Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Where Do Babies Go When They Die ?
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
Judy said:
Judy, Jer. 2 could be talking about infants or the prophets who were killed [see also Isa. 63:3] for speaking out about the practice...and Jer. 19 is speaking about the [covenant] children of Israel v.3.
Eze. 18:20 "This is to be understood of adult persons, and of actual sins; for of such only the prophet speaks throughout the whole chapter, or of temporal, and not of eternal punishment." John Gill
As for the rest unred quoted, there is nothing in the context of passage that speaks to unbelievers and their children, in fact we see the children are coming to Christ, hence ability has already been given. unred is apealing to your emotions on this issue and not scripture. In no way am I arguing that infants that die go to hell, I'm arguing for the emphasis on covenant and belief as well as the silence we find in reguard to unbelievers children.
I still haven't seen anything in scripture that teaches children of unbelievers have any part in the covenant with God...it's simply not found in the Biblical record.
jm
U
unred typo
Guest
JM wrote: “Show the context of each one of the quotations you used please.â€Â
You want to put them into categories of covenant or non covenant babies? Jesus does not specify ‘children of the godly.’ That’s your invention.
Since God is not willing that any should perish, 2 Peter 3:9, and he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 18:23 ,why would you even imagine that he would ever consider tossing babies into hell? Is that consistent with a God of love who has mercy on the meek and helpless?
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live?
JM wrote:We can gleam from the example of Cain and Able that a revelation was given with conditions, we know that one was punished for not adhereing to the conditions of that covenant.
You can ‘gleam’ about this if you want to but let’s get the facts straight first. Are you saying Cain was punished for an inferior offering or for murdering his brother or that Abel was punished by being killed?
You want to put them into categories of covenant or non covenant babies? Jesus does not specify ‘children of the godly.’ That’s your invention.
Since God is not willing that any should perish, 2 Peter 3:9, and he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 18:23 ,why would you even imagine that he would ever consider tossing babies into hell? Is that consistent with a God of love who has mercy on the meek and helpless?
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live?
JM wrote:We can gleam from the example of Cain and Able that a revelation was given with conditions, we know that one was punished for not adhereing to the conditions of that covenant.
You can ‘gleam’ about this if you want to but let’s get the facts straight first. Are you saying Cain was punished for an inferior offering or for murdering his brother or that Abel was punished by being killed?
unred...you assume that ‘you’ includes the world and this idea is based upon presuppositions about salvation and God in general. This is natural, but we need to 'think God's thoughts after Him' as we conform to the word of God. Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Peter is speaking to those who have ‘obtained’ the gift of God already, this epistle is not written to all mankind but to the saved. The context then should be viewed in light of the audience to whom the epistle is written. As the a note in the Geneva Bible states, “A reason why the last day does not come too soon, because God patiently waits until all the elect are brought to repentance, that none of them may perish.â€Â
You have to decide, are babies innocent or wicked? You seem to be claiming both? Make up your mind.
Both. One was offered [get this, I know it's difficult to understand] by faith, the other was not.
peace,
jm
Lewis
Member
This has got me to thinking' these Muslim babies don't have no say so' in the matter ether. It is sort of like the people who live far into the jungle' and have never heard of Jesus Christ. And then they die' now what ? But why would God punish a newborn because their parents rejected Jesus Christ. And why would He punish people in the jungles who have never even heard of Jesus. I might have got a little off topic. But these are some of the things that I have thought about for years.JM said:
Lewis W said:
Calvinist response: the Bible is silent on pagan babies.
Arminian response: God would never punish people newborns, etc.
A logical problem then arises. The Arminian claims man has to accept the Gospel offer while in a fallen state, and God would never overrule man's freewill. The problem then arises, would God overrule an infants freewill? If God would overrule the freewill of an infant to bring them into heaven, [not my thinking but the logical outcome] wouldn't we be guaranteeing the salvation of our children by abortion? Sick thought, I know, but if the will is totally free and pagan babies are in Christ without faith...?
I do know how else to further explain this I think I've stated it many times, the Bible is silent... this will be my last post in this thread, God bless.
jm
jgredline
Member
Hi Folks
As I read through this thread, I must say that I am saddened by some of the callous remarks made here...
My mother lost a baby into her 8th month and lost another baby who was less than a year old....My two brothers passes over 35 years ago and my mother still does not ever speak of them. The only thing my mother ever said about my two brothers was that she knew God would wanted them home and that she would see them again soon....I have never in all my 30 years of being a Christian ever doughted that ''ALL BABIES'' even babies born to muslims (remember, they are babies until they choose or are forced to be a muslim) will go home....I always considered them a part of the elect......Here is an article I found and perhaps it will put an end to this topic.......
Will Infants Who Die Go to Heaven?
Jesus made some interesting, even startling, statements about children. Included in those comments were his words to the disciples, “The kingdom of heaven [or ‘of God’] belongs to such as these†(Matt. 19:14, nasb; Mark 10:14, nasb; Luke 18:16, nasb); or as the King James version puts it, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven [or ‘of God’].†This indicates that adults who are like children in acknowledging their lowly and helpless condition will enter God’s kingdom. But the Greek toiautē (“of such as theseâ€Â) also indicates that children too are in God’s kingdom. And as Luke wrote, this includes infants (Luke 18:15–17). But how do those young children get into the kingdom? Undoubtedly, many infants get there by death. The high infant mortality in many countries of the world now and in past centuries suggests that numerous young children are in heaven. Jesus’ statement, however, should not be understood as meaning that all children, regardless of their age, are members of God’s kingdom. Other children, who live several years beyond infancy and then receive Christ as their Savior (receiving the kingdom as a child; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17), go to heaven when they die. Having been regenerated by their faith in Christ, they obviously belong to the kingdom of God (John 3:3). They are among those “little ones who believe in me,†as Jesus said (Matt. 18:6).
