Michael Hobbs
New Member
I don't think we can classify them as "saved" but we could say they are "safe". Not part of the Church, the Bride of Christ, but not condemned to Hell for committing the unpardonable sin.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
1. Including your notions.
2. Impossible, baby's cannot receive and believe. There is nowhere in Scripture that says babies have the ability to comprehend information, but the God given common sense and scientific information he gives us (most of us) tells us this. According to laws of common sense then, all babies go to hell, and David spoke falsely that he would see his child.
T
Travelsong
Guest
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. </font>[/QUOTE]What I was getting at is this: For every hardship we face in life there is hope and peace in God's judgement, and if we are humble enough we can find that peace when we are tried and judged. However there seems to be no real consolation in the thought that God might allow your baby to be conceived or born only to die and burn in hell.
Possibly, though you will find very little in my posts that contradict the Scriptures.
2. Impossible, baby's cannot receive and believe.
Arbitrary assumption. This is one of those erroneous notions of which I was speaking.
There is nowhere in Scripture that says babies have the ability to comprehend information,
There's one account of the preborn John the Baptist exercising a surprising level of spiritual discernment.
but the God given common sense and scientific information he gives us (most of us) tells us this. According to laws of common sense then, all babies go to hell,
"God given common sense" thinks the Gospel is foolishness. To receive it requires a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. Besides, God has told us that His ways were not our ways, and His thoughts not our thoughts. Why appeal to "common sense" instead of the Scriptures?
Also, spirituality is quite outside the scope of scientific investigation.
and David spoke falsely that he would see his child.
Where did he say that he would "see" his child?
I know that my lead thread was long, and that the thread itself is rapidly sinking into the nether regions of the board, but nevertheless, the FACT that all children and infants are Christ's is the clear conclusion of Romans 7, which I spent some time last night going though:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3131.html
Aaron, we START learning early, but the process continues and is not complete until heaven. Even Jesus is said to have LEARNED obedience from what He suffered.
What you, Aaron, are actually advocating is a rather bizarre form of Eastern mysticism which indicates that there is a mature spirit inside the newborn. That is not the teaching of the Scriptures. Parents are to teach their children. There is reference in Isaiah 7:15 to a child already being weaned (eating curds and honey) before he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. In the next verse, this child is referred to as a 'boy', and not a babe or even young child. A mature spirit would be born with that knowledge. Clearly, that is not the case where the Bible is concerned.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3131.html
Aaron, we START learning early, but the process continues and is not complete until heaven. Even Jesus is said to have LEARNED obedience from what He suffered.
What you, Aaron, are actually advocating is a rather bizarre form of Eastern mysticism which indicates that there is a mature spirit inside the newborn. That is not the teaching of the Scriptures. Parents are to teach their children. There is reference in Isaiah 7:15 to a child already being weaned (eating curds and honey) before he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. In the next verse, this child is referred to as a 'boy', and not a babe or even young child. A mature spirit would be born with that knowledge. Clearly, that is not the case where the Bible is concerned.
Helen, you're really one to accuse another of paganism. 
I don't care what Eastern mysticists think.
The fact of the matter is, that one cannot view the spirit of an infant as an infant itself without making a judgment according to the outward appearance. As such I reject that view as unbiblical and disobedient, John 7:24.
You don't think the spirit of a retarded man is ignorant and retarded itself do you? Do you have any reason, other than your feelings, to think that about the soul of an infant?
What is the form and mentality of the spirit of an infant? I don't know, but I know that the spirit does not have the limitations of the body and it's nothing like you are imagining, or the imaginations of countless others upon which the force of your argument depends, and upon which their strong feelings about the subject are based.
I also know this, in the Resurrection our bodies will resemble our carnal bodies about as much as a kernel of corn resembles the stalk. (1 Corinthians 36-38). They will look human, yes, but they will be spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44), probably luminous, as Christ is luminous (1 John 3:2), and as the angels are luminious (Mark 12:25).
Beyond that I don't know much else. Oh wait. The Eastern mysticists think we're luminous creatures too. Should I reject a logical conclusion based on the clear teaching of the Scriptures because some Eastern mysticist thinks the same thing?
Do you really think the bodies of infants will be raised as infants?
