Because of the imaculate conception does it mean that Mary is like Jesus' sister since they where both concieved by women and God?

-- Joshua Grace (amzgrace78@hotmail.com), June 07, 2001

Answers

+JMJ

Mary is the mother of Jesus. Mary is not a sister or like a sister to Jesus, I don't know how you can deduce this?

We agree that Jesus is God - right? Mary became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. God became man(in Mary's womb) and dwelt among us. This is why Catholics say Mary is the Mother of God because Jesus is God.

God could not dwell in the womb of Mary for nine months if she still suffered from the taint of original sin, so God, by the merit of Jesus' passion on the cross, saved Mary from original sin at birth. This is what Catholics call the Immaculate Conception.

O.K. - Now I understand your question.

Mary was conceived by a father and a mother just like you and I. Mary was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, only Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The Immaculate Conception only refers to Mary's conception being without sin. God was then able to dwell in the womb of Mary.

I pray this didn't cause more confusion.

Here's someting neat,

In the Old Testament we are told there are three items in the Ark of the Convenant they were: The stone tablets containg the Word of God - the Ten Commandments The Staff of the high Priest Aaron A jar of Manna

In the womb of Mary dwelt Jesus: The Word of God Incarnate Our true High Priest The true Bread of Heaven

Mary's womb,thus Mary herself became the Ark of the New Convenant!

-- Michael (williams007@aol.com), June 07, 2001.

Thanks for posting that great answer, Michael. Your knowledge is very deep, even though you have just recently been received into the Church. Let me embrace you and welcome you to our Catholic family!

God bless you.
John

-- (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), June 08, 2001.

+JMJ

Thanks John, I appreciate the kind words.

-- Michael (williams007@aol.com), June 12, 2001.

My answer involvles a whole other question in these concepts. Some Church History first: 1, There is no where in scripture that states that any of us were born with original sin. In the Genisis story, Adam passed on the loss of immortatily, in otherwords, what he passed on was death for all generations until Jesus as the New Adam broke the bonds of death and opened the gates of eternal life. From Genisis it says, "... By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."(Gen 3:19) "Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; anmd now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever' - therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out and at the eastof the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life."Gen 3:22-24. It definitly states that death is passed on from Adam, But nowhere does it state that sin is. Interestingly, in the Jewish religion, our precurser, there is no belief in original sin. The only refernce to what happened with Adam in the new Testament is in Romans. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through the sin of one man, and death came through sin, so death spread to all because all have sinned - sin was indeed in the world before the law , but sin is not reckoned when there is no law.Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses,even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to came. "... For if the many died through the one mans trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many."(Rom 5:12-14), and it continues in the same vain. 2. The concept of original sin was first developed in the 4thc.AD by St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the Doctors of the Church. St Augustine was translating as faulty Latin Translation which left out the word death, This translation comes from the original Greek scholars: "...as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MAN BECAUSE ALL MEN SINNED.". The translation St. Augustine instead of "because all men sinned.", he says "... through sin, death, and thus spread to all men, IN WHOM ALL HAVE SINNED have sinned.".(Peter de Rosa, "Christ and Original Sin",1967 pg 100.). If you look at the original texts of St Augustines writing on original sin, it's fairly obvious that what he wrote was not scripturally based. (*Writings of St Agustine of Hippo, from an article by Frank Smitha, Antiquity Online.). So what does all this have to do with the Immaculate Conception of Mary? It's not an attempt to say she was conceived without sin, But as I believe so were we all. It's not to say that we all aren't sinners and in the need of salvation which we have through Jesus' death and resurection, but it means that we can celebrate Mary's sinless and perfect life in a complete concept of the Humaness of Christ, without which his death and resurection mean anything. Patricia

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 16, 2002.

Patricia:
You lead off with a serious mistake:

''Some Church History first: 1, There is no where in scripture that states that any of us were born with original sin.''

Patricia, Scripture is very clear we fell from grace because of Adam's disobedience. Death is the wages of sin. All die, even infants. We would still be living in the garden of Eden if it weren't for Original Sin.

In any case, you assign to the Bible more than what God assigns. There is nothing written there which states we must find a biblical formula for every revealed doctrine. That idea is strictly a protestant one and has no basis in scripture. So, even if you can't ''prove'' Original sin by a Bible passage, we have been given that truth by God, His holy prophets and saints, and in conclusion, Jesus Christ and his Church. That is equivalent to reading a verse in the Bible. More than equivalent, it is just as inspired.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

Patricia,

The reasoning behind the error of baptizing babies and infants is to remove “original sin” so that if they die they will go to heaven.

The Bible teaches each person is accountable to God for their own sins, NOT the sins of others.

Ask your Jewish friends. The concept of “original sin” is foreign to Judaism.

We are not held responsible to God for Adam’s sin. Babies are not born separated from God. Therefore there is no need to remove “original sin.”

Baptizing an infant is an ATTEMPT to remove sin that is not there.

Sin is disobeying God’s commands. Sin is falling short of His laws.

What command has a baby disobeyed? Babies are NOT lost.

The concept of “original sin” is a false teaching that prevents people from being baptized correctly.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 16, 2002.

Dear Patricia:
If we listen to this anonymous intruder, all we'll do is inflate his ego-- we'll learn no truth from him. He plays at Bible scholar-- his learning is all from false prophets. Naturally he doesn't believe the Catholic Church's teaching. He is a bibliolater. We have to pray for him.

Holy Lord and God our Father, shed Thy light in the path of your falling servant, ''a'' for anonymous, that someday by the infinite merits of Our Beloved Saviour Thy Son, he may find grace and conversion. Break O Lord the spell which Satan has cast on ''a'' which gives him comfort in such darkness. Through Jesus Christ Our Lord, who reigns with Thee together with the Holy Spirit, One God forever and ever, AMEN.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

Thank you 'A Christian, for your brilliant understand of the creative goodness of God, as our Creator stated after each creation 'It was Good'.

Now Eugene, What tells us or where do we find out what this truth is? That an infant child, could be tainted by the sins of their parents and their parents ect. This child created by man and woman through the power and blessing of our Creator in the continual re- creation of our world, is a gift from God. Why would God give a gift that is already considered evil?, needing forgiveness because of what?, it's parents had sex?

You say 'death are the wages of sin, all must die. Isn't that also taking a scriptural verse and putting it in your context of truth?

Your truth of original sin was written first by Augustine of Hippo in the end of the 4th, beginning of the 5th century. He wrote what eventually was accepted as "truth", in the Council of Trent in the 16th century. His basis was that anything pleasurable could not be of God.

By pleasurable he talks about sex with lust, "A carpenter moves his hands (over the wood I presume) with out Lust, he added, so to could people in sexual intercourse."

I don't know if you are familiar with the Old Testamnet book "The Song of Solomon" or "Song of Songs", but this book describe a beautiful love story between what could be a man and woman. In actuality it was written about God's love for His people. The descriptins written go like : How beautiful you are my love, How very Beatiful! Your eyes are like doves behind your veil. Your Hair is like a flock of goats, moving down theslopes of Gilead..... Your lips like a crimson thread, and your mouth is lovely..... Your two breast are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, That feed amoung the lillies....." Song of Solomon, chap 4

I don't get the message that God thinks lust is bad. Augustine also discribes "...Infants at the breast as filled with lust, jealousy and other vices."

Augustine also describes just how this original sin is passed on from the soul of the parents to the body of the infant, it"...was passed down from Adam and Eve and from generation to generation through semen, with Jesus having escaped sin by having been born of a virgin"

I do believe that Mary was a virgin at the time of conception, but if she were a sinless human, that makes her above human according to what you hold as truth. In order for our salvation, Jesus had to have been born of a human, without any special attributes. If He wasn't fully human than the crucifiction makes no sense in freeing us from sin. It would have just been a nice jesture.

And one last note, if original sin was within everybody, and the wages of sin are death, and the only way to rid ourselves from that sin is through Baptism, does that mean that Moses, Abraham, Noah, all the prophets,and all those whobelieved in our God and/or were even persecuted for their belief in God, are never going to see the eternal kingdom because they weren't baptised?

Thankyou for your stimulating debate. Patricia

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 16, 2002.

Patricia,

Eugene claims that I worship that Bible. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I worship God and obey his commandments. Eugene on the other hand, claims to worship God, but he does not tell the truth.

This is why. Eugene claims that he was baptized for the remission of sin as a baby. In order to be saved, one must OBEY the gospel.

Babies do not have the capacity to obey, so they are NOT suitable candidates to be baptized.

Jesus said in John 14:15, ?If you love Me, keep My commandments.? Hebrews 11:6 says that he who comes to God MUST believe that He is. A baby CANNOT believe in God now can they? In the same verse, God says that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Once again, a baby DOES NOT have the capacity to do seek now do they?

Galatians 3:26 says, ?For you are all sons of God THROUGH FAITH in Christ Jesus.? Which baby is able to have faith?

Then Eugene said a prayer that God did not hear because Eugene has not obeyed the gospel. John 9:31 says, ?Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.?

Please notice that if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. To claim that one can be baptized without faith is to deny Jesus meant what He said in His Word. Jesus did not say He who is baptized and then believes will be saved, He said, ?He who believes and is baptized will be saved.? (Mark 16:16).

Heaven is for every one who wants it and is willing to submit to God on His terms. We need to remember that no one gets to heaven by accident. Those who are saved are saved because they were willing to search for the Lord's way and when they found it they were willing to obey the truth, no matter what sacrifice might be involved.

God calls or draws men to Jesus through the teaching of His word, the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14; John 6:44-45). As you and I hear that gospel message, it is then up to us to either receive it or reject it.

What will your answer be? Are you right now a receiver or rejecter of the spiritual life and salvation that God offers you through Christ?

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 16, 2002.

A baby CANNOT believe in God now can they? In the same verse, God says that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Once again, a baby DOES NOT have the capacity to do seek now do they?

Galatians 3:26 says, ?For you are all sons of God THROUGH FAITH in Christ Jesus.? Which baby is able to have faith?

This is a pretty dumb thing to say. How do YOU know whether babies can believe in God or not? For all you KNOW, they may be closer to Him than you are! Just because someone doesn't interpret or express things like an adult does doesn't mean they aren't people. What's next, are you going to say abortion is legal up until the child is old enough to believe?

Get back to Jesus' Church, quit making up error for yourself.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 16, 2002.

No, this is a stupid thing to say, "How do YOU know whether babies can believe in God or not? For all you KNOW, they may be closer to Him than you are! Just because someone doesn't interpret or express things like an adult does doesn't mean they aren't people."

Get real Frank. A baby has to be taught to do things now don't they? To say that a baby can believe in God just shows your ignorance. A baby cannot believe, nor can it seek God, nor can it confess Jesus is Lord, nor can it repent. To say that we don't know if a baby can believe in God is just plain ignorant.

An equally ignorant remark is made when Frank says, "What's next, are you going to say abortion is legal up until the child is old enough to believe?"

Please...I never said any such thing, nor did I even infer this to be the case. Error begets error.

Obey the gospel, that is the power of God to salvation. This is something else that a baby is NOT able to do.

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 16, 2002.

Dear ''a""--
Why have you rejected the Holy Gospel? You follow after the schemes of men, not the apostles of Christ.

It was prophesied in Paul's epistles and others we had to expect false prophets who would instruct the faithful in false doctrine; ''The Spirit expressly says that in after times some will depart from the faith.'' (Tim 4) and 2 Tim, Ch 4) ''For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears will heap up to themselves teachers according to their own lusts and they will turn away their hearing from the truth, and turn aside rather to fables.'' Saint Paul further says to us, that with negative influences such as ''a'' we should make peace. ''Avoid a factitious man after a first and second admonition, knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being self-condemned. (Tit 3 :10-11) The poor man is in darkness; let's pray for him.

Beloved Saviour Jesus Christ, we commend to Thy boundless mercy the soul of ''a'' the anonymous; whom Thou surely knowest by his given name; forgive him his sins and bring him one day to everlasting life. Amen

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

Eugene,

I have obeyed the gospel on the other hand, all you did when you were baptized was you got wet.

Yes, the Bible warns of departure from the faith, but it is the Catholic Church that it warns of.

Eugene quotes 1 Tim 4:1 however, what he fails to quote is verse 3 which states ?forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.?

This most certainly is speaking of the Catholic Church who forbids their priests to marry and during Lent forces their members to abstain from food.

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 16, 2002.

Scriptural baptism is preceded by faith, repentance and confession.

Infant baptism is preceded by neither.

To practice baptism before faith, repentance and confession is to pervert the gospel.

Anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).

The Catholic Church and denominations who practice infant baptism are going beyond the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).

Infant baptism makes the law of Christ of no effect. Jesus taught that every creature is to believe, repent, confess and be baptized, but Catholics and others who advocate infant baptism NULLIFY this command of Christ.

