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

[Hentenza]

Oh ok, so then my church believes that a child that isn't baptized automatically goes to hell then. Given that you were involved in this site for many years and you know so much about my church, then you can provide an example my church believing that, or of me saying "all unbaptized babies" go to hell.

Shouldn't be too hard, after all, you know what my church believes.

-CryptoLutheran

I’m not falling for that. All liturgical churches have some kind of doctrine explaining unreached people and such. I don’t want to play games and I don’t think you do either. If I’m wrong then please correct me and we can learn from each other.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I’m not falling for that. All liturgical churches have some kind of doctrine explaining unreach people and such. I don’t want to play games and I don’t think you do either. If I’m wrong then please correct me and we can learn from each other.

Ok, then here it is. No, we don't believe that unbaptized babies are condemned to hell. Isn't it so much easier when you just ask?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hentenza]

Ok, then here it is. No, we don't believe that unbaptized babies are condemned to hell.

I never said your church or you said you did. I know Lutherans are much more compassionate than that. How does your church’s belief in infant baptism reconciles children that die prior to baptism? I’m honestly curious.

Isn't it so much easier when you just ask?

-CryptoLutheran

I guess children being sentenced to hell has something to do with it.

 

[concretecamper]

1. Does an unbaptized infant under 1 years old go to Heaven if he/she dies?
2. Does an unbaptized youth aged 10 go to Heaven if he/she dies?
3. Does an unbaptized teenager btwn the ages of 13-19 go to Heaven if he/she dies?
4. Does an unbaptized adult over the age of 19 go to Heaven if he/she dies?

Stop it with the guilt trip by bringing up only infants.

 

[The Liturgist]

You hit it on the head. Paedobaptism became the norm of the church at the time of Augustine but I think there is credible evidence from the second century.

Not true - St. Augustine was not that influential until the Middle Ages. During the fourth and fifth centuries, his place as the main challenger of Pelagianism was occupied by St. John Cassian (who still dominates the field of hamartiology in the Orthodox churches). What is more, we have baptismal liturgies for infants and accounts of infant baptisms in the writings of Tertullian and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the 3rd century and 2nd century respectively.

This is in addition to Scriptural evidence - reports of entire households being baptized (key word - entire).

We have no evidence of the rejection of paedobaptism in mainstream Christianity until the Anabaptist movement in the 17th century.

 

[The Liturgist]

All liturgical churches have some kind of doctrine explaining unreached people and such.

Not true. The Orthodox Church has no formal doctrine akin to Invincible Ignorance or the eschatological status of the non-Orthodox, other than a rejection of Universalism among the Eastern Orthodox at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Additionally, the Anglican Communion and related Anglican churches, also lacks a doctrine concerning the unreached

The Assyrian Church of the East for a time embraced a semi-Universalist position known as Apokatastasis, which one can find in the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian (who was venerated by all ancient churches, but his controversial writings about apokatastasis, which were in content similiar to those of St. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen, were obscure until recently), and Assyrian bishops such as Mar Solomon of Basra. It also lacks a clearly defined doctrine at present, since it no longer actively preaches apokatastasis.

It would perhaps be advisable to not speak in sweeping generalizations about liturgical churches without a familiarity with our actual theological positions, particularly those of the second, third and seventh largest Christian denominations by membership (Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox).

I don’t know if a consensus exists among Lutherans concerning the unreached. The only specific doctrine I’m aware of in this area is the Roman Catholic doctrine of Invincible Ignorance, which states that those who have had no chance to hear the Gospel are not condemned. I find this to be a reasonable doctrine in line with a belief in a merciful God. Conversely, Calvinists, who are in many cases liturgical, but cannot be said to be a liturgical denomination for many of them, such as Presbyterians, were historically not liturgical, insisting only on a general church order and not a specific prayer book, and many now have rejected liturgy, might take the view in many cases, but not all, that those who are unreached are reprobates. However I would be surprised if liberal Calvinists such as my friend @hedrick took this view.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

You can if you claim that what he said meant something based on the absence of a word. Quoting our Lord by itself is not fallacious, but interpretations of what He is recorded as saying by the Four Evangelists can be logically fallacious.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes we must but that does not mean that your theology is correct and mine is not.

