If your church teaches that unbaptized infants go to Heaven you are a heretic

CANON 110 OF THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (419) - ratified by the Council in Trullo and the 2nd Council of Nicea

Attached: last judgment.jpg (1092x1600, 510.21K)

Other urls found in this thread:

tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_04bibliotheca.htm#177
ww1.antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes
christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23647/who-are-the-seven-princes-of-hell
diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/the-jew-as-ally-of-the-muslim/
youtu.be/dyH7MUnP5Ic
youtu.be/dyH7MUnP5Ic?t=1942
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Thanks OP, now I know definitively that catholic theology demands God damns innocent babies
This is argument enough for any moral man to dismiss catholicism

Theology doesn't demand, it comprehends the will of God.


How would you say we are born of original sin, if this sin does not damn us in the beginning of our life?

I don't say we are born of original sin

How would you take the Fall of man in a personal reflection? How does this fall apply explicitly to our selves?

Genesis is to be interpated for all ages to come with a personal revelation.
What is your interpretation?

You are on the far fringe of my Brothers and Sisters, I do not condemn, I am just curious.

Lmao @ ur life

There's entire discussions around multiple copies (differing) of these councils. It's confusing.

More confusing is these words of St. Photios (who was a peer of the Council). Is one of the giants of Orthodox faith now a heretic too?

“The tenets of their heresy, to summarize, are these: They say that men fall not by their reasoning but by their nature. They do not mean the nature in which Adam subsisted when he was first created (for they say this was the good creation of a good God), but that which he later inherited on account of sin, having exchanged good for evil and the immortal for the mortal by his own evil action. Therefore, [they say], having first been good by nature, men became evil, and it is by nature and not by choice that men acquire sin. Secondly, they go on to say that not even children, not even newborns, are exempt from sin. This is so, according to them, because nature subsists in sin on account of Adam’s transgression, and the sinful nature, as they would call it, extends to the entire race which comes from him.”

tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_04bibliotheca.htm#177

If you're a catholic in the platonist line of augustine you are doctrinally bound to condemn me as a pelagian.
What do you mean personal revelation? The scriptures are God's word with right and wrong interpretations, not subjective.


man is created with natural moral impulses that he can reject and become reprobate
murder and rape are bad, you don't need special revelation to know this

The Orthodox don't even teach Original Sin - but Ancestral Sin. Where the main quality (or lack thereof) received is Death and inclination to sin. Original Sin teaches a whole inherited nature of guilt itself.

I'm not quite a Catholic, I do not know why you would care about my theological back ground.

Personal revelation, as a profound insight on a theological concept. Nothing to do with subjective ideas.


Interesting. I did not know this

I presumed you were the OP
"revelation" implies divine origin, is that what you mean? If so my answer is that I'm a cessationist and reject prophecy today.

Augustine was wrong about original sin meaning that we all receive Adam's guilt and sinfulness. No infant is guilty of personal sin.
However, original's sin consequence is death and Hell, which cannot be avoided without baptism.


By "guilt" medieval Catholic theology means the consequences of the act. Do you deny that we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin?

From my Orthodox catechism:

A: Children are normally those we must baptize first, because every man is already brought forth in iniquity (Psalm 51:5) and enters the world with a human nature that is already damaged by original sin. How could a pure man come out of a defiled being? None can come out of it. (Job 14:4)

A: No. The apostle calls them unclean (1 Corinthians 7:14).

You have modernists who try to change the teaching of the Church though. For instance this despicable article from the Antiochian Church's website:
ww1.antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes
Please pray that modernism does not poison our Church from within and that we keep adhering to the ecumenical canons of the Fathers.

Personal revelation has nothing to do with Prophecy.
It is grace given insight. Like how ones relationship with The Son deepens only by grace.

Systematic theology 101
2 forms of revelation: special and general/natural
natural revelation is observable, "creation exists" "man has moral leanings"
special revelation is messages from God (prophecy, scripture). This is always intended for a broad audience in the Bible.

This "personal revelation" idea of yours is foreign to the Bible, so I ask again, are you really meaning to use the word "revelation"?
Are you not a native english speaker?

Not at all. Death and corruption produced dire consequences to wreck the whole world with sin.
I think Catholics are basically asserting similar things actually (in practice), but their metaphysical presuppositions are strange (Platonism? As one user pointed out above). Strange metaphysics leads to even further strange conclusions. Or even the need for new dogmas (Immaculate Conception.. which was never necessary to justify Mary's purity).

PAPISTS BTFO

Why?

