Are the babies burning?

[Avatar]

When God took the first born from the Egyptians many of them were necessarily infants. God chose to end their lives, did He also choose to damn them to eternal suffering?

 

[5SolasinKY]

I think it's safe to presume that you are using the instance of the Egyptian babies to represent all babies of pagans or other unbelievers who have died throughout history. I personally see no reason to differentiate these infants from the infants of believers, or of those who have been born with extreme mental illness.

The Bible is pretty much silent on this. There is no explicit statement that lays this issue to rest. Some have built speculation on certain passages, such as David's reaction at the death of his son, and Jesus' willingness to bless the children. Something we should always remember is that everything God does directly flows from His perfect character. He is both just and merciful, wrathful and loving, and so on. However He has determined to deal with this, we can be sure it is good and right.

Among the reformed, the only book I know of that deals with this issue is by Ron Nash, When a Baby Dies. (Hopefully, others here will chime in with others). In each chapter of the book he takes a couple through the ordeal of a child dying, and asking pastors of different perspectives meaningful questions concerning the child, specifically, -did the child go to heaven. He shows that the greatest logic for the infant to go to heaven lies in the viewpoint of the reformed faith. He brings each view to its logical conclusions, and brings to the mind of the parents questions that should arise if that viewpoint is taken.

As it turns out, Universalism, 'age of accountability', baptismal regeneration, and salvation after death rest on presumptions that would only give a false security at best and an illogical basis for assurance. I will tell you this as a parent, the questions the parents raise most certainly would arise in my mind had a child of mine died and I was under these teachings.

For example, in the Universalist view, God is unknowable and the Bible is not trustworthy. The parents raise the question that if God is unknowable, how can we know He is love and will take the child into heaven?

In the reformed view, the pastor points out that it is God who saves any of us, and thus it is in His hands to save the child just as it is with adults. He can regenerate whom He pleases, He can give the gift of faith, even to an infant, to whomever He pleases. It is God who saves, not the person who comes to a point of hearing and understanding the gospel who saves themself. When we apply other known doctrines, such as God does not hold a person accountable for another persons wrongs (as in a child - or anyone - with a pagan parent), and He knows before creation all the days each of us have including infants (He is not surprised when they die, but has a plan for them), we can see that it would be well within God's mercy to save those who seem to us most helpless. Truth is, when it comes to salvation, we are all helpless.

Hope that helps.

 

[GodsElect]

When God took the first born from the Egyptians many of them were necessarily infants. God chose to end their lives, did He also choose to damn them to eternal suffering?

Actually what Calvinists believe is what the bible teaches us on how God will show mercy to those whom He will show mercy. Including infants and those who may not be able to make the mental decision to choose Christ. Who are we or you to question the workings of a Holy Sovereign God. While Catholics believe that it is up to man to be good enough and first believe and choose Christ to be saved. I think that it is your own Catholic beliefs that damn the new borns infants and mentally handicapped because they could not make the choice for themselves. Thus, no choice, no works, no pennence, no salvation!
Calvinist believe that God works all thing for the council of His own will and pardon whom He may pardon, whether they are a dying infant or a wretched sinner like you or myself. We will look to scripture on this matter...

Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”[d] 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”[e]14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

 

[GodsElect]

Or what if infants die? Will they have to fend for themselves in purgatory??? NONSENSE!!!

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Cor 7:14)

The Bible says a number of things, like the verse quoted above, that touch on this subject. There are some verses that seem to point one way and others that can be taken another way.

I am very comfortable with the believe that all children of believers, who die in infancy are elect. I think this is seen in the verse above and in an overall covenantal understanding of the Word of God. I am most comfortable if the dying infant is baptised into Christ Church, but I do take heart in the 1 Cor 7 passage that says that the children of believers are holy (Gk. Hagios which is also trsanslated saints).

I choose to believe that all children who die are infancy are elect also, but I admit that I can not prove this from Scripture.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

We are not told for sure one way or another. Any answer we give is our best guess/speculation. It is like the old answer of the RCC: limbus infantium. Infant limbo is mere speculation and has no biblical foundation. The best we can do is look at the Scriptures.

For me:
Baptised infants = total confidence in their election.

Children of a believing parent, but not baptised = I have confidence, but wish they were baptised, this would shore things up for me.

Children of non-believers = I choose to believe that God is merciful to these little ones, but I admit that I can not prove this (with absolute confidence) from Scripture.



Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[GodsElect]

I think if an infant dies I will be confident that God served His own purposes and is working to fullfill His plan and we should not speculate on whether that child is going to Heaven or hell but that His message to those involved will serve His purpose. And may draw those ever closer to Himself.

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

These tragic events may be means to draw those whom are His to Himself and we cannot even phathom or speculate WHY? Those whom are His, WILL be drawn to Him and recieve the free gift of salvation.

Acts 13: 48 .... And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

^ By whatever means God sees fit and we are not to question it!!! But rejoice that He is a sovereign God and works ALL things for His purposes.

 

[5SolasinKY]

Since the question was posed by a Roman Catholic, I will try to answer specifically to that position.
Correct me if I am wrong...RCC teaches baptismal regeneration.

