Do aborted babies go to heaven?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Bean God
Isn't beanGod

 

[HermanNeutics13]

Hi HN, I know "HermanNeutics13" is not your name, I just thought it was a creative user name and was complimenting it in my own inimitable manner

As for babies sinning and, particularly, being judged by God, I absolutely disagree with you. God judges our thoughts and our actions based upon our personal knowledge and understanding of the Law (see Romans 2:12-16). Sin requires a personal understanding of the Law and they cannot understand it, obviously (not even the Law that God has written within their hearts). At such a young age, their minds are not developed enough to understand concepts like good and evil, so when they do something, their consciences neither defend them nor accuse them. God has no basis upon which to judge them.

--David

If faith requires understanding than we are all damned. In fact Jesus commends the "faith of a child" so we know w=that children do in fact have faith, and as mentioned we even see a preborn John the Baptist have faith.

 

[HermanNeutics13]

"Since" means "since," NOT during.

There are no "hes" in a womb. Ever. What "the babe leaped" means is the usual quickening or movements of ALIVE - yes you are correct in that - fleshly parts responding to their environment, a phenomenon often experienced in late pregnancy. Nothing more, except that the "leaping" (so called) brought joy to Elizabeth, she it says was filled with the Holy Ghost.
I guess if "filled" means totally filled, then any filling in her womb might be considered to be likewise filled, but not in any way different than the way any other flesh of her body might have been filled.
It is referred to as a "babe" because after six months she was noticing it (including the "leaping" or "kicking" - certainly NOT like the poor man crippled from birth who actually lept when Jesus healed him), and MUCH ANTICIPATING, she had been barren all those years, seen as somewhat a curse in that society, so looking forward to actually having a baby she referred to what the angel promised would be a special son as a "babe" or "baby" when it had not yet been born.
All the bits about "sensed Jesus's presence and couldn't contain his excitement" are your construction, NOT BIBLICAL.

If this was just referring to a quickening than there would have been no reason to mention it. Elizabeth says it was a direct response to hearing ary's voice and therefore being in the presence of the unborn Christ.

 

[HermanNeutics13]

The gender is determined by the sperm cell that 'wins the race', so the gender is immediately fixed.

There is a common myth people perpetuate, that is that all fetuses start out female. That is not true. The sex is determined from conception even if they can't always recognize it right away.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

If this was just referring to a quickening than there would have been no reason to mention it. Elizabeth says it was a direct response to hearing ary's voice and therefore being in the presence of the unborn Christ.

She took it as a sign to be joyful. She was very much looking forward to being a mother and was in the mode of rejoicing with much anticipation. And she was filled with the Holy Ghost - i.e. joyful and perhaps more.
(So your first statement is false.)
"..as soon as the the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears..." there was the quickening type thing, described by her as "the babe leaped .." Note this is NOT to claim the "leaping" (nothing like the leaping of the man who was healed by Jesus, that is for sure!), was a response to Mary's voice, only that it occurred directly after. Coincidence is NOT causation, a basic principle of science and common sense. Let alone that it had anything to do with "being in the presence of the unborn Christ."
(So your second statement is also false. Or at the very least has nothing to substantiate it and is pure speculation.)

 

[St_Worm2]

If faith requires understanding than we are all damned. In fact Jesus commends the "faith of a child" so we know w=that children do in fact have faith, and as mentioned we even see a preborn John the Baptist have faith.

Hi HM, I'm not sure when/where our discussion turned to one about "faith" (as we have been discussing the basis for "judgment" of pre-borns and their eternal destinations if they die in utero .. and I didn't mention "faith" in my post that you were replying to).

But since you've taken us there, what do you believe "faith" is?

Also, do you believe there are different "kinds" of faith?

As for the rest, that a child can have saving faith in God has nothing to do Jesus' teaching in Mark 10:15. That said, of course a young "child" can believe and trust in God to save them (once they are old enough to realize that they need a Savior, that is), but again, this thread is about our little ones who aren't, "old enough", yet. Pre-borns and infants, (and toddlers), simply do not have the mind, the ability to reason and understand that they are sinners in need of a Savior, and that's why they cannot be judged by God and condemned. God would have no basis to do such a thing (just like we don't judge adults in our courts of law who have committed crimes but do not have the mental capacity to understand the gravity of their actions).

