After pondering the notion that Jesus simply "used" Mary to be born, and that quite possibly God could have simply sent Jesus – a “ready-made” man, I was hit with what I would consider a "revelation". It cannot be described any other way - because I don't know how else I would have come up with this. Of course, all the mistakes are mine!)

Here is what I started to ponder.

God is infinite Wisdom; Perfect in everyway. There is only one thing God NEEDS, and that is PERFECTION. If this weren’t so, then He wouldn’t be God! Because God is Perfect! God cannot do anything other than what is PERFECT. If He does, then he contradicts himself! This fact shows us that there was NO other way that Jesus could have or would have become the Word-Incarnate. The simple fact that the choices of God are SINGULAR and PERFECT show us that Jesus NEEDED Mary (though His need for perfection). We cannot say that God had other choices, because since God chose Mary to give birth to Jesus, this was the ONE and ONLY PERFECT choice. Any other choice we can think of would be less than the perfect choice God made. If there were a better choice, surely God would have chosen it! Sure there were other “choices”, but because God is perfect and would only pick the MOST INFINITLY PERFECT way, then Mary was the ONLY PERFECT choice. God NEEDED to make this PERFECT choice, and therefore he NEEDED Mary! And since Mary was the only perfect choice (apparent by the fact that God chose this way) then Jesus NEEDED Mary to become flesh, suffer, and die for our sins. Because there was no other “better” way for Jesus to become flesh (if there were another “better” way God would have chose it), and die to open the Gates of Heaven, and in the future destroy Satan for ever, Mary IS a direct and necessary participant in the defeat of Satan. God chose Mary because God only chooses what is the correct and PERFECT choice, and because Mary was the Perfect Choice, then God NEEDED to choose her. Because Jesus NEEDED Mary, then Mary becomes a NECESSITY in His SALVIFIC plan. NO Mary, NO Jesus! And since Mary is a direct and necessary participant in the defeat of Satan, she cannot, nor could have ever cooperated with Satan through sin.

Of course – I could go on and on for pages, but I will leave this as it is for you guys to ponder. I would suggest not responding right away on simply the pure text of what is written. I know there will be posts, “but God doesn’t NEED anything. Dah dah dah.”. But ponder it, and let it sink in. The more I think about this, the more I understand how the Catholic Church is RIGHT about Mary! And this takes NOTHING away from God! It only shows how PERFECT He is! Mary always leads us to her most precious Son.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 14, 2002

Answers

bump

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 14, 2002.

This is an example of how several false assumptions can lead one's theology astray.

Let's break this down some. I'll interject my comments in bold into your statement.

God is infinite Wisdom; Perfect in everyway. true. There is only one thing God NEEDS, and that is PERFECTION.false. God doesn't need anything. Needing implies that he lacks something. If He is perfect, He is also complete. When dealing with man, the appropriate term is God uses, not God needs. For example, using your logic, God made Adam and Eve to be perfect and then "needed" them to remain perfect in order to rule and reign over His perfect Creation. Yet they sinned. They turned away from their perfection and fouled it all up. Did that stop God? No. God had a plan to redeem mankind and ultimately His creation. It's still unfolding. If this weren’t so, then He wouldn’t be God! Because God is Perfect! God cannot do anything other than what is PERFECT. again, God uses mankind in many ways and since man is always imperfect and God gives man free choice, part of God's perfection is being able to accommodate our sinfulness and free will, yet still be able to move forward with His ultimate perfect will. For example, Jesus chose all of the apostles - none were perfect and one even betrayed him. What happened to the one who betrayed him, well, another was selected to replace him . . . and God's plan moved forward unimpeded by man's sin and free will choices to the contrary. If He does, then he contradicts himself! This fact shows us that there was NO other way that Jesus could have or would have become the Word-Incarnate. The simple fact that the choices of God are SINGULAR and PERFECT show us that Jesus NEEDED Mary ahhh, but as I pointed out, God's choices are never singular, He demonstrates this throughout history, He always has a back-up plan (though His need for perfection). We cannot say that God had other choices, because since God chose Mary to give birth to Jesus, this was the ONE and ONLY PERFECT choice. illogical - why can't we say He had other choices? There's no basis for making that statement Any other choice we can think of would be less than the perfect choice God made. Don't mistake thinking that just because Mary was the best choice, there weren't other acceptable choices God could have made or further plans He would have used. Just as Adam and Eve chose to reject God's plan, so too could have Mary. He she rejected it, He would have turned to plan C as it were. The basis for believing there was other choices (observing God's pattern of dealing with man and free will) is indirect but solid. But there's absolutely no basis for concluding that Mary was the only possible choice. If there were a better choice, surely God would have chosen it!If this were true, Mary wouldn't have been necessary, because as stated, He already had a pair of perfect individuals through whom He chose to implement His original plan, but those choices failed. So the incarnation itself was a back-up plan in case Adam and Eve failed.y Sure there were other “choices”, but because God is perfect and would only pick the MOST INFINITLY PERFECT way, then Mary was the ONLY PERFECT choice. You see, trying to assert God's perfection into this is incorrect. God chose Peter to be a leader among the apostles - yet no one would claim he was perfect. And Peter could have turned away. Wouldn't God just as quickly have turned to John or whomever, to step in? Again, He did that with Judas's replacement. I'll skip to the conclusion since everything else is pretty much following in the same line of thinkingGod NEEDED to make this PERFECT choice, and therefore he NEEDED Mary! And since Mary was the only perfect choice (apparent by the fact that God chose this way) then Jesus NEEDED Mary to become flesh, suffer, and die for our sins. Because there was no other “better” way for Jesus to become flesh (if there were another “better” way God would have chose it), and die to open the Gates of Heaven, and in the future destroy Satan for ever, Mary IS a direct and necessary participant in the defeat of Satan. God chose Mary because God only chooses what is the correct and PERFECT choice, and because Mary was the Perfect Choice, then God NEEDED to choose her. Because Jesus NEEDED Mary, then Mary becomes a NECESSITY in His SALVIFIC plan. NO Mary, NO Jesus! And since Mary is a direct and necessary participant in the defeat of Satan, she cannot, nor could have ever cooperated with Satan through sin.

Here's my conclusion. As honored as Mary is for having yielded to God's will, she is not unique in that choice. Every disciple who followed Jesus to this very day has made the same choice. And using the logic you have about Mary participating in Jesus's mission, the same could be said of Joseph, the 12 . . . even Judas. That her choice involved a much greater leap of faith is all the more reason to honor Mary, but not a reason to elevate her to Coredeemer.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 14, 2002.

I knew that there would be those who wouldn't understand simply because when we hear NEED, there is a block. God doesn't NEED anything because He is God. This “need” being an indicator that there is a higher authority, which there obviously is not. However, there is a NEED for God not to contradict Himself (He is His own authority, and thus needs to be true to Himslef). This NEED arises from the fact that if God were to contradict Himself - it would indicate a mistake, which God (being God) is incapable of! Therefore, everything God chooses to do IS perfect, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the object God chooses is perfect. Peter, for instance, was the perfect choice for the leader of His Apostles. However, Peter himself wasn’t perfect.

My argument was NOT that Mary was perfect based on the fact that God had made the perfect choice for her to give birth to the Word! My argument for Mary’s perfection arises as such, and I will indicate at which point Mary’s perfection is necessary:

God made the perfect decision to have His Son born of a woman. There is no other “better” choice, because had there been a better choice, God would have chosen it instead. God is perfect and what He chooses is BEST.

So, Mary was the perfect choice (not necessarily perfect herself – at this point).

Therefore, Mary was chosen by God to bring flesh to His Son. Because Mary was the perfect choice for this role (being the giver of flesh) NOW she is in need of being perfect herself. Because through God’s NEED to choose her and bring flesh to His Son, Mary now participates out of necessity in the redemptive role of Christ-Incarnate: His life, death, and resurrection. Mary now needs to be perfect, because in participating in the redemptive role of her Son, Jesus, she is also a participant in the defeat (for good) of Satan by her Son, Jesus – which can only occur through compete opposition of Satan, which means that Mary could not have cooperated with Satan through sin in the very least.

Here perfection is not connected simply by God’s choice for her – as you had argued, God chose other sinners to do His will also. In fact God chose the Human race! A perfect choice, yet an imperfect race. Her perfection is connected like this:

God NEEDED to make the perfect choice (not “need” in the sense that He is under the authority of the object, but rather that He cannot contradict Himself. He IS under His own authority – which prescribes to Him the NEED to be perfect). Therefore, Mary was the perfect choice. However, it wasn’t like ANY other choices God made. God had made several perfect choices before, during, and He will continue to make perfect choices. Nonetheless, this ONE time Choice for His Son is what necessitated Mary’s perfection. Just this once, God’s perfect choice needed to be perfect itself. Out of God’s necessity to NOT contradict Himself, He made the perfect decision to have His Son die for us. In Jesus, the Son’s death, Satan will be defeated for good! Therefore, since Mary was needed to give flesh to the Son of Man, who would defeat Satan, Mary would be a direct participator in the defeat as well!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 15, 2002.

Note: When I say, "Mary was perfect", I mean she was sinless. It doesn't mean that she never made a sinless mistake, like forgetting to put out the trash on Tuesday.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 15, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), November 15, 2002.

Jake by your posts I'm sorry but you glorify Mary waaaaay too much. God needed Mary ? Mary was sinless ? Let's just suppose you were correct, even though I don't hold that doctrine to be true myself. But even were your Catholic doctrine of Mary being sinless were true, then I ask you, where did the perfection come from ? God or Mary ? Did Mary have anything to do with the perfection ? If Mary even was sinless, which I'm sure she wasn't, your Catholic doctrine says that it was God who preserved her. Therefore, it had nothing to do with Mary, but rather God had a plan and had to execute that plan, so now by following the Catholic doctrine, God had to intervene to maintain Mary's sinlessness. That would mean that Mary's nature was actually corrupt and had to have God's intervening. If God didn't intervene, what do you think would have happened ? Do you think Mary would remain sinless ? Please remember in the entire context of this message, I do not hold to that doctrine but I am just taking it from that point of view to address your post.

Also, as David stated, God always has alternate plans. If someone fails Him, He looks to another vessel to carry on with His economy. It is most certainly an awesome gift from God to give to Mary to carry the messiah in her womb, and yet Jesus Himself spoke in reply to the one who said blessed is the womb that bore Him and the breasts that nursed Him "Blessed rather is He who does the will of my Father."

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 15, 2002.

Olly, you are taking that scripture way out of context. When the woman said "Blessed is the womb that bore Him and the breasts that nursed Him" she was directing her compliment to Jesus. Mary's womb was blessed because Jesus was in it, therefore it is clear the compliment was meant for Him. Jesus then turned the compliment from Himself and directs it to Mary, who had done the will of His Father.

It was all Jesus' doing that made Mary perfect. The Catholic Church does not deny that. Remember in Luke 1, the angel said "Hail Mary, FULL of grace". She was full of grace, she had no stain of sin, the perfect vessel. Do you not believe in the awesome Presence of the Son of God in her womb? How could God allow Him to be in a sin-stained environment?

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), November 16, 2002.

Much in the same way that He was allowed to live on the Earth for 33 and a half years. If Mary was able to be preserved from Sin, according to Catholic doctrine, then clearly she didn't need to because Jesus could have been just as preserved without Mary being sinless, or do you suggest that Mary's parents were sinless ?

Olly

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 16, 2002.

Olly,

Go back and read Mrs. Huether's post to you. No where did she mention Jesus' grandparents being sinless. Is this what the Church in Auckland teaches? It seems as you do a lot out of context.

I love St. Peter but you can't compare a sinner with the Blessed Virgin. I didn't read anywhere where Our Lady denied Our Lord three times, can you? Thats comparing a apples and grapes. Mary was there with our Lord in most important times in His life on earth. She was at the foot of that cross watching her son get crucified. Where was St. Peter?

May Our Lady of Sorrows pray for you to have faith in the Catholic Church.

-- - (.@....), November 16, 2002.

St. Louis-Marie Grignion De Montfort (18the Century):

"The power of Mary over the devils will be particularly outstanding in the last period of time. She will extend the Kingdom of Christ over the idolaters and Moslems, and there will come a glorious era when Mary is the Ruler and Queen of Hearts."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2002.

"Go back and read Mrs. Huether's post to you. No where did she mention Jesus' grandparents being sinless. Is this what the Church

Anonyomous, I was trying to make a point here. Why if it is possible for Mary to be preserved without sin would she even need to be ? Please read this very carefully. Jesus surely could have been preserved sinless without the need for Mary to be sinless. Let me explain, and please follow because this is where I brought up the matter of sinlessness of Mary's parents.

Firstly, just to clear up a matter, no the Church in Auckland does not teach that Mary's parents were sinless. Nor do they teach that Mary was sinless. I was bringing up this point to illustrate whether or not it would be necessary for Mary to be sinless for Jesus to be preserved.

* If Jesus, the eternal Son of God was sinless from eternity past, perfect in every way, compare Him with : Mary, a Human, born into the race of Adam, affected by the fall.

* Now supposedly Mary *HAS* to be sinless in order for God's Son, Jesus Christ to remain sinless. This puts a dependancy of God on His creation in order to maintain perfection.

* Now if Mary were to be preserved free from sin, how was this done ? We see that according to Catholic doctrine, Mary had to be sinless for Jesus, but what of Mary herself ? How was she supposedly preserved sinless ? Well there's three possibilities, let's take a look at each one :

1. Mary's parents were preserved sinless. This would follow the same trend as the Catholic doctrine that necessitated Mary (His human mother) to be sinless in order for Jesus Himself to be preserved sinless. Though this option obviously is not taught in Catholic doctrine, and rightfully so because we will come up with a very real dilemma as I'm sure you've already identified. This dilemma is a recurring chain of required sinlessness of the ancestoral line of Mary leading right back to Adam and Eve. Since this option is completely unbiblical we can toss it out straight away.

2. Mary strived for her own righteousness. This option, unlike number 2, puts her condition independent of her parents, which on the one hand solves the sinlessness-chain dilemma, but on the other hand gives the unscriptural view that man can be sinless out of His own effort, without any intervention from God. The Catholic Church does not teach this either, and nor should it, for it too is unbiblical.

3. The final option, which is the option taken by the Catholic Church, and follows the bible the closest of the 3 options is that Mary was preserved by God to be sinless. We see in this option that Mary's sinlessness depended upon God.

This seems all well and good until you discover something quite basic. Why couldn't Jesus have been preserved by God by the same method Mary had, according to Catholics ? Why, if Mary can be preserved from sin, regardless of the fact that she had sinful parents, why can't Jesus be preserved even though having a sinful mother ?

Do you see the problem here ? Catholic teaching says that Mary HAD to be sinless in order for Jesus to be preserved sinless. So supposedly, Jesus, the almighty Son of God could only be preserved if his created mother was preserved.

Perhaps now you can see why I brought up the matter of Mary's parents. Mary's preservation according to Catholic teachiing had nothing to do with her parents, so I ask you why at all would Jesus, the perfect God-Man require anything from His mother ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 16, 2002.

Hello, Olly

"Jake by your posts. I'm sorry but you glorify Mary way to much.."

That is just yours and the Church of Auckland opionion. I don't think Jake worships anyone but God.

"Lets suppose you are correct.."

Do you put more faith in your Church in Auckland?

"..But lets suppose your Catholic doctrine of Mary about her sinless were true..."

Do you realy doubt it? If you can break a nasty porn addiction, than do you think the Blessed Lady that held the God of the Universe is worried about sex? Its common sense if you realy think about it.

"Did the perfection come from God or Mary..."

Olly come on. God is perfect and His Mother is sinless because that's His Mom only with His grace...

"Did Mary have anything to do with perfection..."

Olly you are starting to repeat yourself in a way.

"Also, as Dave stated, God always has alternate plans...."

God is perfect Olly. He doesn't need alternate plans. Dave B is a very smart dude with out a doubt. But he has never been able to have faith in the Catholic Church. It seems as smart as Dave is, he is unsure about relegion. Dave was a Catholic, than he switched to another vocal denomination, and know he is with a group that believes in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. But Dave already said he would leave his new group to if it came down to certain issues on the Blessed Mother, I think.

I know Dave has questioned why one would pray in front of the Blessed Sacrament even though his Church does it. But Dave was away at that time.

Dave has doubted ST.Padre Pio, and the Blessed Mother before in this forum.He is a very nice guy, but you know?

-- D (.@.....), November 16, 2002.

Theresa,

When Jesus said, "Blessed rather is He who does the will of my Father", how could that have been Jesus redirecting the compliment to Mary when it specifically says "He who does the will of my Father". If that were the case, He would have said "She". So we can be sure that He is clearly not directing the blessing to Mary as an individual. He could have been referring to Himself, but I suspect that it was instead referring to ALL believers who obey God, including Mary.

Remember when Mary and Jesus's brothers visited Jesus? When informed they arrived, Jesus responded, "Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." Mark 3:35. I see this verse as being consistent with the one you raised. Both speak of Jesus's focus on obeying the will of the Father and that being what is worthy of praise and in both instances, He carefully places His mother as being one of those who are blessed because of their obedience to the Father. In doing this on two separate occasions (that we read about), we can be sure that He is addressing the tendency of the crowd to overemphasize Mary and her importance. Jesus properly frames our view of Mary. She is blessed because she obeyed, but do not hold her above any other believer in her importance to the kingdom.

Even your verse "full of grace" is a mistranslation that has been acknowledged by all scriptural scholars, Catholic included. The correct rendering of Charitoo is "highly favored", not "full of grace". But instead of eliminating that mistranslation, Catholics continue to focus on it because in it they see "full of grace" as implying Mary's sinlessness wherein "highly favored", no such implication exists.

D,

Thank you for the compiment and you are mostly correct in your assessment of my status. I would just clarify that I don't doubt that Padre Pio was a highly anointed and holy servant of God (I just questionned some of his practices and beliefs regarding spiritual warfare - I honestly don't know enough about the rest of his life to make a statement otherwise) and I don't doubt Mary as she is portrayed in scripture (I just do not believe many of the Catholic dogmas/doctrines that have evolved over the years).

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 16, 2002.

-- (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2002.

Emerald,

I love that picture and have the exact one hanging on my living room wall. Thanks.

Dave,

Sorry I was a little off on my words.But,I am correct on how smart you are. :-)

-- D (.@...), November 16, 2002.

Hi Jake,

You said:

"The simple fact that the choices of God are SINGULAR and PERFECT show us that Jesus NEEDED Mary (though His need for perfection)."

Question: Isn't Jesus is God? God's choices are not singular, if they were, he would not be God. Isaiah 46:9-10 For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, `My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

In Christ, Ronnie.

-- Ronella (rone11a@yahoo.com), November 16, 2002.

Jmj

Hi, "D."

I'd have to say that you gave David B a bit too much credit by calling him "smart." If he were really smart, of course, he would be Catholic. ;-)
Well, at least he is now headed toward his Catholic home, pausing temporarily in an ecclesial community that may even have valid sacraments. [I never got around to explaining about this on that other thread several weeks ago, where he gave the name of his new Protestant denomination.]
D, I used to think (like you) that David was once Catholic -- but I eventually realized that he never was, because, before he joined Jimmy Swaggart's denomination (around age 20) he did not understand or believe enough Catholic doctrine to have really been in the Catholic Church.]

Besides not yet being "smart" enough to be Catholic, David B is not smart enough to understand the meaning of a crucial verse in St. Luke -- and he still thinks that he can convince educated Catholics at this forum to give up their beliefs. (Dat itself ain't too smart!)

He wrote:
"Even your verse 'full of grace' is a mistranslation that has been acknowledged by all scriptural scholars, Catholic included. The correct rendering of [the Greek word] 'charitoo' is 'highly favored', not 'full of grace.' But instead of eliminating that mistranslation, Catholics continue to focus on it because in it they see 'full of grace' as implying Mary's sinlessness wherein 'highly favored,' no such implication exists."

David B, you need to stay "in your depth." You are treading in water that is too deep for you!
You were very wrong to say that "all scriptural scholars, Catholic included," agree with you on this translation. How did you come up with that whopper? Did you simply assume it to be true because a widely used Catholic Bible edition or two uses your favored translation? Poof! There most certainly are Orthodox and Catholic Bible scholars (and I'd even bet some Protestant ones) who consider "full of grace" to be the proper translation. I know this because I have read/heard their own words. They explicitly reject the too-weak translation that you favor.

And what was that you said about the Greek? You mentioned the word "charitoo," saying that it meant "highly favored." Wrong! That is not even the word in the verse! The root word "charitoo" means "to gift," "to grace," "to favor." But the word in the verse is a very rare form, not found anywhere else in the Bible -- "kecharitomene." The Bible scholars that reject your preferred, weak translation say that the word means "so graced as to be unable to contain any more grace" -- i.e., "full of grace." And that is exactly why St. Jerome -- one of the greatest Bible scholars of all time, who knew Greek inside out -- translated "kecharitomene" as "full of grace." Yes, around 400 A.D., St. Jerome prepared the Latin Vulgate and translated the word as "gratia plena" -- "full of grace." For me (and for any Catholic or Orthodox person), that puts an end to the argument.

