Why do so many Catholics drop the ball when it comes to EENS?
Since our opponents won't retract their erroneous statement, I'll do it for them.  Here is the quote, where "IT" refers to Book 4, Chpt. 24 of Augustine on Baptism:
Quote:  Actually, it says that he was sanctified. He was justified. He had the supernatural virtues of Faith and Charity before sacramental Baptism.

This is a complete fabrication.  "IT" says no such thing.  I have asked for the reference, and for over 10 days we have not been given it.  Because it doesn't exist.  At the very least, the opposition could have explained themselves.  Maybe they tried to cram too many ideas in a sentence, and it came out wrong.  The honorable and sincere thing would have been to issue a correction.  We are still waiting.
My closing points:
1.  It was proposed that the Bible had cases of Baptism of Desire -- the Good thief and Cornelius.

2.  We have shown that the Good thief was under the Old Covenant and went to the Limbo of the Fathers, as Jesus had not ascended to His Father at least by His Ressurection.  Therefore the Good Thief HAD to go to Limbo, where he was the same as any other righteous circumcised Jew.

3.  I have shown that Cornelius, according to scripture HAD to be baptized ("must do"), and that the strong language "forbid" shows an allegory between baptism and salvation.

4.  It was proposed that Augustine held Cornelius was "justified" before baptism. 

5.  I have demolished that supposition by quoting Augustine himself.

6.  It does appear, and I grant, that as of the writing of "Against the Donatists" that Augustine held the Good Thief to be "saved" by Explicit baptism of desire.  I disagree with Augustine here  as shown in "2" above, and Didi claims that Augustine later reversed himself.  As I have noted in the past, I am undecided on Explicit Baptism of Desire.  I fully disagree with "Implicit" baptism of desire.  Though I do not deny God His mercy, I only hold that any salvation outside of Baptism (or at the very least Explicit desire) has NEVER been revealed to us.

In summary, scripture most certainly does not show any baptism of desire.
Quote:In summary, scripture most certainly does not show any baptism of desire.

Your personal interpretation of scripture and of the Fathers does not show any baptism of desire.  The Church contradicts your conclusion and cites the Fathers who cite scripture.  The Church does not make stuff up. 
What is this EENS? Is it BOD too?

Or to be EENS must mean no BOD?

What is the real issue about EENS?  I don't understand why it's a hot topic.  :)
Can someone point me to the Catechism reference to salvation?  Which paragraph?

(09-12-2009, 09:04 AM)F-14 Dave Wrote: Can someone point me to the Catechism reference to salvation?  Which paragraph?


Check out Butler's Catechism.

From that Catechism to today's "umpteenth revised edition" version, the Church went from teaching that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was wholly necessary for salvation *and* that there was absolutely no salvation outside of Her -  to what it teaches today: that the RCC is the surest -  but it is optional for salvation, so "pick yer poison".

Today we have "Separated Brethren", "People of God" who somehow belong to the "soul of of the church", where  "the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained" and where "all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation" are members.

"We've come a long way baby".

The Church of today is therefore wrong, or the Church of yesteryear is wrong, or they are both wrong.

Either way, it hardly inspires one with much confidence when the people with the authority to decide these matters cannot even come up with a clear definition of who is saved, how and why.

Don't know about you, but for me this is the whole reason d'etre of why I pray, go to Church, keep the commandments etc.  It is not some minor point of theology after all.  How is it possible that the Church could have cocked this up so badly as to preach near universal damnation 100 years ago and near universal salvation today?

The purpose of the Church is to save souls.  The purpose of a corporation is to produce an investment return for shareholders.  Going from EENS to Universalism is like a company re-stating its earnings from £1billion to -£500million.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)