Is Baptism Required for Salvation? - Part 1

http://www.layhands.com/IsBaptismForSalvation1.htm

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 26, 2003

Answers

by Dave Root

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 26, 2003.

David,

We have been over this ground already in this forum and yet you continue to bring up the FALSE CLAIM that baptism has NOTHING to do with salvation.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

Because it doesn't.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 26, 2003.

9 questions for those that still want to insist salvation occurs before baptism: ACTS 2:36-41 1.) When the crowd asked what they must do, did Peter say, "Repent and BELIEVE!" or did he say, "Repent and be BAPTIZED!"?

2.) When the crowd asked what they must do, did Peter say, "Ask Jesus to come into your heart! Pray and ask God to forgive you!" or did he say, "Repent and be BAPTIZED!"?

3.) When the crowd asked what they must do, did Peter lead them in the "sinner's prayer" or did he tell them to "Repent and be BAPTIZED!"?

4.) If they were already saved before they were baptized, then why did Peter tell them to "Repent!"? (Verse 38)

5.) If they were already saved before they were baptized, why did Peter tell them, "SAVE yourselves...!"? (Verse 40)

6.) If "eis" means "because of", where is there even one single credible version of the Bible where the translators translated this phrase "because of" and not "for", or "so that"?

7.) Forgiveness only comes after repentance (Luke 13:3,5). So if "eis" means "because of", why would Peter tell them to "Repent because your sins have already been forgiven!"?

8.) If baptism is not when our souls become saved, then why does it say, in verse 41, "Then they that gladly received his word were BAPTIZED: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand SOULS."?

9.) If baptism is not for today, then why did Peter tell them, "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call."? (Verse 39)

The argument that we are saved before baptism is a LIE!

It originates from the father of lies who was a murderer from the beginning and in whom is NO TRUTH.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

THE ROCK ~ THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS:

"The Grace received at Baptism remedies the "graceless" condition of the soul called original sin. Jesus also takes away personal sins for those old enough to have sinned. ~ For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under Grace. ~ Romans 6:14" ~ Father Weber

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 27, 2003.

There is NO such thing as ORIGINAL SIN. This is another INVENTION of the Catholic Church.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 27, 2003.

SACRED TRUTH :

THE ROCK ~

THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE 2000 YEAR OLD

MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

MAN'S FIRST SIN

Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of (Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19). All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God," but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God." (Gen 3:5)

Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness (Rom 3:23. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image—that of a God jealous of his prerogatives (Gen 3:5-10).

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN FOR HUMANITY

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man." By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act.

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the Life of Christ's Grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

ORIGINAL SIN ~ AN ESSENTIAL TRUTH OF THE FAITH

With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:12- 21). We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin," (Jn 16:8) by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

The Doctrine of Original Sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation, and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Most Holy Catholic Church, which has the mind of Christ, (1 Cor 2:16), knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

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.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.

Kevin, [Deleted by Moderator]

Such uninspired novice exegesis,

concocted solely,

Fantastic fresh string of bible verses from an incomplete bible,

very colourful weave of fabrication

freshly baked from the oven in the depths of the earth,

the most avant-garde,

most radical 1 year old false doctrine of

someone "Deceived by the Devil" (not according to me, but according to David, but I tend to agree with him).

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

THE ROCK ~ 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

The following list includes some of the Offenses that Warrant EXCOMMUNICATION According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Apostasy, Heresy, Schism

APOSTASY is the total rejection of the Christian Faith

HERESY is the Obstinate Post-Baptismal Denial of Some Truth, which must be Believed with Divine and Catholic Faith.

SCHISM is the Rejection of the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Pope as Head of the Church.

Desecration of Sacred Species (Holy Communion)

Physical attack on the Pope

Absolution of an Accomplice in Sin Against the Sixth Commandment

Pretended celebration of the Holy Eucharist (Mass) or conferral of sacramental absolution by one not a priest

Unauthorized episcopal (bishop) consecration

Direct violation of confessional seal by confessor

Violation of confessional seal by interpreter and others

Procuring of ABORTION

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

Typical Catholic response. Kevin is this...blah...blah...blah...And I agree...blah...blah...blah...

No response from God's word as expected.

How about answering some of my posts from the Bible instead of making up false assertions that you CANNOT prove James?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.

Kevin, [Deleted by Moderator]

Your obviously uninspired novice exegesis is highly untrustworty.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

untrustworthy.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

James wrote, "Your obviously uninspired novice exegesis is highly untrustworty."

Please notice readers that James has YET to PROVE that this is the case???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.

james,

I find your new font easy to read, I don't have too look that hard when I'm editing posts.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

DAVID,

I'M GLAD TO MAKE YOUR LIFE A LITTLE EASIER ~

EXACTLY WHAT JESUS WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

Kevin,

Original sin is not a false doctrine. It is indeed taught in the Bible. I looked up some of the passages that you cited, and found that they were out of context. It would be good to cite the whole verse rather than the reference so that we can see exactly what it's talking about. I will address here this particular comment:

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

Ezekiel 18 (KJV)

18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

We see here that it's indeed talking about individual responsibility, and you cited "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father" as meaning not inheriting original sin. This is false. Look at the verse before, "the son hath done that which is lawful and right," thus making the son capable of action, to choose what's right! This is saying that a son will not be punished for his father's sin.

Duet. 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

This verse does not negate original sin - it simply shows that there is a certain age of responsibility, and before that children cannot know "between good and evil," however, it doesn't say that they don't have sin.

Now for some verses to support the idea of original sin:

Ps. 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Jn. 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

Psalm 58:1-3 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Is. 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Besides that, the fact that people can "pick and choose" verses here and there to support whatever view they would like to support (not just you, Kevin, everyone does this) shows all the more the need for a divine interpreting authority, the Catholic Church.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 02, 2004.

Emily,

Even though I don't agree with your infallible interpreter comment, I do agree that we should cite the whole verse. This is something that Kevin does not do, and will not do.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 02, 2004.

Emily wrote, "We see here that it's indeed talking about individual responsibility, and you cited "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father" as meaning not inheriting original sin. This is false. Look at the verse before, "the son hath done that which is lawful and right," thus making the son capable of action, to choose what's right!"

Emily you make no sense at all in what you wrote above. Please explain how an infant can do "that which is lawful and right"??? Please also explain how an infant is "capable of action, to choose what's right!" as you state above???

Then you said, "This is saying that a son will not be punished for his father's sin."

Which is my point exactly!!! How can an infant be punished for something they did not do???

You quoted Duet. 1:39 and said, "This verse does not negate original sin - it simply shows that there is a certain age of responsibility, and before that children cannot know "between good and evil," however, it doesn't say that they don't have sin."

If the children have "no knowledge between good and evil" which is exactly what this verse states, then it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to sin. Yes, there is a certain age of responsibility and before they have the knowledge of "good and evil" they have NO sin. Did Adam and Eve SIN before they had the knowledge of "good and evil"???

You wrote, "Now for some verses to support the idea of original sin: Ps. 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

We are ALL born into a sinful world, because of one man, there IS sin in the world however that does NOT mean that we INHERIT their sin. This verse does not mention Adam, Adam's sin, nor that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.

There are numerous Bible verses, in plain, literal language, that affirm the innocency of infants, and Psalm 51:5 does NOT prove the idea of original sin. Scripture PLAINLY teaches that sin is not inherited. What did Jesus say concerning little children in Mark 19:14??? If original sin is INHERITED, then Jesus was born a SINNER. This is the logical consequence of such a false doctrine for it has no basis in the word of God. Later on you talk about "picking and choosing" verses, this is EXACTLY what you are doing Emily...

Emily, please explain what is the definition of sin???

Next you quoted, "Jn. 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out."

Does this verse say that he was born a sinner??? If you will READ this in CONTEXT (Note David this is for you also), please go back and read John 9:1-5. Jesus REFUTED this false doctrine of original sin for he PLAINLY reveals in verse 3 when He stated, "NEITHER THIS MAN NOR HIS PARENTS SINNED, but that the WORKS OF GOD SHOULD BE REVEALED IN HIM." This verse also does not mention Adam, Adam's sin, nor that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.

Another passage that affirms original sin DEFEATED.

You quoted, "Psalm 58:1-3 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."

Please explain to everyone here Emily HOW an infant can SPEAK LIES as soon as they are born??? Is an infant able to do this??? Since you CANNOT prove that an infant is able to SPEAK, much less tell a lie as soon as they are born, then once again your doctrine of original sin is FALSE. Please also explain how one can "go astray" if they are ALREADY born in sin??? This verse also does not mention Adam, Adam's sin, nor that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.

