Unbaptized Babies Go to Heaven

[Floatingaxe]

no unpabtised baby will go the hell!

No way...

It's not up to baby to be baptised but up to parents.

It's pure logic.Why someone should be punished for something he didn't do?!?

Babies are "tabuyla rasa" , an empty board...No evil has evre entered in them...there is no reason why baby shoud be damned!

It is not up to the parents whether the child is baptized--it isn't necessary. Baptism is for believers. Believing occurs later in life.

Floatingaxe: Were you saved in your brain or in your spirit? Is the spirit dependent on your brain for its understanding?

Leonard that is beneath you, I think. I have read some really good things from you, but this one, well.........

[Leonard]

"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God..... Ye do therefore greatly err."

"Search the Scriptures...."

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Leonard,

You are, as usual, way off base.

In Matthew 22:29, Jesus is answering the Sadducees question regarding marrying more than one woman., and has nothing at all to do with baptism, or even infant baptism.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Your personall addition to this Scripture; "Ye do therefore greatly err." does not exist. You have added to the Word.

Maybe it is you who should "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39).

And quoting Leonard again,

""And they were ALL baptized.....in the sea, and under the cloud.........."

.

This Scripture has nothing to do with infant baptism either. It speaks of Israel passing through the Red Sea, under the Cloud, which was a sign that God was with them. The passing trough the Red sea was a "Type" of baptism. Paul here was speaking of "All our fathers," being baptized "Under Moses."

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthinas 10:1-2,

"Moreover, bretheren, I would not that ye be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Mozes in the cloud and in the sea;"

All our fathers, who were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, being baptized under Moses, in the Old Testament, has nothing to do with infant baptism, and especially nothing to do with adults who have reached the age of reason and personally choosing to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, since Jesus's death and resurrection in the New Testament gospel.

Here's a couple for you to think on O Great Quoter of Scripture's of no revelence to the subject being debated.

The devil steals the Word of God from some people lest they should believe it (Matt. 13:19; Luke 8:12). He also causes diversions and blinds men to the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4).

Hazard, dear fellow:

Please don't lecture me about 'context.' You're just not that good yet.

First of all, the words of Jesus to the Saducees which I quoted, ALMOST matches the context you state. You made just one minor error there: The context is not 'marrying more than one woman' as you state, but the (probably hypothetical) case of a woman marrying multiple men. And of course, the REAL context lies in the dispute over the resurrection of the dead, and the greater context of the Jerusalem authorities' growing resistance to His Ministry. But His words here are certainly not directly related to just that context. Indeed, they are related more broadly to the simple context of a response to anyone who seems to be missing out on some important point in the Scripture. I used the words of Jesus as a simple directive to such persons, and as an introduction to next thought, which was simply: 'Search the Scriptures.' As for the objection that the phrase 'Ye do therefore greatly err' was me 'adding to' the Word, I direct your attention to the 2nd Synoptic Gospel; that of Mark.

As the pericope appears in the 12th chapter of the Marcan Gospel, the longer quote of Jesus is given. And the phrase does indeed occur at verse 27. You see, I do 'search the Scriptures', and my exhortation to others to also form this most salubrious habit of life, still stands. It would seem that we have come to a point of very strong agreement here at least: We BOTH firmly believe in seaching the life-giving Word. It appears I was not 'off base' at all, simply better grounded in the Scriptures than are those who think I'm the devil incarnate!

How can you possibly claim I Corinthians 10:1-2 has 'nothing' to do with infant baptism? Paul uses the very word 'baptism' and says they were 'all' baptized. So it is clear that the Hebrew infants among them were part of the 'all', unless you believe there was not a single baby among all the people; and I think that would be quite an extraoradinary thing to believe.

Indeed the literary pericope begins in chapter 9, about verse 23 if I recall, where Paul talks about how he strives as in a race, lest he himself should end up a 'castaway.' The pericope from 9:23 to at least 10:12, is a powerful warning to Christians themselves, against various forms of sinning. If in the context of speaking directly to baptized Christians, Paul uses the VERY WORD 'baptized', and applies it to the Jews 'saved' out of Egypt (this is clearly his intent and meaning), then unless Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians the TRUTH, he is presenting a lie! He tells the Corinthians, "Look, these people were 'saved.' They were 'baptized.' and yet, due to their obstinacy in sin, they were lost!" Now unless that 'baptism' of Israel, was something QUITE REAL, then Paul was just putting a bondage of fear on people. So you tell me: Was Paul lying?

