DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,

Baptism as I understtanding is done in obediance
to Jesus and as an Outward Sign to the community and the church of a Changed Life and a decission
to follow Jesus.

1. Since we are ALL Responsible for choosing to
follow or not to follow Jesus, the question I would have to ask how can a baby make that decission?

1A. How can a parent or a God mother or a God Father make the choice for that child?

2. In the protestant church they dedicate babies
to the Lord. This can be found in the OT with Sampson ... Mary the mother of Jesus according to Oral tradition was also dedicated to the Lord. I only use this example because it has been posted here before. I believe there are more OT examples but I can not think of them off the top of my head...

The Point IS Choosing to accept Christ is a PERSONAL Decission and A PERSON must make that
choice for THEMSELVES. Someone else can not
make the choice for you.

They can however Promise to Raise the baby and teach them all the doctrines and teachings of
the Church. I.E. Dedication.

There fore I feel that infant baptism is not
scriptural on the bases listed above..

Grace & Peace,

Clem

Clem,

Do you believe that salvation is by faith alone?

If the answer is yes, then

Do you believe any infants are saved?

If the answer is yes, then I don't see how you can't conclude that infants can have faith. In other words,

1) Either infants cannot believe and so none are saved

2) Infants cannot believe, but some are saved by some means other than by faith

or

3) God can gift faith to infants, and while they can't express the faith they do possess it and are saved.

Also, if like most Christians, you agree that faith is a gift, then why cannot God give that gift to infants?

I'm a Protestant by the way--and I believe infant baptism is scriptural.

David,

To answer your question By Faith we are saved
and not by works unless any man should boast.

How can a baby have faith ?? That is illogical.
God can do anything HE pleases, He is God. But
you add to the scriptures if you assume that
God gives babies faith.

I don't happen to agree with the Catholic teaching of the stain on ones soul of original sin.. I do not see this doctrine in scripture, I believe it is assumed. Babies are not able to understand right from wrong so how could they sin ??

I believe that if a baby dies either by abortion or some other means before the age of understanding they go back to heaven and are with God.. I don't believe in Limbo or Purgatory.

How can a new born baby open the door of their
heart when Jesus knocks. How can they accept Him as savior when their brain is not developed enought to know and be able to choose good from
evil ?

Grace & Peace,

Clem

How can babies sin?

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

If you believe babies cannot sin, then the 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade are, in some sense, and as you alluded to, mercy killings as much as they are murders.

David,

I can not dispute what Ps. 51:5 says. According to that verse we are All born in sin. I don't know how you came up with me considering abortions are Mercy Killings?

If Baptism washes away the stain of the sin from
Ps. 51:5 I guess all babies should be baptised so
they won't die in sin ...

Mark 1:4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24, Romans 6:4,Col 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21

My only question is how can a new born baby repent of their sin ??? Are you saying the God
Parents can repent on the baby's behalf...?
Then I guess I can repent of the Sins of my parents or my sibblings without their consent and they will be forgiven for those sins I repent
from... Doesn't Repent mean to turn away from sin. Explain how the baby turns away or repents of the sin they were born into... Would that sin be the sin of Adam and Eve?

Grace & Peace

Clem

Clem,
Babies don't have to repent for original sin and they haven't committed personal sin as you pointed out above. John the Baptist was speaking to adults, who - if they haven't been baptized - do need to repent as well as be baptized. Babies simply need to be baptized to remove original sin.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I did a Web search on Original Sin. I came across an article that claims that PS. 51:5
should not be used as a proof text for the Stain of Original sin. Basically it claims that the
Psalms were A form of Jewish poetry and should not be taken literally. The explanation was that
David was speaking of his sinful affair with
Bathsheba and that their sin was being seen through the perspective of the child but that the
sin was not his, but the sin of his father and
mother.

My question to you is should ANYONE Catholic
or Protestant use Poetic books as proof texts?
The Hebrews used Metaphor's imagery and idiems in their writings. I would suppose that Jesus used these types and styles in His teachings.

