Confused about babies going to heaven if they die

Hard to explain what I believe on this. Yes duh they all are in heaven. But.. this is the part I can't explain maybe others can. But theres something in this world GOD wants ALL to see or be apart of. They don't see it...never a part of it.

Radagast said:

That is a good point. It's not for us to say what God should or should not be doing.

It is the business of Christians to think about what happens to the babies of Christians who die in infancy, and I think the Bible gives us reasons to say that those children go to Heaven.

The Bible is silent on other children.

Click to expand...

And even the salvation of infants who die who were the child of Christian parents is based on a sketchy interpretation of Corinthians

Albion said:

And now the Catholic Church has gone back to the pre-Limbo POV.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church never outright rejected Limbo, They only stated that they are leaving the unbaptized babies to the mercy of God, implying that they may well go to Heaven. However, they did not explicitly reject Augustine's doctrine of Limbo.

Basil the Great said:

The Catholic Church never outright rejected Limbo, They only stated that they are leaving the unbaptized babies to the mercy of God, implying that they may well go to Heaven. However, they did not explicitly reject Augustine's doctrine of Limbo.

Click to expand...

If they are leaving unbaptized babies to the mercy of God, they are rejecting Limbo because Limbo posits a different outcome.

On the other hand, the church insists that she never raised the teaching about Limbo to the level of doctrine; she merely taught it to her people as truth for half a millennium. So if that is the situation, Limbo is rejected although we probably could say that there has been no formal act of junking the teaching.

Cshuffle777 said:

Yes, they do.

Click to expand...

Babies can't sin against God because they don't know God.
I doubt that any earthly father would condemn his beautiful 1 day old baby as a sinner - so why believe that our Heavenly Father, who is love, would do that?

Radagast said:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalms 51:5)

Click to expand...

Yet the same Psalmist said that God knew him when he was conceived, that he was fearfully and wonderfully made and that he would praise God because his works were wonderful, Psalms 139:14.

David wrote Psalm 51 after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba and been rebuked by Nathan - of course he was feeling utterly sinful and wretched.
That does not mean that all babies - made in the image of God - were sinful from conception.

Strong in Him said:

Yet the same Psalmist said that God knew him when he was conceived, that he was fearfully and wonderfully made and that he would praise God because his works were wonderful, Psalms 139:14.

David wrote Psalm 51 after he had committed adultery with Bathsheba and been rebuked by Nathan - of course he was feeling utterly sinful and wretched.
That does not mean that all babies - made in the image of God - were sinful from conception.

Click to expand...

Ok that's not a convincing exposition of the text. It says he was conceived in sin. Unless he is special, it would seem to apply to all babies. You've still got some work to do, therefore, to show your reading plausible.

JAL said:

Ok that's not a convincing exposition of the text. It says he was conceived in sin.

Click to expand...

Yes, IT says he was conceived in sin because David himself wrote that. That's no doubt how he felt at the time; he was human, and he was mortified that a) he had sinned against God and b) he had been found out.
That doesn't mean his words are a doctrinal statement that all babies are conceived in sin. You haven't explained Psalm 139 - why does he say "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Psalms 139:14. Did he contradict himself, or was he saying that babies are wonderfully made by a God who does wonderful things - yet they are made in sin?

The Bible was not dictated from heaven to a robot; it was written by human beings.
Yes, of course they were guided by the Holy Spirit, but they were human, and sometimes the authors' joys, sorrows and frustrations come through. Read some of the Psalms - David wrote that he was lying on a bed of tears, that his bones were weak, that life was draining from him. Some of the prophets were sad, and angry, at the sin of the people and that they were abandoning God.
Paul was furious with the Galatians for abandoning the Gospel and following another one. He wrote "I wish those agitators would go and emasculate themselves!" Galatians 5:12. He was very frustrated with those who were teaching that circumcision was important for salvation. So the text says that; it is Scriptural. But I doubt anyone believes that the Bible is teaching that all men need to have some drastic surgery.

JAL said:

it would seem to apply to all babies.

Click to expand...

No, there's nothing to say that that is a doctrinal statement that is true of everyone.

