/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Catholic church teaches those that did not know Christ may be saved by following the laws written on the heart

they may know christ without having been formally introduced

>>757368

Which is stupid in light of the fact that no one comes to the Father except through Christ and that no one on earth is good:

<2God looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if any understand, if any seek God. 3All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Psalm 53:2-4

>>757385

Christ can intercede on any ones behalf if he so wishes.

>>757366

Lurk more

>>757386

Doesn't make any sense. Look back at Noah's flood. If we are to believe that the ark represents Christ then we must conclude that all those who were not found in the ark were taken by the flood. Men, women and children. Even those ignorant of the coming flood all were swept by the wave and so will it be on the day of judgement. Christ intercedes for his elect that come to him by faith. If you die in faithlessness then no matter whether you are a woman or child or even ignorant or an infant, you too will be taken over by the wave of God's wrath.

>>757400

Do you think those before Christ are in heaven?

>>757400

You're right on every part except the babies, they're sinless and so don't need the faith

>>757402

Yes, by faith like Abraham:

<And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Genesis 15:6

>>757406

>>757407

Genesis 8:21

<And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Even infants have evil hearts and aren't sinless. Like, do you even original sin, bro? The children spoken of in Matthew were clearly filled with the spirit and desired to come to him. This does not mean that all children are like such.

>>757409

Following the Laws of the Heart qualify as believing in the Lord

>>757417

But the bible says that there is no one who does this:

<10As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one. 11There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

Romans 3:10-11

>>757427

I don't know what you think you're proving by posting that verse but I'll give you a verse right back.

<Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Pslam 51:5

Nothing that isn't absolutely perfect can enter God's presence:

<But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Revelations 21:27

And it's not just about sinning that gets you in heaven but also lacking a certain characteristic such as loving God with all your heart, soul and mind, which babies do not do.

<And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

Luke 10:27

>>757429

The proof of the verse is that David would see his baby in the afterlife. Do you see another way to read it?

Following the great commandment is not a requirement to be saved, that would be works salvation

>>757431

Ok, when David said that he can go to him you think to everlasting life. He's just talking about Sheol, which is the grave. He's saying that he can't bring the child back to life but he will die one day to and be in the same place as the child. The idea of a afterlife in the OT wasn't quite developed yet and is why you see Jacob talk about descending into Sheol where all souls will go. Even some Jews, such as the Sadducees, believed that all souls go to Sheol no matter if you're good or bad.

>>757439

One should bear in mind the context within David is talking. He's being chased by Saul and his life is at risk. This is when he starts writing his pslams to God about his current situation and at the same time he is being prophetic. To David, when he was talking about being saved from the grave he meant being saved from his attackers. But at the same time he was, and I believe unknowingly, alluding to how Christ will literally be raised from the grave.

>>757421

That is an incorrect application of that passage

>>757443

Why so?

>>757442

No you dingus, that's psalm 57

Psalm 49 isn't even written by David

Either way your attempt to explain away David knowing his baby would be with him in heaven is falling flat

>>757443

If you read pslam 22 you'll see David talk poetically about his situation and it's not even what happens to him. He speaks very literally but actually has metaphorical meanings that find their actualisation in Christ.

Also, going back to if babies can go heaven. As of now I don't know but I lean towards babies going hell. I see no reasons to believe they go heaven but every reasons to say they do but then again the scriptures aren't explicit so like David I do not worry and just trust that God is good.

>>757445

There's nothing to indicate that he believed that the child will be in heaven. Rather he is just saying that he too will go to Sheol where the child is.

>>757444

>>757446

Because it's a passage that uses hyperbole to heighten it's point. To take it literally wouldn't make sense. We all fall short, yes.

But you cannot say no one seeks the Lord and speak truth if you mean it in a literal sense.

>>757447

That's based on the assumption that David didn't know about eternal life, which I think is clearly inaccurate.