‘
No, but you don’t do your theology any favors when you argue it using faulty logic. There have been many Baptists who have argued for credobaptism without using the logical fallacies you employed unnecessarily.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

That’s not my doctrine. The Orthodox do not believe that infants who are to be baptized are damned, since they count as catechumens, and if they die before baptism get an Orthodox funeral (which is refused, for example, in the case of people who intentionally commit suicide without the defense of mental illness).

Furthermore, we do not baptize by affusion but by full immersion, of infants and adults alike. Orthodox priests are trained in how to immerse infants in complete safety. We then immediately proceed to chrismate them (confirm them) and grant them the Eucharist. This has been our practice since at least the second century based on surviving liturgical texts.

 

[tall73]

But does God establish that as a universal age of accountability, or was that a circumstantial cut-off point relative to the age the Hebrews were able to abandon the Egyptian slave culture?

Is there a second witness?

This possible second witness relates to the same group, and is less precise. But does specifically convey that God views their little ones as not knowing good from evil, which ties in to your earlier statements about ignorance.

Deuteronomy 1:38-39 38 Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter. Encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. 39 And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.​

 

[Hentenza]

That’s not my doctrine. The Orthodox do not believe that infants who are to be baptized are damned, since they count as catechumens, and if they die before baptism get an Orthodox funeral (which is refused, for example, in the case of people who intentionally commit suicide without the defense of mental illness).

Furthermore, we do not baptize by affusion but by full immersion, of infants and adults alike. Orthodox priests are trained in how to immerse infants in complete safety. We then immediately proceed to chrismate them (confirm them) and grant them the Eucharist. This has been our practice since at least the second century based on surviving liturgical texts.

Thanks for your explanation. I’m glad children are not condemned.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

1. Does an unbaptized infant under 1 years old go to Heaven if he/she dies?
2. Does an unbaptized youth aged 10 go to Heaven if he/she dies?
3. Does an unbaptized teenager btwn the ages of 13-19 go to Heaven if he/she dies?
4. Does an unbaptized adult over the age of 19 go to Heaven if he/she dies?

Stop it with the guilt trip by bringing up only infants.

For Credo's, all difficult questions about infant death is solved by the supposed doctrine of the "Age of Accountability." Of course, the belief in the AoA is very close to universalism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I never said your church or you said you did. I know Lutherans are much more compassionate than that. How does your church’s belief in infant baptism reconciles children that die prior to baptism? I’m honestly curious.

What is there to reconcile? We worship an all-powerful, generous, loving God who meets us in the suffering and crucified Jesus who gave Himself for the whole world. He is infinitely just, merciful, and loving. We believe that God generously gives Himself to us through Word and Sacrament, in which He works to give, create, and strengthen faith. So what of those millions who have never heard? Or the infant who dies in miscarriage or childbirth? God is not a monster, He knows all things, His love toward all is from before the foundation of the world. So let the merciful, kind, and good God who reveals Himself in Jesus Christ be merciful, kind, and good--He knows what He is doing.

I guess children being sentenced to hell has something to do with it.

Nope. It's the same reason we preach the Word to our children, it's the same reason why we love our children, and demonstrate God's kindness in our raising of our children. Because through Word and Sacrament God works and creates faith, and He does that the same for the little baby as He does the academically trained theologian and everyone inbetween and besides. The merciful, compassionate Father who made heaven and earth, who created all things through His Son, and who through His Son holds all things together, and brings all things into the unity of His Son, who pours out His Spirit, and is infinitely generous--He meets the simple, the weak, the lowly, the sinner and gives them Himself in all His gracious kindness. For the Christ who bled on Mt. Calvary died for you, for me, for the little child, the tyrant, and the whole world.

We bring our children to the Font because there, with the water, is God's Word in fullness, taking hold of them, as even we are taken hold of, and the full grace, love, and abundance of God is poured out on them. That they too might know Jesus and the power of His resurrection, for their sins are forgiven, and the promise of God in Christ is theirs, that they should be heirs and joint-heirs with Jesus, and members of His holy and precious Body, His Church. We do not baptize because if we don't then our little babies will burn for eternity in hell; we baptize because God says in His Sacraments is grace, is love, that He Himself is there for us.