You quoted, "Is. 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb."

Please explain WHO the prophet Isaiah was speaking of in this passage??? Was he speaking of an infant??? or was he speaking of the nation of Israel??? This verse also does not mention Adam, Adam's sin, nor that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin.

Where is the passage that teaches that anyone is guilty of sin because he inherited his guilt from Adam or one is guilty before they commit sin?

Why do the Jews NOT believe in original sin???

Where is the passage that says a person will be judged or eternally condemned because of guilt one inherits from Adam?

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 02, 2004.

The Scripture speaks for itself on Original Sin:

Genesis 2 - [16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: [17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

They didn’t keel over but they lost eternal life in Paradise. Original Sin. The proclivity to sin caused by loss of innocence.

Genesis 3 -- [16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. [17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; [18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

ALL women suffer pain in childbirth; all men toil for a living – ALL share in the “puinishment” given to Adam & Eve.

Job 14 - - [1] Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. [2] He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. [3] And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? [4] Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?

Psalm 51 – read the whole thing

St Paul to the Romans Chapter 5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

[14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

[15] But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

[16] And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

[17] For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

[19] For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

St Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians C.15 [20] But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. [21] For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. [22] For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

St Paul to the Ephesians C.2

[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

[2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

[3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

[4] But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 03, 2004.

Ian

You FORGOT to use all caps on some WORDS! I suggest that you REPOST your reply. Go back and RE-READ your post. I challenge you to prove to EVERYONE that all CAPS are not required in YOUR posts. You are WRONG if you think that you can post WITHOUT using all CAPS in your reply.

Oh.....hi, Kevin. I didn't see you. LATER.......

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 03, 2004.

you made me LOL, Rod! very good.

OR should I say VERY good....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 03, 2004.

I think we are having a term misunderstanding. Neither Kevin nor I will deny that sin has consequences even on those innocent. This is a fact of life, not a doctrine. Original sin on the other hand, is the belief that we are born guilty of sins that we haven't committed, but that our fathers' committed. Adam sinned, and thus all of mankind is living out of the Garden. Sin has consequences. I do not live outside of the Garden because I ate the forbidden fruit. Sin is not inherited, though the consequences might be.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 03, 2004.

Here is an extract from the Catechism on the subject:

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 04, 2004.

these particular words may bridge that gap:

"And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an ANALOGICAL sense: it is a sin "contracted" and NOT "COMMITTED" - a state and not an act. ..... Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does NOT have the character of a PERSONAL FAULT in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, ....Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, BUT the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 04, 2004.

Ian wrote, "The Scripture speaks for itself on Original Sin:"

Let's see if this is true.

Ian quoted Genesis 2 then said, "They didn?t keel over but they lost eternal life in Paradise. Original Sin. The proclivity to sin caused by loss of innocence."

Okay, Ian has just shown everyone here what the first sin was of the human race. This does not prove his doctrine.

Ian quoted Genesis 3 and said, "ALL women suffer pain in childbirth; all men toil for a living ? ALL share in the ?puinishment? given to Adam & Eve."

Okay, this vers still does NOT prove that ALL children are sinners. All women suffer the CONSEQUENCES of Eve's sin, this does NOT make ALL women sinners.

Ian quoted Job 14:1-4 however, once again these verses do NOT prove the doctrine of Original sin. There is NO mention that one is born a sinner in these verses.

Ian wrote, "Psalm 51 ? read the whole thing"

Yes, please read the whole thing, you will also NOT find the doctrine of Original sin in these verses. Please read what I wrote to Emily in my last post.

Ian quoted Romans 5:12-19 however these verses also do NOT prove the FALSE doctrine of Original sin. We suffer the CONSEQUENCES of Adam's sin - DEATH and nothing more.

Let Ian show everyone here where it is written that we will be judged by the sins of someone else??? According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST. This is another doctrine with NO basis in the word of God.

Ian quoted Ephesians 2:1-5 however please notice that the text does NOT mention Adam, his sin nor that one is guilty of Adam's sin.

The Bible NOWHERE teaches that man INHERITS sin. This is another FALSE DOCTRINE of the Catholic Church.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 04, 2004.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00B6lE

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.

Kevin

Here is a simple question about birth into this world and Salvation:

If there isn't "original sin", what happens to the infant that grows and dies without accepting Christ?

And, why would that infant ever need to accept Christ at some point in its life?

What happens to an infant that dies prior to "accepting" Christ?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 04, 2004.

Rod, Kevin, Ian, I'm asking you to please move this topic to it's rightful thread. If not, I have no choice to delete the off topic posts.

Original Sin

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.

Dave

delete everything of you want -- so long as you are consistent and delete all that anti-Mother of God crud from the thread i started on the Trinity.

Kevin, i will wait to see if Dave gets his deletion button going before i address your points, but i do believe that you are abusing Scripture again.

in addition, you misrepresent Catholic teaching, a traditional protestant tactic.

(x) you say "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

WHEREAS:

(y) the Church teaches: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

there's a BIG DIFFERENCE there Kevin. do you accept that you are wrong?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 05, 2004.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states on this website in reference to infant baptism:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin , without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

This VISION OF GOD according to the Catholic Church is in HEAVEN. Since infants will be EXCLUDED from Heaven according to Catholic doctrine, they will NOT be saved. Regardless of what your catechism states Ian, Catholic doctrine as stated above is UNCOMPROMISING.

Please notice that in one breath the Catholic Church states that these infants will be EXCLUDED from Heaven, then in the next breath the Catholic Church states (In their 1992 Catechism) that they do NOT know what will happen to them that they can ONLY , "entrust them to the mercy of God".

It is INTERESTING to note that this Church claims to be from God yet they do NOT know where infants go if they are NOT baptized to have original sin washed away.

Amazing!!!

The word of God is CLEAR what will happen when Jesus returns. Please go back and re-read 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 05, 2004.

So much for Ian's assumption that I have "misrepresented Catholic teaching".

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 05, 2004.

Don't feel bad Kevin. There are many more chances for you to misrepresent someone.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 05, 2004.

Ouch! "10" points for Luke.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 06, 2004.

Kevin,

i will wait to see how many others jump on Luke's gloating bandwagon before i expose you for the fibber that you are.

you, Luke and the other gloaters will of course be man enough to apologise when i do that.....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 06, 2004.

Ian,

When I am wrong, I admit that I am wrong.

Are you willing to do the same thing???

I have repeatedly stated in this forum that if someone can show me the error of my ways, then I will change my thinking.

Are you willing to do the same thing???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 06, 2004.

Someone once said on here that it isn't the Catholic church protestants hate, it's what they perceive the Catholic church to be that they hate.

In all fairness, anyone who isn't a part of a particular religious body will not have a 100% acurrate view of it, regardless on the amount of reasearch. The only person who knows everything about everyone isn't posting on this thread (despite a few fakes).

Ian, have you seen a car commercial on t.v. which starts with a cop telling a suspect in the interrogation room that they've found his fingerprints at the scene andhis face on the security camera. The suspect is even wearing some of the stolen jewelry. Then the cop asks him, "What do you have to say for yourself?" The suspect replies, "I didn't do it."

I'm not Catholic, but many times I see clear evidence of one thing, yet i'm geting "nopes" from the Catholic bunch. I'm not gloating, I'm actually flabbergasted.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 07, 2004.

From David's original article by Dave Root, ""You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Galatians 3:26) How do we become sons of God? Through faith in Christ (it doesn't say through faith and water baptism)."

Here is how Galatians 3:26,27 actually reads:

"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

I have reason to suspect Dave Root of looking up "faith" in his concordance and simply listing those verses. Oh Btw,, notice that Dave Root himself quoted Romans 10:9-10 and said, " In this passage, the apostle Paul was very clear that we need to believe and confess (notice that baptism is not mentioned at all here)." What about all of those verses he listed previously that had no mention of confession? Thus we see that "(not mentioned at all here)" is not a valid refution of baptism.

I made the following comment about the thief on the cross (technically he was a robber, not a thief) in another thread:

"Usually, the only reason a 'sola fide' advocate brings up the example of the thief isn't so much because he was saved, but because he was saved w/o baptism."

Dave Root may not be a "sola fide advocate," but we see his purpose is to show every verse that doesn't mention baptism as a refution to the necessity of it. Dave Root himself said that confession was necessary, which technically contradicts "faith only." Again, I believe most "faith only" people are, in reality, nothing more than "anti-baptists."

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 07, 2004.

Luke--if you really look into the meaning of being Baptized Into Christ--you will find that it is by faith.., confession and repentance that this occurs...we are baptized into Christ when we recieve Him by faith and are born-again. This is a baptism by the Holy Spirit--the one and only baptism that matters--the one that Jesus brings.

