Do babies go to Heaven?

[PFKEY]

Hope no one minds the vanity too much.

I was thinking last night about this idea and was trying to make it jive somewhat with the notion of predeterminationalism if that is the correct word.

Also was curious regarding what the various Christian denominations taught on this subject.

[Conservative til I die]

Trust me..Jael and I have a doctrinal difference on who can be saved....not how ..and we both know Rome has no clue and under her NO ONE gets saved

Boy are you gonna be surprised!

And again with the Proddie fantasizing about who will *not* be making it to Heaven.

[George W. Bush]

I read your exchange with OPie and thought I'd add a note.

In the period preceding the Reformation, many scholars of the Eastern church fled to the West, carrying with them precious and rare manuscripts, many of them entirely unknown at that time in the West. Among these, were the Received Text which was the scripture of the Eastern church and which they had very faithfully preserved with an astonishing accuracy. So, if some might consider the institutionalized rigor of certain Eastern practices to be a deadening influence on a vibrant spiritual life, one might also observe that it was, at least in part, likely to have helped to preserve the purity of Received Text.

It was those texts and their unified historical and geographically diverse testimony which Erasmus (a less than entirely loyal Roman priest/scholar) assembled and edited into the great Textus Receptus which became the basis for the creation of all the great Protestant bibles, starting with Luther's bible and later with versions for all the European languages. The most visible modern member of this family is the King James Bible, a Bible that in many ways evangelized the world in the hands of English-speaking missionaries under the British and American commercial empires.

Without your guys bringing us the manuscripts when they fled to the West, we'd have been stuck with Rome's Bible, an impure scripture. I don't agree with Orthodox theology but I think that it's hard to picture how the Reformation would have unfolded without the great Reformation bibles and their roots in the Received Text of the Eastern church. It's one of those strange historical connections between different churches.

It would have been quite difficult for a Reformer to holler sola scriptura while waving one of Rome's bibles. Just one of those tidy tidbits of history where one can see how God preserves the purity of His Word in extraordinary and completely unexpected ways and how He turns all things to His own ends. We Calvinists like to observe how He does these things so neatly and surprisingly.

To continue on with the Textus Receptus, one can observe that it is the modern translations, the supposedly superior manuscripts held by Rome which now dominate in modern Protestant and evangelical churches. As these Bibles are translated, they take increasing liberties with the text to try to reinterpret it to allow female and/or sodomite clergy, the diminution of many references to Christ which debases Him. One new version even refers to God the Mother. In short, we have an explosion of new translations with a new one appearing every few years. Even in the same church, no one can quote the Bible anymore without someone else having a different verse in their bible. Not all of these modern translations are inherently bad but it is the proliferation of different versions which allows modernist apostates to create so much mischief. And some of the worst mischief has been caused by liberal modernist Protestant churches. And, in part, I believe that much of this happened simply because we allowed the proliferation of so many divergent readings. We've created something of a tower of Babel with an ever-changing scripture. It's inherently problematic and it is increasingly obvious.

We who favor the Textus Receptus line of the Eastern church are biding our time, waiting for God to once again dash down these modern corrupted bibles based on conflicting and inferior secret Vatican manuscripts of narrow geographical origin and poor unity in their readings and completeness.

Another interesting bit of history is that if Rome had never betrayed the Eastern church as it did at crucial junctures, it is far less likely that those scholars would fled to the West with the manuscripts that became the basis of the Protestant Reformation in the form of the sola scriptura bibles which were based on those Eastern manuscripts. Strange, eh? I wish I could understand how God makes all these things work together...

[Rambler]

It was those texts and their unified historical and geographically diverse testimony which Erasmus (a less than entirely loyal Roman priest/scholar) assembled and edited into the great Textus Receptus which became the basis for the creation of all the great Protestant bibles

The Textus Receptus was compiled from a total of 7 Greek manuscripts, none of which was dated earlier than the 11th century. The texts used are still available today and are generally judged to be of low quality. So incomplete were these texts that Erasmus had to translate part of the Vulgate from Latin to obtain the Greek, and he even acknowledges the poor quality work. Today there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts available to scholars, many of these older than those available to Erasmus.

