this book takes a look at the need for water in Baptism. if anyone wants to read and discuss, welcome.

http://www.sspx.org/books/Is_Feeneyism_Catholic.pdf

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 22, 2005

Answers

top.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 22, 2005.

Just to be clear, is it absolutely necessary that one be baptised by water, or is there a baptism of desire or a baptism of blood? is there invincible ignorance?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 22, 2005.

to provide context, the book is written by a traditional Catholic Society. it argues "no salvation outside the Church" but accepts:

- baptism of desire [the catuchumen] - baptism of blood [the martyr] - invincible ignorance [those who through no fault of their own have not heard the Gospel]

ie in each case, these people can be saved without an actual physical water Baptism.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 22, 2005.

Ian,

I'm a bit confused about the concept of "limbo" for unbaptised children.

Is it still part of Catholic teaching? Never seemed fair. When it was first taught to me (I was about 6 or 7 years old,) I went home and immediately varified with my mother that it (babtism) had been done. I was quite concerned. It wasn't supposed to be a painful place or state of being, as you never knew God and therefor what you were missing.

Seems like the"invincible ignorance" teaching would cover those innocent babies who die before being baptised. Does this ring true?

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 22, 2005.

Yes Jim, the kingdom of God belongs to children.

Baptism is a decision one makes for themselves when they have heard the gospel and believe. This is what being born-again is--a rebirth. I believe this is the true baptism. It is spiritual. We have been buried with Christ and we rise up a new creation in Him. We have new life.

The water simply expresses this truth that has occurred in our hearts by faith. If you don't actually perform the water ceremony, but the rebirth has happened, you are saved. Most of us want to participate in the act of water baptism, because we want to express our new found faith and life in Christ and our joy--to God, and to all the world for that matter.

To me, the Bible expresses the urgency of this rebirth, and tells us to spread this good news to all nations. The act of baptism aids in the spreading of this good news.

But let's face it., babies cannot choose Christ or believe the gospel message, so I think baptizing them is meaningless.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 22, 2005.

Hi Faith,

I find myself agreeing with you here on your points above.

This is not Catholic teaching, but I see infant baptism as a sort of renewal of the covenant with God by the parents to raise their children as Christian. As a Catholic, I subscribe to the Catholic dogma as I understand it, but it makes sense to me on a personal level, that the baptism of children, is "in a way" more for the parents.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 22, 2005.

Yes,

My church does what we call a "Baby Dedication", where the parents promise to raise their baby in a Christian way as prescribed by God, pointing them towards Jesus Christ and the truth as revealed in His Word. Sometimes, new born-again believers come up with their entire family, children of all different ages--to make this promise.

Sometimes we can baptize young children full-body emmersion--if they can express their faith and indicate that they understand what they believe about Jesus.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 22, 2005.

I tend to agree. Infant baptism seems a moot point since the baby cannot proffess a beleif.

I think that oen has ot be mate to choose to be Baptsed into God's kingdom and fmaily.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 22, 2005.

I see no such thing as "Baby Dedication" in the Bible ..., though I do see baptism in water. Not that Baby Dedication is bad, because it is very good, it is just not AS good.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 22, 2005.

except baptosm is when we chose to be Born again of water and psiit into Gods Kingdom. Which is somehtign that must be made ny an act of pur will, and cnanot be made ofr us.

This is the raosn why Infant Baptosm is rejected, in fact. The Bbay cannot accept christ.

Likewise, I dont see the Baby has snned to have any rmeissed.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 22, 2005.

Yeah Ian, give me some time to pick up the book in question again this weekend, but sure, let's do it. Read it and speak your mind and I'll listen and agree or disagree, but in all things the desire to know and do the truth... for sure.

I do remember that one of the first things that struck me about the book was the almost immediate reference to too far, as in a "but some go too far" type of the-truth-is-in-the-middle approach. Not sure you know what I'm getting at. I can explain, but really should pick it up and look through it again first.

A couple days ago I wrote up a somewhat in depth commentary on the Holy Office letter for you, but decided for a variety of reasons not to post it. I still have it if you're interested.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 22, 2005.

"For He came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

*****

Zarove,

Within the Church, the issue was settled a long time ago. There are no scriptures either supporting or denying infant baptism, so let the historical record speak for itself. Our rule of faith is different from yours, I know, in that we rely on precedent!

I have become aware of late, however, that there is a huge difference between what Catholics believe happens at baptism, and what a lot of Protestents believe happens. To many it is just another semi- meaningless symbol, but to us it is the mark of salvation, the entrance into the kingdom, the highway to sancification, the removal of the horrible stain of original sin, the heavens opened and the spirit descending like a dove, and many many other things.

Just like the Eucharist, it is not "merely" a symbol, it's actual. And having come to understand more of this "mystery," I can only say I would be a bad parent indeed to withhold this magnificent "means of grace" from my child, no matter what their age.

I know, I know, I know, that a lot of Protestants are hung up on this issue, as they are numerous other issues . . . that's one of the reasons I'm no longer Protestant. I can enjoy the Lord FULLY without arguing and debating my way through every hair-splitting detail. The sacraments that the Lord provides in His Church are "life-giving" sanctifying graces, and it was Christ who said "Let the Little Children Come Unto Me!"

Glory be to God,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 22, 2005.

"This is the raosn why Infant Baptosm is rejected, in fact. The Bbay cannot accept christ."

Exactly... an infant has no sins to wash away nor can they obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 23, 2005.

In the same respect Gail--we see no example of infant baptism in the Bible.

Infants cannot choose Christ in faith--that's why they weren't baptised. There has to be faith first.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

Emerald

"...the almost immediate reference to too far, as in a "but some go too far" type of the-truth-is-in-the-middle approach.."

yes, it launches straight into that.

i've read it once. i need to read a few times more. initial impression is that Baptism of Blood and Desire are at least spoken of in great detail by the Fathers.

on invincible ignorance, the analysis is much weaker - and as this, in some ways, might be the basis, imho, on which Dominus Iesus and so on are driving the Church to pluralism and ultimately universalism, that's the part that i might really need to focus on.

but, to be fair the book, takes a restrictive view on such ignorance, arguing that it is extremely rare - so perhaps i need to get further into it.

i also note the discourse on Trent, and i just wonder if it is worth going through the Canons, one by one, to see exactly why certain beliefs were anathemised. the book does not appear to do this.

as for the Cushing letter, by all means, post here. the book holds that letter up as an accurate portrayal of the faith, though provided it is read in the correct manner.

overall impression, lot's of food for thought.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 23, 2005.

Also Gail,

Protestants are not hung up on these issues. We left Catholicism in our wake.

We believe in the deeper mysteries of true baptism--which is only expressed in the water--but not the miraculous fact in and of itself. Baptism occurs in the heart, not a tub of water.

You place far too much stress on human effort. We are baptised the moment we believe. That is the miraculous moment when the Spirit fills us.

1 John6-12

This is the one who came by water and blood–Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

Faith, you still haven't answered my question: Where is "Baby Dedication" in the N.T.? If it is not in there, when did this "tradition" begin?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

I would base our baby dedication to Poverbs 22:6

Train a child in the way he should go,

and when he is old he will not turn from it.

We promise to do just this in our baby dedication--I am sure there is more Scripture to support the idea of making this kind of public promise, though I am too busy to look for it right now.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

Luke 18:15-17

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

Mark 19:36-37

He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

Those are great quotes, and in fact, are the very same quotes that the Fathers used to support infant baptism. I still don't see, though, a specific "ceremony" called "Baby Dedication."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

So?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

Well, you're always harping at Catholics for "manmade traditions" and/or "rituals" and so forth, yet your church conducts "manmade traditions" and/or "rituals" and that's okay! (Just a little bit of an inconsistency there).

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

A baby dedication is hardly a ceremony or ritual. It is not claimed as official doctrine either. Big difference.

There is no rule that says a family must participate in this dedication or they are not saved, or any such nonsense as that.

In fact, I have not participated in a dedication of my own children-- though I am leaning towards each of them choosing baptism for themselves, and I do indeed point my children in the right direction.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

BABY DEDICATION

it's a "tradition" in a non-catholic church in a sense that tradition means "an inherited principle, standard or practice or body of principles, standards, and practices serving as the established guide of an individual or group." it is a tradition in my family that when we are driving in an underpass, we roll down our windows and scream. it's way to help the kids get their frustrations out on long car rides. it could technically be called a "man made tradition" but i don't think God will condemn us for that.

baby dedication is not a ceremony or ritual. it is a practice, and this practice is used to hold christians accountable for their actions. when you tell people you're going to quit smoking, but you sneak a cigarette here and there, you fall into the trap of deceiving yourself, "oh, it's only one."

and if someone tells you, "hey i thought you were going to quit!" you can easily tell them, "well, not this week."

but if you announce to the body of believers, "guys, i wanna quit smoking and i need you guys to hold me accountable for my actions, feel free to remind me that i'm slipping up," then you are working together with the body of christ to edify each other. what's that verse again? about bearing one another's burdens and such? it keeps the body together, it edifies the body when you help each other out and hold each other accountable.

baby dedication is much the same thing. perhaps some churches make it more like a ceremony to show everyone that it's a serious issue, some churches just do it in a more casual way. but it's not a Tradition in the sense that the churches CLAIM that it's a God-given rite or ritual. it's a tradition in a sense that people decided they wanted to be held accountable for their actions in a public forum and other people liked the idea so it caught on.

now, at least those churches don't claim that the dedication is necessary for the baby's salvation cuz THAT WOULD BE MAKING A MAN MADE TRADITION. the fact that it's a "local" custom so to say, does not make it a man made tradition.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 23, 2005.

