I found this while looking for something else, but think its relevant to many conversations currently on this board. Its an excerpt from the article "Christian Unity: How Promoted, How Destroyed" (1916) by David Lipscomb:

"The "Declaration and Address," written and published by Elder Thos. Campbell is recognized as the beginning of the present effort to restore the apostolic order. The end proposed therein was:

"To restore unity, peace and purity to the whole church of God. This desirable rest, however, we utterly despair either to find ourselves, or to be able to recommend to our brethren, by continuing amid the diversity and rancor of party contentions, the veering uncertainty and clashings of human opinions, nor, indeed, can we reasonably expect to find it anywhere, but in Christ, and his simple word, which is the same yesterday, to-day and forever. Our desire, therefore, for our brethren and ourselves, would be that rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men as of any authority, or as having any place in the church of God, we might forever cease from further contentions about such things, returning to and holding fast by the original standard, taking the Divine word alone for our rule; the Holy Spirit for our teacher and guide, to lead us into all truth * * that, by so doing, we may be at peace among ourselves, follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." [19] Here the only pathway to peace, in their esteem, was, for all "to reject all human opinions and inventions of man, as of any authority, or as having any place in the church of God."

Article first of the Declaration is: "We form ourselves into a religious association * * * for the sole purpose of promoting simple, evangelical Christianity, free from all mixture of human opinions and inventions of men." The leading thought was to free the church from all practices based on human opinions and inventions of men. They were the occasions of strife and division.

They refused to sustain or countenance a preacher that would inculcate that anything of human authority, of private opinions or inventions of men, had any place in the church of God. Only that was to be taught for which "a thus saith the Lord could be adduced."

In the address on the divisions of Christendom, they say: "Our differences at most are about things in which the kingdom of God does not consist, that is, about matters of private opinion and human invention. What a pity that the kingdom of God should be divided about such! Who then would not be the first among us to give up human invention in the worship of God, and to cease from imposing his private opinions upon his brethren, that our breaches might be thus healed?"

They thought these divisions could only be healed by all giving up their opinions and inventions, and ceasing to impose them on the church. The divisions and breaches that the advocates of opinion so deprecate, can be healed by each one giving up his opinions, and the inventions of men, and by asking his brethren to submit to and accept [20] nothing, but what is clearly required in the Scriptures. Come to this principle and peace as a river flows out. But now union and peace are sought in the opposite direction, i. e., let every man bring his invention and opinion into the church.

They declare, "There is no thing we have hitherto received as matter of faith or practice, which is not expressly taught and enjoined in the word of God, either in express terms or approved precedent, that we would not readily relinquish, that so we might return to the original constitutional unity of the Christian church, and in this happy unity, enjoy full communion with all our brethren, in peace and charity. * * * To this we call, we invite our brethren of all denominations, by all the sacred motives which we have avouched as the impulsive reasons for our thus addressing them."

We make the same appeal on the same ground, to our brethren who introduce matters of opinion, for the sake of union and peace. They treat our appeals with indifference and contempt. If these inventions and opinions of men were not cherished in the church to-day, unity and peace would prevail.

To the preachers they appealed: "To you, therefore, it peculiarly belongs, as the professed and acknowledged leaders of the people, to go before them in this good work, to remove human opinions and inventions of men out of the way, by carefully separating this chaff, from the pure wheat of primary and authentic revelation, casting out that assumed authority, that enacting and decreeing power by which these things have been imposed and established. To the ministerial department, then, do we look with anxiety. * * * His dying commands, his last and ardent prayers for the visible unity of his professing people, will not suffer you to be indifferent in this matter."

This appeal comes just as strongly to those bringing their "fads, fancies, preferences," based on opinion, into the church to-day as it did then, and it is a shame that Christians do not hear it. The inventions of men are called chaff, to be burned with fire unquenchable.

Again, "Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament." [21]

This precludes and prohibits all inventions and devices based on opinions of men in any age."

