Who here thinks babies go to heaven ?

Good news about your 3 children, but VERY surprising. Read on...

I will not tarry in my response to you, but straightfordly give you the truth -- and very good news: BUT very surprising as well -- read on...

After much research on this topic, I find overwhelming evidence that you will be reuinited with your 3 children during the 1,000-Year Millennium Reign, and that your children will be held in their youth in the inerim, to the end that, when you see your children again, they will not be thrust upon you as 'adult' spirits, but rather that JESUS will personally, Himself, afford you an opportunity to raise your 3 children up from their youth, and share the gospel with them.

A couple of things here:

This is *not* giving them a "2nd chance," since they never had a 1st chance to hear the Gospel.

Also, when God says in Heb. 9:27 that it is appointed once for man to die, and thereafter the judgment, who is to say that said "judgment" precludes and denies this possability? (Really, to put God in a box is RUDE to The Maker!)

Lastly, while some would argue that this is a cruel fate I am suggesting (to imply that your 3 children will have Free Will during the Millennium) is incorrect for 3 reasons:

#1 -- The issuance of Free Will to both humans (on earth) an angel (in heaven) was most certainly NOT cruel, as you and I know: God gave *us* Free Will, and God was NOT cruel in so doing.

#2 -- The angels (like your 3 children) were in heaven, and yet even the angels' actual location --where they were --in heaven --did NOT deny them Free Will, so the argument that your children would be deprived of Free Will and forcibly made to worship God is without precedent -and, of course, not in the nature of God to force us to chose one way or the other regarding our salvation.

#3 -- During the Millennium, there will be LOTS of Free Will, as evidenced by the rebellion that happens at the end, when Satan is loosed "for a little season," and there will, of course, be physical life and death, in human bodies, as shown by other Millennium passages, and elucidated in my paper, linked below.

Your children are safe, Baptist Mom, but you must not give up: It is important that you, too, hold fast your faith, so that you will be saved --and able to raise your children during that 1,000-year period, between Christ's return and eternal heaven.

Here are citations to verify my theological claims -- be blessed in Jesus:

http://gordonwatts.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html

http://gordonwaynewatts.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html

http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html

As an Ambassador for The Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:20, Christ and King JESUS, the Saviour (Jn 3:16) and only perfect role model & example for us (John 13:15; 1st Peter 2:21),
Gordon Wayne Watts

 

Double post

 

