The Case For Infant Baptism

[Linkowski]

Response to OP:

Point 1 - The first mention of infant baptism is at the end of the 2nd century.

Point 2 - Because the New Covenant members are not defined by physical descent, as the old covenant members were, but by God’s writing his law on their heart and calling them to himself and bringing them to repentance and faith.

In accord with this narrowing of the covenant people to those who are truly born of God, the new sign of the covenant is meant to signify that a person is indeed part of that new born covenant community, which is evident by faith.

In the same way that a change in the sign came in to allow both men and women to participate in the sign (baptism instead of circumcision), thus making it clearer than before that women and men are equal heirs of salvation (1 Peter 3:7), so also a change in the recipients of the sign came in to make it clearer that under the New Covenant the people of God are not determined at all by physical descent, but by spiritual transformation, evidenced in faith.

…John the Baptist called for baptism for those already having the sign of the covenant, showing that a new meaning was being given to the sign - no longer pointing to physical descent from Abraham, but rather spiritual descent through faith and repentance.

Matthew 3:7-9

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”

…Jesus affirmed John’s ministry and defined the children of God not as those born of certain parents but those born of God through faith.

John 1:12

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

…Paul clarified that the children of Abraham to whom the promise was made were not those born according to the flesh, but those born according to promise. Children of promise and children of the flesh are not the same.

Romans 9:6-8

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Galatians 3:6-7

6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

…The children to whom the promise is made are the children who are “called,” and the call of God is free and bound to no physical family.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.

**Point 3 **- Requires faith/appeal for a good conscience

1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

This is the New Testament circumcision…being reborn through repentance and the inner working of the Holy Spirit to bring about faith in Christ (circumcision without hands). This is the circumcision of the heart.

National Israel was an ethnic Israel where all male children were circumcised as part of the Old Covenant - then, within Israel was a group called the remnant. The church is only made up of elect/called out individuals that have received a calling which brings me to the next point…

(cont’d)

 

[Linkowski]

cont’d

Point 4 - There must be a calling first…AND an invitation

Romans 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

This calling takes place at the hearing of the gospel when one is effectually drawn to Christ.

Joh 6:44 "**No one can come to Me **unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Joh 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

For one to realize this and to come to Christ they must have a circumcision of the heart - where the old becomes new. This can only be realized with a non-infant.

Point 5 - NEVER was an infant recorded as baptized in the NT. This is a result of assumption.

Point 6…The NT Circumcision??

Why was this never mentioned as the NT Circumcision in the NT??

What happens in Acts 15?? Here is just an excerpt out from this text…

Ac 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
…
Acts 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Why was this not mentioned???

Point 6 - We receive the Spirit at the hearing of faith.

Ac 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,
47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

The hearing of faith is described in Romans 10

Also…
Ga 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Joh 7:39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Here we have it both illustrated for us and taught.

Point 7 - Babies BORN AGAIN??

I have always brought this forward as an issue…we have many texts in the book of 1 John that indicate what a person who is born of God will do or how their lives will be characterized…Here are some scriptures:

1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is** born of Him**.
1Jo 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
1Jo 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world–our faith.

Is this characteristic of all baptized Catholics? No it is not. For those who are in the CC (or any other church for that matter) that say they are born again and are characterized as we see below were not born of God…

1Jo 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
3Jo 1:11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

If you are not circumcised in the heart, infant baptism is of no avail. Baptism follows faith and repentance.

 

[agangbern]

He was also speaking of repentance…to which you also specifically responded.

There is no baptism without repentance.

…

No baptism without repentance? This seems so general a statement.
Surely Jesus did not have to repent for any sin when he received the baptism of John the Baptist.

