Online Viagra - The Lowest Pharmacy Offers [Archive]

infoman

03-20-2006, 06:38 PM

Their are too many UnBiblical INVENTIONS of men making up the doctrines of the Catholic denomination.

Unless it is in the Bible it is not Christianity.

The Catholic church heretically claims to be the only church. How far from the TRUTH. How stupid can they be and still breathe.

Petros = Peter (proper name)
Petra = Christ

Thou art peter(petros) and upon this rock(petra/CHrist) i will build my church. Peter is not the rock in this verse Christ is. Peter is but a small stone used for the edification of the church.

Peter himself says that we are all lively stones in Christ, he new he was but a stone and not the rock of the church,for Christ has always been the ROCK!
1 Peter 2:4-5

Petra has always refered to Christ.
Peter was described as petros (the Greek word for the proper name Peter) in the greek meaning small stone or pebble.

infoman

03-20-2006, 07:06 PM

If you people would look up scripture you would find the truth. All of Christianity is ONLY based upon the Bible.

If it isn't in the Bible is isn't Christianity.

Even in the primitive church in the Book of Acts, and all the epistles NEVER ARE prayers directed to Mary or dead saints! (Mt 11:28, Lk 1:46, Acts 10:25-26, 14:14-18) The Bible teaches we are to only pray to the Father in Jesus name.

Jesus had brothers and sisters Mary's other children...as stated in Mark and Galatians.
Mark 6:2-3 "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, "Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"
And also: Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

Mary also needed a saviour. Romans3:23, 5:12, Psalm 51:5

75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic church are pagan in origin, instituted by the Popes not out of the Bible, over the years starting in 310ad.

Even Cardinal Newman in his book states this in his book " The Development of the Christian Religion" on page 359.
"The Catholic church has invented new doctrines which are CONTRARY to the clear teachings of the Bible."

You have to have somebody help you misunderstand the Bible.

The "Mother of God" worship of Mary originated in the Roman Catholic council at Ephesus in 432 AD. The Ave Maria doctrines began in 1508 and approved by Pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th Century.

The Council of Trent committed blasphemy taking a giant apostate step declaring that "tradition is of equal authority with the Bible"

Tradition is human mans teaching from routine. The Pharizees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by human tradition nullified the commandments of God and added new ones not from God. (Read Mark 7:7-13, Col 2:8, Rev 22:18)

The apocryphal books were a later man made tradition and added to the Bible by the Council of Trent in 1546. These books were not and are not recognized as canonical by the original Jewish church (see Revelation 22:8-9)

The Catholic church even proclaims Mary was immaculately conceived. (A TOTAL COW DUNG LIE)
Pope Pius IX in 1854.

infoman

03-20-2006, 07:06 PM

pro610

03-20-2006, 10:01 PM

Infoman,

"And I say to you, you are Peter, and UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH."
Matthew 16:18

Non-Catholics charge that Peter is not the "rock" because the Greek word used for "rock" in this verse means a little pebble. Right away, it is obvious from the very beginning, that there is a translation problem here. Scholars have determined that Matthew was not written in Greek, but in Aramaic, and was soon translated into Greek, so we have to go to the original written language to find the true meaning of this verse.
Peter was called "Cephas" or "Kepha(s)" in Aramaic, by Christ in Matthew 16:18, and it means a large massive stone or rock. Christ said this at Caesarea Philippi, the site of a large rock mass. See Matthew 16:13. The Aramaic word for a small stone or pebble is "evna". "Kepha", when translated to the Greek language means "Petra" (a large rock) or "Petros" (a small stone). However, unlike Aramaic words which have no gender, some Greek words do have gender, and "Petra" is feminine. Translators from the Aramaic to the Greek, changed the word to the masculine gender or "Petros" because they were unwilling to assign a name with feminine gender to a man.
In Matthew 16:18, it is correct to say that Jesus would have said, "You are 'Kepha', and upon this 'Kepha', I will build My Church." In Greek, it would translate to, "You are 'Petros', and upon this 'Petra', I will build My Church." It was the translation of the Aramaic word, "Kepha" (Cephas), into the Greek language that caused the confusion among some who look upon Peter as not being called "rock", but only a "pebble", and in so doing attempt to deny his Primacy.
Matthew 16:13, 18, John 1:42, 1Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Galatians 2:8-9.

Some charge that Matthew 16:18 is based on the "confession" of Peter and not Peter, the person. First of all, the Context clearly shows that the verse is based upon the person of Peter, and not his confession of faith. In the previous verse 17, Jesus blessed the person. In verse 19, He blessed Peter, the person, a second time by giving him and him only the keys. Clearly, all three verses signify a great and special blessing was bestowed upon the person of Peter.
Secondly, the Catholic Church is built upon confessors, and not confessions.

"Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal."
Saint Ambrose, On Twelve Psalms, 40,30, 397 A.D.

"You are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the Chief Cornerstone. In Him the whole structure is fitted together and grows into a temple holy in the Lord."
Ephesians 2:20-21

"And everyone who hears these My Words and does not act upon them, shall be likened to A FOOLISH MAN WHO BUILT HIS HOUSE ON SAND. AND THE RAIN FELL, AND THE FLOODS CAME, AND THE WINDS BLEW AND BEAT AGAINST THAT HOUSE, AND IT FELL, AND WAS UTTERLY RUINED."
Matthew 7:26-27
Other Christian churches have been buffeted and splintered into over 36,400* pieces because they were not founded by Jesus Christ and thus were not built upon Rock.

"Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it."
Psalms 127:1

leftin1991

03-20-2006, 10:33 PM

Statues in the church break the second commandment against graven images... So the RCC actually REMOVED that commandment from the Decalogue, and created their own 10 Commandments! They omitted the 2nd entirely, and created another one by splitting the 10th commandment into two pieces. They also changed the meaning and intent of the 4th commandment to apply to Sunday instead of Saturday.

pro610

03-21-2006, 12:14 AM

Left,
Let me point you to this
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NUMBERNG.htm
For an explanation of what you are talking about.

I,ll answer your post when I get the chance.

pro610

03-21-2006, 12:27 AM

Infoman,
quote
""The Catholic church even proclaims Mary was immaculately conceived. (A TOTAL COW DUNG LIE) ""

Part#1
Some non-Catholics have a problem with the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It is a major 'stumbling block' for them. They miss several very important points.
They try to bring GOD down to our human level in order to explain His ways. If they cannot explain it in a human way, then they say, "It simply could not have happened." This is as bad as to try to raise our human ways up to GOD's divine level. It simply cannot be done. They fail to realize that GOD's ways are not our ways, nor are GOD's thoughts our thoughts'. Isa 55:8-11

The first Protestant had this to say of the Blessed Virgin Mary:

"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin."
Martin Luther, (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

Isn't it strange that most of Protestantism does not believe in the Immaculate Conception today?
Who was the first Protestant to discard this doctrine in which the founder of Protestantism believed?

Jesus Christ was born without original sin since He is GOD.
John the Baptist was born without original sin also. Luke 1:15
Why then could anyone say that the Mother of GOD could not have been immaculately conceived?

The human way is inadequate to explain the ways of GOD:

The finite human mind is woefully inadequate to comprehend the infinite mind of GOD.

Do you believe the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Why?
Is the doctrine defined in the Bible?
No, it is not.
Can anyone explain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in a human way?
How can there be three persons in one GOD?
Since you believe in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is not defined in the Bible, and cannot be defined in a human way, why do you not believe in the Immaculate Conception under the same conditions?

Do you believe Jesus Christ has both a divine and a human nature? Why?
How can there be two natures of Jesus Christ co-existing together, with the divine knowing all things as in John 21:17, and the human having to learn and gain wisdom as in Luke 2:52? Try to explain it in a human way.

Do you believe in creation? Why?
Explain the act of creation with all visible things being made out of nothing.
Science, the human way, tells you that you have to at least have atoms with which to start.

pro610

03-21-2006, 12:30 AM

part#2

Do you believe Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit with the co-operation of a little Jewish girl named Mary? Why?
Explain the conception of Jesus Christ in a human way. Where did the 'seed' of man come from?

Theotokos Doctrine:
Theotokos is Greek and it's meaning is 'GOD Bearer'. And who is the 'GOD Bearer'? Mary, the Mother of GOD. Who else bore GOD? This is shown in John 1:1, "...and the Word was GOD", and in John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." So the Word, who was GOD, was made flesh. Where did the substance of the flesh come from? It came from the substance of Mary. Could the substance of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ come from a person stained by original sin?
Mothers give birth to persons, not natures. The person of Jesus Christ is divine, not human. Mary gave birth to a divine person. That makes her the 'Theotokos', the 'GOD Bearer', the 'Mother of GOD'.

In Luke 1:41-43, '...Elizabeth, being filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb! And how have I deserved that the MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?'"
Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, called Mary the 'Mother of my Lord'. Since being 'filled with the Holy Spirit' means the same throughout the Bible, then it was the Holy Spirit who gave her the words to say, isn't that true?
"And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in foreign tongues, even as the Holy Spirit prompted them to speak," Acts 2:4.
Who is 'my Lord', is it not GOD? Did she then not call Mary, the 'MOTHER OF GOD'? If that is what she said, then the Holy Spirit called Mary the 'Mother of GOD' did He not? If you say 'no' to these questions in this paragraph, then please explain your reason(s) why to me.
If the third person of the Holy Trinity called Mary the 'Mother of GOD', would any one of us dare to deny it?
Can the 'Mother of GOD' have original sin on her soul?

The doctrine of Mary, the 'Mother of GOD' was first proclaimed by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
I will ask you, 'Will GOD join Himself to anything defiled'?

There are two ways to handle a disease:

It can be cured by treatment, and it can be dealt with by prevention.
Original sin can be seen as a disease of the soul and can be handled two ways. It can be cleansed away by Baptism, the cure, or it can be prevented by the grace of GOD. This preventative way is what we Catholics believe was bestowed upon Mary.
When conception occurs, GOD creates the soul for the one conceived. It was a simple matter for the Creator of the Universe to prevent original sin from staining the human soul of Jesus Christ, and He no doubt, did the same thing for Mary when she was conceived.
Isaiah 64:8, "And now, O Lord, Thou art Our Father, and we are clay; and Thou art our maker, and we all are the works of Thy hands."
Jeremiah 18:4-6, "And the vessel was broke which he was making of clay with his hands; and turning he made another vessel, as it seemed good in his eyes to make it. Then the Word of the Lord came to me saying: 'Cannot I do with you as this potter, O house of Israel, said the Lord? Behold as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel."

So GOD is the Potter, and we are the clay to mold as He sees fit.

Romans 9:21, "OR IS NOT THE POTTER MASTER OF HIS CLAY, TO MAKE FROM THE SAME MASS ONE VESSEL FOR HONORABLE, ANOTHER FOR IGNOBLE USE?"

The Potter and the Clay, and Romans 9:21 give Biblical justification to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

trsrinheaven

03-21-2006, 03:53 AM

The word 'theotokos' never appears or is used in the Bible. Thus not Biblical. Thus not Christianity.
Just more Catholic propaganda.
That is just the RELIGIOUS propaganda from denominations who push Mary worship.
Mary is just a human being, flesh and blood.
Mary needed a savior.
Mary is not to be worshipped.

PS MARY WAS NO VIRGIN. She had more children.

In the epistles of the Bible Paul calls ALL Christians SAINTS.
The Catholic church makes out only people they say are saints.

How stupid and unBiblical can they be and still exist?

More catholic made up propaganda.

PS Matthew wrote his Gospel in helenistic Greek not aramaic. You quote more catholic lieing propaganda to hide their errors.

The Catholic church even proclaims Mary was immaculately conceived. (A TOTAL COW DUNG LIE)
Pope Pius IX in 1854.

pro610

03-21-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote
"MARY WAS NO VIRGIN. She had more children."

This is completely ridiculous and not Biblical u you are twisting Scrpture.

Here are some questions or you.

1. This would be a monumental revelation for the creator of the universe to have siblings. Just think if YOU were a brother or sister of Jesus Christ. Wouldn't you feel slighted if you were not mentioned in Holy Scripture?

2. What are their names? Why are they not more prominent in Scripture?

3. When were they born? Where were they born? When did they die? If they are divine, could they even die?

4. Why did Jesus Christ give His mother to Saint John in John 19:27?

5. Why did He not give her to one of His "siblings"? As I explained in the "Genealogy of the Brethren", Jewish law would have demanded it.

6. How can GOD have siblings?

7. Why are not the "siblings" of Jesus Christ mentioned in the writings of the Church Fathers?

8. The question of the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus Christ did not rise to prominence until Protestantism began in the 16th century. How do you explain this fact?

9. Why do you interpret the meaning of the word "brethren" as you do, in today's English, instead of determining the meaning of it in the language of the time of writing? After all, that is one of the basic rules of Bible interpretation, is it not? Also, since you insist on using the definition of brothers and sisters in today's English, why do you not use the correct terminology of "half brothers and half sisters" when you make your false charges?

10. Based on such flimsy evidence as you have, what is your real reason for slighting the Mother of GOD? Aren't you judging her? Aren't you calumnizing her?

11. Don't you realize that by making the false accusation that the Mother of GOD had other children that you are insulting the Holy Family as well as the Holy Trinity?

12. If someone deliberately spread gossip about your very own mother that simply was not true, how would you feel? What would you do? How would Jesus Christ feel? What will He do?

trsrinheaven

03-21-2006, 11:06 PM

pro610,

You find yourself wrong about theotokos and
More catholic made up propaganda.

You are in denial as a stubborn pig headed fool who with scripture slapped right in your face you can't bring yourself to admit you are wrong.
"Pride comes before 'your' fall and a haughty spirit before 'your' destruction". Proverbs 16:18

"Let God and His word be true and every man a liar."

After Jesus birth Mary WAS NO VIRGIN!

The catholic church made this bull up with the "Mother of God" worship of Mary originated in the Roman Catholic council at Ephesus in 432 AD.

The Ave Maria doctrines began in 1508 and approved by Pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th Century.

