What happens if someone dies before they became a believer, is it their fault?

[timothyu]

It's His choice, not ours. If not accepted, will you readily say His will be done? It might just buy you a pass.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You said and I quote: "There is no such thing as , so, no, the Bible does not address them. We all reject God continually, all day long, with every breath we breath, even when we think we are accepting him, until he changes us, born again, 'born from above', raised from life to death.
I am just asking: "How could an unborn baby ever knowingly "reject God"??
We are talking about, "dying before becoming a believer", which can happen to an unborn baby. If you say, "We do not know", than how can you be so certain about babies one day old?

What I said was, "There is no such thing as people who never had the opportunity to reject God, so, no, the Bible does not address them".

How can you know an unborn baby is not a believer? God does what he will. He doesn't need our notions of what a person is, nor of what constitutes enmity with him.

I compare the mind of the unborn, at whatever stage they can rightly be called a person, with the mind of the clinical idiot who has no brain activity registering, cannot hear, cannot see, doesn't respond to touch, and has no sentient "concepts" as we claim separates us from animals. Are you going to say that God cannot deal with him, and change his heart?

On a scale with that clinical idiot on one end and God on the other, where do you think those of us who can read, consider and reason stand? I think I can guarantee you that our intelligence and self-awareness is much closer to the bottom of the scale than it is to God's place. We can all make definitions for 'sin' and 'omnipotence' and so on, but God's point of view is the only one that counts, in the end.

 

[bling]

What I said was, "There is no such thing as people who never had the opportunity to reject God, so, no, the Bible does not address them".

Again, you are saying an unborn baby rejected God since "There is no such thing as people" so I asking how is that possible?

How can you know an unborn baby is not a believer? God does what he will. He doesn't need our notions of what a person is, nor of what constitutes enmity with him.

An unborn baby does not fit the Biblical description of a believer. Under your scenario why would all unborn babies not be believers, since they can do nothing?

I compare the mind of the unborn, at whatever stage they can rightly be called a person, with the mind of the clinical idiot who has no brain activity registering, cannot hear, cannot see, doesn't respond to touch, and has no sentient "concepts" as we claim separates us from animals. Are you going to say that God cannot deal with him, and change his heart?

I would say those people unable to sin are in a safe condition not needing salvation, since they have not done anything wrong like "reject God".

On a scale with that clinical idiot on one end and God on the other, where do you think those of us who can read, consider and reason stand? I think I can guarantee you that our intelligence and self-awareness is much closer to the bottom of the scale than it is to God's place. We can all make definitions for 'sin' and 'omnipotence' and so on, but God's point of view is the only one that counts, in the end.

Mature adults have limited free will (Made in the image of God), so they can become like God having Godly type Love.

 

[Dan Perez]

Each person makes their own choices.

True. And people living to 900 years of age before the flood had wayyyy more time than anyone has had for 1000's of years.

UNLEES HE is one. of. the ELECTED. in EPH 1:4. !!

dan p

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, you are saying an unborn baby rejected God since "There is no such thing as people" so I asking how is that possible?

Well, no. I was not saying an unborn baby rejected God, but that at whatever point that baby is a responsible (by God's assessment) human, he rejects God, unless he has been born from above by the work of God.

An unborn baby does not fit the Biblical description of a believer.

Says who?

Under your scenario why would all unborn babies not be believers, since they can do nothing?

The same as the rest of us. Whatever we do, whether supposedly good choices or not, what we do is done at enmity with God, unless we are "born-again".

I would say those people unable to sin are in a safe condition not needing salvation, since they have not done anything wrong like "reject God".

I would say you obviously reject the notion of Total Depravity. You think that man is not at the core corrupt and at enmity with God.

Mature adults have limited free will (Made in the image of God), so they can become like God having Godly type Love.

"Limited free will" is either not limited, or not free. The notion is self-contradictory. That we choose is self-evident, and our choices are valid, real, with real, even eternal, consequences. I have not said otherwise. But the notion that they are (in any way) free of cause makes no sense. In fact, I would defy you to explain how ANYTHING is real without being caused to be real. Whatever happens is established to be so by God, the Creator of very fact and very reality. He is not subject to our silly decisions. We are subject to his.

