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

[Petar]

Uhh I don't think crapping your diaper as a baby is a sin. I think you'd have a hard time trying to make a case for that by using the Bible.

The point is that all of this dogma is stupid. Any belief system that makes you look at babies like possible capital offenders is ridiculous. I've "contributed" to this thread enough. Don't wanna fight about it.

 

[Theocrat]

Appealing to Scriptural Evidence

A baptised baby has no sin. They are unable to commit any personal sin due to their lack of understanding, and since baptism cleanses the soul of original sin, they are in a state of sinlessness.

With regards to an unbaptised baby, I would trust in God's infinite mercy and hope they are saved, but we have no assurance of that.

Once again, where is that taught in the Bible?

 

[jmdrake]

Jmdrake, where in Scripture does it teach that babies never sin? If you are affirming that, then you are putting babies in the same category as Jesus Christ, Who was sinless on this Earth.

I didn't know this thread had been bumped. But the Bible defines sin as transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4) Sin is not imputed where there is no law. (Romans 5:13); Those who know to do right and don't do it have sinned. (James 4:17). Under what definition of sin as defined by the Bible do you declare newborns to have sinned?

As for your "Are you saying babies are like Jesus" straw man argument, do you believe that the angels who live in the presence of God and have never sinned are like Jesus? How about Adam and Eve prior to sinning? How about Lucifer prior to sinning?

 

[Christian Liberty]

The Bible says that all without the law will be judged without the law. Their lack of the law is not an excuse.

 

[eduardo89]

I didn't know this thread had been bumped. But the Bible defines sin as transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4) Sin is not imputed where there is no law. (Romans 5:13); Those who know to do right and don't do it have sinned. (James 4:17). Under what definition of sin as defined by the Bible do you declare newborns to have sinned?

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:

Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.

 

[erowe1]

a baby has no personal sin, it cannot possibly do so for he does not understand the concepts of right and wrong

How do you know this?

 

[eduardo89]

How do you know this?

Because a baby does not have the capacity to reason.

 

[erowe1]

Because a baby does not have the capacity to reason.

1) How do you know that?

2) How much reasoning is really needed to know about right and wrong?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Once again, where is that taught in the Bible?

Infant baptism has been an Orthodox tradition from the beginning. http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html

 

[erowe1]

Infant baptism has been an Orthodox tradition from the beginning. http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html

Beginning of what?

 

[eduardo89]

Infant baptism has been an Orthodox tradition from the beginning. http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html

Infant baptism goes to the earliest days of the Church:

Paul alludes to infant baptism when he tells us that baptism replaces circumcision (Colossians 2:11). This is why the early Christians baptized infants on the eighth day after birth. The eighth day after birth is when Jewish boys were circumcised. Those who contend that infants shouldn’t be baptized have a faulty understanding of what baptism is. With baptism there is an infusion of grace, grace is what enables a child being raised in the faith to understand his or her need for God.

The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject.

Luke 18:15–16 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me
. . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God."

When Baptists speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be "brought" to him. Even Baptists don’t claim their practice of "dedicating" babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism.

Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:38–39).

The apostolic Church baptized whole "households" (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14).

Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be "brought to Christ" in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism.

Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but "aptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21).

The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly
upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:2–3.)

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus’ writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that time—Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

Irenaeus

He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V

"It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Beginning of what?

The beginning of the Orthodox Church. (capital C) There's plenty of interesting info for you on the subject of infant baptism at the link I provided previously.

 

[erowe1]

The beginning of the Orthodox Church. (capital C) There's plenty of interesting info for you on the subject of infant baptism at the link I provided previously.

OK. I could go along with that. I'm not sure at what exact point in history to put the beginning of something that resembles what Eastern Orthodox Christians consider the "Church" (capital C), but since nothing like it existed until centuries after Jesus, it's safe to say that infant baptism was going on by then.

The info in the link didn't include any evidence of infant baptism happening earlier than the third century AD. As far as I can tell, that's about when the practice began.

