The Catholic "Jesus"

[libby]

Then why the practice? Shouldn’t baptism be a choice? For instance, if someone is baptized, then grows older and converts to the Islamic faith are they still saved? Can you force an infant to be a Christian through baptism? For that reason, shouldn’t it be a choice someone makes when they are the age to make that choice? I mean that is what Jesus did. He was not baptized as a child.

Circumcision is the OT type for baptism. Col 2:11-12 Baptism is the fulfillment of the covenant sign of the OT. Surely you would agree that New Covenant fulfillments are more inclusive and have greater efficacy towards salvation than the OT precursors, correct?
Circumcision was a covenant sign, and a child inability to assent does not change that the child belongs to God.
There is no exclusion of infants spelled out in the Bible, and in fact, at least two times in Acts we find that entire “households”, or “families” were baptized. I think it is reasonable to assume that households included children. Jesus also made a point to say that we were to bring the children to Him. Do you think that all of these children were age of consent? In Mt. 21:15-16 we see that they are “infants and nurslings”. At Baptism we bring our children to Christ; we promise to teach them to know, love and serve Him. Later on they receive their Confirmation, when they make the conscious decision for themselves, that they believe what they have been taught and will live their lives for Christ.

 

[PsyOps]

Well, I'm sure I don't need to convince you that marriage is to be taken super seriously, right? I'm guessing we can all agree that lots of people enter into marriage today (Catholics included) with nary an intention of staying together through thick or thin.
I'm going to preface my explanation with a thought that meant a lot to me in my learning of the Scriptures. God, being the Supreme Being, has to condescend to speak to us. The Bible is His word, but it has to be done in kinda baby talk. He's teaching us with things we can understand. It is with that in mind that I offer these thoughts in support of marriage as a sacrament.
In Eph.5: 21-32 St. Paul gives us a clear outline of marriage. He uses the words "holy" and "mystery" to describe marriage. He also compares it to the relationship between Christ and His church. It is a reflection of that sacred relationship.
The first covenant God established with man was in the context of marriage. He also made Eve from Adam, sealing that supernatural reality for us that "the two shall become one".
Nearly the last verses of Scripture end with an invitation to the wedding feast: “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’
The rest of the Church's theology on marriage I'm sure goes way beyond what you are interested in hearing, but suffice it to say that it is holy and supernatural.
I'll start another post for the next inquiry.

I'm not sure how this supports the belief that marriage is only valid in God's eyes if it occurs in the Catholic Church. Or that a Catholic marrying outside the Catholic faith is unacceptable.

 

[libby]

I'm not sure how this supports the belief that marriage is only valid in God's eyes if it occurs in the Catholic Church. Or that a Catholic marrying outside the Catholic faith is unacceptable.

Well, that gets into whether or not there is one true church established by Christ here on earth. You do not believe that there is, and that's okay. However, the Catholic Church does believe that there is, and that the fullness of truth is only found within the teachings of the church.
Just for the sake of understanding the church, can you pretend for a minute that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be? Is she not right for making marriage a thoughful decision, to help the husband and wife grow together in unity? Is marriage a holy institution, or something to be entered into and dispensed of at a whim? The positions of the church are to guide us along the way, not to be burdensome. Each doctrine, discipline and practice of the Church is to focus everything on Jesus Christ and His Will for our lives.

 

[PsyOps]

Sin is sin, yes. All sin is displeasing to God, but honestly, for all of the things people take issue with in the Catholic Church, this one really confounds me. I just don't understand why.
For starters I will offer a few Bible passages.
1Jn. 5:16-17- "If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly."

Jn. 19: 11 "For this reason the one who handed me over to you had the greater sin". Jesus Himself tells us that there are degrees of sin.

1 Cor 6: 9-11- "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, not idolaters..."

The Church understands that we are all imperfect. I commit sin every day either in thought, word or deed. I might be impatient with my kids, I might growl at another driver on the road, I might have uncharitable thoughts toward someone I see walking on Great Mills Rd. These are all sins. However they are small and done out of habit, or out of a lack of virtue. Do I have to try to fix them? Yes! But I'm not necessarily going to hell for them. The Church calls these sins "venial".
Other sins are mortal. Mortal sins are big sins, adultery, for instance. A mortal sin is done with full knowledge and intent. A person must know the sin is mortal and willingly reject what they know is God's command.