Immaculate Conception is due to a "pessimist" view of the original sin that does originate with Augustine. In this view man has *completely* and absolutely lost God's grace, so that one absolutely cannot see the light without baptism. That is where their more pessimist view of Hell comes from, and also why they believe that Mary couldn't have answered positively to the annunciation if she were not absolutely perfect to the point of being free of original sin.

if all babies automatically go to heaven, what's wrong with abortion? or any other infant dying?

then why mourn the deaths of children (from a purely theological pov) they have eternal beatitude from the get-go, this is far superior to any one of us.

oh, additionally you are also implying that the growth of reason in a man is inherently corrupting…

Jesus Christ is Logos, remember? The only end result of your custom teaching is some sort of clown fideist/pelagianism.

… Did you see my post above?

They go to Hell because they suffer the consequences of original sin. Their soul is weakened by this inherited weight, so to speak. And of course see the OP.

It's still murder just like executing saved adults as martyrs

Both Catholics and Orthodox assert that she wasn't guilty of personal sins. Except Orthodox leave it at that. Instead of inheriting some impugned guilt, it would be that she inherited a corrupted human nature and death, but was not swayed by it.

She still says that "God is my savior" (thus needed to be saved from something), yet the Orthodox would also say she's the church's greatest saint at the same time (next to St.John the Baptizer).

How is that not a direct contradiction with Romans 3:23?

boi

Attached: Gigantic.png (365x272, 53.37K)

I would also point out that Jews historically teach the same thing as Orthodox on sin (inherited death).

But who cares what they think, right? :D I mean, it shouldn't matter.. just saying though.

How should this be interpreted considering Acts 12:15 implies dead good humans become angels. Does this mean dead unbaptized babies are demons?

Go google personal revalation

see

It's a good question. Some Orthodox fathers would in fact say she is guilty of small things. Chrysostom pointed out the instance when Jesus came to Nazareth and was among the crowds and then someone said "Your mother is waiting to speak with you". Chrysostom said this was a bit of vanity on Mary's part, to intrude on him at this moment in front of everyone.

But if that's the worst that can be laid against her, so be it. I wish I had those problems.

What? No. Jewish belief at the time was that every individual had a heavenly counterpart that looked like them and guided them in life. This is about guardian angels, not whatever nonsense you came up with.

That's not an answer

It's all mormon

Attached: Screenshot_20181226-223359.png (1080x1920, 214.44K)

That’s literally you, but with the beatific vision.

oh woops :)


both of your claims are reaching

nobody preaches that saints are angels, but they become "like" angels, per the words of Jesus Christ.

On a sidenote, let me also add that I find the notion of "inherited death" far more enlightening, in light of Christ (who we inherit Life from). Think of all of the sins and injustices in the world: It can often be traced back to fear of death. Survival can motivate men to murder each other, or gain power (which may have originally just been to gain security and comfort), or amass wealth and live like a king (because after this life, there is but the grave).

If all of these things spring from Death and Adam, think of what adopting the new nature of Christ and Life does to the world. It becomes it's own remaking of the planet, in a way. "The Kingdom of God" can become a reality here blow, as in heaven. At least sometimes. Where would humanity be without the Church? It's this influence that originally springs from the wellspring of Life: who is Christ.

Then isn’t the only difference one spent a few years on Earth? Unborn babies wouldn’t even have that. There’d be even less difference between them and demons.

You don't even know what demons do, do you? Fallen angels act like the inverse of the Angels of God, they work for Satan, roaming the world looking for souls to devour.

once you get sent to Hell, you don't come back out, unless your Satan and your specific curse is roaming the world until the Second Coming

I don’t believe in hell being a containment construct. It conflicts with too much theology. Once exorcised demons go to hell. They still return and oppress more people.

what does "lake of eternal fire" sound like to you?

or how even in days before Christ the reprobate were partitioned away from the elect in Abraham's bosom?


whose? Bishop Barron's? I respect the guy, but exorcists disagree.


you make it sound like you know exactly how many demons infest the world…you don't, and neither do we.

One must "bind the strong man" in Jesus' words.

"But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house."

Otherwise:

"When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last state of that person is worse than the first.”

The same 7 demons (and more) keep returning even though they are frequently exorcised and sent to hell. Lake of eternal fire could mean eternal suffering not eternal containment.

Why are you using an Orthodox icon to post alongside this Roman heretical garbage? Cease and desist.

It's not the same 7 demons, it's "the unclean spirit returns with seven other demons more wicked than himself".

emphasis on "other demons"

I was referring to the seven princes of hell who are frequently exorcized not your verse.

that's an occult esoteric tradition not found in the Church nor the Scriptures.