Your conclusions about Rom. 7 are fallacious as was ably pointed out in few words in another place.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3122/5.html#000066
I don't care what Eastern mysticists think.The fact of the matter is, that one cannot view the spirit of an infant as an infant itself without making a judgment according to the outward appearance. As such I reject that view as unbiblical and disobedient, John 7:24.
You don't think the spirit of a retarded man is ignorant and retarded itself do you? Do you have any reason, other than your feelings, to think that about the soul of an infant?
What is the form and mentality of the spirit of an infant? I don't know, but I know that the spirit does not have the limitations of the body and it's nothing like you are imagining, or the imaginations of countless others upon which the force of your argument depends, and upon which their strong feelings about the subject are based.
I also know this, in the Resurrection our bodies will resemble our carnal bodies about as much as a kernel of corn resembles the stalk. (1 Corinthians 36-38). They will look human, yes, but they will be spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44), probably luminous, as Christ is luminous (1 John 3:2), and as the angels are luminious (Mark 12:25).
Beyond that I don't know much else. Oh wait. The Eastern mysticists think we're luminous creatures too. Should I reject a logical conclusion based on the clear teaching of the Scriptures because some Eastern mysticist thinks the same thing?
Do you really think the bodies of infants will be raised as infants?
Your conclusions about Rom. 7 are fallacious as was ably pointed out in few words in another place.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3122/5.html#000066
I have a profoundly retarded 21 year old son.
I don't know.
I presume not, but I am not at liberty to use my imagination, as you are doing, Aaron.
I only know that God will do what is right. I also know that my son is firmly in His hands and that I will see Chris in heaven. I have no authority and no experience and no revelation to tell you in what condition Chris will be in; only that he will be well.
His spirit won't have a problem. But what that entails is entirely up to God.
Now, about those verses in Isaiah...
I don't know.
I presume not, but I am not at liberty to use my imagination, as you are doing, Aaron.
I only know that God will do what is right. I also know that my son is firmly in His hands and that I will see Chris in heaven. I have no authority and no experience and no revelation to tell you in what condition Chris will be in; only that he will be well.
His spirit won't have a problem. But what that entails is entirely up to God.
Now, about those verses in Isaiah...
Marcia
Active Member
I agree with Helen on this. There is no biblical support I can think of to believe that an infant or toddler has some kind of mature spirit that is able to understand the gospel. To the contrary, it seems that a child's mental and spiritual understanding grows as he/she does (as in the Isaiah 7.15 passage Helen referred to), and therefore, an infant would seem to have zero understanding of anything that requires apprehension of the gospel. (At one time, I did believe most children were born with "old souls" because I believed in reincarnation).
I can see what you believe, Aaron, but I don't see scriptural support for it.
And this is talking about children, not infants. A progression is implied here and in other parts of scripture.
I can see what you believe, Aaron, but I don't see scriptural support for it.
Hi Marcia,
Just a couple of things for you (and Helen) to consider.
First is the case of John the Baptist, who "leaped for joy" in his mother's womb. I know that some say that this is a special case, and maybe that's true, but consider this. It shows that it is possible for unborn infants to be cognizant of their surroundings and to express emotion, even if that is not the normal case.
Second, remember what Jesus said after the rich young ruler left? Speaking of salvation, He said "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." So, if the impossibility of babies to believe keeps babies from being saved then the impossibility of rich people to believe would also keep rich people from being saved too. If God can do the impossible in bringing rich people to faith then why can't He do the impossible and bring babies to faith?
Marcia
Active Member
The Word of God in the Bible and Christ are not the same thing. Christ is the Logos and the meaning of Logos is different in the context of John 1 than the words of God that we read in the Bible.
Your references to the Spirit's groanings still do not indicate that that a baby has a separate language without words by which it understands the gospel. That seems really stretching it to me.
As far as what David said, that could just be an emotional outpouring.
Where is the reference for Christ making intercession with loud crying and tears? I would like to look it up. Doesn't this mean that Jesus was making intercession with words, accompanied by crying and tears?
Then why presume the spirit of an infant is any less perceptive?
You have said in other places that mentally retarded people are like infants in their understanding and are therefore unaccountable for their sins and are in Christ.
So when you speak of someone being able to understand the Gospel, you are speaking of a natural cognition, not the spiritual discernment necessary to receive the things of God.
But the fact that there is a division between spiritual and natural comprehesion is alluded to in 1 Cor. 14:14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
I have ample Scriptural basis to say that spiritual comprehension is nothing like natural comprehension, whether it be that of an adult or an infant.
