What happens to babies when they die?

The two major viewpoints being those, like Spurgeon, who believe all those who die as infants are Elect and go to Heaven. To which it might be said: How about if they hadn't died ? This implies everyone is Elect ! No, not actually. For the Most High knows who shall live into adulthood, and who shall die in infancy. And it's certainly plausible that he would only allow the Elect to die as infants. The other position I hold being based upon Matthew 22:14 (substitute "elect" for "chosen" ...eklektos in the original Greek). Only "few" of those who die in infancy are Elect. Just like those dying in adulthood. While the methodology of salvation differs for infants (e.g., they cannot hear and understand the Gospel), the basic principle (only a "few" are elected) still holds. [ It's interesting that Spurgeon was a Reformed Baptist who rejected infant baptism. While most Presbyterians and Belgic Reformed -who practice infant baptism- deny that every child dying in infancy is Elect. One might think it'd be opposite. ] This one of those things we'll have to wait until we get to Heaven to find out for sure.

What we do know, however:

a.) Everyone is a sinner from conception in their mother's womb. As R.C. Sproul Sr. correctly stated...

"We sin because we are sinners, not sinners because we sin".

Hence, everyone deserves eternal perdition. There's no Age of Innocence according to the Bible (Psalm 51:5).

b.) Salvation, therefore, is a gift and not something earned (Romans 4:4-5, et. al.).

Thus there is no reason why infants cannot receive this gift. Albeit the process has to be different. The Lord does not explain how infant salvation functions because -as we have no part in it- there's no need for us to know.

HighwayMan said:

What happens to babies, or toddlers when they die? I'm curious in the poll results - or an explanation, from whichever philosophy/theology you want to tackle it from?

Click to expand...

Since everyone is judged according to their deeds and babys don't sin, aren't even capable of it, they go to heaven.

tulipbee said:

Hence, everyone deserves eternal perdition. There's no Age of Innocence according to the Bible (Psalm 51:5).

Click to expand...

Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5

How does the passage above make the doctrine of the "age of innocence/accountability" false?

Lion King said:

Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5

How does the passage above make the doctrine of the "age of innocence/accountability" false?

Click to expand...

When his mother was in sin and had an adulterous affair and it wasn't about his sin. Even if babys can sin, they can't do the sins you get judged for at the end. You didn't give Me anything to drink: That would be a bit unfair to ask from a baby.

Lion King said:

Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5

How does the passage above make the doctrine of the "age of innocence/accountability" false?

Click to expand...

She was born a sinner like all of us.

"The wicked are estranged from the womb" (Psalm 58:3a NASB; cf Psalm 51:5)

Sin -as any disease- gets worse. Lady Gaga didn't have to be born the way she is now for Original Sin to explain her life !

Calvinism, however, teaches Preterit Reprobation. There's no election unto perdition like there is election unto salvation. We don't teach that -out of the mass of good people- God picks some to make bad so He can send them to Hell.

tulipbee said:

She was born a sinner like all of us.

"The wicked are estranged from the womb" (Psalm 58:3a NASB; cf Psalm 51:5)

Sin -as any disease- gets worse. Lady Gaga didn't have to be born the way she is now for Original Sin to explain her life !

Click to expand...

But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts.
I was cast upon You from birth.
From My mother’s womb
You have been My God. - Psalm 22:9-10

What do you make of this passage by David?

tulipbee said:

The two major viewpoints being those, like Spurgeon, who believe all those who die as infants are Elect and go to Heaven. To which it might be said: How about if they hadn't died ? This implies everyone is Elect ! No, not actually. For the Most High knows who shall live into adulthood, and who shall die in infancy. And it's certainly plausible that he would only allow the Elect to die as infants.

Click to expand...

The other position I hold being based upon Matthew 22:14 (substitute "elect" for "chosen" ...eklektos in the original Greek). Only "few" of those who die in infancy are Elect. Just like those dying in adulthood.

Click to expand...

Regarding "Only "few" & "called" in the gospels = / = "elect" in epistles: Being a non-modern Lutheran regarding Matt.22:1-14, note v.7, ,ie, Concordia Triglotta 1069, 14 - paragraphs 12-22, together with Rom.8:29,etc.; and Eph.1:4, etc. purport the first are those who never believed, the last those who pretended to believe, ie, including those unknowingly of course, eg, IIThess.2:10b. No refute, but necessary to address as most Christians today unknowingly accord with the latter, and wrongfully accord themselves with the "elect" in the epistles thinking they have this ticket to heaven. Just ol' old 'inferring' Jack, ie, not that I'm correct.

