Does God Send Babies to Hell?

[Darrell C]

Okay, folks, having to create a new thread because the last one was too similar, the same one in fact that is being ran in Baptist Theology.

The question is the center of many a debate, so, despite what System of Theology one has embraced, or lack thereof, I think its a good topic which might allow us to look at the issues involved.

So what happens to the infant that dies in the womb? Or even the young child? Or the mentally impaired?

A few things I would like to point out is that all men are conceived and born in a condition of separation from God (and if any want to address that issue, it is relevant). The normal manner of salvation is that men receive the revelation of God and respond to it (and this is another issue that is also relevant). We know that in this Age when men respond positively to the Gospel of Christ, they are born again and eternally indwelt (and whether this took place before this Age is also relevant).

Those are just a few points of discussion in this issue.


God bless.

 

[Smyth]

In my view, God elected his people before the foundation of the world. The timing of our deaths has no impact on our eternal destiny.

 

[Darrell C]

Sorry, Utilyan, Moderation merged the two threads I started on this into one in the Baptist section, so the links in this response will probably take you there if you hit on them.

Well if you start with the premise conceived separated from God then all souls start in hell.

I would not consider or compare physical conception and birth to be Hell, or, the Lake of Fire.

Quite a difference there, Utilyan.

Separation from God is hell. Some might soften this understanding to a we are all dead already.

No, Hell is the final judgment that will, by far, exceed any torment suffered here on earth.

I don't believe that's the case. I'm just clarifying if you want to be consistent.

Not sure how it has anything to do with my own consistency, nor yours. Not sure why you would introduce these concepts if you do not embrace them. But glad you don't either way.

The miracles and statements of Jesus.

Jesus brings girl back to life. I never read she was baptized nor did I read she accepted Jesus as Lord and savior. I didn't read that she was elect, nor anything about having faith.

And what significance would we ascribe to the fact that Christ ministered under the Covenant of Law? Do you see that as a significant factor or no?

Secondly, what text do you consider has this girl "confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior?" We could full well speculate that her salvation from death would warrant a view that He was her Savior, but, we keep in mind this was a physical resurrection.

And as far as no mention of being elect, we only see the Lord use this term a few times (comparatively speaking). Just because it isn't mentioned often doesn't mean we can't identify the elect.

Even with Lazarus its so they would believe.

As Abraham said, "Though one rose from the dead (if they believe not Moses and the Prophets) they will not believe."

Not even the disciples.

Luke 18
15And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. 16But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

brephē = Babies

Even sounds the same.

The OP actually has a focus on the infant in the womb, though young children are mentioned. I think even young children can understand the simplicity of the Gospel, though.

The infant is more in view because we have conditions which we don't have after birth, which is the increase of one's understanding and their ability to respond to the Gospel, or, the revelation God provides internally.

But we do not usually correlate the Lord's statement here to infants, right?

Who knows how to receive the kingdom of God like a child better then a child? Babies even.

In a sense I would agree: even the babe develops at a young age a dependency on their mother (the one usually tending to the child the most). THat is the faith I think the Lord calls men to.

We put our faith in the great mercy of God. We don't PRETEND he's most merciful. If there is no chance you would send that child to hell, God is more merciful.

Just not good reasoning, Utilyan, because parents will make excuses for their children even when they commit terrible sin. God will punish sin when the parent will not. And it is not love, or mercy, that allows for sin the lives of those they love. When that condition exists, in my own view this is a pure and deceived form of hatred.

Finally the parent, any parent with half a heart will call wherever that child is heaven.

Agreed. We might even find this in the atheist. Because the infant is, in our eyes, about as innocent as we are going to get in regards to humanity, its natural for most to combat grief with the belief that they have gone to a better place. And I believe they are right, despite why they think this.

Parents may cry, God's tears are bigger.

Agree with that as well. Christ wept over His people, who had at every turn rejected Him and His will for them.

