Soteriology and the error of Infant Condemnation?

[Novatian]

The early church went through much hardship under the pagan emperors. They later invented infant baptism. The belief or uncertainty came about that if an infant or child was not baptized in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that they may miss out on salvation. This led to an error in the understanding of salvation.

1 Timothy 4:10 says God is the saviour of all especially those who believe.

There are teachings on predestiny that God chooses who He will harden and who He will soften and save. They think a fetus or infant or small child that dies may be determined to be condemned at God's whim. This is an error, even if they would have led a sinful life, there is preventative salvation in Christ's blood... And if God gave us the cross, how much more all other things as from Romans 8.

Because the young ones have never learned to hate grace or reject it, and they have that trust Jesus mentioned, grace enables them to stand in eternal life, full of love and truth. They take to it like a fish to water. Living water triggers a strong response in them.

Being born again and sanctified begins as soon as a little one dies. The ancient and medieval teachers fundamentally misunderstood salvation. Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Molin and now the RCC acknowledges this.

We can be certain of infant salvation. Salvation depends on grace and not innocence. The latter helps us receive grace and repentance in the older ones.

 

[Rival]

Being born again and sanctified begins as soon as a little one dies. The ancient and medieval teachers fundamentally misunderstood salvation. Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Molin and now the RCC acknowledges this.

This is rather hubristic thinking, no?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The early church went through much hardship under the pagan emperors. They later invented infant baptism. The belief or uncertainty came about that if an infant or child was not baptized in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that they may miss out on salvation. This led to an error in the understanding of salvation.

That sounds like guesswork or interpolation about the early church such as the bit about inventing infant baptism. There is a lot of missing information about the early churches.

1 Timothy 4:10 says God is the saviour of all especially those who believe.

I do not think this is about universal salvation but is about Timothy's listeners as he reads the scriptures.

"For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." (vs 4-5) That is the 'Saying' which Paul says is trustworthy and which he wants Timothy to repeat. How though are we to interpret the verse you've mentioned which says God is the savior of all and especially those who believe. Why does he differentiate saved and especially saved? They sound like the same thing, but he remarks that there is a difference; but it turns out timothy is a reader. His job is to read the scripture aloud at meetings; and Paul says he must persevere in both his life and doctrine in order to save himself and others. So he perfects his own life, and he reads the scripture for those who cannot read. He is especially saved by this, and they are saved by the gift of the reading. Then Paul is saying that its Ok to get married and to eat and not to be harsh to the body, provided that it is consecrated by this continual reading of scripture and perseverance in life and doctrine. But he says that hypocrites want to impose a strict regimen of no sex, bland food and harsh physical disciplines instead of letting them receive everything God created with thanksgiving.

While discussing this Paul mentions in passing that God is the savior of all and especially...but he is talking about all who are participating in hearing the reading of scripture and persevering in doctrine. Timothy, as the reader, is being especially saved through his efforts while the listeners are being saved by their efforts, too. The 'All' here is not everyone in the world but those who are hearing the reading. This does not exclude infants from having value, but it does exclude the verse from this universal "All babies go to heaven" statement. It isn't intended by Paul to imply something like that. Infants cannot understand scripture like adults can, and the verse does not apply to them.

There are other verses though which point out that children are a gift.

There are teachings on predestiny that God chooses who He will harden and who He will soften and save. They think a fetus or infant or small child that dies may be determined to be condemned at God's whim. This is an error, even if they would have led a sinful life, there is preventative salvation in Christ's blood... And if God gave us the cross, how much more all other things as from Romans 8.

That concept of predestiny sounds like a much later Calvinist kind of idea or one of the newer churches.

Because the young ones have never learned to hate grace or reject it, and they have that trust Jesus mentioned, grace enables them to stand in eternal life, full of love and truth. They take to it like a fish to water. Living water triggers a strong response in them.

Being born again and sanctified begins as soon as a little one dies. The ancient and medieval teachers fundamentally misunderstood salvation. Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Molin and now the RCC acknowledges this.

We can be certain of infant salvation. Salvation depends on grace and not innocence. The latter helps us receive grace and repentance in the older ones.

I think its simple sense that babies are so immature that they cannot be responsible for anything, however it is not so easy to argue what their destination is should they die. Churches have divided over this issue. Resurrection and judgment are complicated in themselves before you add infants into the consideration.

 

[Ebionite]

This is rather hubristic thinking, no?

Paul's doctrine of salvation is based on hubris. It's one of the things which identifies him in prophecy.

Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, [he is] a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and [is] as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:
Habakkuk 2:5

 

[Novatian]

That sounds like guesswork or interpolation about the early church such as the bit about inventing infant baptism. There is a lot of missing information about the early churches.
I do not think this is about universal salvation but is about Timothy's listeners as he reads the scriptures.

"For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." (vs 4-5) That is the 'Saying' which Paul says is trustworthy and which he wants Timothy to repeat. How though are we to interpret the verse you've mentioned which says God is the savior of all and especially those who believe. Why does he differentiate saved and especially saved? They sound like the same thing, but he remarks that there is a difference; but it turns out timothy is a reader. His job is to read the scripture aloud at meetings; and Paul says he must persevere in both his life and doctrine in order to save himself and others. So he perfects his own life, and he reads the scripture for those who cannot read. He is especially saved by this, and they are saved by the gift of the reading. Then Paul is saying that its Ok to get married and to eat and not to be harsh to the body, provided that it is consecrated by this continual reading of scripture and perseverance in life and doctrine. But he says that hypocrites want to impose a strict regimen of no sex, bland food and harsh physical disciplines instead of letting them receive everything God created with thanksgiving.

While discussing this Paul mentions in passing that God is the savior of all and especially...but he is talking about all who are participating in hearing the reading of scripture and persevering in doctrine. Timothy, as the reader, is being especially saved through his efforts while the listeners are being saved by their efforts, too. The 'All' here is not everyone in the world but those who are hearing the reading. This does not exclude infants from having value, but it does exclude the verse from this universal "All babies go to heaven" statement. It isn't intended by Paul to imply something like that. Infants cannot understand scripture like adults can, and the verse does not apply to them.

There are other verses though which point out that children are a gift.


That concept of predestiny sounds like a much later Calvinist kind of idea or one of the newer churches.


I think its simple sense that babies are so immature that they cannot be responsible for anything, however it is not so easy to argue what their destination is should they die. Churches have divided over this issue. Resurrection and judgment are complicated in themselves before you add infants into the consideration.

I believe Paul refers to believers and hearers of his letter and more, because of the cross and resurrection, and angels... there hope for the lost in the far distance of time and space.

But infants who perish, as they do, are innocent and a clean slate. God can use them, reach them and save them in each case. Examples being Jesus' own cousins and, babies who died in Nazi Germany.

I draw on NDE stories which apply to one in twenty of us today and it has been so for one hundred years. All babies, all children who perish, grow up in Heaven. They testify to seeing young grandparents and adults have seen them being raised, who had been aborted in large numbers.

The RCC does not teach of an uncertain fate for infants any longer, not for more than twenty years.

 

[Novatian]

This is rather hubristic thinking, no?

Not hubris, over more than twenty years I have thought through this. As a young man I heard of Limbo for infants who passed away and prayed for mercy on deceased babies. Various teachers were Armenian or Calvinist, the latter never made sense to me. In Bible college I went with Armenius but later after thinking through NDE accounts and the mercy God shows adults and the sighting of multitudes of aborted ones growing up in Heaven and four years olds like Colton Burpo seeing his young granddad in Heaven I altered my soteriology and believe in automatic salvation of infants.

Salvation depends on trust and faith in God's Holy Spirit. Receiving it. Jesus asked from us, child-like trust. He blessed the little ones and said the Kingdom belongs to them. If we have the Kingdom of God in us, there is the great assurance of salvation and these get baptized in water. But even some who have not entered the normal way speak of a second chance in the NDE. Even people resuscitated after suicide. They sometimes go on beyond repentance to become Christian ministers, like Howard Storm.

I am persuaded to be sure of certain infant salvation. Not by their innocence but by trust and grace, infants begin in the Kingdom of God and live. God enables the kind of life in the spirit that goes on forever standing in good order before God. Innocence helps.

In conclusion from Augustine through to Molin, they erred. Also via a Bible college lecturer, I disagree with Augustine's allegorical interpretations of the NT. And prefer St Ephrem of Syria on the fate of those Jesus preacher to in the gloomy dungeons.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe Paul refers to believers and hearers of his letter and more, because of the cross and resurrection, and angels... there hope for the lost in the far distance of time and space.

But infants who perish, as they do, are innocent and a clean slate. God can use them, reach them and save them in each case. Examples being Jesus' own cousins and, babies who died in Nazi Germany.

I draw on NDE stories which apply to one in twenty of us today and it has been so for one hundred years. All babies, all children who perish, grow up in Heaven. They testify to seeing young grandparents and adults have seen them being raised, who had been aborted in large numbers.