 

[mikeledes]

**John Calvin ** on Infant Baptism:

7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from coming, (Matth. 19: 13,) because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and, therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour’s act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism, (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant,) than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him? By the other cavils by which the objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance: they quibble that, because our Saviour says, “Suffer little children to come,” they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they are called by the Evangelists “brethe kai paidia”, terms which denote infants still at their mothers’ breasts. The term “come” is used simply for “approach.” See the quibbles to which men are obliged to have recourse when they have hardened themselves against the truth! There is nothing more solid in their allegation, that the kingdom of heaven is not assigned to children, but to those like children, since the expression is, “of such,” not “of themselves.” If this is admitted, what will be the reason which our Saviour employs to show that they are not strangers to him from nonage? When he orders that little children shall be allowed to come to him, nothing is plainer than that mere infancy is meant. Lest this should seem absurd, he adds, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” But if infants must necessarily be comprehended the expression, “of such,” clearly shows that infants themselves, and those like them, are intended.

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Linkowksi, here is another quote from **John Calvin **on infant baptism:

8. Every one must now see that paedobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we no where read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly na by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family, (Acts 16: 15, 32,) what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord’s Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith. For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years and that therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection at Christ, during which paedobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles.

This is can be found in the following website:

apuritansmind.com/Baptism/CalvinInfantBaptism.htm#1.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Linkowski, here’s **Martin Luther ** on Infant Baptism.

**Here a question occurs by which the devil through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer then answer thus: –

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.

Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.**

To be continued…

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

**Martin Luther **on Infant Baptism:

**Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner. How dare we think that God’s Word and ordinance should be wrong and invalid because we make a wrong use of it?

Therefore I say, if you did not believe then believe now and say thus: The baptism indeed was right, but I, alas! did not receive it aright. For I myself also, and all who are baptized, must speak thus before God: I come hither in my faith and in that of others, yet I cannot rest in this, that I believe, and that many people pray for me; but in this I rest, that it is Thy Word and command. Just as I go to the Sacrament trusting not in my faith, but in the Word of Christ; whether I am strong or weak, that I commit to God. But this I know, that He bids me go, eat and drink, etc., and gives me His body and blood; that will not deceive me or prove false to me.

Thus we do also in infant baptism. We bring the child in the conviction and hope that it believes, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not baptize it upon that, but solely upon the command of God. Why so? Because we know that God does not lie. I and my neighbor and, in short, all men, may err and deceive, but the Word of God cannot err.

Therefore they are presumptuous, clumsy minds that draw such inferences and conclusions as these: Where there is not the true faith, there also can be no true Baptism. Just as if I would infer: If I do not believe, then Christ is nothing; or thus: If I am not obedient, then father, mother, and government are nothing. Is that a correct conclusion, that whenever any one does not do what he ought, the thing in itself shall be nothing and of no value? My dear, just invert the argument and rather draw this inference: For this very reason Baptism is something and is right, because it has been wrongly received. For if it were not right and true in itself, it could not be misused nor sinned against. The saying is: Abusus non tollit, sed confirmat substantiam, Abuse does not destroy the essence but confirms it. For gold is not the less gold though a harlot wear it in sin and shame.**
apuritansmind.com/Baptism/LutherMartinCatechismInfantBaptism.htm

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

A Reformed Church’s (i.e. Calvinist) defence of infant baptism can be found in the following websites:

salemreformed.org/pages/articles/bahnsen-articles/infant-baptism.php

thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99793.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Linkowski]

No baptism without repentance? This seems so general a statement.
Surely Jesus did not have to repent for any sin when he received the baptism of John the Baptist.

That’s beside the point.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, you are already out of order, because you have rejected the Authority that Christ placed over His Church through the Apostles.

Heb 13:17

17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

I do not mistakenly assume that your leaders today in the modernist RCC are the “church.”

They are not my leaders. You have made them yours, however.

…

 

[Atemi]

No baptism without repentance? This seems so general a statement.

But so true.

 

[Linkowski]

A Reformed Church’s (i.e. Calvinist) defence of infant baptism can be found in the following websites:

salemreformed.org/pages/articles/bahnsen-articles/infant-baptism.php

thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99793.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim

God Bless,
Michael

Obviously I do not adopt the above views and have given multiple points as to why; ESPECIALLY concerning baptismal regeneration for infants. Repentance - faith - and baptism are all tied closely together in the justification of the sinner but baptism is not regenerating - regeneration comes prior and is acted out in baptism. No person who is justified will not be baptized as is inferred in Mark 16:16…

Mr 16:16 He that **believeth and is baptized **shall be saved; but he that **believeth not **shall be damned.

