Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[heiscominginthe]

So, when Paul rants about the Law in Romans, is he telling us that we are bound by the Law, or not? The Law(Commandments) cannot save us, right? In Romans 7:4, he states emphatically,“You died to the power of the Law, when you died with Christ.” I know you’ll probably point out that he meant the Jewish customs rituals, and laws, but I believe he also meant the Ten Commandments. This of course does not mean we shouldn’t strive to keep them all(nearly impossible on our own)

The difference is this. Those who are bound under the physical, OT law do so because they feel they have to, regardless of whether they want to or not.

Those who are under the NT law, do indeed believe in the ten commandments and keep them, but not because they feel they have to, but because they want to. For Christ lives in their hearts and the desire of the believer is to be submissive to the will of his savior because he loves him.

 

[heiscominginthe]

elvisman;5646375]The Apostles were indeed the first leaders of the Church that JESUS established (Matt. 16:18). BUT – they were not around when the canon of Scripture was declared – their SUCCESSORS were.

So the gospels and the scriptures were not declared valid until the CC declared it so?

WRONG**.**
It is you who rejects the word of God because Jesus told Nicodemus emphatically:
**Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. **

Do you not know that because of sin, the spirit of a man dies in him and if it remains dead in him till he dies in the flesh, not being born again through Christ, his soul/spirit, because it is dead in him will be taken to the place where the unrighteous dead are reserved until the day of judgement.

That is why it is so important a man be reborn, born again in his spirit through Christ, thus making his spirit alive again. So when he suffers physical death, because his spirit is alive in Christ, he goes to be with the living in the kingdom of God.

This is the message Jesus was trying to convey to Nicodemus. It is not a made up doctrine that adds to the Word of God by the CC.

Look - I’ll ask you the same thing I asked AVFLF:
What was the motive for the Early Church – many of whom were hideously** martyred – to teach this heretical Trinitarian view??**
****Can ****you answer that?

Wow, I think you have it all wrong there elvis. I have never found any proof where believers were martyred for believing in the trinity doctrine and the reason is simple. The early church did not believe in this foolishness. Two of the earliest church fathers, Justin and Terullian believed there was a moment in time shortly before the creation of the universe when the Father generated the Son.

Now, when this doctrine of men called the trinity doctrine was adopted, many who disagreed with it had to flee for their lives because of the persecution enspoused upon all opposers of the Roman catholic empire.

 

[elvisman]

Firstly, you go against the Words of our Lord, claiming you have the right to judge. By calling me not christian because I do not fit the catholic interpretation of being christian, in other words, being baptized into the catholic church, you judge me not christian and in that sense, you judge yourself not christian.

As for getting angry, that is silly. I love you and if I was to be angry, then how could I then love you.

I DO have the right to judge – RIGHTLY (Acts 18:5-6, Matthew 7:6, Luke 12:57, Ephesians 5:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Luke 7:42-43, Matthew 7:15-16, 1 John 4:1-2, 1 Corinthians 10:15). What we are admonished NOT to do is to judge a person’s heart – only God can do that. I am judging your fruits.

As for not considering other denominations Christian – that is simply a** lie****. Most Protestant denominations are Christians, albeit separated from the Body. YOU, on the other hand are not because you pervert the very essence of the nature of God.**

I suggest you learn the meaning of begotten.

And I suggest you learn the meaning of the word, “Eternal”.
As the Nicene Creed states, Jesus is:
“…eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;”

I can’t seem to find that word incarnate in scripture, is it in the catholic bible?

Now, I know that Jesus, who existed long before being sent unto the earth to be born in the flesh, came by way of the Holy Spirit of God. Yet, he already was with God. He just didn’t come to be when God the Father, through his Holy Spirit, conceived his Son in Mary. Scripture teaches that Jesus was already begotten of the Father before coming to earth.

Jesus WAS eternally begotten of the Father. His incarnate presence didn’t happen until he was born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem.
As for Incarnation – it just means his physical manifestation on earth. Pay attention - you might just learn something yet . . .

Now you contradict yourself. Above, didn’t you claim there was two person that make up one God. Now you claim there are three. You are slightly confused.