The Council of Trent committed blasphemy taking a giant apostate step declaring that "tradition is of equal authority with the Bible"

Jesus had brothers and sisters Mary's other children as stated in Mark and Galatians.
Mark 6:2-3 "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, "Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"
And also: Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother." ...(THESE WERE NOT COUSINS you lieing sack of dung so do not try that load of cow pile on us)

Mary also needed a saviour. Romans 3:23, 5:12, Psalm 51:5

The Catholic church even proclaims Mary was immaculately conceived.
How they stray from the Bible with these lies.
(A TOTAL COW DUNG LIE)
Pope Pius IX in 1854.

pro610

03-21-2006, 11:50 PM

Quote;
""After Jesus birth Mary WAS NO VIRGIN!""

PROVE IT?(the scripture you point to proves nothing)

You cannot without twisting scripture like you just did.

Did you ever think to yourself why other non-Catholics don,t believe that Mary had other children also?

BTW, Your name calling is really not Christ-like
Brother/Sister.

Jesus and the Apostles addressed many people as brother,s and sister,s .

Are WE to Believe that Mary had 100 children then?
Do you SEE just how foolish this is!!

I,ll address these LIES again when I get the chance.

pro610

03-22-2006, 12:26 AM

Mary the mother of God is Biblical.
Part#1
Jesus Christ is one person who possesses two natures. He has a Divine nature and a human nature. He is not a Divine person AND a human person, as that would make Him two persons.
A person receives his nature from his father. His Father's nature is Divine.
Therefore, He is also Divine, which makes Him a Divine person.
A person possesses a nature. A nature does not possess a person.
Nature describes what a person can do, but the person does it.
Mothers give birth to totally complete persons, each with a nature. Never does a mother give birth to a nature alone.
Natures do not have mothers, persons do.
Therefore, Mary gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, who is a Divine person, thus making her the Mother of GOD.

This is shown in Scripture:
John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD."
and taken together with...
John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."
Elucidation...
The Word was GOD and the Word was made flesh.
Who supplied the flesh and blood of the Divine Word?
The Blessed Virgin Mary did. She is the mother of the Divine Word Incarnate.

John 20:28, "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my GOD"."
Elucidation...
St. Thomas equated the words "Lord" and "GOD" in this verse.
Throughout the New Testament, the Greek word used for "Lord", is "kurios".
The word refers to the Father or to the Son, depending upon the context.
See Matthew 1:22, and John 6:69, just to name two out of many examples.
Mary is called the "Mother of the Lord" in Luke 1:43, and the "Mother of Jesus" in Matthew 1:18, John 2:1-5,6:42,19:25-26, and Acts 1:14. Since I have shown that Jesus is a Divine person, either one of these titles for her supports the fact that she indeed is the Mother of GOD. Anyone who says she is not, will have to prove that Jesus Christ is not a Divine person.
Trying to prove that would force changes in Trinitarian doctrine as well.

Luke 1:41-43, "...And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb! And how have I deserved that the Mother of my Lord should come to me"."
Elucidation...
Whose words did Elizabeth use in these verses?
When someone is filled with the Holy Spirit and speaks, it is the Spirit who gives the words (Mark 13:11).
Mary was called the Mother of my Lord with a capital "L", meaning, the Mother of GOD. She was called the Mother of GOD by the Holy Spirit, GOD Himself. Can anyone of us do less?

Do you need more Scriptural references? Well here are a few:
"And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with GOD. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus."
Luke 1:30-31
So Mary had a Son whom she named Jesus.

"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of GOD."
Mark 1:1
So Jesus Christ is the Son of GOD.

"But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.""
Hebrews 1:8.
So the Son of GOD IS GOD as spoken by GOD the Father.

Elucidation...
So, Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is the Son of GOD, who IS GOD.
It is all so very simple. How could anyone not see it?

pro610

03-22-2006, 12:30 AM

From Martin Luther
"God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother . . . She is the true mother of God and bearer of God . . . Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs . . . just as your son is not two sons . . . even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone."

Martin Luther, (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).
Interestingly, this is what the first Protestant taught regarding the Mother of GOD.
Who then, in all of Protestantism, is responsible for not following the teaching of their founder.

For those who still deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of GOD, the onus is now upon you to back up what you charge with facts. By denying her the motherhood of GOD, you have only two choices:
Either Jesus Christ is not GOD, or another woman was His mother.
Which choice is yours?

"And if our Gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of GOD, should not shine unto them."
2Corinthians 4:3-4
The 'god of this world' is Satan.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Church as well.

"...and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,
which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all."
Ephesians 1:22-23

Since the Body of Jesus Christ is the Church and she gave birth to His total person, then she is rightfully proclaimed as the Mother of the Church as well as the Mother of GOD.

egk

03-23-2006, 09:02 AM

Trsrinheaven/Infoman,

You are correct, Mary needed a saviour just as you and I do. This is correct teaching in the RCC.

Your problem is that you don't understand what the teaching of the Immaculate Conception really says and you appear to ignore all attempts that have been made to explain it to you.

EGK

egk

03-23-2006, 09:05 AM

jason12712

03-23-2006, 09:51 PM

pro610, the question is not whether Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, in His Deity being fully God and fully man, but the question is the denial of Christ's brothers and his earthly (albeit) half-father. I know that Trsinheaven posted scriptures about Jesus brothers, though he may have used rough words as well. I don't know if this will register with you, but Mary and Joseph did marry (matthew 1:19-25) and also did have children other than Jesus (though these children of Mary and Joseph were in no way miraculously conceived) Also, Luke 3:23 tells us that people of that day thought Jesus was Joseph's son. If in any way you think I'm twisting the scriptures, point out EXACTLY what i'm twisting, and we'll see if we can come to an agreement. Proverbs 9:8

pro610

03-23-2006, 11:17 PM

Jason,
While dying on the cross, Jesus gave his mother to St. John (John 19:27). Why didn't He give her to one of her other children (as Protestants insist she had) instead? Jewish law would have demanded it. It is simply because Mary had no other children for Him to do so.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS MOTHER, AS HE HIMSELF WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN.

ST. JOSEPH. Knowing full well that Mary had given birth to the Word Incarnate, and that her Son was the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of GOD, he must have been awestruck by the event. He knew that just by her being the one chosen (Luke 1:27-33), and by an act of GOD, in protecting her virginity (Luke 1:34-38), that she was special, and by the special graces given to her, elevated her far above any other woman. After all what could possibly follow the honor and graces given her by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is her spouse and St. Joseph knew it when he was informed by the Angel in a dream (Matthew 1:20). Would any sane man be so vain as to father mere human children with her? The idea of the spouse of the Holy Spirit becoming a mother to one not by the Holy Spirit, would have been repulsive, and would have had all the ingredients of sacrilege to him.

easeltine

03-25-2006, 09:25 PM

Just throwing out a thought for all here. I don't believe in many doctrines of the Catholic Church but I want people to consider:

If Martin Luther were living today he would still be Roman Catholic.
There are no Roman Catholic theologians going around selling indulgences like Tetzel did before 1517. The idea of a modern Roman Catholic praying to "holy relics" like they were doing in Wittenberg and Rome at that time is not being practiced. The Catholic Church and hierarchy of that time were abusing their authority, and that isn't just the viewpoint of the Protestant reformers, it was noticed by many Cardinals and theologians like Erasmus.

Some of the movies about Martin Luther are really interesting, I have three of them, the one in the 50's, the one with Stacy Keach, (more of a pro-Catholic flavor), and the new one - Peter Ustinov's last movie where he plays Duke Frederick.

If the Catholic Church is the "great whore" as described in the Book of Revelation I do not think that Jesus Christ is about to return. The last two Popes are too Scripture-based. Consider the current decision of Pope Benedict to drop the doctrine of limbo due to the idea that limbo is not Scripture-based.

If the eschatology of some of the Protestants are correct the "great whore" is a secular humanistic church composed of all religions, even Catholic and Protestants.

In the past 20 years Roman Catholics are reading the Bible themselves, they have to since there are very few priests anymore. They have to be more responsible.

Just some thoughts.

easeltine

03-25-2006, 10:41 PM

Trsrinheaven/Infoman,

You want to see really Unbiblical teachings?
It's the teachings of Liberal Christianity, it is the group that has Full/Open Communion with each other.
The Presbyterian Church U.S.A.
The Reformed Church U.S.A.
The Evangelical Church of America
The Episcopal Church U.S.
The Moravian Church
The United Church of America

12.7 Million in this group in the U.S.
They reject the Infallibility/Inerrancy of Scripture.
There Jesus has deteriorated to a god as adhered by The Jesus Seminar.
They allow practicing homosexuals to have communion, and some ordained and "married" practicing homosexuals.
The practice infant baptism differently then Roman Catholics in that they believe the infant is saved after bapism no matter what sin is practiced. They believe in once-saved-always-saved no matter what for the infant baptized.

They get a free pass from "fellow" Protestants.
The Roman Catholic Church wouldn't agree with these heresies.

Erich

arron

03-26-2006, 12:44 AM

pro610... JESUS gave HIS mother to john because HIS brothers were not in the faith at that time.

ultimate1

03-26-2006, 01:53 AM

easeltime
Don't you think most denominations are unBiblical and apostate religions without true relationship with God by grace and faith being taught?

Jesus was anti denomination and anti legalism works.

easeltine

03-26-2006, 06:11 AM

Ultimate1,

Yes, I agree.
Also, many Protestants that point the index finger at the Catholic Church should take heed and remember that four of their fingers are pointing back to them.

Erich

pro610

03-26-2006, 02:54 PM

East,
I,m sorry that I have not responded to your questions on other threads yet.
I have been neglecting some things around the house,My wife and family come before the discussion board.The last thing I need is three angry girls on my tail!LOL

Catholic doctrine has always taught that it is a sin to sell spiritual things, including indulgences, despite some wrong actions by priests 500 years ago.

For a good understanding on indulgences we have to go to a credible source like New Advent(I see you have already plugged on another thread)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
excerpt;
The word indulgence (Lat. indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.

East,
I will respond later hopefully,I have lot,s of work to do.

Peace in Christ

pro610

03-26-2006, 08:21 PM

Arron,
quote
""pro610... JESUS gave HIS mother to john because HIS brothers were not in the faith at that time.""

Here is a little project for you Arron.

What faith do you think St John was in?

The only faith that the Jews of that time cared about was their own faith regarding law.

So are you saying that St John did not believe Jesus was the Son of GOD?

So arron, lets see you find the scripture to back your claim that Jesus had brothers that rejected the Jewish faith and that the Jews of that time were aware of it?

You are going to have to do some serious twisting and spinning of scripture brother.

I look forward to your response!

pro610

03-26-2006, 08:40 PM

East,
We are having the same problem going on today regarding corrupt indulgences,especially in Evangelical circles.
Evangelical and other critics of the 500 year old indulgences scandal are approaching their congregations with very similar language to the corrupt priests of the 1500's who Martin Luther criticized. When speaking about their ministries, many Evangelical pastors will say something like:

"Now dig deep into those pockets for this most worthwhile ministry, it will be a blessing to you and your family!"

When they say the gift will be a "blessing" to the giver, they are saying that God is looking with favour upon the offering. They are saying that the giver will be "blessed." Although different Evangelical pastors may mean different things by the word "blessing," many would say the giver will receive blessings in all areas of their lives including financial, health, family life etc. Some of these Evangelical ministers cross a line and are basically "selling blessings" which is quite bad given that they preach against corrupt Catholic priests in the 1500's who were "selling indulgences."

It is wrong to sell spiritual things. It was wrong for corrupt priests to do it in the 1500's and it is wrong for Evangelical preachers to do now. There is a thin line between legitimate and blasphemous teaching in the area of money. On one hand, it is perfectly legitimate to say God looks with favour on a generous heart. (Mark 12:42) On the other hand there is a very human tendency of greed and manipulation, and sometimes motives are mixed and not entirely without merit. (i.e., building a beautiful medieval Catholic Church or Evangelicals wanting to build a huge "Dream Center" Church)

jason12712

03-27-2006, 07:13 PM

pro610, you are correct in this regard. spiritual things cannot be bought (look at ol' simon the sorcerer.) christians in today's world should examine their hearts before giving in the offering of the Lord. if the offering is an offering of a levitical nature, where "everyone of a willing heart gave to the offering of the Lord," than it is a right offering. however, if the offering is one of pride, or to be "blessed", than it is an offering in the nature of annanias and sapphira. i'll go as far to say that you convicted my heart about the offerings, seeing that though i don't believe in a prosperity gospel (give so much and you will have so much more) i've not always had the right motives for giving an offering.

arron

03-27-2006, 09:32 PM

no pro, if you had any sense to understand you would know what i said. john was a believer in JESUS where HIS brothers and sisters were not. JESUS knew who was HIS and who was not.

pro610

03-27-2006, 09:39 PM

I was talking about Jewish Law Arron.
Jewish law had to be followed.

In a hurry right now.

arron

03-27-2006, 09:47 PM

no you asked the question why and i told you so dont try to cop out.

jason12712

03-27-2006, 09:58 PM

pro610, for my last post today, the old covenant was replaced with the new covenant. the book of hebrews clearly tells us that Jesus is better than the Jewish Law, otherwise, if we follow one point of the law, we have to follow all, as is written, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

pro610

03-27-2006, 11:11 PM

Jason,Arron
How can you expect someone to believe that Mary had other children and those children did not believe Jesus was the Son of God ?

It,s just not true and if it were the early church fathers would have written about it.

You know full well that there is NO scripture to support such a story.

This is what really baffel,s me about solo scriptura,You say everything is in the Bible and yet you come up with idea,s like this that are NOT in the Bible.
Go figure!

Arron,
Quote
""no you asked the question why and i told you so dont try to cop out.""

