Unbaptized babies going to hell?

• jmog

  Glory Days wrote:

  jmog wrote: Baptism is supposed to be an outward showing of your inward change when you believe on Jesus as your savior. Its symbolic, nothing more, nothing less.

  didnt know babies are able to make those decisions.
  
  

  Most churches/denominations don't baptize babies. Most do it once the person has accepted Jesus.
• zambrown

  

  Fly4Fun wrote:

  Websurfinbird wrote: From my understanding many (note not all) of various Christian faiths subscribe to the notion that a person who is not baptized will go to hell. Considering that many of these same folks believe that life begins at conception, would that mean that those fetuses who never make it out of the womb, whether from abortion, miscarriage or otherwise, would be doomed for damnation?
  
  Just something I was wondering about. Thoughts?

  Your people killed baby jebus... you're going to hell.

  
  I hope you were kidding, Fly, otherwise that is kinda harsh.
• buckeyefalls

  Manhattan Buckeye,
  With all due respect, I am a theologian to some degree and catholics, lutherans, presbyterians, some methodists, and many others believe that unbaptized babies go to hell.
  
  I am totally with jmog on this one. Baptism is a symbol of one's faith, not a means towards a reward in heaven.
  

  Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I'm not a theologian, but I'm not aware of any protestant sects that believe this. Certainly not the more traditional protestant churches (methodist, baptist, presbyterian) that you see in Ohio.
  
  I've found that people often misunderstand others' religious beliefs. I had a female roomate a few years ago who grew up in a very traditional catholic family in NJ- catholic schools all the way through elementary school to her MBA. She had some very odd misconceptions about a lot of protestant beliefs.

• Gblock

  homefield wrote: What makes you think there is a heaven or a hell. Maybe when you die everything just goes black and nothing else happens.

  I agree with this....i remember in a college course i took on the bible and they traced the original texts for the bible and were showing some of the words that eventually translated in to "hell" were really meaning
  "Grave"...i think one of the words was Sheol(sp)
• buckeyefalls

  jmog,
  
  Not true (about "most churches.") Most churches do baptize babies:
  
  Catholics
  Lutherans
  Methodists
  Presbyterians
  United church of Christ
  and so on.
  
  These are what many would consider "liberal" churches (but not necessarily for that reason).
  
  Conservative style churches (Baptist, Grace Brethren, etc.) don't baptize babies.
• buckeyefalls

  fan_from_texas - I've always enjoyed reading the "age of accountability" papers. Again, no such thing recorded in Scriptures. However, it does state that ALL men are accountable.
• krambman

  

  buckeyefalls wrote: fan_from_texas - I've always enjoyed reading the "age of accountability" papers. Again, no such thing recorded in Scriptures. However, it does state that ALL men are accountable.

  MEN. Meaning adults. This may mean that anyone under the age of 13 is not accountable since one does not become an adult until age 13 in the Jewish tradition (which Christianity grew out of). Also, whenever salvation and grace are discussed, it is also on the individuals recognition and admittance of sin, their desire for forgiveness, and acceptance of faith. And infant has not committed any sin (a still-born or aborted fetus certainly has not sinned), nor do they have the ability to recognize their sin, ask for forgiveness, and accept God's grace.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  My uncle is a United Methodist minister, to my knowledge there has never been a baby baptized or christened in any of his churches.
  
  My wife was sort of raised Episcopalian (and that was the nature of our wedding service), she was christened, but it didn't have anything to do with the idea that she would go to hell otherwise, if so they wouldn't have waited until she was a couple of years old to have the ceremony. I grew up in southeast Ohio where religion (and guns) is a way of life. I've absolutely never been to any protestant church that baptized babies.
  
  I really, really doubt that most (and certainly not most protestant) christians believe that unbaptized babies are bound for some sort of eternal damnation. If that was the case people wouldn't have sex for fear that something bad might happen to their miscarried off-spring.
• fan_from_texas

  Virtually no evangelicals practice infant baptism. Catholics/Lutherans and a handful of mainline protestant denominations do, but they're not unified on the salvific effects. Many evangelicals will do a baby dedication (promising to raise the child in the church, etc.) and then follow that up with a profession of faith + baptism sometime in early elementary (about the age of accountability). On the other end of the spectrum, we see an infant baptism followed up by confirmation around one of the ages of accountability. Each group does it slightly different, but the general theme is that you do something at the beginning of life that involves the community of believers, and then confirm that with something between the ages of 8 and 13 that signifies a choice.
  