God made all people in his image, Genesis 1:27. There is nothing in the world that was not made through Jesus, John 1:3. We are told in the Psalms that children are a reward/gift from God. We are also told in 1 John 4:8 that God IS love.
It is not an act of love to create a baby, and then declare that that baby is sinful and will go to hell for rejecting Jesus, when it wasn't the baby's fault that it died before it even met Jesus.
If an earthly father tried to do that, or disowned the baby and wanted nothing to do with it; we'd say he was cruel and deserved to be charged with neglect. Why would we believe that God is like a sinful, human father?

The character of God that I see portrayed in Scripture tells me that he would not end babies to hell.

What happens when babies, children and the mentally handicapped etc. die?

God made all people in his image, Genesis 1:27. There is nothing in the world that was not made through Jesus, John 1:3. We are told in the Psalms that children are a reward/gift from God. We are also told in 1 John 4:8 that God IS love.
It is not an act of love to create a baby, and then declare that that baby is sinful and will go to hell for rejecting Jesus, when it wasn't the baby's fault that it died before it even met Jesus.
If an earthly father tried to do that, or disowned the baby and wanted nothing to do with it; we'd say he was cruel and deserved to be charged with neglect. Why would we believe that God is like a sinful, human father?

The character of God that I see portrayed in Scripture tells me that he would not end babies to hell.

Click to expand...

But my points made in posts 7 and 30 seem to contradict your position.

Strong in Him said:

Yes, IT says he was conceived in sin because David himself wrote that. That's no doubt how he felt at the time; he was human, and he was mortified that a) he had sinned against God and b) he had been found out.
That doesn't mean his words are a doctrinal statement that all babies are conceived in sin.

Click to expand...

Ok so your position is that David was either confused, lying, or in denial. Possible perhaps, but unlikely. In fact the Bible wouldn't be of much use if we operated under that assumption on most verses.

You haven't explained Psalm 139 - why does he say "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." Psalms 139:14. Did he contradict himself, or was he saying that babies are wonderfully made by a God who does wonderful things - yet they are made in sin?

Click to expand...

Huh? What needs to be explained? You're mixing apples and oranges. "Fearfully and wonderfully made" refers to the ineffably intricate nature of human composition. And as far as I can see, neither the scientific community,nor the modern Christian community, has any inkling of the magnitude of that complexity because both parties overlook the crucial ingredient - but that's taking me off topic.

The Bible was not dictated from heaven to a robot; it was written by human beings.
Yes, of course they were guided by the Holy Spirit, but they were human, and sometimes the authors' joys, sorrows and frustrations come through. Read some of the Psalms - David wrote that he was lying on a bed of tears, that his bones were weak, that life was draining from him. Some of the prophets were sad, and angry, at the sin of the people and that they were abandoning God.
Paul was furious with the Galatians for abandoning the Gospel and following another one. He wrote "I wish those agitators would go and emasculate themselves!" Galatians 5:12. He was very frustrated with those who were teaching that circumcision was important for salvation. So the text says that; it is Scriptural. But I doubt anyone believes that the Bible is teaching that all men need to have some drastic surgery.

Click to expand...

Again, mixing apples and oranges. The Bible is full of sin and sinful statements. Remember how Moses got angry, struck the rock, and reproached Israel. Jonah didn't want to preach to Nineveh. And here Paul wants men to emasculate themselves. So? Such sinful desires have nothing to do with a biographical statement of fact, "I was conceived in iniquity."

So in terms of your effort to impugn David's words, I don't see much progress as yet.

Strong in Him said:

It is not an act of love to create a baby, and then declare that that baby is sinful and will go to hell for rejecting Jesus, when it wasn't the baby's fault that it died before it even met Jesus.

Click to expand...

Nobody goes to hell for ignorance of the name "Jesus". Take for example all the OT saints who went to heaven incognizant of that five-letter word.

Please clear up a point of confusion. Let's assume babies are born without a sinful nature, and thus cannot be charged with sin until they surpass the age of innocence, say 12 years old. If they are innocent at age 12, then they can goto heaven without Christ's blood, right? Why no mention of this in the epistles? Why does Paul say that all have sinned? And why does John say,

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8).