Those who practice infant baptism, will have to answer to God for having changed His law, for having put a human law in its place.

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 16, 2002.

"A"

Do you think babies will go to Hell? How about a bushman who's never heard of Jesus, will he go to Hell?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 16, 2002.

Hopefully obviously, I mean if the baby & bushman die before hearing about Jesus.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 16, 2002.

Ok. You guys are way out of control. Jesus would shake his head at the scribes and pharisies. When I had my four children baptised, or Christened in the Catholic Church, The Rite was not directed to the baby as a believer but to the parents, Godparents and the Community of believers to commit to bringing up this child with-in the teachings of the Church. At confirmation which is offered to high school age or older, those who choose on their own to be followers of Christ receive the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said they will be baptised by fire and the Holy Spirit.

It's one thing to have a friendly debate, but judging and name calling are not in the picxture. We all believe in one God. We were taught by Jesus that we must love God with our whole heart, mind annd soul and love EACHOTHER as ourselves. Jesus teaches compassion and acceptance of differences, as he cured the Samaritan people numerous times through out the Goespels. Let's not loose site of our real desire by focusing on the insignificant. None of us really know what the meaning is behind these interpretations.Our faith does not develop over words and texts but from having a real prayer life and a personal relationship with our God. If we can do this, than compassion and trust in our God, however we experience Him/Her becomes our way of life and our path to God.

Is not our real goal to stand before the face of God in truth?

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

GOD SAVE US FROM YOUR BELIEVERS!

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

I wish you all the peace that God sets in our hearts and the knowledge of God's incredible love for each of you. We are the Children of God, we are the chosen. All's we need to do is accept this love and follow God's path, "Pick up your cross and follow me" Jesus said. We all have our lessons to learn, and we all have a God that devotes his full attention on us. This advent season we need to focus not only on His coming birth. but also his coming to us everyday from with in ourselves and the Christ who comes to us through all others, and then his final coming when He returns.

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

No Frank, babies do not go to hell. Babies have NO sin, so how could they go to hell?

As for the bushman who has never heard of Jesus, God once overlooked ignorance, but now COMMANDS all men to repent. (Acts 17:30).

Why is this the case?

Read the next verse, "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead."

To claim that someone who hasn't heard of Jesus will not be lost is to call God a liar.

There are NO more excuses.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

"A",

I don't understand your answer on the bushman. Are you saying that you do not believe there are ANY people in the world who have never had the Gospel preached to them? I thought my example was clear, but I guess it wasn't. What I meant was what about an adult who has never heard of Jesus or had the Gospel preached to them, do they go to Hell?

On the baby, I see you choose not to believe in original sin. If you think that babies will go to Heaven not because of *God's Grace*, but because they are sinless, at what age or maturity level is (in your opinion ;-) ) is someone old enough to sin their way out of Heaven?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2002.

GOD, RESCUE ME FROM YOUR BELIEVERS

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

Frank, What did I say? Did I say that IGNORANCE was no excuse? I thought my answer was clear, but obviously you did not read it did you?

Maturity level is different for each person. There is no exact number that someone can point to in this case. Sin is the transgression of God's law. We all sin when we break God’s law.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

Good luck on Judgement Day.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2002.

Frank says, "Good luck on Judgement Day."

There is NO luck involved. If one has obeyed the gospel [and I have], and one continues to remain faithful until death or Jesus returns [whichever comes first], there is nothing to fear.

Denominations teach faith ONLY in Jesus without works [they mistakenly call baptism a work]. This is a lie. Read James chapter 2.

Catholics teach works [infant baptism] come before faith. This is also a lie. James says in James 2:20 that "faith without works is dead". So, one CANNOT have works WITHOUT faith.

Claiming faith DOES NOT prove faith. Even the demons believe, but they are NOT saved.

Those who are saved are those who HEAR the Word of God and OBEY. (Matthew 7:21-25, Romans 16:26).

Those who do NOT obey will suffer eternal punishment. (2 Thess. 1:8- 9).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

"If one has obeyed the gospel..."

But remember that there is only one true INTERPRETATION (key word - INTERPRETATION) of the Gospel. You may follow YOUR interpretation of the written Gospel, but the Catholic Church follows Jesus' True intention of the COMPLETE Gospel. This TRUE interpretation of the ENTIER Gospel is safeguarded inside the the Church that Christ founded. Don't get me wrong! The Bible is the TRUE written Word of God. However, without the correct interpritation and understanding, which Christ taught, accompanies the Bible, then the Bible is no more than a stack of ink and paper.

And please don't be so naive as to say that YOUR interpretation is true because it comes from Scripture. All 30,000 Protestant denoms. have different "interpretations" ALL? coming from Scripture. Hello? If the Gospel was so easily taken from Scripture, why are they all different?

Follow the Gospel of the Lord, dont follow the gospel of your imagination.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

A protestant writes:

"If one has obeyed the gospel [and I have], and one continues to remain faithful until death or Jesus returns [whichever comes first], there is nothing to fear."

The Bible states:

Philippians 2:12 - "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

Why do Protestants ignore the Bible?

A protestant writes:

"Catholics teach works [infant baptism] come before faith. This is also a lie. James says in James 2:20 that "faith without works is dead". So, one CANNOT have works WITHOUT faith."

Mr. Protestant, actually James' quote by itself cannot bring anyone to your conclusion. By your logic:

Grass without rain is dead. So, one cannot have rain WITHOUT grass.

Some Protestants believe that children cannot be baptized. Some believe that baptism is a mere symbol. I don't think that Protestants are homogenous in their beliefs in this arena. But, many protestants do only believe in a Heaven and a Hell. If the Bible teaches that we must be baptized (see here and here and John 3:5), and some Protestants like you believe that one must be fairly old (maybe 15-20 years?) before being baptized, a Protestant believer would have to conclude that all non-baptized young people who die are going to hell. That is, unless you believe that Jesus' teachings on Baptism were merely symbolic.

Well, here's more info regarding infant baptism.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 17, 2002.

A Christian, Earlier, Frank asked you if babies go to Heaven if they die without baptism. You then said of course they go to Heaven, they haven't sinned. But then a few posts later on, you state:

Those who are saved are those who HEAR the Word of God and OBEY. (Matthew 7:21-25, Romans 16:26). .

So again, do babies go to Heaven or not? They certainly can't HEAR the Word of God and OBEY.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), December 17, 2002.

Thank You, Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ;
In Your mercy giving us forever the Mother of all Christians, your Holy Catholic Church
For the working of Your divine will and the salvation of mankind.
To be for all the ages One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic; Your Mystical Body
Forever Living Militant in the world, her faithful awaiting Your return to Judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Souls who Suffer faithfully in Purgatory,

And with the Holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary Your Mother, Queen of Angels and Saints Triumphant
In the Glory of Our Almighty Father, Our Divine Saviour, and the Holy Spirit
One God forever and ever; World without end! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.

Mateo,

I have told you before that I am NOT a Protestant.

I do work out my salvation with “fear and trembling” just as Philippians 2:12 directs.

The Catholic Church doctrine of an "infallible interpreter" is another lie that you choose to believe that has NO scriptural support.

It implies that the people are too ignorant to understand the Word of God.

Was God in His infinite wisdom unable to make us clearly understand His Word without an interpreter? I think not.

The Bible teaches that each individual is responsible for himself and is not to blindly follow religious leaders. Jesus said in Matthew 7:15, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves"

The Bible NOWHERE implies that one is dependent on the Catholic Church for interpretation, it commands the individual Christian to test every teacher by the written word (1 John 4:1, Acts 17:11, 1 Thess. 5:21).

When the Jews relied on their priests to interpret God’s Word, this ultimately led them to crucify the Son of God.

Mateo says, “Grass without rain is dead. So, one cannot have rain WITHOUT grass.”

This is a bad analogy. The rain DOES NOT require grass now does it Mateo?

James says “faith without works is dead”.

Can one have works WITHOUT faith? If so Mateo, you should be able to provide me book chapter and verse in the NT where this is in fact true?

Please read Hebrews 11:1-3 again.

One CANNOT come to God WITHOUT faith. (Hebrews 11:6).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

Well from what I understand, in his opinion babies don't have to hear and obey because they don't have original sin, they are exempt. The poor bushman however gets an E ticket to Hell because he's responsible (somehow) for never having heard Jesus' words.

"A" one last question: We get you guys here every week, and every one of you has found a different "true" interpretation of the Bible. Why should I believe YOUR interpretation instead of last week's guy (or next week's) that is different from yours? What authority do you have (other than your own interpretation) that your version is correct?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2002.

My comment to Mateo, “I have told you before that I am NOT a Protestant.” should have been directed to Jake. Sorry for the confusion.

Glenn says, “So again, do babies go to Heaven or not? They certainly can't HEAR the Word of God and OBEY.”

Here it is again for you Glenn:

The reasoning behind the error of baptizing babies and infants is to remove “original sin” so that if they die they will go to heaven.

The Bible teaches each person is accountable to God for their own sins, NOT the sins of others.

Ask your Jewish friends. The concept of “original sin” is foreign to Judaism.

We are not held responsible to God for Adam’s sin. Babies are not born separated from God. Therefore there is no need to remove “original sin.”

Baptizing an infant is an ATTEMPT to remove sin that is not there.

Sin is disobeying God’s commands. Sin is falling short of His laws.

What command has a baby disobeyed? Babies are NOT lost.

The concept of “original sin” is a false teaching that prevents people from being baptized correctly.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

A Christian,

My point was you are arguing two different ways. You argue that any adult that has not heard of Jesus will go to Hell. Your argument is based on the fact that this person (Frank used an African bushman as his example) did not OBEY the Word of God and accept Jesus.

Well, babies do not OBEY the Word of God either. Yet you claim they are going to Heaven.

To take this one step further, let us suppose that Frank's bushman never sinned mortally. You might not use that word, but there sins that cause you to lose eternal life. Where does this bushman end up?

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), December 17, 2002.

Frank, as I have said before, and will continue to say, salvation can ONLY be acquired through the gospel. (Romans 1:16). Paul writes in Romans 10:17, ``So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ''.

Acquiring faith involves active participation in going to God's word to read it or hear it, to meditate upon it, to rightly divide it, and to correctly apply it.

In the parable of the sower, Jesus said that it was possible to UNDERSTAND His Word. Only those who keep God’s Word and bear fruit will be saved. (Luke 8:15). Jesus said in John 14:15 that those who love Him keep His commandments. Faith is a command, repentance is a command, confession is a command, baptism is a command and we are also commanded to grow in grace and knowledge. No one can come to God without faith. (Hebrews 11:6).

Glenn says, “Well, babies do not OBEY the Word of God either. Yet you claim they are going to Heaven.”

Babies have not sinned. What is the definition of sin Glenn? Can a baby disobey God? No they CANNOT, so babies have NOT sinned.

Jesus has been the ONLY human ever born who went through life sinless. Babies when they grow up sin when they break God’s commandments.

Then Glenn says, “To take this one step further, let us suppose that Frank's bushman never sinned mortally. You might not use that word, but there sins that cause you to lose eternal life. Where does this bushman end up?”

First off, Frank’s bushman did not obey the gospel, so he is lost. What does 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10 say?

Once again, Jesus was the ONLY human to ever life who did not sin.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 17, 2002.

Dear ''a'',
You of all people say: ''--It implies that the people are too ignorant to understand the Word of God.''

I wouldn't have thought so, until you appeared here with so much to learn. I hesitate to call you merely ''ignorant''. The real cause of your MISINTERPRETATIONS of the Word of God is intransigence. You're determined not to understand the clear meanings.

+ + + ''Was God in His infinite wisdom unable to make us clearly understand His Word without an interpreter?'' --Well, I understand His Word, therefore it must be possible. Yet you fail miserably to see the truth when it's written plain as a wart on your nose. Are you blaming God?

Is the Holy Spirit not a good enough interpreter for you, ''a''?? Come to the Catholic Church and give Him a chance for a change. Why? Because you're the worst biblical scholar ever to enter our forum. Not only don't you see the Bible with an open mind, you refuse the logical interpretations; such as John 1 :1 and Isaiah 55:11. both referring to the Son of God. Only a devoted fundamentalist protestant would fail to see.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.

Eugene wrote, "The real cause of your MISINTERPRETATIONS of the Word of God is intransigence. You're determined not to understand the clear meanings."

This is another attempt by Eugene to say that I have misinterpreted the Word of God, but please notice that he doesn't try to prove it. Eugene does a good job of assuming, yet nothing has come from him correcting my supposed mistakes.

Then Eugene writes, "Was God in His infinite wisdom unable to make us clearly understand His Word without an interpreter?'' --Well, I understand His Word, therefore it must be possible."

No that is not correct. Eugene does not understand God's word, because God plainly said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved." (Mark 16:16). Eugene claims that he was saved by being baptized before he believed. Who are we to believe, what God has said or what Eugene has said?

