Question on Justification

[Dominus Fidelis]

Hey PRE brethren! :wave:

I have a question about your beliefs on justification.

It is my understanding from studies on Luther that he taught that justification is a "forensic," "imputation" of the "alien righteousness of Christ" that does not change the believer inwardly.

Luther illustrated this by the image of a "dung heap covered by snow".

Is this the modern day understanding of Protestants?

(I realize its somewhat inaccurate to lump everyone under the term "Protestants," but it was the easiest way to ask the question and alternate understandings are welcome.)

Thanks for your information!

:)

[II Paradox II]

It is my understanding from studies on Luther that he taught that justification is a "forensic," "imputation" of the "alien righteousness of Christ" that does not change the believer inwardly.
a few thoughts:

1) Justification in classical protestant theology is an alien righteousness imputed to the believer by grace through faith. I'm not sure though that Luther would've taught it the way you mentioned. In his sermon, "Two Kinds of Righteousness", he lays out a pretty good overview of his teaching.

"There are two kinds of Christian righteousness, just as man’s sin is of two kinds. The first is alien righteousness, that is the righteousness of another, instilled from without. This is the righteousness of Christ by which he justifies though faith, as it is written in I Cor. 1:30... The second kind of righteousness is our proper righteousness, not because we alone work it, but because we work with that first and alien righteousness. This is that manner of life spent profitably in good works...This righteousness is the product of the righteousness of the first type, actually its fruit and consequence"
http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html (http://www.mcm.edu/%7Eeppleyd/luther.html)

The more systematic categories of justification and sanctification were developed later than this, though they express roughly the same idea, just with different terminology.

2) Again, in classical protestant theology, the primary referent of justification is the alien righteousness of christ by which we are made right with God. However, as you are probably aware, justification is not equivalent to salvation, but it is a subset of it along with glorification, sanctification, regeneration and union with Christ. So while it is true that justification is not the primary agent of change in the believer, it is a part of it and salvation as a whole includes the change of heart and life.

ken

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks Paradox...

I am a bit confused now...you said that justification is not equivalent to salvation in Protestant thought. I was under the impression that they were equivalent...once I am justified by Christ's alien righteousness, I am saved.

Is that not the case?

Thanks again!

[theologia crucis]

I've got to get to work, but for Lutherans, justification=salvation. Regeneration happens at conversion (bestowal of faith), from which justification immediately follows, and good works immediately follow justification. Sanctification only occurs AFTER we are justified (and that's a once and for all thing, unless we later reject it).

There are other immediate effects during justification (indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc.), but I don't have time to hit those...

Gotta get to work on time!

[Flipper]

I apologize that my question is very simple sounding, but my understanding is that one is "saved" when one realizes the meaning of justification. Or is it that we are all "saved" unless we flat out reject Christ?

[Dominus Fidelis]

I've got to get to work, but for Lutherans, justification=salvation. Regeneration happens at conversion (bestowal of faith), from which justification immediately follows, and good works immediately follow justification. Sanctification only occurs AFTER we are justified (and that's a once and for all thing, unless we later reject it).

There are other immediate effects during justification (indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc.), but I don't have time to hit those...

Gotta get to work on time!

Thanks! Thats what I thought Luther taught...

Now, is this the modern day understanding of Protestants that are not Lutherans?

Come on people, the rest of you can answer me, I'm just asking to understand your beliefs better. I'm not going to spring some trap on you or something... :angel:

[InquisitorKind]

I am a bit confused now...you said that justification is not equivalent to salvation in Protestant thought. I was under the impression that they were equivalent...once I am justified by Christ's alien righteousness, I am saved.

Is that not the case?
The person is saved in the sense that they are in the process of salvation--they're going to enter Heaven. Just because something dies after immediately being justified and still goes to Heaven doesn't mean that salvation and justification are to be equated.

Now, is this the modern day understanding of Protestants that are not Lutherans?
As was related during our formal debate, salvation is a process, where as justification is a one-time event during that process. I can't speak for theologia crucis but I don't believe that the understanding put forth by him is in conflict with what other Protestants, such as II Paradox II and myself, believe concerning this subject.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask.

~Matt

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks Matt. I guess I just don't understand the idea that salvation and justification are different, when at the same time you say a justified person is saved.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the justified/saved person is then put through a process of being sanctified after this one-time declaration of Christ's righteousness?

[Jason1646]

I apologize that my question is very simple sounding, but my understanding is that one is "saved" when one realizes the meaning of justification. Or is it that we are all "saved" unless we flat out reject Christ?
Salvation is spoken of in past, present, and future. We are saved from the guilt and penalty of our sin at the time of Justification, we are being saved by the power of sin in Sanctification, and we will be saved from the presence of sin in Glorification. Since salvation intends our glorification, we will not be saved in the fullest sense of the term until the new heavens and the new earth.

Regards,

~Jason

[Lotar]

Justification is not the same thing as salvation, but once you are justified, you will be saved. They are seperate events though, since we do not technically recieve salvation until we die.

In many conversations they are interchangable terms though. Many people use the term, "saved" instead of "justified" but mean the same thing.

It is my understanding from studies on Luther that he taught that justification is a "forensic," "imputation" of the "alien righteousness of Christ" that does not change the believer inwardly.

When a person recieves God's grace they are regenerated, after which there is the battle between the flesh and the spirit, which Paul talks about. So the believer is changed inwardly.
Christ's righteousness is imputed into us, which means we are justified by His righteousness and not by any deeds of our own.

[InquisitorKind]

Thanks Matt. I guess I just don't understand the idea that salvation and justification are different, when at the same time you say a justified person is saved.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the justified/saved person is then put through a process of being sanctified after this one-time declaration of Christ's righteousness?
I don't appreciate that the terminology isn't always clear regarding issues of salvation. In general Protestants should be more careful with their choice of words regarding this matter, which is why it's so important to define what we're referring to when we discuss such things--some people just don't know the difference.

Contrasting "saved" vs. "being sanctified after this one-time declaration," I would certainly pick the latter as more accurate. The former simply confuses the two concepts, as the tense only relates a past action.

~Matt

[Dominus Fidelis]

I don't appreciate that the terminology isn't always clear regarding issues of salvation. In general Protestants should be more careful with their choice of words regarding this matter, which is why it's so important to define what we're referring to when we discuss such things--some people just don't know the difference.

Contrasting "saved" vs. "being sanctified after this one-time declaration," I would certainly pick the latter as more accurate. The former simply confuses the two concepts, as the tense only relates a past action.

