In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says about his deceased infant son: >*"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (ESV)* Many Christians interpret this as David expressing confidence that he would see his child again in the afterlife. This is often cited as evidence that infants who die are in God’s care and go to heaven. - Does it imply that children who die before reaching an age of moral accountability are saved? - Is David speaking about the afterlife or merely about joining his son in the grave? I'd appreciate perspectives from different theological traditions, especially Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox interpretations.

My question is posed to the Protestant churches that teach that man is saved by faith alone. If a person is saved by faith alone, what happens to children who die before they are able to conceive of the meaning of Christ's death and their own need for him and therefore cannot have a saving faith in his work? I heard the John Calvin taught that unbaptized infants were saved by their parents' faith. I've also heard that some Calvinist pastors will say that there is no way of knowing, because God has chosen which will go to heaven and hell apart from human action. Some Roman Catholic teachers taught that there was a place in Hell (or between Heaven and Hell) called limbo for unbaptized infants, but I see that Pope Francis has stated that unbaptized infants do have hope of salvation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html) . But I'm looking for an overview of the positions that are taught as doctrine in the Protestant churches, or are at least in writing from their leaders.

Having attended Baptist Churches for years, I've often heard the term "age of accountability" bandied about. The idea is that if a child dies at a young age - before reaching the "age of accountability", that child will go to Heaven, because he or she is not yet responsible for his or her sins. He or she is "too young to understand the Gospel". This age is not a specific age, but is understood to be different for everyone. I'm ***not*** asking what this age is. ***What I am asking, is where is the Scriptural evidence to support such a doctrine?*** Quite frankly, one of the reasons I stick to Baptist Churches is not because I consider myself a Baptist, but because it's the one denomination where in my (admittedly limited) experience, Pastors consistently say "If I ever preach anything that's not in the Word, or contrary to the Word, don't believe me." Yet, I can find no Scriptural evidence for such a doctrine. Am I missing it? If so, where is it in Scripture? If it exists, please point me to the verses. Or is it a doctrine based on supposition, attempting to reconcile the idea that a loving God, and the horrific idea that child could go to Hell simply for not being old enough to understand their lost state, repent, and put their faith in Christ?

Some Christian traditions believe that all infants go to heaven. In this view, wouldn't it be better if everyone died before they are born, so they avoid becoming sinful, and thus guaranteed to go to heaven? ### Evidence Christians Believe This Doctrine Here's one question showing a prominent Christian believes something like this (and also indicates potential problems with the view). > Dr. William Lane Craig has famously stated the following, When justifying the slaughter of the Canaanites: >> Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. And another question . > The Westminster Confession of Faith reads: >> Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ (10.3)

Was Jacob Arminius a cessationist and credobaptist? An article I am reading claims that he did not believe in infant baptism or in spiritual gifts today.

On the topic of unborn/infants dying without being baptized, could one argue that, as those babies would not go to hell but instead to heaven, it is an act of mercy or justice to abort babies to "guarantee" a spot in heaven?

Proponents of Believer's Baptism argue that Baptism requires an existing faith on the part of the person being baptized, and for this reason a) reject the practice of infant baptism and b) teach that baptism is not (directly) a Means of Grace (n.b. [this answer](/a/80050/53502)). Proponents of Infant Baptism (well, Catholics at least, and I think some others), OTOH, believe that Baptism *is* a Means of Grace, and that it is *through baptism* that a believer comes to faith and repentance. They believe that God is absolutely capable of working faith and repentance in infants. Since proponents of BB apparently *don't* believe this, do they believe that an infant cannot have faith or repentance? If so, do they believe that infants are condemned to Hell? If not, in what manner do they believe infants can be Saved? (Or do they believe infants don't *need* to be saved? I know there is disagreement on that question...)

