Who here thinks babies go to heaven ?

Aaron,

this seems like a radical viewpoint, are there others who believe like this? I mean is this your own study?

I don't know if I agree with you or not, but I appreciate your explaining it to me.

Thanks!

 

With this line of thinking, my dog would understand pretty good, also.

Bapmom, don't be deceived. What you are reading is the flawed view of a reformer who thinks there is a special "saving faith" given only to some to use, regardless of age. This is false doctrine. The Bible is THE ONLY source on how to define faith. Faith comes by HEARING and HEARING from the Word of God. Faith is the substance of things hoped for that are unseen. This in NOWAY applies to infants!

 

webdog,

thanks for your concern. I understand.

 

It seems radical, yes, because we're not used to hearing it explained that way. (And I will admit, that I'm not explaining it as well as I'd like to.) The Bible clearly says that the natural man cannot receive the things of God, because they're foolishness to him. Carl Sagan had no more capacity to believe in the Gospel than Helen Keller (prior to her training from Anne Sullivan).

So that is the first thing that must be understood. The flesh is powerless to comprehend and respond to the Gospel. It doesn't matter what one's mentality is. It's with the heart that man believeth unto righteousness, not his brain.

Second, what I used to believe about spirits I found to be unfounded in the Scriptures, and that what most people assume about them is based on what they see on the outside. The fact that we're told we cannot make righteous judgments based on the outward appearance tells me that what can be seen with the natural eyes is nothing like what cannot be seen. The things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The eternal spirit of a man is nothing like the body it inhabited, and so with infants. We cannot think of them in the same terms, because they're not the same. But...

most of the emotional reaction we have to the condemnation of people who die as infants is due to the fact that we are not thinking correctly about them.

 

but is what you are saying actually reform theology? It sounds like it might be a lead in to inclusivism.....God might choose to extend His grace to those who never had the chance to reject Him?

Then again, I just had a thought. We grow spiritually, so to say that an infant obviously already has a fully mature soul is not necessarily true. The soul either is "zapped" into the baby at a specific time, or it begins with conception as a "seed soul", and gradually grows.....I guess thats not the only possibility, but it is one of them.

Because we know that we do grow in our spirit....so it is not necessarily true that baby's have fully developed souls. We don't even really know what the soul is.

 

Welcome to calvinism!
</font>[/QUOTE]Many Calvinists, myself included, believe that infants who die are saved. I don't suppose there's any point in expecting an apology, though.

 

Travelsong,

but don't you think that they wouldn't be saying that sort of thing to the grieving parents in reality?

I wouldn't think so. So I would hesitate to call them monsters just because thats their belief......

 

Do you know of someone who actually said that?

 

Travel,

I agree with your conclusion....I believe my babies are in Heaven.....but I don't think I get my belief from the fact that no one in counselling would ever say otherwise.

Im not trying to argue with you....Im sorry.

Its late for me.....

 

In a way, that's what I'm saying. They can be saved if they receive the Gospel message, and that it's no more a miracle that an infant believes than an adult. (Less of one actually.) And yes, the fruit of that seed is borne later.
</font>[/QUOTE]Aaron, I've read your posts and have been thinking over what you've said. This is the problem I see with your thinking:

To say that because God looks on the heart does not necessarily mean that a child is able to comprehend or believe the gospel.

To say that the natural man cannot understand the things of God does not mean that it follows that infants can understand.

It seems you are making conclusions based on negative information, i.e., God looks on the heart and not the outward appearance, therefore, babies have a comprehension of the gospel we can't see.

Natural man cannot understand the gospel, therefore, babies can because the understanding comes from God.

There's a flaw of logic here.

We know babies do not have the ability to understand speech and certainly not any concepts. Even if understanding or faith comes from God, a baby is not mentally capable of that as far as we know. And just because we don't know if they can believe or not, it does not follow that they are able to. It seems to stretch credulity to say a baby can have faith in God if presented with the gospel when they show no understanding of things like this.

 

That's not what was said. I said an adult can do no better than an infant to comprehend the Gospel. I said these things are spiritually discerned. The spirit of man, whether the body is an adult or infant, can only know human things, but only the Spirit of God can know divine things. (1 Cor. 2:11)

To say that the natural man cannot understand the things of God does not mean that it follows that infants can understand.

That's right. Where did I say that? I simply said that natural men cannot see things the way God sees them, and that our view of the eternal destinies of those who die as infants is usually based on erroneous, though common, notions. Honestly, would anyone think twice about it if they didn't have in their minds the thoughts of babies in heaven or hell. And the only reason they think of them that way is because they are judging spiritual things by the way things appear to their natural eyes.

It seems you are making conclusions based on negative information, i.e., God looks on the heart and not the outward appearance, therefore, babies have a comprehension of the gospel we can't see.

