• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

How are infants justified before God?

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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.

"Tacking on a little here and dropping a bit there has never altered the essence of the sacrament itself, but by the middle ages, the rite had evolved into something very different from that used by the early Christians".


Pg 44 "go into the world and proclaim the gospel...whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. The new testament does not tell us how the apostles baptized, but, church historians say, most likely a candidate stood in a river or public bath and water was poured over his or her head. The person was asked : do you believe in the father? Do you believe in the son? Do you believe in the spirit? With each "yes" the candidate was immersed.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"


pg 45"half a century later the writer Tertullian gave a few more details. He talked about an anointing, a signing of the cross and an outstretched hand over the candidate. For those first centuries after Christ, the steps required to become baptized were not taken lightly. Often, they led to martyrdom"

"a candidate needed a sponsor, a member of the Christian community who could vouch for him or her. It was the sponsor who went to the bishop and testified that this was a good person. Then for years the sponsor worked, prayed, and fasted with the protege until the baptism"



"at that time, the catechumenate (coming from the greek word for instruction) had two parts. The first, a period of spiritual preparation, lasted about three years. The second began at the start of lent and included the routine of prayers, fasting, scrutinies and exorcisms.

(daily exorcisms didn't mean the candidate was possessed by the devil. Rather, he or she was in the grip of sin. The exorcisms were designed to help the individual break free)."


"Next the candidate was brought before the bishop and the presbyters (elders), while the sponsor was questioned. If the sponsor could state the candidate had no serious vices - then the bishop wrote the candidates name in the baptismal registry. More than a mere formality, this meant the candidate could be arrested or even killed if the "book of life" fell into the wrong hands"

"it was only gradually that the candidate was permitted to hear the creed or the our father. (and he or she was expected to memorize them and recite them for the bishop and the congreation)."



"after the new Christians emerged from the water and were dried off,
they were clothed in linen robes, which they would wear until the following sunday. Each new member of the community would then be handed a lighted candle and given the kiss of peace"


"often it was seen as the final trump card, to be played on one's deathbed, thus assuring a heavenly reward"


"it's important to keep in mind that the doctrine of baptism developed (evolved) over time. It was not easy, for instance, determining what to do with those who seriously sinned after baptism" pg 47

"coupled with that was the role of infant baptism. (rcc) scholars assume that when the 'whole households' were baptized, it included children, even very young ones"

"but again it was the development of the doctrine, such as st. Augustine's description of original sin in the fith century that eventually made infant baptism predominant. At that point

(read change), baptism was no longer seen as the beginning of moral life, but (it became viewed) a guarantee of accpetance into heaven after death.

"in the early (dark ages) middle ages when entire tribes in northern Europe were being converted, the whole clan was
baptized if the chief chose to be...by the end of the eighth century, what before had taken weeks (of preparation and process by
non infants) had been greatly abridged. Children received three exorcisms on the sundays before easter, and on holy
saturday;..youngsters were immersed three times."

"the rite was further abridged when the tradition of child or infant receiving communion at baptism fell into disfavor.

"and because baptism was now viewed as essential for acceptance into heaven, the church offered a shorter "emergency"
rite for infants in danger of death. By the beginning of the 11th century, some bishops and concils pointed out that infants
were always in danger of sudden death and began to encourage parents not to wait until holy saturday ceremony"


FE The Faith Explained (RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican ii).


"baptism is the means devised by Jesus to apply to each individual soul, the atonement which he made on the cross for original sin. (for all sin?). Jesus will
not force his gift upon us, the gift of supernatural life for which he paid. He holds the gift out to us hopefully, but each of us must freely accept
it. We make that acceptance by receiving (willingly) the sacrament of baptism" pg302

"whether it is the passive acceptance of the infant or the explicit acceptance of the adult - when the sacrament is administered the spiritual vacuum
which we call original sin - disappears as God becomes present in the soul" pg 302

"by baptism we are rescued from the spiritual death into which we were plunged by the sin of Adam. In baptism God united our soul to himself.
God's love-- the Holy Spirit -- poured into our soul to fill the spiritual vacuum that was the result of the original sin. As result of this intimate union with god,
our soul was elevated to a new kind of life, a supernatural life, a sharing in god's own life.

From then on it becomes our duty to preserve this divine life.(we call it 'sanctifying grace') within us; not only to preserve it, but to
deepen and intensify it. Pg 62

after baptism the only way we can be separated from God is our own deliberate rejection of God. That happens when in full consciousness
of what we are doing, deliberately and of our free choice we refuse
God our obedience in a serious matter. Pg 62 - 63
And then there is the RC Historian Thomas Bokenkotter AFFIRMING the evolutionary picture we see in the quotes above.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Ok - here it is.


Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the Old Testament priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule, for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"
In Christ,

Bob
 
Y

Yelsew

Guest
Carson,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />or imagined Christ's sacrifice was so useless that further purgation of sin after death was still necessary.
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.
1 Cor 3:8-23. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
10. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13. Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
18. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21. Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
22. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
23. And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.
Neither does Matthew 5:26 speak of Purge-atory. The Context for verse 26 is verses 21 through 25.
Matt 5:21-26. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Purge-atory is false doctrine!
 

Taufgesinnter

New Member
the only reason to discuss faith with a Catholic should be to bring him to Christ

Your statement implies that you believe I haven't been brought to Christ when all the while, I have been preaching Christ on this board. How are you able to judge my heart so quickly, which is an action specifically forbidden by our Lord?

It bespeaks of a prejudice, which is fundamentally ignorant of Catholic doctrine, and I am here to help. I will be patient with your questions, and I am glad to answer your misconceptions and grow in dialogue. This is a wonderful reason to communicate with me, a Catholic, over this web board. [/QB]
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.
 

Carson Weber

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Taufgesinnter,

I don't know if you recognize this or not, but you've sidestepped the discussion completely and changed it into a small commentary on how you believe the Catholic Church is apostate, which is very odd method of dialogue. That's all and well that you think that about Catholicism (several of my Catholic theology professors thought so at one point in the past as well when they were still Anti-Catholic Protestants), but it hardly advances our dialogue or addresses the Biblical arguments that I have set forward in my posts above.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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
 

John Gilmore

New Member
Originally posted by Steven O. Sawyer:
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
Somebody else will come at this point and say, “Ah yes but, God is gracious, but only to baptized babies.” This is right…this is Lutheranism. We certainly have much to thank Martin Luther for, but infant baptism isn’t one of the things. Luther’s catechism says this: “Baptism worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives everlasting salvation to all who believe as the word of the promise of God declare.” Well, the baby can’t believe and that’s where Luther jumped in and said, “Well, surrogate faith on the part of his parents is rendered in his behalf. So, baptized babies will be saved.” The Lutheran Augsburg Confession says of baptism, “Lutherans teach that it is necessary to salvation and that by baptism the grace of God is offered and that children are to be baptized, who by baptism, being offered to God, are received into God’s favor.”
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.
 
Y

Yelsew

Guest
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!
 

John Gilmore

New Member
Originally posted by Yelsew:
Without Human reason, no human would have faith!
I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. Luther's Small Catechism
For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.
Augsburg Confession
 
Top