>>5554 It's not what you believe, it's what doctrine states. You haven't provided anything to substantiate your claim (independent of the argument on Pelagianism) except for your own personal speculation, even if you are correct in a general sense. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm >It is principally on the strength of these Scriptural texts, harmonized with the general doctrine of the Fall and Redemption of mankind, that Catholic tradition has defended the existence of the limbus patrum as a temporary state or place of happiness distinct from Purgatory. As a result of the Fall, Heaven was closed against men. Actual possession of the beatific vision was postponed, even for those already purified from sin, until the Redemption should have been historically completed by Christ's visible ascendancy into Heaven. Consequently, the just who had lived under the Old Dispensation, and who, either at death or after a course of purgatorial discipline, had attained the perfect holiness required for entrance into glory, were obliged to await the coming of the Incarnate Son of God and the full accomplishment of His visible earthly mission. Meanwhile they were "in prison," as St. Peter says; but, as Christ's own words to the penitent thief and in the parable of Lazarus clearly imply, their condition was one of happiness, notwithstanding the postponement of the higher bliss to which they looked forward. >"It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished." - St. Gregory Nazianzus [Oration 40, no. 23] So it would have been better for you to state that unlike Protestant schemes of salvation, there is no culpability in the Catholic doctrine of original sin imparting condemnation unlike mortal personal sin, and therefore those under the Old Testament were able to achieve holiness by their obedience to God, or be cleared by Purgatorial discipline, though unable to reach heaven as you originally stated until Jesus opened the way. On children that die before the age of majority, their fate is left an open question, though it is hoped that by the mercy of God that they may be saved. > The Catechism asserts: “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,’ 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” (#1261).  Therefore, while we hope and pray that God who is infinitely merciful would welcome into Heaven a child who dies without the benefit of Baptism, we must not neglect our duty to baptize– the only certain way for a child to attain salvation. https://catholicstraightanswers.com/whatever-happened-to-limbo/ However, it is a (valid) theological opinion and not a dogma. The question of whether circumcision saved in the Old Testament lies within the larger frame of whether children are saved without baptism in that they are not culpable, and if the latter is true -- the former is unnecessary.

>>2825 The Harrowing of Hell wasn't an exception; the righteous dead were not on the other side of the great chasm, where punishment is eternal, but in the Bosom of Abraham. It is possible for souls to cross over from the Bosom to Paradise before the last judgement, through God's mercy and the prayers of the living. This does not constitute deliverance after death because those who are eventually saved by prayer already know what their ultimate fate will be immediately upon death. This post has a little more detail: https://ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2020/11/28/praying-souls-out-of-hell/

>>5579 Thanks.

I had this thought last night and i dont know where else to put it so im going to put it here. Last night i thought to myself "Why didnt God just make it so that only people who would accept could be born" obviously this is a troubling question because the implications of it are that God is not perfect or Holy but i digress. After thinking about this question for some time i came to the conclusion that it wouldnt matter as long as no ones soul suffered eternally. what do i mean? Well in a world where God only allowed believers to be born no souls would ever have to suffer for their disbelief in God so therefore the only way for our current reality to make sense is if hell is NOT eternal. Otherwise it would imply that God is either not perfect or that He enjoys the suffering of humans and is therefore not Holy. I believe there is also some Biblical proof that backs up the assertation here that hell is not eternal and that proof comes from the fact that hell is described as a fire and as we know fire incinerates aka destroys. idk anons what do you think? This had been plaguing my mind all day but i think this is the answer

>>5442 >All those apparitions of Mary are the devil, I'm so sorry Catholics. Not necessarily, Christ did allow the apostles to see Moses and Elijah. Though most Mary encounters are different than that.

>>6367 These links cover it well, even if I don't agree with all of them I do agree that hell is temporary. The greatest proof is to read your own Bible and see rejecting Christ results in death, not eternal pain. https://www.truth-about-hell.com/ https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/how-when-the-idea-of-eternal-torment-invaded-church-doctrine-7610e6b70815 http://www.brazenchurch.com/hell-in-the-bible/ http://www.brazenchurch.com/hell-2-lake-of-fire-lazarus-gnashing-eternal-torment/ http://www.brazenchurch.com/how-hell-invaded-church-doctrine/ https://biblehub.com/greek/165.htm https://biblehub.com/greek/ton_3588.htm I should note I do not subscribe to universalism. It is a doctrine with little Biblical basis.

