Since we are still on this topic of babies, family, abortion, etc…. I decided to introduce another issue that is somewhat relevant to the topics aforementioned in the most recent posts written by Lionel. Do babies or children before the claimed age of accountability(in which no one knows the age) go to Heaven when they die? Let me also say that I have never lost a child and I am the father of Tyris Lamont Jr.(21 months old) I am not making light of this situation but in the same token do not want to give a false hope that cannot not be affirmed by scripture. My heart goes out to those who have lost babies by miscarriage, stillborns, or early deaths. I realize this becomes an issue when we try to figure out a way to get babies to heaven after premature death while staying true to scripture-never to compromise to sooth our frail consciences.
My position on this: I believe with the knowledge I possess concerning the attributes of God and Him being loving and kind and everything else; I say that God would allow unborn babies to go to Heaven. With that said, let me also say I and many others have a very hard time making this argument from scripture. Many people make arguments mainly from the Old Testament to secure their position and cannot be brought to fruition amongst the New Testament revealed revelation. I would like to examine briefly some of the arguments of people who say that without a doubt they can assure the eternal security of the unborn.
Some of the Typical Arguments
-
2 Samuel 12:23 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.
-
Matt 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
-
If we are to stand before God how can we be judged or receive our crowns if we never had the opportunity to sin against an infinitely Holy God.
To further examine these as listed
1) We recall the story of David and his heinous sin with Bathsheba and his treacherous murder of her husband. If you recall David and Bathsheba had their first child and the baby died. David makes a statement that makes it seem as if he assumed he would one day be with this child after his death. My question is can we assume that this passage means distinctly that David was 100% sure that his child was in Heaven? We have to stretch very far to draw that conclusion from this narrative event.
2) This may not be as popular but I have heard on a couple of occasions that this somehow means that if he was not born or killed by Herod of someone that he would be in a better place. Not worth further investigation.
3) Once again I would like to believe that God is merciful and would save the unborn babies but can that be found in scripture? There is only one sacrifice sufficient for our sin and He is Christ. The Bible makes absolutely no exceptions regarding this issue. Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: & Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
David said in Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Along with Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Now, is the all here inclusive of all humanity excluding babies? Do babies become sinners at a particular age or are they in Adam as well? Some brothers at my fellowship had this discussion on Sunday during our Lord’s Supper and one said, “If we can be assured that unborn babies go to heaven then the Abortionist should be seen as the most merciful people to walk the Earth!” Let us look at another passage that I am sure that you knew since I am a reformed brother I would bring up….
Romans 9:11For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
From this passage do we understand this to be normative or exclusive to just Esau and Jacob. I think most would say normative and we know this to be coined as Election. Some might say but…Jacob and Esau were born and lived long lives. By this some would assume that if they had died in the womb that this truth will no longer apply. From scripture we cleary see that God elects some and others are not elected to be in the family of God and God still remains perfectly just.
To clarify for those who think I am trying to put all unborn babies in Hell-I am not!! I am simply saying that no one can emphatically make a claim that they know with 100% certainty that all babies go to Heaven. We can lay hold to God’s righteous loving character and many other attributes but based on this revelation-The Bible. We see there is only one acceptable propitiation which is Christ, all others apart from Christ are in Adam.
I did not exhaust all of the arguments that on this issue because I would love to hear some insight from a Biblical perspective regarding this topic.
God Bless in Christ,
Tyris Sr.
I ask these questions which I don’t know the answer to:
1. What happened to all the babies in the flood?
2. What happened to the babies in Sodom and Gomarrah (Abraham couldn’t find one righteous)?
3. What happened to the babies that were judged with their parents during the Joshua Conquest of the promised land?
4. What happened to the babies when the Lord sent the death angel in Exodus?
So I ask is this only the babies of believers or nonbelievers also? I don’t know and would love to open the discussion a bit more.
I don’t understand the question,( meaning) since we have no scripture to support are not support the question. So, are you basically asking for our opinion?
Brother Tyris,
Should you get a chance, consider checking this out, Brah:
http://www.layhands.com/DoBabiesAutomaticallyGoToHeaven.htm
Something intriguing to consider (as an excerpt from the article):
Jesus said that we must become “like little children” in order to enter the kingdom of heaven:
Matthew 18:3: “And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children [paidion], you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 18:4: “Therefore, whoever humbles himself [tapeinoo] like this child [paidion] is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 18:5: “”And whoever welcomes a little child [paidion] like this in my name welcomes me.”
Matthew 18:6: “But if anyone causes one of these little ones [mikros] who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Matthew 19:14: “Jesus said, “Let the little children [paidion] come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”"
The Greek word for “little children” in these verses is paidion, which means “a little child, either male or female” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates, p.1089). In verse 4 (above) we are told that whoever “humbles himself” like a child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and the Greek word for “humbles” (tapeinoo) means “to bring low, to humble” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates, p.1366).
