People who die as infants go to Heaven, right? Is there a good argument to the contrary?

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Context.
David was writing that after his affair with Bathsheba had been discovered and was feeling guilty.

Thanks for my morning laugh!

 

[Strong in Him]

Thanks for my morning laugh!

You think Scripture is wrong, or funny?

 

[d taylor]

You think Scripture is wrong, or funny?

-
​

What you are up against is that the person you quoted posted the version of Psalms 51:5 that agreed with their belief. That children need to be baptized to go to heaven because they are born sinners.

CSB
Indeed, I was guilty when I was born;
I was sinful when my mother conceived me.

But other translations read differently
NKJV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
ESV
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
CJB
For I know my crimes,
my sin confronts me all the time.
NASB
Behold, I was brought forth in guilt,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

 

[The Liturgist]

Infants are born totally EGOCENTRIC FOR SURVIVAL. They only think of themselves....

Credobaptists tend to believe original sin is the first sin of the will....as all sins are. Whereas, paedobaptists believe infants are born into a condition of sin. And the twain shall never be reconciled. And the debate goes on and on.

And the traditional position of baptizing infants is correct. In Orthodoxy we don’t stop there - we chrismate and communicate them. The Eucharist provides real benefits to infants in our experience in terms of improved health and well-being, and we feel obliged to give the Eucharist to infants because Christ commanded us to let the infants come to Him, and furthermore, we believe that the infants are made aware noetically of the Body and Blood and discern it in that way, not intellectually, but according to the nous (not unlike Lutheran ideas about how infants can have faith when baptized).

Of course I understand the Western perspective, but I would point out that the infant mortality we would expect to see if our children were partaking unworthily in violation of 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 has never existed, so I think we are doing it correctly, which is not to say the West is doing it incorrectly.

I first received the Eucharist at the age of four, and remember being told it was the Body and Blood of our Lord, but I also knew, because it tasted like nothing I had ever tasted; it was otherworldly, and amazing. When I was six or so I tried dipping bread in grape juice to replicate the flavor but of course it didn’t work. I came to believe very strongly in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist from a very young age, since I took the Methodist clergy at their word (since that was the language used in our service books at the time, the easy to understand language anyway; insofar as it might be said to equivocate elsewhere on the real presence, it does not equivocate with regards to what is said to you when you partake of the Holy Eucharist.

 

[Strong in Him]

And the traditional position of baptizing infants is correct. In Orthodoxy we don’t stop there - we chrismate and communicate them.

One of my brothers married a Greek Orthodox woman. When their children were baptised they were also confirmed in the same ceremony.
(Unfortunately all in Greek so we couldn't understand a word.)

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

You know what I think??

I think people have a lot of questions, and they look in the bible for answers to their questions. But I'm not convinced the bible was written to answer their questions.

But, we feel we need an answer, because we want to know if god is good or not.

I think you can assume god is good for the purposes of this discussion. So the next question is - are you good. If a good god can send babies to hell - then maybe you dont know what good is.

I think this, ... ...
if it's good to send babies to hell, then "good" isn't what i'm looking for.
If the being sends the babies to hell - the word i use to describe that being is "the devil".
My point is - look at the substance, not the wordplay.

 

[trophy33]

Because infants have basically no developed personality or thinking and are just reacting to basic stimuli, I am not sure what "going to heaven" should even mean.

Spirit returning to God who gave him? Sure. But the soul? There is basically none formed, yet. I would say that even social animals like dogs have more developed personality than an infant. If infants go to heaven, then dogs, cats etc. too.

 

[RDKirk]

Because infants have basically no developed personality or thinking and are just reacting to basic stimuli, I am not sure what "going to heaven" should even mean.

Spirit returning to God who gave him? Sure. But the soul? There is basically none formed, yet. I would say that even social animals like dogs have more developed personality than an infant. If infants go to heaven, then dogs, cats etc. too.

I don't know about that. What I learned with my children is that the human intellect is there from the very beginning. It's hard to see in the first couple of months, but by the fourth to sixth months it is discernible that infants are actually thinking their way through learning about the world.

 

[Strong in Him]

But I'm not convinced the bible was written to answer their questions.

The Bible was written to reveal God - his nature, his plan, his love for us and his salvation.

But, we feel we need an answer, because we want to know if god is good or not.

The Bible tells us the answer to that.
God is love, 1 John 4:8. What is love? 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.