When the baby boy born illegitimately to David and Bathsheba became ill, David prayed and fasted for his healing, lying in anguish on the ground each night. But a week after the baby became sick, he died (2 Sam. 12:15–18). Then David told his servants, will go to him, but he will not return to me†(12:23). This speaks of the finality of death, but it also speaks of David’s intense desire to be with his son. Some say David was referring only to his own death but not to his being in conscious fellowship with his son after death. However, there would hardly be any comfort in David’s saying he would die too. Instead, this verse suggests that his son was experiencing after death a conscious existence in God’s presence, and that David anticipated some day joining him. This fact has been a source of great comfort to many Christian parents whose infants have died. “The idea of meeting his child in the unsconscious grave could not have rationally comforted him; nor could the thought of meeting him in hell have cheered his spirit; but the thought of meeting him in heaven had in itself the power of turning his weeping into joy.â€Â
Though the Bible does not explicitly state that deceased infants of unsaved parents go to heaven, Jesus’ words to the disciples and David’s words to his servants may well imply that this is the case. For this reason a number of authors assert that heaven is occupied with many children, perhaps with even more children than adults. In the nineteenth century John Newton wrote that the number of infants in heaven “so greatly exceeds the aggregate of adult believers that, comparatively speaking, the kingdom may be said to consist of little children.†Charles Spurgeon wrote, “I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them!â€Â
How can there be in heaven a countless number of people from every nation, tribe, people and language (Rev. 7:9, niv)? Surely not every tribe of people around the world has adult believers. Is it not possible, therefore, that a number of tribes will be represented by children who die in infancy? And if this is the case, this would point to the probability that infants of even unbelieving parents go to heaven.
Another argument in support of infants being in heaven is Jesus’ words that “Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost†(Matt. 18:14, niv). In view of that fact, “how can it be that little children who are set before [the disciples] as...patterns for imitation...should perish?†Since it is the Lord’s will that these little ones not perish, it is clear that at death they “go to be among the blessed in that heaven, to the kingdom [to] which...they belong....â€Â
Almost half a century ago John Linton advocated the idea that there will be no babies in heaven. He argued for this view by saying that since veryone in heaven will have a resurrected body, no one will be resurrected to “the weakness of infancy, or the unwisdom of childhood, but into a full grown man.†However, this wrongly assumes that an infant in heaven “still needs to grow to maturity,†and that his resurrection would “not be a work of perfection.â€ÂIs it not possible that infants can be resurrected with perfect bodies and still be infants?
By what means will deceased infants go to heaven? Numerous answers have been given to this question. First, some say all children who die as infants are taken to heaven because of the doctrine of universalism. That is, since everyone will ultimately be saved and no one will be in hell, infants too will naturally be in heaven, even though they had no opportunity to believe.
However, the teaching that all will ultimately be saved runs counter to Bible verses that affirm the eternal damnation of the unsaved (e.g., Matt. 25:46; John 3:16, 18; 3:36; Rev. 20:15). And yet this is not to deny the heavenly home of dead infants. It simply means that universalism is not the basis of their salvation.
Second, some affirm a heavenly destiny for infants because they are born innocent, without sin. Clifford Ingle, a Southern Baptist seminary professor, writes that a child “does not inherit lostness [from Adam]; he chooses it.†All persons, Ingle says,
are born with a tendency toward sin; all are destined to sin. However, the individual is not responsible for the sins of the [human] race or his inherited nature. He becomes an actual sinner in the eyes of God when, as a morally responsible person, he chooses sin and rebels against God. Thus there is a time between birth and moral accountability when the child is not guilty for sin.
John Inchley believes that children are not “in a state of being lost from God,†and that until they deliberately refuse Christ, they belong to him. “We must resist the temptation Marlin Jeschke writes, “to place the human race into only two classes, the saved and the lost. We are required to recognize also a third class, the innocent....†However, this view that children are born innocent and without an inherited sin nature conflicts with Scriptures that teach that everyone enters the world as a sinner. “Even though innocent compared to adults who consciously sin, infants and all who can’t believe are under the curse of Adam’s sin.†“In Adam all die†(1 Cor. 15:22). God told Noah after the flood that he would not bring about another flood of that magnitude “even though every inclination of [man’s] heart is evil from childhood†(Gen. 8:21, niv). Solomon wrote, “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child†(Prov. 22:15, niv). And David said he was born “sinful at birth†(Ps. 51:5, niv), and that “even from birth the wicked go astray†(58:3, niv). As Paul affirmed, “There is no one righteous, not even one†(Rom. 3:10, niv). All are “under sin†(3:9, niv) and under God’s wrath (John 3:36, niv), and that includes children.
Everyone is born with a sin nature, inherited from Adam, because all mankind was somehow in Adam when he sinned (Rom. 5:12). His sin plunged the entire human race into a stance of guilt before God, because all sinned “in Adam.†Therefore, people sin because they are sinners; it is not that they become sinners by sinning. This means that because all infants come with a sin nature, they are all lost and condemned. To say infants are neutral or innocent with respect to sin, and that they are not sinners until they knowingly commit acts of sin, overlooks these significant Scripture verses about the universality of sin. “A theology of childhood salvation must begin with the point that all people, including children, are sinful and in need of redemption.†Therefore, there must be some reason other than sinlessness that accounts for infants being in heaven.
A third explanation is that when infants die they immediately mature and are then given opportunity to place their faith in Christ for salvation. This view, first proposed by Gregory of Nyssa of the fourth century, builds on the conviction that faith is necessary for salvation. Buswell has suggested the unlikely view that immediately before death the intelligence of the infant is enlarged so that the child can accept Christ as Savior.
This view, however, is only conjecture; it has no biblical support. If infants immediately before or after death are given the opportunity to be saved, this suggests that some will go to heaven and others will not. And if this enablement to believe occurs after death, where is the child while he is confronted with the claims of Christ? This view wrongly suggests a neutral state after death, before one’s final destiny in heaven or hell.
