Do Infants Who Die Without Baptism Suffer Eternal Damnation? 

Welcome back ☺️☦️

Can you show any official document where the "western church" teaches what you say it teaches? With all due respect, to save you the time, it doesn't exist.

@vivacristorey4363 Calvin didn't teach freewill. With the original sin, Luther believed that infants are born with the original sin and only by baptising them they could enter Heaven.

@@DohMkay Well, let's make some important distinctions here. As you show in your response, there are different sects of Christianity which all believe different things. Calvinism does not teach the same things about God as Lutheranism. So when you claimed that the "western church" taught this or that it can be a bit misleading without specifying which sect specifically. I am Catholic. And we believe in free will. As for unbaptized babies, we, just as the Orthodox, baptize both infants and adults to bring them into Christ's mystical body by the sacrament that He gave us - which does free them from original sin (the state of the world inherited by the sin of Adam). There is a difference between saying that God damns unbaptized babies to eternal punishment versus saying they might not be able to get to Heaven. There is nothing dogmatic about if they can get to Heaven - but rather that theology tries to work out the details. In modern times, the Catholic Church says (in the catechism) that God likely finds a way for unbaptized babies to get to Heaven in a way that is beyond our understanding. Before that the nondogmatic theology most believed was that unbaptized babies and righteous pagans went to Limbo. We really don't know. But the Catholic Church has never claimed that babies are damned to eternal torment; and it is bearing false witness to claim that they do. "...their god is a cruel god that sends infants to hell...' was what you said. Unless you can show a document of any sect of the "western church" saying any such thing, you are bearing false witness.

@vivacristorey4363 Catholic Church also believes in Original Sin. For a long time, you believed that unbaptised babies go to Hell and that also is thanks to Augustine. Now instead of admitting that this theology is ridiculous, for we do not inherit the sins of our fathers, you created some unbiblical and unfounded places where unbaptised people go after death. For we know at least one person who wasn't baptised that went to heaven. Its the man on the cross next to Jesus. For he repented without getting baptised. With God everything is possible. My post was about how deeply I disagreed with Weatern Churches. Even Calvinists now deny that babies go to hell even though their theology is much more Augustinian. I looked at them without bias, and following the logic of the teachings. Most Western Churches teach original sin. I am very opposed to this teaching, for I believe my God is righteous and just he might punish the generations of people for the sins of the fathers and mothers, like Adam and Eve, but he doesn't hold us responsible for their sins, for we weren't there, and how can we repent for the sins of Adam and Eve.

They aren't figures. Just nobodies that think they are theologians

@akdobbertin You’ll notice it’s people with no blessing to teach from a priest or Bishop who claim that infants are damned. They are typically always piety signallers who want to make themselves feel more righteous by condemning infant babies.

I am going to pray for your daughter to be restored to you also and pray that Christ comes powerfully in your life and in hers too, I love you brother and I believe God will take care of you

Pray for her fervently, and pray to the saints and angels to stay close to her. Your prayers will be her light in a dark path.

Why don't you have a priest baptise her? As her father, your spiritual authority over your daughter is greater than that of her mother, even as the Lord commands us to honour our father first then our mother.

He ‘confessed’ to Jesus before his death. Received absolution from God… kind of received ‘last rites’ as well.

@@j2muw667 any valid source

Thank you!

Those verses don't exist

@@DontHateGod They absolutely do... IDK what Bible you're reading.... but if you want to believe that an all knowing and loving God would create an infant soul and then condemn it to an eternity of damnation because of a "technicality" feel free. I however have no knowledge of this God of whom you speak nor would I desire to seek intimacy with Him.

@@spg77777 I domt believe that and neither do these people im just stating machi 3 or any chapter of malachi lacks 20+ chapters

@@DontHateGod Chapter 3, verses 23 and 24... You do understand the difference between a "Chapter" and a "Verse" right? Go to "Chapter" 3 of Malachi (It's the last book of the Old Testament.) Now go to the end of Chapter 3... There you will find the 23rd and 24th verses. The very last two verses of the entire Old Testament. If your Bible doesn't have any part of what I've explained, then there is something wrong with your Bible.