REMEMEBR GAIL, I grw up Churhc of christ, my eiws ae basiclalyt he same as your eiws o batism, thaty it is wthe Moment when we are clenced of sins. The inly disagreement is that I do not hold to Infant baptism, similarly to Kevin and Luke.

But I do beleive in Baptismal Regeneration, for the bIble commands it.Jesus himself commands it.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 23, 2005.

Ha, Ha, Ha, you girls must think you're talking to someone who just fell off the turnip truck. Pardon me, while I pick myself up off the floor!!!

I have been involved in many many Protestant churches, and it is a ceremony, a ritual, a tradition, but that's okay, right? Because your church invented it!

Give me a break!

Ceremony = A formal act or set of formal acts established by custom. (Webster's)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

BTW, Rina, I did like your "tradition" of letting your kids scream out the window! Good ideas deserve imitation!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

Gail,

I think that the verses I offered above, support the idea of a baby or child dedication far sooner than they would support baby baptism.

Don't forget that we don't make any claims to salvation or condemnation based on this public promise.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

I don't deny that you could use those scriptures to support your "manmade" tradition, with probably a lot more, things like circumcision, etc.

"Don't forget that we don't make any claims to salvation or condemnation based on this public promise" And neither do we!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

Of course you do Gail,

The Catholic mother races out to have her newborn baby baptised because she believes that that in and of itself garantees that if her baby should die prematurely--it will not go to hell. This stems from a false belief that if you die without having been through this water ritual, you cannot be saved.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

"Of course you do Gail," Ahhh, you know what I believe do you?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

I am talking about what the Catholic Church believes, Gail.

You don't have a choice in what to believe, not if you want to be Catholic anyway.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

How can the Catholic Church teach that baptism guaranties salvation and yet at the same time teach "salvation by works"?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

okay, if water baptism is really necessary for salvation, then the criminal on the cross next to jesus didn't get saved and that would make jesus a liar.

but for the rest of us folks who have to live for christ, baptism is an obedience issue. the ones who go to heaven are the ones who do the will of the Father and baptism is pretty much something we do to show God that we choose to obey Him. i don't think faith goes around telling people NOT to get baptized!!! i think faith would be the first person to say "let's get you baptized!" to a new believer.

it seems that the points that she makes are technicalities (such as the criminal on the cross being saved without being baptized) it also seems that faith is saying that it's your BELIEF in God that causes you to obey God and that would include being baptized.

baptism cannot give you salvation in itself. i know an evil person who was baptized but claims to be satanic when it suits his pleasure. tell me he's going to heaven and i'll call you a liar. he denies christ with his mind and words and if you deny christ, He will deny you -right?

so the ACT of baptism cannot save, it is also a heart issue.

instead of arguing about technicalities, why don't we just urge people who want to become christians to get baptized? i am sure that NO ONE in these posts will say that there is no point to baptism. in which case, let's leave the technicalities to God because he's the one who judges the thoughts and intents of the heart.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 23, 2005.

"instead of arguing about technicalities, why don't we just urge people who want to become christians to get baptized? i am sure that NO ONE in these posts will say that there is no point to baptism."

Umm, think again, Rina, Faith does not believe that Christians need to get baptized in "water" at all, and that even the great Apostle Paul was not "water" baptized, but only spiritually baptized.

"i think faith would be the first person to say "let's get you baptized!" to a new believer." This would be true as long as you don't mean "water" baptism.

Right you are, Rina, Baptism is the first step in obedience to any new believer, and if they refuse baptism AFTER BEING GIVEN AN OPPORUNITY, then what's the point of calling yourself a disciple? Catholics as well as MOST Protestants believe that water baptism is one of two sacraments.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

As you well know Gail,

I do say "let's get you baptised" because it is a great testimony to the truth of the state of your heart--which is filled with the Holy Spirit., when you have believed and received Jesus Christ as your Savior.

It's the first thing I did as a born-again Christian. I did this not to get saved or to become born-again, but because that regeneration had already occurred in my heart., and I wanted to express it.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

So was St. Paul the apostle water baptized, or not?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

This is what you said on the other thread:

"I just disagree Gail.., the baptism described in Scripture is always meant to be of the Holy Spirit" If that's true, then if your church "water" baptizes, it is performing something extra- biblical ..? Not only does your church perform "Baby Dedications" which is not explicitly referred to in scripture, but it also practices something that you claim is not even scriptural!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 23, 2005.

The Scriptures don't tell us.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 23, 2005.

"okay, if water baptism is really necessary for salvation, then the criminal on the cross next to jesus didn't get saved and that would make jesus a liar."

Who are you to say that the thief wasn't baptized by John's baptism??? How would he have know that Jesus was who He said He was, the Son of God??? Besides, Jesus had power on earth to forgive sin (Mark 9:6), so the thief is no more a model for our salvation today than is Noah or anyone else...

"but for the rest of us folks who have to live for christ, baptism is an obedience issue."

Actually baptism in water is for the remission of sins for that is exactly what the Bible teaches...

"the ones who go to heaven are the ones who do the will of the Father and baptism is pretty much something we do to show God that we choose to obey Him."

Yes one must be baptized in obedience to the gospel of Christ however your belief that it has no significance in the plan of salvation is where you do err... Baptism is not the place where we "show God that we choose to obey Him" as you allege... Baptism is a command, just like having faith, repentance, and confession of Jesus as Lord are commands that one must obey in order to be saved... Baptism is the culmination of that process where one becomes a Christian and the Lord adds him to His church, the church of Christ... There is no such thing as an un-baptized Christian...

"i don't think faith goes around telling people NOT to get baptized!!! i think faith would be the first person to say "let's get you baptized!" to a new believer."

Faith tells people that they are saved by faith and then they do things in obedience to God's commands, i.e. first they are saved by faith and then and only then can they repent, confess Jesus as Lord and be baptized... This is not what the Bible teaches...

"it seems that the points that she makes are technicalities (such as the criminal on the cross being saved without being baptized)"

See my earlier reply, Jesus had power on earth to forgive sins...

"it also seems that faith is saying that it's your BELIEF in God that causes you to obey God and that would include being baptized."

Yes, faith causes one to do what He commands... Faith alone without any works of obedience does not nor ever nor ever will save anyone...

"baptism cannot give you salvation in itself."

Here you contradict what Scripture reveals for God said in 1 Peter 3:21, "There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism..."

Baptism clearly saves...

"i know an evil person who was baptized but claims to be satanic when it suits his pleasure. tell me he's going to heaven and i'll call you a liar. he denies christ with his mind and words and if you deny christ, He will deny you -right?"

If all he did was be baptized, and didn't have faith, repentance or confession before his baptism, then his baptism was not in accordance with God's plan of salvation in the New Testament...

"so the ACT of baptism cannot save, it is also a heart issue."

Sorry Rina but you have been deceived, baptism does save... Go back and re-read Acts 2:38...

"instead of arguing about technicalities, why don't we just urge people who want to become christians to get baptized?"

At least you are now beginning to think along the right path, one is not a Christian until they have been baptized in water for the remission of their sins...

"i am sure that NO ONE in these posts will say that there is no point to baptism. in which case, let's leave the technicalities to God because he's the one who judges the thoughts and intents of the heart."

It is impossible to believe error and be saved... Just one "technicality" as you call it can cost many people the salvation of their soul... There is only one way to be saved and I can assure you that it is not the "faith only" salvation crowd to which Faith belongs...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 23, 2005.

Baptism is not the place where we "show God that we choose to obey Him" as you allege... Baptism is a command, just like having faith, repentance, and confession of Jesus as Lord are commands that one must obey in order to be saved...------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------

i really can't take this anymore. some of these arguments are getting ridiculous. okay, would you agree that when you are baptized, you are obeying God's command? in which case, when you get baptized, you are choosing to obey God. where is your argument? we are actually in agreement here, the flaw being that communication can be a pain sometimes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes one must be baptized in obedience to the gospel of Christ however your belief that it has no significance in the plan of salvation is where you do err... --------------------------------------------------------------------

i didn't mean that baptism has no significance. i meant that like you even said, jesus has the power to forgive sins, so baptism is a heart issue. if you can't get baptized for some odd reason even though you really want to cuz you want to obey God, i'm sure God can see the intent of your heart. but these types of situtations are not common. that's why i made the comment about "the rest of us folks." following God's will is ALWAYS a heart issue. so if you don't get baptized, maybe you're trying to rebel in your own little way against God. if you do get baptized, you're trying to show God that you want to do His will.

i was making the point that the physical act of baptism cannot save your soul, as in the example i gave of my friend. without the heart behind getting baptized, what was his baptism worth?

kevin, i think your specific post was just an argument for the sake of arguing. i was enjoying the debate up until now. when the argument gets as silly as it does now, it just seems pointless. the ironic thing is that i agree with you. why can't you see it? maybe i'm just stupid and can't get my point across clearly.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 23, 2005.

