What happens to babies when they die?

Jig said:

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.

Click to expand...

What can be determined by that verse is that God can have mercy on who He will have mercy.

LittleLambofJesus said:

If sins 'remitted'
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

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.............

.

Click to expand...

Perfect, eg, Lk.16:24 and Jn.8:39, great analogy of Scripture. As long as infants are baptized, even if in a fallacious name, in order to receive the gift of remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and in the Kingdom of God kind of thing, yet never meet the Truth regarding all the water baptisms, dedications, spiritual baptisms, no baptisms, and etc., nowhere does God say how he deals with this, ie, same as for adults. My end point:

Hopefully no one on this thread has the Truth hence won't necessarily have my ticket to hell, along with the little infants, just because of the time I was born into - full blown apostasy where most think it's all grace (IIThess.2:11, 12). Just ol' old Jack hoping you folks don't have the Truth, ie, Truth mixed with subtle errors.

Lion King said:

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.

‘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

Click to expand...

I've already clearly explained this. The expression "the knowledge of good and evil" is a rhetorical device called a merism. And you have been interpreting it wrong.

Let me be overly precise here (as to prevent further misunderstanding):

We first must take note that the shortened expression "good and evil" is consistently used as a merism by itself in the OT. It indicates a whole range of knowledge, not knowledge of two isolated things (in this case "good" and "evil"). Yet as a merism, it should not be thought of as referring to all knowledge. Instead, it applies to the range within a specific category.

Like words, rhetorical devices such as merisms can be understood only as we explore their usage. In the OT we will find the usage falling into categories differentiated by the associated verbs:

1. When it is used with the verb "to speak" (Gen. 24:50; 31:24, 29), "good and evil" suggest that the speaker pass judgment or issue a decision.

2. When it is used with the verb "to hear" (2 Sam. 14:17), it means to listen with discernment to the details of a case so as to judge the legitimacy of a claim.

3. When it is used with the verb "to know" or its synonyms coupled with prepositions before good and evil (2 Sam. 19:35; 1 Kings 3:9; Isa. 7:15–16), it refers to a human capability to be discriminating. This capability is lacking in juveniles and in the elderly. The statements do not suggest that the subjects do not know anything or that they are morally destitute, only that their ability to discern what is in their best interests is somewhat lacking.

4. Besides the two passages in Genesis 2–3, the only other passage that uses the merism without prepositions and collocated with the verb "to know" is Deuteronomy 1:39. Here, as in category 3, the reference is to sons (children) before they have reached the age where they can make decisions for themselves or live independently. In this case - twenty years of age.

Those who contend, on the basis of Genesis 3:22, that the phrase should be understood as universal knowledge will have trouble finding that meaning in the passages listed above. Those who think that moral judgment is involved likewise have difficulty with the occurrences cited above, in that none of them can easily be attached clearly or exclusively to the realm of morality. The common denominator of these references is "discerning or discriminating wisdom."

Also, you have once again not addressed the fact that those who are in their teenage years are included in the group listed as not having "knowledge of good and evil".

Your interpretation renders this fact absurd. However, the proper interpretation (listed above) fits perfectly.

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

Click to expand...

I've explained your error in understanding the phrase "knowledge of good and evil" above. All sin has spiritual consequences irregardless if it is done in pure ignorance or not.

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?

Click to expand...

Again, this all stems from your erroneous interpretation of the merism "knowledge of good and evil".

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.

Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding this passage. Jesus was not speaking here of sin in general, but rather of the specific sin of willfully rejecting Him in the face of full revelation. Having witnessed firsthand Jesus' miracles and heard His teaching - both of which testified unmistakably to His deity - the Pharisees' conclusion was, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons" (Matt. 12:24). Because they attributed His miraculous works to Satan instead of the Holy Spirit, Jesus pronounced their sin to be unforgivable.

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

Click to expand...

Because they weren't the ones who directly disbelieved God - it was their parents. They were under the age of twenty and were still under the rule of their parents.

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...

The Christian answer is, "unless they were baptized, no one knows".

PaladinValer said:

The Christian answer is, "unless they were baptized, no one knows".

Click to expand...

Not all who had water baptism are saved

tulipbee said:

Not all who had water baptism are saved

Click to expand...

True, but then again, it is still commanded to be it, and thus, it is required.

Furthermore, no such qualifier is needed: it is simply baptism, which automatically must include water.

PaladinValer said:

True, but then again, it is still commanded to be it, and thus, it is required.

Furthermore, no such qualifier is needed: it is simply baptism, which automatically must include water.

Click to expand...

Speaking of watering down the gospel...

tulipbee said:

Not all who had water baptism are saved

Click to expand...

All who are baptized are indeed, saved, according to God's solemn promises which He has attached to Baptism.

