The Big Lie

[DElias]

There are two problems with this. One is that there is nothing in scripture that speaks to the “age of accountability”, and that makes it an extrabiblical tradition.

There are allusions to this in both Romans 5 and 7. As far as in Judaism, Deuteronomy 1:39 states, “And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad - they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.” The latter is quickly pointed out by my Jewish relatives.

Another is that we are not “free to add our own interpretation to satisfy personal views”. This is contrary to the teachings of the Apostles, and Catholics are not free to depart from what has been handed down by them.

This was really in response to his last comment. I understand the mode of Catholic interpretation.

 

[DElias]

Angry? Not at all.
As for adding my own personal views - isn’t that what you did by ignoring Paul’s obvious allusion to Psalm 14? Isn’t that what most Protestants do when rejecting some of the 2000-year-old Apostolic doctrines and replace them instead with their own man-made doctrines?

**Some people - like Guanophore **- often chastise me for my use of color or admonishment of the unruly. That is not my concern. My only mission on this forum to to defend the truth. I type in bold colors because I like it - not because of any sense of acrimony or anger. You misinterpret my writing style as erroneously as you interpret the Scriptures . . .

No, I truly believe that you are an angry person, and your posts likely only show part of the whole picture behind that.

There is really no need for defense of anything. What is happening with most other members on this thread is a argument in its pure sense in presenting each side but with the intent of learning. I am quite curious about Catholicism, but I will also respond appropriately to back-handed comments. When I refute an answer, I hope for a response in an effort to learn. It is not an attempt to always be right. I truly want to hear what else has to be said.

 

[guanophore]

There are allusions to this in both Romans 5 and 7. As far as in Judaism, Deuteronomy 1:39 states, “And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad - they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.” The latter is quickly pointed out by my Jewish relatives.

So, how is the age of accountability determined? Who decides when a child knows right from wrong? Is it the same for all children?

I think the principle is sound, but basing a theology that will have eternal consequences upon it seems risky.

The Apostles taught that we are to bring our children to Christ in baptism, at which time all sins are washed away, original, and personal.

 

[DElias]

So, how is the age of accountability determined? Who decides when a child knows right from wrong? Is it the same for all children?

I think the principle is sound, but basing a theology that will have eternal consequences upon it seems risky.

The Apostles taught that we are to bring our children to Christ in baptism, at which time all sins are washed away, original, and personal.

That, I believe, can only be determined by God. I do see your point.

 

[Nicea325]

Angry? Not at all.
As for adding my own personal views - isn’t that what you did by ignoring Paul’s obvious allusion to Psalm 14? Isn’t that what most Protestants do when rejecting some of the 2000-year-old Apostolic doctrines and replace them instead with their own man-made doctrines?

**Some people - like Guanophore **- often chastise me for my use of color or admonishment of the unruly. That is not my concern. My only mission on this forum to to defend the truth. I type in bold colors because I like it - not because of any sense of acrimony or anger. You misinterpret my writing style as erroneously as you interpret the Scriptures . . .

Amen again brother! That is one reason I am here-defend the Truth.

 

[Nicea325]

No, I truly believe that you are an angry person, and your posts likely only show part of the whole picture behind that.

There is really no need for defense of anything. What is happening with most other members on this thread is a argument in its pure sense in presenting each side but with the intent of learning. I am quite curious about Catholicism, but I will also respond appropriately to back-handed comments. When I refute an answer, I hope for a response in an effort to learn. It is not an attempt to always be right. I truly want to hear what else has to be said.

I am sorry,but you are reading between the lines. Elvisman is not an angry person. You just are taking it wrong. By all means, I am not here to attack you,but to dialogue.

BTW: I was curious where Jesus taught the belief of “age of accountability” since Baptists teach it as a Truth from God?

 

[DElias]

I am sorry,but you are reading between the lines. Elvisman is not an angry person. You just are taking it wrong. By all means, I am not here to attack you,but to dialogue.

BTW: I was curious where Jesus taught the belief of “age of accountability” since Baptists teach it as a Truth from God?

Actually, this is a point that is often debated among Baptists. It goes back to Paul. In Romans 5:13, he states “To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.” The idea was that man was not accountable before the law was given because he had no understanding much the same way a small child or mentally challenged adult could not understand. The same goes for Romans 7:9. It comes down to an interpretation which does make some sense.

 

[guanophore]

Amen again brother! That is one reason I am here-defend the Truth.

Yes, but Nicea! You don’t come across as angry and shouting!

