Salvation of infants - non-Catholic Christian thought?

[HomeschoolDad]

And as soon as Pope Benedict XVI revealed that it was mere theological speculation

The speculative nature of limbo was nothing new; as I showed above, Ott explained this in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

Because if they were to die without baptism, they would wind up in Purgatory and Purgatory, regardless of what many say, is not pleasant.

If infants are saved because, as you say, “God does not punish the innocent”, why would they have to go through purgatory? And from where do you get the statement that “there is only one Limbo, it is Purgatory”. Has the Church ever taught this? Theologians?

 

[De_Maria]

The speculative nature of limbo was nothing new; as I showed above, Ott explained this in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

I didn’t say it was new. I wasn’t aware of it until I heard Pope Benedict explain it. If you already knew it was speculation, why do you consider it doctrine?

If infants are saved because, as you say, “God does not punish the innocent”, why would they have to go through purgatory?

To wash away Original Sin.

And from where do you get the statement that “there is only one Limbo, it is Purgatory”.

From the fact that the OT Fathers were in a limbo which is also known as the Bosom of Abraham. It was there that they were cleansed of Original Sin in order to enter heaven.

Has the Church ever taught this? Theologians?

The Teachings of the Church do not use the same language but they line up, perfectly. If you want to try to debunk it, I’d welcome the chance to prove it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I didn’t say it was new. I wasn’t aware of it until I heard Pope Benedict explain it. If you already knew it was speculation, why do you consider it doctrine?

I don’t consider it doctrine. I consider that it might be true. If it is, then that’s just the way it is. If it is not, that is wonderful, I’m happy to see unbaptized babies enter heaven instead of limbo.

Has the Church ever taught this? Theologians?

The “limbo as purgatory” thesis that you propose is interesting, and if it is backed up by the teachings of Church fathers, theologians, Catholic scripture scholars, and so on, then it could very well be true. I’m not interested in debunking anything — we can’t debunk what we don’t know to be a fact or not. Again, in the next life, we’ll know how this all resolves.

Would any of the priests on this forum care to add anything?

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t consider it doctrine. I consider that it might be true.

I don’t.

If it is, then that’s just the way it is. If it is not, that is wonderful, I’m happy to see unbaptized babies enter heaven instead of limbo.

Great.

The “limbo as purgatory” thesis that you propose is interesting, and if it is backed up by the teachings of Church fathers, theologians, Catholic scripture scholars, and so on, then it could very well be true. I’m not interested in debunking anything — we can’t debunk what we don’t know to be a fact or not. Again, in the next life, we’ll know how this all resolves.

Ok. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[huck]

• Do any other Christians, in fact, believe there is a possibility that unbaptized infants do not enter heaven?
• As for Christians who hold to “believer’s baptism” (i.e., no baptism of infants), at what age do they believe that a child or youth must “accept Jesus as their Lord and personal Savior” (and then be baptized), otherwise they are damned forever?
• And if they do believe in an “age of accountability”, as I’ve heard it put, how do they back up the idea that infants, children, and youths are saved up until that time, but not afterwards? What happens to the child to change them from an unaccountable youth to an accountable person who must be saved, or else be lost?

As a Christian who believes in reincarnation, heaven is not a place, therefore, no one goes there (baptized or not).
I believe in believers baptism. Make disciples of all nations baptizing them… The part about being damned forever is just something the churches dreamed up to make people follow their commandments.
A person can be saved from having to eat spinach. Read the book of Acts. What did the apostles mean when they used the word “saved”?

 

[De_Maria]

As a Christian who believes in reincarnation,

A Christian who believes in reincarnation? Do you base that on Scripture?

heaven is not a place, therefore, no one goes there (baptized or not).

Well, no one goes there in the “physical” sense. But when we are united with God we are in heaven.

I believe in believers baptism.

What’s the point? If you don’t believe in heaven, why baptize?

