Where do Babies Go When they Die - Continued

[Luke2427]

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and also He wants to gather them but they are not willing. We know that God is not going to save all but those who believe.It is God going after us and we are His messenger. I will have to disagree with your acessment it doesn't agree with a scripture. We know that God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. So according to scripture it is God that is making one humble and meek, because God has provided a way for all men to come throught Jesus and His word. So Trust and believe in Him and don't let any word from man stray or hinder you from that.

Yes, God is not willing that any should perish. But they do. Why? This is the question you refuse to address.

Why do they perish and others do not?

God is not willing that any should perish- in other words God's nature is opposed to it, but it is necessary that men perish for the greater good. That greater good is so great that the perishing of souls is a small price to pay that it might exist. The greater good is that Christ be glorified for grace and mercy and that Christ's people be able to experience redemption and rejoice in it forever. It is also necessary that sinners perish that God's holiness might be made manifest.

God is not willing that any should perish but he is less willing that Christ should go unglorified for grace and mercy. God is not willing that any should perish but he is less willing that his holiness and wrath against sin should go unnoticed and unmagnified.

That sin exist and sinners perish is a terrible but necessary evil that the greatest of good can forever come to pass.

Why do some believe and others not believe, Psalms?

Answer the question directly and thoroughly.

 

[kyredneck]

....If, however, God does all the saving himself without any help from people- then there is no problem at all for infants. God can and does save them the same way he saves EVERYONE- by himself......

:thumbsup: zactly.

 

[Tom Butler]

Since adults who have never heard the gospel are not condemned for rejecting it, why should babies be condemned?

Not true. Surely you don't think that everyone who has never heard the name of Jesus goes to heaven. Evangelism would be the worst thing we could do to the world if that were true.

You are correct. Adults who have never heard the gospel will be condemned by their failure to keep their own moral code (a "law unto themselves" Romans 2). They cannot be condemned for rejecting a Savior of whom they have never heard. My point was, if babies have never heard the gospel, never rejected it, have no moral code to break and have no sin, they cannot come under condemnation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are correct. Adults who have never heard the gospel will be condemned by their failure to keep their own moral code (a "law unto themselves" Romans 2). They cannot be condemned for rejecting a Savior of whom they have never heard. My point was, if babies have never heard the gospel, never rejected it, have no moral code to break and have no sin, they cannot come under condemnation.

Tom, I would hope Christ death on the cross made allocation for children.... did he not state "Suffer the little children to come to me..."

Only Christ saves.

 

[kyredneck]

..... Adults who have never heard the gospel will be condemned by their failure to keep their own moral code (a "law unto themselves" Romans 2). .....

It doesn't say 'a law', it says 'the law':

for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2:13,14,15

[edit] 'The law written in their hearts' does not apply to just anyone. It applies to those that have been 'born from above', both Jew and Gentile.

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom, I would hope Christ death on the cross made allocation for children.... did he not state "Suffer the little children to come to me..."

Only Christ saves.

I agree. I believe it did.

 

[webdog]

Yes, God is not willing that any should perish. But they do. Why? This is the question you refuse to address.

It has already been stated your answer is found in 2 Thessalonians 2... "and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

Now, how could they have been saved if Christ did not come to die for them, and if He didn't come to die for them then there must be some other way for them to be saved based on that text? How can they perish for refusing to trust in Christ who did not come to die for them?

 

[webdog]

You are correct. Adults who have never heard the gospel will be condemned by their failure to keep their own moral code (a "law unto themselves" Romans 2). They cannot be condemned for rejecting a Savior of whom they have never heard. My point was, if babies have never heard the gospel, never rejected it, have no moral code to break and have no sin, they cannot come under condemnation.

...then how can a baby be a "sinner" (one who sins), or is there some unknown dispensation of salvation not privy to us? Sinners need a Savior.

 

[webdog]

:thumbsup: zactly.

How so? If it's "all on God"...it must also be the exact same way for those who perish as those who do not.

 

[kyredneck]

How so? If it's "all on God"...it must also be the exact same way for those who perish as those who do not.

Isn't this objection of your's kinda sorta along the lines of:

...What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?....Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?.....

[also it seems to me we've been at this same exact spot before]

 

[webdog]

Isn't this objection of your's kinda sorta along the lines of:

...What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?....Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?.....

