Posted on 02/25/2015 11:50:17 AM PST by NYer
What part of the word “theory” don’t you understand?
For later read
Sorry; Dad...
YOU have to ANSWER "Where is LIMBO to be found in Catholic writings?"
What part of "Show me the Catholic take on it." don’t you understand?
Let's be clear on what the Bible says first about all people....all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We are all born as sinners based on the Word.
Let's go from there to your question.
We do have the example of David's son who died just after birth. David expressed confidence that he would see the boy again. This can only mean Heaven.
This has been called the age of accountability by many....though it is not explicit in the Bible. It is the belief that you have to be of age to know the difference between right and wrong. A number of people say this age of accountability begins somewhere around 10, maybe 12.
As babies and the severely retarded would fall into that category of not being able to discern right and wrong the belief is they would go to Heaven.
The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21–23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that, because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child but could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted by this knowledge. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see his baby son (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.
Although it is possible that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to those who cannot believe, the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject about which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. God’s applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His love and mercy. It is our position that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to babies and those who are mentally handicapped, since they are not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic. Of this we are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever God does is always right and good, and He loves children even more than we do. Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html#ixzz3T3VA7YR6
Though on many items of doctrine and practice, the same view no doubt is shared by many of my Orthodox brethren.
it published many times on FR RF with pride. Your REAL position is fairly well understood by even me.
It's not a matter of pride, so much as a position based on both faith and reason. If it's supposed that these early Christians were such a poor guide as to what Scripture teaches, then why should I believe them when they conclude these particular 27 books are "Scripture" on par with the Hebrew scriptures? It's the witness and faith of the early Christians that is our best proof that Jesus Christ did come, die, and rise again as he said he would. And they witnessed that He said he would build a church and be with it always. It is that promise of a church guided by truth that is the best guide to know these new scriptures are in fact "scripture" (Jesus says nothing at all about any future scripture).
So it's an odd faith, indeed, that accepts on the one hand that the early church was guided in Truth so as to correctly canonize the NT, while on the other hand (and at at the same time) fundamentally misconstruing what those Scriptures say on a whole host of points.
If I could manage to adopt such an inconsistent view on history and resolve the cognitive dissonance that would create, I perhaps could be a Protestant. But I can't; so I'm not.
How do we go to Heaven? Faith in Jesus or membership in a church?
Who is our Helper and Advocate? Holy Spirit or Mary?
Who is our priest? Jesus or a man?
Do we have complete forgiveness of our sins or is there something we must do to atone for those sins? Col 2:13-14 or indulgences?
So it's an odd faith, indeed, that accepts on the one hand that the CATHOLIC church was guided in Truth so as to correctly THROW OUT 1/2 of the Apocrypha, while on the other hand (and at at the same time) fundamentally construing what those Scriptures say on a whole host of points.
The example of David is a good one. The consequences of his sin reverberated way beyond his own family. Having said that, I think you also must consider the nature of God who IS LOVE. (1 John 4) Who gave himself for all mankind, and wishes that all men be saved. (1 Timothy 2:1-6)
Age of accountability is a good way to consider things, although I believe the range to be a bit wider. I have known some young children who KNEW Jesus, and exhibited more faith and spiritual fruit than some adults. I also know that this age is different for every child. That is why its critical for parents to get their child in the Word early. I am so thankful for my parents who were sharing the Gospel, praying for and with me, taking me to Church and Sunday School, and had me reading the Bible long before I started school. That foundation proved most helpful while attending secular schools and living with the many temptations of youth.
Those who have NO choice, aborted babies for instance, or who are incapable of hearing the Word and believing, will be judged accordingly. Sometimes we must have faith in the Wisdom and Mercy of our Creator. I think we will be pleasantly surprised by how many will be with us in Eternity. Although we should not let that fact cause us to stop sharing the Gospel, preaching God’s Word, or continue in whatever activity God has given us in the Body of Christ.
Satan is a created being. It is his rebellion and temptation of Eve that led to the fall of man. It is he who comes to destroy babies in the womb. He is the one who kills children who have not heard or understood the Gospel. He is the thief behind mental illness and disabilities that might prevent knowledge of the Truth. He is the one that steals the Word from those who do not understand. God has judged the enemy, and will apply perfect justice in the end.
Isaiah 30:18 (AMP)
18 And therefore the Lord [earnestly] waits [expecting, looking, and longing] to be gracious to you; and therefore He lifts Himself up, that He may have mercy on you and show loving-kindness to you. For the Lord is a God of justice. Blessed (happy, fortunate, to be envied) are all those who [earnestly] wait for Him, who expect and look and long for Him [for His victory, His favor, His love, His peace, His joy, and His matchless, unbroken companionship]!
Good points! We do indeed serve a loving and merciful God.
The consensus of Catholic theologians is that unbaptized persons who have committed no personal sin go to Heaven. The Catechism teaches that we are to commend such person to the mercy of God.