These “low, humble” people who believe in Jesus and are like little children are mentioned by the Greek word mikros in verse 6 (above), which means “low, humble” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament, Spiros Zodhiates, p.986).
Now, notice in the above passages that Jesus did not say, “unless you change and become like murderers, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” We would not expect Jesus to say such a thing because unrepentant murderers are excluded from heaven (1 John 3:15, Revelation 21:8, 22:14-15). Since Jesus said that we must become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, the implication is that little children are not excluded from heaven for any reason.
From what I found out, we are not explicitly told that the pre-born, infants, those with serious mental impairments who cannot understand the Gospel will be held accountable because they did not accept it.
The Word give us an account of David’s infant son dying (2 Samuel 12:23). There, David makes the claim that he will join his son after death – and David was a strong believer who did rest in God for his salvation (Psalm 62:7).
Also, we read in the Gospel of Luke that John the Baptist was “filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). From these passages we can at least deduce that it is possible to be saved as a pre-born infant.
Some make the explicit statement that salvation is “provided by God, through Jesus, to the repentant believing sinner”……& this is true, though it also must be noted that the Old Testament saints were saved although they did not have a complete knowledge of the salvation act (see 1 Peter 1:10-11). So it is possible to be saved by God through Christ even if you don’t understand all the facts of the Gospel.
This view’s supported by Wayne Grudem too, who writes “God is able to save infants in an unusual way, apart from their hearing and understanding the Gospel, by bringing regeneration to them very early, sometimes even before birth. This regeneration is probably also followed at once by a nascent, intuitive awareness of God and trust in him at an extremely early age, but this is something we simply cannot understand”.
Grudem continues, “How many infants does God save in this way? Scripture does not tell us, so we simply cannot know. Where Scripture is silent, it is unwise for us to make definitive pronouncements. However, we should recognize that it is God’s frequent pattern throughout Scripture to save the children of those who believe in him.”
The salvation of those who cannot cognitively understand their sinful condition or God’s cure is a mystery. It is not clearly revealed to us. But we have shown above that it is possible and has happened with at least David’s son. Beyond that, we must trust the fact that God is not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)
Seeing that there’s only so much that can be discussed in this forum, I’d suggest that people consider investigating these discussions since they dealt EXTENSIVELY with the subject (though you’ll have to sign up/register in order to participate…..and that’s fine since it’s free):
On Hell and Babies
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=98189&highlight=Do+babies+go+to+heaven%3F
On a Biblical Defense for the Age of Accountability:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=17662&highlight=Do+babies+go+to+heaven%3F
On a side note,
Jeremiah 7
31″They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.
Jeremiah 32
35″They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Psalm 106
37They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, 38And shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with the blood.
Though there are numerous other verses beside this, These wicked idolators were burning their children to death in the name of “Molech.” God said that they had “shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters,” and that this “abomination” never even entered His mind, much less did He command such a thing! Personally, strange to think God would take the souls of these sacrificed children, who have just been burned in the fire, and throw them into an even greater fire (hell) if they were innocent…….
.& I’d think it’d be beneficial to do a word study on the issue of INNOCENCE and see the contexts they’re used in……as well as what the Bible says on the issue of being BLAMELESS.
This study/debate forum should be beneficial:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=98046
Gabriel,
We have went down this road before of innoncence. But since you want to engage in such a way lets start from these verses and let me know what we can get. We can only come to one of two conclusion. 1. The bible has obivious contradictions or your definition of innoncence doesn’t necessitate an equality with righteousness as it relates to regeneration.
Romans 3
9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Psalsms 51
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6 Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,
and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.
So as it relates to your definition of innoncence either Paul is wrong or you are wrong but both can’t be true. All means All, if not All of our sins are not taken care of on the cross. If you redifine all you redifine all in every context. All means totality. Every human (and you readily admit that even a zygote is fully human) then that unborn child is as guilty as Hilter before the Lord. We have to submit where scriptures says submit. There are no innoncent people because we have Adam as our head.
I will ask if all babies were innoncent then why did God kill innoncent people in the flood? That deems Him unjust correct? Read and see what brought the flood upon the earth:
Gen 6
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
All flesh save the 8 were judged my man. Now did the babies in the flood go to heaven? Don’t know if so God somehow atoned for their sins foreign to the way others sins are atoned for which is by faith in Christ. I think they did go to heaven but I will not use innoncence as a basis for that, because if that is the case this verse is a lie and Paul and all his writings
Galatians 2
15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
No flesh rather infant, unborn, or old man can be justified apart from faith in Christ, now God can supernaturally apply this faith in the unborn and underaged and even the mentally incapable but you can’t go appealing to innoncence that is dangerous.