Hi Ian:

Thanks for moving this over here, on Friday I only had time to scan about 30 pages of the article; I hope to have time to read through it at least once tomorrow. It does look interesting.

As far as Baptism without water, I believe this would be valid in the respect that if on the day that the persons sins are brought to their mind and they seek that truly deep inner forgiveness for their wrongs then they have taken initial steps to become one in thoughts and actions with those of Jesus. Even if they did not know Jesus at that time.

Doesn't a loving parent forgive their child for past indiscretions, when they see that the Childs heart has turned away from the wrongs and embraces more deeply the truth and Lives by it, all without requiring the child to ask for forgiveness first? Because perhaps the child never fully understood his errors until he grew into the light

Emerald:

"A couple days ago I wrote up a somewhat in depth commentary on the Holy Office letter for you, but decided for a variety of reasons not to post it. I still have it if you're interested."

I know you wrote this to Ian but if you would post I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 24, 2005.

Sure; it's not complete but I'll post it anyways and work it over realtime later on. By all means, feel free to have at it and speak your mind.

I do want to keep my promise and go through that explanation of the new Mass you posted. I was half done responding to part of it but had to reboot, but I'll try it again. Maybe over here instead. Then there's this thread, also, as I promised Ian I'd read the book again. I started reading Ian, but I'm not finished.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 24, 2005.

Kevin,

You can't be commanded to have faith. Faith comes to those who *believe* the gospel message about Jesus and who He is.

You can't command someone to believe--it is a personal heart thing.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

No rina,

You are not stupid.

I agree with you and you are a refreshing addition to this board.

Please visit again : )

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

Michael G

"As far as Baptism without water, I believe this would be valid in the respect that if on the day that the persons sins are brought to their mind and they seek that truly deep inner forgiveness for their wrongs then they have taken initial steps to become one in thoughts and actions with those of Jesus. Even if they did not know Jesus at that time."

i think that's right as far as it goes.

read through Trent on Justification and Baptism.

as i understand it, the grace [gift] of Faith is the start of the relationship for the adult, as you say. and without Faith, there is no justification, baptism or no baptism.

but you do need baptism to be Justified the laver of regeneration, the re-birth. faith alone does not suffice....and its not pre- destined.

moreover, you need Baptsim to be Saved. and you can reduce the physical aspect of baptism to a metaphor. it's not hocus-pocus, its real.

well, that's where i'm at anyways; the best i can do so far.

look forward to yr views on the book. i find it really quite complex. i can only read so much at a time.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 24, 2005.

yikes, correction in CAPS.

"and you canNOT reduce the physical aspect of baptism to a metaphor"

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 24, 2005.

But Ian--

What is baptism? Really?

Is it the act of dunking into water for the remissions of sin., or does the water signify a rebirth that takes place spiritually?

Being born-again means rebirth--we are made alive in Christ through faith.

Baptism is spiritual.

Yes we must be baptised to be saved--but that baptism is spiritual.

The thief on the cross experienced baptism even though there was no opportunity for him to be emmersed in water physically, for example.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

Rina,

You wrote, "i really can't take this anymore. some of these arguments are getting ridiculous."

Please do tell us which arguments in your opinion are "getting ridiculous"???

You wrote, "okay, would you agree that when you are baptized, you are obeying God's command?"

Yes, that is correct...

You wrote, "in which case, when you get baptized, you are choosing to obey God. where is your argument? we are actually in agreement here, the flaw being that communication can be a pain sometimes."

The problem is that you believe that one is saved by faith before their baptism, that is where the problem lies... One is not saved until they have had their sins washed away by being baptized in water...

I wrote, "Yes one must be baptized in obedience to the gospel of Christ however your belief that it has no significance in the plan of salvation is where you do err..."

To which you replied, "i didn't mean that baptism has no significance. i meant that like you even said, jesus has the power to forgive sins, so baptism is a heart issue. if you can't get baptized for some odd reason even though you really want to cuz you want to obey God, i'm sure God can see the intent of your heart. but these types of situtations are not common. that's why i made the comment about "the rest of us folks." following God's will is ALWAYS a heart issue. so if you don't get baptized, maybe you're trying to rebel in your own little way against God. if you do get baptized, you're trying to show God that you want to do His will."

Do you believe that one is saved prior to their baptism??? If so, then you were not baptized for the remission of your sins...

You wrote, "i was making the point that the physical act of baptism cannot save your soul, as in the example i gave of my friend."

Yes, the physical act of baptism saves for this is what the Bible plainly teaches...

You wrote, "without the heart behind getting baptized, what was his baptism worth?"

How can you judge a man's heart??? You cannot... You can judge his/her actions, but you cannot judge their heart...

You wrote, "kevin, i think your specific post was just an argument for the sake of arguing."

If my post was just for the sake of arguing then I would not have made an attempt to correct your misunderstanding of scripture... :-)

You wrote, "i was enjoying the debate up until now. when the argument gets as silly as it does now, it just seems pointless. the ironic thing is that i agree with you. why can't you see it?"

According to what you wrote, you did not agree with me...

You wrote, "maybe i'm just stupid and can't get my point across clearly."

If you believe that one is saved by faith prior to their baptism then you did get your point across clearly... If you believe that baptism saves then you did not...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 24, 2005.

Faith,

You wrote, "You can't be commanded to have faith."

Can God command us to have faith??? Yes or No??? If no, please provide clear scripture references... If Yes, then faith is a command given from God and He most certainly has commanded us to have faith in the gospel of Christ...

You wrote, "Faith comes to those who *believe* the gospel message about Jesus and who He is."

How does one get faith???

You wrote, "You can't command someone to believe--it is a personal heart thing."

Again, if God commands that we have faith in order to have faith, then He is the one issuing the command for someone to have faith... Without faith, one will not be saved... (Hebrews 11:6).

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 24, 2005.

Kevin,

You ask:

How does one get faith???

By hearing the gospel message and believing it.

You also said:

Without faith, one will not be saved... (Hebrews 11:6).

This is because he has not believed, right?

It is he who believes in Jesus Christ who will see everlasting life.

John 6:47

I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

But it can't be "believe" in its barest form, because "even the devils believe and tremble." Besides, Jesus says "he who believes obeys."

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 24, 2005.

here we go again... *sigh*

you decide to believe in God > you get baptized.

you decide to believe in God > you get saved > you get baptized

you get baptized > you decide to believe in God > you get saved

you get baptized > you get saved

you get saved > you decide to believe in God > you get baptized

you get baptized > you get saved > you decide to believe in God

KEVIN, please tell me which of these statements is true (or MORE true so to say cuz i'm leaving out other sacrements for simplicity's sake)

----The problem is that you believe that one is saved by faith before their baptism, that is where the problem lies... One is not saved until they have had their sins washed away by being baptized in water... ------

i don't think that i explicitly said that i believe this. not that i'm trying to be deceitful, but merely trying to make points abjectively without prejudice clouding anyone's mind as to what exactly i believe.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 24, 2005.

Kevin., our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ which atones for us when we believe and receive Him as our Savior. This is the moment of rebirth--when we are born again by the washing of the Word., when we are buried with Christ--and raised a new creation in Him. This is baptism--to which the water expresses....

That is why water baptism without faith first could mean absolutely nothing! What does the Scripture say? Believe and be baptised.

Mark 16:15-16

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Notice that the focus is on believing--not baptism? The verse didn't say that whoever is not baptised will be condemned., did it?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

Just a quik note: Kevin dosnt beleive in the 7 Sacraments, he i chruch of Christ.

Which does, hwoever, beleive in the nessesity of baptosm, though I agree that if oen died after choosing baptism, or is enderd form Baptism, they can still be saved.Otherwise the Unbaptosed theof on the cross widlbe damned...

If they repent and are prevented ormobedience,thehn they can stillfnd grace and salvaiton, but if not hendered, Obeedience is required.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 24, 2005.

Faith,

You have to take all of what the Bible says concerning salvation... Faith "alone" which many protestants teach never saved anyone...

Rina,

Please do tell us what you believe... I am not going to keep going back and forth until you do this...

Do you believe one is saved by faith "alone"...

Or do you have some other belief...

Please do tell us what it is???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 24, 2005.

Faith,

Yes, our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, but not before one is baptized (in water) into Christ and into His death where He shed His blood... (See Romans 6:3-4).

Yes, the scripture says believe and be baptized, it doesn't say believe and then you are saved and then can get baptized...

You quoted Mark 16:15-16 and then said: "Notice that the focus is on believing--not baptism? The verse didn't say that whoever is not baptised will be condemned., did it?"

