Psalm 58:3 (and babies)

Latterrain asks:
I would like to know more about the “unmistakable fact” that some infants and children go to hell.

Scott inquires:
Is it an unmistakable fact that, some men and woman go to Hell?

 

Latterrain asks in regards to a passage in Deut:

The context here is pretty clear. The adults who rebelled against God were not going to enter the land, the exception for that generation of adults was Caleb and Joshua. The verse cited is simply stating that those who are very young children at the time of this decree will be theones who later enter the land and see the promise fulfilled.

This is not salvific as far as I can see....it is specific as regards the penalty for those responsible for a particular lack of faith in God. Their children, however, innocent of this rebellion, would be the generation that entered the land with Caleb and Joshua.

It does not say they will enter presently as children, but that those who are presently children will be the ones to go in and possess the land.

 

Scott,
Thanks for your comments. We DO agree on what I think is a key point. Yet you seem to say yes and then go on without thinking it is as important as I do.
Lots of times, when this whole issue of infants is presented, the unintentional effect of comments from those who hold your views is the picture of infants AS INFANTS being punished in Hell, unaware of what is even going on other than that they are in pain. You have just agreed, after I specifically asked, that it is not so. Yet you do not seem to see a need to clarify unless specifically asked. Yet this is a heart question that lies underneath a lot of the questions on this subject.

Sometimes when one is frustrated that no one is accepting one's ideas it is because he or she is not addressing clearly enough some of the underlying ideas.

Karen

 

See http://www.sbts.edu/mohler/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel036

Scott's view, though held indeed by many Calvinists, is not held by all, including Mohler, Spurgeon, Newton, Hodge, Warfield. The above link looks at the issue very much along the lines I have earlier presented, and seems to be an attempt to look at what the Bible says, not just what one might want to be true.

Karen

[ November 08, 2002, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Karen ]

 

Karen,
You write:
Lots of times, when this whole issue of infants is presented, the unintentional effect of comments from those who hold your views is the picture of infants AS INFANTS being punished in Hell, unaware of what is even going on other than that they are in pain. You have just agreed, after I specifically asked, that it is not so. Yet you do not seem to see a need to clarify unless specifically asked. Yet this is a heart question that lies underneath a lot of the questions on this subject

Scott asks:
Can you please be clearer.....I have no idea what you are talking about here in this statement.

I ask both you and Latterrain:
Is it an unmistakable fact that "some" men and woman go to Hell?

 

Yes, some men and women go to Hell.
It is eternal and is separation from God.

Okay, here goes, will try to be clearer. We agree that anyone in Hell will have awareness and know why he is there and what is going on.
Many of your comments about "non-elect" infants going to Hell CAN be construed as tiny little babies, looking like and acting like and thinking like babies, being in pain forever in a fog of unawareness.
This is the picture that many are disputing. (As well as some of your other points.)

You yourself agree that anyone there will not be there with the consciousness of an infant but will be there with self-awareness and awareness of what is going on, an "adult" consciousness. Yet it is so implicit a point to you that you do not see how it is not to others from your statements.

Karen

 

Karen,
Thanks for clearifying..........

Here's my point, and based upon the scriptures I present, defended.

You are seeing this from human standards. Hell is a spiritual place. Things there will be spiritual. The scriptures I present, i.e. the rocks, the prattle of infants, are on a larger level than our minds can perceive. God hears the praise of prattle, rocks that are inanimate are actually animated if God so wills..........

Hence, the idea you present is on human standards, which does not necessarily follow spiritual ones.

~Also, you agreeing that some men and woman DO in fact go to Hell, how might one exclude the child from the equation?

[ November 07, 2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Karen,
I have read Dr. Mohler's paper on "Salvation of the Little Ones".

If I can quote Dr. Mohler:
"What then is our basis for claiming that all those who die in infancy are among the elect? First, the bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed "in the body". That is, we will face the judgement seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer " according to what he has done" and not for the sin of Adam."

Scott writes:
There are a couple of issues here in this statement which concern me. For instance, the idea that the believer will be judged. Judgement for the believer was nailed to the cross w/Christ. So, his proposition in regards to a childs salvation is unheralded; It just does not follow.

