Babies in Hell?

Where are the sins of the baby in question? When did the baby acknowledge his sin after being convicted and either repent or reject?

Does anyone really believe that God is so unjust to send babies to hell without their ever coming to the realization of sin???

Isn't it the work of the Holy Ghost to reprove the world of sin bringing it under conviction? When did any baby get reproved for their wrongdoing and justifiably deserve hell?

So many look for this to be spelled out in Scripture, but God expects us to learn from precepts and principles as well.

God help us that we should even have to consider any other alternative than Divine protection of the innocense of a mere child.:godisgood:

 

I am very pleased to see the vote count change for the better.

BBob,

 

I believe it glorifies Him and not shames His Holy Name!

 

babie in Hell?

I do not think that babies not go to hell, why babies do not understand of nature of sins. They carried to heaven, because belong to God.

 

Do Babies of Lost Parents Go To Hell?

I can say that this has been an informative link. I remember a story in the OT where God ordered King Saul, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I am not convinced that a heathen born infant or infant born in a lost family will be under the blessing of Grace???
"Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Ex 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Nu 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
De 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,"
Has God changed how He deals with the heathen and those who reject Him? David knew he would see his son again because David was in right standing with God. His blessing was passed to his infant.
What God sends to Heaven or Hell is not the child or adult but the soul...we see an infant but God sees a soul. I
hope I'm wrong but this should be the more a call for us to desparately win the lost and make their children holy.
Notice the children became holy when one parent was saved...
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
______________________________________________________________
Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

Very good point.

One would have to ask also does God send old 100 year old weak grandmothers that read stories to young kids to hell?

why does age have anything to do with hell?

What is the youngest a person can be to go to hell?

 

all babies are born with the same sin nature of a fallen creture.
however, all babies and those who die before the age of innocency is over (don't ask me when that is, I don't know) have been covered by the blood and atoned for at the cross, and the same is true for those born before the cross all over the world and in all phases of time.
so, no babies in hell . none. nada. zilch. wala talaga (tagalog). nain-nyuuyouji (japanese, apologies to John of Japan).

 

Brother pinoy,

This is not an attack on you or your doctrine. I enjoy your post and agree with most all of them. There are some areas I disagree with, but I have to say you have defend your views well.

Now this post has thrown me for a loop. I need to ask a few things. I am in hopes to understanding your view here. If they (all of mankind) is born into this world as covered by the blood which would mean they are saved by the blood of the Lamb, then after they become of age and enter sin and thereby are guilty and they are not the elect, but are reprobate, does this mean the Blood of Christ has not the power to keep them covered? They have moved from redeemed by the Blood into a sinner that will go to hell, because they lived to long and become guilty of sin?


Thanks....

 

Christ died for all. He paid the price for all. Adam doomed all of mankind by his transgression. Christ gave life to all mankind by paying that penalty for us.
Because of the work of Christ, we are all born without the penalty of original sin. There comes a time, when God speaks to every person. When He does, we are guilty. Not of Adam's sin, but our own. Christ is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.
This is the way I view it. Pinoy may see it differently. I do not want to speak for anybody but myself.

BTW, Pinoy. I have always heard it and called it Age of Accountability. I think I like your term better.

God bless and many blessings!!!

 

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I believe that all of mankind are born into this world covered by the blood of the Lamb. I do not hold to that, with all due respects to those who do.
What I believe is not only in accordance with the efficacy of the blood's power for those to whom it is intended, the elect, but also in accordance with God's omniscience, which means that while He did not predestinate the death of an innocent child, He nevertheless knows how long each human being has on this plane called time. He knows how each will go, just as He knew how Peter was going to die, for an illustration.

That being so, he knows each baby and innocent child who will be born, and die in the womb, or later on in infancy, and having known this each baby was elect from the foundation of the world, and their sin nature covered and atoned for by the blood of the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world.

Every baby who will be born and die in infancy or in the womb, therefore are in His presence. They have no sins to account for, since they have all benefited from the atonement.

Brother Arthur, if this still sounds hazy to you, it is not your fault but mine, I am probably unable to explain correctly what I believe, so don't stop asking, and I will try my best to clarify.

 

Hazy? Not at all. Thanks for clarifying your position. I now understand it better and it makes more sense and lines up better with your other post.


Now that I understand, I still find something else related to your position that I would like you to address. It seems your reasoning follows the innocence of the child and omniscience of God. God knew they would die so elected each one because they are innocent.

You may not agree with what I'm about to say, but I see man under a two fold guilt. Sin from Adam (sin of the race) found in the sin nature and second, the very sins each person commits. I’ll save you the time and not give verses to back this up. It’s the same verse you find in all the sin from brith debates. Now if that person has not committed a sin, in the case of a newborn, then it is fair to say this second guilt is never applied. But there still remains the sin nature and with it guilt.

Your view does seem to deal with both guilt’s with election. I have no problem with that. I do need more understanding on why you feel this is so. As I said above it seems like one of the key factors is to see the child as innocent. If God does this in His omniscience because the child has not sinned, then a higher level of guilt is applied to the sins of a person over the sins of the race. This would not matter in itself. However, If this is the case then the guilt found in the sin nature (sin of the race in Adam) is worthless. Because if one lives long enough and does indeed sin, they have guilt after that point. If one dies before they sin even if they have the guilt of the sin nature though Adam, it matters not, for they are the elect.

So original sin is left to a force found in the sin principle causing man to sin, but not in the factor of guilt.

This is pretty much what Arminian believers would claim today. However, going back a few hundred years we would find even Arminian saying there are two guilt’s placed on man.

So…..

Is this the way you see it or something close? If not, please help me on this.

BTW...I love your backbone and your love for the truth. Stand for the truth no matter how many disagree.

 

That about sums it up :thumbs:

 

Only God knows the answer but I will say (NO).

 

It is not just God that knows the answer, apparently David knew the answer too.

2 Samuel 12:22-23 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

It is quite obvious David did not think his child was in hell, for if that were the case, David would have stopped living for the Lord altogether right then and there.

He did not mean the grave either, for had he meant that, surely he would have committed suicide in his grief or just continued to starve himself to death.

David had an assurance in his heart that the child was going to be with Almighty God. And that is why he said, "I shall go to him.'