 

[Theocrat]

Not Exactly What I Was Asking For...

Infant baptism has been an Orthodox tradition from the beginning. http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/InfantBaptism.html

I'm not asking where is infant baptism taught in the Scriptures. I actually believe that the Bible teaches infant baptism. I was asking where does the Bible teach that baptized babies have no sin. The fact that a baby is called to be baptized assumes that the baby has sin, and therefore, he needs a spiritual and ceremonial washing as a sign of that. Think about it.

Also, if all babies are without sin, then what makes a baptized baby any more immaculate than an unbaptized one? In other words, what need is there for baptism to be applied to any baby?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not asking where is infant baptism taught in the Scriptures. I actually believe that the Bible teaches infant baptism. I was asking where does the Bible teach that baptized babies have no sin. The fact that a baby is called to be baptized assumes that the baby has sin, and therefore, he needs a spiritual and ceremonial washing as a sign of that. Think about it.

Also, if all babies are without sin, then what makes a baptized baby any more immaculate than an unbaptized one? In other words, what need is there for baptism to be applied to any baby?

Oops...internet fail. :o AFAIK, the bible does not say that baptized babies have no sin.

 

[eduardo89]

Oops...internet fail. :o AFAIK, the bible does not say that baptized babies have no sin.

Through baptism we are born again in Christ, so for that moment we are without sin. Baptism forgives all sins and we are born anew. We do, however, continue to sin after baptism, which is why Christ instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[TER]

Infant Baptism has been practiced from the beginning of the Christain Church. What actually is innovative is the idea started by Zwingli and his followers in the 16th century and proposed in the 18th century in a new doctrine and tradition that a person must be able to profess the faith in order to be baptized. As if the power and grace of Baptism is from the initiate and not from God! This notion that baptism is merely a sign is a fruit of modern Protestantism. Baptism is a regeneration, a real mystery of transfiguration into the death and life of Christ. It is not merely a sign but the work of the Holy Spirit. How rich the irony that those Christians who besmirch any works of totally depraved men need those same men to verbally profess faith in Christ in order for the grace of God to be active in Holy Baptism!

Indeed, the new covenant in Christ was for all, including the children. Far be it that Christ would reject the children. That definitely is not the Christ I worship. And for those whose entire faith and knowledge of the truth extend merely to the words written down in the Holy Scriptures while ignoring the Holy Spirit in the teachings and traditions and life of the Church, we read in the New Testament how entire households were baptized.

The fact is, infant and childhood baptisms were not the exception, they were the norm until the third century when due to political pressures and corruption within the Church, many began to delay baptism until old in age or in their deathbed. Even then, the vast vast vast majority of the Church spread across continents practiced infant baptism. This was not an innovation in the third century. It was the practice performed everywhere across the known Christian world at that time. It was the common tradition passed down by the Apostles and not once does this ever become an issue in the Church or needed to be proclaimed in a council. Councils deliberated on much more smaller topics, would not such a controversy as this have not caused an uproar if other cities and nations practiced differently? Surely such a debate would have sprouted up! But it never did. Because every church and every community of Christians practiced it. The plain fact is that infant baptism corresponds with the ancient faith which was handed down by the Apostles. Those who deny infant baptism in fact teach innovative doctrines.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Regarding the "And their whole household" bit.

That passage also says "The whole household rejoiced with them."

Were the infants rejoicing? If not, this is a non-argument.

 

[eduardo89]

Regarding the "And their whole household" bit.

That passage also says "The whole household rejoiced with them."

Were the infants rejoicing? If not, this is a non-argument.

Read the passages:

And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.

And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Regardless of what you wish to interpret those passages as, infant baptism has been the norm since the first day of the Church. I know for you baptism means something completely different, especially considering you say you were baptised twice...

 

[TER]

Regarding the "And their whole household" bit.

That passage also says "The whole household rejoiced with them."

Were the infants rejoicing? If not, this is a non-argument.

Were the children rejoicing?