Where do unbaptized infants go, according to Protestants

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6496138:

But which “law” are you referencing?

Curiously,
Mick

The law that says you die for your sins.

Are you referencing Romans 6:23?

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Speculatively,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

JPayne;6494557:

In my former Baptist church we did the “dedication” thing too. But didn’t believe in infant baptism. That said, we all had no question that infants were taken to heaven at death.

We do the ‘dedication’ thing too, similar to what Mary and Joseph did with Jesus.

My son’s second child will be dedicated in an Evangelical church the Sunday after next. The dedication may well come under the category of “man–made tradition” but I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with it. I’m unaware of any substantial Scriptural basis for a “dedication” – usually a prerequisite for Evangelicals – but I daresay they might attempt to build a case from Mark 10:13–16:

People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

As I understand the dedication, when the pastor takes the child in his arms and asks God’s blessing on him (the child), the pastor is acting on behalf of Christ and the congregation there present. So the pastor would in reality be challenging the congregation to share the responsibility of raising the child in that particular faith community. The dedication is actually as much about the congregation’s responsibility as it is the parents. The congregation – which sees itself as the body of Christ – is enjoined to “bless” the child by extending the love, support, and concern of Christ to the infant. This is not an unfamiliar idea.

I guess one of the reasons for the dedication is that it doesn’t carry the controversial aspects that infant baptism often does. Of course, in the Evangelical context, the parents still have the responsibility of making sure that the child “makes a decision for Christ” whenever he or she reaches the “age of responsibility.” When that happens, the child will recite the “Sinner’s Prayer” and in a moment become saved. Subsequent baptism by immersion is usually much recommended but it is a mere option and not necessary for salvation since in the Evangelical understanding one is saved first and any subsequent baptism is seen only as a symbol or expression of one’s faith.

So if all this is done in good faith and everybody involved intends to please God and give glory to Him then I see cause neither for worry nor complaint.

Ecumenically,
Mick

 

[TriuneUnity]

My son’s second child will be dedicated in an Evangelical church the Sunday after next. The dedication may well come under the category of “man–made tradition” but I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with it. I’m unaware of any substantial Scriptural basis for a “dedication” – usually a prerequisite for Evangelicals – but I daresay they might attempt to build a case from Mark 10:13–16

I would agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with doing a dedication. However, it does become harmful when the dedication is seen as taking the place of Baptism. Then again, why bother with a dedication when they can baptized, as Christ commanded?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m sure God sees a soul as a soul, not as an infant or an elder. A soul is a soul is a soul.

Now God being omnipresent and omnipotent would know if that soul would have accepted Christ and wanted baptism to begin with. I suspect that if a child would have been a sinful person or a loving christian during his life had he lived God would know this too.

Given that baptism gives graces, that “sinful” person may have gotten the boost needed to nudge him toward Jesus. But we are humans, we don’t know what God knows, are we willing to wait and take a chance on a child who would have been sinful but due to the graces of baptism, been turned around had he lived?

We don’t know which infant we could have helped"save" through baptism and which we could not. Do you think we as parents of these children will have to answer to our lack of giving this gift of baptism to those who God entrusted in our care?

You raise a couple of important points here, Loboto. The first is in regards to God seeing a soul. That’s a very good observation. God does not look at a persons chronological age. If that were the case, would that mean that a 14 year old has a better chance of going to heaven than a 40 year old? The idea, of course, is preposterous. It applies to infants as well. The soul of an infant is a sinful soul, and as such, stands in the same position before God as the soul of a sinful 18 year old. This ludicrous notion that children are innocent, as I stated before, is thoroughly Pelagian, which is a heresy.

Secondly, not only the parents will be held responsible for not baptizing their children, as Christ commanded, but also the church that refuses to baptize them. It is very possible that a child who is not baptized, will never come to faith in Christ, whereas they may have persevered in the faith had they been given the regenerating waters. It’s all fine and dandy to banter back and forth about these issues from an armchair theological discussion. However, these are real people with real souls we’re talking about, not just abstract apologetics. The actions we take based on our beliefs have real, everlasting consequences.

 

[shawn38]

Not really, there is no free pass because you are young and a child, in the eyes of God you have already sinned.

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

So were either were under the law or under grace.

Law
1 Jn 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

God wrote His laws in our heart. The question is can a child who is unable to discern the law, that is his conscience doesn’t hold him accountable, be held accountable? We know how Jesus loved children. We could argue whether infant baptism saves.

Personally I think infants go to heaven for that haven’t reached a point of maturity to where they can discern right from wrong. That age is different for each person.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

So were either were under the law or under grace.

Law
1 Jn 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

God wrote His laws in our heart. The question is can a child who is unable to discern the law, that is his conscience doesn’t hold him accountable, be held accountable? We know how Jesus loved children. We could argue whether infant baptism saves.

Personally I think infants go to heaven for that haven’t reached a point of maturity to where they can discern right from wrong. That age is different for each person.

You are under the presupposition that God only holds us accountable for actual sins committed. That is simply not the case.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. - Rom. 5:12-14

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6496611:

My son’s second child will be dedicated in an Evangelical church the Sunday after next. The dedication may well come under the category of “man–made tradition” but I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with it. I’m unaware of any substantial Scriptural basis for a “dedication” – usually a prerequisite for Evangelicals – but I daresay they might attempt to build a case from Mark 10:13–16:

I would agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with doing a dedication. However, it does become harmful when the dedication is seen as taking the place of Baptism.

Within the belief system I’m referencing both baptism and dedication are optional.

Then again, why bother with a dedication when they can baptized, as Christ commanded?

I guess because within the Evangelical community infant baptism is controversial whereas dedication is not.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Evan]

Is the purpose of this thread to determine what we would like God to do; what we expect God to do; or what God has revealed he will do.

God has revealed that he loves all men. So if your basing your conclusion on God’s love, we all go to heaven.

God has revealed that IF we are baptized, we CAN go to heaven (not that we must).

But God has not revealed the fate of people (Infants, Children, Adults) who are not baptized.

If we presume Infants go to heaven or presume they go to hell, are we not guilty of presumption and taking the decision away from God?

There have been, historically, four options:

1. Unbaptized go to hell. (see Augustine)
2. They go to heaven (see this thread)
3. They go to a place of happiness that falls short of heaven (LIMBO)
4. They are given knowledge of good and evil and are allowed to make a choice such as the Angels made and are judged based on that choice.

I don’t know if there are other options, but I don’t think God has reveal which one he chose, we pray for 2). Hope 1) is false, and if 2) fails, we hope for 3) or 4).

 

[Loboto-Me]

 

[Ceil-1]

I pray in earnest for unborn children, because I like to believe that our prayers and the intention of the Church and the parent cover the child, much like a catechical candidate is covered during formation for his **intent. ** A candidate who is martyred is believed to go go straight to heaven as if he were baptized. It is called being “baptized in blood.”

There may be the saving grace for all infants, that the parent (perhaps even the Church itself) intended salvation for the child, and had the authority prior to the age of reason to speak on its behalf.

But, to not bother to push it, hurry it, or otherwise see to baptism b/c it’s not that big a deal? I think that is a most dangerous position for both the child and the parent.

Jesus was dedicated, but that was expressly commanded under the law. He was also circumsized, of which baptism took the place thereof. Mary and Joseph did both, why not us? To be less controversial is a very worldly statement, and smacks of the need for human respect, not so much God’s respect.