Children and heaven

[Heidi]

Most people think that all children will go to heaven because...well...they're innocent. Sorry, but heaven is not an entitlement to mankind. It is a gift from God to all those chosen before the creation of the world. And since no one knows who is chosen, then salvation is open to all, but only a few will receive it according to Jesus. "For many are invited but few are chosen."

What people who think that all children will go to heaven are saying is that heaven is given to them and then it is taken away from them but they can get it back again if they want it. Sorry, but God doesn't throw heaven around according to our desires. He specifically tells us how to enter heaven through knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. There is no other way to God.

But Jesus explains in the gospel of Luke that the servant who knows his master's will but does not get ready or do what his master wants will be beaten with severe blows. But the servant who does not know his master's will and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. Children are not innocent. They are lawbreakers just like the rest of us. It's the same as a person who breaks a law in a different State where he doesn't know the laws. He will still be punished but his sentence will be much ligher than one who does know the law and deliberately breaks it.

So children who can't understand the word of God or who don't know it will not suffer the torment that those who have heard it and rejected it will. Therefore, all children who die in childhood could not have been called because Jesus promises that he who seeks will find.

I would be just as grieved if my grown children don't enter heaven as I would be if they were 3 years old. The pain is no different. But again, as Jesus says, there is only one way to heaven and he is the only one who has demonstrated his authority to know that. No other man walked on water, healed the sick, or raised the dead. So the teaching that children will go to heaven is simply what itching ears want to hear. It contradicts much scripture and comes from the deception that heaven is an entitlement just because we lived. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[stovebolts]

So Heidi,
What your really saying here is that my first daughter of 4 month old, who couldn't speak, couldn't defend herself..... will burn forever in hellfire.

Gee thanks Heidi for the uplifiting encouragment.

Now that we realize your stance on children, tell me, What is the purpose of your OP? I recall the Pharasis once stood on the corner spouting how rightous they were...

But before we go there, I like to dwell on what God had to say to Moses.

Exodus 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

And in Paul's words...

Romans 9:14-16 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.

So the question comes, will God have mercy on the children? Personally, I think so.

 

[stovebolts]

Here's something for you to read...
Please feel free to rebuttle

http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view. ... hapter=009

Verse 14
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Paul's great theme of God's righteousness was never far from his thoughts; and his letter, in its entirety, has that theme constantly in focus. What he had just said of God's election of Jacob might have raised some question of God's rectitude; and, if the doctrine of election is what some affirm it to be, it would indeed indicate God's lack of righteousness, thus making it necessary to reject all such views of that doctrine. But there was another phase of the rectitude of God that Paul had in mind here, and that is the fact that God has mercy upon some, and not upon others. Upon the uniformly wicked populations of earth, God has decided to show mercy to those who have accepted through obedient faith the mercy which is freely offered to all; but the salvation of those thus receiving God's grace does no injustice to the wicked who never obey the truth and are therefore lost. Paul explained why in the next verse.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verse 15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

This quotation is from Exo. 33:19, and it affirms the sovereign right of Almighty God to save whomsoever he will. No basis of any kind is there stated as an explanation of God's saving some and rejecting others; but any understanding whatever of God's dealings with his human children demands the assumption that there is a just and rational foundation for everything that God does. This quotation from Exodus simply does no of a totally blind man separating a box of black and white marbles in a cellar at midnight without any light! Some say, of course, that it does.



Thus, the choosing of Jacob was an act of grace and was not influenced by the moral character of Jacob or the immorality of Esau. On the other hand, Esau was discriminated against and made to serve his brother through no fault of his own. F13
That God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not depend upon anything in them .... The choice depended solely on God's gracious will. F14
Such opinions as these clearly go far beyond anything the word of God says and should be rejected unless they can be proved. Furthermore, there is abundant proof in God's word that it was something "in men" that entered into God's election of them. For example, God elected Abraham, and why? If God is to be understood as either rational or just, there had to be a reason why. Human intelligence demands to know what it is; and the gracious and righteous God deigned to reveal to his human children just what the reason was, thus:



And the Lord said, For I know him (Abraham) that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him (Genesis 18:19).
In this epic passage of God's word, God stated his reasons for the choice of Abraham. God categorically stated, that he knew that Abraham would command his posterity after him, that they would keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment, "that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him," the latter clause being a dogmatic affirmation that without the qualities God foreknew in Abraham, the fulfillment of the promise would have been impossible. Thus they greatly err who fancy that it "was nothing in" Abraham that entered into God's election. That there was indeed something "in" Abraham that formed the basis of God's just and righteous act should have been assumed, even without the statement of what it was; but such is the perversity of human thought that it is even denied AFTER the statement of it!

