Do babies go to heaven?

[awaken]

I don't think you will find the ideas in your bolded sentance above in any scriptures....If 1 Thess. teaches that we are Spirit, soul & body," then Jesus said that we are "heart, soul, mind, & strength...so where does that leave you...4 parts? I think there is strong scriptural evidence that a person is two parts: (1) Material (body, strength...), and (2) Immaterial (Spirit, soul, heart, etc). 1 Thess is simply using those refer to our whole selves...as was Jesus: Love God with your whole self, all that you are...he wasn't attempting to form a treatise on the make-up of human beings. I think one would be hard pressed to prove scriptually a clear distinction between soul & spirit.



I think this part is right. Our Spirit/soul being "dead" simply menas separated form our life-source, Christ...not unable to talk and think and act.

Maybe you can start a new thread on spirit, soul and body? I would love to learn more on this! I started studing it out this year and come across some questions that I could not find answers to in scripture. When this happens I put it away and wait on God to bring me answers. When I get new leads into a doctrine...I search it out!

 

[awaken]

Letrs look at these again....

Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"
Romans 5:13: "for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law."
Romans 5:14: "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."
Romans 5:15: "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

What the above passage actually says. Verse 12 says that sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin, and death spread to all men because all sinned. Verse 14 says that death reigned from Adam to Moses, and verse 15 says that by the one man's offense many died, and so on. When people argue that this passage means that we were all born spiritually dead, they're assuming that these verses are referring to spiritual death. However, many Bible scholars interpret the above passage as meaning physical death, which is why this passage is often used to refute evolution (because the above passage says that there was no death before the Fall, which contradicts the theory of evolution). But for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that Paul was referring to spiritual death. Notice that the above passage does not say that we are born in a spiritually dead state. If Paul was referring to spiritual death, then all he said was that spiritual death came because of sin, and that spiritual death spread to all people because everyone sins. This doesn't prove the argument that we are born spiritually dead, it simply means that at some point we become spiritually dead. In fact, if Paul was referring to spiritual death in the above passage then notice that verse 15 specifically says that "many died," which indicates that they were spiritually alive but then they became spiritually dead, which is exactly how Paul described himself in Romans 7:9 (as we saw earlier). So this passage does not prove that infants are born spiritually dead.

 

[webdog]

Death is separation. To be spiritually dead is to be separated from God and unable to have fellowship with Him. Adam sinned and became spiritually dead. All others since Adam are born that way. Because God is sovereign, I believe he doesn't hold children accountable for their sin nature, nor even the mentally retarded, in my opinion. But the heathen, even though they may have never heard the gospel, or the law (which some say is necessary to know that we are sinners), they have no excuse according to Romans. To believe that children have no sin nature is to say that they could continue that way. Why don't they?

Having a sin nature does not equate to spiritual death. We still have sin natures and are not spiritually dead. Death is a condition. Physical death also does not mean we are spiritually dead. Christ died spiritually, yet he was never spiritually dead. The only cure is by grace through faith. That is why I asked you how a fetus or infant is saved from this condition. Still waiting on an answer.

 

[Iconoclast]

Letrs look at these again....

Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"
Romans 5:13: "for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law."
Romans 5:14: "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."
Romans 5:15: "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!"

What the above passage actually says. Verse 12 says that sin entered the world through Adam, and death through sin, and death spread to all men because all sinned. Verse 14 says that death reigned from Adam to Moses, and verse 15 says that by the one man's offense many died, and so on. When people argue that this passage means that we were all born spiritually dead, they're assuming that these verses are referring to spiritual death. However, many Bible scholars interpret the above passage as meaning physical death, which is why this passage is often used to refute evolution (because the above passage says that there was no death before the Fall, which contradicts the theory of evolution). But for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that Paul was referring to spiritual death. Notice that the above passage does not say that we are born in a spiritually dead state. If Paul was referring to spiritual death, then all he said was that spiritual death came because of sin, and that spiritual death spread to all people because everyone sins. This doesn't prove the argument that we are born spiritually dead, it simply means that at some point we become spiritually dead. In fact, if Paul was referring to spiritual death in the above passage then notice that verse 15 specifically says that "many died," which indicates that they were spiritually alive but then they became spiritually dead, which is exactly how Paul described himself in Romans 7:9 (as we saw earlier). So this passage does not prove that infants are born spiritually dead.