Friend; you are more than welcome to discuss with me the meaning of the Scriptures. You are more than welcome to disagree with me, and show me why you disagree. But I must object a wee bit here on two accounts, to wit: First you accuse me of 'adding to the Word...' And above I clearly demonstrated I did not; you just seemed to be unaware that there are four (4) Gospels. Secondly, you exhort me to 'consider' this:

"The devil steals the Word of God from some people lest they should believe it (Matt. 13:19; Luke 8:12). He also causes diversions and blinds men to the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4)."

I have 'considered' it. Since I fully quoted the word of God in Mark 12, and you tried to 'steal the Word of God from some people' by pretending Mark 12:27 didn't exist, MAYBE THAT SHOE BELONGS ON YOUR OWN FOOT! I don't actually believe this of you, of course, but I encourage you to have a care when you are tempted to toss accusations about. Again: You're just not that good yet.

I know it was painful, but your Remedial Bible Lesson for the evening is over now. Lick your wounds, remembering all the while that 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend' and when you are sufficiently humbled and gracious, I will teach you further, 'grasshopper'.

[Leonard]

Floatingaxe: Were you saved in your brain or in your spirit? Is the spirit dependent on your brain for its understanding?

[Floatingaxe]

Floatingaxe: Were you saved in your brain or in your spirit? Is the spirit dependent on your brain for its understanding?

Leonard that is beneath you, I think. I have read some really good things from you, but this one, well.........

[Leonard]

Floatingaxe:

I am utterly flummoxed. Your response frankly astonishes me. I have certainly never questioned your salvation. What's going on?

I haven't a clue why you think that is 'beneath' me, and would like to know what you mean. I am sorry you feel picked on, but I have not 'picked on' anybody; least of all you! Come, come now, grow a thicker hide, and tell me why a baby cannot 'believe to salvation.'

[Floatingaxe]

Floatingaxe:

I am utterly flummoxed. Your response frankly astonishes me. I have certainly never questioned your salvation. What's going on?

I haven't a clue why you think that is 'beneath' me, and would like to know what you mean. I am sorry you feel picked on, but I have not 'picked on' anybody; least of all you! Come, come now, grow a thicker hide, and tell me why a baby cannot 'believe to salvation.'

Oh my word! Is THAT what you meant? SORRY!

A baby cannot "believe to salvation" because they cannot reason enough to repent. That is why they are what we say, "under the blood". John 3:3 tells us plainly that we need to be born again. Infants lack that reasoning power to be able to acknowledge sin, and God has made provision for that.

Once again, I apologize! I truly did misread your intention.

[Leonard]

No problem.

But you see, what you are doing is basing salvation on 'reasoning power' within the person being witnessed to. That's why I ask: Are we saved in the physical organ called a 'brain' or are we saved in our spirit?

I find it very hard to believe that the spirit cannot understand, just because a brain is not yet discerning or developed enough to intellectually comprehend. It is on this basis of thought that I have witnessed to mentally ill people, to retarded people, and to comatose people. I believe we are reaching people's spirits not their brains.

Further, if we look at circumcision (and Paul even likens Christian baptism to circumcision), we find that the baby had no choice. The parents made the decision whether the child was to be included in YHWH's covenant or not. Later, as an adult, the child might make up his mind against YHWH; they might abnegate the covenant for themselves, but when young, THEIR PARENTS MADE THE DECISION FOR THEM, and YHWH considered them as members of His Covenant Community.

Paul tells us we have received 'a better covenant.' If we can't include our own children, as could the Jews of old, how is this covenant so much 'better?' I WANT my children included.......

I mean clearly, people might have differing interpretations, but these strike me as very sound reasons for infant baptism.

[Floatingaxe]

No problem.

But you see, what you are doing is basing salvation on 'reasoning power' within the person being witnessed to. That's why I ask: Are we saved in the physical organ called a 'brain' or are we saved in our spirit?

I find it very hard to believe that the spirit cannot understand, just because a brain is not yet discerning or developed enough to intellectually comprehend. It is on this basis of thought that I have witnessed to mentally ill people, to retarded people, and to comatose people. I believe we are reaching people's spirits not their brains.

Further, if we look at circumcision (and Paul even likens Christian baptism to circumcision), we find that the baby had no choice. The parents made the decision whether the child was to be included in YHWH's covenant or not. Later, as an adult, the child might make up his mind against YHWH; they might abnegate the covenant for themselves, but when young, THEIR PARENTS MADE THE DECISION FOR THEM, and YHWH considered them as members of His Covenant Community.

