Where do Babies Go When they Die - Continued

[freeatlast]

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.

Amy this is not an attack. It is however a loving warning with hopes that you see what you have done. I would be very careful in stating "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." The Spirit only testifies to us in regards to scripture not our emotional values and there is simply no clear scripture on this issue as much as we wish there was.
Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Keep in mind that the God that we serve also commanded this;
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 1 Samuel 15: 2-3 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

By the way this is not the only time that God had this done.
So does a just God command this? The answer is yes He does and did. Someone might says, "but the infants did not do wrong." That is true but God is just and He is Sovereign and we have no right to decide or suggest what comprises either. My guess is that most people simply cannot handle this truth. However this is the God we serve and we need to be ever so careful not to try and change Him or make Him in our image. He IS just, but what we understand as being just in usually not what He is. Our standards are simply far too low. If we do not think so just look at the penalties that He gave for certain violations of His law. Today we are way too soft on crime based on God's word and our way is neither mercy or love even though the liberal would have us think it is. So to claim that God would or would not do something without clear scriptural evidence is very close to blasphemy.

Look at it this way. You have made the statement that to send an infant to hell would be unjust. Now what will you do if that is what really happens? Will you deny Him? Will you be upset with Him or think less of Him? Would you obey God if He told you in a war to kill the infants? All this needs to weighed if we are going to follow the True and Living God. In areas as this we simply do not have enough information to hold or state a belief as if it is absolute, and we NEVER have the right to decide what is or is not just in regards to God. To do so without clear revelation undermines the Sovereignty of God and impugns His Character.
I know you know of this passage but let me suggest that you go back and read it again. Romans 9:11-20. It is clear scripture that we are never to question or form a belief on or against the actions of God. We all need to ask just who do we think we are!? God bless

 

[Winman]

From the first thread

EVERYONE is regenerated before they trust Christ- not just babies. YOU were regenerated before you trusted Christ. A dead man cannot trust Christ. In the natural state there is none that seeketh after God, none that understandeth. You must be made alive to believe.

This is as wrong as you can be, and if you give it a moment's thought you will realize that.

You cannot be regenerated, that is, made spiritually alive and be dead in your trespasses and sins at the same time. You are either spiritually alive or spiritually dead, but you cannot be both simultaneously.

You cannot be forgiven of your sins until you believe and trust on Jesus. Until you believe on Jesus you are dead in your trespasses and sins. Therefore, you cannot be regenerated, spiritually alive until after you believe on Jesus and your sins are forgiven.

And this is what the scriptures show.

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Calvinism falsely teaches that you must be regenerated, must have life in order to have the ability to believe. The scriptures teach exactly the opposite, the scriptures teach you must believe to have life.

No one is regenerated until they believe on Jesus and have their sins forgiven. Until their sins are forgiven they are spiritually dead in their sins.

Infants and little children are not dead in their trespasses and sins because their sin is not counted to them until they reach a level of maturity, knowing and understanding sin and the consequences before God. Upon reaching this maturity, their sins are counted to them, and when they knowingly and willingly sin against God spiritually die.

Children are just like Adam and Eve were originally in the garden. Adam and Eve were innocent. They were not absolutely perfect as God is, God cannot sin. Adam and Eve could and did sin. Just like little infants they could run around naked and were not self conscious. They could not understand good from evil, and a little child cannot understand this either. It was upon eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve became aware and knowledgeable of what sin is. They understood they sinned against God and so spiritually died. It is the same with children. When they come to understand what sin is (and this is what they inherited from Adam and Eve, the ability to understand good and evil in time), and the consequences of sin before God, they spiritually die just the way Adam and Eve died spiritually.

That said, everyone sins. The only person who never sinned was Jesus Christ. Little children do wrong, they can lie, they can steal, they can hit their brother or sister without just cause, but their sins are not counted against them until they develop the maturity to understand sin. Little children are innocent and without knowledge of good and evil just as Adam and Eve were originally in the garden.

 

[Benjamin]

Amy this is not an attack. It is however a loving warning with hopes that you see what you have done.

...To do so without clear revelation undermines the Sovereignty of God and impugns His Character.

You’d be wise to distinguish between your misguided judgments, which are merely accommodations to the course of your theological revelations, and to which you must necessarily invent a warped view of Devine sovereignty/character… and of what you’re doing when on the attack of another’s judgments of what the Bible actually reveals about God’s Character and sovereignty before you start such a poor argument, point fingers and go about giving warnings about clear revelation, blasphemy and undermining of Divine Character. Sorry, I don’t have more time to go into greater detail of your fallacies.