I only know that God will do what is right.
That is the Christian's comfort.
I also know that my son is firmly in His hands
As is the whole world
I have no authority and no experience and no revelation to tell you in what condition Chris will be in;
That's not entirely accurate. You know there will be no sickness or sadness. No sorrow--we won't evem weep for the souls in Hell. On the contrary, we will praise God for His righteous judgment. There will be no weakness whatever. There will be no more poor, maimed, halt or blind. We will be perfect in knowledge. We will be like Jesus, for we shall see Him as He is.
His spirit won't have a problem. But what that entails is entirely up to God.
Well, we know there won't be any of the problems associated with physical infirmites.
Now, about those verses in Isaiah...
Simple. They describe natural development. There is a natural development, but to assume the spirit "grows" in the same way is arbitrary. Christ was made subject to weakness, and in His human form was not omnipresent nor omniscient. He grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. He "learned obedience" never having been disobedient. He grew in favor, never having been out of favor. He grew in wisdom all the while being the sum of all wisdom.
Christ had a natural body, and grew up naturally, though His eternal Spirit was undiminished.
We have a natural body and an eternal spirit. Our spirits are fallen, wretched creatures no doubt, but to say they follow our natural bodies in growth and development is unfounded by the Scriptures.
jstrickland1989
New Member
Remember when David lost his baby in 2 Samuel 12:15-23 Well, David tells us that even though his son can't back to earth, that he will be there in heaven, and will be able to see him there. Just my thoughts!
Preacher @ Bethel
New Member
I have always believed that infants who die will go to heaven but I must admit I struggled for a long time trying to prove from the bible why I believed this and how it could be accomplished without having an infant saved without repentance and faith. It wasn't until the last year or so that God gave me peace concerning this. I studied His word often and prayed hard in search for an answer to my questions on this subject until finally He gave me peace. The following is what I have concluded from my studies although I am sure many may disagree with it.
We can see that man is born totaly depraved (Ps 58:3).The word that was transalted wicked in this verse is a Hebrew word that means, "morally wrong". We come into this world morally wrong and and we begin to do that which is morally wrong. We begin to do that which is contrary to God's law as soon as we are born.
We do this because it is our fallen nature. Nature itself even proves this to us as we look around at children. We can see how quickly that they begin to manifest exactly what they are.
What is the youngest that you have seen a child begin to manifest gealousy, anger, etc? I believe we would all agree that it happens very quickly. It is the penalty of sin that condemns a man to Hell. We want to determine if God teaches us any where that some one can be guilty of committing sin and not have that charged to their account? That is what we need to determine.
Sin is the breaking of God's holy law (1Jo 3:4). We know that there are babies who die before they are born, there are babies who die shortly after birth. We know that there are people who are born in a complete vegetable state who never seem to comprehend any thing. Is there any thing in God's word that teaches us that their sin is not imputed unto them or charged to their account because of their condition? We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God (Ro 3:23).
The question is this, "Is there any thing in the Bible that would teach me that a baby or a mentaly disfunctional person would not have their sin imputed to their account?"
Let's go to the scripture and see what it teaches us. (Ro 5:13) Where there is no law sin is not imputed. Here we have a case where sin would not be imputed. The word imputed means, "charged to someones account". If there is no law then sin is not imputed to your account.
This verse doesn't say that there was no sin. This verse does not indicate that there was no wrong doing. Again that is not the question. The verse clearly says, that the sin was there.What the verse says is that if there is no law the sin is there but it is not imputed. If the sin is not imputed than you would be considered innocent in that since. If you did some thing that was wrong and yet it wasn't charge to your account then you would not be accountable for it.
The next thing that we must conclude is, "who does this pertain to?" The verse says, "that when there is no law"? Some people would simply conclude that this is speaking of God's written law.
This is not true. Paul has already shown us in the previous chapters of Romans that there is more than just the written law (Romans 2:14-15). Even though the Gentiles did not have the written law their sin was imputed to them.Why? Because they had the law that was written in their hearts by God Himself.
If I had never seen or heard of God's written law and yet I went out here and killed someone I would know that I had done wrong. Even if I knew that no human being saw me commit that act I guarantee you I would have to fight off a guilty feeling. What is that guilty feeling?
That is the law that God has written in my heart. That guilty feeling is my conscience bearing witness that I have broken the law and I will be heald accountable to the law giver one day.