Eugene writes, "Yet you fail miserably to see the truth when it's written plain as a wart on your nose. Are you blaming God?"

Here again, Eugene makes an accusation with no proof offered. God says, "for he who comes to God must believe that He is." (Heb 11:6). Who is telling the truth here? Can one come to God without belief? Obviously NOT.

Eugene writes, "Because you're the worst biblical scholar ever to enter our forum."

I will use one of Ronald Reagan's words for this one...There Eugene goes again...accusation + no proof = false accusation.

The gospel is the power of God to salvation. In order to be saved, one MUST hear the gospel, believe the gospel, repent of one's sins, confess that Jesus is the Son of God and be baptized in water for the remission of sin. Then one must remain faithful until death or until Jesus returns, whichever comes first.

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 17, 2002.

"A",

First off, Frank’s bushman did not obey the gospel, so he is lost.

Well, thank you for finally laying your nickel down, even if not to me. Let's clarify your beliefs a bit o.k.? You believe an adult who has never heard of Jesus will go to Hell, but an infant will not. My next question is how old does someone have to be before (in your opinion ;-) ) they can commit enough sin to go to Hell? At what age or maturity level are you saying people's ignorance condemns them for all eternity? There must be a transition point somewhere.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 17, 2002.

A- where do you get your information on the Catholic Church? Certainly not from going to one in the past 40 yrs.

The pope has never been considered infalible on iterpreting the Gospel. His infalibilty is only about the Canon Law of the Church, (in other words, what the official beliefs are of the Church, I.E. Humanae Vitae or if you don't know what that is, it's the value of everyhumanlife, including yours and your not even Catholic.)

The Church Community is a Living, actively changing Body of Christ. Sure we teach the Gospels and do our best to live them, but we know we are not perfect, We don't have to be. It's a learning process, a pathway to God.

Jesus died on that cross to saves us from our sins, past, present and to come. Do youthink God lives on the same time frame as we do?

Get a life. and I hope you can find peace withyourself someday. You must surely be under a lot of stress trying to interpret God's Word just from scripture.

Be quiet for awhile and try listening to God. S/He is right there inside you waiting for you to listen.

Living a life of Christ is LIVING! iT'S BEAUTIFUL, FULL OF WONDER AND AWESOMENESS. I truely hope you can find this some day.

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.

As many here are aware, I am not Catholic and do not hold its teachings of purgatory, sinless Mary etc. However, I hope that this post will not generate apathy towards me but constructive ordered responses...

There is a difference between sins and sin. What I keep getting from some of the people on this thread is that our destiny hangs on sins rather than sin. This is a misunderstanding of what is revealed to us in the bible. Of course, each man is responsible for his own SINS, but we are all born into SIN. Sin is our nature and our substance.

It is what caused man to become mortal. Sin is what causes us to sin. Following the argument that babies are destined for heaven because they do not sin is a fallen concept. Anyone born into Adam has the sinful nature. Even if you follow the Catholic teachings dogmatically, you would say that God intervened in Mary's case to preserve her from the stain of sin. Which stain is this ?

Think about God's economy, what is His purpose ? Is He going to damn you for all eternity because you sinned ? What room then is there for the cross ? What did Jesus Christ achieve on the cross. Suppose you are a devout Catholic and you have been very faithful, practising all the sacraments, holding fast the faith. And then one day you tell a lie. Before you are able to go to confession, you die, and then what ? You have an unconfessed sin, a mark against you. What can u do ? What if noone ever prayed for your soul to be realeased from purgatory ?

I think I bring up quite a number of reasonable questions. What causes man to sin ? It is the sinful nature that has been passed down through Adam. Why do we die ? It is because we have sin within us. If babies were not affected by Adam's sin, then there'd be no infant deaths. Obviously this is not the case.

The concept arises because we have the notion that it is unfair that those who have done nothing wrong be punished for someone else's mistakes. The fact of the matter is that the wages of sin is death. What sin is being spoken of here ? It is not the act of sin, it is the substance, the nature of sin that has been passed down, hence why in Adam, all die yet in Christ all are made alive.

Fortunately, in God's eternal economy, He has paved the way for us to be set free from the bondage of sin. This is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through His death, Jesus paid the price for our SINS, by terminating SIN on the cross. When we are born again through belief and baptism, we are joined with Christ in all that He is and all that He has accomplished. We have been crucified with Christ, we have been buried with Christ, we have been resurrected with Christ and we are now seated in the heavenlies with Christ.

Christ's death was for our justification, Christ's life was for our regeneration. So why do Christians still sin ? Because we are sill in the old man, the old creation. Paul teaches us to exercise daily to put off the old man and put on the new man. Christ has already done His part, now we need to do ours by denying our self, our old man, Adam, corrupted by sin. This is for God's expression, enlargement, fufilling God's eternal economy.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), December 18, 2002.

''a'', my good Preacher:
I was baptised into the death and rebirth into Jesus Christ that all Catholics are. You don't understand a word of Scripture;

--For you to be the judge of another man's salvation would mean God takes a back seat to idiots. Yes, you are a poor scholar of the Bible; for instance your own words--

''God says, For he who comes to God must believe that He is. (Heb 11:6). Who is telling the truth here? Can one come to God without belief? Obviously NOT.''

''a'' must think then, that I don't believe God is. oBVIOUSLY NOT!

So. ''a''; why do I believe??? And I've always believed! I never needed conversion, I believed from the lap of my mother. I still do, and, LISTEN, ''a''--

--I always will! That means I believed from baptism on, since no one had to bring me to believe by reading a Bible! You ''believed'' what a false teacher taught you, from the Bible! So-- let's compare our faiths. Your faith is false. Mine I believed since baptism; it came to my soul with baptism, and I believe the TRUTH, only the truth, the Gospel which brings true salvation. I hope you too will be saved. Let go of the false gospel! Come back into the Church where your blessed ancestors were the original Christians.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 18, 2002.

Faith comes from hearing the word of God. Are you saying all the baptised infants have faith inside them and know what they believe ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), December 18, 2002.

Oliver,

I would say that we are accountable for ourselves at our level of awareness would be a good start. I wouldn't say that a baby does *not* have faith appropriate to their level of awareness. Beyond that I'll leave it to God.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 18, 2002.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"This is a bad analogy. The rain DOES NOT require grass now does it Mateo? "

Well, I suppose this means you've figured out that your logic makes no sense?

Mr. Protestant writes:

"Can one have works WITHOUT faith? If so Mateo, you should be able to provide me book chapter and verse in the NT where this is in fact true?"

Mr. Protestant, my point wasn't that complex. The quote you used from St. James was the wrong verse to prove that we need faith. I didn't disagree that we need faith, even though I don't accept the interpretations that you make based on the need for faith in Our Lord.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"When the Jews relied on their priests to interpret God’s Word, this ultimately led them to crucify the Son of God."

I think the diversity of Protestant beliefs on Baptism is a great example of how confused doctrines become when they don't have a Church inspired by the Holy Spirit. Like other sacraments, the value of Baptism to Christians has been torn apart by diverse Protestant theological beliefs.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"My comment to Mateo, “I have told you before that I am NOT a Protestant.” should have been directed to Jake."

If you believe in Jesus, and you aren't a Catholic or Orthodox, then you are a Protestant. If you'd like to give us a name/alias instead of calling yourself "A Christian" (as if to infer that we aren't), then go ahead. Until then, you are a Protestant.

Oliver writes:

"Faith comes from hearing the word of God. Are you saying all the baptised infants have faith inside them and know what they believe ?"

Let me start with a line from the Bible. The Risen Lord proclaims:

Mark 16:16 - "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

The statement is important because it has to do with being "saved" or being "condemned." Well, here's my personal view on this line. OK, so we need to believe and be baptized to be saved. Well, first, let's look at belief. I would say that Jesus is asking for us to love him and not just believe he exists. I support this with St. James:

James 2:19 - "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder."

OK, so "believe" turns into "love." If we need to love Our Lord, what does the Bible teach us about those who love Him:

John 14:15 - "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

John 15:10 - "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love."

The proof (according to the Bible) is that those who break the commandments don't love God (well, at least at the time of the transgression and before repentance). Because a bunch of commandments are negative ("Thou shalt not blah..."), then I would dare say the children are keeping many commandments. Because these children are keeping the commandments (at least the negative ones), they are abiding in Our Lord's love (from John 15:10 above). I don't think I have to prove that Jesus loves even little children, but here's an interesting event in the life of Our Lord:

Matthew 19:13-15 - "Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, 'Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.' And he laid his hands on them and went away."

These are my personal opinions: I don't think God condemns an innocent child as an "un-believer" as if she were a heathen until she made an altar call. The child, raised in a Christian home, is fed and nourished in the faith by her parents. The child grows spiritually (benefits) based on others' efforts. In the same way, children grow physically because the food they receives from their parents, even if the children don't make a conscious decision to grow or eat healthy food.

Mr. Protestant, you've been a bit furtive in your own beliefs. I wonder if you could answer me this question: according to Mark 16:16, do you believe a child who dies prematurely would be saved or condemned? Please explain why you believe?

Here is more on the Necessity of Baptism and more on infant Baptism.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 18, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), December 18, 2002.

Oliver'

Your concept of purgatory is a very old one. As it has been explained recently in the Church, for some poeple, who may not be quite ready in their spirituality to see the face of God and Live, but they do believe , there has to be a transition time to where this person can continue to grow. This is what I believe is the most common teaching today on 'purgatory'. It's not just a place to go and sit out your time till enough prayers have been said, but it's part of the journey.

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 18, 2002.

Matio, I like what you say about children being brought up in a nurturing, faithfilled family. When my own children were babtised, We, as their parents and their Godparents, and the whole community in which we were apart of committed ourselves to bring up this child in a faithfilled, nurturing waythat would encourage a belief in our God.

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 18, 2002.

Oliver, I like your concept of a sinful nature, that any one born of Adam has a sinful nature. I don't believe that we are born with some obscure sin or flaw on our souls. It is the human condition, we make mistakes, or sins, and sometimes we even learn from them. When I opened this thread, I was talking about the Immaculate Conception. Yes I believe that Mary was born without sin and that we also are born without sin,but part of the human condition is a sinful nature, the freedom of choice between right and wrong. Which means thatwe need to be old enough to understand right from wrong before we can be accountable for our sins. It's this sinful nature that Jesus sacrafices his life for, so that we all may have the chance to eternal life.

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 18, 2002.

Patricia,
There are correct doctrines in our Church to tell us exactly what purgatory is; and also exactly what Original Sin is. It isn't for anyone of us, you-- Oliver or me; to suggest what they might be. These truths are revealed to us already. God reveals them, His inerrant Word through the apostles who had them from Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church teaches:

Purgatory is a mid-point between this life and the glories of heaven. There the holy souls who have reached salvation through Jesus Christ (Catholic or not-- ) will be detained for a time, no one but God knows how long. Their sins have been forgiven and they are sure of their eventual heavenly reward. They are only paying the temporal penalty for their sins, that which is not sufficiently suffered for during their lives on earth. Their sins are atoned for, but even so-- All men/women must reap as they've sown, every sin deserves TEMPORAL punishment, and in His infinite Justice God expects us to suffer for the evil we have done in our lives. --We are redeemed to life in eternal happiness, but do not go directly into heaven without our just punishments. More so if only partial restitution for sin has been paid in this life. There may also be countless venial sins, not sufficient to merit Hell but not repented for as the soul leaves this life. They merit temporal punishment, PURGATORY.

--Nothing sinful, not even one idle profane word, will enter the presence of God. It must be purged by our temporary suffering, because God is All-Just, and cannot even allow the sight before his eyes of anything defiled. ,p> God has said clearly all men are to be judged according to their works; ''As you sow, so shall you reap.'' That includes the ones already saved. If a temporal penalty is owed for sin, it has to be settled before a soul can enter heaven. Even if that soul was a saint at the moment of his/her death.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The doctrine of Original Sin states clearly, every descendent of Adam by the very nature of this descent in the flesh, is deserving of damnation; because of Adams' disobedience. Adam sinned as the representative of the whole human race; not just as an individual. He lost for us the holiness of sanctifying grace, and no soul can enter heaven without that.

Even an innocent (of actual sin) infant is stained by this sin of Adam. He can never merit sanctifying grace by himself and gain salvation. Not even if he lives just a few days and never commits any actual sin. But he is cleansed of Original Sin by the blood of Our Saviour, in baptism. --Sin is so grievous for mankind that the only-begotten Son of God gave His life on the cross to reverse its effects upon on our immortal souls. If ever we get the impression that our sins are inconsequential or trivial, all we need to see is the awesome price Jesus had to pay suffering for our sakes. No one has any rightful reason to believe the price for Original Sin is too much, even for a baby. This sin alone would have cost Our Saviour His passion and death to atone for. Because God is infinitely Just as well as a loving Father to us. He loved us so much He chose freely to save us from our sins by allowing His Son to pay the price for us; death on the cross. There's no way we can ever say God is unjust.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 18, 2002.

