The body must be destroyed--we must die with Christ--because it is defiled, and cannot be purged, like the Law says about earthen vessels.
When the body of sin works works in the young child and defiled its conscience.
OSAS : Gnostic Heresy
- Thread starter GracePeace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I don't know if you are adhering to Calvinist doctrines-but this re babies/infants.
The question of whether babies go to hell is one that touches on deep theological beliefs and interpretations. While the Bible does not explicitly state what happens to infants after death, several passages and theological principles suggest that babies and young children, due to their innocence and lack of moral accountability, do not face eternal condemnation. Additionally, Jewish interpretations around the age of accountability provide further insight into how innocence and responsibility were understood in ancient and traditional Jewish thought.
Biblical Examples and Principles
David’s Child with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:22-23):
After David’s infant son dies, David expresses confidence that he will see his child again, saying, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." This suggests David believed his child was in a place of peace or in the presence of God. David's comfort indicates a belief that his child was not condemned.
Jesus' Attitude Toward Children (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14):
Jesus says, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Jesus’ statement implies that children are naturally welcomed into God's kingdom, underscoring their innocence and divine favor.
Jonah and the Ninevites (Jonah 4:11):
God shows mercy to Nineveh partly because of the large number of people who "cannot tell their right hand from their left," traditionally understood to include children who are not yet morally responsible. This implies God’s compassion for those who lack the capacity for moral discernment.
Romans 5:13 and Romans 7:9:
In Romans 5:13, Paul notes that "sin is not imputed when there is no law," and in Romans 7:9, he reflects on a time when he was "alive apart from the law" before he had knowledge of the law, at which point sin "revived, and I died."
This suggests a state of innocence before moral awareness, which could be applied to infants and young children who have not yet reached an age of moral understanding.
Jewish Interpretation of the Age of Accountability
In Jewish tradition, the age of accountability—when a child is considered morally responsible for their actions—is typically marked by the bar mitzvah (for boys) at age 13 and bat mitzvah (for girls) at age 12. Before this age, children are seen as innocent and not fully responsible for their actions in a legal or spiritual sense.
The Concept of Yetzer Hara and Yetzer Hatov:
Jewish thought recognizes the yetzer hara (the evil inclination) and yetzer hatov (the good inclination).
According to some rabbinic teachings, the yetzer hara is present from birth, but the yetzer hatov develops around the age of accountability. This idea underscores that children are not fully accountable for moral decisions until they are mature enough to choose between good and evil.
Talmudic Teachings:
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 54b, 55b) discusses the concept of moral responsibility in children, noting that a child under the age of 13 is not fully culpable for their actions. This aligns with the idea that children, in their innocence, are not held accountable in the same way adults are.
Deuteronomy 1:39:
In Deuteronomy 1:39, God refers to the children of Israel as "little ones" who "have no knowledge of good or evil" and thus will enter the Promised Land, even though their parents are barred due to disobedience. This suggests that God does not hold children accountable for sin in the same way as adults.
While the Bible does not directly address the fate of infants who die, these passages and principles strongly suggest that babies are not condemned to hell. The idea of innocence, lack of moral accountability, and God’s mercy toward those unable to discern right from wrong is evident in both biblical and Jewish traditions. The Jewish concept of the age of accountability further supports the idea that children are not held fully responsible for sin until they reach a certain level of maturity and understanding.
I can give more examples but this should suffice.
J.
So Taken,,,
happy to hear that you finally agree with the CC !
It's the CC that USED TO teach that babies had to be baptized immediately or they'd go to hell.
Even the CC doesn't teach this anymore.
It was good ole' Augustine in the 5th century that changed the meaning of the term Original Sin.
But, let's forget about that.
So, you believe, unlike what the bible teaches, that babies are responsible for the sin of Adam....
So much conflict in the bible.
Let's see what Jesus believes about sin and WHEN man is defiled:
Matthew 15:18-20
18“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
19“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
20“These are the things which defile the man;
Know any babies that do the above?
Matthew 18:3
3and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
and
Ezekiel 18:19-20
19“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.
20“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
Jeremiah 31:30
30Everyone will die for their own iniquity...
Adam was made not to die.
Immortality was one of his preternatural gifts.
He disobeyed God.
Now all men die.
Interesting that Psalm 58:3-8 states something different than what Jesus taught.
So much conflict in the bible.
There's probably a very good answer, but better to go on debating...
