Catholicism?

[HisWordIsMySword]

When baptizing a baby into this religion, do they believe this is saving the soul of the child by baptism into the catholic church?

[SecretOfFatima]

The best way to discrib baptism to someone is, think of it as a open ticket to heaven.

[SecretOfFatima]

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says

I. One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins

977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."(Mk 16:15-16) Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."(Rom 6:4;Rom 4.25)

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them.... Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "(Roman Catechism I, 11,3)

979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. the Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."(Roman Catechism I, 11,4)

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church:

Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers "a laborious kind of baptism." This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.(Council of Trent (1551): DS 1672; Cf. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39,17: PG 36,356)

[plmarquette]

apostles creed ... 1 baptism for the cleansing of original sin ... akin to dedication of babies in the protestant churchs ...until the age of reason

yearly at easter , repeating , learning , and understanding the baptismal vows : I renounce satan , and all his minions , and all his devices , and all his lies , choosing to serve jesus ... which is the protestant baptism : outward sign of an inner change ( born again )

[thereselittleflower]

When baptizing a baby into this religion, do they believe this is saving the soul of the child by baptism into the catholic church?

No one has a ticket to heaven. :)

Salvation is a process . . . . The question "are you saved" can be answered thusly:
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

Baptism is the initiation into this process of salvation. It is a sacrament that brings the New Birth, it is being born again by water and spirit (instead of flesh). This is a starting place, not an ending place. :)


.

[thereselittleflower]

apostles creed ... 1 baptism for the cleansing of original sin

I have never seen an apostle's creed that says this . .

The Nicene Creed says
One baptism for the forgiveness (or remittance) of sins


... akin to dedication of babies in the protestant churchs ...until the age of reason

Dedication, while a wonderful and important act, is not the same as baptism, for it cannot remove sin or cause the New Birth, the regeneration of the soul. It cannot give new life, the life of the spirit, the life of God.

yearly at easter , repeating , learning , and understanding the baptismal vows : I renounce satan , and all his minions , and all his devices , and all his lies , choosing to serve jesus ... which is the protestant baptism : outward sign of an inner change ( born again )

This is what some protestants see baptism to be - merely an outward sign. But not all protestants see baptism in that manner, and Catholic and Orthodox do not either . . .

Baptism EFFECTS the new birth . . it is not merely an outward sign. :)


.

[Col]

Christs instructions are much simpler and straight forward:

John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Just believe and have faith. Everything else is window dressing. Man seems to place far too much importance on things that only matter to man and not to God.

[thereselittleflower]

"Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; "


.

[Col]

Luke 23
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. [c (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Luke 23&tniv=yes#fen-TNIV-25974c)]" 43 Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

[thereselittleflower]

Luke 23
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. [c (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Luke 23&tniv=yes#fen-TNIV-25974c)]" 43 Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

Yes, and had Jesus died, been buried and resurrected yet? If not, the New Covenant had not yet begun and baptism for the remission of sins had not yet been given . . . . .

.

[Col]

Jesus is my saviour.

[thereselittleflower]

Yes, and? What does that have to do with baptism and the good thief?

.

[Col]

Man made rules for man do not do any harm, however they are not necessary for salvation.
Jesus saves not any of the myriad of man made rituals that have been created since his death and ressurection.
We are saved by Grace not by anything we do or invent.
Many of these rituals serve as an outward and tangible expression of our faith, however they are not required for salvation. They are a good vehicle to express our change of life by for example "washing away our sins" in a baptism service. However sins are not washed away by a minister during a ceremony, they are washed clean by God when we ask his forgivness in Jesus name. This does not require a public ceremony.
I myself was baptised as a child, however it meant little to me as I don't even remember it. But in my adult life when God found me I was truly baptised when I was forgiven in Jesus name.
Ceremonies are all well and good and in some cases serve a purpose, however they are not a prerequisite for salvation and should not be promoted as such. That is wrong.

[thereselittleflower]

Man made rules for man do not do any harm, however they are not necessary for salvation.
Jesus saves not any of the myriad of man made rituals that have been created since his death and ressurection.
We are saved by Grace not by anything we do or invent.
Many of these rituals serve as an outward and tangible expression of our faith, however they are not required for salvation. They are a good vehicle to express our change of life by for example "washing away our sins" in a baptism service. However sins are not washed away by a minister during a ceremony, they are washed clean by God when we ask his forgivness in Jesus name. This does not require a public ceremony.
I myself was baptised as a child, however it meant little to me as I don't even remember it. But in my adult life when God found me I was truly baptised when I was forgiven in Jesus name.
Ceremonies are all well and good and in some cases serve a purpose, however they are not a prerequisite for salvation and should not be promoted as such. That is wrong.

The words of Jesus:

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;


.

[Ravenonthecross]

thereselittleflower--me thinks that Col is ignoring you, and Christ's words from his holy Scripture. 'Tis sad, but if one refuses to listen, what can ya do?

[Col]

thereselittleflower--me thinks that Col is ignoring you, and Christ's words from his holy Scripture. 'Tis sad, but if one refuses to listen, what can ya do?
No need to be a condescending, no one likes a smart mouth. Some of us have lives to lead and do not spend every waking moment on bulletin boards.
Talking in circles is achieving little and talking with people who are closeminded and with out original thought is even more futile.

Here is the complete Mark 16:16 if you are going to quote at me;
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"

It is not the water of baptism that saves, but God's grace accepted through faith in Christ. Because of Jesus' response to the criminal on the cross who dies with Him we know it is possible to be saved without being baptized (Luke 23:43) baptism alone without faith, does not automatically bring a person to heaven. Those who refuse to believe will be condemned regardless whether or not they have been baptized.

I know this will not change the mind of those in the RCC because to do so would put you at odds with what you have been told to believe. And I am not here to change your mind just to give my opinion and maybe give you some food for thought.

As I said in an earlier post, I am not against to baptism, having myself been baptised as a child.

Christ came so that we can now all have a personal relationship with God, one on one.

God knows our hearts, everything else we do as Man is just window dressing, which when taken to extremes can trivialise Christ's sacrifice and what we are called to do in His name.

P.S. Don't bother insulting me again as I won't be back to this thread.
P.P.S. I will pray for both you and thereselittleflower that you may one day understand my points, and that it may change your life.

[thereselittleflower]

col, the scriptures I presented contradict you, clearly.


.

[Rhamiel]

yes man made rules and rituals do not add to or hinder our salvation, the sacrements were made by Christ so they are God made rules

[Confess]

Yes, and? What does that have to do with baptism and the good thief?

.
Where does the bible say that there was a "good" thief?

RE: Catholic baptism:
I was born a Catholic and was told that baptism forgave original sin.

I do not quite understand that, because if my original sin was completly forgiven, then what of my actual sins? The Catholic church says they are not forgiven. This confuses me.

I became Lutheran because of the many doctrines that the Catholics teach.

Lutherans believe that we are forgiven all our sins in baptism and that we are adopted into fellowship with Christ (saved).

