Do baptized infants go to heaven? do unbaptized infants or adults go to hell?

[tjm3383]

I've been having a discussion on facebook with someone who said that he would rush a dying infant to be baptized. He also stated that Mark 16:16 indicates that you must believe and be baptized or be condemned to hell. I don't believe baptism saves your nor do I believe that not being baptized damns you. As I understand it baptism initiates a person into the visible church, but that does not mean they are members of the invisible church. Thoughts?

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

And of course let me clarify that I do believe that baptism is a command of God and a means of Grace. We must as Christians be baptized and have our children baptized or we are certainly in disobediance to God.

 

[TimV]

Tell him you agree, and Christ lied when He said the thief on the cross would be with Him in paradise. The poor dude went to hell, since he wasn't baptised. And in addition, every baby that was miscarried went to hell, and thank him for that word of comfort to all the moms. Sounds like a real scholar.

 

[Scott1]

You may want to do a search of some previous threads on this topic (upper right).

Regarding the first question, the Westminster Standards summarize the doctrine of Scripture in a way that does not tell us how few or how many infants who die in infancy go to heaven- only that baptism, in itself, is not determinative of that.

Chapter X
Of Effectual Calling

....

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

....

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism
....

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

....

 

[bill]

To the first question I lean towards no. However, that is a question only God knows. Just because one is baptized does not seal the infant to heaven. There is now baptismal regeneration and when we baptize our children we realize that they are sinners in need of the baptism of the Holy Spirit who is the seal of what baptism signifies.

To the second question Yes and no. But only God knows.

 

[tjm3383]

BTW --- the gentlemen I was discussing this with is a Traditional Anglican.

---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

I brought up the thief on the cross and this was his response ---

"Good question, and i would ad St Alban who was a pagan who it is said died in a 'baptism of blood'. I think the thief qualifies under this.
But then that was before He breathed the Holy Ghost onto the Apostles at Pentecost and gave them the authority to 'bind and loose' so even if you discount the 'last will be first'; knock and the door shall be opened, etc., and a baptism of blood; it seems that certain things were given or conveyed as a sign prior to the Churches birth

He really has no good answer, he seems to be saying that by the work of pouring or sprinkling water on ones head that you are saved and if not you might be damned but now he makes an exception for being baptized in blood. I think responding to this is almost pointless.

 

[dudley]

btw --- the gentlemen i was discussing this with is a traditional anglican.

---------- post added at 09:45 pm ---------- previous post was at 09:37 pm ----------

i brought up the thief on the cross and this was his response ---

"good question, and i would ad st alban who was a pagan who it is said died in a 'baptism of blood'. I think the thief qualifies under this.
But then that was before he breathed the holy ghost onto the apostles at pentecost and gave them the authority to 'bind and loose' so even if you discount the 'last will be first'; knock and the door shall be opened, etc., and a baptism of blood; it seems that certain things were given or conveyed as a sign prior to the churches birth

he really has no good answer, he seems to be saying that by the work of pouring or sprinkling water on ones head that you are saved and if not you might be damned but now he makes an exception for being baptized in blood. I think responding to this is almost pointless.

I believe that God can through the holy spirit instill the baptism of blood and desire for an innocent unbaptized baby. I like to believe innocent children are precious to God however I will not create a place they had at one time in Roman Catholicism called limbo, where unbaptized babies went instead of heaven. Even the Roman church no longer talks of that. I believe God in his eternal justice will take care of all innocent children.

 

[Scottish Lass]

btw --- the gentlemen i was discussing this with is a traditional anglican.

---------- post added at 09:45 pm ---------- previous post was at 09:37 pm ----------

i brought up the thief on the cross and this was his response ---

"good question, and i would ad st alban who was a pagan who it is said died in a 'baptism of blood'. I think the thief qualifies under this.
But then that was before he breathed the holy ghost onto the apostles at pentecost and gave them the authority to 'bind and loose' so even if you discount the 'last will be first'; knock and the door shall be opened, etc., and a baptism of blood; it seems that certain things were given or conveyed as a sign prior to the churches birth

he really has no good answer, he seems to be saying that by the work of pouring or sprinkling water on ones head that you are saved and if not you might be damned but now he makes an exception for being baptized in blood. I think responding to this is almost pointless.

I believe that God can through the holy spirit instill the baptism of blood and desire for an innocent unbaptized baby. I like to believe innocent children are precious to God however I will not create a place they had at one time in Roman Catholicism called limbo, where unbaptized babies went instead of heaven. Even the Roman church no longer talks of that. I believe God in his eternal justice will take care of all innocent children.

