Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Phil12123]

It would have been unthinkable from a Jewish perspective to exclude children from God’s covenant kingdom. See also in Matt. 9:2, Mark 2:3-5, Matt. 8:5-13, Luke 6:10, Mark 9:22-25 where people are healed based on another person’s faith (just as babies are washed away of sin based on their parents’ faith).

**There were several occasions when people brought their infants or young children to Jesus for Him to touch them, and not ONCE do we see Him baptizing them or having His disciples baptize them. NOT ONCE. Does that tell you anything?

Furthermore, how does MY faith wash away my baby’s sin? It can’t be by my having them baptized if to do so actually violates Jesus’ instructions as to WHO should be baptized. It would almost be a sin to do that. Certainly, it would be an empty, meaningless act in God’s sight if HE did not command it or commanded something else instead. It would be comparable to baptizing an adult who you knew was a nonbeliever, or an atheist even. You can have all the faith in the world but that will not wash away the atheist’s sins.**

Your **underlying assumption **is that because it’s not explicitly in the Bible, it is not Christian.

My underlying assumption is that we should follow God’s directions. We are told WHO to baptize. It’s not left up to us to decide or try to figure out. It is clearly stated. And to obey is better than sacrifice. It’s really that simple.

I’m interested in your response to my contraception question.

**That might be an interesting subject to discuss, but is there a thread that deals with that specifically? There must be.

Peace
**

 

[Phil12123]

One other thing. In 1 Cor 15:29, Paul notes that there were folks baptizing on behalf of the dead. And, he doesn’t repudiate the practice. So, the Scripture tells us that **there were Christians baptizing folks on behalf of the dead **and nowhere does the Scripture say this shouldn’t happen…Paul himself offers no criticism of the practice. Why then does anyone believe that baptizing on behalf of the dead is not an acceptable Christian practice? Why? Because of the authority of the Church to decide such matters. Just as the Church can say that baptism on behalf of the dead is not acceptable, in spite of it clearly being practiced by Christians in Scripture, so the Church can decide on the method of baptism. It has Christ’s own authority to bind and loose on earth. And, what it binds and looses on earth, is bound and loosed in Heaven.

Let’s look at the passage in context:

**1 Cor. 15:
24. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
27. For "He has put all things under His feet.’’ But when He says "all things are put under Him,’’ it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
28. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
29. Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?
30. And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?
31. I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
32. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’’ **

**Verse 29 is one of those verses that give us no other verses that comment on it, expand on its meaning, or otherwise shed additional light on it. We are left with only the verse itself and its context of surrounding verses to determine its meaning. Nowhere does the CCC even mention it, so I’m not sure that the Church has said anything about it, lately anyway.

Looking at the verse itself, I would notice first the pronouns used: “what will THEY do who are baptized for the dead… Why then are THEY baptized for the dead?” Not “we” to include Paul, but “they”—whoever “they” were. So at this point there is no reason to say, Christians were doing it. We don’t know who was doing it, because we don’t know who “they” refers to. It wasn’t the Corinthians, apparently, or it would have been “you” not “they.” You are correct that Paul himself offers no criticism of the practice, nor perhaps need he, in the context of the arguments he is advancing in support of the resurrection.

The reference he makes to baptizing for the dead is simply and solely to make a point that no one would baptize for the dead if the dead are not going to be resurrected.

You say, “the Church can decide on the method of baptism. It has Christ’s own authority to bind and loose on earth.” I don’t think the Church has any authority whatsoever to decide to do anything that is contrary to what Christ has already said. If He says baptize new disciples/believers, the Church can’t decide to baptize nonbelievers and hope that some day they become believers. He gave the eleven their “marching orders” and the Church is called to simply obey them, not add or subtract from them as it sees fit. If Jesus says, go to Ninevah, the Church is not free to ignore that and go to Tarshish instead. Obedience is better than sacrifice. Not our will, but HIS be done.

Peace**

 

[Lampo]

Phil…First, I want to thank you again for this dialog. It is very helpful to me in understanding my faith better. I want you to know that I am young in my faith. You could consider me a kindergartener or 1st grader in my Catholic education. It takes me a while to find answers to your points about infant baptism. I’m 100% sure there is an answer though. Thanks for your patience. I run across VERY frequently the writings of the early church fathers regarding infant baptism and their support of it but hesitate to use them with our dialog because I don’t know if you put any stock in the teaching and writing of the ones who were actually taught by the Apostles. What is your stance on the ECF? Thanks again and grace be with you.