Paul tells us we have received 'a better covenant.' If we can't include our own children, as could the Jews of old, how is this covenant so much 'better?' I WANT my children included.......

I mean clearly, people might have differing interpretations, but these strike me as very sound reasons for infant baptism.

Reasons for you, maybe, but there is no teaching in the Word about infant baptism. We do need to have some reasoning in order to repent of sin.

I am glad that you speak the gospel message to the mentally ill, mentally challenged and comatose. We are to do these things, yes--to the conscious, we adapt the message so they can reason it. To the comatose, I rely on prayer, asking the Holy Spirit to speak to the spirit of that person. Who knows what joys are going on between the Holy Spirit and that person's spirit that we cannot ever be aware of!

As far as children and babies, we ned to dedicate them to the Lord, dedicate ourselves to the training up that child in the way he should go! That way, the child will come early in life to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and become baptized.

One needs to be first convicted of sin: Acts 2:37..."When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

One needs to come to repentance: Acts 2:38..."Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

One needs to embrace the Word: Acts 2:41..."Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."

One needs to have faith: Mark 16:16..."Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

One needs to make confession of Christ: Acts 8:36-38..."As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him."

Salvation obviously is the criteria, and all the above excludes an infant. According to Acts 2:41 as quoted above, the (optimum) time for baptism is upon the time of belief..a baby cannot possibly comply with that.

[HAZARD]

"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God..... Ye do therefore greatly err."

"Search the Scriptures...."

________________________________________________________________________

Dear Leonard,

You are, as usual, way off base.

In Matthew 22:29, Jesus is answering the Sadducees question regarding marrying more than one woman., and has nothing at all to do with baptism, or even infant baptism.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Your personall addition to this Scripture; "Ye do therefore greatly err." does not exist. You have added to the Word.

Maybe it is you who should "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39).

And quoting Leonard again,

""And they were ALL baptized.....in the sea, and under the cloud.........."

.

This Scripture has nothing to do with infant baptism either. It speaks of Israel passing through the Red Sea, under the Cloud, which was a sign that God was with them. The passing trough the Red sea was a "Type" of baptism. Paul here was speaking of "All our fathers," being baptized "Under Moses."

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthinas 10:1-2,

"Moreover, bretheren, I would not that ye be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Mozes in the cloud and in the sea;"

All our fathers, who were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, being baptized under Moses, in the Old Testament, has nothing to do with infant baptism, and especially nothing to do with adults who have reached the age of reason and personally choosing to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, since Jesus's death and resurrection in the New Testament gospel.

Here's a couple for you to think on O Great Quoter of Scripture's of no revelence to the subject being debated.

The devil steals the Word of God from some people lest they should believe it (Matt. 13:19; Luke 8:12). He also causes diversions and blinds men to the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4).

Hazard, dear fellow:

Please don't lecture me about 'context.' You're just not that good yet.

First of all, the words of Jesus to the Saducees which I quoted, ALMOST matches the context you state. You made just one minor error there: The context is not 'marrying more than one woman' as you state, but the (probably hypothetical) case of a woman marrying multiple men. And of course, the REAL context lies in the dispute over the resurrection of the dead, and the greater context of the Jerusalem authorities' growing resistance to His Ministry. But His words here are certainly not directly related to just that context. Indeed, they are related more broadly to the simple context of a response to anyone who seems to be missing out on some important point in the Scripture. I used the words of Jesus as a simple directive to such persons, and as an introduction to next thought, which was simply: 'Search the Scriptures.' As for the objection that the phrase 'Ye do therefore greatly err' was me 'adding to' the Word, I direct your attention to the 2nd Synoptic Gospel; that of Mark.

As the pericope appears in the 12th chapter of the Marcan Gospel, the longer quote of Jesus is given. And the phrase does indeed occur at verse 27. You see, I do 'search the Scriptures', and my exhortation to others to also form this most salubrious habit of life, still stands. It would seem that we have come to a point of very strong agreement here at least: We BOTH firmly believe in seaching the life-giving Word. It appears I was not 'off base' at all, simply better grounded in the Scriptures than are those who think I'm the devil incarnate!

How can you possibly claim I Corinthians 10:1-2 has 'nothing' to do with infant baptism? Paul uses the very word 'baptism' and says they were 'all' baptized. So it is clear that the Hebrew infants among them were part of the 'all', unless you believe there was not a single baby among all the people; and I think that would be quite an extraoradinary thing to believe.

