Featured Does God Send Babies to Hell?

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.

 

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.

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

Quite a difference there, Utilyan.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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).

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

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.

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).

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?

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.

 

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.

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...

 

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...

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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.