Thanks for answering, cch. Admittedly, I don't understand a lot of the theology of the Catholic faith, but it interests me.

 

I always understood that the belief was that we are all born with original sin, and thus, babies had to be baptized or sprinkled to cleanse them of this so they wouldn't end up in limbo if something happened to them.

 

That may not be correct and so I'd like to know from someone who knows, what the truth is about the Catholic belief on that subject.

 

That is why I asked if this decision was affected in any way by a change in the belief about original sin.

 

Thanks in advance for any insight any of you can give me on this.

I don't think that it does change teachings on original sin. The question has always been, would a merciful God create people with no chance of salvation? The answer has always been no. What then, happens to good people that were never baptised? The Church had postulated, but never adopted as teaching, the concept of limbo, a place where souls could live in a state of happiness, but not in heaven with God. All they are saying now is that that concept doesn't seem to fit.

I don't think that it does change teachings on original sin. The question has always been, would a merciful God create people with no chance of salvation? The answer has always been no. What then, happens to good people that were never baptised? The Church had postulated, but never adopted as teaching, the concept of limbo, a place where souls could live in a state of happiness, but not in heaven with God. All they are saying now is that that concept doesn't seem to fit.

 

If limbo is merely a man made policy of sorts designed to provide an answer to an unanswered question, I find no problem with a group of men removing it. However, I do think it may be dangerous for men with finite minds to provide answers that are not provided in the Scriptures because, among other problems presented, many confuse these stop gap measures with the real absolutes. Is the concept of purgatory also an invention of man to provide an answer to another unanswered question?

 

My point is that, when you deal with absolutes, you don't "adjust" them to suit the times. If this is done, they were obviously not absolutes. Religion, particularly Christianity, cannot be seen as credible if mere men are "filling in the blanks".

 

I will also admit that I am troubled by the many "blanks" that seem to be present in the Scriptures.

I choose to stay out of this one. But concerning the comment about the Baptist and Slaves.

 

Slavery was wrong and God made sure that the Baptists and others would get it right. Look at 1st Corinthians chapter 11 where Paul tells people how they should look in church. "Every man who prays with his head covered dishonors his head, and every woman who prays with her head uncovered dishonors her head...it is just as though her head was shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off and it is a disgrace for a womam to have her hair cut...she should cover her head. A man should never cover his head in church".

 

You never see that in a church in the USA except an Amish worship. So things have changed thru history.

I choose to stay out of this one. But concerning the comment about the Baptist and Slaves.

 

Slavery was wrong and God made sure that the Baptists and others would get it right. Look at 1st Corinthians chapter 11 where Paul tells people how they should look in church. "Every man who prays with his head covered dishonors his head, and every woman who prays with her head uncovered dishonors her head...it is just as though her head was shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off and it is a disgrace for a womam to have her hair cut...she should cover her head. A man should never cover his head in church".

 

You never see that in a church in the USA except an Amish worship. So things have changed thru history.

 

Can you explain the significance of Paul's words cited above? Although your words are not a direct quote, Paul's words are fairly clear. First, why did he say it? Second, if it was significant then, why is it not significant now?

Way off base. Would a merciful God create a person and give him/her NO chance of salvation?

 

Let me put it this way, say we have a peasent farmer in China who has never heard of Jesus and never gets baptised. Regardless of his behavior, morals, values, ect., Is he doomed to Hell? Not according to the Catholic church.

What the Catholic, Baptist or church down the road says is not the vital question here. It is not vital on LBBC or any of us say on the issue.

 

What is the vital question is what does God say? God indicated His view through Scripture.

 

And what does Scripture say on the issue is the important thing.

 

That is why if a person/group/church indicates a view without strong Scripture to back it up, we should look at it very wary.

 

That being said, God can be very merciful. He sent His Son to pay a price for me that I didn't deserve. God can also be very wrathful. Many, many times in the Old Testament, he was extremely wrathful against the nation of Israel and others.

 

Even in Revelations, it indicates HE will harden people's hearts against Him. As the OT indicated that He hardened the pharoah's heart in the Moses/Exodus story. Don't understand why but that is what it indicates He will do.

Scooter, that was my question too. If Paul says one thing and the people do it, then he says something else and no one does it....well thats what I call "picking and choosing scripture". I brought up this verse to show just that, how over time Man has changed or ignored scripture to fit themselves.