Psalm 23 "I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever"

You only assert this because you presuppose babies go to hell

>>757449

Eternal life was understood differently in the Old Testament

>>757450

Show me an insufficiency in any statement of David regarding eternal life

>>757448

>Because it's a passage that uses hyperbole to heighten it's point.

Not true, Christ teaches us how to interpret the psalms. First for all when he cried out "my God, my God why have you forsaken me" he was quoting pslams 22 which of you carry on reading is a very graphic description of what was going to happen to Jesus. By him crying out he was directing our attention to the pslams and showing that this was a literal description of what was going to happen to him. Secondly, even in the new testament Paul even quotes pslam 51:2-3 and gives it a literal interpretation and truly thinks that no one is good on earth.

Also, Christ says in John 6:44 that no one is even capable of coming to him without grace:

< “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

>But you cannot say no one seeks the Lord and speak truth if you mean it in a literal sense.

I, as the Bible does, take it in a literal sense.

>>757449

Not necessarily. Even if he did believe in eternal life it wouldn't mean that in this instance he was talking about eternal life. Rather he was simply stating that where the child goes we will all go. Not every reference to death is about heaven and hell as we see even in the words of Jacob after he is heart broken at the fact that he thinks his child Joseph is dead. He says he will go down to sheol. Not talking about eternal life but simply the grave.

>>757451

>>757452

I'm at the gym atm or else I'd write a more heavy response to you. The only thing I can offer you atm are things of Catholic teachings by pointing you to resources

>>757446

>I see no reasons to believe they go heaven but every reasons to say they do but then again the scriptures aren't explicit so like David I do not worry and just trust that God is good

Your words betray you and you realize that God would not be good if he sent babies to hell. This is an easy moral question.

>>757453

Sheol is not mentioned in the passage. It only says "I will go to him". Once again, David knew about the afterlife and so we know he didn't mean "the grave" generally.

Think about this too, what benefit would it be to also die if there were no afterlife? Why would David have any optimism about the fate of his baby?

>>757456

Not interested in Catholic teachings

>>757457

>Not interested in Catholic teachings

I know that's obvious. But my entire perspective is fully aligned with Catholic teachings. So I really can't give you anything on my point of view without using the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If you refuse to want to understand anothers point of view engaging in an intense dialogue with you would be pointless.

>>757458

We're arguing on what's true based on our common ground of the Bible. I'm not saying you shouldn't use Catholic resources, I'm saying that giving them to me is not persuasive because I do not view the roman church as an authority.

Likewise, if you're not willing to even consider that a Catholic doctrine can be wrong there's no point in engaging.

>>757457

God is good always. If he desired to send all babies to hell in his holiness and justice then so be it.

Also, just because it doesn't say grave doesn't mean we can't use common sense to assume that he means the grave. David wasn't even optimistic about the fate of his baby. At best he was stoic. At first praying and crying for his baby to come back then when the deal was done he simply stopped praying and didn't worry about it.

>>757459

I'm an ex-calvinist. So I'm familiar with mant degrees of theological thinking.

If I give you my understanding and then reinforce it with something that's more scholarly from my Church, I'm afraid you'll deny it simply off me using "authority". Like I said I'm at the gym and I don't have a Bible infront of me to do any proper exegesis. What I can do right now is point to other people who have the same understanding as I do, which you refuse. So I apologize but this feels like a waste of time on my end.

Sin is punished. It is an inherent part of human nature, but sin is punished. If they were not punished for their sin, that would be unjust.

>>757460

>just because it doesn't say grave doesn't mean we can't use common sense to assume that he means the grave

there's the root problem

You've just been asserting that David couldn't have meant an afterlife because he didn't know, but as we've seen David believed in eternal life (psalm 23) and he would have read that God saves people from sheol (psalm 49)

Do you deny this?

>>757462

>I'm an ex-calvinist.

This caught my attention. I'm actually a Calvinist myself and have been studying to see if there's a way to refute Calvinism or prove it wrong. But the more k study from a biblical point of view the more I'm convinced of it. Although I have changed my views on minute details I'm still a very strong Calvinist. May I ask what made you leave Calvinism? I'm open to becoming a Catholic but I just have a few hang ups with their soteriology.