[Confess]

The words of Jesus:

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;


.
Baptize all nations was commanded by God, there was no age restrictions.

Jesus blessed the little children and told others not to hinder them. What kind of blessing would Jesus give apart from salvation?

[thereselittleflower]

Where does the bible say that there was a "good" thief?

That is what the thief on the cross who believed in Jesus is called. :)



RE: Catholic baptism:
I was born a Catholic and was told that baptism forgave original sin.

I do not quite understand that, because if my original sin was completly forgiven, then what of my actual sins? The Catholic church says they are not forgiven. This confuses me.

You were improperly taught.

Baptism removes original sin and all actual sins committed up to that point.

I became Lutheran because of the many doctrines that the Catholics teach.

It appears you did not correctly understand these doctrines you have problems with . . that may be due to no fault of your own but due to teachers improperly teaching. The last half of last century was pretty poor when it came to Catholic Catechesis . .many were poorly taught.

Lutherans believe that we are forgiven all our sins in baptism and that we are adopted into fellowship with Christ (saved).


As does the Catholic Church. :)


.

[thereselittleflower]

Baptize all nations was commanded by God, there was no age restrictions.

Jesus blessed the little children and told others not to hinder them. What kind of blessing would Jesus give apart from salvation?

Exactly. :)

Why would children be prohibited from participating in the life of Christ in the New Covnenat when they were not prohibited from participating in the life of the Old Covenant?


.

[Confess]

Exactly. :)

Why would children be prohibited from participating in the life of Christ in the New Covnenat when they were not prohibited from participating in the life of the Old Covenant?


.
I boggles the mind, doesn't it. :)

[WeBe1]

Why then did John the Baptist degraded the water baptism then when he said; As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Mathew 3:11

Now, if water baptism was the baptism we need into the assurance of entering heaven, then why would the Word of God say this; There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Eph. 4: 4-6

The “good” thief was not baptized, nor did it say he was given the Holy Spirit, it is just said that he will be with Christ in paradise. This is because we are saved by grace, and not by works, this includes faith. If we were saved by faith alone, then why does Jesus say, "many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name...'" Jesus continued, "I will declare to them, 'I never knew you'..."

Water baptism is a work, baptism of the Holy Spirit is by grace, and if there be only one that God is truly concerned about, is that you are baptized in His Holy Spirit, that is the assurance that you have received God’s grace. It is the blood of Christ that cleanses us of sin, nothing else.

That is were my faith is.

[thereselittleflower]

Why then did John the Baptist degraded the water baptism then when he said; As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Mathew 3:11

Now, if water baptism was the baptism we need into the assurance of entering heaven, then why would the Word of God say this; There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Eph. 4: 4-6

The “good” thief was not baptized, nor did it say he was given the Holy Spirit, it is just said that he will be with Christ in paradise. This is because we are saved by grace, and not by works, this includes faith. If we were saved by faith alone, then why does Jesus say, "many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name...'" Jesus continued, "I will declare to them, 'I never knew you'..."

Water baptism is a work, baptism of the Holy Spirit is by grace, and if there be only one that God is truly concerned about, is that you are baptized in His Holy Spirit, that is the assurance that you have received God’s grace. It is the blood of Christ that cleanses us of sin, nothing else.

That is were my faith is.

The good theif believed and died before the death and resurrection of Jesus.

After the death and resurrection of Jesus we are told that
"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" . .

Not he who believes only . . . :)


This is speaking of water baptism . . not the baptism in the Holy Spirit . . .


.

[Confess]

Why then did John the Baptist degraded the water baptism then when he said; As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Mathew 3:11

Now, if water baptism was the baptism we need into the assurance of entering heaven, then why would the Word of God say this; There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Eph. 4: 4-6

The “good” thief was not baptized, nor did it say he was given the Holy Spirit, it is just said that he will be with Christ in paradise. This is because we are saved by grace, and not by works, this includes faith. If we were saved by faith alone, then why does Jesus say, "many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name...'" Jesus continued, "I will declare to them, 'I never knew you'..."

Water baptism is a work, baptism of the Holy Spirit is by grace, and if there be only one that God is truly concerned about, is that you are baptized in His Holy Spirit, that is the assurance that you have received God’s grace. It is the blood of Christ that cleanses us of sin, nothing else.

That is were my faith is.
This is a great example where we must remind ourself that where the Bible is silent, then so am I.

What I speak of is when we ASSUME that the thief was not baptized. The Bible is silent about whether or not he was baptized. This doesn't mean that he wasn't baptized nor does it mean that he was baptized.

What the Bible does tell us is that faith comes two ways. For the unbeliever, faith comes by hearing the Word. The Word has the ability to give faith. For the infant, faith can only come from baptism as the Holy Spirit is at work in the baptism to create faith. Had that infant never been baptized, he/she could still come to faith later in life by hearing the Word of God and then asking to be baptized.

So as for the thief on the cross. He may or maynot have been baptized and he may or maynot have received faith through hearing the Word.

[Confess]

The good theif believed and died before the death and resurrection of Jesus.

After the death and resurrection of Jesus we are told that
"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" . .

Not he who believes only . . . :)


This is speaking of water baptism . . not the baptism in the Holy Spirit . . .


.
So are you saying that if I am unable to get baptized, I will not be saved?

[WeBe1]

The good theif believed and died before the death and resurrection of Jesus.

After the death and resurrection of Jesus we are told that
"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" . .

Not he who believes only . . . :)


This is speaking of water baptism . . not the baptism in the Holy Spirit . . .


.

No, the good thief did not die before Christ died.

I am not one to take a single verse and base my foundation of knowledge on it. There is more. Please, do an in depth study on Romans Chapters 2 & 3.

To say the reason you are in heaven is because of your works, then you can boast to others as that being the reason as to why you were granted salvation.

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Rom 6:3 “speaking on water baptism”

Also, study 1 Corinthians Chapter 1, look how important Paul views water baptism.

There is no boasting in your salvation, it is God's grace that salvation was granted, you can not boast in the free gift, you did not have to work for the grace that was freely given you. You have to work on your faith, and water baptism is an outwardly expression of your faith, which makes water baptism a work, and not grace from God.

[WeBe1]

More info...

Mark 16: 15-18 in Context (NLV)

And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned. These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.”

Now, were all these signs accompanied when you received Christ?
Do you; Cast out Demons, speak in new tongues, handle vipers, drink poison, & heal the sick when you touch them?

Well, do ya?

[thereselittleflower]

So are you saying that if I am unable to get baptized, I will not be saved?

Let me take this even further ..

If one is incapable of believing, will that one not be saved?

For instance, a baby who dies in infancy is unable to believe . . .does that mean that the baby isn't saved?


.

[thereselittleflower]

No, the good thief did not die before Christ died.

You don't know when the good thief died . . :)

But we do know he died before the resurrection.

When did Jesus conquer death? On the cross? Or in the Resurrection?

