Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Amen!
I do know the difference between a Catechism and systematic theology having read both..
My point was that the Catholic church that claims to be the only one that can correctly define scripture have never developed a systematic theology ..
They have put time into developing a catechism but not a systematic theology.. makes one wonder
You still don’t understand what a proof text is. Hint: not every reference to or citation of Scripture counts as a “proof text.” Maybe someone else will take a shot at explaining. You clearly don’t understand it the way I explained it.
And in your theology, this desire for hell would have been implanted by God? That's what it sounds like to me.
God makes no one sin. The fall of Adam ruined humanity.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world.
Because of Adam, we are now "God's enemies".
Rom 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
God in His mercy CHOOSES to save some. God does not choose to save ALL, but leaves them to their own deserved punishment.
If you want JUSTICE then all DESERVE Hell.
It is of course just as silly to criticize papal infallibility by arguments irrelevant to the definition as it is to criticize transubstantiation because the consecrated elements do not look like flesh and blood. You are in the ridiculous position of saying, "If you'd said what I want you to have said, you'd have been wrong."
Your magic definition of infallibility didn't exist in the 7th century. How convenient it is to say "Honorius was not teaching Heresy by our recently developed, and retroactively applied, standards.
Yeah. Okay. I'll concede that.
But we didn't say the false thing you wish we had said so that you could call it false. And according to what we DID in FACT say. Honorius's posthumous verdict of heresy simply does not touch on the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. So the persistent, albeit boring, effort to trap us in some inconsistency once again fails -- unless you get to write the rules, rules which have nothing to do with reason.
By it's very nature, the Council's delcaration of Herest was "infallible".
Your side (seemingly a much used term of yours) might do well to make an effort to attempt to objectively examine the reading of history on the "other side".
lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the Council that solemnly defined it. Years later, Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov, observed with disdain that, The Vatican Council has as much right to call itself a Council as todays meetings of delegates from the Soviet republics can claim to be a free expression of the will of the people. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx
Then they had them to another place called Mount Innocent, and there they saw a man cloathed all in White, and two men Prejudice and Ill-will continually casting Dirt upon him. Now behold the Dirt whatsoever they cast at him would in a little time fall off again, and his Garment would look as clear as if no Dirt had been cast thereat.Then said the Pilgrims, What means this? The Shepherds answered, This man is named Godly-man, and this Garment is to shew the Innocency of his life. Now those that throw Dirt at him, are such as hate his well-doing, but as you see the Dirt will not stick upon his Cloaths, so it shall be with him that liveth truly innocently in the World. Whoever they be that would make such men dirty, they labour all in vain; for God, by that a little time is spent, will cause that their Innocence shall break forth as the Light, and their Righteousness as the Noonday.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is not official Catholic teaching thus it is unfair for you to attack it. tch tch
Now this is official:
CCC 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," 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.
Oh wait! The best the Catholic Church can do is hold out "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized children.
Never mind.
I do not like your gif.
There’s no room for cranky old fogeys on this forum.
I thought you were on "his side". That's cruel. :-)
Count on it-—I’m on his side. :-)
He may wish I weren’t :-) but that would be another story.
In the HOPE that someone is actually paying attention...
--------------------
Hope
1817 Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful."84 "The Holy Spirit . . . he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life."85
1818 The virtue of hope responds to the aspiration to happiness which God has placed in the heart of every man; it takes up the hopes that inspire men's activities and purifies them so as to order them to the Kingdom of heaven; it keeps man from discouragement; it sustains him during times of abandonment; it opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude. Buoyed up by hope, he is preserved from selfishness and led to the happiness that flows from charity.
1819 Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hope of Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was purified by the test of the sacrifice.86 "Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations."87
1820 Christian hope unfolds from the beginning of Jesus' preaching in the proclamation of the beatitudes. The beatitudes raise our hope toward heaven as the new Promised Land; they trace the path that leads through the trials that await the disciples of Jesus. But through the merits of Jesus Christ and of his Passion, God keeps us in the "hope that does not disappoint."88 Hope is the "sure and steadfast anchor of the soul . . . that enters . . . where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf."89 Hope is also a weapon that protects us in the struggle of salvation: "Let us . . . put on the breastplate of faith and charity, and for a helmet the hope of salvation."90 It affords us joy even under trial: "Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation."91 Hope is expressed and nourished in prayer, especially in the Our Father, the summary of everything that hope leads us to desire.
1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94 She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:
Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.95
--------------------
I HOPE that takes care of the disparagement of "hope".
That is a works-based damnation. The WMCF makes it clear that this is not what the reformed believe. One has to do nothing to be condemned.
That is a preposterous proposition by Charles H. Spurgeon in his sermon "Particular Redemption" of 28 Feb 1858. Talk about bending the evidence to fit the doctrine!
Nowewhere does the Greek word pas mean "some", but is translated in as all, all things, every, all men, whosoever, everyone, whole, all manner of, every man, every thing, any, whatsoever, whosoever, always, any thing, etc.
And for a good reason and I have also told you why (human corruption in it, of which there is overhwleming evidence). And, yes, I do question the existence of God. Why not? I don't know what God is, so I condier all options.
Believers are all the same in the boldness of their belief, whether they claim or disclaim the divine. I simply don't know (isn't that what agnostic means?). There is a qualitative difference between the unbelief (atheism) and unknowledge (agnosis).
How Christain of you! Why do you find agnosis unacceptable? Do you know everything? Should I drop any contact with you simply because you don't know something? Imagine if God took your attitude?
And, to use your line, when you find a human being who knows everything, let me know.
You mean to tlel me that you find "ruitful common ground" with Catholics or Orthodox? You could have fooled me. I don't recall many of your posts expressing fruitfulness and common ground with them.
ping
Thank you.
You asked what the Church believes on the matter and I answered (and by the way you will note by a careful reading of the passages from the catechism, Scripture is referenced for the teaching that we are permitted to believe all unbaptised babies go to Heaven)
Again though, the question as asked requires two answers, one strictly theological that reflects Church positive teaching, and another that reflects the Church’s permissive teaching. I will not be drawn into a trap, and neither will the Church, that seeks to equate and thus destroy one (the permissive) by using the other (the positive). Refer to my previous post if there remains any confusion, but in brief, the two are not mutually exclusive.
IOW, in an objective analysis of the point, we are actually in agreement as to the destiny of unbaptised infants, and indeed for the same Scriptural reason (suffer not the little children to come to Me), but yet you persist in asking the same question.
I can only conclude two things: Either you didnt bother to read the passages from the catechism I provided (when asked to do so by the way), or you do not wish to accept the plain truth that they answer your question in full.
The last word is yours, if you need it.
Well thank you, actually I have a crack team of writers caged up in the barn.
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.