>>757465

And you assert that he is talking about eternal life when even David believes in the grave as a pit. I do not deny that the gospel saves us from sheol but this one, at best vauge, verse isn't enough to then teach that babies go heaven. There is still a hoast of verse I posted that were ignored from the pslams, genesis, John and Romans.

>>757468

>David believes in the grave as a pit.

Show me

>>757466

The thing is with theology it is to be Lived and to be experienced. Bye virtue of my living I have evidence to believe grace is removed from our lives when we commit mortal sin until we repent for our actions, afterwards grace may be bestowed upon us once again.

By virtue of this I no longer believe Once saved always saved by Faith alone. Contrition is required as is works to provide us the lifeway of removing our sinful state. Yes, I believe it is through Faith alone that we recieve grace.

Sola Scriptura also fell early on when I began taking a closer look at what I believe in, not only is the idea not found in our Scripture but if we go by that idea it means tradition is dead. And this is important because I believe the sacrements have been passed down from God

>>757469

>For great is your steadfast love toward me; you have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.

Pslam 86:13

>>757474

Isn't that proving exactly the opposite of what you're saying?

David believed in salvation from sheol, and that he would go somewhere else (heaven)

If he's going to heaven, and he's going to see his baby, where is his baby?

>>757471

Yes, I too think that theology must be lived and as funny as it may sound to you but reformed theology, such as Calvinism, sola fide and enteral security, can be practised. It is practised in how we approach out good works and view them. For one group, who deny that grace alone is sufficient to save us and we must work together with God's grace. But for us, our good works are our of love and devotion to God. We already know we have been saved as per Romans 5:1 and our good works aren't to add on but done out of love and devotion to Christ.

Also, why do you think sola scriptura is wrong?

>>757476

Sheol as the pit that all go into whether good or bad we must be taken out of:

>18For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit, 19in which He also went and preached to the spirits in prison

2 Peter 3:18-19

>>757482

Whats your application of this passage to our question of David's view of sheol?

Do you understand what I'm arguing?

>>757481

>For one group, who deny that grace alone is sufficient to save us and we must work together with God's grace.

No Catholics deny it's grace alone.

I stated why I believe it's wrong in the post you responded to, please re-read it.

>>757407

Psalm 51:5

>Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

>>757485

Catholics are the group that deny that grace alone is sufficient

>>757484

You're entire argument is based off of one vague verse. How about this:

Psalm 51:5

>Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

>>757487

I don't know you made that conception but you are completely wrong.

>>757491

You think all babies go to heaven because David said "I will go to him". I believe babies go to hell for a hoast of biblical reasons including pslam 51:2

>>757492

I want to add:

You can believe in original sin but believe babies go to heaven, I just think it's more consistent to be a semipelagian

>>757366

I asked my zealous Grandma that very question many decades ago. What about everyone who was born and died before Christ? Her answer was not thought out but very confident. Yep, you guessed it, they are all burning in Hell. R.I.P Grandma.

>>757494

Albeit inconsistently

>>757493

What? You responded to the wrong poster. I believe they'll go to Purgatory

>>757495

What's the setting you took your screenshot from?

>Verse 5 goes on to state how this nature was even the case at his birth and how even in birth he was sinful

I agree that this would fit in the passage, but what's he's instead pointing out is the sinful circumstances of his conception; not his sin.

The very concept of sin opposes this idea of inherited guilt "the wages of sin is death". Sin is an action by which you deserve God's wrath, not a status thrust upon you.

>Samuel does not help your case since David is only stating that after he dies he will go where the baby goes after he dies which is the grace.

No, you never proved your idea that David had a faulty conception of the afterlife despite my references otherwise

>We should use the rest of scripture to come to a conclusion and I believe that I have done this sufficiently by making my belief rely on more than one verse.