It (baptismal regeneration) is based on a misinterpretation of scripture and an ignoring of explicit scripture to the contrary. John 3:5 should be understood in light of Eph 2 and other passages that explain in plain words how we are saved - by grace through faith. How would it be for people should something necessary for salvation be left out of a discussion on that very topic?
It should also be noted that Jesus never says, you must do such and such to be born again...only that we must be born again. Only God can do the spiritual work of regeneration, and He does not do it in reaction to a sacrament or any other act of man. It is His regeneration that enables man.

It (baptismal regeneration) bases a persons salvation on something they had no control over and no knowledge of when it happened. To repent and believe we must at least be able to reason to the level of understanding sin and the need for salvation, and repentance and faith are the things God says one has for salvation.

The formal teachings of the RCC condemn infants not baptized. Some effort to 'get around' this has appeared in recent years, at least from certain persons, but I can't help but recall a discussion on the RCC cable TV channel where two women lament that some mothers put off baptism a few days..."oh, what a risk they are taking!" was the comment. This is ignoring God's statement of not holding children accountable for parents sins in judgment, and worse, it is a smear on God's attribute of being perfectly just. Nothing in scripture warns parents to baptize infants...a strikingly obvious omission if that were a necessary thing.

Rather than teaching children how to repeat the rosary to Mary, make the sign of the cross, and perform the various rites of the church, teach them they are sinners in need of a Savior. Teach them there is only One who can save, Christ Jesus, and they are helpless, poor, blind and naked without Him. I realize faith is not left out of the teaching of the RCC, but the object of faith matters to God, and it must be Christ alone with no mixture of anything or anyone else. It cannot be Christ and me, or Christ and the church, it must be Christ alone.

The truth in this matter is clearly an important thing to you, seeing you have several children. I pray God will consider you with mercy and do whatever is necessary to show you His mind on the matter.

 

[GodsElect]

Amen Brother!!!

 

[5SolasinKY]

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1 Cor 7:14)

Coram Deo,
Kenith

If children of believers live and remain unconverted, how does this square up? Are they still holy? I don't believe God is a respecter of persons...which means (as opposed to the Arminian view) that He does not choose based on anything about our looks, heritage or intelligence, but according to His own will. Even the Jews of Jesus' day were oftentimes 'sons of Satan'.

The marriage is legit and should hold, otherwise even children already born would not be [legit]. That is how I understand this passage. God's will is that even the marriages of infidels are not broken. He recognized them as marriages.

I lean to believing infants and severely mentally impaired persons are among the elect because it is consistent with God's nature and His purposes, and with what He calls us to be. They are 'born in sin' and thus are not innocent, as many believe, so they do need salvation and don't have an exemption due to their age and abilities. So salvation is more possible, because were it up to them, they would be incapable. But it is up to God, who is able to save to the uttermost.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

If children of believers live and remain unconverted, how does this square up? Are they still holy? I don't believe God is a respecter of persons...which means (as opposed to the Arminian view) that He does not choose based on anything about our looks, heritage or intelligence, but according to His own will. Even the Jews of Jesus' day were oftentimes 'sons of Satan'.

The marriage is legit and should hold, otherwise even children already born would not be [legit]. That is how I understand this passage. God's will is that even the marriages of infidels are not broken. He recognized them as marriages.

I lean to believing infants and severely mentally impaired persons are among the elect because it is consistent with God's nature and His purposes, and with what He calls us to be. They are 'born in sin' and thus are not innocent, as many believe, so they do need salvation and don't have an exemption due to their age and abilities. So salvation is more possible, because were it up to them, they would be incapable. But it is up to God, who is able to save to the uttermost.

Hello 5solasinKY,

I take it from your posts that you are a Calvinistic Baptist . Whether or not that is correct we do disagree on how 1 Cor 7: 14 is to be undestood. I believe the only way to make sense of the verse is by vantage of God's covenant dealings with His people.

Notice that the "unbelieving" husband is santified (made holy) by the believing wife and vice versa. The children of two unbelieving parents are said to be "unclean" while the child with only one believing parent is said to be holy or a saint.

These things are said in the Word of God and therefore they are true, but how are they to be understood? IF we try to understand them outside of God's covenant dealings with His people, we will have to say that paul does not really mean what he says.

All children born to Christian parents are "covenantally" holy (saints). Just as Israel was God's Holy people even though all Israel was not Israel.

I believe the same covenant pattern continues into the New Covenant. All children born to believers are born into Covenant with God (Note: The promise is to you and to your children), just as in the Old Covenant.

Everyone in the covenant is ceremonally set abart, but not all are elect and those not elect are only outwardly Christ's and they will, in they will be branches that are broken off from the True Vine (Christ) and cast into the fire. For a branch to be broken off it must first be attached. It is connected to Christ by way of Covenant.

IF we deny this covenant aspect then we have to say that the branches were never really connected to Christ and that leads to other problems.

I hope all that make sense. This is part some of the reasons I believe in infant baptism.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[Nadiine]

I believe the same covenant pattern continues into the New Covenant. All children born to believers are born into Covenant with God (Note: The promise is to you and to your children), just as in the Old Covenant.