@@spg77777 Malachi chapter 3 is only 17 verses

If parents are aborting their unborn- it’s a form of infant sacrifice for selfish reasons… the parents are choosing for their children. If people thought about this, they might reconsider murdering their own children. They aren’t sending the baby to heaven automatically. Still born babies can be baptized as soon as they’re born.

In your Bible , Jesus says when it comes to SIN, that you will be in big trouble if you hurt ' one of these", meaning any children, that are innocent.

@@johntsirakidis9544 True, but i think the guy youre replying to doesnt believe in God.

We don’t say that..

@@MrOrangeonion i do 😭😭. The thing is I agree with the orthodox position more rather then infants being sent to hell when they haven’t been able to sin. They have a fallen nature but that doesn’t mean they should Go to hell without even doing anything

@@Gady______ so your god puts kids in his her made up hell?

Its denominational thing

Groups like the church of Christ typically teach that sin doesn't become 'alive' until you understand the law, like Paul taught (Rom 7). In other words, they believe we sin, but God doesn't hold you accountable until you have understanding of right and wrong. Not only does that seem biblical, but it is consistent with natural parenting instincts and the way we handle education, civil and criminal law. All of the household examples of baptism in the Bible never specify infants were baptized and in those examples, the baptized understood the gospel.

God judges sin. The Holy Spirit helps us see and discern. There is no formula or timetable on when starts counting against someone. There is only a life lived in Christ. We repent when we err, but that repentance doesn't merit forgiveness. God forgives freely, He always sees us exactly as we are, and He judges accordingly.

When you are grown up to realize it? . 1 Cor. 13 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known

​@@ironyusa3885Amen

In the Catholic Church, the age of reason is 7. This is when children have their first reconciliation and become able to receive communion in the Roman Rite. They also become bound to Sunday observance 🛐 and enjoy many other responsibilities of the faith 🙏. There are other Rites that have children receiving communion from as early as possible 🚼 (same as in the Orthodox Church), and I do not know when these other Catholic Rites and/or the Orthodox Church itself consider children to have reached the age of reason and/or consider them responsible for their sins (nor to what degree). A child who has reached this age of reason should, it follows, be eligible and encouraged to frequent the sacrament of reconciliation. It should be noted that just because children 🚸 reach the "Age of Reason", they are not considered culpable to the same degree that a full grown adult would be 👨‍⚖️. Indeed, the Catholic teaching on culpability for sin is quite nuanced, and many factors play into that discussion ⚖️. Surely this is similar to the Orthodox understanding. A note on mercy. Many mystics, saints, and bishops on the western Catholic front in recent history have dubbed our day in time an "age of mercy", with the mercy of God being put more squarely in focus, perhaps as a result of the all-too-common misrepresentation of God as an excessively or solely punitive ‼️ and exacting 🧐 God, rather than the one who in infinite mercy came all the way down, who emptied himself for our salvation. Surely he did not come to offer salvation only to the Sadducees and Pharisees yet leave behind the most pure, most vulnerable, and holy innocents 👼👶😊

That’s what the deceiver wants everyone to think, so they don’t turn away from the ways of the world.

@@j2muw667 do u think creations( includes angels) is more powerful than creator!!!!? Godhead knew mankind will fall Godhead knew how to renew creation. Or restore everything. None will be lost.

It doesn’t say, but probably not.

The phrase, "in sin did my mother conceive me" does not refer to the act by which conception happens. Rather, it refers to how the whole of creation is infected by sin so that, as Job says, no man can be without sin (i.e. apart from, or separated from sin) even if his life on earth is but a single day.

He was forgiven by Christ whilst on the cross and entered heaven. He was not baptised. This does not mean baptism is completely unnecessary. What it means is that God's love and mercy is not restricted only to the sacraments.

the old testament law was not fulfilled yet, of the christ being risen, thus he died in the old law meaning he went to hades, he was the first to be freed because he was the last to leave this life with a righteous soul. he was the last of the old law.

No one knows if he was baptized or not - it is certainly possible, since “Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized” - but it doesn’t matter, for the reasons the others mentioned.

