Did we have a pre-premortal existence?

[_gdemetz]

You made some good points Jo!

[_jo1952]

You made some good points Jo!

Thank you, GD!!

The Original Sin dogma attacks the very core of Salvation. How can anyone believe that Salvation has not been provided for infants or young children, or for anyone who cannot use their free will to accept Christ? Rather than admit the possibility they didn't interpret scripture correctly, they speak volumes of words; and then wind up with only "hoping" that God will be merciful to those individuals, even though it is MAN who has closed Heaven to them!! And this, even though Jesus obviously loved little children so much that He told man not to prevent them from coming to Him.

Mark 10:14 (KJV) (emphasis mine)

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

So, what has man done?? It all boils down to this: they have blatantly disobeyed Jesus and forbidden these children to come to Him.

The Lutherans taught me the same dogma - but I could never accept it. Nor did this dogma agree with what my own study of the Bible had revealed to me. This is one of the main reasons I left mainstream Christianity. I chose Grace, Mercy, and Truth over the commandments of men.

Blessings,

jo

[_madeleine]

jo1952, We were begotten of our parents first. Baptism is our rebirth in Christ.

Hi Madeleine:

Technically, baptism by water is an outward manifestation showing that we have accepted Christ as our Savior. However, it is not a guaranty that we are reborn spiritually. Even receiving the Holy Ghost is not a guaranty that we are reborn spiritually. It is the beginning of the process of purification and sanctification IF we allow the Holy Ghost to guide and direct us. Baptism is only the start of the journey -- there are no guaranties.

Perhaps if you take baptism from a strictly utilitarian point of view, which I don't. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. Our rebirth in Christ being a grace that is a sign of God's Mercy; our salvation. This is a reality, a guarantee, made sure by the Cross.

This graces gives to us an additional help, in how we live, making us very affected by the graces that God gives us. In other words, a child growing without the graces of baptism is at a handicap, spiritually speaking.

The Epistles show how the Apostles needed to remind members of things they had already been taught, even though they received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Why was this necessary?

Why is it necessary? I think it is obvious because we are human and fail.

I would offer it is because they did not yet understand - they were not yet awakened spiritually. See how much Paul taught about spiritual understanding. Why would he spend so much time on the same subject? I would offer it is because they didn't get it; their spirits were not yet awakened; or at the very least, were not fully awake yet. They still were blind and could not see; nor could they hear all that the Holy Spirit had to reveal to them. In fact Paul tells members that they are not yet able to be taught “meat”. Yes, they had been drawn to the Gospel message and hoped that what they had heard was true. They had taken a leap of faith and desired to know God. But you cannot know everything at once; that is why the Holy Ghost “leads” us to all Truth. If we got everything at once (such as at baptism, at which time you believe we are spiritually born again), we wouldn't require being spiritually led to all Truth; we would already have received a complete spiritual awakening.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. This is the condition of our lives.

The Good News is Jesus Christ, who lifts us from our weakness. It is not something He has left us to do alone. In this way, baptismal graces help a person, no matter their age.

Also, consider those who fall away after receiving the Holy Spirit. Some believe that such a person never really believed. Some say that such a person never really received the Holy Spirit. But this would be problematic as far as the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit goes. This is why I say that baptism and the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit is NOT a guaranty that a person’s spirit has been born of the Spirit. Otherwise, we would have to throw out the authenticity of the power associated with the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. I am not willing to do that.

God is not dependent on us, we are dependent on him. Without question, the struggle for all of is letting go of our self-reliance, and putting our trust in God. The Spirit is always there, God is always calling. The Holy Spirit is not a magical spell that we are placed under as robots. God is patient. God is forgiving. All it takes is a turning towards Him. That is what He desires. In the meantime, God is not going to force us into His arms.

It is why Peter felt it was so important to teach members of the church to be diligent in adding to their faith which would allow them to obtain the various qualities they needed in order to have their calling and election made sure. The qualities are obtained both physically and spiritually.

Your opinion. What I see, is an understanding of a reliance on God. Faith is a gift, it is not something we generate on our own, with God watching on hoping we get it right.

