Who here thinks babies go to heaven ?

[RightFromWrong]

Pipedude......ALL babies are of the elect ! on the condition that God says ALL people will go

MARK 3:28-29 says " Truly I say to you ALL SINS will be forgiven of man and whatever blasphemies they utter; BUT whoever blasphemes AGAINST the Holy Spirit NEVER has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL SIN !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Michael Hobbs]

Re: Age of Accountability

Numbers 14:26-32
And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, which murmur against me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they murmur against me. Say unto them, As truly as I live, saith the LORD, as ye have spoken in mine ears, so will I do to you: Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me, Doubtless ye shall not come into the land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.
But your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised.
But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilderness.

My thoughts are as follows:
1. The name of every soul that God has created is initally written in the Book of Life.
2. Those that reject the wooing of the Holy Spirit and commit the 'unpardonable sin', their name is marked out of the Book of Life.
3. Children under the age of accountability and mentally challenged people never commit the 'unpardonable sin' and thus, their name is never marked out.

 

[RightFromWrong]

Very interesting, surely something to think about.

may I ask what " The unpardonable sin is " ?

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
Very interesting, surely something to think about.

may I ask what " The unpardonable sin is " ?

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said we can blaspheme the Son of Man, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. Jesus was basically saying that people can attribute His miracles to satan while He was still on earth, and still have the opportunity to put faith in Him at a later date, but to die attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to satan is, basically, satanism / atheism. We know what happens when an atheist dies without putting their faith in Christ.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by webdog:
We know David was the apple of God's eye, and if God's Word says he is going to be with his son, we have to assume it is Heaven by the context.

No, actually we don't have to read that into a verse where it isn't present. I have no doubt David went to heaven. However, it seems quite obvious that David was just speaking about the grave here, not an eternal destination.

A somewhat compelling case for all babies going to heaven can be made from other passages, but using this one to support it is reading into Scripture, in my opinion. It's no better than using what Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 says about humans and beasts going to the same place after they die to claim that all animals go to heaven.

Originally posted by RightFromWrong:
Mercury......You dind't make any sense. David said he would SEE his Child that is the HOPE he had.

Which verse/translation are you reading that has David saying he will see his child? It's not in 2 Samuel 12:23.

 

[RightFromWrong]

thanks Webdog that is what I was hoping was the answer, although I would like to hear what HE thought it was.

So in other words he Agrees with what I had said about Mark 3:28-29

 

[RightFromWrong]

Mercury how can you see someone from the grave ? I am taking this to mean " IN THE GROUND "?

Anyway that wouldn't make any sense Since David was so DEVISTATED by the LOSS of his son. That his hope was for eternity ?

The whole bases for babies going to Heaven was in MARK 3:28-29 which includes EVERYONE period !

 

[webdog]

No, actually we don't have to read that into a verse where it isn't present. I have no doubt David went to heaven. However, it seems quite obvious that David was just speaking about the grave here, not an eternal destination.

No...you are reading into this passage that David is referring to the grave (sheol). The hebrew word sheol is not found in this verse. The only conclusion we can get then, is David is going to where his son is (and it's not the grave). For not reading into this passage, you sure read a lot into it!

A somewhat compelling case for all babies going to heaven can be made from other passages, but using this one to support it is reading into Scripture, in my opinion.

Again, sheol (the grave) is not mentioned in this passage. I am eisegeting nothing.

It's no better than using what Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 says about humans and beasts going to the same place after they die to claim that all animals go to heaven.

I have never heard someone use Ecc. 3 to justify animals going to heaven. Now THATS reading into something that's not there, as the context is physical death (returning to dust).

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by webdog:
No...you are reading into this passage that David is referring to the grave (sheol). The hebrew word sheol is not found in this verse. The only conclusion we can get then, is David is going to where his son is (and it's not the grave). For not reading into this passage, you sure read a lot into it!

I said there were two options. One is consistent with other similar passages (such as Genesis 37:35) while the other is not. That is why I prefer the interpretation that David is referring to Sheol.

Again, sheol (the grave) is not mentioned in this passage.

Nor is heaven. Nor is David seeing his son.

I have never heard someone use Ecc. 3 to justify animals going to heaven. Now THATS reading into something that's not there, as the context is physical death (returning to dust).

Exactly!

That's the context of 2 Samuel 12:21-23 too.

 

[APuritanMindset]

Originally posted by Brother Ian:
David spoke of hsi dead infant in 2 Samuel 12:23. He said that he would go to his son because his son could not return to him.

Obviously, the child could not have come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ at that age. I believe this indicates that babies are covered by the grace of God and if they die, they will go to heaven. David knew he would see his child again and the only place to do that would be heaven.