Now that you are aware of this, please look with shame on the anti-Catholic insult you wrote: "But instead of eliminating that mistranslation, Catholics continue to focus on it because in it they see 'full of grace' as implying Mary's sinlessness wherein 'highly favored,' no such implication exists."
The fact is that NON-Catholics continue to focus on it (and wrongly reject it), because they cannot bear to face the fact that they have abandoned the original Christian teaching about our Blessed Mother -- ever virgin, immaculately conceived, sinless throughout life, and assumed into heaven.

Now, I need to talk to you, Olly, because you twice made the same serious error about what the Catholic Church teaches, and it is throwing off half of your argumentation. After reading what I am about to say, I hope that you will get in the habit of asking us Catholics what we believe, rather than telling us (wrongly) what we believe.

You wrote: "Why couldn't Jesus have been preserved by God by the same method Mary had, according to Catholics? Why, if Mary can be preserved from sin, regardless of the fact that she had sinful parents, why can't Jesus be preserved even though having a sinful mother? Do you see the problem here? Catholic teaching says that Mary HAD to be sinless in order for Jesus to be preserved sinless. So supposedly, Jesus, the almighty Son of God could only be preserved if his created mother was preserved."

Olly, who ever told you this untruth? "Catholic teaching" does NOT say "that Mary HAD to be sinless in order for Jesus to be preserved sinless." It was not absolutely necessary! Being all-powerful, God could have done anything -- including preserving Jesus from sin in a sinful mother's womb. You see, it is not that Catholic teaching says "that Mary HAD to be sinless," but rather that it was FITTING that she be sinless. Since God had the ability to create his Son's mother to be perfect, it would be foolish for any of us to think that he did not do it. I think that God would do what was FITTING, don't you. If you could have created your own mother, Olly, wouldn't you have made her immaculate -- free from original sin and every other stain of sin? I would have! And God would have. And God did.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 16, 2002.

Oops! I forgot to insert a correction to my text before hitting the "Submit" button. I actually posted this sentence:
The root word "charitoo" means "to gift," "to grace," "to favor."
But what I intended to post was this much more accurate sentence, based on an online Greek dictionary:
The root word "charitoo" means "to honor with blessings," "to make graceful," "to compass with favor."

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 16, 2002.

-- (_@_._), November 16, 2002.

Wow, John, that was a great answer!

I would just add that the angel did say, "Blessed are you among women," -- the most blessed woman! Yes she was, because God created her, chose her, and endowed her with a special grace! A grace to carry the Almighty Creator of the universe in her womb. Her preservation was 1) for His sake, 2) for her sake; and 3) for our sake. She was completely sanctified -- set apart for the work of God -- a feat no human had EVER DONE, or would EVER DO again. A singular grace for a singular woman. Simon said, "A sword will pierce your heart so that the SECRETS OF MEN should be revealed!" No, you cannot separate Jesus from Mary. Not even Luther tried to do such a thing! The Church Fathers considered it the supreme insult to the Son, to insult the mother.

Jesus got his humanity from Mary, and He relates to man through that humanity. That is why the relationship of Jesus to Mary can so edify His body!

But like I said in another thread. Protestants divorced Jesus from his heavenly family -- the family he died for. Then they divorced each other in manifold splits that are endless, and of course, last but not least, they seek to divorce Christ from His very own mother! Protest, protest, protest, Protest-ant!

I love Mary because she points to JESUS!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 16, 2002.

The turn against Mary suggested in Bowerman's view is absurd. Here's the quote --''He carefully places His mother as being one of those who are blessed because of their obedience to the Father. In doing this on two separate occasions (that we read about), we can be sure that He is addressing the tendency of the crowd to overemphasize Mary and her importance. Jesus properly frames our view of Mary. She is blessed because she obeyed, but do not hold her above any other believer in her importance to the kingdom.''

This is a self-serving protestant conclusion. Protestants would have NO motive for which to demote Mary, except bias. She was never OVERLY important, as far as God's greatness is concerned. Only ONE reason is apparent for your necessity of relegating Mary to an ordinary rank. Clearly the motive is to draw believers away--OUT of the Catholic Church. An opposed sect will reach for any straw, make any charge, & insult even the mother of Our Lord,

To plead a case against the Catholic Church. Show everyone the Church is ''in error'' elevating her to a position of demi-god. Something false at the core. Catholics do not raise mary to the status of a god. We love and revere her as a Mother. Ours after His, Jesus Christ's. Perfectly logical. Mary as ''blessed BECAUSE she obeyed? --Others obey!

No-- because her Son is Jesus Christ! Of course she is obedient. But no one else was given blood and bone relationship with the Holy Son of God. It was for the sake of that blood kinship God preserved her from the stain of original sin above all. Her obedience is merit; her motherhood was RIGHT. She had a right, as His mother to be blessed above all women--

The poet Tennyson calls Mary ''Our tainted nature's solitary boast.'' Only one-- the sole boast.

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

JF,

You said:

The fact is that NON-Catholics continue to focus on it (and wrongly reject it), because they cannot bear to face the fact that they have abandoned the original Christian teaching about our Blessed Mother -- ever virgin, immaculately conceived, sinless throughout life, and assumed into heaven.

Question: If the Virgin Mary was sinless why did she express the need for a saviour in the magnificat? A sinless person does not need saving.

Luke 1:46-47 46 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord,

47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

-- Ronella (rone11a@yahoo.com), November 17, 2002.

John,

Well, you’re correct that I used the wrong term when I said it was "charitoo”. I was too quick with my online query to verify that the word was just the root of the perfect passive tense of the participle that was actually used, “kecaritomene”, as you stated.

As you pointed out John, the root of the word means "to gift," "to grace," "to favor." So the perfect passive tense of the same word is based on any one of those three uses of the root! To say otherwise is not being honest. So “highly graced” “full of grace” “full of favor” “highly favored” (not sure how to render “gift”). Anyway, any one of those could be what Luke intended to convey.

As far as treading in too deep waters, let’s face it John, none of us are Greek scholars and I don’t pretend to be one on TV either. We all read various opinions of scholars we respect and usually those who support our particular line of thinking. So we’re all using the work of others when we discuss these matters.

So, in my reading of the various translations and arguments given in support, I maintain that you’re incorrect in interpreting the meaning of “kecaritomene” as "so graced as to be unable to contain any more grace" or as Keating says of it, that the "Greek indicates a perfection of grace". This rendering seems to be basing such conclusions on the perfect passive tense of the participle that just are possible. Somehow, this verb is being used to indicate that Mary "must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace' or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way" as Keating argues. However, such an argument is far from the meaning of the verb.

If we use that kind of interpretation of that tense, then for example, Matthew 25:34, which says "Come, you who are blessed by my Father.” would have to be similarly interpreted. The term “blessed” is in the same perfect passive tense. Yet, to apply the translation technique that you advocate, we’d have to believe that those who Jesus was addressing had achieved a perfection of blessedness such that they had this perfection throughout their life. Isn’t that the meaning that you derive when you use kecaritomene to prove that Mary had a singular act of grace that was so perfect and complete that it indicates her sinlessness from conception to death? Indeed, you can’t make such an assertion from the grammar, it comes from the theological intent behind the translation, which is an error.

Use of kecaritomene indicates that Mary was “full of grace” or “highly favored”, both are indications of her at that point in time which is certainly understandable considering she’d been chosen to bear the Son of God. But it does not extend to cover her life from beginning to end. That cannot be derived from that verb.

Even the earliest Church Fathers never ascribed such a sinless state on Mary for hundreds of years. In fact, the earliest writings that address the subject clearly indicate that Mary was not sinless and indeed had faults. Writings from Origen, Basil and John Chrysostom all provide the earliest commentary on this subject which apparently was a topic of some discussion which they addressed. Arguments for Mary’s sinlessness didn’t become dominant until centuries later.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 17, 2002.

yech, close that underline. sorry.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 17, 2002.

Dave, I beg to differ with you regarding the Church Fathers. Please see the quotes provided in a post I dedicated to you, "Did the Early Church Fathers Believe Mary was sinless?" The answer is YES, they did. Please read through those quotes. I broke them off in a separate thread due to the abundance of them; quotes by Ambrose, Augustine, Justin Martyr, just to name a few. If you have quotes that back up your assertion, please provide those.

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 17, 2002.

Ronella and company, I can't understand why the same question is being asked, when the answer has been spelled out so clearly in the post. Mary of course needed Jesus' salvific act for her redemption. It's just that God saw fit for her to receive it before the fact, step into it so to speak, God can do that if He wants! That way she is a pure vessel, unshadowed by sin, to hold our dear Lord and Savior.

I had a neat revelation once on her expression "My soul magnifies the Lord". Have you looked through a magnifying glass? What does it do? It MAGNIFIES what you are looking at. That is what Mary does. She magnifies Jesus.Makes Him bigger. Cool, eh?

Dear Emerald, I, too, love that picture of our Lady of the streets, it also hangs in my living room, [and she's on my watch too!!]. I love to ponder her relationship with Jesus. As a Mom, myself, and my love for my children, I can only imagine her love for Jesus, my God!!! Mothers have been known to pick up cars to save their entrapped children. Who would ever want to face an angry mother bear with her cubs!! What love of a mother she had for our Lord. She's my model, how I hope I could love Jesus to the death like her!

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), November 17, 2002.

"When Jesus said, "Blessed rather is He who does the will of my Father", how could that have been Jesus redirecting the compliment to Mary when it specifically says "He who does the will of my Father". If that were the case, He would have said "She"."

Did it not say that all "men" will be saved? Does this exclude women? This is a very weak argument, to say the least. We all know that "men" meant all humans, and "he" referes humans (and in that instance - Mary). "Blessed is HE who comes in the name of the Lord." Well, then I guess no women who come in the name of the Lord can be blessed.

John,

You said exactly what Fr. Corapi confirms! If you could create your own mother (which God did), then wouldn't we create her PERFECT. Fr. Corapi also says, "If she's good enough for God, she's good enough for me."

I also wanted to add that it wasn't "fitting" (as John so eloquently stated) for Mary's parents to be free from sin, because they were NOT carrying God within themselves.

Thanks for your comments, All. This certainly is a touchy subject. But be sure that I only worship God. Just as we glorify an artist by admiring his art, I too am glorifying God by admiring his Mother.

In Christ.

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

HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE!! THE LORD IS WITH THEE, BLESSED ARE THOU AMONGST WOMEN. PRAY FOR US SINNERS, NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH! AMEN!

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), November 18, 2002.

The King and the Queen of heaven have dispatched the elite guard to handle a little uprising in kingdom...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 18, 2002.

Jake,

Please re-read my response. When you replied,

"Did it not say that all "men" will be saved? Does this exclude women? This is a very weak argument, to say the least. We all know that "men" meant all humans, and "he" referes humans (and in that instance - Mary). "Blessed is HE who comes in the name of the Lord." Well, then I guess no women who come in the name of the Lord can be blessed."

. . . if you had read my entire response, you would have seen that I followed with the statement "So we can be sure that He is clearly not directing the blessing to Mary as an individual. He could have been referring to Himself, but I suspect that it was instead referring to ALL believers who obey God, including Mary.

So you can see, at least in that instance, we agree. The reason for my even saying that was because Theresa had stated, "Jesus then turned the compliment from Himself and directs it to Mary", which I correctly pointed out to be incorrect.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 18, 2002.

Eugene,

Just because I question things and disagree with certain Catholic teachings my motive is to draw Catholics away from the Church? Common now, friend. We've bumped heads enough over the years that at the very least that suspicion should be laid to rest. If my attempt is to evangelize, I would employ far different tactics.

I've asked it before and I'll ask it again, have I ever once suggested to anyone that they ever leave the Catholic Church? Even in a private email? I've had a number of contacts with people who email me off the forum to ask questions and pursue discussions. Even when I'm inactive, people will dig up old threads and email me about them. Many have asked me advice for where they can get help, and never once have I ever directed someone to find help outside the Church. Mostly I suggest they consult their priest.

I'm here to discuss issues. I've always been honest and direct about my beliefs and opinions, even when I know they're not what anyone wants to hear. More times than not, I completely lay off such controversial topics because I know that it'll stir the pot and/or I don't have time to fully engage, which isn't fair (even now I'm only able to check the forum infrequently for a few minutes or so - life is busy in a good way). Sorry if I'm not able to respond as quickly or thoroughly as prompted. Many times, there are questions that involve time to research and/or think about - good questions or challenges that deserve an answer (like Gail's request for verification of quotes), but for which I'm usually unable to respond due to time constraints. I don't even have time to be baited by snide remarks like Mr. Gecik's "[David] joined Jimmy Swaggert's church" comment (as if John would appreciate me making similar remarks about him belonging to the Inquisitors or something along those lines). I work 10 hour days and commute 1.5 hours each way - the little time I have left goes to my family. I really shouldn't start something I can't maintain, which is why I usually avoid posting at all. I forgot that when I posted on this thread . . . only afterwards did I realize it was one I should have remained silent on. Sorry.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), November 18, 2002.

David,

I'm sorry for not catching that. However, I would still have to agree with Theresa (my mom- but not because she's my mom).

You and I agree that the word "He" referes to "all persons". And that is how Jesus used the word in this case. Nonetheless, even though Jesus "used" this word with that meaning, it is more than clear that He is directing the honor (that was originally give to him) to His Mother. The original statement was honoring Jesus, manifest through the "blessing" she gives to Mary. So the original two persons in question were Mary and Jesus. Thus, although Jesus turns the honor around and seemingly directs it to "all persons" it is implicitly (by the original honor / compliment) directed to His Mother. In other words Jesus was saying, "Mary, My Mother, was not blessed because she nursed Me, God. My Mother (as well as all persons) should be honored becasue she did the will of My Father."

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 18, 2002.

Theresa,

Thanks for responding.

You said: "It's just that God saw fit for her to receive it before the fact, step into it so to speak, God can do that if He wants! That way she is a pure vessel, unshadowed by sin, to hold our dear Lord and Savior."

Question: Could you point me to the scripture that backs this up please?

Many thanks Ronnie.

-- Ronella (rone11a@yahoo.com), November 19, 2002.

Dear David,
If my words seem personal, have patience. I know you're right saying: ''Eugene, Just because I question things and disagree with certain Catholic teachings my motive is to draw Catholics away from the Church? Common now, friend, --It's all rhetorical, but I draw this from your premise, not your conduct or intent.

I reminded you Protestants would have NO motive for which to demote Mary, except bias.--

Going on to say, ONE reason is apparent for your (here I meant the other churches) relegating Mary to an ordinary rank. Clearly the motive is to draw believers away--OUT of the Catholic Church. An opposed sect will reach for any straw, make any charge, & insult even the mother of Our Lord, if it will cause doubt about a Catholic doctrine.

I've known you well enough till now --not to attribute your MOTIVES in such a way-- BUT:

Your bias is intact, because you've assimilated many false notions taught you in a non-Catholic denomination. This is what I meant to say. You can't shake off anti-Marian propaganda.

Why? Simple; because it was inculcated so that you understood, nothing but Jesus can be sacred. Then if you love Mary, you beat it out of your love for Jesus. Jesus is diminished. That's false. Jesus is LOVED MORE, the more Mary is exalted. It ''redounds'' to His glory!

And that's self-explanatory: Only a sinless virgin would satisfy God's requirements for His beloved Son. His glory is so infinitely above humanity that Mary's holiness becomes sine qua non, if she is to be such a Mother.

You already know the doctrines on Beatific Vision, and communion of saints. If you have, then prayer for each other to God makes sense; and Mary is free to pray for her children in the world. Just as you are free to pray to Jesus, SHE is-- for us.

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

The Word of God in 1 Peter 2:22 says that Jesus was without sin. Where does the Word of God say that Mary was without sin?

-- --- (---@---.net), November 19, 2002.

-- --- (---@---.net),

Much like the doctrine of the "Trinity" (which, the word is found nowhere in the Bible), there are certain Truths that we can derive from Scripture, although they may not be specifically said in Scripture. Moreover, as you know, the Catholic Church has much more than simply the Written word. The Catholic Church holds the ENTIRE TRUE WORD, written and oral, which comes through the Scripture, the Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 19, 2002.

Jake,

Jesus said in John 17:17 that God's word is "truth".

Since God's word is truth, how can you justify your statement "there are certain Truths that we can derive from Scripture, although they may not be specifically said in Scripture."?

-- -- --- (---@--.net), November 19, 2002.

It dosn't say, "the text of the Scripture is Truth". It says, "God's Word is truth". Therefore, because the entire Bible is God's Word, if we deduce something from the Bible - Like the Trinity for example - then this is taken as Truth. Do you deny the doctrine of the Trinity, although the word itslef is not found in Scripture?

But like I said, although Mary's sinlessness is hinted at in Scripture (..."Full of Grace", etc.), the real Teaching, or doctrine of her sinlessness, has been handed down by the Apostles, who were with Mary quite often.

I really hate repeating old news, --@---. If you would be so kind; before you ask anymore repeat-questions, please refer to the 3 or so other threads that have recently been topped. Thanks.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 19, 2002.

Typical Catholic response, with NO mention of Mary's sinlessness from the Word of God. The Word of God says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8

-- -- --- (---@--.net), November 19, 2002.

Typical Protestant response, "The Teaching of the Magisterium is not the Word of God..." Even though Christ said, "whatever you bind on earth will be bound, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed." Mary's sinlessness IS from the Word of God.

I guess it all boils down to the fact that for you (most Protestants) the ONLY Word of God is the Bible. This of course can NOT be proven, through Scripture. However, it can be proven that Tradition (oral and written) IS the Word of God. So, while the Bible IS the Word of God, it is not the ENTIRE Word of God. The ENTIRE Word of God is Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. And the Magisterium Teaches that Mary was sinless, therefore, it IS the Word of God.

Please, before you spout, "Typical Catholic...", it would be wise of you to look at the existing threads - where your questions can be answered without your embarrassment.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 19, 2002.

Thank you, Jake.You said it like a pro. Ronnie, this is true. When Jesus gave this authority to Peter, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church".., this apostolic authority has been the rock the church was built on and you can follow it throughout history up unto the present time. The church Jesus founded, headed by Peter originally, in the 4'th century, chose the books and put them together, thus giving us the Bible. The Church spoke orally before that ;and still does. Many times Paul spoke about having so much to say to the community but not wanting to write it, but rather wanting to tell them face to face.

Thus we have the authority of the Catholic Church and it's Tradition. So really to live the faith FULLY, and know Christ FULLY, learn more about the Catholic faith. All your questions will be answered and you'll be at peace. Believe me, I once did not see it either, I soaked up the bible for hours, and still do, but now I see the full picture, in the light of the surrounding authority of the Catholic Church. It makes so much sense. The Catholic Church GAVE us the bible. Check it out yourself. Honest, Mary's not a threat, she's our Savior's mom. And if she's good enough for Him..she's good enough for us! Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), November 19, 2002.

Still NO answer from Scripture that says that Mary was Sinless.

Of course, we all know that it isn't there, otherwise a reference to it would have been made.

Just claiming that Mary is sinless doesn't make her sinless.

How does one get faith? Is it by Catholic Tradition or the Magesterium? Or is it from the Word of God?

God says that faith comes from hearing His Word. (Romans 10:17).

You couldn't prove that the ENTIRE Word of God is Scripture PLUS Tradition, and the Magisterium if your life depended on it.

It is the Word of God that is "..is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword," (Hebrews 4:12).

Tradition and the Magisterium CANNOT make this claim.

The "Sword of the Spirit" is the Word of God, (Ephesians 6:17) and NOT Tradition or the Magisterium.

You, like the Pharisees and Scribes before, make the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. (Mark 7:13).

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 19, 2002.

Just claiming that Mary is sinless doesn't make her sinless. -- ''You must prove from the Word of God that she was a sinner. You can't. She is ''full of grace'' and ''The Lord is with her.'' (Luke, 1)

How does one get faith? Pray for faith. Jesus never said, ''Blessed is he who reads the Bible, and accepts no other word.''-- He said, ''Go and make disciples (believers) of all nations'' to His apostles. And it was through THEM we know Mary was conceived without sin. They were told by JESUS CHRIST, and that's a fact. No one invents those kind of things, because they concern the very Son of God. You now have only a faith in self-ordained ministers who have parted with the faith of the apostles. They misrepresent the words of the Bible, and you follow them. Just the mere fact you believe Almighty God would let a sinner be the living MOTHER of His beloved Son, shows you lack the true faith. HEY! Jesus wasn't just a prophet. Mary carried the Son of God in her holy womb! But instead of believing you demand proof in writing. OK, read the first 3 chapters of Luke's gospel.

Read them many times, five times a week. PRAY for God's grace to understand what kind of woman was chosen to be the mother of Our Redeemer! Seriously, PRAY! God will help you if you are sincere. He will give you TRUE faith, not the ''meetin' house'' variety.

Peter and Paul had a responsibility always to teach the truth. They were bishops in the Catholic Church from the start. Protestant ministers got their only ordinations starting around 1500 --They began in a heretical faith. You have learned from false apostles.

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

Hey -, couldn't you fix the italicize?

-- * (*@*.*), November 20, 2002.

These points have been argued countless times before, but I'll try again for -'s sake.