Arron,
I don,t sit at my computer 24 hours a day waiting for you to respond brother!
learn some patience Brother.(I,ll do the same)

Christianity is not Islam or Judaism. It is not a religion of the Book, but a religion about a Man - Jesus Christ.

arron

03-27-2006, 11:54 PM

john 7:5 neither did HIS brethren believe HIM..that is THE WORD OF GOD
also pro i dont care why you sit or how long you sit. i try to respond as i can as i am not on every day any more. also i know CHRISTIANITY is not islam, nor JUDASIM I KNOW IT IS A RELIGION OF THE BOOK THE BIBLE (KJV). and my religion is not about a book but about THE MAN JESUS CHRIST . why dont you spell HIS NAME with capital letters?

arron

03-27-2006, 11:57 PM

oh yes pro...JUDAISM is a worshiper of the same GOD who is MY FATHER, JEHOVAH. it sure has nothing to do with "mother mary"

apilgrims

03-28-2006, 01:00 AM

Wait...Christianity has nothing to do with Mother Mary? What about "All generations shall call me blessed"? And isn't being a Christian about trying to imitate Christ as closely as we can? Didn't Christ observe perfectly the Ten Commandments? Didn't He perfectly honor His mother? Why shouldn't we honor (NOT worship) her like Christ? Or at very least, not disrespect her very real contribution to bringing Christ into the world and raising Him. After all, she could have said, "No!"
Having given birth seven times myself, I can tell you we should at least say, "Thank you, Sister!" }

apilgrims

03-28-2006, 01:00 AM

arron

03-28-2006, 03:21 AM

pilgrim.. you know very well what i meant. yes we call her blessed but we do not weorship her as THE MOTHER OF GOD we do not claim her as a mediater between GOD nd man

egk

03-28-2006, 07:42 AM

Arron,

also i know CHRISTIANITY is not islam, nor JUDASIM I KNOW IT IS A RELIGION OF THE BOOK THE BIBLE (KJV). and my religion is not about a book but about THE MAN JESUS CHRIST . why dont you spell HIS NAME with capital letters?

Please clarify. Is Christianity a religion of the Book, (the KJV Bible) or is it about Jesus Christ?

EGK

arron

03-28-2006, 02:10 PM

it is a religion we do abide by THE WRITTEN WWORD OF GOD WHICH IS THE BIBLE. we do not follow man made religions. i would still believe in JEUS as THE SON OF GOD even if i did not have the bible. for i have met HIM personaly

egk

03-28-2006, 03:25 PM

Aron,

I also believe in the written Word of God and I also have met Jesus personally.

EGK

arron

03-28-2006, 04:07 PM

very good. when we accept JESUS we are saved.

pro610

03-28-2006, 05:20 PM

To all
From "The Inerrancy of the Autographa", by Greg Bahnsen...
"Throughout its record the Bible presupposes its own authority. For instance, the Old Testament is often cited in the New Testament with such formulas as “God says” or “the Holy Spirit says” (as in Acts 1:16; 3:24-25; 2 Cor. 6:16). What Scripture says is identified with what God says (e.g., Gal. 3:8; Rom. 9:16). For that reason all theological arguments are settled decisively by the inherent authority signified in the formula “it stands written” (literal translation). The same authority attaches to the writings of the apostles (1 Cor. 15:1-2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14), since these writings are placed on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures (2 peter 3:15-16; Rev. 1:3). Apostolic Scripture often has the common formula “it stands written” applied to it (e.g., John 20:31). Therefore the Old and New Testaments are presented in the Bible itself as the authoritative, written, Word of God."

I find this an interesting paragraph, given that the Scriptures Bahnsen cites, 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Cor 15:1-2, refers to ORAL teachings. Is Bahnsen thus telling us implicitly that the Apostles' TEACHINGS (not just written) were considered inspired? A read of the Scriptures should yield this conclusion. It is not a matter of something being WRITTEN that gives it authority, but its ACCEPTANCE by the COMMUNITY at large. Bahsen writes from the mistaken presumption when interpretating early Christianity. ANYTHING from the Apostles was considered authoritative by the Christian community - whether written or orally transmitted. Something being written did NOT give something authority over something NOT written.

This makes sense, given Christianity is NOT a religion of the book, like Judaism. It is a religion of divine revelation given through a person, Jesus Christ - who passed His teachings orally to Apostles who claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the MEANS of transmission is inconsequential to the first Christians. This is something that most Protestants and others fail to understand.

Peace in Christ

thekingsent1_again

03-28-2006, 06:58 PM

Can we please wake up people?

Example....I claim to love the Kurdish people, yet I belong to the church of Saddam.
Example....I claim to love the King of the Jews, yet I belong to the Luthern church.
Example....I claim to love the God of creation, yet I belong to the Catholic church.
Hello....is anyone home?
How can I claim to love the Kurds and follow Saddam Hussein at the same time?
How can I claim to be following the King of the Jews and belong to a church named after a Jew hater?
How can I claim to be following the God of creation and belong to a church that murdered millions in the most evil ways ever created?
And how is it that this church claimed to be following the King of the Jews and yet murdered Jews because they hated them?
HELLO....is anyone home?
The 'Catholic' church IS the church of Satan.
HELLO.....is anyone home?
Whats the major malfunction?

infoman

03-28-2006, 07:03 PM

"Let God and His word be true and every man a liar."

After Jesus birth Mary WAS NO VIRGIN!
The Bible clearly states Mary had more children. Jesus had brothers and sisters.

The Catholic leadership die hards actually think Mary and Joseph did not desire more children. They think a loving God wouldn't grant their desire. Some even preach Joseph never had sexual relations with his wife. How Bilically incorrect and wrong is that?
THEY ARE SINFULLY DUMBER THAN A BOX OF ROCKS

They hide this and many other made up errors just like the pedofile priests.

The catholic church made this bull up with the "Mother of God" worship of Mary originated in the Roman Catholic council at Ephesus in 432 AD.

The Ave Maria doctrines began in 1508 and approved by Pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th Century.

The Council of Trent committed blasphemy taking a giant apostate step declaring that "tradition is of equal authority with the Bible"

Jesus had brothers and sisters Mary's other children as stated in Mark and Galatians.

Mark 6:2-3 "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, "Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"

And also: Galatians 1:19: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother." ...(THESE WERE NOT COUSINS you lieing fool so do not try that load of cow dung on us)

Mary also needed a saviour. Romans 3:23, 5:12, Psalm 51:5

The Catholic church even proclaims Mary was immaculately conceived.
How they stray from the Bible with these lies.
(A TOTAL COW DUNG LIE)
Pope Pius IX in 1854.

thekingsent1_again

03-28-2006, 07:13 PM

Hey infoman....

I think very soon mother mary will do some poofing. And if we refuse to worship this image of the holy roman empire.........................................

pro610

03-28-2006, 07:40 PM

Info,

As early as AD 358 there existed writings attesting to the perpetual virginity of Jesus' mother (St. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria). In addition, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa and others upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary.

St. Augustine, St. Peter Chrysologus and St. Leo the Great all upheld the triple formula of Perpetual Virginity before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ.

This belief was clearly expressed by the council of Ephesus and held by ALL Christians up to the 16th century.

excerpt;
Church Fathers

The perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady was taught and proposed to our belief not merely by the councils and creeds, but also by the early Fathers. The words of the prophet Isaias (vii, 14) are understood in this sense by

St. Irenaeus (III, 21; see Eusebius, H.E., V, viii),
Origen (Adv. Cels., I, 35),
Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., III, 13; Adv. Judæos, IX),
St. Justin (Dial. con. Tryph., 84),
St. John Chrysostom (Hom. v in Matth., n. 3; in Isa., VII, n. 5);
St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxviii, n. 7),
Eusebius (Demonstrat. ev., VIII, i),
Rufinus (Lib. fid., 43),
St. Basil (in Isa., vii, 14; Hom. in S. Generat. Christi, n. 4, if St. Basil be the author of these two passages),
St. Jerome and Theodoretus (in Isa., vii, 14),
St. Isidore (Adv. Judæos, I, x, n. 3),
St. Ildefonsus (De perpetua virginit. s. Mariæ, iii).
St. Jerome devotes his entire treatise against Helvidius to the perpetual virginity of Our Blessed Lady (see especially nos. 4, 13, 18).

The contrary doctrine is called:

"madness and blasphemy" by Gennadius (De dogm. eccl., lxix),
"madness" by Origen (in Luc., h, vii),
"sacrilege" by St. Ambrose (De instit. virg., V, xxxv),
"impiety and smacking of atheism" by Philostorgius (VI, 2),
"perfidy" by St. Bede (hom. v, and xxii),
"full of blasphemies" by the author of Prædestin. (i, 84),
"perfidy of the Jews" by Pope Siricius (ep. ix, 3),
"heresy" by St. Augustine (De Hær. h., lvi).
St. Epiphanius probably excels all others in his invectives against the opponents of Our Lady's virginity (Hær., lxxviii, 1, 11, 23).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

According to Infoman these Saints are LYING!

BTW,
St. Irenaeus was born in the 2nd century

infoman

03-28-2006, 08:52 PM

What saint?
Who you calling a saint?...

Who are they?

They are not any more saints then any other born again Christian.

Paul in his epistles called EVERY born again believer a saint. Read your Bible!

None of those so called saints were even alive until 300 plus years after Jesus...so who are they to even ask if MARY WAS A VIRGIN.. HOW WOULD THEY KNOW AND HOW WOULD THEY FIND OUT.

You perpetuate the usual Catholic proganda and fables - NOT IN THE BIBLE.

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY? What drugs are you on because it sure isn't Biblical, or from the Holy Spirit?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

apilgrims

03-28-2006, 10:48 PM

Infoman, you say they are no more saints than any born-again Christian. That may be true! But when seeking information about the life of the earliest Church, the testimonies of those who lived in the same century as Our Lord, or the century after, or even the century after that, are going to be of more value (as regards the Church of that time) than yours or mine would be. Similarly, we can give a better witness as to what God's Church is up to here in the 21st century AD than could someone born one thousand or two thousand years later, no matter how holy and close to God they might be. Unless, of course, God saw fit in His wisdom to grant those persons special insight. Am I right?
And incidentally, why the accusations of lying and propaganda? Maybe we Catholics are totally wrong, but we are speaking in good faith and are looking for truth through Christ with our Christian brothers and sisters. I'm not trying to deceive you, nor, I feel sure, are egk or pro610. They seem like good men, like yourself, leftin1991, arron, and others, who have a lot of information and a different approach. We're all called to evangelize one another, and nobody's going to be converted by anger and name-calling.

trsrinheaven

03-29-2006, 01:10 AM

If the Catholic would look up scripture you they would find the truth.
All of Christianity is ONLY based upon the Bible.

If it isn't in the Bible is isn't Christianity.

Even in the primitive church in the Book of Acts, and all the epistles NEVER ARE prayers directed to Mary or dead saints! (Mt 11:28, Lk 1:46, Acts 10:25-26, 14:14-18)

The Bible teaches we are to only pray to the Father in Jesus name.

75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholic church are pagan in origin, instituted by the Popes not out of the Bible, over the years starting in 310ad.

Even Cardinal Newman in his book states this in his book " The Development of the Christian Religion" on page 359.
"The Catholic church has invented new doctrines which are CONTRARY to the clear teachings of the Bible."

You have to have somebody help you misunderstand the Bible and they do.

The Council of Trent committed blasphemy taking a giant apostate step declaring that "tradition is of equal authority with the Bible"

Tradition is human mans teaching from routine. The Pharizees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by human tradition nullified the commandments of God and added new ones not from God. (Read Mark 7:7-13, Col 2:8, Rev 22:18)

The apocryphal books were a later man made tradition and added to the Bible by the Council of Trent in 1546. These books were not and are not recognized as canonical by the original Jewish church (see Revelation 22:8-9)

This is another unBiblical heresy pushed by the catholic church.

Baptism of babies is preached by the catholic church.

The scripture says Repent first... call upon the name of the Lord. believe, have faith in, receive Christ into your life.

A baby can do none of these things...
Baptism is not a pre-requesite to enter heaven or the kingdom of God or to be born again.

Jesus said you must be born of the spirit from above.
Water has nothing to do with it.
Baptism is just an outward expression that one does after salvation receiving Christ being born again anew from above recieving a new created spirit from and of God. 2Cor5

Time for the catholic church to GET BACK TO THE BIBLE and leave the traditions of men religious non Bible teachings.

arron

03-29-2006, 01:25 AM

amen

apilgrims

03-29-2006, 03:13 AM

Where in the Bible does it say "If it isn't in the Bible, it isn't Christianity"?

apilgrims

03-29-2006, 04:19 AM

Where in the Bible does it say "If it isn't in the Bible, it isn't Christianity"?

pro610

03-29-2006, 12:50 PM

As Catholics we don't believe that "oral tradition" is equal to Apostolic Tradition. An example is infant baptism. Clearly, the Bible does not come down on one side or the other. It is ambiguous from the Bible alone. However, the Apostles are credited by Church Fathers who WRITE DOWN that infant baptism is "an ancient teaching from the Apostles". Considering that Christianity is a revealed religion whose doctrines and beliefs we have obtained from the Apostles, it SHOULD not matter in what format the teaching came to us - AS LONG AS WE CAN IDENTIFY ITS SOURCE. Note, infant baptism is a belief of the Church that is traced back - in writing - to before 200 AD.

This is not an uncommon misunderstanding of the Church's teachings. "Apostolic Teachings" are NOT "oral" teachings for all time - but rather, teachings that were not clear and explicit in Scriptures, but clarified (in writing!) by a subsequent generation of Christians who claimed that said teachings were Apostolic - and they were accepted universally as such by the Community of faith, the Church. Thus, Catholics hold to the Apostles' teachings, whether they were given in written form, or orally, and subsequently written down OUTSIDE of Sacred Scriptures.

trsrinheaven

03-29-2006, 01:38 PM

To all CATHOLICS...

Baptism of babies is just one of the many UNBIBLICAL errors preached by the catholic church just to keep adults and children in bondage.
This is another unBiblical heresy pushed by the catholic church.

The Apostles NEVER baptised infants.There was no point and no need. Children are already innocent. In fact it gives the impression that Jesus died in vain and had no need for God to pay our penalty for sin.

The scripture says FIRST Repent and then after be baptised...
"1. Repent FIRST...
2.call upon the name of the Lord...
3. believe,
4.. have faith in,and 5.receive Christ into your life."
It's clear in many scriptures...

Romans 10:9-11 (King James Version)

9That if thou shalt CONFESS with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt BELIEVE in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For WITH THE HEART man believeth unto righteousness(right standing with God);
and with the MOUTH CONFESSION is made unto salvation.