John's water ritual was a forshadowing of the real baptism to come--a symbolic pointing finger.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 07, 2004.

Faith,

Do you have a Bible verse(s) that supports what you're saying, especially in reference to baptism of the Holy Spirit being the only thing that really matters? Or that says specifically that the baptism of John was only symbolic?

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 07, 2004.

Luke3:16-18

John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 07, 2004.

Faith, indeed Jesus did baptize with Spirit, but nothing about that passage indicates that the water baptism would cease. Jesus baptized with water also. The problem with your spirit only baptism is that it doesn't unite a person with the flesh of Jesus. Indeed his body was resurrected, and so one must be united with his body also, not his spirit alone, in order to be saved. Sprit gives birth to spirit,, flesh to flesh.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 07, 2004.

The Scripture is clear to me that John was paving the way to the true saving baptism.., his was a symbolic picture of the truth to come.

I think we continue with the water ritual to do the same thing that John was doing---giving testimony about the true baptism of Jesus Christ--which is purely spiritual.

We won't be raised physically until that last day.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 07, 2004.

"I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God's kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit" (The Gospel of St John 3:5).

"solemnly"???? are you sure, Our Lord. the "Church of Christ" says otherwise..... what's that word .... "misnomer of the decade" ... eh. ..... eh ..... l'Eglise de ? .......

"Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. -->> Baptise them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' <<--- Teach them, to carry out everything I have commanded you" (The Gospel of St Matthew 23:19-20).

a fait accompli, apart from certain points that I and "the gloaters", I hope, shall discuss in the next week.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 07, 2004.

Kevin & Luke

i know full well that you already know about everything that i will say here but i post it "for the record" lest any lurker gets drawn in by this blatant propagandising.

Kevin said: "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST." Luke gloated. He then assumed the role of psuedo-raconteur and, in a very long-winded and ostensibly harmless manner, endorsed Kevin.

Fibbers.

the first point is that I provided Church "doctrine" on the point when i quoted from -->> the Catechism. i will not re-post it but it clearly contradicts Kevins error.

Kevin then quotes from an article written by a priest for the Catholic Encyclopaedia. it is quite badly written, as it happens.

as background, the Church's approach to the fate of unbaptised infants has always been non-dogmatic. both before and after St Augustine, the Church has recognised (x) the REQUIREMENT for baptism as a means of salvation but also (y) the distinct difference between (1) a dead infant, incapable of sin, but burdened by original sin and (2) a dead unrepentant sinner (whether or not burdened by original sin).

there is the "theory" of limbo which attempts to distinguish, to put it broadly, between an eternity in the fires of hell (for the unrepentant sinner) and an eternity in ignorance of the Beatific Vision (for the unbaptised dead child).

if Kevin could produce a dogmatic statement requiring Catholics to believe that unbaptised infants will burn in hell, then he might have a leg to stand on. he cannot because, as he well knows, such a dogmatic teaching of the Church does not exist. that is why he is fibbing. that is why Luke is also fibbing.

Read ST John 3: 5 again and again. it never changes. its the same each time. the Church recognises this fact and yet it benevolently hopes, whilst honouring Scripture, that our God - who wants Salvation for all - will be minded to allow little innocent children the Beatific Vision despite the very clear import of St John 3:5.

i will respond to Kevin's dismissal of Scripture that CLEARLY proves Original Sin in a while.

in the meantime, i should expect dogma or apologies from Kevin and Luke - but i won't hold my breath!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 08, 2004.

Ian,

Will unbaptized infants be in Heaven???

Yes or No???

If you can prove to me that unbaptized infants according to Catholic doctrine will be in Heaven, then I might have something to apologize for, however you will not find this because this is not in Catholic doctrine is it Ian? If this is the case that God would allow unbaptized infants into Heaven (speaking of Catholic doctrine), then this would make God a respector of persons for He has plainly stated the entrance requirements into the church and they are the same for everyone. If you cannot prove that unbaptized infants will be in Heaven (according to Catholic doctrine) then there will be no apology for I spoke the truth.

If you answer Yes to the above question, then I would expect you to be able to prove this to be true.

If the answer is No, then I rest my case for only the saved will be in Heaven.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 08, 2004.

Kevin you said:

"According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

this is PLAINLY untrue. i have shown you that.

you also said:

"When I am wrong, I admit that I am wrong."

YOU ARE WRONG - you must therefore admit it.

i have shown you quite clearly that the Church does not teach that "...children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

admit it Kevin, or were you also "fibbing" in that post also?!?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 09, 2004.

Heaven belongs to children Kevin. Jesus says so. In fact--Jesus says that if you or I want to enter the kingdom of heaven--we must become like little children.

What do you suppose is so pleasing to God about children, that the kingdom of heaven should belong to them already--before they have done or earned anything?

The answer is faith. Children have a natural faith and desire towards their creator. Jesus goes on to warn us what will happen if we in anyway ruin that in our children and keep them from him. I would think he is refering to our ruining their *faith* which would prevent them from coming to Jesus.

Matt 19:14

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 09, 2004.

The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Matt 18:1-6

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 09, 2004.

Ian, this "theory" of limbo reads like an attempted cover-up for a clear contradiction in Catholic teaching. You can't dogmatically teach that anyone unbaptized will burn and still undogmatically teach that infants may not need to be. It seems that the Catholic church knows baptism is essential and yet does not want to offend anyone who may have lost a baby. Interesting "finger-crossing" beliefs.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Show me one example in the Bible where John the Baptist or Jesus is shuffling-off infants to the river for immediate Baptism????

In fact--we see zero examples of infants being baptised. That is because a profession of faith is what baptism is about, and how could an infant profess anything???

Don't ignore the whole of Scripture. I posted clear Scripture that tells you what God's position is about children. The kingdom belongs to them. And there is no stipulation about their having to be baptised....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Luke,

is this your idea of an apology?!!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 10, 2004.

That baptism you mention, Faith, deals more with the conversion of Jews into Christianity. If anything, your arguement may very well be taken against baptism today. So, there is a varying purpose for baptism. One must understand "infant baptism" in order to make the connections. "Infant baptism" brings the "family" into the acceptance of Christ. The family is obligated to keep their family in God's family.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

It doesn't stop at "infant baptism". There is a complete list of Sacraments to live by throughout the Catholic's spiritual life.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Well rod.,

I am speaking about what the Bible reveals--not what the Catholic religion teaches. They are two very different things.

It doesn't matter to me what the Catholic church says about baptism. It only matters what God reveals about it in His Holy Word.

There is only one baptism that saves--and it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that comes when we are born-again.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

I don't see what I need to apologize for. I should have known better than to assume the Catholic church did not have a backup plan in case someone noticed a contradiction. That's what happens when you have to take every writing as truth.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Well, Faith, you are gonna have to disagree with many of the doctrines presented in this forum, too. It seems like there are quite a many interpretations of "baptism", not just the Catholic version. BTW, I presented my views, which are not necessarily the Catholic's. So, I'm sure the Catholic view will make headlines again.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Faith-"It doesn't matter to me what the Catholic church says about baptism. It only matters what God reveals about it in His Holy Word. "

Actually, your comment sounds like a contradiction when viewed from the Catholic perspective. You are denying the signifance of the Catholic Church who provided the doctrines which have been used, abused, corrupted, and denied by the residule denominations we have today in Protestantism. You don't have to be Catholic in order to believe in what the Church has taught, I guess. But, one should really acknowledge those doctrines handed down from the Church that was given by God and the Word in the first place.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Have a look at the all-time tradition--Marriage. Where does it say that a Protestant marriage/wedding should take place inside of a church???

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Better yet....

Where does it say that a wedding/marriage take place before a priest, rabbi, minister, pastor, reverend, preacher, etc.? I believe it should happen before/in the presence of God. Do these religious leaders represent God on earth? Then you'll have to look at the Pope and re-evaluate your church leader's role outside of simple spiritual guidance and teaching, yes?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

rod..,

I think you are confused...

The Catholic Church did not give us God's Word.

God did.

And God did not give His Word to Roman Catholics.

Roman Catholicism began at the time of Constatine.

The apostles sprang up churches in many locations--Rome being one of the last places.

And there is no indication that any one church was under any other's rule.

In other words rod--each church was it's own government and the Word of God was its authority.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

confused??

I never said the Catholic Church gave us the Word; God did that. The Catholic Church filtered out much of the wrong stuff and provided what God gave us. The Catholic Church is not God.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Wrong rod..,

The people of God did that as the Scriptures were being read and utilized. People instinctively knew what was the Word of God and what was not.