Everyone in the covenant is ceremonally set abart, but not all are elect and those not elect are only outwardly Christ's and they will, in they will be branches that are broken off from the True Vine (Christ) and cast into the fire. For a branch to be broken off it must first be attached. It is connected to Christ by way of Covenant.

This was a very interesting post to me. I don't intend to go off the beaten path with this Q. and take away from the OP.

But, when you mention that one must first be ATTACHED to the vine before it's BROKEN OFF... can that also be said about 'loss of salvation'?
The ever popular "once saved always saved" argument?

If this takes away from the OP, you can decline to post the answer here. I don't want to be discourteous to the person who needs their Q. answered.

peace

 

[Nadiine]

To the OP,

I think there's another aspect that needs to be looked at with this issue.

In Ezekiel, we're told that the offspring of a SINNING parent isn't held accountable for the parent's sins. God doesn't judge the child guilty on the 'coattails' of the parent's actions.
(Ezek. 18:4-20)

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
​

With that in mind, I'd say it also works the opposite way as well; a child isn't held harmless due to a parent's righteous standing with God if they reject Christ.

The only biblical righteousness we have 'over' us, is from CHRIST'S shed blood covering our sin & removing it.
A human being/parent isn't 'covering' any sin for their child.

I think we all stand on our actions & are held accountable for ourselves only.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello Nadiine,

We are all conceived in inequity. We are born sinners. We are born with original sin (this is one reason why babies die). When the Scripture says tha the child of two unbelieving parents is unclean, it is saying what God has said about non-Covenant people from the beginning. The same is true of the fact that the children of one believing parent is said to be holy (a saint). This to is a covenantal statement. It is like being born an american citizen or being born a foreigner. You don't "do" andthing deserving special privilege, but you are born to a privileged position.

You can make that privilege birth noneffective by your actions (crime, drugs, etc...) but that does not change the fact that you were born in a privileged position. The same is true of Children born to Christian parents.

Of course this is not a perfect analogy, but I think it gets the point across. (I hope it does).

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[heymikey80]

When God took the first born from the Egyptians many of them were necessarily infants. God chose to end their lives, did He also choose to damn them to eternal suffering?

God chose to do what's right, and He continues to choose to do what's right. He hasn't told us what He is doing, but it is right.

We certainly don't believe God would deprive a child eternal life simply because the child died in infancy. That doesn't make much sense to us today. But God hasn't quite told us what He's doing; we still assert God chose to do what's right.

We make the judgement call that children of those who rely on Him aren't simply in limbo, but are considered elect and they would be in His presence if they leave this life too soon. We make this assertion on slim Scriptural evidence, but evidence which uniformly points in that direction: that of David's son; that of Jesus' attitude to even small children and infants; and the sanctification of children of believers.

But God is silent when speaking about the infant children of unbelievers. We can only go on more abstract principles -- that God is good, and that we trust He does what is right.

 

[Nadiine]

I'd like to mention that I wasn't making a claim to an underage child (prior to an age of accountability) being sent to hell.

My post was more towards a child that understood right from wrong & could make a conscious decision about God.
I personally believe infants aren't hellbound due to their lack of knowledge & being helpless. I also agree we're all born in sin...
David made mention that he would go to be where his son was (after he had died) - we all assume David would be with the Lord.

I agree with heymikey though, the bible isn't clear on this, and ANY judgments God makes are righteous and just.
I fully TRUST the Lord in that.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

God chose to do what's right, and He continues to choose to do what's right. He hasn't told us what He is doing, but it is right.

We certainly don't believe God would deprive a child eternal life simply because the child died in infancy. That doesn't make much sense to us today. But God hasn't quite told us what He's doing; we still assert God chose to do what's right.

We make the judgement call that children of those who rely on Him aren't simply in limbo, but are considered elect and they would be in His presence if they leave this life too soon. We make this assertion on slim Scriptural evidence, but evidence which uniformly points in that direction: that of David's son; that of Jesus' attitude to even small children and infants; and the sanctification of children of believers.

But God is silent when speaking about the infant children of unbelievers. We can only go on more abstract principles -- that God is good, and that we trust He does what is right.

Very well said. I did a lot of rambling trying to say that, but you said it much better and very clearly.

 

[Eryk]

Spurgeon:

It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true. In Calvin's advice to Omit, he interprets the second commandment "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me," as referring to generations, and hence he seems to teach that infants who have had pious ancestors, no matter how remotely, dying as infants are saved. This would certainly take in the whole race. As for modern Calvinists, I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God.

 

[heymikey80]

If you want a listing of other Reformed theologians:

http://www.fivesolas.com/11.htm#11

Boettner cites Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield as holding to infant election, as well as Dr. S. G. Craig, and cites a 1903 decision by the courts of the PC(USA) that all those dying in infancy are included in the election of grace.

 

[mick24458]

Gen 18:25
.... Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
I think that God's ways are far more than what we can comprehend. I don't think that defending the way to salvation (through Christ alone) should condemn babies to forever in torture. I can't find the scriptures saying that.
Do you?