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed..Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

A baby can do none of these things...
First of all an infant has not committed sin,
Jesus said " Allow the children to come to me,
FOR SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"
The New Testament states
"To he that knows what is right to do and doesn't do it to him that is SIN"

When a child reaches a place of understanding and knows right from wrong, and can choose God from their own heart then they are capable of making that decision. Until then they are obviously in right standing INNOCENT WITH GOD.

But as soon as they can understand about salvation, and receive Christ there is no reason to wait. But they must be able to understand.

Baptism is not a pre-requesite to enter heaven or the kingdom of God or to be born again.

The catholic church in order to make money, indoctrinate and put in bondage ignorant then non literate masses (Most could not read, and the Catholic church forbid anyone but leadership to read the Bible).They did this to make them swear allegiance to the catholic church put this MAN MADE heresy to people, and to keep them in fear of losing their place with God.
INDULGENCES -PAYING money to get into heaven form themselves or the dead was another evil money making scheme. How evil is that.
The Bible is clear and salvation FREE TO ALL.
God desires RELATIONSHIP intimante, INDIVIDUALLY WITH ALL people.

Jesus said recorded in Johns Gospel "you must be born again from above of the spirit from above,(be an new creation receive eternal life of God spiritually 2Cor)to enter the kingdom of heaven..
Two deaths physical and spiritual.
" God is a Spirit". We are a spirit. We live in a body and have a soul(mind, will and emotions).
Two births physical(Water) which has nothing to do with it, and spiritual. One must be born again (SPIRITUALLY) to receive "eternal life to remove spiritual death".

Baptism is just an outward expression that one does after salvation, and receiving Christ being born again anew from above receiving a new created spirit from and of God. 2Cor5

It is way past the time for the catholic church to GET BACK TO THE BIBLE and leave the traditions of men religious non Bible teachings.

easeltine

03-29-2006, 03:36 PM

I know that this is a Catholic bashing thread. I know that I probably should not post on this thread since I really am not in the Catholic bashing mood or spirit as some of my brothers are above.

There are many Catholic Church doctrines that I have problems with also, though the Catholic Church has changed for the better in doctrine and practice from the days of the Protestant Reformation.

If you want to see heresy take a pot and throw into the pot the following heresies to infant baptism:

Once saved always saved, no matter what sin the infant commits the rest of their lives, the person is saved.
It is alright to be a homosexual, it is God's will, we are robots, we can't choose what we are, and we will allow them communion, ordain homosexuals as ministers, and allow them to be married.
Only 16% of the Bible is historical. The rest of Scriptures isn't true, it's inspired like Shakespeare, per the Jesus Seminar that we agree with.
We adhere to the Jesus Seminar, the actual historic Jesus was a man like us, and people have made him to be God, not God forever.
Let's all have Open/Full Communion with each other and sing Kumbaya.

The above beliefs are the belief of the PROTESTANT groups know as the *Presbyterian Church, the *Reformed Church, the *Evangelical Lutheran Church, *The Episcopal Church, *The Moravian Church, The *United Church of Christ, (used to be *Congregational and have changed their names) that practice "Full and Open Communion" with each other. I guess the ELCA and Epis. have dropped the consubstantiation issue of communion so strongly believed by Luther, (v. Zwingli), or Cranmer? What a sorry bunch of trash those churches are!

Those guys get a free pass because they are Protestants from other Protestants. These Protestant groups contribute to CRI and other groups that bash Pentecostals, and Charismatics, (Catholic Charismatics as well).

The Catholic theologians at the Diet of Worms in 1521, warned Martin Luther that if he broke off from the Catholic Church there would be no end to the weirdo heresies and churches.

Erich

easeltine

03-29-2006, 04:00 PM

Let's see. How do we tell what a cult is? Ok, Handbook of Today's Religions by Josh McDowell/Stewart - They don't think the Roman Catholic Church is a cult, do they? Have any of you looked at the characteristics or beliefs of a true cult?

The Authority of Scripture - Normally, it would say that the Roman Catholic Church believes that Scripture is inerrant, and infallible, adding that tradition is equal weight. I don't think that this is even currently true in the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was the Scriptural advisor for Pope John Paul the II. The current Pope is presently questioning the traditional idea of "Limbo" saying that it should be thrown out since it is not Scripturally supportable...say what? The Pope is doing what? What next doctrine I wonder. The Liberal Protestants above reject 84% of Scripture being historic! Think you can even find a Roman Catholic theologian that would make such a statement? No, I don't think so!

The Doctrine of God - The Trinity has traditionally been believed by both Roman Catholic and Protestants. In Handbook of Today's Religions the authors give the reasons and why we need to believe in the Creeds, especially, the Athanasian Creed. The Liberal PROTESTANT churches above reject the diety of Jesus Christ and adhere to the Jesus Seminar.

Homosexuality - Do you Roman Catholics think that Pope Benedict will allow gay priests? No WAY!!!

Infant Baptism + Once Saved Always Saved? No Way!!! Once must show works as proof of faith or they never were saved in the first place!!! Any Roman Catholic or a Protestant with a brain cell should agree with me on that!

Those Liberal Protestants that practice the above stuff and cut this Charismatic down...that is the group I want to bash...and hard!!!

pro610

03-29-2006, 04:36 PM

Eastline,
Thank you Brother!
I don't think that your opinion or knowledge regarding the Church Fathers is the norm of modern Protestantism. Most haven't a clue about their writings and think that the Church started with Christ, and then, 1500 years later came Martin Luther. A friend of mine had a door-to-door salesman come and try to sell me history books. I kid you not, these books COMPLETELY SKIP 1500 years of Christian history! One chapter is the Apostles, the next is Martin Luther. My Friend asked about this missing history, and they displayed a frown and said "well, that's when the Cath-o-lic,s had gone and corrupted the Word. It took Dr. Luther to bring Christianity out of the Dark Ages..."That's disdain for tradition, not disagreement...

pro610

03-29-2006, 05:31 PM

eastline,
Are you aware of what,s happening with Zondervan and the NIV Bible?

Much of it ties in with the Liberal groups your talking about.

Zondervan was purchased by Harper Collins in 1988 and ever since they have been liberalizing the NIV and other Christian material.
Here is a bunch of links that I have collected.
Some of this is pretty SCAREY stuff.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/nivowner.htm

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/424

http://truthinheart.com/Zondervan.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/niv_teen_study_bible_exposed.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/28/new-bible.htm

http://www.kjbbn.net/teen_girls_bible_talks_of_oral_sex_and.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/twohomosexuals.htm

http://www.familyconcerns.net/gender_neutral.htm

http://reformednet.org/salt/970505/battleforthebible.htm

http://www.youthspecialties.com/about/news/2003/emergentYS.php

http://www.cbmw.org/tniv/fba.php

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/10357

http://www.thinkbible.org/writings/kjvhistory.html

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/anotherjesus.asp

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_intro.html

http://watch.pair.com/wof.html

http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/lesbianandniv.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/15/nbible15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/03/15/ixhome.html

pro610

03-29-2006, 06:45 PM

To All
A point I want to make regarding the links I posted is...

Lets fast forward 200 years or so,we already know the NIV bible is the number#1 selling Bible in the WORLD.

What is Solo Scriptura going to mean to future generations reading the NIV if they continue to liberalize it??

What,s to stop Rupert Murdoch(Harper Collins) or other,s like him from gaining control of the KJV bible in the future?

Do you see where this is going?

When you say Solo Sriptura everything about Christianity is in the Bible,What VERSION do you mean?

The Church Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit Knew that Tradition was also very important along with what was going to be written in the Bible,The two (oral and written) need to tie in to each other.

Tradition is very difficult to change.One only needs to look to the Jewish people and see just how many thousands of years have gone by and they still hold true to it today.

We Catholics love our Bible also but we understand that Tradition is important too.

egk

03-29-2006, 06:50 PM

Trisheaven/Infoman

You wrote Even Cardinal Newman in his book states this in his book " The Development of the Christian Religion" on page 359.
"The Catholic church has invented new doctrines which are CONTRARY to the clear teachings of the Bible." 

I was going to ask you if you actually read this book, then I noticed the title, "The Development of the Christian Religion." Cardinal Newman wrote "The Development of the Christian Doctrine." He never wrote a book "The Development of the Christian Religion!" I did a google search and see that your "quote" comes from many anti-Catholic sites. They all quote from this nonexistent book to put in Newman's mouth something that he never said!

I never read Newman's book on the development of Christian doctrine, but it has been summarized to me. Newman, as all faithful Catholics, would NEVER say believe, let alone claim, that RC Doctrine contradicts the written Word of God. Now if a person misunderstands a RC Doctrine, as you continually do with the Immaculate Conception, that person can come up with unScriptual interpretations. The RCC is not responsible for those unScriptual interpretations. (As I told you before, Mary needed a saviour according to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.)

One of the 10 Commandments is "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor." Claiming that the Immaculate Conception teaches Mary didn't need a saviour is bearing false witness. Your error has been pointed out to you, references have been given, but you appear not to be interested in discovering what the RCC actually teaches.

Quoting, in ignorance, that Newman taught Catholic Doctrine contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, probably is not false witness. (You actually believed the quote was real.) It is slander though.

Please first read some of the Catholic sources that you "quote" and find out what they really say! Otherwise you may be slandering and / or bearing false witness!

EGK

easeltine

03-29-2006, 07:32 PM

Yes, I am aware of the addition to Scriptures in the NIV Bible of "homosexual offenders."

These Protestant nuts that skip 1300 years of Catholic Church history also do so to try to prove their heresy that the MIRACLES have ceased for today! Stupidity!

egk

03-29-2006, 08:15 PM

Trisheaven/Infoman

You wrote
You have to have somebody help you misunderstand the Bible and they do.

Then what did Peter mean in 2 Pet 3:16? "dealing with these matters as he [Paul] does in all his letter. There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin."

Some passages in Scripture are hard to understand and these can be distorted. You, Aran, and Leftin1991 do not agree on the Trinity, on the state of the soul after death, and on which day should be observed as the sabbath. Why not? Which ones of you have misunderstood the Scripture?

EGK

pro610

03-30-2006, 12:41 AM

Eastline,
You are probably also aware that Rick Warren(Purpose Driven Life),Tony Compolo,Robert Schuller,Joel Osteen,Bill Hybels and many other NEW AGE preacher,s are heavily involved with Zondervan.

The Fuller Theological seminary keeps training many of these NEW AGE guys.

Of course they are now part of the Evangelical Environmental Network and the World Council of Churches, ALL of which have connections to the UNITED NATIONS.

People are donating BUCKETS of money and have no idea where its going.

I wrote a number of reports on Rick Warren,Warren is selling Soren kierkegaard,s version of existential Christianity that he learned from his financier and mentor the late Peter Drucker.
Warren also uses Carl Jung,s Psychology along with the General Systems Theory to help find a purpose in life and to fit people into the Church.
Talk about interfering with the Holy Spirit!
Guess who is Rupert Murdoch,s favorite preacher?
Rick Warren of course!

This is what the Bible thumping Christians should really be attacking! Not the Catholic Church!

The very Bible they hold dear is being changed and abused by the New Age Movement!

The Catholic Church has only occasional abuses from the New Age Movement(Mostly some priests in the USA),and the Catholic Bible publisher,s are kept VERY Strongly to strict guidlines by the Vatican!

I have helped many people and churches recognize what the New Age movement is and the danger it is to Christians who sometimes unknowingly practice its mysticism.
I try to available to anyone who needs help in this field ,especially my Protestant Brother,s and Sister,s

Regards

trsrinheaven

03-30-2006, 12:58 AM

To all CATHOLICS...

Baptism of babies is just one of the many UNBIBLICAL errors preached by the catholic church just to keep adults and children in bondage.
This is another unBiblical heresy pushed by the catholic church.

The Apostles NEVER baptised infants.There was no point and no need. Children are already innocent. In fact it gives the impression that Jesus died in vain and had no need for God to pay our penalty for sin.

The scripture says to Repent FIRST and then after be baptised...

"1. Repent FIRST...
2.call upon the name of the Lord...
3. believe,
4.. have faith in,and 5.receive Christ into your life."
It's clear in many scriptures...

Romans 10:9-11 (King James Version)

9That if thou shalt CONFESS with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt BELIEVE in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For WITH THE HEART man believeth unto righteousness(right standing with God);
and with the MOUTH CONFESSION is made unto salvation.

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed..Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

A baby can do none of these things...
First of all an infant has not committed sin,
Jesus said " Allow the children to come to me,
FOR SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"
The New Testament states
"To he that knows what is right to do and doesn't do it to him that is SIN"

When a child reaches a place of understanding and knows right from wrong, and can choose God from their own heart then they are capable of making that decision. Until then they are obviously in right standing INNOCENT WITH GOD.

But as soon as they can understand about salvation, and receive Christ there is no reason to wait. But they must be able to understand.

Baptism is not a pre-requesite to enter heaven or the kingdom of God or to be born again.

The catholic church in order to make money, indoctrinate and put in bondage ignorant then non literate masses (Most could not read, and the Catholic church forbid anyone but leadership to read the Bible).They did this to make them swear allegiance to the catholic church put this MAN MADE heresy to people, and to keep them in fear of losing their place with God.
INDULGENCES -PAYING money to get into heaven form themselves or the dead was another evil money making scheme. How evil is that.
The Bible is clear and salvation FREE TO ALL.
God desires RELATIONSHIP intimante, INDIVIDUALLY WITH ALL people.

Jesus said recorded in Johns Gospel "you must be born again from above of the spirit from above,(be an new creation receive eternal life of God spiritually 2Cor)to enter the kingdom of heaven..
Two deaths physical and spiritual.
" God is a Spirit". We are a spirit. We live in a body and have a soul(mind, will and emotions).
Two births physical(Water) which has nothing to do with it, and spiritual. One must be born again (SPIRITUALLY) to receive "eternal life to remove spiritual death".

