• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,471
8,145
50
The Wild West
✟753,679.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
@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.

Indeed, but since we’re debating in general Theology, we presumably reject universalism (since universalism can be advocated for only in Controversial Christian Theology), so the parameters of A or B must be modified to preclude the impossibility of people rejecting God, which we know from Scripture is possible, and which constitutes actual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (since to reject God one would have to reject all grace of the Holy Spirit).
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,471
8,145
50
The Wild West
✟753,679.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Ever think that the fallacy is yours? Think about it for a bit.

Earlier I stated that I would take no offense, and I see no reason why anyone should take offense, at having logical fallacies pointed out, but your post is not a helpful example of that because you don’t bother to say which statement of mine is fallacious.

That being said, I have an idea on what you might be thinking of, and so in the interests of ensuring logical accuracy, I shall perform an analysis of my prior argument:

In my last post, I argued, or intended to argue*, that:

You’re saying baptism is forbidden on the basis of our Lord not mentioning it in the context of “suffer the little ones to come unto me,” because you believe that the statements of Christ are applicable in a non-Chronological manner, so the Great Commission somehow doesn’t apply to them despite Christ having said all. This is both a non-sequitur and an argument from silence.

If we take your pretext about the non-temporal nature of Christ’s remarks and separate it from the argument from silence, your hermeneutic, interpreted according to strict logic, would support the Baptism of Infants, since infants are included in all, and furthermore Christ specifically said to suffer the infants to come under him.

I am not aware of any logical fallacy in that statement, especially an argument from fallacy, since it is built around two affirmative statements of Christ - suffer the children to come unto me and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

However, perhaps you take the view that my interpretation of “the baptism of all nations” to include children is an argument from silence since Christ does not explicitly mention children in that statement, which is the aforementioned guess - although I can’t be certain, because rather than showing me the argument that you believed was fallacious, you simply made an allusion to a fallacy, which is, to reiterate, not helpful.

That being said, I would respond by saying that it is positively not an argument from silence, for this reason: interpreting it as an argument from silence would require denying that all means all, which is a contradiction, and therefore fallacious, or denying that children belong to the nations, which is also a contradiction, both in terms of international Law and in terms of Scriptural principles, wherein nationality absolutely was inherited in the case of the Jews and other nations, but could be changed, for example, by converting to Judaism as in the case of St. Ruth, and later, in a spiritual sense, by converting to Christianity, since scripture uses the word nation to refer to ethnic groups sharing a common ancestry, for example the Ishmaelites are described as a great nation, promised to Ishmael.

So unless your argument refers to something else, then no, I don’t believe in this case I’ve made an argument from silence, but if I do engage in a logical fallacy such as appeal to unqualified authority, argument from silence, begging the question, appeal to ignorance, et cetera, and someone can clearly articulate that (and ideally show me what my arguments would imply with the fallacy removed) I will genuinely appreciate it, since my goal is to operate within logic since Christ our True God is the Logos, He is Reason, the son of the Father, with whom He reigns together with the Holy Spirit, ever one God, united by love eternal**. But please do so explicitly, since in this case I was forced to guess at what you might have been referring to, and its entirely possible you were referring to something else.

* If the actual text differed from my intended argument, which I constructed from memory and not in reference to the original text, and the actual text of my original argument somehow differed in a material way so as to introduce a fallacy not presented in this recapitulation, feel free to show me that.

** This does not mean I’ll change my doctrinal affiliation, but rather, that I will (a) double check the doctrine in question and (b) ensure that I am presenting it in a non-fallacious manner, if I am able to verify the logical claim. Part of the reason I am attracted to Orthodoxy is because of the logic of the early Church Fathers. I also have high respect for many theologians outside of Orthodoxy because of the logic of their positions, such as the Lutherans of the period of Lutheran orthodoxy around the time of JS Bach, the Calvinist systematic theologians such as Karl Barth, and the Scholastic theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas.
 