Where do you believe we are (the human race) while we wait to be born in the flesh if we were begotten of the Father at the creation of Adam and Eve?

I don't understand your question.

I believe that the result of the Fall causes physical death of the flesh body; additionally, our spirit suffers spiritual death when we are born in the flesh.

Yes, I agree.

Of course, for us to die spiritually when we are born in the flesh indicates to me that we must have been “alive” spiritually before our spirit entered our physical body.

Adam and Eve were alive in the spirit, as God had created them.

Otherwise, you've lost me. The Christian life is one of discipleship, where, we seek to let our old selves die. Letting go of sin. Giving everything to God. It is a process, that takes time, and the graces of God.

In order to be born AGAIN spiritually, the Holy Spirit begins to awaken our “dead” spirit (thus we are born “of the Spirit”—though not yet completely awakened). When was our spirit born the first time if it needs to be born again? At physical birth? At the moment of our conception in the womb? As Aquinas believed, did our spirit enter our in-vitro body after 90 days of gestation? (This was believed by the RCC until about 150 years ago; at which time they changed their concept and determined that our spirit enters our physical body at the time of conception.) The Bible teaches that the spirit enters the body when blood flows; thus I believe that once blood flows in the fetus, that is the time our spirit enters our body. Unfortunately, whenever it is that spirit entered our body, it is still spiritually dead---i.e., not in the presence of God...nor able to be in the presence of God.

Not understanding your point. We are created as body and spirit. That is what constitutes us, that is how God has made us. There isn't an example of something like zombie or vampire human walking the earth without a spirit.

Where did our spirit come from?

God created our souls.

If it “enters” our physical body…even at the time of conception…then it is not something our parents were able to create. You have already claimed that our parents cannot give us anything they didn’t have. Yet they had a spirit in their body when they conceived you. Thus, they are not able to give us at least one thing they DO have.

God created our souls. Our parents are not our creators, they are cooperative creators with God, who is our Creator.

Let us look at this from a different perspective. Without quibbling over when exactly the spirit enters our body, the spirit is “spiritually” dead at the time of our physical birth.

You are saying something that isn't there. A person is spiritually dead, is not the same as saying a spirit is spiritually dead. Spiritually dead is a description of the state of a person.

This is evidenced by Jesus’ own words that our spirits must be born of the Spirit (thus bringing our spirits “spiritual” life) in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

Jesus says the person must be born of the Spirit, He doesn't say a spirit is born of the Spirit. A person is comprised of a body and soul.

Now, even though our spirit is what gives our body life (blood flows through our veins giving our body life, as well as giving evidence that our spirit has entered our body). So, now we can see that even though our spirit gives our body life, we are spiritually dead at birth. Jesus also teaches our spirit must be “born” again. The definition of “born” is: to be brought into life by birth. Yet if our spirit is “born” into “life” at birth; then why does it need to be “born” spiritually? The only answer is that our spirit HAD to have been “born” spiritually dead. And if our spirit needs to “born” AGAIN (but it was spiritually dead at physical birth), it seems that it would be impossible for our spirit to have ALWAYS been dead spiritually – otherwise it would not need to be born “again”…..it would only need to be “born” (i.e., thus it would be born for the first time). I believe this is more evidence that our spirits were alive in the spiritual realm BEFORE our physical birth.

Our soul is made, by God, in the image of God. God does not give us death.

You have missed my point. If Jesus’ sacrifice includes the sins of ALL mankind, then Adam and Eve’s sin would have been forgiven as well.

Right, which is what I believe.

Thus, there would have been no “guilt” of that sin passed on.

Who believes their guilt is passed on? No one that I know of.

There is no mystery here. Babies and young children who have not yet learned what sin IS are not held accountable. Babies are born innocent of ANY sin – they are already clean and have not become affected by conditions inside of the Creation. Those who do not know of the Law, do not live under the Law. They are judged according to their works. How is it that adults who do not know the law are not guilty of breaking the law (the idea that a person cannot use the excuse of ignorance of the law within the world is man’s law---not God’s law)? How possibly can an infant or young child be guilty of the stain of Original Sin when they do not know the law?

