We are not saved by works?

[Robin Mauro]

I don't believe that there is a single Bible reference to teen-agers being baptized either, but every church that believes in and practices what they call 'Believers Baptism' does baptize them, and many of them baptize younger children, too.

But a teenager, and even younger, have the ability to decide, whereas an infant does not.

 

[ExTiff]

So, in other words, there is actually not one scriptural reference to infant baptism, neither in the Old or New Testaments.
I didn't think so.

I think that observation on your part is indicative of faulty reasoning and mishandling of scripture. It would seem that you are implying that because there is 'not a single reference to infant baptism, per se, in either Old or New Testaments', then infant baptism is not permitted by scripture.

If you are going to apply that kind of faulty logic to scripture, so that what is not specifically contained therein is therefore not permitted, then out of consistency with your own logic you should stop receiving Communion.

There is not one scriptural reference to women receiving communion in either the Old or New Testaments either.

I'm sure you would be easily able to bring together scripture references however that would put the case for women receiving communion along with men, just as I have put forward a number of scriptural justifications for the practice of infant baptism. Just because they are neither of them to be found as specific examples in the scriptures in no way renders them invalid.

If however you insist upon at least one scriptural example of church praxis before accepting its validity, you had better stop receiving communion and notions of women having vocation to the priesthood because no actual instance of that appears anywhere in scripture either.

And you "didn't think so" because you do not understand how to understand scripture, just like so many who skim over the top of it looking for rules to obey, instead of discovering the promises of God and believing them, for themselves and their children.
.

 

[Albion]

But a teenager, and even younger, have the ability to decide, whereas an infant does not.

However, that was not the basis you used for denouncing the baptism of younger children. THEN, we were expected to be persuaded by the argument that there is no Bible verse which mentions the baptism of infants. NOW, a different standard is supposed to decide the matter instead.

Besides, it is ridiculous to think that most 9 or 13 year olds can make a commitment to Christ, while fully aware of the meaning, in the way that an adult might.

But that doesn't stop the churches from baptizing them anyway on the basis of a 'Jesus loves me, this I know' kind of confession of faith and because the parents have decided its time for them to be baptized.

 

[Robin Mauro]

I think that observation on your part is indicative of faulty reasoning and mishandling of scripture. It would seem that you are implying that because there is 'not a single reference to infant baptism, per se, in either Old or New Testaments', then infant baptism is not permitted by scripture.

If you are going to apply that kind of faulty logic to scripture, so that what is not specifically contained therein is therefore not permitted, then out of consistency with your own logic you should stop receiving Communion.

There is not one scriptural reference to women receiving communion in either the Old or New Testaments either.

I'm sure you would be easily able to bring together scripture references however that would put the case for women receiving communion along with men, just as I have put forward a number of scriptural justifications for the practice of infant baptism. Just because they are neither of them to be found as specific examples in the scriptures in no way renders them invalid.

If however you insist upon at least one scriptural example of church praxis before accepting its validity, you had better stop receiving communion and notions of women having vocation to the priesthood because no actual instance of that appears anywhere in scripture either.

And you "didn't think so" because you do not understand how to understand scripture, just like so many who skim over the top of it looking for rules to obey, instead of discovering the promises of God and believing them, for themselves and their children.
.

I do not need you to agree with me, and hopefully, you do not need me to agree with you either.
An infant is not able to believe or disbelieve.
That is my opinion.

 

[Robin Mauro]

However, that was not the basis you used for denouncing the baptism of younger children. THEN, we were expected to be persuaded by the argument that there is no Bible verse which mentions the baptism of infants. NOW, a different standard is supposed to decide the matter instead.

Besides, it is ridiculous to think that most 9 or 13 year olds can make a commitment to Christ, while fully aware of the meaning, in the way that an adult might.

But that doesn't stop the churches from baptizing them anyway on the basis of a 'Jesus loves me, this I know' kind of confession of faith and because the parents have decided its time for them to be baptized.

We are to receive with the faith of a child. I was 8 or 9 when I believed and was baptized.
I am done with this conversation Albion. It seems to me you just want to argue.
You have every right to your opinion, just as I have to mine.

 

[ExTiff]

But a teenager, and even younger, have the ability to decide, whereas an infant does not.

How many times do you need to be told that 'believing faith' only applies to adults, and then only to 'compos mentis' adults at that.