Frank says, ?My next question is how old does someone have to be before (in your opinion ;-) ) they can commit enough sin to go to Hell? At what age or maturity level are you saying people's ignorance condemns them for all eternity? There must be a transition point somewhere.?

I have already answered your question once, but here it is again, ?Maturity level is different for each person. There is no exact number that someone can point to in this case. Sin is the transgression of God's law. We all sin when we break God?s law. ?

Patricia,

You said, ?The pope has never been considered infalible on iterpreting the Gospel. His infalibilty is only about the Canon Law of the Church, (in other words, what the official beliefs are of the Church, I.E. Humanae Vitae or if you don't know what that is, it's the value of everyhumanlife, including yours and your not even Catholic.)?

That is the whole point isn?t it Patricia? The Pope DOES NOT teach the gospel and neither does the Catholic Church. In order to obey the gospel, one must first have faith. The Catholic Church teaches it is possible to be baptized without faith as evidenced by their baptizing of babies who are INCAPABLE of belief. Oliver,

You said, ?Of course, each man is responsible for his own SINS, but we are all born into SIN. Sin is our nature and our substance.?

No, that is not correct. We are NOT born in sin, but each one of us sin when we break God?s commandments.

Jesus said in Matthew 19:14, "?Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Please notice the phrase ?for of such is the kingdom of heaven.? To claim that infants are born sinners is a false statement.

Oliver continued with, ?It is what caused man to become mortal. Sin is what causes us to sin. Following the argument that babies are destined for heaven because they do not sin is a fallen concept.?

Please notice that Oliver does not use any scripture to back up this claim, it is mere speculation on his part.

Oliver writes, ?Anyone born into Adam has the sinful nature. Even if you follow the Catholic teachings dogmatically, you would say that God intervened in Mary's case to preserve her from the stain of sin.?

Once again, please notice that NO scripture verses are given to justify the lie that Mary was without sin. This is another false teaching of the Catholic Church in order to prop up their false doctrine of original sin.

Oliver continues with, ?Which stain is this ? Think about God's economy, what is His purpose ? Is He going to damn you for all eternity because you sinned ? What room then is there for the cross ? What did Jesus Christ achieve on the cross. Suppose you are a devout Catholic and you have been very faithful, practising all the sacraments, holding fast the faith. And then one day you tell a lie. Before you are able to go to confession, you die, and then what ? You have an unconfessed sin, a mark against you. What can u do ? What if noone ever prayed for your soul to be realeased from purgatory ??

First off, there is NO such thing as purgatory. This is another invention of the Catholic Church. Second, there is sin that does not lead to death. See 1 John 5:16-17. To claim that if one accidentally sins and then dies before he is able to repent and then that person would end up in hell is NOT what the New Testament teaches.

Oliver writes, ?I think I bring up quite a number of reasonable questions. What causes man to sin ? It is the sinful nature that has been passed down through Adam. Why do we die ? It is because we have sin within us. If babies were not affected by Adam's sin, then there'd be no infant deaths. Obviously this is not the case.?

No, it is NOT the sinful nature that was passed down from Adam that causes us to sin. This is the process of becoming a sinner, Lust + enticement = temptation; Temptation + action = sin and spiritual death. James 1:13-15. Infants die because we inherit the consequence of Adam?s sin ? death. We DO NOT inherit Adam?s sin.

Eugene writes, ?I was baptised into the death and rebirth into Jesus Christ that all Catholics are. You don't understand a word of Scripture;?

Eugene makes this claim that he was baptized into the death and rebirth of Jesus Christ, however, that is NOT a true statement. In order to be baptized INTO Jesus, one must FIRST have faith. Eugene CAN NOT make that claim because he was baptized as an infant WITHOUT faith. An infant CANNOT believe, so all Eugene did was get wet with a little water. By the way, he was probably either sprinkled or had water poured on him and that IS NOT baptism either. Baptism in the New Testament was ALWAYS by immersion, and not pouring or sprinkling. To claim that pouring or sprinkling are valid methods of baptism once again changes what God has ordained. I understand quite well what God has said is required to be saved, which requires faith, repentance, confession and baptism. Unfortunately, you are the one who has been deceived.

Then Eugene writes, ?For you to be the judge of another man's salvation would mean God takes a back seat to idiots.?

We are told to ?test the spirits to see if they are of God.? (1 John 4:1). Please notice how we are to accomplish this in verse 2, ?By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,?

Eugene DID NOT confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh when he was baptized as an infant, so his baptism was NOT of God.

So for Eugene to say that I cannot judge another man?s salvation is another of his many false statements.

I quoted Hebrews 11:6 and said that one cannot come to God without belief to which Eugene replied ?a must think then, that I don?t believe God is. OBVIOUSLY NOT! So. ''a''; why do I believe??? And I've always believed! I never needed conversion, I believed from the lap of my mother.?

To claim that he always believed is just another figment of Eugene?s imagination. He goes on to say that he never needed conversion and that he believed from the lap of his mother. I guess that Eugene didn?t need Jesus since he claims that he never needed conversion.

Eugene writes, ?I still do, and, LISTEN, ''a''-- --I always will! That means I believed from baptism on, since no one had to bring me to believe by reading a Bible! You ''believed'' what a false teacher taught you, from the Bible! So-- let's compare our faiths. Your faith is false. Mine I believed since baptism; it came to my soul with baptism, and I believe the TRUTH, only the truth, the Gospel which brings true salvation. I hope you too will be saved. Let go of the false gospel! Come back into the Church where your blessed ancestors were the original Christians.?

Let us compare our faiths. In order to be saved, I first believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Romans 10:17), then I repented of my sins (Acts 26:20), then I confessed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 10:32), then I was baptized IN water for the remission of my sins (Acts 2:38). My faith led me to obey Jesus commandments. You on the other hand were baptized with NO faith. The Catholic Church teaches a false gospel which has caused and will continue to cause many souls to be deceived. What does God say? ?Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.? (Matt. 7:14).

Please Eugene, give me ONE and I only need ONE example of where someone was baptized first, and then came to belief in Christ. If you cannot provide this example, then you are NOT saved.

Oliver says, ?Faith comes from hearing the word of God. Are you saying all the baptised infants have faith inside them and know what they believe??

This is an ignorant question, I have already said before that infants DO NOT need to be baptized because they have NO sin. To claim that infants can be baptized and be able to understand the gospel in order to be saved is just plain ludicrous. To believe that a baptized infant will go to heaven and one that is not baptized will go to hell is stupid.

Mateo writes, ?If you believe in Jesus, and you aren't a Catholic or Orthodox, then you are a Protestant. If you'd like to give us a name/alias instead of calling yourself "A Christian" (as if to infer that we aren't), then go ahead. Until then, you are a Protestant. ?

No, this is another false statement, protestants are those who came out from the Catholic Church in ?protest? of their false doctrines. The Lord?s church DID NOT come from the Catholic Church which has NO resemblance whatsoever to the church we read about in the New Testament. If a church CANNOT prove their doctrine from the New Testament, then that church is NOT the true church.

What did Jesus say? ?Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.? (2 John 9). The Catholic Church DOES NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ. The doctrine of Christ is written down for us in the New Testament.

I am still waiting Mateo for you to provide me a verse that shows where one can have works without faith.

Mateo writes, ?I think the diversity of Protestant beliefs on Baptism is a great example of how confused doctrines become when they don't have a Church inspired by the Holy Spirit. Like other sacraments, the value of Baptism to Christians has been torn apart by diverse Protestant theological beliefs.?

The only CORRECT doctrine on baptism, is that baptism is FOR the remission of sin. All other doctrines are NOT in accordance with the Word of God.

Mateo writes, ?Mr. Protestant, you've been a bit furtive in your own beliefs. I wonder if you could answer me this question: according to Mark 16:16, do you believe a child who dies prematurely would be saved or condemned? Please explain why you believe??

A child who dies prematurely is saved. Here is why I believe this to be the case. The disciples asked Jesus this question in Matthew 18:1, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" To which Jesus replied in verses 3-5, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me."

Jesus told the disciples that UNLESS one is CONVERTED [which means to repent] and become as little children that one would NOT enter the kingdom of heaven. In other words, Jesus told them that adults [who sin when they transgress God?s law] MUST be CONVERTED [repent of their sins] because little children have NO sin that they need to repent of or they would NOT enter the kingdom of heaven. To humble themselves as the little child [who have NO sin], they would have to repent [which means to turn away from their sins]. What did Jesus say in Luke 24:47? ?and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.? That is why Peter in the first gospel sermon was able to say to the Jews who were gathered there to ?repent and be BAPTIZED for the remission of your sins?. Once one humbled oneself enough to turn from their sins and be baptized in order to have their sins washed away, then and ONLY then would they be like the little children.

In Matthew 18:6 Jesus was able to say, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Jesus was able to make that statement because the little ones [children, infants] DO NOT have sin.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 18, 2002.

"A",

You misspoke in your response. You said the age of maturity is different for each person, but earlier you said an adult bushman would go to Hell for his ignorance of Christ. Therefore, you decided at least an adult was old enough to be condemned BY YOU. Start simple "a", is an 18 year old always old enough?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 19, 2002.

Frank,

I did NOT mis-speak in my response. What I said was a true statement when I said the age of maturity is different for each person.

Please notice your response, "but earlier you said an adult bushman would go to Hell for his ignorance of Christ."

Note the difference between "adult" and "child". A child has NO sin. When we reach the age of adulthood, and YES it is different for each person, at some point, ALL of us sin.

If they are an adult, then that means that they are no longer a child, and thus, they commit sin. When one sins, then that is the time that they have to obey the gospel in order to have their sins washed away. Children do not have to worry about this, even Jesus said that of such are the kingdom of heaven when he spoke of them. (Matthew 19:14).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 19, 2002.

Eugene, In all due respect I'm not surewhere you got that 'doctrin' definition of purgatory. This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is taken directly from VaticannII, the most recent time that the pope has spoken infallibly (1964?): "All who die in God's friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvatio; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve theHoliness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." i.e. : a growth period to prepare to see the face of God. " The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purificationof the elect, which is entirely different from the punishmentof the damned."

The concept of praying for those who have died is based on scripture from the old Testament, 2 Maccabeus 12:46, which states that: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, rthat they might be delivered from their sin."

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

'A' - as far as my statement about when the pope is considered infallibility, I still stand by that. It is in times of change such as the Taking on the the church's beleifs, or dogma through the Vatican Councils. This is not something the Pope does everyday nor without much prayer and input from scripture and the Church itself. It concerns the basic beliefs about the Church. I never stated that the pope defines the Goespel according to His interpretation only, nor did I say anything about the Popes following the Gospel himself. The pope is human, we Catholics seem to know that, but it seems that it is a hard concept for others. Hopefully When the Pope lives and preaches the Gospels, he is doing so with the same insight from the Holy Spirit as all of the rest of us.

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

'a' as far as your belief about baptism, it's really a mute point to discuss it any furthur. I believe that John came to baptise with water and Jesus baptised with the Holy Spirit, and that's where the true Church began. and unless you love God with your whole heart; your whole soul; and your whle mind, and love your neighbor as yourself, you are not following the neww covenent given to us by God, through His son and the Holy Spirit.

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

Patricia,

You said, "unless you love God with your whole heart; your whole soul; and your whle mind, and love your neighbor as yourself, you are not following the neww covenent given to us by God, through His son and the Holy Spirit."

Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love Me, keep my commandments." The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach this doctrine as evidence by their baptizing of infants who are NOT able to have faith. The Catholic Church teacher ANOTHER gospel, and is accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 19, 2002.

"A",

When we reach the age of adulthood, and YES it is different for each person, at some point, ALL of us sin.

BUT, you do mean that ALL adults can go to Hell for ignorance right? What is the maximum age you think someone can get to and NOT be responsible for their ignorance. If you wish to change your mind and say there isn't one, you should ALSO say that ignorance of Jesus is not a damnable offense. If you DO think ignorance can send you to Hell have the guts to say some point in a *normal* adults life when in your opinion you think they should be damned for not hearing about Jesus.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 19, 2002.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"I am still waiting Mateo for you to provide me a verse that shows where one can have works without faith."

Dear Mr. Protestant, you just don't have a clue here, do you? Why should I prove something I never said?

Regarding your other comments, your interpretations of the Bible suggest that you have compassion for children, even if you don't believe that they deserve the grace of baptism. I still don't think you see baptism as anything more than a symbol, so it's hard for me to understand why you would care if children were participating in what you believe to be symbolic.

Also, Mr. Protestant, what kind of protestant are you? Assemblies of God? Baptist? Methodist? Presbyterian? Seventh day Adventist? I could go on and on. Are you "non-denominational" (meaning do you belong to a denomination with a small number of members)?