What you are describing here is actual sin, not original sin. I'm in agreement with you on your points regarding children.

This was/is NOT a bad thing. It is NOT a sinful thing; unless you believe that it is sinful to “become as one of us”. I see this as a good thing. After all, the Plan of Salvation is God's plan. I do not think His plan is flawed. To be able to know good and evil is a quality which God has. Man has that quality as well, as it is a quality which Adam and Eve passed along to their progeny.

This is where Mormonism diverges quite dramatically from Christianity. This idea that God desires our sins, even created a scenario where sin had to occur.

You can be sure, no Christian believes their God is such a tricksters.

Satan tempted Adam and Eve with obtaining the power of God. This is the exact opposite of the desire of a Christian, who seeks to rely on God, entirely, for everything. Mormonism perpetuates this great lie, magnified intensely.

You should have a concern for your soul.

God did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Life. But it is not for the reason most people think (because what most people think is what man has taught them). It was not so that they would have lived forever "in a state of sin." It was because they would live forever; and God’s warning could not be turned into a lie. God’s word to them about dying could NOT be broken. God told them they would die. If they ate of the tree of life, then they would not die. So God had to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of Life.

You are assuming that God could not give Adam and Eve everything He desired for them without the necessity of their sin against God. In other words, you presume sin is necessary in order for you to become a god. I don't know about you, but that sets off the alarms for me.

I see the fruit of the tree of Life as the reinstatement of our ability to live in God’s presence. In other words, the purpose of the Plan of Salvation is for us to be able to partake of that fruit so that we can live with God in His Presence; just like Adam and Eve did before their fall. By becoming mortal, Adam and Eve received the fulfillment of God’s warning; death. However, that death was two-fold; physical death, AND spiritual death (i.e., not being allowed to be in God’s presence).

The Plan of Salvation, which includes Christ’s sacrifice, then allows us to use our knowledge of good and evil (which we inherited from Adam and Eve) which allows us to learn not just the consequences of sin (which makes us unclean and therefore unfit to be in God’s presence); but also to learn how to do God’s will. Jesus is the perfect example of doing Father’s will. His Atonement provides a way for us to become clean when we choose evil instead of good (in our learning process). Jesus is also called the bread of Life (spiritual life).

Here's a proposal for you, the Tree of Life is the Cross, and the fruit is our Salvation. You cannot save yourself. Defying the commandments of God is not The Way. Repent and be baptized.

O

“Restore” means to return to its original form.

Indeed, the original form is God's intent, which can be seen in Adam and Eve, before the Fall.

So, when we learn from Jesus that we must be born again of the Spirit, it seems to me that our Spirit (which is spiritually dead at our physical birth), was alive before we came to the earth. If we need the Holy Spirit to make our spirit spiritually live “again”---“born again”, then we were spiritually alive before we got here. In other words, our spirits existed and were alive spiritually before we came to the earth.

Our spiritual death is a state, that of, our separate from God. To take it further, "the second death" described for those who will not know the Kingdom of God is just this exactly, a permanent separation from God.

First of all, I would like to ask why didn’t the Vicar of Christ shed any light on this matter? I would think that in a matter as vital as the salvation of infants and young children that God would reveal to Christ’s representative on the earth the Truth concerning this issue.

Insisting something of God isn't considered by us to be a form of following the will of God. There are a few questions I have for God, but insisting something from God is quite frankly, an atheistic argument.

After all, it is His desire that we all be able to see Him in Heaven. Why, instead, did it go to a commission of men? by the way, I have often wondered why the RCC claims Apostolic succession as their authority; but they do not have any Apostles. What I see is that they are really claiming the authority of one of the Apostles; and they changed the title of Apostle to the title of Pope; i.e., the Vicar of Christ. Thus, it seems what they really should be claiming is Papal succession. But I digress.