While the methodology of salvation differs for infants (e.g., they cannot hear and understand the Gospel), the basic principle (only a "few" are elected) still holds. [ It's interesting that Spurgeon was a Reformed Baptist who rejected infant baptism. While most Presbyterians and Belgic Reformed -who practice infant baptism- deny that every child dying in infancy is Elect. One might think it'd be opposite. ] This one of those things we'll have to wait until we get to Heaven to find out for sure.

What we do know, however:

a.) Everyone is a sinner from conception in their mother's womb. As R.C. Sproul Sr. correctly stated...

"We sin because we are sinners, not sinners because we sin".

Hence, everyone deserves eternal perdition. There's no Age of Innocence according to the Bible (Psalm 51:5).

b.) Salvation, therefore, is a gift and not something earned (Romans 4:4-5, et. al.).

Thus there is no reason why infants cannot receive this gift. Albeit the process has to be different. The Lord does not explain how infant salvation functions because -as we have no part in it- there's no need for us to know.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by HighwayMan

What happens to babies, or toddlers when they die? I'm curious in the poll results - or an explanation, from whichever philosophy/theology you want to tackle it from?
​

Click to expand...

Messy said:

Since everyone is judged according to their deeds and babys don't sin, aren't even capable of it, they go to heaven.

Click to expand...

The innocent children suffer the most during wars, both civil and world wide and I would hope they find a place in heaven after all the suffering a lot of them go thru in this life.......


Luke 21:23
"Woe to the ones in belly having and the ones suckling in those days!
For shall be great distress upon the Land and Wrath upon this people
[Daniel 12/Reve 18:8]

Reve 18:8
by this, in one day shall be arriving the blows of Her, death and sorrow and famine;and in fire She shall be being burned,
that strong Lord, the God, the one judging Her

Click to expand...

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

Meanwhile the horrors of famine grew still more melancholy and afflictive.
The Jews, for of food were at length compelled to eat their belts, their sandals, the skins of their shields, dried grass, and even the ordure of oxen. In the depth or this horrible extremity, a Jewess of noble family urged by the intolerable cravings of hunger, slew her infant child, and prepared it for a meal ; and had actually eaten one half thereof, when the soldiers, allured by tile smell of food, threatened her with instant death if she refused to discover it. 'Intimidated by this menace, she immediately produced the remains of her son, which petrified them with horror. At the recital of this melancholy and affecting occurrence, the whole city stood aghast, and poured forth their congratulations on those whom death had hurried away from such heartrending scenes.
Indeed, humanity at once shudders and sickens at the narration, nor can any one of the least sensibility reflect upon the pitiable condition to which the female part of the inhabitants of Jerusalem must at this time have been reduced, without experiencing the tenderest emotions of sympathy, or refrain from tears while he reads our SAVIOUR'S pathetic address to the women who " bewailed him" as he was led to Calvary, wherein he evidently refers to these very calamities :

"Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but for yourselves and fur your children ; for, behold, the days are coming in which they shall say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts that never gave suck." Luke xxiii. 29.

Click to expand...

.

Lion King said:

I have already answered this question several times already: the people (Caleb, Joshua, children and little ones) that were allowed to enter the promised land (a type of New Jerusalem) and inherit it were only those whom God considered as RIGHTEOUS (Psalm 37).

Click to expand...

But they weren't considered "righteous" because they were sinless. The case can be made that the babies were totally ignorant to their sin. The same case can't be made for Caleb, Joshua, or the (children) sons and daughters under twenty.

Jig said:

But they weren't considered "righteous" because they were sinless.

Click to expand...

Who said they were? Did anyone here ever say righteousness is synonymous with sinlessness?

Children are not considered righteous before God because they are sinless (they sin just like you and me). They are considered righteous because their sins are not counted against them.

Now, do you know why God doesn't record their sins against them?

Hint: James 4:17; John 9:41.

The case can be made that the babies were totally ignorant to their sin. The same case can't be made for Caleb, Joshua, or the (children) sons and daughters under twenty.

Click to expand...

1. Can you tell me why Caleb and Joshua were allowed entry into the promised land by God?

2. Can you tell me why everyone under 20 yrs of age was allowed entry into the promised land by God?

ViaCrucis said:

IAnd Christ's atoning work is not solely so that human "souls" can go to a place called "heaven" after we die; but is rather to redeem and restore all things--all of creation. Which is why Christ's death and resurrection means the death of death itself, and the Spirit in us is God's pledge to us that, "He who who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies"; and further that all creation will be redeemed and glorified at Christ's coming.

It is a central Christian affirmation: That this good creation of God's will be renewed, restored, and redeemed. The very dirt under our feet is meant for eternity.

Click to expand...

This is what I believe the Creed refers to as "the life of the world to come" or what the Jews call Olam Ha-Ba.