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/23647/who-are-the-seven-princes-of-hell

Every exorcist I’ve ever read or listened to says they exist and that he exorcised at least some of them on multiple occasions.

Attached: EA32DEB6-FE4C-41A6-B608-55A334BE7919.png (496x217, 9.38K)

Sorry I just got home, yeah I've been meaning private revelation the entire time. Sorry for the language difference.

there are differing demons of various things, not necessarily the same demon over and over

Fr. Ripperger says that when an Exorcist does his job, the demon is literally placed at the foot of the Cross to be sent to hell by Christ

Which is greater. Baptism by the holy spirit, or baptism by water?
The flesh is dead, user. The spirit is alive.

this is pre schism canon

He also acknowledges the seven archdemons and even goes into detail about how they took over America. Fr. Amorth talks about them as well and says he exorcised the same ones on numerous occasions and I'm fairly certain Fr. Ripperger said he has too.

If your church teaches that jews are anything but the devil, you and everyone there is damned.
If your church teaches that jesus was a jew, you and everyone there is damned.

You're spooking me, user. I don't think there's a single church in New England that teaches anything but what you're saying.

one of the fathers at my parish seems like he is hiding his power level, but i can't be certain.

then it seems we should both agree, but I'd like to ask for the video where Ripperger talks about it. Satan is understood to be also Lucifer and Beelzebub.

Both are sacraments.
The body will not be resurrected? Nice to know, heretic.

This is an oversimplification. People use the word "jew" to refer to both the modern Talmudists and the ancient Israelites, when in fact they follow very different religions and may or may not be related by blood. The religion of the Old Testament is no longer followed by anyone on Earth because it's impossible since the Temple no longer exists. Also you're not damned if you're not redpilled on modern Jewry, but it does open you to more easily falling for their tricks which could lead you to damnation.

I don't understand how this is avoided or never brought up. Few name the wolves in wool coats.

Take it from the great reformer Martin Luther in 'The Jews and Their Lies'.
Or a many of other sources reagrding Christians and Jews. An obscure example: diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/the-jew-as-ally-of-the-muslim/

Or the more well known example of Russia and it's history with Jews. You can read about in '200 Years Together' by Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Or you, know… You could listen and learn from Jesus through the Holy Bible.
But nope.

I think it's in this one. At some point he talks about how the different demons subverted the US youtu.be/dyH7MUnP5Ic

Ah I found the issue. I was thinking of Satan and the five generals, not the seven princes of hell. Fr. Amorth talks about exorcizing these demons more than once. Here's the video with the starting time where Ripperger talks about them taking over America. youtu.be/dyH7MUnP5Ic?t=1942

It'll be resurected through/by the Spirit. It doesn't matter how wet you get it. I don't remember anyone dunking Jesus in water before he resurected.
Baptism by water is important. When John baptized Jesus what happened? The Holy Spirit descened upon him. Baptism by water was a symbolic gesture of the actual baptism.

I'm not discounting the importance of baptism by water but that is not where your salvation comes from.
If it's done in faith to christ Jesus why would he deny it? Why wouldn't he honor it?


Galatians 2:16
…yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law/flesh but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law/flesh, because by works of the law/flesh no one will be justified.

...

From Amorth's book an exorcist tells his story on page 44 in my pdf he says there are heavyweights. These heavyweights have clearly possessed more than just one person throughout history. Therefore when they are banished to hell every time they are exorcized they are not prevented from eventually doing more possessions.
name or one given in tradition (for example, Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Zebulun,
Meridian, Asmodeus), we are dealing with “heavyweights”, tougher to defeat. The degree
of difficulty is also relative to the intensity with which the demon possesses a person.
When several demons are present, the chief is always the last to leave.

The greentext pooped itself.

Luke 11:39
And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

Matthew 23:26
You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

….
Jesus was not baptized?
Although in this case his baptism was to sanctify the waters so that we may be baptized unto His death and resurrection, but did you even read the scriptures?

Are you saying that baptism in the name of the Trinity is exactly the same as the baptism of John?
Read Acts.

What do you mean?

What dp you get "law/flesh" from? They aren't the same word.
And regarding this, learn the distinction between "soma" (body) and "sarx" (flesh) that Paul makes.


… Thanks?

Did I, user? Read it again but slower.

Law in the sense that you are saying if you are baptized in water you are saved or that it is required. And flesh in the sense that you are saying it is the cleaning of the body through the law of baptism that makes you pure. When it is salvation by faith through grace not the works of faith.You are not justified by the products of your faith but by faith itself. Faith not produced by you but faith that is given to you through Christ Jesus.