Mr. Protestant writes:

"What did Jesus say? "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God." (2 John 9)"

Actually, St. John wrote "2 John 9," not Jesus.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"The only CORRECT doctrine on baptism, is that baptism is FOR the remission of sin."

So speaks Mr. Protestant! It's just funny how you think that you can be certain, even when other "Sola Scriptura" protestants believe (with equal feelings of certainty) a myriad of contradictory doctrines regarding Baptism. Well, the here is the description of Baptism in the Catechism.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 19, 2002.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love Me, keep my commandments." The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach this doctrine as evidence[d] by their baptizing of infants who are NOT able to have faith. The Catholic Church teacher ANOTHER gospel, and is accursed."

Of course, Mr. Protestant fails to mention the important quote from the Bible:

NKJV Mark 19:6-9 - "And Jesus said to His disciples, 'Remember when I told you that thing about letting the children come to me, and not hindering them? Well, I was just kidding. Make sure that you forbid them from coming to me and being baptized. Whoever would baptize children in my name is accursed. Hinder the children!"

What a joke, Mr. Protestant...you've got some funny personal doctrines.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 19, 2002.

Dear ''a''--
You say: --Let us compare our faiths. In order to be saved, I first believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Romans 10:17), then I repented of my sins (Acts 26:20), then I confessed Jesus as the Son of God; and I say --No. Let us NOT compare our ''faiths'', since yours is faith in the teachings of self-ordained men. Not the teachings of Christ and his holy apostles.

You aren't in Christ's fold. You follow after wolves in sheep's clothing. ''Comparing'' my faith and yours is like comparing GOLD with LEAD --Your faith is LEAD and the Catholic faith is GOLD, it comes from God; not a faulty Bible interpretation or two.

How was I given faith?

Faith is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, infused into the soul at baptism. Even if you are an infant. Also infused is sanctifying grace, (a share in the divine life of Christ) which washes away Original Sin as well as actual sin. Sanctifying Grace makes you a child of God. Thanks for asking me to explain; others may have needed that information from the doctrines of the apostles. (Even if you wish to reject it.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

'A', Oh well, I guess us Catholics who, even though we believe the word of God and follow the teachings of Christ are just damned one and all because we were baptised as babies. Because of course anything that comes out of the mouths of different teachers of the Church, is all lies because we were baptised as babies and we are all damned. I hope you have a good time in your little "I'm the only one who has the right answer about what was taught 2000 yrs ago and at least 2 translations from different langueges ago" heaven.

I'm planning to be with a God who is living with in me, today, at this moment, in my everlasting life. I suppose you believe that Mother Teresa is damned in hell because she was baptised as a baby also. Not to mention all the other Holy men and Women who have lived.

Have fun in your little heaven. I'm rejoicing in mine right now.

-- Patricia Klucas (Paklucas@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

Dear Patricia:
All the suffering souls in purgatory are sent because of some remaining debt of temporal punishment. It's not because they aren't saved for eternal life. The doctrine of Original Sin has always been the strict necessity of baptism as a condition for entering the kingdom of heaven. Children that have died without baptism are not in hell or purgatory. These souls have a place of ultimate natural, eternal life and happiness. It is not heaven. The doctrine maintains a final state traditionally named Limbo for these souls; which is not to assume that by the infinite Wisdom of God, these souls could not have been saved through baptism of desire. --We can't say, and it is ultimately God's mercy will determine the answer.

But Original Sin has always carried implicitly the penalty of eternal damnation for the unbaptised. It is in fact, by all theological reasoning why mankind was in need of a Redeemer. The Redemption, however is seen as perfectly applicable in retrospect to the just souls who died in the love of God before Christ was Incarnated. They were presumed to be in a state called Limbo as well, awaiting the coming of Our Lord. By association, perhaps the souls of innocent, unbaptised infants might be included in this number; I don't know. This is a very good subject for meditation in the Advent season.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

Hi, Gene

"..Children that have died without Baptism are not in hell or Purgatory. These souls have a place of ultimate...eternal life. It is not Heaven."

Are you sure you are correct with this? I guess that means all of the aborted babies will never make it to Heaven too right? I disagree with you Gino. You don't know that if God in His infinite mercy decided to give those children a choice to make after they met him. Can you show me where the Church teaches what you say?

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 19, 2002.

David,
I'm not telling anybody anything they can't learn in the catechism. If it seems harsh to you, I'm really sorry. As for the souls of the aborted unborn, I also hope that by God's infinite mercy they will attain heaven, and not Limbo.

I had a distant teenage relative murdered in cold blood a couple of years ago. It was a gang slaying. If he didn't die in mortal sin, I have every hope he will be in purgatory for some interval, and finally enter heaven. I may be wrong, but for your consolation, let me say

I believe the baptised souls who die as victims of injustice are by that fact closely identified with Christ, who was innocent and died for us unjustly. Any UNJUST DEATH is somehow spiritually united with Jesus Christ's death on the cross. Just as the Good Thief, with Jesus sharing that death was forgiven.

It may be a reach doctrinally; but I hope all unborn children who die by abortion will have earned a martyr's death by association-- they are dying in a cruel & unjust manner; just as Christ died. Then we might conceivably say these souls have received the Baptism of Blood. But Original sin is a revealed truth; and we are all born with it in our soul. Only Jesus and His Holy Mother were not.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

Hi, Gene

"I'm not telling anyone anything that they can't read in the Catechism. If its to harsh for you sorry."

Its not to harsh for me Gene, but I think you are wrong to say what you did. Here's what I read in the Catechism:

In CCC 1261:" As regards to children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men saved and Jesus tenderness towards children, which caused Him to say,'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them'[Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim 2:4], allow us hope that there is a way of salvation for children who dies without baptism.....

The Second Vatican Council stated, in Gaudium et Spec 22." For Christ died for all(Rom 8:32)..we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery."

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 19, 2002.

I'm glad you told me this, David. The older catechism would've said what I did. Let me say, I also said to you here, I hold out hope for the innocent victims of abortion. Mainly because they had any possibility of baptism denied them by the abortionists. --I also cited the infinite mercy of God. What is the definition of Original Sin, may I ask? --

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

You're welcome Gino. I think I remnber a thread or two on orginal sin. If you request, I will top one for you. But, you can read about orginal sin in your Catechism. ;-)

Holy innocents pray for us.

God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 19, 2002.

Gino,

I see Mateo was kind enough to put the link for the Catechism on Baptism a few posts up when he was posting to "protestant". Scroll up and read CCC. 1261 it is on the linked page.

God loves His innocent children Gene. We must keep praying for the holy souls. If the unbaptised baby is damned than that means the bushman is damned as well and Timmy doesn't stand a chance. ;-)

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 19, 2002.

Don't go too far. If Original Sin wasn't a revealed truth, then the Church has been teaching falsely for 2,000 years. I'm not about to concede this. Man is born unworthy to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus Christ clearly said he must be born again. Pay more attention to the doctrines, and not to emotional pull.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

Gene,

First you tell me what you said is taught in the Catechism. I refuted you with the Catechism. Did you read the link? Do you know how many children that could possibly be in Heaven that you thought were damned until I taught you different?

So by you a baby aborted deserves Heaven more than a baby that was born alive and died in a car accident on the way home from the hospital, right? How do you draw the line Gene with this? What is your barometer?

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 20, 2002.

Holy Cow; calm down, David!
What makes you think this is MY idea?

The Church is our ''barometer''. I obey only the doctrine of Christ's Holy Church.

You did not ''teach'' me different. You quote a single passage from the catechism making it ambiguous whether or not Original Sin can damn an infant. It doesn't even say that it won't!

The words say we can always rely on God's tender mercy, without judging from our side. --For which I'm very thankful. I wouldn't have it any other way! The fact however is, Christ makes it a certainty and a truth: ''Unless a man be born again, of water and the spirit; he can not enter the kingdom of heaven,'' (John 3:5) --But your counter, ''Let the little children come unto me, etc.,'' has merit. Possibly this has tempered the thinking since Vatican II, of Catholic theologians. I hope so; even if over a week now I have disputed with the ''traditionalists''.

They claimed the Church has changed the older doctrine in bad faith. I defended the Church. You make me a liar, don't you?

Besides, I told you all innocents without baptism were taken to Limbo, not Hell. Traditionally, Limbo was a place of no suffering; happiness to the ultimate natural extent, and life without end. Hell is for those who turn their back on God's mercy. Try to get information on the doctrine of Original Sin. Bring it to us, and we can go on from there. I'll be studying myself.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

"They claimed the Church has changed the older doctrine in bad faith."

Is this the claim? Eugene, it is the even question itself that is not properly understood.

It is the needless defense against what you call 'traditionalist' that prevents people from seeking the truth and attaining the truth of this matter, as well as others.

Take the time to understand the question itself, and be open to a consideration of it, and the answers to it. Perhaps it would be best to have both the question and the varied answers laid out properly.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 20, 2002.

Gene,

"You make me a liar don't you?"

No sir I do not. I didnt like you saying that the little babies arn't in Heaven! And you told me "sorry if it sounds to harsh, but its in the Catechism."

I just wanted you to see what the Catechism says about it. So you obviosly didn't know or you would not of said that to me. So, I did teach you what the Catechism says about it. Right?

We all learn from one and another at this forum sir. Even a slow learning man like myself can teach you a thing or two.:-) When I show you your err its not calling you a liar Mr. Chavez. I do it for the innocent, unbaptised children that have died. They [might] be in Heaven now praying for you.

May the good Lord bless you.

David S

-- David (David@excite.com), December 20, 2002.

Dear David:
First, I do not reply because I can't be taught. Certainly, [men like yourself]can teach you a thing or two; When I show you your err its not calling you a liar I do it for the innocent, unbaptised children that have died. They [might] be in Heaven now praying for you. -----David S

In CCC 1261:" As regards to children who have died without baptism, the Church can only *entrust them* to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men saved and Jesus tenderness towards children, which caused Him to say,'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them'[Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim 2:4], allow us hope that there is a way of salvation for children who dies without baptism.

This is the quote you present from today's catechism. I've set a BOLD tone on the true parts of the teaching; they CAN'T be disputed. You do right in making Christ's clear love for children lead the discussion. You do very well expressing your deep compassion for their little souls.

You may have learned a thing or two for yourself. I knew all of that when I made my first holy communion in 1948! It's the bromide we must fall back on when all babies die; when ANYBODY dies, David. God's love and mercy cover for you and me when we die.

But, aside from telling me the catechism has ''dropped'' recently any mention of the helpless unbaptised infant except what you quoted, you didn't point any ''error'' out.

We also can't DO anything for the infants who MAY or MAY NOT have entered heaven, under the catechism's new, comforting scenario. All I do is PRAY for them. Because as the catechism states very truly, I'm allowed to hope there's another way besides the biblical Baptism; which is a teaching Jesus Christ made emphatically. (John 3:5)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Frank writes, "BUT, you do mean that ALL adults can go to Hell for ignorance right? What is the maximum age you think someone can get to and NOT be responsible for their ignorance."

This is a stupid question. I don’t have the answer to that question. God is the judge of at what age someone is considered old enough to be responsible to obey him.

Frank writes, “If you wish to change your mind and say there isn't one, you should ALSO say that ignorance of Jesus is not a damnable offense.

No, What did God say? Please see Acts 17:30 and 1 Peter 1:14.

Frank writes, “If you DO think ignorance can send you to Hell have the guts to say some point in a *normal* adults life when in your opinion you think they should be damned for not hearing about Jesus.”

It does NOT matter what I think in this matter, what matters is what God thinks.

Mateo writes, “Dear Mr. Protestant, you just don't have a clue here, do you? Why should I prove something I never said?”

You didn’t have to say it, you implied it when you say that one can be baptized as an infant. So, in order to prove the Catholic doctrine of infant baptism, you should be able to show an example of this in the New Testament.

Mateo writes, “I still don't think you see baptism as anything more than a symbol, so it's hard for me to understand why you would care if children were participating in what you believe to be symbolic.” No, baptism is NOT symbolic, it is what washes away our sin.

Mateo writes, “Also, Mr. Protestant, what kind of protestant are you?” Assemblies of God? Baptist? Methodist? Presbyterian? Seventh day Adventist? I could go on and on. Are you "non-denominational" (meaning do you belong to a denomination with a small number of members)?”

Neither protestant, nor denominational. I am a member of the church of Christ.

Mateo writes, Actually, St. John wrote "2 John 9," not Jesus.

If you want to get technical, the Holy Spirit is the one who wrote 2 John 9, all John did was copy what the Holy Spirit told him to write. Mateo quotes Mark 19:6-9 however, there is no such verse in the Bible. Eugene writes, “No. Let us NOT compare our ''faiths'', since yours is faith in the teachings of self-ordained men. Not the teachings of Christ and his holy apostles.”