The council did not eliminate or add a single book to what was already understood as valid Scripture. The Holy Spirit worked apart from man in this. No man decided anything....

Just because Rome elected itself as the headship of Christ's church-- doesn't mean a thing. They put their stamp of approval on something already understood. And I might add that originally--they did not include the apocryphal books.

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

You are using "instinctively" and "valid" very freely here, Faith. You are also ignoring all of those "other gospels", which were banned by men.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

The books that were banned by men--were never really well recived to begin with. Not everything that was written was believed to be inspired by God. People just knew the difference. Scripture was understood and circulated long before any Catholic Council sat down to add their stamp of approval.

For example--it was long recognized that the gospel of Thomas was not inspired Scripture--and it was already rejected.

You kid yourself if you think we wouldn't have the Word of God exactly as we do if some Catholic council hadn't sat down behind closed doors...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Faith

Those Gnostics went to their death believing in those very books that were banned. Those who did the banning did not actually destroy those books, but hid them instead. Some were destroyed by ignorant poor folks in search of fodder for fire--really.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

I "kid" myself?

On the contrary, I take all of this very seriously. Although, I don't take the King James Version too seriously. Yet, the majority of non- Catholics do subscribe to that "counsil" of translators. Did they get it right? For your sake, I hope so.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

rod..,in the same way that the Jewish people knew their Scriptures.., so do we...

I am reposting this for you here, since you may have missed it from another thread:

Jesus defined the Jewish Scriptures long before A.D 95.

If you were to look at the table of contents of a Hebrew Old Testament, you would notice two differences from our English Old Testament. First, it has only twenty-two books, not thirty-nine. But it is important to realize that the content is identical; it is just that the Hebrew Bible combines certain books. For example, books such as 1 and 2 Samuel are combined as one book.., and other smaller books are attached to larger ones.

The second difference is that the order of books is re-arranged. Interestingly--the last book in the Hebrew Bible is not Malachi but Chronicles.

Now let me share with you the *incidental* proof that Christ's Bible was the same in content as the Hebrew Old Testament that we have today.

The first murder in the Old Testament was, of course, when Cain killed Abel--right?

The last murder, according to the Hebrew order of books, was when the prophet Zechariah, was stoned to death in the Temple (2 Chronicles 24:20-21)

Only now are we prepared to understand Jesus' words in Matthew 23:34- 35:

"Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."

Imagine that...Jesus defining the Hebrew Scriptures without a Catholic council... Christ gave us a sweeping panorama of the entire Old Testament history. These two murders served as book-ends for the whole of Hebrew canon....

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

Luke

what does Kevin say about this?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 10, 2004.

Faith,

You have to understand 2 things:

1. Jesus' audience.

2. Matthew's audience.

They were the Jews, who read the Bible in Hebrew. They did not regard the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture because they were written in Greek, and thus considered less holy. It was simply a matter of Jesus reaching them at their level. It would be like a Catholic saying to a Protestant, "Let's talk about this using Scripture alone, since that's what we both agree on."

In this passage, Jesus does not affirm or deny what is contained in the Scriptures. Indeed, how would we know based soley on this statement whether books weren't added or subtracted from it?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

The point Emily..,

Is that the Jewish people recognized and were quite familiar with what was considered Holy Scripture. Jesus identifies exactly what there canon was--without any Catholic council--imagine that?*%?%#

The whole point to this was that rod was claiming that we wouldn'yt know our Bible if it weren't for the Roman Church. I was just showing him how wrong he is.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Why do you believe that Mary was a virgen imediately prior to Jesus' birth? Was it Tradition or Scripture? There are other books alluding to this believe with more details about Mary and her life, but those books are off-limits. Why and who decided to ban such books?

I believe the Nicene Council may have nad a powerful impact on making those decisions.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

"There are other books alluding to this believe with more details about Mary and her life, but those books are off-limits. Why and who decided to ban such books?" - rod

God decided the canon.

-- (1@1.1), May 10, 2004.

"Although, I don't take the King James Version too seriously" - rod

Despite the fact that the scholarship of the KJB translators cannot be matched up by any team assembled today? I don't see modern versions finding many grave errors with the KJB; Maybe you need to get that personal bias that you got from "KJV Onlyites" and see that it is a wonderful translation.

-- (1@1.1), May 10, 2004.

"The Catholic Church filtered out much of the wrong stuff and provided what God gave us. The Catholic Church is not God." - rod

The Only thing that the early Catholic church (which is not the same as today's modern apostasy) is helping preserve the bible.

-- (1@1.1), May 10, 2004.

"There are other books alluding to this believe with more details about Mary and her life, but those books are off-limits. Why and who decided to ban such books?" - rod God decided the canon. -- (1@1.1), May 10, 2004.

Very good. God then hand picked the men who would do the job of compiling our Holy Bible. I'm glad we agree.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- "Although, I don't take the King James Version too seriously" - rod Despite the fact that the scholarship of the KJB translators cannot be matched up by any team assembled today? I don't see modern versions finding many grave errors with the KJB; Maybe you need to get that personal bias that you got from "KJV Onlyites" and see that it is a wonderful translation. -- (1@1.1), May 10, 2004.

I have over 18 versions of the Holy Bible. My personal bias is a moot issue; it's my (self-)educated bias that is making the noise here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- "The Catholic Church filtered out much of the wrong stuff and provided what God gave us. The Catholic Church is not God." - rod The Only thing that the early Catholic church (which is not the same as today's modern apostasy) is helping preserve the bible. -- (1@1.1), May 10, 2004.

I agree with you 50%. I'm sure you know which half is what we agree on.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

these bold thingys!

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

-- (bold@off.com), May 10, 2004.

I'm not quite following you rod..,

The Bible teaches about Mary's virginity...it doesn't teach about the Immaculate Conception of Mary or of the Assumption of Mary into heaven.

There is a difference.

What you are trying to hold on to is an unbiblical teaching...

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

Faith keep an eye on this thread:

Qdesha.

I hope that, if and when that thread develops and reveals many things, I will remain free from a "heretic" label on me. I hope to show that the Catholic Church can be understood of their dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. But, it is an extrememly sensitive topic that will surely cause misunderstandings. Let's see what develops.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

All I said was that if Enoch and Elijah can be swept away to Heaven, why not Mary, too? I suppose that if I can believe that Enoch and Elijah were swept away, I could also believe Mary's assumption. Oh, and some books tell of the Immaculate Conseption--The Virgin Mary. There has to be some explanation for such a theology. We can't go dismissing it without an indepth study of it. That's the very least we should do before believing it or not.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Rod

i am watching very closely on this one.

-- Ian (aka iAN) (ib@vertifgo.com), May 10, 2004.

I wrote, "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

To which Ian replied, "this is PLAINLY untrue. i have shown you that."

This is NOT untrue NOR is it PLAIN as Ian once again makes an assumption. I asked Ian the question in my last post: "Will unbaptized infants be in Heaven??? Yes or No???"

To which Ian remains SILENT.

If unbaptized infants will be in Heaven, then they will be saved, if unbaptized infants are NOT in Heaven, then they are LOST there is NO middle ground. The Catholic Church amazingly claims that these infants will be in Limbo as Luke spoke of earlier however, this is nothing but pure assumption on the part of Catholics for this doctrine has NO basis in the word of God. There is NO mention of a place besides Heaven for the Saved or Hell for the Lost in the word of God therefore I have NOTHING to apologize for Catholic doctrine CLEARLY states that unbaptized infants will NOT be in Heaven and that is EXACTLY where ALL of the Saved will be.

Ian, will you now answer the question if unbaptized infants will be in Heaven???

If Yes, then Catholic doctrine CONTRADICTS itself, if No, then those infants who are NOT baptized WILL BE LOST and you don't know what you are talking about.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 10, 2004.

Well--the Bible tells us about Elijah being taken bodily up into heaven--experiencing no death.

We know that there will be two witnesses at the end of the age who come and preach during the Tribulation...many believe that these will be Elijah and Moses.

Can you find Scripture about Enoch?

Nothing is said about Mary with respect to this...

-- (faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

Luke,

You wrote, "It seems that the Catholic church knows baptism is essential and yet does not want to offend anyone who may have lost a baby. Interesting "finger-crossing" beliefs."

Amen and Amen!!!

It is interesting the lengths people will go to DENY the CLEAR teaching on baptism from the word of God. Baptism is CLEARLY not for infants for they CANNOT believe and one MUST have faith before they can be baptized.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 10, 2004.

Heaven belongs to children, Kevin. Jesus says so. In fact--Jesus says that if you or I want to enter the kingdom of heaven--we must become like little children. What do you suppose is so pleasing to God about children, that the kingdom of heaven should belong to them already--before they have done or earned anything?