Upvote 0

MarkRohfrietsch

Unapologetic Apologist
Site Supporter
Dec 8, 2007
30,970
5,799
✟1,002,222.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
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,
Hi Henry, it has been a while!!
Mark:wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,259
800
Oregon
✟164,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,480
10,847
New Jersey
✟1,310,911.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
Westminster is pretty clear that non-Christians are never saved. As far as I know, conservative Presbyterians would accept that. Reformed tradition typically assumes that children of Christians are normally saved, though there are fairly widespread speculations that anyone who dies in infancy is saved. The PCUSA (of which I'm a member) isn't so hardcore. Many of us take a position similar to the Catholic one, that Christ may be at work in the lives of non-Christians. Of course universalism is fairly common , though I think a minority. I see some support in Paul, but I'm not entirely convinced. However I'm also not convinced that any valid council rejected it. Apokatastasis, Origenism, Fifth Ecumenical Council—with a Dash of Theophilus
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,431
28,856
Pacific Northwest
✟809,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Right. Which is the verse I quoted in my first post in this thread. The same one that you attacked.

On the contrary. I pointed out that Jesus commands His Church to make disciples and to baptize, and that this includes children. This was not an attack, but pointing out that the Great Commission is for everyone. Including our children.

We can't use Jesus' words that the kingdom is "to such as these" speaking of children, and simultaneously deny them Jesus, deny them the kingdom. It is precisely because Jesus welcomes the little ones that we bring our children to the waters of Baptism. Because Jesus is there, welcoming them, and they are made heirs of the kingdom through new birth (John 3:3-5).

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,050
22,667
US
✟1,723,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Indeed, but since we’re debating in general Theology, we presumably reject universalism (since universalism can be advocated for only in Controversial Christian Theology), so the parameters of A or B must be modified to preclude the impossibility of people rejecting God, which we know from Scripture is possible, and which constitutes actual blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (since to reject God one would have to reject all grace of the Holy Spirit).
So, which one do we modify?

I have no problem modifying OSAS, which doesn't require cold-heartedness on God's side.
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
35,193
4,160
On the bus to Heaven
✟83,266.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@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.
Logic fail. I think he missed everyone that is not a child that never accepted Christ. So B is wrong because, if osas is right, it would only apply to adult believers, therefore, making his conclusion wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
35,193
4,160
On the bus to Heaven
✟83,266.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
On the contrary. I pointed out that Jesus commands His Church to make disciples and to baptize, and that this includes children. This was not an attack, but pointing out that the Great Commission is for everyone. Including our children.

We can't use Jesus' words that the kingdom is "to such as these" speaking of children, and simultaneously deny them Jesus, deny them the kingdom. It is precisely because Jesus welcomes the little ones that we bring our children to the waters of Baptism. Because Jesus is there, welcoming them, and they are made heirs of the kingdom through new birth (John 3:3-5).

-CryptoLutheran
We don’t disagree at all brother. We, including you, already stated that children that die prior to baptism ( in your belief system) are not condemned so the exception is narrow. Do you disagree?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
42,050
22,667
US
✟1,723,109.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Logic fail. I think he missed everyone that is not a child that never accepted Christ. So B is wrong because, if osas is right, it would only apply to adult believers, therefore, making his conclusion wrong.
That's a qualification you just invented. Who besides you says that OSAS only applies to adult believers?

And that's okay, but the point is that one or both of those premises must be qualified.
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
35,193
4,160
On the bus to Heaven
✟83,266.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's a qualification you just invented. Who besides you says that OSAS only applies to adult believers?
Since osas requires the acceptance and faith of Jesus as your Lord and savior and since children, particularly infants, cannot make that commitment it is understood that children need to reach some vague age of accountability before they can make the choice so, no, I did not invent that.
And that's okay, but the point is that one or both of those premises must be qualified.
Yes
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
1,259
800
Oregon
✟164,790.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
particularly infants, cannot make that commitment it is
John the Baptist did. Scripture clearly states he was "filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15)" therefore regenerated. Scripture has many words for conversion/regeneration such as faith, repentance, justification, Sanctification, glorification, calling, filled with the spirit, adoption, hiers, etc.

It is clear, therefore, that God is able to save infants in an unusual way, apart from their hearing and understanding the gospel, by bringing regeneration to them very early, sometimes even before birth. This regeneration is probably also followed at once by a very early, intuitive awareness of God and trust in him at an extremely early age, but this is something we simply cannot understand....a true mystery.
 
Upvote 0