No, the focus is not on belief only as you assert... Both faith and baptism are required according to this verse in order for one to be saved... A lack of faith will cause one to be condemned and there was no need to say a lack of baptism will condemn one because one will not get baptized without first having faith...

Get it!!!

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 24, 2005.

Zarove,

Now you are treading on speculation and opinion for nowhere does it state in God's word that one who is not baptized or hindered from being baptized they can still be saved... You chided me for stating things that were not spoken of in God's word and this most certainly is merely your opinion...

The thief on the cross did not require baptism as Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sin and who is to say that he wasn't baptized???

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 24, 2005.

Faith

"What is baptism? Really?"

you could start by exploring the etymology of the word.

God chose to speak to us at a certain level. we can't outdate His Words. if you need to be baptised in water, that's what's needed. it might sound primitive, and those were primitive times, but we don't have the authority, and never will, to ignore the requirement for water.

just a point of view.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2005.

Yes Ian--but was the reference to water baptism necessarily saying literal water?

We know that the church uses literal water to express baptism--but baptism is a rebirth. But this rebirth is not literally pysical.

I am surprised that Kevin struggles with this when he is able to recognize the deeper meaning of Communion, not taking the command to eat His Body to the literal sense.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.

Faith,

"was the reference to water baptism necessarily saying literal water?"

you can read as well as i. you tell me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 25, 2005.

"I am surprised that Kevin struggles with this when he is able to recognize the deeper meaning of Communion, not taking the command to eat His Body to the literal sense."

Water means water... There is no "deeper meaning of Communion" nor does Jesus command us to "eat His body" in a "literal sense"... What you misunderstand Faith is that Catholics use passages that don't even talk about the Lord's Supper to try to justify their view and you ignore passages that plainly state that water is the required agent for one to be baptized in order to be saved...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 25, 2005.

not taking the command to eat His Body to the literal sense

You should go back and reread John 6. The first people to LEAVE Christ did so over just this reason. Christ said "eat my flesh", the people said, "he means spiritually", and Christ said, "no, REALLY eat my flesh, and they said "this teaching is hard, who can accept it"? and left.

There wouldn't have been any problem if He had meant spritually take His body or something, if that had been the case, why would they leave? Sorry, faith, but He meant LITERALLY take my flesh, which is why there was such a commotion. It also explains why the true Christian church continues this to this very day.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 25, 2005.

Well, Kevin, what did Jesus mean when he said "Eat my flesh, drink my blood" if not communion?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.

I think Jesus' hearers left because they rejected who Jesus was saying He is--which is God.

They weren't rejecting that Jesus said He was bread, but that He was from heaven.

Things went from bad to worse from there on out.

They didn't seem able to get past the literal words and join Jesus in His deeper spiritual meaning. But the truth is that they wanted an excuse to walk away. They harped on the physical, unwilling to rise above the words.

They knew what Jesus was saying--they just didn't want Him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.

That is all your commentary and speculation, Faith. I am much more interested in what 1st, 2nd generation Christians believed about those words. I am much more interested in how "communion" was carried out THEN. Your notion that "symbolism" is somehow deeper than the age-old beliefs of our ancestors is a joke.

You have watered down both sacraments of water baptism and the Lamb's Supper into simple symbolism, not recognizing the deeper spiritual meaning AT ALL!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.

Keven,

Most of the time, when someone is baptised, or baptism is mentioned-- the word water is not even in the verse.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.

Quite the contrary Gail--I have moved beyond the physical symbology and into the truer deeper significance of these sacraments.

I don't believe man gets to *get* any credit for these things...

Joe Schmo down the street isn't going to go to heaven before me, simply because his mother had some priest sprinkle water on his head as a baby--yet his whole life has been lived apart from Christ. It requires a faith relationship with Jesus, which comes when we know Jesus and His truth as revealed in His Word. It is not by any act on our part--or lack thereof.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 25, 2005.

Faith, the reason "Water" isnt mentioned is because its understood... after all,the term mans "emerced", and as a term freely associaed swith Chrisains of the itme, it was known what wa meant...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 25, 2005.

As you well know, Faith, the Church does not guaranty the salvation of the baptized.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 25, 2005.

Ok, I read the upper thread posts more closely, and have to correct a few things, LOL

Ian,

to provide context, the book is written by a traditional Catholic Society

the sspx is most definitely NOT a "traditional Catholic society". Its leaders and all who are in formal adherence with their schism were excommunicated. If you wish to call them a society of excommunicated Catholics, that's o.k. with me.

Zarove,

This is the raosn why Infant Baptosm is rejected, in fact. The Bbay cannot accept c

but infant baptism is NOT rejected, it is practiced like it has been since the time of Christ. How do YOU know what a baby can and can't accept in their own way? If someone is severely mentally retarded do you not baptize them either thinking that their understanding isn't good enough for you? Does a teenager have "full understanding"? Who are YOU to judge who has "enough" understanding to benefit from Christ?

Jim,

I'm a bit confused about the concept of "limbo" for unbaptised children.

Is it still part of Catholic teaching

Limbo is NOT a Catholic teaching, it was a man-made *theory* put forth to explain what might happen to those who weren't baptized, but weren't sinners on their own account either. The truth is, you don't go to limbo, you either go to Heaven or Hell.

faith,

The water simply expresses this truth that has occurred in our hearts by faith. If you don't actually perform the water ceremony, but the rebirth has happened, you are saved

That's NOT what Christ said, He said "unless one is born of Water and the Spirit, they cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Pretty clear, and he blasts nicodemus for being so dense at the same time. There are VERY few things Christ actually commanded us to do, but water baptism is one of them (and Christ Himself baptized people). Please don't throw away one of the greatest gifts you'll ever receive, get yourself baptized. Also, in a pinch ANYONE can baptise you, even a non-believer, just have them say "I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Nowhere does Christ say what (you) do -- that you are saved without baptism.

But let's face it., babies cannot choose Christ or believe the gospel message, so I think baptizing them is meaningless.

That's your opinion, and is unfortunately false. In Corinthians we are shown *whole households* being baptised at once when the head of house converted. This implies a very real benefit to children as well, who would have been baptised at the same time. Basically faith, who are we to trust more on this subject, the actions of the Apostles, or your theories?

Gail,

Excellent quote from one of the Christian church's fathers, who were still following what was taught them, rather than making up what they wanted to believe.

Faith,

The Catholic mother races out to have her newborn baby baptised because she believes that that in and of itself garantees that if her baby should die prematurely--it will not go to hell.

The baptised baby that dies WON'T go to Hell, (unless it somehow decided to reject Christ, I suppose) so it had a good mom!

I think Jesus' hearers left because they rejected who Jesus was saying He is--which is God.

They weren't rejecting that Jesus said He was bread, but that He was from heaven.

c'mon! "The Jews quarrelled among themselves saying ""How can this man give us his flesh to eat""". Does that sound to YOU like they were arguing about whether or not he came down from Heaven? That's the importance of having a church with Authority faith, when people make up their own interpretations of things, they are bound to get things wrong. You NEED the Catholic church to supply you with the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Quite the contrary Gail--I have moved beyond the physical symbology and into the truer deeper significance of these sacraments

I'm sure the Devil's glad to hear it. You've moved *beyond* doing what Christ COMMANDED we do in baptizing, and now do what you think he "meant". It would be funny if it wasn't sad. Do yourself a favor and go back to doing what Christ TOLD you to do.

Joe Schmo down the street isn't going to go to heaven before me, simply because his mother had some priest sprinkle water on his head as a baby--yet his whole life has been lived apart from Christ. It requires a faith relationship with Jesus, which comes when we know Jesus and His truth as revealed in His Word. It is not by any act on our part--or lack thereof

You might be right, you might not. I wish you the best. On the other hand, you are DELIBERATELY disobeying Christ by NOT getting baptised when you know you SHOULD be, which puts you in a bad place -- knowing disobedience, compared to the other guy who may NOT have had proper instruction, and is just an oaf. Knowing disobedience is worse than ignorance, as you might find out after death.

Frank

Shape up, get BAPTIZED.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2005.

Ian--

Sorry for the delay in responding-- So far I like the book it offers diverse views and rationalizations not all one sided.

First I agree that ALL followers/believers in Jesus Christ are required and NEED to be baptized with water.

On Page 89 Bishop George Hay makes what I believe is a valid statement regarding a person raised in a false religion but embraces with all his heart the light of true faith, now he injects a qualifier of 'Which God gives him in his last moments" but I think even without the "in his last moments" he would still have been bonded to the truthful meaning or will of God and Christ without actually knowing Them.

On Page 78 St. Catherine of Siena mentions "coming out if the side of Christ (Baptism of the fire of Charity) also St. John Bosco mentions fire as one of the 3.

So if we approach fire as a Strong Love, Compassion, Charity for his fellow man doesn't this appear to you as reflective of the desired nature that Christ expects from us?

It's easy to forget that people don't think, rationalize or approach things in the same manner as you would or even I would. How many times have you meet someone who actually is more Christian then many Christians? And not because they have rejected Christ but they just have no interest in religion, the way I would have no interest in studying say tapeworms, but somebody else will just go nuts learning about tapeworms (talk about needing a life).