But that doesn't mean that though it grieves God to allow those who reject Him to remain separated, and this into eternity, He is still Holy and Just, and He will, as He tells us, judge sin righteously.

God does not send anyone to Hell, they choose that fate by rejecting the revelation provided that they might not suffer that fate. Going back to Abraham (Luke 16), he does not say "They can hear the Gospel of Christ," but that they have Moses (The Law) and the Prophets, which indicates that His Word, His revelation, even under Law, was sufficient for men to escape eternal separation.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In my view, God elected his people before the foundation of the world. The timing of our deaths has no impact on our eternal destiny.

So do we say that only the Elect die as infants and young children and mentally impaired?

This would be relevant only to the Elect, right? So how about the non-elect? Are there non-elect that die as infants? And if so, what happens to them?

And I'll check back in tomorrow.


God bless.

 

[utilyan]

1 Corinthians 7

12But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Children made holy by the intention of the parents?

Spouses can save each other?

 

[Darrell C]

1 Corinthians 7

12But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

Children made holy by the intention of the parents?

Spouses can save each other?

Paul is speaking in a temporal context, not contradicting his many teachings, as well as those of Christ and the other Writers, that salvation is through Christ alone.

The unbelieving spouse is still...the unbelieving spouse.

The question "How do you know whether you will save your wife or husband" does not imply that the spouses' effort impart salvific effect, but is like even to Paul's own "saving" of others through his ministry:


Romans 11:13-14

King James Version (KJV)


13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.


Nor does Jude suggest men can save others by their efforts in a manner in which salvific effect is attributed to those efforts:


Jude 22-23

King James Version (KJV)

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.


The point is that our own actions can impact whether others will be saved. The children are to be trained up in the way they should go, and so parents are commanded to be diligent in this, and how they interact has great impact on the children.

So, yes, children can be made holy by the parents, spouses can be saved by those efforts, but, not the imparting of salvation or holiness, only God can do that. Children are sanctified by the godly example of the parent. Spouses are saved by the impact of the testimony of an obedient spouse.

And I would just point out that this passage you quote is a good example of the danger of imposing a sequence into a text. In your quote, we see the question regarding the salvation of the spouse following the declaration that is a spouse insists that they will leave, then the believing spouse is relieved of their obligation to that spouse. But the question has application to living with the unbelieving spouse in hopes of the impact they can have on that spouse, rather than the idea that it by allowing an unbelieving spouse to leave is how that spouse might be saved.

Just a side note. I have been meaning to compile some verses that speak to that issue, which in my view has led to some erroneous interpretations.

Lastly, Utilyan, I would ask how you see this passage as relevant to the OP. Those in view in the quoted passage are not infants, but most likely dealing with children that have been born and have enough understanding that the lifestyle and teaching of the believing parent/spouse is relevant.


God bless.

 

[utilyan]

"The point is that our own actions can impact whether others will be saved."
Matthew 23
15“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.


I agree with your statement and there is more scripture like that.

But I don't see how the theology consistent with that statement. (your going to have to teach me)

Because according to my understanding of it, ACTIONS (WORKS) never impact anything.

A faith alone approach would just nullifies relationship between ourselves. The husband or wife same chance as any other stranger, why? Because according to the theology you CANNOT impact anything.

God is given limited grace for example a person who is not born again is allowed to breathe, God handles the heart beat for us, gives us family, but he doesn't give you any kindness, love. They got 2nd class selfish evil with an appearance of good, but they are incapable of any good whatsoever until God provides a spiritual essential he held back at your creation.

I probably got you all wrong, fix it for me. Because I do want to understand.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay, folks, having to create a new thread because the last one was too similar, the same one in fact that is being ran in Baptist Theology.

The question is the center of many a debate, so, despite what System of Theology one has embraced, or lack thereof, I think its a good topic which might allow us to look at the issues involved.