 

[guanophore]

Actually, this is a point that is often debated among Baptists. It goes back to Paul. In Romans 5:13, he states “To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.” The idea was that man was not accountable before the law was given because he had no understanding much the same way a small child or mentally challenged adult could not understand. The same goes for Romans 7:9. It comes down to an interpretation which does make some sense.

I am glad we are all in agreement that “all” does not mean “all”.

 

[placido]

Actually, my comment was to support my previous statement.

The fact remains that you avoid what the Church teaches officially on the manner and rather rely of some nameless Catholics say. Why? Because you know that what you attribute to those imaginary Catholics is not what the Church teaches.

Also, the latter was answered. Please take the time to read the posts.

If it was addressed (namely, that what you presented is not what the Church teaches) then I wonder why you persist in that error.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Protestants do whole Mary in high regard. There is uneasiness when there are prayers like ‘Holy Mary, save us!’ or hear things like that Mary in some way redeemed us, greeting people with ‘Ave Maria’ instead of ‘the peace of the Lord be with you.’

This makes Protestants really nervous.

And what do they do to honor Holy Mother and how? tell me things that they do that show that they regard her in high regard?

 

[elvisman]

No, I truly believe that you are an angry person, and your posts likely only show part of the whole picture behind that.

There is really no need for defense of anything. What is happening with most other members on this thread is a argument in its pure sense in presenting each side but with the intent of learning. I am quite curious about Catholicism, but I will also respond appropriately to back-handed comments. When I refute an answer, I hope for a response in an effort to learn. It is not an attempt to always be right. I truly want to hear what else has to be said.

As I stated before - my only mission on this forum is to defend the truth. I’m not interested in what you and Guanophore think of me personally because I don’t have to answer to either of you - only God. He knows my heart and he knows that I’m not angry - just a lover of the truth, your judgement skills notwithstanding.

That being said - when I told you that your interpretation was wrong, I say that with confidence - not in myself, but in Christ’s Church. Whereas the Church may not have an official interpretation of the passage in Romans, she does teach that NOT all have sinned. It is impossible for an infant to sin. It is impossible for a mentally challenged person to sin because they do not have full use of their mental faculties. Jesus - who was human, did not sin.

**Therefore, for you to endorse a blanket statement that “all” means ALL in Romans 3 makes you wrong. **

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, but Nicea! You don’t come across as angry and shouting!

 

[Nicea325]

As I stated before - my only mission on this forum is to defend the truth. I’m not interested in what you and Guanophore think of me personally because I don’t have to answer to either of you - only God. He knows my heart and he knows that I’m not angry - just a lover of the truth, your judgement skills notwithstanding.

That being said - when I told you that your interpretation was wrong, I say that with confidence - not in myself, but in Christ’s Church. Whereas the Church may not have an official interpretation of the passage in Romans, she does teach that NOT all have sinned. It is impossible for an infant to sin. It is impossible for a mentally challenged person to sin because they do not have full use of their mental faculties. Jesus - who was human, did not sin.

Therefore, for you to endorse a blanket statement that “all” means ALL in Romans 3 makes you wrong.

I agree again 100%. I know many non-Catholics who claims ALL is ALL no buts about it! Really? Are they serious? So I guess Jesus also sinned since he was human.

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, this is a point that is often debated among Baptists. It goes back to Paul. In Romans 5:13, he states “To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.” The idea was that man was not accountable before the law was given because he had no understanding much the same way a small child or mentally challenged adult could not understand. The same goes for Romans 7:9. It comes down to an interpretation which does make some sense.

Thanks for the charitable response my brother/sister in Christ.And I can see why it is debated among your Baptist tradition. So are you saying that people are now accountable because Jesus’ fulfilled the OT Convenant?

Here is the Catholic postion:

Verses [12-21] Paul reflects on the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:1-13) in the light of the redemptive mystery of Christ. Sin, as used in the singular by Paul, refers to the dreadful power that has gripped humanity, which is now in revolt against the Creator and engaged in the exaltation of its own desires and interests. But no one has a right to say, “Adam made me do it,” for all are culpable (Romans 5:12): Gentiles under the demands of the law written in their hearts (Romans 2:14-15), and Jews under the Mosaic covenant.

Through the Old Testament law, the sinfulness of humanity that was operative from the beginning (Romans 5:13) found further stimulation, with the result that sins were generated in even greater abundance. According to Romans 5:15-21, God’s act in Christ is in total contrast to the disastrous effects of the virus of sin that invaded humanity through Adam’s crime.

God Bless you!