Baptism is just an outward expression that one does after salvation, and receiving Christ being born again anew from above receiving a new created spirit from and of God. 2Cor5

It is way past the time for the catholic church to GET BACK TO THE BIBLE and leave the traditions of men religious non Bible teachings.

pro610

03-30-2006, 12:59 AM

To All
Regarding Sola Scriptura, I find it a self-destroying idea. Let's take a look again. However, IF I find another "rule of faith", another means of PERFECTING man, would that ALSO destroy the idea of "Sola" in Sola Scriptura? In other words, if the Bible itself mentions another means of learning God's revelation, wouldn't I have also defeated the concept of Sola Scriptura? I have already done this with Eph 4:11-13.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints in the work of the ministry, unto [the] edifying of the body of the Christ until we all come forth in [the] unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the coming of age of the Christ: "

Clearly, the Bible ALONE is not the only means of building up the Body of Christ, to attain to perfection in man. This defeats Sola Scriptura, does it not? I don't understand why so many Catholic apologists overlook this approach, rather than the direct approach of attacking 2 Timothy

Good Night
Peace in Christ All

easeltine

03-30-2006, 05:02 AM

Infant Baptism - There are many Protestants that also believe in infant baptism. I agree that Romans 10:9 is a very strong Scriptures against the idea that an infant is saved, confession is needed.
Though, in the Book of Acts there are two accounts, the house of Cornelius, and the jailer that says that the entire household was baptized.
This was done as a declaration to God that the child would be brought up in the ways of the Lord.
The Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Reformed Church, Methodists etc. all also believe in infant baptism.
There is a very strong difference between Catholic theology and the Liberal Christian groups that I have mentioned previously in that in Roman Catholic theology the person needs to continue on, press on towards the goal. There is confession of faith through what the Catholic Church calls a Sacrament, (an outward sign of an inward grace), in the Sacrament of Confirmation. The terrible part of these Liberal Protestant groups is the idea that the infant is once-save-alway-saved for the belief is that there is NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO SAVE OURSELVES THAT IT IS ALL GOD or Faith sola.
The fact is if you do not produce fruit you are not saved...Catholic or Protestant

pro610

03-30-2006, 06:26 AM

Part#1
Pope: No Limbo for Babies, Only Heaven

By: Grant Swank: on Dec 01, 2005

Protestants have never believed in limbo.

Limbo is where babies who have not been baptized go when they die as infants. That was taught for many years in the Roman Catholic Church.

Protestants never bought into limbo because there is no mention of limbo in the Bible. In fact, the Bible says that Jesus stated that babies go to heaven. As He was ministering to little children, Jesus said of the children: “. . .of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Therefore, Protestants, with that biblical information from the lips of God incarnate, have never held to a limbo state for unbaptized babies. Instead, they have always believed that infants who die go directly into the presence of the loving God. The children have had no power of choice, deciding right or wrong, for their cognitive powers have not matured to that level. Therefore, in their innocence, they are welcomed into eternal bliss.

Catholics have formed limbo as an hypothesis, according to the present Pope. He says that the teaching does not have a firm footing; therefore, he is about to abandon the belief held for years by Roman Catholics. Instead, he agrees with the Protestant conclusion, that is, that infants who die are entranced into heavenly portals.

Some Protestants wonder then if purgatory is the next Roman Catholic position to be eliminated. There is not much talk today about purgatory in many Catholic parishes.

Protestants have held that purgatory too is an hypothesis with no biblical data. Instead, there is only a heaven to gain and a hell to avoid, they preach. Protestants hold to these two dimensions of eternity for that is all that is stated in the divine revelation — the Holy Scriptures.

Further, because Protestants believe that one is saved by faith alone and not works, there is no need for a purging place to burn off sins not dealt with in earthly existence. Protestants hold that Jesus’ sacrificial death on the Calvary cross is all sufficient to erase every sin when sincerely repented of; therefore, there is no need for a purging state for sins to be burnt off after death.

Roman Catholics have held that salvation by Jesus’ death alone is not enough. There must be human works that help the soul get into heaven. Since few persons accumulate enough works in this life to go directly to heaven, there must be a purgatory where sins are burnt off the soul in order for the soul to be fit enough to enter heaven.

pro610

03-30-2006, 06:28 AM

part#2
Protestants point that this is a dogma manufactured by the Roman Catholic Church, without base in the Bible. Roman Catholics state that they don’t care if it’s not in the Bible. They believe in two means of authority for deciding dogma — one being Scripture and the other being church tradition. Therefore, if church tradition has pronounced a dogma, then it is on the par with the Holy Scriptures.

In fact, if church tradition contradicts the Bible, church tradition holds precedence over God’s Word. For instance, the Assumption of Mary is not mentioned in the Bible; however, it is believed by Roman Catholics. Another example: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not mentioned in the Bible; instead, Mary is stated as having other children after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25; Mark 6:3). Nevertheless, though the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is cancelled out by the Bible, Roman Catholics still hold to that dogma.

Protestants protest such positions. They do not hold that traditions of mankind can be equal to or supercede divine revelation. In other words, if the teaching has no biblical base in God’s Word, then it does not exist for Protestants.

Regarding limbo, The Scotsman’s Stephen McGinty reports that “the Catholic Church is preparing to abandon the idea of limbo, the theological belief that children who die before being baptized are suspended in a space between heaven and hell.

“The concept, which was devised in the 13th century and was depicted in numerous works of art during the Renaissance, such as Descent into Limbo by the painter Giotto, and in Dante’s masterpiece, the Divine Comedy, is of a metaphysical space where infants are blissfully happy but are not actually in the presence of God.

“The idea of limbo was developed as a response to the harshness of early Church teachings which insisted that any child who died before he or she was baptized would still be stained by Original Sin and so would be condemned to hell.

“The belief, which is unique to the Catholic Church, has fallen out of favor over the past 50 years. It is rarely mentioned and until recently has been left in its own kind of limbo. However, an international commission of Catholic theologians, meeting in the Vatican this week, has been pondering the issue and is expected to advise Pope Benedict XVI to announce officially that the theological concept of limbo is incorrect.

“Instead, the new belief is expected to be that unbaptized babies will go directly to heaven. Pope Benedict had already expressed his doubts about limbo when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church’s doctrinal watchdog.

“In an interview in 1984, he said: ‘Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith. Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis.’”

Copyright © 2005 by J. Grant Swank, Jr.

egk

03-30-2006, 08:03 AM

Pro,

Your post above is interesting, but it misrepresents RC teaching. For example,

Mary is stated as having other children after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25; Mark 6:3). Nevertheless, though the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is cancelled out by the Bible, Roman Catholics still hold to that dogma. 

The Greek in Matt 1:25 simply indicates that Joseph did not have intercourse with Mary before Jesus' birth. It says NOTHING about after he was born, unlike the English translation. (The same Greek is use when Jesus says "I will be with you always until the end of the age." This does not mean he will not be with us after this age.)

You have already dealt with Jesus' brothers.

Just for your consideration.

EGK

pro610

03-30-2006, 11:35 AM

egk,

You are right.
I still hold the position of Mary,s perpetual Virginity.

The purpose of the article was to show that all babies go to Heaven.

I did not proof read the entire article.

Peace in Christ

pro610

03-30-2006, 11:48 AM

EGK,
Here is a better article

Pope to abandon idea of unbaptised babies forever in limbo
STEPHEN MCGINTY

THE Catholic Church is preparing to abandon the idea of limbo, the theological belief that children who die before being baptised are suspended in a space between heaven and hell.

The concept, which was devised in the 13th century and was depicted in numerous works of art during the Renaissance, such as Descent into Limbo by the painter Giotto, and in Dante's masterpiece, the Divine Comedy, is of a metaphysical space where infants are blissfully happy but are not actually in the presence of God.

The idea of limbo was developed as a response to the harshness of early Church teachings which insisted that any child who died before he or she was baptised would still be stained by Original Sin and so would be condemned to hell.

The belief, which is unique to the Catholic Church, has fallen out of favour over the past 50 years. It is rarely mentioned and until recently has been left in its own kind of limbo.

However, an international commission of Catholic theologians, meeting in the Vatican this week, has been pondering the issue and is expected to advise Pope Benedict XVI to announce officially that the theological concept of limbo is incorrect.

Instead, the new belief is expected to be that unbaptised babies will go directly to heaven.

Pope Benedict had already expressed his doubts about limbo when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he was head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Church's doctrinal watchdog.

In an interview in 1984, he said: "Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith. Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis."

According to Italian Vatican commentators, the reluctance of the theologians to use the word limbo was demonstrated in the way in which the Vatican referred to it in its official statement for this week's meeting. It referred to the week-long conference as a discussion on "the fate of children who die without baptism".

Pope Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, gave the commission the task of looking at the issue in 2004 and there has always been speculation that he wanted to drop the concept after he wrote his own papal document which gave no clear answer to the question of what happens to children who die before being baptised.

The late pope had written: "The Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God. In fact the great mercy of God, who wants all men to be saved, and the tenderness of Jesus towards children allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who die without baptism."

That view was in contrast to what Pope Pius X had declared in 1905: "Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory."

The fate of children who die before baptism has interested Christians since the religion's earliest days.

The idea was first suggested by St Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390 AD), who believed that the unbaptised would neither be punished nor access the full glory of God.

pro610

03-30-2006, 11:50 AM

part#2
This was dismissed by St Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD), who insisted instead that baptism was necessary for salvation and that even babies would be consigned to hell if they were not baptised.

He did, however, concede that once in hell their torment would be the mildest of all its residents. This torture of the innocent was unacceptable to St Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274 AD), who was the first major theologian to speculate about the existence of a place called limbo, whose name is derived from the Latin limbus which means "hem" or "edge". There, on the edge of heaven, the unbaptised would exist in a state of what he described as "natural happiness".

Last night, John Haldane, a professor of philosophy at St Andrews University and a consulter to the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture, said that the issue of limbo was "something of a medieval curiosity" that no longer preoccupies people. He said that the reason the Catholic Church was clarifying its position was that people still wrongly perceived heaven as a place and not as a state of being.

"The idea of limbo conjures up the image of God as some kind of government bureaucrat who says to people, not just babies, 'Sorry, you don't have your passport stamped with baptism, you'll have to wait over there'.

"Instead, God's powers are such that He can overcome the issue of Original Sin as He chooses, according to special circumstances."

egk

03-30-2006, 03:41 PM

Pro,

I did not proof read the entire article.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who has done this!

Thanks for your many posts!

In Christ,

EGK

pro610

03-30-2006, 03:51 PM

EGK,
Thanks for catching the error in Grant Swank,s article.

No more posting at 2:30 am east coast time for me!!!! LOL!

Brother, I appreciate your posts and all that you are doing to defend the Church.
Peace in Christ

easeltine

03-30-2006, 03:55 PM

Hi,

"Protestants have held that purgatory too is an hypothesis with no biblical data...
Catholic idea of purgatory
Since few persons accumulate enough works in this life to go directly to heaven, there must be a purgatory where sins are burnt off the soul in order for the soul to be fit enough to enter heaven."

Around 7 years ago + or - we used to get a radio station that I would listen to in my area by the name of Catholic Family Radio. I wanted to listen to the ideas of the largest church in the world and try to see how far off they were in their doctrines. I would never have thought there was any Scriptural support at all for any idea of purgatory. Then I heard the following Scripture given by a Dr. Ray, a Protestant turned Catholic phychologist with 8 adopted kids.

1 Cor 3:14-15
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. KJV

I don't buy the idea that there are 1,950,000 years that one has to be in purgatory like they believed during Martin Luther's day.
I personally believe that this is an immediate action.
The original idea for purgatory though came from this Scripture combined with the idea that that this event was happening in eternity, outside of time, and therefore could be a long process.

Erich

pro610

03-30-2006, 04:31 PM

Excerpt; http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm

A conviction that babies who died without baptism go to heaven was not something promoted only by people who want to believe that God saves everyone no matter what they do.

Pope John Paul II believed it. And so does Pope Benedict.

In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.

"It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism," he said.

In "God and the World," published in 2000, he said limbo had been used "to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible" to ensure that they had the "sanctifying grace" needed to wash away the effects of original sin.

While limbo was allowed to disappear from the scene, the future pope said, Pope John Paul's teaching in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "The Gospel of Life" took "a decisive turn."

Without theological fanfare, Pope John Paul "expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament," the then-cardinal said.

Father Kelly said turning away from the idea of limbo was part of "the development of the theological virtue of hope" and reflected "a different sense of God, focusing on his infinite love."

The Redemptorist said people should not think the changed focus is a lightweight embrace of warm, fuzzy feelings.

"The suffering, death and resurrection of Christ must call the shots," he said. "If Christ had not risen from the dead, we never would have thought of original sin," because no one would have needed to explain why absolutely every human needed Christ's salvation.

The fact that God loves his creatures so much that he sent his Son to die in order to save them means that there exists an "original grace" just as there exists "original sin," Father Kelly said.

The existence of original grace "does not justify resignation," or thinking that everyone will be saved automatically, he said, "but it does justify hope beyond hope" that those who die without having had the opportunity to be baptized will be saved.

jason12712

03-30-2006, 08:57 PM

Babies are a special subject now, one which i have a defenite view about. OT scripture is all I'll use, seeing its all i need for this.

1 Kings 14
Ahijah's Prophecy Against Jeroboam
1 At that time Abijah son of Jeroboam became ill, 2 and Jeroboam said to his wife, "Go, disguise yourself, so you won't be recognized as the wife of Jeroboam. Then go to Shiloh. Ahijah the prophet is there—the one who told me I would be king over this people. 3 Take ten loaves of bread with you, some cakes and a jar of honey, and go to him. He will tell you what will happen to the boy." 4 So Jeroboam's wife did what he said and went to Ahijah's house in Shiloh.
Now Ahijah could not see; his sight was gone because of his age. 5 But the LORD had told Ahijah, "Jeroboam's wife is coming to ask you about her son, for he is ill, and you are to give her such and such an answer. When she arrives, she will pretend to be someone else."
6 So when Ahijah heard the sound of her footsteps at the door, he said, "Come in, wife of Jeroboam. Why this pretense? I have been sent to you with bad news. 7 Go, tell Jeroboam that this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I raised you up from among the people and made you a leader over my people Israel. 8 I tore the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to you, but you have not been like my servant David, who kept my commands and followed me with all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes. 9 You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made for yourself other gods, idols made of metal; you have provoked me to anger and thrust me behind your back.