- claims that Romans 3:23 proves that Mary sinned. This means that - believes that the verse truly means each and every person has sinned. However, this verse is referring to All people EXCEPT a few of the obvious exceptions.

1. First off, since Jesus was fully human (and fully God), then you are telling us He sinned. He did not. So here is one example.

2. Second, can a child under the age of reason sin? No.

3. Third, can a severely mentally handicapped person commit a sin? Absolutely not.

4. Since it was commonly known that Mary was sinless when the epistles were written, then Mary was another exception that did NOT have to be specifically mentioned.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), November 20, 2002.

Glenn says, “First off, since Jesus was fully human (and fully God), then you are telling us He sinned. He did not. So here is one example.”

Here is what I said initially, “The Word of God in 1 Peter 2:22 says that Jesus was without sin. Where does the Word of God say that Mary was without sin? ”

So, if you would just read what was written earlier, you wouldn’t have asked this question. Then Glenn says, “Since it was commonly known that Mary was sinless when the epistles were written, then Mary was another exception that did NOT have to be specifically mentioned.”

If was commonly known, as you state, it would have been specified in the Word of God. ONLY Jesus is specified in Scripture as being WITHOUT SIN.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 20, 2002.

--,

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess 2;15)

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

"Still NO answer from Scripture that says that Mary was Sinless. Of course, we all know that it isn't there, otherwise a reference to it would have been made."

Answered in my first post to you: Mary's sinlessness is hinted at in Scripture ("Full of Grace", etc.), but taught by the Magesterium (which is the Word of God as well).

"Just claiming that Mary is sinless doesn't make her sinless."

Answered in my first post to you: We don't simply claim she's sinless. This doctrine has been taught since the beginning. Really, check it out!

"How does one get faith? Is it by Catholic Tradition or the Magesterium? Or is it from the Word of God?"

Answered in my first post to you: The Tradition, Magesterium, and Scripture IS the Entire Word of God.

"God says that faith comes from hearing His Word. (Romans 10:17)."

Key word: HEARING. Where does it say, "reading"?

"You couldn't prove that the ENTIRE Word of God is Scripture PLUS Tradition, and the Magisterium if your life depended on it."

Sure could!: 2 Thes, 2 "15 So then, brethren, (37) stand firm and (38) hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether (39) by word of mouth or (40) by letter from us."

Here is also a good ESSAY to give you some info.

Now, I believe you can't prove Scripture to be the SOLE source of the Word of God. Try it, it's already been tried. In fact, this simple glitch in the "sola scriptura" theory has led many, like Scott Hahn, to leave the Protestant heresy.

"It is the Word of God that is "..is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword," (Hebrews 4:12).

Tradition and the Magisterium CANNOT make this claim."

It just did, in 2 Thes 2:15, and the Magisterial authority is simply the "key" which Christ gave to Peter!

Pretty easily proven. Can you prove that Scripture ALONE is the Word of God? We don't claim that Scripture isn't the Word of God. ALL of Scripture IS the Word of God, but ALL the Word of God isn't just the Scripture.

"The "Sword of the Spirit" is the Word of God, (Ephesians 6:17) and NOT Tradition or the Magisterium."

Where exactly does it say that Scripture is the "Sword of the Spirit"?

"You, like the Pharisees and Scribes before, make the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. (Mark 7:13)."

It was because their man made traditions ran contrary to Scripture. Those of the Catholic Church do NOT run contrary to Scripture. How could they? We handcoppied the Scripture for 1000 years! Surely someone before the reformation would have caught a clash between Scripture and Tradition. Reread Mark 7, "9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep YOUR (11) tradition. 10 "For Moses said, '(12) HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, '(13) HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; 11 but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is (14) Corban (that is to say, [1] given to God),' 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your (15) tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

On the contrary, ---@---, the Pharisees were twisting Scripture, like you, to be able to skip out on helping their parents. This was a tradition, which was made by them, by twisting the text of the Scripture! Jesus constantly taught AGAINST the letter of the Law and FOR the Spirit of the law. The Tradition that we, as Paul commanded, “hold fast to”, is not the tradition of man, like sola scriptura, but rather the Tradition passed down by Christ to His Church!

Now, --@--, it would appear to me that you haven’t given me the courtesy of reading my other posts, because several of you questions are repeats. Please, for the sake of your integrity, please, please, read the previous posts and threads.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 20, 2002.

-,

You still didn't address the exemptions. You say Scripture claims Jesus was sinless but Romans 3:23 says He sinned. Does Scripture contradict itself? No, but you have to interpret it correctly and realize Romans 3:23 had IMPLICIT EXCEPTIONS.

Why did you choose to ignore the other two examples? Do you agree these people are without sin. Why are they NOT specified in the Bible like you are insisting Mary must be?

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), November 20, 2002.

Does the Catholic Church teach the doctrine of “Inherited Sin”? If so, then Glenn’s examples of those without sin are contrary to Catholic doctrine. If I am wrong, please correct my misunderstanding.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 20, 2002.

I said the quotations you brought forward are not the conclusive way of proving Mary was a sinner. I never said the Holy Spirit didn't know a sinner from a non-sinner. It just wasn't revealed by the scripture, except obliquely about Mary. You don't see a lot of factual events written of in scripture, and they are still true. Such is the Immaculate conception, a virgin born sinless from the very first moment of her life.

There are indirect, but powerful refernces in the Bible which give the faithful valid reason for this truth. We've named them before. They start in Genesis, are also seen in Like, with more agin in Revelations. Mary is unique. She had no sin; and the scripture isn't the only source of undeniable truth.

f we simply return to the obvious: Christ is God. God is infinitely pure; His holy Mother must by extension have no stain of sin for the office of motherhood-- Mother of God. To maintain otherwise is to call Jesus Christ an ordinary sinful offspring of a woman born in sin! This is incompatible with everything the Bible teaches us about God.

God intends for His faithful to believe many holy things on FAITH. Because you haven't found explicit words in the Bible isn't a sign they can't be; because that wouldn't be acting by Christian faith.

The other, more definite and authoritative proof; every bit as legitimate as a passage from the Bible, is the teachings of Christ's own Church. No error is found in her tenets of faith; she is more than capable of giving us truth. Because she is under the protection of the Holy Spirit. She learned directly from the apostles and followers of Our Lord, not from BOOKS. --Her word id just as powerful as the Holy Bible's, she also gives us the Word of God. It is true, and doesn't contradict the written Word. The apostles actually taught this and it's part of the apostle's Creed, which we are bound as Chrisitans to believe.

We believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth,
In Jesus Christ His only Son;
In Christ's birth of the Virgin Mary, death and resurrection, ascension,
He sits at the right hand of the Father, and will return to judge the living and the dead;
The Holy Spirit,
The Holy Catholic Church,
The Communion of Saints,
Forgiveness of sins,
Resurrection,
And Life everlasting.

The Creed of the Holy Apostles. There is complete authority within the words, placed on the Holy Catholic Church-- along with every other divine truth yet revealed.

It would show a serious anachronism if the Creed mentioned the written Word, a Holy Bible. Because the written Bible came AFTER the Apostles and the Catholic Church.

Just the mere fact this mention of the Bible isn't included (We believe it is the Word of God)-- testifies to the apostolic origin of the Creed. It actually predates the Canon of the Bible. Proving it was apostolic truth.

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

/ / / /

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

-,

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that ALL are born with Original Sin, except for Mary, who by God's grace was freed from this sin at the time of her conception, and Jesus.

But by baptism in the name of the trinity this sin is removed.

Are you arguing that Mary had original sin, or that she sinned sometime in her life on her own accord?

If original sin, then you are correct in that my examples do not apply. But Mary was not born with original sin. This is documented in Scripture when the angel visited Mary and said she was full of grace.

Besides, I do not believe Paul's words to the Romans was concerning original sin, but conscious sin by humans. Then the examples do apply and show the understood exceptions.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), November 20, 2002.

David says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess 2;15)”

The Thessalonians were not to hold to just any traditions, but "the traditions which you were taught by us." The authority was in the inspired apostles and prophets and the traditions taught by them whether verbally or written were to be held.

The expression, "which you were taught" is past tense. They were to hold to the traditions which they had already received. The verse is certainly not teaching that mankind would continue to be guided by "oral traditions" which would be handed down through the ages by word of mouth.

As Catholics often do, they quote a passage or passages which reveal that the Word of God was given orally in that early age, and then assume that it would be given orally in every age. They assume the very thing they need to prove. To assume something, and then assert it, is no way to prove anything.

Please show by the Scriptures that the "Word of God independent of the Scriptures" would continue to be handed down through the ages.

Jake says, “Mary's sinlessness is hinted at in Scripture ("Full of Grace", etc.), but taught by the Magesterium (which is the Word of God as well).”

No Jake, it is not even hinted at in Scripture.

Please prove that “Full of Grace, etc.” means to be “without sin”.

Jake says, “We don't simply claim she's sinless. This doctrine has been taught since the beginning. Really, check it out! “

If it was taught since the beginning, there would have been mention of it in Scripture. No mention in Scripture, it was never taught.

Jake says, “The Tradition, Magesterium, and Scripture IS the Entire Word of God. “

Once again, he assumes and then asserts something he must prove.

Jake says, “Key word: HEARING. Where does it say, "reading"?”

God says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16. We now have the inspired Word of God WRITTEN down for us. Since we do not have any more apostles to teach us “ORALLY”, the only way we have now of “HEARING” their words is through the message they left us in the Bible. Surely one can read their words and OBEY them. If not, why not?

Jake says, that 2 Thes. 2:15 says that the “ENTIRE Word of God is Scripture PLUS Tradition, and the Magisterium”

This passage does not authorize "oral traditions" as a source of authority for us today. It says absolutely nothing about oral traditions independent of Scripture which would continue to be handed down through the ages by word of mouth.

Please give me a list of those “oral traditions handed down independent of Scripture”.

Jake says, “Now, I believe you can't prove Scripture to be the SOLE source of the Word of God. Try it, it's already been tried. In fact, this simple glitch in the "sola scriptura" theory has led many, like Scott Hahn, to leave the Protestant heresy.”

God says, the Scriptures thoroughly equip us for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16. The Scriptures either thoroughly equip us or they do not. God says they DO, Jake says they DO NOT.

Jake says, “Can you prove that Scripture ALONE is the Word of God? We don't claim that Scripture isn't the Word of God. ALL of Scripture IS the Word of God, but ALL the Word of God isn't just the Scripture.”

God has declared that the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work through the Scriptures, who has the right to say that the man of God is NOT thoroughly equipped for every good work through the Scriptures? Who will we believe, God or the Catholic Church?

Jake says, “Where exactly does it say that Scripture is the "Sword of the Spirit"?”

Ephesians 6:17 says, “…the SWORD OF THE SPIRIT, which is the WORD OF GOD. (Emphasis mine).

Hebrews 5:12 says, “…For the WORD OF GOD is living and powerful, and SHARPER than any TWO EDGED SWORD, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit…”

Is Scripture the WORD OF GOD? Yes it is, so the “Sword of the Spirit” IS Scripture.

Jake says, “It was because their man made traditions ran contrary to Scripture. Those of the Catholic Church do NOT run contrary to Scripture. How could they? We handcoppied the Scripture for 1000 years! Surely someone before the reformation would have caught a clash between Scripture and Tradition.”

The Catholic Church says that baptism is by pouring or sprinkling rather than immersion. This most certainly is a tradition of the Catholic Church that is CONTRARY to Scripture.

Jake says, “On the contrary, ---@---, the Pharisees were twisting Scripture, like you, to be able to skip out on helping their parents. This was a tradition, which was made by them, by twisting the text of the Scripture! Jesus constantly taught AGAINST the letter of the Law and FOR the Spirit of the law. The Tradition that we, as Paul commanded, “hold fast to”, is not the tradition of man, like sola scriptura, but rather the Tradition passed down by Christ to His Church!“

He says that I am guilty of twisting Scripture, but he once again merely asserts this with no proof offered. Sola Scriptura as you call it is NOT a tradition of men as Jake claims however, God has said that His Word EQUIPS us for EVERY good WORK. Let’s let Jake give verses where Paul, Peter, or any other inspired writer, plainly revealed that "apostolic oral traditions" would equip us to every good work or remind us of the commandment of the Lord.

Eugene says, “You don’t see a lot of factual events written of in scripture, and they still are true. Such is the Immaculate conception, a virgin born sinless from the very first moment of her life.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church did not even believe in the “Immaculate conception” until 1845.

Then Eugene says, There are indirect, but powerful references in the Bible which give the faithful valid reason for this truth. We’ve named them before.

If you have named them before, I am sure that you wouldn’t mind quoting them again. Please do show where INDIRECTLY Mary is quoted in Scripture as being WITHOUT SIN.

Eugene says, “Mary is unique. She had no sin; and the scripture isn’t the only source of undeniable truth.”

This is another assertion that he makes to which he must prove.

I will ask Eugene this same question: Please give a list of those oral apostolic traditions independent of the Scriptures which constitute the laws of the Lord and are “undeniable truth” as he so states.

Inherited Sin is another false doctrine of the Catholic Church. Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law. (1 John 3:4).

Infants have done nothing and CANNOT break God’s law.

Where is one Bible verse that says we will be condemned for sin other than our own?

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

Dashman writes:

"Inherited Sin is another false doctrine of the Catholic Church. Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law. (1 John 3:4). "

Your belief is in line with the Pelagian heresy of the 5th century. From Catholic.com:

"Pelagianism (5th Century)

Pelagius, a Welsh monk, began this teaching that bears his name. He denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task."

According to your logic, one would have to believe that not only was Mary immaculately conceived, but everyone was immaculately conveived. At least Dashman supports the Catholic doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception. :-)

Here's more on original sin.

Enjoy,

Mateo

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

Mateo writes, “According to your logic, one would have to believe that not only was Mary immaculately conceived, but everyone was immaculately conveived.”

The Bible definition of sin refutes the false doctrine of original sin.

Sin is an act. It is something that is done. It is NOT inherited. 1 John 3:4.

This is the process of becoming a sinner, Lust + enticement = temptation; Temptation + action = sin and spiritual death. James 1:13- 15.

What child meets this pattern at birth?

The Bible teaches individual accountability and responsibility. Ezekiel 18:20; Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10.

Small children are portrayed in the Bible as being Innocent, Pure, and FREE from Sin. Matthew 18:1-14; Psalm 127:3; Deuteronomy 1:39; 2 Samuel 12:22-23; Hebrews 12:9.

Infants DO NOT inherit sin (Ezekiel 18:20) and they are not accountable. Deuteronomy 1:39.

Jesus' description of a person who is a good hearer in the parable of the sower in Luke 8:11-15 is in conflict with the idea of being totally depraved before conversion.

Jesus said that it is possible to have "an honest and good heart" prior to even hearing the word of God.

The Bible teaches:

"have gone astray" NOT born astray, Isaiah 53:6;

"gone out of the way" NOT born out of the right way, Romans 3:12;

"become unprofitable" NOT born unprofitable, Romans 3:12;

"man's heart is evil from his youth" NOT his birth, Genesis 8:21.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

“The expression, "which you were taught" is past tense. They were to hold to the traditions which they had already received. The verse is certainly not teaching that mankind would continue to be guided by "oral traditions" which would be handed down through the ages by word of mouth.

As Catholics often do, they quote a passage or passages which reveal that the Word of God was given orally in that early age, and then assume that it would be given orally in every age. They assume the very thing they need to prove. To assume something, and then assert it, is no way to prove anything.

Please show by the Scriptures that the "Word of God independent of the Scriptures" would continue to be handed down through the ages.”

You are absolutely correct, --@--. But you fail to see that the Catholic Church has never taught anything new. Nor have we come up with new traditions. The things, which were “taught” (past), have been held onto in the Catholic Church, whereas only the things that were written have been held onto in protestant churches.

“No Jake, it is not even hinted at in Scripture. Please prove that “Full of Grace, etc.” means to be “without sin”.”

This has already been done. Why would me repeating it change anything?

“If it was taught since the beginning, there would have been mention of it in Scripture. No mention in Scripture, it was never taught.”

Wait. You just said that the Thessalonians had to hold fast to Tradition (oral and written), which was taught to them. So, if part of this is oral – than why is it that it would have to be mentioned in Scripture to be taught? --@--, just look at the early Church documents of the 1st and 2nd centuries. It was written down, probably about the same time the Bible was compiled – or before!

“Once again, he assumes and then asserts something he must prove.”

It’s been proven, --@--, but I gather that you do not want to waste your time searching for the Truth.

“God says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16. We now have the inspired Word of God WRITTEN down for us. Since we do not have any more apostles to teach us “ORALLY”, the only way we have now of “HEARING” their words is through the message they left us in the Bible. Surely one can read their words and OBEY them. If not, why not?”

You’ve failed once more in your interpretation of this passage. Catholics acknowledge that ALL Scripture is the Word of God. But not ALL the Word of God is Scripture. Do you see the difference? The entire Bible IS the Word of God. But the Bible isn’t the Entire Word of God. The Bible is purely the Word of God, however, there is much more that God has shown us! Jesus was the Word of God! Jesus was the ENTIRE WORD of God. Yet, what does John tell us at the end of his Gospel? If everything that Jesus did were written down (that is if the ENTIRE WORD was written down), there wouldn’t be enough room in the world to hold them.

Therefore, yes, all Scripture is useful…, however, where does Paul tell us that nothing more than scripture is useful? On the contrary, Paul tells us to hold fast to Tradition (oral and written).

“This passage does not authorize "oral traditions" as a source of authority for us today. It says absolutely nothing about oral traditions independent of Scripture which would continue to be handed down through the ages by word of mouth.”

Again, --@--, just for the sake of clarity, the Catholic Church does not teach new stuff. We never have! The Catholic Church does just as Paul had taught us in 2Th. That is, we have held onto Tradition (written – the Bible, and oral – Sacred Tradition). Nothing new.

“Please give me a list of those “oral traditions handed down independent of Scripture”.”

They’ve all been given to you on this forum. Please, let us be efficient, and simply look them up. Thank you.

“God says, the Scriptures thoroughly equip us for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16. The Scriptures either thoroughly equip us or they do not. God says they DO, Jake says they DO NOT.”

Don’t put words in my mouth, --@--! Scripture thoroughly equips us for every good work, I AGREE! However, Scripture is not the ONLY thing that equips us for good works.

“Jake says, “Where exactly does it say that Scripture is the "Sword of the Spirit"?”

Ephesians 6:17 says, “…the SWORD OF THE SPIRIT, which is the WORD OF GOD. (Emphasis mine).”

I asked, “Where exactly does it say that SCRIPTURE is the “Sword of the Spriti.” Now, what you’ve said to me is the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. Do you think I’m ignorant? Now, I guess you’ll have to show me where it says the ENTIRE Word of God is Scripture. Don’t show me where it says Scripture is entirely the Word of God, I know this. I want to know where it says that the ENTIRE Word of God – that is EVERYTHIGN that God has spoken – is Scripture.

“The Catholic Church says that baptism is by pouring or sprinkling rather than immersion. This most certainly is a tradition of the Catholic Church that is CONTRARY to Scripture.”

Please, --@--, you are showing your ignorance again. Baptism, whether by full immersion or sprinkling, is symbolic. Does full emersion REALLY clean you? NO! Well, I guess if you had some soap? It is symbolic for the cleansing of our sins, a dying or submersion to sin, and a rising to new life in Christ. So, I guess one who might be in the desert at the same time they are converted cannot be saved then, unless of course someone drops a bathtub out for them! Please look this up. There is much more detailed descriptions and explanations. Logically, if you thought about it, since the reformation didn’t take place until the 1500’s, then all those between 33 and 1500 AD, who were Baptized by “sprinkling” are damned. Now, --@--, does that make sense?

“He says that I am guilty of twisting Scripture, but he once again merely asserts this with no proof offered. Sola Scriptura as you call it is NOT a tradition of men as Jake claims however, God has said that His Word EQUIPS us for EVERY good WORK. Let’s let Jake give verses where Paul, Peter, or any other inspired writer, plainly revealed that "apostolic oral traditions" would equip us to every good work or remind us of the commandment of the Lord.”

Once again, --@--, is showing this ability to twist Scripture. You have a “good one”, eh? Now that you found the passage where it says God’s word (in Scripture) equips us for every good work. But Catholics do not deny this. What we deny, however, is that Scripture ALONE equips us for everything we need to do or know to Love Jesus More and to abide in His Law, which was written on our hearts. Scripture does equip us for every good work we need to do. What does Scripture tell us? “hold fast to those traditions (oral and written), which have been taught to you.”

“It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church did not even believe in the “Immaculate conception” until 1845.”

What? Tell me your joking, please! “The Catholic Church did not even believe in the Immaculate conception until 1845”? NO! The Catholic Church merely did not proclaim this a dogmatic Teaching (or official Truth) until 1845! There has always been an understanding of her purity!

I do hope you understand, you don’t need to take our words for these. Please look up the answers to your question at other reliable (Catholic) sources. Not because I’m biased toward Catholics, but if I wanted to know a Protestant teaching, I wouldn’t ask a Catholic – I would go to a Protestant. In other words, you should hear it from the horses mouth. If you want to know Catholic Teachings, go to a Catholic site.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 21, 2002.

