Salvation of infants - non-Catholic Christian thought?

[drac16]

I don’t have an answer that comes from the Lord – I only have a personal opinion. My opinion is that persons who die as infants go to Heaven, because they haven’t sinned. I don’t believe that one is born Hell-bound. Furthermore, I don’t believe in performing infant baptisms. I believe that only persons who are capable of understanding their relationship with Christ are to be baptized. Lastly, I don’t believe that baptism is necessary. I have been baptized, but that’s not what has made me acceptable to the Father – only Christ’s perfect work has made me presentable.

 

[Anrakyr]

The church decried Limbo a few years ago. Baptism is not required to get to heaven.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The church decried Limbo a few years ago. Baptism is not required to get to heaven.

The Church taught that we may have the hope unbaptized infants are saved. It did not say that they go to heaven. We don’t know. Limbo is one theory (see my posting above from Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma). It makes sense but doesn’t make much allowance for God’s mercy, nor in His ability to work outside the sacraments.

In the modern age — and just telling it like it is — the Church bending over backwards to make sure that as many people as possible feel good about themselves, and have happy thoughts about the attainment of heaven, a theological idea such as limbo doesn’t have many takers. I don’t like it myself. But, when all is said and done, if it is true, what I like or don’t like, believe or don’t believe, doesn’t make one whit’s worth of difference.

 

[TC3033]

I was 19.

I don’t think I witnessed anyone younger than maybe 12-13. The norm for where we’re at was that 15-18ish range.

 

[ltwin]

There is a large section of Evangelism that holds to a different idea of original sin than that of the classic Augustinian view.

I don’t think this is true. We don’t disagree with Augustine on the problem, only the solution in regards to infants.

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.

Both are true. All people are implicated in Adam’s sin. We bear the consequences of original sin from birth, but we are not guilty of personal sin until we personally commit sin.

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.

The reason for this is not a disagreement with classical original sin theology, but due to a specific way of understanding Christ’s redemption of mankind.

• This is how Arminians, in agreement with Anabaptists, such as Mennonites, interpret the universalistic passages of the New Testament such as Romans 5, where all are said to be included cluded under sin just as all are included in redemption through Christ. It is also the Arminian interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10, which indicates two salvations through Christ: one universal for all people and one especially for all who believe. Arminian belief in general redemption is not universal salvation; it is universal redemption from Adam’s sin. Thus, in Arminian theology all children who die before reaching the age of awakening of conscience and falling into actual sin (as opposed to inbred sin) are considered innocent by God and are taken to paradise. Among those who commit actual sins only those who repent and believe have Christ as Savior.
• From Roger Olson, Arminianism: Myths and Realities.

 

[Hodos]

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

Scripture doesn’t really address this question very directly. We know that those who are predestined to salvation will be saved (Romans 8, Ephesians 1) through Christ. We understand this as those who the Holy Spirit calls through the proclamation of the Word (Romans 10) and through the sacrament of Baptism (1 Peter 3). With regard to unbaptized infants, I agree with what was said before, we rely on God’s grace. He knew us before we were formed, and that even before we were created, God ordained all of our days for us and knew us (Psalm 139). I think that is enough to confidently place our faith in God, and trust that he will accomplish what he wills.

 

[Anrakyr]

The Church taught that we may have the hope unbaptized infants are saved. It did not say that they go to heaven.

define ‘saved’

In the modern age — and just telling it like it is — the Church bending over backwards to make sure that as many people as possible feel good about themselves, and have happy thoughts about the attainment of heaven, a theological idea such as limbo doesn’t have many takers. I don’t like it myself. But, when all is said and done, if it is true, what I like or don’t like, believe or don’t believe, doesn’t make one whit’s worth of difference.

wow okay.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Church taught that we may have the hope unbaptized infants are saved. It did not say that they go to heaven.

Rescued from eternal damnation and made an heir to heaven by Jesus Christ. Some have characterized limbo as the far outer reaches, or “limbs”, of hell — on the edge, so far removed from the depths of hell as to consist only of the deprivation of the beatific vision (and, for the more fanciful, just warm enough to be satisfying to the little infants).

It is only a theological concept, but one that makes sense if we suppose that Trinitarian water baptism (as well as baptism of desire and baptism of blood) is absolutely required for salvation. As I said, it also presupposes that Almighty God chooses in this case not to work outside the sacraments.