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.

[JesseShurun]

No George, I never said anything about salvation. In fact in my first post on this thread, here, I said it doesn't save. From what little I know of you , I know that you know it's primarily a step in obedience, but it is also a participation in the dying with Christ and the resurrection of Christ. There are several baptisms and there is indeed a baptism in suffering. It does not take the place of the water baptism, but it can be an identification with Christ's sufferings and it is meant for disciples. When the thief believed, he was saved. The baptism of suffering was a gift to him.

[George W. Bush]

None of the manuscripts used by Erasmus dated earlier than the 11th century and some of the seven were from as late as the 15th.

Where to start with such a festering mass of ignorance about manuscript history. Well, it is interesting to not that you are spouting the Erasmus-had-only-7-manuscripts version of the lie instead of the more standard Erasmus-had-only-11-manuscripts lie. As usual, the modernists reveal themselves as malicious mental midgets when compared to the titans of Reformation bible scholarship.

I think I'll avoid any attempt at correction. I find that the roll-yer-own-Bible people are pretty determined in their efforts to create their peculiar bibles. Of course, they have to in order to fit into it the modern lunacies of the evangelical churches and charismaniac churches and sodomite churches and feminized churches.

[George W. Bush]

If all you need is a few drops, couldn't Jesus have spit on the thief?

I award game, set, and match to Jael for this great one-liner.

[George W. Bush]

There are several baptisms and there is indeed a baptism in suffering.

No, there is one baptism, believer's baptism. It is administered by believers to a new believer as an act of obedience. It does not and cannot determine salvation or accomplish any other spiritual purpose.

This is not to say that God may not use that moment of baptism to give a particular blessing to an individual believer. But that is not necessarily expected nor is its presence or absense any commentary on the spirituality of the baptized person.

Given your varous baptisms and recalling that baptism is denoted in the NT by "baptizo" a Greek work which means only to submerge underwater, then how are we to parse this "baptism of suffering" you're pursuing? Is it a "submerged-under-water-suffering" or something?

I think you're hinting here at the practices of charismatics/personal-holiness types of churches which believe in a second gift of the Holy Spirit and other such things. These beliefs are modern beliefs and not found anywhere in the Bible or in the ancient churches.

[JesseShurun]

No George, and your attempt at painting me as a charismatic are futile. There is water baptism, there is the baptism to repentance that John practiced, there is a baptism with fire, and there is a baptism in suffering, and maybe one or two more. They are all biblical.

[JesseShurun]

Baptism of Suffering
The baptism Jesus spoke of in the verses below apparently refers to the agony he was to endure at His crucifixion. Matthew 20:22,23 But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to Him, "We are able." So He said to them, "You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father."
Mark 10:38-40 But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?" They said to Him, "We are able." So Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink the cup that I drink, and with the baptism I am baptized with you will be baptized; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared."
Luke 12:50 "But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished!"

[George W. Bush]

Please describe historical instances of "baptisms of suffering" as defined by your sect. Names, dates, and circumstances, please.

[JesseShurun]

No need. The scriptures above describe it exactly, and it is summarized in the famous command to "pick up your cross and follow me."

[George W. Bush]

Note to George here. I am not Arminian.

Translation: I don't want to admit I'm Arminian.

You're one or the other, Jael. No getting around it. Since you hate Calvin's gentle and learned expositions of the doctrines of grace so vehemently, you are by default an Arminian.

[George W. Bush]

The scriptures above describe it exactly, and it is summarized in the famous command to "pick up your cross and follow me."

Are you then saying that the disciples described were then "baptized by suffering"? And exactly how did that occur to each of them?

You seem to have at least a half-dozen different kinds of baptism listed. Maybe there are hundreds? Perhaps even thousands of different kinds of baptisms? Who knows? Maybe there's the baptism-of-spilling-hot-coffee-on-your-lap or some such thing (I just spilled some coffee). Can I be sure I didn't inadvertently baptize myself again?

[JesseShurun]

Pardon me for all of my impertinence. There is only one baptism of course. Whatever the scriptures are saying about any other types is mere fiction, for clearly, they are not mentioned. There is no baptism of repentance, no baptism by fire and certainly, absolutely, no baptism of suffering.

