Are there Catholics and Orthodox that are practicing and saved?

[Alive in Christ]

Thinkingstuff...

"Just out of curiosity is it double talk if a Calvinist says that if you're not displaying works you never were a christian?"

There most certainly is legalism and the adding of works to the gospel in protestantism and evangelicalism.

But nothing even in the same universe as cultic groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, The Catholic Church and the Orthodox.

In the true christian world, its a little bit of legalism here, a little bit of works there, a bit of error over here, and before long there is a problem. Its unfortunate, but it happens. Thankfully, we all turn to the scriptures alone as our truth source, and as a result it never turns into a centuries long overflow of wickedness on top of more wickedness, and blasphemy on top of more blaphemy, etc etc etc. Gods "checks and balances" sytem works.

On the other hand, in groups like the JW's, Mormons, Catholics and Orthodox its a concerted, dedicated, well thought out, orchestrated plan to DELIBERATLY place their comdemnation and curse upon the true gospel of Jesus Christ...

Justification through faith in Christ alone.

...so that they can continue to trap their victims in their web of wicked legalism, mysticism, goddess worship, dead liturgy, dead sacramentalism, heirarchial control and oppression, praying to people who can not hear nor answer, "magic" trickets and incantations, etc etc etc.

Big BIG difference.


:godisgood:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff...



There most certainly is legalism and the adding of works to the gospel in protestantism and evangelicalism.

But nothing even in the same universe as cultic groups like the Jehovahs Witnesses, The Catholic Church and the Orthodox.

In the true christian world, its a little bit of legalism here, a little bit of works there, a bit of error over here, and before long there is a problem. Its unfortunate, but it happens. Thankfully, we all turn to the scriptures alone as our truth source, and as a result it never turns into a centuries long overflow of wickedness on top of more wickedness, and blasphemy on top of more blaphemy, etc etc etc. Gods "checks and balances" sytem works.

On the other hand, in groups like the JW's, Mormons, Catholics and Orthodox its a concerted, dedicated, well thought out, orchestrated plan to DELIBERATLY place their comdemnation and curse upon the true gospel of Jesus Christ...

Justification through faith in Christ alone.

...so that they can continue to trap their victims in their web of wicked legalism, mysticism, goddess worship, dead liturgy, dead sacramentalism, heirarchial control and oppression, praying to people who can not hear nor answer, "magic" trickets and incantations, etc etc etc.

Big BIG difference.


:godisgood:

Well if this is how you view the RCC and the OC then you can't in any fashion believe this :

That said...I DO agree that it is *possible* for practicing Catholics or Orthodox to possess saving faith and be born of the Spirit. (saved)

Though note Catholics and Orthodox both believe Justification is from Christ alone. Its in their literature its what they talk about ad infinitum. Certainly they talk about symbols etc... But isn't the Temple, and the tent of Meeting in the OT full of symbolism as well? Didn't the Jews of Jesus day practice a liturgy? If you look at the temple it was full of symbolism to "attract" people to God and remember what he did for them. A study of the temple shows many things that you might classify as above. Yet God instructed them to do such and such in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.

 

[Allan]

Just out of curiosity is it double talk if a Calvinist says that if you're not displaying works you never were a christian?

No.
Good works are the RESULT of savlation not the means nor one of the means OF/FOR salvation. Good works do not increase our chances to be saved, nor does it add to the work of Christ that absolutely saves. Good works follow and are the evidence of those who lives have been changed and sins forgiven. Thus if a person lacks good works it is a good 'guess' they might not be saved. I say might not because we can not know for certain but scripture does state that good works procede from those who ARE saved.

 

[Allan]

Though note Catholics and Orthodox both believe Justification is from Christ alone.

This is true with regard to where our justification comes 'from'. However our justification is not only from Christ, but He IS our very justification and not only 'is' currently but He is ours perpetually.

Now the question to ask is 'what does that justification mean biblically' and what does it ential? This is this one of reasons protestants differ from Catholics and Orthodox. It isn't enough to ask 'what they believe (regarding any religious view) but we need to ask a second question that is even more important than the first - "what do they mean regarding it".?
'

ts in their literature its what they talk about ad infinitum. Certainly they talk about symbols etc... But isn't the Temple, and the tent of Meeting in the OT full of symbolism as well? Didn't the Jews of Jesus day practice a liturgy? If you look at the temple it was full of symbolism to "attract" people to God and remember what he did for them. A study of the temple shows many things that you might classify as above. Yet God instructed them to do such and such in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy.

