Question about my Baptism as an infant

[RhetorTheo]

That seems a bit harsh: your saying that "it does not matter" if babies who die go to heaven or not, and your saying "Whether or not babies get to heaven is trivial."

I think it does matter TO THEM. I think it is not trivial to God.

Isn't that what the Orthodox, and many Catholics, say when asked whether those outside the Church are saved? Not the word "trivial," but "it doesn't matter to me, I should focus on my own salvation"?

We Catholics entrust dead babies to the mercy of God.

I think that's the same answer he gave, just worded differently. In both cases, the doctrine, if applied, would result in the (unsaved, original sin) baby going to Hell. But we suspect that God wouldn't allow it to happen.

 

[RhetorTheo]

I am sorry, but you are incorrect on this statement. Baptist do not entrust the mercy of God on infants. Baptist trust what the bible says, Babies get instant heaven, just like David son did in the book of Samuel. That is why we do not baptize infants.

It is more than trivial to me about my daughter. I KNOW she is in heaven, the bible says so! Babies in heaven is not a trivial matter whatsoever. Its alot more important than you think.

GEL

Okay, I wasn't aware of that. As a former Baptist and a graduate of a Southern Baptist undergrad, I didn't know that the Bible is interpreted to guarantee salvation to babies. It wasn't something I was concerned with, personally. At what age does a child need to be saved? Is it a set age, or a vague "age of accountability"?

 

[jenptcfan]

At what age does a child need to be saved? Is it a set age, or a vague "age of accountability"?

It's not like we can control when a child is saved. A child 'needs' to be saved at the point in time when they can comprehend what Jesus did for them and that they need to be saved because they are sinners. Of course it's not a set age, because this mental maturity comes at different ages for different children. It's also much more than just "head knowledge". We can know all the bible stories and be able to recite them word for word, but until it becomes real to us, we can't truly accept it.

But usually, in my experience, it seems that it's kind of a gradual experience.
1. Slowly gaining the understanding of one's need for Christ.
2. Being convicted by the Holy Spirit and figuring out what the HS is doing.
3. Surrendering to it.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

So if someone never reaches an age of reason or to a state where they could accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, say someone who was mentaly developmentaly disabled they could never be Baptised?

 

[KennySe]

Isn't that what the Orthodox, and many Catholics, say when asked whether those outside the Church are saved? Not the word "trivial," but "it doesn't matter to me, I should focus on my own salvation"?

I don't know what the Orthodox teach on this. You would best ask them directly on their board.
I don't know what "many Catholics" say on this; I haven't seen or conducted a survey.
However, I know that THIS Catholic (points at self) prays to the Lord for the salvation of all persons. I know a good number of Catholics who pray for many to repent and be reconciled by God.
I don't want anyone, born or unborn, to be unsaved.
And I pray for them.

We Catholics entrust dead babies to the mercy of God.

I think that's the same answer he gave, just worded differently.

He can answer for himself, what he means by his wording.

According to one Baptist poster, what I said, and what he had said, are NOT the same thing.

Baptist do not entrust the mercy of God on infants. Baptist trust what the bible says, Babies get instant heaven, just like David son did in the book of Samuel. That is why we do not baptize infants.

It is more than trivial to me about my daughter. I KNOW she is in heaven, the bible says so! Babies in heaven is not a trivial matter whatsoever. Its alot more important than you think.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

This is King David talking after losing his first born son, who was an infant. God took away this baby because of the murder and adultry that David committed with his lover. Please note that Davids other son Absomlom, who later died in war, was mourned over for days, weeks, and months. So why did David stop fasting and stop mourning this infant, and not his older son? If you read both books od Samuel, you will see that Absomlom was not saved. David cried and mourned because he KNEW his son was not going to be with the Father.
This is a clear indication that this innocent baby is in heaven. David, because of his love for the Lord, knew that he would see his first born son again.

As for many Roman Catholics, I understand that they would never "want" a baby to go to hell. But the Catechism states differantly. If I can find what the bible says about babies getting instant heaven, than why can't the Roman Catholic Church state in the catacism that ALL babies go to heaven?
There is no way that the catacism could ever state that babies get instant heaven, it would take away from the doctrine of baptism of the RCC.

GEL

 

[jenptcfan]

So if someone never reaches an age of reason or to a state where they could accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, say someone who was mentaly developmentaly disabled they could never be Baptised?