Just a little water, ie, I dunk also, in the true 'Name' (revelation) that the personal name of the Triune God based upon - sins remitted, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and in the Kingdom of God (Acts2:38, 39)

All the passages used bringing forth the ol' "infant accountability," eg, Isa.7:13-17, etc. are fallaciously taken out of context, ie, out of the womb, ACCOUNTABLE providing the Truth is available? No Truth available, accountable, but off the hook, ie, has to meet the Truth (IIThess.2:10b; Rev.8:13)

Sorry, got on an uncomfortable roll of verbage. Just ol' old, guilty and sinful infant, dunker Jack

If sins 'remitted'

shturt678 said:

Just a little water, ie, I dunk also, in the true 'Name' (revelation) that the personal name of the Triune God based upon - sins remitted, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, and in the Kingdom of God (Acts2:38, 39)

Sorry, got on an uncomfortable roll of verbage. Just ol' old, guilty and sinful infant, dunker Jack

Click to expand...

That brings to mind this verse in Luke 16 concerning the rich man ask for just drop of water....
Wonder what that is all about?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

LUKE 16:24 "Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham! have mercy on me! and send Lazarus! that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue;
for I am tormented in this flame.' "

Click to expand...

First, notice that the rich man identifies Abraham as his father, just as the Pharisees did (John 8:39). The rich man (Judah) is now shown to be undergoing reproof, testing, and punishment in "this flame" (singular, not "these flames"). It is quite obvious that the flame is not literal, because a wet fingertip on the tongue would do nothing to quench the pain inflicted by real flames.............



.

I voted that they go to heaven, because I believe this to be true to the character of God.

I can't believe that God who is perfect, and love and a loving heavenly Father would condemn babies to spend eternity without him when they never had a chance to get to know him. As the Psalmist says, all the days of our life are known to God, so this would mean that he created babies, knowing that they would die at birth, or soon after, and then punish them for not living long enough to know him. Jesus said "let the little children come to me"; he welcomed them while he was on earth, would he reject them when they died?

I also don't believe that babies are born in sin - because if they are, so was Jesus. Sin is rebellion against God - as Adam did; it is knowing God, and his will, and deliberately disobeying it. We have a sinful nature, thanks to Adam, and at some point, all sin and rebel against God. But babies can't.

If it WAS the case that babies are born in sin, however, then they would be made perfect after death, just as we all are.

tulipbee said:

Thus there is no reason why infants cannot receive this gift. Albeit the process has to be different. The Lord does not explain how infant salvation functions because -as we have no part in it- there's no need for us to know.

Click to expand...

This is something I said early on in the topic--although I'm not a Calvinist.

To address your second point first, and to repeat it for emphasis: The Lord does not explain how infant salvation functions because -as we have no part in it- there's no need for us to know.

To address your first point, and I'll repeat again for emphasis: The Lord does not explain how infant salvation functions because -as we have no part in it- there's no need for us to know.

Two things about this:

1. This is a gift from God at His pleasure.
2. God is biased toward salvation (1 Timothy 2, 2 Peter 3).

God is not like an insurance company looking for every loophole not to pay. This is a gift God desires men to have, and He has not set up salvation like some riddle of the Sphinx designed for men to fail.

Lion King said:

2. Can you tell me why everyone under 20 yrs of age was allowed entry into the promised land by God?

Click to expand...

And we don't need to debate what the actual age should be--as far as we know, it's dependent on each individual...but God knows when it is for each individual, and scriptures such as that you referred to indicate that God takes the matter into consideration.

In my thinking, although it may vary by individual (and we have to consider those who are not of normal mentality as well), I would say it's safe to consider the unborn and infants in that category.

Lion King said:

Who said they were? Did anyone here ever say righteousness is synonymous with sinlessness?

Children are not considered righteous before God because they are sinless (they sin just like you and me). They are considered righteous because their sins are not counted against them.

Now, do you know why God doesn't record their sins against them?

Hint: James 4:17; John 9:41.

Click to expand...

However, you are assuming that their sins are not counted against them because they are totally ignorant to them. It is with this point that you are incorrect. The passages you have used to support this don't actually acknowledge this.

You initially used Deuteronomy 1:39 to make your case. However, after careful review (and comparing it to Numbers 14:29-31) it can be determined that this group of "little ones and children" includes not only babies and toddlers - but also teenagers! Surely you don't believe that teenagers are completely ignorant to all their sins.

Now you are pointing me to James 4:17 and John 9:41. It almost sounds like you are supporting the idea that if someone commits a sin and does not know that it was a sin - then they are not culpable. However, this is not what these verses mean.

In James 4: 17, the word "therefore" emphasizes the reason why the boasting of v. 16 is wrong. These people know to do good and do it not. Knowing, but not doing, means these believers are guilty of sin.