Here's what JESUS taught:
Matthew 15:18-20
18“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
19“For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
20“These are the things which defile the man;
Know any babies that do the above?
Matthew 18:3
3and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
I'd also like to add that only the reformed believe babies go to hell.
No other denomination believes this.
Because babies cannot sin.
Because they don't even know what sin is.
The question of whether babies go to hell is a challenging one, touching on deep theological beliefs and interpretations. The Bible doesn’t directly state what happens to infants after death, but there are several passages and theological principles that suggest babies and young children, because of their innocence and lack of moral accountability, aren't subject to eternal condemnation. On top of that, Jewish teachings about the age of accountability give us more insight into how innocence and responsibility were understood in ancient and traditional Jewish thought.
David’s Child with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:22-23):
After David’s infant son dies, David expresses confidence that he will see his child again, saying, "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." This suggests David believed his child was in a place of peace or in the presence of God. David's comfort indicates a belief that his child was not condemned.
Jesus' Attitude Toward Children (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14):
Jesus says, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Jesus’ statement implies that children are naturally welcomed into God's kingdom, underscoring their innocence and divine favor.
Jonah and the Ninevites (Jonah 4:11):
God shows mercy to Nineveh partly because of the large number of people who "cannot tell their right hand from their left," traditionally understood to include children who are not yet morally responsible. This implies God’s compassion for those who lack the capacity for moral discernment.
Romans 5:13 and Romans 7:9:
In Romans 5:13, Paul notes that "sin is not imputed when there is no law," and in Romans 7:9, he reflects on a time when he was "alive apart from the law" before he had knowledge of the law, at which point sin "revived, and I died." This suggests a state of innocence before moral awareness, which could be applied to infants and young children who have not yet reached an age of moral understanding.
Jewish Interpretation of the Age of Accountability
In Jewish tradition, the age of accountability—when a child is considered morally responsible for their actions—is typically marked by the bar mitzvah (for boys) at age 13 and bat mitzvah (for girls) at age 12. Before this age, children are seen as innocent and not fully responsible for their actions in a legal or spiritual sense.
The Concept of Yetzer Hara and Yetzer Hatov:
Jewish thought recognizes the yetzer hara (the evil inclination) and yetzer hatov (the good inclination). According to some rabbinic teachings, the yetzer hara is present from birth, but the yetzer hatov develops around the age of accountability. This idea underscores that children are not fully accountable for moral decisions until they are mature enough to choose between good and evil.
Talmudic Teachings:
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 54b, 55b) discusses the concept of moral responsibility in children, noting that a child under the age of 13 is not fully culpable for their actions. This aligns with the idea that children, in their innocence, are not held accountable in the same way adults are.
Deuteronomy 1:39:
In Deuteronomy 1:39, God refers to the children of Israel as "little ones" who "have no knowledge of good or evil" and thus will enter the Promised Land, even though their parents are barred due to disobedience. This suggests that God does not hold children accountable for sin in the same way as adults.
Buona giornata, Sorella.
What separates us from God?
Sin.
When we reach the age of accountability, we then begin to sin.
There are definitions for sin....
1. A person must know what a sin is.
2. He must be aware that he is committing the sin.
3. It has to be willful.
Can a baby do/know the above?
Then he cannot sin.
Psalm 51:3-4
3For I know my transgressions,
And my sin is ever before me.
4Against You, You only, I have sinned
And done what is evil in Your sight,
Can a baby do the above?
Babies are stained with original sin.
They're born with the sin nature --eventually they will be held accountable.
They are not IMPUTED with Adam's sin.
We are each responsible for our own sin.
Galatians 6.5
4But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another.
5For each one will bear his own load.
Ezekiel 18:19
The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
The above sounds a little gnostic to me but I don't think you mean it that way.
Man tends toward sin.
Man serves satan....even unwittingly.
It's when we become aware of this problem and turn to God that we become born again in our spirit.
Our spirit will then have influence over our soul and we will tend to want to serve God instead of the enemy.
A baby cannot do this. (I'm not saying that you think so).
It takes a person that can think and reason and knows what he is doing.
Handicapped persons also do not go to hell.
(mentally).
Well said.
The only part I would question or not agree with is the age of accountability in the Jewish tradition, which I highlighted above.
I'd say that the age of accountability could differ somewhat from person to person - not by many years. Also, I did include in one of my replies here that mentally handicapped persons also do not go to hell....basically, because they don't know what a sin is.