Heated arguments are being expressed in several threads on this board concerning alcohol, lotteries, and other subjects. Good arguments are put forth, but in the final analysis, they are only arguments, the opinions of men, not Scripture.

According to this argument, the reason that there is no unity among the churches is because the churches follow the opinions of men, instead of the Word of God. "Our desire, therefore, for our brethren and ourselves, would be that rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men as of any authority, or as having any place in the church of God, we might forever cease from further contentions about such things, returning to and holding fast by the original standard, taking the Divine word alone for our rule; the Holy Spirit for our teacher and guide, to lead us into all truth * * that, by so doing, we may be at peace among ourselves, follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."

The original standard is the Word of God, as illumined in our minds and hearts by the Holy Spirit. What was supposed to be excluded was the "leftover" doctrines from the Roman Catholic institution which colored denominationalism. Denominationalism itself was a big problem. Traditions were turned into dogmas (tenets or codes of beliefs) which were set in stone as the test as to whether or not someone was a "true believer." What were these dogmas? Creed statements, form and rite of baptism, ecclesiastical authority, form and rite of communion (Lord's Supper to us moderns), what is and isnt considered "sin." Sound familiar? All these are still talked about, and are represented on these boards.

We as human being love to be dogmatic. Its easy to "check the block" and think that we are doing the right thing. Its easy for comparisons. The problem is that we are created as thinking beings, with the capacity for decision making. It is my contention based on what I understand in Scripture that God intends us to use our created intelligence. Dogmas make things easy for us. We like easy. Dogmas are comforting, because it allows us to feel good about ourselves. But the problem is that life is not easy, and it is not comfortable...and it is not meant to be! This is a part of our fallen state, and we cannot change it with intellectual exercises.

I personally disapprove of alcoholic drink, lotteries, and recreational drug use. I came to my own conclusions after carefully weighing the facts pro and con and made an informed decision. But please note: it is my opinion, not Scripture. I do not consider it to be sin, because it is not mentioned in the Bible as such. On the other hand, I consider sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, drunkenness and adultery to be sin because the Bible clearly prohibits them.

Having said that, I preach and teach against all of the above. But I make the clear distinction that the former is my informed opinion, while the latter is the Word of God. To do anything else is to make into dogma a tradition or an opinion of men. And we are forbidden to do this. As stated in the article, "Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament." [21] This precludes and prohibits all inventions and devices based on opinions of men in any age."

ANY AGE includes our own. We must take extreme care to not invent doctrines. We have private opinions because we are thinking beings. But they cannot be accepted as equal to Scripture, especially if Scripture does not state it.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Answers

Beerman....

Where in Scripture do you find that "THE" purpose of sex is procreation??

Herein lies a fundamental error of the Catholic church in the understanding of sex.

The purpose of sex is far more than just procreation. It is also a gift that was given to human beings for 1) Their mutual enjoyement; 2) To produce the bond needed for the "leave and cleave" relationship outlined in Genesis 2.

If the purpose of sex was for procreation only.....and God intended that conception take place at every sexual act.....then we have to answer these questions......

1) Why doesn't a woman have a "heat" cycle like all the others in the animal kingdom?? You know....once a year she comes into "heat"....the male services here......and there is a conception.

2) Why is it in the female sexual anatomy she has a sexual organ that serves no other purpose than her pleasure?? (I trust I do not have to explain in a private e-mail.) It serves absolutely no reproductive function at all.

One other interesting side note, human beings are the only ones in creation who reproduce sexually who have the capacity for love making face to face.

So the whole argument starts off wrong because the Catholic church starts from a wrong premise, i.e., the sole and primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Scripture does not state that and physical anatomy does not support that.

For Scripture relating to sex as a source of mutual ecstacy.....see Proverbs 5 and the Song of Solomon for starters.

As per the contraception thing.....God told us to "multiply and fill the earth."