I don't think this is a digression, but relevant. The Apostles appointed their successors, who are called presbyters. They in turn appointed their successors, and so on and so on, to this day. Bishop is a word that is synonymous with presbyter.

Acts 15 lays out very specific requirements for an Apostle. One being, they had to have been with Jesus during His ministry. Anyone who claims this position today, is frankly, a liar. Jesus' earthly ministry occurred ~2000 years ago, and those who walked with Him in His mortal life have long turned to dust.

The apostolic succession does not live in those who are dust. It lives in their successors, our Bishops.

God has promised that our knowledge of Him, and with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (who leads us to all Truth….but I guess not this particular Truth) that we will have peace of mind and joy in this life because we have hope in the Resurrection of Christ. Yet parents who lose their infants before they can be baptized are left with a lifetime of agonizing over the fate of that child’s soul. Does this sound like something a merciful and loving God would want for those who HAVE turned to Him and accepted Christ as their Savior?? This sounds more like a punishment to me.

I think you are imagining what other parents feel or don't feel. Do you know any Catholics who have lost a child? I do. Their hope has a name, Jesus Christ.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the RCC is incorrect about this dogma?? Are you REALLY allowed by the RCC to consider such possibilities? Or, in truth, have they closed the box and placed God inside of it? Claiming to the world that they have “hope” that God will provide for these unfortunate individuals is NOT claiming a “guaranty”. It will bring no real solace to those who have lost a baby or child before it was baptized. The stigma of doubt and despair will always stay with them. Where is the peace of mind and joy in this?

Blessings,

jo

Well, this is a nice way of asking me if I'm able to think on my own. No one says I have to be Catholic. Instead of demonizing Christ's Church, you should be thanking Our Lord Jesus Christ for not leaving us as orphans to wander. As we can see what wandering does to a person, in Mormonism, and other pseudo Christian beliefs.

[_jo1952]

Perhaps if you take baptism from a strictly utilitarian point of view, which I don't. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace. Our rebirth in Christ being a grace that is a sign of God's Mercy; our salvation. This is a reality, a guarantee, made sure by the Cross.

Matthew 10:32 (KJV)

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

The Greek translation of "confess" is "covenant". As I see it, and I was certainly not clear in my previous post - so I apologize, baptism by water is our outward manifestation of "confessing" Christ before men since that is the time we are making a covenant with God that we will follow Christ and keep His commandments. It is also the moment at which we are made clean from past sins. The last sentence is what I left out previously.

I would argue about rebirth instantly taking place. However, I do agree that rebirth MUST take place; but it is a process. There are too many additional scriptures which teach us what we need to do, where we must be diligent, and instruction how NOT to fall or stray, for me to be able to believe that baptism or the receipt of the Holy Ghost guaranties our Salvation. Even the RCC does not appear to believe as you do. I have seen too many instances where baptized members are later identified as heretics and made anathema. So, no, not even the RCC believes that baptism guaranties salvation.

This graces gives to us an additional help, in how we live, making us very affected by the graces that God gives us. In other words, a child growing without the graces of baptism is at a handicap, spiritually speaking.

I think that God gives extra special attention to infants and young children who are thus protected by good angels who are in the spiritual realm. Until they can be held accountable or even understand what spirituality is, they are innocent. To baptize someone who is already innocent belies the very purpose of Christ's sacrifice.

Why is it necessary? I think it is obvious because we are human and fail.

Yes, we are subject to making wrong choices and sinning. However, God has already provided for our sins. Now, what happened to your belief that "This graces gives to us an additional help, in how we live, making us very affected by the graces that God gives us...spiritually speaking"? Is it not working? I'm just trying to get you to see for yourself what your own beliefs look like.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. This is the condition of our lives.

I agree. However, I don't think this relates to the reason why the Apostles had to continue to repeat things. I do not doubt that the members of the church knew they should not sin, thus needing to be reminded again and again.

The Good News is Jesus Christ, who lifts us from our weakness. It is not something He has left us to do alone. In this way, baptismal graces help a person, no matter their age.