I've looked at all the same verses with you and none of them require a belief in an inherited guilt. The reason I'm still pushing 2 Samuel is because it is a definitive defeater to the damnation of babies, but you're not addressing it directly enough.

You are articulating the regular reformed position and I believe you are being totally consistent. I only think the flaws in your argument are in your hermeneutics, and I suspect you have some neoplatonist inclinations like Augustine did.

>>757498

Agreed, like John MacArthur

>>757366

Inculpable ignorance is a thing, and so is Purgatory. Those who really seriously genuinely lcould not have known Christ but lived their lives according the Laws of God that were written on their hearts may have come to know Christ in Purgatory and moved on to ultimate salvation from there.

>hurr but that means that evangelizing to these people only damned the ones that didn't convert

No. Many non-Christian peoples got very good at suppressing the intrinsic morals God gave them at birth and lived lives of sin. Fornication, homosexuality, pederasty, human sacrifice, and cannibalism were all very common in heathen societies. Like the Ninevites, most pagans needed to be consciously informed of God in order to fully discard the lives of sin their cultures encouraged. But even though their cultures encouraged these sins, these people were still ultimately responsible for their own actions because God creates all of us with His laws written on our hearts, so on some level they knew intrinsicly that what they were doing was wrong. Those individuals who failed to convert would have been damned anyway.

>>757501

Pugatory is where the souls of those who did not die in mortal sin go. But from what I've heard about purgatory, even there you will be burnt. Also, i've heard that babies go limbo instead. I don't know the difference but just putting it out there.

>>757502

The setting is from when you go the the site where it posts the verses in all the translation versions then scroll down and it breaks it down word by word.

>but what's he's instead pointing out is the sinful circumstances of his conception; not his sin.

Wouldn't make any sense in light of the context and original language which i screenshotted.

>"the wages of sin is death"

You kinda just proved yourself wrong. Sin is what makes us die and all men die. Also, the bible does also say that humans are sinful since youth as seen in Genesis 8:21

<And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Also, david might not have had a faulty conception of the after life. Whether he did or not does not affect my point at all. But the OT generally just talks about sheol as being a place where all souls go. David here is probably just talking generally about the grave we all go to. You're putting may too much meaning in to the words "I will go where he is." And if we take your interpretation then the bible contradicts itself. The reason why you're pushing 2 samuel is because it's all you have.

Also, about inherited guilt, here are a few verses:

Romans 5:12

<Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

Romans 5:14

<Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed. He is a pattern of the One to come.

and

1 Corintians 15:22

<For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

>>757508

We're going in circles and it's getting a little pedantic

>Wouldn't make any sense in light of the context and original language which i screenshotted.

I'm not a Hebrew grammarian, but the formal equivalence translations favor the sentence structure that I'm arguing from. I also shared the original language and I answered your objection with the context.

>Sin is what makes us die and all men die

Agreed, Adam's sin brought the first (physical) death. What I'm saying is that only personal sin brings the second death. You don't get wages for work you didn't do.

>humans are sinful since youth as seen in Genesis 8:21

Agreed. Sinful meaning inclined towards sin. Notice "intention of man's heart".

>David here is probably just talking generally about the grave we all go to.

Do I need to repeat my point?

David clearly and repeatedly believed in salvation FROM that grave, and that he had it. You're the one who quoted him saying so:

>>757474

>You're putting may too much meaning in to the words "I will go where he is."

Im taking him literally. I know it's narrative and not firstly about teaching salvation if that's what you mean.

>And if we take your interpretation then the bible contradicts itself.

It contradicts YOUR doctrine of original sin, not the Bible.

>Romans 5:12 -14

First, physical death. Everyone dies as a result of the curse.

>1 Cor 15:22

Again about physical death, this time with physical resurrection

Verse 21 "by man came also the resurrection of the dead"

We know that belief in God brings everlasting life against the second death according to John 3:16. Even though I physically die, I will have eternal life by going to heaven. Later, I will have a physical resurrection and the first death will be undone.