Since His teachings were primarily to the Hebrews He would Naturally use terms and phrases that they would understand but someome from a different culture and who spoke a different language may not totally comprehend or may loose some of the meaning in the translation.. ?

The question is can the interpretation of PS. 51:5 listed above be the correct interpretation?

If this is the case then are there any other scriptures that can be used to prove that the
sin of Adam leaves a stain on every human soul
born after him? We all suffer the effects of
Adam's sin. The effects of the curse on Adam and
on the earth. But does that effect put a black
mark or stain on the soul of everyone born
after Adam ?

If you say yes, then was baptism instituted by
Adam? If not then by what means was this original
stain of sin removed from the souls of the
children of Adam? How did the Jews remove this
stain from their souls ?

Is this stain automatically on our souls when we are born? Is the stain passed on to the baby
from the mother or is it Just there automatically?

Grace & Peace,

Clem

Jay,

Jesus was sinless, yet He allowed Himself to be
baptised by John the Baptist. Do you or does anyone else know why Jesus was baptised if the purpose of baptisim is to Wash away the stain of original sin ?

Also if an infant dies by Partial birth abortion
or by pre-viable abortion or dies for any other
reason, the definition of Original sin put
forth by Augustine in the 4th century would doom
that child to Hell, or maybe purgatory if they had not been baptised yet ...?

That seems awfully cruel of a Loving God and Meriful Father. I know that He is a Holy God and
a God of Justice but that baby has not had a chance to willfully sin against Him. That child was never given a chance to accept or reject Him.

There are a host of OT Scriputes I will site that say that the child is not to be punished for the fathers sin and Visa versa :Deut. 24:16,2 Kings 14:6, Ezek. 18:20 ,Ezek.33:20 and Jer. 31:29-30 .

Your thoughts ?

Grace & Peace,

Clem

Clem,

I'm going to wade in over my head again here but I have some rather uneducated thoughts on this that might be of interest to you. Or maybe not. I guess you'll be the judge.

I wonder myself about the idea that baptism washes away original sin. But I have heard an alternate explaination which makes a little more sense to me.

I have heard infant baptism being described as the Christian version of circumscision. In other words, baptism is a mark, a setting apart of a child in a consecrated ceremony which is as uniquely Christian as circumscision is for the Jews. Infant dedications are common throughout the world and are not just found in the Bible. But baptism paired with chrismation and recieving the mark of the cross on the forehead marks a child as Christian from the earliest possible moment. It is not a neutral and non-specific act such as is simply calling for God's blessing for the child and expressing an intention to raise them in ones religion. I think infant baptism is much more powerful and yes, personal in a way because the ceremony is performed on the child rather than the ceremony having the parents intentions as its emphasis.

Also, you asked about where is the place for repentence and an adult acceptance of Christ if someone is baptised as an infant. That is what confirmation is for in my understanding. Theoretically it should work just as adult baptism does in Protestant churches, where as soon as a person feels they are ready to consciously accept Christ no matter their age, then they are confirmed.

However, I am afraid that it doesn't always work that way and most people probably feel pressured to be confirmed by a certain set age whether they truly feel it or not just because that is just how it is done. This is a concern for me and i think that it is a weakness in Catholic teaching to confirm everyone by a certain age like it or not.

There are other ceremonys too in Catholic tradition. I think that there is a tradition where somone can re-dedicate themselves if they have lapsed or have left the church. There is also the sacrament of reconciliation or confession. In other words, there are many ways person can repent of their sins and to intentionally accept Christ outside of baptism.

Just from what I have experienced of these uniquely Christian ceremonies, I have found them to be far more powerful and edifying than the more generalized pratices of the Protestants. JMHO.

Also, in MHO, the further you get from the Christian sacraments, the more in common you begin to have with the common pool of the world's montheistic religions. Christianity's ancient sacraments separate our faith entirely from these other faiths.

Having been exposed to Islam, I can see how dangerously close Protestantism is to that faith in particular but also to Judaism. Not theologically of course. But theology is so abstract. I am talking in certain practices and habits to the extent that in my experience, a Protestant is far more likely to exclaim how similar all the monotheistic faiths are. Whereas a Catholic is far less likely. Catholicism couldn't be more different from those other faiths.

