Who goes to Heaven?

[pinoybaptist]

whooops !! Sorry about that, CS Murphy. I had meant to reply with a quote, no offense.

I have known a lot of Christians who have lost children and yet believe that it is possible their baby may not be in heaven, but certainly hope they are.
Whether we hurt or not, the Bible still says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God....
and the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life thru Christ our Lord".
It is on this verse, and others speaking of the fallen and condemned state of humankind, fetus, baby, adult, intelligent or moronic, normal or retarded, that I base my belief because the Bible does not clearly state that babies and retarded are exempt.
I wish babies were exempt, given the joy their innocent smiles give, but that is all I can do, wish.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by blackbird:
We've been talking about babies going to heaven! Another question that will stump the best "Calvin" boy is this--what about those who are "retarded"--those who are incapable of comprehending the need for salvation? I believe that God's word teaches as a whole that those folks are "safe" in Jesus! What about it?

First, there are no "Calvin" boys in this board.
Second, provide your proof-texts for what you believe about those folks, and I mean, texts that clearly state babies go to heaven, and retarded folks do too because they cannot comprehend the need for salvation.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by blackbird:
We've been talking about babies going to heaven! Another question that will stump the best "Calvin" boy is this--what about those who are "retarded"--those who are incapable of comprehending the need for salvation? I believe that God's word teaches as a whole that those folks are "safe" in Jesus! What about it?

First, there are no "Calvin" boys in this board.
Second, provide your proof-texts for what you believe about those folks, and I mean, texts that clearly state babies go to heaven, and retarded folks do too because they cannot comprehend the need for salvation.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, folks, my blood sugar seems to be high tonight, so the mistakes.
I have to rephrase "babies go to heaven" to "all babies go to heaven".

 

[Me2]

Isnt The Topic concerning Limited or Unlimited Atonement.

Of Whether Jesus Died For All Sin of The World, thus ENDING The Curse Of The Law Against All Mankind and Creation
..or Did Jesus ONLY DIE for those fortunate people who comprehend what God Is Doing For Their lives.

Did God Impute Christ Righteousness To All Or Only Those Who Recognize What Christ Did For Them AND Accept The Subsitutionary Death for Their own Sins against God.

So Is It Limited..For Only Some.... or Unlimited...for All Sin.

My Opinion...
God Saves ALL.....(and)... God CALLS OUT HIS ELECT...its TWO different actions

God Imputes Righteousness to All...But The Veil Is Still In Place.
God Unveils Some and Calls Them to Be Elected To Become A Part Of Christ Visible Body.
This is a Special Calling but it does not Take Away The imputed Righteousness to The Rest of The Un-Called Population of Mankind. At Death They will be Taught about God By The Visible Body Of Christ in Heaven...

His Elect Follow A Specific Lifestyle To Accomplish A Certain GOAL..To Be Examples of the Activities of A Merciful God of A Sample Group Representing All Of Mankind, throughout all of the History of Mankind. They Are Called Christ Body..The Sons of God...They will have A Special Purpose of God in Eternity. APART from the general population of citizens of Heaven.

So that All others outside that group of Specifically Called Out Individuals are citizens of Heaven. Everybody Gets saved..Even our Enemies.

 

[KEVO]

C.S.,I agree with you. God help anyone who thinks a baby or a mentally retarted person can go to hell.This is where it is real hard for me to not to do any name calling. People please just use a little common sense!

 

[Lorelei]

James 2:13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
Pastor Larry,
May I respectfully acknowledge that you meant 2 Timothy 2:8-10.

Thank you. I thought I had changed. I first put 1 Timothy and then realized I typed it wrong adn thought I had changed. I even looked it up to read it again.

I do believe that Paul is referring to the church when he talks of the elect, because in this age, one is elected into the church, the body of Christ. But I cannot see from this text how you place this election after salvation. Paul was in prison for preaching the gospel to lost people, not to people already saved. In Philippians 1, he confirms this very issue. But Paul was willing to suffer that imprisonment because it was resulting in teh salvation of the elect.