True, but all thost symbols in the OT were given to the people by God as visable testimony of what is to come and now that it has transpired 'we' have become the new symbols/testimonies of what has indeed come to pass.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Now the question to ask is 'what does that justification mean biblically' and what does it ential? This is this one of reasons protestants differ from Catholics and Orthodox. It isn't enough to ask 'what they believe (regarding any religious view) but we need to ask a second question that is even more important than the first - "what do they mean regarding it".?

I can't speak for Catholicism, since Catholics aren't allowed to defend themselves here, but from an Orthodox perspective, we are incapable of 'justifying' ourselves.

We are made righteous by God’s grace as a gift (Romans 3:24). Jesus died in the flesh because our sins had corrupted human nature. Jesus heals human nature by His life and death. He was raised from the dead in order to make us righteous (Romans 4:25). It is only because of God’s free grace and love for us that we are made righteous, that our sins are forgiven, and that we become heirs of eternal life (Titus 3:7)…The Christian life consists of making the righteousness of Christ to be our personal righteousness by uniting ourselves to Him.

Justification is therefore Christ’s restoration to humanity - through His incarnation, death, and resurrection - of our potential for immortality and communion with God. It's the act whereby God forgives the sins of a believer and begins to transform him/her into a righteous person. Through Christ we no longer face eternal separation from God, but can be united to Him both now and for eternity.

Moreover, we Orthodox not have in view any sharp differentiation between justification and sanctification (the process of growth in Christ whereby the believer is made holy as God is holy, through the Holy Spirit)…Orthodoxy links sanctification and justification together, just as St. Paul does in 1 Corinthians 6:11: ‘You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.’

The references to justification in the opening chapters of Romans (for example 3:20, 24, 28), we understand in the light of Romans 6:4-10, which describe our radical incorporation through baptism into Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.

Salvation is not a single event in our past life but an ongoing process of growth in Christ. It is not simply to turn our face in the right direction and to take the first step on our journey, but it is to continue walking until by God’s grace we attain our journey’s end.

Hope that helps

In XC

 

[Matt Black]

According to Orthodox soteriology, how does one appropriate justification ie: how does one have applied to oneself what Christ has achieved?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

According to Orthodox soteriology, how does one appropriate justification ie: how does one have applied to oneself what Christ has achieved?

Hi Matt, See if this article will answer any questions, as my knowledge of Orthodox soteriology wouldn't do justice.

Beyond Justification: An Orthodox Perspective

In XC
-

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I'm a math person, so from an equation standpoint, the Scripture teaches ...

grace + faith = salvation + good works

not just ...

grace + faith = salvation

If the good works are not there, then one has to question whether the grace + faith is really there -- in other words, is the salvation genuine?

The problem is when good works gets thrown on the other side of the equation ...

grace + faith + good works = salvation

 

[annsni]

I'm a math person, so from an equation standpoint, the Scripture teaches ...

grace + faith = salvation + good works

not just ...

grace + faith = salvation

If the good works are not there, then one has to question whether the grace + faith is really there -- in other words, is the salvation genuine?

The problem is when good works gets thrown on the other side of the equation ...

grace + faith + good works = salvation

Very good straight forward explanation. Good job. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Hi Matt, See if this article will answer any questions, as my knowledge of Orthodox soteriology wouldn't do justice.

Beyond Justification: An Orthodox Perspective

In XC
-

Let's look at it. Right from the horse's mouth:

The East’s insistence on infant baptism and simultaneous denial of original guilt is possible because Orthodoxy rejects Augustine’s leap of logic regarding the purpose of infant baptism – the remission of sins. The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins. However, that is not the only effect of baptism. As Carl Volz has noted for the Lutheran practice of infant baptism,[19] it grafts the baptized person, including infants, onto the Body of Christ and confers the gift of the Holy Spirit. This existential, ecclesiological understanding of baptism is clear in Chrysostom’s Third Baptismal Instruction, where he states: Although many men think that the only gift [baptism] confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.[20]

