Infant baptism

October 13, 2004

My response will depend on how you answer this. I cannot skip our beliefs until I know what yours is regarding the above question.

Shiloh, not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand why anyone's beliefs would be a consideration when posting Scriptural reference to back up statements that you make. It's a simple enough request......no? My beliefs won't change your Scripture references. You made the claims, the ball is in your court.

Here are the questions again:

What are the Scripture references for your claims that "children who are too young to know right from wrong are held in innocence"?

~And~

Or that "newborns who died from SIDS do not go to hell" and are "not held accountable by God"?

I am not trying to be difficult either sister.

I ask about your belief so that I know what exactly I am responding to. I need to understand where you are coming from in order to craft my response without needlessly answering issues that have not been raised. It is a courtesy to you, really.

OK now to answer your questions...

DIME Ministries put forth Deut. 1:39 which applies to a point, but not altogether. It shows that God does not hold children accountable for the sins of their parents. It shows that when God handed down judgement against the unbelief of the Children of Israel, it was aimed squarely at the adults and the children were spared the death penalty. The reason given was their lack of knowledge of right and wrong. They were held in innocence.

There is no Scriptural justification for saying that infants are held accountable for sin, when they are incapable knowing what sin is, and are incapable of repentance, Godly sorrow for sin, and other volitional abilities that adults possess.

I would go further to say this. For you to assert, as it seems you are, that infants go to hell, is one of the most callous, insensitive things you could assert or even imply on this board. I would hate for anyone who is a Christian and has lost a child to SIDS, or a miscarriage, to read some tripe that their baby is in hell right now, and that they have no assurance of ever seeing that baby again. Frankly, you cross the line if that is your postion.

While we are all born in sin, and no one is inherrently innocent, there is no indication from Scripture that newborns, toddlers, etc. who are incapable of understanding right from wrong in an abstract sense, who are incapable of decisions based up on a knowledge of moral or ethics, who are not even yet capable of understanding sin or their need for Savior, are sent to hell at their death just like an adult.

YOU are the one who has something to prove. YOU are the one who is outside the pale of Scripture. All you have to do is demonstrate from the Scripture a baby going to hell even though it had no knowledge of right and wrong.

There are no direct statements about infants dying and whether they go hell or heaven. However, when one examines what MUST happen for salvation to take place, and the inabilities of infants to perform the necessary volitional actions (such as prayer, repentance, Godly sorrow, faith), and the inability of infants who are barely self aware, to understand the scriptural concepts such as sin, and forgiveness, etc., then it becomes clear to anyone with any knowledge of the justice and fairness of God, that a child is not held accountable until they are able to understand and do the things necessary to be saved.

October 13, 2004

shiloh357.

Furthermore, don't bother using an English dictionary to define a Greek verb.

I did not. Why do you say I did? I used the dictionary to define an English word, 'Hate'.
I used Strong's to find out what a Greek word meant. The Greek means more than you said it did and I find that to be deceptive and misleading. You have had plenty of time to correct a mistake and you have not.

The word for hate in the Greek in Rom 9:13 is miseo and does not carry the full force of positive hatred in the Greek as the word "hate" does in English.

Which is false is it not? Which I asked you and you refused to answer.

Again I ask you, are you saying that the translators made a mistake?

johnp.

For crying out loud John, I did answer you!! LOL

I told you that Strong's concordance is exhaustive. It lists ALL of the ways that word is used in Scripture. It gives multiple definitions. Miseo can mean detest or it can mean "to love less." It depends on the Scripture you are referencing. You cannot apply every meaning given in Strongs to a word, everytime that word is used. My point is that miseo as used in Luke 14:26 and in Rom. 9:13 both mean to love less. They do not carry the full force of outright hatred in THOSE verses. There may be other verses where miseo is used to mean outright hatred. But NOT in Rom. 9:13. You obviously do not have much skill at interpretting Scripture, or you are trying to twist it.

The translators are people and are not perfect. Even they admit it. You might as well drop the Greek thing. You don't have a case there.

Work in Progress · October 14, 2004

I am not trying to be difficult either sister.

I ask about your belief so that I know what exactly I am responding to. I need to understand where you are coming from in order to craft my response without needlessly answering issues that have not been raised.