I would think your burden of proof is to show how Paul's imprisonment is bringing about the final or physical salvation of the elect. That seem foreign to teh context and to the use of the words.

Their salvation, though they were elected, could not be secured without proper efforts. The meaning of the apostle here is, that he was willing to suffer if he might save others; and any one ought to be willing to suffer in order to secure the salvation of the elect. When you say, It is important to note that Paul was addressing Christians when he spoke of their "future salvation.", have you not added "future" into the equation because of your theology rather than because of what the text says??

You are right that something must be done to secure the salvation of the elect. We must preach teh gospel because God has chosen some to salvation. However, I can't see from the text your contention that it is physical/final salvation rather than present/spiritual salvation.

As for those who can't see why God would send a baby or a mentally incapacitated person to hell, while I don't believe that he does, I do understand the reality of adamic sin and that no one is excused from that. God will do what is right and just. He will send no one to hell that does not deserve it because of sin. I would simply remind you that people who disagree with us do have theological reasons that extend beyond "I can't understand" and "Parents in distress need comfort."

 

[Me2]

and yet another contention.....
If Jesus Died For The Sin of The World bringing an end to The Curse Of The Law towards Mankind....Why Is There a continuation of Any Thoughts of Retribution or Punishment Of GOD towards Sin....When Original Sin Is No Longer a Problem between God and His Creation..All Penalties Have Been Paid For.

No Babies Can "Go To Hell" because there is no longer a need for a Place of Punishment.
Revelation Is A Book Of Something That Has Already Happened..
The Revealing or the Unveiling of The Lord Jesus Christ To Mankind
In It We Find Hell WAS Destroyed.

Limited or Unlimited Atonement...By A Limited or Unlimited God ?

[ August 12, 2002, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Me2 ]

 

[Bible-belted]

It be consideed common sense that all babies go to heaven, but that doesn't make it good sense. When you brake it down logically the idea that all babes go to heaven really isn't good sense at all. Its an emotioal argument really, and emotuion rarely makes good sense, even if it is common sense.

Ask yourself: are you a universalist? No? Why not? Any argument mustered against universalism applies to the question of infants and the mentally challenged. Why be inconsistent in the application?

I think the reason for the inconisstency has to do with our empotional response to the death of a baby. We seem to be more at ease with the death of older people because "they had a chance to live" or something like that. The idea seems to be that death for the young is unfair, tragic, while the death of an elderly person is not, or at least less so.

I don't see that as a biblical perspective. I believe that death is unfair and tragic regardless of who it happens to.

Me2:

The discussion isn't necessarily so easily framed along line of limited or unlimited atonement. There are Calvanists who hold to Unliited Atonement but not universal salvation.

 

[Helen]

I don't think it is 'universal salvation' to realize -- based on Scripture -- that God does not hold an individual responsible for his or her sins if that individual is not aware of the law or is too young to comprehend it. I think you will find this in the Old and New Testaments.

In the Old in the fact that those under 20 were allowed into the Promised Land whether or not they had been with the elder generation in rebellion. In the New in regards to Romans 7:7-11, as previously posted here -- as well as other verses posted by other people.

Again, this does not deny the intrinsic sin nature we are all conceived in and born with. However individual accountability is a different matter. No one can be held accountable for a 'birth defect' he or she was born with. And that is exactly what our sin natures are: birth defects. We are subject to them but not responsible for them.

Granted we are finite human beings and cannot understand God except where He has revealed Himself to us. I am not arguing that either, but I will state that He gave us as well as an intrinsic sin nature, an intrinsic sense of what justice and mercy both are -- in part so we could comprehend His work with us and His nature. In Isaiah 1 He invites the sinner to come and reason with Him. In other words, He gave us our brains for a purpose.