Going a bit further, this example of why God chose Abraham is clearly applicable to the rejection of Esau. God saw in him a different "manner" of people from Abraham, making the fulfillment of the promise through Esau an utter impossibility; and that is something "in" Esau that resulted in God's rejection of him. The insinuation that God "discriminated" against Esau capriciously is ridiculous.

And to carry this postulate even further, in every case of election, there has to be an element in the elected that distinguishes him from those not elected; and to deny this is to make election to be a totally immoral and capricious thing, unworthy even of people, much less of God. Nor can such a certainty as this bear the slightest resemblance to any theory of anyone's ever meriting salvation. Even when the election occurs, at least partially upon the basis of what is "in" the elected distinguishing them from the non-elected, the election is still without the merit of the elected and founded in God's love and grace, but not upon "grace alone," the proof of this being that God's grace has come alike upon the totality of mankind (Titus 3:11), which includes the non-elected. Factors others than grace are therefore involved in election. How could a so-called election, based on grace alone, discriminate between the elected and the non-elected, if no other factor was involved? The blind man in the cellar, maybe?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Verse 16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.

Paul's words were still being directed at the Jews, primarily. Supposing that they were entitled to salvation, that God owed it to them, the nation as a whole, and the Pharisees as conspicuous examples of it, were wallowing in an arrogant self-righteousness that Paul struck down in the considerations brought forward here. No man merits salvation. In the last analysis, it is the gracious outflowing of God's loving grace and mercy that makes salvation possible for any person whomsoever. This is the conclusion Paul drew from the quotation from Exodus, and the only conclusion.

Godet understood this verse thus:



When God gives, it is not because a human will ("he that willeth") or a human work ("he that runneth") lays him under obligation, and forces him to give, in order not to be unjust by refusing. It is in himself that the initiative and the efficacy are ("him that calleth") - it is from him that the gift flows. F15
The quotation from Exo. 33:19 given in the preceding verse and made the basis of the conclusion stated here, relates to a request by Moses that God would show him his glory. God did so, not because he would have been unjust in refusing, but upon the basis stated in that verse of being free to show mercy upon whomsoever he would. Thus Moses received the glimpse of divine glory, not through merit, but from God's gracious compliance with his request. Note, however, that the scriptures do not say that God's compliance had nothing to do with Moses' request, or with his life and character, or with his service as the great lawgiver; nor can it be believed that "nothing in" Moses was considered by God in granting him a glimpse of the glory. Certainly, the REQUEST was considered, and that was something in Moses; and, therefore, all that is taught here is that Moses' great life and character, noble and outstanding as they were, could not have earned such a boon as that which God freely gave, nor could such admirable qualities in Moses have made it wrong for God to have denied his plea

.

 

[thessalonian]

Let me sum up my response.

That's nutz.

I guess David must have gone to hell too. Because he spoke of being with his child on the other side.

 

[stovebolts]

I would be just as grieved if my grown children don't enter heaven as I would be if they were 3 years old. The pain is no different.

You know, my daughter passed away almost 20 years ago so I'm kinda used to the idea of her being gone... but I really have to ask you about your statment. Have you lost one of your children or do you speak hypothetically?

I think I'll rant for a bit. Vic, feel free to delete this if you want.

No different? NO different than what? Your saying that it's no different if a child of four months who was suffocated to death would spend eternity in hell under eternal torment is not different than a 3 year old? How about a 30 year old who commited rape and his parents watch him get the electric chair? Still no difference, after all, he's sombodies child.

So children who can't understand the word of God or who don't know it will not suffer the torment that those who have heard it and rejected it will. Therefore, all children who die in childhood could not have been called because Jesus promises that he who seeks will find.

Heidi, do you know what election is? Let me give you a hint... In the first book of the Bible, can you see Jesus? I belive John speaks to this account. So tell me, is it our choice or is it God's choice? If it is God's choice, then where does Christ's role come into effect? Did it come into effect (election that is) when Christ became flesh and if so, how does this play with Melchizedek? Is forever only from here forward, or does it emcompass all of eternity?

You see, what I hear you saying is that only the elected survive to accept God's Son... So really, what your saying is that one has to choose his election... without actually choosing right? So tell me, why can't a child do this, yet you or I can? Hey, how do you really really know that your part of the elect? :wink: Sounds like favortism, yet we are told many, many times that God holds no favortism.

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Romans 3:9-10 What then? are we better than they? No, in no way: for we have before proved both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

What people who think that all children will go to heaven are saying is that heaven is given to them and then it is taken away from them but they can get it back again if they want it. Sorry, but God doesn't throw heaven around according to our desires. He specifically tells us how to enter heaven through knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. There is no other way to God.

Let me give you my view...
Romans 9:14-16 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy.

You see, it has NOTHING to do with what I think, it has to do with what God says... and this simply, is my hope, that God will have mercy, on whom He chooses to have mercy.

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man sees, why does he yet hope for?

