Baptists?

[CelticRebel]

If all infants, and all children who have not yet reached the age of responsibility, are automatically protected from eternal damnation should they die in that state, all parents have the moral and ethical responsibility to make absolutely certain that their children do not reach the age of responsibility. In those cases where the parents fail to live up to their moral and ethical responsibility, the grandparents have the moral and ethical responsibility to intervene and make absolutely certain that their grandchildren do not reach the age of responsibility. In the most horrible event that both the parents and the grandparents fail to live up to their responsibility as good Christians, it is the responsibility of the church to make absolutely certain that the children do not reach the age of responsibility and consequently be in jeopardy of eternal damnation.

Most fortunately, however, the Bible does not teach that all infants, and all children who have not yet reached the age of responsibility, are automatically protected from eternal damnation should they die in that state. Therefore, neither the parents, nor the grandparents, nor the church have the responsibility to commit infanticide to assure that the children do not reach the age of responsibility and thereby be in jeopardy of eternal damnation.

Since the Bible does not teach that all infants, and all children who have not yet reached the age of responsibility, are automatically protected from eternal damnation should they die in that state, most Christians other than Baptists and the like have their infants baptized lest they die before they have the opportunity to hear and believe the gospel—and thus be saved from eternal damnation. However, does the baptism of infants actually protect them from the consequence of original sin? Which doctrine is true—the doctrine of the age of responsibility (or accountability) along with credobaptism; or the doctrine of paedobaptism? Should Baptist parents have their infant children baptized, or should they gamble that their Baptist beliefs are true? I am a Baptist with Baptist beliefs—but how sure am I that my Baptist beliefs are true?

I am 100% sure that water baptism does not save or cleanse from sin.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

1. With respect to infants, I have heard it said that they are protected until they reach the age of responsibility.....

2. Unless of course, not all infants are among the elect....

You post some pretty insightful stuff, I must say. I don't know what Baptists hold to lately, as I'm but a tadpole in the pond of the Baptist church, but I've encountered three possible explanations among Christians, in general, at least among those who did not claim universal salvation. The subject of what happens to an infant who is too young to understand is a very sensitive issue, naturally. Even miscarriages lead people to wonder if their unborn child is in Heaven or Hell. It's so much easier to deal with independent adults. It's harder to think of Hell for a child, and even harder for one's own child. But here are the three explanations I've encountered:

1. Age of Accountability: the belief that a child automatically goes to Heaven if he/she dies before growing old enough to understand the means to his/her salvation. This one is a favorite among Evangelicals and makes a big splash on the well-known Left Behind series. The strength in it is that it leaves no doubt in the mind of a grieving bereft Christian parent. The weakness of its effect is that it makes an abominable argument for those in the pro-abortion crowd who claim they're guaranteeing the salvation of millions by killing them before they have a chance to go to Hell. The biblical strength, or in this case weakness, is that the age of accountability, as far as I'm aware, has no relevance to salvation, and the whole concept of original sin pretty much blows it out of the water.

2. Paedobaptism: Some people pronounce it pay-do-baptism, but I think the correct Latin pronunciation is pee-do-baptism. It is simply the baptism of an infant against its will. As far as I know, no Baptist church openly accepts this idea. The strength of it is that it gives parents a chance to save their kids at an early age, while not weakening the position by claiming to automatically save all children, everywhere, which many people find to be an awfully big pill to swallow. The weakness of its effect is that it still means damnation for the hapless fetus, as well as for any child whose parents took a minute too long to get them to the baptismal (a cruel punishment for being unlucky). The Biblical weakness is that the baptism, itself, is just a rite to mark the acceptance of salvation, but it is not the salvific event, itself. Otherwise, a person could save an entire stadium of individuals if well-equipped with a good fire hose.

3. Salvation from Eternity: A more Calvinistic belief that just as adults are destined to accept Christ and be saved, God destines the unborn and the infant. It looks at infants essentially in terms of those whom God would have destined to accept Christ if they had lived long enough. It suffers from the logical incongruity that God did not, in fact, destine them to live long enough, so it's hard to claim what God would have done if he hadn't stopped himself. It requires, then, that salvation is not actually from accepting Christ, but from being predestined, and the acceptance of Christ is more of a relevant effect than a salvific cause. That's the biblical weakness, especially since Christ was clear on what the cause of salvation is. Predestination would need to be the direct cause of salvation and not the cause for someone to accept Christ, which is the direct cause of salvation. The strength of its effect is that it challenges parents to just trust God with the unknown, which is what we should be doing, anyway. The weakness of its effect is that it leaves uncertainty in the mind of the bereaved parent.