I.e., the Catholic consensus today is the same as the position you have taken.
The position of a number of Fathers (e.g., Augustine) was the people were damned because of Original Sin.
I think the concept of what Original Sin IS has evolved.
Original Sin is called “sin” by analogy. It is the absence of grace and a deformation of human nature, which, with sufficient maturity, leads to personal sin.
Actually that is the position of God going back to Genesis.
Adam and Eve's disobedience to God was their sin. It's why they were kicked out of the Garden and condemned to death. It's why God instituted the blood sacrifice to cover their sins. It's why Jesus is the one-time final sacrifice for all of our sins...past, present and future.
I think the concept of what Original Sin IS has evolved.
Original Sin is called “sin” by analogy. It is the absence of grace and a deformation of human nature, which, with sufficient maturity, leads to personal sin
And there's your problem....original sin is not sin by analogy nor has it evolved. We are all born with a sin nature as a result of the fall in Genesis and as a result we are all sinners or Romans 3:23, and a whole lot of the NT is not valid.
Even the little baby and small child is still a sinner though they may not know it.
These aren't either/or propositions. "Upon this rock I will build my church." Faith in Jesus and membership in Jesus's church go hand-in-hand.
Who is our Helper and Advocate? Holy Spirit or Mary?
Advocate with a capital "A" is the Holy Spirit. We can all be intercessors (small "a" advocates) for one another. Mary is the intercessor par excellance.
Who is our priest? Jesus or a man?
Jesus, our High Priest, instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice before His Sacrifice on Calvary. Those who "Do this" as he commanded are priests in a ministerial sense.
Do we have complete forgiveness of our sins or is there something we must do to atone for those sins? Col 2:13-14 or indulgences?
Forgiveness of sin and the temporary punishment for the sin are two different things. Ask David:
13Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” 2 Sam. 12:13-14
And forgiveness of our sins does not preclude our suffering to conform us to the Lord, as Paul notes:
"24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. Col. 1:24
7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. 11 All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Heb. 12:7-11
Do you have other questions I can help you answer and understand?
Huh? I'm glad you recognized that the 7 Deuterocanonical books were correctly recognized. The last part of your statement is not clear.
Please show where the apostles taught that.
>>Those who "Do this" as he commanded are priests in a ministerial sense.<<
Please show from scripture that there would be "priests" in the New Testament ekklesia other than the priesthood of all believers.
These aren't either/or propositions. "Upon this rock I will build my church." Faith in Jesus and membership in Jesus's church go hand-in-hand.
You miss the point of the question. You can be a member of a church and not have faith in Christ. The membership doesn't save you. You can even be baptized and not be saved. The baptism doesn't save you. If you have faith in Christ you are a member of His church. It is the faith in Christ that saves you. Nothing else.
>Who is our Helper and Advocate? Holy Spirit or Mary? <
Advocate with a capital "A" is the Holy Spirit. We can all be intercessors (small "a" advocates) for one another. Mary is the intercessor par excellance.
Again, not the question I asked.
The Holy Spirit, as parakletos, acts as a legal advocate who make the right judgment call because He is close to the situation. In the NT is used in a legal capacity of an attorney, i.e someone giving evidence that stands up in court.
Thus, Mary cannot fill this role in spite of what the catholic church teaches. This is the purview of the Holy Spirit and Jesus as the term is applied to them both.
Catholic supposition that mary is the intercessor par excellence. No where do we have any Biblical support for the catholic position that Mary is doing this for us. It is the intent of the fifth marian dogma to replace the Holy Spirit in this role with Mary.
As we have seen above this is the role of the Holy Spirit and Jesus. For the catholic to attempt to elevate Mary to this position usurps the authority and place of the Holy Spirit and Jesus and if it's not blasphemy, it borders on blasphemy.
>Do we have complete forgiveness of our sins or is there something we must do to atone for those sins? Col 2:13-14 or indulgences? <
Forgiveness of sin and the temporary punishment for the sin are two different things. Ask David:
That was not the question. Though I do agree there are consequences of sin as David and Bathsheba experienced. However, there was nothing David could do to make up for his sin against the Lord. Atonement and consequence are two different things.
13Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” 2 Sam. 12:13-14
So again, I'll ask...do we have complete forgiveness of sin or is there something we must "do" to have the forgiveness of Christ?
Do you have other questions I can help you answer and understand?
I do appreciate you taking the time to attempt to answer the questions...though we still need an answer on one.
Besides, according to the Catholic fable, most of them are in purgatory...How's one in purgatory to pray for someone else whilst fighting off the flames of penance???
Naw...You won't get away with perverting a sense of the scriptures here...
When Jesus said, 'do this' it certainly was not a command to turn wine and bread into flesh and blood...The 'Do This' was a command to eat the stuff in remembrance of the Crucifixion...
There is no priestly connection whatsoever in the 'Do This'...
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.