~Matt

Thanks Matt.

Another question, if ya'll don't mind...

How does God choose who to save? If this is all God's doing by giving us this alien righteousness at the instant of justification, and nothing preceding this justification merits it (which is the same as Catholics believe, by the way), why aren't all people saved? This would support Calvinistic ideas it seems.

[Dominus Fidelis]

Justification is not the same thing as salvation, but once you are justified, you will be saved.

What if you kill someone in a rage, after you are justified, or is that not possible?

[Lotar]

What if you kill someone in a rage, after you are justified, or is that not possible?
This is a subject that is going to get us debating :D

I believe that a person can lose their salvation, though not because of any one sin. If someone thought, "I can do what I want and God will forgive me, so I'm just going to go kill this guy" I would say they have lost their salvation and are no longer justified. Some would say he was never justified to begin with.

But it is still possible for Christians to sin as even though we are regenerated, we still have to battle with our carnal selves, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." So if a Christian were to kill someone in a fit of rage, and realize what they have done and be repentant, they would not lose their salvation. Those who trust in Christ alone are not justified by their actions, neither good nor sinful.

[PNG]

How does God choose who to save? If this is all God's doing by giving us this alien righteousness at the instant of justification, and nothing preceding this justification merits it (which is the same as Catholics believe, by the way), why aren't all people saved? This would support Calvinistic ideas it seems.

Defens,

How God chooses whom to save depends on who you ask, of course. Calvinists have an answer, as you indicated, and if I may presume to speak for that camp, we would say that we don’t really know how or on what basis God chooses one person and not another, except to say that He does have reasons for His decisions and that they aren’t to be found in the recipients of divine grace. I’m afraid I don’t quite understand the second question, namely how one would reach a conclusion that if redemption is all God’s doing from start to finish that this would imply all people would be saved. Maybe you can clarify?

What if you kill someone in a rage, after you are justified, or is that not possible?

I think most Protestants, certainly Calvinists, would say that justification is the work of God and is permanent, in light of the fact that the Atonement put away all sin, past, present and future, and that reality is concretized at the moment Christ’s righteousness is applied to the account of the believer.

[II Paradox II]

I am a bit confused now...you said that justification is not equivalent to salvation in Protestant thought. I was under the impression that they were equivalent...once I am justified by Christ's alien righteousness, I am saved.
As the others have said, it's a little bit of a fuzzy issue. Salvation, broadly speaking is a catch-all term for all that God accomplishes in his elect to bring them to peace with himself. The reason why justification in particular is thought almost to be to the whole of salvation is because in both Catholic thought and Protestant thought it *is* portrayed as the crux of what it means to be saved (as opposed to say, the idea of theosis for the eastern orthodox... a concept western theology shares to some degree, but without the central role it plays in the east in favor of our common juridical heritage in the west). However, this difference in relative importance should not be taken as an endorsement of the fact that justification is all there is, because that isn't the case. I suspect that the reductionist approach to this question has much more to do with populist religion than and actual theological roots in the reformation itself.

As far as Luther goes, I'm not sure exactly, but I think the distinction I'm making was more common with later reformed theologians, not with Luther himself. He, as usual, is much harder to pin down than someone like Calvin...

ken

[II Paradox II]

How does God choose who to save? If this is all God's doing by giving us this alien righteousness at the instant of justification, and nothing preceding this justification merits it (which is the same as Catholics believe, by the way), why aren't all people saved? This would support Calvinistic ideas it seems.
It certainly does move one towards a more "calvinist" position with regards to election. However, I should add that many of the most dominant Catholic theologians (Augustine and Aquinas in particular) who constructed the catholic doctrine of justification also believe that God elects people on the basis of His will ante praevisa merita (without reference to their merit). So while a concept of alien righteousness does push one towards a position like this, it is not a foregone conclusion any more than accepting a concept of merit will push one towards Molinism. As history has shown, there are mixtures of every position represented at one point or another...

ken

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks everyone for the great responses!


I’m afraid I don’t quite understand the second question, namely how one would reach a conclusion that if redemption is all God’s doing from start to finish that this would imply all people would be saved. Maybe you can clarify?


I was refering to the idea that God is all-good, all-loving, and wants to save everyone. If that is true, and some people are not saved, then that means God is either not powerful enough (not true obviously), or that something else is involved...namely freewill of humans to reject Him.

Make sense?

[Dominus Fidelis]

I think most Protestants, certainly Calvinists, would say that justification is the work of God and is permanent, in light of the fact that the Atonement put away all sin, past, present and future, and that reality is concretized at the moment Christ’s righteousness is applied to the account of the believer.


Ok, I have to be careful not to debate, but I think its ok to ask...

How does this belief jive with the teachings in the Gospels/Epistles that we must "endure to the end to be saved".

Much thanks!

[Jason1646]

Thanks everyone for the great responses!



I was refering to the idea that God is all-good, all-loving, and wants to save everyone. If that is true, and some people are not saved, then that means God is either not powerful enough (not true obviously), or that something else is involved...namely freewill of humans to reject Him.

Make sense?
Defens0rFidei,

Two things. First, to claim that God must save everyone to be all loving is to impose a definition of love upon God rather than to have our notion of love be fashioned by Himself. In other words, the question begins with an autonomous determination of what all loving would look like and then demands that God fit within that conception. Hence, I reject the premise to begin with.

As far as free will is concerned, that's another glacial thread in itself. Suffice to say that what is usually targeted in free will discussions is the issue of responsibility. To that end I would say that nothing more is required for a creature to be responsible than it chooses according to its will, no matter how much that will may be influenced by external factors. Knowing that God is all powerful and has every right as the Potter over the clay, we can readily see how God can be sovereign and man can be responsible without any internal contradiction.

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason

[Reformationist]

Thanks Paradox...

I am a bit confused now...you said that justification is not equivalent to salvation in Protestant thought. I was under the impression that they were equivalent...once I am justified by Christ's alien righteousness, I am saved.

Is that not the case?

Thanks again!
Justification and salvation can be distinguished but never separated. So, on the one hand, to be justified in the eyes of God is "equivalent" to being saved because all who are justified will be saved and all who are saved are justified. However, it is important that we don't lump them together in a way that suggests they are different ways of saying the same thing. This is the case with the term "regeneration" as well.

God bless

[Reformationist]

Thanks! Thats what I thought Luther taught...