They wouldn't need to be baptized. Again, baptism doesn't mean anything to us if we can't understand it. If someone is mentally unable to grasp the concept, I believe that they are like babies and are received into heaven.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

This is King David talking after losing his first born son, who was an infant. God took away this baby because of the murder and adultry that David committed with his lover. Please note that Davids other son Absomlom, who later died in war, was mourned over for days, weeks, and months. So why did David stop fasting and stop mourning this infant, and not his older son? If you read both books od Samuel, you will see that Absomlom was not saved. David cried and mourned because he KNEW his son was not going to be with the Father.
This is a clear indication that this innocent baby is in heaven. David, because of his love for the Lord, knew that he would see his first born son again.

As for many Roman Catholics, I understand that they would never "want" a baby to go to hell. But the Catechism states differantly. If I can find what the bible says about babies getting instant heaven, than why can't the Roman Catholic Church state in the catacism that ALL babies go to heaven?
There is no way that the catacism could ever state that babies get instant heaven, it would take away from the doctrine of baptism of the RCC.

GEL

Well, I read the quote you posted and I can't see how it would prove that all children would go to heaven. Now I am not saying that all non-baptised children are not saved. What I am saying is that I don't know. I can't think of single line of scripture or apostolic teaching that would say either way. Just my personal oppinion, I would say that they would be saved even though it is not the normal means of salvation revealed to us by Jesus, but I have no real proof of that.

As far as the quote you gave goes, First you say that David's differing reaction to his sons' death is evidence that he beleives that his infant child will go to Heaven and Absolom would go to hell. Don't you think this could be explained because of the differing circumstances of his son's deaths? His infant child was taken away from him by God because of David's own sinfulness. He was told in advance what was going to happen. He appealed to God to save his child from death, but he died just as God said. It was God's will and David accepted it. Absolom was not killed necesarily because of God's will, but beacuse of David's own men killing him after David asked them to spare him. He suffered a lost that did not have to happen. The differing reactions is not that unusual to me.

Second, It is true that David says that he will go to him. Now is David saying this as a fact or just what he beleives (or hopes)? Assuming he is saying it as a fact, Just where does David think he is going to go to be with his son? Have you ever studied the way Jews view the afterlife. Its knowhere near as well defined as the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell.

And lastly, keep in mind that these people in the Old Testament are Jews. And as Jews, their children would have been born under the Old Covenant as Jews and the male children would have been circumcised on the 8th day. So as a Jew, what would it matter if you died as an infant or as an old man? The only difference would be how righteous or wicked your life was to determine your place in the afterlife.

Christians are not born Christians. We must be born again through Baptism to enter into the New Covenant. This is why Catholics and Orthodox baptise children, just as Jewish children would have been born under the Old Covenant by simply being born and being circumcised.

What other scripture passages support this belief that persons that have not reached an age of accountability will automatically be saved?

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Cary,
Your question was answered from the bible. Why are you debating with me?
I posted a scripture which specifically indicates that David and his son will be reunited somewhere, that place MUST be heaven! That proves that his child went to heaven, unless you believe that King David, whom the Lord loved, went to hell. And that is just nonsense.
If you have a question to ask, then ask it and accept what Gods words says about it. Otherwise I think you are breaking the rules here in the forum.

 

[kayanne]

GEL,
I agree with lots of what you've said:
1) that Cary is crossing the line into debating
2) that babies go to heaven
3) that "instant heaven for babies" would create some problems for Cath's in regard to their beliefs about baptism

However.......
I do have to agree with Cary that the scriptures you used (to me anyway) don't PROVE your point. It does give some support, but to say it is outright proof, to me, is a stretch. As Cary pointed out, just because David said "I shall go to him" does not mean that David necessarily WOULD be reunited with his baby. It certainly isn't God saying ALL babies go to heaven. I think we need to be very careful in extrapolating opinions from Scripture that requires so many assumptions (the assumption that David was correct in his statement, the assumption that if David's baby went to heaven then every other baby must also go to heaven, the assumptions you made about the difference in David's mourning over this baby compared to Absolom.)
Again, I agree with your conclusion, but you aren't using valid reasoning to claim proof from these verses.

I DO, however, believe that all babies go to heaven, because to believe otherwise would totally contradict the very nature of the God I believe in. I could not worship or love a God who would create babies only for the purpose of sending them to Hell. The God I believe in is infinitely more loving and compassionate than I am, and even I, in my human sinful state, have enough love and compassion to want to scoop up a baby and love him and tend to his needs and ache for his hurts and cries--how much more would our loving heavenly Father want to take such a little one and protect him in His loving arms.

