[ordinaryguy]

Actually, I did. maybe you did not read far enough down.

No, I read your post quite carefully, and just now went back and read it again, and there is nothing in it that's responsive to my question, "Where could a required death penalty come from, that God would be powerless to commute it and to forgive whomever He will?"

Let's see what He says:

Heb 9:22
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
NKJV

That's what the author of the book of Hebrews said. Different person altogether.

Do you believe that you are in a position to judge whether God is right?

No, but based on my understanding and experience of God's forgiving nature, I'm able to judge whether Christian doctrine is right on this point.

Why don't we go to God's word and go by what He says?

I don't believe that the Bible is God's word. I know that the idea of sacrifice as a requirement for forgiveness is central in both the old and new testaments, I just think it's wrong. It's a holdover from primitive religions that interpreted both natural and personal catastrophe as evidence of God's wrath that must be appeased. It's rooted in fear and a mistaken concept of God's attitude and relationship to us. Based on the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, it seems to me that a big part of his mission was to correct this misconception by emphasizing the image of God as our loving and merciful Father, not our severe and exacting Judge.

[Tj3]

No, I read your post quite carefully, and just now went back and read it again, and there is nothing in it that's responsive to my question, "Where could a required death penalty come from, that God would be powerless to commute it and to forgive whomever He will?"

Then you did not read carefully enough, because I quoted you and addressed the point.

That's what the author of the book of Hebrews said. Different person altogether.

Different person than who? Do you deny that all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Are you claiming that the Holy Spirit contradicts Himself?

No, but based on my understanding and experience of God's forgiving nature, I'm able to judge whether Christian doctrine is right on this point.

The Bible is the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. And again, if I understand correct, you are placing your experience and understanding above the word of God.

I don't believe that the Bible is God's word.

This explains why you don't believe what scripture says.

I know that the idea of sacrifice as a requirement for forgiveness is central in both the old and new testaments, I just think it's wrong. It's a holdover from primitive religions that interpreted both natural and personal catastrophe as evidence of God's wrath that must be appeased. It's rooted in fear and a mistaken concept of God's attitude and relationship to us. Based on the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, it seems to me that a big part of his mission was to correct this misconception by emphasizing the image of God as our loving and merciful Father, not our severe and exacting Judge.

If you believe that the OT speaks of a severe and exacting Judge, then you do not know the OT. Throughout the OT, we have a consistent message of God coming as our redeemer. Bujt if you deny the Bible itself, then we would get nowhere going through what scripture says.

[spitvenom]

How rude of me I posted this question and then wasn't around for three days to look at everyone's answers. But everyone is making a lot of sense and it cleared up a lot for me. Thanks Fr_Chuck you came though as always.

[ordinaryguy]

Do you deny that all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit?

I believe that inspiration is what allows a reader to discern the spiritual value in whatever they read. I don't believe it's an attribute or quality inherent in the words of the Bible, or any other book.

if you deny the Bible itself, then we would get nowhere going through what scripture says.

I don't "deny the Bible", I just don't believe it's the inerrant Word of God. If you think that's the same thing, then I agree that we'll get nowhere by quoting it.

[Tj3]

I believe that inspiration is what allows a reader to discern the spiritual value in whatever they read. I don't believe it's an attribute or quality inherent in the words of the Bible, or any other book.

Read 2 Tim 3:16.

[RustyFairmount]

My son is in the NICU right now, and faces long odds of survival. Just today (7-January-2008), my wife, priest, and I baptized him. Jesus said, "Amen, amen. I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5) Whether he has committed a sin or not, Jesus tells us that baptism is required for my son to go to heaven should he die.

Baptism, In my opinion, is the most important of the sacraments. Our son has got a long road ahead of him. No matter where that road takes him (I pray for recovery), I now know that he'll be in the grace of God.

[Tj3]

My son is in the NICU right now, and faces long odds of survival. Just today (7-January-2008), my wife, priest, and I baptized him. Jesus said, "Amen, amen. I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5) Whether he has committed a sin or not, Jesus tells us that baptism is required for my son to go to heaven should he die.

Baptism, IMHO, is the most important of the sacraments. Our son has got a long road ahead of him. No matter where that road takes him (I pray for recovery), I now know that he'll be in the grace of God.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born
again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

If baptism is essential for salvation, then how did these people receive the Holy Spirit which is only given to those who are saved if they had not yet been baptized?

Acts 10:47-48
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV

[De Maria]

This has never sat right with me and it was drilled into my head when i was in catholic school.

I felt the same way until I understood.

Why would God punish us all from what the first two people on earth did.

He didn't.

Why does everyone come in to life with a sin.

We don't.

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

Just doesn't seem logical. To me that story of original sin is a scare tactic to get people to baptist a child and make them part of this religion. So what's the deal why are we all punished at birth from what the first two people on earth did.

As explained above, we aren't punished by God. The way I understood it was when someone compared it to an inheritiance.

Lets say that certain parents had a million dollars. They went to the Casino and lost all their money. Then they had children. When they died, they could pass on what they had but not what they didn't have. So they couldn't pass on the million dollars they had lost.