Fourth, infants who die will be in heaven because they are elected by God. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer, asserted that all children of believing parents are among the elect and, therefore, will be saved, and that probably dying infants of non-Christian parents are also among the elect. Many Reformed theologians held this view. Charles Hodge based the belief that “all who die in infancy are saved†on Romans 5:18–19, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.†He also referred to Romans 5:20, “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.†Warfield also defended the view that all infants who die go to heaven by pointing out that for infants God’s electing grace supersedes their inborn sin nature because God has chosen them. The Westminster Confession says, “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit.†While this statement does not explicitly affirm that all dying infants are elect (the words “elect infants†leave the question open), most Presbyterians would, no doubt, affirm that all infants who die are in fact included among the elect.
Fifth, infants can be saved by the “baptism of desire,†that is, if they desired baptism but were unable to obtain it before they died, they would go to heaven. This view was held in the ninth century by Hincmar of Rheims (d. 882). Martin Luther applied the idea of the baptism of desire to Christian parents, saying that their desire for their children’s baptism, even if not carried out, guarantees their offspring’s salvation. However, how can an infant desire baptism? And how does a parent’s mere desire substitute for a child’s salvation? Also, this view does not adequately address the question of infants of unsaved parents, who may not desire salvation for their young or may know nothing of salvation and baptism. This suggests that salvation for those infants is not available and that they are lost forever.
A sixth view maintains that all infants who die will be regenerated because they have not willfully rejected Christ. This view follows this line of reasoning: (1) Only those who consciously reject Christ are condemned to hell. (2) Infants cannot knowingly turn from Christ. (3) Therefore, all dying infants will be in heaven, even though they are born sinners and do not exercise faith. The problem with this view is that it makes eternal damnation dependent on a willful refusal to believe in Jesus Christ. If this is the basis of judgment in hell, how can those who never heard of Christ be condemned? Therefore, the basis of the condemnation is not rejection of Christ, but the commitment of sins based on one’s inherited sin nature. “In Adam all die†(1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Rom. 5:12). Paul reasoned in Romans 1 that all are under the guilt of sin and the wrath of God because of their sin. Therefore, only God’s grace can atone for the sin of infants. This leads to the seventh view, which I prefer over the other views.
A seventh view is that all infants enjoy heavenly bliss not because they are born sinless or because they mature immediately after death so they can exercise faith or because they are elect or had a desire for baptism or salvation or because they did not willingly reject Christ, but because of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Like everyone, infants need salvation. And salvation is only through Christ. Therefore, even though infants cannot exercise faith in Him, He can remove their depravity. “If they be saved, it must be entirely by the sovereign mercy and positive operation of God....All redeemed sinners owe their salvation to sovereign grace...but the salvation of infants is with peculiar circumstances of [God’s] favour.†In July 1525, the Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hübmaier, writing against the Swiss Reformers’ practice of infant baptism, stated that while we cannot know for sure on what basis unbaptized infants go to heaven, God no doubt saves them because of His grace. Also, Spurgeon said infants enter heaven “as a matter of free grace with no reference to anything they have done.†Downs, Lightner, and Lockyer all concur.
Sanders thinks it is inconsistent to say God saves some (adults) by faith but others (infants) without faith. This objection is answerable by noting that in all cases God’s grace provides salvation. Even though infants cannot hear the Word and, therefore, cannot exercise faith (Rom. 10:17), God need not be limited, as Calvin noted, because He works in ways we cannot always perceive, and He can still bestow His grace.
An eighth view is that infants qualify for entrance to heaven by virtue of their having been baptized. Roman Catholicism maintains that infant baptism removes the stain of original sin. “Baptism...signifies that by the power of the Holy Ghost all stain and defilement of sin is inwardly washed away, and that the soul is enriched and adorned with the admirable gift of heavenly justification....†The recently published new Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.†Since the sacrament of infant baptism is necessary for salvation, according to Catholicism, infants must be baptized in order for them to qualify for heaven. The logical corollary of this position is that unbaptized infants do not enter heaven. In fact, according to Augustine (a.d. 354–430), “the wrath of God abides on them,†they “remain in darkness,†and they are eternally doomed, though their punishment is less severe than that of others. As Sanders points out, Augustine’s position was the dominant view of the Western church throughout the Middle Ages. Even today this harsh view is held by some Reformed theologians. After more than one hundred people, including a number of young children, died in the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, Sproul chided Billy Graham for saying in the memorial service that innocent children who died in the bombing are in God’s arms in heaven. Sproul wrote that all those who died without having received Christ as Savior, whether adults or children,†are experiencing...anguish and torment in hell.†A number of church leaders and theologians, however, believed that unbaptized infants do go to heaven, including Victor, John Wycliffe, the Lollards, and John Calvin.
To soften the severity of the Augustinian position, the Roman Catholic Church developed the idea of Limbo (limbus infantum), a neutral place for infants who die unbaptized. In this place between heaven and hell, children experience neither bliss nor torment. While this is not an official dogma of the Catholic Church, it is not denied either. But, as McCarthy explains, “In discussing the fate of unbaptized infants, modern Catholicism usually entrusts their souls to the mercy of God, makingo mention of limbo....Nonetheless, even today, when a Catholic persists in asking where unbaptzied infants go when they die, the answer usually comes back, ‘Limbo.’ †No scriptural support can be given for this position, however. As Beasley-Murray wrote, “only an evil doctrine of God and man sets them [children dying before the age of responsibility] among the lost or in limbo....â€Â
Obviously, if baptism is essential for salvation, many infants will not be in heaven. The Roman Catholic position limits salvation unduly, makes salvation obtainable not by faith but by a sacrament or work, and in condemning many infants to limbo obliterates the view that Christ’s atoning work removes, by His grace, the guilt of original sin for all infants and others who cannot believe.
Swindoll, C. R., & Zuck, R. B. Understanding Christian theology
As I read through this thread, I must say that I am saddened by some of the callous remarks made here...