Romans 8:1
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The Bema seat judgement will be for burning up false works. Here we will get our crowns and cast them at the feet of Christ. The great white throne judgement is where the unbeliever will be judged accordingly. In this judgement, if the unbeliever was sinless except for the sin of Adam, he would be cast into outer darkness for the imputed Adamic sin alone, for that alone is too much sin for a righteous Heaven & a thrice holy God.

[ November 07, 2002, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Hi Scott. I thank you for your input concerning Deut. 1: 39. You did not comment on that part of the verse that say’s “children did not know good or evil.”

The idea is furthered in 2 Samuel 12: 23. After David’s infant son died, David said that he (David) would “go to him” (the infant). Since we know that David went to heaven, this verse clearly shows that the infant (who knew not “good or evil,”) also went to heaven (unless you believe that David went to hell, which I’m sure you don’t believe is the case).

Furthermore, the negative circumstances under which this infant was conceived shows that being “conceived in sin” (Adamic or otherwise) does not create any restriction on a non-surviving infant from arriving in heaven (i.e. elect).

The above is a Biblical example illustrating a non-surviving infant going to heaven. Please provide a Biblical example depicting an infant going to hell. If you cannot do so from the Bible itself, then how can such an idea be trusted?

Finally, I have already answered your newest question in previous postings on this thread. Thank you again Scott.

latterrain77

 

Latterrain writes:
Furthermore, the negative circumstances under which this infant was conceived shows that being “conceived in sin” (Adamic or otherwise) does not create any restriction on a non-surviving infant from arriving in heaven (i.e. elect).

Scott state:
You have mistaken the entry into Israel/Promised land to be Heaven.

Verse 35 states that it is the land that was promised to Abraham........Deu 1:35 Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land which I have sworn to give to your fathers,

Look at verse 36
Deu 1:36 except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, he shall see it, and I shall give the land on which he has walked to him, and to his sons, because he has fully followed Jehovah.

"........I shall give the land on which he has walked ....
Unless of course Caleb went to Heaven and came back...

[ November 08, 2002, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Hi Scott. Thank you for your reply. It is incorrect to say the death of David’s infant son in 2 Samuel 12: 23 was referring to the “Israel/Promised land.” The infant DIED. When an individual dies they can only go to heaven or hell. The “Israel/Promised land” that you suggest this verse refers to is not even an option after one dies.

While lamenting the death of his infant son, David said, “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” (2 Samuel 12: 23) - (bold is mine). Since David went to heaven when he died, we can know POSITIVELY that the child had gone to HEAVEN when the child died earlier. The verse has absolutely nothing at all to do with the “Israel/Promised land” as you suggest.

You did not provide an example from the Bible of an infant going to hell.

I thank you again for your further comment on Deut. 1: 39 Scott. However, you still have not made reference to that part of the verse that says the children “had no knowledge between good and evil.” I’m having a problem connecting what you have already said to that part of the verse. Perhaps I might better understand your position on this verse when you comment on the whole verse. Thank you again Scott. I much appreciate your thoughts and comments.

latterrain77

 

Scott,
Not trying to see from human standards. Just trying to be careful that you explain as much as you think you are explaining. Your view of Hell was not apparent in earlier conversations, just assumed by you.

The child is excluded as described in Romans 5.
The imputation of Christ's righteousness as federal head. Adam brought sin, Christ brings righteousness. Don't read universalism into this, please.

Karen

 

Scott,
I can't speak for Dr. Mohler's intentions in such a short article. Perhaps the "we" was a more generic "we" referring to all sinners. I agree with you that judgement for rewards for the Christian is different than the Great White Throne Judgement. Don't see why it doesn't follow that the infant's sins have been nailed to the cross, too, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

Regarding imputed sin of Adam, yes, it is enough to condemn us, but that is not the whole story. It is amazingly good news that Christ has covered the believer with His righteousness.
Perhaps the difference between us is that I see the infant being covered as implied and necessary; you want one specific verse.
Lots of doctrines in the Bible are not packaged in just one verse.