So, according to the (Romans 2:14,15) if a person does not have this law then sin is not imputed unto them. That doesn't mean that they have not sinned it just means it is not imputed to them.
Only God knows when a person has this law and when they do not because God is the one who put it there. I will say this, "if you are a normal person it doesn't take long to realize that if you slap someone accross the face that you have done some thing wrong." If you are an infant, a baby, or a vegetable then your are not going to have that ability. I believe that we can say that the Bible teaches us that there are some who do not have their sin imputed unto them.
I believe this is why David spoke the words found in (2Samuel 12:23). We should share the gospel with our children and begin to teach them their need for a Savior as soon as they are old enough to comunicate with us. We cannot go beyond the scripture and I am telling you that according to the Bible if you have any concept of right and wrong your sin is imputed to your account. It does not take a very old child to know these things.
By His Grace,
Preacher @ Bethel
We can see that man is born totaly depraved (Ps 58:3).The word that was transalted wicked in this verse is a Hebrew word that means, "morally wrong". We come into this world morally wrong and and we begin to do that which is morally wrong. We begin to do that which is contrary to God's law as soon as we are born.
We do this because it is our fallen nature. Nature itself even proves this to us as we look around at children. We can see how quickly that they begin to manifest exactly what they are.
What is the youngest that you have seen a child begin to manifest gealousy, anger, etc? I believe we would all agree that it happens very quickly. It is the penalty of sin that condemns a man to Hell. We want to determine if God teaches us any where that some one can be guilty of committing sin and not have that charged to their account? That is what we need to determine.
Sin is the breaking of God's holy law (1Jo 3:4). We know that there are babies who die before they are born, there are babies who die shortly after birth. We know that there are people who are born in a complete vegetable state who never seem to comprehend any thing. Is there any thing in God's word that teaches us that their sin is not imputed unto them or charged to their account because of their condition? We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God (Ro 3:23).
The question is this, "Is there any thing in the Bible that would teach me that a baby or a mentaly disfunctional person would not have their sin imputed to their account?"
Let's go to the scripture and see what it teaches us. (Ro 5:13) Where there is no law sin is not imputed. Here we have a case where sin would not be imputed. The word imputed means, "charged to someones account". If there is no law then sin is not imputed to your account.
This verse doesn't say that there was no sin. This verse does not indicate that there was no wrong doing. Again that is not the question. The verse clearly says, that the sin was there.What the verse says is that if there is no law the sin is there but it is not imputed. If the sin is not imputed than you would be considered innocent in that since. If you did some thing that was wrong and yet it wasn't charge to your account then you would not be accountable for it.
The next thing that we must conclude is, "who does this pertain to?" The verse says, "that when there is no law"? Some people would simply conclude that this is speaking of God's written law.
This is not true. Paul has already shown us in the previous chapters of Romans that there is more than just the written law (Romans 2:14-15). Even though the Gentiles did not have the written law their sin was imputed to them.Why? Because they had the law that was written in their hearts by God Himself.
If I had never seen or heard of God's written law and yet I went out here and killed someone I would know that I had done wrong. Even if I knew that no human being saw me commit that act I guarantee you I would have to fight off a guilty feeling. What is that guilty feeling?
That is the law that God has written in my heart. That guilty feeling is my conscience bearing witness that I have broken the law and I will be heald accountable to the law giver one day.
So, according to the (Romans 2:14,15) if a person does not have this law then sin is not imputed unto them. That doesn't mean that they have not sinned it just means it is not imputed to them.
Only God knows when a person has this law and when they do not because God is the one who put it there. I will say this, "if you are a normal person it doesn't take long to realize that if you slap someone accross the face that you have done some thing wrong." If you are an infant, a baby, or a vegetable then your are not going to have that ability. I believe that we can say that the Bible teaches us that there are some who do not have their sin imputed unto them.
I believe this is why David spoke the words found in (2Samuel 12:23). We should share the gospel with our children and begin to teach them their need for a Savior as soon as they are old enough to comunicate with us. We cannot go beyond the scripture and I am telling you that according to the Bible if you have any concept of right and wrong your sin is imputed to your account. It does not take a very old child to know these things.