Awaken, you are wrong on romans 5, 7 because you are wrong in what you conclude here.
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.



Adam ate of the tree....the text says..IN THE DAY THOU EATEST...thou shalt surely die.

Adam ate and immeadiately died spiritually...physical death followed as a consequence. he did not physically die that day.....

 

[Iconoclast]

:thumbsup:

I really like it when you guys use mathematical terminology. Icon is attempting to make the case for proper subsets. A subset can be "proper" or simply a subset. Being proper means it will be cardinally smaller than the larger given set. Being simply a subset implies that the "subset" can in fact be cardinally equivalent to the original set.

My vote of course, goes with subset for infants. I personally believe being an "elect infant as Icon does" has nothing to do with it. I believe all dying infants are granted God's hesed.

The wording of the confession on this is perfect and cannot be improved upon.
It leaves the amount of saved persons where it is anyway...In God's hand.

It is a fixed number, exactly fixed by God according to His covenant mercy. What we believe or feel has nothing to do with the reality of what God has purposed to do.

Hey QF.....I have something that will feed your inner math nerd:laugh::laugh::laugh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz5lGkDdk78

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Adam ate of the tree....the text says..IN THE DAY THOU EATEST...thou shalt surely die.

Adam ate and immeadiately died spiritually...physical death followed as a consequence. he did not physically die that day.....

Not entirely accurate....the Bible does not suggest that Physical Death followed automatically from or as a consequence of his "Spiritual" Death....He did INDEED die, (Spiritually) that very day...but this passage works against your reformed assumptions, because your Calvinism rests too heavily upon an equivocation between the details of Spiritual Death and Physical Death. As soon as you begin to give room to make distinctions...then much of your Calvinism begins to lose its foundation....God had to remove man from the garden lest:

Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

God had already cursed the ground (see verse 17) ......cursed [is] the ground

Thus, physical entropy....but THAT is what caused his "physical" death...and, had Adam eaten of the "tree of life" then it would have negated those effects...Man did NOT die "physically" that day, nor WOULD HE, merely because of his status as being Spiritually dead. The one simply did not cause the other. That is not Scriptural...God had to ensure the physical death of a Spiritually dead person.....and he did so, for man's OWN sake: see verse 17 again:
..cursed [is] the ground for thy sake;

A spiritually dead being, being permitted to live forever, and becoming increasingly more depraved and corrupt would have abominably horrific consequences.

 

[awaken]

Awaken, you are wrong on romans 5, 7 because you are wrong in what you conclude here.
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.



Adam ate of the tree....the text says..IN THE DAY THOU EATEST...thou shalt surely die.

Adam ate and immeadiately died spiritually...physical death followed as a consequence. he did not physically die that day.....

True...but he did die before God's day! 1000 years is as a day unto the Lord!
Not sure what part you disagree with?

 

[awaken]

This is my conclusion based on what I have studied out....

The Bible doesn't specifically tell us where infants and little children go when they die, but the Scriptural evidence leads me to believe that they all go to heaven if they have not yet reached an "age of accountability" (which is possibly a different age for different children since everyone matures at a different rate).

I understand that a spiritually dead person does not have the life of Christ in him, and therefore he won't go to heaven if he dies in that state. If a person will go to heaven when he dies then by definition he is spiritually alive because he has a relationship with God. There's no such thing in the Bible as a person going to hell who is spiritually alive, and there's no such thing in the Bible as a person going to heaven who is spiritually dead. Therefore, if infants will go to heaven then by definition they are spiritually alive.

This doesn't mean that infants are sinless, but instead it means that Jesus' blood is "covering" infants and young children until they're old enough to be held accountable for their sins.