Karen

[ November 08, 2002, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Karen ]

 

Latterrain,
you write:
Hi Scott. Thank you for your reply. It is incorrect to say the death of David’s infant son in 2 Samuel 12: 23 was referring to the “Israel/Promised land.” The infant DIED. When an individual dies they can only go to heaven or hell. The “Israel/Promised land” that you suggest this verse refers to is not even an option after one dies.

While lamenting the death of his infant son, David said, “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” (2 Samuel 12: 23) - (bold is mine). Since David went to heaven when he died, we can know POSITIVELY that the child had gone to HEAVEN when the child died earlier. The verse has absolutely nothing at all to do with the “Israel/Promised land” as you suggest.

Scott states:
I was referring to your previous request to exegete Deut 1:39.........
I did'nt even consider the Samuel passage. Notice, I mention Caleb in my descriptional post. How could you have been confused to mismatch that which I have posted is beyond me, as in my posts, I literally placed the scriptural addresses there that I was referencing. Suprisingly, you then (at the end of your response) reference deut 1.

Are you trying to confuse the readers and I?

[ November 08, 2002, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Me2,

Thanks for your comments. Since addressed to me, I am not quite sure whether you are disagreeing with me or reinforcing something I said.
You are absolutely right that we should not take the death of Jesus too lightly.

Karen

 

"Jesus Christ is Lord"..that means He Has conquered All Powers of His Enemies.

All Sin was delivered unto death By Jesus..therefore there is no sin that can be held towards Gods Creation after Judgement...or even towards any of Gods NEW CREATION

Seeing that the resurrection hasn't occurred yet..no one is in "heaven" or "hell" or any other place that effects the wellbeing of mans soul..(positively or negatively)

The judgement hasn't occurred yet, towards anyone. and when it does..
The only verdict that can stand before our God is "not guilty".

"any declarations or conclusions of punishment towards anything of Gods Creation after judgement is False and is in error to the truth that Jesus is actually Lord."

 

Hi Scott. No, I’m not trying to confuse anyone at all. But you sure are confusing me. I have re-read the post and it STILL reads exactly as I commented. Apologies if there was any confusion.

I’ll cut this to the chase Scott. You have said that it is an “unmistakable fact” that infants can go to Hell. I have argued the opposite throughout this thread. I have repeatedly asked you to provide an example, from the Bible that shows an infant being sent to Hell to prove your statement. You have repeatedly NOT done so. In fact, you blatantly avoid the question (or you respond to the question by asking a question).

If an infant going to hell is an “unmistakable fact,” as you insist it is, then you should have no difficulty providing examples of it from the inerrant Bible. Please do so. Thank you Scott.

latterrain77

 

Latterrain,
You ask:
If an infant going to hell is an “unmistakable fact,” as you insist it is, then you should have no difficulty providing examples of it from the inerrant Bible.

Scott replies:
You know there is no such scripture. You try and support your idea or exclude my premise on this alone? This can only be dealt with from the generalities that deal with the general depravity of man, i.e woman, children, infants, etc. You do not see much of scripture referring to children or woman in the direct sense; does this exclude them from the responsibility? No, it is the harmony that ties us to the acknowledgement that just because they are not literally mentioned in every instance, we are conscious that, it is implied. Silence does not necessarily make for an excuse to omit that which the scriptures harmonize.

Sorry, what you try and propose is nothing less than a weak argument to dismantle the obvious.

I have asked you if it is an unmistakable fact that some men and woman do in fact end up in Hell. I will assume you have answered
,"yes". If this be true, how can you exclude children from the equation? Why is a child above that which an adult is held accountable for.

Rom ch 3 says that "ALL" have sinned. This "all" includes infants....this based upon the Adamic sin that is imputed to them, even at conception.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins:

I ask you, why was John the baptist regenerated in the womb if he was not in need?

Why was Jeremiah set apart from the womb if in fact he would be free from anything unholy or illicit as an infant? Why would he need to be set apart (in the Hebrew, its the same word used to describe how God set apart the sabbath)?

Also, just to clear the confusion, here is your previous question and my reply:

Nov 6, 2002
I would like to know more about the “unmistakable fact” that some infants and children go to hell. If you would like to provide that chapter and verse it would be appreciated. If not, may I ask your your opinion on Deut. 1: 39?