Romans 5:1-6 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation works patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope makes not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Children are not innocent. They are lawbreakers just like the rest of us.

We are not under the law... remember?

 

[soma]

The child symbolizes the pure and instantaneous feelings of creative intelligence. This child is delivered out of the womb of pure consciousness through Mother Nature herself, located in the depths of our own human nature. Christ said, "Unless you become as a child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." He didn't mean for us to become childish but pure, innocent and unrehearsed. The infant emerges threatened by the negative perspectives of the world so our function is to comfort and give refuge to them and others. Jesus is also pictured as this divine child ready to redeem mankind from its ignorance and misery.

I am glad young children can't read the negative, condemning post in this thread. Heidi you can learn from children they are pure. Forgive yourself so you can forgive others, be instantaneous, alive and happy. The Bible is meant to uplift don't use it to put yourself and others down. You seem very sincere, but need to relax, chill out and unclench the fist so you can pick up a child and look into their loving face. They can teach you volumes.

 

[thessalonian]

I will say that I think that Heidi's conclusion is logical from a "faith alone" perspective and shows a gaping hole in that theology. There is one way of salvation. Children cannot believe (i.e. have faith), therefore they cannot be saved. Children can however recieve grace (ie. through the Holy Spirit as John did in the womb). Thus the problem is less significant in a theology of grace alone.

 

[Vic C.]

I think I'll rant for a bit. Vic, feel free to delete this if you want.

No problem Jeff, I'm in total disagreement with the OP anyway.

Mark 7:27-28

27 And Jesus said to her, First, allow the children to be satisfied, for it is not good to take the children's bread and to throw it to the dogs.
28 But she answered and said to Him, Yes, Lord; for even the dogs under the table eat from the crumbs of the children. (LITV)

I don't normally spiritualize scripture, but there is a much deeper meaning to this passage than what lies on the surface.

Keep feasting on those crumbs Heidi. ;-)

 

[cj]

Wow,.... and now we want to carry contentions even to the children. How sad are we.


Heidi,.... isn't it enough that you are saved?


In love,
cj

 

[stovebolts]

Thank you Vic for your post.

As far as the scripture you posted, I'm really enjoying coffman's commentaries. at http://studylight.org

Keyed with faith, is hope... I'm not righteous nor holy by any means, but none the less I believe that God hears my prayers and is able to answer them if He so chooses and there in lays a portion of my hope. Accordingly, that and though I do not know His answer, leaves me with hope, for who can hope, for what they already have? I suppose this has to do with perserverence in accord with faith that forms my character?

 

[Vic C.]

I have it opened in a browser at home. Haven't closed it since you sent it to me. Now if I would only sit down and read some more of it. 8-)

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Most people think that all children will go to heaven because...well...they're innocent. Sorry, but heaven is not an entitlement to mankind. It is a gift from God to all those chosen before the creation of the world. And since no one knows who is chosen, then salvation is open to all, but only a few will receive it according to Jesus. "For many are invited but few are chosen."

What people who think that all children will go to heaven are saying is that heaven is given to them and then it is taken away from them but they can get it back again if they want it. Sorry, but God doesn't throw heaven around according to our desires. He specifically tells us how to enter heaven through knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent. There is no other way to God.

But Jesus explains in the gospel of Luke that the servant who knows his master's will but does not get ready or do what his master wants will be beaten with severe blows. But the servant who does not know his master's will and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. Children are not innocent. They are lawbreakers just like the rest of us. It's the same as a person who breaks a law in a different State where he doesn't know the laws. He will still be punished but his sentence will be much ligher than one who does know the law and deliberately breaks it.

So children who can't understand the word of God or who don't know it will not suffer the torment that those who have heard it and rejected it will. Therefore, all children who die in childhood could not have been called because Jesus promises that he who seeks will find.

I would be just as grieved if my grown children don't enter heaven as I would be if they were 3 years old. The pain is no different. But again, as Jesus says, there is only one way to heaven and he is the only one who has demonstrated his authority to know that. No other man walked on water, healed the sick, or raised the dead. So the teaching that children will go to heaven is simply what itching ears want to hear. It contradicts much scripture and comes from the deception that heaven is an entitlement just because we lived. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What a load of garbage.

More of the super spooky eternal fire preaching and this time it is for babies. Wow, you must really have a low view of God.

Let's see, Jesus said that we should NEVER hinder the children from coming to Him as the Kingdom of God belongs to them. I guess He lied.

Also, God condemned the pagans who made their children pass through the fire. I guess He only did this so they would be surprised when He burned them for eternity, right?

I cannot believe the way you misrepresent God. I am sure you will regret doing so when you answer for the way you presented His LOVE to the world.