So what happens to the infant that dies in the womb? Or even the young child? Or the mentally impaired?

A few things I would like to point out is that all men are conceived and born in a condition of separation from God (and if any want to address that issue, it is relevant). The normal manner of salvation is that men receive the revelation of God and respond to it (and this is another issue that is also relevant). We know that in this Age when men respond positively to the Gospel of Christ, they are born again and eternally indwelt (and whether this took place before this Age is also relevant).

Those are just a few points of discussion in this issue.


God bless.

Babies need salvation - they need a Savior.... 1 John 4:14 James 4:17 -- and they have one.

 

[Darrell C]

"The point is that our own actions can impact whether others will be saved."
Matthew 23
15“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.


I agree with your statement and there is more scripture like that.

But I don't see how the theology consistent with that statement. (your going to have to teach me)

Because according to my understanding of it, ACTIONS (WORKS) never impact anything.

A faith alone approach would just nullifies relationship between ourselves. The husband or wife same chance as any other stranger, why? Because according to the theology you CANNOT impact anything.

God is given limited grace for example a person who is not born again is allowed to breathe, God handles the heart beat for us, gives us family, but he doesn't give you any kindness, love. They got 2nd class selfish evil with an appearance of good, but they are incapable of any good whatsoever until God provides a spiritual essential he held back at your creation.

I probably got you all wrong, fix it for me. Because I do want to understand.

You bring up a great temporal based passage. The Pharisees had no control over salvation from the temporal perspective, but, their actions resulted in results that correlated to the actions. In other words, the godly influence of parents is used of God in the process of enlightenment, and the works, also godly, impact those under that influence.

I was a bit taken aback with the quote, and thought "I didn't say that!" lol

But in reviewing the post it is said in, and the context, I was able to breathe a sigh of relief because I made it clear that I am not talking about salvific attributes imparted through men. The corollary being neither do we excuse the individual that ends up rejecting God based on the actions of others, those individuals are still going to be held accountable themselves.

Actions/works do have an impact, in my view. The child raised up in a household where he might be exposed to the truth of the Gospel, but not see that truth mirrored in the parents lives (which is true of most to some extent because we simply cannot reflect the righteousness of Christ to the extent that the failures we have are not condemned by the child, who is, until saved, a fallen creature themselves), will likely bear the impact of the efforts of the parents. When it comes to salvation we cannot really create a model concerning the impact of efforts of the saved, because we can find children that grow up in wonderful households with godly parents being rebellious, and children growing up in godless conditions being saved despite those conditions. People can sit under great teaching for years, but never benefit from it, and people can sit under poor teaching and still come to great understanding because of outside influence and the ministry of God in their lives.

But it still doesn't negate our own responsibility to seek to obtain to the goals set for us in Scripture.

The primary point I think we fail to connect on, Utilyan, is in distinguishing between the temporal and eternal. Works are not divorced from the Christian's life, and he has grave responsibility to the lost. While we are not judged on an eternal basis for that done in the body, temporal judgment is simply a Bible Basic throughout Scripture. Believers are, for example, still put to death for sin in these days (Ananias and Sapphira, for example).

A faith alone approach would just nullifies relationship between ourselves. The husband or wife same chance as any other stranger, why? Because according to the theology you CANNOT impact anything.

And that is not what the passages quoted state.

But again, it is not saying that the believing spouse saves the unbelieving from the eternal perspective, but, on a temporal basis. And that is the influence that gives testimony to the truth of the Word of God, meaning, when we live that which is taught, it will be effective.

God is given limited grace for example a person who is not born again is allowed to breathe, God handles the heart beat for us, gives us family, but he doesn't give you any kindness, love. They got 2nd class selfish evil with an appearance of good, but they are incapable of any good whatsoever until God provides a spiritual essential he held back at your creation.

