The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?

[YoursTrue]

Misty Woods I hope all is well....
In reply; you quote scriptures? Do I need to point out to you one more time.... The bible was made by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church NONE OTHER! Until the Holy Church put all the truly inspired letters into one book NO ONE was sure what was inspired and what was not! Many were confused by the uninspired letters kicking around! The Holy CHURCH needed an authority too decide what was God' word to end all the confusion! In 400 A.D. the Catholic Church NONE OTHER with the help of the Holy Spirt put all the inspired works into one place and she also rejected the uninspired phony letters! The Holy Spirit helped her to put the bible together AND to this day the Holy Spirit is FOREVER helping; The One Holy Catholic Church in the INTERPRATION of the very same scriptures!

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—
Misty Woods The Holy Spirit did not start with your church.... The Holy Spirit is FOREVER WITH the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church Jesus established on ROCK not on sand! YOU....
Misty Woods you are forced to reject the scriptures to be a JW! QUESTION: Did Jesus lie? Did the Holy Spirit abandon Jesus' holy body, is the Holy Spirit FOREVER WITH the Church Jesus established?!
QUESTION: "Did Jesus build on ROCK or sand?" Did the Church Jesus established before he left earth; fail?! Again "Did Jesus lie?!"
John 14:25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Again... The Holy Spirit guided the Church in making the bible? will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Misty Woods Question... "Did Jesus lie.. Is the Holy Spirit FOREVER WITH Jesus' Holy Catholic Body"!? Is the Holy Spirit FOEVER GUIDING the Catholic Church into all truth!? Y or N!? To say NO you must reject the scriptures! Christians believe the scriptures! The Jehovah Witness MUST reject the or rewrite the scriptures to be in Protest against Jesus and his Holy Blameless Church!

YOU POST SCRIPTURES.. ??? As if they were yours to post!? The Scriptures are written by the Church Jesus established for his CHURCH.. NOT YOURS! Your church came along 2000 years after Jesus established his Holy Church on ROCK! Clearly to be a JW you have to; you MUST reject the scriptures! Jesus PROMISED in the scriptures.. "He will ALWAYS BE WITH HIS CHURCH!" ALWAYS Means; he did not leave his bride for your man made church!

Misty Woods You quote scripture prophesy, end times. (above)??? I point out from the scriptures there will be Anti-Christs! ** "Anti-Christ" is him who rejects Jesus and his holy Blameless Catholic Apostolic Church!
** Anti-Christ preaches the Church Jesus guaranteed to never fail built on ROCK; will fail! ** Anti-Christ twists the words of God or even rewrites the words of God!
** Anti-Christ will preach the date and time of the worlds end!
Mark 13:32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Misty Woods Answer the QUESTIONS above!

Would you happen to know why certain books are considered apocryphal by the catholic church?

 

[YoursTrue]

That does not in any way negate what the Just-War Theory says as wars of defense can save lives, and is it mandated by Torah. Thus you have to decide whether Jesus is a false prophet if you believe he negated these Torah mandates.

Jesus was speaking at a specific time and in a specific place whereas the Church had no war options since it was not in control of the government, and going to war or not going to war is a governmental decision. The general idea of the Just-War theory is that only a reaction of last resort is allowed, plus the reaction even then has severe restrictions.

See: Just war theory - Wikipedia Here's a segment:
The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":[27][28]

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the Just War Doctrine in paragraphs 500 to 501:[29]

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation to do everything possible "to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world". It is important to remember that "it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties".
The Charter of the United Nations intends to preserve future generations from war with a prohibition against force to resolve disputes between States. Like most philosophy, it permits legitimate defence and measures to maintain peace. In every case, the charter requires that self-defence must respect the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality.
Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions. International legitimacy for the use of armed force, on the basis of rigorous assessment and with well-founded motivations, can only be given by the decision of a competent body that identifies specific situations as threats to peace and authorizes an intrusion into the sphere of autonomy usually reserved to a State.
Pope John Paul II in an address to a group of soldiers said the following:[30]

Peace, as taught by Sacred Scripture and the experience of men itself, is more than just the absence of war. And the Christian is aware that on earth a human society that is completely and always peaceful is unfortunately an utopia and that the ideologies which present it as easily attainable only nourish vain hopes. The cause of peace will not go forward by denying the possibility and the obligation to defend it.