Dashman writes:

"The Bible definition of sin refutes the false doctrine of original sin. "

Dashman, if you want to respond to me, please do me the favor of reading my link. Your comment is evidence that you have not even read the beginning of the link.

It seems my statement still stands: Dashman believes in the Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. We just have to lead you away from Pelagianism. Here is some more on Original Sin from New Advent.

Enjoy,

Mateo

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

I asked Jake to “Please show by the Scriptures that the "Word of God independent of the Scriptures" would continue to be handed down through the ages.”

To which he replied: “But you fail to see that the Catholic Church has never taught anything new. Nor have we come up with new traditions. The things, which were “taught” (past), have been held onto in the Catholic Church, whereas only the things that were written have been held onto in protestant churches.”

Please notice that he doesn’t answer the question but conveniently says that the Catholic Church has “never taught anything new”. Please show me where the Bible says that “pouring and sprinkling” are acceptable forms of baptism. If you cannot, then you are guilty of changing God’s command. This is only one of many that I could quote, but for the sake of brevity, this is the only one that needs to be addressed.

Then he says that it has already been proven that “Full of Grace, etc” means to be without sin”. He says that “Why would me repeating it change anything?”

I didn’t ask if it would change anything, I just asked you to show where it has been proven as a fact? Once again, he assumes that it has been proven to be a fact but fails to produce any evidence to the contrary.

Then he still does not provide documentation to say that oral tradition was to continue to be handed down when he says, “just look at the early Church documents of the 1st and 2nd centuries. It was written down, probably about the same time the Bible was compiled – or before!”

Once again, no proof offered that “oral tradition” was commanded to continue to be handed down.

Then he says, “It’s been proven, --@--, but I gather that you do not want to waste your time searching for the Truth.” The inspired writers of the New Testament said that God’s Word was truth. We now have the WRITTEN Word of God and this WRITTEN Word of God tells us EXACTLY what the apostles taught. The Truth is written down for us in God’s Word, the Bible. You choose not to believe this but the WRITTEN Word of God will be our judge on judgment day. John 12:48.

Jake then says, “You’ve failed once more in your interpretation of this passage. Catholics acknowledge that ALL Scripture is the Word of God. But not ALL the Word of God is Scripture. Do you see the difference? The entire Bible IS the Word of God. But the Bible isn’t the Entire Word of God. The Bible is purely the Word of God, however, there is much more that God has shown us! Jesus was the Word of God! Jesus was the ENTIRE WORD of God. Yet, what does John tell us at the end of his Gospel? If everything that Jesus did were written down (that is if the ENTIRE WORD was written down), there wouldn’t be enough room in the world to hold them. Therefore, yes, all Scripture is useful…, however, where does Paul tell us that nothing more than scripture is useful? On the contrary, Paul tells us to hold fast to Tradition (oral and written).”

The Scriptures are the standard by which we will be judged in the last day. Rev. 20:12 says, "...And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books." (See also Rom. 2:16; James 2:12; John 12:48). We will NOT be judged by unwritten traditions, teachings of the Pope, legislations of the church, writings of the so-called church fathers, etc., thus, again, showing that the Scriptures are the ONLY standard.

Then he says, “Again, --@--, just for the sake of clarity, the Catholic Church does not teach new stuff. We never have! The Catholic Church does just as Paul had taught us in 2Th. That is, we have held onto Tradition (written – the Bible, and oral – Sacred Tradition). Nothing new.”

Let’s see, here’s one tradition that was ADDED in 1870 – The Infallibility of the Pope. Where is this authorized in Scripture?

I asked him to Please give me a list of those “oral traditions handed down independent of Scripture”.

To which he replied: “They’ve all been given to you on this forum. Please, let us be efficient, and simply look them up. Thank you.” Nice try. If they were written down, I am sure that you have a listing of them somewhere. I say that they ARE NOT THERE. Please prove me wrong.

Then he says, “Don’t put words in my mouth, --@--! Scripture thoroughly equips us for every good work, I AGREE! However, Scripture is not the ONLY thing that equips us for good works.”

Notice he first AGREES, then DISAGREES with God. God said that Scripture equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK. Jake says that he agrees with this statement, but then he denies it when he says that there is something else that equips us.

Jake says, “Now, what you’ve said to me is the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. Do you think I’m ignorant?”

I never made that statement. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Then he continues with, “Now, I guess you’ll have to show me where it says the ENTIRE Word of God is Scripture. Don’t show me where it says Scripture is entirely the Word of God, I know this.”

Paul's words vividly teach that the Scriptures thoroughly equip us for every good work and, thus, no other standard is needed or allowed. Any so-called good works that men might do which are not in the Scriptures, cannot be good works in God's sight because the Scriptures equip to every good work.

Then he says, “I want to know where it says that the ENTIRE Word of God – that is EVERYTHIGN that God has spoken – is Scripture.”

2 Peter 1:3 says, as His divine power has given to us ALL THINGS that pertain to life and godliness…” Please do tell me Jake what else is needed?

Then he says, “Please, --@--, you are showing your ignorance again. Baptism, whether by full immersion or sprinkling, is symbolic. Does full emersion REALLY clean you? NO! Well, I guess if you had some soap? It is symbolic for the cleansing of our sins, a dying or submersion to sin, and a rising to new life in Christ. So, I guess one who might be in the desert at the same time they are converted cannot be saved then, unless of course someone drops a bathtub out for them! Please look this up. There is much more detailed descriptions and explanations. Logically, if you thought about it, since the reformation didn’t take place until the 1500’s, then all those between 33 and 1500 AD, who were Baptized by “sprinkling” are damned. Now, --@--, does that make sense?”

Please show me where baptism is symbolic as you so state? The Bible says that baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” is IMMERSION and NOT sprinkling or pouring or now symbolic as you merely assert.

Jake once again asserts that I twist Scripture, but he does not prove it when he says:

“Now that you found the passage where it says God’s word (in Scripture) equips us for every good work. But Catholics do not deny this. What we deny, however, is that Scripture ALONE equips us for everything we need to do or know to Love Jesus More and to abide in His Law, which was written on our hearts. Scripture does equip us for every good work we need to do. What does Scripture tell us? “hold fast to those traditions (oral and written), which have been taught to you.”

I am still waiting for him to answer this question: “Let’s let Jake give verses where Paul, Peter, or any other inspired writer, plainly revealed that "apostolic oral traditions" would equip us to every good work or remind us of the commandment of the Lord.”

I said, It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church did not even believe in the “Immaculate conception” until 1845.

To which he replied: “What? Tell me your joking, please! “The Catholic Church did not even believe in the Immaculate conception until 1845”? NO! The Catholic Church merely did not proclaim this a dogmatic Teaching (or official Truth) until 1845! There has always been an understanding of her purity!”

Please do tell me where Scripture says anything about the “Immaculate Conception? Why did they wait until 1845 to proclaim this teaching as “official truth”?

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

Instead of refuting what I wrote, Mateo writes: "if you want to respond to me, please do me the favor of reading my link"

To which I say if you want to respond to me, please do me the favor of answering my questions!

The truth has nothing to fear now does it?

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), aka ''Dashman''
Your strategy is cunning, but didn't work. It has to work to MY satisfaction, and the satisfaction of Catholics in our forum. It isn't enough just to pat yourself on the back, ''Wow; that tells 'em ~'' The burden of proof is on all you Catholic-bashers. You came to the Word of God LATE.

Dashman: “God says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16. We now have the inspired Word of God WRITTEN down for us. Since we do not have any more apostles to teach us “ORALLY”, the only way we have now of “HEARING” their words is through the message they left us in the Bible. Surely one can read their words and OBEY them''.

Leaving out momentarily the clear fact that all the epistles were written by Catholics to Catholics, --''"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable,'' --says nothing about All Tradition, Sacred and holy Tradition; which is certainly on a par with Scripture. Each is guarded within the Church by the Holy Spirit. Inspired means ''of the Holy Spirit, Dashman. All moral and theological teaching by Christ's Holy Church resonates of the Spirit. You will now say, ''That's what YOU assert, prove it''.

I don't have to, Dash; Jesus Christ said it, you have to unprove it. Jesus said the Paraclete was to come and remain with His Church. He indwells her and protects the Church from all error in faith/morals.

You came late; and only as a living member of the Catholic Church are you led by the Holy Spirit to learn or teach infallibly. --You would be a living member, in your baptismal state. But you have embraced a rival faith, not the Catholic faith of the holy apostles. >>>>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

RE: Inherited sin??? There is no inherited sin, D-M. See how far afield you stray, apart from the Spirit of truth? There is Original Sin. Or are you still living in the Garden of Eden; even after our first parents were cast out?

Original sin is the sin of Adam, our father. He was sent away from the Garden for disobedience, the first Sin. We don't truly inherit the same sin, we inherit Adam's fallen NATURE, his fall from grace. This is the human condition which gives us a propensity for sin, even against our will. Or, what's expressed as Original sin. King David confessed to Yahweh: ''In sin my mother conceived me--'' meaning, *I was sinful in essence, even in my mother's womb; before I had ever sinned actually.*

But how were you to discern these truths? You are a lost sheep. You have no learning except Bible-reading with no guide, no Holy Spirit. You have no apostolic Tradition, no schooling in real Christian theology.

That's pretty cold. I say something devastating; but-- it's true. The teachers you've learned from are SELF-ORDAINED. They were separated in the so-called reformation from Catholic ''laying on of hands,'' the apostolic line of descent.

So, your teachers fell into error. They presumed to understand Scripture, and they distort the truth; teaching it to poor souls like yourself.

Saint Peter said emphatically: ''There will be lying teachers, who will bring in destructive sects . . . the way of truth will be maligned.'' (2Pet, 2 :1-2.)

The lying teacher is the self-ordained minister. The truth which he maligns is the Church of the apostles. The Church of the apostles is ONE Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. And please, Dashman; don't tell us you haven't maligned her truth. We are all willing to forgive you for it; but we won't be party to your errors.

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

Dashman - for your convenience, and ours - all your questions have already been answered. Just look on a few of the other threads please. Take care and God bless.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 21, 2002.

Please notice how Eugene makes a feeble attempt to correct me but yet he offers NO Scriptural rebuttal to what I have posted. Why is that the case?

He also doesn’t bother to answer my questions that I have posed to him. I know he has the time to answer questions as evidenced by his many posts in this forum.

Eugene gives the often repeated Catholic argument that the Catholic Church gave us the Scriptures. The Bible is inspired and has authority, NOT because the Catholic Church declared it so, but because God made it so. Jesus did not teach the people in His day that they could accept the Old Testament Scriptures only on the basis of those who placed the books into one volume. The same is true of the New Testament Scriptures.

There are NO verses in all of the Holy Scriptures which indicate that the church has the authority to originate truth or to decree laws for God. The apostles and prophets, and they ALONE, were commissioned by the Lord, NOT to ORIGINATE TRUTH, but TO REVEAL TRUTH.

Their task was once and for all COMPLETED for they gave us the WRITTEN New Testament of Christ.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

--''The same is true of the New Testament Scriptures,''--?

No, Dashman. The same is NOT true. You haven't a clue by what authority you could say that. It's your opinion.

You're making an assumption once again, saying: ''There are NO verses in all of the Holy Scriptures which indicate that the Church has the authority to (***originate truth) --or to decree laws for God. The apostles and prophets, and they ALONE, were commissioned by the Lord, (***NOT to ORIGINATE TRUTH,) but TO REVEAL TRUTH. Their task was once and for all completed for they gave us the WRITTEN New Testament.''

You conveniently ignore key passages in the gospel of Matthew, among others. These make the Church positively the court of last resort as concerns the truth. You already know these; ''Whatever you shall bind on earth (the Church on earth, for all time) shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven.'' In other words, YOU speak for HEAVEN; which is Christ. He placed no time limits at all, saying to His apostles, ''I am with you ALL DAYS, even to the end of the world.''

BTW-- How would one ''originate'' truth? You mean truth which is not written all for YOU to read in the Bible, is ''originated'' falsely? There can be no additional and undeniable truth? You mean truth stopped after the Bible was printed? That's quite a leap!

As it happens, the Church hasn't added to the deposit of faith. You're mistaken. And the Immaculate Conception was defined not originated in 1854. The Church has ALWAYS taught the faithful about the Blessed virgin's God- given Immaculate Conception. We knew this from the beginning; it was an apostolic truth. The ''dogma'' is newer, because this proclaims it infallible truth; beyond human doubt. But we knew it was the apostle's Traditional teaching all the time, D-M.

The Church hasn't ''added'' truths; she explains them. We resolve any dispute about true doctrine by appealing to the ONLY authority, the apostolic Church. Notice ONLY-- You aren't an authority in Scriptures, much less TRUTH.

Anther clarification: The apostles appointed new men to follow after them in the work of the Church and her Gospel. They were successors appointed by calling. You can find it in the epistles of Paul. Each apostle made converts, assigned new leaders, renewed the mission by sending them. The ''laying on of hands'' is well- documented.

Your saying that after the deaths of those men all that was left behind to guide us was the Bible is really asinine (pardon me,) as if the Church had ceased to be after their departure. I had given you credit for some learning, Dasher. Even some brains! Now I'm amazed at your obstinacy. You can't BUY an argument!

And then-- You demand answers to your questions. ''I know he has the time to answer questions as evidenced by his many posts in this forum.''

Actually, I have work to do. But I MAKE time. I answer the more reasonable questions; I don't have endless time. But my responses aren't ''feeble''. I've been kickin your pants over and over. All you've done is harp away at sola scriptura; ''If it ain't in the Bible, how dya expect me to believe it? Oh?

The Early Fathers believed, and they had no bound Bibles. They relied on mostly oral accounts, called today Tradition, handed down from the holy apostles in the Church. I saw you said-- Because they believed something ''doesn't make'' it true.''

You can't MAKE anything true, Dashman. It's either true or it's false. These fathers believed the truth because Christ said it-- and it came down from the apostles. Furthermore, if you say it isn't true just because they said so-- you can say that about the apostles! You can say that about Christ! You can believe whatever you please! Lol!

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

Dash-O

Jake, Glenn, Gail and Mateo also refuted you easily. John Gecik entered ahead of your posts, but he also could KYP. --Call me feeble if you want. You haven't kicked mine.

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

John,

Is Dash-o the one and [only] visiting us again in your humble opinion?

-- :-) (.@..com), November 21, 2002.

The Bible teaches that God does impute sin (Romans 4:8), but He NEVER transfers sin from one person to another.

Sin is imputed to (put down to the account of) the one who commits it.

God puts sin to my account when I sin, but He NEVER puts someone else's sin to my account, Adam's or anyone else's.

Psalm 58 says, “The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”

Can babies can speak as soon as they are born?

Ezekiel 18:4 says, “…The soul who sins shall die.”

Ezekiel 18:20 says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son SHALL NOT beat the guilt of the father, NOR the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be UPON HIMSELF, and the WICKEDNESS of the WICKED shall be UPON HIMSELF.”

This is most damaging to your false “Original Sin” doctrine. Remember, the Bible NEVER contradicts itself.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

One more thing, the Catholic idea of successors to the apostles comes from man, NOT God.

There are NO passages which state that the apostles were to have successors. The word "successor" is not used in the New Testament.

A simple look at the QUALIFICATIONS of the apostles reveals they would have NO SUCCESSORS.

An apostle HAD TO BE AN EYEWITNESS of Christ. (Acts 1:15-26).

Paul defended his apostleship by saying, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not SEEN Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1).

The apostles were indeed WITNESSES in the fullest sense. They were the EYEWITNESSES, carefully chosen by the Lord, who would witness to mankind what they saw and heard concerning Jesus.

Acts 1:8 says, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be WITNESSES to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

The Lord said to Paul, "...I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a WITNESS both of the things which you have SEEN and of the things which I will yet reveal to you." (Acts 26:16).

Peter declared, "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYEWITNESSES of His majesty." (2 Pet. 1:16).

The apostle John, in his introduction to his first epistle, declared that he was bearing WITNESS to those things which they had heard, had seen with their eyes, and had touched with their hands, concerning the Word of life.

He then added, "And these things we WRITE TO YOU that your joy may be full." (1 John 1:1-4).

Since there are NO apostles alive today, the apostles WITNESS to us through their WRITINGS and this is the ONLY way their testimony is transmitted to us today.

It is also argued that since many people were unable to read and that there was no printing press until over 1,000 years after Christ, the Scriptures cannot be the only standard.

Such arguments come from men, not God.

I have repeatedly asked for a list of "oral traditions independent of Scriptures".

In other words, if there are other things independent of Scriptures which are NEEDFUL FOR OUR SALVATION, Where are they, What are they, and HOW DO WE OBTAIN THEM?

They have not provided a list because there is NONE.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

Dashman >>>
You say, --''The Bible teaches, the Bible teaches''. Yet the Bible teaches nothing. You are the proof. You read, but don't learn. In altogether too many cases, the Bible misleads, without the Church for its interpreter. Jim Jones read Bible prophesy to his Jonestown cult members-- They were instructed to drink poisoned Kool-Aid; and then Jim Jones also committed suicide. He was a Bible interpreter with no Holy Spirit to protect him from error. David Koresh in Waco, Texas-- another Bible nut. He was out of his mind. The whole range of them, from Henry VIII to Calvin, Luther, Amy Semple McPherson, Oral Roberts (He saw a 90 foot high Jesus who told him to raise a hundred gazillion dollars, or else his life would come to an end!) --they're all ''taught'' by the Bible. You want the Bible to ''teach'' you. But this is pathetic.

You need the Church and the Holy Spirit to teach you. All you have is human wisdom. Paul said that to God the wisdom of man ''is folly.''

Catholics have Christ and the apostles for their teachers, with the Holy Bible as the inspired Word in and for the teaching of the Catholic faith only.

Poor Dashman. He thinks ''the Bible teaches.'' Like a baby saying, ''Go home now, Mommy. I have to put on a clean diaper.''

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

Dashes, History DOES record the passing of the various churches from from hand to hand. Check out Eusebias, a well-known and well- respected historian by Protestants and Catholics alike. He wrote the Church's history from the apostles down to the early 300's (which is when he lived). His historical record is primarily how we know about the martyrdoms of most of the apostles!

Go to ccel.org for VOLUMES of writings by the various pastors of churches from first century Christianity on down (including Eusebius), if you are really interested, which I kind of doubt from the tone of your note.

Also, to find out about the traditions you asked about, again, go to ccel.org, and you will find a wealth of documents revealing not only the creeds and counsels, but depicting early Christianity's 'traditions'.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 21, 2002.

Eugene says, ?Yet the Bible teaches nothing. You are the proof. You read, but don't learn. In altogether too many cases, the Bible misleads, without the Church for its interpreter.?

New Testament writings were written to ordinary members of the church and it was intended that the writings be read by or be read to those people. The scriptures themselves tell us that we are to read them ourselves; NO MENTION is made of needing an INTERPRETER to UNDERSTAND them.

It is God's will and desire that His word be STUDIED and UNDERSTOOD by each individual who would believe and become obedient to the faith.

Then he says, ?Jim Jones read Bible prophesy to his Jonestown cult members-- They were instructed to drink poisoned Kool-Aid; and then Jim Jones also committed suicide. He was a Bible interpreter with no Holy Spirit to protect him from error. David Koresh in Waco, Texas-- another Bible nut. He was out of his mind. The whole range of them, from Henry VIII to Calvin, Luther, Amy Semple McPherson, Oral Roberts (He saw a 90 foot high Jesus who told him to raise a hundred gazillion dollars, or else his life would come to an end!) --they're all ''taught'' by the Bible. You want the Bible to ''teach'' you. But this is pathetic.?

The Bible says in 2 Peter 2:1, ?But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.?

So, it is possible for people to be deceived.

Scripture agrees because 2 Tim 3:12-13 says, ?But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.?

So, his throwing around of people who have misled and doomed people to death is exactly what the Bible teaches, nothing more.

Then he says, ?You need the Church and the Holy Spirit to teach you. All you have is human wisdom. Paul said that to God the wisdom of man ''is folly.?

In speaking about the New Testament, God says in Hebrews 8:10, ?For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.?

The inspired writer continues in verse 11, ?None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.?

This New Covenant is WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament.

Then he says, ?Catholics have Christ and the apostles for their teachers, with the Holy Bible as the inspired Word in and for the teaching of the Catholic faith only.?

Catholics claim to follow the Bible, but in their own words they deny that it is the ONLY source of inspiration and they claim that without the Catholic Church no one can be saved.

The gospel is the power of God to salvation, NOT the Catholic Church as they would have you believe. (Romans 1:16).

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

You keep on losing it in your fury, Dashed
''Catholics claim to follow the Bible, but in their own words they deny that it is the ONLY source of inspiration and they claim that without the Catholic Church no one can be saved. The gospel is the power of God to salvation,'' Keep your temper, friend. Let go for a breath or two: Catholics are the original Bible-readers. Your own blessed ancestors were Catholics. Find them in your family tree.

We do deny the Bible is the only ''source of inspiration'' (whatever that is?) we love the Holy Bible.

But we don't love your private interpretation. Saint Peter clearly preached against that. A Catholic knows the proper interpretations of scripture, because the Church teaches no error. With or without the Bible!