 

[Lampo]

So what are you saying? His works earned him the reward of eternal salvation? Is that how you view salvation? A reward for works? Surely you are aware that eternal salvation is a *gift of God *which He gives by His marvelous grace, as seen in Eph. 2:8-9 and Rom. 6:23:

I adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation. In a nutshell it is to persevere in faith, hope and love. We believe that salvation can be lost. We must work out our salvation in fear and trembling(Phil. 2:12) We also believe it is through grace alone that we can be saved.

 

[Lampo]

And then there’s his amazing faith that led him to say to Jesus, One Who was dying on a cross, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” To believe He would have a kingdom was amazing. But my point was that this thief was told by Jesus, “Today, you will be with me in paradise,” and yet he was never baptized. The Bible makes no mention of a “baptism of blood” or a “baptism of desire.” So, the “water” of John 3:5 cannot be “water baptism.” Furthermore, if new believers were baptized to identify them with the other believers, there would scarcely be a need to do that for a new believer who was perhaps minutes away from death.

“Baptism of blood” and “baptism by desire” have always been taught by the Church - Tradition. Mark 16:16 - Jesus says that he who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, the Church has always taught that baptism is a normative, not an absolute necessity. There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments.

Luke 23:43 - the good thief, although not baptized, shows that there is also a baptism by desire, as Jesus says to him that he will be in paradise. It should also be noted that when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Hence, the good thief was destined for heaven because of his desire to be with Jesus.

Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - there is also a baptism by blood. Lord says, “I have a baptism to be baptized with” referring to His death. Hence, the Church has always taught that those martyred for the faith may be saved without water baptism (e.g., the Holy Innocents).

Mark 10:38 - Jesus says “are you able…to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?,” referring to His death.

1 John 5:6 - Jesus came by water and blood. He was baptized by both water and blood. Martyrs are baptized by blood.

 

[Lampo]

It might be, or simply symbolic of physical birth. Water is a physical thing contrasted to Spirit, a spiritual thing. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” So, He is talking about two births, one physical and one spiritual. When He mentions “water and the Spirit” together, He may be identifying one (flesh) with the water and the other (Spirit) with the Holy Spirit. All I’m saying is that we need not jump to any conclusion that the “water” has to be water baptism, because the word “baptism” is not in the passage.

Christian water baptism is not “purely symbolic.” Peter refutes this by saying that “baptism saves you.” (1 Peter 3:21). Paul also refers to baptism as the “washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5).

 

[Lampo]

Phil…ALL of the early Church Fathers believed in infant baptism. These are the same men who received their instruction from the apostles or their successors. Here are some examples:

And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons." Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

"It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration." Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?" Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

"Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

"'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity." Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins." John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).

This is just a small sampling from the first 350 years of the Church.

 

[Lampo]

Household (in Greek, “oikos,” includes children). The Scriptures are replete with verses where “oikos” includes children and babies. Please address why households (oikos) are baptized in the book of Acts, but why, in your opinion, that excludes infants. In fact, show me any verse in Scripture where it says that babies are excluded from baptism.

Look once again at Acts 16:15. Lydia’s household (again, in the Greek, “oikos,” which includes children) was baptized based on Lydia’s faith. This is a clear, Scriptural example of baptism of children based on the faith of the parent. Please address this verse as well.

Now, let me ask you two questions. First, all your questions presuppose that something must be in the Bible in order for it to be true (sola Scriptura). That is a fallacy. But since you espouse this position, please give me a verse which expressly excludes infants from baptism. You won’t find one. And you still have to deal with “tek-non” and “oikos,” or you have nothing left to argue.

Second, tell me why Jesus would exclude babies from the Kingdom of Heaven under the New Covenant, when babies were included in the Kingdom of Heaven under the Old Covenant through circumcision? Help me understand this. Why is the New Covenant, in your mind, narrower than the Old?

Please take a look at the “oikos” issue. Also, If you have done any scholarship on 1 Cor. 4:6, you would know that most biblical exegetes, Catholic and Protestant alike, have not formed any definitive conclusions on what this means. The majority opinion is that Paul is teaching a proverb here, instructing the faithful not to be arrogant. But assuming Paul’s verse should be taken literally, to what is Paul referring? What is the “written” that he is referring to? To the Decalogue? To the Talmud? To the Old Testament Scriptures? What? This verse proves too much for you because, when Paul wrote this, there was not even a New Testament canon established. So Paul can’t be referring to the NT.