Again, this is just my opinion but that powerful difference makes all the difference. The hallmark of the other monotheistic faiths is their blandness, moderation and generalization with little to differentiate them outwardly. For the vulnerable person, this seeming similarity can be very dangerous. For me protestanism seems like a slow slide into religious homegenization.

Just look for instance at the early Protestants. They intially retained many sacraments including infant baptism and confirmation. But as protestantism became more polarized and yes more dogmatic about sola scriptura, these started to drop away.

Until today we have Protestant churches dedicating their infants in a ceremony which has no history in Christian history. It has been gleaned from odd verses in the Bible rather than from broad biblical principle and brings the protestant church cheek by jowl with Islam, bahaism, and Judaism in the practice of dedicating infants.

Although all of these faiths have a unique style in which they dedicate their infants, they all have one thing in common and its a big thing. Allow me to list them briefly.

In islam the parent speaks the muslim confession of faith into the childs ear. Judaism marks the male child and offers thankgiving for a female child. Bahais dedicate themselves to raising their child in the faith.

Now note how in all of them the Cross is entirely absent.

What happens to Christianity without the Cross? It becomes just another philosophy. I am sure that you will have no trouble agreeing with me.

So how is it more desirable to begin your child's life as a Christian with a ceremony which is not only a recent innovation but which is also devoid of the Cross?

Its just something you might want to think about.

as if I haven't already said enough, here are some further thoughts. :)

As Christians, I think we should all be evry aware of the difference between a pure abstraction on the one hand and a physical manifestation or incarnation on the other. Am I right on this?

The failure of the Protestant church in my view is that they would be quick to agree with Catholics on this issue. But the Catholic church takes it much more seriously.

What you have in the modern Protestant churches is that the Christian faith has become more and more abstractly Christian and less and less physically Christian. By that I mean that the differences between say some forms of traditional Protestantism and say Islam are narrowed into differences in philosophy wherever physical differences like making the sign of the cross have been abandoned.

Granted, many other protestants do dance and sing and feel the spirit, what have you. All of these are very physical and the intention is to physically worship and express joy etc. But if you compare a modern Protestant worship service in full swing to say a typical pagan worship service, there is very little physical difference. There is music, dancing and singing etc. People seem to have fits as they are possesed by the god.

So on the one hand if your protestant church has sedate and dignified worship the differences between you and the mosque down the street don't amount to much even if the abstract philosophical differences are great. On the other, if your protestant church is a more modern, your worship more closely resembles pagan worship.

In other words if someone were to walk in either type of church and didn't know the philosophical/abstract differences, how would they know that there was a difference? Physically, there wouldn't be much to go on. You could say that the presence of a cross in most churches would be enough to tell, but if its empty, what would it say to someone who didn't know the Christian story? Wouldn't an empty cross on a wall somewhere be just another abstraction to a stranger? He might not even notice it over there or he might think its just a decoration of some kind.

Yet in a Catholic church you can't escape the physical differences nor can you escape the fact that these differences are markedly different from those of any other form of worship. For one there is the frequent signing of the cross upon a persons own body. For another Catholics enact the Lords Supper at every service. But there are many more ways in which they act out the Bible in a way that is many times more thorough and specifically Christian than Protestants do.

Which finally brings me to my point.

When a baby is baptised in the Catholic church they are marked with the sign of the cross and bathed in water, two distinctly Christian physical acts. The child is marked physically from the beginning as a Christian in an unmistakably Christian way in the same way an adult would be brought into the same community. In each case, it remains for them to grow into their faith. The only difference is that the child will wait a little longer from the time they are baptised until they can begin that process.

Contrast this to a child dedication in which only an intention is expressed and a blessing given. The child must wait to become a Christian and be part of the church until they can begin to learn for themselves. Its all an abstraction not much different from what you would find in another faith and what awaits the child is nothing more than a future of schooling in the Christian philosophy as opposed to some other philosophy which is finally culminated in some decision to formally commit to that philosophy and finally get washed into the community.