When did the New Covenant start?


I am not one to take a single verse and base my foundation of knowledge on it.

Who has?

There is more. Please, do an in depth study on Romans Chapters 2 & 3.

Thank you, I have already. . .


To say the reason you are in heaven is because of your works, then you can boast to others as that being the reason as to why you were granted salvation.

Oh boy . . . there is a difference between works of man and works done in and through the Grace of God.

A faith without good works is a dead faith, and cannot save.

Good works give life to faith, as a spirit gives life to the body.

That is right in scripture.

So please, you are barking up the wrong tree with me regarding works and salvation, especially when you fail to take into consideration the difference between the works of the Law, which Paul condemns, and Good Works which Jesus and James make clear are necessary for salvation.

Read Matthew 25 towards the end where Jesus tells us about the sheep and the goats and the criteria He will use to decide which goes to heaven and which goes to hell.

Read James ch 2

That's just for starters.

All throughout the NT we are told our salvation is conditional on what we do . . . Even forgiveness of sins is conditional on whether or not e forgive others . . .




Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Rom 6:3 “speaking on water baptism”

Also, study 1 Corinthians Chapter 1, look how important Paul views water baptism.


Just how does Paul view baptism?


There is no boasting in your salvation, it is God's grace that salvation was granted, you can not boast in the free gift, you did not have to work for the grace that was freely given you. You have to work on your faith, and water baptism is an outwardly expression of your faith, which makes water baptism a work, and not grace from God.

Sorry ,. . . but your words make the word of God of no effect, for the word of God unequivocably states:
He who believes and is baptised shall be saved. . . .


.

[thereselittleflower]

More info...

Mark 16: 15-18 in Context (NLV)

And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone. Anyone who believes and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe will be condemned. These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.”

Now, were all these signs accompanied when you received Christ?
Do you; Cast out Demons, speak in new tongues, handle vipers, drink poison, & heal the sick when you touch them?

Well, do ya?


Do you?

What is the relevance of this question?

Have I done these things? Some of them. . . . :)


.

[Confess]

Let me take this even further ..

If one is incapable of believing, will that one not be saved?

For instance, a baby who dies in infancy is unable to believe . . .does that mean that the baby isn't saved?


.
We don't quite know do we. I mean, there are no clear promises given. Although Exodus 20:5-6 does tell us that God will punish the children for the sins of the father to the third and fourth generations of those who hate him, and show love to a thousand generations to those who love him and keep his commandments.

So I do have some reassurance that my faith will be blessed if my baby dies before baptism.

Yet, that same reassurance does not hold true for the unbeliever.

As for the adult, faith and salvation does come by hearing the word. And where baptism is not available, salvation is not prohibited.

[thereselittleflower]

We don't quite know do we. I mean, there are no clear promises given. Although Exodus 20:5-6 does tell us that God will punish the children for the sins of the father to the third and fourth generations of those who hate him, and show love to a thousand generations to those who love him and keep his commandments.

Think about it . . imagine a little newborn, just died, writhing and screaming in the fires and torments of hell . .

Can you stomach to imagine such a thing? Don't you find such an image totally revolting?

Does that at all remotely sound like the God you and I serve? .

Of course we can know. The punishment spoken about above in the scripture you gave is in regards to this life . . the consequences experienced in this life of the acts of parents that ripple down through generations.

There is nothing here about eternal punishment.

When God judges, He searches the heart first. . . God judges us according to what He finds in the heart. We are judged according to what we know (or could have known but refused to know).

To suggest that God would send a baby to an eternity of hell is unconsionable and makes God into a sadist. This is the result of Calvnistic thought taken to its logical conclusion.

Jesus said "for such is the kingdom of God" .. . so, God is going to send those, of whom it has been said "of such is the kingdom of God" to hell?

Sorry . . that is appalling in the exreme.


So I do have some reassurance that my faith will be blessed if my baby dies before baptism.
You should have full assurance that God is not going to eternally punish your baby for something your baby cannot be responsible for.

Yet, that same reassurance does not hold true for the unbeliever.

Why not?

If one cannot believe, rather than understanding and refusing to believe, why would there not be at least tht reassurance?

God judges the heart. . .

Are you able to judge another's heart? Then why say there can be no such reassurance?


As for the adult, faith and salvation does come by hearing the word. And where baptism is not available, salvation is not prohibited.

Yes, salvation is not prohibited . . . God has given us the ordinary way of salvation.

God is God however, and God is not limited to His ordinary way . . .. God can save whomever He wills . . .

But full assurance comes in the ordinary way and one must be careful to not enter into the sin of presumption and say "well, because God can save outside this ordinary way, I won't worry about it and trust God."

That is the sin of presumption . . . presuming on God's Grace when one is fully cognizant of the requirement of baptism by God for salvation, yet chooses to ignore it . . wilful disobedience.

.

[WeBe1]

You don't know when the good thief died . .

But we do know he died before the resurrection.

Uh, yes, yes I do. Jesus said that the thief would be with Him in paradise that day, so by Christ’s words, we know he died before the end of that day. However, I stated that the thief did not die before Christ, he died after…

John 19: 31-33 NASB
Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs.


When did Jesus conquer death? On the cross? Or in the Resurrection?

When did the New Covenant start?

Jesus Conquered sin on the Satan on the cross, He conquered hell when He resurrected. Death is conquered in the book of Revelation at a later date. But if you believe say he conquered death during the resurrection, I’m good with that. The New Covenant started after Christ’s victory.



Who has? My self, spiritually speaking. As this passage is very spiritual;
Cast out Demons; The demons in my life have and are still being cast out.
speak in new tongues; Not in garble were no one understands, but in spiritual things and in the goodness of God, and of heavenly things I now speak. But I still am in process of renewing my tongue.
handle vipers; I have spoken with and associated with those who preach a false doctrine.
drink poison; I have studied in area’s that are contrary to God’s Spirit.
heal the sick when you touch them; Those whom I’ve touched, well, that’s personal between them, God, & I.

Thank you, I have already. . .
You may want to do so again, and again, and again. You can even do so with a good commentary from some really blessed people of God, Charles Spurgeon or Jon Courson. There are many others, I just really enjoy the understanding of the bible these two were blessed with.

Oh boy . . . there is a difference between works of man and works done in and through the Grace of God.
A faith without good works is a dead faith, and cannot save.
Good works give life to faith, as a spirit gives life to the body.
That is right in scripture.
Yup, faith without works is dead, but you still have it backwards, faith gives birth to “good” works, for they are the fruit of the Spirit. But grace is a free gift, and none of us works for it, it is freely given from God, and grace of God is not a work of God, but one of His Devine attributes.

So please, you are barking up the wrong tree with me
Woof… Woof.
I wonder what God thinks about those who refuse correction or wisdom, and is filled with pride?

regarding works and salvation, especially when you fail to take into consideration the difference between the works of the Law, which Paul condemns, and Good Works which Jesus and James make clear are necessary for salvation. Paul condemns the works of the law? Where is that?