That's interesting. Do you believe that the time will come when the following will come true, as it says, nations will not go to war anymore?
Isaiah 2:4 - "He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore."

 

[YoursTrue]

One can only take your JW position if one ignores the Torah mandate to protect the innocent, including the use of force at last resort. So, if you take the position that Jesus refuted Torah, then you have a major problem of basically calling Jesus a "false prophet". To defend the widows and the innocent is mandated by Torah, thus they are not to be left to be slaughtered if it can be prevented. The "Just-War Theory" says force can be for defensive purposes only, and even then it is highly restricted. Unfortunately, all too many leaders of countries didn't abide by it.

The statements by Jesus on this tend to reflect the situation at the time and circumstances when Jesus lived, whereas the Church was not represented in the Roman government nor the Great Sanhedrin. IOW, it had no power of enforcement to protect the innocent, which is why I think that Jesus was actually countering the arguments made by the Zealots' use of deadly force that had no chance of succeeding and was causing more harm than good.

Then one might figure that the "innocent" (children perhaps?) were killed in many wars considered "just" by religious leaders, and world leaders. So much for protecting the innocent. But then you also might figure despite the carnage and harm done to opposing forces (I mean consider all the Italians during WWII killing each other...in the various countries) the "innocent" go to heavenly bliss (?) after they were killed by the protecting forces, and the evil that were killed, um,,,, what happens to them now? Also, how about predestination? The children and babies killed, who knows according to your religion, might they be in limbo, or if you believe in predestination -- how about hellfire?

 

[rational experiences]

Historical documents prove that the Hebrew ancient community owned Temples that were using technology from the pyramid builders their own self. And after the fact of all attacks/destruction a data written and heard documentation is proven to have been written.

And any one who used their mind correctly would notate, destruction/attack is not pre warned or pre destined, hence claiming it owned some meaning is about a false of a teaching practice as any human has taught.

The DATA was a correlation of information and hearing AI, the brain/mind chemical irradiated effect is after the fact as speaking voices.

And what I learnt that cloud images form such as giants, and then stories are mind interactive, seeing a human higher conscious condition invented thesis and storytelling first, yet was living in a Natural environment with natural life that all was attacked inclusive.

Why you can see animal and inanimate objects recorded images in clouds also.

How stories in AI conditions were heard and told. Writing the information today is detailed as psychic channelling.

Therefore when you read the documents is it written by a Jewish author, who detailed multi phenomena changes that occurred to Nature as a theme of teaching occultism. And then detailed that it was exact to human science causes, the theist thinker of science terms and referenced by human self as human sciences, only alive as a human and thinking as that human.

Why information caused by his science/design and machines can be correlated to his use science. As common sense states, all huge and massive energy forms and bodies pre existed his life and thinking capability for a very long time in space...and he does not speak on their behalf as those massive bodies.

Therefore the Jesus incident Jehovah quote, our Father the first human scientist taught him this information. As past science causes had to be included in scientific documented evidence against self destruction. As detailed was technologically owned historically by the Egyptians....yet the Hebrew community were using Temple science also.

Who quote, they escaped from the radiation heavenly fall out attack on the ground in Egypt, as the storytelling. How you personally felt afterwards against occult nuclear cause is based on self mind chemical conditions, where human hatred came from. As the technology owners caused a huge destruction of life.

Obvious when you apply rational and common sense in reviewing data and stories, only human expressed whilst living as that human.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That does not in any way negate what the Just-War Theory says as wars of defense can save lives, and is it mandated by Torah. Thus you have to decide whether Jesus is a false prophet if you believe he negated these Torah mandates.