As a Catholic, can I baptize my own child after he is born? I am about to see my first child be born and was wondering if it would be sinful if I were to baptize him myself after his birth. I am aware that the sacrament can be validly administered without a priest as long as the sacrament is performed with the proper form. I can't see any reason why it would be a problem but for some reason my gut is telling me no. I'm wondering if there is anything to reference that would point to this being sinful despite being legitimate.

Among denominations which recognize infant baptism, in my experience, Christians — even those who are otherwise not really practicing — baptize their children as a matter of course. In cases where the father belongs to one denomination and the mother to another (i.e. Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic), the children are baptized in a church belonging to (and later follow) the denomination of the father. This might all be a secular custom more so than a religious prescription, but it seemed pretty clear that the religion is inherited patrilineally. For Jews religion is inherited matrilineally, which is an actual and important religious prescription. In a case where the father is Christian and the mother is Jewish, would the father in any way transgress against his faith if he did not have his children baptized? Or is this issue pre-empted by a prescription to only marry within the faith, in which case there is no religious position on the matter since the religious position would have been to not end up in this situation in the first place?

Let's say a Protestant couple has a child who has been raised in a Protestant church that believes in adult baptism. So the child has not yet been baptized. The husband then becomes Catholic and desires his child to be baptized and raised Catholic. But his wife strenuously objects, is very hostile toward the Catholic faith, insisting that the child is raised Baptist, for example. Can the husband, out of the spiritual welfare of the child, requests a Catholic priest to baptize his child without the child and the wife knowing about it, and receives a certificate of baptism in the hope that in the future when the child becomes adult he/she can decide for himself/herself whether to be confirmed as Catholic? If secret baptism, or a dispensation can be given for this unusual form of baptism (similar to radical sanation of marriage when the hostile spouse doesn't know), is there an age limit for the child? The consideration here is that just as an infant is not aware that he/she has been baptized, the child doesn't need to know either.

I was just reading [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/53866/35508) which stated that a person could be Catholic without having gone through confirmation: Catholics recommend that this is done to infants. 1 If that is the case, that a Catholic baptism alone makes a person a Catholic, and if they are generally baptized as such as infants, it would stand to reason that there would be many people who may be technically considered Catholic by no choice or even memory of their own. Is that actually the case? So, if a person were baptized Catholic as an infant, for instance, perhaps lost his parents or was adopted, and then later grew up not knowing this, if this fact were somehow brought to his attention and those of the Catholic assembly, would they be considered Catholic, up to such point that the person intentionally renounced this? As a follow up question, if this is actually the case, are there some people who the Catholic Church believes to somehow have a better standing with God, from childhood, through no thought or action of their own? If it's not up to the child, and if it does bestow some favor, then would there be any reason not to try to force every child into this if the opportunity arises? If not, is it withheld to punish the child for the sake of the parents' choices? **Citation:** 1. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1250.htm

Since I am almost certain someone will come in and think the title of this question needs editing, I'm going to request that you leave it as it stands. ### The full/expanded question: I have seen shells used in Lutheran imagery in relation to infant baptism. What is the Scriptural basis for this practice of using a shell? If knowledgeable -- additionally, what is the historical basis for Lutherans to do this in their denominational history? I realize there other Catholic spinoff denominations may use the same imagery, but for the scope of this question I'm only asking about the Lutherans.

Why are babies dressed in white during a Roman Catholic christening (aka baptism)? Is the color symbolic or anything? Can any other color be worn? Similarly, are there some sort of color restrictions for adult converts?