A child baptised as an infant is promptly washed into that community with a uniquely Christian physical act on their own bodies. They are set apart in reality and actuality rather than being set apart in word only until some later date.

The result is that from cradle to grave, the Catholic participates physically in the church and I think that this reflects a far greater seriousness than the protestants have for incarnating Biblical truth into our physical reality.

I did not read every post related to this topic, but I did read your original.

The scripture says we should be as children (let the children come to me) because they are without sin. Does a child know something is wrong until they are told? Does a babe? No- we all have to be taught what sin is- that some things are wrong and others right. A babe is not born with this knowledge otherwise there would be no need to teach.

In the beginning Adam and Eve were not sinful, also it is stated that Jesus lived a sin free life, how could this be if he was born with sin?

We are called to "repent and be baptized" because we should each do this once we are aware of our sin and want to change our sinful ways. A babe cannot repent. God is consistent, put all the scriptures together and are they saying infant baptism or something else? Are there any examples in scripture of infant baptism?

That alone should tell you something. All of the people baptized in scripture are adults.

Peggy,

I appreciate you zeal for the Catholic faith
but please do not put down the Protestants. There are many Zealous Protestants. I have
been on both sides. I was brought up Catholic and I was also in various Protestant churches for over 20 years.

In Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:4 and Acts 13:24 the theme of these verses is that baptism is for the repentance and forgiveness of Sins. Even the Catholic Church teaches Baptism takes away the stain of Original sin. You disagree with your own churches definition of what baptism is for...

Again, Explain to me how an infant can repent when they don't even know what sin is yet ??
Dedication is scriptural and not obscure. Sampson was dedicated to God and according to
Catholic Tradition so was Mary the Mother of Jesus. There are others but I don't have the
references right now but I can get them if you
would like ?

I have been studying the various concepts
on original sin. I belive the basic differences between the Catholic and Protestant is that
the Catholics feel that there is an actual stain
on a person's soul from the sin of Adam. Most
Protestants believe that we are born with
a sinful nature and we suffer the consequences of
Adams sin and the consequences of the curse but
there is no stain of Adams sin on the soul when a person is born..

The doctrine of Original sin was not defined until the fourth century by St. Augustine..

My problem with some of the Early church fathers
is that prior to their conversions to Christianity they were students of Greek and Roman Philosophy and I believe that their writings are influenced by these secular teachings. If you were educated by a certain group and then later convert to Christianity you
are still influenced by your early life experiences and your educations prior to conversion.

Tradition is fine if it doesn't go against scripture. It is obvious that God, Jesus and the
Apostles held the Written word Higher then Oral
Tradition. There is a place for oral tradition
but it should not trump the written canon.

Example, (1) God wrote the ten commandments on Stone with His own finger and made the Jews carry them around in the ark .. They didn't have to rely on oral tradition because they had the written word to go back to.

(2)God directed Mosed to WRITE the first five books of the OT. Why so there would be a written record to check back to...

(3) In the NT Jesus and the Apostles always referred back to the Written word of the OT Scriptures.

(4) When Jesus got up to speak in the Synagouge He READ from the scroll. He did not recite it from memory.

(5) When Jesus was tempted By Satan in the wilderness His reply to ALL three temptations was : IT IS WRITTEN, not I say to you or I tell you.

(6) Paul commended the Bereans for searching
the (OT) scriptures daily to make sure that what they were being taught orally was true...

Why do we write our civil and criminal laws down and do not rely on Oral Tradition ??

Jay has side stepped these facts and contrary to
what He claims it is obvious that the written word is prefered over oral tradition. Oral tradition had and still has it's place but it NEVER over rules the written word ... It would
seem from the examples I have given that God, Jesus and the Apostle Paul prefer the written
word over oral tradition ..

It is the Catholic Church that is in opposition
to the Scripture and what it appears GOD, Jesus
and the Apostle Paul prefer..

The Catholics use obsure verses from questionable
books like Macabees to support doctrines like
Purgatory...

