Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

_________________

Really? But the Catholic church is so hard on that stuff!
I've believed that you don't need baptism for a while, but the Pope? Wow.

_________________
You're playing Team Fortess 2... you are a heavy and you have two medics... you are taking out everone on the other team so easy... another medic aproaches... THEN HE TURNS INTO A SPY AND STABS YOU IN THE SPINE!
SPY PWNS ALL!

I think Didymus pretty much proved that it's possible to go to heaven with his example of the criminal next to Jesus on the cross. If God has mercy on that guy who didn't have the chance to get baptized, why not a young child who didn't get the chance to get baptized?

_________________

K wait let's clarify. I believe children don't need baptism because they are incapable of sinning.

But I believe those of us who are old enough to understand sin do need baptism.

Just in case there was any confusion.

Not sure what the Pope's take is, exactly.

_________________

Ok - how do you explain the example given above by Didymus of the thief who repented and was told by Jesus that they would be in heaven together?

PS - I also agree that children are innocent and don't require baptism to get into heaven.

_________________

I disagree. The scriptural witness not only demonstrates that they are capable of sinning, but that they actually do. Psalm 51, Romans 3:23, 5:12ff. Can you offer a verse anywhere that demonstrates otherwise? It's not that they do not sin (for to make that claim would contradict Scripture), but rather we may not understand the ways in which they do. Keep in mind, sin is thought, word and deed, not just deed.

And Amy, I'd rather say that it was on account of God's mercy that he does not demand it of them, rather than that they don't need it. We all need Baptism. If we did not believe it were so, we would not baptize them. Baptism is, after all, for our benefit.

But back to the issue at hand: I am glad to see the Roman Church finally examining some of these beliefs. There really was never any need to believe in Limbo or Purgatory or any such place.

_________________

Jesus told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise, not heaven. I understand the term paradise to mean the place our spirits go after we die; a waiting place for our souls between death and the resurrection. Jesus did not go to where God was that day, as demonstrated by his telling Mary Magdalene, after His resurrection, that He had not yet ascended to His Father.



With all due respect, Didy, that's ridiculous. Have you ever held an infant? What on earth can they do that is classified as sin? To condemn them for being born is heinous and an abomination before God.

And if you want to Bible bash, fine. Mark 10:14.

_________________

Who said anything about condemning them? All I said is that you cannot claim they are free from sin. Sin is at work in all human beings, except one. I'm not terribly concerned about whether this truth fits your own sensibilities, only that it is true.


Which is exactly why we baptize them. We're only doing exactly as the verse says we should, trusting in the promise of Acts 2:39.

_________________

Wait...why are you criticizing the Pope's decision with a quote from the Book of Mormon? It's not like the Pope believes the Book of Mormon to be true. You might as well throw the Qu'ran at him, too, for good measure.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Point taken, and I agree. I know what you mean here, and I suppose I mispoke. You can correct me on this, but it's like saying children have the POTENTIAL to sin, and therefore should be baptized, but if they are not - due to being still-born, dying very young, having parents who don't baptize them, etc. - God's not going to hold it against them.

_________________

I'll take that.

I had a cousin who lost her child in birth. It was very hard on her, even years later. I would never even dare suggest that God doesn't have mercy on such helpless ones as these.

_________________

Uh, not criticizing the Pope. Just pointing out that this belief the Pope is entertaining is expressly contained in the Book of Mormon.



What does that even mean? Children can't sin, but sin is at work in them? And this sin won't prevent them from being saved? I don't get it.




Huh, the KJV says:



Interesting difference in that last phrase. The way I read it, children are already pure and free of sin, like we need to be through repentance and baptism.

What version of the Bible did you quote? I suppose that's another thread, though.

_________________

YOU say children cannot sin. I don't. And neither does the Bible.

As for translations:
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 10:14

Greek is my favorite. But the phrase there, των τοιουτων, is a genitive of possession, so it's pretty much the same.

_________________

Okay, so you say infants can sin. Have fun with that.

_________________

Of course they can. They're human beings. All human beings have not only the capacity to sin, but also the inclination to sin.

