Hells Nursery

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Augustine, hailing form his heathen roots, clearly implied that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will, hence he is known as the father of the doctrine of original sin. Due to this inherited depravity, termed by Augustine as original sin, he saw all infants as doomed to hell as sinners. This doctrine precipitated the mandate to baptize their infants, evidently to free them from this curse and to insure that if they died they would be found in heaven.

What is the church doing today to insure that any infant that dies with this contagion of sin does in fact inherit eternal life? What is the fate today of an unbaptised infant? What does the church today base their beliefs and practice upon, whether or not to baptize infants or not? Does hell have a nursery?

 

[JFox1]

Here is what my denomination teaches about infant baptism and addresses the question of an infant who dies before being baptized.

www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2668

"There is some basis for the hope that God has a method, not revealed to us, by which He works faith in the children of Christians dying without Baptism (Mark 10:13-16). For children of unbelievers we do not venture to hold out such hope. We are entering the field of the unsearchable judgments of God" (Romans 11:33).

I guess that means the infants who died in the tsunami in 2004 are in hell as their parents are Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim.

 

[BD17]

Augustine, hailing form his heathen roots, clearly implied that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will, hence he is known as the father of the doctrine of original sin. Due to this inherited depravity, termed by Augustine as original sin, he saw all infants as doomed to hell as sinners. This doctrine precipitated the mandate to baptize their infants, evidently to free them from this curse and to insure that if they died they would be found in heaven.

What is the church doing today to insure that any infant that dies with this contagion of sin does in fact inherit eternal life? What is the fate today of an unbaptised infant? What does the church today base their beliefs and practice upon, whether or not to baptize infants or not? Does hell have a nursery?

This is not historically correct, Origen(185-254AD) wrote nearly 100 years BEFORE Agustine on original sin and infant baptism. He wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9 "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants" and this from his Homily on Luke 14 "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. So the idea of infant baptism and original sin did not come from Augustine because he was not on the scene until 354AD.

 

[bapmom]

since baptism doesn't save anyone it doesn't matter if an infant is baptized or not.


Ro 7:7
¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Ro 7:8
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Ro 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

we don't know the law of sin when we are infants........

our conscience is also called a law within ourselves.....but infants don't know their own consciences yet, either.

 

[BD17]

since baptism doesn't save anyone it doesn't matter if an infant is baptized or not.


Ro 7:7
¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
Ro 7:8
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Ro 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

we don't know the law of sin when we are infants........

our conscience is also called a law within ourselves.....but infants don't know their own consciences yet, either.

This does not mean they are not sinners, it just means they do not know they are sinners.

 

[mman]

Augustine, hailing form his heathen roots, clearly implied that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will, hence he is known as the father of the doctrine of original sin. Due to this inherited depravity, termed by Augustine as original sin, he saw all infants as doomed to hell as sinners. This doctrine precipitated the mandate to baptize their infants, evidently to free them from this curse and to insure that if they died they would be found in heaven.

What is the church doing today to insure that any infant that dies with this contagion of sin does in fact inherit eternal life? What is the fate today of an unbaptised infant? What does the church today base their beliefs and practice upon, whether or not to baptize infants or not? Does hell have a nursery?

Infants cannot be baptized.

Infants can have water sprinkled on them, poured on them, even immersed beneath the water, but infants cannot be baptized.

Baptism is in response to faith. Baptism must have the requisite belief. When the eunuch uttered the words, ""See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36), what was the reply? The next verse says, ""If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God".

Philip could have dragged the eunuch to the water and immersed him without ever having taught him. Would anyone classify this as "scriptural baptism"? Yet, that is what is done to many infants, having no knowledge or belief, and are forced to submit to some human ceremony of water being put on them. Could an infant comply with the instructions given to the eunuch?

There is no indication from scripture that this practice ever took place. Sometimes we have households being baptized, but other indications are that no infants could have been included.

In Acts 8 we have the jailers household was baptized, yet it states after their baptism, they rejoiced having believed. Could this have described an infant?

We know that sin is not inherited from one's parents. If it were, then Christ would have inherited sin from His parents.

The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14), and for those already in the church (1 Cor. 14:2O). Surely God is not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!

Scriptures teach “. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (Ezek. 18:20), and each person is responsible for their own conduct and only giving account for himself (Rom. 14:12).

 

[bapmom]

This does not mean they are not sinners, it just means they do not know they are sinners.

Yup, I know. but it does indicate that there is no condemnation until we know the law in some way. If an infant does not know the law (through either conscience or understanding of God's laws) than the infant is not condemned to Hell.

 

[BD17]

Infants cannot be baptized.

Infants can have water sprinkled on them, poured on them, even immersed beneath the water, but infants cannot be baptized.

Baptism is in response to faith. Baptism must have the requisite belief. When the eunuch uttered the words, ""See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36), what was the reply? The next verse says, ""If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God".