:roll:

 

[homewardbound]

I will say that I think that Heidi's conclusion is logical from a "faith alone" perspective and shows a gaping hole in that theology. There is one way of salvation. Children cannot believe (i.e. have faith), therefore they cannot be saved. Children can however recieve grace (ie. through the Holy Spirit as John did in the womb). Thus the problem is less significant in a theology of grace alone.

Good response.

And StoveBolts, my heart goes out to you. No parent should have to suffer the loss of a child. I'm sorry you even saw the OP.

 

[thessalonian]

I do not of course agree with Heidi. But for those of you who believe salvation is by faith alone, please reconcile how you can say there is one way of salvation and yet children are saved. Also how your can reconcile Eternal Security and children being saved, loosing their salvation, and then being resaved? These are valid points that Heidi has. From a faith alone perspective I have to say I do not see her conclusion as illogical.

 

[Free]

Sorry, but heaven is not an entitlement to mankind. It is a gift from God to all those chosen before the creation of the world. And since no one knows who is chosen, then salvation is open to all, but only a few will receive it according to Jesus. "For many are invited but few are chosen."

:o In other words, God is playing a big practical joke on everyone. Nice, very nice Heidi. :-?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Perhaps this is a case of God knowing the end from the beginning. Had the child lived he/she WOULD have accepted Jesus and would therefore have been saved. On the other hand, had the child lived he/she WOULD NOT have accepted Jesus and would therefore not have been saved. The decision to accept Jesus or not is left solely to the individual; however, God knows in advance who will and who will not do so. That's about the only way that I can come to terms with this issue.

 

[thessalonian]

Perhaps this is a case of God knowing the end from the beginning. Had the child lived he/she WOULD have accepted Jesus and would therefore have been saved. On the other hand, had the child lived he/she WOULD NOT have accepted Jesus and would therefore not have been saved. The decision to accept Jesus or not is left solely to the individual; however, God knows in advance who will and who will not do so. That's about the only way that I can come to terms with this issue.

With regard to those who die before they have any opportunity at salvation, yours is one speculation that has some merritt. It has also been said that at death they who see Christ are illuminated with knowledge and given the opportunity to accept or reject him. Another speculation is that Christ automatically gives them the grace to enter heaven. Whatever the answer for these we know that God is both just an merciful.

In the Old Testament the child became a member of the Kingdom of Israel based on the faith of the parents. The males were circumcised as a sign of that membership in the Kingdom. Baptism is the predecessor of circumcision. Baptism of infants is based on the faith of the parents. It is quit natural for children to have their decisions made by parents. Then the parents instruct them in the faith and this solidifies their Christian understanding until they in fact one day make a decision for themselves.

 

[thessalonian]

I do have a question for Heidi and anyone else who thinks they go to hell. On what basis do they go to hell unless you believe in orignal sin?

By the way for those who believe that some express act of belief is neccessary, my Brother in Law, a Baptist, has a four year old daughter whom he says recently got "saved". Now I'm not knocking him instilling in her Jesus by any means. I start teaching my kids his name before they are 2. But I simply don't believe that a child at 4 has enough of a grasp of reality to understand sin and make a lifelong committment to Christ. Further there is no real support for an "age of reason" in the Bible. So how do you know when your kid "must get saved"? These are all questions that are not dealt with very well in faith alone, once saved always saved theology.

Blessings

 

[Heidi]

Perhaps this is a case of God knowing the end from the beginning. Had the child lived he/she WOULD have accepted Jesus and would therefore have been saved. On the other hand, had the child lived he/she WOULD NOT have accepted Jesus and would therefore not have been saved. The decision to accept Jesus or not is left solely to the individual; however, God knows in advance who will and who will not do so. That's about the only way that I can come to terms with this issue.

Exactly. Now that doesn't mean that all children who live will accept Jesus Christ of course, because Jesus said that only few will find the narrow road. But it does mean that children who die in childhood could not have been called even if they had lived.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

I do have a question for Heidi and anyone else who thinks they go to hell. On what basis do they go to hell unless you believe in orignal sin?

By the way for those who believe that some express act of belief is neccessary, my Brother in Law, a Baptist, has a four year old daughter whom he says recently got "saved". Now I'm not knocking him instilling in her Jesus by any means. I start teaching my kids his name before they are 2. But I simply don't believe that a child at 4 has enough of a grasp of reality to understand sin and make a lifelong committment to Christ. Further there is no real support for an "age of reason" in the Bible. So how do you know when your kid "must get saved"? These are all questions that are not dealt with very well in faith alone, once saved always saved theology.

Blessings

I agree 100%. Coming out of a "gotta get saved" religious background is quite enlightening. There is no way that a four year old and for that matter, quite a large percentage of children much older could even begin to grasp what that all means. They are just doing what they see everyone else doing in their lives.

And the idea that faith alone saves is completely unbiblical. It never says that. Grace saves but we access it through faith and that faith is maifest through our obedience to His commands and our constant striving to do the right thing.