But deep down I don't know how much of difference that would make IF that person is living a Christ like Life.

I will have some more time tomorrow to read more of this book--

where are your thoughts on some of this book at this time?

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 26, 2005.

ok, so what's the drama about again? i lost my perspective.

hmm, if you turn to Christ and you get baptized, does it really matter at which exact point you become saved? is it at the moment you accept Jesus? a second right afterwards? when you're actually under the water (or sprinkler)? or the moment you emerge from the water? what if you're getting baptized and you drown... you didn't complete the act of baptism, so what the hey.

i mean, all these technicaliities are kinda getting silly, i guess that's my point, KEVIN. if you preach that people don't necessarily have to be baptized, then you run the risk of people being stubborn and refusing to do it cuz they're rebellious. if you preach that you have to be baptized, then you run the risk of people thinking that there just must be extenuating circumstances, what about my gramma who accepted Christ and died before she could get baptized? i mean come on, both focuses are wrong. they both require you to focus on the act of baptism like it's some thing that you can chose or not choose or whatever whatever blah blah blah in order to get to heaven. Christ's words are pretty simple ya know. Believe and be baptized. bottom line. we as humans make too much out of a simple command.

i guess that's why i'm not pushing the whole WHEN DO YOU TECHNICALLY GET SAVED thing anymore. God says stuff, just do it.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 26, 2005.

Michael

thanks.

i have read it twice, and have been going trough sections here and there just getting my head round it.

i am thinking in terms of a Paschal's Wager - if everyone followed Feeney's view, could they go wrong? A Church that seriously sought conversion, that prayed as hard as it could for a conversion of minds, that did not cede one inch of the Tradition,...., you get my point.

....and so, if the "new Church is right", and Heaven is in fact replete with peoples of all and no Faith, what a great surprise for those good Catholics that make it there.

i am going to read it again and again and again......

thanks for input. look forward to more.

btw, "How many times have you meet someone who actually is more Christian then many Christians? "

Yes, i have met such people too. they give and don't want much back. the Natural Law is engraved firmly on their hearts. is that enough?

remember, the "bad" Christian [most of us, i think] can, with the aid of the Sacraments, remain in grace. that's why we have them.

so, is it right to re-cast Domga to favour the minority, when it will cause the majority of us sinners to make less use of the Sacraments? i think that has already happened - and there is a causal link. eg where have all the Confession lines gone? well, who needs Confession if we are all saved anyway. or have we all stopped sinning? that must be true because the lines for the Blessed Sacrament haven't got shorter.

sorry, feel like i'm ranting. however, there is a serious point in there. if you forget Dogma for a moment [which you can't] and try to see the best way that the Church should move forward, you open your arms to non-Catholics yet endanger the position of existing Catholics. just a theory. sorry if i'm rambling.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2005.

Michael

...and, just to be clear, read Dominus Iesus. look at para 22, 3rd sentence, that's where EENS has been buried. and what does "objectively speaking" mean in that sentence? look at the sentence that then follows. then read the rest of the Encyclical.

don't miss footnote 56. "white man speak with forked tongue".

so i'm not making this up. we don't know what to believe anymore. confusion reigns. look at the absolute precision of the Canons of Trent.

they're Dogmatic, you can understand them, can you go wrong? will you be forgiven for thus going wrong?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2005.

Frank

Original Sin -- **that's** why babies get baptised. and that would have been the correct response to Zarove. because Zarove is right, a baby understand very little. babies are completely helpless. any notion that they might begin to comprehend the essentials of the Faith - God, Jesus, the Incarnation, the Trinity etc - is just plain silly.

a baptised baby obtains the grace needed for salvation through his/her baptism; and, through its very innocence and ignorance, is 100% unable to lose that grace until it hits the age of reason. ALL baptised babies who die before the age of reason go straight to Heaven, period.

furthermore, Original Sin is also the basis of the theory of Limbo.

Limbo is a state of **perfect natural happiness** - the kind of happiness that we can barely imagine. and Limbo is much more than **manmade**. it is the product of serious, deep theological thought, and it is also 100% consistent with Dogmatic notions of Heaven, Hell, Punishment and Original Sin. Limbo might even be Dogmatic itself [prove it isn't!], if it belongs to the Ordinary Magisterium. there's nothing in the CCC that contradicts Limbo. Limbo allows us to believe in a fate for children that is at least pleasant - and it certainly should not rule out our prayers for miracles.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2005.

Frank,

I was baptised as a baby in the Catholic Church.

But of course, as a new born-again believer, I chose to be baptised again, full body emmersion., just as Jesus exampled.

But I know that obedience to this Act was for the benefit of others. It was a testimony to Jesus Christ. My real baptism occured the moment I was born-again by faith in Jesus Christ...that is when the Holy Spirit came into my heart. My act of baptism was a testimony to this deeper truth.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

1: Teenagers cn say " I want ot be Baptised", a baby cannot. As Ian poitned out, Cahtolic Teahcign is nottjast babies can choose Christ thus need baptism, but because of Origional sin.

2: I beelive one needs to CHOOSE to be Baptosed, therefore Baby Baptisms are worthless. he Baby doesnt choose anyhting.

3: he doctorine of "Invincible Ignorance" shoidl come into play concernign babes who die before they get baptosed, and dotn even knwo hwo to form te word "Baptise".

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 26, 2005.

Faith,

When you were baptized (Yea!) it was good enough, whether it was with a bit of water, or immersion. You were "born again" at that time, not later.

But I know that obedience to this Act was for the benefit of others

How on Earth do you say that *obeying Christ* was for the benefit of others (implying NOT for you??) That makes no sense. Surely you don't believe that Christ Himself needed any inner revelation, but go back and read what happened at His baptism by John, THEN tell me water baptism is not important.

My real baptism occured the moment I was born-again by faith in Jesus Christ

Nope. Your baptism happened with water. Any good feelings you may have had later are nice, but the deed was done then.

1: Teenagers cn say " I want ot be Baptised", a baby cannot. As Ian poitned out, Cahtolic Teahcign is nottjast babies can choose Christ thus need baptism, but because of Origional sin. 2: I beelive one needs to CHOOSE to be Baptosed, therefore Baby Baptisms are worthless. he Baby doesnt choose anyhting

Original sin is a great reason to baptise infants, it's why it's done. Babies aren't out there sinning. OTOH, you sidestepped the issue of the retarded person, etc. If you are saying you need to make a MATURE DECISION to be baptised, who draws the line at how old or mature one needs to be? Do you need a competency test? The Bible shows whole households being baptised with one person consciously converting. Church fathers show baptising infants and young children. This goes against your theory, but neatly supports mine.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2005.

Church fathers aside,the practice is itsself irrelevant. The severely mentally incompetent, lke Bbaies, cannot choose, and thus need no Baptsm. This is not only how I was brouthup, but how I inderstand the proccess.

One must be clealry able to understand what one is doing, at leats in a limited sence, in order to be Baptosed.Most retarded people can, but in severe cases baptism becoms unnessisary.

remember, Chruch of Chirst has no teahcign on origional sin, nor do most Resotration Chruches, and as a result, does nto teach Baptosm to clence one of Origional sin.

As I largley agree that sin is an action eprformed largley dependant on the will of the prson, I do not see a ned to remit sins that have yet to acucmulate.

Since the severly retarded lack mental facalty to commit sin, they cannot commit sin logcally, sinc ehtye don even undertsnad the basic concept of Good and evil.

I was not sidestepping the issue, I thought I was clear. a concious decision must be made before Baptosm is administered.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 26, 2005.

Zarove & Frank:

from the 5th Session at Trent:

"If any one **denies** that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, **but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam**, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

the same applies to anyone yet to reach the age of reason.

Catholics canot believe otherwise.

invincible ignorance - a nice idea from Zarove - would run across this Dogmatic definition. vicarious Baptism of Desire too. Limbo doesn't. that wishful prayer for a Miracle doesn't - its a spes and nothing more. the Blessed Virgin begs on our part.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 26, 2005.

Zarove,

Church fathers aside,the practice is itsself irrelevant. The severely mentally incompetent, lke Bbaies, cannot choose, and thus need no Baptsm. This is not only how I was brouthup, but how I inderstand the proccess.

With all due respect, you were given incorrect information when you were brought up. The reason the church fathers' practice IS important is that they show how the earliest Christians practiced. Baptizing whole households in the Bible, and then into the 100-200 a.d. range STILL baptizing infants. It only isn't until what the late middle ages that people started having these goofy ideas about baptism.

Again, it goes to credibility: who should you believe, the people who were doing the SAME thing since the time of Christ, or those who came up with something they call *better* 2000 years later? We all carry the stain of original sin, the way to wash it away is baptism.

Chruch of Chirst has no teahcign on origional sin, nor do most Resotration Chruches

When did these churches begin? For restorationists, late 1700's. For the Church of Christ, aren't they an offshoot of the Congregationalists of the 1600's? Again, I'd go with the Catholic church starting with Christ, to Peter on down through the last 2000 years. You want to choose people whose doctrine is heretical compared to Christ's true church, of COURSE they are going to say something different. If they didn't, they wouldn't have MADE their own churches.