I think we have done that.....don't you?? One of the few commands of God we have fulfilled completely.

Also.....I see contraception as practicing the biblical principle of stewardship....making the wisest use of the resources God has blessed with me both personally.....and otherwise...i.e., the natural resources of the earth.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Beerman....(why do I feel funny talking to a guy named "Beerman"..... (just kidding).....

The verses in Romans chapter 1 concerning the "unnatural" have nothing to do with contraception....absolutely nothing.

These verse are referring to lesbian and homosexual relations...i.e., man gave up the natural for the unnatural."

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Although.....come to think of it.....that would kind of be like contraception....wouldn't it?? LOL

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Call it "coitus interuptus".....or "rhytmn method" if you want.....but....they are still methods of birth control.

You cannot say, "The church is against birth control".....and then....say..."But if you taken into account this....and only have sex during this time".....which still results in the same thing.....birth control and family planning.

As per homosexuality......as opposed to birth control....we have NUMEROUS "thus saith the Lord's" against it.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Scripture for all these assertions??

And, by the way....the passage in Genesis is not a condemnation against "coitus interuptus."

The "sin" committed by Onan was not fulfilling the "Law of Levrite" marriage that required that if a man died before he had a son (i.e., an heir)....his brother was required to have sexual relations with the dead brother's wife and produce an heir. The male child would receive the inheritance of the dead father.

This had to be in a society where inheritance was passed only through the male child.

There is no scriptural condemnation of "coitus interuptus."

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000

It's unnatural....

1) Because God did not create Adam and Steve....that which is natural is that which God created in the beginning.

2) Because it goes against the "natural" desires which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 1. He doesn't say a thing about procreation.

Again....I did point out Scripture to support the "ecstasy" side of sex...i.e., Proverbs 5:15ff and the Song of Solomon.

It is very simple....there is no clear scriptural teaching that prohibits the use of non-abortive type of birth control...which is exactly why the Pope must speak ex-cathedra on the issue.

By the way, an issue that I believe at last count some 70% of the Catholic church doesn't buy.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

By the way, I was just curious about something else.....do you buy the official Catholic church position on "Theistic Evolution?"

You know, the believe that God created two molecules and then evolution took over from there??

I know that has been the official position of the church for at least the last 15 years, but I have noticed the Pope becoming more vocal in support of the issue lately.

Don't want to debate it with you....just wanted to know if the rank and file Catholics buy it.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Dr. Dewey,

"to reject all human opinions and inventions of man, as of any authority, or as having any place in the church of God."

The High Church of Babylon is not going to like this. Prepare to duck and cover.

(Titus 1:13-14 KJV) "This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."

One Jewish fable I would like to see dismissed is the notion that we are Judeo/Christian. Jesus had no good words to say re: Judaism.

Amen to what you say, Preach it Brother

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Jesus, His mother, and his disciples were Jews. The scripture clearly teaches us that He obeyed the law and fulfilled it to the letter, within Judaism. He faithfully kept all the holy days, including the final Passover, when He instituted the Lord's Supper at the passover seder in the upper room.

Jesus never preached against Judaism. He preached against the hypocritical leaders of the people, who did not practice the law of love, and who were "whited sepuchres."

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Elaine,

Really, to the letter?

In John 8, a woman caught in adultery is brought forth for stoning, in keeping with the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 22). Now Jesus said let the first man without sin cast the first stone -- and everyone left. Did Jesus keep the law and stone her by himself? No, he forgave her.

You see, I don't believe Jesus violated the intent/spirit of the law, but certainly He violated the letter of the law. He should have stoned her to keep the letter of the law.

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Elaine Seavey,

Remember! It was Judah that took the trip to Babylon. Read Ezra and Nehemia It was in Babylon they came up with the Babylonian Talmud. Think!

(Neh 5:1 KJV) "And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews."

(Neh 5:2 KJV) "For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live."

(Neh 5:3 KJV) "Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth."