Not all who are baptized stay with Christ, for many come and scorn God's gracious work in their lives, they turn away, walk away, they apostatize. But that doesn't make God's grace null and void, as though His work was insufficient; it means that we, in our sin, turn away from He who so graciously saves us and desires our salvation.

Which is why we don't rebaptize apostates, their one and only Baptism accomplished all that it needed to accomplish according to God's wonderful, unmerited grace. If we walk away from Christ, scorning His work, and return, He is faithful and just to forgive us our trespasses. As the father of prodigal shows, God comes running after us with His fatherly affection, and all of heaven rejoices. Christ, the Good Shepherd, seeks and searches after the one, lost little lamb.

-CryptoLutheran

Jig said:

What Loin King is promoting is theologically dangerous. He acknowledges that everyone (including infants, toddlers, and young children) are sinners. However, he is trying to sell the idea that these youngsters as sinners don't require Jesus to obtain salvation from their sin. Instead, their sin is presumably pardoned on the basis of their ignorance rather than pardoned by placing faith in Christ.

What this boils down to is: Christ's work on the cross was only necessary for sinners who committed their sins with the mental capacity to know it was wrong.

However, he forgets that justice must be served. God can't just forgo justice and outright pardon sin (no matter the reason). This is why Jesus needed to perform the work of the cross. It is only through Him (and His work on the cross) that sins can be atoned. There is simply no other way. To say otherwise is to water down the gospel.

Click to expand...

Do you consider Job to be saved? If so, how?

RDKirk said:

Do you consider Job to be saved? If so, how?

Click to expand...

Job, like all the other OT saints, would have found salvation the same way the NT saints found it - by faith.

They would have been saved by faith in the Messiah - in whom they were trusting God to provide (as prophesied). Only for them it was a trust in the future Messiah.

God did not change how He saved people in the New Testament. It has always been by faith. In the case of the OT saints, they looked ahead in time to the Messiah. While we look back at Him.

Nienna_Lady_of_Tears said:

Baptism is something for adults to choose. Infants cannot be baptized because they cannot choose to accept Christ or not.

Click to expand...

An infant also doesn't chose to have it's dirty bottom cleaned. Thankfully God gave the babe parents to choose for the babe and teach the babe and raise up the child right and proper.

Rev Randy said:

An infant also doesn't chose to have it's dirty bottom cleaned. Thankfully God gave the babe parents to choose for the babe and teach the babe and raise up the child right and proper.

Click to expand...

I've never understood the argument that infants can't "choose" something, so it shouldn't be done. Like you said, infants can't choose to have their bottom cleaned. I would also add that infants can't choose to feed themselves, or receive vaccines or medicine.

If Baptism is what Scripture says it is, then it is a thousand times more important than vaccines or medicine or food--it is Christ Himself. Why, therefore, deprive the little ones of Him? He whom they, like us, so desperately need. Why do we, like the erring disciples, try and turn them away from the Lord?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I've never understood the argument that infants can't "choose" something, so it shouldn't be done. Like you said, infants can't choose to have their bottom cleaned. I would also add that infants can't choose to feed themselves, or receive vaccines or medicine.

If Baptism is what Scripture says it is, then it is a thousand times more important than vaccines or medicine or food--it is Christ Himself. Why, therefore, deprive the little ones of Him? He whom they, like us, so desperately need. Why do we, like the erring disciples, try and turn them away from the Lord?

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

This mindset of infants being deprived of a choice seems to stem from a mindset began in the French revolution. Along with "It takes a village to raise a child" nonsense. It takes a village idiot to let the village raise his child.

Jig said:

Job, like all the other OT saints, would have found salvation the same way the NT saints found it - by faith.

They would have been saved by faith in the Messiah - in whom they were trusting God to provide (as prophesied). Only for them it was a trust in the future Messiah.

God did not change how He saved people in the New Testament. It has always been by faith. In the case of the OT saints, they looked ahead in time to the Messiah. While we look back at Him.

Click to expand...

Job didn't know anything about a future messiah.

RDKirk said:

Job didn't know anything about a future messiah.

Click to expand...

What makes you so sure of that?

Stryder06 said:

What makes you so sure of that?

Click to expand...

We are just about to agree on something again. Wonders never cease.

Stryder06 said:

What makes you so sure of that?

Click to expand...

I have the same level of certaintly that Job did not have a revelation of a coming Messiah that Jig has that aborted infants go to hell.

RDKirk said:

I have the same level of certaintly that Job did not have a revelation of a coming Messiah that Jig has that aborted infants go to hell.

Click to expand...

Ya mean none whatsoever?

RDKirk said:

I have the same level of certaintly that Job did not have a revelation of a coming Messiah that Jig has that aborted infants go to hell.

Click to expand...

I make no assumptions about the fate of the unborn for it is not spoken of in the scriptures. However we can know for certain that Job had knowledge of salvation.