Baptist church praxis regarding baptism excommunicates its children and the intellectually impaired from the church until they make a cognizant confession of faith. (some mentally impaired can never do so), Until they can understand and believe, you claim, they cannot be members of the church, because entry into the church is by baptism alone. But that is faulty reasoning.

You know nothing of the terms of your own covenant with God it seems, and certainly do not take God 'at His Word' when he promises salvation to 'you and your children, and those afar off'. Acts.2:39; Gen.9:9; 17:12; No wonder there is so much angst among Baptists as to whether their kids are 'saved yet'. Such questions are a slap in the face of God and a demonstration of doubt that God will keep His promises clearly set out in scripture. Gen.17:19-21. It is God who decides whom He establishes His Covenant with, even before they are conceived, let alone before they are born or can ever have 'believing faith'. Believing faith is something which is graciously granted by God, not something 'we do to get saved', only when we are finally clever enough to understand and believe.
.

 

[ExTiff]

I do not need you to agree with me, and hopefully, you do not need me to agree with you either.
An infant is not able to believe or disbelieve.
That is my opinion.

How many more times! Baptism of infants is not on the grounds that they are capable of 'belief'. Baptism of infants is on the grounds that God has made a Covenant with their parent(s). Their part in that covenant is to bring up the child in the 'fear and nurture of The Lord' and within the faith community of the church. The infant belongs to God along with everything else that Christ has paid the price for. 1 Cor.6:20. Ezek.16:21. 1 Cor.7:14. The children of believers belong to God. They are God's children. The only choice open to them in later life is to either continue in the covenant God already has with them, (because of their parents faith), and ratify that covenant by faith in their Lord and savior Jesus Christ, (on their own behalf), OR to reject that great salvation, rebel, break covenant, and incur the necessary discipline of their Covenant Head, Jesus Christ. Meanwhile they are Holy to God, special in His sight, gifted severally as God sees fit, and entitled to all the benefits of being members of Jesus Christ's church.
.

 

[ExTiff]

Infants of believers are actually a supreme example of salvation by 'faith alone' and not 'works, that any can boast of'.

In adults there must be a confession of faith and repentance of past sins, followed by at least a desire for baptism, if they have not already undergone that ritual.

This potentially leaves room for a false view of how salvation is obtained. It is tempting for such believing adults to attribute salvation to (a) their faith, (b) their repentance, (c) their determination to live according to God's law, or any combination of, or all three. None of these reasons provide salvation. It is God's Grace that guarantees our salvation, (the atoning sacrifice of God in Christ), nothing else can secure it. The aforementioned 'a,b,c' merely allows the transmission of God's Grace by the removal of the blockage from our end of the relationship. 2 Cor.5:20. The free gift was always there for the receiving "even while we were yet still unrepentant, unbelieving, sinners". Rom.5:8. 2 Cor.5:19.

Infants receive baptism solely on the grounds of God's grace, in that God has promised those who will trust God's Word, that their children will be 'saved', under the terms of the same covenant God has made with the parents by their faith in God's Grace, through their repentance and their determination to allow God's spirit to Sanctify them.

Infants are incapable of ratifying and confirming their own covenant relationship with God. They therefore cannot have false views 'a,b or c'. They have a purer relationship with God than even a 'believing' adult is capable of. They are utterly dependent upon God's Grace, incapable of faith or works of the law and have as yet done nothing for which personal repentance is required by God.

This indeed is perfect 'salvation' which cannot be enhanced, but only neglected if they are careless enough to allow it to fall into abeyance or actually reject it.

All being well they will voluntarily come to God at the time of God's choosing and freely take upon themselves the full responsibility of keeping God's covenant, which is faithful service to our Lord Jesus Christ, living according to the principles of His Kingdom.
.

 

[Robin Mauro]

How many times do you need to be told that 'believing faith' only applies to adults, and then only to 'compos mentis' adults at that.

Baptist church praxis regarding baptism excommunicates its children and the intellectually impaired from the church until they make a cognizant confession of faith. (some mentally impaired can never do so), Until they can understand and believe, you claim, they cannot be members of the church, because entry into the church is by baptism alone. But that is faulty reasoning.