Grrr

 

[Winman]

Originally Posted by Amy.G
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.

I agree with you also Amy. Children can do wrong and often do. But many scriptures show that God does not hold them accountable until they understand sin and the consequences of sin before God.

Deut 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.

When the Jews sinned against God in the wilderness, God said they would all die and none of them would enter into the promised land which is a figure of heaven. These Jews knew the word of God, they knew and understood sin and so were accountable.

But their children, whom God said in that day had no knowledge "between" good and evil were not held accountable and were allowed to enter the promised land.

This shows that God does not hold little children accountable for sin until they reach a level of maturity and understand between good and evil. Babies and little children cannot understand between good and evil and are not held accountable.

Even man's law understands this. We do not hold little children accountable for crimes they might commit, we do not hold the mentally retarded accountable for crimes they might commit, and we do not hold the truly insane accountable for crime either. The law holds that a person must have knowledge and understanding of what is good and evil before they can be held accountable.

 

[DixieBoy]

I agree with you also Amy. Children can do wrong and often do. But many scriptures show that God does not hold them accountable until they understand sin and the consequences of sin before God.

IMO, very well said. I will add a few verses:

Isa 40:11 He will tend his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs[children] in his arms; he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.


Psa 24:3 Who may go up into the hill of the Lord? and who may come into his holy place?

Psa 24:4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart; whose desire has not gone out to foolish things, who has not taken a false oath.


Neh 8:2 So Ezra brought it to the place where the people had gathered---men, women, and the children who were old enough to understand.

Neh 8:3 And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.

Rom 4:15 For the law worketh wrath. For where there is no law, neither is there transgression.

 

[glfredrick]

But, we are not "saved" by following OT Jewish law. We are saved by the completed work of Jesus Christ. Citing OT law and suggesting that the law is salvific is precisely what the writer of Hebrews spoke out against. In so doing, "we crucify Christ again."

11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. Heb 7:11-12 (NASB)

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance Heb 9:15 (NASB)

1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Heb 10:1-4 (NASB)



The law did not even save the Jews:

2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they [the Jews] also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. Heb 4:2 (NASB)

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

The KJV says, "not having the law, are a law unto themselves...." They have devised a system of right and wrong according to their conscience. They will violate their own moral system, and that is how they will be judged.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

I agree with your point. I do not believe that those who never hear the gospel will get a pass. My posts 103 and 127 explain my position.

My position on infants is simply this. They have no sin, thus are not under condemnation.

Arguing the question from a Calvinist or non-Calvinist perspective only clouds the issue.

 

[kyredneck]

.....They have devised a system of right and wrong according to their conscience. They will violate their own moral system, and that is how they will be judged.

The only device here is this one that you're now using, and that hoi polloi has used for eons to explain away how, [gasp], Gentiles who have not the law could have had that law written in their hearts. The context of the passage is referring to these particular Gentiles as DOERS of the law. There's absolutely nothing in the context concerning an inherent conscience of right or wrong in unregenerate man, or a self made moral code.

The same Spirit that caused David to hope while on his mother's breast and John the baptist to jump for joy in his mother's womb also performed this 'work of the law written in their hearts'.

 

[freeatlast]

I agree with your point. I do not believe that those who never hear the gospel will get a pass. My posts 103 and 127 explain my position.

My position on infants is simply this. They have no sin, thus are not under condemnation.

Arguing the question from a Calvinist or non-Calvinist perspective only clouds the issue.

Here is the problem. It is not our sin that condemns us. It is our relationship with Adam. Just like it is not our righteousness that saves us. It is our relationship with the second Adam (Christ). We are conceived (born) into sin and we must be born out of sin (born again). Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

In the beginning God gave only one command. 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.
This was the only command that has ever been given that causes man to die. The bible never says in the day that you steal, or murder, or commit adultery, or any other thing you shall die. Today there is no tree and yet we still die and are born dead. Even babies die to prove their condition. Before the law men still died physically and were born dead spiritually. This is why scripture says;
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Notice Sin not sins. One sin brought all this on. And that sin cannot be redone today because there is no tree or garden. By the way this is why you cannot lose your salvation. There is no law or command that overrides what Jesus has done. There is no law that says in the day you do thus and thus you shall die. The point is that we are already condemned before we ever sin. Not because of our sin but because of our relationship.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Now please I am not saying with absolute assurance that babies that die go to hell. I am however saying for anyone to form a doctrine of absolute belief that it is very dangerous without clear scripture and we have no clear scripture that clearly overrides original sin.