As for John the Baptist, yes, He was filled with the HS while he was still in his mother's womb, and because of that, he recognized the Lord's approach. However, the HS giving pre-born John the knowledge that his pre-born Cousin was in the vicinity is hardly akin to believing and trusting Him for salvation (which is something that he could not have known that he would eventually need to do while he was still in his mother's womb).

To sum up, I will restate the point I made in post #2. Yes, we have a sin nature and because of this, we are born in sin, but God doesn't judge our "nature", He judges what we do, think and say (Romans 2:12-16).

Yours and His,
David

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi HM, I'm not sure when/where our discussion turned to one about "faith" (as we have been discussing the basis for "judgment" of pre-borns and their eternal destinations if they die in utero .. and I didn't mention "faith" in my post that you were replying to).

But since you've taken us there, what do you believe "faith" is?

Also, do you believe there are different "kinds" of faith?

As for the rest, that a child can have saving faith in God has nothing to do Jesus' teaching in Mark 10:15. That said, of course a young "child" can believe and trust in God to save them (once they are old enough to realize that they need a Savior, that is), but again, this thread is about our little ones who aren't, "old enough", yet. Pre-borns and infants, (and toddlers), simply do not have the mind, the ability to reason and understand that they are sinners in need of a Savior, and that's why they cannot be judged by God and condemned. God would have no basis to do such a thing (just like we don't judge adults in our courts of law who have committed crimes but do not have the mental capacity to understand the gravity of their actions).

As for John the Baptist, yes, He was filled with the HS while he was still in his mother's womb, and because of that, he recognized the Lord's approach. However, the HS giving pre-born John the knowledge that his pre-born Cousin was in the vicinity is hardly akin to believing and trusting Him for salvation (which is something that he could not have known that he would eventually need to do while he was still in his mother's womb).

To sum up, I will restate the point I made in post #2. Yes, we have a sin nature and because of this, we are born in sin, but God doesn't judge our "nature", He judges what we do, think and say (Romans 2:12-16), IOW, He judges the choices we make.

Yours and His,
David

Hi David,
Am I right to think "receive the kingdom of God as a little child" means "in a child-like way"? (Otherwise it would seem Mark 10:15 is not true? I.e. what other understanding can there be?)

Of course "little ones" does NOT apply to fetuses, since they are "nones," not "ones." (If one is speaking of human beings that need a Savior.)

It seems backward to say because of our sin nature we are born in sin; pre-existence is a funny thing for a Christian to claim. (Somewhat like "pre-born," although in that case it may or may not be somewhat true - that is it may be a label with some truth to it if it turns out there is an actual birth.)

Surely the prospective mother's sin is what we are conceived in. (She conceives, she is the agent, she has the sin!)
Consider this: a "sin nature," but absolutely no possibility of sinning. How would you explain that?

BTW, what actual truth (of Scripture) can you point to to demonstrate that "John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb"?
Surely it is pure (and false) imagination to attribute to a bit of quickening movement THE WORKING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
When (if) we are filled with the Holy Spirit at church, I suppose it is only that out feet and perhaps legs move a little? That would be sufficient, right, to know for sure we were filled with the Holy Spirit?

Sincerely in Christ,
Douglas

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a serious question I've been struggling with, do aborted babies go to heaven?

It's pretty likely that have their names in the book of life.
God is quite forgiving. Now that I think about it, the law
is what causes death, so until they know the law, they don't
die in God's book.

 

[RDKirk]

It's pretty likely that have their names in the book of life.
God is quite forgiving. Now that I think about it, the law
is what causes death, so until they know the law, they don't
die in God's book.

You can find that in Romans 7.

 

[SkyWriting]

It seems backward to say because of our sin nature we are born in sin; pre-existence is a funny thing for a Christian to claim. (Somewhat like "pre-born," although in that case it may or may not be somewhat true - that is it may be a label with some truth to it if it turns out there is an actual birth.)Surely the prospective mother's sin is what we are conceived in. (She conceives, she is the agent, she has the sin!)

We inherent a world where God does not commune.
Adam did walk alongside God, we do not.
We were removed from that garden and guards were put at the gate.
This world inherited the sin nature that Adam was rewarded with.
People are born into sin, just as fish are born to be wet.
All fish are wet, and none are dry, no not one.

"Sin Nature" is where God is not.
But God did send His Spirit to keep us company.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

SkyWriting said: ↑
It's pretty likely that have their names in the book of life.
God is quite forgiving. Now that I think about it, the law
is what causes death, so until they know the law, they don't
die in God's book.

