Can you go to hell without committing sin?

[Isaiah45_9]

My apologies. You have taken the Orthodox position in so many threads, I mistook you for EO.

What Church are you a member of?

I have taken the Catholic position in more threads.

Why does it matter what my religion is? Could we not address the subject exclusively?

Forum Guidelines

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
*It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs **
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

These rules for posting are not open for debate.

 

[JustaServant]

I have taken the Catholic position in more threads.

Why does it matter what my religion is? Could we not address the subject exclusively?

Forum Guidelines

He never questioned you sincerity. He just asked what church you were a member of.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have taken the Catholic position in more threads.

Why does it matter what my religion is?

Because it helps me to tailor my responses to your particular theology.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

He never questioned you sincerity. He just asked what church you were a member of.

Just as an FYI and courtesy, Randy and I have engaged one another several times in these forums. More than twice, I have informed Randy that I am not Orthodox. The fact that he ignores my sincerity in that matter and brings it up in this thread, is - in fact- questioning my sincerity.

 

[ericc]

It is a toss up between God’s mercy and God’s justice.

We are not owed Heaven if we are not children of God. Baptism is SO important for infants. If you love your child, you will do whatever is necessary to get them baptized ASAP. Otherwise you WILL suffer mentally not knowing the fate of them should they missed Baptism and they pass on unexpectedly. Just because someone said they are not old enough and you trusted their judgement while fully aware at best that is their personal interpretation. Would you as parents put your kids salvation at risk while you are busy thinking how politically correct you are in rejecting the Catholic Church teaching on infant baptism? You think you are saved but what about your unbaptized children? You can’t save them vicariously while protecting your own salvation. How would you feel if you entered heaven but your kids are outside the gates because of your inaction? What do you think your kids feel while looking in from outside seeing their parents enjoying heaven?

We are judged by what we have done. So there could be a place that fits both criteria if one has done nothing wrong such as the aborted, infants and mentally handicapped. Or he could be magnanimous and eventually let those into heaven or Abraham’s Bosom.

But why argue over this? No one knows the answer. The responses are opinionated at best unless one received special revelation. So shouldn’t we focus on what we can do about our souls rather than ponder over stuff that is in God’s turf and responsibility. One thing that YOU can do is reduce the statistics in this “unknown” camp is to resist abortion with all your mind, your heart and soul. And get your kids baptized ASAP.

 

[steido01]

My comment is from other posters saying that we **all **deserve hell. They made no exceptions.

Jose, does Paul make any exceptions in Romans 3?

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“**None **is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”

In a few short phrases, that’s three no one’s, two all’s, one none, a not even one, and a no, not one, just in case you missed it. In the theatre world, we use repetition for two purposes; either for comedic effect, or to drive home a point. I’ll let you decide which the Apostle was doing here.

Continuing…

13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Sounds like, under the Law, all human life might be essentially sinful.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Ah, there it is. Just in case we thought some might be exempt. Nope. All have sinned.

But why would any of this exclude the possibility that the same merciful God who bids the little [sinful] children to come to Him might also rescue those who spent only a very short time on this earth? I don’t think anyone has said that, and it’s unfair to expect anyone to hold to that false conclusion. Quite the opposite. Paul proclaims that Christ died for all – Jew and Gentile – and if all means all, also the unborn. We can faithfully entrust their souls to His mercy and infinite wisdom.

 

[porthos11]

Who deserves Heaven? Even if an infant, mentally disabled person never committed sin does that mean God owes them Heaven?

Are they baptized?

If so, then yes, God “owes” them heaven. This is certain. Of course, strictly speaking, God does now “owe” anyone anything, but he can insofar as he has bound salvation to baptism.

Baptized infants and those who do not have the use of reason, but have baptism are assured, without a doubt of their salvation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Jose, does Paul make any exceptions in Romans 3?

Don, we are in a Catholic forum. There are immediately 2 exceptions that come to mind in regards to “all”.

Can you guess them?

Once exceptions are proven from an absolute statement, what we have left then is a hyperbole, is it not?

Also taking into consideration the literary genre of the Psalms weighs into Paul’s quotation.

 

[10gr8kids]

Are they baptized?

If so, then yes, God “owes” them heaven. This is certain. Of course, strictly speaking, God does now “owe” anyone anything, but he can insofar as he has bound salvation to baptism.

Baptized infants and those who do not have the use of reason, but have baptism are assured, without a doubt of their salvation.

I was speaking of the unbaptized, I should have stated that. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[steido01]

Don, we are in a Catholic forum. There are immediately 2 exceptions that come to mind in regards to “all”.

Can you guess them?

The singular exception was God, and He’s hardly an exception, since He never was under the Law (unlike all humans since Adam, and that’s who Paul is talking about, as should be clear from the Gentile/Jew context). Besides, how can He fall short of His own Glory? As for the Theotokos, well, unless you’re saying that she is also God, this applies even to Our Most Blessed Mother. Want to say she was made holy when she was conceived? Fine, but even then, she required purification that could only come from Christ since she also inherited Adam’s sin. Makes more sense that she was made holy when the angel told her she was full of grace (when Christ was conceived in her).

Yeah, I guess you’re right. Paul doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if you don’t admit the existence of total depravity. I’ve yet to read a positive proof of the Catholic position, other than “protestants are wrong.”

Once exceptions are proven from an absolute statement, what we have left then is a hyperbole, is it not?

If it can be proven that the Apostle was not speaking absolutely, sure. I don’t see how that’s possible.

Also taking into consideration the literary genre of the Psalms weighs into Paul’s quotation.

