Why do some non-cathloics not have Baptism for infants

[FantomScholar]

This is not the same case as baptism.
You will go hungry again right?
Food is not permanent. Baptism is.
Why should infants/children(not in the age of reason) be baptized when they don’t know what they are doing?
A good example is blaming a child something he didn’t know was wrong.
A baby hitting someone with a rattle. Can you blame him?
Where in the Bible did you read that children(not in the age of reason) will go to hell if they didn’t know Christ?

Can you demonstrate that the age of reason is even a biblical concept at all? I am a Baptist…so, of course, I only adhere to credobaptism. I am just wondering where you get the idea that God doesn’t hold people responsible for their sinful natures until an appointed age of reason?

 

[prodromos]

Where in the Bible did you read that children(not in the age of reason) will go to hell if they didn’t know Christ?

Where in the thread did you read that I ever claimed such a thing?

 

[Esdra]

No. Catholics baptize infants because this practice was handed down to us from the Apostles.

That’s not true.
Please read through this article:
**
“Children are already part of God’s People – even without baptism!”**

The baptism of children wasn’t a habit of the ancient Christians. Most important for the new covenant with God is the willing yes of each one – or as the bible states it – faith. That’s also the reason why Church Father Tertullian rejected it in the 2nd century AD. However, people started this habit about 300 AD in North Africa. T**he theological Basis was laid by Church Father Cyprian. **He stated that newborn children were bringing the “infection of death to this world”, because they are descendants from Adam. Without baptism they wouldn’t bee able to go to God’s Kingdom and had are condemned eternally. Cyprian also seemed to be the first who sprinkled person to be baptised with water instead of ducking them. This was obviously because the ducking was problematic with sick people and infants.

God bless you,
Esdra

 

[avflf]

Baptism in the CC is very much like joining a club. You pay the entrance fee and you become a member. And if you want to get as many paying members as possible you lower the age of admission.
As to the cost involved this is calculated by the Bishop. It is not called “fees” but is disguised as “donations” or “offerings”. Now, the actual act of baptism is free (no charge) but, like those Internet sites that offer “free” downloads but then require you to pay a subscription fee, there is always something or other that’s going to be “not-free” such as counseling, lessons, booklets, etc.

The Code of Canon Law #848 states:
The minister is to seek nothing for the administration of the sacraments beyond the offerings defined by competent authority, always taking care that the needy are not deprived of the assistance of the sacraments because of poverty.
This means that the bishop may set standard fees or ‘offerings’, but all fees must be waived for the poor. This also means that the fees will change from diocese to diocese.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__…

Of course, if you are poor you don’t have to “donate” but the priesthood is well versed in making you feel guilty if you don’t contribute anything…After all the Vatican operates as a cc and finance is of the utmost importance if the organization is to continue operating. The Church didn’t become as wealthy as it is by giving away everything free.

Also, the way baptism was done in the beginning has been changed somewhat:

They were performed mostly the same with the convert being completely nude as two priests helped them enter the body of water on one side, two in the middle submerging them as the word of baptism were offered to God on the recipients behalf, and two more aiding the new member into a white robe (symbolic of the white light of the Holy Spirit that was now within them) as they exited on the other side of the river completing the ceremony. It was also symbolic of the new rebirth of the individual with the waters of the river representing the waters of child birthing

Read more at Suite101: The History of Baptism: From Jewish Ritual to Christian Doctrine historicalresources.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_history_of_baptism#ixzz0owKgUFad

What a spectacle it must have been, all those naked candidates, with Grandpa at the front of the line. Perhaps that’s why only men are mentioned in the “by water and spirit” passage.

 

[prodromos]

That’s also the reason why Church Father Tertullian rejected it in the 2nd century AD.

He could only have rejected it if it was being practiced, therefore his rejection of the practice is evidence that it was already being done at his time and didn’t begin in 300AD as you claimed.

John

 

[guanophore]

So was the chrismating of baptised infants and their receiving of Holy Communion. Why is the Baptist practise of primarily only baptising adults who can confess their faith any different from the Latin rite practise of barring infants from receiving Holy Communion until they reach an ‘age of reason’?
Indeed, so why are infants excluded from Holy Communion in the Latin rite?