I would agree, it is grace that kept and keeps God from clearing the slate and wiping all of fallen humanity off the map, but, that should not be equated to the Grace of God in regards to salvation. Would you agree that before men can be saved they need to hear the revelation of God? In this Age, God is speaking to men through His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2), and the message spoken is the revealed Gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, we look at that family where we have a believer and an unbeliever, and the unbelieving is, hopefully, being exposed to the Gospel through both word and deed. Let's create two scenarios:

1. we have a believing spouse who is obedient to that which God commands and one act of obedience is loving the unbelieving spouse.

2. we have a believing spouse that rants at the unbelieving, elevates themselves over them, and basically beats that spouse over the head with their self-righteousness.


Do you think there will be differing impact on the two unbelieving spouses?

Doesn't mean that in every case the one shown love will give their lives to Christ, but, that does not negate the differing impact both types will have.

Jude presents two types of approach (in my view), one of compassion, which is something we should all have for the lost, and the other...saving them with fear, which can have two interpretations, the fear being that of the believer, and, the use of "fear" in regards to the unbeliever (Strong preaching). I think both are true, and as far as Jude's original intent, I lean to a combined intent, because I see both approaches as Biblical and often utilized by Christ and the Apostles. The same could be said of the Old Testament Prophets, but I see primarily that they are usually (when directly speaking to men) confrontational of sin and error, which does not usually generate a loving response from those it is directed at (though we do see fear as the result of much preaching in Scripture).


Not sure if that helps or not, but I hope that is what you were talking about.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Babies need salvation - they need a Savior.... 1 John 4:14 James 4:17 -- and they have one.

I agree wholeheartedly, the question is...how are they saved?

In a recent thread one member presented the concept of God ministering to the infant in the womb, using John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb and that he leaped in his mother's womb when Mary gave salutation. This brings up the question...are infants that die, who most of us view as falling within the grace of God, regenerated before or after death?

Another doctrine advocated is a "Covenant of Redemption" which supersedes the fallen nature of man, implying that "the Elect" are somehow in relationship with God despite temporal conditions.

These are just a few topics of discussion worth exploring in this topic.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree wholeheartedly, the question is...how are they saved?

In a recent thread one member presented the concept of God ministering to the infant in the womb, using John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb and that he leaped in his mother's womb when Mary gave salutation. This brings up the question...are infants that die, who most of us view as falling within the grace of God, regenerated before or after death?

Another doctrine advocated is a "Covenant of Redemption" which supersedes the fallen nature of man, implying that "the Elect" are somehow in relationship with God despite temporal conditions.

All humans whether infant or not - will have their sinful nature removed when they go to heaven (at the 1 Thess 4 resurrection of the saints). Adam and Eve were created without sinful natures. But all mankind since that time (including infants) -- is cumbered with the sinful nature from the very start.

Infants don't "make choices" in the womb - they have no ability to engage in esoteric/abstract concepts.

If Adam and Eve had remained sinless - and they had a child that child would not need to hear the Gospel or all the rules or anything else before being born. They would be born without a sinful nature - and that would be just fine.

 

[Darrell C]

All humans whether infant or not - will have their sinful nature removed when they go to heaven (at the 1 Thess 4 resurrection of the saints).

So when we are born again we do not have a removal of our sinful natures? Would it not be more accurate to attribute the New Birth as a spiritual resurrection, and the sin that remains a matter of our physical disposition? You seem to imply this in regards to the Rapture. At that time the Church will be, as a whole, glorified, their bodies being resurrected into glorified form.

But what we are considering, Bob, is the disposition of infants who die in the womb.

I think based on what you say, you agree that all men are conceived separated from God, right?

Adam and Eve were created without sinful natures.

So you believe that infants are born with a sinful nature, right?

I don't take that view, I see it as a matter that men are conceived in spiritual death, being separated due to Adam's transgression, and because of that, when they are born, and become culpable for their own actions, they are, as God always has done, judged based on their response to the will revealed to them by God.