[George W. Bush]

Your grasp of the history of the Greek families and Erasmus' work is the usual hit piece on him and his work. I won't even bother to dissect the flaws of such shallow treatment of his work and its demonstrated historical veracity.

Far more serious, you fail to note the glaring and inesapable defects in the Textus Sinaiticus and Textus Vaticanus, manuscripts so corrupt that even Rome won't use them or permit a full scholarly inspection of them.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

OP, I think your post was a very kind and charitable one, and I thank you for it.

Well, in fairness, my post was at best only half-charitable. A few of my points probably tended towards the acerbic, but you have been good enough to listen more closely to my words, than to my tone. Which is warmly to your credit.

Certainly we (Eastern Orthodox) are not big on answers and theological precision/truth, though we do believe some of our truths to be just that and essential (that is, Holy Scripture as the word of God, the Trinity with the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, etc.). As for a doctrine of salvation, I am sure you know ours is rather sketchy at best. It's more of a "good luck" than anything else, imho. It would be wonderful if you protestants turn out to be correct about salvation. :-)

Well, obviously I like to think that we are correct... which is why I am a Protestant.

The Protestants raised the banner of Reformation around two fundamental principles:

• The Material Principle of the Reformation -- Sola Fide, by Faith in Jesus Alone.
• The Formal Principle -- Sola Scriptura, by the Authority of Scripture Alone.

I am not a very educated scholar on Eastern Orthodoxy, but I think that the following two little Eastern Orthodox quotations commensurate quite nicely with what we Protestants are "trying to say" -- and serve us all very well:

"Every action, therefore, and performance of miracles by Christ are most great and divine and marvelous: but the most marvelous of all is His precious Cross. For no other thing has subdued death, expiated the sin of the first parent, despoiled Hades, bestowed the resurrection, granted the power to us of contemning the present and even death itself, prepared the return to our former blessedness, opened the gates of Paradise, given our nature a seat at the right hand of God, and made us the children and heirs of God, save the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- St. John of Damascus: AN EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

"Has some good thought come to you? Have you felt some good impulse or inclination in your heart? Stop!! Check it with the Gospel." -- Blessed Vladyka Ignatij (Brianchaninov)

If these sentiments be true (and as a Protestant, I certainly believe that they are), then I have a very strong hopeful expectation that every Eastern Orthodox Saint who seeks to Live his Faith on these principles will certainly find in Eternity, that the Protestant doctrine of Salvation is proven wondrously true for him or her!! (And I have a prayerful confidence, for you).

I confess I must know go and find out about the Patriarch of which you speak and what he proposed. Thank you again for a most generous and kind overview of my church. Please give my regards to your friend and if you can, please remember me in your prayers!

Patriarch Kyrillos Loukaris of Constantinople published his Confessio Fidei in 1631 AD, about seven years before the Jesuits (allegedly, of course) bribed the Turks to kill the patriarch and dump his body into the Bosporus.

Here are a couple of articles on the controversy.

• The Puritan Eye: Thoughts from the Past -- "Confessio Fidei" / Cyril Lucaris
  Described as the “most brilliant and politically outstanding Patriarch . . . of the 17th century,” Cyril Lucaris is an intriguing anomaly in the history of Eastern Orthodoxy. After embracing the insights of Reformed theology, he wrote the following confession of faith which he saw as laying the foundation for a biblically reformed Eastern Orthodoxy. This clear statement of classical Protestantism in eastern trappings shows us what biblical thought will look like in that context.