There is only one God, the Father, who is the Holy Spirit. And he begat his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord giving him life unto himself, filling the Son with his Holy Spirit without measure, thus making him God for a time until his plan of salvation is complete. For Jesus Christ is the beginning and the end of God’s plan of salvation for mankind.

Again – you read but you REFUSE to understand. There was NO contradiction as I was speaking of 2 of the persons in the Godhead. Just because I wasn’t speaking about the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit isn’t part of the Godhead.

I see you’re still dodging the question, so I will ask it once again:
What was the motive for the Early Church – many of whom were hideously martyred – to teach this heretical Trinitarian view??
AND*, since we have explicit writings from them as early as the 2nd Century – were they wrong and were they teaching a**** false**** Gospel?***

 

[elvisman]

So the gospels and the scriptures were not declared valid until the CC declared it so?

By George – YOU’VE GOT IT!!
**There were ***dozens of gospels, books and letters that were considered, but the Church – with the authority *given it by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit - declared it’s canonicity (John 16:13-15). **

Do you not know that because of sin, the spirit of a man dies in him and if it remains dead in him till he dies in the flesh, not being born again through Christ, his soul/spirit, because it is dead in him will be taken to the place where the unrighteous dead are reserved until the day of judgement.

That is why it is so important a man be reborn, born again in his spirit through Christ, thus making his spirit alive again. So when he suffers physical death, because his spirit is alive in Christ, he goes to be with the living in the kingdom of God.

This is the message Jesus was trying to convey to Nicodemus. It is not a made up doctrine that adds to the Word of God by the CC.
Jesus said you must be born again of WATER and Spirit (Baptism).
To say that this is untrue is to render our Lord a liar.

Wow, I think you have it all wrong there elvis. I have never found any proof where believers were martyred for believing in the trinity doctrine and the reason is simple. The early church did not believe in this foolishness. Two of the earliest church fathers, Justin and Terullian believed there was a moment in time shortly before the creation of the universe when the Father generated the Son.

Now, when this doctrine of men called the trinity doctrine was adopted, many who disagreed with it had to flee for their lives because of the persecution enspoused upon all opposers of the Roman catholic empire.
First of all – many of the Fathers were martyred for the WHOLE of their Catholic teaching (the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Jesus is God, etc), not just the Trinity.**

---

**Secondly – the Early Fathers were unanimous in their belief in the Trinity. **Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Epiphanius, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine ALL taught the Trinitarian doctrine.

---

As for Tertullian - you have now resorted to LIES:
**… All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ****** (Against Praxeus 2 A.D. 213]).
… all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith…. (ibid. 11A.D. 213]).

PS - I see that you have STILL not answered the Question.
You’re not alone - your buddy, AVFLF couldn’t answer it either . . .

 

[1beleevr]

Besides the Ten Commandments, and circumcision(which was supposed to die with Christ) what are some examples of the Moral Law? When Christ “fulfilled” the Law, did it mean that He was/is the ONLY one ever to wear flesh, who was able to keep ALL Ten?

 

[guanophore]

Does it not say that before you take the speck of dirt from your brother’s eye, you better remove the speck that is much larger from your own eye. It is not exact as what is written, but the meaning is the same none the less.

It does, but it relates to being critical or judgemental (condemnatory) of others, and seeing ourselves better than they. Therefore, it does no apply in this context.

I made an observation that the information you posted is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. My observation has nothing to do with the log in my eye. It is based upon the Truth that the Apostles committed to the Church. This occurred long before I developed my “log”.

This is where you have problems. You see the Word, but do not realize it is alive through Christ, who is the Word.

Oh, but I do! Just as much as He is alive in the Church, because He is her Head. But it is He that is living, active, and authoritative. You have made your own interpretation of scripture equal with the living Word of God. You believe that what you preach, and what He has communicated to mankind are the same thing. This is why you are able to say we are arguing with God when we disagree with you.

Jesus is the Word of God, for it is written.

Yes, but you have not embodied His Person in your interpetation of Scripture. You and God are not One, as you would like to purport here.

You assert that to disagree with you is to disagree with the Word of God.

The Church came from Jesus, who is the Word of God.

Amen!

The Church did not stop having Jesus as her Head after some of her teachings were committed to writing.