Because this is the Jesus who said, "Prohibit not the little ones from coming to Me, for to such as these is the kingdom"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

I never said your church or you said you did. I know Lutherans are much more compassionate than that. How does your church’s belief in infant baptism reconciles children that die prior to baptism? I’m honestly curious.

I guess children being sentenced to hell has something to do with it.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that believing in infant baptism equates to a desire for young children to be condemned and a rejection of the infinite love and mercy of Christ our True God.

It is not that at all.

Rather, we believe everyone, including young children, can benefit from the means of grace - in Orthodoxy we take this to the point of giving Chrismation (Confirmation) and Holy Communion to infants following baptism and at all aubsequent liturgies.

God spares infants, but the devil doesn’t, but baptism ensures the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the protection of a guardian angel, and the exorcism of any demon trying to take up residence, and thus our children are made ready having been baptized, and having received the Seal of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, to partake of the very Body and Blood of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, shed for us and for many for the remission of sins, which unites the children into the covenantal relationship of the Gospel based on infinite grace and forgiveness and grafts them onto the Body of Christ (see 1 Corinthians) thus allowing them to draw near Christ in His holiness.

It is not about sparing children from Hell so much as it is uniting them with God’s infinite grace all the heavenly and angelic powers. I am extremely thankful I was baptized in my youth, for God protected me, developed me, and made his grace available to me from an extremely young age.

I would also stress that Lutherans such as my friends @ViaCrucis and @Ain't Zwinglian are entirely free from any attachment to a theology of damnation for infants, but rather, as @Ain't Zwinglian points out, we also have to avoid Universalism or semi-Universalism; those infants who die before Baptism but who are to have been baptized should surely be regarded as being in the same category as those catechumens who die before baptism (and the early church had a very long catechumenate, years, in some cases, and in the modern Orthodox church it can take six months or more). Yet any who die as catechumens receive a funeral.

The real danger with not baptizing an adult in a timely manner is that this constitutes sloth; the danger in not baptizing a child in a timely manner is that while we can trust Christ’s mercy regarding their status, we are failing his directive to suffer the children to come to Him, since Scripturally the manner in which we come to Christ is through Baptism, the Eucharist and in Orthodoxy, other mysteries of the church, some of which the Lutherans might regard as sacramentals if not as sacraments per se, for example some Lutherans might practice the anointing of the sick and those fasting with oil, although obviously not using the Roman liturgy that Martin Luther found objectionable. These practices are also common among Anglicans, some of whom do enumerate seven sacraments.

As a result of our not doing with children what Christ wants us to do, namely baptizing them, we are depriving them of the intimate relationship that would exist even before baptism, and furthermore we are precluding them from partaking of the Eucharist, since at a minimum the Eucharist according to Orthodox belief requires noetic faith (I think, if I have understood my Lutheran friends correctly, that our theology of how the Eucharist operates on infants is somewhat akin to the Lutheran theology of how baptism operates on them, but suffice it to say, it is not believed that any danger exists of them not discerning the Body and Blood.

We believe in baptizing and communicating everyone, including infants and those with intellectual disabilities, so that everyone can benefit from the fullness of the Body of Christ even for the present, much more the glories of the life of the world to come.

Also one final note: we should consider one other aspect: while God most of us feel does not punish infants for not being baptized, there is a possibility he might well hold us accountable, particularly if we ought to have known better, for example, if we were brought up in an Orthodox Church but left perhaps because we were seduced by the praise and worship music of an aliturgical church that practiced credobaptism. After all, it is not the infants who are disobeying Christ’s instruction to suffer the children to come to him (which implicitly requires Baptism, which is the means of being born again in Christ and being united to Him), but those who would deny them access to the Font.

 

[The Liturgist]

For Credo's, all difficult questions about infant death is solved by the supposed doctrine of the "Age of Accountability." Of course, the belief in the AoA is very close to universalism.

And as I pointed out in my prior thread, we should consider that insofar as credobaptists are not suffering the children to come to Christ our True God through the means of Grace He has provided, to wit, Holy Baptism, they are the ones who are in a state of contumacy. That does not mean I’m saying God will condemn them for it, but nonetheless it is not something I would see being regarded with much enthusiasm in the Heavenly realms, for God clearly wants those Children in His church, fully, as infants.