You know nothing of the terms of your own covenant with God it seems, and certainly do not take God 'at His Word' when he promises salvation to 'you and your children, and those afar off'. Acts.2:39; Gen.9:9; 17:12; No wonder there is so much angst among Baptists as to whether their kids are 'saved yet'. Such questions are a slap in the face of God and a demonstration of doubt that God will keep His promises clearly set out in scripture. Gen.17:19-21. It is God who decides whom He establishes His Covenant with, even before they are conceived, let alone before they are born or can ever have 'believing faith'. Believing faith is something which is graciously granted by God, not something 'we do to get saved', only when we are finally clever enough to understand and believe.
.

First of all, I am just trying to have a conversation with you.
I am not angry, but apparently you are angry with me. Your very first sentence you asked,
"How many times do you need to be told..."
1 Jonn 2:27
"...you don't need a teacher..."
I do not need you to teach me anything. I was hoping on this website I could have interactions with other believers which lead to a deeper understanding of scripture, but that does not seem to be the case.
I am willing to listen, to consider, to pray, and if I learn something new that is terrific.
But please show me respect, and I will try to do the same for you.
I do not know you, and you do not know me.
Can we have different points of view and still love each other as God says we should?
Lord help us.
Second of all, you left out an essential part of Acts 2, which undermines your argument.
Acts 2:38
"Repent and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...the promise is for you and your children."
Clearly, people are being told what do do, and the children are included in the instruction. That in no way says that anyone, including our children, are juSt saved.
Also, as for the other scriptures, God made covenents, and people broke them, from the beginning of time,
Genesis 17:14, Leviticus 26:15, Ezekiel 16:59, Isaiah 24:5, 1Kings 11:11, Hosea 8:1...
Hebrew's chapters 8 and 9 speak of a new covenents, but 9 ends with ..."to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."
Throughout the entire Bible, God expects things of man.
To be perfect? No.
But to strive? Yes.
God cleared up some confusion I had over verses concerning grace and works.
He put the question on my heart,
"What if I had completely left works out, after Jesus' crucifixion?"
Immediately I knew the answer. Man would use salvation as an excuse to sin.
Jesus saved us so that we may, through him, overcome sin. He did not save us so that we would be free to sin.
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."
The point of people being saved with or without baptism is an interstinging one. I would even go so far as to call it a debatable matter.
And there is nothing we can do to save ourselves, but there are still things God requires of us,
Matthew 25:40-45
...whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me..,"
"...then he will say to those on his left, depart from me, into the eternal fire...for I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat..."

If you would like to have a friendly, loving debate about scripture, I'm in, but I ask to to please show me the same respect that you require of others.
And I understand why people get upset.
I do too, and I forgive you.

 

[ExTiff]

First of all, I am just trying to have a conversation with you.
I am not angry, but apparently you are angry with me. Your very first sentence you asked,
"How many times do you need to be told..."

I did not intend the comment to be a patronising rebuff. I apologise if you found it offensive. I was merely trying to impress upon you that repeatedly coming back with "infants can't believe", "it isn't found in scripture", etc is not a valid argument against infant baptism for the simple reasons that (1) Infants are not baptised on the premise that they can or even need to, 'believe'. It rests on entirely different scriptural principles, which I had already explained. (2) Doctrine, (and in particular baptism), does not depend solely upon examples or commands in scripture. Doctrine can be also based soundly upon logical inferences drawn from both Old and New Testament verses and arguments. One such is the case of women receiving communion. Although there are no examples of women receiving communion or commands to allow or prohibit such in any part of scripture, sound theological arguments for it can easily be marshaled from related scriptures, which clearly indicate the validity of reception of communion by the whole Christian Congregation, the Church. The same form of logical reasoning also applies to the Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. It does not depend upon examples or commands for its authenticity in accord with Old and New Testament scripture.

A deeper understanding of scripture is what is actually required, as you suggest. I have tried to cite the line of reasoning and the scriptures it is based upon. Simply returning replies which seem to have completely ignored the explanations and returned to 'infants can't believe' as if that clinches the debate, is simply not helpful.

you left out an essential part of Acts 2, which undermines your argument.
Acts 2:38 "Repent and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit...the promise is for you and your children."
Clearly, people are being told what to do, and the children are included in the instruction. That in no way says that anyone, including our children, are just saved.