Without the Catholic Church you wouldn't have ever seen the Gospel, or received baptism. The two avenues to salvation in Jesus Christ. So-- by the Catholic Church, you may still hope to be saved.

We in our forum are merely trying to free you of total ignorance, Da-dash. The Church is helping you to salvation right here in this forum! What LITTLE truth your sect has managed to keep in your false doctrines is the Catholic teaching you didn't reject.

The little correct Bible teaching you've picked to believe is only a fraction of what the Bible really teaches. Because you dismiss any passage in scripture which might back the Catholic Church. For instance, the plain words of Christ which I already quoted --YOU IGNORED THAT --

''Whatever you shall bind on earth (the Church on earth, for all time) shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven.'' In other words, YOU (the Church) speak for HEAVEN; which is Christ. He placed no time limits at all, saying to His apostles, ''I am with you ALL DAYS.'' / / --Too hot to handle, Hmmm Dash???

So-- Don't tell us ''The Bible teaches.'' You don't know what the bible teaches. You come from sects who don't know either; they just pretend to know.

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

Dash,
If the Bible is where you get all the ''teaching'', why have you been forced to admit:

''--The Bible says in 2 Peter 2:1, But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.''
So, it is possible for people (Bible Christians) to be deceived.''

Oh???

I remind you: Jim Jones, Koresh, the other false prophets (what the Bible calls them) all claimed to understand the Holy Bible. Just like YOU. Without the Holy Spirit, without the Church of Jesus Christ and His apostles. Without the Catholic Church to teach them. --And see what they ''learned''. Scripture agrees because 2 Tim 3:12-13 says, ?But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.?

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

The ability to ?bind and loose on earth? was ONLY given to the apostles, NOT the church.

One more thing, the church DOES NOT have authority, Jesus said that He had ALL authority. (Matt. 28:18).

The only excuse Catholics have for PRETENDING to be successors to the apostles is that they want to bind upon earth what the apostles have loosed, or loose what the apostles have bound.

There are NO successors to the apostles and prophets.

The Catholic doctrine of "apostolic succession" is NOT taught in the Bible.

The apostles and prophets were God's chosen ambassadors to deliver "the faith" to mankind and their work has been COMPLETED.

NO ONE today possesses their qualifications.

NOT ONE person on this earth has their spiritual gifts and miraculous powers.

By inspiration of the Holy Spirit they were guided into ALL TRUTH as Jesus had promised.

When we read the things they wrote, WE CAN UNDERSTAND their knowledge in the mystery of Christ.(Eph. 3:3-4).

ALL THINGS of the will of Christ are recorded in the WRITTEN NT of Christ (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).

It contains ALL that God has bound upon us and ALL by which we will be judged in the last day.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 21, 2002.

Dashes -- Here is but one little blurb that is a direct answer to your request on "Apostolic Succession" I will post more on this subject on another thread. The quotes are VOLUMINOUS!

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self- pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the SUCCESSIONS OF THE BISHOPS. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in *ANF,I:1415-416

Ante-Nicene Fathers (Pre-Nicene Fathers, i.e, before the Nicene Creed, and note the date 180 years A.D.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 21, 2002.

Dashed:
Our Lord went up to sit at the right hand of His Amighty Father. He left His Church on earth for good, until the second coming. So-- Why wouldn't He delegate a head man? This was the Pope. Peter as the Shepherd on earth of Christ's flock-- the Church.

''Feed my lambs-- once, Feed my lambs; twice; and then, Feed my sheep.'' all addressed to Peter. The one Christ selected for our first Catholic Pope. -- Oh! Why did I forget? You don't believe any proof from the Holy Bible. (John 21, :15-17.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 22, 2002.

The apostles authority was determined when they received the Holy Spirit. They had power to bind and loose, forgive and retain, because God was speaking directly through them. Thus, they were able to deliver God’s message to mankind infallibly.

NO man today can claim the authority of the apostles, or claim to be successors because NO man today is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Also, the apostles and those on who they laid their hands on, could speak with tongues, prophesy and work miracles. They worked miracles to demonstrate their authority, to confirm the Word of God and to show that they were indeed inspired of God. Paul said, "Indeed, the signs of the apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in miracles and wonders and deeds of power." (2 Cor. 12:12).

Not one person living today can work miracles as they did, so NO ONE is inspired today and NO ONE has the same authority today.

There is ONE and ONLY ONE example of a replacement of an apostle, and that was when Matthias was selected to replace Judas Iscariot. What was the ONE qualification that was necessary to be an apostle? Luke says in Acts 2:22, “…one of these MUST become a WITNESS with us of His resurrection.”

Please tell me which Catholic priest, bishop or pope has this qualification?

It is interesting to note that when Matthias replaced Judas, he was known as an apostle. Why does the Catholic Church name their successors pope?

By the way, just because Jesus told Peter to feed my lambs and feed my sheep is NO reason to believe that he meant for Peter to assume the office of “head apostle”. Jesus DID NOT transfer His authority to Peter in this passage or in any other passage of Scripture.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 22, 2002.

--@--- .... see Gail's post "did the early church believe in sola scriptura".... ---@--, be brave- read it all!!

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), November 22, 2002.

Dashman,

You write:

"Instead of refuting what I wrote, Mateo writes: "if you want to respond to me, please do me the favor of reading my link"

To which I say if you want to respond to me, please do me the favor of answering my questions!

The truth has nothing to fear now does it?"

My fears center on one thing now. I fear that you don't realize that the reason I gave you a link was to answer your question. The link contains the answer--it gives you a description of what "Original Sin" is so you can leave behind your Pelagian beliefs.

You write:

"It is interesting to note that when Matthias replaced Judas, he was known as an apostle. Why does the Catholic Church name their successors pope? "

Dashman, read the definition of Pope. Pope translates to "father." Sts. Peter, Paul, John, etc. refered to those believers who heard the word through them as their "children." St. John even refers to other men in his congregation as "fathers." (1 John 2:13–14). See this link for more on the title "father."

If you don't like the term "Pope," John Paul II also uses the title "Servant of the servants of God" (Servus Servorum Dei). The Pontiff also uses the title "Successor of the Prince of the Apostles." St. Peter is the Prince of the Apostles. To my knowledge, the title "Apostle" is usually left for the twelve apostles (Matthias, too). In an informal sense, we are all sent out to preach the Gospel, so we are all apostles of Jesus.

Dashman writes:

"NO man today can claim the authority of the apostles, or claim to be successors because NO man today is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit."

Interesting. Now, no one is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit? You really limit the power of God by this statement. First, you claim that we are all born without the stain of Original Sin--this implies that not all of humanity needed the sacrifice of Calvary for salvation. Now, you claim that the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired anyone since the time of the apostles? You had better hope that the Holy Spirit inspired all of those monks who spent their lives copying the Bible and those who translated the Bible!

Joking aside, is this something you just thought of, or did someone else claim this. Also, what Bible verses did you use to back this statement up? Pentecost wasn't a one-time event for a select few 2000 years ago. We, through sacraments (like Confirmation and Holy Orders) receive the power of the Holy Spirit, just as the early believers did (Acts, etc).

Dashman writes:

"By the way, just because Jesus told Peter to feed my lambs and feed my sheep is NO reason to believe that he meant for Peter to assume the office of “head apostle”. Jesus DID NOT transfer His authority to Peter in this passage or in any other passage of Scripture."

You statements often involve your interpreting the Bible. Sometimes you're literal; sometimes you're not. It's good that you are interested in the Bible, but I think you might have been fed a slanted view from others. It's good of you to question that view.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 22, 2002.

Matt:
You always bring up excellent points. Dashman is a slow learner. First off, he misunderstands ''inspired''--He equates ALL inspired work as the writing of God's Word. So, no one has the Holy Spirit in him since the apostles --to write any more Bible passages. In that context, we all have to agree. The Bible was finished for good; and holy mother Church saw to it that a Canon was selected and authorized. Then saw to it the words were reproduced by hand for centuries; and even the first printings much later. All inspired by the Holy Spirit. We have an ''inspired'' Bible.

Dashman simply argues that afterwards the Holy Spirit hung up the phone, and hasn't had any more to do in the Church. Of course, he wouldn't know in any case. But he can make every decision and choice easily, just as if he were ''inspired''. Strangely, he thinks the early Fathers, the saints and martyrs, the bishops of the Church, all labored on afterwards with NO help from the Holy Spirit. But he's inspired! He knows all about God's Word. Let's just not get Dash started on ''grace''. Like the word inspired, grace will produce some howlers as Dashman interprets it. We must stop worrying and just pray for him/her.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 22, 2002.

Dashman, Here is one excerpt from a thread I just posted for you on Apostolic Succession:

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4:33:8(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:508

For further reading on this subject, check out the thread I just posted. You asked for it, Dashman, you got it!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 22, 2002.

Mateo writes, ?The link contains the answer--it gives you a description of what "Original Sin" is so you can leave behind your Pelagian beliefs.?

But please notice that he still doesn?t answer my question that I posed earlier concerning this subject.

I said: ?Ezekiel 18:20 says, ?The soul who sins shall die. The son SHALL NOT bear the guilt of the father, NOR the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be UPON HIMSELF, and the WICKEDNESS of the WICKED shall be UPON HIMSELF.? This is most damaging to your false ?Original Sin? doctrine. Remember, the Bible NEVER contradicts itself.?

Why no reply to this Scripture verse that refutes your ?Original Sin? doctrine?

Then Mateo tries to explain how the term ?Pope? is translated many different ways. However, he doesn?t mention how the Word of God authorizes this office much less gives it a name?

Then Mateo writes ?Interesting. Now, no one is directly inspired by the Holy Spirit? You really limit the power of God by this statement.?

No, I am NOT limiting the power of God, just speaking the truth. Are there any modern prophets in this world today that claim direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit? If so, where are they Mateo?

Then Mateo says, ?First, you claim that we are all born without the stain of Original Sin--this implies that not all of humanity needed the sacrifice of Calvary for salvation.?

No, this DOES NOT imply any such thing.

This is why Jesus came to this earth, ?Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, THAT THROUGH DEATH HE MIGHT DESTROY HIM WHO HAD THE POWER OF DEATH, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.? (Hebrews 2:14-15) (Emphasis mine).

1 John 3:8 says, ?He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, THAT HE MIGHT DESTROY THE WORKS OF THE DEVIL.? (Emphasis mine).

Then Mateo writes, ?Now, you claim that the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired anyone since the time of the apostles? You had better hope that the Holy Spirit inspired all of those monks who spent their lives copying the Bible and those who translated the Bible!?

Please show me how and why someone had to be inspired of the Holy Spirit just to copy or translate the Bible? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here is another assertion with no proof. Incredible!

Then Mateo says, ?Joking aside, is this something you just thought of, or did someone else claim this. Also, what Bible verses did you use to back this statement up? Pentecost wasn't a one-time event for a select few 2000 years ago. We, through sacraments (like Confirmation and Holy Orders) receive the power of the Holy Spirit, just as the early believers did (Acts, etc).?

Mateo claims that Catholics receive the power of the Holy Spirit, just as the early believers did in the book of Acts. Please Mateo, do tell me which Catholic today has the same spiritual gifts that the apostles were able to hand down? Please be specific in your reply. This is another assertion he offers with NO proof.

Then Eugene writes, ?Dashman is a slow learner.?

Another assertion Eugene makes with NO proof offered.

Then he says, ?First off, he misunderstands ''inspired''--He equates ALL inspired work as the writing of God's Word. So, no one has the Holy Spirit in him since the apostles --to write any more Bible passages. In that context, we all have to agree.?

Wow, we actually agree on one point. That is a real shocker? J

Then Eugene says, ?The Bible was finished for good; and holy mother Church saw to it that a Canon was selected and authorized. Then saw to it the words were reproduced by hand for centuries; and even the first printings much later. All inspired by the Holy Spirit. We have an ''inspired'' Bible.?

God Himself is the author of the New Testament, not the Catholic Church. Let Eugene, show how and give the reason why someone had to be inspired of the Holy Spirit just to copy or translate the Bible?

Then Eugene says, ?Dashman simply argues that afterwards the Holy Spirit hung up the phone, and hasn't had any more to do in the Church.?

The Word of God says, ?All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.? (2 Tim 3:16-17)

God says that Scripture is all we need to be equipped for every good work. Who is man that he can argue with God?

Then Eugene says, ?Of course, he wouldn't know in any case.?

I just showed above where Eugene really doesn?t know what he is talking about.

Then Eugene says, ?But he can make every decision and choice easily, just as if he were ''inspired''.?

I never said that I was ?inspired?, nor even implied that this was the case. This is just another figment of Eugene?s imagination and another accusation that he throws out without any proof.

Then Eugene writes, ?Strangely, he thinks the early Fathers, the saints and martyrs, the bishops of the Church, all labored on afterwards with NO help from the Holy Spirit.?

Once again, Eugene tries to put words in my mouth. I never once said that Christians do not have the Holy Spirit. I said that no one person today is ?inspired? like the apostles.

Then Eugene says, ?But he's inspired! He knows all about God's Word. Let's just not get Dash started on ''grace''. Like the word inspired, grace will produce some howlers as Dashman interprets it. We must stop worrying and just pray for him/her.?

Once again, here is Eugene making an accusation that he can?t prove. Now he can read my mind. Amazing!!!

Gail quotes from a Catholic source, but who is to say that it is the truth?

There is NO MENTION of Apostolic Succession in the Word of God.

History can and has been changed in the past and IS NOT a safe guide for one to base their religious beliefs.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 23, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), November 25, 2002.

Well, Haber-Dashery, hanging from a twig:

The quotes were provided by a Catholic source in topical order, however they can be checked against other public domain sites that have all of the early church writings as well. I cross referenced them myself when I began studying the early church.

Suppose you go Dash-off to another forum. We are truly tired of your bunk and bologna here!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 25, 2002.

Dashman,

For the most part, most of your comments express emotion more than interested in dialogue. I will comment on a couple things you wrote.

Dashman writes:

"Why no reply to this Scripture verse that refutes your "Original Sin" doctrine?"

Actually, I can't claim credit. It's a doctrine of Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and the Catholic Church.

Divine Providence works in strange ways. Yesterday (Nov. 24), we celebrated the Feast of Christ the King. And on that reading, St. Paul speaks to us about the stain of Original Sin:

1 Cor 15:20-26, 28 - "Brothers and sisters: Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

For since death came through man, the resurrection of the dead came also through man. For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ; then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all."

Dashman writes:

"No, I am NOT limiting the power of God, just speaking the truth. Are there any modern prophets in this world today that claim direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit? If so, where are they Mateo?"

Well, I just don't know why you qualify your question with "direct." Does this mean that you believe that people are "indirectly" inspired? You come across as a non-believer when you argue that people are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Are you an atheist? It seems you want to be a contrarian; but you aren't sharing with us your own position.

Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit inspires a lot of people. St. Paul writes:

1 Corinthians 12:3 - "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.

According to the Bible, everyone who proclaims "Jesus is Lord" is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I'd put the qualifier that the proclamation would have to be authentic--lip service won't do anything to prove inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

According to St. Luke's Gospel:

Luke 11:13 - "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

According to Jesus, the Father wants us to be inspired. I don't see any caveat where Jesus says that no one will be inspired after the apostles. You almost seem to suggest that the Church died with the apostles. This man-made doctrine also goes against scripture:

Matthew 16:18 - "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

or (the Latin seems easy to understand):

Matthew 16:18 - "et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam."

The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that Jesus founded--that's Jesus' promise.

Dashman writes:

"Please show me how and why someone had to be inspired of the Holy Spirit just to copy or translate the Bible? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here is another assertion with no proof. Incredible!"

You're a bit emotional here. Thanks to the Catholic Church, the New Testament books were chosen--that selection had to happen under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Valid translation(s) had to preserve the meaning of the scriptures. Some Protestant Bibles change the wording of the Scripture to change the meaning to fit their doctrines. Finally, if those who copied the Bible weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit, what would happen if they were inspired by someone else? In the end, Protestants who hold "Solo Scriptura" must put a lot of faith in the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Church) for giving them accurate scriptures.

I don't know how useful it is to argue with someone who believes that the Holy Spirit somehow became impotent when the original twelve apostles died. I suppose if that's your view, we'll just have to pray for you.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 25, 2002.

I said, “Why no reply to this Scripture verse that refutes your “Original Sin” doctrine?”

To which Mateo replied, “Actually, I can’t claim credit. It’s a doctrine of Jesus Christ, St. Paul, and the Catholic Church. Divine Providence works in strange ways. Yesterday (Nov. 24), we celebrated the Feast of Christ the King, And on that reading, St. Paul speaks to us about the stain of Original Sin” and then he quotes 1 Cor. 15:20- 26.

This verse does NOT prove “Original Sin”!!! What it does prove is that the consequence of sin is “death”.

If your doctrine of “Original Sin” were true which says that “death came through man”, then wasn’t Jesus manifested to make us all “alive”? If that is the case, then Jesus most certainly would have removed that stain of “Original Sin” when he was resurrected. If not, why not?

Mateo writes, “Well, I just don’t know why you qualify your question with “direct. Does this mean that you believe that people are “indirectly” inspired?

No, the Holy Spirit ONLY dwells in Christians THROUGH the Word of God.

Mateo writes, “You come across as a non-believer when you argue that people are not inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

No, this is just not what the Word of God says.

Then Mateo writes, “Are you an athiest?

No Mateo, I am NOT an athiest.

Mateo writes, “It seems you want to be a contrarian; but you aren’t sharing with us your own position.”

Please see my comment above.

Mateo writes, “Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit inspires a lot of people. St. Paul writes: 1 Corinthians 12:3 – “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.”

Mateo, how is one able to make these statements? Are these statements in the Word of God? One IS “Jesus is Lord”, Philippians 2:11, One is NOT “Jesus be cursed!”. (Scripture????).

Mateo, the Holy Spirit already “inspired” people to speak, thus we have the WRITTEN New Testament.

Then Mateo continues with “According to the Bible, everyone who proclaims “Jesus is Lord” is inspired by the Holy Spirit.”

Once again, all people have to do is READ the Word of God, and they are able to speak by the Spirit of God, because the Spirit of God has ALREADY spoken these words. Does this mean that everyone who reads the Bible is “inspired” because they are able to speak as God has directed us? Not at all.

Mateo then quotes Luke 11:13 and says “According to Jesus, the Father wants us to be inspired.”

No mention is made of anyone being “inspired” in this passage or any other. The ONLY mention of men being inspired to speak is that in 2 Peter 3:21. Does the Holy Spirit have to MOVE someone to speak the words that anyone can plainly read in the New Testament? That is what you are claiming?

Then Mateo writes, “I don’t see any caveat where Jesus says that no one will be inspired after the apostles.”

Jude 3 states that the “faith was once for all delivered for the saints.” What other inspiration is needed or required? If men are inspired today, that means that they speak directly for God. If this is the case, then why are their words NOT written down for us and canonized like the books of the New Testament?

The Bible teaches that all the influence of the Spirit upon the human mind for man's salvation is ONLY through the word, His gospel message.

In conversion, the Holy Spirit DOES NOT operate independent of the word on the sinner's heart by a direct impact to bring about his salvation.

The Bible DOES NOT teach that the word, unless accompanied by a direct influence of the Spirit, is dead, and therefore has no power to convert or turn sinners to God.

Paul clearly stated in Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek"

The gospel is God's ONLY power to save!!!

It is the ONLY means that God has appointed to save sinners (Isaiah 55:10-11; Jeremiah 23:29).

The Holy Spirit is the agent in EVERY conversion, and whenever the word of God is faithfully preached, the Spirit works THROUGH THE WORD upon the mind and heart of the hearer for the purpose of making him a child of God.

ONLY those who receive the Spirit's teaching and become OBEDIENT to it, are saved. (Romans 16:26).

Man has the moral freedom to accept or reject the word (Acts 7:51).

Mateo writes, You almost seem to suggest that the Church died with the apostles. This man made doctrine also goes against scripture, then he quotes Matthew 16:18 and says The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that Jesus founded—that’s Jesus’ promise.”

I never even remotely suggested the idea that the Church died with the apostles.

Mateo, the seed of the kingdom is the WORD OF GOD, and NOT THE CHURCH. (Luke 8:11, 8:21).

It is the WORD OF GOD that STANDS FOREVER, not the Church. (1 Peter 1:23).

The Church can and has fallen into apostasy before. Just look at the book of Revelation chapters 2 and 3 for examples of this very fact. Where are those churches today?

The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church because the blueprint to reproduce the Church is contained within the pages of the New Testament.

Then Mateo writes, “Thanks to the Catholic Church, the New Testament books were chosen—that selection had to happen under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”

Speculation does not prove something to be the truth now does it? Books were chosen for the Old Testament also, there is no indication that the Holy Spirit guided them in that regard.

Mateo then writes, “Valid translation(s) had to preserve the meaning of the scriptures.”

True, however, no mention is ever made in Scripture where someone had to be inspired to make this happen.

Then Mateo writes, Some Protestant Bibles change the wording of the Scripture to change the meaning to fit their doctrines.”