In John 9:41, Jesus' point was that if the Pharisees would confess that they were spiritually blind (thereby admitting their need for Christ, the true Light) they would have no sin, because it would be forgiven. Since the Pharisees were unwilling to acknowledge their blindness, but claimed to see, they remained culpable and unforgiven for all their sin. The sin in view here is that of unbelief. You are reading too much into this verse without looking at the context. It is certainly not implying that those who are ignorant to their sins are immune to the spiritual consequences of their sins.

1. Can you tell me why Caleb and Joshua were allowed entry into the promised land by God?

Click to expand...

Because they were faithful and believed God would allow them to occupy the land when they were sent in by Moses to spy out the land.

2. Can you tell me why everyone under 20 yrs of age was allowed entry into the promised land by God?

Click to expand...

One thing to note is that this group of people still suffered the consquences of their parent's sins - they endured deprivation and various temptations in the austerity of the desert for 40 years too. However, God showed mercy on them. In as sense, this was poetic justice. Those who the unbelieving Hebrews said "would be a prey" (v. 3), God would allow to live and enter into the promised land. It would be them that would learn to know the land which the others had despised.

RDKirk said:

And we don't need to debate what the actual age should be--as far as we know, it's dependent on each individual...but God knows when it is for each individual, and scriptures such as that you referred to indicate that God takes the matter into consideration.

Click to expand...

Actually, if Deuteronomy 1:39 is going to be used to support the idea that babies who die untimely deaths go to heaven, then yes we should be debating what the actual age is - at least in this particular passage. Because if it can be determined that more than infants and toddlers are meant in the context of this verse, then this text does not truly support the claim that those who are totally ignorant of their sins go to heaven upon death.

Jig said:

However, you are assuming that their sins are not counted against them because they are totally ignorant to them. It is with this point that you are incorrect. The passages you have used to support this don't actually acknowledge this.

You initially used Deuteronomy 1:39 to make your case. However, after careful review (and comparing it to Numbers 14:29-31) it can be determined that this group of "little ones and children" includes not only babies and toddlers - but also teenagers! Surely you don't believe that teenagers are completely ignorant to all their sins.

Click to expand...

Well, God said that all* those who were allowed to enter the promised land were ignorant of of good and evil, do you believe this to be the truth?

* with the exception of Caleb and Joshua.

Because they have not followed me wholeheartedly, not one of those who were twenty years old or more when they came up out of Egypt will see the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob— not one except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite and Joshua son of Nun, for they followed the Lord wholeheartedly.’ Numbers 32:11-12

______

The Lord was also angry with me for your sakes, saying, ‘Even you shall not go in there. Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall go in there. Encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.

‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn and take your journey into the wilderness by the Way of the Red Sea.’ Deuteronomy 1:37-40

Now you are pointing me to James 4:17 and John 9:41. It almost sound like you are supporting the idea that if someone commits a sin and does not know that it was a sin - then they are not culpable. However, this is not what these verses mean.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I mean!

However, this is only applicable to those who do not know the difference between right and wrong (i.e children and mentally challenged folks). Everyone else have no excuse for their sins, since the LORD has made Himself known to the world from the beginning.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, Romans 1:18-20

In James 4: 17, the word "therefore" emphasizes the reason why the boasting of v. 16 is wrong. These people know to do good and do it not. Knowing, but not doing, means these believers are guilty of sin.

Click to expand...

So, what about those who do not know what is good or evil (Isaiah 7:13-16)? Are they still guilty of sin according to James?

In John 9:41, Jesus' point was that if the Pharisees would confess that they were spiritually blind (thereby admitting their need for Christ, the true Light) they would have no sin, because it would be forgiven. Since the Pharisees were unwilling to acknowledge their blindness, but claimed to see, they remained culpable and unforgiven for all their sin. The sin in view here is that of unbelief. You are reading too much into this verse without looking at the context. It is certainly not implying that those who are ignorant to their sins are immune to the spiritual consequences of their sins.[/U]

Click to expand...

Oh really?

Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’ John 15:20-26


It seems pretty clear to me that those ignorant of good and evil will not suffer the consequences of sin.

Because they were faithful and believed God would allow them to occupy the land when they were sent in by Moses to spy out the land.

Click to expand...

Correct.

One thing to note is that this group of people still suffered the consquences of their parent's sins - they endured deprivation and various temptations in the austerity of the desert for 40 years too. However, God showed mercy on them. In as sense, this was poetic justice. Those who the unbelieving Hebrews said "would be a prey" (v. 3), God would allow to live and enter into the promised land. It would be them that would learn to know the land which the others had despised.

Click to expand...

I'll ask you again: why was everyone under 20 yrs of age allowed entry into the promised land by God?