The answer is faith. Children have a natural faith and desire towards their creator. Jesus goes on to warn us what will happen if we in anyway ruin that in our children and keep them from him. I would think he is refering to our ruining their *faith* which would prevent them from coming to Jesus.

Matt 19:14

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Matt 18:1-6

Any responses to these Scripture verses?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Faith,

Children have NO need to be baptized, so I am not sure why you are giving me these verses??? Children have NO need to be baptized because they have NO sin.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 10, 2004.

Kevin, my dear friend. So, what would it hurt to baptize the infants? There are many adults, I'm sure, who have been baptized because of the pressures put upon them by their peers and or church, yet they are never exactly sure they have been "born again". These people may revert to their non-belief character.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Rod,

You asked, "So, what would it hurt to baptize the infants?"

For the simple reason there is no command to baptize infants. One MUST be taught before they are baptized and since infants are NOT capable of belief, they CANNOT be baptized.

You wrote, "There are many adults, I'm sure, who have been baptized because of the pressures put upon them by their peers and or church, yet they are never exactly sure they have been "born again". These people may revert to their non-belief character."

If they gave in to "pressures", then they are still NOT saved for they would rather do what men tell them instead of what God has plainly revealed in His word what one must do in order to be saved. One must WILLINGLY come to God for He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. (Heb. 11:6).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 10, 2004.

Children have no sin?

What could you mean?

Obviously you must not have any children..lol!

Children lie before they can walk....

The Bible says that we have all sinned and that no one is good--no, not one. That does not seem to mean only adults...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

This is not the place to discuss Original Sin.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

David..

Who is discussing original sin., and why is this not the place to discuss it? Certainly baptism has to do with washing away original sin...

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 10, 2004.

Acts 16 (NIV) 14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message. 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

Here we see that Lydia believed, but her whole household was baptized. It says nothing about whether they believed. Her household likely included children, so why could they be baptized?

Acts 16 (NIV) 29 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31 They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.

Again, an entire household was baptized.

Acts 18 (NIV) 8 Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.

The fact that one person's belief (Acts 16:14-15 and 16:31) led to the baptism of an entire household shows the leadership role of the parents in deciding about baptism for their family. Notice it doesn't say "everyone except the young children or babies were baptized." There tended to be large families back then, so it is likely that there were young children who may be incapable of a adult understanding of faith in God. But God meets us where we're at in the faith process.

In the OT, men were initiated into the Jewish covenant community through circumcision. Everything in the OT prefigures something in the NT, and baptism replace this rite, now including women as well. Since circumcism was done to infants, why not baptism? Why would things suddenly change regarding the covenant of God with His people? Why would God in the OT want children to be initiated into the covenant family, but deny families this right for their children in the NT?

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Faith,

Is this the Original Sin thread? No. This is the "Is Baptism Required for Salvation?" thread. I know where this topic is going, and I am warning everyone to take any original sin topic to it's rightful thread or it will be deleted.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

Sorry David..,

I wasn't aware that there was an Original Sin thread.. or that conversation can't flow naturally off topic every now and again.. It wasn't my intention to discuss original sin anyway. But it certainly has to do with salvation and baptism.

I find it annoying that threads work like this--but it is this set-up that is the reason that posts lead to going off topic.

Anything original or intended gets thrown off with each consecutive post., and unless we want to keep re-reading everything above--it is bound to happen.

My whole thought process is lost by now anyway.

Catch ya later.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 10, 2004.

Kevin

In view of Emily's post, why don't you obey and allow children/infants to be baptized? It sure does look as plain as day that it is ok to baptize those little ones.

David

You aren't a Catholic, so you aren't gonna understand the connection between Original Sin and Baptism. In other words, you are not allowing the Catholic view to be expressed in Catholic terms, but in Protestant terms and restrictions. Hello?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Rod,

Don't argue with me. Is the thread's name "Does baptism remit original sin?"?. No. The Baptism being talked about in this thread is the baptism of diciples alone; i.e. for believers only. If you want alittle history about this thread, it was posted first of all to attract more posters, and second of all, to let Kevin read it. This thread, and almost ALL the other baptism threads are basically Churches of Christ vs. Doctrines of Grace threads. Catholics are just butting in.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

Do you mean like when Protestants "butt in" on the Catholic challenge thread? Oh, ok, I see what you mean. Did you tell the Protestants not to "butt in"? Just a question, not an arguement. We don't want to argue in these here threads. I forgot. Come on David!! Give me a break. I can't say anything anymore, I suppose. Why do you do me like this?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Besides, I wasn't gonna say anything about Original Sin.

.....I'm backing up this thread..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

David??

David??

Every argument we've ever had resulted in your change of heart.

David??

David??

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

DAVID...........??

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

No, David. That's my gavel of justice for us second classed forumites.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Rod,

You are accusing me of doing something I'm not even trying to do!

You said,"You aren't a Catholic, so you aren't gonna understand the connection between Original Sin and Baptism."

Really? Wow, that's great. Good thing this thread isn't on Original Sin and Baptism!!!!! It's about two non-Catholics views on baptism, one says it saves, the others says it doesn't.

You said,"In other words, you are not allowing the Catholic view to be expressed in Catholic terms, but in Protestant terms and restrictions. Hello?"

I'm not allowing this thread to go off topic, period.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

Allow me to quote a popular poster:

"Because Protestants are the other side trying to show that Scripture is sufficient! "

We can insert "Catholics" in place of "Protestants" in this case.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Why don't you begin your exclusive posts with "NO Catholic Posts Allowed On This Thread." That's honest, yes?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Rod,

I think you need to take a break. Who do you think you are, John Gecik? Stop complaining about my job as moderator. It's funny, I don't hear anybody else complaining but you.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 10, 2004.

I was thinking the same thing.

BTW, is it ok if I post using white colored text? That way those who are disturbed by my post don't have to see it unless they "select" the post to be viewed.

Uh......I'm a 44 year old male conversing with a 17 year old, David. I've walked in dark gloomy paths and have seen things that make men laugh, cry, and surrender. I have touched the cieling of Hell and have reach for Heaven with all of my strength. I have fallen tears for the desire to touch God and sit alone on empty pews wondering if God has truly heard me. My time passes and I see that perhaps He did hear me. My life is half over, at least I hope. There is more time to see if my voice has reach God. I wait....

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

David,

I think I agree with Rod, if you are trying to say that Catholics can't post on this thread. That is not right. I did not say anything before because I wanted to see if you would change your mind and I figured that Rod already said it so why repeat? If you wish to make a forum for Protestants only, then do so and state that. But as it is, you are attempting to restrict the freedom of speech that you claim to operate under in this forum.

For the Catholic, original sin and baptism are intrinsically linked. This is because original sin is the problem and baptism is God's answer - you can't separate the two.

Also, Catholics have an interesting role to play in this discussion about baptism.

1. Church of Christ people and Catholics seem to agree that baptism is necessary for salvation.

2. Protestants such as yourself and Catholics seem to agree that we all have original sin.

3. I think that you agree with adult baptism along with the Church of Christ people.

4. Some Protestants agree with Catholics in infant baptism (eg. Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians).

See, we all have things in common and differences. We all have ways to contribute to the conversation.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Kevin

as far as i am concerned, you have lost your integrity on this one.

you CLEARLY mis-represented Catholic doctrine. you refuse to acknowledge that fact despite your "magnanimous" offer to admit if you were wrong.

i am just glad that lurkers have seen it all before their own eyes, the protestant that gets treated from time to time as some kind of "expert" on Scripture himself uses the age-old tactic of mis- representing Catholic Truth in order to stand some chance of shooting it down.

ALL the words are there (just read the posts) Kevin to prove what i have said.

you ERR not KNOWING the TRUTH....... ;-))

as for unbaptised infants, i will for the "nth time" quote you what Catholics believe:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

IOW the Church does NOT teach that they are lost. this was clear many posts ago after you have mis-represented Catholic doctrine. you just keep digging the hole deeper! putting yr foot further into your own mouth! and so on.......

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 11, 2004.

" if you are trying to say that Catholics can't post on this thread. That is not right" - Emily

I NEVER SAID NO SUCH THING! rod did!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 11, 2004.

How many times have I had my posts deleted, David?

How many times have you told me I need a break?

How many times have I been warned about the nature of my Catholic posts (including this thread)?

How many times have I stuck my neck out in defense of fair play and bringing in the other side of the question via Catholics?

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Who is the main thorn in your side, who defends our God given rights to express our faith in any setting or adversity, David??