I happen to think there is a fundamental misunderstand about what this verse is trying to say. It’s commonly implied John is referring to the “seven deadly sins” mentioned in Proverbs 6:16-17, when in reality these verses refer to sins that God particularly hates but is not a reference to “deadly sins”. According to any New Testament reading there is only one reference to a sin considered to be deadly in the eyes of God and that is in Mark 3:29 “But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin." But if you are inclined to believe there are these seven deadly sins and these are what John is referencing then I challenge you to find one sin that doesn’t fall under one of these seven categories. But I fail to see where this requires that we have an intermediary to confess our sins. Although we are charged to confess our sins to each other as a means to expose inner weakness to others and be uplifted by our brothers and sisters in Christ, I don’t see this as a means to have an intermediary. So, if we don’t confess our sins (mortal or not) to a priest, but rather get on our knees and ask God directly for forgiveness, are our sins forgiven? Again, according to the New Testament there is only one mortal sin and that is blasphemy.

 

[PsyOps]

Circumcision is the OT type for baptism. Col 2:11-12 Baptism is the fulfillment of the covenant sign of the OT. Surely you would agree that New Covenant fulfillments are more inclusive and have greater efficacy towards salvation than the OT precursors, correct?
Circumcision was a covenant sign, and a child inability to assent does not change that the child belongs to God.
There is no exclusion of infants spelled out in the Bible, and in fact, at least two times in Acts we find that entire “households”, or “families” were baptized. I think it is reasonable to assume that households included children. Jesus also made a point to say that we were to bring the children to Him. Do you think that all of these children were age of consent? In Mt. 21:15-16 we see that they are “infants and nurslings”. At Baptism we bring our children to Christ; we promise to teach them to know, love and serve Him. Later on they receive their Confirmation, when they make the conscious decision for themselves, that they believe what they have been taught and will live their lives for Christ.

So, I interpret this as to say that if an infant is baptized they are saved?

 

[libby]

So, I interpret this as to say that if an infant is baptized they are saved?

I said in an earlier post that the Church recognizes baptism by water, desire or blood.
The Church does not have a doctrine on the subject of infants, and I expect if we define doctrine the same way you would agree.
Most Bible Christians would say that repentence and baptism are necessary for salvation, am I right? And their position follows that because an infant cannot repent, he/she cannot be baptized, is that correct?
Yet, an infant still requires the Sacrifice of Jesus in order to get to Heaven, in other words, he/she needs to be saved, yes?
What does he/she need to be saved from if there is no sin committed?

Are you willing to say that all unbaptized infants go straight to Heaven, whether born to Christians, Muslims or Buddists? They cannot be "born again", so what is the theology behind your position?

 

[libby]

I happen to think there is a fundamental misunderstand about what this verse is trying to say. It’s commonly implied John is referring to the “seven deadly sins” mentioned in Proverbs 6:16-17, when in reality these verses refer to sins that God particularly hates but is not a reference to “deadly sins”. According to any New Testament reading there is only one reference to a sin considered to be deadly in the eyes of God and that is in Mark 3:29 “But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin." But if you are inclined to believe there are these seven deadly sins and these are what John is referencing then I challenge you to find one sin that doesn’t fall under one of these seven categories. But I fail to see where this requires that we have an intermediary to confess our sins. Although we are charged to confess our sins to each other as a means to expose inner weakness to others and be uplifted by our brothers and sisters in Christ, I don’t see this as a means to have an intermediary. So, if we don’t confess our sins (mortal or not) to a priest, but rather get on our knees and ask God directly for forgiveness, are our sins forgiven? Again, according to the New Testament there is only one mortal sin and that is blasphemy.

