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

[Hentenza]

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

And as I stated to your compadre before you, Jesus words don’t follow a linear pattern. His words work both ways from alpha to omega. The hypocrisy in your position is that your church even has an escape doctrine for those that were unable to get baptized because they were never reached. That is what happens when you draw a line in the sand. You either believe Christ or you don’t. Also what did He say about the faith of children? Should our faith be like that?

 

[XrxrX]

Of course, people are always going to posit 'philosophical questions'.. similarly, how does God deal with people that never hear the Gospel in this life? And to me, the answer to the one, informs the answer to the other.

 

[Hentenza]

Of course, people are always going to posit 'philosophical questions'.. similarly, how does God deal with people that never hear the Gospel in this life? And to me, the answer to the one, informs the answer to the other.

How? So a baby dies at childbirth or in utero before baptism, are they condemned? This is a real question that happens often not a philosophical question.

 

[Strong in Him]

There is a difference between one’s interpretation of Scripture and Scripture itself.

I know.

Your view on Psalm 51 v. 5 is mere conjecture.

I wasn't talking about Psalm 51:5, I was referring to the whole Psalm. And we are told this at the beginning.

Psalm 51[a]​

For the director of music. A psalm of David. When the prophet Nathan came to him after David had committed adultery with Bathsheba.​

An interesting one, but not one which has any impact on the question of the validity of credobaptism,

I wasn't specifically talking about credobaptism, either.
Psalm 51:5 was quoted to show that all people are born in sin. My point was that it's important to take account of the context. The man who wrote this Psalm - apparently after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba and been confronted by Nathan - is the same man who wrote that God saw us when we were conceived and growing in the womb.

What does that mean? That Psalm 139 represented David's true views; God saw us before we were born and that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, but that he later changed his mind? That God did see us before we were conceived and knowingly created us as sinners? That we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" and later became sinners? Or were they just words of despair from a guilty man - similar to Job who, though he didn't sin, did curse the day he had been born?

 

[d taylor]

“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.

-
​

Never said, that Jesus said baptism was necessary. Baptism is not necessary for anybody .

 

[Hentenza]

-
​

Never said, that Jesus said baptism was necessary.

Thanks. I misread you post.

 

[XrxrX]

How? So a baby dies at childbirth or in utero before baptism, are they condemned? This is a real question that happens often not a philosophical question.

It becomes a philosophical question, because obviously scripture doesn't address it.. similarly to how sequestered people that have zero exposure to evangelism, or the severely mentally disabled. It requires us to essentially draw a conclusion via logic, and something closer to "theological philosophy" rather than exegesis. That to say, it stands to reason that a just God gives EVERYONE the choice that the Gospel presents. He did to Job, David, Abraham and countless others prior to the Cross. To state "all babies go to heaven", which of course we ALL want to say and believe, it presupposes 2 things. 1) that "only the good die young".. which is likely why the maxim was coined. And 2) Our salvation or damnation is determined Alone by our action and choices in life. But, we know that in the fullness of scripture, it's not murder and adultery that sends one to Hell, it's rejecting God. The question is.. are rebel spirits "born", or "made". And that would be the 'philosophical' question, the answer of which really determines whether or not 'all babies go to heaven'.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And as I stated to your compadre before you, Jesus words don’t follow a linear pattern. His words work both ways from alpha to omega. The hypocrisy in your position is that your church even has an escape doctrine for those that were unable to get baptized because they were never reached. That is what happens when you draw a line in the sand. You either believe Christ or you don’t. Also what did He say about the faith of children? Should our faith be like that?

Could you share what you know about my church and what it believes? A statement like the one above indicates you have knowledge about this subject, I'm just curious what that knowledge is. Especially if I'm going to engage in further debate on this subject with you, I'm going to want to know what assumptions your bringing to the table about what I and/or my church believe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LizaMarie]

I believe so personally, but you are correct that there is no definite scriptural proof regarding this, but that being said we should baptize them immediately in order to ensure they are protected in the Church; baptism will also protect them from demonic possession, and if done in a traditional liturgical church (at least, in the Orthodox and Catholic churches), will remove from them any demons that might have tried to sneak in, since demons do not spare children, and for this reason all Orthodox and Catholic baptisms include a prayer of exorcism (the Roman Catholics call it a “minor exorcism” to contrast it from the more intense prayers that are done in the case of someone actually confirmed to have become possessed; the Eastern Orthodox likewise have different prayers for such a case, which interestingly enough are attributed to St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, who compiled the two most commonly used Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies.

Baptizing infants also fulfills our obligation to permit the little children to come to Christ.

The Orthodox go further than most in respect of this, in that we baptize, chrismate (confirm) and give the first communion to infants on the same occasion. There is no one in the Orthodox Church who has been baptized without being chrismated, nor would any child be prevented from partaking of the Eucharist (since we believe that infants and young children are noetically aware of the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of our Lord, and so the practice is entirely compliant with 1 Corinthians 11:27-32; if it were not, we would have noticed it in the nineteen centuries we have been doing it this way).

I'm Lutheran but I really agree with your first paragraph most especially. On a different Christian site(now closed) there was a thread discussing baptism protecting against demonic possession and oppression.

 

[LizaMarie]

I'm Lutheran but I really agree with your first paragraph most especially. On a different Christian site(now closed) there was a thread discussing baptism protecting against demonic possession and oppression.

 

[Hentenza]

Could you share what you know about my church and what it believes? A statement like the one above indicates you have knowledge about this subject, I'm just curious what that knowledge is. Especially if I'm going to engage in further debate on this subject with you, I'm going to want to know what assumptions your bringing to the table about what I and/or my church believe.