Jesus was speaking at a specific time and in a specific place whereas the Church had no war options since it was not in control of the government, and going to war or not going to war is a governmental decision. The general idea of the Just-War theory is that only a reaction of last resort is allowed, plus the reaction even then has severe restrictions.

See: Just war theory - Wikipedia Here's a segment:
The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":[27][28]

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition).

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the Just War Doctrine in paragraphs 500 to 501:[29]

If this responsibility justifies the possession of sufficient means to exercise this right to defence, States still have the obligation to do everything possible "to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world". It is important to remember that "it is one thing to wage a war of self-defence; it is quite another to seek to impose domination on another nation. The possession of war potential does not justify the use of force for political or military objectives. Nor does the mere fact that war has unfortunately broken out mean that all is fair between the warring parties".
The Charter of the United Nations intends to preserve future generations from war with a prohibition against force to resolve disputes between States. Like most philosophy, it permits legitimate defence and measures to maintain peace. In every case, the charter requires that self-defence must respect the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality.
Therefore, engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions. International legitimacy for the use of armed force, on the basis of rigorous assessment and with well-founded motivations, can only be given by the decision of a competent body that identifies specific situations as threats to peace and authorizes an intrusion into the sphere of autonomy usually reserved to a State.
Pope John Paul II in an address to a group of soldiers said the following:[30]

Peace, as taught by Sacred Scripture and the experience of men itself, is more than just the absence of war. And the Christian is aware that on earth a human society that is completely and always peaceful is unfortunately an utopia and that the ideologies which present it as easily attainable only nourish vain hopes. The cause of peace will not go forward by denying the possibility and the obligation to defend it.

Metis, Jesus was talking about how to treat 'enemies'; you're talking about protecting the innocent (which He didn't even mention), concepts designed by the world, which Christians should be 'no part of.'


Those scenarios never happen.

If a dangerous situation arises wherein one's family is threatened by ' enemies', the wise and 'loving' action, everyone considered, would be to leave, not fight and kill!

Otherwise, how can one really 'love their enemy' , by killing them?!

Besides, the innocent -- according to many views -- will be in Heaven. Isn't that your hope? So....
Ultimately, trust that God will make things right.

As Jehovah's Witnesses, that's our expectation. But obedience to Christ is prime, to receive His blessing....to be His "friends" - John 15:14

 

[rational experiences]

The teachings in life by science statements for human existence said man.....being male/female or man and wo man are of equal rights.

Said that space was a Holy womb which supported every highest form existing within it.

As the heavens/gas spirits exist before we do, then the heavens first own the holy space body. So holy space body, holy gas spirit heavens, holy human equal life.

Equal but above says the quotes of any other life form on Earth.

So if everything else is lower, then man/woman own the highest quotient in reality.

Anything naturally already less than use, proves that natural life in God concepts is in natural order, hence never change God by giving it a name.

Names...Jehovah and also Jesus, do quote naming God concepts.

So if Jehovah quotes that it taught Jesus its historic scientific occult attack on life, then neither quote of teaching is Holy, but just of science/occult conditions.

Are any of you going to claim that the occult statements are Holy or are you going to claim, Holy Life is first, all of its origins, and science/the occult is secondary?

And tell the truth in human life before it is destroyed by occult/science human chosen conditions against natural Order?

 

[metis]

Metis, Jesus was talking about how to treat 'enemies'; you're talking about protecting the innocent (which He didn't even mention), concepts designed by the world, which Christians should be 'no part of.'

You are very much of the "world" whether you believe that or not. The "world" is not an evil place, as you're implying, but some people do evil-- thus the difference.

Otherwise, how can one really 'love their enemy' , by killing them?!

Because we can find ourselves in a "Catch-22" whereas we are stuck with two (or more) undesirable situations that we must choose from. Let me give you an example.