Okay Mateo, please do tell me where this is the case? When you do, then we will look at the Greek words to see who is guilty of a mis- translation.

Then Mateo writes, Finally, if those who copied the Bible weren’t inspired by the Holy Spirit, what would happen if they were inspired by someone else.”

You sure have a vivid imagination! Were all of the people who copied the Old Testament to be handed down “inspired”? No, it doesn’t take inspiration of the Holy Spirit to be able to make a copy of words that are already written down. If they were “inspired by someone else”, then they would not be in our Bibles now would they?

Then Mateo says, “In the end, Protestants who hold “Solo Scriptura” must put a lot of faith in the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Church) for giving them accurate scriptures.”

I have said before, just because Catholics claim to have put the books of the New Testament into one volume doesn’t really mean a thing now does it? My faith is in God for giving us accurate Scriptures, not in the Catholic Church.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 25, 2002.

Dashman,

Again, you're just getting emotional. I suppose that if you had read the links I provided, you would understand the basics of what Original Sin is. As it is, you are arguing against something that you don't understand even at a rudimentary level. If you must choose to stay in ignorance, then I can't help you see what's clearly written in the Bible.

I wrote:

"Some Protestant Bibles change the wording of the Scripture to change the meaning to fit their doctrines."

To which you responded:

"Okay Mateo, please do tell me where this is the case?"

I'll start with the fact that Protestants removed some of the books from the Old Testament. We could assume that Luther (who didn't like Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation) may have wanted to do the same thing to parts of the New Testament.

I'm going to steal a quote from Chris Butler:

"Only the *Church* can approve translations, because there are so many false ones. For example, Martin Luther knew that the Bible never actually said we are justified by faith *alone* and so he added the Word "alone" into his German translation, as is a well-known fact. This has continued to happen. The Protestant NIV translates the Greek word "ergon" as "deeds" or as "works," based on how the translation is helpful to their particular understanding of justification. It is perfectly natural that the Church Christ founded would protect the faithful from incorrect translations."

I'm sure that there are plenty of places where various Protestant translations push false doctrines. I think the above examples are pretty disconcerting. It's hard to brush aside Protestants who rip out entire books of the Bible in order to protect their man-made doctrines.

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 25, 2002.

Mateo writes, "Again, you're just getting emotional. I suppose that if you had read the links I provided, you would understand the basics of what Original Sin is. As it is, you are arguing against something that you don't understand even at a rudimentary level. If you must choose to stay in ignorance, then I can't help you see what's clearly written in the Bible."

Please notice he still does not answer the question except to say that I am getting emotional. All you have to do is answer the question. You claim that I don't understand Original Sin even at the rudimentary level however, when I provide Scripture to refute your false doctrine, all you say is that I don't understand. You only say this, because that is what the Catholic Church has conditioned you to say. If you had an answer for me from Scripture, I am sure that you would provide it. Once again, you don't show me from the Word of God where I am wrong.

Mateo writes, "I'll start with the fact that Protestants removed some of the books from the Old Testament. We could assume that Luther (who didn't like Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation) may have wanted to do the same thing to parts of the New Testament."

It wasn't the Catholics who put together the Old Testament. It was the Jews. There is NO translation out there that I know of that doesn't have the same books in the New Testament.

Then he quotes Chris Butler, and says I'm sure that there are plenty of places where various Protestant translations push false doctrines. I think the above examples are pretty disconcerting. It's hard to brush aside Protestants who rip out entire books of the Bible in order to protect their man-made doctrines."

If the "Protestant translations" as you call them push false doctrine, what are they?

The "Protestant translations" as you call them DO NOT claim that salvation is by "faith only" as Christ Butler claims. This is a mere invention of men. The Bible says in the book of James that we are NOT saved by faith only.

I agree, the NIV is NOT a good translation of the Bible.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 25, 2002.

Dashman,

I've already explained that the Catholic teaching of Original Sin is Biblical (regardless of the translation). I doubt that many Protestants would stand with you and deny the existence of Original Sin. So I know who I'm talking to, I'd like to ask you some questions:

1) What denomination do you belong to or identify with?

2) What Bible versions do you accept?

3) What do you think "Original Sin" is?

Thanks,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 25, 2002.

Mateo's right-- and he hasn't even mentioned the obvious; which is Dashman's interpretation of scripture-- . Even if you furnish him/her with a correct, Catholic edition, he will misinterpret the meanings of a number of important Bible passages. He even contradicts Jesus Christ's plain words.

You see, it isn't all about reading the Bible for Dashed. That's secondary for him/her. It's more about avoiding any Catholic doctrine supported by written words of the Holy Bible. There are quite a few. All are evaded, re- interpreted, or simply ignored. Very pointedly the gospel of Saint John.

It contains verification of the Virgin Mary's roles, the Holy Eucharist, sacraments, the mission of the apostles and the primacy of Peter. No one has to change a single word for clarification. The gospel of John is graphic in its Catholic doctrine, for any impartial reader.

But Dashman can't be impartial or he'll fall into total agreement with Catholicism. So, what's the only choice open to him/her??? To dodge; to bowdlerize, muddy the water. And this is merely John's gospel. Dashman denies Luke, Matthew, Acts, Saint Peter's & Saint Paul's epistles. Not over strange, contradictory passages of the Bible; over plain language! Christ says follow me-- Dash says follow the Bible as I have understood it! Am I ''putting words in his mouth''--?

No, not at all. Dashman just doesn't believe Jesus Christ's words. He shows it!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 25, 2002.

PS,

Dashman writes:

"Please notice he still does not answer the question except to say that I am getting emotional. All you have to do is answer the question.

So I don't have to hunt it down, could you specify which question you want me to answer?

Dashman writes:

"You claim that I don't understand Original Sin even at the rudimentary level however, when I provide Scripture to refute your false doctrine, all you say is that I don't understand."

I asked you to explain Original Sin as you understand it. I'm interested to see what you think it is.

Dashman writes:

"You only say this, because that is what the Catholic Church has conditioned you to say. If you had an answer for me from Scripture, I am sure that you would provide it. Once again, you don't show me from the Word of God where I am wrong."

I provided scripture to show that the Bible supports the truth that the stain of Original Sin exists and must be washed away with Baptism. Maybe you were conditioned to ignore my Bible quotes? You don't even think that I quoted scriptures! :-)

You're pretty funny.

Dashman writes:

"The "Protestant translations" as you call them DO NOT claim that salvation is by "faith only" as Christ Butler claims. This is a mere invention of men."

Well, at least we have narrowed it down that you're not Lutheran. :-) It'll be interesting to find out what denomination you are a part of.

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 25, 2002.

I do not know of any Protestant denominations that don't hold to the "Saved by Faith alone" doctrine perpetrated by Luther! Certainly none of the mainline denominations. And Dashes, FINALLY we agree on something! That's right we are not saved by FAITH ALONE!

Come on, Dashes, 'fess up! Are you a closet Catholic?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 25, 2002.

What denomination do you belong to or identify with? I don?t belong or identify with any denomination. Denominations are contrary to the Word of God.

What Bible versions do you accept? I normally use the NKJV however, there are other versions such as the KJV or ASV that are acceptable.

What do you think "Original Sin" is? The first sin committed. Which by the way was NOT by Adam as your Catholic Encyclopedia states. Actually it was EVE who committed the first sin. (Genesis 3:6, 1 Timothy 2:14).

Yes the Bible does say that Sin entered the world through Adam however, that is not the point.

The point is before Adam and Eve sinned, they had no knowledge of good and evil. Am I correct in this assumption? After they ate of the tree of life, they had that knowledge. (Gen. 3:22). Babies when they are born have no knowledge of good or evil. (Deut. 1:39, Rom. 9:11). The wages of sin is death. The idea of original sin is not taught in God?s word (Ezek. 18:20).

Here is the question that I asked with NO response: ?I said: Ezekiel 18:20 says, ?The soul who sins shall die. The son SHALL NOT bear the guilt of the father, NOR the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be UPON HIMSELF, and the WICKEDNESS of the WICKED shall be UPON HIMSELF. This is most damaging to your false ?Original Sin? doctrine. Remember, the Bible NEVER contradicts itself.?

By the way, Baptism is for the remission of sin, but NOT original sin. Faith in Jesus comes by hearing God?s word. (Romans 10:17). Babies can hear, but not UNDERSTAND so, babies since they have no knowledge of good or evil have not sinned, because sin is the transgression of the law. (Rom. 6:23).

Since sin is the transgression of the law, Romans 5:13 says, ?For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.? So, how can you continue to say that sin is handed down from Adam when this Scripture clearly states the opposite of what you claim?

No Gail, I am NOT a closet Catholic.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 25, 2002.

The depth of your ignorance; and worse, your presumption, makes one wonder, Dashit.

For somebody altogether wandering in the darkness, you think you're so clever!

BLOT #1 -- ''Original Sin" is? The first sin committed. Which by the way was NOT by Adam as your Catholic Encyclopedia states. Actually it was EVE who committed the first sin.'' --A notion born of 'C' student intelligence.

Adam is the first man, Dash. Eve did not represent the human race; her role is help-mate. She caused her husband to fall into sin. Before him, no one had sinned. Because it was to Adam God gave everything, all of it except the fruit of one tree. His wife Eve was not commanded a single thing. (Gen 2 :15-:16) Read it again.

Sin came into the world in Adam's disobedience. Original Sin consists of a fault common to all Adam's descendents. God imputes no actual sin but our common descent from one sinner. The most important sinner, Adam.

He lost it for his children, not Judas, or Caiaphas, or Pilate; and not Eve. These were all children of Adam, and Eve was taken from Adam. Adam was responsible.

Blot #2-- ''Yes the Bible does say that sin entered the world through Adam however, that is not the point.'' Famous last words. I thought you honored the Word of God? ''That is not the point !'' When are you going to get off your high horse, Little Minister? You make a fool of yourself each time you post. Let's put your theory to rest:

''--The righteousness of the righteous shall be UPON HIMSELF, and the WICKEDNESS of the WICKED shall be UPON HIMSELF.''

Yes, Dashit. My own Dad's sin is not passed on to his children. What a no-brainer! You mean ACTUAL sin. A serial- murderer's sins don't fall on his innocent son.

But you had it in your head Christ was ''made'' sin for you and me! Isn't this imputing sin where it isn't supposed to be?

Actual sin is yours, mine. Original sin is the fallen nature of all Adam's race. Our fallen nature, prone to sin-- under the power of it. That's what children inherit, Dash Me!

Don't dream up any new ''Blue Tail Flies'' to come singing here; OK? You had many chances. How many are you going to have to blow before your attitude changes?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.

Eugene says, "Yes, Dashit. My own Dad's sin is not passed on to his children. What a no-brainer! You mean ACTUAL sin. A serial- murderer's sins don't fall on his innocent son."

Sin is the transgression of the law. Sin is NOT imputed where there is NO law. There was no law in the garden of eden, so NO SIN WAS IMPUTED. The wages of sin is DEATH. Eugene even agrees with me here when he says "My own Dad's sin is not passed on to his children". The same goes true for Adam [and Eve]. The consequence of their sin was death, NO mention is made of it being passed on to their children.

Eugene says, "But you had it in your head Christ was ''made'' sin for you and me! Isn't this imputing sin where it isn't supposed to be?"

If Christ took away sin [and He did], why do we still have "Original sin" as you seem to suggest? Did Christ take away ALL sin? You say He did NOT.

Eugene says, "Actual sin is yours, mine."

A true statement.

Eugene says, "Original sin is the fallen nature of all Adam's race. Our fallen nature, prone to sin-- under the power of it. That's what children inherit, Dash Me!"

In Romans 7:15-23 Paul describes the struggle between our two natures.

There is part of us that wants to do good, and part that wants to do evil.

We are NOT totally corrupt as Eugene suggests, only partially so.

That is enough for us to choose to sin at some point and through sin to be lost.

Once we are lost we are totally lost.

At that point man usually gets worse and worse, but God offers us forgiveness in His son, and we can accept that offer if we will.

That is why the Bible calls upon all men to repent, Acts 17:30, because all men have the ability to repent.

If we are born guilty of sin, then why are children portrayed all throughout Scripture as pure and innocent?!

In Jeremiah 19:1-6, the slaughter of children in sacrifice to Baal was called "the blood of the innocent".

Jesus Himself said that we need to be like little children (Matthew 18:1-3) and that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. (Matthew 19:13-14).

Paul also said that we need to be like babes concerning evil. (1 Corinthians 14:20).

Ecclesiastes 7:29 says, "God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."

Several other passages indicate that one is born innocent but, at some later point, becomes guilty by choosing sin (Romans 7:9-11; Ezekiel 28:15; Isaiah 59:1-2).

The Bible teaches that we will be judged by our own actions (Matthew 12:36-37; Romans 2:6; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Peter 1:17).

-- Dashman (dashman20022003@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.

There is no escaping the plain words of Christ; ''Unless a man be born again, of water and the spirit (baptism), he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,'' (John 3:5).

A baby is innocent of actual sin, but born in original sin, the fallen state. He is born again to newness of life in Christ. Baptism is the sacrament of rebirth. It infuses sanctifying grace in the recipient; and so doing makes the soul conformed to the image of Jesus Christ Himself. This is the entrance to the kingdom of heaven. There is no other, only Christ.

This gift of His sanctifying grace is given us in Baptism from that infinite merit He earned as Man and God, by death on the cross and glorious resurrection. No other avenue of sanctifying grace is provided any soul, except by Christ. He conferred sacramental power to offer us grace in His holy Church; precisely so she could fulfill the mission: ''Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all that I have commanded.'' (Matt 28 :19) -- And without this grace no soul enters heaven. Not a single one.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.

"I don?t belong or identify with any denomination. Denominations are contrary to the Word of God."

Oh, Good! So you're a Catholic then, right? Because anything other than a denomination (that is a split from the Church of Christ) is the Catholic Church!

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.

Dasher,

I seem to have lost the thread I posted to earlier, so here it is again: are you in or affiliated in some fashion with the "Church of Christ"? My reason for asking is that they are the denomination who claims to NOT be a denomination to stay "consistent" with their beliefs.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 26, 2002.

Eugene says, "There is no escaping the plain words of Christ; ''Unless a man be born again, of water and the spirit (baptism), he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,'' (John 3:5)."

This is a true statement to which I heartily agree.

The water in this verse means water which is baptism. What Eugene won't tell you is what the spirit is?

It is the Holy Spirit! Which is given to us in the Word of God. You see, it is the Word of God (the Holy Spirit) that is active in conversion. 1 Peter 1:23 says this exact same thing that we are born again THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD.

Please tell me which baby is able to UNDERSTAND the Word of God?

Jesus said in John 14:15, "If you love Me, keep my commandments".

Which baby is able to do this?

The correct answer is there are NO babies who are able to do this.

Then Eugene says, "A baby is innocent of actual sin, but born in original sin, the fallen state. He is born again to newness of life in Christ. Baptism is the sacrament of rebirth. It infuses sanctifying grace in the recipient; and so doing makes the soul conformed to the image of Jesus Christ Himself. This is the entrance to the kingdom of heaven. There is no other, only Christ."

What Eugene conveniently forgets is the fact that original sin is NOT washed away in baptism because there is NO such thing as original sin.

The Word of God says in Mark 16:16, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved".

Please do tell Eugene, which baby is able to "believe" before they are baptized?

The answer is NONE.

Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

We are told that the power of God to salvation is the gospel. (Romans 1:16).

Can babies obey obey the gospel?

NO, they cannot.

So, your premise that babies are baptized to forgive original sin is just plain false.

-- Dashman (dashman20022003@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.

“So, your premise that babies are baptized to forgive original sin is just plain false.”

Well, Eugene, your in good company with your “false” belief.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), Polycarp (69-155), Justin Martyr (100 - 166), Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258), and many more Church Fathers believed in infant baptism.

Church Fathers 1

Church Fathers 2

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.

Dick Tracy sez:

It is the Holy Spirit!

It's Baptism, Row-boat with One Oar. Christ is saying baptism, and all you're doing is parsing the words because you don't wish to see the Catholic faith vindicated. Your interpretation is self-serving.

If faith is a gift of God, and a child is baptised, the child receives a gift of God. Just as adults do. The faith of the infant is infused by God as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Infants are human souls! Just as worthy if not MORE, as you-- to receive salvation from Jesus Christ. ''Can babies obey the gospel?--
NO, they cannot. --Are you an idiot?-- Yes, you are.

They don't OBEY, they HEAR. It is the responsibility of the CHURCH to give a baptised soul the Holy Gospel. For your information, I was baptised a Catholic Christian at age of one day-old! My faith is part of my upbringing; and the power of the Holy Gospel in the Church!

Your faith, I suppose, you found at the bottom of a well in your back yard. After you fell in! HAAA!!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.

I said that the spirit in John 3:5 is the Holy Spirit.

Eugene says, "It's Baptism"

There are 2 elements in this verse, water and spirit.

If the spirit is baptism as Eugene claims then what is the water?

Now Eugene has 2 forms of baptism associated with this one verse. Who can believe it?

Then Eugene writes, "If faith is a gift of God, and a child is baptised, the child receives a gift of God. Just as adults do. The faith of the infant is infused by God as a gift of the Holy Spirit."

What infant can have faith? This is another false statement by Eugene to try to justify the fact that the Catholic Church baptizes infants.

Then Eugene says, "Infants are human souls! Just as worthy if not MORE, as you-- to receive salvation from Jesus Christ."

I do not deny that infants are human souls. But infants are not in need of salvation. There is NO mention of any infants being baptized in the Word of God.

I said, "Can babies obey the gospel? NO, they cannot."

To which Eugene replied, "Are you an idiot? Yes, you are."

Proof once again that Eugene DOES NOT respect the Word of God.

God says in Hebrews 5:9 that Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to ALL who obey Him."

Babies CANNOT obey.

God says in 2 Thess. 1:8 that Jesus will return, "in flaming fire TAKING VENGEANCE on those who do not know God, and on those who DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Emphasis mine).

Babies do not fit in this category either.

We ought to OBEY God, rather than men.

Then Eugene says, "They don't OBEY, they HEAR. It is the responsibility of the CHURCH to give a baptised soul the Holy Gospel."

Why is there NO mention of someone being baptized first, and then being taught the gospel?

Where is the Scriptural proof of this Eugene?

Once again, Sin is the transgression of the law. (Rom. 6:23).

Babies don't fit this category either.

The Word of God says in Romans 6:16-17, "Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of OBEDIENCE leading to righteousness? 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." (Emphasis mine).

When were they made free from sin?

When they OBEYED FORM THE HEART THAT FORM OF DOCTRINE.

It is clear that they were made free from sin WHEN they OBEYED that form of doctrine which he described with his words concerning the "burial" with Christ in baptism in Romans 6:3-6.

If you say that one is baptized first and then taught the gospel you are guilty of calling God a liar.

-- Dashman (dashman20022003@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.

I said that the spirit in John 3:5 is the Holy Spirit. Eugene says, "It's Baptism" I didn't-- I said baptism is by water and the Spirit. This is just waht Jesus says. He doesn't break baptism down into two actions. Baptism is a sacrament in which the Holy Spirit infuses His gifts on the soul. Water is the visible sign we see the Spirit is the work, or matter we receive. Al in one sacrament, Baptism. There are 2 elements in this verse, water and spirit. The VERSE isn't baptism. The verse is only what you are trying to parse, and it needs no parsing. It already conveys sense and truth. Jesus doesn't speak with a double-tongue, Dasher.

''If the spirit is baptism as Eugene claims then what is the water?'' --The Spirit and water as one sacramental power: Baptism. Jesus gave His Church this divine means to His infinite merits gained on the cross.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.

Why is there NO mention of someone being baptized first, and then being taught the gospel?
Where is the Scriptural proof of this Eugene?

Catholics aren't bound by an obligation to find all the truth where you try to find it. The truth is plain: Christ's Holy Church dispenses His sacraments as the Holy Spirit guides her. She needs no approval from the laity, and much less deviations from outside the fold of Jesus. I am living proof of the efficacy of infant baptism. I have the Holy Faith. You may or may not have it.

And even if no other proof existed but the Catholic faith, we accept it as the working of the Holy Spirit. Infant baptism is authorized by the apostle's Church. --Your interpretation of biblical precedence has the fatal flaw: it is anti-Catholic, heretical. Asking for all proofs in the Bible is itself an unscriptural demand. No one is commanded to *BELIEVE NOTHING* which isn't written. We should pray for you.

Nothing I say to you should be taken as mean-spirited in intent, Dashman. I want you to learn all the truth. When you persist in your ignorance, my distaste may show. If I'm cranky, forgive me. You need tough love. I'm giving it to you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.

God says in Hebrews 5:9 that Jesus is "the author of eternal salvation to ALL who obey Him." --Paul says it and he speaks for the Church. Babies CANNOT obey.

So-- Babies are never saved? What a crock! But, I'm glad you quoted this passage. It debunks your false doctrine of total security. You maintain once saved, always saved.

Saint Paul here states clearly: If you obey the commandments of God, you gain salvation.

The opposite applies. If you do NOT obey, you merit damnation.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.

No Eugene, I don't believe in "Once Saved Always Saved".

This is false doctrine, that is NOT supported by the Word of God.