They do not help the person who is innocent. An innocent does not need to be made clean; they are already clean. As I said before, baptizing someone who has not sinned belies the purpose of Christ's sacrifice.

God is not dependent on us, we are dependent on him. Without question, the struggle for all of is letting go of our self-reliance, and putting our trust in God. The Spirit is always there, God is always calling. The Holy Spirit is not a magical spell that we are placed under as robots. God is patient. God is forgiving. All it takes is a turning towards Him. That is what He desires. In the meantime, God is not going to force us into His arms.

I agree; God is NOT going to force us into His arms (oh, how glorious that will be!). But turning to Him is not enough. Receiving the Holy Ghost is not enough. Our spirit MUST be reborn of the Spirit; and receiving the Holy Ghost is not a guaranty that our spirit has been reborn.

Your opinion. What I see, is an understanding of a reliance on God. Faith is a gift, it is not something we generate on our own, with God watching on hoping we get it right.

It is not my opinion. Here again is what Peter taught:

2 Peter 1:5-9 (KJV) (emphasis mine)

5 And beside this, giving all diligence, [i]add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.[/i]

I don't understand your question.

According to your belief we were begotten of the Father at the creation of Adam and Eve. Since we were not yet born in the flesh until our parents conceive us and we gestate in our mother's womb, where are we staying and waiting for our physical birth?

Adam and Eve were alive in the spirit, as God had created them.

Until they fell. That is when their bodies were changed to mortal bodies. And they became spiritually (though their spirt was still alive inside of them - which gave their physical body life) dead because they were no longer allowed to be in the presence of God. That is what spiritual death is - to not be in the presence of God.

John 3:3 (KJV) (emphasis mine)

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

If he cannot see the kingdom of God, he surely is not going to be able to see God or be in His presence.

Otherwise, you've lost me. The Christian life is one of discipleship, where, we seek to let our old selves die. Letting go of sin. Giving everything to God. It is a process, that takes time, and the graces of God.

Our spirit must be reborn! I think I would hold off on wanting my spirit to be part of the old self we want to have die.

Not understanding your point. We are created as body and spirit. That is what constitutes us, that is how God has made us. There isn't an example of something like zombie or vampire human walking the earth without a spirit.

While we are in our physical body, it is our spirit which gives our body life. When we die physically, our body decays and returns to the dust from whence it came. But our spirit does NOT die (unless we allow Satan to destroy it). Our spirit waits for the resurrection of our body so that they can be joined again. Oh, I disagree with the RCC that our spirit enters our body at the moment of conception. That is because the Bible teaches us:

Leviticus 17:11 (KJV)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Also, Adam's body was lifeless until God breathed Adam's spirit into his body. This is how we know that it is our spirit which gives our body life.

You are saying something that isn't there. A person is spiritually dead, is not the same as saying a spirit is spiritually dead. Spiritually dead is a description of the state of a person.

No, I am saying something that comes directly from the Bible:

John 3:6 (KJV)

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus says the person must be born of the Spirit, He doesn't say a spirit is born of the Spirit. A person is comprised of a body and soul.

No, you are wrong! Again, look at John 3:6...."that which is born of the Spirit is spirit"!!!

Our soul is made, by God, in the image of God. God does not give us death.

God gives us both life and death--both physical and spiritual. God gave Adam and Eve physical death and spiritual death as a result of their sin; which we inherit from them. Do not confuse our spirit's spiritual death with the meaning that our spirit is dead. Our spirit lives, regardless of whether it is spiritually dead or alive. In order for our spirit to become spiritually alive "again", it must be born of the Spirit. For our spirit to become born "again" so that it can become spiritually live, then it MUST have lived spiritually before! Thus our spirit was alive before it entered our body of flesh, where our spirit became spiritually dead --- which is what we inherited from Adam and Eve.

Spirits which are spiritually alive are able to see the Kingdom of God (see John 3:3 again)!! If you believe that baptism gives your spirit rebirth, then why can you not see the Kingdom of God right now?? Didn't you say that baptism guaranties that our spirit has been reborn?

Who believes their guilt is passed on? No one that I know of.