This is borne out in the differing sacramental practices of the Western and Eastern Churches. The West, both Catholic and Lutheran, traditionally has withheld chrismation (or confirmation) and Holy Communion for some years after baptism, and frequently separates confirmation and communion from each other by several years as well. This sacramental practice is consistent with a soteriology which distinguishes between justification (baptism) and sanctification (chrismation or confirmation).[21] However, the Eastern Church has continued the early Church’s practice of regarding baptism and chrismation as one rite of initiation – remission of sins and concurrently the beginning of sanctification, i.e., incorporation into both the Body of Christ and the life of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, as Patriarch Jeremias noted,[22] the Orthodox Church acts sacramentally in a manner consistent with this theology: the baptized person, even if an infant, is incorporated into the full sacramental and spiritual life of the Church, i.e., the Orthodox Church communes baptized infants as full members of the Church.

Summed up: Baptism = justification. When an infant is baptized that infant's sins are washed away and he is justified. This is heresy. It has nothing to do with grace and faith equal to salvation. An infant cannot put their faith in Christ. Baptismal regeneration is one of earliest heresies of the early churches.


What was said earlier in the document was even more enlightening:

The absence in Eastern Christianity of a soteriology in terms of forensic justification is serious because Orthodoxy believes not only in ecumenism across geographical space, but especially “ecumenism in time”, i.e., the need to be consistent with the theological tradition of the Church from the earliest centuries.[2] Thus, the traditional Orthodox mind is immediately suspicious of biblical interpretations that have little or no root in the early life and theology of the Church; this is true in spades of particularly the forensic notion of justification, and of its consequent bifurcation of faith and works. Sola scriptura means little to the Orthodox, who as opposed to placing Scripture over the Church, have a full sense of Scripture’s crucial but interrelated place within the Church’s continuing life: the apostolic church communities which produced many of the books of the New Testament, the communities of the catholic Church which over a period of centuries determined which books circulating through various communities truly encapsulated the elements of the apostolic faith; the dogmas and Creed declared by the whole Church in response to the frequent controversies over the nature of the Trinity and of the theanthropos Jesus Christ, controversies which frequently arose precisely from dueling perspectives of which biblical texts were normative and of how those texts should be interpreted.

Let's examine what has been said here:
1. "The absence in Eastern Christianity of a soteriology in terms of forensic justification is serious..."
--No truer words could be said.

2."because Orthodoxy believes not only in ecumenism across geographical space, but especially “ecumenism in time”, i.e., the need to be consistent with the theological tradition of the Church from the earliest centuries."
--Note that convenience is more important than the study of the Scriptures. It is more important to be in sync with everyone rather than to be in agreement with the Scriptures.

3. "Thus, the traditional Orthodox mind is immediately suspicious of biblical interpretations that have little or no root in the early life and theology of the Church"
--They are suspicious of those who study the Bible because they must be "in sync" with their own elders, never wandering outside of what they believe to be the "true" church, which in reality was never true at all. They would have known that had they studied the Scriptures.

4. this is true in spades of particularly the forensic notion of justification, and of its consequent bifurcation of faith and works.
--Romans 5:1 teaches that a man is justified by faith. Period. Not by works, but by faith. If the Eastern Church had studied their Bibles they would have known that. Eph.2:8,9 is also very clear on this matter.

5. Sola scriptura means little to the Orthodox, who as opposed to placing Scripture over the Church,
--Again, a study of the Scripture is demeaned. The Bible is not their authority. Rather they have some other authority such as the ECF. It is not the Bible; they have rejected it, as this tenet implies. Sola Scriptures simply teaches that the Bible becomes the final authority for all matters in faith and doctrine. God is the final arbitrator, not man. In the Orthodox Church it is man that makes the decisions, thus the doctrine is man-made doctrine, not necessarily Biblical.
--Note also they have put the "Church" over the Scriptures, meaning that their man-made organization that they call a church, is more important than God's revelation to man--the Scriptures.

6. have a full sense of Scripture’s crucial but interrelated place within the Church’s continuing life:
--Translation: The Eastern Church has a full sense of Scripture's inferior place within the Church's continuing life, always being subject to the Church. The Bible is inferior. This is not surprising when the Church does not believe in sola scriptura and believes that justification is granted on the basis of infant baptism. It also has admitted freely and candidly that "The absence in Eastern Christianity of a soteriology in terms of forensic justification is serious..."