Read Matthew 25 towards the end where Jesus tells us about the sheep and the goats and the criteria He will use to decide which goes to heaven and which goes to hell.
I thought it was about a bar-b-q dinner? ;)

Read James ch 2
That's just for starters.
Done.
James 2:1
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.
Uwe, that’s so poignant for this conversation.

Now, when you studied James 2, did you do so in full context of the scripture, or did you pick and chose what you wanted out of it? Or did you only want me to study James 2: 14-26?

You may have misunderstood me, I believe, that is, my faith is in Christ and His Works, my faith is in the Word of God, and I have been baptized in Water & the Spirit. I praise God for His mercies and grace, for it is His mercies and His grace that imparted the faith that I have, and the desire to be baptized. I am saved because of His grace, my sins are forgiven because Christ shed His Blood upon that cross, and I am assured of this by the power of His resurrection. Amen.

All throughout the NT we are told our salvation is conditional on what we do . . . Even forgiveness of sins is conditional on whether or not e forgive others . . .

Does God give us the Spirit of doubt? There is no conditional love that comes from God, He has given us full instruction on how we ought to live, he teaches us the consequences of our disobedience, it’s not conditional.

Sorry ,. . . but your words make the word of God of no effect, for the word of God unequivocably states:
He who believes and is baptised shall be saved. . . .

And your words make God out to be an un-just, unrighteous, and a partial god. For your teaching would cause the weak spirited and unknowledgeable to reject God.

[WeBe1]

By your own words…

To suggest that God would send a baby to an eternity of hell is unconsionable and makes God into a sadist. This is the result of Calvnistic thought taken to its logical conclusion.

. .. God can save whomever He wills . . .

It is the grace of God that saves. We have faith, and faith without works is dead. But if God was not gracious, then no matter what your faith and works are, God’s grace will not be implemental and you would not be saved.

I know others in completely different religions that have faith in a god, and good works. I also know the Mormons have faith, and good works, and preach baptism strongly, yet they teach a false doctrine. Are they saved by your standards? Or, does God’s grace extend to even these?

[thereselittleflower]

Uh, yes, yes I do. Jesus said that the thief would be with Him in paradise that day, so by Christ’s words, we know he died before the end of that day. However, I stated that the thief did not die before Christ, he died after…

John 19: 31-33 NASB

Logical Fallacy - Strawman . . it started with your first response to my words about the theif dying before the death AND RESURRECTION of Jesus . .this simply perpetuates it, substituing only a part of my argument for the whole and making it the actual argument in its entirety.


My self, spiritually speaking.

LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAWMAN

I must ask you to please stop misrespenting what I have said and quoting me out of context . .. "Who has" was repeating your question to me in order to answer it.

I did not ask you "who has" . . you asked me "who has"

Your misrepresentation of my response is a STRAWMAN.

As this passage is very spiritual;

I disagree .. it is very literal . . . I am sorry if you have not yet had the opportunity to at least literally do some of these things as I and others have.

Cast out Demons; The demons in my life have and are still being cast out.

Are you saying you have been and are demon possessed? :scratch:

speak in new tongues; Not in garble were no one understands, but in spiritual things and in the goodness of God, and of heavenly things I now speak. But I still am in process of renewing my tongue.

Umm . . . sorry . . that is not what is being spoken of here . . .


handle vipers; I have spoken with and associated with those who preach a false doctrine.

Again, sorry, that is not what is being spoken of here . . see what happened to Paul and the viper that came out of the fire and bit him . . .LITERAL fulfilment of these words . .

THAT is what is being spoken of here . .

drink poison; I have studied in area’s that are contrary to God’s Spirit.

Again, sorry, but not what is being spoken of here . .

heal the sick when you touch them; Those whom I’ve touched, well, that’s personal between them, God, & I.

However, I doubt it was a literal fulfilment of these words as none of the others are literal fulfiments either . .

I am sorry you do not understand this passage or have had it become literally real in your life.





You may want to do so again, and again, and again. You can even do so with a good commentary from some really blessed people of God, Charles Spurgeon or Jon Courson.

I do not count such as being "really blessed people" . . their commentaries are full of errors in understanding.


There are many others, I just really enjoy the understanding of the bible these two were blessed with.

And it shows . . :) I am sorry you are repeating their errors here and find their errors a blessing. :(



Yup, faith without works is dead, but you still have it backwards, faith gives birth to “good” works, for they are the fruit of the Spirit.

Sorry, but James doesn't say that . . He actually says the opposite . .

As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also . . .

(Jam 2:17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

(Jam 2:20) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

(Jam 2:26) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

In this analogy by James:

Body = faith

Spirit = works

Not the other way around as you are trying to make it ..

The body does not make the spirit alive .. the spirit makes the body alive . .


Your words make the words of scripture of no effect.



But grace is a free gift, and none of us works for it, it is freely given from God, and grace of God is not a work of God, but one of His Devine attributes.

Of course grace is a free gift . . .

But grace is not what we are talking about . .we are talking about faith and works.

Faith and works are the hearts response to God's grace . .

God's grace is freely given . . now it is up to man to decide how to respond . ..

The heart's response in faith and good works leads to salvation . . .





Woof… Woof.
LOGICAL FALLACY - APPEAL TO RIDICULE

I wonder what God thinks about those who refuse correction or wisdom, and is filled with pride?

LOGICAL FALLACY - APPEAL TO RIDICULE

LOGICAL FALLACY - AD HOMINEM


Paul condemns the works of the law? Where is that?

From one who recommends to others that they read their bibles again and again, I find this question a bit strange . . .

(Rom 9:32) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

(Gal 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.

(Gal 3:2) This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(Gal 3:5) He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(Gal 3:10) 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.





I thought it was about a bar-b-q dinner? ;)

LGOCIAL FALLACY - APPEAL TO RIDICULE




Done.

:scratch: I wonder why your words concerning it then make the words of scripture in James of no effect?

James 2:1
My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism.

and?

Uwe, that’s so poignant for this conversation.

LOGICAL FALLACY - INGORES FACTS IN EVIDENCE


Now, when you studied James 2, did you do so in full context of the scripture, or did you pick and chose what you wanted out of it? Or did you only want me to study James 2: 14-26?

Given the context, the part that is applicable is the later . . :)

I have produced some of the important verses for you above.



You may have misunderstood me, I believe, that is, my faith is in Christ and His Works, my faith is in the Word of God, and I have been baptized in Water & the Spirit. I praise God for His mercies and grace, for it is His mercies and His grace that imparted the faith that I have, and the desire to be baptized. I am saved because of His grace, my sins are forgiven because Christ shed His Blood upon that cross, and I am assured of this by the power of His resurrection. Amen.


Yet, it is not possible that you could be one of those who Jesus spoke of, who received all this with Joy as you have, who believed - ie had saving faith - yet will fall away in time of temptation?


How do you know?