By His Grace,
Preacher @ Bethel
Bartimaeus
New Member
Great Post Preacher @ Bethel....I was hoping that you would drop back even a little farther in Romans to Romans 1. What does the Lord say about the lost and the "invisible things of him"? God does not release someone's responsibility to believe if they can see and understand creation. A child cannot do this, a mentally retarded person cannot do this. I believe God covers them with His grace and releases their responsibitly to believe. My vote.....Babies go straight to God's wonderful presence in heaven fully covered by the precious blood of Christ.
Thanks -----Bart
the dueling society was a polite society
Thanks -----Bart
the dueling society was a polite society
GordonWayneWatts
Member
An old, but important, thread: 'eternal' fate as distinguised from "the time being...
While I am *sure* that God will NOT send a dead infant to hell, you must look more closely at what David said to see what the passage actually says:
First off, David did not say his son went to heaven -- only that he would go to his son, and this might have just as easily referred to Sheol, as to heaven:
2nd Samuel 12:22-23, KJV, Holy Bible
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
Secondly, Jesus Himself appeared to me in a dream recently, and pointed out passages regarding David to illustrate a key point: (By the way, Jesus has only appeared to me in a dream *twice* in my life, this time and one other time -- and NO time in a vision or open appearance LOL).
As prior research by myself discovered, I knew of the the possibility that King David was speaking metaphorically, not literally regarding his son, here. Alright, but here is what Jesus suggest I add to a paper I had written on this subject to clarify His claim that 2 Samuel 12:22-23 can not be understood to be literal: what about the strong claims of DAVID and JEREMIAH, accusing God of very evil?!
* Jeremiah (the “weeping prophet”) in Lam. 3:1-18 says that he has lost all hope in the Lord (v.18), who has shut out his prayer (v.8). Did the Lord really let him down? Did he really refuse to hear his prayer?
* David (in a state of depression and often on the run for his life) says in Ps. 13:1-4 that God has forgotten him and has hidden His face from him. Oh, really? Is this literally true? No, this too is metaphorical: What David and Jeremiah allege and claim would be against the nature of God: See e.g., verses 5 & 6: David’s heart shall rejoice in God’s salvation, and the Psalmist will sing to the Lord because He has dealt bountifully with him.
* But does this mean that it is wrong to interpret 2 Sam 12:22-23 literally in reference to David's son going to heaven? Taken by itself, no: All it really means is that these scriptures could be or might be metaphorical poetry -and not literal -but many other Scriptures, in the Bible (and outlined in the paper, to which I link) which are definitely not metaphorical, paint a different picture and show truths not fully revealed in Old Testament times.
* So, the bottom line is that David might have been speaking allegorically, not literally. Furthermore, when he said that he would go to his son, he might have referred to Sheol, the grave, which is just as likely a meaning as Heaven. Lastly, since we see both Jeremiah and David making PATENTLY FALSE claims, this underscores that either they were overwhelmed with emotion or did not fully understand the truths we now understand since New Testament times -such as the fact that Jesus, the Savior, would come once as a suffering Messiah (to die on the cross) and once again as a conquering Messiah (with His army of angels). In fact, even today, we “see through the glass darkly” I Corinthians 13:12; How much more then? So, in light of the many different VALID interpretations of 2 Samuel 12:22-23, it simply isn't exegetically warranted to dogmatically stick to one of them without "comparing Scripture with Scripture" to see the full counsel of God on this issue -especially since the possibility suggested for eternal salvation is precluded by John 14:6 and many other passages which state that only through a faith in Jesus (something of which babies are not capable) is salvation accomplished. Yes, babies who die before the age of accountability can get to heaven -but not without having to go through Biblical channels as outlined in the paper to which I alluded:
http://GordonWatts.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html
or
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html
or even
http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html
GW
While I am *sure* that God will NOT send a dead infant to hell, you must look more closely at what David said to see what the passage actually says:
First off, David did not say his son went to heaven -- only that he would go to his son, and this might have just as easily referred to Sheol, as to heaven:
2nd Samuel 12:22-23, KJV, Holy Bible
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
Secondly, Jesus Himself appeared to me in a dream recently, and pointed out passages regarding David to illustrate a key point: (By the way, Jesus has only appeared to me in a dream *twice* in my life, this time and one other time -- and NO time in a vision or open appearance LOL).
As prior research by myself discovered, I knew of the the possibility that King David was speaking metaphorically, not literally regarding his son, here. Alright, but here is what Jesus suggest I add to a paper I had written on this subject to clarify His claim that 2 Samuel 12:22-23 can not be understood to be literal: what about the strong claims of DAVID and JEREMIAH, accusing God of very evil?!