Romans 3 and Romans 6 are the classic gospel tract summation of sin. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". You fall short because you have sinned. It does not say "all fall short because humans are inherently evil". It does not say "all fall short" then end.

"The wages of sin is death". The sins you have done make you deserve death, that is the second death. It goes on "but the gift of God is eternal life"

Sin is a transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4 "sin is lawlessness"

Despite being fully man, and fully born from a sinful mother, Jesus "knew no sin" 2 Corinthians 5:21. If Romans 5 means you are imputed with sin, the exception isn't made for Christ.

>>757515

you're right this is getting repetitive. But ill answer one thing right now before I go. You say:

>Sinful meaning inclined towards sin. Notice "intention of man's heart".

But this is wrong.

<But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 5:28

Our thoughts and the intentions of our hearts are sins in themselves.

>>757518

Okay, and all of those intentions are individual actions that are sins. You're guilty of committing adultery in your heart if you look to lust, not if you're liable to look to lust.

>>757524

>Okay, and all of those intentions are individual actions that are sins.

And we all do it even from out youth.

>>757525

Yes, even from our youth

>how do protestants deal with Protestantism being the result of protest against the church

They don't, there's nothing to deal with. Technically speaking most Protestants don't even believe Catholics go to hell, merely that the institutions of Catholic worship are irreparably corrupt. Hell that's how Protestantism started.

>people that hadn't heard of Christ

Depending on who you ask they either got the least awful portion of hell(see: what Dante thought), went through purgatory to have their souls purged of sin(and ignorance), or were judged based on their deeds same as any believer.

As >>757368 says the moral code of Christianity is considerably more important than the theological concepts layed out in the Bible.

>Men before Christ was born

Now that's actually an interesting question, if you ask the Jews then alternatively either everyone went to a deep dark hole where conscious existence ended(and they still do) OR if you ask Christians they alternatively went through the same process as pagans after the birth of Christ.

>>757400

God was, by his own admission, kind of an asshole back then and he really didn't like anyone alive at the time so they all probably went to burn.

Being honest, anon, none of these stories are to be taken as literal truth. Any analysis of the bible will teach you that.

>>757526

sleep on everything you've just said

>>757532

Don't patronize me faggot

>>757537

Woah bro, what's your problem? Name calling is uncalled for.

>>757579

I don't blame you for being a fool, but please don't take me for one.

>>757573

>Blasphemous meme

>abortions aren't people

Yep. In the cringe compilation you go, bud.

God predestines everyone to be saved or damned before they were even born. He could have easily had the people who were damned to be born into places like the Americas and such. It's sad that predestination isn't taught more, things make so much more sense that way. And no, I'm talking about Catholic Predestination, not Calvinism.

All of creation proclaims the word of the Lord!

Psalm 19

1 (To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.) The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.

13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

There's MUCH more in the afterlife than God's Kingdom and the fires of Hell. Jesus didn't rule out the possibility of the souls of the dead roaming the earth. Many say that the purgatory is in our world, and that the heaven as both a condition and as the place called the Kingdom of Heaven exist. I don't believe that all the good souls that aren't christian go to hell or the purgatory, I believe that they're waiting in the state of joy for their resurrection in the second coming of Christ.

>>757366

>How can Christianity be fair if there are people that are never given a chance to convert to it such as, Native Americans or abortions?

God takes that into account and are judged accordingly.

>>757366

>How can Christianity be fair if there are people that are never given a chance to convert to it such as, Native Americans or abortions?

I have always assumed that they go to purgatory where they are given chance to accept Christ.

>>757649

>There's MUCH more in the afterlife than God's Kingdom and the fires of Hell

The After-Life IS God's Kingdom. And then it is no longer an "after-life", but THE LIFE. All those outside of it, are in that eternal lake of fire.

>Jesus didn't rule out the possibility of the souls of the dead roaming the earth.

The souls of the saved will be reunited with their bodies, and will enjoy the presence of God on the new Earth. Every soul shall be judged, and those that do not know God, will be judged according to the law in their heart. But they -will- be judged.

