# Automatic salvation for children, or not? - question for Christians. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2001, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797 "2001-06-14T13:47:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/21 "2001-06-20T19:58:02Z")
What about the woman (I forget her name) in the Bible who was carrying twins. And God said, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.” It seems like He knew them in the womb and didn’t care for one of them. ? ---
**Author:** ![super\_head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@super\_head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/super_head)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/22 "2001-06-20T20:34:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > The biggest risk, I would think, with waiting until you’re dying to believe is that you might not see the cement truck coming. \*\* I think an even bigger risk would be assuming that this supposed omni-everything god wouldn’t know the game you’re up to and send you to hell out of spite. I also find it hard to believe that if Lib was an atheist that he would seriously entertain this variation on Pascal’s Wager - it’s as intellectually bankrupt an idea as anything a raving fundy has said. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2001, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/23 "2001-06-20T23:10:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by k2dave \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > . My sister was killed at 15 months in a car accident. > > I too don’t think it is an age but an understanding. Also at around year 0 AD (does that = 0BC?) 15 was concidered an adult and might have had children by this age. Childhood had been extended by man artifically. \*\* There was a time when people had children at 15 months? :eek: BTW, there is no 0 AD or 0 BC. ---
**Author:** ![grimpixie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@grimpixie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grimpixie)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/24 "2001-06-21T08:44:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TheeGrumpy \* > **If the most potent image of Jesus is of the crucifixion, the second most potent is that of the nativity. Why? Because the observances of these two episodes are the two most reverently attended holidays. (Granted, Easter Sunday commemorates the resurrection – but Jesus was nowhere to be found.)** Is it not also that these two images show Jesus at his most vulnerable and frail - birth and death? This shows us his complete “human-ness”, his identification with the human race and therefore his “qualification” to become the substituted sacrifice on humanities behalf. Typically, humans tend toward the more comfortable of these two images - crucifixion (apart from the blood-and-guts aspect - not suitable for children) forces one to think about the reasons behind Jesus’ death, i.e. one’s own sin. And no-one wants to think about one’s failings and shortcomings!! Gp ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/25 "2001-06-21T11:23:40Z")
My first guess when asked for a cite was that St Augustine (4th Century AD) was basically responsible for the Catholic doctrine, and it turns out that this is partly right. The (frankly fascinating) Catholic Encyclopaedia Online has a big [section on baptism](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#XI) which lays out Catholic theology in very clear detail. A rough and ready summation would be: Christ said “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the Kingdom of God.” (John 3). St Augustine (that’s m’boy) and St Ambrose taught that this made the sacrament of baptism a necessary means of salvation and therefore, unbaptised infants cannot obtain remission of original sin. The Council of Trent agreed with them. So there. Interestingly, Augustine held that infacts will only suffer “the pain of sense” in its mildest form, but will suffer “the pain of loss” (i.e. the soul will suffer throug not returning to God). ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2001, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/26 "2001-06-21T12:13:54Z")
> [@](#): > > There was a time when people had children at 15 months? oops I thought it read 15 years. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2001, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/27 "2001-06-23T03:14:13Z")
If I’m wrong about this I hope someone corrects me. I believe that the Mormon Church tries to take care of that problem by baptising everybody who was born. They try to find the birth records of every child, and baptise them in absentia if they are not Mormon. That is the reason they have such detailed geneological records. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2001, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/28 "2001-06-23T11:22:06Z")
**Super\_head** > [@](#): > > I also find it hard to believe that if Lib was an atheist that he would seriously entertain this variation on Pascal’s Wager - it’s as intellectually bankrupt an idea as anything a raving fundy has said. You’re absolutely right. However, when I was an atheist, and thought God was an anal retentive Man in the Sky, the notion of fooling Him was an intellectually intriguing one. Only when I found out that God is Love did it dawn on me that it isn’t even about intellect at all. Thus, the wager is silly — not merely intellectually bankrupt, but morally irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Mahaloth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mahaloth/32/1079_2.png) [@Mahaloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mahaloth)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2001, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/29 "2001-06-24T23:46:52Z")
First of, let me say that we don’t know the answer to this so the belief I hold is more or less an assumption than anything. I would imagine that it is not our sinful nature that damns us, but acting upon it. Babies have not acted upon their sinful nature and consequently go to heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Chocobo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/898d66/32.png) [@Chocobo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chocobo)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/30 "2001-06-26T09:02:23Z")
As it was explained to me, a person goes to Heaven by default until they reach the ‘point of accountability’ when they can intellectually understand what Christs’ sacrifice meant and there is a God and Savior who loves them. If they choose to believe that Christ was their savior, then they continue on saved. As to where this is backed up in the Bible, I have no clue. Guess it’s time to read up. (I’ll also look into the Missionary/Jungle tribe question, too) ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/31 "2001-06-26T09:15:46Z")
To answer the OP, no there is no scriptural reference or cite that gives a straight answer to this question. It’s only by interpolating your own view of whatever verses you choose to cite that you come upon any real answer. But that’s why you get so many differring answers as well. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797/32 "2001-06-26T10:38:59Z")
Indeed! What a beautiful God! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/automatic-salvation-for-children-or-not-question-for-christians/68797.md?page=1)