Babies in Hell?

[whatever]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
whatever,

would you want to go to hell?

David clearly said, 'I will go to him.' No man who knows of the flame and torment of hell and the eternal separation from Christ (there is a great gulf between), would never want to go there. Yet, David said he would go to be with His son.

Of course I would not want to go to hell. Did David know about the flame and torment of hell? Did he know about eternal separation from Christ, or the great gulf? We really do not know how much David knew.

I think David was talking about heaven. I do not think that can be proven, though.

 

[J.D.]

Arminians will not like this answer, and neither will many calvinists. Only God knows who is elect and who is not elect. This includes babies. Babies are not innocent. The are born with sin in them. They will sin as soon as their mental and physical faculties allow.

And I dare anyone to prove that they love babies more than me. I'm just trying to speak truth, not sentiment.

IF a baby does go to hell, it is because sin dwells in him. This sounds most cruel, but we need to understand that whatever God does is just, because He is God.

We say that salvation is by grace, and that no one deserves to be saved. If we truely beleive that, then why would we protest if God should pass over the entire race of manking and not save ANY?

"What if God, willing to show his wrath..."

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Ahh, but it can be proven. David, in Psalm 116:3 spoke of 'the pains of hell.' If he were speaking of the grave, he would not have said 'pains.' There is no pain in the grave.

 

[rsr]

Whatever is simply pointing out that David's reaction in no way proves the fate of his son. Jews of that time did not (generally) conceive of eternal punishment, so their concept of heaven and hell does not match what is found in the New Testament.

 

[rsr]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Ahh, but it can be proven. David, in Psalm 116:3 spoke of 'the pains of hell.' If he were speaking of the grave, he would not have said 'pains.' There is no pain in the grave.

Not so fast. David was talking about the pains of Sheol. It just didn't mean the grave in the physical sense.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Brice:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperBaptist:
Simply, do dead babies go to hell if they hadn't accepted Christ as their personal savior?

Until we die ourselves, we simply don't know. It can be presumed that, since babies have nevre had an opportunity to reject Christ, perhaps God in some way unknown to us reveals himself to them. Again, it's at best speculative, and we simply cannot know for sure. </font>[/QUOTE]Not necessarily John. II Samuel 12:23, “But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” In this verse David is speaking of his infant son who died and he states that he shall go to him, assuming go to him is referring to heaven, it’s safe to assume infants do go to Heaven. </font>[/QUOTE]One would be very hard pressed to provide any evidence that the Christian concept of heaven was known to David or any Jew of his day. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, an internationally known scholar of the Old Testament, in his commentary on I and II Samuel, wrote of David in Samuel 12:23, “He appears here on the one hand as calculating (v. 23a) and on the other hand (v. 23b) as all too realistic; for David’s statement that he cannot bring the child back but must in the end go to him is no expression of hope in a future life, but simply of the immutability of death.” I believe that Hertzberg had the correct view here, but I would not be dogmatic about it.

 

[whatever]

I will say that it is interesting to compare David's reaction to the death of this child with his reaction to Absalom's death, but that really doesn't prove anything either.

 

[Calvibaptist]

The point of the story of David is that we can make no point from it about the future of babies who die.

Personally, I believe that all babies go to heaven. I think most Calvinists and Arminians agree on this. But I refuse to make up meanings of Scripture in order to try to support this. I will not be dogmatic about David's belief that his child was in heaven when the passage does not say that. I refuse to misinterpret Jesus' comments about us needing to be like children in order to enter the kingdom simply because I want to believe that all babies go to heaven.

We can't twist the Scripture to fit what we want to believe. I am very comfortable saying that the Bible does not deal with the issue.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
.........Personally, I believe that all babies go to heaven. I think most Calvinists and Arminians agree on this. But I refuse to make up meanings of Scripture in order to try to support this.......
We can't twist the Scripture to fit what we want to believe. I am very comfortable saying that the Bible does not deal with the issue.

The fact that you are very comfortable saying that will not mean anything to people in your congregation who have had a child die. Please consider Al Mohler's column reprinted on the previous page of this thread. I believe it presents a Biblical framework.
Based on what he presents, the Bible does have a great deal to say about the subject, just not in a couple of prooftexts.