This is a very good question, probably off topic in this thread. Suffice to say that the Fathers taught that a valid Eucharist was one which was presided by the bishop. During the middle ages, wars, politics, disease and economic constraints meant that the bishop may only come to a community once a year. It was his privilege (or so it was considered) to be the first to offer the eucharist to the neophyte.

Nowadays, when most areas of the West are easily reached in a matter of hours by a Bishop, it does not seem to make sense, but that is the cusom in the Latin rite. Seems to kinda fly in the face of “if you do not eat my body you will not have life within you”.

 

[guanophore]

This is the cicumcision done without hands. In other words it is our choice.

The two things are unrelated. The circumcision of the heart is accomplished in baptism by the Holy Spirit (without hands).

Those who are old enough to choose it do so. those that below the age or unable to choose may be brought by the faith of those who care for them. Or do you honestly believe that Jewish infants “chose” to be circumcised?

 

[guanophore]

This is not the same case as baptism.
You will go hungry again right?
Food is not permanent. Baptism is.
Why should infants/children(not in the age of reason) be baptized when they don’t know what they are doing?
A good example is blaming a child something he didn’t know was wrong.
A baby hitting someone with a rattle. Can you blame him?
Where in the Bible did you read that children(not in the age of reason) will go to hell if they didn’t know Christ?

This is the teaching of scripture since the book of Genesis. All inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin, which is death. Now we can see from the story that they did not physically die on the spot. They were separated from the relationship with God they enjoyed in the garden.

That is why Jesus says “he who does not believe is condemned already”. we are all born into a state of condemnation. If this were not the case, we would not need a savior.

 

[guanophore]

Can you demonstrate that the age of reason is even a biblical concept at all? I am a Baptist…so, of course, I only adhere to credobaptism. I am just wondering where you get the idea that God doesn’t hold people responsible for their sinful natures until an appointed age of reason?

Indeed, Catholics and Baptists agree that such a notion constitutes heresy.

 

[guanophore]

That’s not true.
Please read through this article:

“Children are already part of God’s People – even without baptism!”

The baptism of children wasn’t a habit of the ancient Christians. Most important for the new covenant with God is the willing yes of each one – or as the bible states it – faith. That’s also the reason why Church Father Tertullian rejected it in the 2nd century AD. However, people started this habit about 300 AD in North Africa. The theological Basis was laid by Church Father Cyprian. He stated that newborn children were bringing the “infection of death to this world”, because they are descendants from Adam. Without baptism they wouldn’t bee able to go to God’s Kingdom and had are condemned eternally. Cyprian also seemed to be the first who sprinkled person to be baptised with water instead of ducking them. This was obviously because the ducking was problematic with sick people and infants.

Well Esdra, it is good that you are reading some of the writings of the Early Fathers. If you continue to do this, you will soon learn that Tertullian’s rejection of infant baptism was a departure from the Apostolic practice.

And, if you use your common sense, you will realize that Tertullian could not “reject” something that did not first exist. that is why the assertion that the “theological basis” for infant baptism being laid the next century makes no sense at all.

It was God that laid the theological foundation when He commanded Abraham to circumcize all the male infants born to the chosen people. Circumcision was given as a shadow and a figure of what was to come in the New covenant. Jesus commanded that baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the Covenant of His Blood.

By the way, it is required here that you cite your sources. You directed me to “read this article”, but you did not tell me where it could be found. I can see that the article is giving misinformation, but I would prefer to consult the source.

 

[FantomScholar]

Indeed, Catholics and Baptists agree that such a notion constitutes heresy.

It certainly does. It is an absolutely Pelagian concept. Even though Catholics and (traditional, reformation theology) Baptists have a different notion of the degree to which original sin affects the human soul from conception, we both agree that the stain of it is present. Since the sinful nature is, well, sinful, it would automatically demand that there is an accountability for it to God. Therefore, the age of accountability is conception.

 

[FantomScholar]

This is the teaching of scripture since the book of Genesis. All inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin, which is death. Now we can see from the story that they did not physically die on the spot. They were separated from the relationship with God they enjoyed in the garden.

That is why Jesus says “he who does not believe is condemned already”. we are all born into a state of condemnation. If this were not the case, we would not need a savior.

Amen!