October 14, 2004

WIP,

So.......that's it? Based on the context of Deut 1:39, you have created a doctrine that there is some mysterious "age of accountability"? They were held in innocence of the sins of their parents, not in the sin nature. That part of Scripture dealing with the Exodus has nothing to do with the sin nature of every man. And, you may say that you don't believe in an "inherent innocence", but your words are directly contrary to that. If you believe that babies are innocent because they "have no knowledge of sin" and "therefore have not sinned", then you are saying they have an inherent innocence. Really no way around that. It seems you want your cake and to eat it too there.

I think you do not understand the meaning of "inherrent." Inherrent means that which is innate, or born into us. I am not trying to have my cake and eat it too, because I have already stated that I do not believe that anyone is born "innocent." I will post what I said

While we are all born in sin, and no one is inherrently innocent, there is no indication from Scripture that newborns, toddlers, etc. who are incapable of understanding right from wrong in an abstract sense, who are incapable of decisions based up on a knowledge of moral or ethics, who are not even yet capable of understanding sin or their need for Savior, are sent to hell at their death just like an adult.

I have made a distinction between being "inherrently innocent" and being "held as innocent." Those are not equivalent terms. You are held as innocent until you have the necessary faculties to make the decision for Christ.

QUOTE
I would go further to say this. For you to assert, as it seems you are, that infants go to hell

Wow. I'm really surprised at you, Shiloh. This is a tactic that I wouldn't have thought I'd see from you. But, It's been thrown at me before, and I can take it, untrue as it may be. Please point out to me anywhere on this board, ever, that I asserted that infants go to hell. You assumed that I believe that, because I refuse this doctrine of "age of innocence". That is unfair. That is putting words in my mouth.

Well, ya know what WIP? That is YOUR fault. I asked you to clarify your position exactly so that I could avoid misunderstanding you, and so that I would know what I was responding to. It is exactly this kind of thing I was trying to avoid. Yesterday I left you with THIS question:

Before I begin, I need to ask...

For the sake of clarification, am I to assume from your response that you believe that an infant that is not baptized will go to Hell if it were to die? If say a 6 month old baby were to suffocate, or drown in a swimming pool or be killed in an auto acccident, would that child, in your belief, spend eternity in hell if the parents either Christian or not, did not baptize that child?

You could have answered that question but you refused to, and left me to figure out where you stand. You could have helped me to avoid any misunderstanding but you chose to evade my question and pressure me for response. I could have had a much more accurate response had you shown me the courtesy of just answering the question. I do not take ANY responsibility for this misunderstanding!

QUOTE
While we are all born in sin, and no one is inherrently innocent,

But, you just said that they are innocent, and automatically go to Heaven because they are not accountable, and - is this right?- do not have that inherent sin nature that condemns us all. Which is it?

This is of course based upon your misunderstanding of being "held as innocent," and "inherrent innocence." I have already dealt with that.

QUOTE
However, when one examines what MUST happen for salvation to take place, and the inabilities of infants to perform the necessary volitional actions (such as prayer, repentance, Godly sorrow, faith),

Ahhhh.....and there we have it. Man has a part in Salvation. God isn't totally in control, it's equal parts Man and God. That is our fundamental difference, I'm afraid. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

God does not save you against your will. Where your will in concerned and your decision to obey the gospel is concerned, yes you do have a part to play. You can either repent of your sin and turn to Christ, or you can reject him. That is what I mean by volitional actions. I think you misunderstood me there.

Work in Progress · October 14, 2004

Yes, I am aware of the definition of "inherent".

The reason I did not answer your question was because I thought it odd, and slightly deceptive (not necessarily intentionally), to require one's beliefs before answering a simple question for Scripture reference on a claim. It came across to me as a "smoke and mirrors" kind of thing.

Again, "where I stand" has nothing to do with a simple request of providing Scripture when you make a doctrinal claim. Please know that I was not intending to be "discourteous".

This seems to be heading nowhere, with "held as innocent," and "inherrent innocence." - ??? No Scripture references again. I have clearly stated what Scripture says about the state of every human but you have not addressed that, or any of my other points.

I'm glad we both got to present our points. Peace.

October 14, 2004

Yes, I am aware of the definition of "inherent".

The reason I did not answer your question was because I thought it odd, and slightly deceptive (not necessarily intentionally), to require one's beliefs before answering a simple question for Scripture reference on a claim. It came across to me as a "smoke and mirrors" kind of thing.

Again, "where I stand" has nothing to do with a simple request of providing Scripture when you make a doctrinal claim. Please know that I was not intending to be "discourteous".