-CryptoLutheran

Well two points because I’m not going to recite “everything” you and your church believes in. First, as an advisor for this site a few years back, me and the other advisors wrote both the statement of faith and statement of purpose for both Lutheran rooms. Secondly, I grew up Catholic and your church is sort of Catholic lite. Did you loose your aha moment or are you willing to discuss things in equal terms?

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm Lutheran but I really agree with your first paragraph most especially. On a different Christian site(now closed) there was a thread discussing baptism protecting against demonic possession and oppression.

Lutherans and Orthodox agree on most things it seems! What Lutheran church are you with?

 

[The Liturgist]

And as I stated to your compadre before you, Jesus words don’t follow a linear pattern. His words work both ways from alpha to omega. The hypocrisy in your position is that your church even has an escape doctrine for those that were unable to get baptized because they were never reached. That is what happens when you draw a line in the sand. You either believe Christ or you don’t. Also what did He say about the faith of children? Should our faith be like that?

There is no hypocrisy in the words of @ViaCrucis , or in Lutheran doctrine, that’s simply inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[The Liturgist]

-
​

Never said, that Jesus said baptism was necessary. Baptism is not necessary for anybody .

It is, at least for some necessary, or else Christ our True God wouldn’t have commissioned the Holy Apostles to do it in Matthew 28:19, which we see in practice in Acts.

As for its broader importance, see 1 Corinthians.

 

[Hentenza]

There is no hypocrisy in the words of @ViaCrucis , or in Lutheran doctrine, that’s simply inflammatory rhetoric.

Never said there was hypocrisy nor did I use inflammatory rhetoric. It’s either true or false.

ETA: I hope we can discuss this topic civilly without accusations.

 

[The Liturgist]

Since when do the words of Jesus follow a linear timeline? His words work both forward and backwards.

There is a linear narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, and you’re making an appeal from silence about what Christ didn’t say, which is also a fallacy, and also out of the liner order of the narrative. Indeed the narrative sequence error was not the primary logical fallacy, but merely the most evident.

In fact, there is a third non-sequitur, for if we accept your reasoning that his words are applicable regardless of their position in the narrative structure of the text, the fact Christ commanded all nations to be baptized by the Apostles and said “suffer the little children to me” is indicative that they should be baptized, once one omits the inherently fallacious argument from silence.

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

A fallacy is not a sin or something to be accused of; your argument either contains one or it doesn’t: guidance on logical matters is important and should be thought, like with factual matters.

Am I angry because I misremembered Psalm 51 and @Strong in Him corrected me? Nope. I’m thankful she did, because I had forgotten.

We must approach these questions with reason and charity, because Christ as the Divine Logos is Reason, and Love incarnate.

 

[Hentenza]

It is, at least for some necessary, or else Christ our True God wouldn’t have commissioned the Holy Apostles to do it in Matthew 28:19, which we see in practice in Acts.

As for its broader importance, see 1 Corinthians.

In light of your response here I’ll ask you the same question I asked in a previous post. A baby dies at childbirth or in utero before baptism, are they condemned? This is a real question that happens often not a philosophical question.

 

[The Liturgist]

Never said there was hypocrisy nor did I use inflammatory rhetoric. It’s either true or false.

ETA: I hope we can discuss this topic civilly without accusations.

Forgive me, I don’t understand what you mean in that case by your reply to ViaCrucis: “The hypocrisy in your position is that your church even has an escape doctrine for those that were unable to get baptized because they were never reached.”

My view is that his position is not hypocritical. I don’t agree with all Lutheran doctrine, but I can find no hypocrisy in it.

If that’s not what you meant, then please forgive me, it looked like you were saying that the position of ViaCrucis was hypocritical, which I found to be a bit harsh.

I also pray for a civil discussion and so perhaps we should take a breath and recognize each other as pious Christians.

 

[The Liturgist]

In light of your response here I’ll ask you the same question I asked in a previous post. A baby dies at childbirth or in utero before baptism, are they condemned? This is a real question that happens often not a philosophical question.

I assume not, from an Orthodox perspective, since catechumens are not regarded as condemned if they die before baptism, but if one strictly followed St. Augustine the answer would probably be yes.

That said, there are no benefits in not baptizing, chrismating and providing the Eucharist to infants. We do all three usually on the same Sunday, by baptizing before the Divine Liturgy, so from the font to the chalice takes about two and a half to three hours, maybe a bit more if a bishop is present.

 

[Hentenza]

There is a linear narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, and you’re making an appeal from silence about what Christ didn’t say, which is also a fallacy, and also out of the liner order of the narrative. Indeed the narrative sequence error was not the primary logical fallacy, but merely the most evident.

I posted exactly what Christ said. Again with the erroneous accusations of fallacy. I can’t be making an appeal to silence since I posted what Christ said. Do you need a primer to understand what fallacies are?

In fact, there is a third non-sequitur, for if we accept your reasoning that his words are applicable regardless of their position in the narrative structure of the text, the fact Christ commanded all nations to be baptized by the Apostles and said “suffer the little children to me” is indicative that they should be baptized, once one omits the inherently fallacious argument from silence.

“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

Again here. How are the children suffering? They are being hindered to get to Christ suffering. And why is the kingdom of heaven belong to these unbaptized children?

Where does it mention baptism here? It seems you are the one making an argument from silence.

A fallacy is not a sin or something to be accused of; your argument either contains one or it doesn’t: guidance on logical matters is important and should be thought, like with factual matters.

I‘m well aware of what a fallacy is and I have not posted one.

Am I angry because I misremembered Psalm 51 and @Strong in Him corrected me? Nope. I’m thankful she did, because I had forgotten.

We must approach these questions with reason and charity, because Christ as the Divine Logos is Reason, and Love incarnate.

Yes we must but that does not mean that your theology is correct and mine is not. The only way are going to learn from each other and act Christ like is to speak to each other as Christians.