How are infants justified before God?

As already stated - even Peter rejected the RC practice (that evolved over time) of baptizing infants.

And obviously - we have no example of such baptisms taking place for infants EVEN in the Baptisms that were done BEFORE the cross.

But what is "really interesting" is the RC confession of how they evolved this error. (Hmm "Evolved" and "Confession", evolution and the confessional - two other doctrines that the RC evolved - seem to fit right in here. But that is another story.)

Cath Digest article Parenthhesis mine in the quotes below from the June 1999 article.

Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

And then there is the RC Historian Thomas Bokenkotter AFFIRMING the evolutionary picture we see in the quotes above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ok - here it is.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Carson,

That is to misunderstand the Doctrine of Purgatory. It is our purgation, which is the work of Christ. This is our sanctification, which is essentially Christ making us holy, and Purgatory is taught explicitly by St. Paul in 1 Cor 3:15 and by Christ in Matthew 5:26. </font>[/QUOTE]Paul is teaching the principle of FAITH WORKS, the "Winning of souls for Crist", the "doing good unto your neighbor", the "giving drink to the thirsty", the "giving food to the hungry" and the "clothing of the naked". All of which Point one to God!

1 Cor 3:15 is not a stand alone verse of scripture. It certainly does not support Purge-atory! The Context for 1 Cor 3:15 is verses 8 through 23.

Neither does Matthew 5:26 speak of Purge-atory. The Context for verse 26 is verses 21 through 25.

Purge-atory is false doctrine!

 

You conveniently cut me off in mid-sentence. I had continued by saying also to bring them out of apostasy (the RCC). That allows for that proportion of Catholics who are Christians and the noble goal of bringing them out of Catholicism.

 

A perfect example of how infant Baptism - evolved in the RCC "over time".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hello, everyone. I'm sort of just jumping in here and backtracking a little. I noticed near the beginning of this thread that a question about how Baptists view the death/salvation of infant issue. Well, Baptists, like mosts denominations, run from the ultra-conservative legalists to almost antinomian liberals. But I think that the words of conservative Baptist pastor John MacArthur, Jr. would summerize the view of most conservative Baptists. Rather than quote him extensively, here are a couple of links to his thoughts on the subject which closly parallel my own thoughts:

The Salvation of Babies Who Die--Part 1
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-242.htm

The Salvation of Babies Who Die--Part 2
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-243.htm

Blessings,
Sreve

 

I don't believe Luther would say that. He would say, "Yes, the baby can believe."

John MacArther is misrepresenting the Lutheran position. Baptized babies are not saved by surrogate faith but by their own faith received of the Holy Spirit by the Word.

Lutherans do not deny that some children are saved without Baptism but not without the Word. The Holy Spirit does not create faith without means.

I believe that it is human pride that leads some parents to deny the gift of faith to their children. They believe that human reason is necessary to receive Christ, not faith alone.

 

What a silly notion, I know of no parent that would or even could deny their child of the child's own faith. That simply is not possible. Parents certainly shape a child's faith, but the child will have some semblance of faith inspite of it's parents. Truth revealed is that faith cometh by HEARING, and HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD! Infants can hear the word of God if it is read to them by a parent or caregiver. But they lack the cognitive skills with which to form faith (belief). The information is "implanted" in the mind of the child and will be available for recall to the child when the child is ready to use it! I have never witnessed any infant who demonstrates skills in believing the things of God other than "they are helpless by themselves, and require external support and care". Hence they cry when hungry, have messy or wet diaper, and experience physical discomfort. They cry because they are not able to form phrases with which to communicate to their caregiver what their specific needs are.

Scriptures repeatedly tell humans to believe, an action verb that says we humans are to do something with the information that we receive. To deny that we are to form opinions and to accept or reject information is to completely deny that Jesus, who is God, TOLD US TO DO SO, in accordance with the way HE MADE US!

Since believing is not something that is "implanted in humans" from an external source, it takes human reason to believe! Believing is entirely human (subdeity), Deity requires no believing!

Believing is entirely individual to the one who believes. Hense discussion BBSs where the beliefs of diverse persons are aired and argued.

As to receiving Christ, the term 'receiving' means believing, which is a totally individual human thing to do! I cannot receive Christ for you or anyone else, and You cannot receive Christ for me or anyone else. Receiving Christ is not a group effort either, though many can simultaneously receive Christ, they do not collectively receive Christ, but rather receive Him individually, among others who are also receiving Him.

Without Human reason, no human would have faith!