Also if we wait until they are old enough to express belief in the faith the possibility exists they might not be mature enough to embrace it, perhaps being seduced by propaganda against Christianity in the education system, which we know is a thing due to liberal teachers. Baptizing them ensures that they are full members of the Church from the start and do not have to make an initial choice, but rather if they fall away, whether we follow a monergist or synergist approach, at least no one could say they had been obstructed from becoming. In addition, the possibility exists that baptism and the sacraments received in the youth might, and there have been accounts of this, cause someone who wanders in adolescence (I came close to this - I was always a Christian but I was definitely living in the world and for the world) to return to Christ, since they have already been introduced to Him sacramentally.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not true. The Orthodox Church has no formal doctrine akin to Invincible Ignorance or the eschatological status of the non-Orthodox, other than a rejection of Universalism among the Eastern Orthodox at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Additionally, the Anglican Communion and related Anglican churches, also lacks a doctrine concerning the unreached

The Assyrian Church of the East for a time embraced a semi-Universalist position known as Apokatastasis, which one can find in the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian (who was venerated by all ancient churches, but his controversial writings about apokatastasis, which were in content similiar to those of St. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen, were obscure until recently), and Assyrian bishops such as Mar Solomon of Basra. It also lacks a clearly defined doctrine at present, since it no longer actively preaches apokatastasis.

It would perhaps be advisable to not speak in sweeping generalizations about liturgical churches without a familiarity with our actual theological positions, particularly those of the second, third and seventh largest Christian denominations by membership (Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox).

I don’t know if a consensus exists among Lutherans concerning the unreached. The only specific doctrine I’m aware of in this area is the Roman Catholic doctrine of Invincible Ignorance, which states that those who have had no chance to hear the Gospel are not condemned. I find this to be a reasonable doctrine in line with a belief in a merciful God. Conversely, Calvinists, who are in many cases liturgical, but cannot be said to be a liturgical denomination for many of them, such as Presbyterians, were historically not liturgical, insisting only on a general church order and not a specific prayer book, and many now have rejected liturgy, might take the view in many cases, but not all, that those who are unreached are reprobates. However I would be surprised if liberal Calvinists such as my friend @hedrick took this view.

There is no Lutheran position on the unreached. If anything the most we can say is we don't know.

Luther once wrote about a distinction between God's absolute power and God's ordered power, using fire as an analogy. Fire burns, that's what fire does, in the ordinary ordered universe of God's creation fire burns; and yet we read in the book of Daniel that three of Daniel's friends were thrown into a fiery furnace and they were entirely unharmed. In God's absolute power He preserved the three companions of Daniel so not even the hairs on their heads were singed.

God's ordered power is what He reveals to us. So when the question arises, "Must I be baptized?" the Christian is compelled by the very word of Holy Scripture--God's own word--to answer yes. And when we answer why must a person be baptized, we again look to Scripture: Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, the promise of the Holy Spirit is attached to Baptism, we are united to Christ in HIs death and resurrection, baptism "now saves you" says St. Peter. But here is what we can't say, "If you are not baptized you aren't saved". Because Scripture never says that only the baptized are saved, only that the baptized are, indeed, saved.

So we have what God has revealed to us, and where God has spoken, we affirm, "Thus says the Lord", God has spoken, we therefore say "Amen".

But what of all the things God has not said? Well, then, we should not dare to speak on God's behalf where He is silent. Scripture does not say that all who are not baptized aren't saved. Scripture does not tell us what happens to those who have never heard the Gospel, it only tells us about those who have heard and who reject, who insist on their enmity toward God, who choose death over life. So what about the unreached? What about infants who aren't baptized? There are a myriad of questions we could ask that we simply have no answer to. Should we, then, answer as though God has told us when He hasn't? The Lutheran answer is no. If God, in His absolute power chooses to save someone, as Christ did the thief on the cross, then who are we to question it? What if, when I get to that other side and discover a population of people who never believed in Jesus in this life, perhaps they never heard the Gospel, perhaps the only version of Christianity they experienced had nothing to do with Jesus, perhaps <fill in the blank>--and yet God, by His own power and word has chosen that they should be in His presence forever. Am I going to complain? Or am I going to fall down and worship at God's feet, singing Holy, Holy, Holy? It should be the latter.