This is another false statement. I showed Eugene from the Word of God, how I was saved but please notice how he DOES NOT even bother to show through the Word of God how he was saved.

Eugene writes, “You aren't in Christ's fold. You follow after wolves in sheep's clothing. ''Comparing'' my faith and yours is like comparing GOLD with LEAD --Your faith is LEAD and the Catholic faith is GOLD, it comes from God; not a faulty Bible interpretation or two.”

Wrong again Eugene, faith comes from hearing the Word of God, and NOT from the Catholic Church. (Romans 10:17).

Eugene writes, “How was I given faith? Faith is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, infused into the soul at baptism. Even if you are an infant. Also infused is sanctifying grace, (a share in the divine life of Christ) which washes away Original Sin as well as actual sin. Sanctifying Grace makes you a child of God. Thanks for asking me to explain; others may have needed that information from the doctrines of the apostles. (Even if you wish to reject it.)”

Faith is NOT one of the gifts infused into the soul at baptism. This is another invention of the Catholic Church. If this is the case, Eugene should be able to prove this from the Word of God where faith is EVER infused into anyone’s soul without action on their part. By the way, grace doesn’t wash away sin, it is the action of baptism that washes away sin. You probably do a good job of explaining Catholic doctrine, but it is NOT in accordance with the Word of God.

Patricia writes, “'A', Oh well, I guess us Catholics who, even though we believe the word of God and follow the teachings of Christ are just damned one and all because we were baptised as babies. Because of course anything that comes out of the mouths of different teachers of the Church, is all lies because we were baptised as babies and we are all damned. I hope you have a good time in your little "I'm the only one who has the right answer about what was taught 2000 yrs ago and at least 2 translations from different langueges ago" heaven.”

What did God say? Please read Matthew 7:13-14. Patricia writes, “I'm planning to be with a God who is living with in me, today, at this moment, in my everlasting life. I suppose you believe that Mother Teresa is damned in hell because she was baptised as a baby also. Not to mention all the other Holy men and Women who have lived.”

If they have not obeyed the gospel, they will be lost. (2 Thess. 1:7- 10). There are many well intentioned and good people who have lived who will perish because they did not obey God. Remember, Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who OBEY Him. (Hebrews 5:9).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 20, 2002.

You just don't get it, do you "A"?

Earlier you said babies wouldn't go to Hell but adults would if they were ignorant of Christ. Now you say that you don't know whether or not an adult WILL go to Hell for being ignorant of Christ.

Why not accept the fact that YOU can not say anyone will go to Hell for being ignorant of anything. YOU don't know what factors God takes into account. YOU can't say whether someone's knowledge is complete in God's eyes, YOU can't say anything other than your opinion which is WORTHLESS in deciding the fate of someone's soul.

Try it on some other forum.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2002.

''a'' DOESN'T get it; and worse yet, he is welded to his self-serving belief. That means the Holy Spirit is excluded from his soul's discernments. A block of lead which God's own X-Ray can't penetrate.

He said: ''Faith is NOT one of the gifts infused into the soul at baptism. This is another invention of the Catholic Church.''

He wants somebody else to teach him, not the Holy Spirit, who abides in ONE Church, the original, Christian Catholic one. The divine worth of God the Holy Spirit he refers to as ''another invention.'' His own ancestors were believers of Catholic doctrine which comes directly from the Holy Spirit. Comes for us in scripture and Sacred Tradition. We are taught by saints; the same who made the Bible what it now is. Saints who learned the oral and written traditions of Chrsit's apostles and their immediate disciples.

So, ''a'' discards the help of the Holy Spirit for his scriptural understanding. He learns instead from heretical sources opposed to the ancient Church of Peter and Paul. Those who have continuously distorted the meanings of the written Word of God for 5 centuries and trashed the oral testimony given grace by the Holy Spirit!

Poor soul! God make him worthy someday to enter the heavenly kingdom in spite of his darkened appreciation of the Bible. It was due after all, to invincible ignorance. That becomes more and more evident by his posted rubbish. If this is the case, Eugene should be able to prove this from the Word of God where faith is EVER infused into anyone’s soul without action on their part. By the way, grace doesn’t wash away sin, it is the action of baptism that washes away sin. You

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

His post appears above.-- Like this:
If this is the case, Eugene should be able to prove this from the Word of God where faith is EVER infused into anyone’s soul without action on their part. By the way, grace doesn’t wash away sin, it is the action of baptism that washes away sin.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Frank writes, "Earlier you said babies wouldn't go to Hell but adults would if they were ignorant of Christ. Now you say that you don't know whether or not an adult WILL go to Hell for being ignorant of Christ."

No, I did NOT say that adults will NOT go to hell for being ignorant of Christ. Get your facts straight. You were trying to make me answer your silly question of "at what age" do you think that someone is old enough...

Frank writes, "Why not accept the fact that YOU can not say anyone will go to Hell for being ignorant of anything. YOU don't know what factors God takes into account. YOU can't say whether someone's knowledge is complete in God's eyes, YOU can't say anything other than your opinion which is WORTHLESS in deciding the fate of someone's soul."

What does God say? Does God say that ignorant people will go to hell? Yes, my opinion DOES NOT matter, what matters is God's opinion. Why do you have problems reading what I wrote? You can tell if someone has obeyed God. Do you now claim that someone can obey God accidentally? No, they cannot. The Word of God is what decides our fate, and is what we will be judged by. When someone is baptized in obedience to the gospel of Christ, after first hearing, believing, repenting and confessing the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then one can say that they have obeyed the gospel and NOT before.

To say that we do not know what factors God takes into account just goes to show how ignorant you are of God's Word.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 20, 2002.

Please notice that once again in Eugene's comments he fails to produce passages which prove his doctrine that the Holy Spirit infuses faith at the point of baptism.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 20, 2002.

We know this is so, ''a'', because the Holy Spirit said so through his apostles and Church. Which your teachers abandoned.

As for proving the doctrine by the Word of God --let ''a'' try to prove from the same Word that grace is NOT given by the Holy Spirit in baptism for infants, as well as through the hearing of the Gospel for grown-ups. Is there a verse anywhere in the Bible, ''a''-- which says ''No way to give faith to a baby?'' Or, ''Never baptise an infant''- -??? You want proof from the Bible for my statement which is a doctrine sealed in the Holy Spirit; but you can't disprove it from the Bible. You only MOUTH OFF.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

I can't let your foolish remark slip, ''a''.

''He fails to produce passages which prove his doctrine.''

I have no doctrine, ''a''. --I believe the Catholic Church doctrine, not one of my imagining, like yours. You fabricate these things you've spoken. You make your own doctrine, which Saint Paul says is ''anathema''.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Mr. Church of Christ Protestant writes:

"Mateo quotes Mark 19:6-9 however, there is no such verse in the Bible."

Thank you for stating the obvious. Jesus never told his followers to hinder children from Baptism.

Mr. C. of C. Protestant writes:

"Please notice that once again in Eugene's comments he fails to produce passages which prove his doctrine that the Holy Spirit infuses faith at the point of baptism."

Baptism infuses grace. God's grace saves us (not faith). It is through God's grace that we grow in faith. The Baptism is, in a sense, a seed for our life of growth in faith.

Dear Mr. Protestant, you have made a number of errors in describing Catholic teachings. If you would like to attack the Catholic Church, could you please read the link I gave you regarding Baptism in the Catechism? Here's the link again. Please read paragraphs 1250-1255. If you would like to challenge Christ's Church any more, you might as well attempt to address the Church's explicit teachings instead of attacking doctrines you are totally ignorant of. I have little doubt that you have been "educated" about Catholic teachings by Protestants who want to push their man-made doctrines onto you.

You also may want to read some of the verses that the Catechism refers to when it describe the Sacrament of Baptism.

A few quotes from Acts show that whole families were coming to the faith and being baptized. It was the family who had the faith, not the individual. In the ages before the glorification of individualism, families actually acted as a unit (hard to believe). In the 21st century, society almost expects a family to be dysfunctional. Before our times, family members actually had to work together to survive. Dysfunction was (and still is) a luxury afforded to those with the means to bear it. I say all this because faith (outside the 1st world) is a family affair. An important "church" is the domestic church: mom and dad.

Denying baptism to a child because he doesn't have faith makes about as much sense as denying citizenship to a child before he's sworn loyalty to the country. This isn't rocket-science.

If you find yourself unable to read the Catechism quotes, here are the verses to support children being baptized: Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 20, 2002.

No, I did NOT say that adults will NOT go to hell for being ignorant of Christ. Get your facts straight. You were trying to make me answer your silly question of "at what age" do you think that someone is old enough...

Nope. Sorry slim, it's possible that someone is NEVER mature enough right to merit hell for ignorance right? That means (to you of course, not anyone else) that someone MAY be able to live their whole life in ignorance without the threat of Hell right?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 20, 2002.

Frank, is that the smell of cornpone that comes in this forum, when anonymous Kevin posts his bible wisdom? LoL!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Eugene writes, "let ''a'' try to prove from the same Word that grace is NOT given by the Holy Spirit in baptism for infants, as well as through the hearing of the Gospel for grown-ups."

There is NO record of any infant ever being baptized in the Word of God. Since the premise is false [that infants can baptized] the conclusion is false [that grace is given by the Holy Spirit in baptism for infants].

Eugene writes, "Is there a verse anywhere in the Bible, ''a''-- which says ''No way to give faith to a baby?'' Or, ''Never baptise an infant''- -??? You want proof from the Bible for my statement which is a doctrine sealed in the Holy Spirit; but you can't disprove it from the Bible. You only MOUTH OFF."

Please read Galatians 3:26 which states, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." In order to be "Put on Christ", one must be "baptized INTO Christ". See verse 27. According to these passages and verses such as Hebrews 11:6, one CANNOT be baptized INTO Christ without faith. You still do not produce passages that support your claim, so who is the one guilty of MOUTHING OFF? Go back and re-read Hebrews 11:1 to see what the definition of faith really is.

Eugene writes, "I have no doctrine, ''a''. --I believe the Catholic Church doctrine, not one of my imagining, like yours. You fabricate these things you've spoken. You make your own doctrine, which Saint Paul says is ''anathema''."

I have obeyed the gospel and showed you passages of where I did this according to the Word of God. You say "You make your own doctrine," If this is the case, then please do make an attempt to show where I do err in my interpretation of the Word of God. Once again you throw out an accusation without ever bothering to prove it. If you cannot show me where I do err, then all you are doing is wasting your words.

Mateo writes, "Thank you for stating the obvious. Jesus never told his followers to hinder children from Baptism."

No, that is NOT true. Jesus never made that statement. 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."

Now why must we become as little children? Because little children have NO sin, that is why.

What does it mean to be converted? It means to repent now doesn?t it? (Read Acts 3:19). So, when we repent and are baptized, we become as little children who are without sin. (Read Luke 24:47). What did Peter preach during the first gospel sermon? (Read Acts 2:38).

Mateo writes, "Baptism infuses grace. God's grace saves us (not faith). It is through God's grace that we grow in faith. The Baptism is, in a sense, a seed for our life of growth in faith."

Well now, that is totally different from what I have been hearing from Eugene. Eugene said and I quote "Faith is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, infused into the soul at baptism"

Yes, we are saved by God?s grace, and baptism is where we are united with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, (Romans 6:3) and yes, once we are baptized we are commanded to grow in grace and knowledge. (2 Peter 3:18). However, baptism does not infuse grace. We only receive the Holy Spirit when we OBEY ALL of God?s requirements for salvation and they include faith, repentance, confession AND baptism. Then and ONLY then do we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and NOT before. To claim that an infant can obey the gospel is just not true. We are saved by grace, through faith. One CANNOT come to Christ without faith.

Mateo writes, "Dear Mr. Protestant, you have made a number of errors in describing Catholic teachings. If you would like to attack the Catholic Church, could you please read the link I gave you regarding Baptism in the Catechism? Here's the link again. Please read paragraphs 1250-1255. If you would like to challenge Christ's Church any more, you might as well attempt to address the Church's explicit teachings instead of attacking doctrines you are totally ignorant of. I have little doubt that you have been "educated" about Catholic teachings by Protestants who want to push their man-made doctrines onto you. "

Dear Mateo, I comment on what is posted. If what your people here post what is not in accordance with Catholic doctrine, then I do not have control over that. If I am incorrect in my responses, then those who did not write according to Catholic doctrine are the ones that need to be "educated." I try to make it a point to only respond to what is written.

Mateo writes, "A few quotes from Acts show that whole families were coming to the faith and being baptized. It was the family who had the faith, not the individual. In the ages before the glorification of individualism, families actually acted as a unit (hard to believe). In the 21st century, society almost expects a family to be dysfunctional. Before our times, family members actually had to work together to survive. Dysfunction was (and still is) a luxury afforded to those with the means to bear it. I say all this because faith (outside the 1st world) is a family affair. An important "church" is the domestic church: mom and dad."