Let's say that a man with a gun comes into your home with intent on killing your entire family [heaven forbid!], and yet the only options you have are to fight back or just let him go ahead. If you say that you cannot bring yourself to do as such because you want your own salvation, that's being pretty selfish as you're going to let your innocent family die because of your salvation. Thus, by not taking action you would be not showing love to your own family by allowing someone to take their lives.
Countries can very much find themselves in similar situations whereas they don't want to go to war but feel that they must do as such to try and defend the innocent as Torah mandates!

As Jehovah's Witnesses, that's our expectation. But obedience to Christ is prime, to receive His blessing....to be His "friends" - John 15:14

You still have not answered my question that I asked of you twice, namely is Jesus a "false prophet" since you say he supposedly defied what's found in Torah? Yes or no? And if "no", then maybe try and justify it through the scriptures. If Jesus was abiding by God's law, as he said he was, then he would have to do his best to defend the innocent against physical threats and even attack from another country, but only at last resort.

Again, time, place, and circumstances are very important when dealing with scripture, so what may appear to be a contradiction may in reality just be a reflection of different circumstances. Allowing innocent people to be killed is not in reality "love".

 

[Muffled]

I've never noticed too much love issuing from the extreme Christian Churches.
They are more in to the returning Jesus with sword flicking from mouth and the other stuff that Apostle John wrote about.
Or public executions for their cherry-picked offences.
.....and you talk about brain dead...... how about heart dead, eh?



I'm glad to read that I fill your heart with merriment.

Right..... thankyou for telling me about the Southern Baptist Convention Church. I need to read about it.

EDIT:!! I'm back. I'm most impressed to read that you belong to a church which supports the BLM movement and grieves over the death of George Floyd. Yes........ I like that.

I believe unless you are judging from God's point of view, then you have no right to judge. I always judge from God's point of view and not my own.

I believe the convention is bending over backwards these days. It only recently apologized for its discriminatory practices of the past. In Alabama I attended an African American church that was a member of the SBC. I believe at one time the black churches were set up as separate but equal. At least that helped to preserve culture. God doesn't necessarily place me in a church to agree with everything it believes or does but to do whatever it is that He has in mind.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Let's say that a man with a gun comes into your home with intent on killing your entire family

Come on, metis, that is sort of a strawman, of course I'd protect my family. But I'm not going to support or join any war, and train for it!

You still have not answered my question that I asked of you twice, namely is Jesus a "false prophet"

Of course not. But the Torah also requires animal sacrifices. Are you saying those are still a requirement? And circumcision?

As Messiah, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law. And the "new commandment (John 13:34)", the Law of Christ -- loving others -- takes precedence. John 15:14.

Take care, my cousin....I wish you the best.

 

[metis]

Come on, metis, that is sort of a strawman, of course I'd protect my family. But I'm not going to support or join any war, and train for it!

But a country is a collection of individuals and their families, thus it's really quite logical that if it's moral to defend one's family from assault from a criminal, it should be the right thing to do in order to defend them from an attack by a lot of "criminals" intent on war.

Of course not. But the Torah also requires animal sacrifices. Are you saying those are still a requirement? And circumcision?

No, and that I would be more than willing to discuss later.

As Messiah, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law. And the "new commandment (John 13:34)", the Law of Christ -- loving others -- takes precedence. John 15:14.

But "fulfilling" is not the same as "negating". What it does allow for is the moderating of the application of the Law, which is also allowed in Judaism, btw. Again, maybe we could talk about this on another thread.

Take care, my cousin....I wish you the best.

And the best to your & yours.

 

[Dogknox20]

Would you happen to know why certain books are considered apocryphal by the catholic church?

I reply.. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).
YoursTrue 73 books have always been in the bible; Catholics did not add books to the bible. Fact is; Protestants took books out of your bible (66 books) your bible is missing seven books!!