Karen

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by whatever:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brice:
...assuming go to him is referring to heaven, it’s safe to assume infants do go to Heaven.

I think that was the point, that this interpretation hangs on an assumption that cannot be proven conclusively. </font>[/QUOTE]Ps 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,

4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.

Is that "Conclusive" enough???

 

[whatever]

No, it's not.

 

[Bro. Ruben]

Personally, I think it would be unfair for infants to be sent in hell; they couldn't decide for themselves about salvation, they can't deny/accept the Lord Jesus Christ; all infants know to do is just eat, sleep and cry. But still, babies are sinners.

However, it is true that we all inherited that sinful nature from Adam.

Now, how about the mentally retardates, those who were raised in caves and hidden places where all they knew is hunting for food, are they exempted?

So you see, we can't just exempt one class from the other. We are all sinners by nature, dead in sin.

We can't give a definite reply on this matter.

 

[Helen]

Of course we can give a definitive reply. In Romans 7:7-11 Paul states clearly that he did not die until he knew the law and sinned against it deliberately. That means he was alive before that, and unless you are thinking that he was talking about reincarnation (!) then he was talking about spiritual life and death.

And the clear message and meaning is that a person is NOT spiritually dead until they consciously rebel. This does not mean they do not have sin natures. We all have, from birth. But the meaning is that they are covered by Christ's blood until they consciously rebel, and then and only then are they separated from God in spiritual death -- and that is what spiritual death is: separation, not unconsciousness. And that is why a person who had died spiritually MUST be born again to enter heaven. But as for the children and babes -- "Let the little children come to me and to not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14

It could not possibly belong to them if they were dead in sins and separated from God! Nor does Jesus define 'some' of the children. His statement is a blanket statement about children.

They who die young are ALL with Him in heaven. The Bible couldn't really be clearer.

 

[Bro. Ruben]

Originally posted by Helen:
Of course we can give a definitive reply. In Romans 7:7-11 Paul states clearly that he did not die until he knew the law and sinned against it deliberately. That means he was alive before that, and unless you are thinking that he was talking about reincarnation (!) then he was talking about spiritual life and death.

And the clear message and meaning is that a person is NOT spiritually dead until they consciously rebel. This does not mean they do not have sin natures. We all have, from birth. But the meaning is that they are covered by Christ's blood until they consciously rebel, and then and only then are they separated from God in spiritual death -- and that is what spiritual death is: separation, not unconsciousness. And that is why a person who had died spiritually MUST be born again to enter heaven. But as for the children and babes -- "Let the little children come to me and to not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14

It could not possibly belong to them if they were dead in sins and separated from God! Nor does Jesus define 'some' of the children. His statement is a blanket statement about children.

They who die young are ALL with Him in heaven. The Bible couldn't really be clearer.

Sis Helen: would God regenerate an infant in his/her (child's) mental capacity?

[ March 18, 2006, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Ruben ]

 

[Helen]

Will God regenerate my profoundly retarded 21 year old son in his mental capacity? His IQ is not even measureable -- he had encephalitis when he was three years old and now his IQ is officially below 20, he cannot talk, is autistic and will always be in diapers.

So you tell me.

Now, if their mental capacities will be reasonably mature, does that mean they will be held accountable for what they MIGHT have done had they been mature here?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Helen:
Now, if their mental capacities will be reasonably mature, does that mean they will be held accountable for what they MIGHT have done had they been mature here?

It doesn't matter what a person MIGHT have done.

And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”

The elect are the elect according to the purpose of God, not according to anything someone does or might have done.

Again, there is no black and white scripture for this, but my personal feeling is that people who are mentally handicapped (or fall into any of numerous similar categories) are likely to be among the elect, because God has chosen the weak things in this world to shame the wise.

But it still has nothing to do what what we do or MIGHT have done.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

So if God has chosen the weak to shame the wise, then the babies are a shoe-in for heaven; they certainly are weak.

 

[Bro. Ruben]

Sister Helen, I can't recall reading a verse which says "Let the RETARDATE children come to me and to not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

That's why, as I have said, we can't give a definite reply to the OP.

Thanks.

 

[Helen]

Ruben, I leave you to that. If I were to post what went through my mind when I read your post I would probably be kicked off BB.

------------

Standing, thank you.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Helen, bless them that persecute you; bless and curse not