Not at all (I've never heard that one before )

Do you have an answer to it? "Let us reason together" says the Lord...

The responsibility and ability are all over the map in reformed theology. Man has free will pre-fall, loses it...but keeps it in regards to sinning, but not in responding when God calls. After justification, re-acquired free will to respond to God and has free will to still sin (even though we are "dead to sin"). God is completely responsible in salvation (all God), and powerless in damnation (all man).

 

[Amy.G]

If, however, God does all the saving himself without any help from people- then there is no problem at all for infants. God can and does save them the same way he saves EVERYONE- by himself.

Does He save all of them?

 

[glfredrick]

Completely wrong. Pelagianism teaches that man can come to God APART from any working of God. Nobody on this thread (including Amy who you targeted in your "non attack") has even hinted as such. The Roman Catholic position hold to Augustinian original sin...does that mean you are labeled a Roman Catholic?

Also, are you aware there is a difference between being innocent and not guilty?

I am aware of all, but are any "innocent" and "not guilty"?

My Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." and that "the wages of sin are death..." I don't see room there for some to be "innocent" or "not guilty".

Can you bring scriptural evidence to back up that some are innocent and not guilty?

Pelagianism is what I posted. Look it up. Also note that Baptists hold to a doctrine of original sin. Just because Catholics do as well does not make the doctrine false.

 

[Luke2427]

It has already been stated your answer is found in 2 Thessalonians 2... "and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

Now, how could they have been saved if Christ did not come to die for them, and if He didn't come to die for them then there must be some other way for them to be saved based on that text? How can they perish for refusing to trust in Christ who did not come to die for them?

But here is the question Webdog. Why do some "refuse to love the truth" and others receive it gladly?

Why does John receive the truth and Jack reject it?

Is John less depraved, less rebellious? If so- why? Why is Jack more depraved and rebellious than John. Was John born better than Jack?

Did God draw John more than he drew Jack? Did God give John opportunities that he did not give Jack?

What is the answer?

 

[Luke2427]

How so? If it's "all on God"...it must also be the exact same way for those who perish as those who do not.

Exactly.

Men perish because they hate God and they are thoroughly wicked.

They do not go to hell wishing the whole time that they could serve Christ. They go to hell hating Christ.

But among these sinful wretches, all of whom God loves, none of whom God wishes to perish- among them God saves a vast multitude by his grace.

Now don't respond to this post without addressing the John and Jack scenario we are discussing first, please.

 

[glfredrick]

So, let's return to the OP.

If infants who die go to heaven, on what basis will God accept them?
If some infants who die go to Hell, what is the basis for their condemnation?

Corollary questions:
If repentance and faith in Jesus Christ are required of infants for salvation, how can they exercise either toward someone of whom they have never heard. And how can they exercise either when they don't even know what they are?

How can they be condemned for rejecting Jesus of whom they have never heard? Since adults who've never heard the gospel are not condemned for rejecting it, why should babies be condemned.

How can they be condemned for sinning when they have not sinned?

Does the shedding of Jesus' blood mean anything to the dead infant?

If such shedding of blood covers sin, does it cover/not cover the sinful nature of dead babies?

I know some of these questions have been addressed. But some have not. I just want to get back to the OP.

There is a fly in your ointment, so to speak... If your question 2 above is true, then we should immediately halt all missionary activities, for sending people TO others who have never heard of Christ and the gospel is in a sense then sending them to hell if they do not believe! But, that is not at all the biblical position. We are commanded by God to go into all the world and spread the gospel. Why? Because those who have not heard cannot accept Christ and be saved. That, in particular, is why the question about the salvation of infants is such a difficult question, and likely one that we will not be able to answer until we stand in God's presence and see exactly what He has done.

Jesus shed his blood for all sin -- period. That is what the Bible says. It takes human logic and reasoning to modify that position into one where Jesus only shed His blood for the elect, etc.

BUT...

Jesus shed blood is not universally salvific. Not all are saved just because Jesus shed his blood. That is also what the Bible says very plainly. That means that the shed blood of Jesus, though covering all sins is not the only part that makes up salvation. If it were, no matter what anyone did or did not do, they would be saved -- exactly the position of universalists -- and exactly not what the Bible teaches (unless one cherry picks verses out of context and builds a false doctrine).