(Neh 5:4 KJV) "There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards."

(Neh 5:5 KJV) "Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards."

Just because you people have been brainwashed by the Great Whore of Babylon does not mean you have to stay there.

(Mat 15:9 KJV) "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

_____________________________

The Talmud

http://www.hoffman-info.com/talmudtruth.html _______________________________

But alas, methinks Christians love to worship The Great Whore!

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

(Rev 18:4 KJV) "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT OF HER, MY POEPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

(Rev 18:5 KJV) "For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities."

JESUS IS TALKING TO CHRISTIANS!!!

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

I do admit that it took me a long time to overcome the lies put forth re: this subject. "The Jews are Gods Chosen." The Jews are Gods rejected. Israel is Gods Chosen.

(Jer 18:6 KJV) "O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel." God reformed Israel.

God broke Judah.

(Jer 19:11 KJV) "And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury."

(Jer 19:12 KJV) "Thus will I do unto this place, saith the LORD, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as Tophet:"

(Jer 19:13 KJV) "And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods."

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

Dr. Jon:

THis will probably be the shortest post I have ever written. The reason being that I have not read one yet with which I could so completely and whole heartedly agree! I say Amen and amen to your words! Excellent! Absolutely excellent!

I do not agree with drinking and gambling but if we teach everyone to follow the PRINCIPLES laid down in the word of God they will form similar opinions about these things. For these things are not condemned in express commands or necessary inference. They are removed when one follows the Christ and walk in his steps. But that is not the subject that I am concerned about.

I assure you that when you begin to remove all opinions, traditions, and commandments of men and follow the New Testament as our only rule of faith and practice many things will go away and should go away! This great principle that you describe is that we can only practice that which is taught by the word of God either by direct command, approved examples of those lead by the Holy Spirit in the word of God, and necessarily inferred by God's word. All innovations must be removed if we are to be faithful to God and united in Christ. Nothing that is not as old as the New Testament should be enjoined upon our fellow Christians. Think of all that would be stripped away! I say let us strip those things away! This would remove all of the CREEDS of men. THis would remove all unscriptural practices in the worship. This would put an end forever to "entertainment" in the worship. This would make "Elvis impersonators" absurd! I agree with you completely! Away with the opinions that divide us! Let us follow our Lord through His word with no additions or subtractions. No inovations and no divisions! Amen Dr. Jon! AMEN!

Your friend in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 10, 2000

I too agree that our traditions should not become THE standard. We should not elevate them as some do even higher than the scriptures. And if you ask...I believe most people would say the same.

The problem comes in when we can not come to an agreement on what is scriptural and what is tradition/opinion.

Dr. Jon...I believe that many of us here in this forum and yourself...would not even agree on how and when a person comes into Christ (correct me if I am wrong). If we can not agree on the basics...the rest does not matter.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2000

Sister Muse:

I say Amen to your post! It is absurd to talk of unity in Christ with those who are not yet "in Christ". It is completlely useless to be one with each other if in the process we find that we are at variance with Christ our Lord. The kind of unity that the "ecumenical" crowd is advocating is unity with those outside of Christ and therefore unity AGAINST christ. But our Lord prayed that we would be "united in Him and the father" John 17.

If we cannot agree concerning the plain teaching of the scriptures concerning how one becomes a Christian and thereby obtains the forgiveness of his sins then all discussion of anything else is indeed absolutely meaningless!

I pray that we can all come to know that we are saved from our sins in obedience to the gospel of Christ. (1Cor. 15:1-4). And that those who do not obey the gospel will be forever lost. (2 thess. 1:9-11).

I agree with your extremely important observation. May God bless you for making it clear to the rest of us.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2000

Sister Muse -

I understand what you are saying, and it is a scary thought. It implies that there is the possibility that NO ONE has the truth. And as such, there will be no unity. True unity comes only from the teachings of Christ in the Gospels, and the further revelations in the remainder of the New Testament. The "unity of religions" nonsense which is often brandished about it totally in opposition to true Christianity. Biblical Christianity by its nature is exclusivistic, because Jesus Himself said so. There is no other way but by Him. He didn't give any other choice.