My mother lost a baby into her 8th month and lost another baby who was less than a year old....My two brothers passes over 35 years ago and my mother still does not ever speak of them. The only thing my mother ever said about my two brothers was that she knew God would wanted them home and that she would see them again soon....I have never in all my 30 years of being a Christian ever doughted that ''ALL BABIES'' even babies born to muslims (remember, they are babies until they choose or are forced to be a muslim) will go home....I always considered them a part of the elect......Here is an article I found and perhaps it will put an end to this topic.......
Will Infants Who Die Go to Heaven?
Jesus made some interesting, even startling, statements about children. Included in those comments were his words to the disciples, “The kingdom of heaven [or ‘of God’] belongs to such as these†(Matt. 19:14, nasb; Mark 10:14, nasb; Luke 18:16, nasb); or as the King James version puts it, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven [or ‘of God’].†This indicates that adults who are like children in acknowledging their lowly and helpless condition will enter God’s kingdom. But the Greek toiautē (“of such as theseâ€Â) also indicates that children too are in God’s kingdom. And as Luke wrote, this includes infants (Luke 18:15–17). But how do those young children get into the kingdom? Undoubtedly, many infants get there by death. The high infant mortality in many countries of the world now and in past centuries suggests that numerous young children are in heaven. Jesus’ statement, however, should not be understood as meaning that all children, regardless of their age, are members of God’s kingdom. Other children, who live several years beyond infancy and then receive Christ as their Savior (receiving the kingdom as a child; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17), go to heaven when they die. Having been regenerated by their faith in Christ, they obviously belong to the kingdom of God (John 3:3). They are among those “little ones who believe in me,†as Jesus said (Matt. 18:6).
When the baby boy born illegitimately to David and Bathsheba became ill, David prayed and fasted for his healing, lying in anguish on the ground each night. But a week after the baby became sick, he died (2 Sam. 12:15–18). Then David told his servants, will go to him, but he will not return to me†(12:23). This speaks of the finality of death, but it also speaks of David’s intense desire to be with his son. Some say David was referring only to his own death but not to his being in conscious fellowship with his son after death. However, there would hardly be any comfort in David’s saying he would die too. Instead, this verse suggests that his son was experiencing after death a conscious existence in God’s presence, and that David anticipated some day joining him. This fact has been a source of great comfort to many Christian parents whose infants have died. “The idea of meeting his child in the unsconscious grave could not have rationally comforted him; nor could the thought of meeting him in hell have cheered his spirit; but the thought of meeting him in heaven had in itself the power of turning his weeping into joy.â€Â
Though the Bible does not explicitly state that deceased infants of unsaved parents go to heaven, Jesus’ words to the disciples and David’s words to his servants may well imply that this is the case. For this reason a number of authors assert that heaven is occupied with many children, perhaps with even more children than adults. In the nineteenth century John Newton wrote that the number of infants in heaven “so greatly exceeds the aggregate of adult believers that, comparatively speaking, the kingdom may be said to consist of little children.†Charles Spurgeon wrote, “I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them!â€Â
How can there be in heaven a countless number of people from every nation, tribe, people and language (Rev. 7:9, niv)? Surely not every tribe of people around the world has adult believers. Is it not possible, therefore, that a number of tribes will be represented by children who die in infancy? And if this is the case, this would point to the probability that infants of even unbelieving parents go to heaven.
Another argument in support of infants being in heaven is Jesus’ words that “Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost†(Matt. 18:14, niv). In view of that fact, “how can it be that little children who are set before [the disciples] as...patterns for imitation...should perish?†Since it is the Lord’s will that these little ones not perish, it is clear that at death they “go to be among the blessed in that heaven, to the kingdom [to] which...they belong....â€Â
Almost half a century ago John Linton advocated the idea that there will be no babies in heaven. He argued for this view by saying that since veryone in heaven will have a resurrected body, no one will be resurrected to “the weakness of infancy, or the unwisdom of childhood, but into a full grown man.†However, this wrongly assumes that an infant in heaven “still needs to grow to maturity,†and that his resurrection would “not be a work of perfection.â€ÂIs it not possible that infants can be resurrected with perfect bodies and still be infants?
By what means will deceased infants go to heaven? Numerous answers have been given to this question. First, some say all children who die as infants are taken to heaven because of the doctrine of universalism. That is, since everyone will ultimately be saved and no one will be in hell, infants too will naturally be in heaven, even though they had no opportunity to believe.
However, the teaching that all will ultimately be saved runs counter to Bible verses that affirm the eternal damnation of the unsaved (e.g., Matt. 25:46; John 3:16, 18; 3:36; Rev. 20:15). And yet this is not to deny the heavenly home of dead infants. It simply means that universalism is not the basis of their salvation.
Second, some affirm a heavenly destiny for infants because they are born innocent, without sin. Clifford Ingle, a Southern Baptist seminary professor, writes that a child “does not inherit lostness [from Adam]; he chooses it.†All persons, Ingle says,
are born with a tendency toward sin; all are destined to sin. However, the individual is not responsible for the sins of the [human] race or his inherited nature. He becomes an actual sinner in the eyes of God when, as a morally responsible person, he chooses sin and rebels against God. Thus there is a time between birth and moral accountability when the child is not guilty for sin.
John Inchley believes that children are not “in a state of being lost from God,†and that until they deliberately refuse Christ, they belong to him. “We must resist the temptation Marlin Jeschke writes, “to place the human race into only two classes, the saved and the lost. We are required to recognize also a third class, the innocent....†However, this view that children are born innocent and without an inherited sin nature conflicts with Scriptures that teach that everyone enters the world as a sinner. “Even though innocent compared to adults who consciously sin, infants and all who can’t believe are under the curse of Adam’s sin.†“In Adam all die†(1 Cor. 15:22). God told Noah after the flood that he would not bring about another flood of that magnitude “even though every inclination of [man’s] heart is evil from childhood†(Gen. 8:21, niv). Solomon wrote, “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child†(Prov. 22:15, niv). And David said he was born “sinful at birth†(Ps. 51:5, niv), and that “even from birth the wicked go astray†(58:3, niv). As Paul affirmed, “There is no one righteous, not even one†(Rom. 3:10, niv). All are “under sin†(3:9, niv) and under God’s wrath (John 3:36, niv), and that includes children.