You can find that in Romans 7.

I find in Romans 7, "For when we were in the flesh, the motion of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death." (v.5) Thing is, the early womb contents have NO FLESH and NO MEMBERS. So certainly not talking about us then, basically because there is no "us" then, there is no human person who has no flesh and no members!
Early in pregnancy there is NOT BODY, i.e. no carnality. "...I am carnal... (v.14)," so there is then no "I am." The body has yet to be formed in the womb - that is the function of the womb, to build a body.

"We, [ALL of us presumably] should serve in newness of spirit... ." (v.6) The threshing about and perhaps even smiling newborn is probably the newest spirit having the most newness ever.

A glance at Romans 8:2 - "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus..., " there can be NO SPIRIT OF JESUS LIFE in the womb, i.e. no life that (in itself) counts for eternity. No adoption (8:15), nothing like that. And certainly no Holy Spirit presence.

 

[SPF]

While Douglas' answer above certainly relies on some hermeneutical magic and grand leaps and assumptions, I prefer a much more simple approach.

Scripture does not tell us.

We do know that when King David lost his child that he remarked that he would see him again once he died. So there is that, but then it is also a Pslams, which means we should use some caution when creating a theology out of it.

For me, I personally think they do. I base that upon the character of God as well as the indication that David provided. We know that life begins at conception, and we know that we have an inherited sinful nature from the moment of conception, which would indicate to me that we have a soul from the moment of conception.

There is no such thing as a Biblical age of accountability, but I don't think it's also a stretch to say that there might be extended grace to children before they are able to mentally comprehend the nature of their sin and need for forgiveness.

What I do know is that God is just an fair. So based upon His character and what is revealed in Scripture. I personally think that aborted babies do go to heaven.

 

[redleghunter]

A glance at Romans 8:2 - "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus..., " there can be NO SPIRIT OF JESUS LIFE in the womb, i.e. no life that (in itself) counts for eternity. No adoption (8:15), nothing like that. And certainly no Holy Spirit presence.

Please explain your understanding of the Incarnation?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Please explain your understanding of the Incarnation?

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and thus became a human being, God incarnate as a man. You might note we particularly celebrate this event in Christianity.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

While Douglas' answer above certainly relies on some hermeneutical magic and grand leaps and assumptions, I prefer a much more simple approach.

Scripture does not tell us.

We do know that when King David lost his child that he remarked that he would see him again once he died. So there is that, but then it is also a Pslams, which means we should use some caution when creating a theology out of it.

For me, I personally think they do. I base that upon the character of God as well as the indication that David provided. We know that life begins at conception, and we know that we have an inherited sinful nature from the moment of conception, which would indicate to me that we have a soul from the moment of conception.

There is no such thing as a Biblical age of accountability, but I don't think it's also a stretch to say that there might be extended grace to children before they are able to mentally comprehend the nature of their sin and need for forgiveness.

What I do know is that God is just an fair. So based upon His character and what is revealed in Scripture. I personally think that aborted babies do go to heaven.

Since you accuse me of "hermeneutical magic and grand leaps and assumptions," perhaps you'd be so kind as to give an example of each. IF you can. Otherwise, I think an apology would be in order. Thanks.

BTW, there is NO life that begins at conception. That is pretty obviously so, since all the LIFE found at conception comes from the sperm that is alive and the ovum that is alive, and those alive cells form one alive cell with the same life. It is not like God does some flash of lightning or something at conception and suddenly there is "the beginning of life," life there when there was none before. That is not how it works. Sorry.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and thus became a human being, God incarnate as a man. You might note we particularly celebrate this event in Christianity.

We do.

At what point in the pregnancy did Jesus Christ become truly God and truly man?

Or is your position on the Incarnation that of orthodox beliefs?

Incarnation of the Son of God | Theopedia

I've asked this question to several Christians who don't believe early developing human life in the womb is considered a "person."

So I ask, at what point do they believe Jesus became a "person" by their subjective standard.

What is your view then on the Incarnation based on this?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

We do.

At what point in the pregnancy did Jesus Christ become truly God and truly man?

Or is your position on the Incarnation that of orthodox beliefs?

Incarnation of the Son of God | Theopedia

I've asked this question to several Christians who don't believe early developing human life in the womb is considered a "person."

So I ask, at what point do they believe Jesus became a "person" by their subjective standard.

What is your view then on the Incarnation based on this?