C.H.Spurgeon
*"We believe, therefore, that even before the intellect can work, God, who worketh not by the will of man, nor by blood, but by the mysterious agency of his Holy Spirit, creates the infant soul a new creature in Christ Jesus, and then it enters into the "rest which remaineth for the people of God." By election, by redemption, by regeneration, the child enters into glory, by the selfsame door by which every believer in Christ Jesus hopes to enter, and in no other way. If we could not suppose that children could be saved in the same way as adults, if it would be necessary to suppose that God's justice must be infringe, or that his plan of salvation must be altered to suit their cases, then we should be in doubt; but we can see that with the same appliances, by the same plan, on precisely the same grounds, and through the same agencies, the infant soul can behold the Savior a face in glory everlasting, and therefore we are at ease upon the matter.
II. This brings me now to note THE REASONS WHY WE THUS THINK INFANTS ARE SAVED.
First, we ground our conviction very much upon the*"goodness of the nature of God."*We say that the opposite doctrine that some infants perish and are lost, is altogether repugnant to the idea which we have of Him whose name is love. If we had a God, whose name was Moloch, if God were an arbitrary tyrant, without benevolence or grace, we could suppose some infants being cast into hell; but our God, who heareth the young ravens when they cry, certainly will find no delight in the shrieks and cries of infants cast away from his presence. We read of him that he is so tender, that he careth for oxen, that he would not have the mouth of the ox muzzled, that treadeth out the corn. Nay, he careth for the bird upon the nest, and would not have the mother bird killed while sitting upon its nest with its little ones. He made ordinances and commands even for irrational creatures. He finds food for the most loathsome animal, nor does he neglect the worm any more than the angel, and shall we believe with such universal goodness as this, that he would cast away the infant soul I say it would he clear contrary to all that we have ever read or ever believed of Him, that our faith would stagger before a revelation which should display a fact so singularly exceptional to the tenor of his other deeds. We have learned humbly to submit our judgments to his will, and we dare not criticise or accuse the Lord of All; we believe him to be just, let him do as he may, and? Therefore, whatever he might reveal we would accept; but he never has, and I think he never will require of us so desperate a stretch of faith as to see goodness in the eternal misery of an infinite cast into hell. You remember when Jonah—petulant, quick-tempered Jonah—would have Nineveh perish God gave it as the reason why Nineveh should not be destroyed, that there were in it more than six score thousand infants,—persons, he said, who knew not their light hand tram their left. If he spared Nineveh that their mortal life might be spared, think you that their immortal souls shall be needlessly cast away! I only put it to your own reason. It is not a case where we need much argument. Would your God cast away an infant? If yours could, I am happy to say he is not the God that I adore.
Again, we think it would be inconsistent utterly with*"the known character of our Lord Jesus Christ."*When his disciples put away the little children whom their anxious mothers brought to him, Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven," by which he taught, as John Newton very properly says, that such as these made up a very great part of the kingdom of heaven. And when we consider that upon the best statistics it is calculated that more than one third of the human race die in infancy, and probably if we take into calculation those districts where infanticide prevails, as in heathen countries, such as China and the like, perhaps one half of the population of the world die before they reach adult years,—the saying of the Savior derives great force indeed," Of such is the kingdom of heaven." If some remind me that the kingdom of heaven means the dispensation of grace on earth, I answer, yes, it does, and it means the same dispensation in heaven too, for while part of the kingdom of heaven is on earth in the Church, since the Church is always one, that other part of the Church which is above is also the kingdom of heaven. We know this text is constantly used as a proof of baptism, but in the first place, Christ did not baptize them, for "Jesus Christ baptized not;" in the second place, his disciples did not baptize them, for they withstood their coming, and would have driven them away. Then if Jesus did not, and his disciple did not, who did,' It has no more to do with baptism than with circumcision. There is not the slightest allusion to baptism in the text, or in the context; and I can prove the circumcision of infants from it with quite as fair logic as others attempt to prove infant baptism. However, it does prove this, that infants compose a great part of the family of Christ, and that Jesus Christ is known to have had a love and amiableness towards the little ones. When they shouted in the temple, "Hosanna!" did he rebuke them? No; but rejoiced in their boyish shouts. "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hath God ordained strength," and does not that text seem to say that in heaven there shall be "perfect praise" rendered to God by multitudes of cherubs who were here on earth—your little ones fondled in your bosom—and then suddenly snatched away to heaven. I could not believe it of Jesus, that he would say to little children, "Depart, ye accursed, into everlasting fire in hell!" I cannot conceive it possible of him as the loving and tender one, that when he shall sit to judge all nations, he should put the little ones on the left hand, and should banish them for ever from his presence. Could he address them, and say to them, "I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink, sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not? "How*"could"they do it? And if the main reason of damnation lie in sins of omission like there which it was not possible for them to commit, for want of power to perform the duty how, then, shall he condemn and cast them away?
Furthermore, we think that*"the ways of grace,"*if we consider them, render it highly improbable, not to say impossible, that an infant soul should be destroyed. What saith Scripture? "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Such a thing as that could not be sail of an infant cast away. We know that God is so abundantly gracious that such expressions as the "unsearchable riches of Christ," "God who is rich in mercy," "A God full of compassion," "The exceeding riches of his grace," and the like are truly applicable without exaggeration or hyperbole. We know that he is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, and that in grace he is able to do "exceeding abundantly above what we can ask or even think." The grace of God has sought out in the world the greatest sinners. It has not passed by the vilest of the vile. He who called himself the chief of sinners was a partaker of the love of Christ. All manner of sin and of blasphemy have been forgiven unto man. He has been able to save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by Christ, and dons it seem consistent with such grace as this that it should pass by the myriads upon myriads of little ones, who wear the image of the earthy Adam, and never stamp upon them the image of the heavenly? I cannot conceive such a thing. He that has tasted and felt, and handled the grace of God, will, I think, shrink instinctively from any other doctrine than this, that infants dying such, are most assuredly saved."
C.H.Spurgeon

I believe when am infant dies He is in Christ and enters the rest through the same rest we do.