Philip could have dragged the eunuch to the water and immersed him without ever having taught him. Would anyone classify this as "scriptural baptism"? Yet, that is what is done to many infants, having no knowledge or belief, and are forced to submit to some human ceremony of water being put on them. Could an infant comply with the instructions given to the eunuch?

There is no indication from scripture that this practice ever took place. Sometimes we have households being baptized, but other indications are that no infants could have been included.

In Acts 8 we have the jailers household was baptized, yet it states after their baptism, they rejoiced having believed. Could this have described an infant?

We know that sin is not inherited from one's parents. If it were, then Christ would have inherited sin from His parents.

The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14), and for those already in the church (1 Cor. 14:2O). Surely God is not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!

Scriptures teach “. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (Ezek. 18:20), and each person is responsible for their own conduct and only giving account for himself (Rom. 14:12).

Sorry have to disagree with you there, the process described in Acts is the process that unbelieving adults must go through to become a christian, once the unbeliever has become a believer he applies baptism to his family the same way Abraham applied circumcision to his. The process is different for an unbeliever and there family than it is for a believer and their family. You have to remember the context and group that was being taught in Acts. They were trying to convert already unbelieving Jews and gentiles. They were not talking to a bunch of people that were already believers.

This is a very short non-detailed description of what my church practices, it is more commonly known as Covenant Theology. I believe in the covenant family and that we are still under the Abrahmic covenant, therefore as a believing father I will have my child baptized, as the new circumsision.

 

[BD17]

Yup, I know. but it does indicate that there is no condemnation until we know the law in some way. If an infant does not know the law (through either conscience or understanding of God's laws) than the infant is not condemned to Hell.

Sorry incorrect, that verse is not a verse that supports that Paul was innocent until the law came, that verse is Paul realizing how bad his life was and everything he needed to be repentful of. If an infant is raised in a Christian home they are with out excuse, because the parents have been teaching that child about what is right and wrong from birth. Just because you do not know it is wrong does not mean you will not be held accountable.

Just to make it clear I do not believe infants are condemned to hell. I believe that IF God wanted to he would be just in doing so, but I believe he does not.

 

[webdog]

Sorry incorrect, that verse is not a verse that supports that Paul was innocent until the law came, that verse is Paul realizing how bad his life was and everything he needed to be repentful of. If an infant is raised in a Christian home they are with out excuse, because the parents have been teaching that child about what is right and wrong from birth. Just because you do not know it is wrong does not mean you will not be held accountable.

Just to make it clear I do not believe infants are condemned to hell. I believe that IF God wanted to he would be just in doing so, but I believe he does not.

bapmom was correct, and you are incorrect. That verse says everything you deny it says. What do you do with this?

Romans 7:9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life

 

[Chemnitz]

Hmmm... Once again a verse used in isolation. Paul is not saying that at one point he was innocent. Rather he is discussing how Sin used something as Holy and good as the Law to magnify itself and increase.

Paul is quite clear that no one is innocent outside of Christ for all have fallen short of the glory of God.

To say somebody is innocent because of ignorance of the Law is tantamount to saying a Hindu who never hears God's Law is going to be found innocent.

A sinner is a sinner no matter the age or level of knowledge.

For people who claim its all God, y'all do a great job of making it all about us.

 

[BD17]

bapmom was correct, and you are incorrect. That verse says everything you deny it says. What do you do with this?

Romans 7:9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life

Alive does not mean he was innocent, Paul is speaking about his physical life that he was enjoying before the law showed him he was sinful. That does not mean that he was not sinful before the law.

 

[BD17]

Hmmm... Once again a verse used in isolation. Paul is not saying that at one point he was innocent. Rather he is discussing how Sin used something as Holy and good as the Law to magnify itself and increase.

Paul is quite clear that no one is innocent outside of Christ for all have fallen short of the glory of God.

To say somebody is innocent because of ignorance of the Law is tantamount to saying a Hindu who never hears God's Law is going to be found innocent.

A sinner is a sinner no matter the age or level of knowledge.

For people who claim its all God, y'all do a great job of making it all about us.

Thank you Chemnitz exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[mman]

Sorry have to disagree with you there, the process described in Acts is the process that unbelieving adults must go through to become a christian, once the unbeliever has become a believer he applies baptism to his family the same way Abraham applied circumcision to his. The process is different for an unbeliever and there family than it is for a believer and their family. You have to remember the context and group that was being taught in Acts. They were trying to convert already unbelieving Jews and gentiles. They were not talking to a bunch of people that were already believers.

This is a very short non-detailed description of what my church practices, it is more commonly known as Covenant Theology. I believe in the covenant family and that we are still under the Abrahmic covenant, therefore as a believing father I will have my child baptized, as the new circumsision.

If that were the case, then there are different instructions to different groups.