No, God looks on the heart, therefore He does not see things the way we see them. When He sees an infant, he does not see a helpless innocent. He sees a heart full sin.

Natural man cannot understand the gospel, therefore, babies can because the understanding comes from God.

I said, anyone, adult or otherwise, who receives the Gospel, cannot do so without the Holy Spirit.

There's a flaw of logic here.

The flaw is in how you managed to wring the conclusions you did from anything I said.

Let me clear it up for you. Babies have no defacto standing with Christ. There is nothing in the Scripture to lead one to think so. If one who died as an infant is in hell, he is there justly, and he is not there as a baby-shaped entity wondering why he is suffering as he is. From the moment of conception, the carnal heart of the child is at enmity with God, and the thoughts and feelings of the heart is something that you cannot see or rightly judge. But God can.

If one who died as an infant is in heaven, he is there only because his spirit was regenerated by the Holy Ghost and he received the Gospel. Again, the thoughts and intents of the heart are not something that you can see or rightly judge. But God can. And does.

We know babies do not have the ability to understand speech and certainly not any concepts. Even if understanding or faith comes from God, a baby is not mentally capable of that as far as we know.

You only have some notion about the brain of the child. It does not follow that the spirit of the child is thus limited.

But, no flesh will glory in His sight. It matters not what the brain can comprehend, but the spirit.

And just because we don't know if they can believe or not, it does not follow that they are able to. It seems to stretch credulity to say a baby can have faith in God if presented with the gospel when they show no understanding of things like this.

First, the Gospel is not received by any flesh. It is received by the spirit. Anyone, adult or infant, who receives the Gospel does so in his spirit, but not in his human spirit. He receives it in his new spirit, the one born of God. This "new man" is spiritual, and it is more incredulous to make judgments about the perceptions and mentality of the new man based on what you see with your natural eyes.

God has said to us over and over that we cannot do that. Why do you insist on doing otherwise?

Besides, I now know I should have objected to bapmom's phrasing of the question, "presented with the Gospel." That's why I said "In a way," that's what I'm saying. But I didn't want to "mince words." How is an infant presented with the Gospel? You can't take an infant down the Roman Road. Heck, over half the people taken down the Roman Road fall away.

What I am saying is, that it's possible for an infant to receive the Gospel, because it's a spiritual phemnomenon, not a natural one.

 

But Aaron, one must understand the words of the gospel to receive it, even if it is by the spirit.

If a Turkish unbeliever hears the gospel in Chinese, he cannot understand it. Even if the Spirit makes the gospel miraculously understandable to the unbeliever, the Turkish person will understand it in words (see Acts re speaking in tongues). God speaks to us in words in the Bible. A baby does not understand words. Words are the vehicle of the message, even if it is the Spirit that enables understanding.

God has also said

I am not disagreeing that it is by the Spirit that we understand, but we still understand through concepts/words. Nothing in the Bible clearly points to anything otherwise that I am aware of.

 

First, only an oaf, a spiritual klutz, would be so, well, stupid as to word something like that.

But what kind of consolation can be offered to those who are not of the household of faith? I wouldn't offer any words of comfort to them. I would simply be there to take on some chores to relieve them for a while during their grief. If asked why God would allow this or that, I would give a very brief, to the point answer, and one that maintained His righteousness and glory. I might say, "I don't understand why a lot of things happen, but I do know that you're not alone in your grief. Now, I've stocked your freezer with a week's worth of food, I've mowed your lawn and cleaned your house. Oh, here's some cash to get you through a week off of work. Is there anything else I can do for you right now? No? Well, you're certainly in our prayers. Call me if there's anything else you need."

Only those with faith in God could conceivably receive any comfort from the fact that God judges righteously.

Often, the tired old, "We know your dearly departed is in a better place," is shallow comfort at best. And frankly, worldly people don't care. They're probably bitter that the child was "cheated" out of a life. And they don't really believe the kid is better off anyway.

 

The Word of God is not a language, it is Christ. He is the Word. The Spirit does not incorporate words in its intercession, but groanings, Rom. 8:26. Christ, when He made intercession, was with loud crying and tears. His Spirit, through David said, "Attend unto me, and hear me: I mourn in my complaint, and make a noise."

If there is no language, there are groanings, crying, tears and mourning.

[NOTE: This is NOT the gift of tongues, nor is it P & W.]

 

The words of this hymn came to me while writing my last post:

What language shall I borrow
to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
For this Thy dying sorrow
And pity without end?

 

All I've said can be summed up thusly:

1) Our ideas about the eternal destiny of infants are usually based on erroneous, unbiblical notions.

2) Children do not enjoy a defacto standing with Christ. If they are saved, they are saved in the way ordained, receiving the Gospel and believing in Christ.