Does God give us the Spirit of doubt?

LOGICAL FALLACY - NON SEQUITOR


There is no conditional love that comes from God,

LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAWMAN - RED HERRING

He has given us full instruction on how we ought to live, he teaches us the consequences of our disobedience, it’s not conditional.

LOGICAL FALLACY - RED HERRING

LOGICAL FALLACY - STRAWMAN

We are talking about the conditional nature of salvation, not the conditional nature or non conditional nature of man's disobedience. ..

(By the way, the consequences of our disobedience is conditional upon our decision to follow Christ or not. . . . )





Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
He who believes and is baptised shall be saved. .

And your words make God out to be an un-just, unrighteous, and a partial god. For your teaching would cause the weak spirited and unknowledgeable to reject God.

LOGICAL FALLACY - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

LOGICAL FALLACY - IGNORES FACTS IN EVIDENCE

LOGICAL FALLACY - NON SEQUITOR


Funny how simply quoting scripture brings this condemnation . . . . . since the words quoted and responded to were not mine, but the words of scripture, what does such condemnation say about these words quoted from scripture?
.

[WeBe1]

I can now see that there is no point in continuing this debate, for there are many discrepancies in your points of view, and likewise you say there are many in mine.

I would like to apologies for causing you to be angered in spirit, and for my misquoting one passage where you said “who has” I was thinking on a later question you stated with, “Do You?” when I made my response.

I am also ignorant of “strawman”, what is that supposed to mean?
I also did not see any fallacy in my argument, and when I saw fallacy in your rebuttal, I still did my best to answer your question instead of avoiding it.

I am in complete disagreement with your opinion of Paul condemning the law or works of the law, he does not, he is explaining how we are condemned by the law and how the law condemns those who do not abide in it 100%. Here is what else Paul has to say about it, contrary to your quotes. (Rom 3:31… Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. / Rom 7:7… What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, " YOU SHALL NOT COVET." / Rom 7:12… So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.)

Perhaps we are just not understanding in full where the other is coming from. But I know this, God’s grace be with you, and may you continue to grow in your faith. It’s unfortunate when those who claim to be of God condemn others whose faith differs, so I do not condemn you.

Finally, I am not against or preach against the perfect Word of God, just in how others present it and miss represent it.

[Confess]

Originally Posted by thereselittleflower
To suggest that God would send a baby to an eternity of hell is unconsionable and makes God into a sadist. This is the result of Calvnistic thought taken to its logical conclusion.

. .. God can save whomever He wills . .

This is a denial of original sin.

[thereselittleflower]

This is a denial of original sin.

Where does it say we are sent to hell for original sin rather than actual sin?


.

[thereselittleflower]

This is a denial of original sin.


And Confess, are you Lutheran or Calvinist?


.

[Confess]

As my little icon says...Lutheran

There are no Scriptural promises that all babies are saved before baptism.

There ARE Scriptural verses that say that the faith of the parents will be blessed.

To say that God is a sadist for sending a baby to hell is breaking one of the forum rules and can not be proven by Scripture.

This topic can get very emotional so I figure that maybe it would be a good idea to pray about it before posting.

[thereselittleflower]

As my little icon says...Lutheran

Then why are you preaching the Calvinist position?


.

[Confess]

I edited before you posted.

There is nothing I have said that is Calvinist. I am speaking what Lutherans teach.

Do you deny original sin that says that once we are conceived, we are seperated from God by our sin and cannot inherit eternal life?

[thereselittleflower]

I edited before you posted.

There is nothing I have said that is Calvinist. I am speaking what Lutherans teach.

Do you deny original sin that says that once we are conceived, we are seperated from God by our sin and cannot inherit eternal life?

Does Lutheranism teach that unbaptized babies go to hell?

My understanding is that this is not a Lutheran teaching, but arose in Calvinism . . which is why I asked what I did.


Is it possible that your Lutheran understanding became tinted with Calvinism?


What is original sin to you? Original guilt?

No . it is the wounding of our human nature which separates us from fellowship with God and predisposes us towards sin.

It seems that you are adovcating for total deparvity, a Calvinistic doctrine, not a Lutheran one.

Original sin is not OUR personal sin . . . yet you seem to be treating it as such.


Do you believe that because someone is unable to be bpatized, that means that person is going straight to hell?


.

[WeBe1]

I know I should not be speaking for Confess, but on her behalf from what I have read, I don’t recall or believe she thinks God condemns little children, God is not evil. What she is stating is that we are born into original sin, which is recorded in the bible.

God gives grace to whom he gives grace, and I’m sure that God does not hold guilt to the ignorant. Rom. Chapter 3

But as per your own words, “Do you believe that because someone is unable to be bpatized, that means that person is going straight to hell?”

That is a misleading question. You have continually posted, “He who believes and is baptised shall be saved” So in saying, it appears that by your own words in questioning, that you do agree with us; however, you also refuse to yield and admit that we are saved by the grace of God.

[Confess]

WeB1 was pretty accurate. But I think Flowers does not understand the differences between the teaching of the denominations.

Lutherans hold to the historic teaching of original sin. That is:
We are conceived seperated from God and unable to go to heaven due to our sin.

As for babies going to heaven without baptism. Lutherans teach that there are no promises given in Scripture for them to receive salvation, but that the faith of the parents will be blessed.

Does this mean that babies go to hell if not baptized? I don't know.

I would be confident that my baby would go to heaven because we pray for it, and because I believe that God is a gracious God who will bless our faithfulness.

Yet, I can't say the same thing for those who reject God. I have no Scripture and neither do you. So if you honestly believe that all babies who die before baptism go to heaven, then give me proof. If not, then you speak only of opinion.

[Confess]

Oh, and your baptism question. For an infant, it is necessary. The Bible says that baptism is necessary period. Few people die in the faith without baptism, but some do. This doesn't mean that those people are going to hell.

[Confess]

Total depravity (also called total inability and total corruption) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian doctrine of original sin and is advocated in many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those of Lutheranism,1 Anglicanism and Methodism,2 Arminianism, and Calvinism.3 The doctrine interprets the Bible as teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered

[WeBe1]

Matthew 18:2-6
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
"Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
There is no distinction in children that Christ said to be like, he did not distinguish the faith of the parents or the nationality of the child, He simply said “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Yet, Christ continues, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck…”

Now Christ gives distinction of specific type of children, however, Christ is also explaining a damning event of what happens to those who harms children.

(this weights heavy in my heart concerning abortion. Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you;” I wonder now this, though it is not clearly stated, if while we were in the womb God new us, did we have a developed since and understanding of His presence? If so, does this entitle that we believed in Him while we were in the womb? And if so, what would God say to those who practice abortion?)

[thereselittleflower]

WeB1 was pretty accurate. But I think Flowers does not understand the differences between the teaching of the denominations.

Lutherans hold to the historic teaching of original sin. That is:
We are conceived seperated from God and unable to go to heaven due to our sin.