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2005.

Chihc of chirts isnt an offshoot of congregationalism, it started in 1809 with the stone-Camble movement...

And baptising households dosnt prove infant baptosm.

Again, will to be baptised is the reason for it, wihtut a stated will for it, it is worthless.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 26, 2005.

Frank wrote, "You should go back and reread John 6. The first people to LEAVE Christ did so over just this reason. Christ said "eat my flesh", the people said, "he means spiritually", and Christ said, "no, REALLY eat my flesh, and they said "this teaching is hard, who can accept it"? and left."

Go back and re-read John 6:63...

Frank wrote, "There wouldn't have been any problem if He had meant spritually take His body or something, if that had been the case, why would they leave?"

They left because they mis-understood just like Catholics do in that they believe one must literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus... This isn't what Jesus meant and verse 63 bears this out...

Gail wrote, "Well, Kevin, what did Jesus mean when he said "Eat my flesh, drink my blood" if not communion?"

You can also go back and re-read John 6:63...

Faith wrote, "Keven, Most of the time, when someone is baptised, or baptism is mentioned-- the word water is not even in the verse."

I will defer to Zarove's reply to you faith in which he stated: "Faith, the reason "Water" isnt mentioned is because its understood... after all,the term mans "emerced", and as a term freely associaed swith Chrisains of the itme, it was known what wa meant..."

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 26, 2005.

Rina,

You wrote, "hmm, if you turn to Christ and you get baptized, does it really matter at which exact point you become saved? is it at the moment you accept Jesus? a second right afterwards? when you're actually under the water (or sprinkler)? or the moment you emerge from the water? what if you're getting baptized and you drown... you didn't complete the act of baptism, so what the hey."

It does matter... I asked you to answer a question earlier on when you believe one is saved and you did not answer the question...

You wrote, "i mean, all these technicaliities are kinda getting silly, i guess that's my point, KEVIN. if you preach that people don't necessarily have to be baptized, then you run the risk of people being stubborn and refusing to do it cuz they're rebellious. if you preach that you have to be baptized, then you run the risk of people thinking that there just must be extenuating circumstances, what about my gramma who accepted Christ and died before she could get baptized? i mean come on, both focuses are wrong. they both require you to focus on the act of baptism like it's some thing that you can chose or not choose or whatever whatever blah blah blah in order to get to heaven. Christ's words are pretty simple ya know. Believe and be baptized. bottom line. we as humans make too much out of a simple command."

Yes they are pretty simple aren't they Rina??? One must not only believe, but they must also be baptized before they are saved... One is not focusing on faith or baptism if they tell someone everything they must do in order to be saved... Hypothetical situations only cause people to reject the simple commandments of God...

You wrote, "i guess that's why i'm not pushing the whole WHEN DO YOU TECHNICALLY GET SAVED thing anymore. God says stuff, just do it."

I agree however, one must give the whole plan of salvation in order for one to "just do it" as you state above... The point is that one must hear the gospel, believe(or have faith in) the gospel , repent of their sins, confess Jesus as Lord, and be baptized for the remission of their sins... Until one complies with all of what God commands, they are not saved...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 26, 2005.

It is Jesus' blood that cleanes us from original sin when we receive Him, by faith, into our hearts. This is being born again, this is baptism.

We are not cleansed because we dunk in water. We are cleansed because we have died to that sinful nature with Christ and are raised a new creation in Him

I became convicted by the Word of God and believed the gospel message about who Jesus is and why He died for me. That moment--that revelation--was my moment of rebirth when I died to myself. God blessed me with faith and the Holy Spirit then, not later when I chose to be baptised , which, by-the-way, I chose because I first believed.

I was not born-again when I went through baptism. That was not my magical moment when I could *see* the truth. That real moment happened first. I was anxious to express it in baptism--and I wasn't even sure why because I really didn't know the Bible all that well yet.

It was just something I wanted to do. And I think it was the urging of the Holy Spirit. But I believe the purpose is to help in the ministry of Jesus Christ to lead others hopefully down the same road through expression. Other people hear your testimony, they see that you are on fire--and they hopefully look in the same direction-- wanting the same thing too...

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

Kevin,

You are in a different topic! You can't take a part where Jesus is speaking to a crowd and answer with a totally different topic -- Jesus instructing his disciples, you have to discuss apples with apples, and oranges with oranges. Mindlessly repeating "john 3:63" is no answer. the passages you want are below:

52(CE)Then the Jews (CF)began to argue with one another, saying, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of (CG)the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

54"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will (CH)raise him up on the last day.

55"For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.

The word is now quite physical, Flesh. That is by intent. The Jews present understood Him quite well, just like they did when he said "I am". To claim otherwise is to deliberately avoid the truth.

Jesus had clarified this in the introduction saying:

"47"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes (BU)has eternal life.

48"(BV)I am the bread of life.

49"(BW)Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

50"This is the bread which (BX)comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and (BY)not die.

51"(BZ)I am the living bread that (CA)came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, (CB)he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give (CC)for the life of the world is (CD)My flesh." "

He TOLD them that to believe is to live, but that one must also eat of His Flesh. If you don't believe that, you might as well not bother with getting baptised either.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 26, 2005.

I just can't help but wonder what makes you take the words in John 6 so absurdly literal? Would you be doing so, had you not been told by the Church how to interpret the meaning?

Indeed it is commonly said that the Roman Catholic Church, regarding John 6, especially verses 53-57, 'takes the Bible for what it says,' while the Protestants are somehow seeking to avoid the *clear* teaching of the Lord Jesus. But let's explore the passage together....

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

The Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the literal meaning of the text supportive of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?

Sometimes...the literal meaning in a text isn't always the *clear* meaning. If the term literal has to be pushed to absurd literalism, then we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of the text. But then obviously, the whole Bible is full of complete nonsense! Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10. Literally, this means that Jesus is a door, replete with a knob and hinges--and of course, it would also mean that only sheep are saved.

But I think that everyone would agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious, and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.

If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the truly literal interpretation will take this into consideration.

John loved to pick up on the different ways the Lord Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other gospel writers, for in John, the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways..

Jesus is the "Light of the world" John 8:10.., the "good shepherd" John 10:11..,and the "true vine" John 15:1.

But Jesus is not literally the sun in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus when they are taken according to the plain intention of the text: as symbols.

Why would we treat John's use of symbolism any differently in John 6?

The Roman Catholic Church--like the first-century listeners in Jesus' day...cannot seem to *see* past the symbolism, to the reality beyond.

They (those first-century listeners) said to Jesus, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:34-35)

Did Jesus literally mean that if they placed their faith in Him and believed.., that they would never be thirsty physically? Or is He talking spiritually?

The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to *see* the real significance of Jesus' words. In response, Jesus gets quite specific-- He himself is the bread! The one who "comes to Me"-- a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.

The reference to *thirsting* seems somewhat out of place given that only food has been mentioned up to this point; but in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not refering to actual physical consumption of food. He is refering to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (symbol: hunger and thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "Coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.

There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text. What is more, since this is the first time that *hunger* and *thirst* are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 26, 2005.

Wow, Faith, your article is remarkably similar to this one! (I think this fellow is plagiarizing your work. Or, I know, is your real name . . . Tony?)

IS THE EUCHARIST THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS? by Tony Pirog (no login)

The Roman Catholic Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the Literal meaning of the text supportive of the RCC doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?

First, we must point out that the LITERAL meaning of the text is obviously not always the CLEAR meaning. The term "literal" is capable of quite a range of definition. If it is pushed to mean absurd literalism, and we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of a text, then obviously the bible is full of complete nonsense. Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10; literally this means Jesus is a door, replete with hinges, knob, and maybe even a lock! And, of course, this would also have to mean that only sheep will be saved . . .

Everyone understands that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.

If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the TRULY LITERAL interpretation will take this into consideration.

John seemed to love the different ways Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other Gospel writers, for in John the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways.

Jesus is "the Light of the world" (8:12) the "good shepherd" (10:11), and the "true vine" (15:1).

Jesus is not literally the SUN in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus WHEN THEY ARE TAKEN ACCORDING to the PLAIN INTENTION of the TEXT: AS SYMBOLS.

You Catholics, like these first-century listeners, cannot see past the symbol to the reality beyond. (2 Tim 3:7 "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth")

Then they said to him" Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (vv.33-35)

The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to see the real significance of Jesus' words. In response Jesus gets real specific - He himself is this bread. The one who "comes to Me" - a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show) - will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.

The reference to "thirsting" seems somewhat out of place here, given only food has been mentioned up to this point; but I believe in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not referring to actual physical consumption of food. He is referring to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (Symbol: hunger & thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.

There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the LITERAL and OBVIOUS meaning of the text. And since this is the first time that "hunger" and "thirst" are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by our Lord must be carried through the rest of the text.

*****

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.

Busted.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 26, 2005.

Frank,

You really don't know what you are talking about do you??? John 6:63 does answer your question just fine and I did not "mindlessly repeat it" as you assert...