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

me

I expect the same from Kevin, Faith, Luke, you, and anyone who enters this forum (except those satanists). So, if you censor Kevin, you censor me. There are times when I am Kevin and Kevin is all of us.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

"This thread, and almost ALL the other baptism threads are basically Churches of Christ vs. Doctrines of Grace threads." - David Ortiz

I fail to see how baptism opposes God's grace. It is because of his great mercy and love for mankind that he provided a plan of salvation. One of your favorite anti-dip passages is Ephesians 2:9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." Read the surrounding text. "But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus."

Now...

Romans 6 "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."

Colossians 2 "having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins"

It is because of God's grace that we can even be saved. The work of Jesus at the cross was God's offering to us. Think about the rebellious angels who do not have the blood of Christ to claim. They are without hope, but we have assurance that whoever has accepted Christ (baptism is our acceptance) will be resurected like Christ, which, to me anyway, is what salvation is.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 11, 2004.

Ian wrote, "as far as i am concerned, you have lost your integrity on this one."

Ian this is your opinion, I have not lost my "integrity" as you falsely allege. I have CLEARLY pointed out how your Catholic doctrine CONFLICTS with the word of God, NO integrity lost here.

Ian wrote, "you CLEARLY mis-represented Catholic doctrine. you refuse to acknowledge that fact despite your "magnanimous" offer to admit if you were wrong."

Unfortunately for you Ian, I did not "mis-represent Catholic doctrine" as you falsely allege. Once again, the word of God states ONLY the saved will be in Heaven and Catholic doctrine CLEARLY states that those infants who are NOT baptized will NOT be in Heaven. If this is a TRUE statement (and it is), then you do lie and not speak the truth.

Ian wrote, "i am just glad that lurkers have seen it all before their own eyes, the protestant that gets treated from time to time as some kind of "expert" on Scripture himself uses the age-old tactic of mis- representing Catholic Truth in order to stand some chance of shooting it down."

And I am glad that lurkers can read the word of God and see for themselves how Catholic doctrine CONFLICTS with what God has actually stated in His word. Once again Ian CLAIMS that I am guilty of "mis-representing Catholic Truth" however this is NOT the case at all.

The TRUTH which is the word of God (NOT the Catholic Church) states, "For our citizenship is in heaven" (Phil 3:20).

Catholic doctrine states that the unbaptized infants will NOT be in heaven, so they WILL BE LOST according to Catholic doctrine.

Ian wrote, "as for unbaptised infants, i will for the "nth time" quote you what Catholics believe: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

Also for the "nth time" I will tell you that children who die without baptism will NOT be in Heaven for Catholic doctrine clearly states this to be true. To claim that Catholics do NOT know what will happen to unbaptized infants and they are left to the "mercy of God" CLEARLY goes against the PLAIN teaching in the New Testament. If God is a "respecter of persons" which is EXACTLY what Catholics are stating here (that there is another way for those who were not baptized to enter Heaven) then God is a LIAR. This once again CLEARLY contradicts the word of God for it is WRITTEN that God CANNOT lie. (See Titus 1:2).

The word of God states that "those who do NOT know God and those who have NOT obeyed the gospel WILL be punished with EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION FROM THE LORD." (2 Thes. 1:7-9).

So much for Catholic doctrine which states that "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God".

All of the SAVED will be in Heaven, All of the LOST will be in Hell, there is NO middle ground.

Ian wrote, "IOW the Church does NOT teach that they are lost. this was clear many posts ago after you have mis-represented Catholic doctrine. you just keep digging the hole deeper! putting yr foot further into your own mouth! and so on......."

Ian, you can keep making assumptions without offering much PROOF (Catholics are good at using this tactic) however it is clear to see that I am not the one putting my foot in my mouth. If you cannot see that your Catholic doctrines conflict with the word of God, then you truly have been BLINDED by the devil. (2 Cor. 4:3-4).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 11, 2004.

Ian,

You can continue to post that I have "mis-represented Catholic doctrine" and I will continue to come back with No, I have not.

What will this prove??? NOTHING...

If you are looking for me to apologize for something that you allege that I have done, I do NOT see it that way nor will I change my mind on this subject for the word of God is clear enough for anyone willing to understand.

This back and forth biting at each other does not solve anything so I will NOT bother to respond any more to your posts stating that I have "mis-represented Catholic doctrine" etc...

I will give you the last word on this subject if you wish to reply.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 11, 2004.

David,

Please accept my apology for taking this thread off-track.

Now you can answer Luke's recent post to you to get this thread back on track.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 11, 2004.

Kevin

by giving me the last word, you appeared pretty magnanimous -- that is, until i saw yr penultimate post on the subject of your misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.

one more time, there is a WORLD OF DIFERENCE between:

x) what YOU say "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

AND:

(y) what THE CHURCH teaches: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

anyone with half a brain and an open mind will be able to see that for themselves.

i have lost all respect for you on account of the way you have conducted yourself on this thread.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2004.

Kevin

my apologies.

not ALL, just SOME. i was overstating my disappointment.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2004.

Kevin and Ian..,

I wonder why you haven't recognized yet--that you are both wrong?

The water ritual does not save.., nor are you damned without it.

The only truth is that you believe in Christ. That is the baptism of the spirit. Children have this faith--so they are saved and adults who choose Christ are also baptised into His body through that faith.

Obeying the gospel means to do the work of God--the only work--which is to believe.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 12, 2004.

Faith

I wonder why you haven't recognized yet--that you are wrong?

What a line!

It isn't, "Kevin and Ian have you considered my interpretation of Scriptures?" No, it's

"I wonder why you haven't recognized yet--that you are both wrong?"

I'm just hassling you, Faith. {:P

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

"The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism...are perpetually excluded from the vision of God..This teaching is grounded... on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church."

Ian, is this not dogmatic? Isn't this exactly why the Catholic Church practices infant baptism?

"Moreover, that those who die in original sin , without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly..."

I can think of one classification of those who die without ever have contracted actual sin--infants.

Ian - "the Church teaches: 'As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God,'"

Isn't this because they cannot say infants are saved? The Catholic teaching on baptism condemns anyone not baptized. They might not state infants exprsly, but infants are obviously included. Again, the "theory" of limbo is an attempt to appease two teachings which contradict each other.

If what Kevin posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not what the Catholic church teaches, then why does it appear in the Confession of Faith of Emperor Michael Palæologus, in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, and in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

And anyone with half a brain and an open mind will be able to see this.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

this is Groundhog Day Luke.

OK, i will start it all up again, this time with you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2004.

Maybe we should switch to thread Part 2. This one is long.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 12, 2004.

Luke

you chose the forum.

just remember, however, that it is your Church "of Christ" buddy, Kevin, that is on trial and not the Church.

recap:

x) Kevin said "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

BUT:

(y) The Church teaches: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

and as i say: "anyone with half a brain and an open mind will be able to see that for themselves."

Kevin also said: "When I am wrong, I admit that I am wrong."

he never did.

you decide.

i think Kevin may have deliberately mis-represented Catholic dogma. however, i am open to being persuaded that he thought (in error) that he had found a few points to score, not having done his homework. ie he was just "trigger-happy".

either way, it matters not because he does not have the grace to admit that he is mis-representing the Catholic faith.

that is unfortunate, imho, because sooooo many protestants are dragged in by this headline falsehood, deliberate mis-statement of Catholic teaching -- and grow up for ever "outside the Pale". those vocal protestant pastors -- all fur coat and no knickers -- who mislead the innocent and the vulnerable, will answer in the afterlife. be sure of that, friend.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2004.

Luke,

Good luck... Let's see how many times you can get accused of mis-representing Catholic doctrine for you quoted the same thing I did in your last post.

Ian wrote, "just remember, however, that it is your Church "of Christ" buddy, Kevin, that is on trial and not the Church."

No Ian, the church of Christ is NOT on trial, we are discussing Catholic doctrine and NOT the doctrine of God, which are miles apart.

Now let's see if you can answer Luke's post.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 12, 2004.

My last post to Ian should have read, Now how about answering Luke's post, and NOT "Now let's see if you can answer Luke's post."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 12, 2004.

hello Kevin.

this is the SECOND TIME you have gone back on your promise. remember you said "I will give you the last word on this subject if you wish to reply." well, here you are again!!!! my, oh my,....

you choose to let Luke do your bargaining. but the result can only be the same. mis-representation of Catholic teaching. no genius involved in this -- which is why i say that you need only half a brain and open eyes.

i do not understand why you keep pushing this. you have a way out.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2004.

PS Kevin, i got wise to one of your other tactics a long time ago:

here's the very, totally, extremely, ultimately unhelpful (***but priceless***) clue:

"Now let's see if you can answer Luke's post."