We started talking about this concept of "the basics" on a different thread. I didn't answer because I didn't want to say anything off the top of my head, but give a coherent answer regarding what I think it is.

This is what I consider the absolute bare minimum of the basics of Christianity. This is what I personally consider the test of fellowship, and if a teaching is false. Denying or perverting any of the following in my book makes you a "false teacher" and in error biblically:

a. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Clearly stated in Scripture, and required for Jesus to be able to pay the penalty of our sins. He could not be born of the seed of a male, so it had to occur supernaturally.

b. The Deity of Christ. He is God, just as stated in the Scriptures. We may not understand HOW He can be both God and man at the same time, but the Bible clearly states it.

c. The Blood Atonement. It was the physical, actual shedding of Jesus' blood that our sins were able to be forgiven.

d. Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus physically died, what physically put in a tomb, and was resurrected back to life by the power of God in a supernatural act.

e. The 2nd Coming of Christ. Jesus will physically return to the earth at an unrevealed point in time. He said it would happen, so it has to happen.

f. Salvation is through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, and through no effort or work of man. Salvation is only gained as a free gift from God Himself, through the working of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be earned, and we are incapable of paying the price for it anyway (related to points a and c).

g. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God. The revelation in the Bible is without error. God has given us His revelation, and has also supernaturally preserved it so we have a true representation of it in this modern day.

h. There will be a final judgment, and everlasting punishment in the lake of fire for those who reject Jesus.

This is my "bottom line" and basics.

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2000

Jon,

You and I agree on so much...and on the surface...I believe most who profess to be Christian would agree with all you have stated.

Where the waters are muddied or the going gets sticky is when we do not take to heart all God has to say on the subject of salvation.

The following are scriptures in JUST ONE area where professing Christians differ according to the Word concerning salvation. Please...if you are willing...look these up and tell me what you come up with.

1. What is the purpose of baptism as mentioned by Peter in Acts 2:38 and by Ananias in Acts 22:16?

2. What did Jesus mean in John 3:3-5?

3. According to Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27...how does a person get "into Christ"

4. According to Romans 6:1-7 & Colossians 2:11-13, at what point in time are we made dead to sin and alive to Christ?

5. In I Peter 3:21, does the Apostle Peter connect baptism with the salvation process?

Also........

What scripture tells us that baptism is just a symbol or a sign of our obedience?

What scripture tells us that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace?

What scripture tells us that baptism is for membership into a local congregation?

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, February 11, 2000

Jon,

As a Catholic, I agree that we should only hold fast to what Christ the Lord has originally revealed to us as Christians. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The Church's teaching from that point on is only a development of what is already there, if only implicitly. We should not hold anyone to traditions that are only man-made and not from God.

In your list of essentials you already have a contradiction between points f and g. If The Bible is the inspired word of God, which it is, then what about James 2:24 "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" Also concerning the finished work of Christ, what about Colossians 2:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church"?

Here is the Catholic position on these things:

We cannot earn the justification of Christ, it is totally achieved by him alone. However, once we receive this grace, we must cooperate with it by avoiding sin in order to not lose our place in God's kingdom.

Secondly, Christ's suffering and death is sufficient to redeem us, but through baptism, we are joined to the body of Christ and become his members. If that is the case our suffering can be said to be the continued suffering of Christ in his body that still lives on earth.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

I think I will have to answer this one. I hear what you are saying, but I have to disagree. What you don't know about me is that I am FORMER Roman Catholic adherent. I understand their doctrines well...I was very serious about my practice of it. I left it because of doctrines and practices which I could not find a scriptural basis for. Roman Catholic doctrine is primarily the invention of man. This is a "matter of viewpoint," I realize. I do not agree with apostolic succession from Peter to the pope, and reject the idea of "ex cathedra." If you believe in these concepts then Roman Catholic dogma is inspired, but if not then any Catholic teaching outside of the Bible is man made.

