Critiquing limbo: Vatican responds to changes in theological thought

CNS ^ | April 25, 2007 | John Thavis

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In its recent document on unbaptized children, the Vatican's International Theological Commission demonstrated how church teaching can be responsive to changes in theological thought, Christian beliefs and the "signs of the times."

The document, published April 20, critiqued the traditional understanding of limbo, arguing instead that there was good reason to hope unbaptized babies who die go to heaven.

Some people saw that as a reversal of a centuries-old Catholic principle. But rather than announcing a radical break with the past, the commission said it was assessing an issue in theological evolution.

The very first sentence of the document signaled an important distinction when it spoke of the "hierarchy of truths" in Catholic doctrine. The teaching on limbo was among those never addressed by Scripture and never defined as dogma and is therefore subject to theological development, it said.

"When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood," it said.

More specifically, the commission said the theological tradition of the past, specifically the Augustinian tradition, seems to have a "restricted conception of the universality of God's saving will."

That's an extremely sensitive issue today, one that goes beyond the fate of unbaptized babies and has implications for the church's relations with non-Christian religions.

The new document repeats traditional Catholic teaching that all salvation is through Christ and has a relationship with the church. But it emphasizes more than once that God's saving ways are ultimately mysterious and that the holiness that resides in the church can reach people outside "the visible bounds of the church."

The modern theologians cited by the document include the late Jesuit Father Karl Rahner and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, both of whom had presented arguments for abandoning the concept of limbo.

It also cited a collection of Catholic doctrinal documents edited by the late Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis, recipient of some criticism by the Vatican's doctrinal congregation in the late 1990s when Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was its head.

But the document goes beyond strictly theological opinions. It repeatedly refers to the "sensus fidelium" -- the sense of the faithful -- to illustrate how Christians increasingly reject the idea that the vision of God would be denied to innocent babies.

One reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops felt it was "not the faith of their people," the document said.

It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and "cannot err in matters of belief."

To support its conclusions on limbo, the theological commission's document also cited the need for the church to read the "signs of the times" in order to better understand the Gospel.

In unusual detail, it listed several such signs that support the idea of hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants: the warfare and turmoil of the international scene and the church's awareness of its mission as a bearer of hope; greater emphasis on God's love and mercy in a world of suffering people; renewed concern for the welfare of infants in societies that are scandalized by the suffering of children; and increased dialogue with people of other faiths, which encourages the church to have greater appreciation for the "manifold and mysterious ways of God."

Perhaps the clearest instance of the commission's ranging outside traditional theological boundaries was when it cited in a footnote the Live Aid and Live 8 charity rock concerts of 1985 and 2005 as examples of global concern for children.

The International Theological Commission, which acts as an advisory body to the Vatican, has always had a predominantly European membership, but this document was prepared by a drafting committee made up of nine theologians from five continents. Father Dominic Veliath, a Salesian from India, headed the committee.

[NYer]

Some additional insight into this document.

[tsowellfan]

So this means “no more limbo”?

That’s great! Even when traveling I hate layovers. I like to just get to where Im going.

[Coleus]

you mean Rush Limbo?

[theFIRMbss]

>it was assessing an issue in theological evolution

Oh-oh. I wonder
if "evolution" also
will take Catholics

to declare Mary
"Co-Redemptrix" with Jesus . . .
If things can change, then . . .

[Alex Murphy]

So this means “no more limbo”? That’s great! Even when traveling I hate layovers. I like to just get to where Im going.

Yes, but if there's "no more limbo", does that mean I'll be getting all my lost socks and luggage back now?

[Frank Sheed]

From the Rorate Caeli website (a link to Seattle Catholic, RIP+):

Limbo is here to stay!

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

[wideawake]

(1) "Limbo", more accurately the limbus patrum "border of the fathers", exists and is an irreformable part of Church doctrine.

(2) It has continually been an open theological question, never resolved definitively, as to what happens to the souls of children who died unbaptized. One commonplace suggestion among theologians has been that such souls go to the limbus patrum - the place where the Hebrew patriarchs waited after death for the coming of the Messiah.

(3) There have always been other opinions, one of them being that (a) since pedobaptism exists and (b) since baptism of desire exists, then (c) it is possible that unborn infants can have been baptized by desire.

An even stronger version points out that amniotic fuid itself can be matter for baptism.

[pjr12345]

No more limbo?!!

Drat!

I’ll have to schedule a different event for this year’s Luau.

[sandhills]

Live Aid and Live 8 Rock concerts??? In a theological document? This can’t be real.

Whatever the deprivations of Limbo, they can’t possibly be as bad as having to listen to senseless theology. Puerile theology is cruel and unusual punishment.

[pjr12345]

SARCASM ALERT

The following post may contain irreverent humor. Please do not read this post if you lack a sense of humor and/or are easily offended.

-------------------------------

(1) "Limbo", more accurately the limbus patrum "border of the fathers", exists and is an irreformable part of Church doctrine.

Those popes have got to learn to keep their mouths shut when they're sitting on the throne!

(2) It has continually been an open theological question, never resolved definitively, as to what happens to the souls of children who died unbaptized.

Only if one buys into the unbiblical concept of "original sin". If you were to recognize the biblical position that each person is responsible for their own sins, and couple it with Jesus' admonition that we must be like little children to enter heaven... then you'd see that sin cannot be imputed until a person is capable of moral judgment. Hence, deceased babies go to heaven. (Save me the rebuttal. It's old hat.)

(3) There have always been other opinions, one of them being that (a) since pedobaptism exists and (b) since baptism of desire exists, then (c) it is possible that unborn infants can have been baptized by desire.

Huh? First of all, you're going to have to explain "pedobaptism". The best I can envision is a bicyclist fallen into a lake. Or, for you RCCers, a bicycle caught in a thunderstorm.

As for the unborn infants' "desire"... one word: Silly.

amniotic fuid itself can be matter for baptism.

Wow! The whole world's catholic!

[wideawake]

(Save me the rebuttal. It's old hat.)

It's disingenuous to claim one's post is purely humorous, then present a deeply flawed yet seriously-intended argument, and then expect not to be refuted.

Romans 5:18 crushes your personal speculation.

As for the unborn infants' "desire"... one word: Silly.

We are not talking about the unborn infant's desire.

Wow! The whole world's catholic!

The matter of a sacrament is not a sacrament.

[murphE]

the Vatican's International Theological Commission demonstrated how church teaching can be responsive to changes in theological thought, Christian beliefs and the "signs of the times."

St. Pius X pray for us.

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

[pjr12345]

Romans 5:18 crushes your personal speculation.

Yes, if taken out of context. Let's look at the entire passage:

Romans 5:12-21

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

A reading of the entire passage in full context makes it quite clear that Paul is stating Adam brought sin and the consequence of sin - death - into the world. And because all men sin, all suffer death. Nowhere will you find Paul stating that I, or anyone else, am responsible for Adam's sin. I sin, I die.

Scripture speaks plainly.

We are not talking about the unborn infant's desire.

Whose desire are we talking about? Their parents? God? Sorry, your doctrine of "original sin" REQUIRES innocent children and unborn babies to burn in Hell. That's just another reason it can't be true; God is just. He holds people accountable for their own sin, not the sin of Adam.

The matter of a sacrament is not a sacrament.

I have no idea what you mean.

[theFIRMbss]

/*
SARCASM ALERT
The following post may contain irreverent humor.
Please do not read this post
if you lack a sense of humor
and/or are easily offended.
-------------------------------
*/

>amniotic fuid itself can be matter for baptism
>>Wow! The whole world's catholic!

-------------------------------------------------------------

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammed,
But I've never been one of them...

I'm a Roman Catholic, and have been since the day I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics,
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm...

You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on -
You're a Catholic the moment dad came...

Because...

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs, on the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed, in your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is useful, every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine
And mine
And mine

Let the Pagan spill theirs,
O'er mountain, hill and plain,
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

[pjr12345]

Not sure what to make of that...

[pjr12345]

It's disingenuous to claim one's post is purely humorous,

BTW, I never said it was purely humorous.

[Bainbridge]

You are kidding, right?
Baptism by amniotic fluid. Now I’ve heard everything.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Yes, I caught that too :-(

[wideawake]

The question has arisen over the years: what if a dying man on a battlefield, for example, requests baptism and the only liquid to hand is muddy water from a puddle?

The answer is: use it, since there is access to nothing else and he is dying.

What liquids that are 99+% water are accessible to a dying unborn child?

An interesting question for the immersion-only set.

[wideawake]

Nowhere will you find Paul stating that I, or anyone else, am responsible for Adam's sin.

I see the problem. You don't know what the doctrine of original sin actually means.

Sorry, your doctrine of "original sin" REQUIRES innocent children and unborn babies to burn in Hell.

No it doesn't.

I have no idea what you mean.

The doctrine of original sin is understood to mean, in accordance with Scripture, that through Adam sin and death entered into the world and that as a result we are all born mortal and sinful.

The only thing that can restore immortality and sinlessness to man is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

He bestows this grace on whom He wills, making them inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven, workers in His fields and sons of the Father by adoption.

Among the things He grants his workers the power to do is assist Him in bestowing grace by performing the sacraments He has ordained for men, sacraments like baptism.

A sacrament usually entails a minister (the baptizer), a beneficiary (the baptized person), an intention (the baptizer didn't accidentally spill water on someone, he intends to baptize them) and matter (the water the actual baptizing is done with).

[Aquinasfan]

renewed concern for the welfare of infants in societies that are scandalized by the suffering of children;

"Kill your baby and send it straight to heaven."

I can see Planned Parenthood and their nominally Christian supporters flying that banner.

I'm also surprised that there is no mention of the theory that God could give these babies a supernatural infusion of knowledge, and a chance to choose for Him or against Him, in the moment before death.

[Aquinasfan]

Live Aid and Live 8 Rock concerts??? In a theological document? This can’t be real.

Whatever the deprivations of Limbo, they can’t possibly be as bad as having to listen to senseless theology.

Like yours?

[pjr12345]

The doctrine of original sin is understood to mean, in accordance with Scripture, that through Adam sin and death entered into the world and that as a result we are all born mortal and sinful.

I'm in general agreement up until "and sinful". You'll find no Biblical support for this.

[Aquinasfan]

And because all men sin, all suffer death.

Do babies sin? Do mentally handicapped people sin?

What is your dogmatic teaching regarding these questions? From what do you derive your authority to proclaim your infallible dogmas?

When no man is pope, every man is a pope. 30+ thousand Protestant sects, and counting.

[Iscool]

You guys claim you believe the scripture...And your pope says the scripture is silent on the baptism of babies...Well, except that you may not find the word babies in the scripture, the scripture is not silent on the issue...

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Now if you believe this scripture, you have to admit that baptism saves NO ONE...The requirement is that you believe the gospel...Verse 16 reveals that even if you are baptized, but don't believe the gospel, you are damned...

Tough luck for babies, I guess...Or do you suppose one would have to understand the gospel to be able to believe it or not???

Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

The scripture is not silent on the baptism of people who can not believe on Jesus...You MUST turn to Jesus before you get baptized...Babies and little children can not do this...

And if you think you are saved because someone sprinkled some water on you when you were a baby, You'd better Joh 5:39 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

[wideawake]

Now if you believe this scripture, you have to admit that baptism saves NO ONE

If a person rejects their own baptism, clearly they are not saved.

You MUST turn to Jesus before you get baptized

The passage you cite does not say that. What it does say is that the belief of these baptizands is what inspired them to ask for baptism.

And if you think you are saved because someone sprinkled some water on you when you were a baby

My salvation is entirely in Jesus' hands. It doesn't matter what I think one way or the other. It's His decision.

[pjr12345]

When no man is pope, every man is a pope. 30+ thousand Protestant sects, and counting.

While I concede that it makes for a good bumper sticker, the Bible says:

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

[wideawake]

You'll find no Biblical support for this.

If, as Scripture says, the wages of sin is death - and every man dies, quite a few before they even reach the age of reason, are they not sinful?

Or are those who die before they attain reason righteous in themselves without the need for God's grace, and their death is then the wages of righteousness?

When Scripture says that anything which is not from faith is sin, why does this apply to only certain of those who have not attained faith?

[Aquinasfan]

While I concede that it makes for a good bumper sticker, the Bible says:

What does the Bible say about the fate of babies who die before baptism?

What does it say about Luther's 'infallible' doctrine of "the Bible alone"?

What does the Bible call "the pillar and foundation of truth"?

How many churches did Jesus found?

Where does Jesus tell us to take our disputes?

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

What's your infallible interpretation of these verses?

[Aquinasfan]

Now if you believe this scripture, you have to admit that baptism saves NO ONE...

One must synthesize all of Scripture. Many verses of Scripture appear to contradict other verses. These paradoxes should not be ignored. They should be resolved.

Matthew 28:19-20

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

The "Great Commission" includes the commands to baptize and to pass on Apostolic teaching.

Jesus certainly gives the impression that baptism is necessary for discipleship. There's no mention of "the Bible alone" as a teaching authority either.

[pjr12345]

If, as Scripture says, the wages of sin is death - and every man dies, quite a few before they even reach the age of reason, are they not sinful?

The passage:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It's quite clear that Paul speaks "spiritually" and not "physically". The wages of sin is spiritual death - hell.

Remember what God told Adam in the Garden of Eden?

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

But on the day that he ate of the fruit he did not die, physically. Was God lying to Adam? Or did Adam truly die on that day? If Adam did not die physically on that day, then he had to have died spiritually.

Remember, God is Spirit. He sees us from an eternal, spiritual vantage point. Hence He sees our lives far beyond the physical world. In fact, His concern is our true, spiritual life. That is what He offers to save through His Son.

Or are those who die before they attain reason righteous in themselves without the need for God's grace, and their death is then the wages of righteousness?

Jesus said in Matthew 18:3, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

What greater endorsement for the innocence of children is required?

When Scripture says that anything which is not from faith is sin, why does this apply to only certain of those who have not attained faith?

I'm not familiar with this passage. Please provide book/chapter/verse.

[wideawake]

It's quite clear that Paul speaks "spiritually" and not "physically".

St. Paul does not make such a distinction.

The wages of sin is spiritual death - hell.

Correct. And the wages of sin is also physical death.

But on the day that he ate of the fruit he did not die, physically.

But on the day that he ate of the fruit he did not die, physically.

(1) This ascribes a temporal specificity to the Hebrew which it does not possess.

(2) On the day he ate, he became mortal. Once he sinned, his eventual death was sealed.

Remember, God is Spirit. He sees us from an eternal, spiritual vantage point.

He also created our physical bodies in time and sustains them at every moment in physical existence. And, of course, God the Son has a body.

Our physical existence is not a matter of no concern to God.

What greater endorsement for the innocence of children is required?

Yet, in the same context, He wants the children to come to Him. Unless we understand that He needs the children to be present, we have to acknowledge that the children need Him.

Please provide book/chapter/verse.

Romans 14:23.

[pjr12345]

What does the Bible say about the fate of babies who die before baptism?

I don't know. Please enlighten me.

What does it say about Luther's 'infallible' doctrine of "the Bible alone"?

Luther lived long after Scripture was settled, and I'm not aware of any prophecies akin to that of Cyrus concerning Luther.

What does the Bible call "the pillar and foundation of truth"?

Please enlighten me with book/chapter/verse. But if your reference is in context and agreement with the weight of Scripture, I suspect it will either be Jesus or one's belief in Jesus. I wait in great anticipation for enlightenment.

How many churches did Jesus found?

None. He founded one Church, also known as the Kingdom of God or Heaven. As He told Pontius Pilate, John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

Clearly the Church that Jesus founded is spiritual, and not earthly. After all, He also told us in John 4:24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

What's your infallible interpretation of these verses?

The verses say clearly and infallibly (not me, but them) that (a) there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus; and (b) Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

[pjr12345]

Wow! So much twisting and turning. I’m glad you’re here to clear up God’s intent with His plainly recorded words.

[wideawake]

Wow! So much twisting and turning. I’m glad you’re here to clear up God’s intent with His plainly recorded words.

Sarcasm and insult in place of argument.

Not what I was looking for in a response.

[pjr12345]

My apologies.

The wages of sin is spiritual death - hell. Correct. And the wages of sin is also physical death.

You say that Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. speaks to both physical and spiritual death.

How so? It is evident that regardless of the promise of eternal life, we all die physically. If Paul had been referring to BOTH physical and spiritual matters all believers would keep their physical lives forever because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. Clearly that is not the case.

The only road to your interpretation is an obtuse splitting of Paul's intent: He meant was speaking both physically and spiritually in the first seven words, and only spiritually in the last twelve words. Like I said, twisting and turning.

I put such odd manipulations of Scripture under the category of "Believe what I say; don't believe your lyin' eyes.:

[wideawake]

How so? It is evident that regardless of the promise of eternal life, we all die physically.

But because of the grace of Jesus Christ, we are not only spiritually revived and, on the Last Day, our bodies will rise and be glorified and we will live forever - immortal in body and soul.

His Resurrection is the seal and promise of ours.

The only road to your interpretation is an obtuse splitting of Paul's intent:

Incorrect. Paul was teaching the whole of the Gospel: with Adam sin and death entered the world, killing body and soul, with Christ grace and life enters the world - giving eternal life to the body and the soul.