All three of these, as with any explanation, attempt to show how a person can be saved without actually accepting Christ. That's the fundamental problem. No matter how we bend our minds to work with this terribly vexing dilemma, we still cannot comfort ourselves with the death of a baby unless we can convince ourselves that it is somehow possible for a person to go to Heaven without accepting Christ, at least in this life. Hence, every explanation has a certain heretical edge to it, simply by virtue of attempting to find a way around it. I can't say which one I believe, but I'm almost dead certain that the most popular one among Baptists is the first one. Personally, I'm leaning toward the third one, with the caveat that I suspect that the Bible does not actually answer this question at all.

 

[CelticRebel]

You post some pretty insightful stuff, I must say. I don't know what Baptists hold to lately, as I'm but a tadpole in the pond of the Baptist church, but I've encountered three possible explanations among Christians, in general, at least among those who did not claim universal salvation. The subject of what happens to an infant who is too young to understand is a very sensitive issue, naturally. Even miscarriages lead people to wonder if their unborn child is in Heaven or Hell. It's so much easier to deal with independent adults. It's harder to think of Hell for a child, and even harder for one's own child. But here are the three explanations I've encountered:

1. Age of Accountability: the belief that a child automatically goes to Heaven if he/she dies before growing old enough to understand the means to his/her salvation. This one is a favorite among Evangelicals and makes a big splash on the well-known Left Behind series. The strength in it is that it leaves no doubt in the mind of a grieving bereft Christian parent. The weakness of its effect is that it makes an abominable argument for those in the pro-abortion crowd who claim they're guaranteeing the salvation of millions by killing them before they have a chance to go to Hell. The biblical strength, or in this case weakness, is that the age of accountability, as far as I'm aware, has no relevance to salvation, and the whole concept of original sin pretty much blows it out of the water.

2. Paedobaptism: Some people pronounce it pay-do-baptism, but I think the correct Latin pronunciation is pee-do-baptism. It is simply the baptism of an infant against its will. As far as I know, no Baptist church openly accepts this idea. The strength of it is that it gives parents a chance to save their kids at an early age, while not weakening the position by claiming to automatically save all children, everywhere, which many people find to be an awfully big pill to swallow. The weakness of its effect is that it still means damnation for the hapless fetus, as well as for any child whose parents took a minute too long to get them to the baptismal (a cruel punishment for being unlucky). The Biblical weakness is that the baptism, itself, is just a rite to mark the acceptance of salvation, but it is not the salvific event, itself. Otherwise, a person could save an entire stadium of individuals if well-equipped with a good fire hose.

3. Salvation from Eternity: A more Calvinistic belief that just as adults are destined to accept Christ and be saved, God destines the unborn and the infant. It looks at infants essentially in terms of those whom God would have destined to accept Christ if they had lived long enough. It suffers from the logical incongruity that God did not, in fact, destine them to live long enough, so it's hard to claim what God would have done if he hadn't stopped himself. It requires, then, that salvation is not actually from accepting Christ, but from being predestined, and the acceptance of Christ is more of a relevant effect than a salvific cause. That's the biblical weakness, especially since Christ was clear on what the cause of salvation is. Predestination would need to be the direct cause of salvation and not the cause for someone to accept Christ, which is the direct cause of salvation. The strength of its effect is that it challenges parents to just trust God with the unknown, which is what we should be doing, anyway. The weakness of its effect is that it leaves uncertainty in the mind of the bereaved parent.

All three of these, as with any explanation, attempt to show how a person can be saved without actually accepting Christ. That's the fundamental problem. No matter how we bend our minds to work with this terribly vexing dilemma, we still cannot comfort ourselves with the death of a baby unless we can convince ourselves that it is somehow possible for a person to go to Heaven without accepting Christ, at least in this life. Hence, every explanation has a certain heretical edge to it, simply by virtue of attempting to find a way around it. I can't say which one I believe, but I'm almost dead certain that the most popular one among Baptists is the first one. Personally, I'm leaning toward the third one, with the caveat that I suspect that the Bible does not actually answer this question at all.

Good post. See the part I bolded at the end of your Number 1. My answer: Unless one believes like the Orthodox and early Anabaptists on original sin and not like the West -- Roman Catholic or Protestant.

 

[Goodbook]

Jesus comes for everyone and children can accept him without even going to church.
With the abortion question it is the faith of the parent, but a christian would NOT have an abortion after they saved. So its up to the believing parent. NOTE...BELIEVING parent.