In a post I just replied to I wanted to bring up Psalm 51: 5 (I think) about David being born in iniquity because verses 1-4 do refer to this.
But then 5 brings up other questions and I really don't want to get into what verse 5 means. But, yes, David is a good example.
I'm just more sure than you are!
A baby cannot sin if we understand what a sin is.
And God, being just, will forgive any sin that is not understood or willful.
Hopefully it sounds like Romans 7 lol
Unsaved men do not merely "tend" toward sin, sin works its own works, even contrary to their intentions and best efforts, in them. That's what I believe Romans 7 teaches.
Interesting-
What did the early Church Fathers write about "original sin" before Augustine?
My son is severely cerebral palsied and I'm sure you are more sure than me.
Maybe off topic.
J.
Babies were always baptized from the beginning.
But not because of original sin.
Original sin was always believed to be present.
But Augustine changed what it meant and thus made it necessary for babies to be baptized ASAP.
The early church baptized babies because they felt that it was good that they should receive the Holy Spirit and
have all the benefits of their Christian faith. We need to remember that it meant something back then....parents were raising their children to be Christian. Both adults, parents and children were being killed for their faith . it was a serious matter.
They understood original sin to be the sin that Adam committed --- the first sin, the original sin.
They came to believe that baptism somehow washed away this original sin also.
Augustine changed all that.
He taught, and the CC accepted, that babies were born IMPUTED with original sin.
Now they no longer were just stained with original sin (what we call the sin nature today and Catholics call concupiscense)
they were actually RESPONSIBLE for the sin which Adam committed.
So, when a baby was born,,,he taught... the baby was already in a sinful condition and, if he died, would go to hell because nothing unclean can enter into heaven (Revelation 21:27).
So the baby had to be baptized ASAP to remove this original sin with which the baby was imputed.
The CC no longer believes this because it's so extreme.
It teaches that this is left to the mercy of God --- sure, because they made a MISTAKE accepting Augustine's teaching.
The CC DOES teach that we must know we are sinning in order for our action (or omission) to be a sin.
See the conflict? It cannot be both.
A baby cannot know what sin is.
So, yes, Augustine changed WHY babies are baptized....
they always were - contrary to Protestant opinion.
(the CC is not the only church to baptize infants, as you may know).
Why it ever accepted teachings of Augustine is a different topic.
Early Church Fathers and Infant Baptism
Irenaeus (c. 130-202)
Support for Infant Baptism: Irenaeus mentioned infant baptism in his writings. In "Against Heresies," he argues that baptism is beneficial for all ages, including infants. He believed that baptism was essential for salvation and included children in this necessity.
Source: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.4.
Tertullian (c. 155-240)
Skepticism About Infant Baptism: Tertullian is notable for his skepticism about infant baptism. In his work "On Baptism," he argued that baptism should be delayed until a person can make a conscious decision about their faith. He believed that the faith and repentance necessary for baptism should be personally affirmed.
Source: Tertullian, On Baptism 18.
Origen (c. 185-254)
Support for Infant Baptism: Origen supported the practice of infant baptism, viewing it as a means of removing the guilt of original sin. He believed that baptism was necessary for all, including infants, and spoke about its practice in the context of early Christian life.
Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans 5.9.
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258)
Strong Support for Infant Baptism: Cyprian is known for his strong support of infant baptism. He argued that infants should be baptized to ensure they are cleansed from original sin and included in the Church. His writings reflect the early Church's understanding of the necessity of baptism for all.
Source: Cyprian, On the Lapsed 28.
Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235)
Support for Infant Baptism: Hippolytus’s writings, particularly in the "Apostolic Tradition," include instructions for the baptism of infants as part of the Church's practice.
Source: Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21.1-2.
Conclusion
Before Augustine, the majority of early Church Fathers either explicitly supported or did not oppose the practice of infant baptism. While Tertullian expressed concerns about baptizing infants, others like Irenaeus, Origen, Cyprian, and Hippolytus supported it, indicating that infant baptism was a widely accepted practice in the early Church. Augustine’s writings further solidified the theological foundations for this practice in the Western Church.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the early Church Fathers before Augustine, several recognized the concept of original sin and its imputation to humanity. Here’s a summary of those who explicitly addressed or supported the idea of original sin:
1. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202)
View on Original Sin: Irenaeus discussed the impact of Adam’s sin and its consequences for humanity. He believed that Adam's transgression introduced sin and death into the world, affecting all of humanity. While he did not use the exact terminology of "original sin," his writings imply a belief in the inherited effects of Adam's fall.
