A question for non-Catholic Christians on salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter reen12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

reen12

Guest
Would someone please address the following, for me,
in terms of the theology of their own Christian denomination?

Catholicism holds that it cannot state with *certainty *that
the souls of infants who die without Baptism are received
into heaven…i.e., the beatific vision.
It “entrusts” these little people to the “mercy of God.”

What do other Christian denominations hold, with reference
to the eternal destiny of these infants?
Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

reen12*
 
40.png
reen12:
Would someone please address the following, for me,
in terms of the theology of their own Christian denomination?

Catholicism holds that it cannot state with *certainty *that
the souls of infants who die without Baptism are received
into heaven…i.e., the beatific vision.
It “entrusts” these little people to the “mercy of God.”

What do other Christian denominations hold, with reference
to the eternal destiny of these infants?
Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

reen12*

Many don’t recognize sacraments and don’t believe that baptism brings forgiveness of sin.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Ignatius,

quote:** Ignatius**
Many don’t recognize sacraments and don’t believe that baptism brings forgiveness of sin.
Click to expand...
In light of this, perhaps I could reframe my question:

If a person does not reach the point in time where they
can responsibly accept Jesus as their personal Savior,
what is the eternal destiny of this little person,in non-Catholic
Christian thought, in terms of various denominations?

I appreciate your thought, Ignatius.

Best wishes,
reen12
 
99% of the Protestants who actually believe in Heaven believe that the child is saved by God in a one-sided act; that is, God does it without the cooperation of the one who is saved.

There are hints in Scripture that infants go to Heaven. Although it isn’t spelled out, it is unthinkable that it should be otherwise.

Unthinkable to all but a tiny number of Calvinists, who historically have been called hypercalvinists. Some of them believed that some infants might be in Hell because of Adam’s sin. Tiny number of thinkers, not worth five minutes of your time.
 
Infants have not sinned and therefore do not require baptism to cleanse them of their sins. More to the point, “Jesus said, let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these,” Matthew 19:14. If Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children, why would he not accept any children?
 
40.png
amontoya:
Infants have not sinned and therefore do not require baptism to cleanse them of their sins. More to the point, “Jesus said, let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these,” Matthew 19:14. If Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children, why would he not accept any children?
Click to expand...
You misquote scripture here. Jesus did not say “heaven belongs to little children.” You will note that in the Matt 19 quote it says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to “such as these.” Jesus is speaking figuratively here.

The problem I have with the protestant take on this is that if infants have not sinned, have no taint of original sin, and belong in heaven then by whose righteousness do they enter heaven. Not Jesus presumably, because they cannot have accepted him as savior before the age of reason/accountability. Not by Adam’s righteousness, because he lost that as a result of the fall long ago. And if by their own righteousness, in other words, infants are born righteous, then it must follow that faith in Jesus is not the only way to heaven. That I expect the reformed protestant to find difficult to accept.

I think it all goes back to the consequences of original sin on all of mankind. I note that in Genesis not only are Adam and Eve excluded from paradise, but all their children and their children’s children as well. This should not happen if the progeny were born righteous.
 
Mr. Ruggerio:
…
The problem I have with the protestant take on this is that if infants have not sinned, have no taint of original sin, and belong in heaven then by whose righteousness do they enter heaven. Not Jesus presumably, because they cannot have accepted him as savior before the age of reason/accountability. Not by Adam’s righteousness, because he lost that as a result of the fall long ago. And if by their own righteousness, in other words, infants are born righteous, then it must follow that faith in Jesus is not the only way to heaven.
Click to expand...
the only problem with you disagreeing with protestants on this is that the issue of mary then comes into the argument. catholics teach that mary was conceived without the stain of original sin and remained sinless throughout her life and is in heaven. the argument goes that she was saved from sin (IOTW before she sinned). this same argument could be passed onto infants and children who die before the age of reason. to a protestant…original sin does not enter into it, but let’s think about that also. original sin was more a curse to be felt here on earth. no longer would we “walk in the garden with God”. no longer would the earth produce food for us and no longer would we be without shame. that is the effect on us humans. and even an infant or a child who has not reached the age of reason has suffered that to some extent (thus serving a sort of purgatorial sentence) so that, since they did not sin through any fault of their own they should enter the kingdom of heaven. that’s my take on it though.

now, of course baptism would take care of that stain of original sin but still does not get rid of the consequences. just baptize your kids people!..lol
 
Thank you all for your thoughts.

What’s interesting to me, is that the concept of original
sin was never held by the parent faith of Chrisitanity,
Judaism…in fact, it is rejected outright.

It was taught by St. Paul, and is not found in the Synoptic
Gospels, with the exception of the reference to “He did
not trust Himself to them, for He knew what was in them.”
[paraphrase.]