Now, is this the modern day understanding of Protestants that are not Lutherans?

Come on people, the rest of you can answer me, I'm just asking to understand your beliefs better. I'm not going to spring some trap on you or something... :angel:
There is no spiritual time gap between regeneration and justification just as there is not spiritual time gap between regeneration and faith. There is a temporal order to these imputations but not an actual one.

For instance, faith is dependent upon regeneration and so regeneration proceeds faith, in the temporal sense. However, the minute we are regenerated we are given the gift of faith. Likewise, in the temporal sense, justification is dependent upon faith, not faith upon justification. Again, though, they are simultaneously given to the person.

God bless

[Dominus Fidelis]

There is no spiritual time gap between regeneration and justification just as there is not spiritual time gap between regeneration and faith. There is a temporal order to these imputations but not an actual one.

For instance, faith is dependent upon regeneration and so regeneration proceeds faith, in the temporal sense. However, the minute we are regenerated we are given the gift of faith. Likewise, in the temporal sense, justification is dependent upon faith, not faith upon justification. Again, though, they are simultaneously given to the person.

God bless

Thanks Ref...and "Hi" by the way, its me your old buddy s0uljah :wave:

Anyway, do you think its possible for a person to be pulled to God slowly, and not get the gift of faith/regeneration at one instance?

(I ask because that is what I think happened to me...I felt pulled to God for years, and my interest in God grew slowly, even if I didn't believe totally, until I was finally given a sure faith one day at Mass)

[Reformationist]

How does God choose who to save?
He has not revealed that to us. The acrostic T.U.L.I.P. is often misleading on many of it's points but it is kept because if it's fluidity. The letter that refers to the issue you address is the U. The U refers to God's unconditional election. As I said, this can be misleading. It is not unconditional in the sense that there is no condition for being elected. It's just that the condition is not something found in us. That is to say that the condition for our salvation is found in the pleasure and goodwill of God and is a sovereign decree.

If this is all God's doing by giving us this alien righteousness at the instant of justification, and nothing preceding this justification merits it (which is the same as Catholics believe, by the way), why aren't all people saved?
Again, it's not accurate to say that nothing proceeds it. We are justified by the obedience of Christ. This vicarious obedience is credited, or imputed, to us the the God given grace of faith. So our justification is merited. It's just not merited by us.

God bless

[Dominus Fidelis]

Defens0rFidei,

Two things. First, to claim that God must save everyone to be all loving is to impose a definition of love upon God rather than to have our notion of love be fashioned by Himself. In other words, the question begins with an autonomous determination of what all loving would look like and then demands that God fit within that conception. Hence, I reject the premise to begin with.

You are free to reject it, but I dont believe I am forming my picture of God from my picture of love, on the contrary, I think I know what love is because of God's example.

Like for instance, I have two little babies. If I love them, I want both of them to have a good life and give both an equal chance in life. I think God feels the same way about everyone of us.

[Reformationist]

Thanks Ref...and "Hi" by the way, its me your old buddy s0uljah :wave:
:eek: :eek: :o :o WHAT??!! Please don't take this the wrong way but, um,...I never would have guessed that. God has been good to you. Your conduct as Defens0rFidei, at least what I've been exposed to, is a testement to your faith.

Anyway, do you think its possible for a person to be pulled to God slowly, and not get the gift of faith/regeneration at one instance?
I imagine that God could do it that way. He doesn't. But I would say that He could if He desired to.

(I ask because that is what I think happened to me...I felt pulled to God for years, and my interest in God grew slowly, even if I didn't believe totally, until I was finally given a sure faith one day at Mass)
Well, I certainly do not know your history with God as you do so I don't doubt that's how it felt to you. However, think back to when you were first truly interested in God and share why you were interested. I will acknowledge that people's conversion from death unto life by the sovereign power of God isn't always like a shotgun bang but it's pretty definite. You either believe or you don't. There is no real in between. Even when you question something about God you must acknowledge whether your questions are motivated by mere curiosity at the Christian view, which is not of faith, or a desire to learn about your Creator, the response of faith.

God bless and welcome back (even though you've been here for a while),
Don

[Dominus Fidelis]

WHAT??!! Please don't take this the wrong way but, um,...I never would have guessed that. God has been good to you. Your conduct as Defens0rFidei, at least what I've been exposed to, is a testement to your faith.


LOL, its all good...I have had time to settle into my faith now... :)

[II Paradox II]

Like for instance, I have two little babies. If I love them, I want both of them to have a good life and give both an equal chance in life. I think God feels the same way about everyone of us.
What do you think of Catholic theories of predestination that emphasize the principle of predilection (no one is any better than anyone else unless they are more loved by God)?

ken

[Jason1646]

Like for instance, I have two little babies. If I love them, I want both of them to have a good life and give both an equal chance in life. I think God feels the same way about everyone of us.

I don't think so.

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Romans 9:10 - 13)

~Jason

[Reformationist]

Like for instance, I have two little babies. If I love them, I want both of them to have a good life and give both an equal chance in life. I think God feels the same way about everyone of us.
D0F, this example of babies is often given because babies are the closest example we are able to come up with of someone who is innocent of the wrath of God. Unfortunately, I think that is seeking to understand the righteousness of God from a purely emotional perspective. Believe me, I have three children, and I pray that God has mercy on them. However, from a theological standpoint, I am in no position to question the mercy of God. If His Word says that all have sinned and none are worthy then I have to accept on faith that that is true, even if it means that I have to accept that my children, whom I dearly love, don't deserve the mercy of God. If I can accept that they don't deserve His mercy and instead do deserve His wrath then I am not at liberty to question His wrath against those who transgress against Him, even if it's my child. I truly pray that won't happen but if it does I cannot call the holiness of God into question.

Part of the reason I would disagree with your above analogy is that, despite all humanity's common Creator, we are not born as children of God. We are born as children of our father, the devil. Apart from the regenerating grace of God we walk according to the prince of the power of the air, satan. Many heathens would deny it but their denial doesn't make it untrue. We are made children of God by His grace in rebirthing us in His Son. We are not born as His little children whom He desires to give a good life to. Those who are blessed with His grace and made His child are no more worthy than those who aren't. Any good life we, as Christians, experience is due to the benevolence of our Father.

We don't deserve a good life. We deserve death. Those who get a "good life" get it at the mercy of God. Those who get death are the recipients of justice.

God bless

[Greeter]

You are free to reject it, but I dont believe I am forming my picture of God from my picture of love, on the contrary, I think I know what love is because of God's example.