  I would say that only a very small minority of Christians believe in the salvific nature of baptism and perform infant baptisms for those purposes. That's certainly not the "orthodox" Christian view.
  
  Age of accountability/previnient grace--Deu. 1.39 and Isa. 7.16 make clear that at certain ages, kids don't know right from wrong. That's the easy part. The difficult part is reconciling that with Rom. 6/sin nature/inevitability of sin. It isn't clear-cut that God holds 2 year olds accountable for their sins as 2 year olds (or more accurately, whether 2 year olds have the capacity to sin), particularly when considering biblical examples of God sparing children certain judgments because of their age.
  
  One convenient answer for this (that has been rejected by the church) is the Pelagian heresy. It's too involved to jump into here, but I personally have certain sympathies with his approach, though I'm not entirely on board with everything.
• krambman

  

  I figured that as a baptist, the son of a baptist pastor, and someone who majored in biblical studies in college, I could give a little historical context to Christian baptism.
  
  The word baptize comes from the Greek and literally means to immerse in water. The Christian practice grew out of the Jewish practice of ceremonial cleansing. All over Israel there are ancient mikvahs, or ceremonial baths. John 5 records the tale of an invalid man who waited his whole life by a mikvah so that he could go into the pool when an angel stirred the waters so that he could be healed. John began baptizing people in the Jordan river as an outward expression of an inward admission of sin and plea for forgiveness. Jesus himself was baptized by John before being led into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3). This is considered the start of Jesus public ministry.
  
  Jesus himself talked about baptism and its importance, and in his final words to his disciples before ascending into heaven he commissioned them to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20 NIV, italics added). All through the New Testament we see instances where new converts to Christianity are baptized. Even in the very early days of the church some believed that baptism was necessary for salvation while others believed that it was only a symbol, and that the internal change is what really mattered. While the complete meaning of baptism may not have been agreed upon, all early Christians did agree that new converts should be baptized.
  
  Baptism is the most basic and widely used ritual of initiation in Christianity, and has been since the earliest days of the church. all religions, in fact, almost any group, has some ritual of initiation for new member. Christianity is no different, and baptism serves as that initiation rite. In the earliest days of the church, most baptisms were done on Easter morning and done in the nude after a convert had gone through a year long catechism, where they would learn about the beliefs and doctrines of the church. In this early period of the church baptism was also a full immersion. As more and more people began to convert to Christianity the period of catechism was shortened and baptism became more frequent. Most Christian churches did not begin baptizing babies until around AD 300, when Constantine became emperor in Rome and stopped the persecution of Christians, making Christianity legal (he never actually declared it the state religion of Rome). At this point there was a flood of new converts to Christianity. Since it was common doctrine that baptism was at least necessary to be initiated into the church (even if not necessary for salvation) churches began baptizing infants, and catechism now came after baptism, instead of before. This eventually led to the modern practice of Confirmation when a young person chooses to accept their baptism and take responsibility for their faith, which had previously been their parent's responsibility (pedo-baptism is based on the faith of the parents and sponsors).
  
  From about AD 300 on infants were being baptized regularly, but still by immersion. It wasn't until the Middle Ages when there was a water shortage that the practice of sprinkling became widely used. Even from that point on there were still sects of Christianity that practiced whole body immersion (the Orthodox Church which baptizes infants has always practiced immersion). When the Reformation happened, a sect of Christians broke off from the Catholic church and began practicing baptism by immersion of adults based on their profession of faith. This group was known as Anabaptists, or re-baptizers. Conrad Grebel (a contemporary of Luther, Clavin, and Zwingli) was the primary reformer to institute adult baptism by immersion. Eventually Anabaptist was just changed to Baptist (because it was no longer former Catholics who had been baptized as infants being baptized again as adults). Other Protestant groups also began to practice adult baptism by immersion (some denominations like the church of the Nazarene practice both infant and adult baptism). Since ca. AD 1500, there has been a split between Christian churches which practice infant baptism and those that practice adult baptism.
  
  In almost all churches that practice infant baptism there is a moment of Confirmation later in life where the baptized individual take the mantle of faith upon themselves and accepts their baptism. In churches where adult baptism is practiced, baby dedications are often practiced where the parents, family, and entire church will dedicate themselves to raising the child in a biblical manner and introducing them to the Christian faith. While this is called a baby dedication, it is not really the baby being dedicated, but rather the family dedicating themselves to their faith and their child. Their conformation comes later in life when they choose to accept Christ as their savior and are baptized accordingly.
  