As far as it pertains to the outcome of each possible permutation of the human story here on earth, we are compelled by godly fear to be agnostic; and to only confess what God has told us. God has told us that "Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, and whoever does not believe shall be condemned" That means that I, believing Christian, must confess the word of God. Not speculate about all possibilities, but to trust the good and loving God who meets me, worthless sinner that I am, right here and now in Word and Sacrament. For every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

There is no Lutheran position on the unreached. If anything the most we can say is we don't know.

Luther once wrote about a distinction between God's absolute power and God's ordered power, using fire as an analogy. Fire burns, that's what fire does, in the ordinary ordered universe of God's creation fire burns; and yet we read in the book of Daniel that three of Daniel's friends were thrown into a fiery furnace and they were entirely unharmed. In God's absolute power He preserved the three companions of Daniel so not even the hairs on their heads were singed.

God's ordered power is what He reveals to us. So when the question arises, "Must I be baptized?" the Christian is compelled by the very word of Holy Scripture--God's own word--to answer yes. And when we answer why must a person be baptized, we again look to Scripture: Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, the promise of the Holy Spirit is attached to Baptism, we are united to Christ in HIs death and resurrection, baptism "now saves you" says St. Peter. But here is what we can't say, "If you are not baptized you aren't saved". Because Scripture never says that only the baptized are saved, only that the baptized are, indeed, saved.

So we have what God has revealed to us, and where God has spoken, we affirm, "Thus says the Lord", God has spoken, we therefore say "Amen".

But what of all the things God has not said? Well, then, we should not dare to speak on God's behalf where He is silent. Scripture does not say that all who are not baptized aren't saved. Scripture does not tell us what happens to those who have never heard the Gospel, it only tells us about those who have heard and who reject, who insist on their enmity toward God, who choose death over life. So what about the unreached? What about infants who aren't baptized? There are a myriad of questions we could ask that we simply have no answer to. Should we, then, answer as though God has told us when He hasn't? The Lutheran answer is no. If God, in His absolute power chooses to save someone, as Christ did the thief on the cross, then who are we to question it? What if, when I get to that other side and discover a population of people who never believed in Jesus in this life, perhaps they never heard the Gospel, perhaps the only version of Christianity they experienced had nothing to do with Jesus, perhaps <fill in the blank>--and yet God, by His own power and word has chosen that they should be in His presence forever. Am I going to complain? Or am I going to fall down and worship at God's feet, singing Holy, Holy, Holy? It should be the latter.

As far as it pertains to the outcome of each possible permutation of the human story here on earth, we are compelled by godly fear to be agnostic; and to only confess what God has told us. God has told us that "Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, and whoever does not believe shall be condemned" That means that I, believing Christian, must confess the word of God. Not speculate about all possibilities, but to trust the good and loving God who meets me, worthless sinner that I am, right here and now in Word and Sacrament. For every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

-CryptoLutheran

That is very beautiful, and very much in accord with Orthodox thinking.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

they are the ones who are in a state of contumacy. That does not mean I’m saying God will condemn them for it, but nonetheless it is not something I would see being regarded with much enthusiasm in the Heavenly realms, for God clearly wants those Children in His church, fully, as infants.

Very profound. Thanks.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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.

We can only, by faith, defer to God's Divine mercy regarding things outside our understanding. We know that God is good, fair and just, and therefore we also know by faith that God's plan is good. We can not understand more than we are told in Scripture; I would wager that there is much more than Scripture that we do not know. Accept that God is faithful and just.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

We can only, by faith, defer to God's Divine mercy regarding things outside our understanding. We know that God is good, fair and just, and therefore we also know by faith that God's plan is good. We can not understand more than we are told in Scripture; I would wager that there is much more than Scripture that we do not know. Accept that God is faithful and just.

Another question raised here: What about adults who refuse to be baptized? I have communicated to individuals here at CF who believe baptism is optional for the Christian.