Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 3   [ 50 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13093
Location: Inverted Cross domain
jac3510 wrote:
Byblos wrote:
:fyi: If I'm not mistaken, Jac is not objecting to the use of the word 'reward' in that verse. He is objecting to the equivocation of heaven with the kingdom of God.

Correct. For instance, suppose someone had quoted me Prov 13:13 to prove that heaven is "explicitly and blatantly" called a reward (granted, PED limited his statement to the Gospels, but here just for instance), which says:

    Whoever despises the word brings destruction on himself, but he who reveres the commandment will be rewarded. (ESV)

I would have said exactly what I said with regard to Matt. 25. Heaven is never called a reward in this passage. It simply speaks of being rewarded. I mention this verse because I've heard preachers use it to justify just this notion, that the reward spoken of here is eternal life. So it's a fair comparison, theologically speaking, anyway.

Anyway, in my view, 'heaven' and 'the kingdom of God' are not synonymous. Moreover, 'inheriting the Kingdom' and 'entering the Kingdom' are likewise not the same thing. It's clear to me that what is in view is the rewards these faithful believers will receive for persevering until the end of the Tribulation (cf. Matt 24:13). That's even easier to see if you recognize that this is a part of a series of parables in which the discussion is the rewards one will receive in the Kingdom for the life one lives here.

So, again, I concede that if you equate 'heaven' with 'the Kingdom of God,' 'entering' with 'inheriting' the Kingdom, and assume amillennialism, then seeing heaven as a reward for good works is a theologically necessary understanding of the passage. But that's quite a few assumptions I strongly disagree with, and therefore deny this is a "blatant and explicit" promise of heaven as a reward for believers, as per PED's claim.

Now, it is a widely noted standard board rule that we document our claims. I'm going to ask PED formally to document his claim or else retract or modify it (perhaps, for instance, to say that it is a fair theological conclusion given certain assumptions he finds obvious and well warranted).


I checked every verse on KJV with the word "heaven." It's true that there's no verse that says "heaven is your reward" (just as there's no verse where Jesus said "I am God" or "worship Me").

So, if you're acceptance of the doctrine that we could merit heaven is solely grounded on the existence of the phrase "heaven is your reward," then you would never accept the doctrine (the same goes for muslim who would only accept Jesus as God if Jesus actually said that "I am God" or "worship Me").

Quote:
beng wrote:
These two established that those who depart with original sin only (such as children or person who are insane from birth) will go to hell, but with a different punishment.

The problem I have with this statement is your gloss ("such as . . . birth"). There's nothing to prove that. Ott only says that all those who die with original sin still on them go to Hell. He doesn't specify who that is. It sounds to me like Ott is talking about people who grow up unbaptized and how no interest in the Church--regardless of how good they are (perhaps they never commit a mortal sin)--and then die go to Hell.

Maybe I'm wrong in that. I'm just saying that you are applying these words in a special case that I don't see a necessary warrant for.


Pray tell, what kind of person dies with only original sin?

Keeping in mind that according to St. Thomas when a person could use his reason he would either justified (at which point there's no original sin or actual sin in him) or sin mortally (at which point there's original sin and mortal sin in him).

Quote:
Quote:
This one say explicitly what is the punishment of those who die with original sin alone.

Fine, but it doesn't specifically say that babies die in a state of original sin. Even assuming they are in such a state at conception, this doesn't address the question as to whether or not God could (or would, or does) remove original sin. Again, all that is stated is that those who die in said state are deprived of the vision of God and are in Hell. But how do you get from "children are conceived in original sin" (a premise I'm assuming; correct me if I am wrong) with "unbaptized children go to Hell." You have to assume that God does not remit original sin in such cases.

I'm not saying He does (although I think there is clear biblical evidence that such might be the case). I'm saying that you are making a strong claim--namely, that unbaptized children are in Hell. You have to provide strong evidence for that. As of now, you just have assumptions.


Because if they are "unbaptized" (meaning, they are not baptized by water, blood or desire) then they don't receive THE ONLY GRACE that could deliver them from hell.

If the phrase goes something like, "dead children go to hell," then it's incorrect. Because not every children who died do not receive baptismal grace (some may receive baptismal grace via water baptism, some via baptism of desire, some via baptism of blood).

Quote:
Quote:
This is a condemn proposition from the Synod of Pistoia. That Synod rejected the Catholic doctrine that those who depart with original sin only is punished with damnation but not with punishment of the sense.

So not only do you believe that unbaptized children go to Hell, but that they are being punished with fire as well? What about miscarried babies? You are aware that as much as 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, right? So 1 in 5 people are being punished with fire in Hell for being conceived? Tell me where I've misunderstood you, because if I haven't, I rather think you need to rethink your assumptions.


No. That heretical synod is the one saying that unbaptized children in hell is punished with punishment of damnation AND punishment of fire. That particular proposition is condemned.

Quote:
beng wrote:
With regard to "natural state."

Well, in Ott (p105) there's a list of various state of human natures. There's a "real" states (ie. there are actually human who had been in this state) and a "merely possible" state (ie. no human have ever been in this state).

