Jump to content
IGNORED

An innocent child - heaven or hell?


Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, PlanetChee said:

There are many thou shalt not's in the scriptures. When there is not one that says thou shalt not deliver a child to the Lord through Baptism, it isn't for anyone to say it is not to be done. Because as should be obvious, it is not a bad thing that a child is washed clean as one born into a fallen world, and raised up as one dedicated to the path of Christ in the beginning of their journey in this life. 
Train up a child in the way they should go. And when they are old they will not depart from it. 

Mark 10:13-16 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.

Sure Jesus did say Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.  Notice He never told the apostles or the parents to baptize them did He.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  791
  • Content Per Day:  0.32
  • Reputation:   547
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  05/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, HAZARD said:

Sure Jesus did say Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.  Notice He never told the apostles or the parents to baptize them did He.

He didn't have to. His admonition to baptize didn't have an age restriction did it? He said unless one is born of spirit and water they cannot see the kingdom of Heaven. How can we condemn a parent for baptizing their child so that they are meeting that standard as early as possible so as to be one with Christ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

52 minutes ago, PlanetChee said:

He didn't have to. His admonition to baptize didn't have an age restriction did it? He said unless one is born of spirit and water they cannot see the kingdom of Heaven. How can we condemn a parent for baptizing their child so that they are meeting that standard as early as possible so as to be one with Christ? 

 

No one is condemning anyone. Infants / children, who die before the age of reason go to Heaven regardless of wether their parents had them baptized or not. As Onelight mentioned, Jesus never got baptized until age 30. There is no mention of Joseph and Mary baptizing Him or any of His siblings.

Baptism alone does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

Infant baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine.  It is not found in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby being baptized.  Infant baptism is of pagan origin. When Emperor Constantine made 'Christianity' the official 'STATE RELIGION of Rome, one of the FIRST LAWS passed was the law decreeing infant baptism as the law of the land in 416 A.D. That simply meant that everybody within a certain age limit had to conform to it. When they passed that law in 416 that every baby in the Roman Empire had to be baptized at the hands of an authorized Roman priest... OR ELSE! Those who disagreed with teaching and rejected it were soon slanderously called "ANABAPTISTS", and they were persecuted without mercy for not conforming.

Historian J.M.Carroll declares, " For 30 miles on the road leading out of Rome were stakes with gory heads of ANAPTISTS...." The Priests of Rome taught-and still do-that it is NOT possible even for newly born infants to be saved so as to enjoy the delights of heaven unless they are baptized. The COUNCIL OF TRENT catechism states in black and white:

 "Infants, unless regenerated unto God thru the grace of BAPTISM, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to eternal misery and perdition."

Thankfully, As stated in earlier posts, little children who die in infancy are covered by the Blood of Christ and will go to heaven.  They are thus 'covered' until they reach the age that they can understand the Gospel, and at that point they must trust Christ on their own, of their own volition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

Lorraine Boettner, in his ROMAN CATHOLICISM, p190, declared,

"The Romish doctrine was so horrible and so unacceptable to the public that it was found necessary to invent a third realm, the Limbus Infantum... later shortened to 'Limbo'...a place where unbaptized infants are sent, in which they are excluded from heaven but in which they suffer no positive PAIN. The Council of Trent and the Councils of Lyons and Florence declare positively that unbaptized infants are confined to this realm."

Boettner continues,

"The primary purpose of the Church of Rome in excluding unbaptized infants from heaven is to force parents to commit their children to her as soon as possible ... the pressure put on members of the Mother Church of Rome parents to see that their children are baptized EARLY is almost  UNBELIEVABLE... ..a commitment which once she receives she never relinquishes." (P 191)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  791
  • Content Per Day:  0.32
  • Reputation:   547
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  05/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, HAZARD said:

No one is condemning anyone. Infants / children, who die before the age of reason go to Heaven regardless of wether their parents had them baptized or not. As Onelight mentioned, Jesus never got baptized until age 30. There is no mention of Joseph and Mary baptizing Him or any of His siblings.

Baptism alone does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

Infant baptism is not a Scriptural doctrine.  It is not found in the Bible. There is not one example in the Bible of one single baby being baptized.  Infant baptism is of pagan origin. When Emperor Constantine made 'Christianity' the official 'STATE RELIGION of Rome, one of the FIRST LAWS passed was the law decreeing infant baptism as the law of the land in 416 A.D. That simply meant that everybody within a certain age limit had to conform to it. When they passed that law in 416 that every baby in the Roman Empire had to be baptized at the hands of an authorized Roman priest... OR ELSE! Those who disagreed with teaching and rejected it were soon slanderously called "ANABAPTISTS", and they were persecuted without mercy for not conforming.