Your quoting of John 6:52-55 and John 6:47-51 does not help you one bit... Please show us where Jesus was talking about the Lord's Supper or Eucharist as you call it in any of these passages??? Sorry, it isn't there... Catholics do a good job of "assuming" with little proof and the proof is not in these passages that you quoted...

If you look at verse 45 which states, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

How are they going to "all" be taught by God???

The answer that Jesus gives is in verse 63 which states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

It is the "words" that Jesus spoke that were "spirit" and "life" He also stated in this verse the "flesh profits nothing" so your assumption that Jesus literally meant one must eat His body and drink His blood is not true... We will all be judged by the words that Jesus spoke in the New Testament and our obedience to His commandments... (See John 12:48).

The words that Jesus spoke are sufficient enough to produce faith in the gospel or "good news" of His death, burial and resurrection...

You wrote, "If you don't believe that, you might as well not bother with getting baptised either."

If you believe that literally eating Jesus body and drinking His blood keeps one saved you are sincerely mistaken... Jesus never stated that one was to "literally" eat His body and drink His blood... Nor did He ever intend anyone to take His words literally when He presided over the last supper... His words were mean to convey that we were to as He stated in Luke 22:19, "..do this in remembrance of Me."

We partake of the Lord's supper in order to remember and proclaim Jesus death until He returns...

I find it amazing that Catholics continue to take passages out of context and when they are shown the truth, they continue to reject what their error because that is not in accordance with what their leader the "pope" has decreed as truth... There is only one truth, and I can assure you that the "pope" doesn't have it...

-- Kevin Walker ("navyscporetired@comcast.net"), January 26, 2005.

Kevin, we simply believe the same way our forefathers in the faith believed. There is a connecting line on this issue that dates all the way back to 1st century Christianity.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 26, 2005.

"so i'm not making this up. we don't know what to believe anymore. confusion reigns."

Ian:

"DOMINUS IESUS" Paragraph 22

"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation".

I understand this to be. That they would be at the Lower realms of the salvation food chain in comparision to someone who has recieved salvation through the Church of Christ. (maybe not the best choice of words for me to use but I think you get the point.

"92 However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”."

(i.e.) If a Catholic does NOT lead and live the life of a Catholic as taught by the Church, thinking that all's cool because we have been baptized and we can go out and have some real fun. Then we are in Really, Really deep dung! or in otherwords no Little rich boy treatment because of the Church

Ian, Read >>ON PROMOTION OF FALSE DOCTRINES QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX AUGUST 10, 1863

"7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. ***There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.***" http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

See page 51 of the book Pius IX

They way I see it is If you are a Catholic Don't be Stupid! -- If you are not, Wise up! but even if you are that stupid you still might have a shot.-- If you want I can put that into Latin and make look really official!

Hmm, I think I may have caused a baptism by blood in the other group!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 27, 2005.

Be careful Michael G...the term "Chruch of hcirst" is used in many ways by may people, but onm a genral forum, wherehteyre IS a Chruch called "The Churhc of Christ", it is wise not to refer tot he Catholic Churhc as "The Churhc of Christ". Granted Catolcis vewi the Chruch as theoen Christ foudned personally, but for the sak of conveneic if nothign else, since this baord is open to all Chruches, let is call the Catholci Chruch the Catholic Chruch, and the Church of chirst the Churhc of Christ, to prevent lingual confusion.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.

ZAROVE:

Thank you point well taken, I will make sure next time to be clear. Believe or not I actually started to go back to change it but stopped. Now I know why I started to go back.

However I would like to express my Sincere Gratitude to Everyone here for allowing this part of the conversation to run it's course since it was impossible to do in the Catholic forum.

Thank You!

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 27, 2005.

Thats' a large part of why this FOrum currently exists, in "Protest" tot he Catholci forum's poicies. You cna Thank David Ortez for that. The benficial side effec is it allows differencs ot be aired.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.

Michael

You are just plain stupid and need to wise up if you are not Catholic.

There.....how does that feel, Michael? Of course, I don't seriously mean to call anyone stupid. I just wanted you to have a feeling of what you are dishing out to Catholics.

Have a nice day!

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

"They way I see it is If you are a Catholic Don't be Stupid! -- If you are not, Wise up! but even if you are that stupid you still might have a shot.-- If you want I can put that into Latin and make look really official! "--Michael.

Would you mind clarifying your comment, Michael? Latin would be ok, if you wish.

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

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

Michael

Pius XI

imho, Pius XI is really saying that Invincible Igmorance neither damns nor saves. the Ignorance is Ignorance of the Gospel, and it's Invincible - CANNOT be overcome. the Ignorant person cannot commit a sin against the Faith if he has never heard of it. he is not per se damned.

...but , he must never sin - he has the Natural Law, so he knows that by instinct and he must never disobeys it. the guys a Saint. he does not have the Sacraments. he doesn't even know they exist. hhe can't or he wouldn't be ignorant.

DI

if Pius XI is right, the DI is a long, long way from home. DI is perhaps restorationist - i really hope so, but its on a whole different level from Pius XI.

AND THEN.....

Go back and read Cantate Domino and Trent and ....... and you wonder where Pius XI got this from. that would be interesting research.

there's no legalese in Trent or Florence. Ratzinger performs some real gymnastic in DI. why does it have to be so complicated?

just some random thoughts, sorry if they seem abrupt. in a rush, reading Pius XI's history, you know that Roman theology at that time was in a real moribund state. in fact Rome was in a real state [almost a historical pun].

ciao bello.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 27, 2005.

Rod you inquired the following: "There.....how does that feel, Michael? Of course, I don't seriously mean to call anyone stupid. I just wanted you to have a feeling of what you are dishing out to Catholics."

That was a very blunt interpretation of the way I see-- The Encyclical of Pope Pius IX August 10, 1863-- Paragraph 7 and a cross reference to See page 51 of the book Pius IX of the book "Is Feeneyism Catholic" which was listed immediately prior to that statement in my post to Ian.

And just for the record should that be of any value I am a life long Catholic with an extensive family history going back several hundred years in the Catholic Church. Now hopefully this puts things back into perspective for you.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 27, 2005.

Ah! that would help clear things up for me. Thanks!

As for my Catholicism, I'm a distant relative of Adam.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 27, 2005.

TRANSFERRED OVER HERE

Hello Ian I am so tired of all this talking. The posts on this and other threads are incessant.

But just a couple thoughts for you.

I think Vatican II realized that the Church is *more* than just an outward society of Baptized people (Bellarmine's concept). Rather, just as our Lord Jesus has two natures, human and Divine, so the Church is a *mystery* much bigger than we are used to dealing with. It is the Body of Christ, the fulness of God, and Sacrament of Salvation, among many other realities.

Could it be--just an idea--

1. On one level, the Church is an earthly society of the Baptized, in which Christ calls us to be incorporated and in which we receive the wellsprings of Life.

2. On another level, the order of Grace, the Church is made up of all who receive the working of God's grace, whether they know the name of Christ consciously or not. (Old Testament saints, for example).

Note, Ian! It is possible to assert *opposite* things of Christ according to His two natures. He is finite and infinite, passible and immortal, omnipresent and circumscribed, omnipotent and weak. According to His humanity, He eats, sleeps, hungers, is weary, dies. According to His Divinity, He was upholding creation even as He was lying in the manger or hanging on the cross.

Do you think the Church, His Body, is any less mysterious and seemingly contradictory?

Perhaps Dominus Iesus is reminding us that the Church is much bigger than we think, according to the order of Grace. Remember, St. Justin Martyr could speak of Socrates as being saved by the Logos, and Shepherd of Hermas reminds us that the Church is ancient, as old as time.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 26, 2005.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 27, 2005.

I htink we need to close this thread, tis too long, I will reopen a repalcement.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.

Discussion now moved here. http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Cits

This is the new thread.

The Necessity of Water Baptism 2

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2005.

Kevin,

Was out of town at a meeting, hope you are still around.

You really don't know what you are talking about do you??? John 6:63 does answer your question just fine and I did not "mindlessly repeat it" as you assert...

Sorry about the "mindlessly repeat" bit, I'd rather not have this degenerate into an ad hominem war, o.k.?

Your quoting of John 6:52-55 and John 6:47-51 does not help you one bit... Please show us where Jesus was talking about the Lord's Supper or Eucharist as you call it in any of these passages???

I don't need to, at this point. Staying right here in John is good enough. The first time He talks to the Jews, he uses the word "phagos" meaning "to eat", and when they grumble He comes back using the work "trogos" meaning to gnaw or to chew. There is no doubt He was refering to physically eating here, why else would He deliberately change to a very visceral verb on the subject? That's the point I'm trying to make is that Christ said we must *physically* eat His body, so we can worry about tying it in to the rest of the Bible later. BTW, I don't read Greek personally, and am taking the phagos & trogos on faith, but here's a reputable Catholic group that DOES have people who read Greek who says the same thing. link.

If you look at verse 45 which states, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."

How are they going to "all" be taught by God???