No, but along with many other important verses in OT and NT it emphasizes the fact that Peter was a Covenant believer, and covenant was well understood by The Jews. The reason they were 'cut to the quick' was because they suddenly realised they were covenant breakers. They therefore asked 'What shall we do to be saved'. Peter's reply was 'Be baptised' in effect both you and your children. This would have by no means been misunderstood by a Jewish assembly. They fully understood what baptism 'meant', they were already circumcised but they knew that was not enough to 'save' them from the punishment for breaking God's Covenant by murdering God's Messiah. They would also have fully expected their children to be 'saved' from the wrath to come, if they too were also 'baptised'. In their case though, it would have to be explained to them later on, how God's wrath for the murder of His Son, had been averted in that day of 5000 baptisms. Eventually under the teaching of St Paul and other Apostles, they would all understand that God had been in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and no longer holding their sins against them, and had given unto them the message of reconciliation, the preaching of The Gospel.

Also, as for the other scriptures, God made covenants, and people broke them, from the beginning of time,
Genesis 17:14, Leviticus 26:15, Ezekiel 16:59, Isaiah 24:5, 1Kings 11:11, Hosea 8:1...
Hebrew's chapters 8 and 9 speak of a new covenants, but 9 ends with ..."to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."
Throughout the entire Bible, God expects things of man.
To be perfect? No.
But to strive? Yes.

Throughout history there have been covenant breakers and covenant keepers. 1 Kings.19:14-18.

God cleared up some confusion I had over verses concerning grace and works.
He put the question on my heart,
"What if I had completely left works out, after Jesus' crucifixion?"
Immediately I knew the answer. Man would use salvation as an excuse to sin.
Jesus saved us so that we may, through him, overcome sin. He did not save us so that we would be free to sin.
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."
The point of people being saved with or without baptism is an interesting one. I would even go so far as to call it a debatable matter.

At very bottom though it is only through God's Grace that we are 'saved' not by our faith, our repentance, our determination to keep the law, our submission to the waters of baptism. All those, except God's Grace can be seen by us as being 'how we got saved', whereas we should think of all and any of them as 'how God saved us'

But saved us for what? Rom.6:4; Eph.2:10; 2 John.1:6;

 

[Robin Mauro]

I did not intend the comment to be a patronising rebuff. I apologise if you found it offensive. I was merely trying to impress upon you that repeatedly coming back with "infants can't believe", "it isn't found in scripture", etc is not a valid argument against infant baptism for the simple reasons that (1) Infants are not baptised on the premise that they can or even need to, 'believe'. It rests on entirely different scriptural principles, which I had already explained. (2) Doctrine, (and in particular baptism), does not depend solely upon examples or commands in scripture. Doctrine can be also based soundly upon logical inferences drawn from both Old and New Testament verses and arguments. One such is the case of women receiving communion. Although there are no examples of women receiving communion or commands to allow or prohibit such in any part of scripture, sound theological arguments for it can easily be marshaled from related scriptures, which clearly indicate the validity of reception of communion by the whole Christian Congregation, the Church. The same form of logical reasoning also applies to the Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. It does not depend upon examples or commands for its authenticity in accord with Old and New Testament scripture.

A deeper understanding of scripture is what is actually required, as you suggest. I have tried to cite the line of reasoning and the scriptures it is based upon. Simply returning replies which seem to have completely ignored the explanations and returned to 'infants can't believe' as if that clinches the debate, is simply not helpful.



No, but along with many other important verses in OT and NT it emphasizes the fact that Peter was a Covenant believer, and covenant was well understood by The Jews. The reason they were 'cut to the quick' was because they suddenly realised they were covenant breakers. They therefore asked 'What shall we do to be saved'. Peter's reply was 'Be baptised' in effect both you and your children. This would have by no means been misunderstood by a Jewish assembly. They fully understood what baptism 'meant', they were already circumcised but they knew that was not enough to 'save' them from the punishment for breaking God's Covenant by murdering God's Messiah. They would also have fully expected their children to be 'saved' from the wrath to come, if they too were also 'baptised'. In their case though, it would have to be explained to them later on, how God's wrath for the murder of His Son, had been averted in that day of 5000 baptisms. Eventually under the teaching of St Paul and other Apostles, they would all understand that God had been in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and no longer holding their sins against them, and had given unto them the message of reconciliation, the preaching of The Gospel.



Throughout history there have been covenant breakers and covenant keepers. 1 Kings.19:14-18.