Seems we all DO need the blood of Jesus - see the preceding verse.

JAL said:

Ok so your position is that David was either confused, lying, or in denial. Possible perhaps, but unlikely.

Click to expand...

No, my position is that David wrote this Psalm when he was feeling miserable and guilty.
If someone was feeling depressed and said "I can never do anything right", you wouldn't take that as a statement of fact for the whole human race.

I don't even know if we know the facts; WAS David conceived in sin, or was his conception the result of two parents showing their love for one another? The Bible doesn't say this about anyone else. We don't read that Ahab, Manasseh, Noah, Enoch, Judas or Pontius Pilate were conceived in sin - why not? Some of them were terribly wicked, others were described as righteous; none were said to have been conceived in sin and either gave into, or overcame, their sinful natures.

JAL said:

Huh? What needs to be explained? You're mixing apples and oranges. "Fearfully and wonderfully made" refers to the ineffably intricate nature of human composition.

Click to expand...

David still said that all God's works were wonderful.
Genesis 1 says that people were made by God, in his image and that he considered his work to be VERY good.

JAL said:

Such sinful desires have nothing to do with a biographical statement of fact, "I was conceived in iniquity."

Click to expand...

i) You haven't shown that it was a biographical statement of fact.
ii) You haven't shown that it applies to all people.

If ALL babies are conceived in sin, then so was Jesus.

JAL said:

Please clear up a point of confusion. Let's assume babies are born without a sinful nature, and thus cannot be charged with sin until they surpass the age of innocence, say 12 years old. If they are innocent at age 12, then they can goto heaven without Christ's blood, right? Why no mention of this in the epistles? Why does Paul say that all have sinned? And why does John say,

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8).

Seems we all DO need the blood of Jesus - see the preceding verse.

Click to expand...

Yes, we do.
But
a) babies do not sin.
b) if they did, they would not be old enough to recognise that it was sin against God and ask for forgiveness
c) God is merciful and God is love.

I don't know whether God says that their sins are covered because they did not sin/recognise that they had sinned, or whether he ministers to them at the point of death so they do get a chance to respond. I only know that God is love, that he is compassionate and merciful and that he is a perfect heavenly Father, Matthew 5:48, Luke 11:11-13.

Strong in Him said:

Yes, we do.
But
a) babies do not sin.
b) if they did, they would not be old enough to recognise that it was sin against God and ask for forgiveness
c) God is merciful and God is love.

I don't know whether God says that their sins are covered because they did not sin/recognise that they had sinned, or whether he ministers to them at the point of death so they do get a chance to respond. I only know that God is love, that he is compassionate and merciful and that he is a perfect heavenly Father, Matthew 5:48, Luke 11:11-13.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Where did I say that babies consciously sin?

Strong in Him said:

No, my position is that David wrote this Psalm when he was feeling miserable and guilty.
If someone was feeling depressed and said "I can never do anything right", you wouldn't take that as a statement of fact for the whole human race.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't? Sure about that? Simple question. Is that 'someone' one of the greatest prophets in human history? Were his words recorded in Scripture as the inspired Word of God? If so, then yes, I would TEND to take him at his word (whatever he said), unless I had a FAIRLY COMPELLING argument to the contrary. And my whole point is, I'm still waiting on you to provide one.

I don't even know if we know the facts; WAS David conceived in sin, or was his conception the result of two parents showing their love for one another? The Bible doesn't say this about anyone else. We don't read that Ahab, Manasseh, Noah, Enoch, Judas or Pontius Pilate were conceived in sin - why not? Some of them were terribly wicked, others were described as righteous; none were said to have been conceived in sin and either gave into, or overcame, their sinful natures.

Click to expand...

More mixing of apples and oranges. Irrelevant.

David still said that all God's works were wonderful.
Genesis 1 says that people were made by God, in his image and that he considered his work to be VERY good.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

i) You haven't shown that it was a biographical statement of fact.

Click to expand...