Gabriel you said:
“Now, notice in the above passages that Jesus did not say, “unless you change and become like murderers, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” We would not expect Jesus to say such a thing because unrepentant murderers are excluded from heaven (1 John 3:15, Revelation 21:8, 22:14-15). Since Jesus said that we must become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, the implication is that little children are not excluded from heaven for any reason. ”
Your last statment is a leap that no one should ever take in interpreting scripture. You completely said something the text doesn’t even remotely allude brother. No where does Jesus say in any of the Gospels that “these little children will be in heaven with me if they were to die today”. Come on bro you are stretching beyond the bounds of scripture.
Lets follow your statement to the logical conclusion. Since these little children were “definitely” going to heaven because you said “they are not exluded for any reason”. What if that same child turned around and stabbed the kid standing next to him in the neck and then set the kid on fire? You are saying “so what he is still a child and thus he is NEVER excluded from heaven”.
Is that your final answer?
Hey Tyris and everybody, having almost graduated from a VERY VERY reformed seminary, I can tell you that this was a pretty common debate — does God elect all infants, aborted and miscarried children to salvation? One of my friends was of the all infants are damned persuasion, because he believed that the Lord would have to make an “exception” to his normal plan of salvation — namely faith and repentance — in order to save them.
Incidentally, this argument is often applied to the mentally handicapped as well.
My position (which is that God, in his mercy, elects all infants and the unborn unto salvation) is based in large part on Romans 1. In this chapter, Paul makes a very thorough argument about the guilt and condemnation of unbelievers based on the fact that they are surrounded by evidence of God’s existence but they deny that evidence. The ability to see and understand this evidence isn’t what I’d call a prerequisite for damnation but damnation seems to be fundamentally linked to it.
I’m stating all this very inarticulately. Let me link to an article by Dr. Al Mohler who expresses this position (which is also that of Spurgeon, Warfield, and the Westminster Confession) with earnestness and passion.
http://albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-01-05
Again (and in all humble seriousness), DEFINE INNOCENCE in the Scripture and why did God refer to the killing of BABIES in the Scripture as INNOCENT BLOOD.
What is innocence Biblically, and why was it referred to children when God laid the charge against His people for killing them? Was it hyberbole, or was he adressing a dfferent group of people?
Again, it is a simple question.
Not that difficult, Brah…….and no, it has yet to be adressed. Throwing out Psalm 51 and saying I was born into iniquity” as proof that there’s no such thing as innocene doesn’t adress the Scriptures or answer the question of what INNOCENE is. At best, that’s pitting the WOrd of God against itself and also a danger since we’re no longer being faithful to the Scriptures/selectively reading. How is there to be reconcilliation, Brah?
Saying ”
Again, unless Scripture meant something else when INNOCENT BLOOD was brought up, then we have an issue and ignoring it means we’re not interpretting the Word of God correctly.
Note (On the comment when you said I said about children), be clear), I tried to make clear that the excerpt was from an ARTICLE:
As I said earlier in comment #3, ” Something intriguing to consider (as an excerpt from the article)
The link was given right above it where the info was gathered and I was hoping someone would check it out and let me know what they think.
In any case, though, it does raise an interesting question of what Jesus meant when He said you must be like a child to enter the kingdom
These are all the verses on innocence/being blameless which I could find and that I think would be beneficial if we went through them systematically—on their respective context, original meaning, etc. And again, I’m not adding my definiton on to them. But it’d be ineffective to blow past them as if they’re already self-explanatory…..:
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=blameless&version1=31&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=innocent&x=0&y=0
On the question of “if babies are innocent, then why did God kill people in the flood, when the Word says that the HEARTS OF ALL FLESH WERE EVIL ALL THE TIME?:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2255
It often is the case that the children of wicked people suffer terribly. Sometimes these children suffer because the parent physically or emotionally abuses them (in direct violation of Scripture; cf. Matthew 7:12; Colossians 3:21). At other times, the child suffers as a result of the parent’s irresponsible behavior. For instance, suppose a man addicted to gambling wastes his salary on gambling, instead of using it to feed his family. As a result, his children suffer hunger, shame, and poverty.
Yet, even though the children of sinful people often suffer physical consequences, they do not inherit the sin of those parents. The book of Jeremiah provides an interesting commentary on this subject.
In Jeremiah 16:1-6, God told Jeremiah that the prophet should not take a wife and/or have children in the land of Israel. God explained His reasoning to Jeremiah as follows:
“For thus says the Lord concerning the sons and daughters who are born in this place…. ‘They shall die gruesome deaths; they shall not be lamented, nor shall they be buried, but they shall be as refuse on the face of the earth’ ” (16:3-4).