The church of Jesus Christ is not in a building
or a demomination Catholic or Protestant. The
church is a living body and it is made up of those Souls who have surrendered their hearts and lives to Jesus. He will be our Judge..
Not the Pope or the Magistrium.

IMHO

Grace & Peace,

Clem

Clem,

I do not question the zeal of protestants. I have been one my whole life. I am not a Catholic yet so I wouldn't say that I have any zeal for it yet either.

However, I do feel strongly about stepping into their shoes as much as I can without having to be convinced first of the truth of their teachings. I try to see things as they see them and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I try to start with the premise that they might be right and have an equal chance of being right as the protestants do. I don't insist that they wow me with unequivocal proof from the Bible nor do I insist on having every wrinkle ironed out before I do that.

This has led me into interesting territory as you can obviously see. As I explained in my earlier post, I have also been intensely exposed to islam and it was that encounter that led me to seriously explore the Catholic faith. Through my explorations I have come to see how protestantism approaches islam and the other faiths more closely than it should and that this might be a direct result of its ultra rational approach. I have also come to see a disconnect between Protestant theology and actual protestant worship and I have come to have less respect for protestant worship as a result if I still retain a great deal of respect for Protestant ideas and criticisms of the Catholic church.

I think we have two entirely different approaches here and I happen to think, surprise, that my approach could benefit you and might serve to open your mind to what the Catholics have to say.

Let me explain. I'll do my best to be coherant but I can't make any promises. (its not my strong suit)

What would you think of a person whose whole knowledge of a foriegn country and way of life came from books and based on this knowledge they decided that this country/culture was unimpressive and not worth visiting? Contrast this person with someone who actually goes to that country and lives as the natives do, interacting with them, forming personal relationships and learning about it from the inside out.

Now if the person who immersed themselves in that foriegn culture then decided that that culture didn't favorably compare to their own, then their conclusion would stand a better chance of being a educated one and a fair one.

Now I understand that your exposure to Catholicism has been extensive, but I offer you this possibibility to consider.

Isn't it also possible to misunderstand something that is as familiar as your own backyard? Is it possible to get off on the wrong foot in understanding it? Could you have been the unfortunate victim of bad teachers and bad examples? How many parishes were you a long term member of? How often have you expected to be immediately impressed by a church or parish? and how many priests or pastors have you established a learning relationship with?

Is it possible for an intelligent and rational person to become locked into one way of looking at things due to their negative and narrow experiences of a thing and is it possible that they could be missing out on quite a bit that is available to them if they just worked on making their personal perspective more flexible?

It seems to me that you have just one way of looking at Biblical interpretation. It is very modernistic in that it reflects the spirit of our age. It is very no nonsense, pratical, rational etc. what you see it what you get kind of approach. In this view, the Bible becomes like intruction manual. Its meaning is plain and needs little to no interpretation. Basically, in this view, the Bible was intended to be easy to understand and each and every verse carries the same weight in much the same way that a list of rules are all equal. In this way, a few examples from the bible is enough to establish a ceremony without precedent in the history of Christian worship for just one example. This when infant baptism fits neatly into a much broader and well supported biblical principle of a people set apart and of infants beings marked as a part of that people from birth. (BTW, Samson would have been marked with circumcision as well as being dedicated. Wasn't he a Jewish male?)

We tend to swallow whole the idea that our modern way of thinking is the best. For this we have ample enough proof in our scientific and social acheivements.

And yet this leaves mysticism and more holistic outlooks out in the cold without any real evidence or proof that these approaches are without merit where religion is concerned.

Is religion not more than a science, a list of rules or an instruction book? Doesn't the evidence support that it has powerfully mystical and holistic aspects? Is a rational approach the best way to understand something which is not rational?

The ancient fathers may have been weaker than we are in a lot of intellectual respects, but they kick our butts hands down when it comes to a mystical and holistic way of seeing the world and of approaching religion. There is quite frankly no finer mystical tradition than that of early Christianity.

Was it a messier approach? Yes. Was it as cut and dried and obvious and certain as we modern people would prefer it to be? No. But we have no proof that it was the wrong way to do things because we are talking about religion which transcends science and clear cut methods. We have only our preferences with which to judge.