10 " 'Because of this, I am going to bring disaster on the house of Jeroboam. I will cut off from Jeroboam every last male in Israel—slave or free. I will burn up the house of Jeroboam as one burns dung, until it is all gone. 11 Dogs will eat those belonging to Jeroboam who die in the city, and the birds of the air will feed on those who die in the country. The LORD has spoken!'

12 "As for you, go back home. When you set foot in your city, the boy will die. 13 All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only one belonging to Jeroboam who will be buried, because he is the only one in the house of Jeroboam in whom the LORD, the God of Israel, has found anything good.

14 "The LORD will raise up for himself a king over Israel who will cut off the family of Jeroboam. This is the day! What? Yes, even now. [a] 15 And the LORD will strike Israel, so that it will be like a reed swaying in the water. He will uproot Israel from this good land that he gave to their forefathers and scatter them beyond the River, [b] because they provoked the LORD to anger by making Asherah poles. [c] 16 And he will give Israel up because of the sins Jeroboam has committed and has caused Israel to commit."

17 Then Jeroboam's wife got up and left and went to Tirzah. As soon as she stepped over the threshold of the house, the boy died. 18 They buried him, and all Israel mourned for him, as the LORD had said through his servant the prophet Ahijah.

jason12712

03-30-2006, 09:01 PM

So, babies, though born in iniquity (see psalm 51) go to heaven because they are innocent concerning sin. When they are able to be accountable for their actions, than, unless they believe on the Lord Jesus they shall in no way be saved. Baptism of a child however, if that child has not believed on the Lord Jesus, will in no way save them.

pro610

03-30-2006, 09:33 PM

Jason,
I really liked this quote from John Haldane,Did you?

"Instead, God's powers are such that He can overcome the issue of Original Sin as He chooses, according to special circumstances."

jason12712

03-30-2006, 09:55 PM

However, understand pro610, that not all ideas concerning babies that die, apply to an infant. too many things really are factors, such as is the development of a child's cognitive awareness and their ability to think and pray. i'm not one to impose an age of accountability, but an age i would say is right would be between 4-5. by that time, i would say i child is old enough to think and to learn how to pray, just a matter of the parents taking the time to teach their children about Jesus, and prayer. I could be wrong though. God the righteous judge knows all things, while I can only poke around. jason

trsrinheaven

03-30-2006, 10:17 PM

More catholic propaganda:
Baptism is not a condition necessary for salvation according to the Bible.

Baptism of babies is another one of the unBiblical man made money making cultic schemes to arrogantly put peopele in bondage to the catholic cult....as if they are the only way to God by following them not the Bible or the Holy Spirit.

The catholic church in order to make money, indoctrinated and put in bondage ignorant then non literate masses (Most could not read, and the Catholic church forbid anyone but leadership to read the Bible).

They did this to make them swear allegiance to the catholic church put this MAN MADE heresy to people, and to keep them in fear of losing their place with God from the time of birth.

INDULGENCES -PAYING money to get into heaven for themselves or for the dead was another evil money making scheme. How evil is that.

The Bible is clear and salvation FREE TO ALL.
God desires RELATIONSHIP intimante, INDIVIDUALLY WITH ALL people.

This is another unBiblical heresy pushed by the catholic church.

The Apostles NEVER baptised infants.There was no point and no need. Children are already innocent.

In fact it gives the impression that Jesus died in vain and had no need for God to pay our penalty for sin.

The scripture says to Repent FIRST and then after be baptised...

"1. FIRST Repent ...
2. call upon the name of the Lord...
3. believe,
4.. have faith in,and 5.receive Christ into your life."
It's clear in many scriptures...

Romans 10:9-11 (King James Version)

9That if thou shalt CONFESS with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt BELIEVE in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10For WITH THE HEART man believeth unto righteousness(right standing with God);
and with the MOUTH CONFESSION is made unto salvation. (Children need to be able to understand and be talking before they can ASK and receive Christ)

11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed..Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

A baby can do none of these things...
First of all an infant has not committed sin,
Jesus said " Allow the children to come to me,
FOR SUCH IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"
The New Testament states
"To he that knows what is right to do and doesn't do it to him that is SIN"

When a child reaches a place of understanding and knows right from wrong, and can choose God from their own heart then they are capable of making that decision. Until then they are obviously in right standing INNOCENT WITH GOD.

But as soon as they can understand about salvation, and receive Christ there is no reason to wait.

Jesus said recorded in Johns Gospel "you must be born again from above of the spirit from above,(be an new creation receive eternal life of God spiritually 2Cor)to enter the kingdom of heaven..
Two deaths physical and spiritual.
" God is a Spirit". We are a spirit. We live in a body and have a soul(mind, will and emotions).
Two births physical(Water) which has nothing to do with it, and spiritual. One must be born again (SPIRITUALLY) to receive "eternal life to remove spiritual death".

Baptism is just an outward expression that one does after salvation, and receiving Christ being born again anew from above receiving a new created spirit from and of God. 2Cor5

It is way past the time for the catholic church to GET BACK TO THE BIBLE and leave the traditions of men religious non Bible teachings.

pro610

03-30-2006, 10:34 PM

I agree with you Jason and would expand on it further to include infants that are born with types of mental disorders,thus they may never achieve cognitive awareness.
There are also children that are abused and killed and never taught anything about Jesus.

The Vatican Document written by Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope deals with issues regarding Salvation.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

Peace in Christ

jason12712

03-30-2006, 10:50 PM

pro610, i thank you for agreeing with me, however, let me reiterate what i said, that a baby or infant does not obtain heaven by baptism, but simply through innocence and ignorance, which, our carnal father, Adam, lost, through accessing the tree of knowledge and becoming guilty of sin.

pro610

03-30-2006, 10:51 PM

Do you even read the posts written on this thread??
You are like a broken record on you hatred of the Catholic Church!

Most of what you keep posting has already been addressed Brother/Sister

trsrin,I will post this again for you to read

Regarding Sola Scriptura, I find it a self-destroying idea. Let's take a look again. However, IF I find another "rule of faith", another means of PERFECTING man, would that ALSO destroy the idea of "Sola" in Sola Scriptura? In other words, if the Bible itself mentions another means of learning God's revelation, wouldn't I have also defeated the concept of Sola Scriptura? I have already done this with Eph 4:11-13.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints in the work of the ministry, unto [the] edifying of the body of the Christ until we all come forth in [the] unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the coming of age of the Christ: "

Clearly, the Bible ALONE is not the only means of building up the Body of Christ, to attain to perfection in man. This defeats Sola Scriptura, does it not? I don't understand why so many Catholic apologists overlook this approach, rather than the direct approach of attacking 2 Timothy

CHRISTIANITY IS NOT ISLAM OR JUDAISM IT IS NOT A RELIGION OF A BOOK,CHRISTIANITY IS A RELIGION ABOUT A MAN-JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR

pro610

03-30-2006, 11:06 PM

Jason,
Catholics feel they have Biblical reasons for focusing on baptism. (Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pt. 3:21, Mk 16:15-16 Acts 2:38). They look at the journey of water through the Old Testament including the great flood that cleansed the world. They feel that these were foreshadowings of baptism in the New Testament.(Gen.1:1-2, 6:5, 8:23, 9:9, Ex 3:4, Is12:2-3,1 Pt 3:20,1 Cor. 10:2) "In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity" (Zechariah 13:1)."Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin" (Psalms 51:2). When the eunuchs were traveling along the road and Philip evangelized them, one of them said

"Wait look, there is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?' ...when they came up out of the water the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away. The eunuch saw him no more and went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 3:35-40)

The saving and redemptive powers imparted by the Holy Spirit during Baptism bring with them the expectation that the Baptised person will make an adult choice for Jesus as soon as they reach the age of reason. In theory, this should happen at confirmation (about 10 years old) but in reality it usually happens later during a personal crisis

The New Testament Christians that Jesus talks about in this passage declared Jesus to be Lord. They received gifts of the Holy Spirit. They could not have cast out demons if they were not filled with the Holy Spirit. Yet they were not saved. It appears that there was another critical event that needed to occur for them to receive salvation. We Catholics suggest that event is baptism.

Peace in Christ

pro610

03-30-2006, 11:11 PM

Jason
oops ,I forgot to give you the scripture before my paragraph regarding The New Testament Scripture

Mathew 7:22 says:

On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evil doers.' "

pro610

03-31-2006, 01:22 AM

apilgrims
I have not heard from you in awhile,Is everything OK?
I know you were having some difficult times with your family being sick.

You and your family are in my prayer,s Sister.

Peace in Christ.

jason12712

03-31-2006, 03:02 PM

pro610, you used acts 2:38 as a reference to salvation by baptism, yet the salvation comes by the repentance of sins, only than can they be baptized. For the conversion of Saul, which you should have used acts 9 for instead of acts 22, he had believed on the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road, as evident in verse 9:11 in ananias vision were jesus said behold, he prayeth. Saul had already encountered Jesus on the Damascus road, and started praying as he was in Judas house. The scripture in 1 Peter 3:21 even says that it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (which is the physical act of baptism) but the answer of a good conscience towards God. In the symbolic sense it saves, but if the answer of a good conscience towards God is not there, than the putting away of the filth of the flesh will in no means save a person. Mark 16:15-16 emphasize more on believing than on baptism, for it says he that believeth not is damned, not he that believeth not and is not baptised is damned. continued on next thread

jason12712

03-31-2006, 03:18 PM

The example you gave for the ethiopian eunuch being baptized was only after phillip the evangelist told the eunuch if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest, seeing here it is the act of believing, not of baptizing, that saves. Now for my testimony as far as this goes. I was raised in a methodist church, which practices some things catholics do, to wit, infantile baptism and confirmation. I was confirmed when I was 10 I think, but I didn't even know what salvation was till I was 18, about to graduate high school. I received salvation in a little southern baptist church in McCloud, Oklahoma, and than I joined the army, not knowing it was not a good thing for a chrisitian to join the army. I fell away from God, Bible reading, and church attendance my first two years of the army, and than I was invited to come to a church called HOP, the which I did not accept until a few weeks later. Back before I had joined the army, I had been saved and baptized in the southern baptist church, but I realized when I started going to church again just how much I'd fallen away, and I called on God, and on the Lord Jesus, and recieved justification for my sins. To this day i'm saved, though sometimes a little weak in my salvation, yet i'm impenetrable as far as my faith is concerned.

pro610

03-31-2006, 03:39 PM

Jason,
Biblical evidence is clear regarding Salvation,its not a one and done thing for intellectually capable people.
If it were then why would God give us Free Will, and we all know people who have fallen away

lets look at what scripture says
Matt. 7:18 - Jesus says that sound trees bear good fruit. But there is no guarantee that a sound tree will stay sound. It could go rotten.

Matt. 7:21 - all those who say "Lord, Lord" on the last day will not be saved. They are judged by their evil deeds.

Matt. 12:30-32 - Jesus says that he who is not with Him is against Him, therefore (the Greek for "therefore" is "dia toutos" which means "through this") blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. This means that failing to persevere in Jesus' grace to the end is the unforgivable sin against the Spirit. We must persevere in faith to the end of our lives.

Matt. 22:14 - Jesus says many are called but few are chosen. This man, who was destined to grace, was at God's banquet, but was cast out.

Luke 8:13 - Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it.

Luke 12:42-46 - we can start out as a faithful and wise steward, then fall away and be assigned to a place with the unfaithful.

Luke 15:11-32 – in the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that we can be genuine sons of the Father, then leave home and die, then return and be described as "alive again."

John 6:70-71 - Jesus chose or elected twelve, yet one of them, Judas, fell. Not all those predestined to grace persevere to the end.

John 15:1-10 - we can be in Jesus (a branch on the vine), and then if we don't bear fruit, are cut off, wither up and die. Paul makes this absolutely clear in Rom. 11:20-23.

John 17:12 - we can be given to Jesus by the Father (predestined to grace) and yet not stay with Jesus, like Judas.

John 6:37 - those who continue to come to Jesus He won't cast out. But it's a continuous, ongoing action. We can leave Jesus and He will allow this because He respects our freewill.

John 6:39 - Jesus will not lose those the Father gives Him, but we can fall away, like Judas. God allows us not to persevere.

John 6:40 - everyone who sees the Son and believes means the person "continues" to believe. By continuing to believe, the person will persevere and will be raised up. Belief also includes obedience, which is more than an intellectual belief in God.

John 10:27-28 - when Jesus says, "no one shall snatch them out of my hands," He does not mean we can't leave His hands. We can choose to walk away from Him.

Rev. 2:4-5 – Jesus tells the Ephesians that they abandoned the love they had at first and have fallen. Jesus warns them to repent and do the works they did at first, otherwise He will remove their lampstand (their awaited place in heaven).

Rev. 3:4 - in Sardis, Jesus explained that some people received the white garment and soiled it with sin.

Rev. 3:5 - Jesus says whoever conquers will not be blotted out of the book of life (see Exodus 32:33). This means that we can be blotted out of the book of life. We can have salvation, and then lose salvation by our choice.

Rev. 3:11 - Jesus says to hold fast to what we have, so that no one may seize our crown. Jesus teaches us that we can have the crown of salvation and lose it.

Rev. 21:7 - we must conquer in order to share in our heritage and become a true son of Jesus.

Rev. 22:19 - we can have a share in the tree of life in God's holy city and yet have that share taken away from us.

pro610

03-31-2006, 03:48 PM

Jason,
Scriptures maintain TWO truths. That God's will be done and man has free will. We try to maintain both truths without eliminating the other. At this point, God has not revealed exactly how that occurs. My personal view is that God, from within eternity, sees all actions and takes into account these actions by granting His graces to ensure that the final result of His will is met. Thus, God is not "waiting" on us. He sees something and acts on it - but before it happens. Thus, He is the driving force AND we have free will.

infoman

03-31-2006, 05:09 PM

Doctrine to be true must conform to the BIBLE . "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)
If any man change them let him be cursed.
At the Reformation in the 16th Century these heresies were repudiated as having no part in the Religion of Jesus as taught in the New Testament.