Like for instance, I have two little babies. If I love them, I want both of them to have a good life and give both an equal chance in life. I think God feels the same way about everyone of us.
The catch is you are a finite being limited by time while God is an infinite being unbound by time. When we look at a baby we can only see the child's life up until that point. We are unable to view the life as a whole involving every possibility. When we view a baby we are unable to view all the sins that person will do. We view the child as innocent while God is able to see the entire picture and see what we can't, that none of us are worthy, no matter how "innocent" we may appear. :)

[orthedoxy]

D0F, this example of babies is often given because babies are the closest example we are able to come up with of someone who is innocent of the wrath of God. Unfortunately, I think that is seeking to understand the righteousness of God from a purely emotional perspective. Believe me, I have three children, and I pray that God has mercy on them. However, from a theological standpoint, I am in no position to question the mercy of God. If His Word says that all have sinned and none are worthy then I have to accept on faith that that is true, even if it means that I have to accept that my children, whom I dearly love, don't deserve the mercy of God. If I can accept that they don't deserve His mercy and instead do deserve His wrath then I am not at liberty to question His wrath against those who transgress against Him, even if it's my child. I truly pray that won't happen but if it does I cannot call the holiness of God into question.

Part of the reason I would disagree with your above analogy is that, despite all humanity's common Creator, we are not born as children of God. We are born as children of our father, the devil. Apart from the regenerating grace of God we walk according to the prince of the power of the air, satan. Many heathens would deny it but their denial doesn't make it untrue. We are made children of God by His grace in rebirthing us in His Son. We are not born as His little children whom He desires to give a good life to. Those who are blessed with His grace and made His child are no more worthy than those who aren't. Any good life we, as Christians, experience is due to the benevolence of our Father.

We don't deserve a good life. We deserve death. Those who get a "good life" get it at the mercy of God. Those who get death are the recipients of justice.

God bless
What sins have infants done deserving eternal fire damnation?
What if an infant’s father is a believing Christian (the child of God) why doesn't that infant inherent the faith of his father? Why is he still guilty of the sin of Adam?

[Greeter]

What sins have infants done deserving eternal fire damnation?
From our POV, or God's? I have had contact with many people and yet I am rarely aware of what sins they have committed that causes them to be deserving of fire damnation. That even goes for people I have known for years. I don't think any of us could even come close to predicting what sins a newborn will be guilty of, unless we use the parents as guidelines.


What if an infant’s father is a believing Christian (the child of God) why doesn't that infant inherent the faith of his father? Why is he still guilty of the sin of Adam?
I don't know of what scripture relates to it, but someone recently told me that there is something in scripture about paying for the sins of the father, even possibly going back a couple of generations. I haven't gotten around to researching it to see if that is correct but since it has come up maybe someone here at CF knows of it and can point it out for me. :)

[Reformationist]

What sins have infants done deserving eternal fire damnation?

I never said that infants have done anything deserving eternal damnation.

What if an infant?s father is a believing Christian (the child of God) why doesn't that infant inherent the faith of his father?

Well, just for the record, I am a covenantalist Christian. I believe that God has established a covenant with His people. This is not to say that all Christians will have children who are obedient Christians. However, I believe the covenant that God has established includes our descendants. Our responsibility is to raise them as Christians believing they are part of that covenant community. My job as their parent doesn't change based on their response. I am to raise them in godliness regardless of whether they ever believe.

As to your question, I don't have a clue. I am not aware that God has bound Himself to such a law.

Why is he still guilty of the sin of Adam?

All people are born guilty. That's what makes grace so gracious. I'm not sure what your question is. Are you asking why, despite the death of Christ, my child may be guilty of the sin of Adam? Well, first off, I don't know who God's elect are. Hopefully the Lord will continue to bless my house and have included my children in His covenant. Secondly, the idea of all people being freed from the stain of Adam by the death of Christ is unbiblical. So, God forbid, if my children's sins were not atoned for by Christ then they will make their own atonement. I am still learning about what promises were made to God's covenant community though.

God bless

[Bulldog]

All people are born guilty. That's what makes grace so gracious. I'm not sure what your question is. Are you asking why, despite the death of Christ, my child may be guilty of the sin of Adam? Well, first off, I don't know who God's elect are. Hopefully the Lord will continue to bless my house and have included my children in His covenant. Secondly, the idea of all people being freed from the stain of Adam by the death of Christ is unbiblical. So, God forbid, if my children's sins were not atoned for by Christ then they will make their own atonement. I am still learning about what promises were made to God's covenant community though.

God bless

I think what orthedoxy was asking is why is: Why is the child born guilty of the sins of Adam if he has not sinned?

[Reformationist]

I think what orthedoxy was asking is why is: Why is the child born guilty of the sins of Adam if he has not sinned?

Why is the child born guilty of the sins of Adam if the child has not sinned? Because God created Adam as the progenitor of the human race and as such the representative head. Mankind, being represented by Adam, incurred the penalty for Adam's sin. Adam was the representative of the entire human race. Adam disobeyed God, thus, the entire human race was guilty before God.

God bless

[Dominus Fidelis]

The catch is you are a finite being limited by time while God is an infinite being unbound by time. When we look at a baby we can only see the child's life up until that point. We are unable to view the life as a whole involving every possibility. When we view a baby we are unable to view all the sins that person will do. We view the child as innocent while God is able to see the entire picture and see what we can't, that none of us are worthy, no matter how "innocent" we may appear. :)

Wait...are you saying that what the person does has something to do with their salvation?

:scratch:

[orthedoxy]

Why is the child born guilty of the sins of Adam if the child has not sinned? Because God created Adam as the progenitor of the human race and as such the representative head. Mankind, being represented by Adam, incurred the penalty for Adam's sin. Adam was the representative of the entire human race. Adam disobeyed God, thus, the entire human race was guilty before God.

God bless

If babies are guilty of the sin of Adam then doesn't that mean they will go to hell unless they are old enough to believe?
Are infants guilty of something they didn't do?
I was trying to ask if you can inherent Adams guilt, why can't you inherent the righteousness of your father?

[Greeter]

Wait...are you saying that what the person does has something to do with their salvation?

:scratch:
Nope, just pointing out that our perception of "innocence" is a limited one. :)

[Reformationist]

If babies are guilty of the sin of Adam then doesn't that mean they will go to hell unless they are old enough to believe?
What does how old they are have to do with anything? We aren't saved because we believe. If we were then that would make salvation the product of merit found in us and make belief a work worthy of redemption.