Everyone is born with a sin nature, inherited from Adam, because all mankind was somehow in Adam when he sinned (Rom. 5:12). His sin plunged the entire human race into a stance of guilt before God, because all sinned “in Adam.†Therefore, people sin because they are sinners; it is not that they become sinners by sinning. This means that because all infants come with a sin nature, they are all lost and condemned. To say infants are neutral or innocent with respect to sin, and that they are not sinners until they knowingly commit acts of sin, overlooks these significant Scripture verses about the universality of sin. “A theology of childhood salvation must begin with the point that all people, including children, are sinful and in need of redemption.†Therefore, there must be some reason other than sinlessness that accounts for infants being in heaven.
A third explanation is that when infants die they immediately mature and are then given opportunity to place their faith in Christ for salvation. This view, first proposed by Gregory of Nyssa of the fourth century, builds on the conviction that faith is necessary for salvation. Buswell has suggested the unlikely view that immediately before death the intelligence of the infant is enlarged so that the child can accept Christ as Savior.
This view, however, is only conjecture; it has no biblical support. If infants immediately before or after death are given the opportunity to be saved, this suggests that some will go to heaven and others will not. And if this enablement to believe occurs after death, where is the child while he is confronted with the claims of Christ? This view wrongly suggests a neutral state after death, before one’s final destiny in heaven or hell.
Fourth, infants who die will be in heaven because they are elected by God. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer, asserted that all children of believing parents are among the elect and, therefore, will be saved, and that probably dying infants of non-Christian parents are also among the elect. Many Reformed theologians held this view. Charles Hodge based the belief that “all who die in infancy are saved†on Romans 5:18–19, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.†He also referred to Romans 5:20, “But where sin increased, grace increased all the more.†Warfield also defended the view that all infants who die go to heaven by pointing out that for infants God’s electing grace supersedes their inborn sin nature because God has chosen them. The Westminster Confession says, “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit.†While this statement does not explicitly affirm that all dying infants are elect (the words “elect infants†leave the question open), most Presbyterians would, no doubt, affirm that all infants who die are in fact included among the elect.
Fifth, infants can be saved by the “baptism of desire,†that is, if they desired baptism but were unable to obtain it before they died, they would go to heaven. This view was held in the ninth century by Hincmar of Rheims (d. 882). Martin Luther applied the idea of the baptism of desire to Christian parents, saying that their desire for their children’s baptism, even if not carried out, guarantees their offspring’s salvation. However, how can an infant desire baptism? And how does a parent’s mere desire substitute for a child’s salvation? Also, this view does not adequately address the question of infants of unsaved parents, who may not desire salvation for their young or may know nothing of salvation and baptism. This suggests that salvation for those infants is not available and that they are lost forever.
A sixth view maintains that all infants who die will be regenerated because they have not willfully rejected Christ. This view follows this line of reasoning: (1) Only those who consciously reject Christ are condemned to hell. (2) Infants cannot knowingly turn from Christ. (3) Therefore, all dying infants will be in heaven, even though they are born sinners and do not exercise faith. The problem with this view is that it makes eternal damnation dependent on a willful refusal to believe in Jesus Christ. If this is the basis of judgment in hell, how can those who never heard of Christ be condemned? Therefore, the basis of the condemnation is not rejection of Christ, but the commitment of sins based on one’s inherited sin nature. “In Adam all die†(1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Rom. 5:12). Paul reasoned in Romans 1 that all are under the guilt of sin and the wrath of God because of their sin. Therefore, only God’s grace can atone for the sin of infants. This leads to the seventh view, which I prefer over the other views.
A seventh view is that all infants enjoy heavenly bliss not because they are born sinless or because they mature immediately after death so they can exercise faith or because they are elect or had a desire for baptism or salvation or because they did not willingly reject Christ, but because of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. Like everyone, infants need salvation. And salvation is only through Christ. Therefore, even though infants cannot exercise faith in Him, He can remove their depravity. “If they be saved, it must be entirely by the sovereign mercy and positive operation of God....All redeemed sinners owe their salvation to sovereign grace...but the salvation of infants is with peculiar circumstances of [God’s] favour.†In July 1525, the Anabaptist theologian Balthasar Hübmaier, writing against the Swiss Reformers’ practice of infant baptism, stated that while we cannot know for sure on what basis unbaptized infants go to heaven, God no doubt saves them because of His grace. Also, Spurgeon said infants enter heaven “as a matter of free grace with no reference to anything they have done.†Downs, Lightner, and Lockyer all concur.
Sanders thinks it is inconsistent to say God saves some (adults) by faith but others (infants) without faith. This objection is answerable by noting that in all cases God’s grace provides salvation. Even though infants cannot hear the Word and, therefore, cannot exercise faith (Rom. 10:17), God need not be limited, as Calvin noted, because He works in ways we cannot always perceive, and He can still bestow His grace.