>>757720

>The After-Life IS God's Kingdom. And then it is no longer an "after-life", but THE LIFE. All those outside of it, are in that eternal lake of fire.

I'm a catholic so believe in the purgatory.

>Every soul shall be judged, and those that do not know God, will be judged according to the law in their heart. But they -will- be judged.

Souls have no reason to fear the judgement when their heart is pure. Hence I believe that they wait in a joyous state, unlike the lost souls who died in sins. Also, it's not obivous but it's implied in the Revelation that Hell will come after Christ's second coming, and I believe in this interpretation. If Hell existed now, why do the demons roam free instead of being locked in there? So, where would the lost souls be while waiting for the inevitable Hell in the end of times?

Limbo

>>757769

Yes, also called the Hades in the scripture.

I want all of these redditors to leave.

>>757773

Why? Maybe some of them are really going through these issues…do not assume ill gotten reasons behind everything.

Those who die outside of the Orthodox Church go to Hell (Hades, Sheol, etc). There is no such thing as "invincible ignorance".

This being said, those who are in Hell are not automatically condemned for eternity. Some who are in Hell are Orthodox Christians who died with minor sin or worldly attachment. Some who are in Hell are Orthodox Christians who died with grave sin and have been cut off from the Church. Some are unbaptized infants, whose souls are weighted down by original sin but who are not guilty of personal sin themselves. Some are people who never learned of the Gospel, because God predestined that they would not accept His grace anyway. In all cases, Christ's announcement of the Gospel when He was in Hell continues to resonate in it, and we pray for all people, whether they suffer very light punishment or very heavy punishment. The only ones whose deliverance from Hell is assured are those Orthodox who died without grave sin though, although I think one can reasonably hope for the deliverance of unbaptized infants too.

>>757647

>"everyone knows who He is!"

<have to wait several millennia for missionaries to get their shit in gear to even know His name, let alone accept Him

Spend less time on apologetics and more time ministering, bruv.

>>757840

>t. and anon who doesn't know that hell and hades/sheol are different places.

>>758033

It's a slavthodox funposter dingus.

>>758033

>hell and hades/sheol are different places.

I don't know why you think that or what scriptures or Church Fathers say such a thing. Those who are saved go to Heaven, those who are not go to Hell, both wait there for the resurrection and the final judgement. Catholics and most Protestants also teach this, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Unless you mean that there is a distinction between "Hades" and "Hell", concerning the particular judgement, in the scriptures. In which case please prove your point.

>>758062

By "funposter" I assume you mean "shitposter". What makes you think that I am trolling? It's concerning if I am coming off as a shitposter.

Maybe when Christ entered into Sheol for three days he converted people…?

>>757368

Jeremiah 17:9

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

>>757366

God is the sovereign judge so what he judges is the definition of fair, how do you know how natives and dead babies souls are judged anyway? Your making a sweeping statement based on your self taught ideals of fairness.

>>757840

this strikes me as something a pharisee would preach

Doctrine doesnt save a person Jesus does.

God is sovreign and all powerull by definition you cant "disrupt his work" no matter how hard you want to.

>are you saying abortion is justified?

No im saying that people killing babies because of lack of responsibility will be judged acording to Gods will.

>>757579

>>757486

>>757489

Killing babies because they are born sinner is just dumb.

You have sinned and falled short of the grace of God therefore you are inadequate (as are all) to pass judgment on others life even if it is a babie people dont want.

>>759990

Jesus did not leave teachings behind Him?

What does "doctrine doesn't save a person, Jesus does" even mean? The moment you explain how one is saved by Jesus is the moment you establish a doctrine.

The Orthodox Church's doctrines are those that Jesus left behind, that the Apostles taught, and that the bishops inherited, however.

>>757840

as a catholic, allow me to congratulate you. albeit we are still in a state of complete schism, there are one too many orthodox protestant converts that pretend extra ecclesiam nulla salus isn't an authentic teaching