I think its clear in the OT as stated before what the cut off point is...when a child can discern good from evil. And you may be surprised at how young children get this. I dont know the exact bible reference but know its in there somewhere...

 

[Pedrito]

Thank you to all who replied.

But my dilemma remains.

One night my eldest grandson will go to bed protected from a screaming, eternity in hell, but will wake up the next morning unprotected. (Unless God protects only some infants and has already preallocated the others to eternal torture.)

What does the Bible, upon which our faith and doctrines are supposed to be based, tell me with respect to identifying that night or that morning (or that middle of the day, perhaps)?


Also, if the statement in the The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon is correct:

Others are not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may experience some common operations of the Spirit, yet because they are not effectually drawn by the Father, they will not and cannot truly come to Christ and therefore cannot be saved.

then even being baptised as a “believer” does not guarantee that a particular person is one of God's elect.

That seems to me to negate the idea of “assurance of salvation”.

And how can parents know whether or not their children are actually among the truly saved?


Could Goodbook have been correct in saying in Post #77:

Theres no explicit scripture on this ...

If she is correct, how can we base a doctrine on something that is not found in the Bible?

If she is not correct, would someone please provide me with the specific scriptures that precisely answer my dilemma and question above?


Thank you.

 

[CelticRebel]

Thank you to all who replied.

But my dilemma remains.

One night my eldest grandson will go to bed protected from a screaming, eternity in hell, but will wake up the next morning unprotected. (Unless God protects only some infants and has already preallocated the others to eternal torture.)

What does the Bible, upon which our faith and doctrines are supposed to be based, tell me with respect to identifying that night or that morning (or that middle of the day, perhaps)?


Also, if the statement in the The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon is correct:


then even being baptised as a “believer” does not guarantee that a particular person is one of God's elect.

That seems to me to negate the idea of “assurance of salvation”.

And how can parents know whether or not their children are actually among the truly saved?


Could Goodbook have been correct in saying in Post #77:


If she is correct, how can we base a doctrine on something that is not found in the Bible?

If she is not correct, would someone please provide me with the specific scriptures that precisely answer my dilemma and question above?


Thank you.

First of all, Spurgeon is not correct. Secondly, one does not go from not accountable to accountable overnight, from innocent to culpable in 24 hours. To be held accountable, a person must be a persistent, repeat sinner -- one must deliberately choose to sin and remain unrepentant, unwilling to come to Jesus.

 

[Goodbook]

i would say quit holding to philosophical view and theology and just read the Bible and then you'll know what God says on the matter. Ask him for wisdom in this area, if you genuinely worried about your grandson.

you keep saying stuff about elect this and elect that.God does not see you this way, he sees believers and unbelievers. And he sees those who grow deeper in faith the more they walk with Him.
'elect' actually refers to those who were chosen (the israelites, jews, those circumcised). they actually had no choice, they were born into the bloodline. But we gentiles are grafted in and actually have a choice whether to follow Jesus or not. God ESPECIALLY wants the jews to follow their Messiah and recognise that He is Lord but the god of this world (satan) is blinding them. God our heavenly Father chooses us through Jesus. And Jesus will save anyone who believes in him!

I have had many trouble trying to figure out why calvinism is the way it is, and wonder why it seems to have been introduced to baptist churches when its really a presbyterian doctrine. It does your head in. We follow Jesus not john calvin.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

First of all, Secondly, one does not go from not accountable to accountable overnight, from innocent to culpable in 24 hours. To be held accountable, a person must be a persistent, repeat sinner -- one must deliberately choose to sin and remain unrepentant, unwilling to come to Jesus.

I cannot find this in the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, The Doctrine and Covenants, the Qur’an, or the Bhagavad-Gita, and it most certainly is not taught in the Bible. Therefore, I ask, “Where did you read this?”

 

[Pedrito]

Goodbook in Post #87:

i would say quit holding to philosophical view and theology and just read the Bible and then you'll know what God says on the matter.

I have been requesting the verses in the Bible that specifically address the matter of identifying the age of accountability in a child. I don't think that is being philosophical.

If there are no such verses, then could not the whole idea of the age of accountability be seen as philosophical?


Goodbook in Post #87:

you keep saying stuff about elect this and elect that.

Not me as such. The formal Baptist Confessions of Faith. Is it wrong to quote those and seek clarification?


CelticRebel in Post #86:

First of all, Spurgeon is not correct.

1. Is that the generally held view?

2. Are you saying that Spurgeon was teaching unscriptural doctrine?


CelticRebel in Post #86:

Secondly, one does not go from not accountable to accountable overnight, from innocent to culpable in 24 hours.

