kids not being baptized do they go to hell?

[amyleigh]

OK; so in having this conversation with my grandma as she was telling me how disappointed in me that I don't go to the catholic church anymore and that my son is not baptized which distresses her, I tried to explain to her why I have chosen not to go to catholic church anymore that I didn't like the way they do things or that some of the things they believe in are not my views on things. I have been to a few churches in the past that are Christian which are really more of my views on what I believe. Last night my grandma said to me that if something happened to Noah that he would not go to heaven and that he would go to hell because he is not baptized I didn't know how to answer to that so I ended up changing the subject. I do want to answer that to her but was wanting some other views on what other people think. I know what I believe but have never really read the bible front to back so I am not to familiar with the bible just now that I have my few favorite verses and know what they mean to me.
So I guess my main question is do kids who are not baptized go to heaven or hell?

[christopher]

Hi Amy,

I'm afraid your grandma, unfortunately, is in bondage to an unbiblical Augustinian tradition that is actually not even an official position of the Catholic church anymore (not since Aquinas anyway) as far as my understanding of the RCC stance goes. I believe the official Roman Catholic Church position about unbaptized infants is the equally unbiblical state of "limbo" (neither heaven nor hell, but some sort of mundane, phantom, "in between" state of neither bliss nor torment).

The truth is, the bible says very little or nothing on the subject of what happens to children before they come to a saving faith (followed by baptism) in Christ. But there are some hints:

1. An age of accountability (Isa 7:16)
2. The assumption of David that his dead (and unbaptized/uncircumcised) newborn is with God (2Sam 12:23)
3. Statements of Jesus that suggest the kingdom of heaven belongs to children and such like them (Matt 19:14)
4. Jesus even suggested that they have appointed "angels" of some sort (Matt 18:10).


But besides all that, we know from the rest of scripture the character of God as a loving Father, just and merciful in all His ways. He is always looking for excuses to save people, not excuses to damn them. I don't think he's going to let people slip through His fingers on a mere technicality. And we have examples in scripture of people who were not properly baptized yet counted as redeemed in Christ (thief on the cross, Ephesians in Acts 19).

In my opinion, the concern shouldn't be on the sacraments, but on the relationship with Jesus. I think we need to enable and encourage our kids to seek their own personal relationship with God rather than make them jump through a bunch of religious hoops.

Don't get me wrong. Baptism is important, but I think it's something that needs to be a by product of a sincere commitment to Christ, not used as "fire insurance".

As far as grandma goes, it is more often than not the case that a change of mind is difficult at best. But it would be entirely appropriate, I think, to politely and lovingly ask her "where do you get that idea?".

[Josh]

Amy,

Chris summed up all the relevant points quite nicely.

Just a reechoing:

Scripture itself never directly teaches that we are to baptize children. Christian traditions differ on whether this should be done, but few, even among Catholics today (as Chris pointed out) hold the position that upbaptized children will go to hell. If it was the case that unbaptized children do go to hell, wouldn't God have ensured a direct statement on this in his inspired word?

The absence of such a statement implies, as do other texts, that while water baptism is an important part of one's following in Christ's footsteps as a disciple, it is not the means of one's salvation.

One passage that might on the surface seem to indicate that water baptism is necessary for salvation is:

1 Peter 3:21-22 (bolded words mine)

...and this water [the water in the story of Noah's flood] symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

Here we see that it's not the physical part of baptism that saves us but the attitude of the heart toward God-- and anyway, baptism only saves us because of Jesus' resurrection, not by it's own "magic".


Along the lines of what Chris was saying, here's some statement from the Catholic Catechism Compendium that speak to the current Catholic position on this- which, if your grandmother will only look at this from a Catholic perspective, might be helpful:

261. Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

1257

Baptism is necessary for salvation for all those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

262. Is it possible to be saved without Baptism?

1258-1261
1281-1283

Since Christ died for the salvation of all, those can be saved without Baptism who die for the faith (Baptism of blood). Catechumens and all those who, even without knowing Christ and the Church, still (under the impulse of grace) sincerely seek God and strive to do his will can also be saved without Baptism (Baptism of desire). The Church in her liturgy entrusts children who die without Baptism to the mercy of God.

Link to the above: www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

[moritz]

Sept 21, 2008 19:33:24 GMT -8 Josh said:

If it was the case that unbaptized children do go to hell, wouldn't God have ensured a direct statement on this in his inspired word?