Why was this going to happen? Wells is quick to refer to this chapter, especially verses 10 and 11 where the children of Israel pose the question, “Why has the Lord pronounced all this great disaster against us” (vs. 10)?
Wells then records Jeremiah’s answer: “ ‘Because your fathers have forsaken Me,’ says the Lord” (vs. 11). Wells, however, does not cite the very next verse (12), which states: “And you have done worse than your fathers….”
These Israelites were suffering due to the sins of their fathers—and due to their own sins. Their children were going to die gruesome deaths. The skeptic is quick to seize upon this fact, and demand that any time innocent children die, it is a travesty against justice that a loving God never would permit”
Do children sometimes die horrible deaths due to their parents’ wrong decisions? Absolutely. The Israelites had adopted the practice of sacrificing their own children to a false god named Baal (Jeremiah 19:5).
The iniquity of the parents, then, can be visited upon the children in the form of physical suffering. But do those children bear the guilt of that sin? Absolutely not! Ezekiel wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20,
Notice the words soul and guilt. Does the Bible ever insinuate, for example, that a child is guilty of idolatry because his parents were idolatrous? No (read Matthew 18:3-5; Luke 18:16-17).
Bearing the guilt of sin is altogether different than bearing the physical consequences of the actions of others. As is often the case, the skeptic has confused the two, and has alleged a biblical contradiction where, in fact, none exists. This is yet another example in which the allegation against the Bible fails, but “the Word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25).
If little children are lost sinners, why would the Lord tell us all to be like children (see Matthew 19:14)?
Of course, little children (including infants) are not lost. They are not old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong, so they cannot intelligently choose to do wrong, and thus they cannot sin. Baptism saves us from sin (1 Peter 3:21), and babies cannot be saved from sin, since they have not yet sinned. Young children are not in need of being saved, but instead are in a safe condition.
Kyle Butt offered an insightful example:
Does the Bible teach that babies go to hell when they die? In order to answer this question, we must find a biblical example in which an infant died, and in which his or her eternal destination is recorded. To do such is not difficult. In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill.
After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell 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 shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son.
Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6; cf. Psalm 17:15; 103:1-5; Isaiah 37:35; Acts 13:34; Hebrews 11:32). Therefore, we can conclude that “the house of the Lord” would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David wou
On Psalm 51:5: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
This text is not literal, it is figurative. For example, let us compare Psalm 5l:5 with Job 1:21: “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither.”
If Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that David and all other men are born sinners, then Job 1:21 can also be interpreted literally to teach the doctrine that Job and all other men will go back into their mother’s womb: “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither.”
Neither Psalm 5l:5 nor Job 1:21 should be understood literally. Both texts are figurative expressions. The same rules of interpretation that would permit Psalm 51:5 to teach that little babies are born sinners, if they were also applied to Job 1:21 (or if they were applied to many other passages from the Bible), would permit every kind of perverted and absurd interpretation of the Word of God.
David was not teaching in this passage that he was born a sinner (which would have been an excuse for his sins in a Psalm which was clearly a Psalm of confession). On the contrary, he was confessing the great magnitude and guilt of the sin he had committed; and he broke out in the language of strong feeling and emotion–the language of figure and symbol–to express the monstrousness of his sin: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
The Psalmist David uses figurative language throughout his Psalms; and he uses several figurative expressions in Psalm 51. Verses five, seven, and eight of Psalm 51 are all figurative expressions. So that if verse five can be used to teach the doctrine that babies are born sinners, then also verse seven can be used to teach the doctrine that hyssop cleanses us from sin:
“Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.” Psalm 51
Also, verse eight can be used to teach the doctrine that God breaks the bones of the Christian when he sins, and that his broken bones rejoice when he is forgiven:
“Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.” Psalm 51:8
And another Psalm, Psalm 58:3, can be used to teach the astonishing doctrine that all babies talk and tell lies from the very moment of their birth:
“The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” Psalm 58:3
But, who would teach from this last text the doctrine that babies really do speak as soon as they are born? None of these passages should be taken literally.
They are all figurative expressions. If they were taken in their literal sense, they would all teach what we know to be contrary to reality and impossible: Men do not enter again into their mother’s womb. Hyssop does not purify our sins. Babies do not start speaking as soon as they come out of the womb. And babies are not born sinners!
On Psalm 58:3: “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”
This text is supposed to teach that babies are born sinners; but like Psalm 51:5 it is figurative and not literal. If it were literal, it would teach that babies speak and tell lies as soon as they are born, and that they alienate themselves from God and go astray from him immediately upon coming out of the womb.