>>6369 But that's old covenant people. People in the old testament certainly didn't experience soul sleep, they were kept alive in Sheol/Paradise. It's possible that new covenant people do experience soul sleep before Heaven, but unlikely. Yes there's lots of talk about the resurrection day and sleeping but we know at the start of the new covenant the first thing Jesus did was bring people to Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

>>6374 >they were kept alive in Sheol That is soul sleep, the grave. >The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. In soul sleep theology that is the kingdom of Gid which was established here on earth, ie: The Church(es) and the millennium reign.

>>6371 wow thanks anon

>>6371 > I do agree that hell is temporary. Condemned by Scripture and three ecumenical Church councils.

>>6387 what Scripture? the only thing ive found that points toward it is a parable given by Jesus but parables arent literal

>>6375 What I'm saying is soul sleep isn't real, people are in the third Heaven right now

>>6388 Anywhere in the Bible that talks about unquenchable fire or people rising to everlasting contempt. >parables arent literal They convey spiritual truths, and of them is eternal punishment.

>>6396 >Anywhere in the Bible that talks about unquenchable fire or people rising to everlasting contempt. ill have to look into that >They convey spiritual truths, and of them is eternal punishment. i dont remember the rich mans punishment being eternal and once again we would have to consider the meaning of the parable. The purpose of the parable was to convey that if you disobeyed Gods orders that you would be punished

>>6401 Daniel 12:2 is one place to look, as is Matthew 25:46. There are many more as well. The one in Matthew is particularly worth noting, because many arguments surrounding the limited nature of hell are based on the term αἰώνιος which is used to qualify the nature of the punishment. The term means 'eternal', but supporters of limited hell will say that it means merely 'for an age'. Why the verse of Matthew 25:46 is interesting is because it uses αἰώνιος in two contexts, to talk of eternal life and eternal punishment. To say that one implies actual eternal life and the other just 'limited' hell is to equivocate on the meaning of the term used, and is a bad-reading of the text, needless to say. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is also a good one, which says that the damned will face 'the punishment of eternal destruction'. There is a very good reason why those who preach limited hell are heretics condemned at multiple ecumenical councils.

>>6402 all the verses with the exception of Daniel 12:2 refer to some kind of eternal (as in permanent) punishment or death. Daniel 12 is the only one that alludes to something else, the interesting thing about Daniel 12 tho is its context, its discussing the coming of Christ and Him dying for our sins. The righteous residing in Abrahams Bosom aswell as those who accept Christ while in sheoul presumably are granted eternal life/brought into Heaven whereas the unbelievers are left to regret their disbelief. The interesting thing to note is the meaning of the word "עוֹלָם" which can either mean antiquity, futurity, or long duration. Considering how seemingly misplaced this verse appears to be, it is my guess that the word "עוֹלָם" has two different meanings here.

>>6387 >Condemned by Scripture Nope. >three ecumenical Church councils Who rejected Jesus, was it the learned priests or the laymen?

>>6396 >Anywhere in the Bible that talks about unquenchable fire or people rising to everlasting contempt. Unquenchable fire as in you can't put it out. aeon ton aeon doesn't mean everlasting, it means for the ages of the ages.

>>6402 >Matthew 25:46 is interesting is because it uses αἰώνιος in two contexts, to talk of eternal life and eternal punishment. Also in Matthew Christ says let the dead bury the dead, the first is the figurative dead and the second literal. The Gospel According to Matthew is no stranger to using the same word to refer to different things in a sentance.

>>6423 people seem to forget the symbolism of fire. what does fire do? it destroys. When you throw a piece of paper into a flame it gets burnt to ashes, it doesnt just sit there and cook. if God really intended for humans to suffer in hell for eternity then you think He would have gave a better analogy or just said it outright.

>>6402 >'the punishment of eternal destruction' Reread the passage and tell me how you got eternal torture out of that. You are destroyed for eternity, also known as you are dead for eternity. It is saying God will not raise you again.

>>6424 aswell the word eternal means "forever" "infinite", ie infinite death and infinite life.

>>6425 Thank you, that is well put.

>>6421 Perhaps that is to harsh a comparison, but the point still stands not to put your tradition and the wisdom of men above the Word of God

>>6421 The Church never rejected Jesus. It merely reaffirmed what is clearly said in Scripture, that the torments of hell are eternal. Anything else is anathematized heresy. >aeon ton aeon doesn't mean everlasting, it means for the ages of the ages. Nigh blasphemous statement given how the phrase 'unto the ages of ages' is used in the Bible and in liturgical contexts today. >>6425 You're viewing the fires of hell too literally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of hell. >>6426 You're preaching more false doctrine now in saying that some people will not even be raised. This is literally the opposite of what Scripture says. The passage says what it says, it says that the damned will be eternally punished and have cut themselves off from the presence of God. >>6424 Scripture is to be read holistically. There are numerous other passages which say that the torments of hell are everlasting, and therefore we have no grounds to say that Jesus speaks equivocally in Matthew 25:46.