But exactly when does the Bible say the scales are tipped? I doubt one can be ¼ accountable, ½ accountable ¾ accountable, etc.

Is it not of great importance for parents and grandparents to know when this has occurred? Or is approaching?


I really would like to put this matter to bed. Specific scriptures are all I ask.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

But exactly when does the Bible say the scales are tipped? I doubt one can be ¼ accountable, ½ accountable ¾ accountable, etc.

I really like the way you think, and I wish I had a clear answer for you. You're absolutely right, though. A person simply cannot be partially damned to Hell. Therefore, there couldn't possibly be a gradual transition from unaccountable to accountable, any more than there can be a gradual transition from saved to unsaved.

I wonder if Hitler had died prior to the "age of accountability" if we would have been condemned to an eternity of putting up with him in Heaven? It only makes sense if the fetal Hitler remains a fetus in Heaven, because he would only be blameless as a fetus (ad absurdum). What a mental image that makes. Similarly, anyone who goes to Heaven as a result of not getting the chance to develop into the loathsome sinner that they would have become would either have to be remade into someone else, entirely, or else forced into a perpetual state of infancy.

Jesus on the subject of children:
Matthew 18:6
"but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

In this passage, even a little child is distinguished by an ability to believe in Jesus. That puts the age of meaningful faith well below the Jewish age of accountability.

Luke 1:41
"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."

Even an unborn baby demonstrates recognition of the Lordship of Christ. This one is probably a key to understanding the whole thing. The baby was John the Baptist, and I don't think a similar response could have been expected of a fetal Caiaphas, for example. The adult destiny of the fetus affected the faith of the fetus...though even I must admit there's something bizarre about discussing a faithful fetus. The fetal John the Baptist was sensitive to the spirit of God, just as the adult John the Baptist was. Hence, as above, faith is necessary, but the source of that faith begins to take on Calvinistic leanings, because if the fetus of John the Baptist had faith, then it must have been imparted to him directly from God and not been an act of his own free will, a decision made after considering the facts and his options. Perhaps it could have been through the faith of Elizabeth, but then not only are we still rejecting free will, but we're taking the predestination out of God's hands and giving it to mortals, which makes me immensely uncomfortable. It falls into line with paedobaptism, where the parents can arbitrarily "save" the children.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I have had many trouble trying to figure out why calvinism is the way it is, and wonder why it seems to have been introduced to baptist churches when its really a presbyterian doctrine. It does your head in. We follow Jesus not john calvin.

Even Calvinists don't follow John Calvin. I was raised in the Assemblies of God, which is strictly Arminian, but I became a Calvinist as a teenager before I even knew there was such a person as John Calvin, despite my upbringing, despite always believing that the Presbyterians are generally a lost denomination. I came to that belief when I first read the Bible cover to cover. That's all there is to it. I have yet to really study the teachings of Calvin. I probably never will. Even so, it's pretty obvious that my beliefs are Calvinistic.

Good day, and if Calvinism does your head in, then I suggest you ignore it. I don't want your head done in. Salvation still comes by faith in Christ, and that's all that really matters.

 

[CelticRebel]

I really like the way you think, and I wish I had a clear answer for you. You're absolutely right, though. A person simply cannot be partially damned to Hell. Therefore, there couldn't possibly be a gradual transition from unaccountable to accountable, any more than there can be a gradual transition from saved to unsaved.

I wonder if Hitler had died prior to the "age of accountability" if we would have been condemned to an eternity of putting up with him in Heaven? It only makes sense if the fetal Hitler remains a fetus in Heaven, because he would only be blameless as a fetus (ad absurdum). What a mental image that makes. Similarly, anyone who goes to Heaven as a result of not getting the chance to develop into the loathsome sinner that they would have become would either have to be remade into someone else, entirely, or else forced into a perpetual state of infancy.

Jesus on the subject of children:
Matthew 18:6
"but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,[a] it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

In this passage, even a little child is distinguished by an ability to believe in Jesus. That puts the age of meaningful faith well below the Jewish age of accountability.

Luke 1:41
"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."

