Do Babies Go To Heaven?

[grizzlyburr]

I'm sure this topic has been discussed in the past. However, since I'm new to this board I'd like to hear people's ideas.

Psalm 51:5 suggests we are born in sin. To an extent we are formed in sin.

If the only way to reach salvation is acceptance of Christ to wash away our sins, can a baby or child that has not accepted Christ go to heaven? If so, what scripture validates that?

I know this is a touchy subject because we are so protective our children.

Perhaps the presbyterians have it right to baptize babies as a whole house baptism? There scriptures indicating whole house baptisms in connection with being "saved."

Maybe the key is baptism?

The thought of children not going in heaven can seem grisly, but is it really scripturally accurate?

Discuss.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Not a question we could easily answer even from scripture. I suggest like those who have never heard of Christ they all get their chance.
I think so, and I think the unborn as well.

 

[Armistead14]

Not a question we could easily answer even from scripture. I suggest like those who have never heard of Christ they all get their chance.
I think so, and I think the unborn as well.

No where does the bible say people get a chance to accept Christ after death...Scripture. When and how do all these people get their chance since billions have already died never having one?

The bible does teach that Christ will reconcile all, including unborn babies or children.

 

[LBP]

Babies, baptized or otherwise, along with everyone else, will be dealt with by God in a way worthy of the loving Creator of the universe.

 

[lux et lex]

Maybe.

 

[99percentatheism]

You must be like a little child to get to heaven. Per Jesus.

End of issue.

 

[Blueforest]

If the fundamentalists deny that babies gain instant access to the joys of heaven, then their entire "defense" over infant slaughter in 1 Samuel 15:2 and 3 are moot. It makes God look even more insidious and demonic. Oh, I forgot... God creates some people just to torture eternally because He is "just" (?). Makes sense to me.

Of course, if the babies did gain instant access to heaven (not reincarnation, Sheol, hell, eternal torment, no existence, etc.) then it raises an interesting question:

Why not kill all babies today, so they instantly go to heaven???

Christian ethics are a scary thing indeed.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Bad caricatures are even scarier.

 

[Blueforest]

Bad caricatures are even scarier.

My inference is entirely logically.

IF all babies instantly go to heaven, which is eternal bliss, killing them would be a blessing, since they have no chance of being lost. Sure, the one doing the killing is sinning, but would not the end justify the means?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

which is eternal bliss

Heaven is not eternal.

Sure, the one doing the killing is sinning, but would not the end justify the means?

I'd imagine not.

 

[Hentenza]

My inference is entirely logically.

IF all babies instantly go to heaven, which is eternal bliss, killing them would be a blessing, since they have no chance of being lost. Sure, the one doing the killing is sinning, but would not the end justify the means?

Premeditated murder is never justified. Trust God. He'll do the right thing.

 

[Hentenza]

Heaven is not eternal.

When does it end?

 

[Blueforest]

I'd imagine not.

Well, neither would I - but it did in the bible. So we have an impasse.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Well, neither would I - but it did in the bible.

Not really.

 

[Blueforest]

You see what you want to.

(This discussion is going places.)

 

[Walter Kovacs]

You see what you want to.

And you don't?

I'm all for having a good chat about the nature of the bloody parts of the OT in relation to Christianity in the present day, but you seem to be bent on (A) declaring the Oslo Nutball was a Christian, because he said he was and therefore all people who claim to be Christians should do as he did and obviously have Biblical mandates to, but don't thus proving them either hypocritical, dangerous, fundamentalist, or cruel (B) Christianity is empty of any and all ethics. Care to actually discuss the issue, or would you rather trumpet your particular brand of Christian Humanism, (which I personally wouldn't term as such, as I see Dietrich Bonhoeffer and those like him as true Christian Humanists in every sense of the word and a man of God to be admired by all)? If your here to trumpet the ethical emptiness of Christianity, leave. If you want a good discussion, I'm all for it.

 

[Blueforest]

And you don't?

I'm all for having a good chat about the nature of the bloody parts of the OT in relation to Christianity in the present day, but you seem to be bent on (A) declaring the Oslo Nutball was a Christian, because he said he was and therefore all people who claim to be Christians should do as he did and obviously have Biblical mandates to, but don't thus proving them either hypocritical, dangerous, fundamentalist, or cruel (B) Christianity is empty of any and all ethics. Care to actually discuss the issue, or would you rather trumpet your particular brand of Christian Humanism, (which I personally wouldn't term as such, as I see Dietrich Bonhoeffer and those like him as true Christian Humanists in every sense of the word and a man of God to be admired by all)? If your here to trumpet the ethical emptiness of Christianity, leave. If you want a good discussion, I'm all for it.

Yes, if Breivik (or any other jackasses) consider themselves to be a "Christian" then I will accept their testimony. I do not judge; I am not God. I'm okay with admitting that, aren't you? It's not my place to judge another man's heart. And if we look at historic Christianity for a moment, and radical fundamentalism, we see that his actions are HARDLY unique. Hardly at all.

As for calling myself a "Christian humanist" it is merely a label, and I'm not fond of labels. I shudder at being put into a box and labeled, so it was the best I could come up with under the present circumstances. I'd say I'm simply a "Humanist" but from what I understand, they don't espouse the supernatural, so that would be inaccurate for me. Aside from that, I espouse the ideals of humanism quite nicely. I'm not big on beating people over the head with their flaws to make them believe what I do.

 

[Danny122]

...the one doing the killing is sinning, but would not the end justify the means?

Romans 3:5-8

"5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just."

Ha, nope.

 

[Blueforest]

Romans 3:5-8

"5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just."

Ha, nope.

And yet, this is the very justification we see for passages in the Old Testament, like 1 Samuel 15 et al. I can't count the number of times I've heard Christians justify bible atrocities because they believed (essentially), 'the end justifies the means.'

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Yes, if Breivik (or any other jackasses) consider themselves to be a "Christian" then I will accept their testimony

That's quite foolish, considering the behavior they display is the opposite of what Christ teaches, along with the fact that allegiance to Christ is accompanied by definite shifts in behavior as a sign of inward transformation, also taught by Jesus. Jesus teaches violence for the Kingdom of God is forbidden, period. Someone who violates that probably isn't taking His teaching to heart. Thus, I can say that this guy does not speak for Christianity and is not a representative of Christianity. This guy can claim to be whatever he wants. He is not a Christian.

It's not my place to judge another man's heart.

Nor mine, but actions often show what is in the heart. This guy killed 90 people. That gives a clue as to what's in his heart. And I am 100% able to judge actions.

And if we look at historic Christianity for a moment, and radical fundamentalism, we see that his actions are HARDLY unique. Hardly at all.

Show me this 'historical Christianity'. I think you'll find that in 2000 years of history, events like these are the exceptions, not the rule of Christianity. Also...what's the obsession with fundamentalism? Those folks are a minority, and not in line with historical Christian thought or teaching. I'd think you'd want to admit that these guys are the exceptions. And yes, I'm aware of the Crusades, witch hunts, etc, etc. Those were bad things done by men in the name of God.

I shudder at being put into a box and labeled, so it was the best I could come up with under the present circumstances.

Why anti-label? A label merely conveys contents. I'm quite thankful medicine bottles don't shun being labeled.

One of the central positions of Jesus was that violence in the name of God or the Kingdom of God is forbidden, period. So anyone who does that is not following the teachings of Christ, and if one does not follow the teachings of Christ, one is not a Christian, despite what they may claim.