How St. Paul got from that, to Original Sin, fascinates me.

Can anyone point to references in the Synoptic Gospels
where Jesus said anything that could be construed as
the doctrine of Original Sin? [apart from the reference
given above, which could easily be countered.]

It accounts for a number of threads…who can be saved?
what happens to unbaptized babies?

Any thoughts, from the non-Catholic Christian community?
I’m already familiar with the RC position.

Many thanks,

reen12
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
the only problem with you disagreeing with protestants on this is that the issue of mary then comes into the argument. catholics teach that mary was conceived without the stain of original sin and remained sinless throughout her life and is in heaven. the argument goes that she was saved from sin (IOTW before she sinned). this same argument could be passed onto infants and children who die before the age of reason. to a protestant…original sin does not enter into it, but let’s think about that also. original sin was more a curse to be felt here on earth. no longer would we “walk in the garden with God”. no longer would the earth produce food for us and no longer would we be without shame. that is the effect on us humans. and even an infant or a child who has not reached the age of reason has suffered that to some extent (thus serving a sort of purgatorial sentence) so that, since they did not sin through any fault of their own they should enter the kingdom of heaven. that’s my take on it though.

now, of course baptism would take care of that stain of original sin but still does not get rid of the consequences. just baptize your kids people!..lol
Click to expand...
Mary’s case was special. She was to be the ark of the covenant. Just look at the words of the Magnificat.

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Clearly, what the Lord was doing here was unique.
 
First of all,John Wesley taught that baptism bestows actual grace to the child. However, he also thought that it could be “sinned away”. (My words, not his, but the thought, as I was taught it). This seems to me to be very close to the Catholic belief in venial & mortal sins…Hence, the need for repentance for sins committed after the “age of accountability”. (Which is no specific age, simply that point at which a child becomes able to make decisions with an understanding of the consequences).
Yet, unbaptized babies are believed to go straight to heaven if they die so young. I am sure that wiser heads than mine can explain the thinking behind this better than I, but I will give it a shot:
We can be certain of the fact that the unbaptized babies of believing Christians go to heaven. Why? Something very much like the idea of a “baptism of desire”–the desire of the parents for the child to be a baptized Christian. It is accepted, just as it is the faith of the parents that is accepted as the grounds for the water baptism of infants.

What about others? Here, I have my own opinion of how this works, so, fellow Methodists, don’t jump on me for this: We are told that “[God] is not willing that any should [eternally] perish.” And yet, and yet…How might this work? As I say: My own opinion: If the desire of our Lady cannot be counted as a baptism of desire for these little ones, whose desire can???
I think that when little babies die, the Blessed Mother takes them in on her faith. Just my :twocents:
 
Good morning,

I’m appreciating reading the observations of those
kind enough to reply to my question.

Thank you,
reen12
 
Mr. Ruggerio:
You will note that in the Matt. 19 quote it says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to “such as these.” Jesus is speaking figuratively here.
Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus is speaking figuratively here, but why? Because children are innocent, and people must be innocent to enter heaven. The problem is that adults corrupt themselves and therefore need baptism to cleanse them of their sins. Children have not sinned, and so do not need to be baptized.

We are judged by our own actions, not Adam’s. Jesus sees that babies have not sinned, and welcomes them into heaven; just as he said, “…let the little children come to me…”
 
40.png
reen12:
Catholicism holds that it cannot state with *certainty *that
the souls of infants who die without Baptism are received
into heaven…i.e., the beatific vision.
It “entrusts” these little people to the “mercy of God.”

What do other Christian denominations hold, with reference
to the eternal destiny of these infants?
Click to expand...
One of the features of Protestantism is that ‘every believer is his/her own priest’, and so theology tends to vary. In other words, ask twelve Protestants and you’ll probably get twelve different answers.

I have heard a few different answers to this question, ranging from “They didn’t accept Jesus, and so they go to Hell,” to “They’re innocent, and so they go to heaven.” Since most Protestants reject the idea of Purgatory as an evil Papist lie, there are only two destinations from which to choose.

I would like to alter the question a little. Consider, if you will, a hypothetical situation. A young woman is born in North America in AD 300. She lives, she inevitably sins, and she dies without any exposure to Christianity. When she dies, does she go straight to Hell without any chance?

If she does, then God is punishing her for something over which she had no power. That would be unjust.

The usual argument to support the idea that unbelievers perish in the fires of Hell is based upon Paul’s claim that “since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom 1:20). Even if we accept that the world is evidence of a creator, there is nothing in creation which shows who that creator was: there is no label saying, “The Triune God made this.”

On the other side, when Paul went to Athens, he preached to the Athenians about their pantheism. In the midst of hsi preaching, we find the comment that “In the past God overlooked such ignorance [idolatry]” (Acts 17:30). John says, “if anyone does sin, we have one who speaks in our defence - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2). While both passages imply the possibility of forgiveness for non-Christians, neither states it as a fact.