But all of this is clearly contrary to reality. We know that babies do not do any of these things at birth. Therefore it is clear that this language is not to be understood literally. If this verse taught that Babies literally came forth from their mother’s womb “estranged from God,” it would contradict other passages from the Bible that teach that babies are not “estranged from God” at birth. John the baptist was not “estranged from God from his mother’s womb.” On the contrary, the angel who announced his birth said, “He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.” Luke 1:15.
This fact is hard to reconcile with a literal interpretation of Psalms 51:5 and 58:3. Job also testified that he was a guide to the widow “from his mother’s womb.” Job 31:18. Job obviously did not mean that from the moment he was a helpless newborn infant that he had been ministering to the needs of the widow.
Also, the Psalmist David himself testified that God had been his help “from the womb.” Psalm 71:6. It is easy to see that the phrase “from the womb” is often used in a figurative sense and should not always be understood in its literal sense.
On Romans 3,
Romans 3:10-12: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
This is one of several passages (proof-texts) of Scripture Calvinists employ to support Total Inability.
For many Reformed/Calvinists folks, the main emphasis is on the fact that “there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.” This is supposed to be speaking of a literal condition in which all human beings are born. They cannot so much as seek God or understand Him.
This poetic “outburst,” a quote from the Psalms, has been
What is the point Paul is here making? Is he erecting the doctrine of human nature and its relation to soteriology? Not at all. His point is clearly set forth in verse 9: Jews and Gentiles alike are “under sin.” Sin is not peculiar to lowly Gentiles, but also afflicts the favored Jews. He proves his point by quoting Psalm 14, which at the outset tells the readers it is dealing with “the fool.”
As a poet, the Psalmist frequently bursts into hyperbole, especially when hot with righteous indignation. David is teaching the sinfulness of men, but he does so in an extravagant Hebrew idiom to get the point across powerfully.
This is a common poetic device. In verse 4, he says evildoers “devour my people as men eat bread.” That, of course, is not literal. David is not laying down a metaphysical doctrine that all men enter this world with a propensity for cannibalism.
This is poetic exaggeration, a common figure of speech not to be read with a slavish literalism. Other Scriptures tell us there are righteous men who do good (contrary to a literal reading of Rom. 3:10). Job is a perfect example: “This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1).
The Bible also tells us of men who sought after God and found Him. In 2 Chronicles 11:16, we read: “Those from every tribe of Israel who set their hearts on seeking the Lord, the God of Israel, followed the Levites to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to the Lord, the God of their fathers.”
This is fulfillment of the oft-stated promise that “the Lord is good to those who hope in him, to the one who seeks him” (Lam. 3:25). The theme runs through the Bible without the disclaimer that such “seeking” is impossible without an inner miracle.
In any case, who is the WRATH of God being revealed against? And who is recieving His just punishment?
“18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.”
Romans 1:18-32
Jeremiah 17:10
“I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve.”
Like Laura, my stance is God, in his mercy, elects all infants and the unborn unto salvation and is based in large part on Romans 1……but even moreso due to what the Word says on the very nature of respom
But how can one who is “dead in his sins” possibly repent and believe? some Calvinists ask. Isn’t it true that dead people can do nothing and are unable to respond to outside influences?
Such logic, however, is seriously flawed, because it forces more meaning into the _expression, “dead in your trespasses and sins” than was obviously meant by the apostle Paul.
Using such logic, we could just as well conclude that those who are dead in their sins cannot think, breath, speak or hope, since dead people can’t do those things either. Like all metaphors, there are similarities that can be drawn between physical and spiritual death, but, like all metaphors, there comes a point where similarities turn to dissimilarities.
Paul’s phrase, “dead in your trespasses and sins” expresses the fact that unregenerate man has no relationship with God because of his sins and is void of spiritual life in Christ as well as eternal life.
It does not express the idea of man being incapable of making a choice to repent, just as it obviously does not imply man’s inability to make any other choice, including moral choices. Unregenerate people have the capacity to choose between doing what God commands or not doing what God commands (irrespective of their motives for doing either), and this is quite obvious, because unregenerate people make choices all the time to obey or disobey their own God-given consciences (see Rom. 2:14-15).
They are not so evil that they are incapable of choosing to obey, for example, one of God’s commandments. Sometimes unregenerate people even stop practicing certain sins while they continue in others, such as when the adulterer ends his affair because of his overwhelming guilt, or when the thief stops stealing for fear of being caught. So what is the difference between any other moral choice that an unregenerate person makes and the moral choice to repent and follow Jesus?
It is obvious from scores of scriptures that Paul did not believe that people who are dead in their trespasses and sins are incapable of submitting to God. From the time of Paul’s conversion, Jesus made it clear to him that unregenerate people have the capacity and responsibility to turn from their sins. We read in Acts 26:16-20 Paul’s narration before King Agrippa of his own conversion and calling, when Jesus said to him:
But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me (Acts 26:16-18, emphasis added).