  Most denominations that practice pedo-baptism (especially Catholics) recognize the doctrine of Original Sin. This doctrine states that all humans are guilty of sin and therefore sentenced to death from the moment of conception because of the original sin of Adam and Eve. They believe that the condemnation of sin is passed to the child from the parent. This is what makes baptism necessary for the infant. The child is baptized and their original sin is forgiven based on the faith of their parents and sponsors. Any sins they commit in their lifetime are then forgiven when they personally recognize Christ as their savior and accept their baptism at the age of accountability (this is Confirmation, although the personal faith may come earlier). This is where the idea that unbaptized babies would go to hell comes from. Most churches that practice adult baptism reject the doctrine of Original Sin and believe that you are only accountable for the sins that you commit personally. This is why they believe that infants or aborted fetuses will still go to heaven because they have not lived long enough to commit any sins (hence the age of accountability, when a person becomes capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong). Of course these are the official doctrines of these denominations, but that does not necessarily mean that all member agree (i.e. not all confirmed and practicing Catholics agree with the doctrine or Original Sin even though it is the official doctrine of the church).
  
  I hope that this has shed some light on the different practices of baptism in the Christian church and the various doctrines behind them.
• buckeyefalls

  United Church of Christ and Lutherans DEFINITELY baptize babies. While we don't believe they are saved, I know it to be a fact. I also know many Methodist churches that baptize babies. Manhattan Buckeye, perhaps they don't have any babies to "baptize?" just a thought, but I can assure you that UMC's do baptize infants as well.
  
  The word "men" was not "men" as we know it, it was mankind. The original Greek applies it to "all" men, women, boys, girls, etc.
• buckeyefalls

  Thanks for all that information but my eyes can't stand reading huge articles on here. lol.
  
  I went to a Baptist College & seminary and you are right on with most of what was written, though I can't speak for the rest as my eyes don't like to read that much... lol.
• visionquest

  Well, I'm buddhist....and I love you all! And, babies are babies, so they do baby things. They don't care about hell. Besides, they'll come back as something else anyway.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  His church has a regular attendance of about 250, so yeah, they have babies. Up and to about 4 or 5 years ago they didn't even have a baptistry in their facility. If you wanted to be baptized you did it the old fashioned way. I don't think too many parents were keen on going to the creek with an infant, particularly in the winter.
  
  I don't even understand the point of it for Methodists (at least in the churches I attended). It isn't as if the minister has some sort of ability to bless water - the concept of holy water just isn't there. Any gesture would only be symblolic. Heck, my wife's christening was symbolic, and so was her sister's - and she was 4 years old when she had her christening, I was there!
• power i

  

  j_crazy wrote: only if you're a Jehovah's witness and the baby is catholic, otherwise they go to heaven.

  This. When I was a little kid, the lady next door babysat me. Her son's family was in a car accident and 3 of their kids were killed, all under the age of 6. A Jehovah's Witness came a knockin' and during the course of their conversation told her that the babies were in hell. Not something you want to say to a grieving Grandma with a mouth like a trucker.
• Websurfinbird

  

  krambman wrote:
  
  All over Israel there are ancient mikvahs, or ceremonial baths.
  

  There are still functional mikvahs in Israel and in Jewish communities around the world. In orthodox Jewish circles married women are supposed to visit the mikveh every month after her menstrual cycle is completed in order to become spiritually "pure." This is not something I plan to do, but I do intend on fulfilling the custom of visiting the mikvah before my wedding this fall.
• Con_Alma

  From a Luthean Pastor....
  
  Jesus Himself instituted Baptism.
  
  The only question here relates to the terminology, "the Sacrament of Holy Baptism." What is meant by "sacrament" is "a means of grace," that is, that Baptism actually accomplishes something for or in the person's soul. This is nowhere taught in the Bible, but quite to the contrary. Baptism (by the way, never in the Bible is it called "Holy Baptism"; it is a relic of Roman Catholic tradition), like the Lord's Supper is merely a symbolic rite which sets forth a basic, central truth of the Christian faith. It has great symbolic significance and is necessary as a step of obedience to Christ's command, but it is never said to be a means to acquire grace. It will issue in blessing as does every act of obedience, but it is not sacramental.
  