Let me ask you Mateo, is a baby able to hear the Word of God and obey?

Hebrews 5:9 states that Jesus is the "author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him." Can a baby obey God? To claim that a baby can obey God is just not true.

When the church began, the Word of God was preached orally, and those who HEARD and UNDERSTOOD the Word of God then OBEYED what they heard. Romans 6:17 says, "But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. "

The doctrine they obeyed was the gospel, which included facts to be believed, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and commands to be obeyed (John 14:15). When Peter preached the first gospel sermon, "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; " (Acts 2:41).

Mateo writes, "Denying baptism to a child because he doesn't have faith makes about as much sense as denying citizenship to a child before he's sworn loyalty to the country. This isn't rocket-science."

Jesus linked faith and baptism together when He said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16). This isn?t rocket-science either.

Mateo writes, "If you find yourself unable to read the Catechism quotes, here are the verses to support children being baptized: Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16"

Let?s look at these verses. In Acts 16:15, Yes Lydia and her household were baptized, however, if you look at verse 14, the Lord had to open her heart to "heed" the things spoken by Paul. This means that she had to OBEY all of the requirements to be saved which included being baptized. Children are not able to "heed" anything.

As for Acts 16:33, yes it says that he and all his family were baptized, but in order to "believe" (verse 31) they first had to have the Word of the Lord spoken to them (verse 32) this infers that one is able to understand what is being told to them. In verse 34, the Jailer rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. Since babies CANNOT believe or obey, they are not able to be baptized.

As for Acts 18:8, the Corinthians had to first believe, then they were baptized. Once again a baby is NOT able to do this.

As for 1 Cor 1:16, once again, just because it says that Paul baptized the household of Stephanus is no indication that babies were baptized. Look at verse 18, where Paul said that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. One must have understanding of the message before they are accountable to God. I have said many times that before one is baptized one must have faith. I have not had one Catholic ever prove from the Word of God where this is not the case. So, to claim that babies are included in households when they were baptized is NOT in accordance with the Word of God.

Frank wrote, "Nope. Sorry slim, it's possible that someone is NEVER mature enough right to merit hell for ignorance right? That means (to you of course, not anyone else) that someone MAY be able to live their whole life in ignorance without the threat of Hell right?"

God has given us what He requires from us in order to be redeemed. To claim that someone it is possible that someone is NEVER mature enough to merit hell for ignorance is NOT for us to judge. That judgment is up to Jesus.

Is it possible for one who is let?s say, retarded or was injured in an accident before they came to maturity and is left as a vegetable, most likely [I can only speculate], God will probably not hold them accountable.

There is nothing in the Word of God that speaks on this subjects. Our job is to teach people the gospel, it is up to them whether to accept, or reject it.

"The Lord knows those who are His." (2 Tim. 2:19).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 20, 2002.

''Jesus linked faith and baptism together when He said, 'He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.' (Mark 16:16). This isn't rocket-science.''

That's OK, you still don't understand it, ''a''. --Nothing in that verse bars an infant's baptism. You quibble to sustain your own interpretation.

The ''link'' has to do with faith and perseverance, not a ban on infant baptism.

---

''Verse 14, the Lord had to open her heart to "heed" the things spoken by Paul. This means that she had to OBEY--'' It's not the verse Mateo pointed to, ''a''. Acts 16:15, Lydia and her household were baptized! Don't change the subject to what her heeding means. Their babies were baptised. The whole HOUSEHOLD was. Have you asked if the whole household had been indoctrinated in the scriptures? No-- It's assumed, just like infant baptism can be assumed. The Bible isn't a schematic blueprint. You're using the scriptures to prop up your bigotry.

''As for 1 Cor 1:16, just because it says that Paul baptized the household of Stephanus is no indication that babies were baptized.-- Look at verse 18,''

Verse :18 has no bearing on the facts; you keep evading the truth; babies were also baptised. You may not understand WHY-- But that doesn't make news in this thread, ''a''.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Through one man Adam, sin entered into the world. Therefore in Adam, all die, but in Christ, all shall be made alive.

Were sin not to enter into the world, man would not have died. Sin did enter, and thus all of mankind, and creation, which man was set over, are all subject to the effect of sin.

While we are not blamed for Adam's sin of taking from the tree of knowledge, we do inherit the sinful nature passed down, which has affected the three parts of man - his spirit became deadened, his soul became corrupt and his body became flesh.

This is all bible basics 101. We are not responsible for other people's "sins" but we do have the "SIN" passed down through us.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), December 21, 2002.

Mr Protestant writes:

"Now why must we become as little children? Because little children have NO sin, that is why."

Now, dear protestant, you really are pushing your personal doctrines here. You believe that you read Our Lord's mind, and can attack a meaning that He didn't state. I could list a litany of other attributes that Jesus could be encouraging.

1) Children are curious and open to be taught.

2) Children are humble.

3) Children know that they are dependent on others.

They are all shades of the same theme. Men like the Pharisees have pride. Children don't. If you look at the next verse, you may realize that your claim is just an inaccurate (un-Biblical) opinion. Jesus explains why he wants us to be like children:

Matthew 18:3,4 - "and [Jesus] said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus also disagrees with your assertion that children (at least the ones we should imitate) cannot sin:

Matthew 18:5-7 - "'Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.'"

According to Our Lord, the "little ones" can also "believe" in Him.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"Yes Lydia and her household were baptized, however, if you look at verse 14, the Lord had to open her heart to "heed" the things spoken by Paul."

She believes...and her whole household was baptized. Hmmmm...a domestic church. Baptism isn't an end of faith; it is a beginning. It's not the result of faith; it's a source of faith.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"This means that she had to OBEY all of the requirements to be saved which included being baptized."

She obeyed...the whole family got baptized...what part of this is confusing? I suspect you project your own cultural biases onto your "personal" Jesus. On a tangential note, that's why I never liked the idea of everybody having (inventing) his or her own "personal" Jesus. Extreme individualism isn't Christianity. We are a community of believers. (1 Corinthians 12:14-29)

Reading from 1 Corinthians 12, verse 9 echoes Eugene's assertion that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It's a product of the grace of God. The waters of Baptism are grace-giving. Baptism sows grace. Grace sows faith. So Baptism sows faith.

Verses 12 and 13 are completely Catholic:

1 Corinthians 12:12,13 - "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit."

By the Sacrament of Baptism, we are made one body. This is the beginning of our Christian life of Faith, drinking of one Spirit. Baptism opens the door to our life of faith. Our Christian life begins with Baptism, according to the bible. It is at this point that we become a member of the Body of Christ.

Mr. Protestant writes:

"As for Acts 16:33, yes it says that he and all his family were baptized, but in order to "believe" (verse 31) they first had to have the Word of the Lord spoken to them (verse 32) this infers that one is able to understand what is being told to them."

Verse 31 is interesting. Here it is (RSV):

Acts 16:29,30,31 - "And he ...fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, 'Men, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

You've gotta find this verse pretty funny. I mean...here's this guy, and St. Paul tells him that if he believes in the Lord, he and his whole family (household) are saved! It doesn't say "you and anyone else whom Mr. Protestant believes is old enough to be saved." It's the whole gang. Tada! Here's the verse staring right at you, and you just pretend like it's not there. The Truth will set you free.

Here's what I understand from this story. The "man of the house" accepts that message that Jesus is truly the Son of God. He and his family are baptized as a result of this belief. It doesn't matter whether his family was young or old. It's even worse than you can imagine: it was this one man's belief that precipitated the whole family being baptized.

The waters of Baptism wash away sin and infuse the power of the Holy Spirit. They mark the beginning of the family's life of faith. Sounds a bit like what Eugene wrote. The grace of God--through the sacraments--infuses faith.

I suppose this is the difference between Catholic teachings and some Protestant teachings. To Catholics, God works through the sacraments and allows us to respond to his calling. To some Protestants, the believer is almost "washing himself." I really think you have this opinion. Otherwise, you wouldn't call the Sacrament of Baptism a "work." We don't "work" in Baptism. God "works" in Baptism. His work is called grace.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 21, 2002.

Once again, Mateo: BRAVO!

As a distant corollary to infant baptised/unbaptised --The evil of abortion takes on a really horrid face when we note that baptism gives a baby, once born--entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

Protestants' criteria, abortion can't harm an unborn life. The sinless baby merely takes his place in heaven for being aborted. Why, then, the Bible Christian's stance against abortion? Let's say, it's breaking the 5th commandment, that's all.

We ought all to die right at birth then; and save ourselves. Why live at all? But didn't Christ come just for that; because the world was in SIN? NOT INFANTS, says the protestant. Then Christ didn't die for infants. They were not in need of salvation.

Who said they had sinned? Saint Paul told us the wages of sin is death. Why do some infants still die, if they need no salvation?

Doesn't the Church of the apostles BAPTISE infants? --Yes; she does and she knows why. Sin makes it imperative they receive baptism, lest they die unsaved. Original Sin.

Abortion is an outrage against the Redemption of Christ; placing the unborn into the helpless position of losing that salvation He intended for them. (This is my tentative worry--) Doesn't this make good food for thought? Say for David Sullivan, Who takes it for granted babies all enter heaven, baptised or otherwise. --???

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.

Mr. Roman Catholic [Mateo] writes, "You believe that you read Our Lord's mind, and can attack a meaning that He didn't state. I could list a litany of other attributes that Jesus could be encouraging."

What did Jesus mean when he wrote this statement in Matt 19:14 "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

What does "for of such is the kingdom of heaven"? Please also comment on Matthew 18:3 in your reply. Especially the words that say "unless you turn and become like children".

Mr. Roman Catholic writes, "If you look at the next verse, you may realize that your claim is just an inaccurate (un-Biblical) opinion. Jesus explains why he wants us to be like children: Then he quotes Matthew 18:3,4.

Please note that this verse states that one has to TURN [repent] in order to become like children. If one [repents] and obeys the gospel in baptism, then one is without sin. That is what Jesus is speaking of in this verse, one has to humble themselves [obey the gospel] in order to become like the little children who have no sin. No, Mr. Roman Catholic that is NOT an un-Biblical opinion.

Then Mr. Roman Catholic quotes says, "Jesus also disagrees with your assertion that children (at least the ones we should imitate) cannot sin:" then he quotes Matthew 18:5-7. Then he says "According to Our Lord, the "little ones" can also "believe" in Him."

Please notice that Mr. Roman Catholic does not state the obvious. First, someone must cause the "little ones" to sin, and second, in order to "believe", one must first be taught.

Mr. Roman Catholic writes in reference to Acts 16:14-15, "She believes...and her whole household was baptized. Hmmmm...a domestic church. Baptism isn't an end of faith; it is a beginning. It's not the result of faith; it's a source of faith."

Please also notice that Lydia is the only one that believes here. First her whole household had to be "taught", then they had to "obey". To claim that babies are included in her "household" is twisting of the Word of God.

Mr. Roman Catholic continued with, "She obeyed...the whole family got baptized...what part of this is confusing?"

What Mr. Roman Catholic once again doesn?t comment on is that first one has to be "taught", then they had to "obey".

Mr. Roman Catholic writes, "Reading from 1 Corinthians 12, verse 9 echoes Eugene's assertion that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It's a product of the grace of God. The waters of Baptism are grace-giving. Baptism sows grace. Grace sows faith. So Baptism sows faith."

Please look at 1 Corinthians 15:8-10, all the "gifts of the Spirit" have ceased. These gifts were temporary and were to cease with the completion of the New Testament. That "which is perfect" that perfect thing [not Christ] was the word of God, "the perfect law of liberty" (Jas. 1:25), and it has come. Once the whole [perfect] body of truth had been one time for all time given and confirmed, then these miraculous gifts ceased (Eph. 4:7,11-13). There is NO man living today who has any of these miraculous gifts, and there is no apostle living to bestow them. So, Baptism does NOT sow faith.

Mr. Roman Catholic writes about the conversion of the Philippian Jailer in Acts chapter 16, but please notice that Mr. Roman Catholic is guilty of the same tactic as the denominationalists when they try to prove their doctrine of "faith only" they only use verses 30 and 31, however, one can PLAINLY read verse 32 which states "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house." One CANNOT obey what one does not UNDERSTAND. Yes, the truth will set you free.

Yes Mr. Roman Catholic, the waters of baptism wash away sin, but NOT until one has first believed, repented, and then confessed Jesus.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 21, 2002.

Gene,

"..Say for David Sullivan, who takes it for granted babies all enter heaven, baptised or otherwise.."

Slow down, Gene! You can't rember what was said yesterday. Do you need stronger lenses or are you just simple?

You are the one who told Patricia that unbaptised babies are not in Heaven. This was wrong of you! You don't know this.I questioned you and you arrogantly said, "sorry if it sounds to tough but it can be taught in the Catechism. You were wrong for the second time with me. You thanked me for showing you what the Catechism said. You than wanted to be on record with an aborted baby as an example.

