinction between the baptized and unbaptized but simply refers to those "existing outside the Catholic Church".
It seems to me that there is a critical difference between those "existing outside the Catholic Church" because they have forsaken the Church through choice and those who seek the truth with sincerity.
Think of Purgatory as a place where the dead in Christ are prepared to enter the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. You must wash off the filth from your travels and put on your sparkling white garments.
No one without an invitation for the Feast is going to Purgatory.
Those who are condemned to hell, go to hell. Directly to hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Those who are so perfect and free of sin when they die that they can enter God's Presence go straight to heaven.
The rest of us imperfect sinners who, despite a life of grace, die with some attachment to sin go to Purgatory first, to be prepared to enter heaven.
Does that help?
SD
Okay, that cleared up some misunderstandings about what purgatory means to a Catholic. However, I still do not see that concept being taught in Scripture.
Technically, and very strictly speaking, I don't believe, IMHO, that Matt 18:10 is telling us that "all babies go to Heaven".
It says, "their angels" meaning the angels that belong to children. Kind of hints at guardian angels really, at least the way I read it.
It doesn't say though that "the little ones here on earth go to heaven, and thus always see the face of my Father". That strict, exact language is not used.
All of that said, I tend to agree with you though since it, and other passages like it, clearly show that Jesus did not want "little ones" (children) to be denied knowledge of Him, thus it would be unlikely that His Father would demand the opposite, even in a state of unbaptism.
I hope the theory of limbo will be scrapped, but an alternate theory must be put in place. There must be some explaination for the sorry souls in such a state, because the requirement of Baptism is a cruicial element of salvation (at least in the Catholic Church). At this time, I cannot think of anything better, sadly.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, so I am done here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.