So I do not view the infant in the womb as being conceived "with sin" as though it were an inherited disease. It is their nature that leaves no possibility that they will sin.

But all mankind since that time (including infants) -- is cumbered with the sinful nature from the very start.

And so we would need to look at the texts usually presented to support this view. Feel free to give a few (please don't give a page full, lets take a few at a time, lol).

Infants don't "make choices" in the womb - they have no ability to engage in esoteric/abstract concepts.

I agree completely.

So what sin do we lay at the charge of the embryo or infant in the womb? Guilt by association? In part, I would agree with that, but, does not God justly charge men with the sin they commit?

If Adam and Eve had remained sinless - and they had a child that child would not need to hear the Gospel or all the rules or anything else before being born. They would be born without a sinful nature - and that would be just fine.

So men are born with a sinful nature. Again, I agree in part, because men are born, and even conceived separated from God. They are dead spiritually with no recourse but to transgress the will of God.

But the specific focus would be do we see sin in general charged to the infant?


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

So men are born with a sinful nature. Again, I agree in part, because men are born, and even conceived separated from God. They are dead spiritually with no recourse but to transgress the will of God.

But the specific focus would be do we see sin in general charged to the infant?


God bless.

If babies "needed to repent" then it would be because they must have first mastered James 4:17 "to him that knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin" -- and I don't think they have that ability.

Thus they cannot have sinned and they cannot repent of whatever they have done by instinct alone - having no ability to deal with abstract concepts and not very many concrete concepts either.

So no sin charged to their account - yet they are born with a sinful nature. A nature having a bent to sin - to rebellion. They need a Savior that would clean up their nature - which is one that cannot be tolerated in heaven.

At the same time "they are the rightful prey of Satan" in that they have a sinful nature - which is the nature of his domain and they have not been able to accept the Gospel - thus choosing Christ's kingdom and not Satan's kingdom - so as to exempt themselves from his dominion. Grace alone preserves them to the point that they are enabled to choose for themselves at some point in childhood. Even so, should they be taken they are Christ's by virtue of the fact that they have never chosen rebellion.

 

[BobRyan]

So when we are born again we do not have a removal of our sinful natures?

True - we do not.

We have the "Addition" of a new nature - a new creation but the old nature is still with us - and it means "war" -- two dogs trapped in the same cell -- feed the one... starve the other.

You seem to imply this in regards to the Rapture. At that time the Church will be, as a whole, glorified, their bodies being resurrected into glorified form.

Yes at the 1Thess 4 rapture event - which is the "First resurrection" as stated in Rev 20:4-5 - where the "dead in Christ rise first" -- this is when we put on immortality (1Cor 15) and it is when we get our immortal body (2Cor 5) and we no longer have a sinful nature.

I think based on what you say, you agree that all men are conceived separated from God, right?

Separated in that we all have a sinful nature and not the new-creation new-birth nature. But not separated in terms of the Grace of God which covers us. Notice that in the book of Jonah when Jonah is whining that God did not kill every man woman and child - along with animals - notice what God's response is.

So you believe that infants are born with a sinful nature, right?

I don't take that view, I see it as a matter that men are conceived in spiritual death

Romans 3:9-20 makes it clear that all - infants or not - have a sinful nature. There is no place in the Bible where the sinful nature is "acquired" except in the case of Adam and Eve.

So I do not view the infant in the womb as being conceived "with sin" as though it were an inherited disease. It is their nature that leaves no possibility that they will sin.

The Catholic doctrine of original sin charges that the babies must pay for the sin of Adam - in hell or ??... and I don't think that any such punishment "For Adam's sin" will befall one single human no matter their age - except for Adam (if Adam died as a lost person -- which I don't think he did), and Christ - who died and paid Adam's debt.

 

[Darrell C]

So no sin charged to their account - yet they are born with a sinful nature. A nature having a bent to sin - to rebellion. They need a Savior that would clean up their nature - which is one that cannot be tolerated in heaven.

