Do babies who die go to heaven?

yeah, they do.

I believe so. But I don't believe in original sin, so I don't think babies can be held responsible for something that's not their fault. They didn't ask to be born, why should they be punished just for that?

You couldn't truly love someone who would burn babies eternally. Even burning adults seems a little OTT . So that leaves us with whether God would simply wipe them from existence. That seems harsh too. Ever met a baby? (not referring to you specifically, Lismore )
I didn't quote scriptures because I think we work it out from the big picture of the character of God. I can quote scripture on that.... "God is Love" (1 John 4:8)

lismore said:

Yes.

Why not just drown all babies at birth then and let everyone go to heaven?

What would perpetually burning someone in hell actually achieve anyway?

Click to expand...

Exactly!!! Illogical.

lismore said:

Yes.

Many fundamentalists I have met believe that all babies went to heaven but most adults went to hell. Why not just drown all babies at birth then and let everyone go to heaven?

What would perpetually burning someone in hell actually achieve anyway?

Click to expand...

Everyone wouldn't go to heaven. Unless you think people who drown babies are doing the Lord's work.
By the way, babies who die go to heaven. Unborn babies who die go to heaven.

Jase said:

I believe so. But I don't believe in original sin, so I don't think babies can be held responsible for something that's not their fault. They didn't ask to be born, why should they be punished just for that?

Click to expand...

This exactly.

But doesn't this all raise a fundamental question about belief in hell? If you believe in hell for unrepententant sinning adults, but not for babies, when is the transition point? When is a child old enough to sin their way into hell? Is there a point aged three when some poor little tot throws a tantrum because Mummy takes his toy away, after which God is ready to burn him for ever in hellfire until such a time as he accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour?

I think I'm agreeing with most of the posters here. The whole thing seems too mechanical to me, not at all consistent with the idea that God is love.

meliagaunt said:

But doesn't this all raise a fundamental question about belief in hell?

Click to expand...

Definitely! A good question. Just because an idea has been mainstream for a couple of thousand years doesn't actually mean it's correct. In fact, it strikes me as one hellish lie and the big surprise is how people who believe they're following a loving God buy into this idea. Imagine how God must feel at being lumped with THAT baggage....

meliagaunt said:

But doesn't this all raise a fundamental question about belief in hell? If you believe in hell for unrepententant sinning adults, but not for babies, when is the transition point? When is a child old enough to sin their way into hell? Is there a point aged three when some poor little tot throws a tantrum because Mummy takes his toy away, after which God is ready to burn him for ever in hellfire until such a time as he accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour?

I think I'm agreeing with most of the posters here. The whole thing seems too mechanical to me, not at all consistent with the idea that God is love.

Click to expand...

This is why there is an age of accountability in Judaism (I think around 13). At that point, you are deemed old enough to be accountable to the Law.

I don't have a clear answer to this, but I have to say I'm worried about the position.

First, while babies may be cute, if it's wrong for babies to burn it hell, it wrong for adults. I hope God isn't biased based on age.

Second, it seems to me that infants require God's grace as much as adults do. The position that they're not in danger of hell suggests strongly that they're in some kind of privileged position where God thinks they're OK. Typically the argument is *not*: God gives all infants grace; as we age he withdraws it. Rather, the usual suggestion is that babies are so sweet and innocent that we can't imagine God judging them. I think whatever position you adopt has to say that infants depend upon God's grace just as much as adults, although possibly in a different form.

Yeah, babies being cute and all is not really the point...the point is their complete innocence, and not in a 'sweet and innocent' airhead way - they ARE innocent. Their only 'crime' is being born human, a condition they never personally bought into. Same goes for every adult. We are born into this world and to a large extent our experieces in it shape us for good or evil. Sure there is choice, but a kid who is abused, neglected, never shown love or the right way to act - hardly has a choice. God put them in this world with the usual fallible human nature, He allowed their experiences to happen. He could hardly blame them eternally for decisions made under the influence of that limited knowledge (seen through a glass darkly).