Indeed the literary pericope begins in chapter 9, about verse 23 if I recall, where Paul talks about how he strives as in a race, lest he himself should end up a 'castaway.' The pericope from 9:23 to at least 10:12, is a powerful warning to Christians themselves, against various forms of sinning. If in the context of speaking directly to baptized Christians, Paul uses the VERY WORD 'baptized', and applies it to the Jews 'saved' out of Egypt (this is clearly his intent and meaning), then unless Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians the TRUTH, he is presenting a lie! He tells the Corinthians, "Look, these people were 'saved.' They were 'baptized.' and yet, due to their obstinacy in sin, they were lost!" Now unless that 'baptism' of Israel, was something QUITE REAL, then Paul was just putting a bondage of fear on people. So you tell me: Was Paul lying?

Friend; you are more than welcome to discuss with me the meaning of the Scriptures. You are more than welcome to disagree with me, and show me why you disagree. But I must object a wee bit here on two accounts, to wit: First you accuse me of 'adding to the Word...' And above I clearly demonstrated I did not; you just seemed to be unaware that there are four (4) Gospels. Secondly, you exhort me to 'consider' this:

"The devil steals the Word of God from some people lest they should believe it (Matt. 13:19; Luke 8:12). He also causes diversions and blinds men to the gospel (2 Cor. 4:4)."

I have 'considered' it. Since I fully quoted the word of God in Mark 12, and you tried to 'steal the Word of God from some people' by pretending Mark 12:27 didn't exist, MAYBE THAT SHOE BELONGS ON YOUR OWN FOOT! I don't actually believe this of you, of course, but I encourage you to have a care when you are tempted to toss accusations about. Again: You're just not that good yet.

I know it was painful, but your Remedial Bible Lesson for the evening is over now. Lick your wounds, remembering all the while that 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend' and when you are sufficiently humbled and gracious, I will teach you further, 'grasshopper'.

___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Leonard.

This is what I meant;

"Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God....." Is quoting Matt. 22:29. "Ye do therefore greatly err," is quoting Mark 12:27. Since when does one mix two Scriptures which cover two entirely different topics? I merley pointed out that the Scripture, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God," and, "Ye do therfore greatly err" is not one scripture, and it as one scripture, does not exist. Therefore it cannot be used as one scripture to make any point regarding any doctrin.

I admit I truly am "not just that good yet," nor ever will be, and I also gladly admit I am no where near as good as you in citing Scripture? I humbly admit you are very wise and I am impressed with your great knowledge of the Scriptures.

With your understanding and knowledge of the Scriptires you would therefore know just how impressed Jesus was with the wise, and what Jesus said about the wise and prudent.

Jesus said this of the wise and prudent in Matt. 13:10-17. "This peoples heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt. 13:10-17).

I read these scriptures some time ago and I am sure you know them as well; "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things:

and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."

"Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment" (Matt. 12:35-36).

My Bible knowledge is limited and I am learning every day.

I believe that infant baptism is not taught in Scripture. I cannot find one word that mentions any such practice. On the contrary, it is clear from Scripture that baptism is only after men have repented and have been born again by the Spirit of God.

Infants are not lost due to the fact that they are not old enough to be responsible for sin and therefore could not repent of known sins. They therefore cannot be fit candidates for water baptism which is a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and a testimony to the world that the individual has been saved from a life of sin and that he is walking in newness of life.

Only personal disciples and followers of Jesus Christ were commanded to be baptized (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38-39).

Quote Leonard:

"I know it was painful, but your Remedial Bible Lesson for the evening is over now. Lick your wounds, remembering all the while that 'Faithful are the wounds of a friend' and when you are sufficiently humbled and gracious, I will teach you further, 'grasshopper'.

and

"We BOTH firmly believe in seaching the life-giving Word. It appears I was not 'off base' at all, simply better grounded in the Scriptures than are those who think I'm the devil incarnate!

.

I admit I can be just as big a smart-a.r.s. as the next, but I do try not to lord over anyone by coming straight out and telling them I am simply better grounded in the Scriptures than they are, and that they are not yet as wise as I think I am. You see, the trouble with putting both feet in your mouth is, you then don't have a leg to stand on.

Infant baptism is not Scriptural.

___________________________________________________________________________

[Anne]

okay then,

are all boxing gloves put away?

Well i hope they are because i have a question, and am quite glad the OP brought the subject up.

If a christian who wants to be baptised, finds that there is never an opportunity to be so, even though it is something they are driven towards, and the christian churches are adamant that you should be a member of their church for X amount of time. What is the answer?