Combox Interaction With Carrie on Redemptoris Missio - 4

Based on this comment here.
Carrie asked, instead of answering the question:

What does the Bible say?

I'm asking what you say, Carrie. Do babies and the mentally handicapped go to hell or not when they die?

I've answered your questions, and I've answered some of them repeatedly. I think it's fair to expect you to answer this one in return.

Combox Interaction With Carrie on Redemptoris Missio - 3

Based upon a comment here:
Carrie said:

I don't see how Redemptoris missio deals with infants and the mentally-challenged so I am unclear why this is an issue for you.

As I hope will be clear by now, the case of infants and the mentally handicapped demonstrates that there are at least two classes of people who are unable to make a Protestant profession of faith.

Unless she is going to say (and I hope that she would not, most sincerely) that they are all going to hell, then there are at least two classes of people where she and I agree that God saves them - whether some of them or all of them makes no difference at this point - through Christ, apart from the normal means (we of course differ on the "normal means," but that is not relevant at the moment).

That being the case, it hardly seems objectionable to suppose that there are people of a third class whom God might also save through Christ and apart from the normal means: namely, those who through no fault of their own have never had the opportunity even to hear of Jesus Christ.

This is what the Pope asserts in brief in RM: that there are such people. But (as he makes perfectly clear throughout the (rather long) encyclical) this in no way changes the fact that the Church must proclaim salvation through Christ, and offer it through the ordinary means. The obvious implication is that it would be a fool's errand to place one's hope for salvation in something apart from the ordinary means that God has provided.

Combox Interaction with Carrie on Redemptoris Misso - 2

Based upon this post here.

Carrie said:

And, based on the partial answer you did give, please tell me how I am "poisoning the well".

In the post in question, she presented a quotation - ripped from context, with no explanation - that will mislead the uninformed as to what the Catholic Church believes.

Because she did not present an argument that shows why she thinks the quotation contains an error, it is obvious that she is not attempting to educate the uninformed (presumably the uninformed are her audience, based upon this post). That being the case, it seems quite clear that the post is nothing but a rhetorical swipe at the Church.

That being the case, it seems quite clear that the purpose behind the post is to make the Catholic Church look bad, so that actual arguments in its defense will be ignored.

This is called "poisoning the well." If she doesn't understand what that is, she should look here.

If, however, I have mistaken her intent, she has no one to blame for this except herself since (as is quite unfortunately common) she hasn't stated what her intent in the post was. In fact, when she has been challenged to explain what her point for a post was in the past, she has steadfastly refused to do so in almost every case. I think that she can hardly blame her readers for misunderstanding her (if they have in fact done so), given her apparent reticence to make herself clear.

Combox Interaction With Carrie on Redemptoris Missio - 1

Based on this comment here.

Carrie quoted me saying Of course not everyone who dies without having made a Protestant profession of faith goes to hell.

She responded to that: That is not what I asked - you're still dodging.

Perhaps she needs to restate what she thinks she asked, because what she asked was this:

will all who die without personally accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour go to hell?

"Personally accepting Christ as Lord and Savior" is a textbook definition of what I called making a "Protestant profession of faith."

If she cares to either rephrase the question if I misunderstood her, or explain how that is not a "Protestant profession of faith," by all means she should do so. In either case, I didn't dodge her question - not the first time she falsely claimed this (see below), nor especially the second time.

The first time she mistakenly claimed that I "dodged" her question, I answered it with a question whose obvious answer - even from a Protestant viewpoint - makes her original question (in red and bold above in this post) look ridiculous. I know of no Protestant group which claims that every baby goes to hell, and Catholics don't think that any do. Babies obviously don't have the opportunity to "personally accept Christ as their Lord and Savior," not all of them (according to all Protestants of which I'm aware) or none of them (according to Catholics and, probably, at least some Protestants) go to hell, and therefore the obvious answer to her question is No.

Now, if she still thinks I'm dodging her question, she is going to have to be more specific in what she is asking...and also explain why she thinks my responses have dodged it.