Here you seem confused. You say I am in err on one hand, and then agree with me. You cannot sup at the table of the Lord and his enemy. You will love one and hate the other.

Some of the things you say are true, such as the above statement about the Church coming from Jesus. Most of the statements you make are a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Jesus is the Word of God, both spiritual and written.

No, heis. The second person of the Trinity is not confined to the written word. Furthermore, your intrepretation of the written word does not embody His presence and nature. You claim you speak and teach the Word of God, but what you present departs from what He taught the Apostles.

Can you prove that it was not already written in the archieves in the kingdom of God?

I am not sure what this means, but I am sure I cannot prove a negative.

I will ask you this again, I believe I asked you this once before, when Jesus rebuked the devil in the desert, he said it is written? Was that which was written in writing on earth or in heaven or both?

Writing is something that exists in the space time continuum. Heaven is outside the space time continuum. They have no sheepskin or parchment there.

You see everything as either catholic or not catholic. I see everything as either truth or untruth, righteous or unrighteous, spiritual or man made.

All these are equivalent. What you are presenting here is man made.

The body of Christ is made up of many parts. Each performs certain functions and is benefical for the all.

Unity is the defining mark of the Body. Those who depart from the authority appointed by Christ destroy the unity of the body.

Truth comes from God. Regardless of what you believe, the CC does not have a monopoly on truth.

I never suggested any such thing.

I don't care if you are catholic or methodist or nothing. What I care about is truth, God's truth which is the life bread of the Church through the only begotten Son of the Father.

Well, heis, you have come to the right place to find out the Truth. Unfortunately, though, it has become increasingly clear that you are not here to learn anything, but to use CAF as a venue to promote your anti-Catholic ideas.

The Word of God was given to the Church through the unction of the Holy Spirit. It is not the Holy Spirit of God that has brought seperation which created a multitude of different and diverse religions. It is the hardness of the hearts of men, creating their own interpretations, doctrines, creating their own God, ignoring the God of Creation.

At least we are in agreement on something!

I suggest you search history much more closely. I believe it was prior to or around the time prior to Constantine, there was already much division in the church.

I know you have been taught to believe this. I was fed this stuff too. I learned that this was not, in fact, the case. There was a lot of division and heresy, yes, but it was not in the Church. Those who did not embrace the authority appointed by Christ "went out from among us’, just as you have done.

The reason being is men's attempts to understand God through psycology, theology and wisdom of men and not walking in the Holy Spirit and having God reveal himself to them.

The study of psychology, theology and science does not necessarily preclude walking in the Spirit. Most of the greatest scholars in history were Catholics, who discovered truths BECAUSE they were walking in the Spirit.

 The printing press came out when? Was it not around the 1400's AD it was invented? Prior to that, it was all hand written.

Yes, the inventor was a Catholic (Gutenberg) and the first book he published was the Bible. People seem to gloss over this point when they are erroneously asserting that the Catholic church tried to keep the bible from the people.

If numerous sources outside the catholic church agree with history, but yet conflict with the CC, you believe I should accept the catholic depiction of history, regardless of the many written accounts thoughout the world the reveal the catholic saga as not up to snuff?

Go ahead and start producing them, heis. But, start a new thread. It is off topic in this one. You have been indoctrinated by anti-Catholic sources.

If I did not love you, if I did not have his love in me for you, I would not be here.

So, your efforts to convert me, and other catholics into “bible christians” is really an expression of your love for our lost souls?

 

[guanophore]

If you want to be saved, you must be born again.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

To be born again, a man must understand that he is a sinner and falls short of the glory of God. A man must believe that God sent his only begotten Son into the Word to die in his place. A man must believe that Jesus shed his blood for him and that through his blood, his sins are washed away when the man asks for forgivness of his sins.

In short, a man must believe with all his heart that Jesus Christ is Lord, is the Son of God. He must become completely submissive at the foot of the cross.

These things apply to adults. They do not apply to infants and disabled persons. God does not prevent those from being born again who cannot do all this. That would be salvation by works!