Make disciples of all nations baptizing them… The part about being damned forever is just something the churches dreamed up to make people follow their commandments.

So, how many parts of Scripture do you think are dreamed up and how many do you think are true? Is there some way to discern the difference objectively or do you simply decide that according to your whim?

A person can be saved from having to eat spinach. Read the book of Acts. What did the apostles mean when they used the word “saved”?

Consecrated to God. What do you think they meant?

 

[huck]

Hello De_Maria,

A Christian who believes in reincarnation? Do you base that on Scripture?
Yes I do base reincarnation on scripture.

Well, no one goes there in the “physical” sense. But when we are united with God we are in heaven.
I agree.

What’s the point? If you don’t believe in heaven, why baptize?
In order to be a disciple of Christ. That was the reason given for Baptism in scripture.

So, how many parts of Scripture do you think are dreamed up and how many do you think are true? Is there some way to discern the difference objectively or do you simply decide that according to your whim?
I use mostly logic. I find those who believe in an inerrant bible to take what is written and add words to it in order to have it conform to a preformed belief.

Consecrated to God. What do you think they meant?
I looked for “consecrated” and I only found it in Hebrews but consecrated to God wasn’t there. Let’s pretend it’s there. Reincarnation (human to human type) is the belief that we come here more than once. I share the belief with Christianity that there is an ultimate goal. The apostles first baptized to make individuals disciples and then laid hands on them giving them the Holy Ghost. I would imagine being consecrated would be completely filled with the HG.

 

[JonNC]

ZemD:

In my area many Lutheran denominations mention on their websites they support a womans right to choose abortion and I wonder how this fits in with thier beliefs on salvation for infants.

Even though Luther would never advocate abortion. Not only are these particular “Lutheran” denominations not good Christians, they aren’t even good Lutherans.

To heck with Luther. Scripture in no way ever advocates abortion. Quite the opposite.
You are correct. They are not in keeping with The Lutheran tradition within the Church.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes I do base reincarnation on scripture.

Please provide the chapter and verse.

In order to be a disciple of Christ. That was the reason given for Baptism in scripture.

Scripture also says that one is baptized in order to be born again and be raised into the newness of life.

I use mostly logic. I find those who believe in an inerrant bible to take what is written and add words to it in order to have it conform to a preformed belief.

So, you basically pit your opinion against every one else. The Scriptures have nothing to do with it.

But for us, it is Jesus Christ who established A CHURCH and commissioned that Church to Teach all that He commanded. The New Testament Scriptures are based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ passed down by that Church. There is no reincarnation in the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

I looked for “consecrated” and I only found it in Hebrews but consecrated to God wasn’t there. Let’s pretend it’s there. Reincarnation (human to human type) is the belief that we come here more than once. I share the belief with Christianity that there is an ultimate goal. The apostles first baptized to make individuals disciples and then laid hands on them giving them the Holy Ghost. I would imagine being consecrated would be completely filled with the HG.

So, you agree Baptism consecrates one to God. OK.

Now, where do you see Scripture saying anything about reincarnation?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

De Maria, I note that the OP asked for perspectives from membrs of non-Catholic religions and you’re in the non-Catholic religions forum, not the Apologetics forum. This isn’t the thread to be arguing about the beliefs of someone who responded to the OP’s request.

 

[De_Maria]

Got it. *********

 

[JonNC]

Do any other Christians, in fact, believe there is a possibility that unbaptized infants do not enter heaven?

“Baptism now saves you.”
“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
For the unbaptized infant, we pray for and rely on a gracious, loving God to receive them into His loving arms.

 

[huck]

“Baptism now saves you.”
“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
For the unbaptized infant, we pray for and rely on a gracious, loving God to receive them into His loving arms.

The entire verse is MK 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
My Ryrie study bible contains the following comment. These verses (9-20) do not appear in two of the most trustworthy manuscripts of the NT. thought they are part of many other manuscripts and versions. If they are not a part of the genuine text of Mark, the abrupt ending at verse 8 is probably because the original closing verses were lost. The doubtful genuineness of verse 9-20 makes it unwise to build a doctrine or base an experience on them (especially vv 16-18).