The true believer will be baptized because He is a new creation in Christ - baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit. Once the process of salvation starts, it follows through all the way because of the miracle of the rebirth. The one who says that they will not be baptized is one who does not believe.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

 

[Atemi]

Only in your own mind, Atemi. Catholics believe that, without faith, it is impossible to please God. We approach all the sacraments in faith, and that is how the grace of them is applied to us.

No.

Not all Catholic parents approach baptism “in faith.” I should not have to remind you of this reality. Many just do it because they are “supposed” to do it.

But are any of those infant baptisms invalid if the faith of the parents is not present like in the case for so many today?

---

No***.

Faith is irrelevant as far as the validity of the sacrament is concerned.

Speaking about the validity of the sacrament is what has no bearing here. The sacrament is not offered to those outside the faith!

We are not talking about those not Catholic. We are talking about Catholic parents not of faith.

You should already know that just being called a “Catholic” does not make you “in the faith”…unless you make “the faith” merely a label.

No. They were not circumcising “infants.” They were circumcising baby boys alone.

There is another rite that is used with infant girls.

Like I said, they were not circumcising girls.

Secondly, circumcision was not salvific and never was.

No, being part of the Covenant was what saved. Circumcusion was just part of entering that covenant.

Like I said, circumcision was not salvific and never was

Secondly, as is the case with the jailor’s family, the household was baptised because they all believed Paul’s message.

Where does it say that in your bible? Where does it state there were no children, or infants?

Like I said, all believed the message.

First of all, there was no prohibition because nobody was doing it during that time.

Or maybe because it was permitted?

If it was merely permitted, then that means it was not commanded and the RCC is still out of line with the doctrines they are supposed to protect.

In any event, we find no such permission anywhere in God’s Word anyway.

…

 

[sandusky]

mikeledes:

Linkowksi, here is another quote from John Calvin on infant baptism:

Linkowski, here’s Martin Luther on Infant Baptism.

Martin Luther on Infant Baptism:

Are you in agreement with Calvin, and Luther regarding their views of the papacy; or is your quoting them on infant baptism merely a delightfully abhorrent convenience?

mikeledes:

A Reformed Church’s (i.e. Calvinist) defence of infant baptism can be found in the following websites:

Both of the fellows you quote believe in covenantal baptism that does not save, but is merely an outward symbol. Are you in agreement with that as well; if not, then why quote them?

Also, here is a link to former Catholic priest Richard Bennett, who disagrees with Roman sacramental/infant baptism. Perhaps this former Roman Catholic priest’s understanding
of the errors of Roman sacramentalism will cause you to re-think your position?

 

[mikeledes]

Are you in agreement with Calvin, and Luther regarding their views of the papacy; or is your quoting them on infant baptism merely a delightfully abhorrent convenience?

Both of the fellows you quote believe in covenantal baptism that does not save, but is merely an outward symbol. Are you in agreement with that as well; if not, then why quote them?

Also, here is a link to former Catholic priest Richard Bennett, who disagrees with Roman sacramental/infant baptism. Perhaps this former Roman Catholic priest’s understanding
of the errors of Roman sacramentalism will cause you to re-think your position?

The point of quoting Luther and Calvin is that even they believed that infant baptism was the biblical and historical practice of the Church. Both believed that it came down from the apostles. I find it very interesting how these Protestant Reformers have accepted infant baptism as a biblical practice, one practiced by the apostles themselves, and that many contemporary Protestants, including Calvinists, believe that as well and yet you and others have a different view on this issue. Why is this practice so clearly biblical to Luther, Calvin, and thousands of modern-day Calvinists, but not biblical to you? No, I don’t believe in infant baptism the same way the Reformed Church does. But they accept that it was a biblical practice and historically accpeted by the Christian Church. So that established the historicity of infant baptism as a practice. The universal testimony of the Church Fathers regarding the nature of baptism settles the rest, namely, its regenerative aspect.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Obviously I do not adopt the above views and have given multiple points as to why; ESPECIALLY concerning baptismal regeneration for infants. Repentance - faith - and baptism are all tied closely together in the justification of the sinner but baptism is not regenerating - regeneration comes prior and is acted out in baptism. No person who is justified will not be baptized as is inferred in Mark 16:16…

Mr 16:16 He that **believeth and is baptized **shall be saved; but he that **believeth not **shall be damned.