Then please explain to me why the RCC is so concerned about innocent infants and children who die without baptism? It is the RCC who condemns them. The RCC claims these infants are going to be denied the Beatific Vision because they have the stain of Original Sin on them!!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274.

What you are describing here is actual sin, not original sin. I'm in agreement with you on your points regarding children.

Then what the RCC has taught you about Original Sin is not what they taught less than 50 years ago. And I would have to ask once more, why they teach that an unbaptized infant or young child who dies before they are baptized is condemned to eternal hell, that the infant or child will understand the justice of that condemnation, and why it is the RCC can only "hope" that God will show them mercy??

This is where Mormonism diverges quite dramatically from Christianity. This idea that God desires our sins, even created a scenario where sin had to occur.

You have not addressed the teaching wherein Adam and Eve had "become as one of us". You also have not stated whether or not you think this is a good thing or a bad thing. It is their knowledge of Good and Evil which Adam and Eve acquired from eating the fruit. We inherited that knowledge from Adam and Eve; just as we inherited the consequences of their sin. It is by exercising our free will in making choices of evil instead of good wherein we sin.

God does not “desire” our sins. Where did you get that idea? by the way, your scenario provides for God to have made us with a sin nature – which takes away our free will; because we are handicapped from the get go. Now, if it is God’s desire that we all be able to return to Him, why would He handicap us in this way? Do you understand what free will is? Free will is the ability to choose. If He created us with a sin nature, then we have been pre-programmed to sin. Sin, then, is NOT a “choice” at all.

You can be sure, no Christian believes their God is such a tricksters.

I would agree that no Christian (including LDS Christians) believe their God is a trickster.

Satan tempted Adam and Eve with obtaining the power of God. This is the exact opposite of the desire of a Christian, who seeks to rely on God, entirely, for everything. Mormonism perpetuates this great lie, magnified intensely.

Satan told Eve a half-truth. In other words, part of what he told her was true; and part of what he told her was false/a lie:

Genesis 3:4-5 (KJV) (comments are mine)
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (this is where he lied)
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (this is where he told her the truth, as seen in the following):
Genesis 3:22 (KJV)
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (thus, Satan was telling Eve the truth)

I don't think the Bible could be any clearer on this matter.

You should have a concern for your soul.

That sounds like a judgment to me.

Matthew 7:2 (KJV)
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

You are assuming that God could not give Adam and Eve everything He desired for them without the necessity of their sin against God. In other words, you presume sin is necessary in order for you to become a god. I don't know about you, but that sets off the alarms for me.

This is your interpretation of what I said? It sounds more like something someone else taught you to believe about the LDS; and not what the LDS actually believe. Let me repeat it in a simpler way. God warned Adam and Eve that in the day they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that they would die. They ate from that tree anyway. So God made sure they would die – both physically and spiritually. God sent them out of the Garden of Eden before they could eat from the Tree of Life which would have allowed them to live instead of die.

Adam and Eve became as God by eating from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Experiencing the consequences of having that knowledge of Good and Evil helps them to progress; choices of Good help them/us to learn, and choices of Evil also help them/us to learn. I think that in becoming joint-heirs with Christ is going to take knowledge and experience. God loves us; we are not here so that He can punish us if we sin, or to condemn us to eternal hell.

Here's a proposal for you, the Tree of Life is the Cross, and the fruit is our Salvation. You cannot save yourself. Defying the commandments of God is not The Way. Repent and be baptized.

Where have I ever claimed that I could save myself? And, you are judging me again. Perhaps I should not write to you anymore, because I do not want to be responsible for you bringing upon yourself any condemnation.

Our spiritual death is a state, that of, our separate from God. To take it further, "the second death" described for those who will not know the Kingdom of God is just this exactly, a permanent separation from God.

So, do you believe that we can die twice; but have only lived once?

Insisting something of God isn't considered by us to be a form of following the will of God. There are a few questions I have for God, but insisting something from God is quite frankly, an atheistic argument.