To look at this another way, what if we insisted on approaching our form of government the same way that we insist on approaching the Bible these days. We would have to reject democracy and liberty because they are way too messy and inexact. We would end up with a government that more resembled socialism or communism or islamism because these would promise us more certain and exact answers and at least on the surface, less mess.

What I am trying to get you to see is that there is more than one way to go here and it could yield rich rewards for you particularly in better understanding our common Christian history. I am trying to get you to see that your world would be much richer if you didn't reject 1500 years of Christian thought and worship as hopelessly corrupted. Is that how you approach Greek or European history? Do you also strictly discount everything in between the original source and only the most recent sources?

I'm asking you to consider is there might just possibly be another way to arrive at religious truth which doesn't rely almost entirely on rational methods as its sole source of proof. I'm asking you to consider looking at the Bible from a birds eye perspective rather than seeing it as a list of separate but equal ideas.

I have done this and to my astonishment, many contradictions that had bothered me were resolved in a satisfying manner. I am not saying that I have now bought wholesale into the Catholic method but I have seen enough to give it much more creedence than I ever would have in my most dogmatically Protestant days. It seesm to be now that the Protestants too often rip the Bible into separate pieces and then they have trouble getting them to fit back together again as a whole. They seem to fail to realize that a verse or example from the Bible can serve a lessor function or carry less weight in the big picture of the Bible without being lessened in its divinity or inspiration. On the other hand they seem to be too quick to reject the idea that anything that is less than fully divine and inspired could have any weight at all in helping us to better understand our faith and so they reject a vast corpus of oral knowledge and tradition as well as wholesome writings dating from the earliest period of our faith.

It seems a very resource poor way to approach things. Is there any other context where you would get your proof from one source only? What kind of proof results from that kind of approach?

Peggy,

When you talk about a Mystical way of thinking (
I am paraphrazing) That concerns me. Christianity
differs from Islam amd Budism amd Hinduism because to me there is no guessing. God has a plan and he lets you know how you can fit into that plan and He offers you eternal life.

I admit that I have not studied these religions in depth but I have read about their basic teachings.. You may be correct on my experience
with the Catholic church. I had bad teachers and
I didn't know what a bible was until I attended
a Protestant bible study.

I have been studying the teachings of the RCC
from their own writings from the On line encyclopedia. Plus I have spoken to Catholic priests about some of my problems with the teachings of the RCC..

I am not trying to insult you and if I am wrong
please accept my apology, but your post sounds
very New Age and has a lot of New Age terminology. That kind of thinking is ALL roads
lead to heaven. It doesn't matter what you believe. The Protestants and the Catholics agree that the road is narrow and there is only
one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ..

I guess my basic problem with the RCC is that
they think that all of their doctrines are
infallible and that All of their interpretations
are righ and anyone in disagreement with them is
wrong and a heretic...

I believe that is the Sin of Pride and arrogance. They believe that because Jesus told
Peter and then later the rest of the apostles
that what you bind on earth is bound in heaven and what you loose on earth is loose in heaven
makes their successors infallible in their teachings and their doctrines..

Oral tradition and the bible should be in harmony, not contrary to one another..
I can only speak for myself. I have studied their teachings and I have a hard time making some of them line up with scripture..
Why have the written word. Why have a holy book
if Oral tradition has presidence over it?

I feel from my studies that Pagan and or Secular thinking got into the church doctrine through
the church fathers like Augustine ans Justin Martyr and others. Jesus and the apostles warned about false teachers and false teaching
and put the warnings in the bible. They said that
these false teachers would be operating in the
church and were so slick that they could fool the
elect.. This warning came before the reformation
so the warning was about the RCC... And since
the RCC does not consider Protestants a part of the true church it could not be talking about
Protestants.

