Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me ask a sincere question. Is the various teachings throughout church history on where unbaptized babies go "church teachings" or not? Not dogma, I understand that none of it was or is dogma, but was it church teachings? To me a church teaching is merely something the church has taught members and instructed them that this is the approved belief and moral path. What else would you call teaching your members that abortion prevents babies from going to Heaven?
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on this topic in good faith.
"Church teaching" is synonymous with "dogma".
Anything taught by a member of the church that is not "dogma" could be considered "unofficial church teaching", I suppose. It's helpful to avoid confusion as much as possible on what is a potentially very confusing topic.
It's important to know what the Church *as the official teaching instrument of God and the holder of the keys of the kingdom* officially, authoritatively, and dogmatically teaches; as opposed to what it merely *allows to be taught* as potentially valid theological opinions.
The relevant dogma to the question of unbaptized infants who die is that baptism is required for salvation. Since a child who dies in utero cannot receive baptism, the question we ask is: "is it possible for them to gain heaven?" On the one hand, they have not committed any actual sin. On the other hand, they have not had the stain of original sin washed away by baptism.
Even though baptism is required for salvation *under normative circumstances*, we do know that certain unbaptized people are in heaven - namely, Old Testament saints, the thief on the cross, and some Christians who were martyred before they could receive baptism. Therefore, there are in fact exceptions to the normative rule. Theologians have come up with a concept to explain how these unbaptized people are in heaven, and have called it "baptism by desire".
Some argue that it's impossible for an unbaptized infant to enter heaven because their original sin has not been washed away by baptism. Some would say that original sin by itself merits torment in hell. Some would say that since they have not committed any actual sin, they may experience anything from mild torment, to no torment, to "natural" (as opposed to supernatural) bliss. It's these specifics that have not been dogmatized. Catholics are still free to speculate and work these things out.
And it all gets worked out from there with various propositions being proposed and evaluated, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
What would you call the church's stance on homosexuality?
By "homosexuality", do you mean a person's interior inclinations, or do you mean a person's actions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NatesDude
What will it be called if the church follows the recommendations of the commission and begins to teach its members that in fact unbaptized babies do actually go to communion with God?
I couldn't say until it happens as there are any number of things it could be called.
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on this topic in good faith.
"Church teaching" is synonymous with "dogma".
Anything taught by a member of the church that is not "dogma" could be considered "unofficial church teaching", I suppose. It's helpful to avoid confusion as much as possible on what is a potentially very confusing topic.
It's important to know what the Church *as the official teaching instrument of God and the holder of the keys of the kingdom* officially, authoritatively, and dogmatically teaches; as opposed to what it merely *allows to be taught* as potentially valid theological opinions.
The relevant dogma to the question of unbaptized infants who die is that baptism is required for salvation. Since a child who dies in utero cannot receive baptism, the question we ask is: "is it possible for them to gain heaven?" On the one hand, they have not committed any actual sin. On the other hand, they have not had the stain of original sin washed away by baptism.
Even though baptism is required for salvation *under normative circumstances*, we do know that certain unbaptized people are in heaven - namely, Old Testament saints, the thief on the cross, and some Christians who were martyred before they could receive baptism. Therefore, there are in fact exceptions to the normative rule. Theologians have come up with a concept to explain how these unbaptized people are in heaven, and have called it "baptism by desire".
Some argue that it's impossible for an unbaptized infant to enter heaven because their original sin has not been washed away by baptism. Some would say that original sin by itself merits torment in hell. Some would say that since they have not committed any actual sin, they may experience anything from mild torment, to no torment, to "natural" (as opposed to supernatural) bliss. It's these specifics that have not been dogmatized. Catholics are still free to speculate and work these things out.
And it all gets worked out from there with various propositions being proposed and evaluated, etc.
By "homosexuality", do you mean a person's interior inclinations, or do you mean a person's actions?
I couldn't say until it happens as there are any number of things it could be called.
My point to all of this is that the RCC has changed its stance on some issues . Not as individuals , but as an organization sending out information on how their stance has changed from previous stances . Salvation outside the church , unbaptized babies not going to hell, whether we call these dogma or unofficial church teachings , the church has altered its position on these from previous RCC positions . One at least that was a new doctrinal dogma over a previous doctrinal dogma, even if there is some question about whether this would even be legal within the church . They did it regardless . And this was my point. The church has altered its beliefs , and in altering them has moved closer to the Jewish stance on each issue .
Last edited by NatesDude; 11-03-2021 at 03:09 PM..
Since humans are both body and spirit, it is only logical to assume that hell will be a place of both physical and spiritual torment.
I wonder to which hell you are referring ________ The Bible's hell/grave, or some religious-myth hell of burning forever.
Burning forever is more than torment, but that would be torture. There is a BIG difference.
One's spirit is a neuter "it" according to Ecclesiastes 12:7 B. Not a spirit person.
Jesus and the OT both teach 'sleep' (Not pain) in death - John 11:11-14; Psalm 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5.
Does anyone righteous go to biblical hell _________
I find the day righteous Jesus died he went to biblical hell - Acts 2:27.
Dead Jesus went to 'sleep' Not to torture nor torment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
