What happens to babies when they die?

[AustinC]

You know, there are some of you who are certain you have the "right" answer. Do you really think you have the mind of God? Do you really know what God thinks? Didn't he say that his ways were higher than our ways, his thoughts were beyond our thoughts? Yes, there are things that are written in the Bible...however, it's not everything. So, instead of making pronouncements regarding what God does or does not do, admit that you just really don't know.
Also, regarding infants. There is an age of accountability, where one is aware of sinning. Is an infant capable of that?

There is no scripture for "age of accountability." That teaching is philosophical, not biblical.

 

[AustinC]

Would say that the LORD, as in God the Father, would choose to apply effectual saving grace towards infants....

Maybe. We don't know. God has not revealed to us what he chooses. We must place our dead children in God's care and rest in the truth that God's choice is perfect and good.

 

[Reformed1689]

I quoted the first part which is what I believe

Yes, you quoted a NOTE, not the entire entry which actually sheds more light on the topic. You selectively took the note out of the context of the whole just like you do with Scripture. I guess that shouldn't surprise me at this point. It is what you do.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Yes, you quoted a NOTE, not the entire entry which actually sheds more light on the topic. You selectively took the note out of the context of the whole just like you do with Scripture. I guess that shouldn't surprise me at this point. It is what you do.

do you know anything about translating from original languages?

 

[SavedByGrace]

scriptural support

and exactly where did you see this in the Bible?

 

[SavedByGrace]

I thought I'd address a couple of people who suppose their "theory", that "Elect infants dying in infancy will be saved", is anywhere in the entire teachings of the Holy Bible.

Let us suppose that this is true. Then it raises some important questions. If God saves "elect infants" that die in infancy, then why can't He save ALL the "elect" this way, which is without them having to be preached at, or having to repent and believe in the Gospel? God saves these infants without hearing the Gospel Message, without repenting, without believing, etc, then WHY does He not do the same for ALL of the "elect"? WHY does Jesus Himself say at the end of Mark, "And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (16:15), and then go on to say, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"??? Surely this is a total waste of time, to preach to the "elect", and require them to believe, as if they would not? He saves "elect infants" without any of this, and cannot do the same for ALL the "elect"?

This exposes the utter nonsense of this reformed teaching, as the Holy Bible does on the other man-made "theories" that they espouse!

 

[Reformed1689]

do you know anything about translating from original languages?

Yes, and I also know we were talking about the theological topic of redemption, not a specific Greek word since we were not even dealing with a specific passage. But that is neither here nor there because you won't really care.

 

[Reformed1689]

I thought I'd address a couple of people who suppose their "theory", that "Elect infants dying in infancy will be saved", is anywhere in the entire teachings of the Holy Bible.

Let us suppose that this is true. Then it raises some important questions. If God saves "elect infants" that die in infancy, then why can't He save ALL the "elect" this way, which is without them having to be preached at, or having to repent and believe in the Gospel? God saves these infants without hearing the Gospel Message, without repenting, without believing, etc, then WHY does He not do the same for ALL of the "elect"? WHY does Jesus Himself say at the end of Mark, "And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (16:15), and then go on to say, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"??? Surely this is a total waste of time, to preach to the "elect", and require them to believe, as if they would not? He saves "elect infants" without any of this, and cannot do the same for ALL the "elect"?

This exposes the utter nonsense of this reformed teaching, as the Holy Bible does on the other man-made "theories" that they espouse!

The Westminster Confession says that this is true of all the elect who are incapable of responding to an outward call. Personally, I have not taken a position on this.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Westminster Confession says that this is true of all the elect who are incapable of responding to an outward call. Personally, I have not taken a position on this.

really? and YET you have spent the most of THREE days arguing with me on this thread and the other one I did on people being born sinners!!! Talk of double-standards!

 

[Reformed1689]

really? and YET you have spent the most of THREE days arguing with me on this thread and the other one I did on people being born sinners!!! Talk of double-standards!

Maybe you just don't comprehend what is going on here. I have never taken a position on what happens to babies when they die. You will not find that in any of our exchanges. What I have actually said is this:

1. The text does not say David's son is in Heaven. (I did not say the baby was not, I said that passage does not state that he is).
2. There is not a single verse that says infants are not sinners.