An eighth view is that infants qualify for entrance to heaven by virtue of their having been baptized. Roman Catholicism maintains that infant baptism removes the stain of original sin. “Baptism...signifies that by the power of the Holy Ghost all stain and defilement of sin is inwardly washed away, and that the soul is enriched and adorned with the admirable gift of heavenly justification....†The recently published new Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.†Since the sacrament of infant baptism is necessary for salvation, according to Catholicism, infants must be baptized in order for them to qualify for heaven. The logical corollary of this position is that unbaptized infants do not enter heaven. In fact, according to Augustine (a.d. 354–430), “the wrath of God abides on them,†they “remain in darkness,†and they are eternally doomed, though their punishment is less severe than that of others. As Sanders points out, Augustine’s position was the dominant view of the Western church throughout the Middle Ages. Even today this harsh view is held by some Reformed theologians. After more than one hundred people, including a number of young children, died in the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, Sproul chided Billy Graham for saying in the memorial service that innocent children who died in the bombing are in God’s arms in heaven. Sproul wrote that all those who died without having received Christ as Savior, whether adults or children,†are experiencing...anguish and torment in hell.†A number of church leaders and theologians, however, believed that unbaptized infants do go to heaven, including Victor, John Wycliffe, the Lollards, and John Calvin.
To soften the severity of the Augustinian position, the Roman Catholic Church developed the idea of Limbo (limbus infantum), a neutral place for infants who die unbaptized. In this place between heaven and hell, children experience neither bliss nor torment. While this is not an official dogma of the Catholic Church, it is not denied either. But, as McCarthy explains, “In discussing the fate of unbaptized infants, modern Catholicism usually entrusts their souls to the mercy of God, makingo mention of limbo....Nonetheless, even today, when a Catholic persists in asking where unbaptzied infants go when they die, the answer usually comes back, ‘Limbo.’ †No scriptural support can be given for this position, however. As Beasley-Murray wrote, “only an evil doctrine of God and man sets them [children dying before the age of responsibility] among the lost or in limbo....â€Â
Obviously, if baptism is essential for salvation, many infants will not be in heaven. The Roman Catholic position limits salvation unduly, makes salvation obtainable not by faith but by a sacrament or work, and in condemning many infants to limbo obliterates the view that Christ’s atoning work removes, by His grace, the guilt of original sin for all infants and others who cannot believe.
Swindoll, C. R., & Zuck, R. B. Understanding Christian theology
Gabbylittleangel
Member
jgredline said:
Amen to that.
Threads like this are remind me of how glad I am that it is God who is on the throne. He makes the decisions, and His decisions are always, ALWAYS, righteous.
U
unred typo
Guest
JM wrote: “unred...you assume that ‘you’ includes the world and this idea is based upon presuppositions about salvation and God in general. This is natural, but we need to 'think God's thoughts after Him' as we conform to the word of God.â€Â
It is not my “presuppositions about salvation and God in general†that hinder the truth, JM. I am not the one who has to twist the words ‘all’ and ‘any’ and ‘the world’ until you wring out ‘any’ and ‘all’ undesirable non elect from your limited view of the ‘world.’ It’s not that hard to discern where scripture is referring to ‘all us chosen ones’ and where it means ‘all who inhabit the earth.’ The natural man’s preferred interpretation is to make himself central to the favored position. As long as you are securely in the ‘elect camp,’ among those “who have ‘obtained’ the gift of God already,†I’m sure it makes perfect sense. “Thinking God’s thoughts†should include loving the whole world, and being a helper of the helpless, ya think? There would not be anyone more vulnerable than a child or infant born to ungodly parents, would there?
In light of so many other scriptures that show God’s heart to save, 2 Peter 3:9 is no different.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. There were x number of souls created in Adam. Until all those have had a chance to be born and live to choose to follow Christ of their own volition, God is waiting patiently. One day the last soul will be born.
JM wrote: You have to decide, are babies innocent or wicked? You seem to be claiming both? Make up your mind.
No, read it again. I said, “Since God is not willing that any should perish, 2 Peter 3:9, and he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 18:23 ,why would you even imagine that he would ever consider tossing babies into hell? Is that consistent with a God of love who has mercy on the meek and helpless?â€Â
IOW, if God is so unwilling to punish those wicked ones who deserve it, why would he even think of punishing those who are incapable of being wicked?
You sll need to clarify your position on Cain and Abel, though. I gave you three options, “Are you saying Cain was (1)punished for an inferior offering or (2)for murdering his brother or (3)that Abel was punished by being killed?†and your answer was “bothâ€Â.
:smt102
It is not my “presuppositions about salvation and God in general†that hinder the truth, JM. I am not the one who has to twist the words ‘all’ and ‘any’ and ‘the world’ until you wring out ‘any’ and ‘all’ undesirable non elect from your limited view of the ‘world.’ It’s not that hard to discern where scripture is referring to ‘all us chosen ones’ and where it means ‘all who inhabit the earth.’ The natural man’s preferred interpretation is to make himself central to the favored position. As long as you are securely in the ‘elect camp,’ among those “who have ‘obtained’ the gift of God already,†I’m sure it makes perfect sense. “Thinking God’s thoughts†should include loving the whole world, and being a helper of the helpless, ya think? There would not be anyone more vulnerable than a child or infant born to ungodly parents, would there?
In light of so many other scriptures that show God’s heart to save, 2 Peter 3:9 is no different.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. There were x number of souls created in Adam. Until all those have had a chance to be born and live to choose to follow Christ of their own volition, God is waiting patiently. One day the last soul will be born.
JM wrote: You have to decide, are babies innocent or wicked? You seem to be claiming both? Make up your mind.
No, read it again. I said, “Since God is not willing that any should perish, 2 Peter 3:9, and he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 18:23 ,why would you even imagine that he would ever consider tossing babies into hell? Is that consistent with a God of love who has mercy on the meek and helpless?â€Â
IOW, if God is so unwilling to punish those wicked ones who deserve it, why would he even think of punishing those who are incapable of being wicked?
You sll need to clarify your position on Cain and Abel, though. I gave you three options, “Are you saying Cain was (1)punished for an inferior offering or (2)for murdering his brother or (3)that Abel was punished by being killed?†and your answer was “bothâ€Â.
:smt102
U
unred typo
Guest
Quarth wrote: “To me there are several hard to solve issues:
1. If babies go to heaven, then the Bible appears wrong that the only way to heaven is through Jesus.
2. If Muslims babies go to heaven and 90% of Muslims stay in the same religion, then if we kill 100 Muslim babies, wen send 100 people to heaven instead of maybe 10.
