Except in Acts is says that a family was baptized, although we don't know their ages. Back then, the man was viewed as the head of the family, so the way the husband/father went was the way that the wife and children went.
No doubt.. .but it has more reference to being children and adults than it does babies.
When infant baptism became the norm, largely due to the panic that the plagues created, baptism was split into two sacraments if a child was baptized: baptism and confirmation.
I understand "how" it came to pass. Remember, I said "no harm in doing it"... but there really isn't any scriptural support that "original sin" requires an infant baptism.
It was viewed as a "sacrifice", which is found in different forms throughout the scriptures. However, this was obviously too self-serving, thus being banned during the Counter-Reformation and beyond through today.
"Purgatory" is an "interpretation" (remember your own word
) that relates to several verses plus the belief in sheol. Supportive verses include Matt. 12:32, Heb. 12:23, Rev, 21:27. Also, the Jewish practice of praying for the dead, which shows up in the book of "Sirach", was commonplace in the early church, so there's a tradition that comes into play here as well.
Now, mind you, I'm hardly one to say that this is a correct "interpretation", but it is one nevertheless that's based on scriptures and past practice.
LOL... yes, I know, interpretation. But the question is, when does "interpretation" violate obvious scriptures that says something different.
According to scripture, it says "let everything be established by the witness of two". For an example, baby baptism; you gave me Acts 10 as a reference but we are only able to say "it is possible"... but no direct reference. Where, in all of scripture, do we find
anytime a baby is baptised. There isn't any.
So let's take purgatory, which is a "temporary" time where people are paying for a certain amount of sins but isn't an eternal punishment. You mentioned certain scriptures, of which there are many more, that speak of the
possibility of a hell but
none suggest a temoral time.
Now, let's apply these scriptures:
Heb 10:
2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.
Col 2:
14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
1 John 2:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
John 1:
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
And a host of many more. So the question is, at what point does a theological stance so violate scripture that the position is no longer tenable?