The end result is that the Bible does not give an unambiguous answer, which means that Protestants disagree.

Personally, I want to believe that God is just, and I therefore trust that there is some way for them to reach Heaven, but I have no idea what it is.
 
Hi, Mystophilus,

You might be interested in an ongoing
thread on the Apologetics forum, entitled:
Salvation outside Christianity…?

I’ve just posted a couple reflections, which I think deal with
your observations, on this thread.[posts # 117 and 121]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=67827&page=2

In that thread, I’m challenging the very concept of
Original Sin, because of what flows from it [what happens
to “unbaptized babies”] and based on the fact that the concept
of Original Sin is totally unknown to the parent faith, Judaism.

aish.com/spirituality/growth/Human_Nature_Inherently_Good_or_Evil$_Ethics_of_the_Fathers_17.asp

I am maintaining that this concept impugns the very
nature of God, in His Justice and Mercy.

quote:Mystophilus
The end result is that the Bible does not give an unambiguous answer, which means that Protestants disagree
Click to expand...
It is this “unambiguous” stance that leads me to
believe that the whole Christian position is deficient,
in some critical way.

If we would maintain that there is even a* possiblity* [based
on that very “ambiguity”] that God would send an infant to hell,
then, IMO, God is being ill-served by Christian theologians, including St. Paul.

Best,
reen12
 
40.png
reen12:
Would someone please address the following, for me,
in terms of the theology of their own Christian denomination?

Catholicism holds that it cannot state with *certainty *that
the souls of infants who die without Baptism are received
into heaven…i.e., the beatific vision.
It “entrusts” these little people to the “mercy of God.”

What do other Christian denominations hold, with reference
to the eternal destiny of these infants?
Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

reen12*
Hello dear Reen!
You might now I was a Baptist in my previous life 🙂 , so I will give you our take on that.

Every Baptist denom I have been affiliated with viewed infants as tainted with original sin. However, that original sin debt was paid for by Christ. So, until they can express faith in Christ and can reasonably understand the gift Christ has given, then they are “covered” by the sacrifice of Christ till they can comprehend. They come to faith willingly and knowingly somewhere in their life and then become baptized as a symbolic gesture. Outward sign of inward grace.

It goes back to essence of salvation. How are we saved? The Baptist would say completely by faith (belief, absolute trust) in Christ (a head and heart method) whereas obviously other denominatons, including the Catholic Church, would see baptism as a sacrament imparting grace instead of symbolic.

Also, what comes into play is personal sins. Children cannot be responsible for their personal sins until they realize the existence of the sins they commit. While tainted with original sin (which is covered by Christ) they cannot be rendered to hell because of personal sins (until they understand what sins are).

Hope I didn’t muddy the waters with my scattered explanation. And, of course, this is not my present view. Just presenting my former beliefs as a protestant Baptist.

Peace to you…
Click to expand...
 
A most clear explication, Ahimsaman72! :tiphat:

[But, then, I would never expect less than that, from you. :)]

Be well, my friend,

Maureen
 
40.png
reen12:
A most clear explication, Ahimsaman72! :tiphat:

[But, then, I would never expect less than that, from you. :)]

Be well, my friend,

Maureen
Click to expand...
You are way too kind my good friend 🙂 . Now I practice the three methods of “salvation” in Buddhism that involve morality, meditation and wisdom. I find it less worrisome and logical, not to mention practical for daily living.

I have found that all major religions promote morality and indicate that at the end of the practictioner’s life, judgement (or karma) determines “salvation” of the individual. So, it seems that loving yourself and your neighbor spoken of by Christ is indeed a universal declaration for living one’s life, whether a Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist.

And I like that!

Be well and prosperous and May G’d always make His face shine upon you…

ahimsaman72
 
40.png
reen12:
I’ve just posted a couple reflections… I’m challenging the very concept of
Original Sin, because of what flows from it [what happens
to “unbaptized babies”] and based on the fact that the concept
of Original Sin is totally unknown to the parent faith, Judaism.

I am maintaining that this concept impugns the very
nature of God, in His Justice and Mercy… the whole Christian position is deficient,
in some critical way.

If we would maintain that there is even a* possiblity* [based
on that very “ambiguity”] that God would send an infant to hell,
then, IMO, God is being ill-served by Christian theologians, including St. Paul.
Click to expand...
You have a very interesting way of looking at things.

There are so many things that I would like to say, but I lack the necessary time to give them the treatment that you deserve. For the moment, then, allow me to suggest that imperfect creatures will always fail to accurately comprehend a perfect God. However, such a God would not (I think) hold it against them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top