3. If babies go to heaven, they have have suffered no harm. So abortion harms them not.
4. If babies go to hell, God would appear to be very evil.
5. Maybe the safest option is that babies are unmade. However, there seems to be more scripture against that than for it.â€Â
To me these are not very hard to solve, Quarth.
1. Jesus died for all, including infants. His blood covers their sin. That makes him the way they are saved, doesn’t it?
2. You know no murderer has eternal life abiding in him, don’t you, Quarth? If you would like to put yourself under the wrath of God, you go right ahead. If you think the wrath of Muslims is fierce, try standing before an angry God when you mess with the young and helpless he loves.
3. They suffer for a few hours, while the sentence of the abortionist will last forever if the Bible is true.
4. Babies don’t go to hell. God is good.
5. God is patiently waiting for the birth of all the souls created in Adam to be born so they can escape the death that Adam brought upon them.
6. Here’s another option, just for you, Quarth. The souls of the babies who die before accountability are recycled into a later generation of the same family. There are even more creative ways God can handle this but it doesn’t matter to those of us who know he is love, and just and not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance. It only becomes a problem to those who refuse to believe that.
JM wrote: :-D
What are you grinning about, JM? Love the avatar, btw. Nice hat. That is you as a baby, isn’t it?
1. If babies go to heaven, then the Bible appears wrong that the only way to heaven is through Jesus.
2. If Muslims babies go to heaven and 90% of Muslims stay in the same religion, then if we kill 100 Muslim babies, wen send 100 people to heaven instead of maybe 10.
3. If babies go to heaven, they have have suffered no harm. So abortion harms them not.
4. If babies go to hell, God would appear to be very evil.
5. Maybe the safest option is that babies are unmade. However, there seems to be more scripture against that than for it.â€Â
To me these are not very hard to solve, Quarth.
1. Jesus died for all, including infants. His blood covers their sin. That makes him the way they are saved, doesn’t it?
2. You know no murderer has eternal life abiding in him, don’t you, Quarth? If you would like to put yourself under the wrath of God, you go right ahead. If you think the wrath of Muslims is fierce, try standing before an angry God when you mess with the young and helpless he loves.
3. They suffer for a few hours, while the sentence of the abortionist will last forever if the Bible is true.
4. Babies don’t go to hell. God is good.
5. God is patiently waiting for the birth of all the souls created in Adam to be born so they can escape the death that Adam brought upon them.
6. Here’s another option, just for you, Quarth. The souls of the babies who die before accountability are recycled into a later generation of the same family. There are even more creative ways God can handle this but it doesn’t matter to those of us who know he is love, and just and not willing that any should perish but all should come to repentance. It only becomes a problem to those who refuse to believe that.
JM wrote: :-D
What are you grinning about, JM? Love the avatar, btw. Nice hat. That is you as a baby, isn’t it?
If Jesus died for all, then all would be saved. However, the Bible suggests that pagans are going to hell. The Bible seems clear that you actively have to believe in Jesus to receive salvation.unred typo said:
It is an ethical question. For example, if one were a believer and they really believed that babies wnet to heaven but adult Muslims did not, then they may make such a choice. For example, say they went into a Muslim nursery and killed 100 of their babies. They may think something like "I saved at least 90 souls from going to hell. If I can kill 1000, then I may have saved 900 souls. I will ask for God to forgive me these murders. If God doesn't, then at least I know that I saved so many more souls to heaven than would have gone to hell if I did nothing."
There are counter arguments like long term effects may turn people away from Christianity. However, it still presents ethical problems because it exists as a concept. For example, say we decide to nuke Iran. We could justify killing their babies by saying that go to heaven, so we are not really doing such a bad thing after all.
I would disagree that the Bible is clear on this. The Bible allows for capital punishment and other ways for people to determine who die. And if the embryo has no nervous system, then there is no suffering at all. The point I am trying to make is that if the baby goes to heaven, then everyone should be happy. It should be a great celebration for each abortion and miscarriage because the baby is much happier now than if it had been born. (Unless heaven is not that great.)
By that logic, no one should ever go to hell. Only an evil god would torture anyone for all of eternity.
According to the Bible Adam was doomed to die anyway, whether he ate of the fruit or not. He did not have immortality.
Not a bad option. Most Christians don't like the concept of reincarnation since it sounds like Hinduism. But it begs the question: Why would God give some do-overs and not others? A baby didn't get enough information to choose Jesus, so God reincarnates it. But Africans a in 100 AD also did not get a chance to leanr of Jesus, wouldn't he reincarnate them as well? Where does it end? You could easily justify God reincarnating everyone until they accept Jesus.
U
unred typo
Guest
Quarth wrote:
1. If Jesus died for all, then all would be saved. However, the Bible suggests that pagans are going to hell. The Bible seems clear that you actively have to believe in Jesus to receive salvation.
1. Jesus said to love one another and forgive as you were forgiven, and God would forgive you. This is the Way to Salvation, the believing in Christ, the being in Christ, and the saving faith in Jesus that everyone talks about but few seem to understand what it means. Since babies don’t hate anyone, nor refuse to forgive others, they are ‘in Christ.’
Quarth wrote: …If I can kill 1000, then I may have saved 900 souls. I will ask for God to forgive me these murders. If God doesn't, then at least I know that I saved so many more souls to heaven than would have gone to hell if I did nothing."
2. Fine, Quarth, you go to a Muslim nursery and mercifully kill off a hundred or as many as you can before they grab your sorry butt and draw and quarter you with their bare hands. That would indeed be a noble gesture. Perhaps God would have mercy on your soul, if your motives were so pure and loving, except it also is a blatant gesture of unbelief in God’s law and his opinion that they should be born to live and be judged by their works.