I for one hope that all babies who die end up with the Lord. I even think it is possible that He has a plan for them even though He has not shared it with us, but that is as far as I can go and still hold to what scripture teaches about the fall of man and how we must be saved.
We need to be ever so careful with our personal feelings when dealing with issues like this so that we do not negate the word of God with our personal values or make claims that God is evil if He does not save them. This issue has gone so far that today many bible teachers who hold to a pretrib rapture (I believe in pre-trib rapture) teach that all babies will go in the rapture. There is not a single hint of such in the scripture in fact there is scripture pointing to the opposite. So again we need to be ever so careful that our biblical beliefs do not contradict when we teach or hold to a position that is not dealt with clearly in scripture. BY the way someone mentioned the promise land. The promise land is Israel not heaven. No one has ever been promised heaven as a people covenant. The Hebrew was promised a literal land and they will get it.

 

[glfredrick]

I agree with your point. I do not believe that those who never hear the gospel will get a pass. My posts 103 and 127 explain my position.

My position on infants is simply this. They have no sin, thus are not under condemnation.

Arguing the question from a Calvinist or non-Calvinist perspective only clouds the issue.

I agree about "Calvinist" and "Arminian" perspectives. Both have flaws and are mostly fodder for attack these days. We're now 500 or so years from those theologies and we have great Bible tools that many of those great scholars did not have in their day. Surely we can arrive at a more balanced, biblical position and leave out the derogatory positions.

I cannot agree with infants having no sin, however. Every human is born in and with sin. You are suggesting that sin is only something we do. That is only half of the issue. It is also what we fail to do, and in that case, infants are still not "innocent." If infants can somehow get a pass on their sin (and sin nature) then we are stuck at a point where we have to draw a line. The question is where?

I have kids... I've seen other people's kids. They have sin, even before they have voices. No one has to teach them how to be selfish. No one has to teach them to lie. No one has to teach them to blame someone else for their sin. They just seem to know (and in fact, we WORK to teach them otherwise).

I still propose that the best, safest, and most sure way to hold the issue of the salvation of children is to trust in God's grace. Any other means falls far short, just like it does for we "grown-ups." As I have said repeatedly in these posts, God has hinted that He has a grace for children. He has not come out and told us that "all children will be saved -- period." That is no more true for children than for the entire human race, as children are just as human and in the exact same place as all of us, save for their age.

With that, another thought comes to mind... Our salvation is one of "position" not of "work." We are re-born into a new family. Our position changes. We do not walk into a new family on our own accord, nor can we "position" ourselves into God's kingdom. That is impossible. We cannot "adopt" ourselves. That is a logical and physical impossibility. It is only when we loosely define "salvation" as any effort pointed toward Jesus that we can get away with any form of man-centered work or effort that brings one to God.

 

[DixieBoy]

But, we are not "saved" by following OT Jewish law. We are saved by the completed work of Jesus Christ. Citing OT law and suggesting that the law is salvific is precisely what the writer of Hebrews spoke out against. In so doing, "we crucify Christ again."

11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. Heb 7:11-12 (NASB)

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance Heb 9:15 (NASB)

1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Heb 10:1-4 (NASB)



The law did not even save the Jews:

2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they [the Jews] also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. Heb 4:2 (NASB)

Tis true, the law saves no one never has never will. My point was in the OT the law was taught. In the NT the Gospel is taught.

Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

In the OT children that were not old enough to understand were not taught the law. No missionary I know teaches the Gospel to a child that is not old enough to understand. The promise land was a type of the Kingdom. If children have no knowledge or understanding of good or evil they went into the promise land (Kingdom.)

Deu 1:39 And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Joh 9:41 Jesus told them, "If you were blind[no mental understanding], you wouldn't be sinners. But now you say, 'We see,' so you continue to be sinners.

 

[quantumfaith]

Here is an honest question. Does anyone know what the ancient/orthodox Hebrews believed concerning the death of infants and young children? If so, does their positions have any bearing on us who claim the name of Christ?