Yet he goes on to re-state the point in quite certain terms. Why would he bother if the Psalm wasn’t intended to be applied literally here? Are you saying Paul was reaching in making his point? Why bother making such a reach? Especially at risk of offending the Jewish audience who he’s trying to convince to welcome the Gentile believers?

It takes way too much effort to try to reconcile Paul to that sort of thinking. All have sinned. All means all.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The singular exception was God, and He’s hardly an exception, since He never was under the Law (unlike all humans since Adam, and that’s who Paul is talking about, as should be clear from the Gentile/Jew context). Besides, how can He fall short of His own Glory? As for the Theotokos, well, unless you’re saying that she is also God, this applies even to Our Most Blessed Mother. Want to say she was made holy when she was conceived? Fine, but even then, she required purification that could only come from Christ since she also inherited Adam’s sin. Makes more sense that she was made holy when the angel told her she was full of grace (when Christ was conceived in her).

She did not sin. That is the Catholic and Orthodox position. Making Her another exception of -]Paul’s/-] David’s “all”.

Yeah, I guess you’re right. Paul doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if you don’t admit the existence of total depravity. I’ve yet to read a positive proof of the Catholic position, other than “protestants are wrong.”

I’ll admit, SS and TD are some obstacles I face if I was to become Lutheran

Some good articles on this:

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/depravity-yes-total-depravity-no
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/total-depravity-and-fall.html
taylormarshall.com/2012/01/catholic-church-vs-protestant-reformers.html

 

[Kurisu35712]

For the record, both Catholic and Orthodox believe that Mary was born without original sin. So in fact there were two humans born without original sin. Mary and Jesus. So “all” in those passages has to make exception for two human beings. Which would also imply that “all” is not to be taken so literally.

You can try to argue that Mary was purified, but bear in mind, this is a Catholic forum so it’s unlikely you’ll find agreement.

 

[Tommy999]

Yes, Jesus Christ was without sin and he went to hell according to the Apostles’ Creed:

He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.

But, he didn’t remain there.
On the third day he rose again. Hallelujah.

As for babies, I am not sure. I tend to believe that they are born with a sinful nature, like all humanity, but they are not accountable until they reach the age of accountability and/or until they are able to understand right from wrong.

 

[steido01]

She did not sin. That is the Catholic and Orthodox position. Making Her another exception of -]Paul’s/-] David’s “all”.

I am aware of the Catholic position, and I acknowledged it. Read carefully what I wrote; I even left open the possibility that God preserved her from sinning from the moment following her conception (even though the Lutheran in me finds that most unlikely). But she still required Christ, just as all humans have, because she, like all humans, inherited Adam’s sin (or would have). There is only One that does not require saving, and with truly great respect for the Theotokos, that One is not her.

I’ll admit, SS and TD are some obstacles I face if I was to become Lutheran

I can understand SS. Difficult, at times, even for this life-long Lutheran. TD seems undeniable when I look at the world and think about my own thoughts, words, and actions.

Some good articles on this:
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/depravity-yes-total-depravity-no
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/total-depravity-and-fall.html
taylormarshall.com/2012/01/catholic-church-vs-protestant-reformers.html

Been there, read that. Again, I’ve yet to read an explanation of the Catholic teaching here from the positive. If it’s not coated in polemic, apologetic articles simply argue against the “Protestant” view (as if it were one shared view), and usually conflates Calvin’s view of Original Sin with Luther’s. They’re nothing alike. Double predestination, determinism, and all the other trappings of Calvinist un-free will do not exist in Lutheranism.

 

[SteveVH]

I am aware of the Catholic position, and I acknowledged it. Read carefully what I wrote; I even left open the possibility that God preserved her from sinning from the moment following her conception (even though the Lutheran in me finds that most unlikely). But she still required Christ, just as all humans have, because she, like all humans, inherited Adam’s sin (or would have). There is only One that does not require saving, and with truly great respect for the Theotokos, that One is not her.

I don’t think there is any disagreement here. The Catholic position acknowledges that Mary was fee from sin due only to the saving sacrifice of her Son. He saved her from ever stepping into the quicksand, so that she was born free from the stain of even original sin.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Been there, read that.

But, DO you have the t-shirt?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am aware of the Catholic position, and I acknowledged it. Read carefully what I wrote; I even left open the possibility that God preserved her from sinning from the moment following her conception (even though the Lutheran in me finds that most unlikely). But she still required Christ, just as all humans have, because she, like all humans, inherited Adam’s sin (or would have). There is only One that does not require saving, and with truly great respect for the Theotokos, that One is not her.

I realize you did, bro. But I could not resist to stress another exception. It helps to solidify a hyperbole

I can understand SS. Difficult, at times, even for this life-long Lutheran.

Yup. It does not matter the position we finally take. It does come down to what we can honestly accept, or not. Each and every one of us.

TD seems undeniable when I look at the world and think about my own thoughts, words, and actions.

Well, when I look at myself… of course

 

[rcwitness]

No. Not in my understanding. But can these (and I assume this only applies to children) reject God? We know that John the Baptist accepted the Holy Spirit as an infant still in the womb. Does that mean all would do the same, if God came to them?

To me, the whole issue of infant Baptism and its necessity comes directly into play, but if God can give an irresistable grace to infants, then why withold that from all of us?

Can these commit the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

 

[yateanieys]

Could we not address the subject exclusively?

That gave me goosebumps :hypno:

 

[yateanieys]

Can these commit the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

I’m not sure how an infant can blaspheme something it has no concept of.