-- Dashman (dashman20022003@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.

I see; maybe I confused you with Tim? --Even so:

Infant baptism is authorized in the Church of the apostles. And your objection about biblical requirements for proof is flawed; it is anti-Catholic and heretical, so we disqualify that. Asking for all proofs in the Bible is itself an unscriptural demand. No one is commanded to *BELIEVE NOTHING* unless it's written. Whatever is written is worthy of our faith. The Catholic Church who is the only authority in the matter of God's Word, has the right to determine a correct interpretation. That's because she speaks for the Holy Spirit.

Sacred Tradition is also the Holy Spirit, speaking through His Church. The Church is inerrant and infallible by this holy gift of the Spirit. She is called in the epistles the Pillar of Truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 27, 2002.

/\

-- / / / / (/@/./), November 30, 2002.

-- (123@123.123), December 06, 2002.

-- (456@456.456), December 12, 2002.

Infant baptism is another invention of the Catholic Church.

There are NO examples of any infants in the New Testament ever being baptized.

Baptism is immersion and NOT pouring or sprinkling.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), December 13, 2002.

----- @----, read the thread. This has already been discussed.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.

I did read the thread Jake. This may have been discussed, but the point still remains that the Catholic Church is guilty of teaching false doctrine.

The Catholic Church says: He who does NOT believe [infants] and is baptized will be saved. (Scripture???).

God says: He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mark 16:16).

Thus, the Catholic Church is guilty of making the Word of God of NO EFFECT by their tradition which says that babies [who cannot believe] are baptized [without belief] and are saved.

-- -- --- (--@---.net), December 13, 2002.

--- @---, The Church doesn't teach this. Don't put words in her mouth. How can you say [infants] DON'T believe? Jesus said to the crowds, "to these [children] the Kindom of Heaven belongs". "If anyone trys to impede them, it would be better for them if a milstone be placed about their necks and they were cast into the sea."

Refering to the Old Testament, the adults who wished to be circumsised into God's covenant had to believe as well. But at what age were babies circumsised? At EIGHT DAYs.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.

--- @---, The Church doesn't teach this. Don't put words in her mouth. How can you say [infants] DON'T believe? Jesus said to the crowds, "to these [children] the Kingdom of Heaven belongs". As infants we are innocent and our innocents (except for original sin passed by the seed of Adam) is what professes our belief. Jesus also said, "If anyone tries to impede them, it would be better for them if a millstone be placed about their necks and they were cast into the sea." So we cannot impede these children!

Referring to the Old Testament, the adults who wished to be circumcised into God's covenant had to believe as well. But at what age were babies circumcised? At EIGHT DAYs.

In Christ.

PS sorry - I had a few other thoughts but I hit the send to quick.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.

Also necessary to emphasize to this anonymous 'expert'' on scripture:

The sole authority in matters of the sacraments (baptism is the first) is the Church of the holy apostles. We mean definitely the Catholic Church.

A scan of the various passages in the Bible regarding baptism is just barely enough to see our salvation calls for it. Christ said so.

But other aspects are debateable even against scriptural proof- texts. We have NO reason to contradict the Church Christ founded in a matter like baptism --on the strength of a bible passage or two. Our scriptural information is limited. The Church's teaching authority is unlimited.

The Holy Bible wasn't given the Church to settle every question. Nowhere in the scripture has anything like that been ruled for the Christian.

Nowhere, -- -- --- (--@---.net) nameless.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 13, 2002.

Infant Baptism is NOT Bible baptism.

Faith IS a NECESSARY prerequisite for baptism.

Jesus PLAINLY said so in Mark 16:16.

What does the last part of the verse say?

“He who does not believe will be condemned.”

God said in Hebrews 11:6, “But WITHOUT FAITH it is IMPOSSIBLE to please Him, for he who COMES to God MUST BELIEVE that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who DILIGENTLY SEEK Him. (Emphasis Mine).

An infant CANNOT have faith, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for an infant to please God since an infant is INCAPABLE of having faith.

Since an infant CANNOT have faith, an infant CANNOT have works either. God said in James 2:20 that "faith WITHOUT works is DEAD" (Emphasis mine). Since one MUST have faith WITH works, an infant DOES NOT fit in this category.

Arguing from the Old Testament concerning circumcision DOES NOT prove your point.

In the Old Testament, people were physically born into the family of God [circumcision was a sign] and they had to be taught about God.

In the New Testament, people are first taught about God (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15-16), then they are spiritually born into the family of God once they have obeyed the gospel. (Romans 1:16).

God said in the Old Testament the following concerning the New Covenant, “No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD,' for they ALL shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34). (Emphasis Mine).

Once again, this DOES NOT prove that infant baptism is acceptable.

The Bible NEVER contradicts itself, and Jesus PLAINLY said in Mark 16:16, “He who BELIEVES and is baptized WILL be saved.

Jesus did NOT say, “He who does NOT believe and is baptized will be saved.”

Baptizing infants is WITHOUT scriptural basis.

There are NO commands OR examples of infant baptism anywhere in the Word of God.

Since the prerequisites of faith AND repentance AND confession are BEYOND the infant's capability, they are NOT suitable candidates for baptism.

Since this is the case, the Catholic Church IS guilty of making the Word of God of NO effect through their traditions which nullify the commandment of God.

God says, Belief + Baptism = Salvation. (Mark 16:16).

Catholic Church says, Baptism = Salvation then Belief. (Scripture???).

-- -- --- (--@---.net), December 13, 2002.

"An infant CANNOT have faith, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for an infant to please God since an infant is INCAPABLE of having faith."

This one sentence alone tells me where you stand, --@--.

You are not merely against the Catholic Church, but you are against most mainstream (and probably non-mainstream) Protestant churches. Even if you were to prove to us that infants should not or cannot be baptized, it would take a heck of a lot to prove that infants are not pleasing to God.

I will not post to you any longer as you are not interested in our explanation, rather, you simply want to "rile" us up. I wont let that happen.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.

anonymous --

You worship a Bible. Catholics worship the Almighty Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, ONE GOD. --Who came first? The Bible or God? What came first, Love or faith?

Can you be saved even if you choose to believe erroneous interpretations of God's Holy Word? (Because you have chosen this; your own words convict you.) You have followed false prophets, and they are anonymous as you are. A coincidence? We know whom we have followed. The Apostles whom Christ sent to us, with the Holy Gospel. They aren't anonymous; and I fear you've betrayed them and the Church.

Your odd words:

God says, Belief + Baptism = Salvation. (Mark 16:16). Catholic Church says, Baptism = Salvation then Belief.

The Holy Catholic Church says, Baptism GIVES faith, = Salvation then Belief --belief is (assent to the truth, and comes at the age of reason.

Infants do receive the holy faith at baptism. (Yes; SCRIPTURE.) Faith is a gift of God. p>God wills that all men be saved. (And infants too!) --You are still living, though in error. You can accept the truth and still come to salvation. Investigate; don't take our word for it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 13, 2002.

I said, "An infant CANNOT have faith, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for an infant to please God since an infant is INCAPABLE of having faith."

Forgive me for incorrectly wording my reply.

I should not have put the statement: “so it is IMPOSSIBLE for an infant to please God since an infant is INCAPABLE of having faith.”

What I should have said was that infants do not need faith or baptism for that matter because they are already saved. Infants have no sin, and do not inherit the original sin of Adam, so they are already bound for heaven.

Eugene says, “You worship a Bible.”

Wrong. I worship God and keep His commandments. (1 John 2:5).

Eugene says, “Catholics worship the Almighty Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit, ONE GOD.”

He claims this for Catholics, but why at every opportunity do Catholics deny the Scriptures are our ONLY source of instruction and training in righteousness. God says that His word which is written down for us in scripture is sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16), Catholics say it is not sufficient. Who are we to believe? God or the Catholic Church? See 1 John 2:4.

Then he says, “Can you be saved even if you choose to believe erroneous interpretations of God's Holy Word? (Because you have chosen this; your own words convict you.)”

Just because you say I choose to believe erroneous interpretations of God’s Holy Word does not mean that my interpretation is wrong. The Word of God is easy enough to understand, God said that one can understand without any help from an institution such as the Catholic Church.

Please read Matthew 13:23, Mark 4:20 and Luke 8:15. To say that one cannot understand God’s word and obey his commandments is to say that God is a liar, and that cannot be because God cannot lie.

Eugene says, “You have followed false prophets, and they are anonymous as you are. A coincidence?”

Not a coincidence, I just happen to choose to remain anonymous. There is nothing wrong with remaining anonymous now is there?

Eugene says, “We know whom we have followed. The Apostles whom Christ sent to us, with the Holy Gospel. They aren't anonymous; and I fear you've betrayed them and the Church.”

No Eugene, the apostles said, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” NO mention is made anywhere in the Word of God where any infant was baptized for the forgiveness of sin.

Eugene says, The Holy Catholic Church says, Baptism GIVES faith, = Salvation then Belief --belief is (assent to the truth, and comes at the age of reason.

Now how can infants receive faith at baptism? Where is the scripture verse to back up this claim? Once again, Eugene is guilty of making an assertion without any proof offered.

There is NOT ONE case of infant baptism in the New Testament.

Only those who believe, have repented and confessed that Jesus is Lord may be baptized.

Eugene, were you baptized as an infant?

Most likely you were not actually baptized (immersed), you were simply "sprinkled".

Even if you were immersed, it was NOT Bible baptism, which REQUIRES faith, repentance and confession, thus you are still in need of OBEYING the Word of the Lord!

Don't place your faith in the traditions of men, or in the doctrines of some church; place your faith in God's Word, and obey it accordingly!

Remember, Jesus is the “author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.” (Hebrews 5:9).

-- -- --- (--@---.net), December 13, 2002.

Eugene said, “belief is (assent to the truth and comes at the age of reason).”

This is another assertion that Eugene offers with no scriptural proof.

There are NO examples of this ever happening in the New Testament.

If baptism is able to save an infant who can neither believe, repent or consent, why won't it save adults the same way?

For adults, the Catholic Church requires faith, repentance and catechism classes before baptism.

Why is their a difference between infants and adults?

-- -- --- (--@---.net), December 13, 2002.

The Catholic practice of inant baptism is also defeated by the phrase "obey the gospel". Infants do NOT have the capacity to obey since they are unable to understand.

What will happen to those who do not obey the gospel?

God says in 2 Thessalonians 1:8 that Jesus will be revealed "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not OBEY God, and on those who do not OBEY the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."

-- -- --- (--@---.net), December 13, 2002.

He says--

There is NOT ONE case of infant baptism in the New Testament.

Many infant baptisms took place. If they weren't recorded one by one, that's no reason to doubt.

Now how can infants receive faith at baptism? Where is the scripture verse to back up this claim? Once again, Eugene is guilty of making an assertion without any proof offered.

The Church is our proof. The Bible hasn't any need to prove Catholic doctrine, since it was made a Bible by the same Church. It would never divide the Church with contradictions.

Now how can infants receive faith at baptism? Where is the scripture verse to back up this claim?

Where is the scripture verse where it rules we must have it backed in scripture? It's enough for the apostles to have taught the truth, and we believe. With or without the Bible.

You are the doubter, not me. ''Only those who believe, have repented and confessed that Jesus is Lord may be baptized.'' It isn't written for us that way. The CHURCH believes, brings souls to repentence and confesses Christ. The Church stands in for the infant soul, and seals his/her belief for him in the absence (but every potential, by grace), of his mental capacities. The soul receives faith in his/her essence, from God. His confession of Christ is in union with the Holy Church. We are a Mystical Body, we don't exist in discrete particles.

Baptism saves by the grace of Jesus Christ. We are buried in His death and rise with Him in ''newness of life. Reborn in baptism. Infants are not barred. If they had been, the apostles would have told us. Show me any passage in scripture where an apostle says infants aren't supposed to receive baptism. --There isn't any. You are following the doctrines of men. False doctrines.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 13, 2002.

I said, ?There is NOT ONE case of infant baptism in the New Testament.?

To which Eugene replied, ?Many infant baptisms took place. If they weren?t recorded one by one, that?s no reason to doubt.?

Please notice that there is NOT ONE verse of scripture quoted to back up his claim.

Eugene claims that the Church is our proof that infants receive faith at baptism. However, what he fails to do is prove this fact through the Word of God.

I said, ?Now how can infants receive faith at baptism? Where is the scripture verse to back up this claim??

To which Eugene replied, ?Where is the scripture verse where it rules we must have it backed in scripture? It?s enough for the apostles to have taught the truth, and we believe. With or without the Bible.?

Once again, Eugene clearly demonstrates that he does not believe what God has said in the Bible because it clearly contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches. There are NO scripture verses that back up his claim or else he would have produced them. He also shows his lack of respect for God?s Word when he says, ?With or without the Bible?.

Eugene says, ?You are the doubter, not me.?

No Eugene, I do not doubt what God clearly states in His Word. You on the other hand believe that infants can be baptized when there is NOT ONE example of this in the New Testament. I continue to be amazed how people can believe a lie.

I said, ?Only those who believe, have repented and confessed that Jesus is Lord may be baptized.?

To which Eugene replied, ?It isn't written for us that way. The CHURCH believes, brings souls to repentence and confesses Christ.?

That is incorrect. The Word of God is what convicts, NOT the CHURCH.

The Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write the New Testament and God says in John 16:8-10, ?And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;?

So, it is the Holy Spirit through the Word of God that convicts. Certainly NOT the Catholic Church.

God says in Hebrews 4:12, ?For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.?

Eugene continued with, ?The Church stands in for the infant soul, and seals his/her belief for him in the absence (but every potential, by grace), of his mental capacities.?

That is incorrect. The Church CANNOT stand in for anyone. Once again there is NOT one scripture verse that proves this is true. This is another fabrication of the Catholic Church.

Eugene continues with, ?The soul receives faith in his/her essence, from God. His confession of Christ is in union with the Holy Church. We are a Mystical Body, we don't exist in discrete particles.?

Wrong again. God says, ?So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.? (Romans 10:17).

Eugene said, ?Baptism saves by the grace of Jesus Christ. We are buried in His death and rise with Him in ''newness of life. Reborn in baptism. Infants are not barred. If they had been, the apostles would have told us. Show me any passage in scripture where an apostle says infants aren't supposed to receive baptism. --There isn't any. You are following the doctrines of men. False doctrines.?

The apostle wrote in Hebrews 11:6 that ??without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is??

It is impossible for an infant to believe, and since ?faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God? (Romans 10:17), infants and little children are not accountable to God. They already belong to God, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven." The Scriptures say that Jesus would "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21), not Adam?s sin. Men were told to "repent?and be converted that your sins may be blotted out" (Acts 3:19), not Adam?s sin.

An infant is eliminated as a candidate for baptism because infants are not capable of believing.

Infants are eliminated as candidates for baptism because they do not have the capacity to repent, not having the awareness nor guilt of sin to repent of (repentance is a change of heart, a change of mind).

Baptism is for the remission of sins. Infants are sinless, they are innocent, and there is no discernment of sin and consequently no guilt (and thus they are not accountable). So, how could an infant be baptized for the remission of sins. There are none to be remitted. They belong to God until they come to that age of accountability.

Do you remember what Jesus said? "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:14). He also said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:4).

To answer your question there are NO scripture verses that say that infants aren?t supposed to receive baptism because there are NO examples of any infants that were ever baptized. In all of the examples of conversion, one had to be taught before they obeyed the gospel. Not once will you ever find the opposite of where someone is baptized first and then taught the gospel later.

Since sprinkling babies (infant baptism) is not from God, it is from man.

Since a person must hear and understand, believe, repent, and confess his faith in Christ before being baptized, this does not include infants.

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 13, 2002.

Thanks, ''A Christian,'' For a mountain of simplistic opinions without an authority or rationale to support them. You need more instruction. If you wish to learn, come back over the next week or longer. We will serve you with the truth.

You've wasted a long time coming back at my post. Nothing you posted is a rebuttal. Just by saying, ''I want a scriptural proof,'' you don't dismiss the clear fact that Christ authorised ONLY His Church to settle disputes.

In fact, I have no obligation to serve you up any ''proof''. You are the one who lives in doubt, not Catholics. In whatever controversy the Holy Bible doesn't dispel uncertainty, you remain in the dark, because you know no Church. There is no infallible judge for you.

You cannot say where the original Church which Christ certainly founded has gone. (It's as clear as a wart on your nose that we are the Church; but naturally you'll squirm in the dirt before you concede that truth.)

By latching onto the infant baptism argument, you hope to show our Church's errors. The fact you know nothing about the subject is very apparent. It wasn't mentioned first in the Bible, so you let that settle the question; you think you win.

I know you worship the Bible; but do you think all the truth has to appear spelled out, and only when you read it are you convinced?

Will you dare to draw breath tonight in bed, if the Bible doesn't say, ''Breathe'' --?

In just about every aspect of spiritual awareness, you are bereft of grace, Sir/Madam. Because you thought you could pit your puny strength against Our Lord's apostles and their Church. --O ye of little faith!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 13, 2002.

Once again Eugene proves that he does not have the answer to my questions when he says ?In fact, I have no obligation to serve you up any ''proof''.?

If he had a scripture verse to prove his point he would provide it, but since he has not provided it, the fact remains that the apostles DID NOT authorize infant baptism because there are NO examples or any proof in the NT that babies were baptized.

Jesus said in John 8:31-32, "?If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Yes Eugene the church is the pillar and ground of truth however, it DOES NOT have the power to add anything to God?s Word. The Word of God says that man did not; Purpose the church (Eph. 5:25); Purchase the church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25); Name its members (Isa. 56:5, Isa 62:2, Acts 11:26, 1 Pet. 4:16); Add people to the church (Acts 2:47, 1 Cor. 12:18) or Give the church it?s doctrine (Gal. 1:8-11, 2 John 9-11).

Eugene says, ?There is no infallible judge for you.?

God says in John 17:17, ?Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.?

Jesus said in John 8:31, "?If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.?

It is obvious that you do not abide in God?s word. Jesus had this to say of you, ?He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God." (John 8:46).

Eugene says, ?In whatever controversy the Holy Bible doesn't dispel uncertainty, you remain in the dark, because you know no Church.?

God added me to His church, the church of Christ when I obeyed the gospel. (Acts 2:47). This statement continues to show how you are blinded by the truth.

Eugene says, ?You cannot say where the original Church which Christ certainly founded has gone. (It's as clear as a wart on your nose that we are the Church; but naturally you'll squirm in the dirt before you concede that truth.)?

The church which Christ founded is presently here on this earth, but it is NOT the Catholic Church. You CANNOT prove your Catholic doctrine through the Word of God because many of your doctrines are NOT found in the Bible. Infant baptism is one of those false doctrines that the Catholic Church could not prove was handed down by the apostles because there is NO mention of it in scripture.

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 14, 2002.

Dear ''a'',

You would change your tone if you had the least faith. Jesus said, blessed are those who have seen and believed; more blessed those who have not seen and yet believed. That goes for your store of spiritual wisdom. You’ve had to limit it to what appears on the written page. Yet the Bible nowhere teaches there is no truth except scripture. Neither does it say for us to stick only to the scriptures, it says listen to the Church, and trust in the Holy Spirit who abides in her. You have obviously disobeyed this last biblical command.

Because you have disobeyed, you stray from the true interpretation of even easy passages; and presume on such subjects as infant baptism without any ordained authority. All because you won’t accept whatever isn’t read, not even apostolic truths.

All apostolic truth can’t stand out in the scriptures as in a complete blueprint. John says in the epilogue of his gospel that many other things were done by Jesus besides the recorded acts. All the books in the world would not suffice to record them completely. But you think they were ALL written, and everything not written is a lie. However, oral tradition is sufficient to preserve them all. And the Church keeps the Tradition as sacred; perfectly safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

Here you've been allowed to wax eloquently on a subject you *think* you have nailed down. But all you've proven is that you don't understand the scriptures.

Your words: ''The Church which Christ founded is presently here on this earth, but it is NOT the Catholic Church. You CANNOT prove your Catholic doctrine through the Word of God because many of your doctrines are NOT found in the Bible.'' This is not only untrue, it's absurd. --Quick reply:

The Catholic Church is indeed Christ's Holy Church; again as plain as a wart on your nose. But you cut off that nose to spite your face. The Holy Bible itself is a work of the Holy Spirit accomplished for Him by the Catholic Church. The Bible didn't merely drop from the sky. The holy men who recorded the four gospels and the entire New Testament were in fact Catholics. It's a plain, historical fact. If you are to cavalierly dispense with the Catholic Church, you should toss the Holy Bible as well, since she gave it to the world for Jesus Christ. She is the only authorised interpreter for that Bible, and YOU-- you've only managed to misinterpret most of it. You have no authority whatever to expound on the Bible. NONE!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.

----------------

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.

Eugene continues his habit of ducking questions that he has NO scriptural answer to provide. I continue to be amazed that Catholics believe in infant baptism when NO mention is ever made of it in God?s Word.

Then Eugene quotes a typical Bible passage in John 20:29 which states, ??blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

What he fails to mention is the next two verses which state, ?And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; BUT THESE ARE WRITTEN THAT YOU MAY BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.? (John 20:30-31). (Emphasis Mine).