Are infants guilty of something they didn't do?
The transmission of a sinful nature is not the only thing that was propagated to the progeny of Adam. By Adam's transgression we are all, as a creation, guilty before God. Do the orthodox teach that only a sinful nature was passed on but not the guilt for the transgression?

I was trying to ask if you can inherent Adams guilt, why can't you inherent the righteousness of your father?
Because my father (I'm assuming you mean my earthly father) isn't my representative before God.

God bless

[Dominus Fidelis]

Ref-

Are you saying "belief" is a work?

Thanks

[Reformationist]

Ref-

Are you saying "belief" is a work?

Thanks
My apologies. I mean that believing in God would become prerequisite condition for our regeneration.

God bless

[orthedoxy]

What does how old they are have to do with anything? We aren't saved because we believe. If we were then that would make salvation the product of merit found in us and make belief a work worthy of redemption.


The transmission of a sinful nature is not the only thing that was propagated to the progeny of Adam. By Adam's transgression we are all, as a creation, guilty before God. Do the orthodox teach that only a sinful nature was passed on but not the guilt for the transgression?


Because my father (I'm assuming you mean my earthly father) isn't my representative before God.

God bless


If I understand you correctly you are saying infants are going to hell because of what Adam did. Am I right? I’m not debating this issue I just want to understand you view.
I have two infants and I would have a problem with this doctrine.
Would you say it's fare that you are sent to prison because your earthly father killed a person?
Is God fare from man point of view?

Here is what Orthodox believe regarding original sin
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm
If you have any question you can come to The Ancient Way and ask.

[allieisme]

What do you mean by Christ's alien righteousness?



Thanks Paradox...

I am a bit confused now...you said that justification is not equivalent to salvation in Protestant thought. I was under the impression that they were equivalent...once I am justified by Christ's alien righteousness, I am saved.

Is that not the case?

Thanks again!

[Lotar]

Infants are sinfull, just as adults are. Ever read St. Augustine's The Confessions? He does a good job of showing that even infants sin. We make allowances for what is and is not acceptable behavior at different ages, but does God?

[II Paradox II]

What do you mean by Christ's alien righteousness?
It means that the righteousness is Christ's, not your's intrinsically. In reformational theology you are justified on account of Christ's righteousness imputed to you, a righteousness that is Christ's by nature, yet given to you for justification. This is opposed to the catholic idea which has righteousness infused into your soul, on the basis of which you are justified before God.

ken

[Reformationist]

If I understand you correctly you are saying infants are going to hell because of what Adam did. Am I right? I’m not debating this issue I just want to understand you view.
No, I'm saying all, to include infants, are guilty before God. Where they go depends on whether or not Christ atoned for their sins.

I have two infants and I would have a problem with this doctrine.
That is probably only one of many of my beliefs you would take issue with. I think your problem stems from your emotional attachment to your children and it causes you to value your children more than the glory of God. I can anticipate that you will ask me how it glorifies God to send infants to hell and I hope I can forestall that question by telling you that, as the Bible does not specifically speak of the eternal destination of infants who die, I can only tell you that wherever they go it is the righteous place for them to go to. I pray that you do not think I am a child hater. I have three children of my own whom I love dearly and pray for their safe delivery into the hands of God. However, I must separate my emotional baggage about the salvation of children from what the Bible actually says. The Bible actually says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that the wages of sin are death. Therefore, from a theological perspective I am forced to acknowledge that God, if He so chose, would be completely justified in sending any and all, to include infants, to hell.

Would you say it's fare that you are sent to prison because your earthly father killed a person?
Is the judge that sentenced me there the omniscient Creator of all things created? If not then the point you are obviously trying to make is moot.

Is God fare from man point of view?
I'm not sure what you mean but I will tell you, from experience with life and the Word, that man is inherently self centered and anything that obstructs their appropriation of paradise is considered, by them, to be unfair. That doesn't mean it is unfair. It's just how we look at it.

Here is what Orthodox believe regarding original sin
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm
If you have any question you can come to The Ancient Way and ask.
Thanks.

God bless

[Reformationist]

Infants are sinfull, just as adults are. Ever read St. Augustine's The Confessions? He does a good job of showing that even infants sin. We make allowances for what is and is not acceptable behavior at different ages, but does God?
No. There is the absolute holiness and sinlessness of God and then there are those who deserve eternal condemnation. I think you're exactly right. Too often we ascribe fairness/unfairness based on what we think is fair or unfair rather than on the holy standard of our Creator. All sin is an abomination to the Lord, regardless of who commits it. Many will say that babies aren't held accountable for their sins because they don't know any better. The Bible never purports such a thing. That is based entirely on our view of the inherent value of the creation rather than on the magnificent mercy and glory of a holy God.

God bless

[orthedoxy]

It means that the righteousness is Christ's, not your's intrinsically. In reformational theology you are justified on account of Christ's righteousness imputed to you, a righteousness that is Christ's by nature, yet given to you for justification. This is opposed to the catholic idea which has righteousness infused into your soul, on the basis of which you are justified before God.

ken
Catholic view is we become holy or righteous it's not we are only declared righteous. When referring to God's word it uses words such as "cleansed" 1john1:7,9 "purged" Heb 1:3, "blotted out" Act 3:19, "washed away"Act 22:16,and "new creature"2cor 5:17.
Also Rom 2:13 the doer of the law shall be justified. so justification is ongoing like salvation(not a one time action).
Would you agree with the Catholic view that man becomes righteous not merely declared righteous?

Reformationist i don’t think infants has committed any sins deserving eternal fire. What sin has a three-month-old infant done deserving hell? What commandment have they broke ?I look at my Boy being holy, protected by God, he is pure

[InquisitorKind]

What sin has a three-month-old infant done deserving hell? What commandment have they broke ?I look at my Boy being holy, protected by God, he is pure
What does God's word say about infants? (Psalm 51:5) What does it say about all people, without making any exceptions, even for babies? (Romans 3:1-20) I'm surprised that a member of the most ancient and apostolic Church would look to his own judgment as ultimate instead of turning to God's.