This seems to be heading nowhere, with "held as innocent," and "inherrent innocence." - ??? No Scripture references again. I have clearly stated what Scripture says about the state of every human but you have not addressed that, or any of my other points.

I'm glad we both got to present our points. Peace.

Yes, I am aware of the definition of "inherent".

It would have been nice, then if you would have applied it, instead of trying to pin it to "held as innocent" which does not mean the same thing.

By saying that that baby is "innocent" until some mysterious age- you are saying that that baby has no need of a Savior, as a "sinless" and "innocent" person- they "get right in" is what you are saying.

It is not a mysterious age. The "Age of Accountabilty" is not a chronological/biological age. It is simply a way of referring to the moment you are able to understand and either reject or accept the gospel. Frankly, you have NO idea what I am saying. I am not saying a baby is sinless or innocent. I am saying that their sinfulness is not held to their account when they are incapable of knowing right from wrong.

The fact is, Shiloh, that I have no idea, as the Scripture doesn't say much about it. What I do know is that Scripture says not ONE is born "innocent" and without sin. ALL are desparately corrupt and apart from God and need a Savior to be reconciled to God. And that God has chosen some to Him. Are some that were not chosen babies? Could be. Or maybe every baby that dies was one of the elect, in God's mercy. I don't know.

Well I do know, because I know the character of God. I happen to KNOW that God is fair and just in everything that he does. Because He has revealed enough of His Character in Scripture, I can trust that every baby born who dies before they are able to make a decision, are not sent to hell for what they do not know, and they are with the LORD. Maybe you don't have the faith to believe that, but I do. I know Him well enough through how He has revealed Himself, and He is not contrary to His Character and operations.

This seems to be heading nowhere, with "held as innocent," and "inherrent innocence." - ??? No Scripture references again. I have clearly stated what Scripture says about the state of every human but you have not addressed that, or any of my other points

.

The fact that I denied that anyone is born inherrently innocent means that I agree with you concerning the state of every human being. I might also add that YOU have provided nothing in the way of Scripture regarding infants to refute ME. Why am I the only one who has to provide Scripture? I could have provided tons of Scripture regarding God's character, and could have proved based upon how God has revealed Himself,that we can know how He will act regarding situations He has not directly addressed.

I have addressed everything that you have raised, and was even forced to address things that I was not sure you believed or not, since you refused to answer a simple question. You can go back and look at this entire thread and I have sought to answer you point for point as best as I could under my current time restraints.

The reason this debate is going nowhere is because you are confusing terms. You are confusing "inherrent innocence" with "held as innocent" and as long as you do that, we will be at an impasse.

Work in Progress · October 14, 2004

I am using inherent in the proper way I believe.

"held as innocent" as opposed to "inherent innocence" - again, no Scripture. Where is the Scripture describing these states of mankind? And, yes I referenced Scripture to validate my beliefs - just not chapter and verse. Do you deny that Scripture is full of references of the depravity of man, the fact that none are sinless, that ALL of have sinned and fall short? And you have not provided even one Scripture to validate your claim that there is some "age of accountability" or state of "being held in innocence".

I get what you are saying. They aren't sinless, it is just not held to their account. Okay. I think that concerns me even more. So, they sin, but don't need a Savior because they get a 'pass' until some age when they are no longer "held in innocence"? And again, where is there any Scripture to validate that? Again, why different standards for different people?

Well I do know, because I KNOW the character of God. I happen to KNOW that God is fair and just in everything that he does.

Wow. :x:

Maybe you don't have the faith to believe that, but I do.

Low blow, Shiloh, completely dirty tactic and again I thought you were above that. I've tried my best to remain respectful and not hurl things like that, and expected the same from you. This conversation is now over for me. No need to answer the above questions, I revoke them. I will only continue to state in the future that there is no such thing in Scripture about some "age of innocence" or any such state of "held in innocence". Thank you.

October 14, 2004

Well I do know, because I KNOW the character of God. I happen to KNOW that God is fair and just in everything that he does.

Wow. :x:

Maybe you don't have the faith to believe that, but I do.

Low blow, Shiloh, completely dirty tactic and again I thought you were above that. I've tried my best to remain respectful and not hurl things like that, and expected the same from you. This conversation is now over for me. No need to answer the above questions, I revoke them. I will only continue to state in the future that there is no such thing in Scripture about some "age of innocence" or any such state of "held in innocence". Thank you.