Christ’s entire purpose for coming to the earth was to provide a path whereby everyone can obtain Salvation. I do not think it is atheistic for the Vicar of Christ to therefore ask about the Salvation of the little children whom Christ loved. Also, you are confusing “asking” and “seeking” with “insisting” (which was your word, not mine). Indeed,

James 1:5 (KJV)
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

If the Pope truly IS the Vicar of Christ, and inasmuch as this is a very basic question about Salvation, then he would not have needed a commission of men to help him determine how to deal with this issue about the children Christ loves. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that this issue was created by man in the first place; it has never been a question or concern in Christ’s mind. However, I think Christ may very well be concerned with how people baptize innocents who have not sinned; since Christ’s sacrifice is for those who HAVE sinned.

I don't think this is a digression, but relevant. The Apostles appointed their successors, who are called presbyters. They in turn appointed their successors, and so on and so on, to this day. Bishop is a word that is synonymous with presbyter.

When did the title of “Pope” begin? Where does it come from?

Also, I don’t believe you answered my question of why Bishops or ANY Leader in the RCC are called “Father”. Jesus taught us that we are only to call His Father, “Father”. So even calling the Pope the “Holy Father” would be incorrect; since he is supposedly the Vicar of Christ, not the Vicar of Christ’s Father, or the Vicar of the Holy Ghost, or the Vicar of the Blessed Trinity.

Acts 15 lays out very specific requirements for an Apostle. One being, they had to have been with Jesus during His ministry. Anyone who claims this position today, is frankly, a liar. Jesus' earthly ministry occurred ~2000 years ago, and those who walked with Him in His mortal life have long turned to dust.

Then Paul could not have been an Apostle according to your take, as he was not with Jesus during His ministry. Also, I couldn’t find where the very specific requirements were given in Acts 15. Can you be more specific?

The apostolic succession does not live in those who are dust. It lives in their successors, our Bishops.

Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat 16:19). When did he transfer these keys to St. Linus?

I think you are imagining what other parents feel or don't feel. Do you know any Catholics who have lost a child? I do. Their hope has a name, Jesus Christ.

Yes, I do know some who have lost children before they were baptized. They have lived their lives in agony because this is what they were taught:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.

Blessings,

jo

[_madeleine]

Jo, by Apostle I mean one of the 12. Apostle means one who is sent, so yes, Paul was an apostle but he was never one of the 12. All Christians are called not only as disciples, but as apostles. We are sent into the world to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ. Some, including Paul, have a very distinc vocation, as an apostle. Paul struggled with the 12accepting his claim as an apostle. He knew what God had given him.

Catholics have given that distinctive title to others, who have been very distinctly sent by God to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ. My favorite is Mary Magdalen, who was sent by Jesus to tell the 12 the Good News of Our Lord's resurrection. We name her, the apostle to the Apostles.

I meant Acts 1:

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

As for salvation without baptism, let me put it to you this way. My husband is an atheist, we raised our daughter as an atheist. It is Catholic teaching that Christ's Mercy is without measure. My prayers are for my family to turn to Christ. I believe that is God's desire as well. I hold no belief that they will be denied the Mercy of Jesus Christ. Rather, it is He who knows their hearts and will judge them. God gives both, Justice and Mercy. The evidence of this is the Cross.

Catholics walk a fine line, between thinking they can do anything because God forgives, and scrupulosity. These are the sins against the Holy Spirit: presumption and despair. You are the voice of evil, full of despair. I can't say I'm interested.

Catholics through time have given opinions on the fate of those who are not baptized, through no fault of their own. You ask where is the divine inspiration. Hello, I gave it to you, but you can't see it.

With that, I can't see any reason to continue our conversation.

Peace be with you.

[_gdemetz]

So what if Paul was not one of the original twelve? It is very clear from the scriptures that the foundation of the church is prophets and apostles (which fact should be an embarrassment to all the false churches if they only had the wisdom to discern that fact). The quorum of the twelve was meant to continue, just as it does in the restored church. After Judas hung himself, the two worthy men were interviewed and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. The apostle Paul also filled a vacancy in the quorum.