In American Presbyterianism and Reformed theology more generally, one of the controversial issues has been the fate of children dying in infancy. The Westminster Confession of Faith reads: > Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ ([10.3](https://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_10)) The Confession thus leaves open the possibility that *some* infants are not elect and therefore not saved, and [historically this has incited significant debate](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52703/21576) . In 1903 the PCUSA adopted a [declaratory statement](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.vi.ii.iii.html) affirming universal salvation of those dying in infancy, against the opposition of "old school" theologians like B. B. Warfield. But Warfield only opposed making the position a confessional standard; personally he actually agreed with it: > For myself, I believe with all my heart that all dying in infancy are saved, and I believe that I can prove it from Scripture. (["Does the Confession Need Revision?" II](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Revision_of_the_Confession_of_Faith/3#55)) To me this view seems problematic because Reformed theology typically holds that adults who never hear the gospel are unsaved. So universal salvation of deceased infants would mean that some of the children of these adults go to heaven, despite neither the infants nor the adults ever having the opportunity to hear the gospel. Why do Reformed theologians think they would be treated differently? Other questions here deal generally with the question of infant salvation, so I'll be very specific here: - According to Reformed theologians, what is the biblical basis for the idea that all those who die in infancy are saved? - Reformed theologians could include the Presbyterian opponents of Warfield, but I'm most interested in the arguments made by conservatives like Warfield. - I'm looking for biblical basis. Saying "it wouldn't be fair" isn't going to cut it, unless the Bible is used to make this argument by these Reformed theologians. - I'm not interested in the basis for *some* dying infants being saved – I want to know the basis for *all* dying infants being saved. - I'm not interested in the "how" – whether dying infants have faith or not is not relevant; only that they are saved. ---- **Related questions** (and why they aren't duplicates): - [What do Protestant churches teach about the fate of deceased infants?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/50090/21576) - This is an overview question, not a biblical basis question. - [How is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants justified?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/32018/21576) - Similar, but is wider in scope, allowing for non-biblical and non-Reformed answers. For example, the conclusion of the [accepted answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/32040/21576) is extremely questionable from a Reformed perspective. - [What is the Biblical basis for asserting that infants can have faith in Christ under a Calvinistic framework?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14138/21576) - Similar, but two key differences: (1) there is a difference between infants *having faith* vs. simply *being saved* (my question is more general in this sense) and (2) my question refers to the idea of *all infants* being saved, while this question does not address that point.

In the Church of England [Book of Common Prayer](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/public-baptism-infants) the following statement is made: >It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved. How, according to Anglicanism, is it certain? Please note, while this is a Biblical Basis Question, it is more about the C of E's biblical basis. The ideal answer will show that Cranmer or the other Reformers held this view.

The Catholic Church, possibly the Orthodox Churches, and even some Protestant churches practice Infant Baptism. However, I understand that Catholicism teaches that infant baptism cleanses the infant from original sin, but I am unaware of where this doctrine draws its biblical foundation. So, that is my question: **What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic doctrine that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?**

I recently had an interesting discussion with a person who did piercing for a living at one point in time in his life. He told me that the shop he worked had a policy where the would not pierce a baby's ears. To him it was an issue of ethics. He told me that the shop he worked for would only pierce a girl's ears if she was at least 5 years of age and only if the child / girl specifically asked for it herself. I have done some soul searching and I have come to realise that this issue of ethics has come to encompass my views on infant baptism as well. I don't believe that any person has the right to choose to have another baptised. It is to me a deeply personal decision that everyone must come to ass they become of age. Ultimately I would like to share what religious beliefs I may have with my children, but I must give them the chance to become Richard Dawkins, junior if that is what they want to become (Even if that would to happen it would grieve me.) I'm just wondering what kind of denomination holds these beliefs or a reasonable facsimile thereof. My upbringing was entirely secular so I'm completely ignorant on how a person would choose a church. This issue is important to me, if I do ever get the chance to have a child.