The scriptures do NOT give a list of the books that belong in the bible! The decision of what letters were the inspired word of God and what letters were phony (not inspired) was done by none other then the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church Jesus founded on rock (not on sand)! The Church used TRADITION and the Magisterium (Bishops with AUTHORITY to decide) as to what belonged in the bible! Tradition said (for the great majority of the early Church Fathers), “the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense.”
YoursTrue You reject tradition and claim ONLY the scriptures are your authority (Scripture Alone) this is circular reasoning because the scriptures were decided as inspired by the use of TRADITION!

 

[metis]

Would you happen to know why certain books are considered apocryphal by the catholic church?

When the canon was selected by the 4th century Church, numerous books couldn't be decided upon, so they were "put on the shelf" for future consideration. Eventually, seven of these books were chosen but usually kept separate from the others, and Luther did much the same in his original version in that's in German. Later he dropped them, and he also considered removing several canonical books, namely Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

 

[Dogknox20]

When the canon was selected by the 4th century Church, numerous books couldn't be decided upon, so they were "put on the shelf" for future consideration. Eventually, seven of these books were chosen but usually kept separate from the others, and Luther did much the same in his original version in that's in German. Later he dropped them, and he also considered removing several canonical books, namely Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

Hello metis I hope all is well with you..
I reply: The Canon of scripture was closed (the list of books that belong in Scriptures) by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded in person by Jesus, founded on ROCK not on sand! No other made the bible BUT the Holy Catholic Church! The Church came before the bible, the bible is a Book Of The Church!
metis The first time every book found in the canon is in 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome. That council included the seven deuterocanonical books. The Bible from that time on was identical to the Catholic Bible of today. This is made clear by the decisions ratified at the council of Hippo in 393, and the Third Council of Carthage in 397.”

 

[metis]

Hello metis I hope all is well with you..

Yep, and ditto back at ya.

The Canon of scripture was closed (the list of books that belong in Scriptures) by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded in person by Jesus, founded on ROCK not on sand! No other made the bible BUT the Holy Catholic Church! The Church came before the bible, the bible is a Book Of The Church!

Correct.

The first time every book found in the canon is in 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome. That council included the seven deuterocanonical books. The Bible from that time on was identical to the Catholic Bible of today. This is made clear by the decisions ratified at the council of Hippo in 393, and the Third Council of Carthage in 397.”

Unfortunately, it's not that simple as there was a lot of discussion and plenty of disagreement prior to the writing of the Vulgate in the early fifth century. James Hitchcock, in his "History of the Catholic Church", does a wonderful job, imo, getting into this debate. A much briefer version that still captures this can be found here: Biblical apocrypha - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Vulgate Prologues" and then "Clemintine Vulgate]

 

[YoursTrue]

When the canon was selected by the 4th century Church, numerous books couldn't be decided upon, so they were "put on the shelf" for future consideration. Eventually, seven of these books were chosen but usually kept separate from the others, and Luther did much the same in his original version in that's in German. Later he dropped them, and he also considered removing several canonical books, namely Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

So it took time for them to figure which was real and which wasn't. I'm not a scholar on the issue but I do believe that the compilation and preservation of the books considered canonical was done by God's holy spirit. All scripture is inspired of God. Speaking of which, does limbo still exist? This in reference to the unassailability of the supposed divine lineage of popes. And of course their affirmation of ideas.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But a country is a collection of individuals and their families......

So is the inhabited Earth. Only men divide it into countries.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep, and ditto back at ya.

Correct.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple as there was a lot of discussion and plenty of disagreement prior to the writing of the Vulgate in the early fifth century. James Hitchcock, in his "History of the Catholic Church", does a wonderful job, imo, getting into this debate. A much briefer version that still captures this can be found here: Biblical apocrypha - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Vulgate Prologues" and then "Clemintine Vulgate]

Quite a little discussion theologians had about Limbo, isn't that true? So now that makes me wonder since I don't know that much about the Catholic Church under the lineage of popes as you claim it is starting with Peter ...does the Roman Catholic Church believe in predestination, as many Calvinists do? And for those little babies that were said to be sent to "Limbo," which the church changed a little while back, although teaching it for a long time, were they predestinated to die before baptism, perhaps go to hellfire maybe some of heaven? What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