This rationality will come in handy....



























































verrrrrrry handy muhahahahahaha (I need a grinning-devel-smiley)

[Josh]

bring it on, mo. bring it on.

[rodgertutt]

THE SALVATION OF CHILDREN

Evangelicals are divided in their opinion about the fate of children who die.

Calvinists, who believe in God’s sovereign election of the “few”, also believe that non-elect babies who die will spend eternity suffering in hell. John Calvin said, “there are babies a span long in hell”.

Arminians (free willers) consider this unfair, and assert that children who die will spend eternity in heavenly bliss. This of course is true, but not because the child is innocent. It’s true because the Scriptures teach that God intends to save everyone from everything that they need to be saved from.

A few years ago there was a story in a Montreal paper about an Ohio lady who drowned her baby in the bathtub. Her defense was that she loved the baby so much that she wanted to make sure that her child would not have to suffer forever in hell. After serving a sentence she remarried, had another child and drowned it for the same reason. She trusted that God would forgive her because her intention, though warped by false theology, was for the good of her children.

The jury decided that she was mentally ill, BUT WAS SHE? The simple pragmatic fact remains that her two infants (according to Arminian theology) will spend eternity in heavenly bliss because she loved them so much that she insured, by killing them, that this will be so.

Arminian Christians (free willers) believe that there is a magical split-second in time before which a child, if they die, will go to heaven, and after which, if they die will spend eternity suffering in hell. They call this “the age of accountability”.

If I believed this nonsense I might take a gun into the largest maternity ward in Toronto and before the police arrived, kill every infant who had just been born. This would cause an enormous amount of suffering to the parents, but this wouldn’t matter much in the long run, because probably most of them (according to evangelical theology) are destined to suffer forever in hell anyway, so why not save their babies from the same fate?

Don’t try to argue that what I would be doing would be wrong * (Thou Shalt Not Kill). The fact remains that my act would, in fact insure the babies’ eternal salvation. If Arminian Christians are right, then infanticide would certainly be one of the most effective ways of “saving souls”. Besides, God forgives murder, especially when it is done for such a noble, though misguided cause. Sure, they would lock me away in an institution, but I would spend my life reveling in the glow of the emotional high of knowing that I had, beyond any shadow of a doubt (even in the mind of Arminian Christians) guaranteed the salvation of the babies that I had killed.

Folks, the actual truth about the matter is much more sane and blessed. The Scriptures teach that salvation is all of the Lord, and He will not fail to save everyone of us according to His own timing. No one will be able to boast in His presence and say “I have saved my self from eternal hell by exercising my faith in God’s provision.” God will get all of the glory for everyone’s salvation.

The important issue never should be “what is right or what is wrong”. The only really important issue is, “What is God going to do with the person who is wrong? !” The Scriptures teach that God will fit everyone of us into His master-plan in a positive way, and He will use our temporary involvement with sin to teach us the lessons that He wants us to learn. As my 96 year old Dad often says, “That’s what makes Him God!”

(Afterthought) - If abortionists are, for all practical purposes, among the most effective “soul-savers” in the world, why do Arminian evangelicals get so upset with them?!

* Evangelicals kills others in war for less worthy causes than trying to save their souls.

THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD SERIES (Google it up) or
www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htm

[Josh]

A lot to ponder on, here, Rodgertutt. Thanks for sharing this. It does raise some significant problems with the traditional calvinist/ arminian polarization.

[rodgertutt]

Jan 14, 2009 19:58:09 GMT -8 Josh said:

A lot to ponder on, here, Rodgertutt. Thanks for sharing this. It does raise some significant problems with the traditional calvinist/ arminian polarization.

THE WORLD’S MOST EVIL BELIEFS - IMHO

The world’s most evil beliefs & the most important issue

The eternal torment theology of the Arminian Christian relies on so-called “free will” and luck.

The god that Arminian Christian eternal tormentors profess to love says to his fallen creatures

“Unless you are lucky enough to find out about my son during this lifetime, and even if you are that lucky, if you don’t have the good sense to cooperate with my son properly before you die, then I am going to raise you from the dead and I will sustain you alive in an inescapable state of eternal torment forever.”

The eternal torment theology of the Calvinist Christian relies on God alone, not “free will” at all. It is summed up by the word TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the elect.