[George W. Bush]

What kind of church do you belong to that believes in a half-dozen (or more) different kinds of baptisms? Or is this polybaptism something you came up with yourself?

[JesseShurun]

I made it all up myself.

[George W. Bush]

Okay.

[JesseShurun]

Thank you. I will be a good little Christian and try not to upset you in the future.

[Rambler]

I think I'll avoid any attempt at correction.

A good idea coming from the guy who talks about the Textus Vaticanus and the Textus Sinaiticus, and who thinks the Received Text were some ancient Byzantine manuscripts used by Erasmus.

You don't know what you're talking about so yes, avoiding any attempt at correction seems wise on your part. I'll save you the embarrassement and let it drop, too.

[George W. Bush]

Usual modernist hit-and-run tactics. I rather expected you to retreat while declaring victory. It's typical with the biblemangling crowd.

[Rambler]

Usual modernist hit-and-run tactics. I rather expected you to retreat while declaring victory. It's typical with the biblemangling crowd.

You've been wrong on every point so far, but as you wish, I'll stay and play. Since you insist that more than the 7 (or 11) Greek manuscripts were used by Erasmus in his contribution to the Received Text, which ones were they? You infer you know the correct history so let's see you document some instead of just blowing smoke.

[George W. Bush]

The seven (or eleven) texts you claim were merely Erasmus' primary sources in assembling the first edition. His work went through several subsequent editions prior to any widespread publication or use in translation. I could go back to unearth some of the information previously posted on the subject but you're hardly worth the effort.

Much of what is written against Erasmus' work is artificially arranged to paint it in a poor light. However, there is abundant evidence and the testimony of reliable witnesses to establish that Erasmus was well-acquainted with a far larger number of manuscripts of the ancient Greek church (received text, majority text, traditional text, whichever you prefer to call it). His own notes indicate them and reference them. His research into the writings of the fathers of the ancient church were used to confirm many problematic passages.

More to the point, Erasmus chose the very best of the manuscripts as his primary sources. But these were the best of the modern copies of the ancient texts, namely authentic representatives of over 99% of the ancient manuscripts. And that overwhelming preponderance of surviving manuscripts and their geographical diversity and their attestation by the fathers of the ancient church is sufficient to establish Textus Receptus as the superior Greek text.

As a bit of historical background, I should mention that Erasmus was the foremost scholar in Europe, a man whose company was sought by all the kings and nobles of Europe. He was a man of many talents apparently. His reputation might have been comparable to that of Einstein in our era, a scholar so famous that everyone knew who he was. The point is that Erasmus had access to any source material that he wanted to use. In much the same way we see with any of the great students of scripture in these ages, he travelled and found ways to acquire orginals or faithful copies of a huge amount of material.

By way of comparison, let's look at the modernists Westcott & Hort. I would not even consider them Christian. They were founders of the modern spiritualist movement as their own private writings and as public records attest. They were founding members of the original great spiritualism society whose modern branches are the New Agers. They believed in conjuring the dead and other practices no orthodox Christians have ever engaged in. Although officially Anglican, they had some very strange leanings toward Rome, again, all this is abundantly recorded in their own writings. All in all, they are very similar to their modern counterparts, (Metzger, Bruce, Aland, etc.) in one disturbing respect: none of them believe the Bible is fully inspired and they deny that God has preserved His Word. They believe that the Bible is merely another piece of text, subject to mere literary technique. And the theories they spin to support the supremacy of their texts are among the most convoluted literary arguments one might possibly entertain.

By contrast, Erasmus and his subsequent defenders (men like Burgon, Miller, Hills to cite only the English defenders) each and every one absolutely affirmed God's inspiration of the canon of scripture and His personal preservation of His Word. They approached the text as a living and supernatural testimony of God's revelation to men. They believed the Bible was unique and not some mere literary work. Their approach to the text and their care in their work reflected this attitude.

I will choose the work of godly men who love and revere the Word, whose work is supported by over 99% of the available ancient texts from all over the ancient Roman empire. You can have the sophisticated literary creations of these others.

[Jael]

Um, no I am not. I don't agree with that doctrine at all. JUst because you Calvinist follow men, don't try and assign that fault to Bible Believers.