"Now how about answering Luke's post."

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2004.

Ian wrote, "this is the SECOND TIME you have gone back on your promise. remember you said "I will give you the last word on this subject if you wish to reply." well, here you are again!!!! my, oh my,...."

Please cut and paste from my last post where I said anything concerning the subject matter we were discussing. Just cut and paste, that is all I am asking you Ian. If you CANNOT do this, then you are not speaking the truth now are you Ian??? I said that I would give you the last word, and I have given you the last word for I have NOT said ANYTHING at all that would even remotely suggest that I wanted to bring up the subject again. Once again you make an accusation and don't offer ANY proof. You are good at this tactic Ian, like many of your Catholic brethren over in the Catholic forum, they make accusation after accusation, but NEVER bother to PROVE IT. This does not suprise me in the least, for Catholics resort to this tactic especially when their doctrines CONFLICT with the word of God.

You wrote, "you choose to let Luke do your bargaining. but the result can only be the same. mis-representation of Catholic teaching. no genius involved in this -- which is why i say that you need only half a brain and open eyes."

Okay Ian, I did NOT ask Luke to join in on the conversation, he has his own free will and this he did willingly and I didn't even have to ask for his help. If you are going to accuse Luke of "mis-representation of Catholic teaching" then go right ahead that is between you and Luke.

Ian wrote, "i do not understand why you keep pushing this. you have a way out."

Please explain to everyone here Ian what I am guilty of "pushing"??? I told you that I am through discussing this subject with you, and I have kept my word. Please explain to everyone here what in my last post made you ASSUME that I had any desire to continue in any conversation about this topic???

You made another accusation that the church of Christ was on trial, and I merely responded to this unfounded accusation that is all.

Ian wrote, "PS Kevin, i got wise to one of your other tactics a long time ago: here's the very, totally, extremely, ultimately unhelpful (***but priceless***) clue: "Now let's see if you can answer Luke's post." "Now how about answering Luke's post."

Sorry Ian, I don't have any "tactics" NOR did I leave any sort of "priceless" clue as you so state. I made a mistake in what I wrote, and made a correction, that is ALL. Your feeble attempt to make it APPEAR that I am using some sort of tactic to bait Catholics to turn them from their religion is nothing but a smoke screen to give the impression that Catholic doctrine is in accordance with the word of God and nothing could be further from the truth.

I have told you that if I make a mistake, I CORRECT them and if I am WRONG, I admit that I am WRONG.

If I am guilty as you allege of bringing up this subject again (Kevin vs. Ian), then you ought to be able to CUT and PASTE my words to PROVE to everyone here that you really know what you are talking about.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 12, 2004.

if you keep digging for a few more days Kevin, soon you will come out in China!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 13, 2004.

Ian,

If you would speak the TRUTH, I wouldn't have to keep "digging".

I am still waiting for you to CUT and PASTE my words.

It isn't that hard is it Ian???

Especially if I am guilty of doing the very thing I stated I would not do.

If you cannot CUT and PASTE my words to show everyone here that you really KNOW what you are talking about, then YOU Ian are the one who needs to apologize for FALSELY accusing me.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 13, 2004.

Kevin

do you recall i mentioned the "the very, totally, extremely, ultimately unhelpful (***but priceless***) clue".......

dig, man, dig,..., we'll be in Shanghai tomorrow.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 13, 2004.

now, let's counter Kevin's tactic of obfuscation by taking this debate right back to the point:

x) Kevin said "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

BUT:

(y) The Church teaches: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

these are world's apart: anyone with half a brain and an open mind will be able to see that for themselves.

here's the first thing that Kevin could have done to avoid the error he made. he could have checked his source.

if you look here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm) under "II. LIMBUS INFANTIUM" you will find that the self-same Catholic Encyclopedia paints a different picture of the same issue.

so the Encyclopedia is somewhat internally inconsistent? perhaps. and perhaps that is the basis on which Kevin erred.

however, i quoted from the Catechism, which is THE statement of Catholic teaching. yet Kevin refuses to acknowledge this - he errs again.

that's 2 "errors".

the Catechism is pretty clear on this - the Church does NOT teach as Kevin says it does. he is relying upon a faulty source and ignoring the real source, the Catechism.

all the rest is obfuscation -- yet another tactic -- lie about Catholic teaching, then muddy the waters with sidetracks about this and that, ...., then fill the air with sound and fury and BINGO some fool might believe that you have a point.

my point remains the same -- Kevin is mis-representing Catholic teaching. having revealed the source of that teaching, for Kevin to continue doing so is dishonest.

i do not intend to let this go Kevin.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 13, 2004.

Hi guys. This be come in handy:

"W sh Zhnggu rn, xhun ch Zhnggu ci."
I am a Chinese. (I) like to eat Chinese food.

Chinese lessons.

:)

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

very funny!

i must send Kevin over a set of chopsticks.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 13, 2004.

Luke., I agree that we must be baptised in order to be saved.

We just obviously disagree as to *what* being baptised actually is....

You seem to think that be baptised means a water ritual--I think it means a rebirth, as being born-again by faith in Christ--to which the water ceremony testifies about..

If we don't get a chance to do the water ritual., but we came to the saving faith required for salvation--we will be saved., just like the one thief on the cross.

He is a perfect example of someone being saved because he repented, confessed and received Christ. He was born-again at the hour of his death. No time for a baptism., yet Jesus said he would be with Him in paradise.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 13, 2004.

Faith

i know you to be generally anti-Catholic -- but i assume that you will not, in all seriousness, ignore the baptism by desire and baptism by blood that the Church preaches.

that said, you appear happy to ignore the words of God when he says:

3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above."

4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"

5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born ***-->> of water and Spirit <<-- ***.

[St John Chapter 3]

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 13, 2004.

Ian

That verse supports my stand that being born again has a spiritual meaning....the water is the cleansing action of the Spirit.., and Jesus continues to express this when he says, "Flesh gives birth to flesh *but* the Spirit gives birth to spirit." verse 6

And Ian--just because I disagee with Catholic theology doesn't make me anti-Catholic. Otherwise, you might as well call me anti-Jehovah Witnesses and anti-Mormon and anti-Jewish etc...

Do you see how silly that is?

Better to just call me pro-biblical Christian.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 13, 2004.

Ian,

I am still waiting for you to answer my last post.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 13, 2004.

Kevin

how's the Chow Mein?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 13, 2004.

PS Kevin

congratulations!

China's a big big country.

to burrow through and find an internet connection is a stroke of luck.

the problem you now face is that - once you start burrowing again -- you might come out in Canada - or Mexico.

...or the Ocean.

dig straight. dig true.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 13, 2004.

Ian,

Stop the taunting. Give me the link to where you and Kevin had this discussion. How about this? Start a new thread and let the other forum posters decide who's right?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), May 13, 2004.

David,

The problem with Ian is that he makes an accusation, then when he is called on it, he doesn't bother to prove his words and resorts to his usual tactics of changing the subject. I have asked Ian to cut and paste my words in my post of how I went back on my word and he has yet to do this.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 13, 2004.

The most literal meaning of "born of water and spirit" and "Flesh gives birth to flesh *but* the Spirit gives birth to spirit." verse 6 is more than likely telling facts:

Those born of human flesh--mortal man--must then have life of the spirit. WE are more than flesh; we are to become eternal in spirit. Only when we realize what we really are, we can become part of the Kingdom of God.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

Baptism, like circumcision are not necessary for salvation.

They are rites of inclusion but not sacraments who guarrantee ou salvation.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Samuel, David,Elijah, Isaiah, Jertemiah,... were not baptized.

Christians are not circumcised.

Like the Gospel of thomas saying 53 states:53. His Disciples say to him: Is circumcision beneficial or not? || He says to them: If it were beneficial, their father would beget them circumcised from their mother. But the true spiritual circumcision has become entirely beneficial. (interlinear)

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

Abraham was considered righteous by his faith--even before he was circumcised...

Circumcision was considered as important for the Jews as Baptism is for Christians.

But we have two examples of people being saved without either--- Abraham and the thief at the cross., to name a few...

-- ("faith01@myway.com), May 13, 2004.

No one can be saved today the way the thief was saved because no one is in the same situation the thief was in. He was in the physical presence of Jesus. He was able to speak with the Lord face to face. The Lord as the testator of His will had the right to do what He wished with His salvation while He lived, but once He died, the conditions of His will have to be met in order for one to be saved (Hebrew 9:16,17).

Since Jesus has now died, the conditions of salvation given in His New Testament are REQUIRED of all today who want to be saved.

The thief on the cross and Abraham were under the OLD COVENANT.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 13, 2004.