The answer that Jesus gives is in verse 63 which states, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

It is the "words" that Jesus spoke that were "spirit" and "life" He also stated in this verse the "flesh profits nothing" so your assumption that Jesus literally meant one must eat His body and drink His blood is not true...

"I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is *****my***** flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” "

"I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats ***my*** flesh and drinks *****my***** blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For *****my***** flesh is real food and *****my***** blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats *****my***** flesh and drinks *****my***** blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."

Then in your quote He says:

" “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; *****the***** flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life"

Six times Christ says you must eat MY flesh to live to the Jews. When speaking to the Apostles, he does NOT say "MY flesh counts for nothing", but THE flesh counts for nothing. As I said before, He is speaking to two different groups of people about two different things!

First, to the Jews He is giving a command, just like He instructed people to be baptized. Water itself isn't benefial for salvation, but baptism is at Christ's command. Similarly, eating human flesh isn't beneficial, but eating Christ's glorified body and blood at His command most definitely is.

What about your quote then? He is no longer speaking to a crowd and giving his command, but is speaking to His disciples who should know or understand more, not at this point, but at least later when they see the events of his death and resurrection. Christ here does NOT contradict what He said earlier -- if he said ***MY*** flesh counts for nothing you'd have a good case-- but He didn't. He said ***THE*** flesh counts for nothing. The disciples are offended just like the crowd, being Jews they are not to eat blood and certainly not people! He is telling them to listen to and obey the Word, the Spirit that gives life, and not to worry about what sounds to them like cannibalism. The Word is important, not the eating of flesh. Baptism is important, not the water, Life is important, not the flesh.

BUT, you must be dipped in REAL water to be baptised, and you must REALLY eat Christ's body to attain life. That's just how it is. I know it's hard coming from your background to accept, but think it through, the difference between MY *F*lesh that we are commanded to eat and THE flesh that is unimportant.

Here are some quotes from the church fathers who were quite literally taught by the Apostles. Their beliefs should be important to you as they are much more likely to be practicing what was directly taught to them by Christ through the apostles than someething that was invented 2000 years later. link They show that the early Christians believed that we ARE to eat the Body of Christ! You won't find anyone saying that is NOT the case until the 1700's! By that alone you should be able to tell which is true and which isn't.

We partake of the Lord's supper in order to remember and proclaim Jesus death until He returns

We can discuss this later, but should really work through our current topic first.

There is only one truth, and I can assure you that the "pope" doesn't have it...

LOL, for me, this is the grandest irony. I can take 10 sola scriptura Christians, put them in a room, and hear 10 different versions of the Truth, each of them insisting THEY are the correct one, and the others mistaken. The only thing they will all agree on is that the Catholic church which has been teaching the same Truth since Christ is wrong! No thanks!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 29, 2005.

I'd love to know how some guy named Tony could be credited for the article I posted since it isn't written by him?????????

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 29, 2005.

Well, Faith, here is your text . . .

The Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the literal meaning of the text supportive of the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?

Sometimes...the literal meaning in a text isn't always the *clear* meaning. If the term literal has to be pushed to absurd literalism, then we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of the text. But then obviously, the whole Bible is full of complete nonsense! Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10. Literally, this means that Jesus is a door, replete with a knob and hinges--and of course, it would also mean that only sheep are saved.

But I think that everyone would agree that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious, and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.

If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the truly literal interpretation will take this into consideration.

John loved to pick up on the different ways the Lord Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other gospel writers, for in John, the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways..

Jesus is the "Light of the world" John 8:10.., the "good shepherd" John 10:11..,and the "true vine" John 15:1.

But Jesus is not literally the sun in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus when they are taken according to the plain intention of the text: as symbols.

Why would we treat John's use of symbolism any differently in John 6?

The Roman Catholic Church--like the first-century listeners in Jesus' day...cannot seem to *see* past the symbolism, to the reality beyond.

They (those first-century listeners) said to Jesus, "Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (John 6:34-35)

Did Jesus literally mean that if they placed their faith in Him and believed.., that they would never be thirsty physically? Or is He talking spiritually?

The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to *see* the real significance of Jesus' words. In response, Jesus gets quite specific-- He himself is the bread! The one who "comes to Me"-- a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show)--will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.

The reference to *thirsting* seems somewhat out of place given that only food has been mentioned up to this point; but in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not refering to actual physical consumption of food. He is refering to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (symbol: hunger and thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "Coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.

There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the literal and obvious meaning of the text. What is more, since this is the first time that *hunger* and *thirst* are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by the Lord (being spiritual and symbolic, not literal and earthly) must be carried through the rest of the text.

And here is Tony Pirog's article.

IS THE EUCHARIST THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS? by Tony Pirog (no login)

The Roman Catholic Church claims that any understanding that does not take these words literally spiritualizes the text to avoid an unwanted conclusion. Is the Literal meaning of the text supportive of the RCC doctrine of the Eucharist? Does a person literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood to have life in himself?

First, we must point out that the LITERAL meaning of the text is obviously not always the CLEAR meaning. The term "literal" is capable of quite a range of definition. If it is pushed to mean absurd literalism, and we are forced to accept an absurdly literal understanding of a text, then obviously the bible is full of complete nonsense. Jesus claimed to be the door of the sheep in John 10; literally this means Jesus is a door, replete with hinges, knob, and maybe even a lock! And, of course, this would also have to mean that only sheep will be saved . . .

Everyone understands that Jesus is speaking figuratively, and the obvious and hence the literal meaning of the passage is the one that recognizes the symbolism of the language used.

If the text shows us that the terms used by the speaker are meant to be taken in a figurative or symbolic way, the TRULY LITERAL interpretation will take this into consideration.

John seemed to love the different ways Jesus communicated a point. He differs in this from the other Gospel writers, for in John the same teaching will be presented in a number of different ways.

Jesus is "the Light of the world" (8:12) the "good shepherd" (10:11), and the "true vine" (15:1).

Jesus is not literally the SUN in the sky, a shepherd of sheep, or a living vine. Yet all of these descriptions tell us something about Jesus WHEN THEY ARE TAKEN ACCORDING to the PLAIN INTENTION of the TEXT: AS SYMBOLS.

You Catholics, like these first-century listeners, cannot see past the symbol to the reality beyond. (2 Tim 3:7 "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth")

Then they said to him" Lord, always give us this bread." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst." (vv.33-35)

The crowd continues in its blindness, unable to see the real significance of Jesus' words. In response Jesus gets real specific - He himself is this bread. The one who "comes to Me" - a clear reference to faith (as the parallel will show) - will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who "believes in Me" will never thirst.

The reference to "thirsting" seems somewhat out of place here, given only food has been mentioned up to this point; but I believe in actuality there is no difficulty, as Jesus is not referring to actual physical consumption of food. He is referring to our spiritual need. We all have a need spiritually (Symbol: hunger & thirst), and Jesus meets that need completely and eternally. "coming" and "believing" will become "eating" and "drinking" in verse 54.

There is a clear progression in these terms that leads to the LITERAL and OBVIOUS meaning of the text. And since this is the first time that "hunger" and "thirst" are presented, the definitions assigned to these terms by our Lord must be carried through the rest of the text.

***********

Are you saying he stole it from you, or you stole it from him . . . or maybe you BOTH stole it from somone else! Or maybe you're such a pathological thief you really don't remember who you stole it from.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 29, 2005.

wasnt this thread closed? did everyone deide to ignore the link?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 29, 2005.

Topping for Kevin

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005.

FRANK, LAT OFF THIS THREAD!

I opened a NEW thread TO REPLACE THIS ONE.

This one is TOO LONG.

Please stop posting in it and psot in the NEW THREAD.

the NEW THREAD is THE CONTINUATION FOR THIS ONE.

Please dont "Top for Kein" a closed thread.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2005.

Zarove,

I appreciate your intentions, but it is very difficult to carry on a discussion when the previous posts on is referencing aren't available right above to look at. I'd rather finish this thread on this topic, and if the topic changes, so will the thread. OTOH, if no one responds TO this thread, that will be the end of it too.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005.

Intentiosn nothing, im a modeator here.

on ask Jesus, tis becoem standard to cary on a discusion in a new thread to avoid problems that are aparent in a thread goign too long.

suhc as server time. it takes too long to load this page and may cause problems for others computers.

Liekewise, it causes problems or the server.

this thread is terminated. if need be Ill have elp lock it.

The poin is, the new thread IS an extension of the old thread, and I ORDER this thread losed, and no further Bumping. you can cut and paste to the new thread whatever you feel nessisary, and htis thread is linked in the new thread.

but this thread shoidl not be used.

Now, please stop postign on it.

Post int he new thread.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 31, 2005.

Fair enough. there aren't any posts on the new thread that are IMO beneficial to the discussion I was having, so if you are closing this thread, I'll start a third for my discussion.

Frank

[Please do not post in this thread. Further posts will be deleted or moved.]

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 31, 2005.

It's a fine mess you've made Zarove...there's like 4 or 5 threads all claiming the same name. Do you know how confusing it is to remember which thread to open? Is it behind door number 1, door number 2, door number 3???????????????????

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 31, 2005.