Your salvation does not come through or by water. It is your faith. A faith you can only get by being baptized in the Holy Spirit, not water.
Baptism is important because it is an expression of your faith. A testament to being baptized in the Holy Spirit. It is not the act of baptism in water, it is the faith of Christ Jesus made visual through the act of baptism.

Why you do it is what matters not the act itself. But the action of baptism by water is important because what is faith without works?
There is autonomy when you are led by the spirit where you are no longer concerned with the works but with the faith, as the faith of Christ Jesus produces good works through you - works that are his. Thus you inherit the Kingdom of God.

You are the bowl/cup/plate. You are dipped in water therefore you consider yourself clean?
If that's the case than every bath or shower you take is a baptism.

If your teacher teaches that babies go to hell, he's a heretic.

Attached: 1500709695789.png (150x100, 15.91K)

and when it comes to infant baptism it's my belief that they are santified by the faith of their parents.
1 Corinthians 7:14
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”

hmmmmmm

Attached: Loves the Innocent 1.jpg (720x460, 133.22K)

...

He earned a new subscriber.

Yes? I still don't get what you're trying to say.
Baptism done without faith does not work. Sacraments aren't magic.

I have no clue what you imply here. In your view, how are the baptism of John and baptism in the name of Jesus any different?

You are deluded if you think this is what the apostle is talking about. Mysteries are not law.

Salvation comes from Jesus Christ. Baptism unites us to Him. Are you bothered because baptism is done with a material thing (water)?

….. Baptism in the Holy Spirit comes -before- baptism in water? Then why did the apostles baptize first in water, then in the Holy Spirit? (Acts 19:5-7 ; 8:14-17) Why have the Catholic and Orthodox churches always consistently done baptism in the Holy Spirit (confirmation/chrismation) after baptism in water?


Clearly you do not understand that baptism is a mystery, not a common bath.
You are not dipped in water, you are buried and resurrected with Christ through the water He sanctified.


lmao, you're really going to link this guy? He is a really faulty source of information even if his videos are entertaining. Read a catechism instead.

I wouldn't put this forward with any kind of regularity, but the sacraments are for the Church. Not the Lord himself. The Lord is greater than the sacraments (or rather, he is signified by them). And the mind of God or knowing everywhere he's working is a mystery. We can be sure he's working in the Church, but a tough by his Spirit could bring outsiders to that church eventually, when knowing about it otherwise was difficult.

Same goes with this issue of deceased children. Jesus is the high priest. He can sanctify children if he wills. The acts (or lack thereof) of a priest are not greater than the high priest.

A man is in a desert without a drop of water in sight. He confesses his sinfulness to Christ asking for his forgivness and savlvation.
Does Jesus deny him becuase he wasn't baptized in water?

Luke 23:39-43
"One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Where's the baptism in water, user?

Do you have nothing but accusations?
I like water. Alot. Without it I would die.
It also serves as a great reminder that I am not God.
Thank you, Jesus, for the clean drinking water.

You're not the person I was replying to. I got confused for a second there.

The Lord instituted the sacraments, and the same Lord said that without baptism, one cannot be saved, and to gather without Him is to scatter, and such other things.

Read Maximus the Confessor, and see also the Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the Eastern and Catholic Church. There are two types of grace - calling grace and saving grace. By His calling grace, God acts upon all people of all religions to bring them into the Orthodox Church. Once they become Orthodox they can receive His saving grace.

Jesus does sanctify children… through baptism. Unbaptized children are condemned. Again, see the OP.


You surely know that baptism of desire/blood is a thing, and that catechumens who die before baptism still receive Orthodox funerary rites, and there are even saints who died as catechumens. So what is your point exactly here?
Baptism saves. Those who seek to be baptized into the Orthodox Church but get their path cut short can be saved by the mercy of God.

As for the thief on the cross - this was still under the Old Covenant, you know that, right? The sacaments weren't instated by Christ yet.

Shut up and answer the question. Well, you just did, so thank you. But that sacraments are done using material things is the reasonment my non-denom friend has, so I was asking if that was the same for you too.

I responded to the OP. I was the one who mentioned St. Photios apparently having issue with it (yet, he was never condemned as a heretic). And what happens to all the saints who had even more open ended views before this? Sts. Macrina and Gregory of Nyssa taught something close to universalism (or maybe outright universalism). We're not going to have much of a Church left, except the Popes, if we go down the Augustinian rabbit hole.

I responded to the Photius thing.


I know of a couple who believed that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, but so what? Saints are not infallible.

Purgatorial universalism is an acceptable view, as long as it is held as a hope and not as an official teaching of the Church, and as long as it follows the idea that Isaac the Syrian and Gregory of Nyssa had (and that Maximus the Confessor is theorized to possibly have held too), unlike Origen's version of it.
I'm not sure how this is relevant at all to the doctrine that unbaptized infants go to Hell.