Here you contradict yourself . . .you say "due to OUR sin"

A baby has not committed any sin . . so there is no hinderance for the baby going to heaven.

God is not going to withhold the benefits of baptism from those who are unable to be baptized through no fault of their own . . .

As for babies going to heaven without baptism. Lutherans teach that there are no promises given in Scripture for them to receive salvation, but that the faith of the parents will be blessed.

Does this mean that babies go to hell if not baptized? I don't know.

I would be confident that my baby would go to heaven because we pray for it, and because I believe that God is a gracious God who will bless our faithfulness.

Yet, I can't say the same thing for those who reject God. I have no Scripture and neither do you. So if you honestly believe that all babies who die before baptism go to heaven, then give me proof. If not, then you speak only of opinion.

Confess . . the bible says:
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This the principle God has given us to understand . . .

God will not hold anyone personally accountable for the sins of another . .

A baby has not sinned, cannot sin . . . only the soul that actually sins will be punnished in hell if he/she has not repented.

.


.

[Confess]

Here you contradict yourself . . .you say "due to OUR sin"

A baby has not committed any sin . . so there is no hinderance for the baby going to heaven.

There are two types of sins.
1. Original sin - the sin that we are born with, the sin that seperates us from God
2. Actual sin - the sin that we knowingly commit.

When baptized ALL these sins are forgiven. Original sin and actual sin is sin our sin.

God is not going to withhold the benefits of baptism from those who are unable to be baptized through no fault of their own . . .
Prove it with scripture. Otherwise stop writting scripture.


A baby has not sinned, cannot sin . . . only the soul that actually sins will be punnished in hell if he/she has not repented.

Ephesians 2:1. And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.
Romans 8:7. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit
Psalm 51:5. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Ecclesiastes 7:20. For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.
Romans 3:20. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

All this indicates that we are all sinners regardless of age. Born of the flesh and not of the spirit lest they be baptized.

[thereselittleflower]

There are two types of sins.
1. Original sin - the sin that we are born with, the sin that seperates us from God
2. Actual sin - the sin that we knowingly commit.


Show me where God punihses original sin with eternal hell . . .

When baptized ALL these sins are forgiven. Original sin and actual sin is sin our sin.

Original sin is not forgiven . . original sin, the wounding of our human nature, is healed . .

Show me in scripture where it says original sin is forgiven.


Prove it with scripture. Otherwise stop writting scripture.

Logical Fallacy - Assumes Facts Not In Evidence.

Logical Fallacy - Ignores Facts In Evidence.

Show me in scripture where it states that:
The Holy Spirit is:

Co-Equal with the Father and the Son
Co-Eternal with the Father and the Son
Co-Eternally Pre-existing with the Father and the Son


All three are key, integral components of the Trinity doctrine . .

Where are they plainly stated in scirpture?

They aren't . . they are inferred . . .


When you can show me these plainly stated in scripture, you can then legitimately and validly demand I show you what I am saying and what the Catholic Church teaches plainly stated in scripture.

Until then, such an argument as you presented above is simply nothing more than Logical Fallacy:

Logical Fallacy - Double Standard

Logical Fallacy - Red Herring


Ephesians 2:1. And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.

See, it says it right above . . . "your" sins .. not the sins of someone else . .

Sins actually committed .. we see this is so by the context which follows in your quote . .

Baby's do not have actual sin . . . :)

Romans 8:7. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.

Speaking of submitting to God's law . . a baby has not yet had opportunity to submit to God's law, so cannot be held accountable for any sins, which are simply not submitting to God's law . . .

John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit

Says nothing about sin or God not being able to impute baptism to one who is unable to be baptized.

Psalm 51:5. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

What a poor, POOR translation! :eek:
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not talking about the sin of the baby conceived at all . . but the circumstances of his conception .. . .
H2399
חטא
chêṭ'
BDB Definition:
1) sin
1a) sin
1b) guilt for sin
1c) punishment for sin
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H2398
Same Word by TWOT Number: 638a


This speaks of the wounded human nature . . and not of any sin that he is personally responsible for.

It could be said "I was shapen in punishment for sin" . .. in other words, I was conceived and brought forth in the fallen condition of man.

There is nothing here that states that one will be punished for all eternity for 'original sin', that wounding of our human nature, alone . . .

Ecclesiastes 7:20. For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin.

Obviously this is a generalization, for a baby does not sin . . .

There are many generalizations in the bible.

Obviously this is referring to those who are capable of personal sin.

A baby is not capable of personal sin . . .


Romans 3:20. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Again, a generalizaiton . . . "all" does not always mean literally "all" - this is the collective use of all in this verse and means:
G3956
πᾶς
pas
Thayer Definition:
1) individually
1a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things,everything
2) collectively
2a) some of all types
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: including all the forms of declension
Citing in TDNT: 5:886, 795

Note this:
2) collectively
2a) some of all types


All this indicates that we are all sinners regardless of age. Born of the flesh and not of the spirit lest they be baptized.

No . . nothing of the kind is shown by these verses . . . . This is just your private interpretation of these verses, nothing more . . .

A private interpretation that

is forbidden by scripture and
fails to take into consideration the very nature of God . . That He is MERCIFUL . . .



.

[thereselittleflower]

Confess .. please consider this:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


There is no law a baby is expected to obey, there is no law for babies. The law is only for those who have the capacity for understanding . . . . . if there is no law, sin is not imputed . . .


.

[Confess]

You need to calm down because you insight others to anger with your yelling logic fallacies. If you want to have a logical debate, keep your emotions out of it and be satisfied with whatever truth you proclaim because if you do proclaim the truth, the other person in the debate will not dismiss it as long as you are respectful. Its that whole "love your neighbor" thing.

With that said.

Babies are selfish, demanding and think only of themselves.

You see Flower, if we break one commandment, we break them all. Babies do not love God with their whole hearts. None of us do. Hence, a baby is guilty under the law.


http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/index.htm

PS 51:5
Behold, I was shapen(1) in iniquity(2), and in sin(3) did my mother conceive(4) me.
1. Shapen = chuwl meaning to bring forth
2. Iniquity = `avon means evil, michief, punishment, sin
3. sin = chet' meaning crime, penalty, grief, offense
4. conceive = yacham meaning to conceive

So you see, my interpretation REMAINS correct. Both mean the same thing.

You are intentionally dismissing scripture to fit your own interpretation. Scripture says we are sinful even from conception (ps 51:5). Yet you say that this is my own private interpretation. Hmmm, I speak exactly what is written and now you say I am making it up. That tells me that you are so into your false doctrine that when scripture itself speaks, you will deny it.

Proof is here when you deny that Romans 3:20 doesn't really mean "all".

Tell me, are you going to make that same arguement for when Christ died for "all"?

Latin Vulgate
3:20 quia ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro coram illo per legem enim cognitio peccati

King James Version
3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

American Standard Version
3:20 because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin.