Source: Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.23.6.
2. Origen (c. 185-254)
View on Original Sin: Origen acknowledged the concept of original sin and believed that it was transmitted from Adam to all humans. He saw baptism as necessary for cleansing from this inherited sin and spoke of the need for baptism to remove the guilt of original sin.
Source: Origen, Commentary on Romans 5.9.
3. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258)
View on Original Sin: Cyprian strongly supported the idea of original sin. He argued that baptism was necessary for removing the guilt of original sin, particularly for infants who had inherited this sin from Adam.
Source: Cyprian, On the Lapsed 28.
4. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235)
View on Original Sin: Hippolytus also implied a belief in original sin through his support of infant baptism. His writings suggest that he believed infants, like all humans, needed baptism to be cleansed of the original sin inherited from Adam.
Source: Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition 21.1-2.
General Consensus: The early Church Fathers who addressed the concept of original sin before Augustine generally supported the idea that Adam’s sin had consequences for all humanity. They often linked this belief to the practice of baptism, which they saw as essential for addressing the inherited guilt of original sin.
Terminology and Development: The formal doctrine of original sin as developed by Augustine was not yet fully articulated, but these early Fathers laid the groundwork for understanding the concept. Their teachings contributed to the development of the doctrine that Augustine would later define more clearly.
Question: Can you show me in Scripture that a baby, who does not yet know his or her left from right, can receive the Holy Spirit, considering that salvation comes by hearing the Word?
Not being facetious.
J.
The Bible is silent re infants/babies-
The dilemma comes when we consider infants. I’ll define an infant as a person who is one year old or younger (including the pre-born). Infants are part of sinful humanity. Even if they don’t yet know they are sinners, they inherit from the first Adam a sinful nature. And later in life, they will inevitably and certainly act out of that sinful nature and knowingly commit sinful acts. But infants who die never had a chance to hear, understand, and respond to the Gospel. It’s not just that they do not hear and respond; infants cannot hear and respond to the Gospel.
It seems wrong to think that the loving God of the Bible would allow those infants to spend eternity in hell. But it seems equally wrong to think that the holy God of the Bible would welcome guilty people—no matter how young—into heaven. Thus, the dilemma: How does God welcome some, or any sinful infants into heaven? The Bible doesn’t explicitly answer this question. When Anabaptist leader Balthtasar Hubmaier (1480–1528) was asked about the eternal destiny of unbaptized infants, he wrote, “I confess here publicly my ignorance. I am not ashamed not to know what God did not want to reveal to us with a clear and plain word.”
The Bible does not explicitly answer that question. There is no chapter and verse in the Bible that answers that particular question in that particular way. We can, however, based on Scripture’s clear teaching regarding sin and God’s judgment, attempt to build from Scripture an argument for how we think God deals with people who die in infancy. We can also rule out some wrong answers.
These are the kinds of questions that need to be answered:
In the Bible, are infants and adults treated the same way?
Does the Bible teach that infants are already guilty of sin or only that they inherit a sinful nature and will later become guilty?
In the Bible, does God judge our sinful nature? Or does He judge only our sinful thoughts, attitudes, and actions?
Are infants guilty of sin or not? If you believe that people need to hear and respond to the Gospel to be saved, and you say that infants are guilty of sin, then the consistent conclusion is that all infants who die without hearing and responding to the Gospel will be separated from God. But almost no theologian says that. Nearly all theologians hold out hope that some (or all) of those infants will go to heaven. But most of those same theologians also say that infants are guilty of sin. If you begin with infant guilt, then you’re left with a doctrinal system in which some sinful, guilty people (infants) are welcomed into heaven. That system is internally inconsistent.
Read this and would appreciate your input.
Born Guilty?
Many of you may recall my conversations with Dr. Adam Harwood of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary over the Spiritual Condition of Infants. I consider Dr. Harwood to be the leading scholar o…
soteriology101.com
Taken
Well-Known Member
You making up a lie, attributing that lie to me and then telling me how that makes you happy…does not affect me.
So?
Baptism of the Holy Spirit is Gods Gift to give TO whom He pleases to give such Gift without my thoughts or consideration of what Catholics believe or do.
So…fact is you speaking for me what I did not imply or say, is irrelevant.
Disagree.
Pss 51:
[5] Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
You know any human babies NOT shapen and born in sin of a human mans natural sinful seed?