 

[Cary.Melvin]

Cary,
Your question was answered from the bible. Why are you debating with me?
I posted a scripture which specifically indicates that David and his son will be reunited somewhere, that place MUST be heaven! That proves that his child went to heaven, unless you believe that King David, whom the Lord loved, went to hell. And that is just nonsense.
If you have a question to ask, then ask it and accept what Gods words says about it. Otherwise I think you are breaking the rules here in the forum.

1) that Cary is crossing the line into debating

Actually, my post was placed 2 hours and 14 minutes before forum rules were set in place.

And I could probably argue that I would be grandfathered into this thread because it was started before forum rules were in place as well.

 

[kayanne]

Actually, my post was placed 2 hours and 14 minutes before forum rules were set in place.

And I could probably argue that I would be grandfathered into this thread because it was started before forum rules were in place as well.

Hee-hee, you got us on that one. And actually I don't mind a little bit of debate (even though it does violate rules). It's hard to dialogue back and forth, questions/answers/counter-responses, without it crossing the line into debate---but as long as it is done with utmost courtest and respect, I think that is how we learn from each other. It's just the "my way or the highway" attitude that turns me off.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

GEL,

However.......
I do have to agree with Cary that the scriptures you used (to me anyway) don't PROVE your point. It does give some support, but to say it is outright proof, to me, is a stretch. As Cary pointed out, just because David said "I shall go to him" does not mean that David necessarily WOULD be reunited with his baby. It certainly isn't God saying ALL babies go to heaven. I think we need to be very careful in extrapolating opinions from Scripture that requires so many assumptions (the assumption that David was correct in his statement, the assumption that if David's baby went to heaven then every other baby must also go to heaven, the assumptions you made about the difference in David's mourning over this baby compared to Absolom.)
Again, I agree with your conclusion, but you aren't using valid reasoning to claim proof from these verses.

I DO, however, believe that all babies go to heaven, because to believe otherwise would totally contradict the very nature of the God I believe in. I could not worship or love a God who would create babies only for the purpose of sending them to Hell. The God I believe in is infinitely more loving and compassionate than I am, and even I, in my human sinful state, have enough love and compassion to want to scoop up a baby and love him and tend to his needs and ache for his hurts and cries--how much more would our loving heavenly Father want to take such a little one and protect him in His loving arms.

Let me post up this scripture again.
2 Samuel 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
God says in the bible that if you believe in the name of Jesus you "shall" be saved. That means that YOU ARE SAVED right or does it man you "could be or would be but we won't know until we die? I think that it is very possible to look beyond into the future, as David was doing, and claim that his son and him would be reunited. His son went somewhere, where would that be?
Maybe I should ask you, where do you think David ment when he said he would see his son again?
I understand that you are not going to find a scripture that says All babies get instant heaven, but there are several scripture that point out that innocent babies and children were saved by the wrath of God even those who were of the pagans. God uses plenty of scriptures in the bible to let us know that our babies are in heaven, I think this is a good example of how God allowed David to have enough peace in his heart to know that we would see his son again. Maybe I should have posted more scripture. I will pull up an old post of mine.......

http://www.christianforums.com/t146764&page=8

GEL

 

[n2wolves]

I'm not frankie, but I'll jump in. I think that all Baptists would agree that there is no saving power in being immersed. When you say "there is no need for getting wet," that is true, in that it is not *needed* for salvation.
Baptism should, however, be *desired*. I don't *need* to attend church, treat others kindly, tell others about Jesus, put others' needs ahead of my own, etc. But as a Christian, I certainly should have the *desire* to do those things!! And I should have a desire to be baptized. If a person doesn't want to be baptized, and he is genuinely saved, he probably doesn't have a clear understanding of what the Bible says about baptism. I can't imagine being saved, yet outright refusing to take this step of obedience.

On the contrary baptism is needed for salvation for if we are to be OBEDIENT to Christ and be baptized as he commands, if we reject that command is that not rebellion against Christ and if it is, are we really putting Christ on in the first place?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Yes'm absolutely. I think you may be confusing Mennonites with
Amish. Which I notice are also welcome on this board. Mind you we will
have to find one with a kerosene fired computer before they post.