Original Sin is a theological nuke. Full of weeping and gnashing of teeth (even for infants apparently).. and nothing but Dan Brown-tier monks flagellating themselves on earth.

No wonder why Luther looked for a way out and caused so much chaos. And then Liberalism even further. It leads to people just throwing their hands in the air.. and indeed, atheism eventually.

Hardly the Good News.

The grace and faith of Jesus Christ saves.
By faith through grace not works.

The ride never ends.


I'm not against baptism.

I'm not Catholic so I'm not familiar with your traditions. And I believe Catholocism to be a blend of Roman mythology and Christianity therefore it is tainted. I dont abscribe to your theology nor your doctrine. Salvation does not come through the Catholic church nor does it come through baptism.

Hold on and explain further.
They're not in heaven, but where in hell are they? Is it some sort of Abraham's Bosom deal, or are they legitimately suffering in hell?

We know from the scriptures that baptism cannot be the difference between heaven and hell since we are made right with God through faith in Christ, whose righteousness alone sanctifies us before God. However, the holy sacrament of baptism is a sacred emblem of the whole Christian experience (it was difficult to find a term to express this which would specifically describe this, so for a clarification of what is meant by the Christian experience see Romans 6:1-14), and as such it is rightly said to regenerate and justify, inasmuch as it contains those divine promises in itself. For it is not the water which saves us but the promises of God affixed to it for His covenant people (1 Pet 3:21), namely by faith. This is why for example Paul says we are killed with and buried with Christ in the sacrament, because it is the place of our union with Christ. So baptism is an integral part of our union with Christ, but it is that union which saves us, not the waters of baptism.
Now, all children of Adam are born in sin, and are repugnant to God, and will be damned without the grace of Christ, but since the efficacy of baptism is contingent on faith, baptizing infants will do very little for their salvation. Rather than to save them, we baptize children to welcome them into the covenant into which God has seen fit to have them born. Their baptism will be a means of grace to them once they come to faith. But this does not mean all babies must go to hell. God is free to save whomever He sees fit. God does not speak of how these children are saved, so neither will I, except to say that it must be of faith.

Great, attempts of papization of Orthodox church continues yet again.

Surely you mean "by grace through faith"… And sacraments are not works.
Translated from my catechism:


.

Great. I'm not Catholic either.


They are in Hell. They are not guilty of personal sins so surely they are not being tormented by them, but they are still excluded from the grace of God.

Entire premise has gone to wrong direction to begin with
>>>/trash/

Ah so that's why my Melkite Prayer Book (The Publican) contains a prayer for and to the aborted infants and why the Apocalypse of Peter as early as the 100s AD supports the notion of aborted infants going to Heaven, and while not being part of the canon, was still used by Saints such as St. Methodius and was quoted by Eusebius of Caesara of being one of the texts that were read in Churches despite not being in the canon alongside the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
wait

Attached: b3f25cbd70208d13a5897d1f157b566ab3763ba0973a8780e0211acb3c1f42b6.png (335x322, 209.66K)

419 was before the great Schism. You can drop that image now.

this only matters if you give your soul to the devil pope right? like if i believe the actual words of christ and not the laws of the church empire. the mystical body of christ, correct? i only come across deeper religion so far lightly because im studying the law

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

That's a hell in itself. There's nothing to take comfort in here.

It's also argument enough for any moral man to dismiss Calvinism (only elect babies go to heaven), and lots of mainline protestant denominations (babies do not believe therefore not saved, also some will also say you really need to get baptized).
Ironically I think Anderson is one of the denominations that would say unbaptized babies go to heaven.

The seeds of the Schism were planted well before though. Starting with Neoplatonic presuppositions.

Calvin was essentially still a Catholic in some ways (he just wanted to reform it), just distilled to Augustinianism (no Aquinas).

This.
Stop believing in Heresies OP. The Bible supports no such thing.

Attached: stopRightThere.png (373x794, 241.11K)

Mary K. Baxter, author of "A Divine Revelation of Heaven," describes how she saw babies in heaven, including babies from miscarriages and abortions.

Private revelation is the same problem
It is unbiblical

You could say the same about Arius and Luther.

The number of people speaking as if they are experts on things they know nothing about is concerning. Here, read this, to know original sin and its consequences are (as opposed to what some random Catholic on an imageboard thinks original sin and its consequences are):

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

Also Limbo - a likely, although as recently often repeated, not definitely certain theory:

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Attached: Christ's_temptation_(Monreale).jpg (1069x1261, 533.63K)