~Matt

[Lotar]

Catholic view is we become holy or righteous it's not we are only declared righteous. When referring to God's word it uses words such as "cleansed" 1john1:7,9 "purged" Heb 1:3, "blotted out" Act 3:19, "washed away"Act 22:16,and "new creature"2cor 5:17.
Also Rom 2:13 the doer of the law shall be justified. so justification is ongoing like salvation(not a one time action).
Would you agree with the Catholic view that man becomes righteous not merely declared righteous?
That is taken out of context, Paul is talking about being justified by the law. If you can keep the law, you will be justified, this is true, but Christ is the only one who ever could keep the law.

Romans 2:1-29
Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest.
For we know that the judgment of God is, according to truth, against them that do such things.
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such things, and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? Knowest thou not, that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance?
But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.
Who will render to every man according to his works.
To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life:
But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.
Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek.
But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For there is no respect of persons with God.
For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves:
Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
But if thou art called a Jew and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
And knowest his will, and approvest the more profitable things, being instructed by the law,
Art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,
An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law.
Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest not thyself: thou that preachest that men should not steal, stealest:
Thou that sayest, men should not commit adultery, committest adultery: thou that abhorrest idols, committest sacrilege:
Thou that makest thy boast of the law, by transgression of the law dishonourest God.
(For the name of God through you is blasphemed among the Gentiles, as it is written.)
Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
If, then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, shall not this uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
And shall not that which by nature is uncircumcision, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?
For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly; nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, that is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

But if we read on to chapter 3, and indeed, the whole theme of this book is that we cannot become justified by the law, only by faith in Jesus Christ.


Romans 3:27-28
Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.


Reformationist i don’t think infants has committed any sins deserving eternal fire. What sin has a three-month-old infant done deserving hell? What commandment have they broke ?I look at my Boy being holy, protected by God, he is pure

Perhaps when I get home I will quote to you some of the book I mentioned earlier. Think of it this way, everyone has sinned and everyone includes infants., and any sin is enough to separate us from God.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.


Even those who have not yet heard the law are responsible for it, because it is written in their conscience. (Romans 2:12-15)


You deem you child holy because you love him and do not blame him for the sins he commits. God is holy and takes offense to any sin, no matter who it is who commits it. If your child were 20 and acted as selfishly as he does now as a baby, would you not ascribe it to him as sin? Do you think God makes exceptions for age?

[II Paradox II]

Catholic view is we become holy or righteous it's not we are only declared righteous. When referring to God's word it uses words such as "cleansed" 1john1:7,9 "purged" Heb 1:3, "blotted out" Act 3:19, "washed away"Act 22:16,and "new creature"2cor 5:17.
Also Rom 2:13 the doer of the law shall be justified. so justification is ongoing like salvation(not a one time action).
yeah, that's what I said. Saying that grace is infused into the soul for justification is just a technical way of saying what you just said.

Would you agree with the Catholic view that man becomes righteous not merely declared righteous?
Are you asking whether I agree with the entire doctrine of justification according to western catholics? If so, then no, I don't. I do agree that God pours grace into our souls which cleanses and changes us through the word and sacrament, but I don't agree with the catholics that this can be the ground of our justification.

ken

[Reformationist]

I look at my Boy being holy, protected by God, he is pure

Wow. Well, I guess that's one way of looking at children. :eek:

I love my children dearly but "holy" isn't a word that comes to my mind when I see my youngest tossing food across the room or trying to rip off the dogs ears.

God bless

[Reformationist]

yeah, that's what I said. Saying that grace is infused into the soul for justification is just a technical way of saying what you just said.

Ken, I was thinking this exact same thing when I read that. I thought I was just getting tired. :D

God bless

[Dominus Fidelis]

I guess I just don't understand the mindset that thinks it is a just act to send a 3 month old baby to Hell for the "sins he commits."

If I am being "emotional" in this sentiment, perhaps others are being legalistic, ignoring the spirit of the law in favor of the letter of the law?

http://www.indianchild.com/images/baby12a.jpg

Ok...so maybe a three month old is evil...how about a newborn?

Is a newborn also worthy of Hell?

http://www.indianchild.com/images/baby9a.jpg

:eek:

[Greeter]

You forget, God is able to see us in our entirety, including our entire life.

The babies look "innocent" to us, but only because we are limited in our perception.

DOF, these are not new concepts to you. We have all been over this in the past. Your post above doesn't look like you wish to learn anything, but rather that you wish to disrespect us and our beliefs.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that since you put your condemnation in the form of a question that you are safe under the rules.

[Dominus Fidelis]

You forget, God is able to see us in our entirety, including our entire life.

But you said what we do in our entire life makes no difference to our salvation...so why do you keep offering this as an explanation?

PS

No condemnation, sorry that you took it that way. I am honestly looking for a logical explanation. If that offends you, I will take my questions to some other protestants with the hope of getting a satisfactory answer.

[Greeter]

But you said what we do in our entire life makes no difference to our salvation...so why do you keep offering this as an explanation?

Simple, to help you see that they are not as innocent as you would like to believe. If you realize that, maybe you will not find our beliefs so difficult.


PS

No condemnation, sorry that you took it that way. I am honestly looking for a logical explanation. If that offends you, I will take my questions to some other protestants with the hope of getting a satisfactory answer.
:rolleyes:

[Dominus Fidelis]

Alright, well this is turning ugly, so I will take my leave of your forum...

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All



Not to jump in at the end of the infant discussion, But I think this is most often debated for good reason. I agree with Don and how he approaches this issue for all of us that are parents this is not easy. That being said God after all is God whom am I to second guess the ultimate being.



I believe that all Infants whom die under any of the circumstances that have been discussed here are of the elect of God. I see good scriptural support of this in the Live of David.



the words of Charles Spurgeon:

"Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinist Proper is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere in some corner of the earth, a miscreant who would dare to say that there were infants in hell, but I have never met with him, nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person! We say with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little, and therefore, where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically, but I think I speak for the entire body or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions and those unknown to me when I say we hold that all infants who die are elect of God and are therefore saved! We look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine! I believe that the Lord Jesus who said, ‘Of such is the kingdom of heaven,’ doth daily and constantly receive into his loving arms, those tender ones who are only shown and then snatched away to heaven.”



For His Glory Alone!:clap:



BBAS

[Reformationist]

I guess I just don't understand the mindset that thinks it is a just act to send a 3 month old baby to Hell for the "sins he commits."

If I am being "emotional" in this sentiment, perhaps others are being legalistic, ignoring the spirit of the law in favor of the letter of the law?

Ok...so maybe a three month old is evil...how about a newborn?

Is a newborn also worthy of Hell?

