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

[The Liturgist]

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.

Well, concerning members of churches like the Quakers, Christian Science and so on, I myself am comforted by the view of St. Theophan the Recluse regarding the salvation of those who you and I might regard of as being outside the norm of Christianity, for example, a dear friend who adheres to “Christian Science” and also to my ancestors who included early Baptist settlers in North America:

“Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your sins…”

St. Theophan goes on to warn however of the danger to us if we were to embrace their doctrinal error.

I think this view is very comforting for those who are Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, I think a Lutheran Orthodox such as yourself, and Anglo Catholics and Roman Catholics and other liturgical Christians might also find it comforting, because it on the one hand gives us peace of mind concerning our loved ones on the fringes of Christianity, but it also by no means precludes us from seeking to actively to promote liturgical Christianity and especially to convert to it those who are non-Nicene Christians, that is to say, people like the Christian Science, who are in counterfeit churches which reject baptism, the Eucharist, the Trinity and other essential doctrines, and substitute strange beliefs. In the case of Christian Science, this includes their awful and devastating opposition to medical treatment. Fortunately their numbers are declining, but other groups like the Mormons are only beginning to decline. Although we do have cause to celebrate that the Shakers, which adopted children and brainwashed them to reject reproduction and Holy Matrimony have become effectively extinct.

Additionally, St. Theophan’s remark by no means precludes us from praying for them, although not with them (we should not pray with those who are heterodox according to the early Church Fathers, also according to pastors from the Lutheran Orthodox period), so for those of us who, like CS Lewis pray for the dead, we can continue to do so. St. Paul, inspired by God the Holy Spirit, told us to not worry about anything but to pray about everything.

Thus in not worrying about the unbaptized, but trusting in Christ our True God to be merciful for them, praying for them, and working to convert non-Nicene Christians, the heathens of religions we dislike and like (for instance, I really dislike Salafi Islam and really like the Sikhs but I want them to know the love of Christ), and encouraging everyone else who is unbaptized to hasten to the Font, we are being good Christians.

+

Also, lest anyone misinterpret my post, nothing in this post should be read as denying the full Christianity or questioning the soteriology of all members of Christian Forums who accept the CF Statement of Faith and are considered Christian according to the rules.

 

[RDKirk]

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

When I was a military intelligence analyst, it was my job to advise my commander on the enemy threat facing him and his forces. Accuracy was critical, because there was an enemy out there waiting and willing to prove the objective reality.

Early in my career, one of my commanders said to me, "Tell me what you know. Tell me what you think. But be sure to tell me the difference."

I spent a lot of time thinking about that basic epistemological question.

What do I really know of objective reality? How do I distinguish that from what I merely think?

With regard to the salvation of the unreached, we have no direct word from the Lord. That knowledge falls into the military category of, "Things you don't need to know for the mission you've been given."

I do know, however, that scripture gives us quite a bit of information that the Lord's judgment takes into consideration whether a person has "walked in the light that he has."

And I think, therefore, that there is hope in God's merciful grace for those people on that basis.

 

[dbot]

Most Christians believe infants go to Heaven, trusting in God's mercy. Some strict Calvinists argue otherwise based on original sin, but even they often soften that view.

 

[pastorwaris]

Key Bible Verses That Support Infant Salvation​

2 Samuel 12:22–23 (David’s child dies)​

“Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Why it matters: David shows hope and confidence that he’ll be reunited with his child. He doesn't mourn like someone who’s lost all hope — he trusts God.

---

Matthew 19:14 (Jesus welcomes children)​

“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Why it matters: Jesus is crystal clear — children belong in the Kingdom. He doesn’t say they “might” make it — He says the Kingdom already belongs to them.

Deuteronomy 1:39 (children and moral responsibility)​

“…your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land.”

Why it matters: This verse shows God making a distinction between adults and children — children aren’t held accountable the same way.

---

Romans 5:18–19 (Christ’s gift covers all)​

“…so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.”

Why it matters: Even if infants are affected by original sin, Christ’s sacrifice is bigger. His grace covers even those who never had a chance to speak or believe.

 

[concretecamper]

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.

I'm not sure what the age of accountability has to do with the Saving Grace of Baptism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not sure what the age of accountability has to do with the Saving Grace of Baptism.