* Jeremiah (the “weeping prophet”) in Lam. 3:1-18 says that he has lost all hope in the Lord (v.18), who has shut out his prayer (v.8). Did the Lord really let him down? Did he really refuse to hear his prayer?
* David (in a state of depression and often on the run for his life) says in Ps. 13:1-4 that God has forgotten him and has hidden His face from him. Oh, really? Is this literally true? No, this too is metaphorical: What David and Jeremiah allege and claim would be against the nature of God: See e.g., verses 5 & 6: David’s heart shall rejoice in God’s salvation, and the Psalmist will sing to the Lord because He has dealt bountifully with him.
* But does this mean that it is wrong to interpret 2 Sam 12:22-23 literally in reference to David's son going to heaven? Taken by itself, no: All it really means is that these scriptures could be or might be metaphorical poetry -and not literal -but many other Scriptures, in the Bible (and outlined in the paper, to which I link) which are definitely not metaphorical, paint a different picture and show truths not fully revealed in Old Testament times.
* So, the bottom line is that David might have been speaking allegorically, not literally. Furthermore, when he said that he would go to his son, he might have referred to Sheol, the grave, which is just as likely a meaning as Heaven. Lastly, since we see both Jeremiah and David making PATENTLY FALSE claims, this underscores that either they were overwhelmed with emotion or did not fully understand the truths we now understand since New Testament times -such as the fact that Jesus, the Savior, would come once as a suffering Messiah (to die on the cross) and once again as a conquering Messiah (with His army of angels). In fact, even today, we “see through the glass darkly” I Corinthians 13:12; How much more then? So, in light of the many different VALID interpretations of 2 Samuel 12:22-23, it simply isn't exegetically warranted to dogmatically stick to one of them without "comparing Scripture with Scripture" to see the full counsel of God on this issue -especially since the possibility suggested for eternal salvation is precluded by John 14:6 and many other passages which state that only through a faith in Jesus (something of which babies are not capable) is salvation accomplished. Yes, babies who die before the age of accountability can get to heaven -but not without having to go through Biblical channels as outlined in the paper to which I alluded:
http://GordonWatts.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html
or
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html
or even
http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/theology/WhenBabiesDie.html
GW
GordonWayneWatts
Member
Addressing King David's statement about hsi son...
In my prior reply, I already addressed the issue of King David's statement regarding his son, who had passed away, but I wanted to show you the courtesy of acknowleding your post here, Bethel Preacher, as this partcular passage is one of the most commonly mis-intepreted passages.
Now, you can rest assured I am not suggesting King David's son went to hell, nor do I believe in purgetory, however, a close reading of my paper below shows that the commonly accepted theories are urban legends and not supported by any Scriptures.
What I am saying is this: The 'eternal' fate of the child *must* be distinguished from where he or she is "for the time being," and that difference is a huge distinction, one which can easily cause difficulty here.
The actual truth regarding the 'eternal' fate of the child is good, but most certainly NOT what you might expect --in fact, there are no less than nine (9) different theories on what happens... and 7 of those 9 are absolutely false, including the one that most of my fellow-Baptists hold, but hold out faith: God's arm is not shortened that and God can not be put in a box. Since you're a preacher, plz weigh in on my theological position paper linked above.
In my prior reply, I already addressed the issue of King David's statement regarding his son, who had passed away, but I wanted to show you the courtesy of acknowleding your post here, Bethel Preacher, as this partcular passage is one of the most commonly mis-intepreted passages.
Now, you can rest assured I am not suggesting King David's son went to hell, nor do I believe in purgetory, however, a close reading of my paper below shows that the commonly accepted theories are urban legends and not supported by any Scriptures.
What I am saying is this: The 'eternal' fate of the child *must* be distinguished from where he or she is "for the time being," and that difference is a huge distinction, one which can easily cause difficulty here.
The actual truth regarding the 'eternal' fate of the child is good, but most certainly NOT what you might expect --in fact, there are no less than nine (9) different theories on what happens... and 7 of those 9 are absolutely false, including the one that most of my fellow-Baptists hold, but hold out faith: God's arm is not shortened that and God can not be put in a box. Since you're a preacher, plz weigh in on my theological position paper linked above.
- Status