I return to my earlier post on the subject. Do you not believe that, for instance, losing patience with my children is a sin? Do you not believe that an uncharitable thought towards another person is a sin? Are you perfect? I'm guessing the answer is no. So the next question is, do you commit any/all of those sins mentioned in Proverbs each day? If you are a practicing Christian, I'm guessing the answer is no. So, what falls between the commission of these "deadly" sins and perfection? You and me. Anyone trying to grow in holiness and imitate Jesus Christ.
A mortal sin is a knowing and willful rejection of God's commands: stealing, adultery, murder (how about abortion).
Lastly, I provided Scripture to back up my position, and adultery and fornication was in that list Paul referred to in Corinthians, so how can you suggest that blasphemy is all there is?

 

[PsyOps]

Well, that gets into whether or not there is one true church established by Christ here on earth. You do not believe that there is, and that's okay. However, the Catholic Church does believe that there is, and that the fullness of truth is only found within the teachings of the church.

There are several references to there being more than one Church. Revelation probably being the most prominent. There are also references to the Bible speaking about there being several parts to Christ’s body; the body making the whole of Christ’s Church.

“… the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,…”COLOSSIANS 1:24

I happen to think each part represents not just the individual but the various denominations that sprung up out of each gift or “function”.

“For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.” EPHESIANS 5:30

“For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.” ROMANS 12:4-8

And let me say that it is the intolerance from nearly every denomination – as it regards others – that I am fed up with.

Just for the sake of understanding the church, can you pretend for a minute that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be? Is she not right for making marriage a thoughful decision, to help the husband and wife grow together in unity? Is marriage a holy institution, or something to be entered into and dispensed of at a whim? The positions of the church are to guide us along the way, not to be burdensome. Each doctrine, discipline and practice of the Church is to focus everything on Jesus Christ and His Will for our lives.

Are there not just as many divorces in a Catholic marriage as there are in any other? Are you trying to tell me that there is less adultery committed in a Catholic marriage than any other? I see nothing any more spiritually correct or superior within the Catholic Church than any other church regarding marriage, the sanctity of life or any other matter. There is nothing to convince me that Catholics hold marriage in a deeper spiritual, holy, or more “thoughtful” mindset than any other faith. This is not a slam on the Catholic Church, it’s a slam on all of them. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). And Lord knows we ALL have lived up to that verse.

 

[PsyOps]

I said in an earlier post that the Church recognizes baptism by water, desire or blood.
The Church does not have a doctrine on the subject of infants, and I expect if we define doctrine the same way you would agree.

I’m not sure I understand what this means. Perhaps you should explain the Catholic doctrine of baptism and how infant baptism comes into play. And if I, as a protestant-turned-Catholic, would be required to be baptized into the Catholic Church if I had already been otherwise baptized.

Most Bible Christians would say that repentence and baptism are necessary for salvation, am I right? And their position follows that because an infant cannot repent, he/she cannot be baptized, is that correct?
Yet, an infant still requires the Sacrifice of Jesus in order to get to Heaven, in other words, he/she needs to be saved, yes?
What does he/she need to be saved from if there is no sin committed?

Not correct. If you become saved you will feel, as the Holy Spirit moves you, compelled to be baptized. If the requirement for being saved is accepting Christ (a personal choice we must make), how is an infant able to make that decision? Being Baptized is NOT such a requirement, therefore baptizing a child does not save them. It would be by the grace of God that they would be saved until they are at a point that they can make that personal decision. I think that is something that is between the individual and God to make that determination. Not us.

Are you willing to say that all unbaptized infants go straight to Heaven, whether born to Christians, Muslims or Buddists? They cannot be "born again", so what is the theology behind your position?

I am willing to say that baptism is not what saves us. John 3:16-21 makes it clear that it is a person choice and not once does Jesus mention baptism as a requirement for salvation. When Jesus is baptized he states “'Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” First of all, why would the Christ – who is THE Holiest of all, without sin – need to be baptized? Jesus did not require to be saved. So why? To do all that is right. It is a certification of our faith. It, alone does not save us, but it is a symbol of our faith in Christ. Infants and children are under God’s grace until the time comes (that God determines) that person is able to make that personal decision. It would be my belief that if they die before then they will have a place in heaven. But that is for God to decide.