Bible in Basic English
3:20 Because by the works of the law no man is able to have righteousness in his eyes, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Darby's English Translation
3:20 Wherefore by works of law no flesh shall be justified before him; for by law is knowledge of sin.

Douay Rheims
3:20 Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Noah Webster Bible
3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Weymouth New Testament
3:20 For on the ground of obedience to Law no man living will be declared righteous before Him. Law simply brings a sure knowledge of sin.

World English Bible
3:20 Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

Young's Literal Translation
3:20 wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin.

You do realize that you are doing exactly what the liberal church has done with scripture to justify their false doctrines like homosexuality, female pastors etc.

So all I can say is unless you repent, I cannot talk to you.

[thereselittleflower]

You need to calm down because you insight others to anger with your yelling logic fallacies.

First of all, please address the arguments not the person.

Second of all, empahsizing is not yelling.

Thirdly, I am not upset, so have no need to calm down.

Forthly, if you are incited to anger simply because someone exposes your logical fallacies, then please stop engaging in them, for I will expose them.



If you want to have a logical debate, keep your emotions out of it and be satisfied with whatever truth you proclaim because if you do proclaim the truth, the other person in the debate will not dismiss it as long as you are respectful. Its that whole "love your neighbor" thing.

It does not appear that it is I who is having difficulty keeping emotions out of this debate. :)

If you want to proceed, please avoid reacting emotionally to someone pointing out your logical fallacies.

If you wish to argue with logical fallacies, be prepared to have them exposed.

Simple. :)

It is not love of neighbor to engage in logical fallacies and expect them to be treated as logically valid arguments or to falsely accuse.


Now that you should have a better understanding of the situation, let's proceed.

Babies are selfish, demanding and think only of themselves.

LOL! Babies are incapable of seeing themselves as separate from their mother and their world. . .all is an extention of themselves.

The very definition of selfish requires that one be able to distinguish between oneself and another.

Babies are not able to do so.

Selfishness by definition requires a deliberate choice. That requires that there be choices to be made.

A baby is incapable of making such choices. .

Where there is no law, there is no imputation of sin by God.

There are no laws for babies.


You see Flower, if we break one commandment, we break them all.

No, we break the laws we break. We are guilty of the whole law . not that we break them all.

Babies do not love God with their whole hearts. None of us do. Hence, a baby is guilty under the law.

Show me where babies are required to do what they have no knowledge of and cannot do?


Where there is no law, there is no imputation of sin.

If God does not impute sin to those whom have no law, who are you to do so?



http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/index.htm

PS 51:5
Behold, I was shapen(1) in iniquity(2), and in sin(3) did my mother conceive(4) me.
1. Shapen = chuwl meaning to bring forth
2. Iniquity = `avon means evil, michief, punishment, sin
3. sin = chet' meaning crime, penalty, grief, offense
4. conceive = yacham meaning to conceive

So you see, my interpretation REMAINS correct. Both mean the same thing.

No, it doesn't remain correct . . it does not say anything about what has been conceived being personally sinful. . . evidently you are choosing to ignore the evidence I provided to the contrary.

The evidence you provided above does not prove your point at all. It actually supports mine.

You are intentionally dismissing scripture to fit your own interpretation.

Again, logical fallacy

Assumes facts in evidence

Ignores facts in evidence.


Scripture says we are sinful even from conception (ps 51:5).
No, it doesn't say that. :)

Again, logical fallacy

Assumes facts in evidence

Ignores facts in evidence.


Yet you say that this is my own private interpretation. Hmmm, I speak exactly what is written and now you say I am making it up.

Again, logical fallacy

Assumes facts in evidence

Ignores facts in evidence.

That tells me that you are so into your false doctrine that when scripture itself speaks, you will deny it.

Again, logical fallacy

Ad Hominem

Assumes facts in evidence

Ignores facts in evidence.


Proof is here when you deny that Romans 3:20 doesn't really mean "all".

Again, logical fallacy

Assumes facts in evidence

Ignores facts in evidence.



Tell me, are you going to make that same arguement for when Christ died for "all"?

And here we see the fallacy of private interpretation, for how would you know which meaning is met if it were not for the Magesterium of the Church through whom the Holy Spirit protects the deposite of faith, the ALL Truth given to the Apostles?

:)


Sorry . . but you are undermining your own arguments.


You do realize that you are doing exactly what the liberal church has done with scripture to justify their false doctrines like homosexuality, female pastors etc.

Again, logical fallacy

Assumes facts in evidence

Ignores facts in evidence.


So all I can say is unless you repent, I cannot talk to you.

LOLOL!

Again, logical fallacy

Ad Hominem

Assumes facts in evidence

Ignores facts in evidence.


Are you an infallible interpreter of scripture?


.

[thereselittleflower]

And Confess. . you simply prooftexted a couple of words from the verse you quoted in many tranlations, ignoring the context . . .

Proof is here when you deny that Romans 3:20 doesn't really mean "all".


The context is this:


Romans 3:20
3:20 because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin

It is very specific in its focus and cannot be used to generalize . . .

By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified . .

This does not say no flesh shall be justified period.


And the second part of the verse is evidence against your postion on babies and in support of mine:


It speaks of the relationship of sin to knowledge . .

for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin


A baby has no knowledge of sin . . . that requires knowledge of the law. A baby has no knowledge of the law.

One is not justified through works of the law because one has knowledge of sin. . ..

.

if one has no knowledge of the law, and thus no knowledge of sin, this verse does not apply . .


This verse does not apply to babies . ..


And, there is no word "all" in that verse by the way . . .


.

[Confess]

OK, I will stop here. Pointing out logical fallacies appears to be something you just learned to do since you do it so inaccurately and rudely. Also, they do not add to the debate. With the way you go about it, it is nothing more then calling a person a name.

Normally when someone points out a logic fallacy, they do it with the intent to teach. But you don't do that, for one thing, you have done such a poor job using them that they do not make sense and another thing you use them in a debate very inaccurately.

Your decision to do this only weakens your credibility and estranges the person you debate. The way you go about doing it is disrespectful, rude and ... I know WeBe1, I told you that this is the wrong thing to do, but I feel it is a must ... Flowers, you appear arrogant and therefore no fun to debate.

Trust me, you did nothing for your case.

Try purchasing the CDs from Logos School Materials on introductory logic. I am sure you can find it if you Google it.

Have a good evening.

[thereselittleflower]

OK, I will stop here. Pointing out logical fallacies appears to be something you just learned to do since you do it so inaccurately and rudely. Also, they do not add to the debate. With the way you go about it, it is nothing more then calling a person a name.

Normally when someone points out a logic fallacy, they do it with the intent to teach. But you don't do that, for one thing, you have done such a poor job using them that they do not make sense and another thing you use them in a debate very inaccurately.

I have quite had enough.

A refusal to acknowledge being instructed in how one has engaged in logical fallacies is simply repeating the same logical fallacy we have seen in Confess' posts . . Ignores Facts In Evidence.

