>>613175
>singling me out to repeatedly call me a Pharisee
Also not what's happening. I was cautious to state that when I read replies like this. I did not name-call. I did not "single you out" as a Pharisee, though I did draw the comparison between your reply and what Christ criticised Pharisees for doing, yes. If you are so married to your reply, then I would understand why you feel I called YOU personally a Pharisee.
I DID, however, indicate that your post was indicative of what I found to be a worrying … predisposition that bordered on gnat-straining, and the only reason I chose yours over aaaaall the others discussing the same is because NO ONE else chose to enumerate all the situations that might constitute exemption from judgement.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or that we're wrong to discuss this.
Nor am I saying that all the church leaders and thinkers who considered this deeply are right or wrong to have done so.
What I *AM* saying is that I'll warrant that all through the early ages, discussion always revolved around what might be so, what could be so, that philosophically this could be the case, or, no, really that … that at NO TIME did people assert anything about the judgement of God that was not already stated in scripture. No, I have not read the catechism on the topic, but I think I can guess what you read it to be saying, and if it IS so emphatic as to assert how God will judge, it ought not.
I have no issue with the topic. I have no issue with the discussion of how God might judge, if we are rooting this in scripture. I do worry about emphatic lists of what is and is not exceptions to judgement when God's judgement is God's Judgement, He keeps His own counsel, and lists verge on dangerous presumption.
Once more, I emphasise, good guides on moral behaviour are fine, but we must not fall into the trap of legalistic pronunciations on behalf of someone who is more than capable of making up His own mind on what He will be doing come that final date.