I don't think that the case of infant salvation can be made from the statement that David made. The text reads,

He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, 'Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Samuel 12:22-23 ESV)

This says nothing of heaven at all. We can't read that into the text really either. The Hebrew people in that day did not have the same understanding of an afterlife that we have today. This is shown true from this verse from Psalm 9 (which was written by David)

The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God. (Psalms 9:17 ESV)

and also this statement in Ecclesiastes

For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 ESV)

What David was most likely referring to was "Sheol", the place of the dead. We always interpret that as Hell, but that is not what they understood it as. They had an understanding that said that when people died, all went to the same place. David was saying, in light of this, "My son can't be brought back to life, but I can die and be with him in the grave [Sheol, the place of the dead]."

We understand more fully now because of what Jesus revealed to us, but I don't think that we can Scripturally make a case for infant salvation from this passage of Scripture.

 

[APuritanMindset]

Looks like people beat me to my response...oops

 

[webdog]

I said there were two options. One is consistent with other similar passages (such as Genesis 37:35) while the other is not. That is why I prefer the interpretation that David is referring to Sheol.

Genesis 37:35 is talking about Jacob. Two totally separate instances, which do not mean one supports the other other than man has to die first.
But to play along, the text reads..."For I shall go down into the grave to my son in mourning." Going down into the grave....to my son. Not the same thing, but a sequence similar to baptism where the word baptism always followed the word believe. Jacob went to the grave, then to his son as did David. You still are reading more into the text than is there since "going down into the grave" is not found in 2 Samuel.

 

[RightFromWrong]

David believed in life after death and the resurrection PS.16:10–11, so when he spoke of going to be with his son who died after birth 2 SAM. 12:23, he implied that those who die in infancy go to heaven. Also PSALM 139 speaks of an unborn baby as a creation of God whose name is written down in God’s " book " in heaven 139:14–16.

 

[Johnv]

But there was no resurrection as we know it from the NT in David's time.

 

[RightFromWrong]

People in the OT especially the Jews all knew of what was to come in the NT. The OT pointed to Christ. In fact everything about the OT pointed to Christ.

PALMS 16:10-11

For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol;
Neither wilt Thou allow Thy HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.

Thou wilt make known to me the path of life;
in Thy PRESENCE is fulness of joy;
In Thy right hand there are pleasures forever.

 

[Mercury]

By the time of Jesus there were many controversies among the Jews, including over whether or not there would be a resurrection. Matthew 22:23-33 records the controversy, and also settles the answer to it for Christians.

Jesus revealed more than was known in Old Testament times.

 

[Rhetorician]

Hey all,

I am just now coming in on this discussion and have not read the entire thread. I tend to agree with APuritanMindset above.

First:
It is very difficult exegetically to say based on II Sam 12:22ff that David "meant" the resurrection of his son or that they both would go to "Heaven." More probably for the integrity (sp) of the text; he either meant he would go to him in death or he would go to the abode of the dead (Sheol).

Second:
As to the question of babies going to Heaven: Whatever your opinion, you must factor in what Jesus said to Nicodemus in Jn. 3. "Ye must be born again!" Jesus said that unless one is born again (or 'from above'), (s)he could not see the Kingdom. That is the plain teaching of the Scripture and must be dealt with or some how reconciled with other theological truths and issues.

This is indeed a thorny issue! Always has been! Always will be! Food for thought.

If these issues have been discussed above please forgive.

sdg!

rd

 

[webdog]

Without the faith that God would send His Son to die and be resurrected, even in the OT, man would die eternally seperated and would not be saved. What did Abraham believe that God credited to him as "righteousness"? The OT points to Christ many times.

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by Rhetorician:
Hey all,

I am just now coming in on this discussion and have not read the entire thread. I tend to agree with APuritanMindset above.

First:
It is very difficult exegetically to say based on II Sam 12:22ff that David "meant" the resurrection of his son or that they both would go to "Heaven." More probably for the integrity (sp) of the text; he either meant he would go to him in death or he would go to the abode of the dead (Sheol).

Second:
As to the question of babies going to Heaven: Whatever your opinion, you must factor in what Jesus said to Nicodemus in Jn. 3. "Ye must be born again!" Jesus said that unless one is born again (or 'from above'), (s)he could not see the Kingdom. That is the plain teaching of the Scripture and must be dealt with or some how reconciled with other theological truths and issues.

This is indeed a thorny issue! Always has been! Always will be! Food for thought.

If these issues have been discussed above please forgive.

sdg!

rd

How is one born again? By grace through faith you are saved (born again). How is an infant to have faith? They can't. This is where "by grace" kicks in. Even with faith, if God had not extended His grace to man, we would all go to hell. You seriously believe God has sent every infant and aborted fetus to hell? This is not the characteristic of God, as "God is love".

 

[RightFromWrong]

Rhetorician.......This discussion was delt with in full on the same thread WHAT DID JESUS MEAN about Being Born Again.

Mine and a few others interpet that to mean a PHYSICAL BIRTH, that is how this subject came about. I mentioned Even a baby who is aborted, miscarried is still BORN from WATER the sack.
It doesn't have the ability to hear the gospel therefore is under GRACE ! Therefore goes to heaven.