My point is - look at the substance, not the wordplay.

Look at who God is - exactly.

 

[Strong in Him]

Because infants have basically no developed personality or thinking and are just reacting to basic stimuli,

Newborns, possibly.
But try telling a mother of a toddler that he has no personality. Try telling an angry 1 year old who wants ice cream, not vegetables, that she has no thinking or is reacting to stimuli.
Try telling the parents of a 2 year old, who's throwing a tantrum in a supermarket, that they have no personality.

But the soul? There is basically none formed, yet.

If by "soul" you mean, emotions, pleasures, dislikes, the ability to show kindness etc, I would disagree.
Sure, a one year old may not have a concept of sharing, or fairness or giving to someone less well off, but that doesn't mean kids can't feel/react/understand.
Even unborn children have been known to react to stress, upset, joy, sadness etc - a child can certainly pick up on these things.

I would say that even social animals like dogs have more developed personality than an infant.

Unless you're defining "infant" as a babe who is only a few days/weeks old, I'd say you're wrong.
And even then, there are those who are placid and those who cry a lot.

 

[XrxrX]

Dr. James White has entered the chat..

 

[RDKirk]

Newborns, possibly.
But try telling a mother of a toddler that he has no personality. Try telling an angry 1 year old who wants ice cream, not vegetables, that she has no thinking or is reacting to stimuli.
Try telling the parents of a 2 year old, who's throwing a tantrum in a supermarket, that they have no personality.

If by "soul" you mean, emotions, pleasures, dislikes, the ability to show kindness etc, I would disagree.
Sure, a one year old may not have a concept of sharing, or fairness or giving to someone less well off, but that doesn't mean kids can't feel/react/understand.
Even unborn children have been known to react to stress, upset, joy, sadness etc - a child can certainly pick up on these things.

Unless you're defining "infant" as a babe who is only a few days/weeks old, I'd say you're wrong.
And even then, there are those who are placid and those who cry a lot.

Having had both a boy and a girl, and having made a hobby of studying them as infants, I will testify that even at six months it's clear that they are intellectually exploring and studying the world. They're not merely learning by trial and error. If you watch them closely, you see them actually thinking through the actions they take, learning a bit more every day and applying that knowledge rationally.

 

[RandyPNW]

Even without providing scripture I feel confident in stating that I believe that all people who die as infants are in Heaven.

Is there any good argument to the contrary? Thanks in advance!

I'll act unafraid to weigh in on a difficult subject.

I think people are like seeds and plants. If you plant a certain seed you get a certain plant. If a seed corresponding to God's election is planted, then the resulting plant is an elect of God...from birth. If a seed corresponding to willful rejection of God's word is planted, then the resulting plant is not what God originally elected Man to be. They are children of Satan, who willfully rejected God's word.

I don't believe Adam and Eve willfully rejected God's word completely. They were both willful in their rebellion but deceived and under duress. So the resulting seed of Man has produced both what God originally wanted of children, the elect, and those who are products of Man's work apart from God's word, ie those who choose to live autonomously, apart form God's word.

The difficulty in this particular conversation has to do with the injustice of "sending to Hell" infants who are not old enough to make a reasonable moral decision. However, at a very young age I had a conscience. I remember as an infant when I cried as my blanket was taken away. I was eating it, and as I screamed in a rage I knew within that I was faking it, that I had suffered the loss of my blanket due to my eating it.

Well, that doesn't mean I should go to Hell for having been born in Sin--yes, I believe we're born with a Sin Nature. But having a Sin Nature never consigned people to Hell, since Christ came to give us an alternative to that fate.

So how do infants avail themselves of Christ to avoid Hell? They are judged by God on the level of their maturity. If they are mindless, they are judged as such. But going to Heaven or going to Hell is not a matter of willful Sin, but rather, of having been born of the seed of Autonomy from God. It's just that having done little sin there will be very little punishment "in Hell."

You see, I think we've overdone "Hell." It is a place where people remain until final judgment, having entered into the state of physical death. Hell is burned up in the Lake of Fire. And people who are not God's elect also go into the Lake of Fire, which merely means that the people who go there cease to be in the present world. They pass into Outer Darkness so as to not be close to the Lord, being disinterested in His word.

