Baptised babies can still be killed, or they can still burn in hell for their sins: R

[ok doser]

those are made-up words

 

[Rosenritter]

2 Samuel 12:23 - But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I SHALL GO TO HIM, BUT HE SHALL NOT RETURN TO ME.

Evidently, they have both gone to heaven; but only because David had repented of his sin that God was able to mitigate the penalty by killing his firstborn rather than having David killed instead:-

2 Samuel 12:13-14
13 So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.”

However, this particular example of David is peculiar to David, which cannot be used to infer the end result for others who have sinned against God:-

Romans 9:15-16
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

Therefore, it is clear that God would only show mercy to some, but not everyone will have God’s mercy:-

(1) Some people have died in their sins having refused to repent of their sins

OR

(2) Their repentance is rejected on the grounds of insincerity.

Thus, this particular example of David cannot be used to demonstrate that God would always show mercy to those who have transgressed the Law of Christ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering that we have at least one passage on the authority of Christ that "no man has ascended to heaven" and Peter specifically contrasts David against Christ, that Christ has ascended to heaven and was not left in hell, I think we have it on good authority that David did not go to heaven. If you have a passage that you believe says David went to heaven, it should also be compared against those two passages.

John 3:13 KJV
(13) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Acts 2:34-35 KJV
(34) For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
(35) Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

How anyone decided to use David as the proof that "babies go to heaven" is beyond me, especially when this is the one and only person that is specified by name as NOT being in heaven. Following the premise already stated, if David went to be with the child, and David did not go to heaven, then neither is that child in heaven.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Baptism, in no way provides any benefit to babies. Someone who decides to get baptized, makes a conscious decision to do so. Jesus never advocated infant baptism. His parents did not baptize him. And the early Christian's never baptized children.

The early Christians were Jews who followed the commandments in the Torah about circumcising their infant males as a sign that the children would be raised as Jews.

Luke 2:21 21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.​

The early Gentile Christians did not circumcise their males as a sign of their faith.
They did use baptism as a way of showing they were in the faith.
Infant baptism probably started as a public declaration that the children would be brought up in the faith (since circumcision was for the Jews and not the Gentiles).
Over time, Christian baptism took on additional mystical meanings.
These additional mystical meanings are the only reason that infant baptism is controversial.