 

[heiscominginthe]

elvisman;5649995]I DO have the right to judge – RIGHTLY (Acts 18:5-6, Matthew 7:6, Luke 12:57, Ephesians 5:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Luke 7:42-43, Matthew 7:15-16, 1 John 4:1-2, 1 Corinthians 10:15). What we are admonished NOT to do is to judge a person’s heart – only God can do that. I am judging your fruits**.**

So you attempt to judge my fruits, by according to what I post? Wow, this is stretching it. Jesus said that he who feeds the hungry, tends the sick, visits those in prison and so on and so forth that if we do it to the least of his brethren we do it unto him. This is the fruit that the Lord is looking for. Maybe you should learn what it means by our fruits.

As for not considering other denominations Christian – that is simply a** lie****. Most Protestant denominations are Christians, albeit separated from the Body. YOU, on the other hand are not because you pervert the very essence of the nature of God.**
And I suggest you learn the meaning of the word, “Eternal”.
As the Nicene Creed states, Jesus is:
“…eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;”
Jesus WAS eternally begotten of the Father. His incarnate presence didn’t happen until he was born of the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem.
As for Incarnation – it just means his physical manifestation on earth. Pay attention - you might just learn something yet . . .
Again – you read but you REFUSE to understand. There was NO contradiction as I was speaking of 2 of the persons in the Godhead. Just because I wasn’t speaking about the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Holy Spirit isn’t part of the Godhead.

You take about other denominations being christian, but being seperate from the body. Sorry friend, but to be seperate from the body of Christ mean one is not a christian. A man is either of the body or not of the body of Christ.

As for your contradicting yourself, I will let that one slide.

I see you’re still dodging the question, so I will ask it once again:
What was the motive for the Early Church – many of whom were hideously martyred – to teach this heretical Trinitarian view??
AND, since we have explicit writings from them as early as the 2nd Century – were they wrong and were they teaching a**** false**** Gospel?**

I most certainly did answer your question. You just chose to ignore it completely. Probably because you know I am right and you had no come back.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5651753]It does, but it relates to being critical or judgemental (condemnatory) of others, and seeing ourselves better than they. Therefore, it does no apply in this context.

I made an observation that the information you posted is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. My observation has nothing to do with the log in my eye. It is based upon the Truth that the Apostles committed to the Church. This occurred long before I developed my “log”.

If it is a departure from what the catholic interpretation is, then you can say I am guilty as charged. Yet, if it is a departure from the catholic interpretation, but does not compromise or is not contrary to the Word of God, but is supported by the Word of God, then I am only guilty of spreading the truth of God’s Word.

Oh, but I do! Just as much as He is alive in the Church, because He is her Head. But it is He that is living, active, and authoritative. You have made your own interpretation of scripture equal with the living Word of God. You believe that what you preach, and what He has communicated to mankind are the same thing. This is why you are able to say we are arguing with God when we disagree with you.

I believe what the Word of God says period, not adding or taking away from it, not compromising it, and not being contrary to it, but receive it through the unction of the Holy Spirit. You claim I make up my own interpretation which is based on what is written and interpreted the same way, by believing what it says, what is written. You read a scripture which meaning was changed by the CC through their own interpretation from what it says, from what was written by either adding to the interpretation or taking away from the interpretation.

Yes, but you have not embodied His Person in your interpetation of Scripture. You and God are not One, as you would like to purport here.

You assert that to disagree with you is to disagree with the Word of God.

What I believe is if you disregard the Word of God in favor of the interpretation of the CC, then are you not going against the Word of God when it warns not to add or take away from it?

No, heis. The second person of the Trinity is not confined to the written word. Furthermore, your intrepretation of the written word does not embody His presence and nature. You claim you speak and teach the Word of God, but what you present departs from what He taught the Apostles.

The trinity doctrine is easily debunked using the Word of God. Jesus was begotten of the Father, in the beginning, before the creation of the heavens and the earth. He was not begotten when the Father sent him to earth to be born as a man. He was already with the Father. John 1

Certainly Jesus is not confined to the written Word. Jesus is the written Word both spiritual and physical. Jesus is the Word, the Son of God. As for Jesus’ nature, we not go into that for men have been disputing this for generations to no avail. The scriptures say Jesus took the nature of Abraham, meaning mankind. For in order to set men free, he had to live as a man, facing the same temptations and do so without sin, which he did.

Writing is something that exists in the space time continuum. Heaven is outside the space time continuum. They have no sheepskin or parchment there.