But back to babies - a person would have to be a psychopath to burn anyone, never mind a baby, never mind worship someone who would. As humans, we find particularly despicable crimes committed against the very young - it's not 'cause they have big eyes and a large forehead, it's because we know they could have done absolutely nothing to deserve evil being done to them. Why would God, who welcomed children especially to Him feel any different. Who are we modeled after?

I don't think we can opt out of common sense and compassion by calling it religion and quoting verses.

lismore said:

I have been thinking on this issue.

A church I used to attend in the past taught that though all babies went to heaven, but many adults would go to hell, because everyone was born 'sinful'.

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

God couldnt 'wink at sin'. Those who had not fulfilled the requirements were doomed to burn eternally.

But if he could wink at sin for babies, why not adults?

There is something cute and innocent about babies that no-one perhaps for a minority could live with the idea of them being burned forever.

But allowing any one group of humans straight to heaven would be circumventing this idea that something has to be done by humankind first.....

Click to expand...

Psalm 51 is actually rather interesting. While often used by conservatives to argue original sin, it really has nothing to do with being born sinful.

5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me. - ASV

That's the more common phrasing of it. It's referring to the fact that David was born into a sinful world, and perhaps that his mother did something sinful to conceive him. It's not saying he was sinful the moment he was conceived.

Here is an article on original sin and that verse for those interested.

"Original Sin" and a Misapplied Passage : ChristianCourier.com

Bron said:

I don't think we can opt out of common sense and compassion by calling it religion and quoting verses.

Click to expand...

Very well put – thank you.

Things wrong with Original Sin as a doctrine:
1) If linked to Eve and Adam eating the forbidden fruit, it relies on a literal interpretation of Genesis that is untenable to thinking Christians.
2) If thought of as transmitted at conception because of 'concupiscence', i.e. sinful lust, then it devalues sex, surely a great gift of God.
3) This sort of congenital sexually transmitted disease idea also reduces the significance of free will: for 'sin' to have any meaning morally or theologically, it needs to be a voluntary rebellion against God.
4) It leads to nonsense such as the idea of the Immaculate Conception, where God is supposed to have preserved Mary from the taint of Original Sin, so not only Jesus, but his mum too was sinless.
5) Linked to 3) above, it also implies that babies are tainted, which leads to further nonsense with the old idea of Limbo – a state well short of paradise but not involving hellish sufferings, where unbaptised babies could be supposed to go.

BIG HOWEVER:
It serves as quite an effective description of human nature, in that we do all have or develop a propensity to self-seeking behaviour, and need the grace of God to rise beyond it. Romans deals with this pretty comprehensively. It doesn't have to lead to mechanistic ideas of damnation, merely to the conclusion that as humans we are always somewhere between Cain and Jesus (speaking figuratively) and should seek the Holy Spirit's help to move more in the Jesus direction.

So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you. It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” Since we have that same spirit of faith, we also believe and therefore speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself. All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:12-18

Jase said:

"Original Sin" and a Misapplied Passage : ChristianCourier.com

Click to expand...

Brilliant link, thanks, and for your points and that of Meliagaunt. I have been wondering about the concept of original sin too, but to work out the truth has been an interesting challenge. So much of what I've been taught in conservative churches is tied up in interpretation and selective quoting, and in later constructs by 'church fathers'. It's like unraveling a ball of string. That article is really helpful!

On another point though, I feel it's an important point to stress that it's not the cuteness of babies that makes the thought of burning or destroying them abhorrent. It's the fact that they haven't done anything, they literally haven't; not anything good OR bad. The article states this well "The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, it is given by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9). Hence, at birth it must be as pure as the source from whence it comes." The reason we love and protect babies (besides their large eyes and the lowness of their faces on their heads ) is the purity we sense in them.

The reason I stress this point is that the impulse regarding babies is not emotional in the sense that we are discussing; it brings up excellent questions, as Lismore said "God couldnt 'wink at sin'. Those who had not fulfilled the requirements were doomed to burn eternally.
But if he could wink at sin for babies, why not adults?" So it brings into question the concept of original sin for example. If babies who die go to heaven, why?