Their main argument was correct: that infants can't repent and the baptism ritual itself isn't what saves you. But they interpreted the following dishonestly:
Epileptic Urethra
A little child is innocent and pure, as our Lord says in
Matthew 18:3, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." And we also read in
Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven'".
The verse from Matthew 18 which they quoted is Jesus' reply in response to his disciples (asking who would have the highest rank in heaven):
Matthew 18:1-4 (NIV)
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
...ergo Jesus is telling them to stop being prideful over their rank, humble themselves to the level of little children, who don't have any prestige, aren't really seeking it, and are at the lowest rank of society (thus interacting with everyone the same, as if you aren't above their level). Secondly, if we're going to extrapolate something else from this, it would be the child-parent relation with God; you're suppose to trust in God, like a child depends on their parents to care for them. It's not addressing innocence at all, but a humble attitude towards God and other people.
Epileptic Urethra
One error leads to another. Men say since infants have inherited the sin of Adam, they must be baptized or they will be lost. This is also false.
One error definitely leads to another. I would agree that it is error to claim that infants can go through baptism/repentance. However, it is
true that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam (and even though we don't receive direct punishment for his sins, we do suffer the natural consequences of his decision: born in exile, not in the garden, with a nature that craves to do wrong before we even know what wrong is). Scripture says we inherit that sinful nature. Whoever wrote this is disregarding verses such as:
Genesis 8:21 (NIV)
The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
Footnotes:
a. Genesis 8:21 Or humans, for
Psalm 58:3 (NIV)
Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.
To speak for myself, I distinctly remember feelings of pride as early as 2-3 years old. However, when I would get blamed for misconduct, I'd be indifferent towards such things as "wrong", "right", "justice"; it didn't really register. If I were spanked by family, I would cry because it hurt, I was shocked, and I sensed hatred coming from people I trusted (thus scared), not because I was cognizant of any wrongdoing, nor felt remorseful for something (in fact, I never connected "bad behavior" with "getting hit" at that age [side note, I never received that kind of discipline later on anyway after I moved back in with my mother around 5]); in pre-school and kindergarten (4-5 years old), I would even take the blame for things I didn't do; at that point I would cry about it because I didn't know why the teacher was treating me meanly [aka punishing me], seeing as I really did not do anything (it probably didn't help that I didn't speak the language, but even back in the Dominican Republic, the adults were speaking the same language I did, and I still took the blame for things I didn't do, lol. I would just raise my hand whenever they asked a question even if it was "who did this?" *raises hand* haha). Though it should've been obvious that I wasn't really the culprit if I raised my hand for everything.
Comparing that to how I was around 5-6 years of age, I do remember that I enjoyed taking advantage of my younger cousins' "naivety". I did covet things that didn't belong to me and I stole to get it (not all lusts are sexual). I
knew my behavior was wrong, as evidenced by the fact that I snuck around when I did it, I never wanted to get caught. I was undeniably guilty and aware of my guilt. Whether God would consider me blameless at that point? I highly doubt it. I wasn't raised Christian, but I knew my behavior was wrong (or else, I wouldn't try to hide/sneak/lie about my behavior) and yet I still continued the behavior. And boy was I ever a liar around that age (from that point on, continuing all throughout high school; I only refined my ability to do so, becoming more subtle at it; getting reprimanded never stopped it).
Anecdotal evidence aside, if the interpretation calls for the bible to contradict itself in another area, it's the wrong interpretation. So, using verses to disprove other verses doesn't hold up. We have to figure out the interpretation that accounts for both verses being equally true.
Infants might be blameless of committing sin, but
children knowingly commit things they shouldn't, then they lie about it or try to sneak around so they don't get caught; children are definitely guilty and we do have a sin nature since childhood. Jesus wasn't instructing his disciples to take on the "innocence" of children (which isn't even true) nor become ignorant of what sin is, but to take on their prestige-less position in society, even if you do have a high rank. We're all born with a sinful nature that craves to do wrong even before we commit sin or learn to distinguish right from wrong.
That said, it does seem like infants go to the comforting side of She'ol/Hades upon death, judging by what Job says (that he would rather have been a still-born than have to live through the suffering/injustice he currently was enduring):
Job 3:11-19 (NIV)
11 “Why did I not perish at birth,
and die as I came from the womb?
12 Why were there knees to receive me
and breasts that I might be nursed?
13 For now I would be lying down in peace;
I would be asleep and at rest
14 with kings and rulers of the earth,
who built for themselves places now lying in ruins,
15 with princes who had gold,
who filled their houses with silver.
16 Or why was I not hidden away in the ground like a stillborn child,
like an infant who never saw the light of day?
17 There the wicked cease from turmoil,
and there the weary are at rest.
18 Captives also enjoy their ease;
they no longer hear the slave driver’s shout.
19 The small and the great are there,
and the slaves are freed from their owners.
Job 10:18-19 (NIV)
18 “Why then did you bring me out of the womb?
I wish I had died before any eye saw me.
19 If only I had never come into being,
or had been carried straight from the womb to the grave!
...though he's just talking about his physical body's rest/no longer having to endure physical torment, and not necessarily describing the rest in She'ol, if he's at rest in the afterlife (compared to his earthly trouble) it's because he was righteous in life (and Job clearly was). Logically, despite having a nature that wants to sin, if you didn't end up transgressing the law yourself, I don't think there's any torment to endure while in She'ol—unlike the rich man who, as he waited for the resurrection, was receiving the same treatment he showed Lazarus in life (Luke 16:19-31), thus in torment. Lazarus endured injustice in life, so he's comforted in the afterlife; the rich man dealt out injustice, so he received torment/wasn't comforted in the afterlife. An infant doesn't deal out injustice, so it can only be comforted/at rest.
Reply