The RCC does not teach of an uncertain fate for infants any longer, not for more than twenty years.

For some of us a NDE story is good. It all depends on where we are in our story. If you believe in NDE's I focus on your motivations and turn away from criticism, and I try not to hurt your feelings or act arrogant. Someone in your position should probably just grant that not everyone has the same revelations, because we don't. I can't accept NDE's as evidence. I've never been able to.

 

[Novatian]

My idea is that, if all infants are saved and taken by God when they die and even children, than somethings happens in us as we get older that means some of us do not obtain eternal life. So we start as responders to God's grace, but later in life on Earth, like Pharaoh, we can harden our hearts. It is not God that hardens our hearts. Babies have soft hearts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My idea is that, if all infants are saved and taken by God when they die and even children, than somethings happens in us as we get older that means some of us do not obtain eternal life. So we start as responders to God's grace, but later in life on Earth, like Pharaoh, we can harden our hearts. It is not God that hardens our hearts. Babies have soft hearts.

So there are things in God's creation that are beyond his contol? How could this happen?

Is this because of an oversight on God's part? Or did God want to prevent this from happening byt was thwarted somehow?

 

[PureX]

To me, asking "how do I/we get saved?" only indicates that one is still lost. Because only the lost would ask such a question.

 

[Left Coast]

The RCC does not teach of an uncertain fate for infants any longer, not for more than twenty years.

This is incorrect. The RCC doesn't take a definite position on the fate of anyone's soul other than declared saints.

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." Catechism, paragraph 1261

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe Paul refers to believers and hearers of his letter and more, because of the cross and resurrection, and angels... there hope for the lost in the far distance of time and space.

But infants who perish, as they do, are innocent and a clean slate. God can use them, reach them and save them in each case. Examples being Jesus' own cousins and, babies who died in Nazi Germany.

I draw on NDE stories which apply to one in twenty of us today and it has been so for one hundred years. All babies, all children who perish, grow up in Heaven. They testify to seeing young grandparents and adults have seen them being raised, who had been aborted in large numbers.

The RCC does not teach of an uncertain fate for infants any longer, not for more than twenty years.

I get how this is line of thinking can be appealing: a god who tortures babies would be monstrous.

... however, what you're saying has its own monstrous implication: that the most selfless thing a person can do is to murder a young child.

 

[Novatian]

I get how this is line of thinking can be appealing: a god who tortures babies would be monstrous.

... however, what you're saying has its own monstrous implication: that the most selfless thing a person can do is to murder a young child.

This happened to someone I know. It broke his heart. Atheists ask why is abortion bad if the fetuses go on to a better world anyway? I suppose they don't get to know their parents and earn rewards...

 

[Novatian]

So there are things in God's creation that are beyond his contol? How could this happen?

Is this because of an oversight on God's part? Or did God want to prevent this from happening byt was thwarted somehow?

God allows free will and does not override it by force. You have not because you ask not.

Looking at the fall of the angels of death and the fall of Adam and Eve God tests us. There is Job and the Our Father. Lead us not into temptation. We don't live in a simulation, matter is real and people choose evil, like the terrorists.

In Genesis 6 God regrets making parts of creation and floods them. Later according to Peter Jesus preaches to them in Hell and they are freed and given gifts.

The consequence of real free choice is that some sin. It makes life hard for us. There is temptation and curse, deception and threat. God doesn't want to lose any souls to Hell.

For some reason, we are blinded and cut off from an open Heaven and grace and truth. It is not automatic. Paul in Acts prays for us to have our eyes opened for repentance and finding our place in God's Kingdom.

 

[Novatian]

From the KJV
Hebrews 6:1-12
1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3And this will we do, if God permit. 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 7For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.


9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. 10For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. 11And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: 12That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

Hebrews 10: 26-31
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Our response to God in this life on Earth, depends on faith and patience and asking and service from preachers. And we have guardian angels. Satan is around and idolatry...

God does not predestine some to commit the eternal sin, which involves first giving them the covering in Jesus' sacred blood and living water... saving them, then losing them later. Some persons have committed this sin in the past decades.

It is by faith, trust and obedience that we enter the life in God's great light, and He fully sanctifies us. Two great figures are the two men in white who return shortly before Christ and stand up the one of head of Satan's cohorts, and die, but then are raised to life as from Revelation 11:1-14. After we are glorified, only then do we have complete security to know and have any choice we want but never choose sin, no longer tempted or faulted like the holy angels. And the two men in white will be extraordinarily great.