 

[guanophore]

Baptism in the CC is very much like joining a club. You pay the entrance fee and you become a member. And if you want to get as many paying members as possible you lower the age of admission.

I hardly think becoming members of the Body of Christ is akin to joining a “club”. Jesus said, if we want to follow Him, we would have to take up our cross, and carry it. A person who takes up his cross lives under a death sentence. His life is no longer his own, and every step he takes brings him closer to the day of judgement. Jesus was clear that a person needed to count the cost carefully before making such a commitment. He promised that we would be persecuted,and maybe even martyrd for our faith.

Do you really think that the 3000 who were baptized on pentecost as told in Acts were “paying members”? I am sure they all gave as much as they could, as scripture records that those that had any goods shared them so that none went without.

It seems that your hatred for Catholicism is reflected in these statements rather than actual historical fact.

As to the cost involved this is calculated by the Bishop. It is not called "fees" but is disguised as  "donations" or  "offerings".

So, where is the disguise? It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Those that are able to support the work of the minister are expected to do so (the laborer is worthy of his wages) those that cannot provide financial support can provide support in other ways. This is good stewardship. Are you suggesting that it is not biblical for ministers to be compensated for their labor?

Now, the actual act of baptism is free (no charge) but, like those Internet sites that offer “free” downloads but then require you to pay a subscription fee, there is always something or other that’s going to be “not-free” such as counseling, lessons, booklets, etc.

Catholics consider baptism to be a very serious matter, and one that should not be undertaken lightly. It is essential that the persons coming for baptism understand this (are properly catechized). Who do you think should pay for the books and lessons? Who should pay for the bulding, the lights? The baptismal font?

Of course, if you are poor you don’t have to “donate” but the priesthood is well versed in making you feel guilty if you don’t contribute anything…

Are you speaking from personal expereince about that “catholic guilt”?

After all the Vatican operates as a cc and finance is of the utmost importance if the organization is to continue operating. The Church didn’t become as wealthy as it is by giving away everything free.

Do you not think that those who are given responsibility for the finances should practice responsible stewardship? Your comment comes across as some sort of accusation.

Also, the way baptism was done in the beginning has been changed somewhat:

Have you read the Didache?

What a spectacle it must have been, all those naked candidates, with Grandpa at the front of the line. Perhaps that’s why only men are mentioned in the “by water and spirit” passage.

Somehow your comments come across as very cynical.

Do you remember what Peter was wearing in the boat when he realized Jesus was on shore?

 

[FantomScholar]

And, if you use your common sense, you will realize that Tertullian could not “reject” something that did not first exist. that is why the assertion that the “theological basis” for infant baptism being laid the next century makes no sense at all.

Tertullian argued against infant baptism based on the fact that its believed salvific-effect was better held off until close to the age of death, in order to get the maximum benefit from it. Since Baptists reject that water baptism is an agent of regeneration, we should not be using Tertullian’s argumentation here. Why some Baptists use this line of argumentation is beyond me. It’s completely unrelated to why we adhere to baptism only for those who profess faith and repentance.

 

[FantomScholar]

It was God that laid the theological foundation when He commanded Abraham to circumcize all the male infants born to the chosen people.

Circumcision was a sign given first to Abraham and his household and later, to the Old Covenant nation of Israel. One purpose of circumcision was identification. Initially, circumcision identified those who belonged to Abraham’s household. Under the Old Covenant, that period of time from Exodus 19 to Acts chapter 2, circumcision identified ancient Israel as the physical people of God. In both instances, circumcision was a physical sign showing one’s physical identification.

The greater purpose of circumcision was to point to the coming age of the Spirit in the New Covenant in which the church, Abraham’s true spiritual descendants (Gal. 3:16, 29), receive true circumcision of the heart (the forgiveness of sin and everything that accompanies salvation) and are placed within the family of God. In the NC, physical circumcision gives way to baptism as the outward identification that one has become a part of the people of God, a spiritual descendant of Abraham and a part of the true people of God, the church (Col. 2:9-12).