I also see being spiritually dead means being unable to have a relationship with God. If you've ever been around young children from Christian families, you've probably seen that those children have no problem believing in God and praying to God and trusting God and talking to God and so on. Having a relationship with God is not a problem for little children. Remember, Jesus said that we must become like little children, because little children have no problem with faith. They're not spiritually dead ( unable to have a relationship with God).

However, this brings up an interesting question. If everyone must believe in Jesus in order to go to heaven, then how can babies go to heaven when they're too young to believe in Jesus? To answer this question, let's think about why we must believe in Jesus for salvation. Remember, Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins, and when we put our faith in Jesus as our Savior then our sins are wiped from our record. In other words, we need to believe in Jesus because God is holding us accountable for our sins. What I have seen in scriptue is that God does not hold infants and young children accountable for sin. Since infants and young children have no sins on their record (because God is not holding them accountable), they don't need to believe in Jesus in order to wipe their slates clean. Their slates are already clean until they reach an "age of accountability."

 

[Benjamin]

The wording of the confession on this is perfect and cannot be improved upon.

Whoa there! Do you have some kind of “special evidence” that I should know of that God approved of these men’s words (philosophy)? Because until then I strongly advise you to heed to these words: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col 2:8)

 

[plain_n_simple]

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Calvin.” (Col 2:8)

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Whoa there! Do you have some kind of “special evidence” that I should know of that God approved of these men’s words (philosophy)? Because until then I strongly advise you to heed to these words: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col 2:8)

And...re-iterrated by Plain and Simple....

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Calvin.” (Col 2:8)

Icon has finally admitted the truth....Calvinist Theologians are inspired...as though it wasn't patently obvious to us all....that "confessions" are synonymous with all inspired Scripture.....Obey the catechism....Obey the decrees of His Holiness......da Baptist Popa'

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
The wording of the confession on this is perfect and cannot be improved upon.

As the Word obviously says, in no uncertain terms:
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against Calvin, Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Bow down to the 1689 "Confession"..."Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"............. "The Borg"

 

[Van]

I have not read this thread, but the premise is false. We are condemned for unbelief, so when we are conceived, we are condemned already. This is before we have done anything good or bad.

I have seen Paul's statement about dying when he became aware of his sin twisted to indicate he was spiritually alive before he became aware. This is simply wrong. We are "made alive" when we are united with Christ. Therefore anyone not "in Christ" is spiritually dead, and everyone "in Christ" is spiritually alive.

Now lets consider the condemnation. What does that entail? Eternal punishment! To be separated from God in eternal darkness. Therefore if a baby or young child or the feeble minded die in unbelief, they are condemned to eternal separation from God. But are they tormented as punishment for their misdeeds? Nope, they have not committed any misdeeds, having done nothing good or bad. Thus the only biblical solution is they rest in eternal peace, without conscience awareness.

And what scriptures do you have to prove your belief?

Surprised you are not aware of them since you quoted many of them!

1) We are condemned for unbelief - John 3:18.

2) We are conceived in iniquity which means in a separated from God state. Psalm 51:5 and Isaiah 59:2. These do not prove my view but certainly are consistent with it. Certainly we cannot be conceived "in Christ" and therefore alive if we are conceived in iniquity. That is a logical necessity.

3) Romans 7:8-11 demonstrates the opposite of your claims. The metaphor of death is used non-contextually in your presentation.

a. Sin is dead apart from the Law. This means the sin of transgression of the Law is null and void apart from the Law. But before the Law was given, death reigned, so another type of sin, of missing the mark did carry the wages of sin, Romans 5:14. Everyone is under sin, both those under the Law and those apart from the Law, Romans 3:9.

b. We are made alive together with Christ, i.e. when we are "in Christ." Ephesians 2:5 By logical necessity we were dead before being made alive, therefore until we are placed spiritually in Christ we are dead, even if we are unaware that we are dead.

c. So in verse 9 where Paul was "alive" apart from the Law, that indicates that the sin of transgressing the Law had no effect, but does not eliminate the death sentence of being under sin apart from the Law.​

 

[Iconoclast]

True...but he did die before God's day! 1000 years is as a day unto the Lord!
Not sure what part you disagree with?