 

[libby]

There are several references to there being more than one Church. Revelation probably being the most prominent. There are also references to the Bible speaking about there being several parts to Christ’s body; the body making the whole of Christ’s Church.



I happen to think each part represents not just the individual but the various denominations that sprung up out of each gift or “function”.





And let me say that it is the intolerance from nearly every denomination – as it regards others – that I am fed up with.



Are there not just as many divorces in a Catholic marriage as there are in any other? Are you trying to tell me that there is less adultery committed in a Catholic marriage than any other? I see nothing any more spiritually correct or superior within the Catholic Church than any other church regarding marriage, the sanctity of life or any other matter. There is nothing to convince me that Catholics hold marriage in a deeper spiritual, holy, or more “thoughtful” mindset than any other faith. This is not a slam on the Catholic Church, it’s a slam on all of them. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). And Lord knows we ALL have lived up to that verse.

I'm not talking about whether or not people live as they should, I'm talking about the doctrine of the Church that says what it ought to be. There is at least a six month waiting period for engaged couples, before they can be married in the church. The church discourages interfaith marriages (it would be interesting to research how many divorced Catholics were married to Protestants and how many are with divorced when both are Catholic) An annulment is a very involved process and ultimately the annulment may not be granted.
Everyone talks about annulment as "Catholic divorce", which is not at all accurate.

I see nothing any more spiritually correct or superior within the Catholic Church than any other church regarding marriage, the sanctity of life or any other matter

The Catholic Church has been vilified because it refuses to yield one inch on the abortion issue. Prior to the Lambeth Conference in 1930 or so, every other Christian denomination considered artificial contraception a sin. Since that time, only the Catholic Church has stood it's ground. Granted, everyone and their mother thinks the Church is crazy, but to me it's indicative of Divine guidance. (On that note, it would be more interesting still to research how many Catholics are divorced who follow the Church's teachings regarding contraception)
Personally, I have never heard of a Protestant church refusing to marry a couple based on a prior marriage. However, I've known many Catholics who left the church because of the Church's refusal to marry them.

 

[PsyOps]

I return to my earlier post on the subject. Do you not believe that, for instance, losing patience with my children is a sin? Do you not believe that an uncharitable thought towards another person is a sin? Are you perfect? I'm guessing the answer is no. So the next question is, do you commit any/all of those sins mentioned in Proverbs each day? If you are a practicing Christian, I'm guessing the answer is no. So, what falls between the commission of these "deadly" sins and perfection? You and me. Anyone trying to grow in holiness and imitate Jesus Christ.
A mortal sin is a knowing and willful rejection of God's commands: stealing, adultery, murder (how about abortion).
Lastly, I provided Scripture to back up my position, and adultery and fornication was in that list Paul referred to in Corinthians, so how can you suggest that blasphemy is all there is?

Here is the question… For the sake of argument, if you were able to live a perfect life all your life, never sin but not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior would you go to heaven?

 

[libby]

Here is the question… For the sake of argument, if you were able to live a perfect life all your life, never sin but not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior would you go to heaven?[/Q

I'm going to take your question at face value and I would have to say "yes", that person is going to Heaven.
What do you say?

 

[PsyOps]

I'm not talking about whether or not people live as they should, I'm talking about the doctrine of the Church that says what it ought to be.

I’m seeing no difference between “whether or not people live as they should” and “doctrine that says what it ought to be”. Doesn’t doctrine tell us how we should live; how it ought to be?

There is at least a six month waiting period for engaged couples, before they can be married in the church. The church discourages interfaith marriages (it would be interesting to research how many divorced Catholics were married to Protestants and how many are with divorced when both are Catholic) An annulment is a very involved process and ultimately the annulment may not be granted.

I don’t have any problem with the 6 month waiting period. I think it’s a good idea, so folks can be given time to think about it. But, the Catholic Church goes beyond discouraging interfaith marriages. It forbids it, unless the marriage takes place in a Catholic Church and the non-Catholic commits to becoming Catholic. I have seen too many Catholics excommunicated for marrying someone outside their faith.