Adam and Eve were created in a state of original justice united to God. In that state, they would have physically lived forever. But they gave that up when they decided to listen to the Serpent. They literally exchanged a condition of original justice united to God for a new condition of original sin united to the Serpent. In this state, they could no longer live forever and their children would be prone to commit the same mistakes that they had made.

This is, in my opinion, the most logical explanation for the condition of the world today.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God.

Scripture tells us that this is the result of receiving Jesus as Saviour and believing in Him (John 3:16 and many others), not water baptism. Water baptism is symbolic. To have the grace of God imparted to us, as John 3:16 and other verses tell us, we must first turn to God, receive Him as saviour, and when we do so, it is by the grace of God that our sins are washed.

[De Maria]

Scripture tells us that this is the result of receiving Jesus as Saviour and believing in Him (John 3:16 and many others), not water baptism.

John 3:3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


We must be born of Water and Spirit. That is Baptism.

Water baptism is symbolic.

It is also efficacious. The water washing over the body symbolizes the Spirit of God cleansing the soul.

To have the grace of God imparted to us, as John 3:16 and other verses tell us, we must first turn to God, receive Him as saviour, and when we do so, it is by the grace of God that our sins are washed.

AND BE BAPTIZED:
Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

[ordinaryguy]

It is also efficacious. The water washing over the body symbolizes the Spirit of God cleansing the soul.

So are you saying that the reality (the Spirit of God cleansing the soul) CANNOT come until AFTER the symbolic ritual (water washing over the body) has been carried out?

I tend to think that the symbolic enactment is an outward expression of something that has ALREADY happened inwardly, in reality.

[Tj3]

John 3:3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


We must be born of Water and Spirit. That is Baptism.

That passage is explained by Jesus himself and it is NOT speaking of water baptism.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

It is also efficacious. The water washing over the body symbolizes the Spirit of God cleansing the soul.

Really? Where does scripture say that water baptism is efficacious?

AND BE BAPTIZED:
Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

The argument is this. If you take the first half of the verse, it says “He who believes and is baptized is saved”, therefore believing and baptism are the essential requirements for baptism. For the believers in this doctrine, that is a slam-dunk argument. But is it? Let's look at this passage in context and let's see if it really says what they claim.

First, it inappropriate to take a verse out of context, let alone cutting a verse in half and only looking at the first half of the verse. I could come up with a lot of very strange doctrines using that approach. Let me give an example:

Gen 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may
freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the
day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
NKJV

God says in this passage:
“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good
And evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. If I did the same thing to this passage as is done in this argument in Mark 16:16 shown above, I would stop at the semi-colon and would read:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat“

Of course I have now change the meaning of the passage entirely and negated fully the message that God was giving to Adam and Eve. This is therefore a very dangerous approach and can significantly alter the meanings of many passages throughout scripture.

If we look now at Mark 16:16 in its entirety, we read:

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be
Condemned.
NKJV

What do we know just from this verse alone:

1) If we believe and are baptized that we are saved.
2) If we do not believe, we are condemned (unsaved)

The interesting this is that this does NOT say that if we are not baptized that we are condemned. But it does say that is we do not believe that we are condemned. Why would that be omitted in the second half of the verse?

The truth of this conclusion just from a logical perspective can be seen by using the same logic syllogism as Mark 16:16 uses, only in a different context:

If I have a full time job and red hair, I get a paycheque. If do not have a job, I receive no paycheque.

Note that it is the paycheque which is critical. The red hair is incidental and yet this sentence is still logically valid. One may ask why baptism was even inserted in the first half of the verse if it adds nothing to the requirements for salvation. I believe that it was to emphasize the importance of witnessing your faith and showing your desire to following Christ by being obedient and showing love for Him who dies on the cross for our salvation.

[De Maria]

So are you saying that the reality (the Spirit of God cleansing the soul) CANNOT come until AFTER the symbolic ritual (water washing over the body) has been carried out?

I tend to think that the symbolic enactment is an outward expression of something that has ALREADY happened inwardly, in reality.

As I understand, it is the result of Baptism. So if it isn't simultaneous, it is immediately after.

1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

The baptized have "put on Christ." Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.

Sincerely,

[De Maria]

That passage is explained by Jesus himself and it is NOT speaking of water baptism.

It is very telling that Jesus was baptizing in the Ennon near Salim when He said this:

John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Ennon near Salim; because there was much water there; and they came and were baptized.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

Except that Nicodemus came to Jesus while Jesus' disciples were baptizing the populace. That explains why Jesus gave a lesson on Baptism without even mentioning the word.

Note however, that Jesus does not equate the flesh and the water. This is a connection which you have made because you want to justify this belief.

Jesus distinguishes between the flesh and the Spirit. All men are born of water and flesh. But in order to be born again, one must be born of water and Spirit. The Water symbolizes the New Birth efficaciously. It is the sign which God has established to reveal the inward reality.

Really? Where does scripture say that water baptism is efficacious?

Many places but especially in these words we are reviewing. Here is another:

Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved:...