  "To baptize" means to following:
  
  To begin with, the Greek term is not babtizo but baptizo. (I suppose this could be a typographical error on their part, but I rather think it is indicative of something else!) Baptizo properly means "to dip, plunge, or immerse." This is the definition which is consistently given in all Greek dictionaries. In secular Greek the word is used of warships being "baptized" at sea and the like. Obviously, that is not "pouring" or "washing." By the way, the Greek does have other words which mean pouring and sprinkling [ ekcheo and rantizo] which the New Testament writers could well have used if that is what they intended. But these words never appear in connection with baptism. The word sometimes took on another meaning, namely, "to dye," because in the ancient world they would dip a cloth into the dye to get the desired color. The word can be used to describe a "washing," but that is not the meaning of the word itself. The pamphlet says, To baptize simply means to apply water in any manner, whether there be a few drops of water or rivers of water. That definition is necessary for the Lutheran practice to be true, but it is impossible to support from any Greek lexicon; there is no evidence whatever to back it up; it is an assertion which can never be proved. A. T. Robertson, on anyone's scale one of the greatest Greek scholars America ever produced, went so far as to say that he questioned either the honesty or the scholarship of anyone who said that baptizo meant anything other than "to dip, plunge, or immerse." Martin Luther himself wrote, "On this account . . . I could wish that such as are to be baptized should be completely immersed into the water, according to the meaning of the word, and to the significance of the ordinance, not because I think it necessary, but because it would be beautiful to have a full and perfect sign of so perfect a thing; as also, without doubt, it was instituted by Christ" ( Luther's Works, 1551 edition, Vol. 2, p.76). John Calvin wrote that ". . . it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church" ( Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XV, Paragraph 19). The famous Presbyterian church historian, Philip Schaff, wrote, "Immersion and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, normal form of baptism. Immersion shows the very meaning of the Greek word baptize" ( History of the Apostolic Church, p. 568). John Wall, an Episcopalian, wrote, "Immersion was in all probability the way in which our blessed Savior was baptized, and certainly the most used way of baptism" ( History of Infant Baptism, Vol. 1, page 571). These confessions are significant coming men who practiced sprinkling! Further, it can be demonstrated that baptism was administered by immersion (predominantly) for at least the first thirteen centuries of the church. Understandably so, for if the word itself means "to dip or immerse," then when Jesus said "Go ye therefore and baptize" we don't expect to find the disciples raising their hands and asking "by what mode?" It would be like asking "What method of immersing do you prefer?" The pamphlet argues that "we dare not insist that one particular method must be used" and that the Lord did "not specify the mode." But how many methods or modes of immersion can there be?
  
  To the Greek mind, "John the Baptist (baptizer)" meant "John the immerser," not "John the washer" or "John the sprinkler." It may be interesting to you to know that even today the Greek Catholic church immerses. They understand well the meaning of their word baptizo.
  
  It is clear to anyone willing to accept the plain meaning of words that "baptism" is "immersion." Whatever else may be said of the practice of sprinkling or pouring, it cannot be rightly called a "baptism."
  
  As you can tell by looking at the word, "baptize" is only an English transliteration of the Greek baptizo; it is not a translation. The translators of the King James Version, in 1611, did not want to offend the King or be factious in their new work, so they left the word untranslated for us to understand it however we wish.
  
  
  
  Baptism is generally administered by a pastor, but the Bible never says that they only may do it.
  
  Baptism does not provide some saving merit, but throughout the Bible, of course, the whole point of salvation is that it is never granted on the basis of anything a man does or could ever do; it is only a gift of God's grace. To offer salvation on the basis of any works (whether the circumcision of the Judaizers in the early days of the church or the so-called "baptism" of "churches" today) is to contradict the gospel itself. (More of this in question #6).
  
  With a proper understanding of the meaning of the word "baptize," the next sentence here becomes absurd: ". . . pour or sprinkle water on the head of the person and say, 'I immerse you. . . .'"
  
  regarding who should be baptized...
  
  The answer is "Christ commands us to baptize all people everywhere, all human beings, without any distinction of sex or age. All need to be born again" and cites Matthew 28:19 as proof. Matthew 28:19 reads, "Go ye therefore and teach ("disciple") all nations, baptizing THEM in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The question is simply, to whom does the "them" refer? The answer is as obvious: the "them" refers to those in all nations who are taught (discipled). In other words, baptism is not to be administered indiscriminately but only for believers. This is the consistent teaching of the New Testament. For example, when the Ethiopian became a believer, he said, "'See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?' And Philip said, 'IF THOU BELIEVEST with all thine heart thou mayest'" (Acts 8:37-38). In Acts 2:41 it was those who "gladly received the word" of the apostles who were baptized. Only believers may be baptized.
  
  Furthermore, there is not the slightest hint in the New Testament that an infant was ever baptized. Not one line of evidence can be given. Not one. And the reason is obvious--the subjects of baptism are believers! That, of course, excludes infants, who obviously cannot even understand, let alone believe.
  
