Who goes to Heaven?

2 Samuel 12:23
"But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

Davids new Born Child died. David is saved. David is going to see his son. So yes Babys or saved. By the Grace of God.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Can I assume that only elect babies go to heaven then?

 

sure,

if election meant that. However, the word "elect" in the Bible, taken in context, never refers to individuals who God hand-picked to be saved but rather refers to those who already are saved. So to bring it out of calvinism and back to babies,

Babies can't do this. So is it logical to assume the God of mercy denies them cuz of something they can not do? No!

[By the way that also means the God of mercy can not condemn to hell a person who never had an opportunity to believe in the first place (see calvinistic doctrine of Total depravity)]

Therefore, and taking in the first mentioned verse, David's child was taken up being not yet at what is termed "the age of accountability" meaning they can not reason enough to know their sinful state or their need of a saviour.

SoCM

P.S. - if you want to waste my time with a debate on calvinism please send me a note and don't bother the other readers here. I only mentioned it to clarify the answer to the orignial question.

 

Not so. Romans 9:11 and I Peter 2:1 are clear examples to the contrary.

I consider myself Calvinistic and believe that anyone incapable of making moral choices will be saved (one of the elect) by virtue of God's mercy and justice. However, this is an opinion. The scripture does not clearly and definitively deal with this.

This is in complete contradition to scripture. See Romans 1

Sorry. But you brought it up and as much as you might like to insulate your incorrect statements from being challenged...you can't.

 

Romans 9:10-24 (ESV)
10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

If this does not clearly speak what Dr. Bob stated, especially verse 18, then arguing the virtues of "God's election" any further is futile. I admit it's not easy to accept and understand, but that's where trusting in Him and Him alone comes in. God is soverign and perfectly righteous, whether I can see it or agree with all that He says and does or not!

 

Let's just throw out the half of the Bible where God cries out to Isreal and to all nations to repent and turn to Him. That isn't necessary if we have no choice, now is it?

Back to the question at hand:

When God refused to let those who rebelled enter the promise land, what did he say about those who were too young to know any better?

It would appear that God does indeed have a heart of love and mercy for those who have not yet reached an age of understanding good from bad.

~Lorelei

 

I don't think Deuteronomy 1:39 is a valid comaprison. There you have God essentially not punishing people who had not committed the disobedience that the adults had committed. That would be why Caleb was spared for example.

But when it comes to eelction to salvation you have a very differnet thing. Infants cannot claim innocence in that way; that is if we actually hold to original sin.

What the doc said about elect infants is an intersting thought. I'll have to think that one through...

 

yardane, while they are fussing about predestination, Paul has the answer in Romans 7:7-11.

He states that once he was alive apart from the law. We know he is not talking about reincarnation, so he MUST be talking about spiritual life. In John 17:3, Jesus defined eternal life as knowing the Father and the Son. If logic holds, then, eternal death is NOT knowing them -- not in the sense of not being aware or intellectually knowing OF God, but intimate knowing -- the kind of knowing fellowship and love bring.

So if Paul was alive apart from the law, it means he was not yet separated from God, or spiritually dead. And he also says clearly there that without the law sin is dead -- and that does not mean a person does not have a sin nature; it rather means that that sin nature cannot kill the person spiritually, or separate him from God.

And that clearly applies to all babies. They do not know the law of God. They are therefore not yet spiritually dead -- not separated from God.

Yes, they are HIS.

Does that mean God allows sin into heaven? No, it does not. In the Old Testament one of the series of sacrifices prescribed by God is that for the unintentional and/or unknown sin. In Hebrews we read that Christ died once for all sin -- one sacrifice one time. That means He was also the sacrifice for the unintentional and unknown sins. And that means the babies are just as covered by His blood and forgiveness and love and mercy as any repentant grown up born again sinner in the world.

These verses really cannot lead to any other conclusion, so please rest easy. The babies are His, now and always. They may be born with sin natures, but they are not held accountable for them and they are covered by the blood of the Lamb as surely as you and I are.

God bless you.

 

Warm Christian greetings!

I don't wish to comment on Election because this isn't the place for it (that is on a seperate section devoted to Calvinism/Arminianism).

As far as babies are concerned Genesis 18 v 25 is as good a scripture as any to give as an answer
"Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?".