:eek:
D0F, I'm not going to justify this with a response other than to say that you efforts here are misdirected. I don't think that babies are any worse than any other person. I think we are all inherently sinful and, by nature, children of wrath. I think babies are beautiful and a gift from God. You need not paint me to be some sadistic child hater.

I do not think that a baby is guilty before God by virtue of the sins they commit. I think they're guilty before God because the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no provision made to exclude any of created humanity from this all inclusive statement because all of created humanity are the subject of that verse. Despite the problem I have with this emotionally I must acknowledge that all are sinful in the eyes of the Lord and thus all are in need of a Savior. If there is anyone who is born sinless then there are people that don't need a Savior and that is a direct violation of too much Scripture to ignore.

God bless

[orthedoxy]

Reformationist does all mean all in 1tim 2:6 "he gave himself a ransom for all.
why does all mean all only when you want it?
2thes3:10 "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat"
how would you explain 2thes3:10 do we starve our kids because they can't work?

psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
this doesn't say the infants are sinful only in the niv which is wrong.
Lotar my child is holy because the bible says so.
Icor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Are the only verses for infants being sinful rom 3:23 and psalm 51:5?

If you believe children are going to hell you should at least baptize them to wash away their original sin.
Matthew 19:13-14
Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
How could the kingdom of God belong to infants when they are born with the guilt of original sin?

[danceforjoy]

Catholic view is we become holy or righteous it's not we are only declared righteous. When referring to God's word it uses words such as "cleansed" 1john1:7,9 "purged" Heb 1:3, "blotted out" Act 3:19, "washed away"Act 22:16,and "new creature"2cor 5:17.
Also Rom 2:13 the doer of the law shall be justified. so justification is ongoing like salvation(not a one time action).
Would you agree with the Catholic view that man becomes righteous not merely declared righteous?

Reformationist i don’t think infants has committed any sins deserving eternal fire. What sin has a three-month-old infant done deserving hell? What commandment have they broke ?I look at my Boy being holy, protected by God, he is pure

Since when are we owners of Christ's righteousness? We have become servants of it because of our love response to the Gospel, the sufferings of Christ in our behalf. (see Romans 6:18) Servants are not Masters!

Here is another phase of Justification to think about:
1.Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

For the one who truly seeks God through Christ Jesus, they are already sanctified and there is no judgment to confirm a persons worthiness, Investigative or other wise.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Ro 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Ro 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Please tell me what you see wrong with my quoting because I built two errors into it
Rolf

[Reformationist]

Reformationist does all mean all in 1tim 2:6 "he gave himself a ransom for all.
There are a number of different ways in which "all" can be interpreted in that verse. One of them is all people ever created. Another is men of every tribe and nation but not every tribe and nation as a whole.

why does all mean all only when you want it?
Wow. That's mature.

2thes3:10 "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat"
how would you explain 2thes3:10 do we starve our kids because they can't work?
orthodoxy, since you seem to be so keen on arguing against my understandings of the contextual applications of these seemingly universal words, why don't you explain how you understand these words when you come accross them.

psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
this doesn't say the infants are sinful only in the niv which is wrong.
Hey, well, that works. I hereby label everything that disagrees with me...wrong. That will help you always be right, at least in your own mind.

Lotar my child is holy because the bible says so.
Icor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
Um...what is Icor 7:14

Are the only verses for infants being sinful rom 3:23 and psalm 51:5?

If you believe children are going to hell you should at least baptize them to wash away their original sin.
Matthew 19:13-14
Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
How could the kingdom of God belong to infants when they are born with the guilt of original sin?
Are you asking me or Lotar?

[orthedoxy]

orthodoxy, since you seem to be so keen on arguing against my understandings of the contextual applications of these seemingly universal words, why don't you explain how you understand these words when you come accross them.

all i'm saying the all have sined in rom 3:23 doesn't include infants just like when the bible says "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" doesn't apply to infants.

[Lotar]

Lotar my child is holy because the bible says so.
Icor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. It says because of your faith they are holy. If you or your spouse had no faith, and did not baptized their child, they would be unclean. That is why this verse says, "Otherwise your children would be unclean."



Are the only verses for infants being sinful rom 3:23 and psalm 51:5?
psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
this doesn't say the infants are sinful only in the niv which is wrong.

The KJV:
Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

The NAS:
Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Which version in your opinion is correct? They all say the same, that we are born sinful.

As for Romans, how could it mean anything different.


If you believe children are going to hell you should at least baptize them to wash away their original sin.

And we do, so what's your point?



Matthew 19:13-14
Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
How could the kingdom of God belong to infants when they are born with the guilt of original sin?

Mark 10:15
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."


Because it is through the faith of a child that we are saved.

[Reformationist]

all i'm saying the all have sined in rom 3:23 doesn't include infants just like when the bible says "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" doesn't apply to infants.
Okay. So, as I asked before, how do you determine the limitations of these "universal" words? Clearly you don't think that words like "all," and "world" always mean everyone yet you clearly do think they are all inclusive at other times. On top of all that, you castigate me when I seek to apply these "universal" words in a manner that you find offensive. So, in light of that, I'm curious how you determine when "all" means "every single person ever created" and when it means something else. The same goes for world. I'm not familiar with the beliefs of your faith but I would guess that you believe John 3:16 uses "world" in an all encompassing universal manner, right? If so, what is it that helps you define it that way? I'm sure you don't think "world" always means "every person ever created," right?

Also, you didn't answer my question. I asked what Icor 7:14 is. Did I just misread that verse reference?

God bless

[Reformationist]

And we do, so what's your point?
Do Lutherans believe that water baptism atones for/removes the stain of original sin?

Mark 10:15
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."


Because it is through the faith of a child that we are saved.
Do you actually mean "it is through the faith of a child that we are saved" or are you just saying that saving faith is childlike in that it trusts implicitly?

God bless

[Lotar]

Do Lutherans believe that water baptism atones for/removes the stain of original sin?

Q. Why do Lutherans baptize infants?

A. Lutherans baptize infants because of what the Bible teaches regarding:

1.) God's command to baptize (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). There is not a single passage in Scripture which instructs us not to baptize for reasons of age, race, or gender. On the contrary, the divine commands to baptize in Scripture are all universal in nature. On the basis of these commands, the Christian church has baptized infants from the earliest days of its history. Since those baptized are also to be instructed in the Christian faith, (Matt. 28:20), the church baptizes infants only where there is the assurance that parents or spiritual guardians will nurture the faith of the one baptized through continued teaching of God's Word.