This is the old, "If you can't prove your position 100%, then you're wrong." I can't even prove that you exist. That's totally irrelevant. Look, David made a biographical statement of fact (unless you reject the popular English translation of the Hebrew). You're not really denying that - rather what you're saying is that we can't trust his words because he was depressed. Well, in that case, I sure hope Paul wasn't depressed when he wrote Romans!

ii) You haven't shown that it applies to all people.

Click to expand...

Hardly necessary, unless you think God is a respecter of persons.

If ALL babies are conceived in sin, then so was Jesus.

Click to expand...

That all depends on your Christology. The hypostatic union is attested by theologians to be humanly incomprehensible. (It's like English speakers trying to discuss theology in Chinese). I personally subscribe to a different Christology. Certainly, in mine, Christ's soul was NOT Adam and thus was NOT tainted.

JAL said:

I wouldn't? Sure about that? Simple question. Is that 'someone' one of the greatest prophets in human history? Were his words recorded in Scripture as the inspired Word of God? If so, then yes, I would TEND to take him at his word

Click to expand...

That's more about your belief about the Bible - that every word is literally true and applicable to us - than anything else.
Paul wrote, "I wish those agitators would go and emasculate themselves"; was Paul an apostle of God, writing in Scripture as the inspired word of God? Well maybe he is telling all men who disagree with him to go and perform drastic surgery on themselves.
The Gospel writers say that Judas went away and hanged himself; were they inspired men, writing God's word? Well maybe God is telling everyone who messes up that they need to take their own lives.

JAL said:

Look, David made a biographical statement of fact

Click to expand...

That's debatable, and the bit that you haven't proved.

JAL said:

You're not really denying that - rather what you're saying is that we can't trust his words because he was depressed.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that his words, "I was conceived in sin" are a reflection of how he felt, and not a general statement that ALL human beings are conceived in sin.
Elijah asked God to take his life, and Job cursed the day of his birth - do you, likewise, believe that it was a mistake that you have been born and that God should end your life? If not, then why are you singling out David's comment as a statement of fact?

Strong in Him said:

That's more about your belief about the Bible - that every word is literally true and applicable to us - than anything else.
Paul wrote, "I wish those agitators would go and emasculate themselves"; was Paul an apostle of God, writing in Scripture as the inspired word of God? Well maybe he is telling all men who disagree with him to go and perform drastic surgery on themselves.
The Gospel writers say that Judas went away and hanged himself; were they inspired men, writing God's word? Well maybe God is telling everyone who messes up that they need to take their own lives.

Click to expand...

Again, there is nothing false about Paul's words. They may have been sinful, but they are not a statement contrary to fact.

That's debatable, and the bit that you haven't proved.

Click to expand...

No. You haven't disputed what he said. We agree on that. You've only claimed that you don't believe his words because he was depressed.

I'm saying that his words, "I was conceived in sin" are a reflection of how he felt, and not a general statement that ALL human beings are conceived in sin.

Click to expand...

Nevermind all human beings for the moment. That extrapolation is a separate issue. Let's start with David.

are a reflection of how he felt

Click to expand...

No. Here's a statement of feeling. "I feel so angry with you that I want you to go emasculate yourself right now, just so I can watch you suffer!"

Now here's a statement of fact. "I was born in original sin." See the difference? Your whole case is predicated on mixing apples with oranges. You are CLAIMING that his statement of fact AROSE purely out of misguided feelings, but it was nonetheless a statement of fact.

Elijah asked God to take his life, and Job cursed the day of his birth - do you, likewise, believe that it was a mistake that you have been born and that God should end your life? If not, then why are you singling out David's comment as a statement of fact?

Click to expand...

Are we really going to do this? I'm going to have to comment on every verse of the Bible (essentially write a commentary) - on verses where you will continue to mix apples and oranges - and meanwhile, you haven't addressed two of my charges of LOGICAL CONTRADICTION?

This is what I tell people. I don't care if you've got a million verses to "back up" your position - if it is logically contradictory, it cannot be true.

Elijah asked God to take his life...

Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. That's just like Paul wanting someone to emasculate himself. It's a statement of feeling.

...and Job cursed the day of his birth...

Click to expand...