Acts 16:15 - Lydia and her household (in Greek, “oikos”) was baptized. “Oikos” never excludes children in the Scriptures. I can provide many verses where “oikos” is used in the Bible and it never excludes infants. “Oikos” is always understood to include a whole family unit. This means babies too.

We need not go any further until you address the “tek-non” and “oikos” issues.

 

[Phil12123]

Phil…First, I want to thank you again for this dialog. It is very helpful to me in understanding my faith better. I want you to know that I am young in my faith. You could consider me a kindergartener or 1st grader in my Catholic education. It takes me a while to find answers to your points about infant baptism. I’m 100% sure there is an answer though. Thanks for your patience. I run across VERY frequently the writings of the early church fathers regarding infant baptism and their support of it but hesitate to use them with our dialog because I don’t know if you put any stock in the teaching and writing of the ones who were actually taught by the Apostles. What is your stance on the ECF? Thanks again and grace be with you.

**My stance on the Early Church Fathers is that they can sometimes be helpful, but the problem is that you often do not have a consensus on an issue that they may all be discussing. As a result, you may cite one guy and I could cite another guy who says the opposite. So where does that get us? I feel the Scriptures should be the final arbiter, particularly when it is the words of Christ Himself that we can find on an issue.

That is the case with infant or believer’s baptism. Many, perhaps most, of the ECF might agree with your position, but if that position is directly contradictive to the clear words of Christ, why even bother with them. That is why I haven’t bothered to cite ECF that supports my position, or, more importantly, Christ’s commands. If you want to see one like that, check out Tertullian. But even he I don’t consider an authority compared to the Scriptures and Christ’s words, because he might say other things that do not agree with the Scriptures or Christ’s words. That is why I prefer to stick with the Scriptures when there is a clear teaching that needs no resort to extra-biblical sources.

Peace**

 

[Phil12123]

I adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches about salvation. In a nutshell it is to persevere in faith, hope and love. We believe that salvation can be lost. We must work out our salvation in fear and trembling(Phil. 2:12)

We also believe it is through grace alone that we can be saved.

**This should probably be in another thread, but please explain to me the apparent discrepancy between your first four sentences and the last one, which I have spaced lower to show them separately.

If it is really “through grace alone” that you are saved, how does the work, etc. given above that relate to it?

To me, “grace” is the undeserved love and favor of God which is given to us by Him as a free gift. “Work” is something we do to obtain something in return, like a paycheck, or some sort of reward. If I get anything from my work, it is deserved and I am owed it. But God doesn’t owe anyone anything! So whatever He gives us has to be undeserved by us and solely by His grace.

The contrast between grace and work is clearly seen from this:**

**Romans 4:
3. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’’
4. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
6. just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7. "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
8. blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.’’

Romans 11:6 – And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.**

**Grace and work(s) are mutually exclusive. If you have any work(s), you do not have grace. Now, if it’s HIM working through me, that is another matter. Then it is ALL Him, His grace and His work, and He gets all the glory. But if it is ME doing any work(s), apart from Him doing it through me, then it’s not grace. Agreed?

Peace
**

 

[Phil12123]

Household (in Greek, “oikos,” includes children).

[most of quote omitted to make it shorter]

We need not go any further until you address the “tek-non” and “oikos” issues.

Did you write this post before reading all my posts? That is the only logical conclusion I can reach, because I have already addressed the question of household baptisms and yet I don’t see any posts from you quoting anything I said about them. Please read my post and then respond. Thanks.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2487974#post2487974

 

[Lampo]

**This should probably be in another thread, but please explain to me the apparent discrepancy between your first four sentences and the last one, which I have spaced lower to show them separately.

If it is really “through grace alone” that you are saved, how does the work, etc. given above that relate to it?
**

As Catholics we believe that we are saved by God’s grace alone. We can do nothing, apart from God’s grace, to receive the free gift of salvation. We also believe, however, that we have to respond to God’s grace.Catholics believe a response of faith and works is necessary…or, as the Bible puts it in Galatians 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumsion is of any avail, but faith working through love…faith working through love…just as the Church teaches.

Matt. 7:1-3 - we are not judged just by faith, but actually how we judge others, and we get what we have given. Hence, we are judged according to how we responded to God’s grace during our lives.

Rom. 2:6-10, 13 - God will judge every man according to his works. Our salvation depends on how we cooperate with God’s grace.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judges us impartially according to our deeds. We participate in applying the grace Jesus won for us at Calvary in our daily lives.