The apologists that run this blog will not admitt
or concede that there may be some error in their
church... How can you have a dialogue with someone who starts off with the premise that they are always Right and if you disagree with
them you are automatically wrong or a heretic ?
Why even have a BLOG if you are going to label
anyone in disagreement with your views a heretic
or misguided ? That is illogical. Ye, look at
the posts of those in disagreement with a position and one of the group takes them on and tells them that they are in error... They do not
do what you suggest in you post above and try at
look at it from another perspective. No, they just want to point out how wrong the dissenter
is .....

I am saying that if you are a true follower of
Jesus, then your demomination does not matter because we are all part of the one body of Christ and that body is very visible all over the world.

Some are Catholics, Some are Protestants and some
are Messianic Jews.. We all serve the same Lord
and Savior Jesus... The RCC is the one who wants
to cut anyone in disagreement with their teachings out of the Body of Christ.. I believe
that there are people in the RCC who are part of the body. I would not presume to exclude them but
their doctrines state that if you disagree with them you are anathema or doomed to hell...

Who is being exclusive and judgemental ? From what I read from the RCC doctrines it is the
RCC condemming souls to hell if they disagree
with them...

IMHO..

Grace & Peace in Christ,

Clem

"I am not trying to insult you and if I am wrong
please accept my apology, but your post sounds
very New Age and has a lot of New Age terminology. That kind of thinking is ALL roads
lead to heaven. It doesn't matter what you believe. The Protestants and the Catholics agree that the road is narrow and there is only
one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ.."

Clem,

I have never had any patience with new age thought and I can tell with certainty that I believe the way is narrow and not broad.

However, I believe that our conditioning can limit our ability to learn and to get inside the thinking of others. If we are searching for the truth then getting inside a given Christian perspective as well as studying its writings is something that can't be done without. They have to go together. Then it is necessary to test what we know for truth.

I think that we can make our standards so inflexible that we can blind ourselves and box ourselves into a favored approach. Becoming familiar with the different approaches to theology is the only way to properly test them.

In other words we can't say. "Impress me first, then you'll have my attention" instead we should just pay attention and I believe the truth will out when we do.

My case is a little unusual in that I did study other religions before I became a Christian but I didn't make a purely intellectual decision to become a Christian. I had a born again experience and from there I began to search for the Christian truth among all the "competitors"

I have found a lot to appreciate in the Catholic approach but I couldnt agree with you more about some of the church's doctrines. I attend a orthodox Anglican parish which truly offers the best of both worlds. There I can explore Protestantism and Catholicism because the Anglicans are a wonderful combination of both! An Orthodox Anglican parish has more respect for the individual conscience while also upholding catholic tradition as opposed to Roman Catholic tradition. They share small 'c' catholic tradition with Orthodoxy that other great ancient branch of the church in that their priests are married and they believe in the equality of all the national churches with the Pope, theorectically of course, holding a place as first among equals, not as the sole arbiter of truth for the church. I believe that Christian history bears this out although I'm sure others here will disagree.

BTW The Orthodox are absolutely fascinating and I almost went with them to study small c catholicism before deciding that Anglicanism would be more comfortable for me since it is the English/american church and so it reflects amy culture and not someone elses.

I would very much recommend to you that you find an orthodox anglican parish in your area, if there is one and also that you begin to study orthodoxy too. You will reap major benefits from it I can assure you.

I can tell you that Frederica Matthewes Green is a very accessible portal to Orthodoxy. She is a convert and has written a few books on the subject. She also has a web site frederica.com.

If you want, let me know where you live and I'll ask my rector if there are any good Anglican teachers in that area. He is very big on educating his parishioners in the faith and he knows lots of people all over the country.

I'll try to get some more answers for you to someone of your other objestions and post them here later on. I'm afraid I won't be able to help you with purgatory or with Marian devotion because I haven't even begun to decide on these issues for myself. But I'll do what I can to address some of the issues you have brought up here.

One thing I can say for sure right now is this.

If the written word were more reliable than the oral word then why didn't Jesus command his diciples to write down everything he said immediately? Why didn't he have a scribe taking dictation? I believe that is because he is powerful enough to preserve the truth in any form. That does not mean that all oral teaching is as trustworthy as written teachings but I believe that He does hold it in check and doesn't allow it to go too far astray.