>>6476 >You're viewing the fires of hell too literally. This is not the Orthodox understanding of hell. the "fires of hell" are symbolic, if a torturous hell did exist it would likely just be a black void.

>>6491 People in hell will just be tormented by their own inability to participate in God. They bring it upon themselves.

bump

orthodox shill

Now that the dust has settled, has death been irrevocably btfo or can he still get back in the game?

>>3254 Because we love our children and our society, we throw child molesters and murderers in prison.

Mortal bump

Didn't find a suitable thread for this, but... Doesn't Old Testament sometimes imply that there is no afterlife (because after death you turn into dust). But some Old Testament passages imply that there is afterlife and hell. Pharisees believed in resurrection but Sadducees didn't believe in afterlife. The New Testament and all Christians do believe in heaven and hell.

>>11693 I think that under the Old Testament, everyone who died went to Hell without exception. And if Hell is your only possibility then there may as well be no afterlife at all since Hell is just the death of the soul. I think I know what your next question will be so to clarify, that doesn't mean that everyone who died before Jesus did is still burning in Hell, when Christ was crucified He freed all of the righteous souls from Hell so your ancient ancestors from thousands of years ago might be waiting to meet you in Heaven.

Deceased bump

bump

>>2825 It's a theological opinion but not doctrine in catholicism and orthodoxy that people can be redeemed after death (universalism), but since we don't know for sure we should live as if it wasn't true, that we don't have another hope except while on earth

The bible tells us that there is no other name by which we may be saved than Jesus, and that every knee should bend to the name of Jesus. You answered your own question when you noted that those whom He saved were the "Old Testament righteous", that is, those who believed. When the first man was cursed for his sin he was thereafter blessed because he believed the promise "He shall crush your head and you shall bruise His heel" and he was clothed in the freshly killed flesh of beasts to ward off the cold and save him from the consequences of his sin. The only means by which anyone has ever stood before God has been the righteousness of Jesus Christ because He is the way, the truth and the life, nobody comes to the Father except by Him. Under the old covenant they shared the same faith as us as they lived by the promise of He who was to come, they were not unbelievers who worshipped false gods (all who do so are cursed) and they did not dwell in a place of punishment, they were in to a part of hell which was without fire where they rescued and brought to paradise by the Lord in whom they had believed their whole lives. The unbelievers who are ignorant of His gospel are not absolved thereby, but are condemned because even though they know God they do not glorify Him as God nor are they thankful but they exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for images of corruptible men and beasts and birds and creeping things.

>>15813 >because even though they know God But they don't know God, that's the problem. They know sin but they don't know God and His salvation, because if they did know they would desire it. That's enough to condemn them, sure, but there are grounds for compassion for them because no one deserves salvation on their own merit. So they will be judged a harsh judgement unless there is divine intervention, and face a wrath that no person should wish to face.

>>15816 >But they don't know God They absolutely know God, of course they do. His eternal attributes have been clearly perceived from the foundation of the world in the things that have been made. They are without excuse for their denial of and rebellion against the obvious reality of the world that there is but one God who created all things. >if they did know they would desire it I'm sorry but that is flatly unbiblical. The gospel is not the power of God unto salvation to those who are perishing, to them it is foolishness, a stumbling block, and the stench of death. Children of wrath do not receive the truth of God with faith because they are consumed with hatred for Him, when He walked among them they did not desire the truth He spoke to them instead they plotted among themselves how they might kill Him. A man who has not been raised to spiritual life by the powerful grace of the Holy Spirit is so opposed to his creator that should he spend eons burning in the lake of fire and then be offered release by God for nothing more than a moment of repentance his response would be to spit in His face. >there are grounds for compassion The ground for compassion is that our Lord commanded us to preach His gospel to every nation.

>>15827 >You assert even though it defies living experience and the Bible. For Paul says that the Gentiles do not have the law, but yet have the law written in their hearts One who studies the scripture by reading it could not have missed my constant quotation as you have from the first chapter of the same epistle. What you have quoted here is a condemnation not of the gentiles but of the Jews, built on the foundation of the gentiles' condemnation in that "even though they knew God they glorified Him not as God". Subsequently after demonstrating the wickedness of the gentiles Paul turns on the Jews who would have been encouraging him, condemning them for their hypocrisy in doing the same things which they condemn, as when he reaches his conclusion he comments on the previous passages that "we have already alleged that all, both Jew and gentile, are under sin". The second chapter must therefore be read as a condemnation of the Jews and their presumption. Now the writing of the law upon the heart was a covenantal promise, in the Old Testament God promised that under the new covenant He would write His law upon the hearts of His people so that they no longer needed to be led by the written code but they would all be taught of God. Hence Paul is invoking that scripture and applying it not to the wicked pagans who worship false gods but to the Christian gentiles who are full partakers in the selfsame covenant as Abraham, since it is founded by the same Lord on the same terms. >If God chose to release that man he would have no capacity to defy Him, because God's doing it would be in accordance with His wisdom and desire which is the same across all time. It is vain to speculate outside of and loosed from the teachings of the scriptures (which are God speaking to us). In His word He has already declared "it is appointed to man but once to die and after this the judgement".