We have seen the continued to use of logically fallacious respones in Confess' posts. I told Confess if she continued to do so did I would point them out.

Now we see Confess continue to compound them by engaging in further logical fallacy Ad Hominem.

Here we see Confess making her post about me instead of the arguments. It is a deflection technique. It is designed to take the focus off what has been argued, and place it on the person in a negative light in an attempt to discredit the person rather than their arguments.

So, now that we have had instruction in the engaging of this logical fallacy, shall we go on to others?

Ignores facts in evidence is self exlpanatory. That Confess ignores the facts I have presented and do not engage them is obvious.

Assumes facts in evidence - this also is self explanatory . . when Confess makes claims or statements of fact and do not produce the evidence to back them up, this logical fallacy is being engaged in.

Since it is self explanatory it should not need any explanation, though since you has decided to call into question my exposing such use of these logical fallacies by her in this thread, I have taken time to teach. :)


Your decision to do this only weakens your credibility and estranges the person you debate.

And the Ad hominem continues . . note there is nothing being argued about any argument I have made . .just cotninued negative focus on my person . . . that is the definition of Ad hominem logical fallacy - against the person.

And the purpose of the Ad hominem is to deflect attention way from the weakness in the arguments of the one so engaging in this fallacy (in this case, Confess). It is generally used when one finds themselves backed into a corner from which it is hard to extracate one's position logically without serious damage.

So, contrary to the claim made above in this ad hominem, instead of the exposure of such demonstrating any weakness on the part of the one exposing it, it actually serves to put a spot light on the weakness of the one so engaging in this fallacy, thus actually raising an issue regarding the crediblity of their position.

And so it goes on . .

The way you go about doing it is disrespectful, rude and ... I know WeBe1, I told you that this is the wrong thing to do, but I feel it is a must ... Flowers, you appear arrogant and therefore no fun to debate.

As I said, it continues . . just one big humongous ad hominem . .

Trust me, you did nothing for your case.

More logical fallacy

Assumes facts not in evidence

Ignores facts in evidence.

And it goes on

Try purchasing the CDs from Logos School Materials on introductory logic. I am sure you can find it if you Google it.

Have a good evening.

Logical fallacy . . ad hominem . .

And so, we have had a very good lesson in logical fallacy in the example provided by Confess in her post above . . especially that logical fallacy known as ad hominem.


Thanks to Confess for the opportunity to teach. :)



.

[Confess]

Pradon me. But I was pointing out how you were offending me. But obviously, that is not important.

You ego is certainly astounding. Add that to your ad hominem.

[thereselittleflower]

Pradon me. But I was pointing out how you were offending me. But obviously, that is not important.

You ego is certainly astounding. Add that to your ad hominem.


I guess Confess no longer wants to discuss the topic of the thread . . . just me . . .

At least we have reached agreement on the fact she is engaging in logical fallacies . . .


.

[thereselittleflower]

And Confess. . you simply prooftexted a couple of words from the verse you quoted in many tranlations, ignoring the context . . .


The context is this:


Romans 3:20
3:20 because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin

It is very specific in its focus and cannot be used to generalize . . .

By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified . .

This does not say no flesh shall be justified period.


And the second part of the verse is evidence against your postion on babies and in support of mine:


It speaks of the relationship of sin to knowledge . .

for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin


A baby has no knowledge of sin . . . that requires knowledge of the law. A baby has no knowledge of the law.

One is not justified through works of the law because one has knowledge of sin. . ..

.

if one has no knowledge of the law, and thus no knowledge of sin, this verse does not apply . .


This verse does not apply to babies . ..


And, there is no word "all" in that verse by the way . . .


.

This post must have been too difficult to address without admitting error in position . . .

.

[Confess]

I guess Confess no longer wants to discuss the topic of the thread . . . just me . . .

At least we have reached agreement on the fact she is engaging in logical fallacies . . .


.
True meanness.

[thereselittleflower]

You're mean.

edited by Confess to:

True meanness.

Confess May I recommend you stop posting in this thread. You are not helping your position. . It doesn't help your position to hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself to.


.



.


.

[Confess]

How old are you anyway? 15? Your poor use of logic flaws shows how little you know. You used logic fallacies as a way to get out of debate. I can tell you that 90% of what you coined as logic fallacy was improperly used. But of course you are going to scream "logic fallacy" for even stating that.

You need to grow up, reflect your faith and quit being so mean spirited. No one can talk to a person who thinks as highly of themself as you do.

[thereselittleflower]

How old are you anyway? 15? Your poor use of logic flaws shows how little you know. You used logic fallacies as a way to get out of debate. I can tell you that 90% of what you coined as logic fallacy was improperly used. But of course you are going to scream "logic fallacy" for even stating that.

You need to grow up, reflect your faith and quit being so mean spirited. No one can talk to a person who thinks as highly of themself as you do.

Confess May I recommend you stop posting in this thread. You are not helping your position. .

It doesn't help your position to hold others to a different standard than you hold yourself to.



.

[WeBe1]

I am disheartened by the inept ability that a person in this conversation has shown in their attempt to discuss a matter of personal interpretation on the specified subject. The ego here is so grand, that it has become even as it were, a curse to even read this thread.

And the ability to exercise wisdom has faltered to such a level that in reading, my IQ has dropped by 10 points.

[Confess]

I am disheartened be the inept ability that a person in this conversation has shown in their attempt to discuss a matter of personal interpretation on the specified subject. The ego here is so grand, that it has become even as it were, a curse to even read this thread.

And the ability to exercise wisdom has faltered to such a level that in reading, my IQ has dropped by 10 points.
I know what you mean. Everything was going well until she had nothing more she could argue against. Once that happened she began issuing "fallacies" rather then debate. Little did she know she was commiting a fallacy blunder herself by doing so.

From looking back, she treated you the exact same way.

[thereselittleflower]

I know what you mean. Everything was going well until she had nothing more she could argue against. Once that happened she began issuing "fallacies" rather then debate. Little did she know she was commiting a fallacy blunder herself by doing so.

From looking back, she treated you the exact same way.

"fallacy blunder" is an oxymoron . . . . . ;)



.

[Confess]

It worked WeBe1!!!

I knew I could get her out!!!!

All I had to do was hit the "easy" button. Talk about fallacies and she would be quick to point out flaws in others. LOL!!!

[WeBe1]

It worked WeBe1!!!

I knew I could get her out!!!!

All I had to do was hit the "easy" button. Talk about fallacies and she would be quick to point out flaws in others. LOL!!!

Yes, but are we not guilty of the same?

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."
Matt 5:44

Forgive us Flower, as I have and I am sure Confess will forgive you. May we be one in the Spirit, and not divided by pride.

[rrguy]

Actually the question at hand was?

Catholicism?

When baptizing a baby into this religion, do they believe this is saving the soul of the child by baptism into the catholic church?

Which seemed to me like Thereselittleflower was addressing. Its too bad so many debates get side tracked

Good point WeBe1