Uh.........the women were not ....uh.....circumcised......duh.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

David

x) Kevin said "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

BUT:

(y) The Church teaches: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

that's all this is about -- save that Kevin is now determined to moved the debate on -- he is WRONG, quite CLEARLY. he said he would admit it but has failed to do so. he said he had his final word then came back to start the whole thing up again.

this is about getting caught red-handed and refusing to correct previous errors - about mis-stating CAtholic teaching to try to score points with lurkers.

read (x) and (y) and YOU decide David.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 14, 2004.

that is why i say that Kevin is digging a hole for himself -- he has done so.

what's the weather like in Guandong, Kevin?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 14, 2004.

I disagree Kevin..,

The Lord has not died--but He is alive.

We can all, like the thief--come to the foot of the cross, repent, confess and receive forgiveness--just as the thief did. There is one consistent uniting factor throughout Scripture.

Abraham was saved because God saw his righteousness that he had by faith. The thief was saved for the same reason--he believed.

We too are saved by faith., not by works.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 14, 2004.

Faith wrote, "I disagree Kevin.., The Lord has not died--but He is alive."

Did Jesus die on the cross??? Yes or No???

Faith wrote, "We can all, like the thief--come to the foot of the cross, repent, confess and receive forgiveness--just as the thief did. There is one consistent uniting factor throughout Scripture."

No, unfortunately we CANNOT be saved the way the thief was saved because as the Bible clearly teaches, Jesus had NOT yet died when He told the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise. Jesus while He was on earth had the power to forgive sins. When He died, the New Testament came into effect, and the first gospel sermon was preached on the day of Pentecost by the apostle Peter and he told the Jews what one must do in order to be saved. Did Peter say to them "You can all be saved like the thief, all you have to do is believe"??? No, he told them to "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". They had already believed because they asked the question "Men and brethren, what must we do"???

Faith wrote, "Abraham was saved because God saw his righteousness that he had by faith. The thief was saved for the same reason--he believed."

Abraham was saved because he OBEYED God's commands, and NOT because he believed. Faith without any type of works is a DEAD FAITH which is exactly what the Bible teaches. In all the cases of conversion recorded in the book of Acts, not one time was an alien sinner told that they were saved when they believed.

When was Abraham justified? God once again says in James 2:21, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?"

James, speaking through the Holy Spirit continues in verse 22, "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?"

Finally, this is where Scripture was fulfilled in verse 23, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God."

That is how Abraham was said to have believed God, and NOT by "FAITH ONLY."

If we are saved like the thief, then this makes God a respecter of persons. Go back and re-read Matt. 9:6 and Mark 2:10.

Faith says, "We too are saved by faith., not by works."

God says, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD ALSO." (James 2:26).

I choose to believe what God says, it is OBVIOUS that Faith does NOT.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 14, 2004.

Kevin., I love the way you favor James because you *think* he confirms your ideas.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), May 14, 2004.

Faith,

There is no *thinkING* about it, that is EXACTLY what those verses teach.

Your FAITH ONLY salvation is DEAD.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), May 15, 2004.

Faith

i caught this guy out lying -- quite plainly.

so ignore the impassioned CAPITAL LETTERS -- designed, i hypothesise, to appeal to lurkers -- and STICK to your guns, lady. [Not that i agree with many of them!!!]

also, try to make further use of the IMPASSIONED UPPERCASE.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 15, 2004.

“x) Kevin said ‘According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST.’ BUT: y) The Church teaches: ‘As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.’” –Ian

However, the Roman Catholic Church also teaches:

1215 This sacrament [baptism] is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Kevin didn’t lie, the Catholic Church did. It clearly teaches that everyone who is not baptized will be lost. It also teach that infants who aren’t baptized must be left to the mercy of God, and there is hope for a way of salvation for them. My understanding was that all Catholics and their teachings were united. If the Catholic Encyclopedia Kevin used was not in alignment with the teachings of the Catholic Church, then I was wrong.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God.

The Church cannot say unbaptized can be saved, because that is contradicting their own doctrine. They do not want to say all unbaptized infants are lost though, so they’ve taken a middle ground on this issue. Though, reading the other catechisms, I never got the impression that a middle ground existed with them.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), May 24, 2004.

I agree with you, Luke on this one.

Let me add something else.

The Catholic Church believes in Limbo, a place where unbaptized children go.

Late Lat. limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally "hem" or "border," as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).

In theological usage the name is applied to (a) the temporary place or state of the souls of the just who, although purified from sin, were excluded from the beatific vision until Christ's triumphant ascension into Heaven (the "limbus patrum"); or (b) to the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal sin, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone (the "limbus infantium" or "puerorum").

II. LIMBUS INFANTIUM

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see "Baptism," subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Rom. 5:12 sqq). On the other hand, it is clear form Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq, II Cor. 5:10; see also "Apocatastasis"). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.

1. Pre-Augustinian Tradition

There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural. Explicit references to the subject are rare, but for the Greek Fathers generally the statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus may be taken as representative:

It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Orat., xl, 23]

Taken from New Advent Limbo

I don't believe in limbo.

I also don't believe baptism will allow people to enter Heaven. Baptism requires a confession. Childfren cannot confess their sins since they don't understand what sin is.

God Yahweh asked his people first to consecrate children to him. In consecration, the person is not required to confess.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 24, 2004.

My old Church

when I used to be a Roman Catholic. Time flies.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), May 24, 2004.

thiis is like a kindergarten.

Luke, study these words:

"Indeed, the great mercy of God.....allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism"

Now study Kevin's ERRONEOUS statement: "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

Do you really need to be that clever to see that Kevin is WRONG. KEvin quoted from an encyclopedia, which on the subject of limbo, contradicts itself. he used a faulty source. that is excuseable because we all do it. HOWEVER he has, since i opened his eyes, PERSISTED IN TELLING LIES.

this is clear as day.

Elpidio, you have not read this thread at all, have you? the bit you extracted from the encyclopedia i have already mentioned above -- it clearly contradicts Kevin's ERROR.

the encyclopedia is not a teaching of the Church, it is an encyclopedia.

i gave Kevin the CLEAR teaching of the Church that OBVIOUSLY contradicts his errors, but he persists in propagating his errors.

i wonder why?

strewth, cobbers.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 25, 2004.

Ian,

Yes, Catholic doctrine states as you have quoted, "Indeed, the great mercy of God.....allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism"

Hoever you continue to make a MISTAKE when you state that I made an "ERRONEOUS statement when I said, "According to Catholic doctrine, children who are NOT baptized will be LOST."

There was NO MISTAKE there at all was there now Ian???

Will those who are NOT baptized be in Heaven???

Yes or No???

I have asked you this question, and you have NOT answered the question.

You continue to spout Catholic doctrine which states... "the Church can ONLY HOPE" and that is NOT an answer at all now is it???

It is amazing that after I gave you the last word on the subject, then you responded then after I advised you to take up the subject with Luke, you accused me of going back on my word and still persist in not dropping the subject. I CHALLENGED you to PROVE that I had gone back on my word and to DATE you have NOT proven that I was guilty of such. Who is the LIAR Ian??? Hello???

You claim that I am telling a lie, but it is you who are NOT telling the TRUTH here Ian.

Regardless of whether I quoted from an encyclopedia or not, this was CLEARLY on a Catholic website, that is promoting Catholic doctrine.

If NOT, why not???

Can the Catholic Church ever teach error??? According to you they CANNOT, but you are claiming that indeed this encyclopedia is indeed not teaching the truth so who are we to believe???

If the Catholic Church CANNOT PROVE that unbaptized infants will be in Heaven (and they CANNOT for their Catechism even states that they can only HOPE that God is merciful) which is where ALL of the saved will be, then I have spoken the TRUTH in stating that Catholic doctrine states that those who are not baptized will be LOST for ONLY the SAVED will be in Heaven.

To claim that God will be merciful to those who have not obeyed His will CLEARLY violates Scripture which states that God is NOT a respecter of persons.

Since you persist in continuing this debate that I am not telling the truth Ian, I will CONTINUE to post replies since it is obvious that you have no desire to end this subject and continue to TRY to drag my name through the wringer, I have no option but to reply to these FALSE accusations and will CONTINUE to do so.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), May 25, 2004.

Kevin

i think we need to agree to disagree on this.

i apologise if you feel badly treated.

this is my last post on this thread.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 26, 2004.

Even if you don't respond, Ian, I know you still can read.

The Encyclopedia and the Cathechism have the stamp of approval of the Church. Thus, they represent Catholic Doctrine.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egoval@yahoo.com), May 26, 2004.