>>15818 >They absolutely know God, of course they do. After reviewing Romans 1, which you were citing, I concede this point as my fault. As I received your response in the middle of reconsidering my position, I will be reposting the relevant contents of the post deleted: (I attempted a grounding of my position on a misconception over the Gentile's knowledge of the law versus their knowledge of God on the basis of Romans 2:14-15, but it proved to be a folly that bypassed the exhortation of Paul in Romans 1) >A man who has not been raised to spiritual life by the powerful grace of the Holy Spirit is so opposed to his creator that should he spend eons burning in the lake of fire and then be offered release by God for nothing more than a moment of repentance his response would be to spit in His face. Yes and God does that raising. Are you saying that God's predestination overrides His own sovereign will? If God chose to release that man he would have no capacity to defy Him, because God's doing it would be in accordance with His wisdom and desire which is the same across all time. >Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. Luke 7:47 The one released would be utterly defeated by God's manifest mercy. *In addition to this, by the gospels and Acts we know that the Holy Spirit did not descend on the disciples until Pentecost, yet in Luke 23:43 Christ says to the penitent thief: >And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The thief surely died before Pentecost as attested in the gospels, yet without the Spirit he was delivered by the mercy of Christ to salvation. >The ground for compassion is that our Lord commanded us to preach His gospel to every nation. No disagreement there. >>15829 >It is vain to speculate outside of and loosed from the teachings of the scriptures (which are God speaking to us). Yes, if we disregarded this we would be papists. There is no Purgatory. >In His word He has already declared "it is appointed to man but once to die and after this the judgement". And is it not a judgement? That divides the righteous from the wicked in accordance to His good pleasure? In judgement He both delivers and condemns as Lord, and it is His ultimate sentencing, which none may second-guess. Is this not a faithful testimony, and our hope in Christ Jesus?

>>15831 If you see fault in my closing statement please enlighten it in good faith. Note that I am not making the heretical argument that all will be saved, but that judgement towards life or towards damnation is God's prerogative.

>>15834 The error is that it is inconsistent with the testimony of the scriptures. We are told how men are saved and what happens after death. The statement in Hebrews clearly indicates that this judgement occurs immediately after death, there is no intermediary period in which they might repent but their soul is immediately carried to the throne of Christ with their fate already locked in. The many warnings to the unbeliever and promises to the believer throughout the bible are given with a clear intent that the reader understand that if they come before the throne without having already believed on His name they will be cast into the pit. To make a point about the text *not* saying that they won't repent after the fact has more in common with the speculative theology of the medieval scholastics than a proper treatment of the scriptures.

>>15838 I'm not making the OP argument about the soul repenting after death, because like you said that would be more medieval scholastic speculation than biblical theology. However to lay out what is valid: >an individual has to believe in Jesus as saviour and repent in order to be saved >someone who dies without having believed is incapable of doing so, and is delivered to judgement in the state in which they died >this soul is manifestly set towards destruction, it is impossible to redeem the one who is an unrepentant sinner nor would it be desirable as they are in categorical opposition to God >ergo, lake of fire >if they come before the throne without having already believed on His name they will be cast into the pit While I see the logic of the above, did you have the quotations that substantiate it as well?

>>15841 In connection to this, what do you hold to be the fate of infants who tragically die before the age of majority? Are they damned? Is there a difference between the children of believers and non-believers? Are the children of the non-believing damned in sin?

>>15846 And there's a third category I came across which is pertinent, the fate of the mentally retarded.

>>15838 I'd like to say in spite of the posts disputing your position I am coming around to it, but I would like to hear your reply before we come to terms.

>>15852 >>15847 >>15846 >>15841 >>15838 >>15834 >>15831 >>15829 >>15818 >>15816 >>15813 >>15810 >>15464 >>13850 >>11694 >>11693 >>10437 >>8706 >>etc THE ONLY WAY TO GET SAVED IS THROUGH ALLAH. CHRISTIANITY IS FAKE. COME TO https://anon.cafe/islam/ . BY THE WAY ANIME IS DEGENERATE AND MAKES TRANNIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!