At the same time "they are the rightful prey of Satan" in that they have a sinful nature - which is the nature of his domain and they have not been able to accept the Gospel - thus choosing Christ's kingdom and not Satan's kingdom - so as to exempt themselves from his dominion. Grace alone preserves them to the point that they are enabled to choose for themselves at some point in childhood. Even so, should they be taken they are Christ's by virtue of the fact that they have never chosen rebellion.

I think we are in agreement on the first point/s, but here, again, we need to look at your support that men are born with a sinful nature.

I would also ask where you find grace bestowed to all mankind that they can choose for themselves to exempt themselves from Satan's Kingdom.

This seems to come in conflict with your use of Romans 3:9-20.

True - we do not.

We have the "Addition" of a new nature - a new creation but the old nature is still with us - and it means "war" -- two dogs trapped in the same cell -- feed the one... starve the other.

Scripture?

We have unredeemed flesh, to be sure, and this complicates matters for us, but where do we see the new nature coinciding with the new nature? We would not be new creatures, but...renovated creatures.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Yes at the 1Thess 4 rapture event - which is the "First resurrection" as stated in Rev 20:4-5 - where the "dead in Christ rise first" -- this is when we put on immortality (1Cor 15) and it is when we get our immortal body (2Cor 5) and we no longer have a sinful nature.

The First Resurrection cannot possibly be the Rapture of the Church, Bob. First, it is not the "first" resurrection in terms of sequence, but in quality. There are two types of resurrection listed in Scripture, the resurrection unto life, and the resurrection unto damnation.

Second, that it is not a sequential reference is clear because the Two Witnesses are raptured at the mid-point of the Tribulation. Kind of hard to have concurrent 42 month periods for the Two Witnesses and the Antichrist.

Third (and I am about out of time so will make this brief), if you embrace a pre-millennial view (which is the only reasonable view if you do not want to have God reneging on His promises and Prophecy), then you understand that no unbelievers will enter into the Millennial Kingdom. Therefore, if you leave the thousand year period in place as Scripture gives it, then you are forced to recognize that there must be physical believers that enter into the Kingdom in order for their to be physical unbelievers at the end of the Millennial Kingdom.

And if the Church is raptured at the end of the Tribulation, we either have to allow for unbelievers escaping the wrath of God, or, that glorified Saints have physical offspring.

But this is not the topic, so lets focus on whether God sends babies to Hell.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Separated in that we all have a sinful nature and not the new-creation new-birth nature. But not separated in terms of the Grace of God which covers us. Notice that in the book of Jonah when Jonah is whining that God did not kill every man woman and child - along with animals - notice what God's response i

The separation is spiritual. We are not conceived in relationship to God, and salvation in Christ is reconciliation to God on a spiritual and eternal level. The new birth isa result of the Eternal Indwelling of God.

And I am familiar with God's response, and it shows God's compassion on...those that cannot be held culpable.

If you would like to present the Scripture for discussion, you can. But I can't guess what it is you have in mind.

Romans 3:9-20 makes it clear that all - infants or not - have a sinful nature. There is no place in the Bible where the sinful nature is "acquired" except in the case of Adam and Eve.

Well, you would have to show me how an infant in the womb can have a mouth full of cursing, are swift to shed blood, how they can seek after God (when you acknowledge they do not have that capability.

To clarify, I am not saying that infants that die in the womb get a pass because they are "innocent" (though I do view them as not having culpability for personal sin), but I am saying that because they are separated from God spiritually...they too are in need of Christ.

I see this as no proof-text for infants in the womb having guilt for personal sin. We could call it a "sin nature," because it is true, they would sin due to the nature they have which is a result of not being in relationship with God.

Romans 3:9-20 does not say that man has a sin nature, it simply speaks of the fact that he sins, and those spoken of are clearly those who have been born and grown up to the point where they are guilty of that which is spoken of.