1 Peter 3 21 Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also:...

Romans 6 4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

The argument is this. If you take the first half of the verse, it says “He who believes and is baptized is saved”, therefore believing and baptism are the essential requirements for baptism.

For salvation you mean. And I wouldn't use the word "the" in front of "essential" as there are other essential requirements, such as "perseverance to the end".

For the believers in this doctrine, that is a slam-dunk argument. But is it? Let's look at this passage in context and let's see if it really says what they claim.

Ok

First, it inappropriate to take a verse out of context,

I didn't.

let alone cutting a verse in half

Just as I cut your phrases in half in order to get to the meat of the issue, it is correct to abbreviate a verse to highlight the point in question. You do understand that frequently, sentences carry more than one idea and assumption?

and only looking at the first half of the verse. I could come up with a lot of very strange doctrines using that approach.

I'm sure you could. But I haven't. My interpretation is according to the interpretation of the ancient Church which goes back to the first century Fathers.

Let me give an example:

Gen 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may
freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the
day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
NKJV

God says in this passage:
“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. If I did the same thing to this passage as is done in this argument in Mark 16:16 shown above, I would stop at the semi-colon and would read:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat“

Of course I have now change the meaning of the passage entirely and negated fully the message that God was giving to Adam and Eve. This is therefore a very dangerous approach and can significantly alter the meanings of many passages throughout scripture.

If done the way you did it, yes. But I haven't done so.

If we look now at Mark 16:16 in its entirety, we read:

Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

What do we know just from this verse alone:

1) If we believe and are baptized that we are saved.
2) If we do not believe, we are condemned (unsaved)

The interesting this is that this does NOT say that if we are not baptized that we are condemned.

Because without faith one can't please God. So if one is baptized although he doesn't believe, that will be a fruitless exercise. Lets break it down again.

1. If we believe and are baptized we are saved.
2. If we do not believe and yet are baptized, we are not saved.
3. If we do not believe and are not baptized and we are not saved.
4. If we believe and are not baptized, we won't be saved.

Our works are an expression of our faith. If a person claims to believe yet does not accept baptism then he actually does not believe.

James 2 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.

If a person is baptized although he does not believe, well we know that without faith it is impossible to please God so that would be a useless exercise.

But it does say that is we do not believe that we are condemned. Why would that be omitted in the second half of the verse?

Because if one does not believe, one does not have faith and it is impossible to please God without faith. So it wouldn't matter if one were baptized.

The truth of this conclusion just from a logical perspective can be seen by using the same logic syllogism as Mark 16:16 uses, only in a different context:

If I have a full time job and red hair, I get a paycheque. If do not have a job, I receive no paycheque.

Note that it is the paycheque which is critical. The red hair is incidental and yet this sentence is still logically valid. One may ask why baptism was even inserted in the first half of the verse if it adds nothing to the requirements for salvation.

It was inserted because it is critical. YOU don't want it to be there but it is. You are inserting your presuppositions into Scripture.

I believe that it was to emphasize the importance of witnessing your faith and showing your desire to following Christ by being obedient and showing love for Him who dies on the cross for our salvation.

Then obey and you will be blessed. If Christ says "believe and be baptized" I will obey, won't you?

John 14 23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[ordinaryguy]

As I understand, it is the result of Baptism. So if it isn't simultaneous, it is immediately after.

That's what I thought you meant--the symbol causes the reality. That's not how I understand the relationship between symbol and reality, but if it works for you, OK.

[De Maria]

That's what I thought you meant--the symbol causes the reality.

It is God's grace first of all which causes the reality. It is God who connected baptism and salvation.
The Catechism
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.... God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Following that, Baptism must be accompanied by faith. If one is baptized without faith, it is not efficacious.

The Catechism
1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

THEN because God said that Baptism is efficacious and because the man is baptized from faith in God, at that point the washing of the water of Baptism shows the reality of the washing of the soul.

The Catechism:
537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. The Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father's beloved son in the Son and "walk in newness of life":

Let us be buried with Christ by Baptism to rise with him; let us go down with him to be raised with him; and let us rise with him to be glorified with him.

Everything that happened to Christ lets us know that, after the bath of water, the Holy Spirit swoops down upon us from high heaven and that, adopted by the Father's voice, we become sons of God.

That's not how I understand the relationship between symbol and reality, but if it works for you, OK.

You are not a member of the Body of Christ before Baptism. You are not cleansed of your sin before Baptism. This is not a result of the washing of the water but of God's Will. It is God's will that by the washing of the water of Baptism we are cleansed of sin.

I hope the clarifies my position, which I believe is the Catholic Teaching on the matter:

Sincerely,

[ordinaryguy]

I hope the clarifies my position, which I believe is the Catholic Teaching on the matter

Your position is nothing, if not clear. Lack of clarity is not one of its shortcomings. Thank you for that.

[EIFS EXPERT]

I think it's ridiculous to call darling babies sinners.

[De Maria]

I think it's ridiculous to call darling babies sinners.

Who did that?

[EIFS EXPERT]

Everyone that agrees that we are born in sin and require baptism to make us better in the eyes of the Almighty so that we don't burn in hell.