  A faithful reproduction of Patriarch Kyrillos' "Confessio Fidei", which is argued to be "Protestantism in eastern trappings" (Note, for example, the specific formula "proceeding from the Father through the Son" in Article 1; the reservation in Article 5 that the robust view of Predestination affirmed in Article 3 is nonetheless "above our comprehension... concerning this matter, we feel we ought to rather in humility to observe silence than to indulge in vain discourse"; the affirmation of Article 10 that each of the regional Churches should have a President not to be confused with the Head of the Church; and the "noble" though not worshipful treatment of Icons in the appended Question 4)

• The Myth of the "Calvinist Patriarch" -- an Eastern Orthodox response
  Just as today one must see the Orthodox world in its greater historical context, so in Patriarch Kyrillos’ day, too, Orthodoxy existed in a world of political reality that must be carefully studied, in order to see what implications rise above his specific witness and faithfully address Orthodoxy at a general level. To this end, let me just say, as a general observation, that with the fall of Constantinople the Orthodox East fell under Latin domination and the Turkish Yoke. Its survival threatened, its spiritual and intellectual primacy relinquished to the West, Orthodoxy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries took on an historical character that cannot be applied universally to the Church’s experience and ethos, and especially, again, without careful examination and precision.

  An Eastern Orthodox response. Argues that the Confessio Fidei of Patriarch Kyrillos should not be misrepresented, but rather must be understood within its historical context as discussing those points of agreement which the Patriarch himself felt that he could affirm together with Protestants in the context of their mutual struggle against Roman Papacy, but without in any way renouncing his Eastern Orthodoxy.

Having presented both sides, I should observe that the discussion is a bit "academic" given that the theological opinions of any one Patriarch (even the Patriarch of Constantinople) are not binding on the Eastern Orthodox anyway, since Eastern Orthodoxy does not "work" like that. But, it's an interesting historical side-discussion.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I don't agree with Orthodox theology but I think that it's hard to picture how the Reformation would have unfolded without the great Reformation bibles and their roots in the Received Text of the Eastern church. It's one of those strange historical connections between different churches.

Temporarily laying aside a vast gulf of theological differences, this is a true enough statement by GWB as far as history goes... were it not for the careful preservation of the Greek Manuscripts in the monasteries of the East, I don't know that John Calvin would have had any copies of the Original Text from which to translate his "Geneva" Bible, nor King James his "Authorized".

[George W. Bush]

A truly interesting post. We too rarely hear much about the history and beliefs of the Eastern churches. I find the Christian liberty among the Orthodox somewhat surprising even though a friend of mine (Orthodox sympathizer but Episcopal member) had told me something of this positive aspect of the Orthodox as compared to the Roman.

The semi-Protestant views of the Patriarch you mentioned were completely unknown to me. An interesting episode. Too bad Rome was such a determined enemy of the Eastern church. Rome's modern apologies for what they perpetrated against the Orthodox church is insufficient and unconvincing. Especially when it comes from a Roman pontiff who dares to kiss a Koran.

[Jael]

OP, then you are a heretic. I have shown you from God's Word but you reject it for your man made and man taught doctrines.

Dr. Alan Cairns, in his Dictionary of Theological Terms, defines Heresy as a deliberate denial of revealed truth, together with acceptance of error (2 Peter 2:1). The basic meaning of the Greek word HAIRESIS is 'CHOICE,' giving the meaning of heresy as a self-willed opinion in opposition to Biblical truth.
Such opinions frequently give rise to sects or parties (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5,14; 26:5; 28:22; 1 Cor 11;19; Gal. 5:20). A heretic, therefore is a sectarian.

I have another newsflash for you, if you think true Biblical Christianity rest with Calvin, you are truly deluded.

I have shown you that God says whosoever believeth will be saved. You ignored what God said.
John 3:18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:
and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 6:40  And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:47  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

John 7:38  He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Acts 10:43  To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

I have shown you that God is not willing for any to perish.

2 Peter 3:9
 ¶The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward,
not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance.