I will counter this proof-text with one of my own:


Romans 5:13

King James Version (KJV)

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.


I would suggest that this refers to the period prior to the establishment of the Law, and his point is this: those in those Ages before the Law were not held accountable for that which the Law brought them into guilt by declaring. For example, it was not commanded of men to do numerous things the Law required, thus, they will not be held accountable for the requirement of the Law.

Romans 2:9-16 makes it clear that between those who had the Law (Jews) and those who did not (Gentiles), we still see the internal witness of God to those who did not have the Law, though they did show the works of the Law written on their hearts. This, Paul states, is that by which they (Gentiles) would be judged for when they stand before Christ.

So no man will have excuse, however, in view are infants. We know they are conceived in a state of condemnation, and when they die, they remain separated from God. At least...

...that is the focus of the thread.

The Catholic doctrine of original sin charges that the babies must pay for the sin of Adam - in hell or ??... and I don't think that any such punishment "For Adam's sin" will befall one single human no matter their age - except for Adam (if Adam died as a lost person -- which I don't think he did), and Christ - who died and paid Adam's debt.

I'm not really interested in Catholic positions unless they come directly from a Catholic.

Besides, we already have an answer for that:


Romans 5:13-14

King James Version (KJV)

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


This seems to make it pretty clear it is not Adam's sin imputed to them (those who died in those Ages (from Adam to the Flood and from there to the Law)).

They suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, which is death, but it is not Adam's sin that is imputed to them. God is just to judge men based on their own sin. And He does so according tot heir understanding. For example, eating pork is not a sin, but if one thinks it is and violates his conscience, for him it is sin.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

The separation is spiritual. We are not conceived in relationship to God,

No infant - of the unfallen Adam or of the fallen Adam could possibly be having a "relationship with God" before they were born or in the first few months afterward. They have no concept of it.

The difference in the two would be the sinful nature -- babies born before the fall (had there been any) would have been born without a sinful nature.

But none of them "talking" and none of them capable of abstract concepts.

If you would like to present the Scripture for discussion, you can. But I can't guess what it is you have in mind.

When I speak of an infant or a baby before it is birth or a zygote or some single-celled life form and say they do not have abstract concepts like 'A relationship with God" . -- I am not looking for a Bible text to prove this. I am perfectly happy to let the truth of that statement that is apparent on the face of it be the only support for it.

Well, you would have to show me how an infant in the womb can have a mouth full of cursing

Indeed they don't - but they have a sinful nature and it is out of the heart that the mouth speaketh. The fact that they don't have words yet - or concepts to go with inner base instinct and feeling does not mean that they have not yet acquired a sinful nature.

To clarify, I am not saying that infants that die in the womb get a pass because they are "innocent" (though I do view them as not having culpability for personal sin), but I am saying that because they are separated from God spiritually...they too are in need of Christ.

The very fact that they have a sinful nature makes them in need of Christ.
They have no concept of God or animal or even glass-of-water. None of it registers with them.

I see this as no proof-text for infants in the womb having guilt for personal sin. We could call it a "sin nature," because it is true, they would sin due to the nature they have which is a result of not being in relationship with God.

Certainly I have never argued for infants having personal sin.

 

[BobRyan]

Darrell C said: ↑
You seem to imply this in regards to the Rapture. At that time the Church will be, as a whole, glorified, their bodies being resurrected into glorified form.

Yes at the 1Thess 4 rapture event - which is the "First resurrection" as stated in Rev 20:4-5 - where the "dead in Christ rise first" -- this is when we put on immortality (1Cor 15) and it is when we get our immortal body (2Cor 5) and we no longer have a sinful nature.

The First Resurrection cannot possibly be the Rapture of the Church, Bob.