 

[DHK]

7. And lastly:
"the apostolic church communities which produced many of the books of the New Testament, the communities of the catholic Church which over a period of centuries determined which books circulating through various communities truly encapsulated the elements of the apostolic faith; the dogmas and Creed declared by the whole Church in response to the frequent controversies over the nature of the Trinity and of the theanthropos Jesus Christ, controversies which frequently arose precisely from dueling perspectives of which biblical texts were normative and of how those texts should be interpreted."

--The pompousness, the arrogance, the foolishness of the Orthodox Church raises its ugly head here, as it unwisely tries to take credit for: the doctrine of the trinity, the canonicity of the Bible, the human nature of Christ, and other such doctrines which they have determined. What mockery is displayed here.

These doctrines are plainly taught in the NT by the apostles themselves. They were well known by believers of the early church well apart from both the RCC and the Orthodox who pride themselves in claiming things that they have no right to. The Bible stands alone; was canonized shortly after the death of John at the end of the first century. If the apostles were not intelligent enough to know what books were inspired Scripture and which were not, then who was? Certainly not the RCC, and the likes! The apostles taught the early believers which books were inspired. The Scripture was canonized almost as it was completed. They didn't have to wait for an ungodly organization such as the RCC or the Orthodox to do it for them.

What is justification? How does one have their sins remitted.
The Orthodox says it is through baptism (even infant baptism)
The Bible says that only the blood of Christ can wash away sins.
I believe the Bible.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Summed up: Baptism = justification. When an infant is baptized that infant's sins are washed away and he is justified. This is heresy. It has nothing to do with grace and faith equal to salvation. An infant cannot put their faith in Christ. Baptismal regeneration is one of earliest heresies of the early churches.

DHK! Did they teach reading comprehension in Canada? I may be educated in the Tennessee public school system, but goodness, my 8 year-old can do a better job than you.

The article plainly states that Orthodoxy REJECTS Augustine’s purpose of infant baptism as the remission of sins. Note DHK…Augustine is a ROMAN CATHOLIC FATHER…

Furthermore, the article states that although the Orthodox baptizes infants, they are without sin, but are baptized for further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.

1. "The absence in Eastern Christianity of a soteriology in terms of forensic justification is serious..."
--No truer words could be said.

You conveniently left out a key word DHK…BECAUSE…try again DHK.

2."because Orthodoxy believes not only in ecumenism across geographical space, but especially (ecumenism in time), i.e., the need to be consistent with the theological tradition of the Church from the earliest centuries."
--Note that convenience is more important than the study of the Scriptures. It is more important to be in sync with everyone rather than to be in agreement with the Scriptures.

Yes, I agree, the reason why Orthodoxy is True and has remained True for 2000 years, unlike your protestant denomination is b/c they’ve remained consistent with the theological tradition of the Church…after all DHK, Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all Truth and remind them of all things until the end of the world.

3. "Thus, the traditional Orthodox mind is immediately suspicious of biblical interpretations that have little or no root in the early life and theology of the Church"
--They are suspicious of those who study the Bible because they must be "in sync" with their own elders, never wandering outside of what they believe to be the "true" church, which in reality was never true at all. They would have known that had they studied the Scriptures.

Obviously looking at Protestantism including your own sect, I would say the Orthodox Church has this correct. 2,000 years and still counting…

5. Sola scriptura means little to the Orthodox, who as opposed to placing Scripture over the Church,
--Again, a study of the Scripture is demeaned. The Bible is not their authority. Rather they have some other authority such as the ECF. It is not the Bible; they have rejected it, as this tenet implies. Sola Scriptures simply teaches that the Bible becomes the final authority for all matters in faith and doctrine. God is the final arbitrator, not man. In the Orthodox Church it is man that makes the decisions, thus the doctrine is man-made doctrine, not necessarily Biblical.
--Note also they have put the "Church" over the Scriptures, meaning that their man-made organization that they call a church, is more important than God's revelation to man--the Scriptures.