 

Those who died in infancy did they already start working or did they enter a rest that they where already in?

 

Who will raise the children during the millennium that were born to unsaved parents? What happens to them?

 

Yes I believe they probably do, but at the same time if we hold to original sin, and I do, there is no biblical provision for it to happen.

 

Most children when this thread was started are probably in high school now :laugh:

 

@ Amy G. -in reply to Q re Millennium + chile of the unsaved

Well, my own mother has told me that she thinks that she will care after babies in heaven ... hold on, just a sec... brb ... OK, I'm back:

I just stepped into the other room (for my mother has moved in with me & dad) & got clarification on exactly what she said.

Now, my mother was *clear* that she could not prove this (but I think I can) -- Mom said that my recollection was correct, Amy -- namely, that her gut feeling was that she would raise & care for babies & children in heaven.

Notice: She said she could not prove this -- the reason? Probably, the Spirit of God told mum that in reference the the 1000-year Millennium Reign of The Christ & King, JESUS -- but mum may have not heard 100%-clearly (and thought the Spirit's impression upon her spirit regarded heaven, instead).

So, my answer to your question: In the Millennium, there will be *countless* Millions of saved persons who can (and will) care for children --including any that might arrive, them being the childrem of parent and/or grandparents not saved. (Remember, Amy: Salvation is an individual choice -- it *is* possible that the child is saved whilst the parents are not: Not everyone will chose to be saved -- the sins of the parent can not be held over the child's head, nor can the sins of the child be held against the parents.)

Children do NOT pay for their parent's sin: Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel
18:20.

Deuteronomy 24:16, (KJV)16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the
children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death
for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20, (KJV)20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity
of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of
the wicked shall be upon him.

These Old Testament passages about God's fairness are supported by the
New Testament's I Peter 1:17 and Colossians 3:25.

1 Peter 1:17 (NASB)17 If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to
each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay
on earth;

Colossians 3:25 (NASB)25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong
which he has done, and [a] that without partiality.
Footnotes: Colossians 3:25 Lit there is no partiality

So, while I can't prove that's exactly what *does* happen, Amy, I can certainly say without any reservation that there is NO Biblical prohibition against my scenario being 100% and completely true.

 

Old thread -- 'Age old' question -- Present-day *grief* demands an answer

The thread is old -- and this is indeed an 'age old' question -- However, the question remains unanswered and resultant grief is present in the "here and now" for a good many parents: Thier pain / grief demand an answer from The Bible - I thus respond.

 

Reply @ Ps 109:31

I don't hold it against you if you accidentally double-posted, above.

Anyhow, you raise a few points...

First, you quote Spurgeon's sermon linked here: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm

Did you, however, read all of his sermon? He said:

"Once again one of the strongest inferential arguments is to be found in the fact that Scripture positively states that the number of saved souls at the last will be very great. In the Revelation we read of a number that no man can number. ... I do not see it possible, unless indeed the millennium age should soon come, and then far exceed a thousand years, I do not see how it is possible that so vast a number should enter heaven, unless it be on the supposition that infant souls constitute the great majority. It is a sweet belief to my own mind that there will be more saved than lost, for in all things Christ is to have the pre-eminence, and why not in this?"

First, it appears Spurgeon himself *seems to* acknowledge that there may be Free Will in the Millennium, as both Scripture and I agree will happen:

Scripture in Revelation makes it clear that at the end of the Millennium, there WILL be a rebellion, with Satan raising up his army, and I clarify this point in my links above.

Secondly, I wonder if you actually read my paper before responding?

Lastly, Spurgeon is incorrect here in assuming a majority: Scripture makes is clear only *few* travel the narrow path, *many* travel the wide path, and there *is* not purgetory, so the "few" plus the "many" must constitute the full 100% -- and thus probably *fewer* than 50% make it. (Some see it as a remnant, which is sometimes <10% --others recall the comparison with Noah's flood, and we know only 8 souls made it, and like several Billino perished.)

Did you read my paper in its entirety before responding? If you lose the link, Google my name GordonWatts dot com or GordonWayneWatts dot com, and click the 'Theology' link on said home page, and search under that section.