God will do right by babies, leave them in His hands.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

Babies Have Sin Imputed Upon Them As Well As Everyone.
None Is Excluded, That Are Born Of The BLOOD of ADAM.

A Sacrifice HAD To Be Supplied Outside The Bloodline Of Adam.
Not Only Worth One Mans Subsitution,
But A Sacrifice Worth All Of Mankind, And All Creation Together...God Himself.

Either God Sacrificed His Life Was For All ...Or None....
People would like to Rationalize The Curse Placed On Adam And His Inheritors
As Possibly Some Being Excluded... There Are No Exclusions.

Although I Read That Gods Will Is That All Mankind Be Saved.....Hmmmm.

Could It Be That God Imputes Righteousness of Christ On All Mankind ?...No Exclusions.

Me2

 

But that isn't what it says. It does not say that the children were allowed to enter the promised land because they "had not committed the disobedience that the adults had committed." On the contrary, it says that"your children who do not yet know good from bad-they will enter the land. "

An interesting thought indeed, one that will say that God will predestine some infants to eternal torment in hell simply because it is His good pleasure to do so. Think that one through real hard.

Helen did an excellent job (as she always does) pointing out Paul's words in Romans 7. I would recommend reading that as well.

~Lorelei

 

Babies go to heaven. the bible is very clear on this.Romans 4:15 says"Because the law worketh wrath:for where no law is,there is no transgression". Also Romans5:13 says"For until the law sin was in the world:but sin is not imputed where there is no law". The bible says babies go to heaven so they do. Anyone that thinks that babies go to hell has a serious problem.

 

It is interesting to read the perspectives here. KEVO says that babies go to heaven becuase of Rom 4:15 and 5:13. However, he failed to show how that addresses babies. He fails to mention 5:14 which explicitly refutes the contention that babies are not charged as sinners by saying that babies who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam die. Unless death comes from something other than sin we have a problem here that can be escaped only by attributing adamic sin to babies.

The Rom 7 passage has a very clear and simply explanation which can be found by searching the website. Helen and I had an exchange on this previously and I provided evidence that her interpretation has correlation problems not only the rest of Scripture but with this very passage itself. I can't remember all the ins and outs off the top of my head but I remember studying up on it during that exchange and interacting with her comments there.

Lastly, to assert that one is not a sinner until they consciously sin is to remove the hope of eternal life through Christ. We get righteousness the same way we get sin -- not by action but by imputation. A baby is a sinner when he is born. He is not simply predisposed to sin; he is an actual sinner in the likeness of Adam. That is not discouraging. It is encouraging because it reminds me that just as I had to do nothing to become a sinner; I do nothing to become righteous.

So in the final analysis, the Bible does not directly speak to this issue. 2 Sam 12 gives some evidence that babies do go to heaven. But we cannot be dogmatic on that.

[ August 10, 2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Actually, Pastor Larry, here is an example of how I am neither Calv. nor Arm. I agree with you more than with Helen on this one. There is an original sin nature, which is more than an inclination and a personal choice.

HOWEVER, the Bible has a great deal to say even from a strictly Calv. perspective. Spurgeon, for example, disagreed with you strongly.
See http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0411.htm

This is just a discussion board, and I have no idea what your pastoring and counseling skills are, but when you have someone in your congregation facing this in real life, I hope you have a more sure word for them than this.

Karen

 

Pastor Larry,You just proved my point.Any body that even thinks that there is a chance that a baby can go to hell has a serious problem.Thanks again for proving my point.

 

Karen,you make a very good point. What if a mom and dad had just lost their one year old baby,and ask pastor Larry if the baby is in heaven,and he says "We can't be dogmatic on that".Thank GOD for my pastor!

 

&gt;Q: What determines "WHO" goes to heaven?
&gt;A: Only those who repent and believe.

&gt;Q: Who will repent and believe?
&gt;A: Only those regenerated by the Spirit

&gt;Q: Who is regenerated by the Spirit?
&gt;A: Only those for whom Christ died

&gt;Q: Who did Christ die for?
&gt;A: Only those chosen by the Father

&gt;Q: Who will then ultimately be in Heaven?
&gt;A: Only the elect believers

This sounds like a pretty exclusive club. Why would anyone in their right mind want to join it? You take the love out of Christianity. I guess that by believing in a God that loves us one and all, I'm not part of your elect.

Seriman~

[ August 11, 2002, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Seriman Fiend ]