Paul continued:
Consequently, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance (Acts 26:19-20, emphasis added).
But are non-Calvinists saying that a sinful person can repent and believe apart from God’s gracious assistance? Any who do are in error. God graciously attempts to get the attention of the unregenerate man, speaking to Him through His creation (see Rom. 1:18-20), His providence (see Acts 14:17), and each person’s conscience (see Rom. 2:14-16).
By His Spirit and by His grace, God calls and anoints messengers who take the message of His saving grace to the sinner. By His Spirit and grace, God warns and convicts every sinner of sin, righteousness and judgment (see John 16:8). All of this God does by His grace in order that the sinner might be saved, and He does it all before the sinner has taken a single step towards repentance……
We all have a sin nature/the propensity to sin, due to ADAM. But that in itself does not condemn a man. One must choose to REBEL against the Lord in FULL KNOWLEDGE of what he or she is doing (Romans 1:18-32), suppressing the truth in UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
Lionel,
Some have mentioned infants who were sacrificed to Molech as being innocent. There are numerous adults who were also murdered who are called innocent. Does this mean that they were sinless? Absolutely not! But they were not guilty of a crime worthy of death.
My personal take on what David said is that it merely means that his infant son would not come back to life, but that he himself would one day die.
All we need to know on this question is “The Judge of all the earth shall do right.” We cannot prove it one way or the other. I think that the reason the Scriptures are essentially silent on this question is that we can go and preach to the unconverted, but infants cannot understand. “They shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand.” The salvation of all of the elect is secure, regardless of how we as men fail. But God still appoints to us to go and spread the word. We cannot tell from Scriptures whether any or all of the infants who die go to heaven or hell. But we do know “the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. ”
Kathy
1. What happened to all the babies in the flood?
2. What happened to the babies in Sodom and Gomarrah (Abraham couldn’t find one righteous)?
3. What happened to the babies that were judged with their parents during the Joshua Conquest of the promised land?
4. What happened to the babies when the Lord sent the death angel in Exodus?
So I ask is this only the babies of believers or nonbelievers also? I don’t know and would love to open the discussion a bit more.
Righter says that she hasn’t a clue and such, will read and learn–:-)
lol,
Hey G,
I will hit you up on email but I wanted to let you know that you should have no problem writing a dissertation! lol
b and r, you have been having some very good discussions later but Righter can’t keep up! lol
This is so good!
Righter suggests another topic:
What happens to animals?
I have wondered about my dog named Trixie for 30 years!!
Righter, Laura suggests that there will indeed be animals in the New Creation, where they will join in our work! As to whether specific animals will be resurrected in the New Creation, Laura does not see evidence for or against such a proposition in the Scriptures, and as such, remains agnostic about it.
lol@Laura
Righter wonders how the animals will “arrive” in the New Creation if they are not resurructed…
Righter is working backwards and has not forgotten msamu and Kathy
Righter, I guess like everything else in the non-human New Creation they will be re-created. Trees, mountains, cattle, finches, honeypot ants, goats, etc.
Righter,
And I thought I was the only who ever wondered about the phrase “ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN” (lOL, LOL….though I must say the movie was a classic/loved it much…the phrase .”Charlie, you can never go back!!!” was pretty relevant too when he got KICKED Out of Heaven and went to Hell, as there are some dogs that’re straight up of the devil like CUJO,
By the way, I realize that on some of my earlier statements I may’ve been flawed regarding some of the wording/logic after researching further. Though I still stand that babies will go to heaven, here’s something by Sam Storms which I felt gave a better picture to things based on Romans 1:18-32 & other Scriptures on what it means to be Elect (As well as many other Articles in His section entitled “Eternal Sercurity/Election”)
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/are-those-who-die-in-infancy-saved
Lol@ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN
I thought of that too after my last post and was going to make mention of it!
Thanks for sharing the article; Iwill be sure to read it when time permits.
In regards to Trixie, my uncle was a postman who bought me a puppy when I was 2. I remember being scared of the dog at first but became very attached as she grew up with me. When I was 15, the dog simply disappeared and my family told me that she went off to die. I always felt they put her to sleep because she had a huge tumor growing under her neck and they didn’t want to tell me because when they asked me about it, I always said I didn’t want anyone killing my dog.
I never had another pet (other than tropical fish) after that until I met my husband, 30 years after losing Trixie. He had a cat named China and she didn’t like me and I didn’t like her! lol
Now, I am feminine and will say that I have always hated cats (stereotype is true in this instance) and this was my first exposure. However, I really came to love the animal because she really had her own personality and was highly jealous of my husband, who found her when she was a stray kitten and took her in when she couldn’t even eat solid food. I used to joke him by telling him that he was the only mother that she ever knew! lol
She came to accept me as well and we became very good friends–:-)
We had a house fire and sadly, China perished. But for the time that we were acquainted, I often wondered who she looked like because she looked very familiar. After given it much thought, I concluded that she looked like Trixie, colors and all! lol
I know I owe some people some responses and I will do so as time permits. It’s 1:40 am and I am working on work related issues. I started engaging in a couple of threads that required detailed responses, which I have not been able to give for the last couple of days because of work assignments.