At very bottom though it is only through God's Grace that we are 'saved' not by our faith, our repentance, our determination to keep the law, our submission to the waters of baptism. All those, except God's Grace can be seen by us as being 'how we got saved', whereas we should think of all and any of them as 'how God saved us'

But saved us for what? Rom.6:4; Eph.2:10; 2 John.1:6;

Thank-you,
And I am sorry too, if my saying there was no scripture telling us to baptize infants, was abrubt.
I do not think we really disagree.
I do not feel church history, and practices, are of no value, I just take them for what they are, and with a certain amount of skeptism, which I am sure you can understand since you seem to know the Word well.
Jesus spoke of the damage done when the church decides to add its own rules-traditions to God's Word. They are probably not all bad, but you know the one where Jesus confronted the priests about changing the rule (for lack of a better word) about taking care of one's parents and giving that money to the church instead.
Or how the Old Testament says don't boil a kid in its mothers milk, and the Jews took it further and said don't boil it in any milk. ( I may not have that exactly correct, but am too tired right now to look it up), or how the Bible does not prohibit priests or Pastors from marrying, but the Catholic church does, or how Jesus used the wine to to represent his blood, and his first miracle was turning water into wine, but many Baptists say don't drink any alcohol ever.
I have been to many churches and do not consider myself denominational, just Christian. They all have their high points and their low ( of course, since people are involved ).
But I think it is just as dangerous to add rules as it is to ignore ones that are actually in there.
I just treat what man says with a little fear, because I have seen how good humans are ( myself included) at messing things up.
I am thankful to God for his patience and his love.
And thank-you for your Christ - like response,
Robin

 

[ExTiff]

Robin

Thank-you,
And I am sorry too, if my saying there was no scripture telling us to baptize infants, was abrupt.
I do not think we really disagree.

Neither do I but we are approaching this question from very different theological positions.

My theological position is broadly 'Reformed'. As Anglicans we subject doctrine to three tests. (1) Is it supported by or refuted by scripture, (the 66 Books of the Bible)? (2) Does it accord with what the church has historically believed, (right back to Apostolic times)? (3) Does it make sense, logically and practically?

Infant baptism passes all three tests. It is Biblical, it accords with the most ancient church practice, and it is based upon the most fundamental principles of faith, namely The New Covenant between God and man.(Some, I agree wrongly base it upon only church tradition, an admittedly uncertain foundation evidenced by history itself).

Church history is only the second consideration, the first is what scripture teaches us concerning the terms of The New Covenant, how we enter and remain within The New Covenant, where exactly this New Covenant derives from, and who the New Covenant actually applies to and is offered by.

This assumes that no definition of the Church can exclude the Church of the people of God in the Old Testament, and the Church of the New Testament is the continuation of the Church in the Old Testament, more firmly based on the principle of 'faith' and more endowed with 'God's Grace', with Christ the Covenant Head of both.

Your theological position, it seems to me, is more finely focused upon the salvation of individual human beings, what they need to do to receive God's forgiveness and the gift of eternal life, and what they must do to be assured of the security of these benefits.

It is so focused upon the New Testament means of salvation through personal believing faith in the atonement of Christ. (All of which is perfectly true for adults), that apart from some interesting genealogies, some basic rules and some prophesy concerning the coming messiah, the Old Testament might as well not exist as far as the formulation of New Testament doctrine is concerned.

Thus you have lost sight of some key promises that God has sworn by his own Person to honour and keep, concerning the infants and children of Christian believers.

Essentially we are both considering exactly the same questions but are arriving at similar answers, by two different ways of understanding scripture. (the only difference is your restricted focus on New Testament evidence alone results in a lack of faith in God's Old Testament promise to believing mothers and fathers that their children shall be His along with themselves, until such time as those children voluntarily take upon themselves their full responsibility to God under the generous terms of the covenant they were born into, by 'drawing nigh to God and being reconciled to Him'. Jer.30:21; Ezek.44:13; Matt.15:8. 2 Cor.5:20.).

Thus, no matter what may be their state of health, intelligence, cognitive ability or disposition, the children of believers are 'saved' until such time as they deliberately reject God's love for them, throw over the reigns of His protection, and "stiff necked, go their own way". And believe me, Jesus does not easily lose sheep given to Him by God. "Going one's own way will inevitably result in extremely uncomfortable experiences in life". I hate to think of the many indignant 'infant baptised' covenant breakers, wandering in 'a wilderness of sin Num.27:1-4. Num.33:11.', Jesus has dragged back to the flock, for their own protection and well being.

I was certainly one of them.

 

[Robin Mauro]

Neither do I but we are approaching this question from very different theological positions.