So, it is what is WRITTEN that causes us to believe, NOT what the Catholic Church says to ?listen to the Church, and trust in the Holy Spirit who abides in her.?

Eugene continues with, ?You have obviously disobeyed this last biblical command.?

No Eugene, you are the one who has disobeyed. The gospel is the power of God to salvation (Romans 1:16), NOT the Catholic Church. I have obeyed the gospel, you have obeyed the Catholic Church.

Those who DO NOT obey the gospel WILL be lost. (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Eugene continues to claim that ONLY the Catholic Church can interpret the Bible, but once again nowhere in the Word of God does it state that this is the case. This is another figment of the Catholic Church?s imagination. To say that no one can understand God?s Word without an interpreter is to say that God cannot clearly state what is necessary for salvation without a human interpreter once again shows ignorance of scripture.

God says in Isaiah 55:11, ?So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.?

There is NO mention of an interpreter needed or required. Those who understand the Word of God and obey will be saved. (Matt 13:23, Mark 4:20, Luke 8:15).

James 4:12 says that there is ONE Lawgiver, and that is NOT the Catholic Church, but God.

One CANNOT be a child of God until they obey the gospel of Christ. It is the POWER OF THE GOSPEL that makes one a child of God, NOT the Catholic Church. When one does what the gospel commands them to do then, they can become a child of God. Christ is the author of eternal salvation ONLY to those who OBEY Him. (Hebrews 5:9).

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 14, 2002.

Dear ''a''--
John 1:14, if you please: ''And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. --Jesus Christ is the Word, who will not return to His Almighty Father void; Isaiah didn't mean the Holy Bible. You are once again worshipping at the altar you've raised to your Bible, and that is bibliolatry.

But how were you to know this; since you have no Church to teach you?

The Ethiopean in Acts 8 :28 was trying to read Isaiah as he rode along in a carriage. Verse :30--''Philip, running up, asked him, ''Dost thou understand what thou art reading?'' But he said, ''''Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?'' And Philip went on to explain the scripture to him. You have no one to show you because you're a church unto yourself; and a heretical one at that. For you then to say,''There is NO mention of an interpreter needed or required. Those who understand the Word of God and obey will be saved.'' --In your dreams, perhaps. How can you believe what you don't KNOW? You're in the same boat with the Ethiopean of Acts 8.

You have no scriptural ''success'', because the Church hasn't been your teacher. --Your feeble quote about ''Those who UNDERSTAND the Word of God,''-- ''a'' is very relevant. Not the ones who bowdlerize and distort the Word of God; men/women like yourself!

I'm not indicting you or sending you to hell. It's not why I've challenged you. I want you to finally come to the truth. If you help yourself here, you'll know the truth. If you remain contumacious, you'll reject the Word of God, which has finally been opened up to you.

Only your pride stands in the way. Human wisdom, human ego, human pride. That's what's hurting you.

The WORD is Jesus Christ. He abides in the Catholic Church. Welcome in. It's the Holy Church of all your blessed ancestors; countless faithful Catholics! Hurray!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 14, 2002.

I quoted Isaiah 55:11 which God says, ?So shall My word that goes forth from MY MOUTH; it shall not return to me void.?

To which Eugene replied, ?John 1:14, if you please: ?And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. ?Jesus Christ is the Word, who will not return to His Almighty Father void; Isaiah didn?t mean the Holy Bible. You are once again worshipping at the altar you?ve raised to your Bible, and that is bibliolatry.?

Nice try Eugene. God most certainly meant HIS WORD because Jesus most certainly did NOT come from God?s mouth now did He? Jesus said in Mark 13:31 that ?Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.?

We will be judged by what is WRITTEN. (Rev. 20:12). So for you to say that I worship the Bible once again shows your lack of respect for what will be the basis of our judgment which is the Word of God.

The reason the Ethiopian eunuch did not understand was because he did not have the New Testament. He only had the Old Testament and thus needed someone to teach him. God says in Ephesians 5:17, ?Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is.? It is possible to understand the will of the Lord because God said that we could understand. (Matt 13:23, Mark 4:20, Luke 8:15). To claim that someone can not understand God?s Word without an interpreter is to call God a liar.

In the Old Testament, people had to be taught about God however, in the New Testament God says in Hebrews 8:11, ?None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.?

This is why we now have the New Testament. So, to claim that I am in the same boat as the Ethiopian is another accusation among the many that you have thrown my way that is false.

Once again, NO scriptural support for the false doctrine of infant baptism is offered.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 14, 2002.

John 1:1 ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.'' The Word is His divine Son, Jesus Christ, who existed from eternity and is God. The Holy Bible is the Word of God, but was not in existence from the beginning. Almighty God promised through Isaiah's prophesy to send His Son; the Word. Who would not return to His Father void-- And Christ has NOT returned to His Father without total victory; the whole world is His, and He places it at the feet of His Almighty Father. Notice, the Bible doesn't --Jesus Christ does!

Almost all of Isaiah's book gives us prophesy about Christ, the Messiah. Not about the Holy Bible. You are making implausible claims.

It's really funny seeing you labor this way, expecting to make your points on sheer stubbornness! The Ethiopean had no problem accepting the teaching of the CHURCH, in the apostle Philip. Why do YOU? It's a lame explanation you offer, ''because he did not have the New Testament!'' --Neither did Philip!!!

''To claim that someone can not understand God's Word without an interpreter is to call God a liar.'' You aren't making any sense. --The Church interprets, because the Church has apostolic authority! Does it make sense the Church would call God a liar? Men are actually told that private interpretation cannot be trusted. (2 Peter 1:20) Only that which the apostles taught is to be understood when reading scripture; not whatever tickles your fancy!

Your last point: ''Once again, NO scriptural support for the false doctrine of infant baptism is offered.''

You've been told clearly; it isn't necessary to back all doctrine with a written statement in the Bible. We believe many truths which do not have a scriptural formula. The Holy Spirit has clarified many non-scriptural truths, as Christ prophesied to His Church: ''Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of Truth has come, He will teach you all the truth. (John 16 :12)

You've called infant baptism a ''false doctrine''--? It is the true doctrine passed down in Holy Tradition since the days of the apostles. If they taught ''false doctrine'' then the Holy Spirit is in the falsifying business. But you lack faith in the Holy Spirit, I forgot. He quit the Church as soon as the Bible was written, by your estimation?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 15, 2002.

For your information Eugene, in Isaiah chapter 55, a distinction is made between the Holy One of Israel [Jesus] verse 5, and the WORD that comes from the mouth of God verse 11.

I agree that the Word is Jesus in John 1:1, but not every time you see the ?WORD? written is God speaking of Jesus in the Old Testament or the New Testament.

Jesus said in Luke 4:4, ?But Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.?

This is not speaking of Jesus.

Jesus also said in Luke 11:28, ?But He said, "More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!?

This also is not Jesus, it is God?s Word.

You said, ?The Ethiopean had no problem accepting the teaching of the CHURCH, in the apostle Philip. Why do YOU? It's a lame explanation you offer, ''because he did not have the New Testament!'' --Neither did Philip!!!?

Yes Eugene, Philip did not have the New Testament, but he did have the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in him to guide him into all truth. What did Jesus say about the Holy Spirit? John 16:13 says, ?However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.?

Back then, when the New Testament was just being written, those who had the direct operation of the Holy Spirit did not know everything until the Word of God was written. The Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 13:9 says, ?For we know in part and we prophesy in part.? The next verse speaks of the New Testament, ?But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.?

Remember, ?All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.? (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

No Eugene, the Catholic Church has NO apostolic authority. Jesus is the ONLY one with authority, not the Church. (Matt. 28:18).

men are NOT told that private interpretation cannot be trusted 2 Peter 1:20, finish the next verse, ?for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.? Catholics do a good job of claiming sole right of interpretation however, they always leave out verse 21.

The problem with this is it relieves men of the responsibility to think for themselves. The context itself shows that Peter is stating that Scripture does not come from the writer's own personal ideas or interpretation, but from the Holy Spirit's inspiration ONLY. To claim that this verse proves that we need an interpreter once again shows your ignorance of God?s Word.

I said, ''Once again, NO scriptural support for the false doctrine of infant baptism is offered.''

To which Eugene replied, ?You've been told clearly; it isn't necessary to back all doctrine with a written statement in the Bible.?

God seemed to think that it was necessary. What does 2 Timothy 3:16 say?

Eugene says, ?We believe many truths which do not have a scriptural formula.?

This is the problem. You cannot prove that these truths came from the Holy Spirit. Claiming these truths came from the Holy Spirit doesn?t prove a thing. What is written is enough for us to believe. John said that not everything Jesus did was written, but everything that is necessary for belief has been written. (John 20:31).

Yes, infant baptism IS false doctrine. We will be judged by what is written, not by what is NOT written. To claim that infant baptism is a doctrine passed down in Holy Tradition since the days of the apostles, you need to be able to show that in fact that this is what the apostles taught. Nothing in the Word of God ever makes this a fact nor is it even alluded to in any of their writings. So, to say that the apostles taught this doctrine is nothing but a fabricated lie that was manufactured in order to prop up the Catholic Church false doctrine of original sin.

An infant CANNOT be clothed with Christ [in baptism] because an infant CANNOT have faith. God says in Hebrews 11:6, ?But WITHOUT FAITH it is impossible to please Him, for HE WHO COMES TO GOD MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently SEEK Him. (Emphasis mine).

So, for one to COME to God, he MUST first believe. Romans 1:16 says, ?For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.? (Emphasis mine).

After Philip preached Jesus to the Ethiopian, the eunuch asked the question, ?See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?? (Acts 8:36) to which Philip replied in the next verse, ?If you believe with all your heart, you may.?

The eunuch OBEYED the gospel because he first had to have faith that Jesus was the Son of God, before he was baptized into Christ.

Faith is a REQUIREMENT prior to obeying the gospel. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. (Romans 10:17). An infant DOES NOT have the capacity to have faith. An infant is safe and has NO sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. Jesus said in Mark 10:14, ??Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.?

-- A Christian (---@---.net), December 15, 2002.

God says in Galatains 3:26, "For you are all sons of God THROUGH FAITH in Christ Jesus."

We are ONLY sons of God THROUGH FAITH in Jesus. Infants once again DO NOT meet this criteria.

Verse 17 says, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Here is another passage where faith is required before baptism.

Baptism [Immersion] is a burial, into Christ, FOR the remission of sins.

What was to be preached beginning in Jerusalem?

See Luke 24:47. [Repentance and remission of sins].

What did Peter preach?

See Acts 2:38. [Repentance and remission of sins].

What happened to those who gladly RECEIVED Peter's words?

See Acts 2:41. [They were baptized AFTER they OBEYED Peter's words].

The Holy Spirit is ONLY given to those who OBEY God. See Acts 5:32.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 15, 2002.

I'm not worried about your firm denial. It was my duty as a Christian to support the truth; and so doing expose you to a clear explanation. The rest is your responsibility.

You haven't said a thing to rebut the plain truth and I'm not obliged any longer to proclaim it for you. You reject it, and that's final. I wish I could continue discussing with you. I would, if there were still hope for you, but you are mired in self-assurance. I said before the only thing keeping you from the truth was your pride.

Continue in your error, then, ''a''. No, you haven't proven your side at all. You can have your sola scriptura. I'll have faith In Christ and His Holy Church. I'm NOT tired of the dispute. But in order to persevere with it, there has to be some sign of willingness. You have shown nothing.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 15, 2002.

Eugene says, “I'm not worried about your firm denial. It was my duty as a Christian to support the truth; and so doing expose you to a clear explanation. The rest is your responsibility.”

God says His Word is truth. (John 17:17). God’s Word is written down for us in the New Testament. No other truths have been revealed outside of the WRITTEN word. So, to claim that you have provided the truth is just another false statement.

Eugene writes, “You haven't said a thing to rebut the plain truth and I'm not obliged any longer to proclaim it for you.”

That is the point isn’t it Eugene? You have provided NO scriptural documentation to back up your claim that infant baptism was authorized by the apostles.

Jesus had this to say about you Eugene, “Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46).

Those who have been told Infant baptism is acceptable have been deceived. Because of this lie, many people think they have been baptized because someone else decided to have them christened when they were babies. What happened to them, however, bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the baptism we read about in the New Testament.

Jesus said: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" (Mark 16:16).

Jesus said in order to be saved, one MUST have belief AND be baptized. Infant’s DO NOT have the capability to believe.

When the Ethiopian asked Philip, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may" (Acts 8:36,37). Baptism MUST be based on personal faith. An infant is NOT YET able to believe OR to make a personal decision to follow Christ.

Peter said: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). An infant CANNOT repent, they have committed NO sins of which they need to repent. Nor can they be baptized for the remission of sins, since they have committed NO sins.

If you or anyone else for that matter have been baptized as an infant, you have been deceived. You have NOT been baptized at all.

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

God says His Word is truth. (John 17:17). God’s Word is written down for us in the New Testament. No other truths have been revealed outside of the WRITTEN word. So, to claim that you have provided the truth is just another false statement.

It's an accurate statement. The passages you're quoting out of context here are all written by Catholics to other believing Catholics. Obviously, an apostate or a heretic has no license to appropriate the words to suit his own agenda. That's what you do. You hijack the Bible written in and for the Catholic Church. A historical fact. Is it written that never again will the truth be spoken by anybody; except when he/she reads it out of a King James Bible? Find me the verse where we're told such a thing. Go on; find it.

Peter said: "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). An infant CANNOT repent.""

Peter was speaking to men-- grown-ups, 'a'; that's a no-brainer. But baptism is never excluded as the same for children. Find yourself a verse somewhere in the Bible saying: ''Never baptise an infant.'' After you locate one, come back and explain where your admonition comes from. --I'll be waiting.

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

--''a.''
Don't call God a liar, please

We are plainly informed, ''The wages of sin is death.'' You said: ''An infant CANNOT repent, they have committed NO sins of which they need to repent. Nor can they be baptized for the remission of sins, since they have committed NO sins.'' You're calling God a liar. Babies die all the time. Just as adults die. The wages of sin is death. Our father Adam lost our immortality for us. If Adam had not disobeyed God, no one would have to die.

Not babies, nor you and me. You and me from BIRTH are in a fallen state which disposes us NATURALLY to sin, after we reach age of reason. It's in our nature, inherited from our first parents. The infant is also disposed so naturally; he's of the same nature as Adam ; though his actual sin can't be committed wihout use of reason and free will.

But his fallen state is common to all the human race; Original Sin.

This sin is taken away from his infant soul in holy baptism.

The sacrament of baptism has a recipient, the infant. It has the matter and form, water & the words; and has the Church present. The Church of Jesus Christ, entrusted by Him to dispense His grace, without which no one is saved.

The child is represented by the Church; in the person of two Catholic sponsors chosen as godparents. The Church formally denounces Satan and all his snares in the name of the infant soul. The infant can't ''repent'' as an adult; but his repentence becomes official in the sponsorship of his/her two godparents and the Church. This fulfills the obligations to ''Hear the Gospel, Repent, and be Baptised--'' all in the one sacrament.

His sponsors formally accede to the truth of the Holy Gospel-- for this infant soul. Repent and renounce Satan-- for the same infant soul; and fulfill Christ's command to be baptised; to be born again by water and the Spirit. For that infant Catholic soul.

I was baptised just so; and my godparents, for the Church --undertook to give me perseverence in the faith. It wasn't left to chance. My faith was promised to God. I have never relinquished it, ''a''.

I'm living proof. Yes, I am baptised; in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Far from being ever deceived (as YOU are) I was born again of water and the spirit. Just as Jesus insisted all of us have to be, or we'll not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Most Glorious and Sacred Heart of Jesus; in your Infinite Mercy help our brother ''a'' for anonymous, to someday embrace the Holy Faith of your Apostles! --Amen.

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

Jesus linked faith with baptism when He said in Mark 16:16, "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved."

Eugene is the one guilty of calling God a liar because he doesn't believe Jesus meant what he said. To claim that an infant has faith by their godparents and the Church is just plain stupid. This is another invention of the Catholic Church which has no basis in the Word of God. Let Eugene give you the passage where this is clearly stated that one can be baptized first, and then come to faith in God at a later date. If he cannot, [and he won't because it isn't there,] then Eugene is the one who is the liar.

We are all responsible for our own actions, NOT those of another. We will be judged by our OWN actions, not those of godparents or of the Church.

Yes, the wages of sin is death, however, we DO NOT inherit the sin of another. I never said that babies didn't die now did I? We all die, because we all sin once we come to the age of accountability. There was only one sinless man ever to walk this earth, and that was Jesus Christ.

I said babies cannot be baptized for the remission of sins, since they have committed NO sins to which Eugene replied, "You're calling God a liar."

No Eugene, you are the one who is not telling the truth. Tell me which baby is able to sin? What is sin? Sin is the transgression of the law. Please do tell Eugene, which baby is able to break God's law? Yes, we all die because we all sin once we reach the age of accountability. Babies DO NOT have the capacity to break God's law, so they have NO sin.

No Eugene, we are NOT from birth in a fallen state. Children are innocent until they themselves sin by their own lust. James 1:13-15. The child does not bear the guilt of his father or anyone else, though he may suffer the consequences of others' sins.

Original sin is NOT taught in Bible. No act or deed or guilt for such can be transmitted from one person to another. Ezekiel 18:20; 2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18: 10; 19:14; Psalms 127:3-5.

The Bible DOES NOT give one single example or command of any baby being baptized anywhere. The Bible DOES NOT teach babies are born separated from God. On the contrary, Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children? But Jesus said, "Allow the little children, and don't forbid them to come to me; for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven."- Matthew 19:14.

Eugene still does not provide ONE example of any baby or infant ever being baptized in the New Testament, because there are NONE.

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

Well, anon:
Gene has no obligation to find anything like that in the Bible. You haven't brought us a verse saying, ''Don't baptise that infant.'' Now, why call God a liar, AGAIN? If the wages of sin is death, and babies haven't any sin at all-- God is a liar. They die anyhow!

Yet, by baptism, even a baby is saved; and can enter the kingdom of heaven. Christ clearly mandated the faithful: ''Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.'' (John 3 :5) The man and the baby each must be baptised. This is even without Christ's direct mention of sin. If He'd said rather: ''Unless a ''sinner'' is born again of water and the spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,'' I could follow you, ''a''. If a baby has no sin, why can't he enter the kingdom of heaven? Because baptism is the requirement. It's required of all; babies and grown-ups. In fact, though-- without baptism, a baby would not enter either; because of Original Sin. Baptism washes away Original Sin. The teaching of the holy apostles. Amen!

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

Yes Eugene, one must be born of water and the spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5).

A baby CAN be born of water, [although all they are doing is getting wet] however, they CANNOT be born of the spirit because the spirit John is speaking of in this verse is the Word of God.

One MUST be born of water [baptism] and the spirit [Word of God] or they CANNOT enter the kingdom. Babies CANNOT obey the Word of God, so they are NOT candidates for salvation.

We are born again through the Word of God. 1 Peter 1:23 says, ?having been BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, THROUGH THE WORD OF GOD which lives and abides forever,?

In John 6:63, Jesus said, ?It is the SPIRIT WHO GIVES LIFE; the flesh profits nothing. The WORDS THAT I SPEAK TO YOU ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.?

Jesus said in Matthew 24:35, ?Heaven and earth will pass away, but MY WORDS will by no means pass away.?

We have those WORDS written down for us in the New Testament.

That is why Jesus was able to say in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hades would not prevail against the church.

This is why the gates of hades would not prevail, "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.? ??But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience. (Luke 8:11; Luke 8:15 ).

The seed [the Word of God] is preserved for us in the New Testament.

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

Dear ''a''-- Here you launch into a private interpretation which is absurd --''
. . . because the spirit John is speaking of in this verse is the Word of God.'' Well, that is absolutely NOT what John is saying. The Holy Spirit is Who-- together with water gives rebirth. By what perverse distortion of the language have you concocted ''the Word'' as his meaning for ''spirit''--??? Just when I'd begun to give you credit for your shadow-boxing, you fall flat on your face! Haha!

We are born again (By water and the spirit-- Christ's words) --through the Word of God. Sure-- the word of God commands Baptism. (Matt 28 :19) What are you suggesting, one verse beats out the other? Come on; stop bluffing!

1 Peter 1:23 says, having been BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, BAPTISM;

Not BY the Word, THROUGH the Word of God, which commands the baptism of all.) You had better drop back and regroup, ''a'' -- Something went wrong.

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

Eugene,

How about going back and reading what I wrote...

I said we are born again THROUGH the Word of God...

Get it straight...

It is the Word of God that convicts us of sin in our life, which causes us to have Belief in Jesus Christ [the gospel - which is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus], which causes us to Repent of our sins, which causes us to Confess that Jesus is the Son of God, which causes us to be Baptized [Immersed IN water] for the forgiveness of sin [where we are united with Jesus death, burial and resurrection], which causes us to remain Faithful until our death.

So, to claim that you were saved by being baptized as an infant without belief in Jesus Christ is a lie. You have been deceived. It is not too late for you to obey the gospel. Until one's faith in Jesus leads them to obey the gospel, they are not saved. Is Jesus the author of salvation to all who disobey Him? (Hebrews 5:9).

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