The same Grace is for all men.
Titus 2:11  ¶For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men

I have shown you that God, through Paul was speaking to saved men, not in regards to salvation, but about the things of the spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
I have shown you what God says the ***things of the Spirit** are. It is the inheritance prepared for those who love him. Of course an unsaved man will not know that!
You ignored that.

I have shown you that Paul was speaking to saved men regarding the battle with the FLESH, not the unsaved about unbelief. You ignored that.

Not only did you ignore the fact that you were wrong, you twisted and used Scripture to fit your own man made beliefs.

Any saved person reading Romans 7:18  (For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.)
KNOWS that Paul is speaking to a saved man. How dare you abuse the Word of God and wrest the Scriptures for your own man made doctrines?????

Examine yourself.

I have shown you that Jesus said he would draw all men unto him. You ignored that.
John 12:32  And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

I have shown you that God says he would not always strive with men. You ignored that.
Genesis 6:3  ¶And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

I have shown you that Jesus will punish those who disobey the Gospel. You ignored that.

2 Thessalonians 1:7  
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8  In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9  Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10  When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

I have shown you that your church is the daughter of Rome, and that you can not Biblically support the heresy of infant Baptism. You ignore that.

Acts 8:36  
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said,
See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

I have shown you that the Gospel is not election. I have shown you that election is due to the foreknowledge of God.You ignore that.
1 Peter 1:2  Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father

I have shown you what the Gospel is. You ignore that.
1 Corinthians 15:1
 ¶Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

Now, spare us this last. Keep your silly comments about me to yourself, along with your false claims. If you can't reply with Scripture that speaks to the subject, don't reply. And don't bother posting anything that is not germane to the subject.

Don't find passages speaking to saved people about matters outside of salvation and try and tell me that it means something else. Those kinds of little games are for schoolyards.

Matthew 23:37
 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee,
how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and **ye would not!**

Luke 13:34
 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee;
how often would I have gathered thy children together,
as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and **ye would not!**

[Jael]

Do me a favor. Don't mention my name in conjunction with the pope please.

I reject Rome and all of her false beliefs, including infant baptism.

[Jael]

Jael, I just retired as an army chaplain. Here's a real scenario from the files of the battlefield. Baptist chaplain is on the field of combat with a severely wounded and dying soldier. The chaplain counsels the young man and he expresses a new-found faith in Christ. The boy asks to be baptized but there's only the chaplain's canteen and the boy's.

As a minister of Christ, what do you do? Do you do nothing because you can't immerse the boy, or do you use the canteen of water?

Sprinkling is not baptizing. So it really wouldn't matter. Baptism has no saving efficacy anyway. So what's the point. Read him the Scriptures instead.

Luke 23:39  And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

40  But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41  And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

42  And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Baptizing a baby is a heresy anyway. Why would any saved person do it or support it? If your church does it, it isn't too reformed from Rome at all, is it?

[George W. Bush]

Naturally. That's what he meant by saying that Rome would refer to you as a separated brethren.

Generally, this term is used to refer to Protestants or other non-RCs who have a generally orthodox confession of Christ as savior.

Of course, "separated brethren" is actually a strange term for Rome to use. Given that they call the Roman church the Catholic (universal) church, they don't really have much theological ground upon which to call any of us brethren. If salvation is found only within the doctrine and sacraments and obedience of the Roman Church as they teach internally, then they really have no right to offer a false hope that we might be their "brethren" if we remain "separated" from the only (supposed) church of Christ which they consider to be Rome. And the reason it is the only possible valid Christian church: apostolic succession of their popes and the continuing authority to ordain priests for the Roman sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

Given the theological claims and tradition of Rome, the term "separated brethren" can only be a non sequitur to all parties.

Interesting how this ecumenism compromises traditional Roman principle. One can observe the same inevitable inconsistencies among evangelicals and Protestants who try to ecumenize with the Roman church.

[Jael]

Of course I believe in a trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I don't have a group with a charismatic leader. I don't even like Charismatics. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

[Jael]

Unless you can "all" come to some "common" agreement of "any" particular passage,why should I listen to you? The Holy Spirit does not preach confusion.