You are also misunderstanding that verse in James. "Faith without works is dead" - yes. But picture who the original audience was. James was writing to believers who already had salvation. The point of James is not the works will save you, but that once a person is saved, he/she has to get busy and act out the reality of their faith. The modern concept of getting saved and doing nothing else but enjoying the benefits is totally foreign to the NT. As I said before, salvation is not "fire insurance" -- it comes with responsibilities.

I do not think you are representing the actualy Roman Catholic position on baptism. Catholic baptism is for the removal of original sin. It is this original sin which separates the person from God. Baptism then is the agent of salvation, because it removes sin. This actually is the "sticky" point that several people here and I have been discussing. The idea of baptism=salvation I do not agree with. And this is the concept taught in Catholic catechism (I learned alot of it in parochial school). Baptism is the entrance point to Roman Catholic church membership. But it is also more.

-- Anonymous, February 13, 2000

Jon,

You said:

[Roman Catholic doctrine is primarily the invention of man. This is a "matter of viewpoint," I realize. I do not agree with apostolic succession from Peter to the pope, and reject the idea of "ex cathedra." If you believe in these concepts then Roman Catholic dogma is inspired, but if not then any Catholic teaching outside of the Bible is man made. ]

Roman Catholic doctrine is not an invention at all but a faithful teaching of what was originally taught by Christ. The pope himself does not have the authority to change what Christ taught. See this in the teaching on the use of contraception. At one time all Protestants taught that it was wrong to use contraception and there are clear writings about it by Martin Luther and Calvin. Then, in 1930 the Anglican Church decided to break the unbroken tradition and change its teaching that contraception will now be okay in certain circumstances. Soon many other Protestant churches followed suit. Now the Catholic Church is one of the only ones that remains firm in its constant teaching that contraception is wrong. I'm sure that there are many who would be happy to change this teaching, but we can't because it is the teaching of Christ.

Though all the Church teachings cannot be found explicitly in the bible, they are there implicitly; the principles are laid out by Jesus and these cannot be contradicted. Didn't Jesus establish a church that would have the presence of the Holy Spirit that would guide them to all truth? Didn't Jesus command the apostles to teach others all that he had commanded them?(Mt 28:18-20) He gave them the power to speak with his voice (Lk 10:16) and make binding and loosing acts of legislation (Mt 18:18). Then they conferred this power of teaching to those who took their place by the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:11-16).

Many people would like to ascribe more power to the pope than he actually has, they believe that he can arbitrarily invent teachings or change them. In reality he is bound to remain steadfast to the teaching of Christ. The pope must submit to the Word of God as well. This is pure Catholic teaching.

"The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, by reason of their office and the seriousness of the matter, apply themselves with zeal to the work of enquiring by every suitable means into this revelation and of giving apt expression to its contents; thy do not, however, adimit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith." (Lumen Gentium, Second Vatican Council #25)

As far as the meaning of baptism, perhaps you have misunderstood the true Catholic teaching. Baptism is not the real agent of salvation, Jesus is. Jesus is the one who takes away original sin and gives us rebirth along with the Holy Spirit. But the instrument or means by which he does this is the sacrament of baptism, though he is not limited to act only through the sacraments. The real Catholic teaching is what is taught by the Magisterium not necessarily what a particular Catholic says.

In your own paragraph I have substituted the word "baptism" for the word "salvation" What do you think?

[You are also misunderstanding that verse in James. "Faith without works is dead" - yes. But picture who the original audience was. James was writing to believers who already had been baptized. The point of James is not the works will save you, but that once a person is baptized, he/she has to get busy and act out the reality of their faith. The modern concept of getting baptized and doing nothing else but enjoying the benefits is totally foreign to the NT. As I said before, baptism is not "fire insurance" -- it comes with responsibilities.]