There are three real states: the state of elevated nature (Adam and Eve before the fall), the state of fallen nature (human after the fall and not yet justified), the state of restored nature (human who are justified after the fall).

But there's only one "merely possible" state: the state of pure nature. Ott said that Luther, Baius and Jansenist rejected the existence of this state. Ott adds that the existence of this state is a certain Catholic doctrine.

Here's a peek from Ott's book about the various natures

Here's a peek from Ott's book about the merely possible states

Here's a peek from Ott's book saying that the merely possible pure nature state is a certain Catholic doctrine.

No offense, I need quotations or citations I can read in full. I'd rather not trust your interpretation of a citation to back up your interpretation of Catholic doctrine!

And further no offense intended, you'll forgive me if I give deference to Obi on this.


You've got to be kidding me.

I gave you the link to Ott's book showing where the citation comes from and the page number. Would you mind clicking them?

Plus, Obi's disagreement with me is about limbo, not about whether there are pure natural state. Obi would never disagree with me on this, because the existence of pure nature state is a definite teaching. At worst, it's Sent. Fidei Proxima.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:44 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13093
Location: Inverted Cross domain
jac3510 wrote:
beng wrote:
Why do you point the finger at me when you could as well point the finger at Obi?

He would say that he is better qualified to understanding the magisterium than are you (a fact I'd be inclined to agree with), and the Pope better than both of you. With that said, all you are doing is proving my general point. But I'll expand on that below.


That's not what I meant.

When you asked "I get told a lot on these boards that this is the problem with Protestantism--that we all feel like we are our own popes, etc. How is beng not doing exactly the same thing that he accuses (or would accuse) me of," this question is also appropriate for Obi. At the very least he disagrees with Pius VI and St. Thomas (did I mention that St. Thomas, the official and greatest doctor of the Church, taught Limbo of Children?) .

Quote:
beng wrote:
Now, what makes us different than Protestantism is that we have the magisterium with the authority to settle disputes. Especially when a dispute threatened the live of the Church (meaning, a simple dispute like what you see here is hardly the stuff that would make the Pope summon a council).


Except the fact that both of you are disagreeing on what your magisterium teaches.


Well, of course!

Most disagreement is what the magisterium actually teaches. When opposing parties debate in an ecumenical council, each would not only cite bible, but fathers and previous magisterial teachings.

But again, the difference is that we have a living magisterium to settle biblical dispute, fathers dispute or magisterial teachings dispute. An application of Mat 18:17.

Quote:
Frankly, I couldn't care less about limbo, since I don't believe any of it. I just think it's interesting that you think you know Catholicism better than professional theologians, popes, etc. And it seems to me that you clearly over-interpreted the previous citations you provided me.


Probably because I got back up from theologians, pope, magisterial teachings and St. Thomas (I think I've mentioned him somewhere). While Obi's position has no support. The quotation from Benedict XVI does not support him because BXVI does not teach in an authentic magisterium manner (that's why BXVI formed the Theological Commission to provide an answer).

Quote:
In any case, all I'll say more about this is this: it seems to me (an uneducated non-Catholic) that your final analysis is what the debate ought to be about (namely, how infants can receive baptismal grace). However, it also seems to me that you are binding God by the sacraments, when I am under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the sacraments are means by which God administers that grace. In that case, He isn't bound to them. They may be the normal way He administers grace. In refusing them, you may cut yourself off from His grace. But to say that they are the only instruments God can use to administer His grace seems to me just absurd. In any case, though, while I agree this should be the debate (how infants can receive grace), that's not your original claim. You originally said that Catholicism teaches that unbaptized babies go to Hell, and later added that when they do they suffer by fire. So at a minimum it appears that you have changed your argument.


God is certainly not bound by sacrament. But He is bound by His word. And He makes baptism [water, desire, blood] the only means to initially justified man in the NT. Yes, He could devise some other way. But that would mean that He's going back on His word.

And no, I never said that unbaptized children suffer fire. That's the heretical proposition from the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

Quote:
Quote:
PS
To receive baptism of desire one needs to have reason. Since infant doesn't have reason God needs to supply them with it if they were going to be baptized by desire. To receive baptism of blood the infants must die a martyr death, that is dying in testament of faith.

See my comments above on your restricting God.


How is that restricting God? I did say that God needs to supply the reason necessary. If anything I'm pointing out ways how God could still save the children while NOT going back on His word (which you've proposed).

Quote:
Anyway, you can have any last word you like on limbo. You provided documentation, and I see where you got your ideas. I see professional theologians, popes, and people on this board disagreeing with you and telling you that your interpretation is wrong. The fact that you are so certain you are right when the Pope himself is so uncertain that he felt the need to call a commission tells me something important about your view of yourself and your understanding of your own faith (maybe the Pope should have just called beng for the answer! You could have set him straight!) .Frankly, I couldn't care less what your interpretation of Catholicism is. I started this thread to get some answers on official Catholic doctrine, not beng's understanding of official Catholic doctrine. And while, yes, Obi's interpretation is just an interpretation, I'm far more likely to accept his views than yours (and BXVI's than Obi's, etc.).