You got that question right, even though you may not realize it. Either at some point in the pregnancy Jesus Christ became truly God and truly man, OR the position on the Incarnation corresponds to orthodox belief.
I opt for the latter, in accord with considerations of your link.

Mine is NOT a subjective standard, but the only one in full accord with the actual process. Through the pregnancy of Mary there came to be the Jesus body realized at birth when it first became a living human being, an autonomous member of the human species. Though the fetus was human cells before then and therefore was human (like unto a cancer that is a human cancer), there was no new person, no God incarnate, until that momentous day when Christ was born, which you agree we do indeed much celebrate.

For the truth, although it may have been distorted by "pro-life," much in recent history, is that it was then, at his birth, we were given here on earth the Savior and King.

The true Savior and Lord of human kind was NEVER the cell that is a zygote or even the "pure flesh" without anything of spirit and truth that is a fetus.

 

[SPF]

Douglas:

BTW, there is NO life that begins at conception. That is pretty obviously so, since all the LIFE found at conception comes from the sperm that is alive and the ovum that is alive, and those alive cells form one alive cell with the same life.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information from, I would be interested in the medical sources that provided you with this idea, because as far as I know - that is completely false.

Before conception, you have an unfertilized egg (ovum), and you have close to 100 million sperm trying to fertilize that egg. Neither the egg, nor the sperm in themselves would be considered a human life. However, when that one little swimmer makes it to the egg and fertilizes it, there is a new life. That is conception, and at the moment of conception we have a new human life. This is actually recognized scientific fact. Indeed, the entire ethical dilemma surrounding abortion is focused on defining the moral worth of the human life inside the womb. But with regards to the life after conception - it certainly is a human.

Scientifically, we know that human life begins at the moment of conception. At conception, a new, living organism is created.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.

 

[redleghunter]

The true Savior and Lord of human kind was NEVER the cell that is a zygote or even the "pure flesh" without anything of spirit and truth that is a fetus.

You hold the Nestorian view of the nature of Jesus Christ?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas: I'm not sure where you're getting this information from, I would be interested in the medical sources that provided you with this idea, because as far as I know - that is completely false.

Before conception, you have an unfertilized egg (ovum), and you have close to 100 million sperm trying to fertilize that egg. Neither the egg, nor the sperm in themselves would be considered a human life. However, when that one little swimmer makes it to the egg and fertilizes it, there is a new life. That is conception, and at the moment of conception we have a new human life. This is actually recognized scientific fact. Indeed, the entire ethical dilemma surrounding abortion is focused on defining the moral worth of the human life inside the womb. But with regards to the life after conception - it certainly is a human.

Scientifically, we know that human life begins at the moment of conception. At conception, a new, living organism is created.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.

Oh, these great doctors you quote could not possibly be wrong, right? They merely CLAIM what you want to claim - do NOT provide any proof or evidence. They are likely mostly pro-life and hence make a pro-life claim whenever they figure they can get away with it. WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. And of course SAYING their claim is "scientific."

Just what are you contesting in what I say - do you not think the sperm that fertilizes an ovum is ALIVE ? And that the ovum is also ALIVE. So do you think some other form of LIFE intrudes at that point to constitute "new life"?

The major thing is a confusion between "a (new) human life" and "LIFE." It is fine to speak of the one or the other - but they should be clearly distinguished.
I was responding to the claim that LIFE begins at conception, and that is not the same as saying "a new human life" or "a human being" begins then. (Both are false, btw.)

I don't know what you think LIFE is, if it is not found in the sperm, and also in the egg fertilized. Do you claim those cells DIE, and some sort of new cell is resurrected, made alive from nowhere in particular? It is THE SAME LIFE that those cells originally possess that continues in the zygote. Do you claim that this last statement is false or "unscientific"?

Your first quote of Dr. Alfred ... is instructive: "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence..."
That is correct but PROVES NOTHING. It IS human life. And what do you (and he) suppose "human life" is? Surely "human life" is anything that consists of human and alive cell(s).
That includes cancers and anything ever found alive in a womb. It IS human life. But what I am suggesting is, "so what?," so too is the cancer. Are we to call it "a human life," of course not, and so too the FACT the zygote is human life does not make it "a human life," i.e. a human being. The criterion for a human being are quite more than the fact it must possess "human life" or LIFE.

Your merely saying "it certainly is a human life" does not make it so, any more than some prestigious scientist saying it would make it true.