But you still have not demonstrated to me why I ought not believe they are capable of sinning.

But since you are obviously convinced otherwise, let me pose a question to you: if they are incapable of sinning, then how do they become sinners? I would think that a person who is incapable of sinning would never become a sinner.

_________________

Because people grow. And change. Their capacity for good increases, as does their capacity for evil.

I'm not sure why you insist on equating a 1-month old baby with a 34 year old person. They are obviously different.

Help me out here; give me a way an infant can sin.

_________________

Dids, I must wonder, how exactly would a baby sin? At such a young agr, their brains are not fully functioning. They only live by the basic human needs of being fed, changed, sleeping and touch.

_________________

Coveting: put two children in the same room, and give them different toys. Watch what happens.

_________________

Well, if you look at it this way, aren't infants the most selfish little devils you can think of? Any parent can tell you firsthand that a baby's first and foremost concern is with their own wellbeing. Now, one may argue that it's survival and they wouldn't know any better, but ignorance doesn't exclude one from the punishment in Gods eyes, as stated several times in the Bible. Fact of the matter is this, if you think about it, that infantile selfishness is nowhere near loving God heart soul mind and strength, which is the summary of the Law, so basically to do anything less is sin, and babies clearly aren't demonstrating that. So, looking at it from that is makes sense about that. Now, whether or not they need baptism is a whole other matter entirely.
Personally, I follow the school of thought that says that we as humans are not capable of making the decision of salvation for ourselves until a certain point of mental development, wherein before that time God demonstrates mercy on the individual for what they've done, but that's really a whole other area entirely ^^;;

_________________

Yes, but aren't babies usually baptized within a few days of their birth? At that time, the child would more than likely not even be playing with another child. Or even be able to.

_________________

Thanks, Ian.

For some reason, I can't get the Forum to work on my other computer.

But Ian nailed it. Sins of thought and attitude are still sins, even if they are not aware of what they are doing.

The problem I have with this whole thing - because this is exactly the same issue in that other thread - is that the Scriptures do say that all humanity is fallen, that all humanity has this innate inclination to evil. Heck, the fact that children can only concern themselves with their most basic immediate needs might even be the biggest contributing factor. But even if we were to presume that when Scripture refers to humanity in a fallen state, it is only engaging in hyperbole, then we are faced with yet another problem: if children are incapable of sin, then why is it that, at some point in their lives, they become sinners? And at what point? And why is it that, with the exception of one child in Bethlehem, every single one of them does in fact become a sinner in action. You'd figure that, unless there was something inside them that drove them to it, that at least a few would escape it. But none do. I can only surmise that we do in fact inherit Adam's fallen nature, as previously reference in Romans 5:12ff.

Ramrod: Baptism is there also to bring them under the protection and care of God's kingdom on earth. Whether you accept that they are fallen or not (and keep in mind, the Roman Catholic Church does hold to Augustin on this, rather than Pelagius), then there is still the issue of the covenant relationship.

It falls under that Mark 10:14 and Acts 2:39 I mentioned earlier.

_________________

Wow wow wow. So if someone is raised in Africa in 700 B.C. and never learn about Christ or the commandments of God or even that God exists, he's sinning every time he sleeps with someone he's not married to? Then what? Is he doomed to eternity in hell?

I'd argue sinning requires knowledge. We aren't responsible for our actions to God until we know His will. At that point, we do need to repent of our sins and be baptized, but if we are never taught in this life, we aren't held accountable for our actions.

Latter-day Saints believe that the heathens, or those who died without the law, will be resurrected and obtain mercy from God.

_________________

But how do we know what the child is thinking?

Now I couldn't find it on Wikipedia, but maybe you dids can answer this for me: When usually is a child baptized? Isn't it usually only a week or two after birth? Again, we don't fully know what the child is thinking, if it actually can.

_________________

That would be up to God to determine, since all salvation is a matter of his mercy anyway.


And I would argue that "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law," as they say. By that logic, we might as well not even teach the commandments. Romans 2 and 3, please.