So you agree that when Jesus said, it is written, than he was referring to what what written here on earth?

Unity is the defining mark of the Body. Those who depart from the authority appointed by Christ destroy the unity of the body.

You call it unity, I will stick with what is written and the bride of Christ is to be in one accord.

Well, heis, you have come to the right place to find out the Truth. Unfortunately, though, it has become increasingly clear that you are not here to learn anything, but to use CAF as a venue to promote your anti-Catholic ideas.

Any disagreement we have is anticatholic to you and that is fine with me, but let it be known it is not antichristian.

I know you have been taught to believe this. I was fed this stuff too. I learned that this was not, in fact, the case. There was a lot of division and heresy, yes, but it was not in the Church. Those who did not embrace the authority appointed by Christ "went out from among us’, just as you have done.

Fed stuff, try doing the study for yourself and not be influence by the CC. The proof is out there, you just have to find it for yourself. The CC is not the sole authority. It may be your authority since you adhere to it’s teachings, but it is not the authority of all christendom.

The study of psychology, theology and science does not necessarily preclude walking in the Spirit. Most of the greatest scholars in history were Catholics, who discovered truths BECAUSE they were walking in the Spirit.

The things is this, there is a big difference in trying to find God without his held compared to finding God with his help. The man who does the first will make up his own god in how he wants to believe in God as compared to the man who listens to the voice of God allowing God to reveal himself to him.

So, your efforts to convert me, and other catholics into “bible christians” is really an expression of your love for our lost souls?

It is up to God to decide if you are saved or unsaved. As for you being a bible christian, if you are not, then you just may be lost.

 

[heiscominginthe]

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

These things apply to adults. They do not apply to infants and disabled persons. God does not prevent those from being born again who cannot do all this. That would be salvation by works!

Yes, infants have not need of being born again, for they have not commited any personal sin, thus are innocent in the eyes of God. It is for this very reason why they do not need to be baptized in water.

Now, when they reach the age of accountabity, then they become aware of the law and sin slays them, killing their spirits and unless that spirit is born again, it cannot enter the kingdom of God.

 

[elvisman]

So you attempt to judge my fruits, by according to what I post? Wow, this is stretching it. Jesus said that he who feeds the hungry, tends the sick, visits those in prison and so on and so forth that if we do it to the least of his brethren we do it unto him. This is the fruit that the Lord is looking for. Maybe you should learn what it means by our fruits.

Sorry, buddy - you preach a FALSE Christ and that is rotten fruit.

You take about other denominations being christian, but being seperate from the body. Sorry friend, but to be seperate from the body of Christ mean one is not a christian. A man is either of the body or not of the body of Christ.

As for your contradicting yourself, I will let that one slide.

Nope - they are separated brothers and sisters in Christ.
Unfortunately - you preach a completely different, counterfeit Christ.

I most certainly did answer your question. You just chose to ignore it completely. Probably because you know I am right and you had no come back.

No - you didn’t answer it and neither did your equally wrong friend, AVFLF.
Probably becuae you can’t.

 

[elvisman]

Yes, infants have not need of being born again, for they have not commited any personal sin, thus are innocent in the eyes of God. It is for this very reason why they do not need to be baptized in water.

Now, when they reach the age of accountabity, then they become aware of the law and sin slays them, killing their spirits and unless that spirit is born again, it cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Can you show me - in Scripture - WHERE it says that infants need not be born again?
**Can you tell me what the age of accountability is and who determines this age? 8? 9? 10? 11? 12? . . .

 

[heiscominginthe]

Can you show me - in Scripture - WHERE it says that infants need not be born again?
**Can you tell me *what ***the age of accountability is and who determines this age? 8? 9? 10? 11? 12? . . .

Do you truly believe that if a child is not baptized in your church, the child if he dies will go to hell? Show me that one in scripture.

What is it that salvation is all about? Is it not for those in need of forgiveness? Are children, who are ignorant of sin deemed sinners and worthy of death in the eyes of God?

Salvation is given to man that he has a chance of hope, that he may escape the hold death has on him. IT IS FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS, PERIOD.

Without it, no man can enter the kingdom of God.