 

[timothyu]

An unborn baby does not fit the Biblical description of a believer.

An unborn baby does not fit the description of selfish either until the umbilical cord is cut. Then it becomes a matter of self-preservation and that starts the ball rolling down the self-interest trail. Our will ahead of the will of God.

 

[BobRyan]

I am just asking: "How could an unborn baby ever knowingly "reject God"??
We are talking about, "dying before becoming a believer", which can happen to an unborn baby. If you say, "We do not know", than how can you be so certain about babies one day old?

We are certain that unborn babies and newborn babies and 1 year old babies and ... do not have a clue about sin or rebellion. nada... nothing.

even though they have a sinful nature they do not have the ability to "know to do right" vs wrong.

"To him that knows to do right and does it not , to him it is sin" James 4:17

All need the Savior and all have a Savior, but the "many" of Matt 7 end up choosing to reject the savior on their wide road to destruction.

"Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world" James 4:17

Until such a baby reaches the age where he/she knows about sin/rebellion and knows enough to resist the gospel in the form of God the Holy Spirit leading them to life, that baby is covered by the prevenient grace of Christ.

God "is not willing that any should perish" 2 Pet 3

Going to hell is a choice made against the ever present drawing of the Holy Spirit..

 

[bling]

We are certain that unborn babies and newborn babies and 1 year old babies and ... do not have a clue about sin or rebellion. nada... nothing.

even though they have a sinful nature they do not have the ability to "know to do right" vs wrong.

"To him that knows to do right and does it not , to him it is sin" James 4:17

All need the Savior and all have a Savior, but the "many" of Matt 7 end up choosing to reject the savior on their wide road to destruction.

"Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world" James 4:17

Until such a baby reaches the age where he/she knows about sin/rebellion and knows enough to resist the gospel in the form of God the Holy Spirit leading them to life, that baby is covered by the prevenient grace of Christ.

God "is not willing that any should perish" 2 Pet 3

Going to hell is a choice made against the ever present drawing of the Holy Spirit..

You quote:
"To him that knows to do right and does it not , to him it is sin" James 4:17
Would it also stand to reason: "To him that does not know to do right and does not know it is sin, did not sin?
If babies do not sin, why are they not in a safe condition not needing salvation?

 

[bling]

"Limited free will" is either not limited, or not free. The notion is self-contradictory. That we choose is self-evident, and our choices are valid, real, with real, even eternal, consequences. I have not said otherwise. But the notion that they are (in any way) free of cause makes no sense. In fact, I would defy you to explain how ANYTHING is real without being caused to be real. Whatever happens is established to be so by God, the Creator of very fact and very reality. He is not subject to our silly decisions. We are subject to his.

"Limited free will" just means the person has some free will to make some free will choices, but not all his/her choices are free will choices and certainly not all the person's mental free choice will be carried out, but that does not mean those mental choices were not free will choices.

 

[timothyu]

Babies may be born righteous but they have built in, unlike other species, the potential for self-awareness which they soon will activate.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"Limited free will" just means the person has some free will to make some free will choices, but not all his/her choices are free will choices and certainly not all the person's mental free choice will be carried out, but that does not mean those mental choices were not free will choices.

Free will is either free or not free. There is no "sorta free". If the will is indeed free to do as it will, whether within bounds and limitations, then it operates independent of causes—and THAT is the problem. We do not operate independent of causes. Therefore, our choices are not entirely free, entirely spontaneous.

Calvinists (again, I don't claim to be one) often say that a person is free to do what they want, but that is a different use of the word, "free". It doesn't imply causelessness. "Somewhat causeless"? What would that even mean? Yet that is what you seem to want us to agree to.

 

[timothyu]

Free will was a necessary component of our human creation as it also was for the elohim, for both to be useful creative servants to the Father. Yes free will led Eve and Adam to choose self-interest but the resulting self-awareness is what became our fall as we followed our will over God”s

 

[RileyG]

For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?

God alone is just and merciful. It's not for us to decide.