The true believer will be baptized because He is a new creation in Christ - baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit. Once the process of salvation starts, it follows through all the way because of the miracle of the rebirth. The one who says that they will not be baptized is one who does not believe.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

So you chose to disagree with John Calvin on this one. So why is it that John Calvin and many contemporary Calvinists see infant baptism as a clearly biblical institution that was practiced by the apostles and the early Church and you and other Calvinists do not see it as a biblical practice? How do I know which one of you two groups of Calvinists are right?

God bless,
Michael

 

[sandusky]

So you chose to disagree with John Calvin on this one. So why is it that John Calvin and many contemporary Calvinists see infant baptism as a clearly biblical institution that was practiced by the apostles and the early Church and you and other Calvinists do not see it as a biblical practice? How do I know which one of you two groups of Calvinists are right?

God bless,
Michael

:doh2:

 

[TobyLue]

Atemi, it was quoted

You are thinking like a 21 century non-Jew. The Bible was written at a time of 1 century Jews. They had a different view of family, of Church, and Community than we hold today.

to which you replied

And they did not baptise infants

and then

They would circumcise their infants, if baptism was any different, then there would have been a prohibition against it somewhere in the new testament, but there isn’t.

to which you again replied

First of all, there was no prohibition because nobody was doing it during that time

My God Atemi, are you that blind? Quote after quote of the early Church Fathers have been posted where they say to baptize infants and yet you still say “and they did not baptize infants”. Were the ECF’s lying? Were they making all of this up? Were they just trying to be deceptive? Now, please answer this: Who in the world, then, were the Early Church Fathers baptizing. Also, please show us quotes from the Early Church condemning infant baptizing. Please, please show us. And if you say that the Early Church never baptize infants, show us through historical records and proofs of when it was that the Church starting baptizing infant. Please show us.

What I see from your posts Atemi, is like a man that has fallen in a pit of quick sand. He keeps struggling and struggling and keep sinking deeper and deeper and that’s what I see from your posts. You keep sinking deeper and deeper with every post and just grasping for thin air but it seems like pride that you refuse to admit that the Early Church baptized infants even after all the proof has been given to you.

You have made all sorts of cockamamie self-interpretations to try to prove you points simply because the words “baptize infants” is not found in scripture. Please answer my questions that I posted earlier. Since you do not believe because “baptize infants” is not found in scripture, why do you believe in the Bible since “The Bible” is nowhere to be found in the Bible? Why do you believe that the Bible is the word of God since there is no where to be found where Jesus gives a command to write the Bible?

Again I will post this and please give us you comments especially on the bolded parts…From St. Augustine

What the** universal Church holds**, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 A.D. 400])

Notice the year, there was no canonized bible then.

 

[Linkowski]

One other point that was worthy of mention - we are justified by faith as is evident in many scriptures…

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

And one of my favorites…

Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness (justification); and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

We believe unto justification - then this inevitably works itself out in confession unto salvation…sanctification and final salvation - glorification. Baptism is about outward confession of Christ as Lord (Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.). Lord - what wilt thou have me to do!

Glory to God for the imputation of the righteousness of Christ by faith (Rom 5:12-21).

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

One other point that was worthy of mention - we are justified by faith as is evident in many scriptures…

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith

Still beating that old dead horse of ‘justified by faith alone’ huh Linkowski?!

You have been shown on countless other threads where your PERSONAL interpretation goes astray from centuries of received wisdom of Scripture.

You know that the “Law” referred to in the NT is the Jewish law concerning circumcision, dietary restrictions, avoidance of non-Jews, and the like, yet you glom on your own, pontifical assertion without even a courtesy nod to tradition, custom and COMMON SENSE READING AND UNDERSTANDING in context of Scriptural passages.

Read the whole thing, Linkowski, and read it without a preconceived, prejudicial mistaken belief in the evil Catholic Church.

Robert