Catholics do not believe that works save you either. "We may be said to be justified freely, in the sense that nothing that precedes justification, neither faith nor works, merits the grace of justification; for 'if out of grace, then not in virtue of works; otherwise (as the same Apostle says) grace is no longer grace' (Rom 11:6)". quoted from the Council of Trent.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

And which teaching of Christ is it exactly that brings the principle of prohibiting contraception?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Amen, Sam ... I was about to ask the same question :)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2000

Where in the bible does it give the principle that contraception would be wrong?

Contraception means against the beginning of life. When a couple engages in the act of sexual union, they use contraception to prevent human life from being created.

It is unnatural to engage in an action while simultaneously trying to thwart its natural consequences that have been created by God as a gift. It would be like trying to enjoy the eating of good food and then purging yourself so that you don't gain weight.

I think it is safe to say that the bible teaches that the purpose of sexual union is to bring forth new human life and that that is a good thing. Romans 1:25-27 The punishment is for *unnatural* sexual relations, i.e. those that could not possibly lead to the conception of a child.

Jesus said in the gospel, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh." (Mt. 19:5) Jesus is referring to the book of Genesis which describes the first marriage of husband and wife between Adam and Eve. The marital act is the highest expression of this union, but how can they be totally united if there is a barrier between them? Also how can they give themselves totally to the other in love if they are rejecting a certain part of their spouse, namely their fertility? To be made in the image of God means to be open to life and see it as a blessing. (Genesis 1:28)

Contraception treats fertility as a disease that must be corrected with a "pill." It says that it is good to not have children and it would be bad if a child resulted from the marital act. This is clearly contrary to the whole of Scripture that says children are a blessing from God like arrows in the hand of a warrior, and happy is the one who has a full quiver (Psalm 127:3-5) Those who were sterile in the bible were thought to be cursed by God not blessed. (Hosea 9:10-17, Dt. 7:13-14, also see Dt. 25:5-10 for the punishment for one who refuses to build up his family by having children.)

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2000

I am not saying that procreation is the *only* purpose of sexual intercourse. But I am saying that it is *one* of the purposes and must be so. I think you would agree that it would be wrong for someone to say that he is totally opposed to having children and would only engage in a type of sexual intercourse where children will not result. That would be unnatural.

Now, someone could say, "I am open to having children in my marriage, but not every single act of sexual relations has to be open to life." and I could say, "I am planning on being faithful to my spouse in marriage, but not every single act of sexual relations I have has to be with my spouse."

A common misconception seems to be that the Catholic Church is telling us that every act of sexual intercourse must lead to conception. That is not the case at all. Nor does the Church say that married couples must have as many children as they possibly can. What the Church is saying is that each marital act must be *open* to life rather than definitively closed, as contraception does.

There is the possibility of recourse to natural means of avoiding birth called Natural Family Planning. That is, taking note of the woman's fertility cycle and abstaining during fertile times and being free to have intercourse during the infertile times. That way, the couple is still open to life, even though they know conception will not result.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Question for reflection:

Why is homosexual sex unnatural?

They could be bonding with one another. They could be having a pleasurable experience. It seems to fulfill your criteria.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

I figured you would ask that question. By the way, Natural Family Planning is different from coitus interruptus. Natural Family Planning is abstaining totally from sexual relations during fertile times whereas coitus interruptus is beginning sexual intercourse but withdrawing before ejaculation occurs. See Genesis 38:9-10 for how the latter is condemned by God.

Moral Differences Between NFP and Contraception

1. NFP says that one should only participate in acts for which one is willing to face the natural consequences.

Contraception says that it is fine to participate in pleasurable acts and get rid of the consequences which naturally come from these acts.

Logical Consequence of a Contraceptive Society: Irresponsible Behavior. Unhealthy Relationships.

2. NFP says that intercourse requires a commitment.

Contraception says that intercourse need not be a committed act because consequences have been abolished.