 

[BobRyan]

You quote:
"To him that knows to do right and does it not , to him it is sin" James 4:17
Would it also stand to reason: "To him that does not know to do right and does not know it is sin, did not sin?
If babies do not sin, why are they not in a safe condition not needing salvation?

babies have a sinful nature that they need to be delivered from , so then they need a Savior. And as we see in 1 John 2:2 they have a Savior. He has them covered, thank God, and they have no need to "make a decision" to be covered by Christ. Babies do not make decisions

 

[BobRyan]

Babies may be born righteous

All humans are born with sinful natures. All need salvation.

But babies don't need to "make a decision first" to be covered by the mercy and grace of Christ. 1 John 2:2 He has their back. He has them covered..

 

[timothyu]

He has their back. He has them covered..

Until they exercise their self-awareness, leaving the innocent family pets in their dust

 

[Zceptre]

Well, no. I was not saying an unborn baby rejected God, but that at whatever point that baby is a responsible (by God's assessment) human, he rejects God, unless he has been born from above by the work of God.

This is about as clear as mud. lol

Are you saying babies go to Hell or Heaven man, come on, fess up your personal conclusion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is about as clear as mud. lol

Are you saying babies go to Hell or Heaven man, come on, fess up your personal conclusion.

If you're looking for a blanket statement, here you go: God can (and will) do as he pleases.

Each baby is another individual, that God deals with according to his purposes.

If you want me to 'admit' that it is possible that some babies go to hell, ok. I insist that it is possible, until someone can demonstrate to my satisfaction that babies are born innocent, without the inherent corruption endemic to the rest of us.

Too often the dynamic from which people pose their questions or make their statements on this matter, seem to indicate that God has no particular plans for babies, unborn or otherwise. Well, if someone dies, it was by God's will, and if someone lives, it was by God's will. The same is true concerning babies, all of whom are his creation, and not their own, any more than we own ourselves. They were conceived and grew according to HIS purposes. If anybody—baby or otherwise—goes to Hell, it is according to God's justice; if the baby is indeed innocent, God is just, any punishment is meet for the crime. If anybody—baby or otherwise—goes to Heaven, it is by the mercy of God.

Whether they die before birth, or live to die after birth, or to die at any particular later point in life, they will die, and that, when God says so, and not until he says so, and it will be so for his purposes. Whether upon dying they go to Heaven or to Hell, is also according to God's say-so and for his reasons.

Clear enough?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Well, first off; Scripture declares that those who become believers are elect from the foundation of the world. (Ephesians 1)
Scripture also declares that "the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born." (Psalm 58:3)

Thus redemption (or condemnation for that matter) is not relevant to how old one is.

The consequences of the fall and being "dead in trespass and sin" though is not the same thing as personally committing sin. This is why Romans 9:11 speaks of "the children not having done good or evil that the purpose of God according to election may stand."

And yes it is true that one is not held accountable to something they don't "know". Although what is "known" isn't necessarily determinant on intellectual understanding as it relates to the soul and one's position before God. (IE; this is an aspect of our existence as "created in God's image" that we don't really understand.) What does the soul "know" even at the point the mind can not comprehend? (Again, a mystery we don't understand.)

Thus this makes the destiny of anyone between conception and intellectual understanding unknowable from the standpoint of what we in this life can observe. Despite Scripture clearly declares there are those who will never be redeemed regardless of how old they are when they die. (None of us know (nor can we) outside of "make your own calling and election sure" who the elect actually are.) Though we may recognize sanctification in people who are "post stage of regeneration".

Yea, redemption and condemnation are like unto "different operating systems". Redemption is predicated upon Christ providing substitutionary atonement in payment for an individual's sin. Yet "the law" meets out "the wages of sin" upon the unredeemed. And this is why "the law of love" (or rule of Christ) is not akin to the "law of sin and death" in contrary operation to the condemnation of the unregenerate. Their punishment is "the wages of sin" that they've "earned". (Two different "operating systems".)