I showed you what the Catechism said about this. There is hope for the babies Gene. You already said that they arn't in Heaven. Scroll up and read it again . I used the word[might].

Take a break babe. I think Isabel and Ed must of put one on you this past week. Your pride is hurting because there are more and more people who won't let you bully them around.

I don't take anything for granted in this world Gene. All anyone has to do is read your posts to see you trying to be a "slippery eel" again. It doesn't matter what year you learned what. Itwhat you said. You can't rewrite history Gene, Scroll up and read it again. I refuted you with the Catechism you prideful? :-)

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 21, 2002.

David-- You're becoming very confrontational. If you don't take it for granted all babies in dying go to eternal life in heaven, why not tell us you don't really know? That's what I think; considering Original Sin.

I said abortion places the unborn into the helpless position of losing that salvation Christ intended for them. (This is my tentative worry--) I worry for them.

Instead of receiving baptism, they're aborted. You tell me, ''There is hope for the babies Gene. You already said that they aren't in Heaven.'' No, I said we are allowed to hope; and that I have known this since 1948 at least. But hope doesn't mean we know. Original Sin is a doctrine in the catholic Church. Didn't I suggest you might examine that doctrine?

We know when the baby's aborted he/she will not be baptised; that much we know. That's why I worry. I have not sent any baby to hell, I want them all in heaven just like you.

I asked whether this wasn't good food for thought. --Why?

Because no matter what you THINK the catechism states, we can't be certain. Baptism is CERTAIN.

Is that what you think is being an eel? To say you have food for thought?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.

''Your pride is hurting because there are more and more people who won't *let you bully them* around.''

--read your posts to see you trying to be a "slippery eel" *again*. It doesn't matter what year you learned what. It what you said. You can't rewrite history Gene, *I refuted you with the Catechism* you *prideful?* :-) --''

Do you need stronger lenses or are you *just simple?*

Every one of these personal snaps in my face has one thing alike: None relate either to the subject at hand nor the doctrines we're debating about. They are just sneers and lack of respect. You want ME to back off from being a ''bully'', and you resort to cutting remarks. Isn't that bullying, David?

I can't help it if you didn't like my opinions. I hold them sincerely and I have no reason to apologise for them. Once more I'll say, ''You did not refute me with proof from the catechism.'' The catechism simply doesn't offer us any help. Why is that bullying? So, I suggested my defense of the Church against those who attack her isn't backed up by our new catechism. They say the Church has ''changed'' some doctrines. Now it seems they were right.

You helped make me a liar. I insisted no changes were made after Vatican II. I ain't crying; I've made mistakes before in my life.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.

Gene,

Please don't use my name, and incorrectly say what I think. If you want respect than it works both ways. But anytime I read you use my name I will respond to you especially when you are wrong.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 21, 2002.

David:
I see this, ''Please don't use my name, and incorrectly say what I think.'' --Please make this clear. Your NAME? What about your name?

If you just don't respect me, say so. My approach is always straight-forward and honest. I speak my mind. I said David Sullivan because we had given one another some differing opinions. It went back to what we had talked about. Are you addressing me by *name* or --somebody else, saying this is an EEL?

I have no right to talk back? Since when are you unanswerable? Keep making cutting remarks; I have all the resistance in the world. But I really thought we had a friendship. You're willing to end it on the grounds of a misunderstanding? We could stop at this point, David. But just look at what you've been saying. I'm not so proud, but I stand up; you won't walk over me so easily.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.

Gene and David, I hope that I can persuade you to stop the scuffling.

I have to admit that I don't understand everything that is going on in this thread, because I have not had time yet to read every detail of every post -- especially the debate involving Kevin/Eugene/Mateo/Oliver/Emerald on Baptism.

However, there is one thing that I do know for sure. And that is the fact that the problem for you two guys started when you, Gene, made an honest mistake. Here is what you said that was not correct and that caused David to bring to your attention what the new Catechism states [and I will add emphasis]:

"Dear Patricia: ... The doctrine of Original Sin has always been the strict necessity of baptism as a condition for entering the kingdom of heaven. Children that have died without baptism are not in hell or purgatory. These souls have a place of ultimate natural, eternal life and happiness. It is not heaven. The doctrine maintains a final state traditionally named Limbo for these souls ..."

Then, after David quoted the new Catechism, you replied: "I'm glad you told me this, David. The older catechism would've said what I did."

And therein lies the problem that started your bad argument. You see, Gene, your original statement contains two errors, and your second statement contains another:

(1) You stated flatly that "Children that have died without baptism ... have a place ... [that] is not heaven." Although you later said that you hoped that they may somehow get to heaven, it was not right for you to start by making the categorical statement, "[their] place ... is not heaven."

(2) You stated that there is a "doctrine" of a place "traditionally named Limbo." That is not correct. There never was such a "doctrine" (i.e., Church teaching) nor such a "tradition." The idea of "limbo" was only a theory that began to be offered by some theologians at a certain point in the Church's history. (The theologians sought a way to avoid saying that these children are in heaven without Baptism, and a way to avoid saying that they are in hell without personal sin.)

(3) You stated that the "older catechism would've said what" you had stated -- i.e., that the souls of the babies are in Limbo. This is not, strictly speaking, correct. The last official Catechism for the universal Church came out in the 16th century, and it did not teach a doctrine of Limbo. You may have been thinking of the Baltimore Catechism, which became a local (U.S.) Catechism around the turn of the 20th century. I believe that it has had many editions and varying versions (for people of different ages). My recollection is that a reference to Limbo was temporarily present in one or more editions of the Baltimore. I can't recall if it was in a footnote, but it was not (or should not have been) put forward as a doctrine of the Church, since it was only theological speculation. I know, I know. You are going to say that you were taught Limbo as a doctrine. I think that I was too, in the late 1950s, but that was wrong.

So, anyway, the point is that the Church has never definitively taught what happens to the souls of unbaptized, deceased children, because God has never revealed that. We have the hope-filled, but uncertain, words of the new Catechism, and we have the opinion of Pope John Paul II, who wrote that the souls of aborted children are "in the Lord," though he did not explain what that means. (Can a soul be "in the Lord," but not actually in heaven? I don't know.) Here is what he wrote in his encyclical, "Evangelium vitae" ("Gospel of Life") #99: "You [mother of aborted child] will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord." [Not online in Latin, but Italian = "... vostro bambino, che ora vive nel Signore."]

In light of all this, Gene and David, I hope that you can put the matter behind you and renew your friendship.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

Rats! I hate it when that happens! Please assume that the bold type ended at the end of the paragraph in which it began. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

John,

I just noticed your post after I posted, so I didn't get to read what you posted before I did.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), December 22, 2002.

Gene, amazingly, David and I posted almost simultaneously. He could not have read my message before posting his own message. I'll leave it up to him if he wants to add something after reading what I wrote.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

It's just about UNBELIEVABLE, isn't it, David?
I posted my message at about 6:30 p.m. Sunday -- and so did you. But the last post before mine was back on Saturday! How in the world could you and I have chosen the same moment to post, after the thread had been idle for at least 18.5 hours?
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

The Lord works in mysterious ways John. May the Baby Jesus bless Gene and yourself.

God bless

-- David (David@excite.com), December 22, 2002.

Dear Patricia: All the suffering souls in purgatory are sent because of some remaining debt of temporal punishment. It's not because they aren't saved for eternal life. The doctrine of Original Sin has always been the strict necessity of baptism as a condition for entering the kingdom of heaven. Children that have died without baptism are not in hell or purgatory. These souls have a place of ultimate natural, eternal life and happiness. It is not heaven. The doctrine maintains Thank you all, for being understanding.

/ / / / / /--If anyone here really loves innocent children more than I do, I'll kiss their toe. Never was I seen saying a baby unbaptised was in hell. I mentioned the old teaching of our Church; pre-Vatican II-- giving a speculative idea of where tiny unbaptised souls might go. John's right; this wasn't put forth by the Church as a revealed truth or doctrine. It was a sometimes-held RATIONALE. As John puts it, merely a theory. --Theologians were up a tree.

Original Sin traditionally is acknowledged as barring all souls from entrance to the kingdom of heaven. --The sacrament of baptism (not theory, but doctrine) was Our Lord's provision for removal of this barrier; the baptised soul born again to new life in Christ.

Since this rebirth is a condition once set by Christ Himself, the sacrament of baptism was deemed sine qua non; absolutely essential to the soul's re-birth. In the minds of many Church teachers there only existed a single quandary. Is the infant, whom we acknowledge as bearing the stain of Original Sin, able to enter the kingdom of heaven without this sacrament?

In these straits one answer was NO. In the light of God's infinite Justice and many scriptural pointers, these innocent infants were raised --NOT LOWERED, to a natural state of happiness after death. --Not by the Church; who retained always the option of faith in God's infinite mercy for these infants; and absolutely did NOT condemn them to hell for something not their personal fault.

...

Here is where I was on the subject; and even more, with a similar faith to David's; that God would make a way and bring His innocents home to Himself, all by the merits of Jesus Christ His Son.

OK-- I quoted an obsolete teaching. It wasn't doctrine, I realise; but it was a widely-held tradition based on theological grounds. Even so, the result was not that I'd been proved wrong. The result being really that the Catechism no longer pays the subject much attention, preferring to cite the newer views (ed Richards must now be gloating over this.) Views which may now dismiss all taint of Original Sin in an unbaptised infant.

Infants do not need somehow, being ''born again.''

Is anyone interested in the subject of Original Sin after these pages? --I didn't think so. a final state traditionally named Limbo for these souls; which is not to assume that by the infinite Wisdom of God, these souls could not have been saved through baptism of desire. --We can't say, and it is ultimately God's mercy will determine the answer. But Original Sin has always carried implicitly the penalty of eternal damnation for the unbaptised. It is in fact, by all theological reasoning why mankind was in need of a Redeemer.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 23, 2002.

David,

I think that I can help you out judging boxing matches. In general, the boxer that ends up unconscious is the loser, and the one dancing around over him is the winner. There may be exceptions, but this is the general rule. Hope it helps :-)

Merry Christmas to you and your family,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 23, 2002.

Thank you, Gene.
I see that you understood and accepted part of my message, but not all of it. I will try to clear away the problems that remain.

You wrote: "I quoted an obsolete teaching. It wasn't doctrine, I realise; ..."

But your terminology doesn't fit. What you quoted was not an "obsolete teaching." It was not a "teaching" at all. You acknowledge this by saying, "It wasn't doctrine." The two words are synonymous (teaching = doctrine); doctrine comes from Latin "docere" (to teach).

You continued: "... but it was a widely-held tradition based on theological grounds."

As I said above, it was not a "tradition." The word tradition has two main meanings -- "custom" and "oral teaching, handed down from the Apostles. Obviously, a theory about "limbo" was not a "custom." Was it then an ancient "oral teaching"? No, not that either. Therefore it was not a "tradition." It was merely a "construct" developed at some point, centuries into the Christian era, by some theologians. Before anyone ever thought of "limbo," some theologians thought that these babies' souls were in heaven, while others [including perhaps St. Augustine, at least for a while] thought that they were in hell (because of Original Sin and lack of Baptism)! You can read about all this in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. (I haven't taken a look at the article for more than a year.)

You continued: "Even so, the result was not that I'd been proved wrong. The result being really that the Catechism no longer pays the subject much attention, preferring to cite the newer views ... Views which may now dismiss all taint of Original Sin in an unbaptised infant. Infants do not need somehow, being 'born again.' "

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with you. You were proved partially wrong before, and you are wrong again. The Catechism does not dismiss the existence of "Original Sin in an unbaptized infant." On the contrary! It encourages parents to have their babies baptized quickly. Why? The CCC does acknowledge the need for every person to be "born again." The CCC only expresses a "hope," not a certainty, that God may work outside the normal channels of grace (Baptism) in relationship with these babies. Remember that the deceased little ones have souls that live on outside the body, and we do not know the capabilities of intellect and will that exist in these souls. Perhaps they can make a choice for God and receive a Baptism of Desire, ironically being "born again" at the moment of death.

Here is what the CCC says, backing what I said above. I hope that it will reassure you, Gene, because the CCC is completely reliable:
"1250. Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth."
"1261. ... the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children ... allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 23, 2002.

Gene,

Come on man! You made a "Boo Boo":-) Stop trying to talk around it.

Why is it so hard for you to say, I was wrong? Swallow that pride Gino. The Catechism will never steer you wrong.

God bless you.

David S

-- David (David@excite.com), December 23, 2002.

Thank you, Dear David. I needed that.
Now we understand each other, and I can wish you and my other brothers and sisters on this forum a Merry Christmas. May the Christ Child be your light and your joy forever!

Hosanna in the Highest and Peace on earth to all men of good will!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 24, 2002.

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 24, 2002.