In Abraham’s case, circumcision was an outward sign that he truly believed. Abraham had been given the gift of faith, experienced the forgiveness of sin, and is an OT example of imputation. Abraham believed God and his belief was credited to him as righteousness, acceptance with God (Rom. 4:7-25).
Second, Abraham was justified and had his sins forgiven before he was given the sign of circumcision, indicating that he was justified by faith. The outward physical sign of circumcision did not contribute to his salvation in any way.
Circumcision was the sign of the covenant God made with Abraham. The Abrahamic Covenant was God’s promise to Abraham that he would create a people, rescue them from slavery, and bring them into a land, Canaan (Gen. 17:1-14).
Every male child born in Abraham’s household was to be circumcised when he was eight days old (Gen. 17:12).
Both the OC and the NC are contained within the Abrahamic Covenant. The promise made to Abraham to create a people and bring them into a land is first illustrated under the OC in the nation of Israel, and then fully accomplished in the NC by the death of Christ (Heb. 3:7-4:11).
The Abrahamic Covenant is also called the Covenant of Circumcision (Acts 7:8).
Although Abraham believed, belief was not a requirement for circumcision and inclusion in Abraham’s household.

The era of the OC can be defined as the period of time from the giving of the Mosaic Law on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19) to the pouring out of the Spirit and the beginning of the church in Acts 2.

Circumcision continued under the OC as an ongoing obligation to the Abrahamic Covenant and as a restated requirement of the Old Covenant (Lev. 12:1-3, John7:21-22).
Circumcision for the nation of Israel was a physical sign that they were the people of God under the OC (Phil. 3:5-7).
Any slave or foreigner living in Israel had to be circumcised before they could eat the Passover (Ex. 12:43-48).
When Scripture evaluates the spiritual condition of the OC nation of Israel, the verdict is always an indictment of unfaithfulness and unbelief. While there was always a believing remnant, as a whole, Israel was unbelieving (Jer. 9:25-26, Mal. 3:6-9, Rom. 11:4, Heb. 8:7-13).
Israel was repeatedly called to repent. The language of repentance was a call for circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:14-15, 30:6, Jer. 4:4, 9:25-26).
The sign of circumcision was an outward physical indication that one was either a physical descendant of Abraham, a physical part of the OC community of ancient Israel, or both. But the outward sign of physical circumcision was not an end in itself. It was a gospel picture of the need for circumcision of the heart, the true forgiveness of sin, and inclusion in the true people of God. God’s indictment against all of those who were circumcised, including Israel, is an indictment of unbelief because they were satisfied with mere physical circumcision instead of true spiritual circumcision – circumcision of the heart (Acts 7:51-54).

Under the NC, physical circumcision means nothing. What circumcision once pictured and anticipated has been fulfilled and realized by the death of Christ. The forgiveness of sin is called circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28-29).

Every believer experiences circumcision of the heart (Col. 2:9-12).
Circumcision for the sake of pleasing God is viewed negatively and is divisive in the church, the true people of God (Gal. 2:12-13, Titus 1:10-11).
No one can gain acceptance with God by good works. What counts is genuine faith evidenced in the new heart and the changed life (Gal. 5:1-6, 6:15).
God accepts us when he circumcises our hearts, which results in the forgiveness of sin and unconditional acceptance (Acts 20:21, Phil. 3:2-3).

The primary purpose of baptism is to acknowledge or testify to God that we are his. Baptism is the believer’s formal profession of faith and pledge of a good conscience that is the result of having received the forgiveness of sin (1 Pet. 3:21).

Examples of baptism in the NT immediately follow conversion (Acts 8:34-38, Acts 16:33).
Baptism is identification with Jesus in his death and resurrection. It has no direct connection to OT circumcision but it correlates to circumcision of the heart, meaning that baptism is not intended for infants who cannot profess the gospel, but it is intended for those who repent and believe the gospel and have experienced spiritual circumcision of the heart, the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 2:9-12).
Just as circumcision once identified the physical descendants of Abraham and OC Israel, water baptism is our identification with God in Christ, indicating that our sins have been forgiven and we have received circumcision of the heart, the forgiveness of sins (Col. 2:9-12).

 

[guanophore]

God accepts us when he circumcises our hearts, which results in the forgiveness of sin and unconditional acceptance (Acts 20:21, Phil. 3:2-3).

The Apostles taught that this happens in baptism.

 The primary purpose of baptism is to acknowledge or testify to God that we are his.

You cannot support this with any scripture. It is a Modern American Evangelical innovation, or what Paul called, part of “a different gospel” than the one we received from the Apostles.