Ditto. And BTW, I don't build much theology on Job and Proverbs. They are a bit too poetic.

- do you, likewise, believe that it was a mistake that you have been born and that God should end your life? If not, then why are you singling out David's comment as a statement of fact?

Click to expand...

Why do you keep pretending that there's no difference between statements of fact vs feeling? And by doing so, you've already discredited your position, so I will probably stop responding.

JAL said:

No. You haven't disputed what he said. We agree on that. You've only claimed that you don't believe his words because he was depressed.

Click to expand...

I never said that I don't believe his words.
I am saying that his words are not a statement of fact that apply to all human beings, and therefore, BECAUSE we are all conceived in sin, babies who die before they can repent of that sin, are doomed and have died sinners.
THAT is what I am disputing.

JAL said:

Now here's a statement of fact. "I was born in original sin." See the difference?

Click to expand...

No.
Elijah said "Take my life Lord, I am no better than my ancestors" - that was not a statement of fact. It may have SEEMED true to him, but he was exhausted and depressed.
Ditto with David. "I was conceived in sin", doesn't mean that he WAS. What does that mean anyway; that his mother had an affair? That his parents didn't love one another?

JAL said:

Why do you keep pretending that there's no difference between statements of fact vs feeling? .

Click to expand...

Seems to me that you're doing that - that unless someone writes, "I FEEL depressed", they can't be.
And actually, I don't think I said 'depressed'; I think I said that David felt guilty and miserable.

JAL said:

so I will probably stop responding.

Click to expand...

My original comment on Psalms 51:5 wasn't addressed to you anyway.
But anyway, I'm done here.
Bottom line; I do not accept that this verse is a statement of fact about the human race, that babies are, therefore, sinners and go to hell if they die before they can repent of that "sin". I am not going to ignore the mercy, love and justice of God for one Bible verse which appears to say something, and has had a doctrine built around it.

Strong in Him said:

I never said that I don't believe his words.
I am saying that his words are not a statement of fact that apply to all human beings, and therefore, BECAUSE we are all conceived in sin, babies who die before they can repent of that sin, are doomed and have died sinners.
THAT is what I am disputing.



No.
Elijah said "Take my life Lord, I am no better than my ancestors" - that was not a statement of fact. It may have SEEMED true to him, but he was exhausted and depressed.
Ditto with David. "I was conceived in sin", doesn't mean that he WAS. What does that mean anyway; that his mother had an affair? That his parents didn't love one another?



Seems to me that you're doing that - that unless someone writes, "I FEEL depressed", they can't be.
And actually, I don't think I said 'depressed'; I think I said that David felt guilty and miserable.



My original comment on Psalms 51:5 wasn't addressed to you anyway.
But anyway, I'm done here.
Bottom line; I do not accept that this verse is a statement of fact about the human race, that babies are, therefore, sinners and go to hell if they die before they can repent of that "sin". I am not going to ignore the mercy, love and justice of God for one Bible verse which appears to say something, and has had a doctrine built around it.

Click to expand...

As predicted:
- Two charges of contradiction ignored, never addressed.
- Indiscriminately mixing apples and oranges.

I am not going to ignore the mercy, love and justice of God

Click to expand...

Um...That's exactly what you did. In YOUR view, God is so unjust, unloving, and unmerciful as to allow 100 billion innocent fetuses suffer in the womb and then enter into a world of suffering (per my 1st charge of contradiction at posts 7 and 30).

Since you responded as I predicted, I think I'm done here.

Albion said:

If they are leaving unbaptized babies to the mercy of God, they are rejecting Limbo because Limbo posits a different outcome.

On the other hand, the church insists that she never raised the teaching about Limbo to the level of doctrine; she merely taught it to her people as truth for half a millennium. So if that is the situation, Limbo is rejected although we probably could say that there has been no formal act of junking the teaching.

Click to expand...

That would seem to be correct. There has been no formal act of rejecting the teaching of Limbo, though it has been unofficially rejected by the new teaching of leaving the unbaptized babies to the mercy of God. I also agree with you that the declaration that Limbo was never taught as doctrine is effectively splitting hairs, as it was still taught for hundreds of years.