Among some traditions within Neo-Protestantism there is a belief that there is a an Age of Accountability (henceforth "AoA" for brevity's sake). Until a person reaches this AoA, they are unable to make a decision to become a Christian, and therefore are unelidable to receive Baptism. Since most advocates of AoA also believe that Baptism must be a personal decision one makes after choosing to follow Jesus as a sign of one's obedience to Christ--rather than Baptism as a means of Grace, Baptism is viewed as a work of obedience. Since the AoA marks the point where a person becomes personally accountable to their sin, they are held as nonculpable, and effectively (if not literally) impeccable before God. This is an argument put forward to argue that children are saved by virtue of their not yet being culpable and accountable before God; as well as marking the point at which a person is capable of making a personal decision to follow Jesus and receive God's grace through a personal act of decision. Often called "Accepting Christ" or "Making Jesus one's personal Lord and Savior" or "Accepting Jesus into your heart". This forms some of the theology behind the Neo-Protestant practices of the "altar call" and "Sinner's Prayer"--products of 19th and early 20th century "New Measures" theology, originating with Second Great Awakening figures like Charles Finney.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pastorwaris]

I'm not sure what the age of accountability has to do with the Saving Grace of Baptism.

You’re right to point out that salvation is by grace, and Baptism is a means of grace. But the mention of the "Age of Accountability" isn’t meant to replace that—it’s more of a theological framework some Christians use to grapple with the fate of those (like infants or young children) who die before they can consciously respond to the Gospel or receive believer’s baptism (as in Credobaptism views).

For Credo Baptists, who hold that faith must precede baptism, the Age of Accountability becomes a way to explain how God might justly deal with those who die before reaching moral or spiritual responsibility. They believe God, in His mercy, covers such children under grace—without denying the necessity of faith for salvation.

Now, that’s different from Pedobaptism traditions, which see infant baptism as part of God’s covenantal promise, tying it more directly to saving grace.

So to your point—while the AoA isn’t tied directly to the sacrament of baptism, it is often brought up in place of it within Credo Baptist theology when discussing the fate of infants. That’s why it showed up in this context.

Hope that helps clarify! I’d love to hear your thoughts on how different traditions reconcile God’s justice and mercy here.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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.

Good question... or maybe a dilemma is a better description LOL. Baptism is required, but, since we all sin and fall short regardless of how much or how little faith we have, and that refusing or neglecting Baptism to me is a sign of incomplete faith, and my faith/sanctification has yet to reach it's full potential, I doubt that it would be "the unforgivable sin". Again, our Lord knows for sure, I don't, so I leave it in His hands.

Don't stop trying to convince them as Scripture does say: Baptism saves, so does the Eucharist, so does confession and holy absolution.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You’re right to point out that salvation is by grace, and Baptism is a means of grace. But the mention of the "Age of Accountability" isn’t meant to replace that—it’s more of a theological framework some Christians use to grapple with the fate of those (like infants or young children) who die before they can consciously respond to the Gospel or receive believer’s baptism (as in Credobaptism views).

For Credo Baptists, who hold that faith must precede baptism, the Age of Accountability becomes a way to explain how God might justly deal with those who die before reaching moral or spiritual responsibility. They believe God, in His mercy, covers such children under grace—without denying the necessity of faith for salvation.

Now, that’s different from Pedobaptism traditions, which see infant baptism as part of God’s covenantal promise, tying it more directly to saving grace.

So to your point—while the AoA isn’t tied directly to the sacrament of baptism, it is often brought up in place of it within Credo Baptist theology when discussing the fate of infants. That’s why it showed up in this context.

Hope that helps clarify! I’d love to hear your thoughts on how different traditions reconcile God’s justice and mercy here.

Baptism is a sign of the new covenant, circumcision was a sign of the old covenant. Circumcision took place 8 days after the child was born. This is a pretty good indication that infant baptism should be the norm, not the exception. The baptism of the Roman Centurian (and his household) shows that adult baptism is important also., but does not exclude the youg.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Pedobaptism traditions, which see infant baptism as part of God’s covenantal promise,

The paedobaptist tradition of a covenant promise attached to baptism is basically Reformed. Reformed covenant theology is a theory of biblical interpretation that sees redemptive history articulated through at least six successive covenants (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the New). Within the New, some Reformed (and clearly not a majority) believe the family is apart of the new covenant via I Cor. 7:14 hence the interpretation, a child's faith is based built upon the Christian parents faith....

Within the historic Lutheran tradition, Paedobaptism is a means of grace and is seen as a remedy for original sin which is quite different than both Reformed and Credobaptist. Lutherans and the Reformed see original sin as a condition one is born into, whereas for Credobaptists original sin is an act of the will. Lutheran's believe there are many promises of God attached to baptism including forgiveness of sins which is the remedy for the condition of sin all mankind is born into. Credobaptists tend to see no promises attached to baptism or no action of God in baptism as baptism solely an outward sign of an inward change.