It is the efficacious (effective) application of Jesus blood (atonement) that actually matters, and God makes clear in the Word that the effective application is for the elect. Again, we do not know who the elect are. We do not know how many are elect. We just know that God tells us that He elects. Our job is to do what God said, in love, and see the elect come to Him. What He does with those who never hear, including infants and those who do not have the mental capacity to hear, is His business, and our best hope is to completely trust and ALL-GOOD God to do the best right thing, which He will -- from His perspective, not ours.

 

[Luke2427]

There is a fly in your ointment, so to speak... If your question 2 above is true, then we should immediately halt all missionary activities, for sending people TO others who have never heard of Christ and the gospel is in a sense then sending them to hell if they do not believe! But, that is not at all the biblical position. We are commanded by God to go into all the world and spread the gospel. Why? Because those who have not heard cannot accept Christ and be saved. That, in particular, is why the question about the salvation of infants is such a difficult question, and likely one that we will not be able to answer until we stand in God's presence and see exactly what He has done.

Jesus shed his blood for all sin -- period. That is what the Bible says. It takes human logic and reasoning to modify that position into one where Jesus only shed His blood for the elect, etc.

BUT...

Jesus shed blood is not universally salvific. Not all are saved just because Jesus shed his blood. That is also what the Bible says very plainly. That means that the shed blood of Jesus, though covering all sins is not the only part that makes up salvation. If it were, no matter what anyone did or did not do, they would be saved -- exactly the position of universalists -- and exactly not what the Bible teaches (unless one cherry picks verses out of context and builds a false doctrine).

It is the efficacious (effective) application of Jesus blood (atonement) that actually matters, and God makes clear in the Word that the effective application is for the elect. Again, we do not know who the elect are. We do not know how many are elect. We just know that God tells us that He elects. Our job is to do what God said, in love, and see the elect come to Him. What He does with those who never hear, including infants and those who do not have the mental capacity to hear, is His business, and our best hope is to completely trust and ALL-GOOD God to do the best right thing, which He will -- from His perspective, not ours.

Very good.

I'd rather salvation be completely up to a perfect, all knowing, holy God than to any extent whatsoever up to depraved, sinful, ignorant men.

If it is at all up to us we are ALL doomed. There is none that seeketh after God, none that doeth good- no not one.

God must regenerate man before man will ever pursue God.

Who God regenerates is completely up to him. We are to trust that his ways are as high above ours as the heavens are from the earth.

I do. I believe he does all things right.

 

[glfredrick]

Not at all (I've never heard that one before )

Do you have an answer to it? "Let us reason together" says the Lord...

The responsibility and ability are all over the map in reformed theology. Man has free will pre-fall, loses it...but keeps it in regards to sinning, but not in responding when God calls. After justification, re-acquired free will to respond to God and has free will to still sin (even though we are "dead to sin"). God is completely responsible in salvation (all God), and powerless in damnation (all man).

Webdog, I think that you missed a point with your summary statement. We do not loose our free will "just" in regards to sinning. We loose our free will everywhere, for we have already been born in sin.

We did have a true free will before the fall. It was at that point when we were not yet sinners that we could freely choose to sin or not to sin. That choice was eliminated once we bound ourselves to sin by rejecting and rebelling against God. Now our ONLY HOPE is God's grace through the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ -- which IS the gospel.

 

[glfredrick]

Does He save all of them?

We don't know... We don't know that He saves some, none, or all. We just trust an ALL-GOOD God to do the best thing and we find out when we stand in His presence one day.

Would the discovery that God has not saved all babies cause you to stop believing Him or worshiping Him? (Not a flippant question... True Christian concern!)

 

[Amy.G]

We don't know... We don't know that He saves some, none, or all. We just trust an ALL-GOOD God to do the best thing and we find out when we stand in His presence one day.

Would the discovery that God has not saved all babies cause you to stop believing Him or worshiping Him? (Not a flippant question... True Christian concern!)

Actually my question was directed to Luke because of his statement that God saves babies exactly like adults (which is His choice of one over another). I assume this means Luke believes that some babies go to hell just as some adults do.


Regarding your question, God is God and I'm not is my view. I do not believe for one second that God sends any babies to hell, therefore I can't speculate on what I would feel if He did.

I base my beliefs on the word of God and the Holy Spirit within me. The Spirit testifies to me that God is just and sending babies to hell simply for being a human with a sin nature is unjust.