 

[Lampo]

Did you write this post before reading all my posts? That is the only logical conclusion I can reach, because I have already addressed the question of household baptisms and yet I don’t see any posts from you quoting anything I said about them. Please read my post and then respond. Thanks.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2487974#post2487974

Okay, allow me to clarify. The Greek word for “children” (teknon) is the same word used in Acts 21:21 to describe eight day old infants. So Scripture teaches that the promise of baptism is for infants. Why wouldn’t it be? Eight day old infants were made members of the Old Covenant through circumcision. St. Paul calls baptism the “new circumcision” (Col. 2:11-12). This means babies qualify in the NT just as they did in the OT. God does not exclude infants from His New Covenant; otherwise, the New Covenant wouldn’t be better than the Old one.

Peter says the promise "is made to you and to your children” (Acts. 2:39). You did not address the fact that children here, in the Greek, is “teknon” which means infants, as the same word is used to describe eight-day old infants in Acts 21:21. Peter thus says that the promise is for infants. You need to address this head-on before we go any further.

 

[NotWorthy]

**My stance on the Early Church Fathers is that they can sometimes be helpful, but the problem is that you often do not have a consensus on an issue that they may all be discussing. As a result, you may cite one guy and I could cite another guy who says the opposite. So where does that get us? I feel the Scriptures should be the final arbiter, particularly when it is the words of Christ Himself that we can find on an issue.

That is the case with infant or believer’s baptism. Many, perhaps most, of the ECF might agree with your position, but if that position is directly contradictive to the clear words of Christ, why even bother with them. That is why I haven’t bothered to cite ECF that supports my position, or, more importantly, Christ’s commands. If you want to see one like that, check out Tertullian. But even he I don’t consider an authority compared to the Scriptures and Christ’s words, because he might say other things that do not** agree with the Scriptures or Christ’s words. That is why I prefer to stick with the Scriptures when there is a clear teaching that needs no resort to extra-biblical sources.

Peace

IF this is the case, then why are there so many Bible only faiths believing different things?

What you may ignore when you look at the Early Church is that these people learned there faiths right from the horse’s mouth (the Apostles and their disciples).

Another point often overlooked is, the Church, mind you, when developing the canon of the NT, used a simple test to determine if a writing was Scriptural (not the only test, but is was a main test).

Does the teaching of this book coincide with the Church? If the teachings didn’t coincide, then the book was dropped. Case closed.

But, if the teaching were in agreement, then the book was further considered.

If the Bible disagrees with what the Church teaches, then why would the Church pick any one of these books that disagreed?

 

[Phil12123]

Okay, allow me to clarify. The Greek word for “children” (teknon) is the same word used in Acts 21:21 to describe eight day old infants. So Scripture teaches that the promise of baptism is for infants. Why wouldn’t it be? Eight day old infants were made members of the Old Covenant through circumcision. St. Paul calls baptism the “new circumcision” (Col. 2:11-12). This means babies qualify in the NT just as they did in the OT. God does not exclude infants from His New Covenant; otherwise, the New Covenant wouldn’t be better than the Old one.

Peter says the promise "is made to you and to your children” (Acts. 2:39). You did not address the fact that children here, in the Greek, is “teknon” which means infants, as the same word is used to describe eight-day old infants in Acts 21:21. Peter thus says that the promise is for infants. You need to address this head-on before we go any further.

**I’m still wondering if you have read my post because you have not addressed my main point, which is, the context requires those who would receive the promise to REPENT. Infants cannot repent, nor do they need to, but what Peter said clearly requires it, so he has to be talking about and to non-infants.

Lampo, this has been an interesting dialogue, but I tire of repeating myself, and that seems to be necessary when you post something repeatedly as if I’ve never responded to it. You have brought up various points several times, all of which I have already responded to. For example, you enjoy repeating the one-liner, "There is nothing in the Bible about “believer’s baptism,” and yet I have responded to that once. Do I need to copy and paste my response every time you say that? If not, why do you keep saying it, without saying why my response is not true? Would you like me to repeatedly say, There’s nothing in the Bible about “infant baptism,” ignoring anything you say to dispute that, as if you had no response?**

 

[Phil12123]

What you may ignore when you look at the Early Church is that these people learned there faiths right from the horse’s mouth (the Apostles and their disciples).

Another point often overlooked is, the Church, mind you, when developing the canon of the NT, used a simple test to determine if a writing was Scriptural (not the only test, but is was a main test).