 

[freeatlast]

Tis true, the law saves no one never has never will. My point was in the OT the law was taught. In the NT the Gospel is taught.

Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!"

In the OT children that were not old enough to understand were not taught the law. No missionary I know teaches the Gospel to a child that is not old enough to understand. The promise land was a type of the Kingdom. If children have no knowledge or understanding of good or evil they went into the promise land (Kingdom.)

Deu 1:39 And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

Joh 9:41 Jesus told them, "If you were blind[no mental understanding], you wouldn't be sinners. But now you say, 'We see,' so you continue to be sinners.

Your statements are not exactly accurate. Suggesting that the OT taught law and the NT teaches grace is simply inaccurate. The OT and the NT both are about grace. There did come a time when God gave the law, but the teaching for salvation was and is always grace through faith. Nothing in that regard has ever changed or been any different from Adam until today. The main thing that the law did was give them a gauge to weigh themselves as to just how sinful they really were as well as give them some guidelines as to what God considered sin and how to live as well as to set standards for government and other things. It does the same today. Keep in mind that the Lord Himself said this;
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Well heaven nor earth has passed away and neither has all been fulfilled. Yes Christ did a finish work on the cross but all that is contained in scripture is not fulfilled.
Second it is true that we who are of the Lord are not under the law, but the lost are so it has not passed away.
Next the Deut passage you used has nothing to do with heaven or children being spared. That passage is dealing with an earthly promise not a heavenly one. Canaan is not a picture of heaven but of a promise earthly dwelling.

Lastly the John passage you are using is speaking to adults, not children. If you interpret it to say that if a person does not know about sin against God then they are not guilty then we better stop with telling the world if blindness by-pass' judgment.
However the true understanding of the passage is this. Jesus had just healed a blind man and the Pharisees knew it. The Pharisees then confronted Him and ask if they were also blind. They were not asking if they were physically blind, but they were asking if this Man (Jesus) was suggesting that they were spiritually blind and the answer was YES. So He replied in somewhat of a clouded answer to us, but they understood. With some sarcasm the Lord responds with verse 41 which is saying that if you personally knew that they were spiritually blind (lost) you would be calling on Me because of what you just saw Me do with the physically blind man. However because you think you see but are really blind you will not call and your sin remains. That is the meaning and it has absolutely nothing to do with children and them being going to heaven if they die.
One thing we must keep in mind with scripture is ALWAYS context. No scripture can mean everything and these two verses you gave have nothing to do with children and where they go if they die.

 

[freeatlast]

Here is an honest question. Does anyone know what the ancient/orthodox Hebrews believed concerning the death of infants and young children? If so, does their positions have any bearing on us who claim the name of Christ?

The scriptures were silent for them also. However many Jews taught that because of the Bar Mitzvah at around 12 for girls and 13 for boys that the child was not accountable for their sin until that age. The bar mitzvah ceremony is not required, and does not fulfill any commandment. Also the bible never taught that the child was free from sin until this age so keep in mind this was only a Jewish belief much like the age of accountability today. Finally keep in mind that for the most of their history the Jew has been in blindness to any truth about their own scriptures. An example is that the Jew was taught that the rich were first in line for heaven. Some also taught that because they were Abrahams children no matter how bad they lived or even if they did not believe in God that Abraham sat at the door of Heaven to snatched them up as they might pass by after death and cast them into heaven. So looking at what the Jew believes or does not believe is not always a good idea. Just hold onto scripture or the lack there of. The scripture is not clear on the issue of babies or children. We can hope for some provision for them but none is spelled out, and since there is no clear teaching we should not try and suggest that there is or that God has to honor what we feel is right because we feel this is what a loving and merciful God would do.

 

[quantumfaith]

The scriptures were silent for them also. However many Jews taught that because of the Bar Mitzvah at around 12 for girls and 13 for boys and that the child was not accountable for their sin until that age. The bar mitzvah ceremony is not required, and does not fulfill any commandment. However the bible never taught that the child was free from sin until this times so keep in mind this was only a Jewish belief much like the age of accountability today. Finally keep in mind that for the most of their history the Jew has been in blindness to any truth about their own scriptures. An example is that the Jew was taught that the rich were first in line for heaven. They also taught that because they were Abrahams children no matter how bad they lived Abraham sat at the door of Heaven to snatch them as they might pass by after death and cast them into heaven. So looking at what the Jew believes or does not believe is not always a good idea. Just hold onto scripture. The scripture is not clear on the issue of babies or children. We can hope for some provision for them but none is spelled out, and since there is no clear teaching we should not try and suggest that there is or that God has to honor what we feel is right.