First the Church is the authority and is where the Holy Spirit resides. Christ established a CHURCH DHK, a C-H-U-R-C-H…a CHURCH DHK, not a Bible…the Orthodox Church established the Bible, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

6. have a full sense of Scripture’s crucial but interrelated place within the Church’s continuing life:
--Translation: The Eastern Church has a full sense of Scripture's inferior place within the Church's continuing life, always being subject to the Church. The Bible is inferior. This is not surprising when the Church does not believe in sola scriptura and believes that justification is granted on the basis of infant baptism. It also has admitted freely and candidly that "The absence in Eastern Christianity of a soteriology in terms of forensic justification is serious..."

Translation: DHK needs some serious reading comprehension skills…maybe some online classes are in order…

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

DHK! Did they teach reading comprehension in Canada? I may be educated in the Tennessee public school system, but goodness, my 8 year-old can do a better job than you.

The article plainly states that Orthodoxy REJECTS Augustine’s purpose of infant baptism as the remission of sins. Note DHK…Augustine is a ROMAN CATHOLIC FATHER…

Furthermore, the article states that although the Orthodox baptizes infants, they are without sin, but are baptized for further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.

Either you don't read well or you are being deliberately misleading. Which is it? Let me quote very plainly and succinctly:

The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins.

Are you still going to deny the Orthodox's teaching of baptismal regeneration? My reading skills are not in question here.

You conveniently left out a key word DHK…BECAUSE…try again DHK.

No, I did not leave it out. It is continued in the next post. The truth remains.
"The absence in Eastern Christianity of a soteriology in terms of forensic justification is serious."
Your own writers state this; why should you argue against it?

Yes, I agree, the reason why Orthodoxy is True and has remained True for 2000 years, unlike your protestant denomination is b/c they’ve remained consistent with the theological tradition of the Church…after all DHK, Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all Truth and remind them of all things until the end of the world.

You don't agree. That is not what I said, not even close.
First, the Orthodox Church is a man-made institution that came into existence at the time of The Schism in 1054. Though you realize that you hate to admit it. Before that date the Orthodox Church did not exist. It was the RCC. Thus it is false for you to speak of your "organization" being in existence for 2000 years. BTW, your organization can in no way be defined as a "church" in any Biblical sense.
Second, Christ never promised the Orthodox Organization anything, but hell and damnation unless they accept Christ as Saviour by faith and faith alone.
Third, being consistent with Tradition means absolutely nothing. Are you consistent with Biblical doctrine? The answer is no.

Obviously looking at Protestantism including your own sect, I would say the Orthodox Church has this correct. 2,000 years and still counting…

Your math is wrong. Where, from 1025 to 2009 do you get 2000 years?
Being consistent with Tradition is not being consistent at all. Tradition changes as the wind changes. It is the Bible that endures forever and never changes. We stand on the unchanging Word of God, the solid rock of Christ, not the sinking sand of tradition in which one can only drown.

First the Church is the authority and is where the Holy Spirit resides. Christ established a CHURCH DHK, a C-H-U-R-C-H…a CHURCH DHK, not a Bible…the Orthodox Church established the Bible, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You have a man-made organization, not a church. Do you understand "ekklesia"? It does not mean Orthodox Organization, does it? It has no semblance of meaning to it. Yet ekklesia is the word that is translated church in the Bible. Our doctrine is established by the Bible. We understand the nature of the church by the Bible, not through some man-made organization run by some group of head-honchos at the top of what you call the Orthodox Church.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Either you don't read well or you are being deliberately misleading. Which is it? Let me quote very plainly and succinctly: The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins.

Talk about misleading...here's what you said DHK...When an infant is baptized that infant's sins are washed away and he is justified

That's NOT true DHK, the article says that infants are sinless, so when you say the Orthodox baptize infants for their sins, you are being deliberately misleading.

Reading Comprehension DHK...

In XC
-

 

[Surfer Joe]

DHK, you are right that an infant cannot exercise their faith in order to be saved. But you forget that God can put faith within that infant and it can be manifest when the child is older. This I believe, is a Calvinist idea.

Also, you seem to have a disrespect for Christ's Church. The Church is very important; the Church decided what books were to be included in the canon. The Bible didn't tell the Church what books to include in the canon. And before you or anyone else accuse me of not believing in the Bible, I do. I just happen to recognize the importance of the Church as well.