Define "innocent".

 

[christianhope]

My thoughts are if a person refuses baptism out of a despising of the sacrament, they will go to hell. But it's because of their hatred for christianity of which baptism symbolizes their acceptance of and grafting into God's covenant of grace in the visible sense.

If a child is not baptized, they will not go to hell because they are unbaptized. The water doesn't do anything of course, rather, they may go to heaven even if they are not baptized. The 'sign' never replaces the reality the baptism signifies, which is God's promise to aquire (regenerate) a people for Himself.

I tell my baptist friend, "Friend, you don't believe in paedo-baptism, yet God still has mercy upon your children nonetheless, though you do not acknowledge it, God does not withhold it, because you are a child of God, His promises (covenant blessing) are not contingent upon your obedience in this matter."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I can't imagine how a "traditional Anglican" could argue this unless he has abandoned the reformed ideas in the original 39 articles and has added Roman Catholic ideas of sacerdotalism into his theology of the Sacraments.

 

[interalia]

Define "innocent".

This will be interesting. (where's the popcorn smiley?)

 

[Grimmson]

Tell him you agree, and Christ lied when He said the thief on the cross would be with Him in paradise. The poor dude went to hell, since he wasn't baptised. And in addition, every baby that was miscarried went to hell, and thank him for that word of comfort to all the moms. Sounds like a real scholar.

Let try to stay away from emotional charged arguments and rhetoric such as miscarried babies. I really do not think it helps the discussion one way or another. It needs to be approached with caution and respect, especially if the person you are having the discussion with you diagrees with you.

---------- Post added at 08:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 PM ----------

Define "innocent".

This will be interesting. (where's the popcorn smiley?)

I define innocent this way.

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -Mat 22:36-40 KJV

So I would say no one is truly innocent, even infants, because no one love God with all their heart, soul, and mind or truly their neighbor as one’s self. But I still think he saves them, however I am willing to admit that God has the right to send infants to Hell. But I think because of his special love for children that he does not.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I've been having a discussion on facebook with someone who said that he would rush a dying infant to be baptized. He also stated that Mark 16:16 indicates that you must believe and be baptized or be condemned to hell. I don't believe baptism saves your nor do I believe that not being baptized damns you. As I understand it baptism initiates a person into the visible church, but that does not mean they are members of the invisible church. Thoughts?

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 PM ----------

And of course let me clarify that I do believe that baptism is a command of God and a means of Grace. We must as Christians be baptized and have our children baptized or we are certainly in disobediance to God.

Ah, "emergency baptisms." Sounds like a Catholic or a Lutheran. No, this is not necessary. We don't baptize infants to save them. We baptize them because they are born into the saved community. It goes for infants as for everyone else. Those who are elect will go to heaven, while those who are reprobate will go to hell.

 

[Edward]

There is now baptismal regeneration

Typo?

 

[Andres]

You may want to do a search of some previous threads on this topic (upper right).

Regarding the first question, the Westminster Standards summarize the doctrine of Scripture in a way that does not tell us how few or how many infants who die in infancy go to heaven- only that baptism, in itself, is not determinative of that.

Chapter X
Of Effectual Calling

....

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

....

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism
....

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

....

I think my brother Scott already covered pretty much all there is to say on this topic above. Which babies go to heaven? Elect babies. Do we know which babies are elect? No, but it is not for us to know or question as we are not God. All His decrees, including which humans are elect and which are not, are perfect. For me this is much more comforting than trying to formulate some reasoning as to why all babies go to heaven or how we can guarantee babies will go heaven.

 

[Grimmson]

Do we know which babies are elect? No, but it is not for us to know or question as we are not God.

According to Dort, yes:

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

I prefer the language of “elect infants” with the Westminster Standards here compared to Dort, which makes a perceive statement towards all infant election on the basis of the parents being godly (/believers depending on the version). Therefore marking out a particular group and guidelines required in faith for infant election and salvation as it relates to the status of the parents' faith in covenant to Christ.

I am not in agreement with Dort, but I figured you all maybe interested in this piece of information.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Do we know which babies are elect? No, but it is not for us to know or question as we are not God.

According to Dort, yes:

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

I prefer the language of “elect infants” with the Westminster Standards here compared to Dort, which makes a perceive statement towards all infant election on the basis of the parents being godly (/believers depending on the version). Therefore marking out a particular group and guidelines required in faith for infant election and salvation as it relates to the status of the parents' faith in covenant to Christ.

I am not in agreement with Dort, but I figured you all maybe interested in this piece of information.

I am in hearty agreement with both Dordt and Westminster.