Man made inventions not in the Bible:
_____________________________
A.D.
1. OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ....310
2. Wax Candles introduced in church about....320
3. Veneration of angels and dead saints about....375
4. The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted....394
5. The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in....431
6. Priests began to dress differently from the laity in....500
7. The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great about the year....593
8. The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I, 600 years after Christ....600
The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (I Cor. 14:9).
9. The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church about....600
(Matt. 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18)
10. The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas, in the year ....610
This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface 111, first assumed title "pope. "
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1: 18; 1 Cor. 3:11).
Note:-Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome.
11. The kissing of the Pope's feet began in....709
It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Rev. 19:10; 22:9).
12. The Temporal power of the Popes began....750
When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen 11, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matt. 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38).

jason12712

03-31-2006, 05:36 PM

infoman, not defending catholicism, but what you wrote is neither here nor there. pro610, i'm glad you see that it is possible to fall away from God, for the two years before i started going to church again, i was an example of the prodigal son. but the thing that distinguishes the righteous man from the wicked is "the just man falls seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked fall into mischief." proverbs 24:16 i've fallen many times, but by the grace of One who is stronger than I have risen again. Let me ask you something pro610. Has the catholic church been able to keep you from sinning? Has it helped you to "be sober and watch unto prayer" or "flee from youthful lusts"? Has it helped keep you from idolatry, adultery, or fornication? not trying to bash you, just get an honest answer.

apilgrims

03-31-2006, 07:03 PM

Dear pro610-
I am so grateful for your concern for us-- yes, we've been in a bit of a valley over here. My one year old, Joseph, has pneumonia, and my two year old Angela and I have a sinus infection so sleep and time at the computer have been limited! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif Your prayers are so appreciated! May I ask my other Christian brothers and sisters here to pray for us as well?
Lovingly,
Nancy

apilgrims

03-31-2006, 07:39 PM

Also, to jump back into this most interesting discussion (which will hopefully keep my brain from turning to jelly...) a point was made above by trsrinheaven :

"God is a Spirit". We are a spirit. We live in a body and have a soul(mind, will and emotions).
Two births physical(Water) which has nothing to do with it, and spiritual. One must be born again (SPIRITUALLY) to receive "eternal life to remove spiritual death".

I'm not sure trsrinheaven really reads these other posts, but just in case, here goes. It amazes me that Catholics tend to be even more literalist as regards the words of Our Lords than many "Bible-only" Christians. Here's what Jesus said about baptism:

"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:5-6)

Seems to me, He meant it. }}And the Catholic Church takes Him at His Word. So do many of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters!

If we accept that baptism is necessary for salvation, then the discussion of infant baptism becomes important and riveting. pro610 and Jason, I love the spirit in which you have been having this discussion. Beautiful God-given charity, attention, and respect. Oops- speaking of which, I hear two cranky sick babies waking up from their naps! Pray for patience for their cranky, sick mommy!
Love, Nancy

jason12712

03-31-2006, 09:18 PM

apilgrims, i don't know if you read my above post, but i was baptized first (and i think twice) in the methodist church, once as and infant and once in confirmation. neither of these times had i addressed the truly important issue of repentance of sins and faith in christ, only after i broke away from the methodist church and went to a southern baptist church did i find my way to Jesus, (or perhaps he found His way to me????) also, for the entire child baptism thing, we have to take the account of stillbirths and those that are cruelly murdered by their "moms" as well. a person is a living soul as soon as conception, therefore, the children live before they are born. if a child dies before birth, than that child (in theory, i'm not God, nor shall i be God, but i try what i can to do what i can) should go to heaven and be with the Lord who created it. but, and just to throw a little spice in this matter, the psalmist says i was conceived in sin. if the penalty for sin is death, than children would still go to hell. however, i'm convinced that that is not the case. any second opinions?

apilgrims

03-31-2006, 10:40 PM

Dear Jason- this is one of those questions that we'll have to wait for Heaven to be able to see the whole answer, don't you think? I'm with you- that, as with the Holy Innocents, God finds a way to baptize the unborn- to apply the grace and mercy of His redemptive act to wash away Original Sin from those who have no choice and no chance otherwise. I'll even go further: so deep is my belief in the gigantic ocean of the mercy of God, that I believe if someone dies unbaptized but with a great desire for baptism in his heart (ie- "A funny thing happened to me on the way to my baptism- I got hit by a truck") God will find a way to apply His mercy. "Then," you might well ask, "why the need for sacramental baptism? Can't we just assume that if we love God and keep His word, try hard to avoid sin and call on His Name, that we are "baptized" into the family of God and not worry about it?" Sure, we could; and everything might be okay with that approach. Except that it's expressly disobeying God's command that we make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And when taken with Our Lord's words about what baptism means, it would be presumptuous in the extreme to ignore His command-- the Satanic temptation to throw oneself off the parapet yelling "Catch me!" when He has given us the surest way to salvation. In other words, God can choose to operate outside the strictures He has given to men-- but we may not.

I loved the part of your post where you said "or perhaps He found His way to me?" Baptism is the voice in the wilderness of our hearts, making straight the path for the Lord! It softens our hearts and aids our reason. It washes the dirt off our souls and makes a home for grace within. I dearly believe that your baptism made straight that path for the grace of the Lord, and His Grace waited impatiently to rush into your heart when you finally gave Him leave. Can He get to us without a straight path? I know He can. Ought we to tempt Him to try it? That's an answer we don't have to wait for Heaven to receive.

Baptism is the total free gift: no cooperation required, no assent, no action of the conscience-- in other words, no works! Does a baptized baby have to grow up and then have faith in Christ and keep His commands in order to be saved? Of course! But the mark of baptism on his soul is a fountain of grace from which he may- or may not drink. That's where the free will comes in. He can lead us to water, but...

pro610

04-01-2006, 03:04 AM

apilgrams,
Quote
"""Baptism is the total free gift: no cooperation required, no assent, no action of the conscience-- in other words, no works! Does a baptized baby have to grow up and then have faith in Christ and keep His commands in order to be saved? Of course! But the mark of baptism on his soul is a fountain of grace from which he may- or may not drink. That's where the free will comes in. He can lead us to water, but...""

God Bless you Sister!
I am speachless!
A mother,s love is an incredible mystery to us foolish men!

Thank you for your post!

trsrinheaven

04-03-2006, 04:28 PM

apilrams,
Jesus in CONTEXT is talking about the two births;one physical and the other spiritual.

born of the flesh-the water.
The physical birth from the water in the womb..to the second birth born again new creature, out of spiritual death into the kingdom of God...
born of the spirit-spiritual life.

John 3: born again- born from above-
spiritually from spiritual death to "eternal life" entering in and receiving a new spirit.
Becoming a "New creation" (reality) 2Cor5

Nicodemus is answered by Jesus how one can be born a second time and not go back into the mothers womb.(water, physically).

"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:5-6)

Baptism is not to take place UNTIL REPENTANCE TAKES PLACE FIRST.
REPENT (FIRST) AND BE BAPTISED.
Repentance comes first. Repentance (the spiritual act of turning from ones sin receiving forgiveness) must precede the physical act of baptism.
Baptism is NOT necessay for salvation.
Just as communion is not necessary for salvation.
These are physical WORKS NOT faith spiritual acts. They are helpful works but do not cause salvation.
"The heart confession of receiving Christs forgiveness into ones life and upon Jesus as Lord is made unto salvation." Romans 10 and all over the New Testament.
NOT BY WORKS BUT ONLY BY FAITH CAN ONE BE SAVED.

Babies and young toddlers cant repent...but God has this covered as they are innocent until an understanding takes place. The same is for those mentally challenged "like a little child". They are such is the kingdom of Heaven.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

apilgrims

04-03-2006, 09:20 PM

But, trsrinheaven,
If Our Lord meant "Unless one is born of flesh and the Spirit," doesn't it seem likely He would have just said, "flesh and Spirit?"
If I understand you correctly, by your interpretation that Jesus is separating the "water and spirit" birth into two separate births(one birth is physical birth and one is spiritual birth), unborn babies have no chance to be saved. They by definition are never born of the flesh. To say that they are covered because they have committed no actual sins just doesn't suffice under your interpretation, which has Christ literally meaning this: "Unless you are born of water (physically born) and then born of the Spirit (later when you're older)... you can't be saved." I just can't believe that this is what Our Lord meant.

Also, what about the Original Sin? Every person stands in need of the ungrudging gift of grace, from babies newly conceived to the oldest, rankest sinner. The world fell when Adam sinned. Our entire human race is stained with the sin of that first disobedience-- until washed clean in the baptism made possible by the Cross, and vividly demonstrated in the flow of water and blood from His precious side.
"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." Rom 5:12

Hence the need for Jesus' sacrifice, once for all. "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead" I Cor 15:21

Not for some, or even most- but all. Everyone needs His grace, and if we assume Jesus meant to include the unborn in those able to be saved, we must conclude that He meant born of water and Spirit together (baptism), not separately (physical birth then spiritual birth). For He can accomplish this kind of baptism with water and Spirit together even in the womb- a free gift to the helpless- we cannot, and depend on His Mercy.

This is a very interesting discussion and I thank you for your patience and charity with me getting so wordy. I'll check back tonight after the kids are in bed- looking forward to continuing. God bless you!

jason12712

04-04-2006, 01:20 PM

17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 corinthian 1:17-18
I found this during the course of my bible reading last night, and thought to show it here on factnet. were we sent to baptize or to preach the Gospel? let us look at the different accounts of the Great Commission.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Matthew 28:19-20
Jesus puts an emphasis on teaching, having said it here twice, and tells them to baptize as they go in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 16:15-16
Preach the gospel, he that believeth, and is baptized. to be continued...

jason12712

04-04-2006, 01:31 PM

now for luke's perspective

45Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luke 24:45-48
I like that first part, "than opened he their understanding" and pay attention to verse 47 were it says that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his name among all nations. no mention of baptism here, but preaching repentance and remission of sin.

This is what three of the four gospels say of the great commission. John apparently did not record any great commission, or anything that might refer to it. The closest I can find is this: 31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 20:31 John seems to emphasize on believing. Anyways, God bless you

trsrinheaven

04-04-2006, 02:33 PM

apilgrim,

Jesus in CONTEXT is CLEARLY talking with Nicodemus about TWO births; physical and spiritual;
"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:5-6)
-one physical and the other spiritual.
IN CONTEXT:
Nicodemus' questions make this clear and Jesus' answer makes it clear that their are two births...
-One physical in the womb(where life begins)
-One spiritual in the spirit

born of the flesh-the water.
The physical birth from the water in the womb..to the second birth born again new creature, out of spiritual death into the kingdom of God...
born of the spirit-spiritual life.

John 3: born again- born from above-
spiritually from spiritual death to "eternal life" entering in and receiving a new spirit.
Becoming a "New creation" (reality) 2Cor5

Nicodemus asks Jesus how can one be born a second time and not go back into the mothers womb.(into the water where life begins, spiritually and physically).

"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:5-6)
Read the chapter.

The Biblical definition of sin and the scriptural references are all that matter here.

Original sin (sin entered the world) causes the potential nature to sin to come into the world. Spiritual death is caused by commiting sin. All people by the time they reach adulthood and afterard will commit many sin eventually. One sin is all it takes.

Sin and the potential to commit sin has come into the world, but according to scripture babies and little children are not accountable until they know what is right to do.

Gods nature is explained in the scripture for "God is love." Not human kind of love but Gods Agape love. That means and is displayed that God loves children. God is fair. God made a way for all. Jesus loves children and explains their innocence and connection with the kingdom of God.

"Unless you become like a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"
Scripture always explains scripture.
Babies and young little children have no sin according to the Bible.
They have not committed sin.
They are innocent not having reached a place of understanding. They are born with the potential to later commit sin and thus be guilty of the penalty for sin. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God..." Children not old enough or mature enough to understand right from wrong haven't sinned.

Jesus stated and showed children are innocent and already in right standing with God.

Mark 10:
"And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.

14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Allow the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

16And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

The Bible defines sin: as having to know and understand what is right to do including knowing about receiving Christ.

It is easy to lead a young child to Christ because they trust, have no baggage of hardness of heart and unbelief.

Until one can understand what is right then they commit sin and have no wage or penalty of sin. That is God's fair standard.

trsrinheaven

04-04-2006, 02:42 PM

....apilgrim continued
Everyone has the law written in their hearts, as stated by Romans
19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],
The Bible states in James 4:17 "to him that knows what is right to do and doesn't do it to him that is sin"

Romans 7: 7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

"But those who keep on sinning are against God, for every sin is done against the will of God....Dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: if you are constantly doing what is good, it is because you are good, even as He (God) is. But if you keep on sinning, it shows that you belong to Satan (the devil), who since he first began to sin has kept steadily at it. But the Son of God (Jesus) came to destroy these works of the devil....So now we can tell who is a child of God and who belongs to Satan. Whoever is living a life of sin and doesn't love his brother shows that he is not in God's family;" 1 John 3:4,7,8,10

"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin" James 4:17

Notice that in the "willful act" of sin's expression there are two sides. One is the act of "commission" by doing a wrong and unrighteous act. The other is the act of "omission"...which means to avoid doing something that you know is right.

Attitudes

"But anyone who believes that something he wants to do is wrong shouldn't do it. He sins if he does, for he thinks it is wrong, and so for him it is wrong. Anything that is done apart from what he feels is right is sin." Romans 14:23

Since Jesus said that we must become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, the implication is that little children are not excluded from heaven for any reason. This further supports the view that infants and young children are spiritually alive and will go to heaven if they die.

trsrinheaven

04-04-2006, 02:45 PM

a pilgrim part 3 of 3 ...
Here are several more interesting passages:

John 9:41: "Jesus said, "If you were blind [tuphlos], you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.""
Deuteronomy 1:39: "And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad --they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it."

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."
Isaiah 7:15: "He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right."
Isaiah 7:16: "But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."

In John 9:41 (above), Jesus said that those who are "blind" are not guilty of sin, and He used the Greek word tuphlos which means "being blind, ignorant, stupid, slow of understanding" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates, p.1400, John 9:41). This refers to people who are ignorant of sin rather than those who are physically blind, which means that infants and young children (who are too young to understand about sin) are not guilty of sin.
In Deuteronomy 1:39 (above) we see a reference to children who were too young to know good from bad. This demonstrates that young children are ignorant of sin, and Jesus said that those who are ignorant of sin are not guilty of sin (John 9:41, above).
In Isaiah 7:14-16 (above) we see once again that there is a period when young children are ignorant of sin, and therefore they are spiritually blind and not guilty of sin (John 9:41, above).
Conclusion

The Bible does not specifically tell us where infants and little children go when they die, but the Scriptural evidence leads me to believe that they all go to heaven if they have not yet reached an "age of understanding accountability" (which is obviously a different age for different children since everyone matures at a different rate).