Beloved Mr Jones! Esq! I greet you! I congratulate you! A very evangelical protestant question masked as an innocent enquiry...mischief making at its finest! May I suggest you read Why The Good Thief Was Pardoned by St. John Maximovitch. Rejoice! Always!

And yet, the exception is always cited as if it is the rule. The thief on the cross is mainly used by the decision theologist to undermine the gift of baptism. Just stop proof texting. This is a bit more nuanced than just replying with the Thief on the cross. At best, this is type error. The two things don't go together.

I am curious which line of the Creed is violated by saying "Western Church"? Honestly, I think you're engaging in a pedanticism that isn't helpful. English words have meanings, true. Frequently many and with multiple levels of nuance that needs to be taken into account. Yes, there is only one true Church, the Orthodox Church. On that we agree without reservation. By saying "Western church" or "Western churches" (small letter c; heterodox), we make a distinction from "Church in the West" (capital letter c; Orthodox). Just as St. Paul addressed the question of true and false Apostles, not by refusing to use the word "Apostles" of the fakes but by making distinctions between the true and the false so should we do about the true Orthodox Church and the false heterodox/heretical churches. St. Paul was a master of taking his wording from popular discourse and redirecting it to the Church's use. We should learn from that example. I have watched this issue be the difference between heterodox entering the true Church and rejecting it. By calling them "churches" (again, small c), if they are Trinitarian at least, we can acknowledge what they believe correctly and use that build bridges for them to get where we are.

No. Because we are held to moral law as well.

@@joseonwalking8666 I’m talking about for the child not for the person they could justify it as an act of self sacrifice. I’m looking for something to use for truth to fight against this yes, it is a sin against God

@@samuelk2674 God says it's wrong so therefore, there is no justification. Jessica, some human version could use flawed. Human reasoning to try and come up with an excuse. Doesn't make it an excuse.

@@joseonwalking8666 Yes I understand it is wrong. My point is why they shouldn’t do it if they do not care what happens to them then why shouldn’t they? That’s my point I’m not trying to give them an excuse. I’m trying to get to the root of the issue so that they won’t do this.

​@@samuelk2674if you don't care about the consequences to the baby then you have no reason to care. But if they are omcerned about themselves it's a sin to kill a baby but it's not a sin to die as a baby.

St Thomas Aquinas classes both the limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of the infants as parts of hell. They are states of the soul where it is separated from the perfect love of God. In the case of the infants, it is because they suffer the effect of Adam's sin without knowing why. In the case of the Fathers, they knew why they were there. Yet in both cases, their souls long to be united with God, and so their states are the same in that way, which is why both are called limbo.

@@Ggdivhjkjl The damned don't long to be united with God. So it makes sense, that even though Limbo can be described as part of Hell, that it is not where the damned go. Thank you for enlightening us. God bless.

Papist cope. Limbo is Hell

@@MangyPL Yes, of course a papist: just like the early Church Fathers and the Apostles. "Limbo is Hell" you say? Let's break that down. "Hell" has multiple meanings which is why distinctions are necessary. So by "Hell", you seem to mean the general abode of the dead of those who are not in Heaven. Yes then, both the Limbo of the Fathers in the old testament and the Limbo of the Infants in the new covenant would be in the abode of Hell. But you are wrong to say that it is Hell in the sense that it is one section of Hell. And it is of course important to mention that Limbo is not a place where damned souls go, whether you call it part of Hell or not. So again, it comes back to the same issue: Catholics don't and never have believed that unbaptized babies are damned. God bless.

Apokatastasis is a heresy damned by the 5 ecumenical council.

Apocatastasis is heresy!

Eeeeeeh I wouldn't say all that

Heresy is what you say here

@@danielvranceanu8751 Please go through the greek term which is used for punishment and eternal in new testament. Please try to find out what's their meaning,

@@danielvranceanu8751 if an omniscient God knew , man will not repent or reject his word/ gospel, (before his creation), what is the purpose of creation? ? ?

@@danielvranceanu8751 Please go and read the exact meaning of the keyword which is written in greek ,for eternal punishment.

​@@rabbirubiel4932 the purpouse of creation is Love as "God is Love" and love requires free choice of it, of God, if i want to become your friend by force is that love or tyrany? is it even possible to love this way?