 

[Zceptre]

If you want me to 'admit' that it is possible that some babies go to hell, ok. I insist that it is possible, until someone can demonstrate to my satisfaction that babies are born innocent, without the inherent corruption endemic to the rest of us.

Well, I didn't ask for your opinion to judge you, but you were kind of hiding in the shade brush so I figured I would whistle you out of there. lol

I can read between the lines, even if there are more than three there, and knew the stance but wasn't going to "speak for you." I definitely disagree and to say I have experienced God differently would be an understatement. I think every single case before God, souls that is, is judged individually by an absolutely perfect Judge. I think, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that also. At least that is what I'm gathering from what you have stated so far.

To posit my particular stance on this, I claim God to be a perfect and righteous Judge who is full of mercy and being more merciful than any of us would incline one to believe Him as a God who is love (1 John 4:7 - 1 John 4:8) to be merciful to children who have never committed any deeds physically, let alone sins, even though being born in sin, and that the blood of Jesus would give God the right to remove that sinful nature they are born with even more easily than He does ours who have committed many thousands upon thousands of sins over the course of our life.

Abraham calls God the Judge of all the Earth in Genesis 18:25, and cries out for Lot who is obviously (if we read Scripture later in Genesis of him upon the angels visit in Sodom) not the most righteous man in the Bible, and far from it if I'm to be blunt on the subject. Yet the righteous Judge had mercy on this man, living in the most sinful and one of the worst judged (if not the worst) cities to ever exist on this Earth.

We know that God forgave Lot because he is recorded in the New Testament differently than we read in the records of the Old Testament. In Hebrews 11 we find all of the saints / patriarchs of the Old Testament recorded as righteous and full of faith. Abraham was not always full of faith! Having doubted enough to try on his own through an alternative method of producing a son by means of Sarah's handmaid. Yet in Hebrews 11 Abraham is recorded as faithful and an example to follow. Lot in 2 Peter 2:7 is recorded the same way and is called a "righteous man" or "righteous Lot."

So then my own opinion on this is the character of God, who is love according to 1 John 4:8, who says we are nothing without love in 1 Corinthians 13:2, and who makes it clear the entire purpose of God's instructions to us is to bring us to the fullness of love itself in 1 Timothy 1:5, and finalizing it with Matthew 22:37 Matthew 22:38 Matthew 22:39 Matthew 22:40 Christ tells us that the entirety of the Law (Bible) hangs on these two commandments meaning God's Law is a Law of love.

So then, to say God would send a child (an infant) who even the secular world considers precious an innocent to Hell, how is He then more merciful than humans? If horrid sinners are appalled at the atrocity of children and babies being murdered, how could we ever make sense of God putting one in Hell? For His glory? In what sense? How does an infant in Hell bring glory to God and reveal His character and person of love? His infinite kindness and forgiveness and gentleness?

Maybe you have some answer to this, but I would certainly be curious as to how such a thing could even remotely be possible to bring glory to a God who is love. For a God who is willing to put His own Son on a cross (Romans 8:32), what rational reason would a person with that kind of love and sacrifice to save us who have sinned (not just been born in sin because of someone else's choices), why would someone that unimaginably kind and merciful ever send a child to literally be punished for an eternity but save Lot?

To throw one more out there for arguments sake, we are saying here (from your stance) that Paul who murdered men by his own testimony, and king David who did the same for personal reasons, and Moses also trying to save his brothers with his own strength and be a hero murdered a man are forgiven, but a little tiny baby who can't speak a word, think a clear thought, isn't fully conscious and can't even care for themselves somehow, in the most loving Person's eyes who has or will ever exist, deserves by His judgment to go to Hell?

In my view, that is exactly why Christ died on the cross, to free those born in sin, but who do not choose to accept it but repent. If no opportunity for repentance is available and sins have not been committed by these infants, why would a Judge who states His entire being, essence, and Law is based on love ever not cleanse them with His precious blood when He can forgive anyone He wants?

Oh I think they are forgiven for being "born in sin" for sure, and cleansed, and much faster and without a second thought by Christ.

With all respect intended, I think maybe some people are confusing an idea of Christ with the real Christ Jesus who said this about children:

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”