You know any human babies naturally born KNOWING GOD and DECLARING their heartful Belief in the Lord God?
WHO?
Glory to God,
Taken
There's the verse in Acts that states that Barnabas and his whole household was baptized.
I don't take one verse and make a doctrine out of it.
You asked me about the ECFs, and I replied concerning the ECFs and what they believed.
IF you want to believe that persons are saved ONLY by hearing the word and accepting it, then that is a decision you must make.
I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.....I came on these boards for a specific reason and I have to adhere to that.
If you accept this premise then, yes, all babies are going straight to hell if they die unbaptized - just like the reformed faith believes.
Unless, of course, the baby is predestined to be saved.
I'll give you an example for your conisderation:
You posted Cyprian above.
Here's something else Cyprian said:
Even to the extent some sinners and to those who have sinned much against God, when they subsequently believe, remissino of sins is granted. Nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace. How much more should we shrink from hindering an infant?
Fore he, being lately born, has not sinned, other than, in being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth.
For this reason he more easily approaches the reception of the forgiveness of sins. For to him are remitted - not his own sins - but the sins of another. Therefor dearest brother this was our opinion in council that no one should be hindered by us from baptism and from the grace of God.
Cyprian c. 250
In the above Cyprian states that an infant has not yet sinned.
He states that an infant should not be HINDERED from baptism...
NOT that it is absolutely necessary.
And why was this discussed at a council?
Some believed Adam's sin is imputed to all mankind,
and some believed it wasn't.
I read, and have posted, verses that show that each man individually is responsible for HIS OWN SIN.
I'd say this is the crux of the matter and what your belief should be based on.
Why one year old?
What happens when a human turns 14 months old?
He becomes responsible for his actions?
Do you punish a 14 month old because he threw food on the floor?
If you could be so loving...
why would God Who IS love, and passed it on to you by creating you in His image...
not be so loving toward a 14 month old?
Why is the infant guilty?
Do you also not know what just/justice means?
It means to give to each person what he deserves.
Does a baby, who has never sinned, deserve hell?
Here is the question:
WHY does God send persons to hell?
Does a pre-accountable person deserve hell?
Explain why to yourself.
Jesus said only those that are like children will enter into heaven.
Why do we believe some things Jesus said and not all things.
Was He the ultimate revelation of God or not?
Last question is the one that needs replying.
If we're judged by our sinful nature --- then babies go to hell if they die without baptism, in which case they should be bapized IMMEDIATELY upon birth. Why isn't this being done?? If a person believes this...then they should take appropriate action.
In the early church babies were baptized at 8 days to imitate circumcision. WHY wait so long if it was so imperative?
If God judges us by our sinning....
then what sin has a baby committed?
Again, guilty of WHAT SIN?
I looked through it J.Read this and would appreciate your input.
IBorn Guilty?
Many of you may recall my conversations with Dr. Adam Harwood of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary over the Spiritual Condition of Infants. I consider Dr. Harwood to be the leading scholar o…
I read a lot of stuff when I did a little study on this a few years ago.
I say a little study because I'm not an academic.
However, I feel like I know God enough to know an infant is not a sinner and it is our sins that cause our death,,,,
not our sin nature.
Not happiness Taken...
Sarcasim.
I stated that babies are not born with sin
and you stated that it's a lie and that they are.
Which, according to some on these boards who are Catholic,
is what the CC teaches.
So, if you believe babies are born with sin,,,
they you agree with the CC.
No lie.
You've been hanging with bread too long.
An opinion is not a lie just because you don't agree with it.
You just agreed with them...
and I was rather shocked TTYTT.
Oh no.
Psalm 51.
Why are you quoting Psalm 51?
Don't you know what it means?
Could you exegete for us please?
I believe you should take a step back—focus on your own beliefs, refrain from labeling me when we disagree, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, just as I do with mine.
I go by what stands written and we all need to leave our presuppositions behind.
Glad to hear you feel you know God enough to know--to know what?
Step back from what?
You asked me some questions and I took a lot of time to reply.
You don't have to like the reply.
What did I label you?
Why is MY salvation in question because you don't agree with me?
Which presuppositions?
If you want to believe that unbaptized babies go to hell,
that is your prerogative.
You asked me what I believe,
I've replied.
End of story.
You are here for a specific reason? What reason? Teach me what the CC believe?
Again, disagreement and you are slapping a label on me-this is going nowhere.
Similar threads