You are right to test oral tradition with scripture. I am only concerned about you being too hard on oral tradition and are not testing it fairly.

Peggy,

Thanks for your wonderful post. Sorry I got the wrong impression. The Anglican church sounds intriging..

I have nothing against oral tradition. You make a good point about Jesus not having a secretary
or ordering them to write it down. But He did
Answer Satan It is written when He was tempted
and He read from the scroll in the Synaguoge.
He also said that not one Jot or Tittle of the
law would pass away until all had been accomplished and Jot and tittle suggests the
written word so I guess we can agree that
Both oral tradition and the written word are both important to Jesus ..

I just think they should be in harmony and one
should not contradict the other. I feel that some of the oral traditions used to support some of their doctrines Like Purgatory, the immaculate
conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary are
based more on tradition then scripture to name
a few...

Your point about seeing someone elses position without Judging them is a laudable concept..
But as I said. This Blog does not allow for
positions being in opposition to a Catholic doctrine remotely being true and the Catholic
position being in error... Catholic doctrine is
without error according to the RCC apologists
on this blog. Having an opem mind works both
ways ... How can you have a dialogue if one
side is never wrong and never in error ? Its
rather one sided. More like a momologue then
a dialogue ..

In Christ ,

Clem

It is very interesting to see everyones thoughts and beliefs on a topic as important as this one. I think it is important because what is more beautiful than a precious new life sent from heaven to be with their parents.
I personally was raised in a Christian home and have always be taught that Christianity is not a religion rather a relationship with the Lord. Therefore going on what I was taught how is it possible for a baby to have a relationship with anyone when they are not able to communicate clearly with anyone. I think that when one is old enough to understand between right and wrong then one can establish a relationship with the Lord and build on from their. And before that why would a child who dies not go to heaven because of sin, when they do not understand what sin is to begin with?

If Jesus was born by the Holy Spirit as well as John the Baptist, why then did they have to get Baptized when they were grown men?

They were born Holy. Baptism by water is symbolic and is only the first Baptism. It is the second Baptism that saves you. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost. Many children can be baptized by water and say the prayer, but later they become the worse sinners in the world. Its because they falsley believed they were saved by being dunked under water. The prodigal son is a perfect example. Religions are fighting over the first Baptism which is not even the Baptism that saves a person.
If this is not true read ACTS 19: 1-7. These people were baptized by John the Baptist, but had no clue about the second Baptism. So Apostle Paul laid hands on them and they received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. If you think your saved becuse you were dunked under water, you better seek the second baptism (Holy Ghost)

Cory

Welcome to the site. I agree that we should emulate Christ as much as we can. I also believe that scripture is inerrant. But I do not believe that your fallible interpretation scripture is inerrant.

You 1st imply that if Christ and John do something it applies to all. This is a logical flaw. John and Christ were not married ergo ... neither should we.

You then note that Baptism by water is "only" symbolic. I'm having difficulty finding that in scripture. Ok I'm open minded show me where your claim is stated... that baptism is only symbolic.

As Catholics we believe as you do... We believe that baptism has symbolic components but we also believe that there is also deeper change involved in the sacrament including forgiveness of sin and indoctrinating us into the mystical body of Christ. You have again false logic. To you Cory, a sacrament is only symbolic it cannot accomplish anything else. That is false. It is not (either or) it is (both and).

You also note that there is more than one baptism. This is also false. Here we see that indeed during baptism there is not only a symbolic form but we see that indeed there is spiritual change involved. When Jesus is baptized in John 2 we see just this and/both as he rises from the water the holy Spirit settles on him. Then in John 3 the Christ notes that we must be reborn of water AND the Spirit. What you have done here is seen the and/both and split it into an either/or. This is bold corruption of scripture. Show me in scripture where it says "there are 2 baptisms"...I won't limit you. Show me in scripture where it says there are 3, 4, 5 baptisms. I don't care, show me where in scripture it just says there is more than 1 baptism. If I can show you that scipture actually contradicts your claim would you then agree with Catholics that there is only one baptism?

In Love

when we were one

Post a comment