Huge differences here which keeps the debate going on and on and on.

​

 

[concretecamper]

Hope that helps clarify! I’d love to hear your thoughts on how different traditions reconcile God’s justice and mercy here.

My thoughts on how other traditions reconcile God's justice and mercy is irrelevant. What is relevant is Scripture and Tradition. And both say that the Grace of Baptism is necessary.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

Ever think that the fallacy is yours? Think about it for a bit.

 

[Hentenza]

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.

Thanks for that.

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

Right. Which is the verse I quoted in my first post in this thread. The same one that you attacked.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

“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.

Jesus is not saying all children are by definition are apart of the Kingdom of God due to their age....that is qualified universalism. Add OSAS to this, and you have de facto universalism.

 

[johansen]

All i know is an angry calvanist i knew in real life. That is. Not on the internet. A real person..

Lamented that once he expressed concern that not all infants go to heaven.

And a woman ran screaming out of the room.

He realized in that moment, she had an abortion

 

[Hentenza]

Jesus is not saying all children are by definition are apart of the Kingdom of God due to their age....that is qualified universalism. Add OSAS to this, and you have de facto universalism.

This makes absolutely no sense. I’m not nor will I ever be an universalist but Jesus here is in fact saying the the kingdom of God is for such as these. And these are the children. You can’t change the scriptures to suit your theology,

 

[RDKirk]

This makes absolutely no sense. I’m not nor will I ever be an universalist but Jesus here is in fact saying the the kingdom of God is for such as these. And these are the children. You can’t change the scriptures to suit your theology,

@Ain't Zwinglian makes the point that:

A. If we say all children are saved because they're children

And

B. We say once saved, always saved

Then

C. Everyone is saved.

 

[The Liturgist]

Good question... or maybe a dilemma is a better description LOL. Baptism is required, but, since we all sin and fall short regardless of how much or how little faith we have, and that refusing or neglecting Baptism to me is a sign of incomplete faith, and my faith/sanctification has yet to reach it's full potential, I doubt that it would be "the unforgivable sin". Again, our Lord knows for sure, I don't, so I leave it in His hands.

Don't stop trying to convince them as Scripture does say: Baptism saves, so does the Eucharist, so does confession and holy absolution.

Beautifully put.


DId you see my post on the subject referencing what St. Theophan the Recluse said? i believe it supports your argument, while at the same time encouraging us to actively promote baptism and indeed Christian orthodoxy to various counterfeit sects that deny Baptism, the Trinity and so on. He said, in summary, that we should not worry about whether the heterodox should be saved (not that we should not pray for them), since they have a Saviour, the same Lord Jesus Christ, who desires the salvation of as many as possible, but we, having the fullness of truth, must not abandon it. Thus I see his argument simultaneously putting us at peace about our heterodox the state of our departed friends and loved ones who might be from heterodox churches that reject baptism such as Christian Science, some Quakers, etc, while at the same time giving us a missionary focus with regards to converting them to normative Nicene Christianity as expressed by our respective churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus is not saying all children are by definition are apart of the Kingdom of God due to their age....that is qualified universalism. Add OSAS to this, and you have de facto universalism.

Indeed, that’s correct, which is why its a good reason to reject the idea of OSAS, and also to embrace the baptism of infants because it has the potential to ensure their salvation as adults, since by joining them to the Body of Christ and protecting them from demons and granting them a guardian angel we protect them from much of what could cause them to later fall away.

I would also note that while the one area where you and I disagree is monergism, there is a monergist way to avoid univerisalism with regards to this that I became familiar with as a Congregationalist, that being - we can say that those who die as children are not reprobates, but those who die as adults having rejected Christ were reprobates, whom He never knew.

In the case of monergism I would note that, in contrast to anabaptism, it was known in the early church, and the Assyrian Church of the East and St. Gregory of Nyssa arguably were semi-monergist vis a vis their view on apokatastasis. Because of this I can’t reject Lutheran monergism outright, and Lutherans have a love and a grace to them, such as my godfather Eugene, which is quite special (as do you yourself and Mark; I absolutely love Lutherans).

 

[The Liturgist]

This makes absolutely no sense. I’m not nor will I ever be an universalist but Jesus here is in fact saying the the kingdom of God is for such as these. And these are the children. You can’t change the scriptures to suit your theology,

The issue is this: if you’re saying once saved always saved exists as a doctrine, and you say all children are saved, they can’t lose that salvation. Therefore the solution is to drop OSAS or restrict it to those saved as adults, which would allow for what one might call a “window of apostasy” in Arminian terms.