Calvinists: Defend your idea that God burns babies in hell forever

[erowe1]

Most likely wishful thinking on his part.

I wouldn't even say that.

I could say something similar about myself. I was raised in a Christian home, believing in and being taught to live according to the Bible, since infancy. I know from scripture that I was dead in my sins, and that there had to be some point in my life when I went from that state to salvation. But I don't know exactly when that was. It might have been when I was 6 and I prayed a prayer to the effect that I wanted to turn from my sins and give my life to Christ. But I don't see any reason to postpone this moment of salvation until my baptism at the age of 12. Justin could be talking about people like me. There's nothing stopping someone who has a view of baptism like mine from saying what he said. The fact that Justin makes no mention of baptism in that context precludes me from seeing it as evidence for any practice of baptism. And the places that he does mention baptism don't fit with baptizing newborns.

Also, legal infancy in the Roman empire went up to the age of 7. So Justin may be saying that they were disciples since some nonspecific age younger than that.

Btw, if that part about child baptism in the Traditions of the Apostles is original (which I don't know one way or the other), then this same idea may well be involved. It may not be about merely being able to talk, but being considered old enough to make a vow on your own behalf, and needing an older relative to vouch for you because of that. Looked at this way it's really not that different from what Tertullian says.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I wouldn't even say that.

I could say something similar about myself. I was raised in a Christian home, believing in and being taught to live according to the Bible, since infancy. I know from scripture that I was dead in my sins, and that there had to be some point in my life when I went from that state to salvation. But I don't know exactly when that was. It might have been when I was 6 and I prayed a prayer to the effect that I wanted to turn from my sins and give my life to Christ. But I don't see any reason to postpone this moment of salvation until my baptism at the age of 12. Justin could be talking about people like me. There's nothing stopping someone who has a view of baptism like mine from saying what he said. The fact that Justin makes no mention of baptism in that context precludes me from seeing it as evidence for any practice of baptism. And the places that he does mention baptism don't fit with baptizing newborns.

Also, legal infancy in the Roman empire went up to the age of 7. So Justin may be saying that they were disciples since some nonspecific age younger than that.

Btw, if that part about child baptism in the Traditions of the Apostles is original (which I don't know one way or the other), then this same idea may well be involved. It may not be about merely being able to talk, but being considered old enough to make a vow on your own behalf, and needing an older relative to vouch for you because of that. Looked at this way it's really not that different from what Tertullian says.

That's possible.

 

[TER]

Tertullian died a heretic, so using his opinion that children should be older in order to get baptized should be understood in that light. His suggestion in this matter does not prove anything. And this is why the Church does not depend on the mind of one person, but by consensus.

The reason Tertullian taught such a thing was because the reality in fact was that the churches everywhere did in fact baptize infants. This was the Apostolic practice as proven by how far and wide and ancient its roots were. And not only in northern Africa where he lived, but all over Christendom, in all corners of the known Christian world at that time. What he recommended was an innovation and if anything only further proves that the practice of infant baptism preceded him. Tertullian did not only stray from the apostolic tradition and teachings in this regards, but in other regards as well, which is evident by the fact that he died a heretic.

 

[jmdrake]

We have all inherited original sin. Though a baby has no personal sin, it cannot possibly do so for he does not understand the concepts of right and wrong, that does not mean we have not inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. Read Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and also:

I have, of course, read Romans 5:12-21 because I just quoted Romans 5:13 so that should be obvious! And Romans 5:13 makes it clear that sin is not imputed where there is no law. Yes all men have sinned. (Romans 5:12). There is not a person, other than Jesus, who descended from Adam who makes it to adulthood without sinning. And death applies to all (Romans 5:14) because all are born with an inherited sin nature. That's why everyone sins as soon as he/she is able to sin.

1 Corinthians 15:22? We are all born with a sinful nature and subject to death. I agree. I'm not sure what you are trying to read into that verse.

Ps 51:5 "I was born in sin and shaped in iniquity" is again saying we are all born with a sin nature.

http://ancientroadpublications.com/Studies/BiblicalStudies/Psalm51.5.html
Quote Originally Posted by Psalm 51:5
Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.

Not sure what translation you are using.