Here, is opportunity for error, the stakes are real, the rewards all the more great, the opportunity for greatness forever is immense and the best thing anyone can obtain. Suffering leads to more appreciation of latter joys. And many lost coins as from the Gospel, bring God much joy when they are found.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God allows free will and does not override it by force. You have not because you ask not.

If we're designed by God and every influence on us can be ultimately traced to God, then any failure on our part as creation implies failure of God as creator.

When a pot blows up in the kiln, it's the potter's fault, not the pot's.

Looking at the fall of the angels of death and the fall of Adam and Eve God tests us. There is Job and the Our Father. Lead us not into temptation. We don't live in a simulation, matter is real and people choose evil, like the terrorists.

Again: a failure of the creation is a failure of the creator.

In Genesis 6 God regrets making parts of creation and floods them. Later according to Peter Jesus preaches to them in Hell and they are freed and given gifts.

Do you agree that it's more perfect not to have made a mistake in the first place than to make a mistake and then try to mitigate it after?

The consequence of real free choice is that some sin.

I don't see how that could be true.

Free will is about choosing from among our desires. It can only lead to sin (however we define "sin") if we have a predisposition to sin.

Free will is just about our ability to act in accordance with our true natures. What that nature is like is a separate issue from free will.

It makes life hard for us. There is temptation and curse, deception and threat. God doesn't want to lose any souls to Hell.

But does God lose souls to Hell? If he does, then this represents what I talked about before: thwarting the will of God. Quite a feat.

For some reason, we are blinded and cut off from an open Heaven and grace and truth. It is not automatic. Paul in Acts prays for us to have our eyes opened for repentance and finding our place in God's Kingdom.

"For some reason?" Whatever the reason, would you agree that it's within God's power?

 

[Novatian]

If we're designed by God and every influence on us can be ultimately traced to God, then any failure on our part as creation implies failure of God as creator.

When a pot blows up in the kiln, it's the potter's fault, not the pot's.




Again: a failure of the creation is a failure of the creator.



Do you agree that it's more perfect not to have made a mistake in the first place than to make a mistake and then try to mitigate it after?



I don't see how that could be true.

Free will is about choosing from among our desires. It can only lead to sin (however we define "sin") if we have a predisposition to sin.

Free will is just about our ability to act in accordance with our true natures. What that nature is like is a separate issue from free will.



But does God lose souls to Hell? If he does, then this represents what I talked about before: thwarting the will of God. Quite a feat.


"For some reason?" Whatever the reason, would you agree that it's within God's power?

I think God gives us a free choice, that was the way it was in the beginning with Adam, now we have sin living in us and blindness. God can give us vision and salvation, for the Greeks who first read Acts and met Paul, some of them directly benefited from spiritual vision and others indirectly.

Adam was a simple creature compared to a glorious angel leading the Heavens of sons of God and angels in worship. His knowledge of many things were vast, God, light, love, himself, other angels, truth what it is, how it works, to find and use and it's progression in hearers, and he knew deception by nature, and had the ability to choose his own nature and character. He was persuasive. He perfectly loved the glory and power of God and still does, but no longer the person and character of God. That was his fully independent choice, it is at the root of what sin is. And it is the root of evil and his character. The accuser leads us to sin and deceived Adam and Eve and they sinned. Adam didn't know so much, he was naive and could not determine his own nature, but was free to make decisions. It is not God's fault. God wanted him to be tested. We don't need to know of Satan for our normal interests.

Preferably Adam would have learned a nature of obedience in the presence of Satan, and as we grew over generations we would no longer be subject to temptation. And could have the power Satan had and never choose evils or to hate God or to change our nature towards cold hearts...

I suppose regarding Genesis 6, God sometimes engages things, within creation, and history, in time, space and human hearts and souls and bodies, and wants to experience us. In this case He seems to act without omniscience, and part of what happens in the moment and grand scheme is up to a conversation, with Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, or Moses. He enters our finite minds.

In the beginning, there were no angels, and God could have made angels that would follow Lucifer or greater ones than him, or not made him at all. What do you think, why did God make Lucifer and those who went with him?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think God gives us a free choice, that was the way it was in the beginning with Adam, now we have sin living in us and blindness.

Sounds like you completely missed my point.

 

[Novatian]

Sounds like you completely missed my point.

Slaves to sin?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Slaves to sin?

How could someone be a slave to sin unless God designed them to be so?

FYI: "free will" is a non-answer. A red herring.