Even an unborn baby demonstrates recognition of the Lordship of Christ. This one is probably a key to understanding the whole thing. The baby was John the Baptist, and I don't think a similar response could have been expected of a fetal Caiaphas, for example. The adult destiny of the fetus affected the faith of the fetus...though even I must admit there's something bizarre about discussing a faithful fetus. The fetal John the Baptist was sensitive to the spirit of God, just as the adult John the Baptist was. Hence, as above, faith is necessary, but the source of that faith begins to take on Calvinistic leanings, because if the fetus of John the Baptist had faith, then it must have been imparted to him directly from God and not been an act of his own free will, a decision made after considering the facts and his options. Perhaps it could have been through the faith of Elizabeth, but then not only are we still rejecting free will, but we're taking the predestination out of God's hands and giving it to mortals, which makes me immensely uncomfortable. It falls into line with paedobaptism, where the parents can arbitrarily "save" the children.

Or it could have been as the Quakers believe: that the light of Christ is given to every human being, based on John 1:9.

 

[Goodbook]

Hmm well..i dont have much to add but just that John the baptist was a special case cos he was chosen by God to be a prophet. Remember he was BEFORE Jesus. After Jesus we can choose. Both gentile and jews.

The elect God is refering to the israelites. Or the chosen, as they are generally known, Jews are the chosen people of God. jesus was a jew. So through Jesus, all who believe in him become Gods people. I hope that makes sense.

The Israelitrs didnt ask to be a chosen people. God chose THEM. In fact, it is an incredible burden to be born a Jew cos of the requiremnts to be holy, some feel. But they can easily live it out when they believe in Jesus, just as we gentiles can. We are one in Christ. When we are born again, i suppose we can consider ourselves chosen and adopted too.

 

[twin1954]

Thank you to all who replied.

But my dilemma remains.

One night my eldest grandson will go to bed protected from a screaming, eternity in hell, but will wake up the next morning unprotected. (Unless God protects only some infants and has already preallocated the others to eternal torture.)

What does the Bible, upon which our faith and doctrines are supposed to be based, tell me with respect to identifying that night or that morning (or that middle of the day, perhaps)?


Also, if the statement in the The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon is correct:


then even being baptised as a “believer” does not guarantee that a particular person is one of God's elect.

That seems to me to negate the idea of “assurance of salvation”.

And how can parents know whether or not their children are actually among the truly saved?


Could Goodbook have been correct in saying in Post #77:


If she is correct, how can we base a doctrine on something that is not found in the Bible?

If she is not correct, would someone please provide me with the specific scriptures that precisely answer my dilemma and question above?


Thank you.

(Deu 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

The Scriptures are not clear on this subject and we shouldn't speculate as to how it should be. I am content to know that whatever the Lord does is right.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

(Deu 29:29) The secretthings belongunto the LORD our God: but thosethings which arerevealedbelongunto us and to our children for ever, thatwemay do all the words of this law.


The Scriptures are not clear on this subject and we shouldn't speculate as to how it should be. I am content to know that whatever the Lord does is right.

Amen and amen!

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you to all who replied.

But my dilemma remains.

One night my eldest grandson will go to bed protected from a screaming, eternity in hell, but will wake up the next morning unprotected. (Unless God protects only some infants and has already preallocated the others to eternal torture.)

What does the Bible, upon which our faith and doctrines are supposed to be based, tell me with respect to identifying that night or that morning (or that middle of the day, perhaps)?


Also, if the statement in the The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon is correct:


then even being baptised as a “believer” does not guarantee that a particular person is one of God's elect.

That seems to me to negate the idea of “assurance of salvation”.

And how can parents know whether or not their children are actually among the truly saved?


Could Goodbook have been correct in saying in Post #77:


If she is correct, how can we base a doctrine on something that is not found in the Bible?

If she is not correct, would someone please provide me with the specific scriptures that precisely answer my dilemma and question above?


Thank you.

Pedrito,

What was Jesus’ view of children and life after death?

His disciples seemed to have a view that children were not important–“should be seen but not heard.” Jesus rebuked them and challenged their distorted views. He said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matt 19:14, emphasis added). Even though it was meant as correction, Christ included an important view of a child’s place in heaven. Reformed commentator, William Hendriksen's assessment was: “In principle all blessings of salvation belong even now to these little ones, a fact which was to be realized progressively here on earth and perfectly in the hereafter” (Hendriksen 1973:720).

An Anglican bishop from the last century, J. C. Ryle, affirmed Christ’s view that children would go to heaven at death: “We may surely hope well about the salvation of all who die in infancy. `Of such is the kingdom of heaven'” (Ryle 1977:236).

I have written more on this topic in: Children and heaven

Works consulted

William Hendriksen 1973. The Gospel of Matthew (New Testament Commentary). Edinburgh (Scotland): The Banner of Truth Trust/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

J.C. Ryle 1977. Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (vol 1, Matthew-Mark). Welwyn, Herts., England: Evangelical Press.