My theological position is broadly 'Reformed'. As Anglicans we subject doctrine to three tests. (1) Is it supported by or refuted by scripture, (the 66 Books of the Bible)? (2) Does it accord with what the church has historically believed, (right back to Apostolic times)? (3) Does it make sense, logically and practically?

Infant baptism passes all three tests. It is Biblical, it accords with the most ancient church practice, and it is based upon the most fundamental principles of faith, namely The New Covenant between God and man.(Some, I agree wrongly base it upon only church tradition, an admittedly uncertain foundation evidenced by history itself).

Church history is only the second consideration, the first is what scripture teaches us concerning the terms of The New Covenant, how we enter and remain within The New Covenant, where exactly this New Covenant derives from, and who the New Covenant actually applies to and is offered by.

This assumes that no definition of the Church can exclude the Church of the people of God in the Old Testament, and the Church of the New Testament is the continuation of the Church in the Old Testament, more firmly based on the principle of 'faith' and more endowed with 'God's Grace', with Christ the Covenant Head of both.

Your theological position, it seems to me, is more finely focused upon the salvation of individual human beings, what they need to do to receive God's forgiveness and the gift of eternal life, and what they must do to be assured of the security of these benefits.

It is so focused upon the New Testament means of salvation through personal believing faith in the atonement of Christ. (All of which is perfectly true for adults), that apart from some interesting genealogies, some basic rules and some prophesy concerning the coming messiah, the Old Testament might as well not exist as far as the formulation of New Testament doctrine is concerned.

Thus you have lost sight of some key promises that God has sworn by his own Person to honour and keep, concerning the infants and children of Christian believers.

Essentially we are both considering exactly the same questions but are arriving at similar answers, by two different ways of understanding scripture. (the only difference is your restricted focus on New Testament evidence alone results in a lack of faith in God's Old Testament promise to believing mothers and fathers that their children shall be His along with themselves, until such time as those children voluntarily take upon themselves their full responsibility to God under the generous terms of the covenant they were born into, by 'drawing nigh to God and being reconciled to Him'. Jer.30:21; Ezek.44:13; Matt.15:8. 2 Cor.5:20.).

Thus, no matter what may be their state of health, intelligence, cognitive ability or disposition, the children of believers are 'saved' until such time as they deliberately reject God's love for them, throw over the reigns of His protection, and "stiff necked, go their own way". And believe me, Jesus does not easily lose sheep given to Him by God. "Going one's own way will inevitably result in extremely uncomfortable experiences in life". I hate to think of the many indignant 'infant baptised' covenant breakers, wandering in 'a wilderness of sin Num.27:1-4. Num.33:11.', Jesus has dragged back to the flock, for their own protection and well being.

I was certainly one of them.

I actually believe all infants and children are saved, regardless of being baptized or not. At what age someone becomes responsible/choosing sin, is not clear. I suspect it may be different for everyone,
Matthew 18:3
"...unless you become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
And I also love the Old Testament...the stories of the patriarchs and matriarchs...Jacob especially, and Moses....all the books have much to offer. And Jesus is the fullfilment of the law, so I do not see a disconnect between the Old and the New.
I get everything I believe straight from the Bible.
Anglican, huh? Is that Episcopalian? I went to an Episcopal church for quite awhile and got a lot out of it...especially a 9 month Bible study. It was great.
God bless.

 

[ExTiff]

I actually believe all infants and children are saved, regardless of being baptized or not. At what age someone becomes responsible/choosing sin, is not clear. I suspect it may be different for everyone,
Matthew 18:3
"...unless you become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
And I also love the Old Testament...the stories of the patriarchs and matriarchs...Jacob especially, and Moses....all the books have much to offer. And Jesus is the fullfilment of the law, so I do not see a disconnect between the Old and the New.
I get everything I believe straight from the Bible.
Anglican, huh? Is that Episcopalian? I went to an Episcopal church for quite awhile and got a lot out of it...especially a 9 month Bible study. It was great.
God bless.

Anglican is in my case Church of England, (Angles were the Roman name for natives of Britain), but your nearest equivalent would be Episcopalian. I too believe that God is abundantly gracious and no longer holds our sins against us, but we still require to be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus Christ to become part of God's redemptive plan for His creation. This 'renewal' requires repentance of past sins and henceforth reliance upon God for our salvation. We need to trust God like little children trust adults. In a world such as we have 'made', that is no easy business. That is why we need God's help and forgiveness, as do our neighbours.
.