Logical Consequence of a Contraceptive Society: Living Together Before Marriage.

3. NFP says that fertility is a gift from God which I cherish and respect.

Contraception says that fertility is an unwanted burden that needs medical treatment.

Logical Consequence of a Contraceptive Society:

Medicine is used for Unmedicinal Purposes (other than abortion, contraception is the only case in medicine where the goal is to take a functioning human body and make it dsyfunctional. One may ask, is medicine to make sick bodies well or to make well bodies sick? Is the purpose of medicine to give life, or to take it? We could also mention the fact that many contraceptive devices are not contraceptive at all but abortifiacient in that they work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus, thus destroying human life that has already begun.).

other results: Euthanasia and Abortion (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey which reaffirmed Roe vs. Wade said that "in some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception...for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."

4. NFP says that intercourse and babies must not be separated.

Contraception says intercourse and babies must be separated.

Logical Consequence of a Contraceptive Society: Sex without babies (homosexual) and babies without sex (In-vitro fertilization.)

5. NFP says that the human person can and should master and control his desires for greater things.

Contraception says that the human person isn't capable or shouldn't be expected to control his desires.

Logical Consequence of a Contraceptive Society: "Safe-Sex." If we can't expect mature responsible adults to control their desires by abstaining 10 days out of the month, how can we expect teenagers to abstain every day until they get married?

6. NFP encourages a couple to discover many forms of expressing intimate love.

Contraception overemphasizes genital expression of sexuality.

Logical Consequence of a Contraceptive Society: Emphasis on Intercourse Making Intimacy Special vs. Emphasis on Intimacy Making Intercourse Special. The result is that there is an over-emphasis on sex as the key to intimacy and when sexual feelings wane, there is a tendency to say that the couple is no longer "in love."

7. NFP helps one offer one's sexual life for the sake of the kingdom of God. God's role of creating new human life through the human sexual act is respected. If we're not ready for God to act in this way, then we won't engage in the sexual act because we don't want to exclude God from any action of ours.

Contraception limits God's participation in one's sexual life. Contraception says to God, "We're going to do the act without you. You will create when and how *we* decide"

Logical Consequence of a Contraceptive Society: Celibacy is rejected because Offering One's Sexual Life for the Kingdom of God is not Revered.

8. NFP says sexuality involves cooperating with God on his terms.

Contraception says sexuality involves God cooperating with me on my terms.

Logical Consequence of a Contraceptive Society: Basic Lack of Conversion. Whenever we come across behavior that has undesirable consequences, the normal response is to avoid that behavior. Contraception says go ahead and engage in that behavior and try to get rid of the consequences. That way, I don't have to change my behavior or the way I act. I actually change the way God acts so that I can keep behaving the way I want.

Summary. I am not saying that contraception and sterilization are the sole causes of these other evils. And I am not saying that those who use contraception necessarily desire these other evils. But I am asserting that the societal acceptance of contraception and sterilization is the fertile ground in which these other evils take their roots and grow. Once a society accepts that contraception is reasonable, then those other evils will also soon become, for that same society, reasonable.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000

I'm sorry. If you can use arguments that are not from the Scripture, I thought I could as well. You spoke of a woman not having a "heat" cycle and a woman having an organ strictly for pleasure. Where is that in Scripture? If you are going only by what the Bible says, then it seems to me that you should show where in the Scriptures it says that you *can* engage in intentionally non-procreative sex and that it is a good thing to avoid having children while also enjoying the marital act.

Again I ask the question, why do you think the Bible calls homosexual sex unnatural? I know it's forbidden by the Bible, but my question is why? What is there about it that the Lord calls it unnatural? My point is that for sex to be natural it must fulfill all its functions of bonding, pleasure, love and be open to procreation. Homosexual sex is unnatural because it can't possibly be open to procreation, just as contraceptive sex can't possibly be open to procreation.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000