However, I promise to respond to Kathy and msamu in the very near future; I just needed a break with this one–:-)
Sis Righter,
Funny you should mention your situation…
Two weeks ago, before my 21st birthday last August, the dog (a minature poodle named “Teddy” because he looked like a Teddy Bear…) that I’ve had since I was 12—who was the first dog I recieved when my mom was still single & going through medical school, was there when my mom got married, who comforted me all throughout middle school to highschool, college till now……& who has seen the ENTIRE HISTORY of our family…….
Well, he surpised us by dying diabetes…..
One day, his motor functions were really acting up and he kept falling down on himself, so I laid him down on his side so that he would not use so much energy……..& whenn I came back to school that night, I found him dead in the same position I left him in: on his side…..& alone….
Honestly, there were so many things happening already that day that I numbed myself to the situation by immediately by simply going upstairs & telling my dad “THE DOG IS DEAD….”, to which he immediately responded by burying him outsiide.
Though I didn’t cry over it, I’m beginning to feel it now, for the thought of me being the last to see him and that he was alone when he died, although we wanted him to be comforted with us in his last moments & were contemplating getting medicine for him so he’d live longer (though it would’ve been EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE for us to do and we didn’t know if we had the ability to do, it makes me sad wondering what it would’ve been like if he continued on……
And sadden that he didnt make it when the medicine could’ve helped him get well & perhaps he died in the same position I left him in when I left for school that day: ALONE..
He has a sister as well (Cookie), who’s a year younger than he was and is still with me and I’m praying she’ll make 25 yrs…….
Thanks, by the way, for the encouragement on writing a dissertation (Lol).
Though in popping the question of “Whether or not dOGS go to heaven” and even babies, part of me is convicted wondering how often we have discussions on issues no one will ever be 100% certain on or in agreement on……& yet on those things which seem to be crystal clear in Scripture, we often seem to ignore.
Specifically, remember Jonah and how he had issue witnessing to the ASsyrians due to how he thought they deserved to die and got mad at God? Interesting seeing how in Jonah 4 when in His Mercy God relented when witnessing the people’s repentance, Jonah got ticked……and had more warped sympathy for a plant he didn’t create & than the lives of his neighbors.
Makes me think of how often we get concerned over issues like “Do dogs or animals go to heaven” and yet will be indifferent toward other issues that God has made clear we should be concerned about as well…….such as His love for sinners/desire for them to REPENT and the need for us who are His Ambassadors to BE MORE FOCUSED ON REACHING THE WORLD FOR HIM (II Corinthians 5, II Timothy 2:1-7, etc)
Awh G,
I’m saddened by your loss. But, if we hold true to the sovereignty of God, it was predestined that it happened that way.
I have heard countless stories of individuals that waited to die when loved ones were not around.
Most recently, this happened to my cousin in December. She had 7 children but 1 was extremely involved in her mother’s life throughout her illness.
The daughter lives in Baltimore but her mother lived in Norfolk, VA. As such, the daughter traveled back and forth on weekends and used a lot of FMLA to care for her mom.
The doctors said the mother wasn’t going to last much longer, which put the daughter in a bind because in addition to attending to her mother; she has a daughter of her own who attends VCU and had to go back to school.
So, the daughter decides to stay with her mom that fateful weekend and the granddaughter joined her at the hospital on Friday. They spent the entire weekend in the hospital and Sunday morning, they left the hospital for breakfast. Before they arrived at a food establishment, the hospital called in less than 10 minutes after they left and said the mom had passed.
Thus, my cousin is convinced that her mother waited for her to leave the room before slipping away…
Thanks for the dialogue this seems to be getting a bit ugly so I am pulling out of this one. Thanks again.
I think it’s probably best that we don’t know:
1) If we knew that babies would go to heaven what should we do about it? It may not be right after “Thou shall not kill” but I could see an insidious doctrine of infanticide in some groups for the purpose of ensuring the eternal security of those too young to be responsible for themselves.
2) If we thought that they wouldn’t, what does that tell us about God? You can get deep with this one, but most people would run for the unrighteous hills.
3) If we don’t know, we are forced to rely on God, knowing that He is good and whatever He does with babies when they die is likewise good.
Option 3 is most conducive to us relying on Him, which I would suggest is the most important result.
Hi b and r,
Have I said something to offend you? If so, please accept my sincere apologies.