Scott's reply:
Here is the scripture in context......

Deu 1:33 Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to show you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.
Deu 1:34 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying,
Deu 1:35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers,
Deu 1:36 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon , and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD.
Deu 1:37 Also the LORD was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shalt not go in thither.
Deu 1:38 But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.
Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Deu 1:40 But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea.

As I had said before, this is the promise to Israel to inherit the promised land, not Heaven.
The children: not knowing good or evil is irrelevant. They are still condemned based upon Adams imputation. There is none righteous, no not one!

Rom 5:16-20
The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation , but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.


Rom 5:17
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one , much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.


Rom 5:18
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men , even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.


Rom 5:19
For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners , even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.


Rom 5:20
The Law came in so that the transgression would increase ; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

There you have it.......none righteous, not even infants. The law that you imply that they are above, based upon ignorance is refuted above. Actually, the above (v20) says that the law came in "so that the transgression would increase".
This is what I base my position on.

[ November 08, 2002, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Scott_Bushey ]

 

Hi Scott. You said, “You know there is no such scripture. You try and support your idea or exclude my premise on this alone?” Yes! If there is no Scripture or Biblical examples to illustrate a doctrine, then the doctrine cannot logically be Biblical. I’m not excluding your premise I’m questioning its Biblical validity since it is NOT in the Bible.

You said,“Silence does not necessarily make for an excuse to omit that which the scriptures harmonize.” Yes it does. Mankind can make all kinds of unBiblical ideas "harmonize" with the Bible (as they try to do all the time). That is why, by definition, “Biblical harmony” must be arrived at from within the Bible itself. Jesus repeatedly set the "Bible only" command when he said, “What saith the Scriptures” and “It is written” whenever HE confirmed truth. Doctrines that are NOT shown in the Bible, the LORD negatively labeled as being the “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15: 9, Mark 7: 7).

You said, “I ask you, why was John the baptist regenerated in the womb if he was not in need?” John the Baptist was regenerated from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1: 4, Heb. 4: 3, Rev. 13: 8, etc). ALL are in “need.”

You said, “Here is the scripture in context......” (you then quoted Deut. 1:33-40). At issue is verse 39 with respect to children “not knowing good or evil.” If children do not know “good or evil” (regardless of the setting), it still illustrates that children do NOT know “good or evil.”

2 Samuel 12: 23 unquestionably shows an example of an infant who died and went to HEAVEN. Furthermore, it illustrates that non-surviving infants that are conceived, even under “sinful” circumstances, are still saved and go to heaven. As you now agree, there are not ANY examples of an infant going to HELL in the Bible. Since the Bible ALONE is our guide for truth, it proves that those doctrines or examples that are not actually shown to be in the Bible MUST be suspect (especially when saying dogmatically that such a doctrine is an “unquestionable fact”).

You said, “Rom ch 3 says that "ALL" have sinned. This "all" includes infants....this based upon the Adamic sin that is imputed to them, even at conception.” You only quoted half of the verse! If you FINISHED the whole verse you would see that it reads – “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Rom. 3: 23). BIG difference when you read the whole verse. No human, SAVED or otherwise, measures up to the Glory of GOD even AFTER they are saved. If your interpretation of this verse were accurate, then it would mean that even the SAVED would go to hell since the saved do not measure up to the Glory of GOD even AFTER they are saved! (we still sin). Measuring up to the “glory of GOD” is a future event that is NOT of this world.

You said, “Why was Jeremiah set apart from the womb…”. Jeremiah was set apart to be a prophet in (Jer. 1: 5). He was saved from before the foundation of the world.

The various Romans 5 verses you mention illustrate what I hold to be true, and what I have stated and confirmed numerous times throughout this thread. That salvation is by Grace alone and, that non-surviving infants/children (and their parents) are partakers of GOD’s grace in an extraordinary way that is richly described in the Bible and vividly illustrated by JESUS himself. That there are no examples of infants going to HELL in the Bible – you have now agreed. Thank you Scott.

latterrain77

[ November 09, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]