Children are under of original sin as well as all mankind. This is why we die in the flesh. This pertains only to the flesh. When we commit personal sin, it is sin against our very souls. It is for this reason God sent his Son to die for us.

Yet, a child who is under the yoke of death, but is innocent of personal sin because of ignorance of the law will not go to hell if he suffers physical death.

So what good does baptism serve if the child is in no need of forgiveness of sin?

 

[elvisman]

Do you truly believe that if a child is not baptized in your church, the child if he dies will go to hell? Show me that one in scripture.

What is it that salvation is all about? Is it not for those in need of forgiveness? Are children, who are ignorant of sin deemed sinners and worthy of death in the eyes of God?

Salvation is given to man that he has a chance of hope, that he may escape the hold death has on him. IT IS FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS, PERIOD.

Without it, no man can enter the kingdom of God.

Children are under of original sin as well as all mankind. This is why we die in the flesh. This pertains only to the flesh. When we commit personal sin, it is sin against our very souls. It is for this reason God sent his Son to die for us.

Yet, a child who is under the yoke of death, but is innocent of personal sin because of ignorance of the law will not go to hell if he suffers physical death.

So what good does baptism serve if the child is in no need of forgiveness of sin?

Jesus told Nicodemus:
"Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
This applies to ALL. Nowhere does Jesus say, "Except for people below the age of accountability."

**Just as males, 8 days ogf age were expected to be circumcised in the OT and the Old Covenant - everybody is expected to be baptised, which now replaces circumcision (Col. 2:13-17). **
**Was circumcision based on the faith of the infant? NO - just as Baptism doesn’t depend on it. BOTH depend on the faith of the PARENTS/guardians. **

The Catholic Church (the Body of Christ) does NOT teach that unbaptised infants go to hell. The Church teaches - and rather wisely - that they are left to the mercy of God. This is not explicitly stated in Scripture - nor is it even implicitly taught. We have NO indication in Scripture either way.
What we DO have confirmation of in the Bible is that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL truth (John 16:13-15). This IS explicitly stated.

**It’s funny - MOST Protestants will point to Romans 3:10, 23, to show that ALL are sinful and fall short of the glory of god - ALL. They use this passage to show that Mary HAD to be a sinner - yet they CANNOT accept that Jesus meant ALL must be born of water and Spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. **
WHY is that??

Ummm . . . you still have yet to answer my question:
**What is the age of accountability is and who determines this age? **
YOU?
Your Pastor?
The Pastor down the road?

 

[heiscominginthe]

Jesus told Nicodemus:
"Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."
This applies to ALL. Nowhere does Jesus say, "Except for people below the age of accountability."

Just as males, 8 days ogf age were expected to be circumcised in the OT and the Old Covenant - everybody is expected to be baptised, which now replaces circumcision (Col. 2:13-17).
Was circumcision based on the faith of the infant? NO - just as Baptism doesn’t depend on it. BOTH depend on the faith of the PARENTS/guardians.

The Catholic Church (the Body of Christ) does NOT teach that unbaptised infants go to hell. The Church teaches - and rather wisely - that they are left to the mercy of God. This is not explicitly stated in Scripture - nor is it even implicitly taught. We have NO indication in Scripture either way.
What we DO have confirmation of in the Bible is that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to ALL truth (John 16:13-15). This IS explicitly stated.

It’s funny - MOST Protestants will point to Romans 3:10, 23, to show that ALL are sinful and fall short of the glory of god - ALL. They use this passage to show that Mary HAD to be a sinner - yet they CANNOT accept that Jesus meant ALL must be born of water and Spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
WHY is that??

**Ummm . . . you still **have yet to answer my question:
What is the age of accountability is and who determines this age?
YOU?
Your Pastor?
The Pastor down the road?

Sarcasm suits you. One of your fruits you use to defend your faith.

In John 3, Jesus told Nicodemus that a MAN must be born again. He said nothing of a child. A child is not called a man because he has not reached a certain age, with often times is determined by society. Yet, I believe the age in the Jewish religion is twleve or thirteen. The reason being is they believe it is at this time when a child becomes a man.

Can you expect a child to do things that a man can do? Certainly not. Why? Because the child is immature and ignorant.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread well over the thousand posts limit and closed.
*** http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/thread_closed.gif***