[_Drifting]

So what if Paul was not one of the original twelve? It is very clear from the scriptures that the foundation of the church is prophets and apostles (which fact should be an embarrassment to all the false churches if they only had the wisdom to discern that fact). The quorum of the twelve was meant to continue, just as it does in the restored church. After Judas hung himself, the two worthy men were interviewed and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. The apostle Paul also filled a vacancy in the quorum.

Sorry, but there are 15 Apostles in the Mormon Church.
And if you read the Book of Mormon at the part where Christ appears to the Nephites you will read about him calling 12 Apostles in America whilst He still had 12 Apostles walking around the Middle East. 12 + 12 = 24....

Where in the primitive Church was the office of 'President of The Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ'?

[_Albion]

gdemetz and I finally agree. Christ's church is built on a foundation of apostles.

[_jo1952]

So what if Paul was not one of the original twelve? It is very clear from the scriptures that the foundation of the church is prophets and apostles (which fact should be an embarrassment to all the false churches if they only had the wisdom to discern that fact). The quorum of the twelve was meant to continue, just as it does in the restored church. After Judas hung himself, the two worthy men were interviewed and Matthias was chosen to replace Judas. The apostle Paul also filled a vacancy in the quorum.

My feeling from what I can gather from the New Testament is that God and the ancient Apostles strove to keep the number of Apostles (who actually functioned as proper Apostles) at twelve. This would also be in keeping with the importance of the number 12 held throughout the Bible. When Judas committed suicide, Matthias replaced Judas. Although the Bible is silent about the confirmation of his calling; i.e., by the laying on of hands, it is still clear that the early church knew about the transferral of authority by the laying on of hands. It took someone who already had the authority of the level being transferred, in order to pass it on to another person. In other words, a Bishop did not have the authority to set aside an Apostle.

Stephen was slain, as was James the brother of John. This reduced the number to 10. Barnabas was called an Apostle - even though again the Bible is silent and does not recount his calling. I would find it difficult to believe that he did not receive his authority by the laying on of hands by other Apostles. He exhibited the qualities and responsibilities of a full-fledged Apostle. Then, of course, Paul was called by God Himself, and received the power and authority directly from God - even though Ananias used his authority as a Disciple to perform the water baptism of Paul. This brought the number of functioning Apostles back to Twelve. I think that Acts 13:1-2 is speaking about setting Barnabus and Paul apart for the mission they were to go on. Thus, the laying on of hands by the prophets at Antioch was probably not to set them apart in their callings as Apostles; rather it was for the special mission God was sending them on.

G652 - Apostle (had the authority to ordain, to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, and to perform miracles)
ἀπόστολος
apostolos
ap-os'-tol-os
From G649; a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (“apostle”), (with miraculous powers): - apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

Not to be confused with:

G3101 - Disciple (as students, it appears they had the authority to baptize by water only)
μαθητής
mathētēs
math-ay-tes'
From G3129; a learner, that is, pupil: - disciple.

Not to be confused with:

G1985 - Bishop
ἐπίσκοπος
episkopos
ep-is'-kop-os
From G1909 and G4649 (in the sense of G1983); a superintendent, that is, Christian officer in general charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively): - bishop, overseer.

Not be confused with:

G4245 - Elder
πρεσβύτερος
presbuteros
pres-boo'-ter-os
Comparative of πρέσβυς presbus (elderly); older; as noun, a senior; specifically an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian “presbyter”: - elder (-est), old.

Not to be confused with:

The "other seventy" (see Luke 10:1) whom Jesus appointed to travel two by two ahead of Him into the places where He would later teach. Though they are also called "disciples", they appear to have been given a special power and authority to also perform miracles, which is something a regular disciple did not have the power to do.

And so, it would appear that there are powers and authorities connected with a specific calling. Those powers and authorities are not the same across the board; rather they are dependent upon the calling itself.

Blessings,

jo

[_gdemetz]

Hello drifting? Have you not read in the scriptures where God states not to counsel Him? That is why Christ had no counselors. That changed later.