Everyone talks about annulment as "Catholic divorce", which is not at all accurate.

I haven’t said anything about annulments. But since you brought it up, I don’t know how you annul something that happened. It is, to me, an act of pretending something didn’t happen. Memories, pain, and children still exist from a marriage that was “annulled”. How do you erase all of those things?

The Catholic Church has been vilified because it refuses to yield one inch on the abortion issue. Prior to the Lambeth Conference in 1930 or so, every other Christian denomination considered artificial contraception a sin. Since that time, only the Catholic Church has stood it's ground. Granted, everyone and their mother thinks the Church is crazy, but to me it's indicative of Divine guidance. (On that note, it would be more interesting still to research how many Catholics are divorced who follow the Church's teachings regarding contraception)
Personally, I have never heard of a Protestant church refusing to marry a couple based on a prior marriage. However, I've known many Catholics who left the church because of the Church's refusal to marry them.

The perhaps you can explain whether Nancy Pelosi was given communion or not. She is in a position of authority; held in a higher standard of spiritual expectations. Yet she believes in legalizing abortion and still remains a member of the Catholic Church. The same goes for Joe Biden. Why is Notre Dame allowing Obama to speak there with his radical abortion position? It seems to me all the churches like to turn a ignorant eye away when it would look bad for them socially and politically. I have yet to see the Catholic Church take a hard stand against the many child molesters that have used your faith as a cover to commit their heinous crimes. I don’t see the Catholic Church remaining rock-solid on many issues. Again, this is a stab at all the churches. It seems so many of them are willing to do what is convenient and expedient for the time hoping no one will notice.

 

[libby]

I’m seeing no difference between “whether or not people live as they should” and “doctrine that says what it ought to be”. Doesn’t doctrine tell us how we should live; how it ought to be?



I don’t have any problem with the 6 month waiting period. I think it’s a good idea, so folks can be given time to think about it. But, the Catholic Church goes beyond discouraging interfaith marriages. It forbids it, unless the marriage takes place in a Catholic Church and the non-Catholic commits to becoming Catholic. I have seen too many Catholics excommunicated for marrying someone outside their faith.



I haven’t said anything about annulments. But since you brought it up, I don’t know how you annul something that happened. It is, to me, an act of pretending something didn’t happen. Memories, pain, and children still exist from a marriage that was “annulled”. How do you erase all of those things?



The perhaps you can explain whether Nancy Pelosi was given communion or not. She is in a position of authority; held in a higher standard of spiritual expectations. Yet she believes in legalizing abortion and still remains a member of the Catholic Church. The same goes for Joe Biden. Why is Notre Dame allowing Obama to speak there with his radical abortion position? It seems to me all the churches like to turn a ignorant eye away when it would look bad for them socially and politically. I have yet to see the Catholic Church take a hard stand against the many child molesters that have used your faith as a cover to commit their heinous crimes. I don’t see the Catholic Church remaining rock-solid on many issues. Again, this is a stab at all the churches. It seems so many of them are willing to do what is convenient and expedient for the time hoping no one will notice.

Unfortunately, I'm done for the day. I'll get to you tomorrow

 

[toppick08]

Unfortunately, I'm done for the day. I'll get to you tomorrow

.........we are brothers in Christ..........no matter what the man says.

 

[PsyOps]

I'm going to take your question at face value and I would have to say "yes", that person is going to Heaven.
What do you say?

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Romans 5:12

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:16-18

"the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:22-24

Because Adam and Eve were disobedient to God they became blemished. Every descendent (which includes all of us) are blemished. The only way to wipe this naturally-born blemish away is to accept Jesus. His blood washed it away; but only through our own commitment does this happen.

I heard it this way once... You have a cake pan. You bake your first cake and it comes out perfect. Then suddenly you drop the pan and it puts a big dent in it. How do you think every cake will come out after that?

 

[libby]

Because Adam and Eve were disobedient to God they became blemished. Every descendent (which includes all of us) are blemished. The only way to wipe this naturally-born blemish away is to accept Jesus. His blood washed it away; but only through our own commitment does this happen.