As we saw, all humans have a spirit, and all humans will exist eternally (because our spirits cannot die). The phrase, "eternal life," does not simply mean "existing eternally," it means remaining in a relationship with God eternally. All unrighteous people throughout history will exist eternally, but they will be in anguish because they will be denied that fellowship with God. What it boils down to is that a "spiritually dead" person does not have the life of Christ in him, and therefore he will not go to heaven if he dies in that state. Similarly, if a person will go to heaven when he dies then by definition he is "spiritually alive" because he has a relationship and fellowship with God. There is no such thing in the Bible as a person going to hell who is not "spiritually dead," and there is no such thing in the Bible as a person going to heaven who is not "spiritually alive." Those things go together. Therefore, if infants will go to heaven then by definition they are "spiritually alive."

This does not mean that infants are sinless, it means that God's grace through Jesus' blood is "covering" infants and young children until they are old enough to understand and be held accountable
A good link to read:
http://www.layhands.com/DoBabiesGoToHeaven.htm

jason12712

04-04-2006, 06:32 PM

Question: OT babes and infants, young children who are ignorant and without understanding of sin? They die without knowledge of sin, but also without Jesus. Will they go to heaven?

arron

04-04-2006, 06:41 PM

yes if a person is born and never has the knowledge to be saved, such as mental handicap or such condition then if they die they will go to heaven... but who ever knows to beleive and does not will be lost and go to hell

ezekiel_37

04-04-2006, 09:55 PM

innocence and the age of accountability......differes for each child

God knows and Him alone

maybe He loved them so much that He didn't want them here on earth....having to go through this life. Their souls are probably to innocent for this world.

apilgrims

04-05-2006, 12:46 AM

Dear Jason-
That is truly illuminating, looking at the various gospels side by side as you have them. Thank you for taking the trouble to lay it out like that. I do see the great emphasis each account lays upon teaching the Gospel, and in countless other places in the NT. And it is easy to see great emphasis has been laid upon baptism, here in the gospels, in St. John's lengthy and portentous account of John the Baptizer, and then again and again throughout Acts and Corinthians. So I think would say here what I just wrote in the other thread we're in with Shammah, that I see no conflict between the two commands, to teach and to baptize, but a marvelous unity of Word, water, and Spirit.
"For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Galatians 3:27
It all works together- we needn't choose teaching the gospel or baptism- we can have it all! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Jason, I just reread Luke 24 and I thank you so much for recalling it to my attention. I am in tears imagining the hearts of the apostles at this moment. Earlier, their hearts are troubled and full of many thoughts. Too, too often, this is me! Bless us with Your Presence, Lord! Make us faithful and ready to carry out your commands.
With love,
Nancy

apilgrims

04-05-2006, 01:58 AM

Dear trsrinheaven-
I'm sorry- you're right- I ought to have made it clear that of course Christ is talking about two births, a spiritual and a physical. What I meant to say was I think He is making two separate (but related) points in those two sentences:

"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:5-6)

In the first sentence, Our Lord explains to Nicodemus that a single birth of water and spirit is necessary to enter God's kingdom. Next, he distinguishes this rebirth (baptism) from physical birth. We may disagree on our understanding of His words here, but both interpretations are possible, so I don't think this text can stand alone to prove or disprove either of our positions. Like most things Biblical, all must be taken together. There are so many texts on baptism that it is hard to pick just one to discuss... let's come back to it in a minute.

I'd like to tell you all the things you have said with which I wholeheartedly agree:

"Spiritual death is caused by commiting sin. All people by the time they reach adulthood and afterard will commit many sin eventually. One sin is all it takes."

"Gods nature is explained in the scripture for "God is love." Not human kind of love but Gods Agape love. That means and is displayed that God loves children. God is fair. God made a way for all. Jesus loves children and explains their innocence and connection with the kingdom of God."

Continued below...

apilgrims

04-05-2006, 02:03 AM

trsrinheaven: More stuff we agree on:

"Unless you become like a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven"
Scripture always explains scripture. "

"It is easy to lead a young child to Christ because they trust, have no baggage of hardness of heart and unbelief."

"Notice that in the "willful act" of sin's expression there are two sides. One is the act of "commission" by doing a wrong and unrighteous act. The other is the act of "omission"...which means to avoid doing something that you know is right."
"Since Jesus said that we must become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, the implication is that little children are not excluded from heaven for any reason."
"The Bible does not specifically tell us where infants and little children go when they die, but the Scriptural evidence leads me to believe that they all go to heaven if they have not yet reached an "age of understanding accountability" (which is obviously a different age for different children since everyone matures at a different rate).

"As we saw, all humans have a spirit, and all humans will exist eternally (because our spirits cannot die). The phrase, "eternal life," does not simply mean "existing eternally," it means remaining in a relationship with God eternally. All unrighteous people throughout history will exist eternally, but they will be in anguish because they will be denied that fellowship with God. What it boils down to is that a "spiritually dead" person does not have the life of Christ in him, and therefore he will not go to heaven if he dies in that state. Similarly, if a person will go to heaven when he dies then by definition he is "spiritually alive" because he has a relationship and fellowship with God. There is no such thing in the Bible as a person going to hell who is not "spiritually dead," and there is no such thing in the Bible as a person going to heaven who is not "spiritually alive." Those things go together. Therefore, if infants will go to heaven then by definition they are "spiritually alive."

"This does not mean that infants are sinless, it means that God's grace through Jesus' blood is "covering" infants and young children until they are old enough to understand and be held accountable"

That is a lot of agreement! Praise God.

More on my next post below...

apilgrims

04-05-2006, 02:17 AM

Wow am I wordy tonight- forgive me! Last post for tonight... I promise!

Here is where I think we may differ somewhat: last first: Rather than being "covered" by Jesus' blood in God's grace and mercy, I believe unborn, infants and young children who die unbaptized are actually washed clean in the blood of the Lamb by God's mercy- so that they may enter Heaven with no taint or stain of original sin upon their souls.

I agree with you and all the great texts you use to show that these little ones are not guilty of any "actual" sin (sin of their own act), as with the "blind" or ignorant, or St. Paul before the Law. In the following passage from Romans, St. Paul talks about the fact that people weren't responsible for their actual sins after Adam until God gave the law to Moses, just like you have been saying. But he goes on to say that they were all condemned to death anyway, even if they hadn't committed any actual sins.

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come." Romans 5:12-15

This is because that first disobedience brought separation from God which is death to all people. A breach that could only be healed by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

So here it seems is our only real disagreement on this topic: I don't think unbaptized little ones here on earth are "already in right standing with God", or "have no wage or penalty of sin." They are part of our race that would be altogether doomed without Christ's sacrifice. If not, then all the unborn, babies, and little children throughout history could go to Heaven whether or not Christ died on the Cross-- simply by virtue of their unquestioned personal innocence.

I believe that they must be baptized in the baptism made possible by the cross of Christ, just like everyone else. I believe God in His Mercy baptizes the personally innocent through the cross of Christ. I believe we are under commands from the Lord Himself to baptize and teach the gospel to everyone we can.

I believe my husband has fallen asleep while waiting for his longwinded wife to quit typing!

I look forward to reading your responses, brothers (and sisters?) all.
Good night and God be with you.

arron

04-05-2006, 02:33 AM

when a person believes and is saved they are secure. whne a child who has not got to the point of being able to believe then they are kept by GODS BLOOD nad you dont have to worry about them.

trsrinheaven

04-05-2006, 05:42 PM

apilgrim
Salvation is SPIRITUAL new birth with eternal life(born again),not physical new birth or life (the lower, natural, temporal life which is lived only on earth.
Salvation includes the creating of a brand new spiritual self made now with Eternal life for relationship with God. John 3:3-16 adn 2Cor5

This comes spiritually so we may eternally be connected with God for RELATIONHIP (knowing God, Jesus Christ)
The Bible defines what ETERNAL LIFE is:
Amplified Original Text Greek Bible
"And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent.

The Bible explains this. A child has done nothing to cause spiritual death.
"The law of sin and death" came into the world and Jesus made the way to redeem us from that through "the law of the spirit of life."

Only by sinning prior to salvation does one lose the ability for "koinonia" intimate communion relationship with God. God has made a way for all innocent people (children and mentally challenged) to go to heaven.

BAPTISM DOES NOTHING
BAPTISM IS A PHYSICAL WORK THAT DOES NOTHING SPIRITUALLY.
ONLY CICUMCISION OF THE HEART...GETTING A NEW HEART OR SPIRIT CAN ENTER THE KINGDOM FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SIN. FOR THE WAGE OF SIN IS SPIRITUAL DEATH. Children have no sin thus no wage of spiritual death...so God does not impute sin or its penalty to the innocent.

Baptism of infants for whatever reason does nothing but put money in those misled unBiblical churches coffers, and instill fear and allegiance by fear and works not true faith and grace which the Bible directs.
Baptism is a performance work of the flesh not of the heart depending upon grace and faith.
Only by Gods "grace through faith" is one saved not by anyones performance, goodness, or works.

Plenty of people are infant baptised and not saved.
JESUS GIVES US SPIRITUAL ETERNAL LIFE TRADED FOR SPIRITUAL ETERNAL DEATH.

Galatians 5:4
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law (by your performance of works); ye are fallen from grace."

"For it is by grace (God's free unmerited favor) that you are saved ([c]delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ's salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;

9Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law's demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]" Eph 2

The Bible states "For then Christ came and his sacrifice and death was in vain." ...
but the "flesh profits NOTHING".
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

pro610

04-05-2006, 09:00 PM

apilgrams,
Are you like me sometimes on this discussion board?

I feel like a sheep amongst wolves once in awhile.

You are doing great,keep sticking to the truth.

Peace in Christ

trsrinheaven

04-06-2006, 12:02 AM

apilgrim,
Salvation is a SPIRITUAL new birth with eternal life(born again),not physical new birth or life (the lower, natural, temporal life which is lived only on earth.
Salvation includes the creating of a brand new spiritual self made now with Eternal life for relationship with God. John 3:3-16 adn 2Cor5

This comes spiritually so we may eternally be connected with God for RELATIONHIP (knowing God, Jesus Christ)

The Bible defines what ETERNAL LIFE is:
Amplified Original Text Greek Bible
"And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent.

The Bible explains this. A child has done nothing to cause spiritual death.
"The law of sin and death" came into the world and Jesus made the way to redeem us from that through "the law of the spirit of life."

Only by sinning prior to salvation does one lose the ability for "koinonia" intimate communion relationship with God. God has made a way for all innocent people (children and mentally challenged) to go to heaven.

BAPTISM DOES NOTHING
BAPTISM IS A PHYSICAL WORK THAT DOES NOTHING SPIRITUALLY.
ONLY CICUMCISION OF THE HEART...GETTING A NEW HEART OR SPIRIT CAN ENTER THE KINGDOM FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SIN. FOR THE WAGE OF SIN IS SPIRITUAL DEATH. Children have no sin thus no wage of spiritual death...so God does not impute sin or its penalty to the innocent.

Baptism of infants for whatever reason does nothing but put money in those misled unBiblical churches coffers, and instill fear and allegiance by fear and works not true faith and grace which the Bible directs.
Baptism is a performance work of the flesh not of the heart depending upon grace and faith.
Only by Gods "grace through faith" is one saved not by anyones performance, goodness, or works.

Plenty of people are infant baptised and not saved.
JESUS GIVES US SPIRITUAL ETERNAL LIFE TRADED FOR SPIRITUAL ETERNAL DEATH.

Galatians 5:4
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law (by your performance of works); ye are fallen from grace."

"For it is by grace (God's free unmerited favor) that you are saved ([c]delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ's salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;

9Not because of works [not the fulfillment of the Law's demands], lest any man should boast. [It is not the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it or take glory to himself.]" Eph 2

The Bible states "For then Christ came and his sacrifice and death was in vain." ...
but the "flesh profits NOTHING".
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

apilgrims

04-06-2006, 12:52 AM

You know, trsrinheaven, I did my absolute best in good faith to try to discuss this with you, using scripture, love, and reason, and for awhile there I thought, even if we don't agree, we're making progress in charity for one another.

Tonight, reading your post, I feel so discouraged and tired.

I ask you one, simple, easy question, and then I'm off to bed. If baptism does nothing and is entirely meaningless, why does our Lord even mention it? Why does He command it?

I've got nothing more to say. Except God bless you.

apilgrims

04-06-2006, 12:54 AM

My dear pro610-
To answer your question: yes, I do right now.
God love you- I surely do for your encouragement!
Good night and God bless your beautiful family.
In Christ,
Nancy

trsrinheaven

04-06-2006, 03:25 AM

apilgrim,

"I am not your enemy because I tell you the truth"

I didn't write the Bible and I didn't make the system based upon Gods FREE gift of eternal life from Gods unlimited GRACE through FAITH and NOT BY WORKS.

Baptism is AFTER SALVATION and receiving an brand new born again spiritual self. It is just an outward display of you confirming to the world of what has already taken place inside by the Holy Spirit when you received Christ.
It does not save.

PS Sprinkling is just that a little sprinkling.
It isn't Batism. Baptism is to be fully immersed.
No one sprinkled in the Bible.

Everything is spiritual and in your spirit.

"Your faith will become divinely energized by acknowledging every GOOD thing which is in you IN CHRIST." Philemon 6

pro610

04-06-2006, 01:06 PM

We know that they were performing infant Baptism in the second century since St Irenaeus wrote about it

The early church fathers knew that this type of tradition would carry on thru generations,thus they felt there was no need to write infant Baptism in the Bible.

From Catholic answers
Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Here is what Martin Luther had to say about infant Baptism.

""We can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints."""

The fact is that those of us who believe in infant Baptism have Christian history and tradition on our side,that,s why infant baptism is still performed today.