Thank you for your honest and forthright response. I for one "choose" to believe that God makes some provision or special grace for those who pass away very young, or for that matter, those who are unfortunately plagued with mental infirmities. I choose that because "I think" the pages of scripture teach many things about God, and one of the namely being that He is a God of Love. Again, I thank you.

 

[freeatlast]

Thank you for your honest and forthright response. I for one "choose" to believe that God makes some provision or special grace for those who pass away very young, or for that matter, those who are unfortunately plagued with mental infirmities. I choose that because "I think" the pages of scripture teach many things about God, and one of the namely being that He is a God of Love. Again, I thank you.

Your very welcome. I choose to hope there is a provision which I base on my understanding of the mercy of God, but I can only teach that there might be since I cannot say with any assurance based on scripture. God bless

 

[percho]

The scriptures were silent for them also. However many Jews taught that because of the Bar Mitzvah at around 12 for girls and 13 for boys that the child was not accountable for their sin until that age. The bar mitzvah ceremony is not required, and does not fulfill any commandment. Also the bible never taught that the child was free from sin until this age so keep in mind this was only a Jewish belief much like the age of accountability today. Finally keep in mind that for the most of their history the Jew has been in blindness to any truth about their own scriptures. An example is that the Jew was taught that the rich were first in line for heaven. Some also taught that because they were Abrahams children no matter how bad they lived or even if they did not believe in God that Abraham sat at the door of Heaven to snatched them up as they might pass by after death and cast them into heaven. So looking at what the Jew believes or does not believe is not always a good idea. Just hold onto scripture or the lack there of. The scripture is not clear on the issue of babies or children. We can hope for some provision for them but none is spelled out, and since there is no clear teaching we should not try and suggest that there is or that God has to honor what we feel is right because we feel this is what a loving and merciful God would do.

The most honest post concerning the opinions of most on this subject.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Thank you for your honest and forthright response. I for one "choose" to believe that God makes some provision or special grace for those who pass away very young, or for that matter, those who are unfortunately plagued with mental infirmities. I choose that because "I think" the pages of scripture teach many things about God, and one of the namely being that He is a God of Love. Again, I thank you.

I would like to pose a question. What is the difference between the child or infirm adult and the adult who has never heard the name of Christ? Where does Scripture differentiate between those who do cannot understand because of age or infirmity and those who do not understand because they have not heard? Romans 10:13-14

We say that a righteous God is justified in condemning those to hell who were never given the opportunity to chose Life, but then we'll turn around and claim that a loving God will make exceptions for age & mental conditions. Is this not a glaring contradiction? Unbelievers make the same argument that a loving God will not condemn anyone who has not heard.

So, how do we justify this contradiction of changing the bar of regeneration depending upon the object of our beliefs? Is it based upon Biblical fact or conjecture?

Also how do the following verses play into the discussion, or does it? I've heard many preachers dance around these verses over the years. They are thought-provoking passages. Could it be that those of a believers family are covered, but not the families of unbelievers?

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31-33 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

 

[Tom Butler]

I cannot agree with infants having no sin, however. Every human is born in and with sin. You are suggesting that sin is only something we do. That is only half of the issue. It is also what we fail to do, and in that case, infants are still not "innocent." If infants can somehow get a pass on their sin (and sin nature) then we are stuck at a point where we have to draw a line. The question is where?

I have kids... I've seen other people's kids. They have sin, even before they have voices. No one has to teach them how to be selfish. No one has to teach them to lie. No one has to teach them to blame someone else for their sin. They just seem to know (and in fact, we WORK to teach them otherwise).

I still propose that the best, safest, and most sure way to hold the issue of the salvation of children is to trust in God's grace. Any other means falls far short, just like it does for we "grown-ups." As I have said repeatedly in these posts, God has hinted that He has a grace for children. He has not come out and told us that "all children will be saved -- period." That is no more true for children than for the entire human race, as children are just as human and in the exact same place as all of us, save for their age.

I agree that we don't have all the answers, but I think the scriptures are not completely silent on the subject.

I don't find that the scriptures condemn us for our sinful nature. We are condemned because we sin.

And like you, I am willing to trust God's grace for the future of infants who die.