Limbo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harmony1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mlchance said:
Well, I guess that’s one way out of just admitting you erred.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Where did I err? I’m not infallible.

Valid baptism leads to one result, that is being inside the Catholic Church.

You were not legally Catholic, but you were attached to her through the merit of grace.
 
beckycmarie said:
Doesn’t this mean that the unbaptized could go to Heaven?
Click to expand...
It means that we cannot say with certainty that God does not make an offer of salvation to such people, through, if you like, a form of baptism other than water baptism. We cannot say with certainty because God has not chosen to include this in his revelation to us.
 
AlphaOmega said:
I apologize. I do not understand what you mean.
Click to expand...
You said
But that is the argument, how can these innocent souls merit the grace of Christ without any participation of their own?
Click to expand...
But then we examined two instances where souls were saved without any participation on their own. That’s all.
 
VociMike said:
You said

But then we examined two instances where souls were saved without any participation on their own. That’s all.
Click to expand...
Without any participation? The Holy Innocents certainly participated by their blood.

I don’t see how other innocent (that is without actual sins) unbaptized babies participated?

A soul cannot be saved without the grace of God. Implying that somehow aborted babies or unbaptized babies who die without actual sins is saying that God gives automatic salvation. Hence, leads to the irrelevance of faith.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Without any participation? The Holy Innocents certainly participated by their blood.

I don’t see how other innocent (that is without actual sins) unbaptized babies participated?

A soul cannot be saved without the grace of God. Implying that somehow aborted babies or unbaptized babies who die without actual sins is saying that God gives automatic salvation. Hence, leads to the irrelevance of faith.
Click to expand...
Do you think God is incapable of giving grace to the unbaptized through some other method if He so chooses? The catechism provides for this possibility, as indicated in two prior posts in this thread.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Without any participation? The Holy Innocents certainly participated by their blood.
Click to expand...
If you like. Being murdered as an infant isn’t what most people would think of when one speaks of participating. But I don’t want to go on and on about it.
I don’t see how other innocent (that is without actual sins) unbaptized babies participated?
Click to expand...
A soul cannot be saved without the grace of God. Implying that somehow aborted babies or unbaptized babies who die without actual sins is saying that God gives automatic salvation. Hence, leads to the irrelevance of faith.
Click to expand...
I have never argued that anybody gets automatic salvation. But I hope, as we are allowed to hope, that God will offer the chance of salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, cannot avail themselves of the normative means that have been revealed to us. How else can we reconcile the truth that God desires the salvation of all?
 
beckycmarie said:
Do you think God is incapable of giving grace to the unbaptized through some other method if He so chooses? The catechism provides for this possibility, as indicated in two prior posts in this thread.
Click to expand...
Prayer Warrior,

I do not presume to know God’s activity. But it is not theologically suitable to say those who die without grace are saved in spite of Original Sin. Otherwise, without Original Sin, we all want to be saved. But without Original Sin, Christ wouldn’t be necessary to redeem us.
 
VociMike said:
If you like. Being murdered as an infant isn’t what most people would think of when one speaks of participating. But I don’t want to go on and on about it.

I have never argued that anybody gets automatic salvation. But I hope, as we are allowed to hope, that God will offer the chance of salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, cannot avail themselves of the normative means that have been revealed to us. How else can we reconcile the truth that God desires the salvation of all?
Click to expand...
No, it’s not sufficient. Simply being murdered does not automatically lead to salvation. Otherwise, abortion would be a ticket to Heaven, and genocide of babies would be virtuous…

We are certainly allowed to hope. But the hope in this situation is futile. Because it is not of a supernatural hope. A supernatural hope is with those and for those who are of the supernatural faith. For instance, I cannot supernaturally hope that an Buddhist will be saved. No, you pray for his conversion.

God offers a chance insofar as He gives them life. He is justified by giving life to their existence. He is not bound to save them. Otherwise, redemption would be meaningless.

God desires salvation of all, but not all are saved.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Prayer Warrior,

I do not presume to know God’s activity. But it is not theologically suitable to say those who die without grace are saved in spite of Original Sin. Otherwise, without Original Sin, we all want to be saved. But without Original Sin, Christ wouldn’t be necessary to redeem us.
Click to expand...
So you disagree with the Catechism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top