You've got to be kidding.

Which Pope or traditional theologians (prior Vat II) taught that there's no Limbo? Even that Report from Theological Commission says otherwise (ie. that up until V2 the teaching is that unbaptized children go to limbo).

And BXVI did not teach that there's no Limbo in a definitive manner (that's why he formed the Theological Commission, which then failed to answer the question adequately).


Seriously, I've got solid ground for my case. St. Thomas, Popes, fathers, magisterial teachings. And my opponent got... the report from Theological Commission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:51 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13093
Location: Inverted Cross domain
jac3510 wrote:
Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:
His Holiness has a lot more authority (and training and knowledge) to decide what is and is not a definitive teaching than you do (and, for that matter, than I do).

I don't want this to come across wrong, but I have something of a blunt question.

I get told a lot on these boards that this is the problem with Protestantism--that we all feel like we are our own popes, etc. How is beng not doing exactly the same thing that he accuses (or would accuse) me of?


I found this on rorate-caeli

    You will perhaps ask why God has left so many questions open to discussion. You might as well ask why God has not revealed everything.

    Now God has revealed the principles in order to serve as foundations, He has not done exactly the same with the consequences, in order to give our liberty play, like a mother who holds her child up by leading strings, but is delighted to see him try and walk like a man. You must bear in mind too, that this infallibility may, at any moment, transfer ideas from the realm of opinion to that of dogma, and consequently from the free to the necessary order. A simple decision of the Church works this change, and she never withholds that decision from the human race in case of need.

    Seated in the midst of minds, unchangeable like God, whose Spirit she has, the Church diffuses in a wonderful manner light and heat, drawing to herself every soul of good will, judging human ideas by the standard of divine ones, and welding together in admirable peace the very differences she allows to exist among her children. Their liberty gives her no uneasiness, for she knows on the one hand, the point at which she will check them, and on the other she is certain they will stop at her bidding. It is much the same kind of feeling as that of God about the ocean.

    On the contrary, Protestant liberty recognises no bounds, and is destructive of all unity. ... He [the Protestant] is his own unity: in other words, his unity is something essentially variable, a cloud, a dew drop. His individuality itself does not constitute unity: he is alone without the possibility of being one; God is one without being able to be alone, and His Church in like manner.


    Henri-Dominique Lacordaire
    Letter to a young man
    Solesmes, June 24, 1838


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:48 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 68791
Location: 1.56381501 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
You need to study up on the history of the traditio instrumentum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 7:01 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13093
Location: Inverted Cross domain
If that is directed at me then I'd say, "I know a bit. And it's apple and orange."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:31 am 
Offline
Head Administrator
Head Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 9:24 am
Posts: 71995
Location: Music City
Religion: Catholic
Beng, your arrogance and stubbornness are getting in the way of this discussion. Kindly butt out.

_________________
For the DCF Children Image Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:34 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13093
Location: Inverted Cross domain
Edit after PM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 28412
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
I just saw this. I do apologise, sometimes I mean to get back to a topic, and before I know it I have forgotten it for weeks. That and I sometimes go a while without looking at the Apologetics subforum.

I am not sure where you guys are vis-a-vis the op. As far as Limbo goes, as an answer to the question "what is the final state of a soul that departs in original sin only" it is one of two possible options (well we might say there is more than one theory of limbo too, e.g. do they receive any joy, i.e. a natural happiness?) the other being that they suffer, but least of all in hell. Now whether any souls depart in such state is another matter and quite speculative. I am strongly inclined to say yes, but that is neither here nor there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 11:47 pm 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 2671
Location: Atlanta, GA
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Malleus Haereticorum wrote:
I am not sure where you guys are vis-a-vis the op.

Nowhere, really. The whole thread got derailed, which I can't complain about. I helped derail it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: RE: Merited Gifts
PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:15 am 
Offline
Prodigal Son of Thunder
Prodigal Son of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:54 am
Posts: 37389
Location: Ithilien
Religion: Dunedain Catholic
Church Affiliations: AWC, CSB, UIGSE-FSE (FNE)
Malleus Haereticorum wrote:
As far as Limbo goes, as an answer to the question "what is the final state of a soul that departs in original sin only" it is one of two possible options (well we might say there is more than one theory of limbo too, e.g. do they receive any joy, i.e. a natural happiness?) the other being that they suffer, but least of all in hell. Now whether any souls depart in such state is another matter and quite speculative. I am strongly inclined to say yes, but that is neither here nor there.

Definitely agree that there are two separate issues. The question of what happens to the soul of a person who dies in Original Sin but with no actual mortal sin is separate from whether there are any such souls. But I think the "no" answer to that question is much more speculative then the "yes" answer. Consider this -- if there are no such souls, then there is some ordinary (it is not extraordinary, since it is applied in all cases) means of baptism (or some extra-baptismal, but not extraordinary, way of removing Original Sin) that we don't know about from Revelation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 3 of 3   [ 50 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: