STEVE POLSON SAID:
“Most of Christendom formerly believed that only Christian believers, not unbaptized infants, went to heaven.”
i) Of course, that’s a false dichotomy. Unbaptized babies are not the logical converse of Christian believers. For baptized babies are no more Christian believers than unbaptized babies. That requires a level of cognitive development which newborns lack.
ii) Furthermore, what you’re pleased to call “most of Christendom,” or “the church” (as you put it in another comment) actually boils down a handful of opinion-makers in Catholic church history, viz. a few church fathers, some influential theologians, some bishops at some church councils, and some popes–especially whoever the current papal incumbent happens to be at any given time. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t equate that with “the church” or “most of Christendom.” Rather, that’s a very elitist, very reductive definition of “the church.”
iii) Finally, your own denomination got cold feet on the fate of unbaptized infants, which is why it had to resort to stopgap palliatives like limbo, and recently it even found that too much to stomach.
“Therefore[:] Most of Christendom formerly believed that there are stuffed animals in Hell. Clear as mud to me, I'm afraid. can you show me how the conclusion follows from the premise?”
You evidently lack an ability to grasp either satire or metaphor. Given that deficiency, I doubt I can show you how the conclusion follows from the premise.
“If tender feelings for infants makes you uncomfortable with the idea that unbaptized infants suffer in hell…”
i) The motive you ascribe to me is premised on an assumption I repudiate. I don’t think the baptismal status of a child has the slightest bearing on its eternal fate. So I’m not framing the question of infant damnation in those terms.
ii) In addition, I’m non-committal on the entire question of infant damnation. We lack sufficient revelation on the subject to speak with confidence.
iii) I’m merely discussing the possibility of infant damnation, and the possible grounds for that possibility. But that’s an open question in theology. And it will remain an open question for the duration of the church age.
“…and you want to find a speculative solution that does not directly contradict scripture the solution you are pointing to (while holding up a sign that says it isn't something you believe but rather something various respected scholars have come up with) does not work.”
I’m not looking for a “solution.” Rather, I’m offering a counterargument to infidels who raise this objection. Since the objection is hypothetical, I reserve the right to offer a hypothetical response.
“Pre-7-year-old Universalism goes against scripture, which clearly teaches that only Christian believers will go to heaven.”
Well, that’s fatally equivocal at best:
i) OT Jews weren’t Christian believers. So did all OT Jews go to hell?
ii) Baptized babies aren’t Christian believers.
iii) Indeed, we can debate whether baptized babies are even Christians. The immediate question at issue is the status of dying infants, but what about baptized babies who grow up to be nominal Christians or outright apostates?
Were they Christian babies who ceased to be babies? Maybe you think so–I don’t.
iii) We could talk about elect babies. That would be firmer ground, although the scope of infant election is one of the issues in dispute.
iv) Since human beings are social creatures by nature, God tends to save people in packages. So, for instance, he’s more likely to save members of a Christian family.
v) The NT stresses faith in large part because the NT is directed at men and women old enough to understand the message. The Bible isn’t speaking to babies. You can read Scripture to a baby, but it won’t understand a word you say. So the accent on faith is largely an incidental consequence of the audience.
vi) Indeed, there’s a basic contradiction between your insistence on saving faith and your insistence on saving paedobaptism.
“One example of a speculative solution that does not go against scripture relies on the scriptural teaching that not every one in hell will suffer to the same degree (for example Luke 12:47) If that is true (and if you are a bible-believing Christian you better admit it's true), an allowable speculation would be that unbaptized infants, while being denied heaven, receive the minimum possible punishment.”
This “solution” apparently involves the conjectural assumption that dying babies remain babies in the afterlife. That’s hypothetically possible, but it has nothing more going for it than other logical alternatives.
“Do you realize that when you ridicule Christians you sound like an atheist?”
i) Do you apply that admonition to Catholic epologists who routinely ridicule evangelicals?
ii) The notion that unbaptized infants go to hell, but an ouchless, painless circle of hell, is ripe for ridicule by atheists.
Quick question: when I hear RCs talk about the fate of unbaptized babies, it seems as if it's taken for granted there is no cognitive development in the afterlife. Those who die babies remain babies, or it is at least the case no attention is paid to the possibility to the contrary. Is that your impression? Do you have any opinion as to whether those who die in infancy develop in the afterlife? I would think that this could have significant ramifications, especially if we are to believe unbaptized babies "grow up" in a limbo void or whatever.
ReplyDeleteOne possibility is that babies in heaven mature in heaven. I think that’s more plausible than the assumption that babies in heaven remains babies forever. The goal of babyhood is to grow up. That’s just a preliminary stage in human development, not an end in itself.
ReplyDeleteAnother possibility is that God “accelerates” the maturation process by instantiating the baby as an adult. What he would have become had he continued to mature on earth.
On either possibility, elect babies will exercise faith in Christ. Just not at the time of death.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteNaturally, I don't think you have to have "cognitive development" to be saved or to have faith. Psychology won't help us here. If I really thought that you needed psychological "cognitive development" to be saved I would not believe in universal salvation I would despair of any infants being saved.
Leave the popes out of it. We don't know what the average illiterate believers thought, since they didn't nearly as much as theologians, but it makes sense to suppose that they were confident that their baptized infants did have faith and were saved, and it is to be hoped that many of them heard and received the gospel and regardless of whether they could phrase it in the correct theological terms they trusted in Christ for their own and their children's salvation.
What we know is what we have received. Speculation is acceptable where scripture is silent but even where the "earliest" fathers may have been unanimous (as far as we know), I can't see we can simply accept universalism in regards to infants with out being shown that it survives the scriptural arguments against universalism in regards to adults. Now that I've been better informed though, I'll be less dismissive. "The earliest fathers believed it" does carry weight with me.
I don't think my denomination has resorted to stop-gap palliatives like Limbo, and in my experience I've never seen anything in scripture that needs to be palliated. The palliation I was referring to (did I really use that word?) was directed to those whose tender hearts balked at the idea of infants being damned. I was offering a mode of speculation that conforms to scripture and logic. Scripture refers to variation in punishment in Hell, and if there's variation there must be a least amount and a greatest amount. If that's the case a tender-hearted person can easily suppose that those who die in infancy, "innocent," (not really but from our point of view and compared to us innocent indeed), must be among those who receive the least amount.
You are right that I should have not ignored the fact that you were offering a counterargument to infidels. Your counterfactual hypothesis definitely has the virtue of not seeming to go against scripture and it is a great argument to direct against 21st century atheists who seem to like the idea of the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics and the like. Personally, it boggles my mind and to me the very most important thing about counterfactuals is that they are contrary to fact.
As for the pre-NT "Jews," I don't identify Israel with pharisaical Judaism. There was a schism in 1st century Israel, and it is not the part of Israel that rejected Christ who more legitimately can be said to be the heirs of Israel, rather it is that part of Israel that accepted Christ. Abraham was saved by faith, not works, just as we are, and although the OT believers did not have the fulness of reservation, Christ is the savior of those of OT Israel who were saved, just as he is our savior. No, not all of pre-Christian Israel went to Hell.
"Baptized babies are not Christian believers." I respectfully disagree, which is why I personally am confident they are saved.
I didn't mean by my "solution" (my suggestion for the tender-hearted as to one example of a line of speculation that does not seem to go against scripture) anything that would entail the idea that infants would remain infants. It entails the idea that they will somehow remain as (relatively) "innocent" as babies, which may or may not be problematic. When Christ compares the punishments of one group of the damned vs another, he does so in relation to what they have done with what they have been given in this life, not how much they might continue to sin in hell, it may not be a stretch to conclude that those who receive a relatively smaller degree of punishment will not merit more while in Hell.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteLet me assure you that when I use the "you" in Internet discussions like this I am rarely talking about "you" personally. I am simply reacting to blog articles and comments and using the pronoun in a general sense, where I might alternately use "one." I could use the pronoun "one" to avoid one taking it personally, but that seems artificial and offends in another way (one often thinks that I pretending to be smarter than one). In particular if thou thinkest I've ascribed motives to thee thou canst and shouldst ignore such an ascription. It is utterly worthless since I do not know thee well enough to ascribe motives to thee.
"i) Do you apply that admonition to Catholic epologists who routinely ridicule evangelicals?"
I suppose I do, particularly when they sound like atheists and I think such an admonition has a chance to do them any good. I cannot honestly say that I remember doing that but I eventually forget most of what I say to whom. As thou knowest, I am always drunk.
"is ripe for ridicule by atheists..."
Atheists will ridicule, no matter what parts of scripture we avoid mentioning to them. Nevertheless, scripture says that the damned receive different degrees of punishment and logic demands that if that is true there must be a greatest and a least.
My "solution" does not involve the assumption that dying babies remain babies in the afterlife." Rather, it involves the assumption that if they are damned, they will not merit further punishment while in hell. This is a good assumption because if it were true that the damned were driven by their punishment to sin further and merit further punishment, they would enter a truly vicious cycle and all end up in the same state, the greatest possible punishment. If that were the case, it would mean that Christ wasn't telling the truth when he said some would receive greater and others would receive less.
ReplyDeleteSTEVE POLSON SAID:
ReplyDelete“Naturally, I don't think you have to have ‘cognitive development’ to be saved or to have faith. Psychology won't help us here. If I really thought that you needed psychological ‘cognitive development’ to be saved I would not believe in universal salvation I would despair of any infants being saved. “
No, that doesn’t follow “naturally” from what you said. Just the opposite. You said only Christian believers go to heaven. Well, belief is a psychological state. One must achieve a certain cognitive threshold to be capable of belief, especially propositional beliefs. And you said “Christian believers.” Well, that requires sufficient cognitive functioning to understand and assent to certain theological propositions.
At best, then, you’re guilty of flagrant equivocation.
“We don't know what the average illiterate believers thought, since they didn't nearly as much as theologians, but it makes sense to suppose that they were confident that their baptized infants did have faith and were saved, and it is to be hoped that many of them heard and received the gospel and regardless of whether they could phrase it in the correct theological terms they trusted in Christ for their own and their children's salvation.”
So, by your own admission, they believed what they were told (by a monk or priest) because that’s all they were exposed to, and they were in no position to evaluate the merits of the claim.
How is that supposed to carry any weight in theological discussion? You could say the same thing for the folk Buddhism or Hinduism of illiterate villagers.
“What we know is what we have received.”
History is the conduit of truth and error alike.
“Speculation is acceptable where scripture is silent but even where the ‘earliest’ fathers may have been unanimous (as far as we know), I can't see we can simply accept universalism in regards to infants with out being shown that it survives the scriptural arguments against universalism in regards to adults.”
Since I’m not arguing for universal infant salvation, that’s a red herring. In fact, I was discussing the question of infant damnation. How you got that turned around is a standing mystery.
“I don't think my denomination has resorted to stop-gap palliatives like Limbo.”
Obviously you don’t think that…since it’s your denomination.
Cont. “…and in my experience I've never seen anything in scripture that needs to be palliated.”
ReplyDeleteWhich begs the question of whether your position is scriptural. And, in any event, Catholic appeals to Scripture are an exercise in misdirection. Scripture has no independent authority in Catholicism. Scripture is just the mouthpiece of the Magisterium. Scripture means whatever the Magisterium says it means. And what the Magisterium says it means may vary from one century to the next.
“I was offering a mode of speculation that conforms to scripture and logic. Scripture refers to variation in punishment in Hell, and if there's variation there must be a least amount and a greatest amount. If that's the case…”
But, of course, there was more to your speculation than degrees of infernal punishment. There’s the additional business of unbaptized infants and Christian believers.
“Abraham was saved by faith, not works, just as we are, and although the OT believers did not have the fulness of reservation, Christ is the savior of those of OT Israel who were saved, just as he is our savior.”
Now you’re equivocating. Was Abraham a “Christian believer”?
“Baptized babies are not Christian believers.’ I respectfully disagree, which is why I personally am confident they are saved.”
i) Disagreement isn’t disproof. I gave an argument. Where’s your counterargument? In what sense are babies “Christian believers”? Do baptized infants believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
ii) Is it your position that they are saved as long as they remain babies, but lose that guarantee later on? That as long as they die before the age of 7 (give or take), they are saved?
Of course, that would just be a different form of chronological universalism.
“I didn't mean by my ‘solution’ (my suggestion for the tender-hearted as to one example of a line of speculation that does not seem to go against scripture) anything that would entail the idea that infants would remain infants. It entails the idea that they will somehow remain as (relatively) ‘innocent’ as babies, which may or may not be problematic.”
Seems to me that growing up in hell is a dubious environment for preserving one’s relative innocence. I never knew hell could be so benign. What do they do for recreation?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteNo equivocation. I just don't believe in what seems to me to be the modernistic materialistic assumptions behind all that "cognitive development" stuff. Are you surprised that I believe that infants can have faith? I sense that you may be and wonder if that is a result of the fact that you are a child of your times and proceed from modernist assumptions.
"But, of course, there was more to your speculation than degrees of infernal punishment. There’s the additional business of unbaptized infants and Christian believers."
Yes, there is more, there is the additional business, there are two steps to the speculation. To specify the two steps: Step 1 Scripture says there are degrees of punishment, and so logically there must be a least and a greatest. Step 2. Since it is true that there is a least amount, doesn't it seem right that unbaptized babies would fall into the camp that would receive that least amount?
"How is that supposed to carry any weight in theological discussion?"
In fact it seems to me that no sensible person would suppose it to carry any weight, which is why I was rather surprised that you seemed to be chiding for me (calling me elitist) for relying on the fathers and councils and theologians who reasoned from scripture and in Christian collegiality whose teachings were put to paper rather than the illiterate peasants who as you say only knew what they were told.
"Since I’m not arguing for universal infant salvation, that’s a red herring."
It's not exactly a red herring. You brought it up and I was responding to it, giving my reaction to it.
"Obviously you don’t think that…since it’s your denomination."
Well that's not the only reason. But I would be dismayed to find that I was wrong and you'd think that if it had been troubled by papist nonsense like that someone on the internet would have told us about it by now.
"Which begs the question of whether your position is scriptural."
Clarifying for you what I meant by "palliation," where I thought it lied, was intended as just that, the correction of what seemed to be a misunderstanding on your part of what I was saying. I was not making that clarification because I thought doing so was somehow an argument for "my position" (which is that it is scriptural to say that there is a range of degrees of punishment from greatest to least and it does not therefore violate scripture to speculate that unbaptized babies are among those who receive the least).
"Catholic appeals to Scripture are an exercise in misdirection."
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess if that's precisely how you define "catholic" they are. The usual definition is "universal." If "universal" is what you meant, how would you define a "catholic" appeal to scripture in opposition to a "non-catholic" or "particular" appeal? And please leave "catholicism" out of it. That has ceased to be a well-defined term and has become merely a way to pejorate an opponent or pat oneself on the back. If you are talking about Roman Catholicism I have nothing to say about it. I disagree with your theory (if that is your theory) that the RC denomination has a greater claim to continuity with the pre-reformation church than does the Reform itself.
"Now you’re equivocating. Was Abraham a “Christian believer”?"
Not equivocation at all. As he lived before the birth of Christ, it would be anachronistic to call him a Christian believer. Nevertheless, he was saved by his faith, just as we are. This is true of all from OT Israel who were saved.
"Disagreement isn’t disproof. I gave an argument. Where’s your counterargument?"
Your argument involves materialistic modernistic assumptions about "cognitive development." If those assumptions were necessary to rightfully understand the gospel, God would have given the scientific revolution to the world in BC times.
"Of course, that would just be a different form of chronological universalism."
If by "universalism" you mean that faith is salvific for the entire universe of believers who have faith than I guess I am universalist in that highly restricted sense.
"Seems to me that growing up in hell is a dubious environment for preserving one’s relative innocence. I never knew hell could be so benign. What do they do for recreation?"
If it's true that the damned sin more in hell and thereby merit greater punishment, a vicious cycle would result that would result in driving all the damned to the greatest degree of punishment. That would make a liar out of Christ who said there is truly a range from least to greatest. It would be absurd to say that Christ lied or that the bible is in error. Therefore your implied argument fails by a reductio absurdum. Remember, the assumption is not that babies remain babies, the assumption is that they do not in hell enter a cycle of greater and greater damnation, that they remain as "innocent" (not truly simply speaking but truly in comparison to you and I) as they were at death.
Here's something that may help: Does it seem to you that punishment can only drive the person being punished to greater and greater sin or do you think that it tends to have different effects? It would be rash speculation to think it might lead to true repentance (that would be salvific and the damned are beyond salvation!), but don't you think it can sometimes lead to something, a kind of regret, maybe? , that is not a hardening of the heart and not therefore a driving of the person being punished into a vicious cycle of greater and greater sin leading to greater and greater punishment, making Christ a liar when he taught greatest to least.
Think of how you reacted to punishment before you were a Christian, if you can remember that time. Was the vicious cycle the only reaction available to you?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in cognitive development as an explanation of faith.
If God wanted us to believe that was the case he would have taught it more clearly in scripture.
"So, by your own admission, they believed what they were told (by a monk or priest) because that’s all they were exposed to, and they were in no position to evaluate the merits of the claim...How is that supposed to carry any weight in theological discussion?"
It doesn't seem to me that a sensible person would suppose it to carry any weight at all, and that's why I was surprised that you chided me as an elitist for putting more weight on the councils, fathers, theologians, etc. who at least had the benefit of scriptural learning and the aim of teaching the faith, um, faithfully than the illiterate common man who as you admit knew only what they were told.
Since Abraham lived 2 millennia before Christ, it would be anachronistic to call him a "Christian believer." Nevertheless, he was saved by faith, just as we are.
"Since I’m not arguing for universal infant salvation, that’s a red herring."
You brought up the subject of universal infant salvation and I responded/reacted to it. So it isn't precisely a red herring.
"But, of course, there was more to your speculation than degrees of infernal punishment. There’s the additional business of unbaptized infants and Christian believers."
That's right. there is an additional business. There are two steps: Step 1. Scripture teaches degrees of punishment which logically implies a greatest and least. Step 2. The additional business: Since there is a least amount of punishment doesn't it seem right to suppose that those who die in infancy are among those who receive the least amount?
STEVE POLSON SAID:
ReplyDelete"Well, I guess if that's precisely how you define ‘catholic’ they are. The usual definition is ‘universal.’ If ‘universal’ is what you meant, how would you define a ‘catholic’ appeal to scripture in opposition to a ‘non-catholic’ or ‘particular’ appeal? And please leave ‘catholicism’ out of it. That has ceased to be a well-defined term and has become merely a way to pejorate an opponent or pat oneself on the back.”
Don’t be cute. Your blog indicates that you’re Roman Catholic. Therefore, “Catholic,” is defined, not by etymology, but as a brand name to designate your denomination, and everything it stands for.
And, no, I’m not going to leave Catholicism out of it when a Catholic initiates a debate with me, and appeals to Scripture. For your denomination simply folds Scripture into the Magisterium, as a mouthpiece of the Magisterium.
“As he lived before the birth of Christ, it would be anachronistic to call him a Christian believer. Nevertheless, he was saved by his faith, just as we are. This is true of all from OT Israel who were saved.”
For some reason you’re either unable or unwilling to track your own argument. Here’s how it goes:
You said only “Christian believers” to go heaven.
I pointed out that on that definition, all OT Jews were damned.
If you admit that Abraham went to heaven even though Abraham was not a Christian believer, then you’ve contradicted yourself, in which case you need to withdraw one your claims to restore logical consistency. As it stands, you have a contradictory set of claims. They can’t both be true.
“Your argument involves materialistic modernistic assumptions about ‘cognitive development.’ If those assumptions were necessary to rightfully understand the gospel, God would have given the scientific revolution to the world in BC times. ”
Once again, you’re either unable or unwilling to track your own argument. My response was predicated on your assumptions, not mine. You said only “Christian believers” go to heaven. Well, to be a Christian believer presupposes a certain level of cognitive development. That follows from your own argument. You keep contradicting yourself.
“If by ‘universalism’ you mean that faith is salvific for the entire universe of believers who have faith than I guess I am universalist in that highly restricted sense.”
You’re the one who originally defined “universalism” in a highly restricted sense when you said: “What you are proposing is a modified version of universalism (a sort of universalism before age 7).”
That’s a type of chronological universalism. And your alternative position regarding baptized babies is another type of chronological universalism.
Why are you systematically unable to connect the dots of your own statements? Why must I keep doing this for you?
“If it's true that the damned sin more in hell and thereby merit greater punishment, a vicious cycle would result that would result in driving all the damned to the greatest degree of punishment. That would make a liar out of Christ who said there is truly a range from least to greatest.”
i) That doesn’t salvage the illogicality of your claim. Rather, it tries to rescue your claim by a deus ex machina. While an argument from authority can be legitimate in its own right, it doesn’t retroactively validate a logically invalid argument.
ii) Moreover, you rest excessive weight on a single parabolic passage (Lk 12:47-48). In context, the passage only deals with the terms of punishment for things done in this life. It doesn’t address the question they will do in hell, which, in turn, might elicit further, and harsher, punishment.
iii) BTW, does your recourse to Scripture indicate that you believe in the perspicuity of Scripture? I don’t see you citing a Magisterial interpretation of your prooftext.
Cont. “I don't believe in cognitive development as an explanation of faith.”
ReplyDeleteI didn’t say cognitive development was an explanation of faith. I said it was a precondition of faith.
“If God wanted us to believe that was the case he would have taught it more clearly in scripture.”
You’re the one who predicated salvation on Christian faith. I’m working off of your premise (for the sake of argument).
You’re forcing me to waste an inordinate amount of time remind you of what you said. You need to pull your own load in this exchange. Otherwise, go away and waste someone else’s time.
“It doesn't seem to me that a sensible person would suppose it to carry any weight at all, and that's why I was surprised that you chided me as an elitist for putting more weight on the councils, fathers, theologians, etc. who at least had the benefit of scriptural learning and the aim of teaching the faith, um, faithfully than the illiterate common man who as you admit knew only what they were told.”
As usual, you can’t follow your own argument. You’re the one who originally appealed to what “most of Christendom” allegedly believed. Now, however, you’ve summarily disqualified most of Christendom.
I’m not going to keep reminding you of what you originally said, and keep connecting the dots for you. That’s your responsibility. If you continue to shirk that responsibility, you will lose the privileged to post further comments here.
“Since Abraham lived 2 millennia before Christ, it would be anachronistic to call him a ‘Christian believer.’ Nevertheless, he was saved by faith, just as we are.”
Is there something about Roman Catholicism that lobotomizes the faithful? Is that your problem?
On the one hand you said only “Christian believers” go to heaven. On the other hand you say Abraham was saved even though it would be anachronistic to call him a “Christian believer.” So you’ve made two claims that are blatantly contradictory.
You need to acquire a modicum of intellectual discipline.
“You brought up the subject of universal infant salvation and I responded/reacted to it. So it isn't precisely a red herring.”
I brought that up to segue the discussion into the contrary question of infant damnation. So, yes, that’s a red herring in relation to the point of the post.
“The additional business: Since there is a least amount of punishment doesn't it seem right to suppose that those who die in infancy are among those who receive the least amount?”
That’s predicated on your further assumption that unbaptized babies are damned–an assumption I reject.
For future reference, don’t post any further comments unless and until you make a good faith effort to be intellectually consistent with your own claims.
If you post further comments that are just as intellectually indolent as your previous comments, they will be deleted.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou are addressing the essence of our disagreement, I think. I do not believe cognitive development is a precondition of sin or of faith and you do believe it's a precondition of faith. I don't remember whether you believe it's a precondition of sin.
"You’re the one who predicated salvation on Christian faith...You’re forcing me to waste an inordinate amount of time remind you of what you said."
I did indeed say that salvation is predicated on Christian faith, in fact that fact seems to me to be part of the essence of the Gospel. I remember that quite well and do not feel that you need to remind me of it. If YOU for some reason feel you need to remind me that's what you must do I guess.
" Now, however, you’ve summarily disqualified most of Christendom."
In a sense one could say I have done so and so have you. The unlearned can only teach us so much and only know what they've been given. By "most of Christendom" I simply meant the Church in general from the time of Christ until today, I was not advancing a theory about who and what our rightful authorities (beyond our rule of faith, scripture, of course) should be. That seems to me to be a different topic. The topic we were discussing was infant universalism, which topic I have been constrained by my own promise not to say to much more about at this time though Im happy to continue to clarify what I said earlier to you as much as you'd like me to.
"Is there something about Roman Catholicism that lobotomizes the faithful? Is that your problem?"
Is what my problem? I'm not RC and I've never claimed that RCism lobotomizes the faithful. Are you attempting satire again?
"So you’ve made two claims that are blatantly contradictory."
Not at all. Abraham had a more limited revelation that did not rise to the level that ordinarily would be called "Christian," although if it would help you to understand I am willing to use the term in a less conventional way and say that Abraham's faith was a "Christian" faith because the revelation he received was the very same revelation we have received, just not as complete. That revelation will finally be fulfilled in the Resurrection to glory.
"I brought that up to segue the discussion into the contrary question of infant damnation. So, yes, that’s a red herring in relation to the point of the post."
OK. Regardless of why you brought it up, it seemed to me to be a topic worth commenting on. After all, many respectable Christian thinkers have believed in it.
"That’s predicated on your further assumption that unbaptized babies are damned–an assumption I reject."
Thats right. You mentioned a speculation, one that many respectable Christian thinkers have believed in, that involved infant universalism, as a possible response to those who could not stomach the idea of infants being damned. You then offered further very impressive speculation of your own, involving counterfactuals. I responded with another speculative option, one that involved neither any kind of universalism nor counterfactuals, but merely the clear teaching of Jesus and simple quantitative logic.
STEVE POLSON SAID:
ReplyDelete“I do not believe cognitive development is a precondition of sin or of faith and you do believe it's a precondition of faith.”
Your unsupported opinion amounts to nothing. Issuing denials is not a counterargument. Faith is a psychological state. Dogs don’t have Christian faith. They lack the psychological equipment.
“I remember that quite well and do not feel that you need to remind me of it. If YOU for some reason feel you need to remind me that's what you must do I guess.”
You need to be reminded of what you said when you make contradictory statements.
“In a sense one could say I have done so and so have you.”
That comparison is wholly irrelevant since I’m responding to you according to your stated standard, not mine.
“By ‘most of Christendom’ I simply meant the Church in general…”
When you say “the Church,” that’s just Catholic code language for the Magisterium.
“The topic we were discussing was infant universalism…”
That’s what you diverted the conversation to. That’s not the original topic of the post.
“I'm not RC…”
When we click on your name, it takes us to a Catholic blog. You know, references to an “Anointing Mass,” “Catholic Aid Fish Dinners,” “The Archdiocesan Men’s Conference,” as well as “Saint Bernard’s, a vital Roman Catholic parish community, rich in German and Benedictine heritage, serves the North End community of Saint Paul.”
“Not at all. Abraham had a more limited revelation that did not rise to the level that ordinarily would be called "Christian…”
And you said only “Christian believers go to heaven.” Ergo, Abraham didn’t go to heaven.
“You mentioned a speculation, one that many respectable Christian thinkers have believed in, that involved infant universalism, as a possible response to those who could not stomach the idea of infants being damned.”
No, my post wasn’t’ in “response to those who could not stomach the idea of infants being damned.”
Rather, the lead-in to my post said: “One of the favorite objections to Christianity is the specter of infant damnation.”
So that refers to unbelievers, not believers.
Since you can’t bring yourself to argue in good faith, further comments will be deleted.