As I understand it, Roman Catholicism teaches the following: - Life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong - Artificial birth control is wrong Under normal circumstances these teachings seem complementary or at least unrelated. But it seems to me that this combination might be problematic when considering the case of a woman who has a history of miscarriages. Does the Roman Catholic Church specifically instruct such women differently than others? For example, assume a woman who has had several miscarriages despite medical intervention, and no live births. Would the RCC consider the deaths of the children in the womb of such a woman significant enough to instruct her to take one of the following approaches? - Abstention from sexual relations until menopause (eliminating the chance of miscarriage) - Mandatory use of natural family planning and/or artificial birth control (allowing the latter since it can prevent pregnancy more effectively than natural family planning alone) - Mandatory use of natural family planning only (reducing the chance of miscarriage, but not as much as previous options) Or does the RCC not recognize a distinction in such a case? From the perspective of the RCC, are such women just as free to pursue pregnancy as those with no history of miscarriage?

Calvin argued for the election of infants, which opposed Roman Catholic faith, which believed that baptism was necessary for salvation (sacramentalists). He was even more forceful about this view than Luther. Under Calvinism and most reformed Protestants, infants could clearly be saved without water baptism. Although this might seem less harsh than a sacramentalists position, many Calvinists have since created alternate views. The problem is that in Calvin’s view some infants were also predestined to hell and that contrary to Calvin, it does not seem possible to many people that infants can have faith. For many Calvinists this seems as harsh as the sacramentalists, in terms of reconciling God’s justice with his love. Therefore many modern Calvinists are not strictly Calvinistic. **Two alternate views that many modern Calvinists split from traditional Calvinism are:** - **Those infants God *‘foreknows’* only are saved:** This is a way many Christians get around the potential severity of infant election to hell, by just saying God foreknows anything that we might do and therefore saves some infants based on the fact that ‘they would have received Christ’ is they had lived longer. It seems based on the assumption that infants can't have faith in Christ as they can't understand the gospel preached. - **All infants are saved:** This view which automatically includes all infants. The argument is made that only those who reject the gospel, do not receive it, from God’s standpoint and as infants can’t reject it, by default they have received it and are therefore elect. This assumes infants can't reject the gospel because they can't understand it. Both deviations from Calvin's view seem to be based on the belief that an infant can't have faith and that this is more or less common sense. **Calvin’s original premise seems to be maintained by two possible versions.** - **First**, it may be simply ‘resigned into the hands of God’ by faith. In other words, salvation is ‘ordinarily’ obtained through hearing the gospel and personally believing it, however, God is not limited to that means and saves elect infants anyway upon reasons that we need not ask. - **Second**, God by His Spirit can generate faith in an infant so that even thought not fully conscious of their choice, they can actually personally believe the gospel under a lower intellectual capacity than younger children or adults might do. **This question is asking for the Biblical basis of the second option as opposed to the first and ideally includes infants in the womb.**.

**Are there any Christian texts before 600 CE which discuss the exorcism of infants or suggest that due to ancestral sin or for similar reasons infants are under the power of evil spirits?** In ancient church orders and other works on baptism in early centuries, exorcism of evil spirits seems like a key part of the baptismal ritual. I'm curious how this might have been understood in the case of infants. I'm most interested in the earliest or the most thorough such explanations. ### Additional info on baptism and exorcism: Per DJClayworth's request, the following are some examples of the centrality of exorcism to baptism in the patristic era, all from a quick Google book search of Kelly, H. A. (2004). *The Devil at Baptism: Ritual, Theology, and Drama*. Wipf and Stock Publishers. That said, my knowledge of this topic isn't specifically from Kelly. 1. In the *Canons of Hippolytus* , those being baptized are instructed to remove their jewelry and loose their hair in order to prevent alien spirits from descending with them into the water of the second birth. (p. 136 ) 2. At the turn of the third century, there was a whole program of exorcisms preceding baptism (p. 106 ) 3. On p. 141 , Kelly does a good job of describing the thoroughness of the repeated exorcisms in the baptismal procedure. 4. Chrysostom's description of the unbaptized as lacking the seal of Christ's protection from demons on pages 142f may be the beginning of an answer to my question. For a work available online discussing exorcisms and baptism in this era, see eg. Adam Szabados (2010). *Post-New Testament Early Christian Views of Baptismal Anointing* .