Not at all Righter,
I am not offened and rarely am. I am following the discussion just not joining. Keep it going.
BTW, that is a pretty good comment Jim
Option 3 is most conducive to us relying on Him, which I would suggest is the most important result.
Hey you guys got to check out Jim P’s Blog it is
http://www.timelessfaith.blogspot.com It is unbelievable and full of grace and wisdom.
Ok, thanks
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who SUPRESS THE TRUTH (present active participle) in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18)
Q. How do babies, little children or the mentally disabled do this?
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Co 5:10).
“And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds”
(Rev. 20:12-13).
Q. What deeds will a baby (miscarried, aborted or killed), a little child, or mentally disabled person be responsible for?
Note: Original sin sends ALL OF US TO HELL if we were to be judged just on that issue alone by God (Rom. 5:12-14). So this can’t be the case. Scripture makes it clear sinners and saints will be judged based on what they DO, not for something they’ve never done.
Good post. Regarding those who go to hell, I find it interesting that every passage of which I’m aware related to those who go to hell, I’ve only seen it mentioned that they will go because of their deeds. In other words, while we all inherit sinful natures from Adam, I’m not aware of any passage in which we’re told that someone would be punished because of our father’s (Adam) sins. In fact, when Scripture speaks of sinners, it mentions sins that people are so wrapped up in that they can be described by the sins they knowingly commit, i.e. fornicator, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, etc. Exactly for which of them would an unborn baby be punished? The question seems to be since God chooses those who will be saved, does He always allow those who He did not choose for salvation to always live long enough that they can be identified by the sins they commit?
Note: After writing this, I realized that Saiko had a post that makes the same point.
I might add that regarding the question that I posed, I think the answer is yes.
I would say that this is a touchy subject which I don’t think anyone can definitively answer beyond a shadow of a doubt. All we can do is study God’s Word for what it does say and not add or detract anything from it. That being said, I think a lot of responses come from a personal viewpoint: “How could God hold a baby accountable?”, “How could God hold a mentally retarded person accountable?”, etc. Of course it would be very hard for someone who just lost a baby or knows a retarded family member to doubt that God absolutely saved their loved one. But someone in this situation, no doubt. would/could be hyper-sensitive to rationally exegete this subject. But what does God say about His nature and the only way to salvation? A truly reformed mindset would recognize that we are all born rebellious to God. We are enemies of God and deserving of His wrath. There is only one way to change that. The Holy Spirit initiates salvation to the elect. We can’t initiate it. God chose us; we didn’t choose Him. That is what a true Reformed/Calvinistic viewpoint admits. It is because of irresistible grace and limited atonement that some are saved and others are not. I agree with those who said that if all babies go to heaven then it would make sense that abortion would be a positive alternative instead of looking at it for what it truly is: murder. I can’t say whether God elects all babies to salvation. Only He knows all that He does and why He does it. And I guarantee you that what He does is for one purpose, and one purpose only: His glory! So, we must trust Him in all things known and unknown. As painful and uncertain as that can be it is imperative in the life of a true Christian. Lionel and others that are seriously considering this topic, please check out this link. I thought it was a gracious exposition of Scripture dealing with this topic. God bless!
http://www.a1m.org/page.php?page=template1.php&pageid=5a878f5478326e3e8ec698d7e9640187
BTW, let’s not forget what Romans 9:14-24 says about those God elects and those He doesn’t. It has nothing to do with us and what we do or don’t do. It’s completely about Him and what He chooses to do. He is the potter and we are the clay. No one has a justifiable right to question God’s decision in creating us as a vessel of mercy or a vessel of wrath. It’s His choice, not ours.
Can someone be kind enough to show me the passages on “the age of accountability”. I would like to study this topic according to the Word and make sure that I am studying it in context. I don’t want to get duped into believing a man made notion like the secret rapture thing. Thanks!
Scottie,
I second that request. I’ve read through the Bible several times and have yet to find any that speak of an “age of accountability.” It appears to me to be a man-made doctrine, because it sounds nice to say that God must let all the little kids go to heaven because they’re too young to know what they’re doing. That may be the case, but it seems to violate Scriptures that teach that man is desperately wicked from birth (even conception, being the seed of Adam), and does not deserve to be saved. Anyway, our church (a sovereign grace Baptist church) has never taught about an “age of accountability”, so I may be wrong on this, but I think that picking the age of 12 (as some do) is based on the Jewish tradition of Bar Mitzvah, although I don’t think it’s in the Bible. I’m not sure about this, but I think the only time the age of 12 is mentioned is when Jesus was at the Temple talking with the Jewish religious leaders. I’m not sure why some people pick the age of 3, or whatever other age they pick. I look forward to hearing more of the reasoning behind this, because I’ve never fully understood it myself.