The random condemnation of babies offends our sense of justice, our sense of mercy, our reason, and our knowledge of the loving nature of God. And it does this for a very good reason: because it is not true and it DOES offend justice, mercy, reason, and the character of God! Jesus covered the sins of babies as He covered all other unknown sins and unintentional sins as they were also covered as part of the Mosaic sacrificial system -- and Jesus was one sacrifice for ALL sin -- that's in Hebrews.

We can't pick and choose verses to suit our particular theology. The Bible comes in the context of itself and must be considered as a whole. It explains itself over and over.

The kids are HIS.

 

[Bible-belted]

I didn't say that to hold to the ageof accountability idea is to hold to universalism.

I said that any argument that reftues universalism also applies to the idea of age of accountability.

And there are no Scrptures which support the idea of capacity being relevant to salvation. Entering the Land is not the same thing as entering heaven for one thing, and ther is still no reason to think that cpapacity had anyuthing to do with God's grace inthat situation. Did the young ones know about good and evil? No. But that only meant that they didn't perform to sin that got the adults banned from the promised land. IMO it is about opportunity, not capacity.

The comparison just insn't valid.

Besides, there is no way aroung Paul's argument in Romans. He makes no allowance for capacity as an exception. His argument admits no exceptions at all.

The argument from Romans 7 just misunderstands that passsage, and badly IMO.

Helen said: "No one can be held accountable for a 'birth defect' he or she was born with. And that is exactly what our sin natures are: birth defects. We are subject to them but not responsible for them."

And yet this is exactly what Paul denies in Romans 1. No exceptions ar epossible in his argument. Same goes for "all have sinned". Responsibility is very much in view.

But let's extend Helen's argument. If sin is just another birth defect, then people aren't really sinners, they're just sick. No one ought to be held responsible. And yet they are. See? the birth defect doesn't go away after 20 or whatver age. You may argue that they are condemned for the sins they actually do after they are responsible, but then I can use the birth defect argument: They aren't responsible. They are just acting within their capacity. it isn't their fault. They are not responsible.

It is really a very bad argument, and denies too much Scripture to be valid.

That babies go to hell may well offend our sensibilities. But then that is what I was saying: ti is about US, and what we want to be true, influenceing our reading of things. To say that becuiase it offends what we see as justice does not mean it offends God's justice. I could as easily makje that argument and use it to support universalism.

Again we see it: arguments in support of all babies going to heaven are usable to support universalism, and arguments used against universalism are also against all babies going to heaven. We are just inconsistent at this point because, IMO, our emotions get in the way.

 

[Me2]

Framing An Argument First Based On Preying on the Emotional Distraught is Unfair. The Fear of Death is Controversial even among enlightened Believers.
The Simplicity of Gods Plan Of Salvation is Almost unbelievable. At Least To Anyone That Struggles in an unfair world That is Based on Pain and Suffering.
Mankind wants to Bring Down God To His Level. Confusing the Condescending Nature of God Likened unto Sinful Man. Fortunately God Is In Full Control and making all the Decisions about His Creation.
and It Has Been Mans Inconsistency of understanding That Has Been The Problem Throughout All Of History.

God Is Infinite Love... It Is Man That Cannot "See" this Nature.
God Says That Jesus Died For All Sin of The World..He Didnt Ask You Or Me..
God Imputed This Righteous Nature on Mankind..He Didnt Ask You or Me..
God Draws Man To Share In This Nature While in a State Of Death (Now)
Again..He Didnt Ask You or Me.
God Hides These Truths From Many People While They Live....He Didnt Ask You or Me
God Confuses The Truth To Many People While They Struggle To "Find" God..
Again..He Didnt Ask You or Me
God Imphatically States That He Loves ALL MEN....everyone!....He Didnt Ask you or Me

What Im Trying To Say Is That God Doesnt Ask Us To Figure Something Out by Asking us What We Think of His Actions and Goals...He Simply Says Accept It

Father Forgive Them For They Know Not What They Do...Thats Simplicity



Now We Are Interjecting Unlimited Atonement For only A Select Group Of People
"ALL of GODS PEOPLE"...? (Still Is Limited Atonement..Just Restated differently)

Mankind is Still Trying To Set Limits on Gods Atonement.