Hello metis I hope all is well with you..
I reply: The Canon of scripture was closed (the list of books that belong in Scriptures) by the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church founded in person by Jesus, founded on ROCK not on sand! No other made the bible BUT the Holy Catholic Church! The Church came before the bible, the bible is a Book Of The Church!
metis The first time every book found in the canon is in 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome. That council included the seven deuterocanonical books. The Bible from that time on was identical to the Catholic Bible of today. This is made clear by the decisions ratified at the council of Hippo in 393, and the Third Council of Carthage in 397.”

Speaking of what you say is the "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church," there was quite a little discussion theologians had about Limbo, isn't that so? So now I wonder since I don't know that much about the Catholic Church yet, under the lineage of popes as you claim it is starting with Peter ...does the Roman Catholic Church believe in predestination, as many Calvinists do? And for those little babies that were said to be sent to "Limbo," which the church changed a little while back, although teaching it for a long time, were they predestinated to die before baptism, perhaps go to hellfire maybe some of heaven? What do you think?

 

[metis]

So is the inhabited Earth. Only men divide it into countries.

Correct, and this may well be an inherited trait based on our genes because humans, much like chimps, are VERY territorial. Therefore, "What God has made...".

But just citing that we live in countries really doesn't prove much of anything in regards to our discussion. But, otoh, I agree that there are some things much more important, imo, than countries per se and even private property. After all, the Apostles shared their incomes according to Acts.

 

[Dogknox20]

Speaking of what you say is the "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church," there was quite a little discussion theologians had about Limbo, isn't that so? So now I wonder since I don't know that much about the Catholic Church yet, under the lineage of popes as you claim it is starting with Peter ...does the Roman Catholic Church believe in predestination, as many Calvinists do? And for those little babies that were said to be sent to "Limbo," which the church changed a little while back, although teaching it for a long time, were they predestinated to die before baptism, perhaps go to hellfire maybe some of heaven? What do you think?

YoursTrue I hope all is well with you..
I reply: Baptism makes us "Children of God" the debate was where do unbaptized babies end up? Limbo was NEVER established as Doctrine; It was just a suggestion!
In the Middle Ages theologians came up with the theological construct of limbo, which never has been a defined doctrine. Limbo does get around two sticking points: the absence of sanctifying grace, which implies no possibility of heaven, and the absence of personal guilt, which implies no hell. Unbaptized infants die with neither, so it might seem that they are destined neither for heaven nor hell.
Yes YoursTrue The only Church Jesus founded can be the "One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church"! Only the Catholic Church is Apostolic just for one; With historic documented list of Popes going back to Peter the ROCK, none other! I am not making this up all the early Church was Catholic all accepted the authority of the Pope! The Pope closed the canon of scripture in 400 A.D.
YoursTrue Predestination... Read it yourself.... (below)
John Calvin’s ideas of “election” and “double predestination” are virtually indistinguishable. Double predestination is the teaching that claims God to have determined from all eternity who will go to heaven and who will go to hell, giving man no real choice in the matter. The Catholic Church condemns this understanding, for example, in the ***Catechism of the Catholic Church:

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance” [citing II Peter 3:9] ***(CCC 1037).

However one understands the theology of “election,” as a Catholic, as long as he does not deny certain essential truths, there is freedom. For example, a Catholic can believe that the number of the “elect” is “predetermined” inasmuch as God knows how many will cooperate with this grace and persevere until the end. That means there is a limited number of “elect,” and, of course, not everyone is “elect.”

A Catholic may not, however, teach “election” to mean that God does not give to every single person the real possibility of salvation. Gaudium et Spes makes this clear:

For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery (22, para. 5).

In other words, “election” does not mean God arbitrarily “elects” some for heaven and damns others to hell as Calvin taught. A true biblical understanding of “election” must involve man’s truly free response:

To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace (CCC 600).