2.) Our need for baptism (Psalm 51; 5; John 3:5-7; Acts 2:38; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:3-4). According to the Bible, all people--including infants--are sinful and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). King David confesses, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5). Like adults, infants die--sure proof that they too are under the curse of sin and death. According to the Bible, baptism (somewhat like Old Testament circumcision, administered to 8-day-old-babies--see Col. 2:11-12) is God's gracious way of washing away our sins--even the sins of infants--without any help or cooperation on our part. It is a wonderful gift of a loving and gracious God.

3.) God's promises and power (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6; Galatians 3:26-27; Romans 6:1-4; Colossians 2;11-12; Ephesians 5:25-26; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Those churches which deny baptism to infants usually do so because they have a wrong understanding of baptism. They see baptism as something we do (e.g., a public profession of faith, etc.) rather than seeing it as something that God does for us and in us. None of the passages listed above, nor any passage in Scripture, describes baptism as "our work" or as "our public confession of faith." Instead, these passages describe baptism as a gracious and powerful work of God through which He miraculously (though through very "ordinary" means) washes away our sins by applying to us the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection (Acts 2:38:39; Acts 22:16), gives us a new birth in which we "cooperate" just as little as we did in our first birth (John 3:5-7), clothes us in Christ's righteousness (Gal. 3:26-27), gives us the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), saves us (1 Peter 3:21), buries us and raises us up with Christ as new creatures (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12), makes us holy in God's sight (Eph. 5: 25-26) and incorporates us into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). All of this, according to the Bible, happens in baptism, and all of it is God's doing, not ours. The promises and power of baptism are extended to all in Scripture--including infants-and are available to all. Parents and sponsors then have the privilege and responsibility of nurturing the baptized child in God's love and in His Word so that he or she may know and continue to enjoy the wonderful blessings of baptism throughout his or her life.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2611


Q. You teach, as did Martin Luther, that man is justified by grace alone, through faith alone. Yet I also read your position on baptism and it seems to me that you also teach baptismal regeneration. You clearly state that a person (infant) comes into the blessings of grace (salvation) through their baptism. How can this be if the scripture teaches that faith is the means of apprehending salvation? I may simply be misunderstanding what you are saying in the section on baptism, I hope I am. If not, then I must insist that there would then be no difference between the LCMS and the Roman Church on its view of justification and salvation. Please help me understand where I am misunderstanding you.

A. Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person's heart (see Matt. 28:18-20; Act. 2:38; John 3:5-7; Act. 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., 1 Peter 2:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God's Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die. Those who have been baptized, but who no longer believe, will not be saved. (By the same token, those who truly believe and yet have not had opportunity to be baptized [like, for example, the thief on the cross] will be saved.)


http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2608


Do you actually mean "it is through the faith of a child that we are saved" or are you just saying that saving faith is childlike in that it trusts implicitly?

God bless

Yes.

[Reformationist]

Yes.Umm....that was an either/or question.:scratch: Did you just mean yes, that is what you meant to say?

[Lotar]

Umm....that was an either/or question.:scratch: Did you just mean yes, that is what you meant to say?
Sorry, yes to the second half.


- Lotar, King of cryptic answers.

[Reformationist]

Sorry, yes to the second half.


- Lotar, King of cryptic answers.
LOL! Thanks for clarifying.

God bless,
Don

[orthedoxy]

Okay. So, as I asked before, how do you determine the limitations of these "universal" words? Clearly you don't think that words like "all," and "world" always mean everyone yet you clearly do think they are all inclusive at other times. On top of all that, you castigate me when I seek to apply these "universal" words in a manner that you find offensive. So, in light of that, I'm curious how you determine when "all" means "every single person ever created" and when it means something else. The same goes for world. I'm not familiar with the beliefs of your faith but I would guess that you believe John 3:16 uses "world" in an all encompassing universal manner, right? If so, what is it that helps you define it that way? I'm sure you don't think "world" always means "every person ever created," right?

Also, you didn't answer my question. I asked what Icor 7:14 is. Did I just misread that verse reference?

God bless

Don
I believe all means every person. Although you can have exceptions for example Jesus is not included in the all of Rom 3:23, infants are not included because they can’t sin.
I also assume when the bible says to preach it doesn’t mean to preach to infants, when it says one needs to confess Jesus with their mouth it’s not talking to infants.
I do believe “all” means all and in the case of john 3:16 the world is everyone in the world. This is how everyone believes it, Unless they have formed their theology before reading the verse.
Believers no longer belong to the world so when the bible uses the word “world’ it sometimes refers to the non believers.

As to 1cor 7:14 it says the infant are holy how can they be holy when they inherited the guilt of Adam?

[Reformationist]

Don
I believe all means every person.

So when you see "all" in the Bible it means "every person?" But, you do make exceptions, as you note here:

Although you can have exceptions for example Jesus is not included in the all of Rom 3:23, infants are not included because they can?t sin.

So, since Romans 3:23 doesn't say "all have sinned except infants" then it seems to me that you insert that piece of theology based on your presumptions. Romans 3:23 isn't saying that infants go around personally sinning. It says, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Notice the tense and consider Romans 5:12.

I also assume when the bible says to preach it doesn?t mean to preach to infants, when it says one needs to confess Jesus with their mouth it?s not talking to infants.

I agree completely. What does that have to do with anything? Confessing Jesus with our mouth isn't what saves us, nor is our being preached to. What's your point?

I do believe ?all? means all and in the case of john 3:16 the world is everyone in the world. This is how everyone believes it, Unless they have formed their theology before reading the verse.

Here's an idea othedoxy, how about you stop acting so arrogant and talk about this with me in a joint desire to gain knowledge about God? This ISN'T how everyone believes it. The majority of the reformed community, which is a large number of believers, does not see it that way. Try to cut out the condescension in your posts or stop posting in this forum.

Believers no longer belong to the world so when the bible uses the word ?world? it sometimes refers to the non believers.

Actually, the word "world" is used in many different ways in the Bible.

World (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1076637187-5693.html)

As to 1cor 7:14 it says the infant are holy how can they be holy when they inherited the guilt of Adam?

What??!!! That's not what that verse says at all.

1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

This is speaking of the character of a home in which at least one parent is a believer. In Old Testament language the whole family is regarded as being in covenant with God. Even the spouse who refuses to believe comes under the influence of God's work - much more so the children who are not old enough to profess their faith.

Additionally, the verse clearly says that the child would be unclean were it not for the presence of at least one believing parent.