 

Jesus led by example and when he tried to teach the disciples that everyone was equal by washing their feet Peter didn't get it. How I'd love to see a Preacher come out and bring a wash basin and wash someone's feet to prove the point. (I tried to do it in Sunday school class, but got over ruled)

 

Man made functions in worship has caused a lot of problems in the church and I'm not just speaking abput the Catholics, but even my own church. I've even told my wife how I'd like to see a scripture based church in today's time.

Scooter, that was my question too. If Paul says one thing and the people do it, then he says something else and no one does it....well thats what I call "picking and choosing scripture". I brought up this verse to show just that, how over time Man has changed or ignored scripture to fit themselves.

 

Jesus led by example and when he tried to teach the disciples that everyone was equal by washing their feet Peter didn't get it. How I'd love to see a Preacher come out and bring a wash basin and wash someone's feet to prove the point. (I tried to do it in Sunday school class, but got over ruled)

 

Man made functions in worship has caused a lot of problems in the church and I'm not just speaking abput the Catholics, but even my own church. I've even told my wife how I'd like to see a scripture based church in today's time.

Well that sounds like an interesting thread in itself AL, What would a scripture based church like the Early church in Acts look like?

Well that sounds like an interesting thread in itself AL, What would a scripture based church like the Early church in Acts look like?

 

 

WOW

 

And what does Scripture say on the issue is the important thing.

 

That is why if a person/group/church indicates a view without strong Scripture to back it up, we should look at it very wary.

 

.

 

Scripture can not be the only basis for a religion, IMO. For example, I don't think the word "Trinity" is used once in the Bible (correct me if I am wrong). In fact, I think the term (and corresponding concept) was coined by an early Church father who was eventually denounced a heretic.

 

Of course Scripture is where it all begins but just because men are imperfect doesn't mean that the contributions of men is irrelevant.

I always understood that the belief was that we are all born with original sin, and thus, babies had to be baptized or sprinkled to cleanse them of this so they wouldn't end up in limbo if something happened to them.

 

That may not be correct and so I'd like to know from someone who knows, what the truth is about the Catholic belief on that subject.

 

That is what the general idea was with limbo, but that has been revised. Someone who refuses to admit original sin and knowingly remains unbaptised still has the ugly mark of sin.

I've researched different Faiths, Churches, Religions for years and the closest one to the church found in Acts would be the Amish. For example...They meet in homes (the early Church met in homes no buildings) (I find this no big deal because later they met in buildings), Women are silent and heads are covered hair never cut, no electricity, no certain Preacher, Elders and Deacons are both used, no musical instruments, long sermons, I could go on. Now what I found out about the Amish is they don't share Jesus or the Gospel out side their area and thats a biggie. They wouldn't let me into a service...HELLO? (These are the "Old Order Amish)

 

I don't want to "bore" some with all these facts but they are pretty close to the Church in Acts.

 

In the last few years there have been some Non demonations Churches spring up and in my calls each have some interesting points.

 

The Church is made up of people and we are not perfect and there is no perfect Church.

I've researched different Faiths, Churches, Religions for years and the closest one to the church found in Acts would be the Amish. For example...They meet in homes (the early Church met in homes no buildings) (I find this no big deal because later they met in buildings), Women are silent and heads are covered hair never cut, no electricity, no certain Preacher, Elders and Deacons are both used, no musical instruments, long sermons, I could go on. Now what I found out about the Amish is they don't share Jesus or the Gospel out side their area and thats a biggie. They wouldn't let me into a service...HELLO? (These are the "Old Order Amish)

 

I don't want to "bore" some with all these facts but they are pretty close to the Church in Acts.

 

In the last few years there have been some Non demonations Churches spring up and in my calls each have some interesting points.

 

The Church is made up of people and we are not perfect and there is no perfect Church.

 

Your last sentence sums it up well. Although some churches, particularly some rather fundamentalist Protestant churches, think they are the only ones with all the answers, the fact is that there are plenty of man made flaws and misconceptions in all churches.

 

With this in mind, I am of the opinion that all must travel their own road doing as they sincerely believe is expected of them. The key word here is "sincerely". Churches, preachers, etc. can aid (or hinder) in the journey but they cannot, in and of themselves, guarantee the destination merely because one follows their particular set of "interpretations".

 

Although "good" can be found in most churches, complete and absolute truth won't be found in any of them.

Scooter, how about that you and I finally agree on something. I need to mark this thread. We almost left our church because of a human flaw, but realized we are not here for the flaw. It is a nice Church but like we both have said... humans are here too.