It is in fact that every thing - the "dead in Christ rise First" 1 Thess 4 - at the "FIRST resurrection" Rev 20:5

First, it is not the "first" resurrection in terms of sequence,

It is in deed the first resurrection. First that is coming in the future to 1Thess 4.
First that is coming in the future of Rev 20 ...

First that is coming in the future of those NT writers.

. There are two types of resurrection listed in Scripture, the resurrection unto life, and the resurrection unto damnation.

True.

In Rev 20 the saints take part in the first resurrection and the wicked take part in the 2nd resurrection 1000 years later.

Rev 20
4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Second, that it is not a sequential reference is clear because the Two Witnesses are raptured at the mid-point of the Tribulation

No one is raptured in Rev 11 - in Rev 11, 12, 13 the 1260 years = 42 months of years = 3.5 times of prophetic apocalytpic years = 1260 years. All three chapters are speaking of the dark ages - 1260 years of dark ages persecution -- this has already happened.

And so also in Dan 9 the 70 weeks of years - is 490 sola years on earth in that same day-for-year model pointing to the first coming of Christ. Accurately predicting it in fact. The method is proven.

Third (and I am about out of time so will make this brief), if you embrace a pre-millennial view (which is the only reasonable view if you do not want to have God reneging on His promises and Prophecy), then you understand that no unbelievers will enter into the Millennial Kingdom.

Agreed. the 2nd coming of Rev 19... the FIRST resurrection of Rev 20 -- this is what starts the 1000 year millennium. And as Rev 19 says "The REST were killed" -- that is those not killed in the armies that come against Christ in Rev -- the "rest" -- all the rest. All the wicked... killed in Rev 19 at the 2nd coming.

And as 1Thess 4 points out - this is also when the saints are taken to heaven - raptured.

The "dead in Christ rise FIRST" 1Thess 4 at the "FIRST resurrection" Rev 20:5-6. And this starts the clock for the 10000 years - the millennium. A desolate earth and the saints in heaven.

Therefore, if you leave the thousand year period in place as Scripture gives it, then you are forced to recognize that there must be physical believers that enter into the Kingdom in order for their to be physical unbelievers at the end of the Millennial Kingdom.

Not according to Rev 20.

Rev 20 the "REST of the dead did not come to life until AFTER the 1000 years". The wicked are raised at the end of the millennium.

We are in this only because it is at the resurrection of 1Thess 4 and Rev 20 that the sinful nature is removed --- from the "Babies" in focus in this thread.

 

[Darrell C]

No infant - of the unfallen Adam or of the fallen Adam could possibly be having a "relationship with God" before they were born or in the first few months afterward. They have no concept of it.

The difference in the two would be the sinful nature -- babies born before the fall (had there been any) would have been born without a sinful nature.

But none of them "talking" and none of them capable of abstract concepts.



When I speak of an infant or a baby before it is birth or a zygote or some single-celled life form and say they do not have abstract concepts like 'A relationship with God" . -- I am not looking for a Bible text to prove this. I am perfectly happy to let the truth of that statement that is apparent on the face of it be the only support for it.



Indeed they don't - but they have a sinful nature and it is out of the heart that the mouth speaketh. The fact that they don't have words yet - or concepts to go with inner base instinct and feeling does not mean that they have not yet acquired a sinful nature.



The very fact that they have a sinful nature makes them in need of Christ.
They have no concept of God or animal or even glass-of-water. None of it registers with them.



Certainly I have never argued for infants having personal sin.

Not sure you are understanding what I am asking, Bob.

We both agree infants are not in relationship with God, and that they do not personally sin, so while we understand that nature has a bent for sin, because they have not the Spirit, in the womb they are not sinning.

The primary question here is, we know that they must be born again, so when does that happen? Why wouldn't they go into eternal separation by default because they have no ability to receive revelation by which they become culpable for their sin?

As far as to what extent a child in the womb has a conscious being, I don't think we are wrong to acknowledge that, for instance, they can feel pain. So they are not completely without understanding.


God bless.