We think of the Lake of Fire as Dante's Inferno, as a place of horrid ongoing punishments, flesh burning, and cruel afflictions. But God is not like that. The punishment He gives is indeed awful, but it is not evil.

People are separated from paradise, and that is awful enough. But they receive different levels of "stripes," or punishments. The infant separated from God's close presence receives the least of the punishments, which is simple separation from the close presence of God, where God's word must be meticulously obeyed.

It's pure speculation on my part, but it's what I think. And yes, I was born in church, baptized as an infant, confirmed as an adolescent, and have been in church nearly every week of my entire life. I believe in all of the activities of the church if we don't overly-sacralize them, and pursue them in true faith. But at the bottom of it all is the importance of what we begin life with. Are we "good seed" or "bad seed?"

We may think that it is unjust for someone to be born an "evil seed," but a tiger will simply make a tiger's choices if allowed to grow up. The child born with the word of God being distasteful and stultifying to him will simply choose according to his latent interests.

And at the bottom of it all we must appreciate that what we ourselves do with God's word has an impact on future generations. If we live by God's word that "seed" will not go out void, but will accomplish everything God intended it to be. Children of faith will be born, as God sees fit--even knowing that we also sin.

But if we try to bypass or rebel against God's word, the end will not be pretty. Our rebellion will grow and infect all who come into contact with it. Children will be born who hate the control of God's word. Obey God's word and prove that you are children of God. That's my exhortation to you.

 

[Fervent]

Let me answer your question with a couple of questions: Is God a God of justice? Can we reasonably expect that His justice will in many ways resemble our ordinary usage of the word? And does our justice require a guilty mind(knowingly doing wrong) in order to hold someone accountable?

11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”(Jonah 4:11 NIV)

 

[Hentenza]

-
​

What you are up against is that the person you quoted posted the version of Psalms 51:5 that agreed with their belief. That children need to be baptized to go to heaven because they are born sinners.

“But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19‬:‭14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” | New American Standard Bible - NASB 1995 (NASB1995) | Download The Bible App Now

But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

bible.com

Christ did not think that baptism was necessary for these children.

 

[The Liturgist]

Christ did not think that baptism was necessary for these children.

Non-sequitur, since he had not yet issued the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, which does not include an exception for infants or children, which is why the early church baptized infants and we have no record of the credobaptist concept until the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation, who were mistaken about the sacraments, as my faithful and excellent Lutheran friends @Ain't Zwinglian @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch and my beloved and pious Orthodox friends @prodromos @FenderTL5 and @jas3 and my learned and diligent Anglican friends @Jipsah and @Shane R and my dear Roman Catholic friends @Michie @Xeno.of.athens and @chevyontheriver will all likely affirm, representing the four largest Christian communities (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran).

Likewise this is also the view of the other ancient communions, the Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East and the sixth or seventh largest communion, the Oriental Orthodox (comprising the Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox - four of the most persecuted churches of our time, along with the Antiochian Orthodox, who are Eastern Orthodox. Of these five groups, two of them, the Armenians and Ethiopians/Eritreans, have faced persecution from both Communists and Islamists, the two greatest anti-Christian scourges since the conversion of the Roman Empire and the Gothic tribes to Christianity, with many receiving crowns of martyrdom.

Thus, we are not talking about a fringe position which can be dismissed in passing with a logical fallacy.

 

[The Liturgist]

You think Scripture is wrong, or funny?

There is a difference between one’s interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself. Your view on Psalm 51 v. 5 is mere conjecture. An interesting one, but not one which has any impact on the question of the validity of credobaptism, and also not one which is particularly well supported Patristically.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Christ did not think that baptism was necessary for these children.

He did when He said "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit". As, fun fact, children are included in "all nations"--Jesus doesn't make an exception based on age. He didn't say "Make disciples of all nations, except babies, I don't want the babies".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

He did when He said "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit". As, fun fact, children are included in "all nations"--Jesus doesn't make an exception based on age. He didn't say "Make disciples of all nations, except babies, I don't want the babies".

-CryptoLutheran

Precisely.

 

[Hentenza]

“ Non-sequitur,”

I’m going to stop you right there. Since when do the words of Jesus follow a linear timeline? His words work both forward and backwards. From alpha to omega. It seems to me that you are boxing Jesus only based on your doctrine which is not universal and damning little children simply because they didn’t get a head washing.

Think about your own logic before jumping to your death feet first accusing others of fallacies.