I apologize if I hurt you, that was not my intention, nor was I trying to make low blow. I could and should have phrased that better. Sometimes we all word things without thinking how the other person will take it.

The point I was making is that I have studied the character of God in depth especially with regard to His dealings with man. From Gen 2:4 through Revelation, we have a constant unfolding and illumination with regard to the Character and operations of God. My point was that I believe, based upon what I have learned through experience and thoughtful study, is that there is sufficient direction and understanding from Scripture regarding God's Character to lead me to believe that an infant will NOT go to hell at death prior to knowing right from wrong. What I meant was that I am able to believe that God will preserve infants in death based upon the evidence I have, and you do not believe the same. I feel that if you study more about God's attributes that you will come to the same conclusion that I have.

It is kind of like a best friend or spouse that you have spent years getting to know. After a while, you have gotten to know them well enough that you can pretty well guage how they would respond to a particular situation. God is completely fair and just in all that he does. There is nothing about God that is unfair.

I get what you are saying. They aren't sinless, it is just not held to their account. Okay. I think that concerns me even more. So, they sin, but don't need a Savior because they get a 'pass' until some age when they are no longer "held in innocence"? And again, where is there any Scripture to validate that? Again, why different standards for different people?

Romans 7:9

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Without the Law there is no knowledge of sin. Think of it like this: Somebody at work tells you a lie about something that happened in another part of the building. You believe that the story is true. You relate that story to someone else. The story is a lie, but did YOU lie? No. You may have related false information but you did so in the sincere belief that what you were saying was true. You did not have the information necessary to know that the story was a lie. You're not held accountable for the false information because you were telling the truth as far you knew.

A baby is selfish, but does not know what selfishness is. Children have to be taught to share, and not bite, pull hair, or abuse the family pet. They have to be taught not to lie, and not to sass their parents. Until they are intellecutally capable of knowing the difference and have demonstrated the mental capacity learn and live by moral values, the parents have to deal with it.

Does a good parent punish that selfish baby for demanding to fed at 2:00 A.M.? The baby does not know it is selfish, inordinately demanding, and ungrateful. All it knows is that it wants to be fed.

If a earthly parent does not hold these things against a baby, what makes you think God would, and He is sinless!?

johnP · October 16, 2004

Work in Progress.

I will only continue to state in the future that there is no such thing in Scripture about some "age of innocence" or any such state of "held in innocence". Thank you.

I think the only argument for it is that people believe that it is wrong to punish a child because they have not come to an age of reason. It is a good argument judged by our standards. Adam caused this problem not the child. The son shall not suffer the guilt of the father is a good scripture when used in this way to hold up as conclusive proof that one held not to have done good or bad is not guilty.

For a long time I held this belief because I figured wrong. It was not until recently, when I was pulled up on this forum by someone questioning a statement I made, that I came to realise that I had made God in my own image.

I thought that my idea of good was God's idea of good. HaHa! But just here I think.

shiloh357.

Posted: Oct 14 2004, 07:10 PM
God is completely fair and just in all that he does.

Now where exactly does it say God is fair? Is that your standard of fair or God's standard? Is this fair, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Romans 9:18.?

Or this, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."? Or loved less.

The scriptures are quite plain about it. All have sinned. We are meant to love the Lord with our whole being. No age restriction anywhere as far as my limited knowledge of scripture goes. All are conceived in original sin and the wages of that is death. And that cannot be in dispute.

Rings a bit hollow that idea that the sons do not suffer the sins of their father. May be there should be a discussion on this. Adam did for me and you and that's for sure.

I was conceived in sin and I live in sin until this moment. I was born like this and it had nothing to do with me. The Lord Himself tells me that He knows! He then tells me that I was dead in my transgressions and subject to His wrath. No fault of my own, you will admit I'm sure, that we are all still born.

Not fair is it? He made us and condemns us. Not only for our sins but for Adam's as well.

Not fair is it that it is God that chooses not man. "...I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Romans 9:15.

A baby is selfish which is a sin. Show me where this does not qualify for death. What we hope is that all babies are saved. That is nice. But it is certainly unscriptural. "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" Romans 9:21.

He can do what He wants. He is not subject to our judgement.

Somebody at work tells you a lie about something that happened in another part of the building. You believe that the story is true. You relate that story to someone else. The story is a lie, but did YOU lie?