But Ramrod, that's been my point exactly. We can't fully understand what thoughts are going through the mind of a newborn child, or what attitudes are already shaping his view of the world he has just entered. That is why I do not feel an adequate argument can be made from the presumed innocence. The Scriptures teach that evil originates in the heart of man. How does it get there?

As for when, I think it differs. While I myself would prefer to baptize them only a few Sundays after they're born, unfortunately, many parents wait until they can make it a family event - sometimes months later.

_________________

Nice dodge.



We teach the commandments because knowing the Law and living the Law makes our lives better. This life is a time to learn and grow, and the more we know about God's will now, the better off we'll be in the hereafter.

Look, Didy. Every single religious discussion we get into will end in an impasse. You believe God's will and gospel is contained entirely in what we know as the Bible. I believe there is more; that God clarifies what we know and gives us additional information through living prophets today.

That is a basic difference in belief that will affect everything we talk about. I don't know if I'm saying it's a waste of time to discuss spiritual issues, but I fail to see the point sometimes.

_________________

Yes, it appears that God distinctly takes this course of action.



Well...

In a sense, all people know about God, and acknowledge His existence in some way, shape or form, even the people who had no direct contact with the Jewish nation in the BCs or the Christians in the ADs. From this verse we see that God in fact does make himself known to all through his power, which a prime example of that is the world around us. It is not for nothing that a common thought in our minds is where the world came from, how it came to be. The train of thought we are led to take is that of a creator, and as we marvel at creation we realize the intricacies and awesomeness of the world even as we see it now in its fallen state we are to marvel and praise the Creator.
Another area we can see God is through a fingerprint of sorts He has left on us in the sense of our conciousess. Think about it - why is it universally bad to do bad? Why do people agree that lying/stealing/killing is wrong? Why do we agree that such a thing as right and wrong exist? And why, for that matter, is there such a widespread belief in some form of diety? I find it interesting that to date there has been no agnostic or atheistic indigenous people. Why do we have moral compasses? Why do we have a sense and a need for higher powers? It can't be cultural, it's universal. You might find some argument for evolution, but I say it was put in us by God as a pointer to Himself. And so, with such things placed in our lives, we are literally without excuse for not serving God, no matter what the case. [/twub]

_________________

Well thank your lucky stars you were born when and where you were, my friend.



There have been cultures with principles that are very different from those espoused by Christianity. I point especially to the concept of chastity. Many cultures have and have had different ideas regarding who it is acceptable to procreate with. The idea of being married to one person and being faithful to them is foreign in a lot of places. And it's perfectly normal.

I agree to a certain extent that we all have a knowledge of God. We have what Latter-Day Saints refer to as The Light of Christ. It basically gives us a sense of what is right and what is wrong, but that can only take us so far.

_________________

How is that a dodge? Doesn't the Bible actually say that God will have mercy on whom he chooses?


Three Uses of the Law according to the Bible:
1. To reveal to us our sin, in order to drive us to seek God's mercy through Christ.
2. (civil law in general) To order society in such a way as to preserve justice and peace.
3. (and here I think overlaps your answer) To instruct Christians in the way to live a God-pleasing life under the guidance and protection of his mercy and grace. (It differs only in that it does not save).


Granted. But do you not accept the Bible as the primary authority? It's this question that leads me to challenge a lot of issues that we discuss.


It gets tiresome to me, as well. But I do think there is something at stake here. If I didn't, I probably wouldn't bother posting in this board at all.

But perhaps it would be best if, for now, we set these aside and focus our attention back to the subject matter at hand: the Roman Catholic Church has finally addressed an issue that has at times divided it from the rest of Christendom - the belief in Limbo. Who knows? They might next address the issue of Purgatory, which for us Lutherans was a driving factor behind the Reformation.

_________________

Excellent question. I'm going to have to say no, I don't accept the Bible as the primary authority on spiritual matters. As I've stated before, I believe the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. You've expressed your view that it is translated correctly. I don't share that view, and this issue is for another thread.

But yeah, toastpaint.

_________________