- If, as you say, the parents make the choice for them, then isn’t it the parents who are "forcing them to go to heaven?
No, the parents of a child who is baptized are washing away Original Sin through Baptism. A child in such a state is clean and the choice has been made by the parents. A child who hasn’t been baptized has not been cleansed of Original Sin.
Rather we look to God’s mercy. We look to God’s gift of purgation that will perfect us and prepare us for entry into heaven.
Yes, but we’ve made choices to get to that point. An infant has not made any choices, good or bad. It appears to be unjust to send this child to either Heaven or Hell based on the fact that they have chosen neither. Hence why the theory of Limbo makes more sense, since it is neither here nor there. I suppose that’s what makes acts such as abortion, apostasy, and irresponsible parenting so atrocious; since it may affect the eternal well-being of the innocent children. I suppose that’s how serious A&E’s sin was too, for it to carry over an affect our eternal well-being too. If what you are saying is true, I would see no reason for Baptism at any point in one’s life, if it can easily be glossed over and ignored.
Yet - by the logic you present, an infant - and innocent who, through no fault of his own bears the stain of sin but not the actual sin itself - should be denied this gift of merciful purgation.
This rationalization doesn’t hold up, although I can see how you would want it to because of the nature of this topic. We human beings, through no fault of our own, were born into a broken world of sin caused by Adam & Eve, and therefore we too, sin. Had A&E not done so, we would be perfect beings ourselves. So perhaps God would understand all of our sins (mortal and venial alike) and not deny us of the gift of merciful purgation either? Somehow I don’t think so.
Instead, such an infant should be eternally barred from the beatific vision…even though, as the Gospel states, "their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.”
Sorry - I just do not such logic to be just, merciful or loving…
God’s ways are not our ways. We all share in A&E’s sin and are equally to be blamed for it. All of creation was turned upside down. Just because they are infants with their cute cuddly imagery, still share in this Original Sin that has introduced spiritual death into this world. It doesn’t seem fair, but God is not fair, He is just.
If an infant is baptized - then you believe they will go to heaven right?
Even though they too have done none of the things you mention above.
Except their sin has been washed away.
So it would appear, for the purposes of your logic…that acts are not the point - but that Baptism is.
Depends. Once a child is baptized, it’s not necessarily that they are “good” in a moral sense, they are now “not stained” That’s probably the bare minimum to be granted access to Heaven. The parents are to thank for making this choice.
If a child remains unbaptized, they have made no free will choices just like the first child. However, they are still under the stain of Original Sin. So they can’t be considered “not stained” or “clean” like the child in the first example. So considering that only purity can enter Heaven, it does not seem like this child has met the bare minimal criteria. And since they are incapable of making choices or expressing Baptism of Desire, I would think that granting unwarranted access to Heaven sort of unjust, as cruel and odd as that might sound.
Baptized (but not by choice) and the child goes to heaven.
Not Baptized - again not by choice - (but equally innocent of personal sin) and the child is denied heaven.
Pretty much. At least those who are capable of making choices may save themselves through their faith, their good actions, and their desire to be united with God. Of course if they are capable of these things, they are also capable of seeing to it that they are baptized at some point as well. A helpless infant has no such power or voice for himself sadly.
I am not speaking as a know it all, just blabbing my thoughts. I would really hope that this is one of those “Man not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath made for man” instances and that God is not a robot and can break His own rules as He sees fit. I really cannot imagine God allowing cute, adorable infants to burn or suffer in any way either, but then again there’s a lot I am still learning about God and His ways that are not like ours. A lot that I find odd and callous even, but yet the truth is the truth.
