We've proved all aborted infants are burning in hell for the sin of being born to parents without the will to do their duty as parents.
Wrong. We've come to the understanding that they are damned for the inherited guilt of original sin.
That seems awful close to a strawman, if my understanding of a strawman is accurate.
No. A strawman is misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I did not represent your position at all. I simply stated the truth of why those infants are damned.
You seem to ignore the fact that as much as God saves many without their active cooperation and consent (baptized infants who die before attaining the use of reason), it is equally just for Him to allow the reprobation of many in the same way, especially when it is the sins of men that have brought this upon them in the first place.
Indeed, if this child was condemned to hell, it would be only for original sin. My point was it is impossible for an aborted child to be baptized, and as such, the free will of it's parents have ultimately placed it in a situation where God is bound to condemn it to hell, by your understanding...
Not exactly. Their sin, which was foreknown to God, condemned their child to death before the child is able to receive baptism. God does not condemn them to hell, the sin into which they were conceived condemns them to hell, and again, God does not OWE salvation to anybody.
...where God is bound to condemn it to hell, by your understanding... Which again makes no sense, as God is bound by nothing.
Wrong again. God is perfect justice, do you agree? So if God makes an oath, don't you agree he will infallibly and perfectly keep it? God binds Himself to His oaths and keeps them infallibly. His oath is in St. John 3:5, begining with "Amen, amen I say to you,"
...would never have the chance to hear Catholic truth. God has predestined them to damnation in a sense, by allowing them to be born in a place where they would never receive valid baptism.
The part in bold is heresy. I just thought you would like to be made aware of this.
Damned for original sin alone, or damned for original sin and idolatry is little different. Both are in hell.
Both never had the opportunity to escape hell fire.
God is bound to that.
Your argument is specious. You are denying the mercy of God and His ability to bestow it on whomever He will. If there was a good willed person in the world, even far, far away from any people who held the true religion, do you not think that God would get an Israelite priest (in the Old Testament) or the sacrament of baptism to them, even if He had to resort to using miraculous means to do so?
I offer the Old Testament example of Rahab the harlot, who, rather than being destroyed, was accepted into the family of God, the people of Israel. I offer also again the example of Caius of Korea.
In addition, I will offer this interesting excerpt from the Revelations of St. Brigitta:
As to why, given that the human soul is better than the world, preachers are not sent always and everywhere, I answer: The soul is indeed worthier and nobler than all the world, and more lasting than all things. The soul is more worthy, because she is a spiritual creature like the angels and made for eternal joy. She is more noble because she was made in the image of my divinity, both immortal and eternal. Because humankind is worthier and nobler than all creatures, the human race should live more nobly as having been endowed with reason beyond all the rest. If they abuse their reason and my divine gifts, what wonder is it if, at the time of judgment, I punish that which had been overlooked in the time of mercy?
So preachers are not sent always and everywhere, because I, God, foreseeing the hardness of many hearts, spare my chosen ones the trouble, so that they need not work in vain. And because many, deliberately sinning with full knowledge, decide to persevere in sin rather than to be converted, they are not worthy to hear the messengers of salvation.
Are you turning Gnostic on me? I want nothing to do with Gnostics and their secrets.
I feel this is definitely unfair. The question is purely hypothetical. Just we know that Saint Joseph was a widower and he had children from a previous marriage through sacred tradition, though there is no record of such, how can we be completely sure that Saint Peter did not infallibly teach baptism by blood or desire?
The life of St. Joseph is not a doctrine of faith or morals. Baptism is a doctrine of faith. The Bible and the Catholic Church's Tradition are PUBLIC revelation.
In Acts 10:34-35, Peter is awful close to doing so.
Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35: "And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him."
This passage supports the Catholic position, that is a person tries their best to adhere to the natural law written on their hearts, God will accept them and bring them into His faith, unto salvation.
How can Cornelius be acceptable without Baptism?
Hypothetical, of course.
As far as Jean de Brebuef is concerned, that is a very large assumption.
If you believed that the desire to receive baptism counted for the deed, would you risk being tortured to go baptizin'?
Trent says that reception of communion and reconciliation are not necessary for salvation. Yet why do people place themselves in such danger to receive them?
Maybe this is what you are talking about:
Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 4: "The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein."
If they do not make every possible effort to get the sacrament, then it shows that they didn't truly desire the sacrament in the first place, and one has to wonder if they even had perfect contrition, which is a supernatural gift of grace from God, by the way.
Besides, Trent clearly teaches that a person is BOUND to receive the sacrament of penance, and that it IS necessary for forgiveness of sins committed after baptism.
Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 5: "From the institution of the sacrament of Penance as already explained, the universal Church has always understood, that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine right necessary for all who have fallen after baptism;"
So in our case, when the only sacraments available are those of heretics, it would be sinful to receive them, and we must not. But in the case of a person who might have to risk his life to go get the sacrament from a valid and orthodox Catholic priest, he must make the attempt, since he cannot know for sure if he has perfect contrition, or merely attrition.
Reject baptism of desire already.
Go try saying this statement while looking your reflection in the eyes:
"I believe all of God's words as they have been declared in the infallible Solemn Magisterium."
Topic: Baptism of Blood IS REAL!!!!!! (Read 23647 times)