Does the teaching of this book coincide with the Church? If the teachings didn’t coincide, then the book was dropped. Case closed.

But, if the teaching were in agreement, then the book was further considered.

If the Bible disagrees with what the Church teaches, then why would the Church pick any one of these books that disagreed?

**So, what you’re saying is, all the books there were finally determined as rightfully belonging in the Bible agreed with and were consistent with what the Church taught at that time, right? And only books that did not agree with the Church’s teaching were dropped, right?

Well, then, how can anyone complain about using those books as the final arbiter of truth? To use them in that way would simply be saying this is what the Church teaches and we reject anything any ECF said contradicting it. I can live with that. Can you?**

 

[onenow1]

Hi,
From: Catholic Treasure Chest.
Infant baptism in the Catholic Church is just about the strongest demonstration of salvation without works that there could possibly be.
The infant can do nothing, nor does the infant need to do anything, in order to be “saved”. The church freely supplies all that’s necessary, including the water, the faith, and the grace, while the infant truly becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit, an adopted child of God, a member of the Church, and co-heir with Jesus Christ … simply because God desires all to be saved.
The Catholic sacrament of Confirmation later allows each person to make the declaration of faith that was made for them at baptism.

Peace. Onenow1

 

[Phil12123]

Infant baptism in the Catholic Church is just about the strongest demonstration of salvation without works that there could possibly be.

The infant can do nothing, nor does the infant need to do anything, in order to be “saved”. The church freely supplies all that’s necessary, including the water, the faith, and the grace, while the infant truly becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit, an adopted child of God, a member of the Church, and co-heir with Jesus Christ … simply because God desires all to be saved.
The Catholic sacrament of Confirmation later allows each person to make the declaration of faith that was made for them at baptism.

So where does the Lord Jesus Christ say to do that? And if He wants us to do that today, why don’t we see Him or His disciples doing it with any of the infants or young children who were brought to Him by their parents?

Mark 10:
13. Then they brought young children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
14. But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
15. "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.’’
16. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them.

He held them and blessed them but it doesn’t say anything about Jesus baptizing them, with a parent or some other person making “a declaration of faith” on the infant’s behalf, later to be affirmed or rejected by the infant. That is totally foreign to anything taught in the Gospels, Acts, or any of the epistles. There is not even a hint of it anywhere in Scripture.

 

[NotWorthy]

**So, what you’re saying is, all the books there were finally determined as rightfully belonging in the Bible agreed with and were consistent with what the Church taught at that time, right? And only books that did not agree with the Church’s teaching were dropped, right?

Well, then, how can anyone complain about using those books as the final arbiter of truth? To use them in that way would simply be saying this is what the Church teaches and we reject anything any ECF said contradicting it. I can live with that. Can you?**

Did I say they were the ONLY determinant for being Scriptural? I did say that the books that were selected did agree with the Church’s teaching (that’s a no-brainer, of course they’d do that…) but not that this was the only litmus test.

Why aren’t they the only determinant of faith? Read the Bible! It tells you that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

The ECF’s are the testament to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries all the way through to today! They are a part of the Church today!!! Why should I ignore them?

 

[Zooey]

**

**If it is really “through grace alone” that you are saved, how does the work, etc. given above that relate to it?

To me, “grace” is the undeserved love and favor of God which is given to us by Him as a free gift. “Work” is something we do to obtain something in return, like a paycheck, or some sort of reward. If I get anything from my work, it is deserved and I am owed it. But God doesn’t owe anyone anything! So whatever He gives us has to be undeserved by us and solely by His grace.**

**

---

But how is this grace to be communicated to the individual? How do we receive God’s prevenient grace??
The normal means of the communication of prevenient grace, is that we receive it in Baptism. There are extraordinary means, which is why there is the mention of Baptism of Blood & Baptism of Desire. Both of these are means by which we may receive this grace.
But– The ordinary, normal means, as established by Christ in His teaching to His apostles, is that Prevenient Grace is transmitted to the person, regardless of age, by the waters of Holy Baptism.
You may not like it. God knows, (& I know) that you don’t like it. But that makes no difference. You can go on forever with not liking it, but baptism is still going to be the proper, the chosen manner to bring persons (and children are persons!) into the company of the believers, & the communion of the saints.
That’s how Jesus Christ set things up. Complain:shrug: to Him, if it:shrug: bothers you so; but don’t keep attacking those of us who are humble enough to accept that He has the right to make these decisions. Not us.