  Again in this answer as well the false doctrine of works-salvation creeps up: "All need to be born again." Never does the New Testament anywhere say that baptism is the means of the new birth! And again, to teach such a thing is to invite a curse (Galatians 1:8).
  
  So ...why should infants be baptized?
  
  This question is answered above and will be again but it is interesting to see their attempted defense of supposed infant belief. Basic to belief of anything is an understanding of it. To just assert that infants can believe or that God gives them faith through baptism is to say something Scripture never does--never. Baptism is for those who have faith; it does not give faith. I am always amazed that these teachers consistently appeal to Mark 10:13-16. In this passage Jesus blesses the children, but there is not even a hint of baptism! Furthermore, these are children, not infants. The theory rests on assumptions and theological reasonings which cannot be supported with any text of Scripture.
  
  What are the benefits of Baptism?
  
  Here the discussion becomes very serious. To claim that baptism (or circumcision, or church membership, or confirmation, or helping little old ladies across the street, or any other work) can actually "bring the sinner into union with the Savior, give forgiveness of sins, bring salvation, new birth and new life . . . regenerate . . . create saving faith" is a denial of the gospel of grace. It strikes at the very heart of Christianity itself. Throughout the books of Romans and Galatians especially, Paul goes to every length to show that anyone who teaches that salvation comes by any means but through faith alone by grace alone is a false teacher and is himself excluded from the pale of salvation. In Galatians 1 Paul is very dramatic to make the point: "whether it is I or even an angel from heaven--if anyone should teach you any different, let him be accursed!" (see verses 6-9; no wonder in verse 10 he says he is not writing to please men!). Make no mistake about this--this affects your eternal soul--if you (or I or any man) are resting your salvation on a few drops of water--or an ocean of water, for that matter--you are lost. God has set the terms--by grace alone, through faith alone; to add anything at all is to refuse it. God requires that we trust Jesus Christ and Him only to save. He requires that we come to Him boasting of no works whatever (Ephesians 2:8-9).
  
  Baptism has never saved anyone and never will. Faith is the appropriating instrument in salvation, not baptism or any work. See Ephesians 2:8-9. Anything else added is what Peter calls "damnable heresy" (II Peter 2:1), for to believe it is to be condemned. This is not a question of what mode or how much water; this is a question of salvation itself. I do hope you do not believe what is in that pamphlet and are not relying on your "baptism" to save you. Anyone who teaches such a thing has turned from the very basic truth of the Christian gospel--grace.
  
  How can water do such great things?
  
  Of course, the answer is that it can't. The Word of God is powerful to effect a change in man, but this is never connected with baptism in the New Testament. No verse of Scripture can be found to teach it. Again, this is a vestige of Roman Catholic theology which simply cannot be supported from Scripture.
  
  Can anyone be saved without being baptized?
  
  I am glad that they don't insist on baptism for salvation in every case, but notice that they continue to say that it is the normal means. The question itself assumes that people are normally saved through works (baptism), and it has been said that one who denies baptism is lost! That is as clear a statement of salvation by works which can be made; it is an addition to the gospel. Again, Paul's point in Romans 11:6 is that it is either grace or works; it is impossible to speak of both.
  
  What is the significance of baptism?
  
  The answer given to this question only builds on the error begun earlier. It actually says that "baptism forms a union between a man and his Savior" and that it is "the cause of salvation." This is again a denial of salvation by grace. It is interesting that again these teachers are forced to cite verses which say nothing resembling the answer given.
  
  Baptism, as I said earlier, is merely a symbolic rite which sets forth central truths of the Christian faith. It is a memorial, a symbol, and never is it said to be any more (anything more would be in conflict with the gospel). It pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It further pictures our identification with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. It also, then, pictures our cleansing from sin and new life in Christ. But it is a picture, a symbol only, not a means to attaining these things. This is the plain meaning given in the New Testament (See Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12).
  
  It is difficult for me to think of a doctrine which has given more people a false assurance of salvation than the one we call baptism. This is what makes it so awful. If it were only a question of mode or how much water or even whether or not to baptize, it would be bad enough, but when they go so far as to say that the sprinkling saves, it becomes heresy of the most dangerous kind. There are immersionist groups which teach that by being immersed a person is saved; their's is heresy as well. The gospel is one of grace; salvation is received by faith only and that so that it cannot be of works of any kind (Romans 4:16; 11:6).
• darbypitcher22

  

  Sweet.
  
  I'm Fucked.
• CinciX12

  

  I was baptized.
  
  But then I killed that hooker. So oh well.