I understand the Amish occasionally ride in taxis and use pay phones. Do you think they could connect up in a cyber cafe?

Question for Kenny Se or any of the folks from OBOB I hear that some RCC churches are going for full imersion baptism. Espescially as adults. (At least so says my dad who is doing some baptisms that way)

Is this a localized Arkansas thing or are you hearing / seeing this also?

I tried to post a picture of the baptismal font in the new Roman Catholic cathedral in Los Angeles, but their website is designed to keep you from doing that. To see it, click the link, then select Baptismal Font at the bottom of the "Art" menu.

 

[Frankie]

In regards to babies going to heaven if they pass on. One thing that people often miss is that there is an age of accountability. That age would be different for everyone and only God truly knows when someone is accountable to either accept or reject Jesus. One thing we can all agree on (I hope), is that babies are not accountable. They are babies and are not yet old enough to even crasp the understanding of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior of their lives. Since they are not yet accountable, they are covered under the grace of God and automatically go to Heaven. Jesus tells us in the Bible that children are such as the kingdom of God. He forbids anyone to keep children from coming to Him. Where Jesus shows sternness and blunt teachings and correction to adults in the Bible, He shows gentleness and open compasion to children. It is completly beyond me how some people can even think that children and babies that die would go to Hell if they weren't baptised first or that they can think that children or babies would go to Hell period. It just isn't gunna happen.


Frankie

 

[Crazy Liz]

Perhaps we would be better off not arguing about whether babies might possibly go to hell, and think more about the words of Jesus:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

--Matthew 18:1-6

 

[KennySe]

As for many Roman Catholics, I understand that they would never "want" a baby to go to hell. But the Catechism states differantly. If I can find what the bible says about babies getting instant heaven, than why can't the Roman Catholic Church state in the catacism that ALL babies go to heaven?
There is no way that the catacism could ever state that babies get instant heaven, it would take away from the doctrine of baptism of the RCC

How about we not discuss Catholic doctrine on this forum,, but instead on the Catholic Forum?

If you want to discuss the Catechism of the Catholic Church's section on Baptism, OBOB is the proper forum.

 

[Cright]

GEL,
I agree with lots of what you've said:
1) that Cary is crossing the line into debating
2) that babies go to heaven
3) that "instant heaven for babies" would create some problems for Cath's in regard to their beliefs about baptism

However.......
I agree with your conclusion, but you aren't using valid reasoning to claim proof from these verses.

I DO, however, believe that all babies go to heaven, because to believe otherwise would totally contradict the very nature of the God I believe in. I could not worship or love a God who would create babies only for the purpose of sending them to Hell. The God I believe in is infinitely more loving and compassionate than I am, and even I, in my human sinful state, have enough love and compassion to want to scoop up a baby and love him and tend to his needs and ache for his hurts and cries--how much more would our loving heavenly Father want to take such a little one and protect him in His loving arms.

I agree with this post.

I'd like to post *some* of the scriptures that helped me learn about salvation, and what I get from them. (to those who attend baptist/anabaptist/similar churches, feel free to correct me if you think I've lost direction... other denom's please feel free to ask me for further biblical support but please, no debate)

Salvation comes only from the grace of God through Jesus...
1 Peter 1:8-10
Romans 1:16
Jonah 2:9
Luke 1:77
Acts 4:12

Baptism not needed
Acts 15:11 (just as you are)
Acts 2:21 (everyone who calls to the lord will be saved, also next 2 vs)
Romans 10:10
Romans 10:13

Indication that salvation is all you need for heaven (not purgatory)
1 Thessalonians 5:9

Babies don't need baptism for salvation
1 Peter 2:2 (says like a baby grows, adults should grow in salvation... not babies should)
Hebrews 5:13 (infants can't comprehend righteousness)

** no examples of babies being baptised in the bible.
** the thief on the cross next to Jesus did not need baptism for salvation

Here the CCC says Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation
**"And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257)."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

Here the CCC says Baptism is NOT NECESSARY for salvation of infants, and some adults.
** "Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283)."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp
(greeneyedlady - looks like Catholic doctrine does say unbaptized babies can go to heaven.. possibly anyway.)

Hope those verses are helpful, if you don't have a bible near by, check out www.biblegateway.com, it has several versions, choose your favorite version to read with.

C

 

[kayanne]

frankie, your font is teensy-tiny so my late-night eyes can hardly read it! can you bump it up a few notches?