[pjr12345]

“Convenient” parsing of my posts - and Scripture - doesn’t change Truth.

[wideawake]

Again, you eschew argument in favor of insult - implying I am somehow being dishonest or malicious rather than addrsssing my response.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are a liar.

The Truth is that Jesus Christ redeems the whole man - body and soul - with His grace and in the hope given by His resurrection.

[pjr12345]

There was no insult; I’m simply observing facts. You disregard those parts of Scripture and my posts that debunk you pre-conceived notions. This method of many allows one to avoid the God that Is, and create the god one wishes.

Certainly one’s God-give free will allows you to do this, but at your own eternal peril!

BTW, where did the “liar” accusation come into play?

[wideawake]

Certainly one’s God-give free will allows you to do this, but at your own eternal peril!

In other words you do not want to speak the words of Scripture.

Scripture which says: "that which is not of faith is sin."

Scripture that says: "the wages of sin is death."

Rather than speculate on my "eternal peril", address the issues at hand: (1) that your claim that original sin does not exist contradicts Scripture and the entire history of Scriptural exegesis; (2) that your exegesis of Romans ignores the doctrine of the resurrection which Paul claimed to be the heart of the Gospel ("and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."); (3) your thesis is predicated on a misreading of Genesis 2:17 in which your interpretation of a non-English text hinges on an argument from English grammar.

Insisting that a reference to death can only be a reference to "spiritual death" and that anyone who interprets the word "death" as "death" is twisting Scripture isn't an argument.

[pjr12345]

Scripture which says: "that which is not of faith is sin." Scripture that says: "the wages of sin is death."

Book/Chapter/Complete Verse?

your claim

You credit me with certain claims I haven't made, and then ask me to prove negatives. Show me the Scriptural support for your teachings.

[wideawake]

Book/Chapter/Complete Verse?

Both cited already on this thread.

You credit me with certain claims I haven't made

I have credited you with precisely one claim which you have already made.

and then ask me to prove negatives

Which negative did I ask you to prove?

Show me the Scriptural support for your teachings.

I already have. It isn't my fault that instead of addressing my argument you have responded with an empty "you're twisting", "you're parsing."

You meet Scriptural arguments with these dodges, not counterarguments.

[pjr12345]

You've paraphrased fractured shards of incomplete verses. You've yet to provide a single, thoughtful, in-context supporting verse or set of verses. I hate to generalize, but this is very typical of RCC threads. Another typical tactic is to mangle and twist God's Word to fit a particular belief.

If a person seeks truth, the Lord, Himself, has promised that they will gain it.

Matthew 7:7-8 -- 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

What I've seen here is analogous to forming the question to fit one's answer. That tactic will never result in truthful enlightenment.

I suppose I ought to take heed to the Lord's command in the prior verse, Matthew 7:6. I trust you have a Bible.

[sandhills]

I’m sorry I didn’t make sense.

Live Aid and Live 8 Rock concerts should not be found as a footnote in any theological document.

Senseless theology would be that which argues against a certain assertion with the reason that the assertion is “dated”.

In a phrase, we don’t need theologians to tell us that God moves in mysterious ways. If that was St. Thomas’ role, the Summa would have been one page, and we would have missed out on all of his wonderful probity, distinctions and faithful extrapolations of the Truth.

[wideawake]

You've paraphrased fractured shards of incomplete verses. You've yet to provide a single, thoughtful, in-context supporting verse or set of verses. I hate to generalize, but this is very typical of RCC threads. Another typical tactic is to mangle and twist God's Word to fit a particular belief.

Another non-argument.

Address the question.

You claimed that Paul could only be referring to spiritual death, and not physical death.

There is nothing in the text to support that notion - Paul has described how Adam was mortal because his sin introduced death into the world. Paul was clearly talking about sin as the occasion of both physical and spiritual death.

What I've seen here is analogous to forming the question to fit one's answer.

Another obfuscatory nonargument.

You cannot make a case for the claim you made: that there is no such thing as original sin.

I suppose I ought to take heed to the Lord's command in the prior verse, Matthew 7:6

This is the saddest thing you have posted on the thread. You lack the courage to call me a dog or a swine outright (perhaps because you are dimly aware of the Scriptural punishment for calling someone raca), so you use a reference to the Scripture you claim to reverence to insult me.

I am embarrassed for you.