Scripture documents that the primary purpose of baptism is to join us into the death and resurrection of Christ, and results in us being born again.

Baptism is the believer’s formal profession of faith and pledge of a good conscience that is the result of having received the forgiveness of sin (1 Pet. 3:21).

While I agree with your statement that it is a formal profession of faith, no one can have a good conscience before God without the washing of regeneration. It is the HS that washes the persons conscience.

Examples of baptism in the NT immediately follow conversion (Acts 8:34-38, Acts 16:33).

All the examples are of adults converting. The NT does not document how children born to Christian parents should be managed. The Apostles taught that they should be baptized.

Baptism is identification with Jesus in his death and resurrection.

If you know this, then why insert modern fictions into baptismal theology?

It has no direct connection to OT circumcision but it correlates to circumcision of the heart, meaning that baptism is not intended for infants who cannot profess the gospel, but it is intended for those who repent and believe the gospel and have experienced spiritual circumcision of the heart, the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 2:9-12).

OT circumcision is the shadow and figure of what was to come. Baptism is the manner in which we enter into the new Covenant.

You seem to think that God is unable to circumcise the heart of a person who is unable to make a profession of faith. Even the Roman Centurion had more faith than this! At least he knew he could approach Jesus in faith on behalf of the one who could not do so.

Just as circumcision once identified the physical descendants of Abraham and OC Israel, water baptism is our identification with God in Christ, indicating that our sins have been forgiven and we have received circumcision of the heart, the forgiveness of sins (Col. 2:9-12).

At least we are in agreement on this point. I think though, that you separate these events from the water, which the Apostles did not do.

 

[FantomScholar]

The Apostles taught that this happens in baptism.

Perhaps you can reference the texts that you seek to use to solidify that the Apostles taught this. I know the ones to which you may refer, but it always helps to know how you’re interpreting them.

Although… I am not sure that baptismal regeneration is actually the issue here, since many churches that do not believe in baptismal regeneration baptize infants. My remarks in the previous post should be taken primarily as addressing that topic.

You cannot support this with any scripture. It is a Modern American Evangelical innovation, or what Paul called, part of “a different gospel” than the one we received from the Apostles.

Paul said that the one who is still fleshly cannot please God. If such a person is the enemy of God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to do such a spiritual and pleasing thing as to desire to be baptized? Obviously, this is impossible. Baptism signifies our death to the old way of life and our resurrection to new life in Christ, as Paul uses it in Rom. 6:1-4. Unless we have died to sin, and been raised with Christ in reality prior to our baptism, the symbol becomes meaningless. So we see that the position that posits baptism as the means of regeneration and forgiveness ignores the most basic teachings of Scripture regarding man’s inability. Baptismal regenerationists not only make man capable of things he is not, but they reduce God’s grace to a mere aid, and make the death of Christ a theory that is dependent upon man’s act of obedience, rather than the finished and effective work that the Bible teaches it to be (Heb. 10:10-14). Hence, we are justified by God’s action, not by any action of our own. Never is it said that we are justified by baptism.

This is true whether we are speaking of adult or infant baptism.

While I agree with your statement that it is a formal profession of faith, no one can have a good conscience before God without the washing of regeneration. It is the HS that washes the persons conscience.

No disagreement here, except that the washing of the heart takes place prior to Baptism.

All the examples are of adults converting. The NT does not document how children born to Christian parents should be managed. The Apostles taught that they should be baptized.

This, however, is a projection onto the Apostles from later historical developments. Unless you rely strictly on the interpretations of later theologians as some antiquitous basis for what the Apostles taught, you are left with an argument of silence from the Apostles themselves. You are correct in saying that the NT does not give instruction on how children are to be managed, other than being raised in admonishment of the Lord. The only instruction we are given on baptism is repent, believe, and be baptized.

OT circumcision is the shadow and figure of what was to come. Baptism is the manner in which we enter into the new Covenant.

Agreed on the first part. The manner in which the shadow is fulfilled is through regeneration, however, which is the manner by which we enter into the New Covenant. Regeneration is the circumcision made without hands. Baptism is the means by which we visibly enter fellowship with the church, since it demonstrates that regeneration has taken place.