 

[Tommy999]

I like how my pastor handles infant baptisms, such as the one he did today. Besides performing the baptism in the trinitarian formula (in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), he adds, “… and may he grow up and give his heart to You some day”.

As others (like Itwin) have already mentioned so eloquently, an unbaptized infant is given to the mercy and care of God and is generally viewed as going to be with our Lord if they die before they are baptized.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

“Baptism now saves you.”
“He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
For the unbaptized infant, we pray for and rely on a gracious, loving God to receive them into His loving arms.

The entire verse is MK 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
My Ryrie study bible contains the following comment. These verses (9-20) do not appear in two of the most trustworthy manuscripts of the NT. thought they are part of many other manuscripts and versions. If they are not a part of the genuine text of Mark, the abrupt ending at verse 8 is probably because the original closing verses were lost. The doubtful genuineness of verse 9-20 makes it unwise to build a doctrine or base an experience on them (especially vv 16-18).

I wasn’t building a doctrine. That isn’t my place. But that said, it doesn’t seem to change my point, that baptism saves, according to scripture, which is why infants should be baptized, and we rely on grace for those who die without it.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

To heck with Luther.

Well, the OP asked for a “non-Catholic Christian thought” & @DemD specifically brought up about Lutheran denominations in their area. So, my reply about Luther was relevant to both to demonstrate they were not even following the Reformer who they base their name after, who adhered to Scripture & who was against abortion for that reason.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

To heck with Luther.

Well, the OP asked for a “non-Catholic Christian thought” & @DemD specifically brought up about Lutheran denominations in their area. So, my reply about Luther was relevant to both to demonstrate they were not even following the Reformer who they base their name after, who adhered to Scripture & who was against abortion for that reason.

I wasn’t saying Luther was irrelevant, only the scripture is a far higher authority. That’s what I meant by the phrase.

 

[lanman87]

There is a large section of Evangelism that holds to a different idea of original sin than that of the classic Augustinian view. Basically, that we are not born guilty of sin but are born with a sin nature and that it is impossible to live a sinless life because of the fallen/sinful nature. But we are not actually guilty of sin until we choose to commit our first sin with the knowledge that we are doing something wrong. God does not condemn anyone for a sin that they did not commit. This would mean infants and those who are unable to choose to sin will never be guilty of sin and will go to heaven for that reason.

If you ask your average Southern Baptist off the street if they believe babies go to heaven they would say yes. If you ask them why, they would say because the baby hasn’t committed a sin and is not yet condemned.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There is a large section of Evangelism that holds to a different idea of original sin than that of the classic Augustinian view. Basically, that we are not born guilty of sin but are born with a sin nature and that it is impossible to live a sinless life because of the fallen/sinful nature. But we are not actually guilty of sin until we choose to commit our first sin with the knowledge that we are doing something wrong. God does not condemn anyone for a sin that they did not commit. This would mean infants and those who are unable to choose to sin will never be guilty of sin and will go to heaven for that reason.

If you ask your average Southern Baptist off the street if they believe babies go to heaven they would say yes. If you ask them why, they would say because the baby hasn’t committed a sin and is not yet condemned.

I was not aware of this idea, and while I don’t accept it (I accept everything the Catholic Church teaches, and nothing that contradicts it), it has a certain internal logic and I can see why they would think this. This is precisely the kind of answer I was looking for. Thanks.

 

[huck]

My understanding of the Cayce material, (others may interpret it differently) is that when we symbolically ate of the forbidden fruit we gained a knowledge that there was something called right and wrong. In order for this (conscience) to develop we needed an environment where we needed to make choices in an imperfect world. We were given Karma so that we could experience the results of our actions and therefore develop our understanding over consecutive lifetimes.