Historian J.M.Carroll declares, " For 30 miles on the road leading out of Rome were stakes with gory heads of ANAPTISTS...." The Priests of Rome taught-and still do-that it is NOT possible even for newly born infants to be saved so as to enjoy the delights of heaven unless they are baptized. The COUNCIL OF TRENT catechism states in black and white:

 "Infants, unless regenerated unto God thru the grace of BAPTISM, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to eternal misery and perdition."

Thankfully, As stated in earlier posts, little children who die in infancy are covered by the Blood of Christ and will go to heaven.  They are thus 'covered' until they reach the age that they can understand the Gospel, and at that point they must trust Christ on their own, of their own volition. 

Yes, that last paragraph of your response is copied but not credited to Got Questions.While this that you omitted I believe explains a lot.

 Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).

Question: "What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  96
  • Topic Count:  304
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  18,096
  • Content Per Day:  4.65
  • Reputation:   27,773
  • Days Won:  327
  • Joined:  08/03/2013
  • Status:  Online

Blessings PLanet Chee

   I'm not following you,what is y our position,if I may ask....in thwe above reply you commented on what you believe someone has "omitted" & stated that it explains alot......it does explain the ignorance of parents who are following a false doctrine,imo.....I don't believe anyone here is condemning or judging this ignorance but merely acknowledging it ......So,do you think an infant should be water baptized or not,it does not matter what others do or why they do it, (as noted in the section you quoted)it is unBiblical    

   I was baptized as an infant,my parents feared I would go to "Limbo" if I died because that it what the rcc taught them......they begged me to baptize my son & for their sake I did,I had an entire family of Italian catholics in sheer  hysteria so it was simple enough to spare them such trauma,a little water on the childs head did not hurt anyone imo.....eventually,before they passed they each  Received Christ.......thats all that matters I don't judge anyone for what they do,their silly customs & traditions but thinking that these things will get a person to Heaven it so dangerous and it breaks my heart

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

21 hours ago, HAZARD said:

It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism.

You have hit a lot of nails on their heads there I think.

Salvation comes through by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone! It is not of works (like baptism) of any sort. A person truly regenerated (born again) will however do works, it is in their nature and in their obedience to their Lord and Savior.

In as much that baptism, is a ritual, and act of faith in obedience and full of symbolism, and is a matter of the heart, that counts, I agree that the mode of baptis, is not of great significance. However, if one wants to be obedient, and have the most Biblica model and symolically accurate baptism, then one would note what the Bible says of it, and not what traditions have added to it.

Sprinklng does a poor job, of symbolizing the ressurection. Rising up out of the water, is analogous to rising from the grave.

"3Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7for he who has died is freed from sin."

Obedience, that is a prime reason for being baptized, so let's look at that:

"18And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

We baptize, because those are Jesus' marching orders for disciples. Diciples make other diciples, and teach them to obey everything Jesus had said. One of the things He commanded, was to make other disciples, and to baptize them. This is handed down, disciple to disciple, until He returns. All obedient Christians, teach others about Jesus, and what He commanded. When they come to faith, they too are baptized.

So, why not baptize babies? Simple, because in order to be a disciple, you have to be a follower, a student of the things Jesus taught. Babies are not disciples.

While I do not see this as something that needs to wait for adulthood, it should wait until a person's understaning is sufficient to come to a decision about Christ, and what it means to have Christ as Lord.

The Biblical mode of baptism, is always immersion. There is no sprinkling in the Bible. Additionally, the Greek word, "baptizo", from which we get baptism, literally means immersion. For whatver resaons Bible use the word "baptism", they are not translating the word, they are transliterating it.

This is like what they do with the word "Christ". The Greek word "christos" is transliterated to "Christ", but if it were translated, it would read "annointed". Jesus the annointed, or Jesus the messiah (messiah also means "annointed").

It will not harm a baby to be baptized, but if that baby does come to faith in Christ, he/she will want to be baptized as a disciple, if he/she wants to be obedient to the commandment of the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

On ‎25‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 10:34 AM, PlanetChee said:

Yes, that last paragraph of your response is copied but not credited to Got Questions.While this that you omitted I believe explains a lot.

 Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).

Question: "What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?"

No it was not. People who practice infant baptism believe the ceremony has something to do with the salvation of the child. These are traditions of men. Now we can follow the commandments of God or we can follow after the traditions of men, it is up to us. Do you believe infant baptism is necessary to make sure the infant will go to heaven if it dies before the age of reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  791
  • Content Per Day:  0.32
  • Reputation:   547
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  05/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, HAZARD said:

No it was not.

Let us see. 

Question: "What does the Bible say about infant baptism / paedobaptism?"

Answer: 
There is much confusion about baptism in the various Christian denominations. However, this is not a result of the Bible presenting a confusing message on baptism. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).

Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
 

Quote

People who practice infant baptism believe the ceremony has something to do with the salvation of the child. These are traditions of men. Now we can follow the commandments of God or we can follow after the traditions of men, it is up to us. Do you believe infant baptism is necessary to make sure the infant will go to heaven if it dies before the age of reason?

I believe people who baptize their infants do so in the spirit of faith and the love of God. And as God says a parent is charged with instructing a child in righteousness, such parents as commit their child to God as infants are doing so because of that love and faith in God. 

All babies go to Heaven when they die. God is not controlled by what we believe. And I do not condemn any parent for thinking the world of their precious child and in that love dedicate them to God shortly after he gives the baby to them. 

God is not controlled by what we believe. Someone here had a profile quote attached to their posts. I can't remember it verbatim but I will expound on its wisdom. Dogma=Egocentrism has condensed the power of eternity to fit our expectations. We've worked to make God in our image and likeness because we still insist on doing things ourselves. 

No wonder after all these thousands of years we still need saving. 

There is no argument as far as I am concerned about infant baptism. God calls us before we are born. When we arrive under the water as newborns, or as 45 year old sinners, it matters little. He knows us. When we arrive to the call however we got there, his grace brings us home. His love embraces our soul. And his son died to make it true. 

Opinion of particulars, as if rote is the work needed to be accomplished to meet the call of grace, is just that; opinion. 

Fracture the Ekklesia with arguments like this?
Not I. 

God's passion and blessings surround your journey in this life. Amen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  320
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  6,829
  • Content Per Day:  0.85
  • Reputation:   3,570
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/16/2002
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, PlanetChee said:

I believe people who baptize their infants do so in the spirit of faith and the love of God. And as God says a parent is charged with instructing a child in righteousness, such parents as commit their child to God as infants are doing so because of that love and faith in God. 

All babies go to Heaven when they die. God is not controlled by what we believe. And I do not condemn any parent for thinking the world of their precious child and in that love dedicate them to God shortly after he gives the baby to them. 

God is not controlled by what we believe. Someone here had a profile quote attached to their posts. I can't remember it verbatim but I will expound on its wisdom. Dogma=Egocentrism has condensed the power of eternity to fit our expectations. We've worked to make God in our image and likeness because we still insist on doing things ourselves. 

No wonder after all these thousands of years we still need saving. 

There is no argument as far as I am concerned about infant baptism. God calls us before we are born. When we arrive under the water as newborns, or as 45 year old sinners, it matters little. He knows us. When we arrive to the call however we got there, his grace brings us home. His love embraces our soul. And his son died to make it true. 

Opinion of particulars, as if rote is the work needed to be accomplished to meet the call of grace, is just that; opinion. 

Fracture the Ekklesia with arguments like this?
Not I. 

God's passion and blessings surround your journey in this life. Amen. 

 

Baptising infants is not what saves them from Hell should they die, its the blood of Jesus that saves them, nothing else. Do you know where and when infant baptism started? One only has to go back to Genesis 10 and 11 where we read of Noah's Great grandson, NIMROD, and his wife SEMIRAMUS, who started the great pagan BABYLON MYSTERY RELIGION at the Tower of Babel.  This great pagan religion was later known as 'BAAL WORSHIP' in the Old Testament. In this mysterious Babylonian Religious System, Nimrod and Semiramis, along with their priests, were the only ones who understood 'The great mysteries of God' and since it was the only true religion... all others were false... therefore, only the Babylonian Priests could forgive and absolve sins...and administer salvation. Salvation could be achieved thru various Sacraments performed during the person's life time. These SACRAMENTS were so-called 'Channels of grace' whereby salvation could be achieved. These Sacraments, necessary to salvation ..began at birth with Infant Baptism, other sacraments throughout life, ending with a final anointing with oil at death to prepare one for the hereafter. Now Since the Babylonian Priest was the only one who could administer these 'sacraments', the person was 'bound' to the Babylonian system helplessly for life! The first essential sacrament Semiramis taught was Baptism by water. The fact that such "Baptism" was practiced 2000 years before it was even mentioned and practiced in Christianity is an established fact, and it can be traced right back to Babylon and Semiramis herself! The ancient historian Bryant (vol.3 p2l,84) traces this pagan baptism back to the practice of commemorating Noah and his 3 sons deliverance thru the waters of the flood, emerging from the ark and entering a New life. To commemorate this event, the Priests of Nimrod would 'baptize' new-born infants the fathers chose to keep, and they would become 'born-again' and become members of the Babylonian Mystery Religion. (Hislop,Two Babylons, p134) The fact that the Devil practiced the ritual of Baptism over 2000 years before it was even used in Christianity has truly amazed historians!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...