 

[Bible-belted]

Me2:

"Framing An Argument First Based On Preying on the Emotional Distraught is Unfair."

I agree. But I don't see anyone doing that except some of those who would insist that all babaies (or all people) go to heaven. Anyone who objects is made to look monstrous. That's intimidation, not theology.

" Mankind wants to Bring Down God To His Level."

Again, I agree. But again I see those who push for universalism (or a universal exception) as being the ones doing that. The idea that something is wrong because it offends US... granted that there is not a total disconnect betwen God's sense of justice and ours, we need to grapple more with the Total Depravity in this area.

" God Is Infinite Love"

Again, Agree. But that isn't the whjole truth. it is only part of it. God is also Holy And Just.

"Now We Are Interjecting Unlimited Atonement For only A Select Group Of People "ALL of GODS PEOPLE"...? (Still Is Limited Atonement..Just Restated differently)"

This is a patently uninformed opinion. If you want to say that it still isn;t Universalism, then that's certainly true. But Limited and Unlimited Atonement are not the same thing at all.
"Mankind is Still Trying To Set Limits on Gods Atonement."

Actually man is trying to understand the limits that God has set upon His work. As you yourself say, it is up to us to just accept it. Soem however, for whatever reason, are reticent to do so.

I do thank you though for this much: you post highlights the close connection between universalism and the "universal exception".

 

[C.S. Murphy]

I once again propose this discussion is pointless.
On one hand we have some who speak from the heart of God while others make points about the unavoidable penalties of sin. I will not begin to believe that I would change anyones mind but here is my offering. In an earlier post it was bounced around that David's words and actions reguarding his dead child was indicative of Scriptural truth. I do believe this to be the case and reject totally the comment made that possibly David meant only that he would follow his child to the grave. To believe this one must assume two things, #1 that 2 tim 3:16 is not accurate(now that is another thread right) and #2 that David didn't know what he was talking about. Since I refuse to believe point one lets look at David's integrity as far as Biblical truth goes. Remember this is the man after God's own heart, remember this is the sweet psalmist who not only wrote beautiful words but was definately inspired(Psalm 22) So to believe this I must accept that although David knew God in so many respects in this instance he totally blew it. After the childs death he washed up had dinner and made love to his wife, but you think his solace was that he would rot in the ground with his dead baby someday. I believe David knew full well the fate of his child and it was not because he was David's and it was not because of election. To carry this further, if any of you honestly believe that these babies are going to hell then I can't understand why all you electionists are not lining up outside the abortion clinics. Jesus said whosoever will may come and I will never believe that He disqualifies those who cannot come. 1 Corinthians 10:13 tells us that God always provides a way of escape so why would He not for babies?
Murphy

 

[David Cooke Jr]

Who goes to heaven? Whoever God decides.
I myself cannot imagine a graceless, merciless God who denies infants into his eternal fellowship. I think all babies go to heaven, but I won't know for sure till I'm there with God.

 

[Bible-belted]

C.S. Murphy:

" I do believe this to be the case and reject totally the comment made that possibly David meant only that he would follow his child to the grave. To believe this one must assume two things, #1 that 2 tim 3:16 is not accurate(now that is another thread right) and #2 that David didn't know what he was talking about."

That's not correct IMO. David was talking about himself and his child; his situation. There is no reason to say that he was making a universally applicable statement of faith, that what is true for him must be true for all. That being the case there is no conflict with 2Tim at all, nor does it mean that David didn't know what he was talking about. You don't have to thnk tha David blew it, only that David was talking about his situation, and not enunciating an across the board theological principle. Given the nature of the psalm, and the circumstances surrounding its wiritng, it seems less likely that David would be theologising at this point, but rather stating gis own conviction about his personal situation. There is no reason to think that he was trying to make a declaration about anyone else.