The god that Calvinistic Christian eternal tormentors profess to love says to his fallen creatures

"I created most of you for the purpose of torturing you forever. However, I am going to choose a few of you undeserving ones to go to heaven where you will be happy forever." John Calvin said there will be infants a span long in hell because they were not among the elect. (A span is the distance between the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger.)

And then both the Arminian and Calvinistic eternal tormentors say that the feelings that they have for this god of theirs is “love.”

Without God’s sustaining power everyone would cease to exist. So if anyone were to suffer forever, our all-powerful God (Who is Love in essence, not just loving) would be fully 100% responsible for it. We would have to conclude that any definition of the manifestation of “love-in-essence” includes eternally sustaining people alive in an inescapable state of suffering.

www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/circularity.htm

What a travesty; what a revolting definition of love it is that God, Who is love personified, would grant any creature a will so strong that they can choose themselves into an irreversible state of never ending suffering (Arminian) or deserve to suffer forever just by being born into the human race (Calvinist)!!

Thank God the Bible does not teach such insane ideas!
www.godfire.net/eby/saviour_of_the_world.html
www.sigler.org/slagle/absolute.htm
richardwaynegarganta.com/universalsalvation.htm

Copy and paste one of the following titles into Google
SAVIOR OF THE WORLD SERIES EBY
Or
ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE IN JESUS CHRIST
Or
UNIVERSAL SALVATION UNIVERSITY

Anyone is welcome to believe anything they want to.

I'm just so glad I learned about the following information.
It enabled me to recover from a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78.
I'm 70 now.
I, and many others with whom I have become acquainted, simply could not successfully emotionally cope with the idea that God would let anyone suffer forever. Here is the testimony of Charles Slagle who went insane for the same reasons that I did.
Copy and paste the following title into Google
ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE IN JESUS CHRIST or click on
www.tentmaker.org/books/Absolute-Assurance-in-Jesus-Christ.html
www.sigler.org/slagle/absolute.htm

Eternal Torment Calvinism, Eternal Torment Arminianism, Annihilation, or Christian Biblical Universalism.

Which one of the four is the truth?

This debate nearly always ends with the words, "My Greek scholars are more reliable
than your Greek scholars," and the result is a stalemate.

If readers think it glorifies God more to believe that He is going to let some of His
creatures suffer forever or annihilate them, then they should keep believing that.
But if they think it glorifies God more to eventually meet everyone on the level of their
greatest and deepest need, which is a change in their stubborn will, then I would like
them to know that that is exactly what the Bible teaches that God is like.

THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE

The findings of Greek scholar Louis Abbott and the other Greek scholars quoted in
chapters three and twelve of his online book IMHO renders all other arguments irrelevant.

IMHO these findings effectively close the case on the arguments that eternal tormentors try so hard to uphold.
But of course one has to actually read them to see what I mean.

Just Google up AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF WORDS and enjoy, or click on
www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/index.html
The following colored chapter links probably may be activated on this post.
• About the Author
• Dedication
• Forward
• Chapter1 - Definitions of Aion, Aionios
• Chapter2 - Usages of Aion
• Chapter3 - Opinion of the Scholars
• Chapter4 - Apparent Contradictions
• Chapter5 - "Forever and Ever" - A Poor Translation
• Chapter6 - What Saith The Translations?
• Chapter7 - Eonian Means What? - A Search For Truth
• Chapter8 - Greek Tools
• Chapter9 - Examples in Greek Literature
• Chapter10 - Bibles Without "Everlasting Punishment"
• Chapter11 - Verses "Proving" Punishment Will be Everlasting
• Chapter12 - Scholars Acknowledge Restitution of All
• Chapter13 - Punishment? Yes - Everlasting? No
• Chapter14 - A Long, But Not Eternal Visit To "Hell"
• Chapter15 - The "Chosen," Not "I have chosen"
• Chapter16 - Clearing Things Up
• Chapter17 - The Complete Revelation
• Appendix 1 - Commentary of Previous Presentation
• Appendix 2 - Do You Believe ALL in the Bible?
• Appendix 3 - Reconciliation Scriptures
• Appendix 4 - What Pleases the Father?
• Appendix 5 - What if we are Wrong?
• Christian Biblical Universalism versus Annihilation
• www.tentmaker.org/books/EternalDeath.html
• Bible Threatenings Explained
• www.tentmaker.org/books/BibleThreateningsExplained.html
• Universal Salvation University
• richardwaynegarganta.com/universalsalvation.htm