 

[Surfer Joe]

Talk about misleading...here's what you said DHK...When an infant is baptized that infant's sins are washed away and he is justified

That's NOT true DHK, the article says that infants are sinless, so when you say the Orthodox baptize infants for their sins, you are being deliberately misleading.

Reading Comprehension DHK...

In XC
-

You better be careful. DHK doesn't like dissenters...

 

[DHK]

Talk about misleading...here's what you said DHK...When an infant is baptized that infant's sins are washed away and he is justified

That's NOT true DHK, the article says that infants are sinless, so when you say the Orthodox baptize infants for their sins, you are being deliberately misleading.

Reading Comprehension DHK...

In XC
-

Agnus. It was a direct word for word quote. If there is any reading comprehension it is on your part. No matter what you say the Orthodox believe I quoted what they believe and you are saying that what I quoted is not true. Let me quote it again:

The Eastern Church of course recognizes the importance of baptism in washing away one’s personal sins.

What part of that statement do you not understand? It is a direct quote from the link that you gave.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

First, the Orthodox Church is a man-made institution that came into existence at the time of The Schism in 1054. Though you realize that you hate to admit it. Before that date the Orthodox Church did not exist. It was the RCC.

Is this what they taught you in seminary…assuming you went to seminary, even if you did, looks like there was no reading comprehension…they told you what to believe…

The Orthodox Church wasn’t born out of The Roman Catholic Church in 1054…where on earth do you get this…wait Jack Chick…David Cloud or Dave Hunt, where these your texts in seminary? Pray not…

There were 5 Patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem…The bishop of Rome in 1054 excommunicated the Bishop of Constantinople (actually the Bishop had died before the bull was delivered, but that’s a little too much history for you DHK…we need to keep this remedial).

As a result of this schism in 1054, the See of Rome became known as the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ and the remaining Sees became known as the ‘Eastern Orthodox Church’.

Later in the 1500’s we see yet another split…the Reformation from the Roman Catholic Church…this produced the thousands of Protestant Denominations including your sect…Baptist.

Clear as mud DHK? I can only dumb this down so far…

In XC
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Agnus. It was a direct word for word quote. If there is any reading comprehension it is on your part. No matter what you say the Orthodox believe I quoted what they believe and you are saying that what I quoted is not true. Let me quote it again:


What part of that statement do you not understand? It is a direct quote from the link that you gave.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

You’re moving the goal post DHK, yes the article says that baptism is the washing away one’s personal sins, BUT NOT IN REGARD TO INFANTS…you said infants have their sins washed away in Baptism…That’s NOT TRUE.

Re-Read the article and report to the class why the Orthodox Church Baptizes infants…

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

DHK, you are right that an infant cannot exercise their faith in order to be saved. But you forget that God can put faith within that infant and it can be manifest when the child is older. This I believe, is a Calvinist idea.

God can do anything. He is omnipotent. But He doesn't do anything. He doesn't do that which is against His nature. He doesn't do that which is against His Word. He doesn't contradict Himself.
To say that God would put faith in an infant would contradict the very words of the Scriptures which God wrote. He gave man the free will to choose between good and evil. An infant has no will to choose between good and evil. It is impossible for him to have faith--no matter what your faith is.

Also, you seem to have a disrespect for Christ's Church.

Define Christ's Church. You attend the UCC. Is that "Christ's Church? No, it is not. If you have been influenced by the COC teaching on ecclesiology than I can see why you may be confused on what the church is.

The Church is very important; the Church decided what books were to be included in the canon. The Bible didn't tell the Church what books to include in the canon. And before you or anyone else accuse me of not believing in the Bible, I do. I just happen to recognize the importance of the Church as well.

There were churches long before there was any concept of a universal church. Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established over 100 churches. His epistles were written to churches, not "the church," and to pastors of churches, not "the church." It was the early believers, members of actual believers who preserved the word of God. The apostles had taught them which were inspired and which were not.

Some use the Majority Text, presumably because the majority of the "churches" used those particular texts. They didn't have to depend on the RCC or the Orthodox for the preservation of the Scriptures.
One needs to recognize the importance of the "churches" throughout history.