 

Oops - I 4got2 answer yr question -- Sorry... trying' again

Oops -- I 4got2 actually answer your question -- LOL - sorry!

Sorry - I apologise, major-league -- Big-Time.

Well, you're asking where the children are right now -- and this evokes 'Soul Sleep,' a topic about which I am not 100% familiar, so I'll admit I don't rightly know.

However, in my Soul Sleep paper, I admit I don't know, and I give good arguments for both sides. (In fact, perhaps soul sleep occurs part of the time, and soul 'awake' occurs at other times -- Hey, we can't put God in a box, now, can we?
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/theology/SoulSleep.html

http://GordonWatts.com/theology/SoulSleep.html

http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/theology/SoulSleep.html


Now, my guess? The child is both conscious and VERY BUSY: See e.g., "APPENDIX-H: Where is my baby - right now?" in my original paper, where I outline testimony from a friend, whose guardian angel was the guardian also of a child, the young ward being a boy who dies in the 1800's and was kept in the state of youth during this whole time -- the youth reported that he was oft-times busy going to classes (learning stuff) and also visiting people in heaven -- however, this does not preclude the possibility he might have had wake-sleep cycles as do we -- remember, we can't put God in a box and say 'Thus far,' now can we?

Oop -- 1 more thing:

Perhaps you were asking whether the infant was able to perform 'works' before he died?

ANSWER: No -- that would require understanding -- both faith and works require understanding, a thing which the babe is incapable of performing.

 

lame humour ;-)

'ZOMBIE thread' - Watch out!

 

I have to be careful who i follow.

This is as far as i will go with you, I do believe in a few, most people all they know how to do is follow. That is why the few is sent. To reach those who being lead to destruction by the devil. He is the murderer from the beginning.

 

Your idea intrigued me. I have never heard that before. It's certainly something I have to study.

 

(-:/ Thank u 4 being open-minded, Amy G.

Thank you for being open-minded, Amy.

For what it's worth, the very fact I had not seen a good answer early-on intrigued me, because I knew there was an answer, but I could not right initially see it at the offset.

A few posts above is the link to my research paper, but here it is again -- you might download a copy and/or even print it out for ease of reading (I find it easier to hold a piece of paper & read it than to sit in my computer chair LOL)

http://gordonwatts.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html

http://gordonwaynewatts.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html

http://gordon_watts.tripod.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html

Be blessed in Jesus.

 

The Bible says it -- I believe it -- and that settles it

I am not asking you to get to know me sufficiently well-enough to be able to trust me (although, if you had enough time, that would not be a bad idea), but rather, as Jesus says: If you don't trust me, myself, trust at least my works, which are of God.

In other words, what I am saying is that you seem to be a deep student of the Bible, but when confronted with a surprising new idea, be like me or Amy G (or many others) and do not be closed-minded, but rather open to new ideas -- BUT if and only if they line up with the Bible.

Did you look at both my theories as well as the Bible passages I used to support some theories and refute others?

The Bible says it -- I believe it -- and that settles it :jesus: -- see above for the links to the paper in question, and do know, my friend: No less than nine (9) theories exist as to the fate of these babies -- NINE distinctly unique and different positions, many if not most mutually exclusive. So, it is not so simple as just taking a guess.

My paper is not only truthful, but also quite interesting -- you've been wondering, so print out a copy if you are so able.

OOPS -- I 4got 1 key verse:

Proverbs 18:13
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

I am mentioning that because I am not sure that you read both sides to the story before you responded to me (I'm not accusing you, but I am rightly not sure, and so I encourage you to seek the facts, and honest truth -- Jesus knows the answer to this matter - do you?)

By the way, I'm not doing this for money: I could have directed you to Amazon or CreateSpace, and asked you to buy my books:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...d-keywords=gordon+wayne+watts+when+babies+die (The Kindle-version 'e-book' is available right now, at this link, albeit scrambled-looking LOL)

https://www.createspace.com/3931895 (Colour)

https://www.createspace.com/3930118 (B & W)

However, instead, I chose to direct you to my personal research page, where I make NO Monie$ off this. -- In my reply to Amy, above, are links to download without cost -- for free - like salvation: It does not cost you anything -except your faith. (Do you have faith that Jesus would not have you lack knowledge on these matters?)

Motive tell the all...