I heard it this way once... You have a cake pan. You bake your first cake and it comes out perfect. Then suddenly you drop the pan and it puts a big dent in it. How do you think every cake will come out after that?

So, is it your position that an unbaptized baby goes to hell based on the passages you cited?
That child cannot accept or believe.

 

[PsyOps]

So, is it your position that an unbaptized baby goes to hell based on the passages you cited?
That child cannot accept or believe.

Okay, you have to take everything I post in context and not weed out previous information.

I have stated in the past that when it comes to those are unable to make their conscious choice it is my assumption that God's grace is on them and that it is up to God to make that decision. Just the same as a severely mentally handicapped person that is unable to make that decision, I would like to think God has that person in his graces and will have a place for them.

It's clear in the Bible that you must make the choice to accept Jesus; that this choice is what saves you. Baptism does not save you. Not sinning does not save you. I believe I provided verses that support this. But the Bible does not talk about salvation for those that are unable to make that choice.

What the bible does not talk about is people that cannot make this choice, or people that have died before they were afforded the opportunity to hear and understand The Word. There are a lot of things that the Bible doesn't address when it comes to salvation. But one thing it is clear about is we are all born as sinners. And since The Word has been opened up to you, you must make a choice. If you don't know about God's Word whether it be because you are unable to make that choice due to your mental capacity or because The Word has not reached your ears yet, how can you possibly make that choice? Therefore I have to believe God has a plan for those people and we need not worry about them. We need to worry about us and our own salvation.

 

[libby]

Okay, you have to take everything I post in context and not weed out previous information.

I have stated in the past that when it comes to those are unable to make their conscious choice it is my assumption that God's grace is on them and that it is up to God to make that decision. Just the same as a severely mentally handicapped person that is unable to make that decision, I would like to think God has that person in his graces and will have a place for them.

It's clear in the Bible that you must make the choice to accept Jesus; that this choice is what saves you. Baptism does not save you. Not sinning does not save you. I believe I provided verses that support this. But the Bible does not talk about salvation for those that are unable to make that choice.

What the bible does not talk about is people that cannot make this choice, or people that have died before they were afforded the opportunity to hear and understand The Word. There are a lot of things that the Bible doesn't address when it comes to salvation. But one thing it is clear about is we are all born as sinners. And since The Word has been opened up to you, you must make a choice. If you don't know about God's Word whether it be because you are unable to make that choice due to your mental capacity or because The Word has not reached your ears yet, how can you possibly make that choice? Therefore I have to believe God has a plan for those people and we need not worry about them. We need to worry about us and our own salvation.

Well then, it sounds like we are 100% on the same page with regard to the salvation of children.
Now what about the example of the man who does not accept Jesus, but lives a perfect life? You seem to allude to it in this post, but I don't want to

weed out previous information.

and come to the wrong conclusion.

Based on my taking that question in good faith, and at face value, I said 'yes' I think he is saved. You seem to say otherwise

you must make the choice to accept Jesus; that this choice is what saves you. Baptism does not save you. Not sinning does not save you.

so it looks like we have to dig a little deeper.
As you said, did that man have an opportunity to learn of the one, true God? If not, my guess is that he is still saved, and you seem to agree. What we have to clear up here is whether or not that man is saved if he does hear the word of God, does not believe, but still lives a sinless life.
In short, sin is anything that is not the Will of God, correct? Is it God's Will that everyone accept His Son and be saved? Yep, we agree on this point. So if your example hears the word of God and does not sin, he must necessarily accept Jesus Christ and be saved; he commits no sin.

 

[libby]

we are all born as sinners

Baptism does not save you

you must make the choice to accept Jesus; that this choice is what saves you.

We are all born as sinners, yet we assume all babies are saved by the mercy of God.
Now this is going to segue into another point regarding baptism.

Newborn babes are sinners because we are all born that way. Even newborn babies need a savior, they are not sinless based on the passages you have referenced.
Do sinless people need a savior, and why?