That is what I have argued with you about and debated. The reason for that is this, I believe we need to be VERY careful about stating Scripture explicitly says something when it does not. I am not against you having your opinion on this matter. What I am against is you emphatically saying that Scripture says your pinon.

Your opinion on this matter comes from theological reasoning not from direct Scripture. All I have been asking is for enough integrity on your part to admit to that.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Maybe you just don't comprehend what is going on here. I have never taken a position on what happens to babies when they die. You will not find that in any of our exchanges. What I have actually said is this:

1. The text does not say David's son is in Heaven. (I did not say the baby was not, I said that passage does not state that he is).
2. There is not a single verse that says infants are not sinners.

That is what I have argued with you about and debated. The reason for that is this, I believe we need to be VERY careful about stating Scripture explicitly says something when it does not. I am not against you having your opinion on this matter. What I am against is you emphatically saying that Scripture says your pinon.

Your opinion on this matter comes from theological reasoning not from direct Scripture. All I have been asking is for enough integrity on your part to admit to that.

just on your 2 points

1. there is NO other way to undersand this passage than David's joy that he will one day meet up with his dead son. It is rather foolish to suppose that he meant the grave, as NOTHING happens there! nor can they be in hell. You won't accept this because your theology prevents you from doing so!

2. This passage from Samuel about Davids dead son, who is in heaven, shows that he get there without "repenting and believing"!

Your whole "system" is wrong, but you just cannot see this

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe that as well, but acknowledge very little scripture concerning this specific issue.

peace to you

Think that would better firt the way that God has chosen to reveal Himself to us in the Bible, more of an inference...

 

[Yeshua1]

Reformed is dead on. You are attempting to have semantic split ends to your hair, but the bottom line is you teach Pelagian theology and universalism, two doctrines rejected by the church.

2 of the biggest heresies!

 

[Reformed1689]

just on your 2 points

1. there is NO other way to undersand this passage than David's joy that he will one day meet up with his dead son. It is rather foolish to suppose that he meant the grave, as NOTHING happens there! nor can they be in hell. You won't accept this because your theology prevents you from doing so!

2. This passage from Samuel about Davids dead son, who is in heaven, shows that he get there without "repenting and believing"!

Your whole "system" is wrong, but you just cannot see this

1. The passage says nothing about joy or celebration. This has nothing to do with my theology, would love to know what part of "my theology" you think is influencing this....
2. You are building a whole doctrine on something that is not even in the text.

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe. We don't know. God has not revealed to us what he chooses. We must place our dead children in God's care and rest in the truth that God's choice is perfect and good.

We have to agree with Abraham that the Judge of the earth will do what is the right thing from His viewpoint, and sometimes that just might not as we would have chosen to have it down!

 

[Yeshua1]

just on your 2 points

1. there is NO other way to undersand this passage than David's joy that he will one day meet up with his dead son. It is rather foolish to suppose that he meant the grave, as NOTHING happens there! nor can they be in hell. You won't accept this because your theology prevents you from doing so!

2. This passage from Samuel about Davids dead son, who is in heaven, shows that he get there without "repenting and believing"!

Your whole "system" is wrong, but you just cannot see this

The OT did not have a clear view on heaven, as the OT beleivers saw themselves going to Sheol, and are you saying none be saved apart from repenting and believing in Jesus then?

 

[Reformed1689]

The OT did not have a clear view on heaven, as the OT beleivers saw themselves going to Sheol, and are you saying none be saved apart from repenting and believing in Jesus then?

I tried to explain the cultural point, it was ignored.

 

[Yeshua1]

I tried to explain the cultural point, it was ignored.

Yes, its called progressive revelation, but many of our points expressed seemed to have been "missed"

 

[AustinC]

Yes, its called progressive revelation, but many of our points expressed seemed to have been "missed"

The points don't miss. sbw has his deflector shields up to avoid discussion of the actual text.

 

[Yeshua1]

The points don't miss. sbw has his deflector shields up to avoid discussion of the actual text.

Interesting that someone who seems to hold to more of Pel viewpoint would call themselves saved by grace!