Quarth wrote: …The Bible allows for capital punishment and other ways for people to determine who die. And if the embryo has no nervous system, then there is no suffering at all. The point I am trying to make is that if the baby goes to heaven, then everyone should be happy. It should be a great celebration for each abortion and miscarriage because the baby is much happier now than if it had been born. (Unless heaven is not that great.)
3. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. Capital punishment is the taking of the life of the guilty for the protection of society. I don’t see your point. We should celebrate the murder of the unborn?
Quarth wrote: By that logic, no one should ever go to hell. Only an evil god would torture anyone for all of eternity.
4. God doesn’t have to torture the ungodly for eternity. He confines them in a place where their sin does not infect the rest of creation and since they found no place within themselves for love, mercy, light, and forgiveness of others, they dwell in that state. They reap what they have sown. The same laws apply in nature… an opposite and equal reaction to every action. What you fail to see is how far into eternity your sin will prolong your retribution.
Quarth wrote: …According to the Bible Adam was doomed to die anyway, whether he ate of the fruit or not. He did not have immortality.
5. No, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life until he sinned. He could have lived forever.
Quarth wrote: …Not a bad option. Most Christians don't like the concept of reincarnation since it sounds like Hinduism. But it begs the question: Why would God give some do-overs and not others? A baby didn't get enough information to choose Jesus, so God reincarnates it. But Africans a in 100 AD also did not get a chance to leanr of Jesus, wouldn't he reincarnate them as well? Where does it end? You could easily justify God reincarnating everyone until they accept Jesus.
6. I thought you’d like it. I also knew you’d find a loop hole. And you even found one for God. It’s what you do. I don’t know why he didn’t think of it himself. Maybe, possibly he knows something you don’t know about the workings of the universe and all the laws that hold it together. I guess you’ll ultimately just have to trust God’s judgment in all this then.
: Tough break. I’m sure God was hoping you could get him out of all that bad karma.
:roll:
1. If Jesus died for all, then all would be saved. However, the Bible suggests that pagans are going to hell. The Bible seems clear that you actively have to believe in Jesus to receive salvation.
1. Jesus said to love one another and forgive as you were forgiven, and God would forgive you. This is the Way to Salvation, the believing in Christ, the being in Christ, and the saving faith in Jesus that everyone talks about but few seem to understand what it means. Since babies don’t hate anyone, nor refuse to forgive others, they are ‘in Christ.’
Quarth wrote: …If I can kill 1000, then I may have saved 900 souls. I will ask for God to forgive me these murders. If God doesn't, then at least I know that I saved so many more souls to heaven than would have gone to hell if I did nothing."
2. Fine, Quarth, you go to a Muslim nursery and mercifully kill off a hundred or as many as you can before they grab your sorry butt and draw and quarter you with their bare hands. That would indeed be a noble gesture. Perhaps God would have mercy on your soul, if your motives were so pure and loving, except it also is a blatant gesture of unbelief in God’s law and his opinion that they should be born to live and be judged by their works.
Quarth wrote: …The Bible allows for capital punishment and other ways for people to determine who die. And if the embryo has no nervous system, then there is no suffering at all. The point I am trying to make is that if the baby goes to heaven, then everyone should be happy. It should be a great celebration for each abortion and miscarriage because the baby is much happier now than if it had been born. (Unless heaven is not that great.)
3. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. Capital punishment is the taking of the life of the guilty for the protection of society. I don’t see your point. We should celebrate the murder of the unborn?
Quarth wrote: By that logic, no one should ever go to hell. Only an evil god would torture anyone for all of eternity.
4. God doesn’t have to torture the ungodly for eternity. He confines them in a place where their sin does not infect the rest of creation and since they found no place within themselves for love, mercy, light, and forgiveness of others, they dwell in that state. They reap what they have sown. The same laws apply in nature… an opposite and equal reaction to every action. What you fail to see is how far into eternity your sin will prolong your retribution.
Quarth wrote: …According to the Bible Adam was doomed to die anyway, whether he ate of the fruit or not. He did not have immortality.
5. No, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life until he sinned. He could have lived forever.
Quarth wrote: …Not a bad option. Most Christians don't like the concept of reincarnation since it sounds like Hinduism. But it begs the question: Why would God give some do-overs and not others? A baby didn't get enough information to choose Jesus, so God reincarnates it. But Africans a in 100 AD also did not get a chance to leanr of Jesus, wouldn't he reincarnate them as well? Where does it end? You could easily justify God reincarnating everyone until they accept Jesus.
6. I thought you’d like it. I also knew you’d find a loop hole. And you even found one for God. It’s what you do. I don’t know why he didn’t think of it himself. Maybe, possibly he knows something you don’t know about the workings of the universe and all the laws that hold it together. I guess you’ll ultimately just have to trust God’s judgment in all this then.
: Tough break. I’m sure God was hoping you could get him out of all that bad karma. :roll:
It seems that we are in agreement that if you believe this stuff, then killing Muslim babies will most likely give them a better chance at happiness. However, it seems you dislike this as well. I am not quote sure what your objections are. Would you rather the babies killed go to hell instead? (My point is not that we should do this, but if the logic is carried to its ultimate conclusion, killing Muslims babies can look like a good deed.)unred typo said:
Murder is illegal killing. It is not killing innocents otherwise America has murdered many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. (So as opposed to casualities of war, they would be murder victims.)
Then you believe that hell is separation from God and not torment as described by the Bible. My comments mostly address those that see hell as a torment.
God says in Genesis 3:21 - "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Therefore, it seems clear that Adam had not eaten from that tree before and was not immortal. But, hey, its theology. Everyone has their own interpretation.
U
unred typo
Guest
Aren’t we on topic here, JG? I thought so.
Quarth, I truncated my last post somehow.
: I’ll wait until you get a chance to answer #1.
Quarth, I truncated my last post somehow.
: I’ll wait until you get a chance to answer #1.