We should make sure of all things.

You're not held accountable for the false information because you were telling the truth as far you knew.

You err. You have the responsibilty of making sure of all things. You are accountable. It plainly says we are not to gossip. It is sad to see tattle coming out of a Christian's mouth.

johnp.

johnP · October 16, 2004

Hello KMB.

Page 10:Posted: Oct 12 2004, 02:16 PM

BTW, let me also say that I have never viewed baptism as a "show" put on by God. It's like saying communion is a show too. Maybe you didn't intend for it to come out that way????

No nor have I until recently. I was watching a discussion on another discussion forum when I thought that the underlaying idea was not in question. That baptism and circumcision are the same thing. I'd never been been too sure what baptism was about. My understanding went as far as, "Jesus did it so shall I."

So I set about thinking and when I thought the tought that thought delink them I did.

If they are not linked then they carry different meanings. We know that God likes to reveal His glory and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is His glory.

I am not saying that there is nothing more to it than God revealing His glory through His children. I believe a lot of spiritual stuff is going on as well.

I cannot think of any other reason for baptism other than a reenactment performed by us of the going down into the grave and the rising out of death of Jesus. That is a glorious thing to do. Acting the word. Putting on a show about our Brother who did such a thing for us.

That was the thought I thought I would bring to you and ask you what you thought. I'm glad you touched on it. What you think then?

As for communion. That's a great idea. Maybe we can discuss this sometime. I'm sure we could dig a bit deeper if we talked about it.

It is a decision for each and every one of us to make. I gave this verse earlier but let me repeat it. John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

We have free will john.

But babies cannot decide. Have you concluded that children go to Hell? You know I've said that all those saved are saved by God's grace in that He gives the chosen the honour of giving birth to the chosen. If you want to stand by your statement that all must choose then babies go to Hell. If you say that it is God that chooses then it has nothing to do with the parents. Is there really no middle ground?

This doesn't say that we can get to heaven by our parents.

Stop misquoting me. I explained myself in the post above yours.

It's like saying communion is a show too. Maybe you didn't intend for it to come out that way????

I don't understand what you mean by this and that's a fact. Are you saying that me saying 'show' is derogatory.

But then you have conjured this from out of nowhere have you? Do you not believe that God has the intention of revealing His glory to us more and more as time progresses. What is that if it is not putting on the style? All things serve His purpose to reveal His glory.

Work in Progress asked you;Posted: Oct 12 2004, 10:40 PM

- do you think the verse in Scripture that says if we raise them up in "the way of the Lord" is a "promise of Salvation"? God does not lie, and we can rest on His promises. And that seems to be pretty clear cut - if we raise them in Him, they will not depart from it. What are your thoughts concerning that verse and a "promise of salvation"?

Your answer;

It's not enough for my parents to committ me to the Lord as a child and expect to see me in heaven should I choose to follow God in obedience or not.

This is a misrepresentation is it not? It is also against the scripture. The promise is there but you do not believe it and keep saying it's only man's decision that saves him yet you make an exception and say babies are saved. You contradict yourself.

Posted: Oct 13 2004, 10:03 AM
I still hold to the fact that choosing salvation is up to each individual.

I think the focus that we should draw from the verse is the command to raise a child in the way they should go. Doing this, you have done your part, it's up to the child for the rest of it.

I find this reply quite startling in it's contempt. You say that we should focus on one part of scripture over another. Bring the kids up properly. But we should not focus on the second part of the scripture that is there for the reassurance of Christian parents.

Why do you say this? Who gave you the authority to tell another person what to disregard in scripture?

All of the children I know that have been brought up in a godly home that have turned from their faith have not yet returned so...I don't know. Anyone else with some insight on that? Shiloh?

My insight as far as it goes is that you are right, you don't know, but the scripture is plain. Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. Pro 22:6. But you use your judgement and expect God to do as you think.

We have free will john.

That is what you say but what use is it when God says, " It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." Or am I focusing on the wrong scripture?

We have free will john.

That is what you say but what use is it when God says, "..."The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." Gen 3:22-24.

Do you claim to be able to find what God has hidden? Do you claim that we can reach out our hand and take life when God says we must not be allowed to? Plain unashamed arrogance.

When you can answer these points with more scripture and with less of your knowledge of our Father then I will discuss free will with you. That is a challenge to you.

johnp.