You seem to think that God is unable to circumcise the heart of a person who is unable to make a profession of faith. Even the Roman Centurion had more faith than this! At least he knew he could approach Jesus in faith on behalf of the one who could not do so.

Not at all. God is able to circumcize the heart regardless of our profession of faith. However, we have no way to recognize that this has taken place unless the individual professes faith in Christ. If an infant is regenerated while still an infant, the child will eventually profess faith in Christ and be baptized to signify that he has been born from above.

At least we are in agreement on this point. I think though, that you separate these events from the water, which the Apostles did not do.

We don’t separate, we distinguish. The two are intimately connected with each other inasmuch as our union with Christ has taken place through regeneration, and this is pictured for us through water baptism.

 

[Esdra]

By the way, it is required here that you cite your sources. You directed me to “read this article”, but you did not tell me where it could be found. I can see that the article is giving misinformation, but I would prefer to consult the source.

Hi,

Here you are the source: bibelstudien-institut.at/rund-um-die-bibel/bibelfragen/36/Muessen-auch-Kinder-getauft-werden/

Actually, the problem is that it is all in German! I only translated parts of it… So sorry for that.

It is an article from the STA Church in Austria…

Esdra

 

[avflf]

I hardly think becoming members of the Body of Christ is akin to joining a “club”. Jesus said, if we want to follow Him, we would have to take up our cross, and carry it. A person who takes up his cross lives under a death sentence. His life is no longer his own, and every step he takes brings him closer to the day of judgement. Jesus was clear that a person needed to count the cost carefully before making such a commitment. He promised that we would be persecuted,and maybe even martyrd for our faith.

I was baptized into the Catholic Church as an infant. During the time I spent at the local Convent for my early education, I was reminded that as a Catholic I would have to follow the precepts of the Church. So it was an involuntary membership I was saddled with. Don’t come up with your “baptism to join the body of Christ”, that’s nonsense. You were baptized into this specific “club” without you even knowing it.

It seems that your hatred for Catholicism is reflected in these statements rather than actual historical fact.

No hatred, just discernment of the truth.

Catholics consider baptism to be a very serious matter, and one that should not be undertaken lightly. It is essential that the persons coming for baptism understand this (are properly catechized). Who do you think should pay for the books and lessons? Who should pay for the bulding, the lights? The baptismal font?

“Are properly catechized”? At the time of my baptism I could not read or write and regardless how many classes I attended for instruction on this “serious matter” I couldn’t understand a word that the priest spoke.

Your comment comes across as some sort of accusation.

No accusation or envy, just the way I see it.

Have you read the Didache?

On baptism? “Chapter 7. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. **But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.” **

I can’t remember if my mother withheld my daily ration of milk, but I doubt it.

 

[rinnie]

Up to your old tricks again I see rinnie. Remember this from this thread.

This is the cicumcision done without hands. In other words it is our choice.

No tricks this time Richard just the straight up truth this time. Jesus said that circumcision is the same as baptism but when we are baptised we are circumcised to the heart of Christ. THis is done by the Holy Spirit.

By the way Richard what Jesus meant by being born again was this, they did not understand that Baptism is how you are born into the Spirit of Christ. When we are born into this world we are not born with the Holy Spirit pouring into our souls. It is not until we are baptised that we are truly born and alive. The is the difference Richard that you cannot see. To be born into this world is one thing, to be born into Christ is another.

Let me put it to you Richard as simple as I can. To be born in this world is born in the Physical sense, the body can will die to death. But to be born in the Soul is to be born of the Holy Spirit it is not outer it is inner, into the soul. To be baptised is to unite you inner soul with Chirst, that is what gives you eternal life. That can never mean death, unless you sin and refuse to repent and give you life to Christ. So it you die and are in mortal sin, you not only die physically you die spritually also. But if you die in a state of grace you only die in the mortal body, but you spirit you soul will never die, it will live on into eternal life with CHrist.

Ya got it now Richard?

Think about it Richard, why in the O.T were they held in with Abraham. Because they needed Jesus to die to sin and release those souls. When Jesus died where did he go Richard? Straight to hades to release those souls. It is by the death of Jesus they we all receive Eternal life of the Soul and can enter heaven. Not until!! Baptism was not possible before the death and res. of Christ!!