This kind of answer looks like you are not serious at all about truth.God uses a 24 hour day/night cycle.....this post in non responsive and you are avoiding the discussion.

 

[Iconoclast]

And...re-iterrated by Plain and Simple....


Icon has finally admitted the truth....Calvinist Theologians are inspired...as though it wasn't patently obvious to us all....that "confessions" are synonymous with all inspired Scripture.....Obey the catechism....Obey the decrees of His Holiness......da Baptist Popa'



As the Word obviously says, in no uncertain terms:
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against Calvin, Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Bow down to the 1689 "Confession"..."Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated"............. "The Borg"

Judging by this imbecilic post....sorry to see you are unable[or unwilling] to deal with the truth of God.Your despising and opposing godly men,and making a caricature out of what they write, mocking and scoffing as you go, will just not get it done.

The fact is....and it is a fact...you or anyone else on here cannot improve upon that statement which is solidly rooted in the 66 books of scripture:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Whoa there! Do you have some kind of “special evidence” that I should know of that God approved of these men’s words (philosophy)? Because until then I strongly advise you to heed to these words: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col 2:8)

Benjamin,

So good to hear from you again:wavey: Yes...the special evidence is the 66 books of the bible that these theologians use to present a biblical and christian view, which unlike the secular model of carnal philosophy....starts with God,and not the failed ideas of human wisdom...which you ironically quote the correct verse about.
Those who wrote the confession of faith would appeal to this very verse to show the contrast that exists...I am sure that you know this from the section dealing with Holy Scripture;in case you do not have your copy right next to you...i will post this to remind you:wavey:

1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 )

 

[Benjamin]

Yes...the special evidence is the 66 books of the bible that these theologians use to present a biblical and christian view,

These “theologians” have no special prophetic insight that goes to prove special evidence of correct interpretations and/or philosophical accuracy.

which unlike the secular model of carnal philosophy....starts with God,

Again, “Do you have some kind of “special evidence” that I should know of that God approved of these men’s words (philosophy)?”

and not the failed ideas of human wisdom...

These theologian’s “ideas” are either through human wisdom and reasoning to interpret or as you put it their words are “Iconoclast: “The wording of the confession on this is perfect and cannot be improved upon.” as to your common suggestion here on this board that the confession is an infallible divinely inspired prophetic revelation to "the church", …to claim the latter clearly leads straight into heresy, cultism and is in violation of board rules and principles.

which you ironically quote the correct verse about.

The verse I quoted plainly and clearly warns about what you are doing here with the philosophy of these men.

Those who wrote the confession of faith would appeal to this very verse to show the contrast that exists...

Then they would be warning against your inability to recognize that there is indeed a contrast between their words, traditions and human philosophical interpretations and that of the Words of Scripture.

I am sure that you know this from the section dealing with Holy Scripture;in case you do not have your copy right next to you...i will post this to remind you

If you think their statement and use of scripture gives “special evidence” that the truth has been inspirationally revealed to them, they being “The Church”, which I know you do, you are sadly mistaken. BTW, I’ve previously looked up your church's beliefs in this matter of professing the 1689 Confessions and frankly consider such practice as closely bordering on and resembling being a cultic exercise to conform others to their interpretations. So I am not interested in your “reminder” of what I must believe.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin,

as to your common suggestion here on this board that the confession is an infallible divinely inspired prophetic revelation, …to claim the latter clearly leads straight into heresy, cultism and is in violation of board rules and principles.

Quote:

Where did I say this again??? I do not remember that.You are not trying to misrepresent me,are you?
here is the website:
http://www.arbca.com...for you. there are many churches.....
here is one heading up evangelism....take a listen
http://www.heritage-rbc.com/default.html

 

[plain_n_simple]

Does the church you attend have a website Icon?

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,



Where did I say this again??? I do not remember that.You are not trying to misrepresent me,are you?

The wording of the confession on this is perfect and cannot be improved upon.

Infallible = perfect and cannot be improved upon. I rest my case.

 

[Iconoclast]

The statement I quoted is////perfect...in the bible perfect means complete.It is biblically accurate...you cannot dispute it without denying God's elective decree .

You have no case