So don't listen to me. But there is no confusion on my part. I am not like they are, following a man, Calvin, who murdered another for not believing like he did.

I believe that God's Word is the authority. It's all parked there.

[George W. Bush]

Nice baptism post. But OPie might not readily agree with some of your remarks. I think he may have made a few prior remarks on the topic...

Of course, you are entirely correct about the battlefield example. If the dying soldier is truly saved, his lack of baptism would no more condemn him than it could have condemned the believing thief who died on the cross next to Jesus.

One really has to suspect arguments that are made from extremes. Lawyers often say that "Hard cases make bad laws". I think we could extend that principle to say "Hard cases make bad theology".

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

If salvation is found only within the doctrine and sacraments and obedience of the Roman Church as they teach internally, then they really have no right to offer a false hope that we might be their "brethren" if we remain "separated" from the only (supposed) church of Christ which they consider to be Rome.... Given the theological claims and tradition of Rome, the term "separated brethren" can only be a non sequitur to all parties.

True, IMO -- but the only Roman Catholics with the gumption to say so anymore, are the Feeney-ite Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus SSPX "traditionalist" Roman Catholics.

Who, having been summarily "drummed out of the Corps" by the modernist Vatican II Catholics (on account of the SSPX-ers acting too much like, well, traditional Roman Catholics, I guess)... have ended up as "separated brethren" from Rome in their own right, I guess. (LOL!!)

[Jael]

When they quote manmade ideas then the trouble begins. So many times the argument here is "my man vs your man", not the Gospel.

There man is Calvin, my man is Jesus Christ.

John 5:39  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

[Jael]

I think scripture is clear regarding every baptism. I don't think it's something we can just make up to fit what we WANT.:-)

Thanks for your comments.

[Jael]

What's the election due to? 1 Peter 1:2

www.justbible.com

[George W. Bush]

True, IMO -- but the only Roman Catholics with the gumption to say so anymore, are the Feeney-ite Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus SSPX "traditionalist" Roman Catholics. Who, having been summarily "drummed out of the Corps" by the modernist Vatican II Catholics (on account of the SSPX-ers acting too much like, well, traditional Roman Catholics, I guess)... have ended up as "separated brethren" from Rome in their own right, I guess. (LOL!!)

Yeah, but in many ways, I find the traditionalist claims of the SSPXers very appealing (if I had to choose RC modernists vs. traditionalists). And, as a Baptist, I should actually consider the traditionalists to be far more the real "enemy" of Baptist/Protestant principle in the modern world.

Things are getting bad when the most annoying theological opinions one can find are one's own! Fortunately for me, God revealed to me rather starkly a while back just how worthless my opinions and my most "noble" views really are. Very sobering but hopefully I'll be a little less fond of my own opinions. At least for a while.

I think I may finally be getting a small grasp of what Paul was teaching in Romans 7 and why it is so difficult for people to read and accept that passage.

[George W. Bush]

Their man is Calvin, my man is Jesus Christ.

Feel free to disagree with the doctrines of grace, namely, that which is commonly called Calvinist. But this statement is simply not true, no matter how often repeated.

I'm beginning to think you Arminians all have the same little I Hate Calvin handbook somewhere from which you drag these prosaic insults.

I suspect you believe there is some sort of overriding set of uniform beliefs among Calvinists on a wide range of topics. This is actually untrue in both the modern era and historically. There is a actually a tremendous variety of other doctrinal beliefs held by those who describe themselves as Calvinist. You'll find there are actually quite a number of Calvinists who hold no particular regard for Calvin or who denounce some of his theological errors. I don't think you'll find a single "Calvinist" here who agrees with him entirely on anything.

And I doubt any of you Arminians are in complete agreement with Arminius either. And many wouldn't know the particulars of his theology even as well as we know Calvin's shortcomings.

Unfortunately, the world is never quite as flat as we would prefer it to be.