I would also pooint out that you misrepresent my case in saying that "1 Corinthians 10:13 tells us that God always provides a way of escape so why would He not for babies?" as if I hold that NO babies go to heaven. I just deny that balnket statements can be made.

For this reason I find the words of Dacid Cooke Jr. very wise: "Who goes to heaven? Whoever God decides. I myself cannot imagine a graceless, merciless God who denies infants into his eternal fellowship. I think all babies go to heaven, but I won't know for sure till I'm there with God."

Now I don't agree that all babies go to heaven. But there is great wisdom in affirming that it is up to God whatever the case may be, and we won't really know until we are in heaven ourselves. Dogmatism is unwarranted. That should impact what we share on the question with those grieving. Offer them God, His grace, His hope. But not our own opinions. Affirm what we know for sure, not what we can only guess at.

 

[Me2]

Hi Latreia,
Doesnt It Bother You Spiritually That You Can Say That You Dont Know If God Allows All Babies To Enter into Heaven ?
Wouldnt You Want To Know What Is The Deciding Factors That Allows God To Make Such allowances while Denying The Entrance of others ?

and by the way..I Dont understand what universalism is. or universal exception.
Im Baptist denomination that Acceptes That Jesus Died For All. I Realize That From What the Character Of God Is and His Will For His Creation.

Me2

 

[Bible-belted]

Hello Me2:

"Doesnt It Bother You Spiritually That You Can Say That You Dont Know If God Allows All Babies To Enter into Heaven ?"

Of course. I would be much more comfortable, in some ways, if I could be absolutely certain that all babies go to heaven. I am personally affected by the issue remember!

"Wouldnt You Want To Know What Is The Deciding Factors That Allows God To Make Such allowances while Denying The Entrance of others ?"

What makes you think that I don't? For that matter, what makes you think you do?

In a nutshell, people are condemned for rejecting God as God, whatever awareness they may have of God. They are received into heaven based on God's electing them to believe and trust in Jesus, His person and work.

"and by the way..I Dont understand what universalism is. or universal exception.
Im Baptist denomination that Acceptes That Jesus Died For All. I Realize That From What the Character Of God Is and His Will For His Creation."

Universalism is the idea that all people, without exception, go to heaven. Your posts lean strongly in that direction. If I have misread you then please correct me and I'll apologise accordingly.

Universal exception is my own term. It means that babies (and all others of mental incapacity) are excepted from the effects of Original Sin.

As I mentioned Unlimited Atonement affirms that Jesus died for all. But you seem to think that this id just like limioted Atonement. I infer from this that you don't like the fact that it still affirms that some go to Hell. Hence my thinking you are a Universalist iin your soteriology.

 

[Me2]

Hi Latreia,
I Seem To Be Saying That I Believe That Everyone Will Be Saved. But Through The Blood Of Jesus Christ. Thats a big challenge to even compehend.
You Start Off With God Is Love. He Loves His Creation. His Will Is That All be Saved. His Blood Covered All Transgressions Against His Law Against Himself...You Cant Get any more Finished Than That. Hmmm...oh yea there is...
My God Is Sovereign Too. You Cant Deny His Power Of Imputing Righteousness.

So....
All of Your Babies Are Sinless..Jesus Paid For Their Sin
And They Have No Place To Go....No Hell,. No Place of Punishment

My Jesus Died For All Sin...

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Latreia:
C.S. Murphy:

" &lt;snip&gt;I would also pooint out that you misrepresent my case in saying that "1 Corinthians 10:13 tells us that God always provides a way of escape so why would He not for babies?" as if I hold that NO babies go to heaven. I just deny that balnket statements can be made.

I agree there, Latreia. Unless there is anything in Scripture that says babies (and the mentally retarded) are exempt from God's judgment on sin, then any blanket pro or con statement on the issue will be just speculative and extra-scriptural. i believe some go to heaven, some don't, but like David Cooke said:"'sall up to God."