The gospel, is for Jews and gentiles (Rom 1:16). In Acts 2, there were only Jews. Not until Acts 10, do we have gentile converts.

Jesus message was for all nations. Notice, he said, "he that believeth". Can an infant fulfill this?

In Matthew's account, the people from all nations are to be taught? Can an infant be taught to "observe all things that Jesus commanded" one of which is to go teach and baptize others?

Notice Gal 3:26-29, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

They all got INTO Christ the same way. An infant cannot be a child of God, through faith.

Faith comes from hearing God's word (Rom 10:17).

It must bother you some to have no examples of infants being baptized, no command for infant baptism, or no inference that infants were ever baptized.

Baptism is for the believer (Mark 16:16).

 

[webdog]

Alive does not mean he was innocent, Paul is speaking about his physical life that he was enjoying before the law showed him he was sinful. That does not mean that he was not sinful before the law.

Alive is the opposite of dead, correct? Romans 5 tells us that it is knowledge of the law that leads to accountability of sin. You are corrct that alive does not mean innocent. All believers are still guilty of sin, the difference is that the believer is forgiven.

If my little son (the little guy in the corner making the mean face) grabs a piece of candy from the grocery store and leaves the store, is he guilty of stealing? Would the authorities hold him accountable and punish him? Of course not, because he doesn't know what stealing is and because he doesn't understand it! I can't believe there are people who believe that God is so unloving that an infant would go to hell, not knowing the very sin he or she committed!

 

[BD17]

If that were the case, then there are different instructions to different groups.

The gospel, is for Jews and gentiles (Rom 1:16). In Acts 2, there were only Jews. Not until Acts 10, do we have gentile converts.

Jesus message was for all nations. Notice, he said, "he that believeth". Can an infant fulfill this?

In Matthew's account, the people from all nations are to be taught? Can an infant be taught to "observe all things that Jesus commanded" one of which is to go teach and baptize others?

Notice Gal 3:26-29, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

They all got INTO Christ the same way. An infant cannot be a child of God, through faith.

Faith comes from hearing God's word (Rom 10:17).

It must bother you some to have no examples of infants being baptized, no command for infant baptism, or no inference that infants were ever baptized.

Baptism is for the believer (Mark 16:16).

Does not bother me at all the things you say does not prove anything. Once again they are talking to adults that are to be taught. Once they have been converted they are adopted into the Abrahamic covenant and the process is different. They are now under the fathers faith. Let me ask you a question what was the purpose of circumsision in the Old Testament?


The children being baptized does not make them saved in the same way that a child that was circumsized was not saved. It says specifically that households were baptized now granted it does not say specifically infants but are you willing to bet that every household that was baptized had absolutely no infants in them?

 

[webdog]

Once they have been converted they are adopted into the Abrahamic covenant and the process is different.

The process of salvation is NOT different!! We all are saved by grace through faith, from Adam to me. What happens if one cannot possess the ability to have faith? Grace of God takes over, and being the fair, just God we read about throughout the Bible, He will not hold someone accountable of sin where there is no Law (since the very definition of sin is the breaking of Law), the very same passage mentioned in Romans 5.

 

[BD17]

Alive is the opposite of dead, correct? Romans 5 tells us that it is knowledge of the law that leads to accountability of sin. You are corrct that alive does not mean innocent. All believers are still guilty of sin, the difference is that the believer is forgiven.

If my little son (the little guy in the corner making the mean face) grabs a piece of candy from the grocery store and leaves the store, is he guilty of stealing? Would the authorities hold him accountable and punish him? Of course not, because he doesn't know what stealing is and because he doesn't understand it! I can't believe there are people who believe that God is so unloving that an infant would go to hell, not knowing the very sin he or she committed!

I would hope that you would have explained to him that taking things that are not yours is wrong then he would know. That argument does not fly. Not knowing something does not mean it is okay. If that is the case then people who are raised never knowing God are saved because they can claim ignorance, and we all know that is not the truth.

You speak of God's love but answer this how is it loving to give an infant His grace while he is ignorant and then takes that grace away when that child gains the knowledge of the law. That sounds real nice..."Here you go you can have salvation while you are ignorant but as soon as you aren't I am going to take it away from you."

 

[BD17]

The process of salvation is NOT different!! We all are saved by grace through faith, from Adam to me. What happens if one cannot possess the ability to have faith? Grace of God takes over, and being the fair, just God we read about throughout the Bible, He will not hold someone accountable of sin where there is no Law (since the very definition of sin is the breaking of Law), the very same passage mentioned in Romans 5.

Sin is a condition not the act. We commit the law breaking act because we are sinners.

Then every Hindu and indian in the jungle is saved then.

It is different, why did God command Abraham to be circumsised?

 

[Chemnitz]

If I recall ignorance is not a legitimate defense in the eyes of the law.