Infants in Heaven?

1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth...
It's the gold that perishes, not faith.

We all sinned in Adam, whether you take the federal or realism (seminal) view, we all share the guilt of Adam's transgression. I suppose David was just kidding when he said the wicked sin from the womb.

Click to expand...

I can't believe there are people who still interpret Romans 5:12 to mean in Adam. It is universally agreed that Jerome mistranslated the Greek compound eph'w and made in in quo in the Latin. Eph'w translates because or for the purpose of and in quo means in whom. This is obviously a terrible mistranslation and one that Augustine ran with when developing the realist viewpoint. Yet, no one can satisfactorily answer why we are not guilty of all of Adam's sins and the sins of everyone else who contained us in their loins. If we were there in the beginning actually sinning in Adam, we didn't cease to be there after he sinned. Therefore, we should be guilty of all of his sins. As for the Immediate imputation Federalist view, this is nothing but a theory built on tenuous presuppositions like a covenant of works in the Garden of Eden. There is no scriptural proof that such a covenant ever existed and one has to assert that it did without scriptural warrant. Also, holding that one is punished for sins that they didn't commit goes against numerous Scripture verses. Atleast the seminal view can posit that we actually sinned, but both theories are still wrong.

"41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:41)

"2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Mat 18:2-4)

Children can have faith. How do we gain Faith?


"17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. " (Rom 10:17)

The Word.


"25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. " (Eph 5:25-27)

Baptism is a "washing with water through the Word".


4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. " (John 3:4-6)

"21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21)

Baptism saves.

There will be children and infants in Heaven.

Patristic said:

Also, holding that one is punished for sins that they didn't commit goes against numerous Scripture verses.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the Amalekites, particularly the children.

Rechtgläubig said:

Children can have faith. How do we gain Faith?

The Word.

Baptism is a "washing with water through the Word".

Baptism saves.

There will be children and infants in Heaven.

Click to expand...

That's great...except John was not baptized when he lept in the womb.

False conclusions are easy to draw when you start with faulty premises. We are saved by faith, not baptism.

Tell that to the Amalekites, particularly the children.

Click to expand...

Please don't take that statement out of context. This whole thread has been about the damnation/salvation of infants. When I spoke of punishment I meant so in the damnation sense, not temporal punishments for trangressions. I am fully aware that God does punish us temporally with chastisements for the sins of our parents and that we can suffer the consequences for someone else's sins. Nevertheless, we cannot be sent to hell for the sins that someone else committed. Here are a few examples:

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 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.

2Chronicles 25:4 .... The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

That's great...except John was not baptized when he lept in the womb.

False conclusions are easy to draw when you start with faulty premises. We are saved by faith, not baptism.

Click to expand...

Hmmm....and you aren't really stretching Scripture saying John the Baptist was regenerated in the womb. The Bible doesn't say that he was regenerated it just says that he leapt in the presence of the mother of the Lord. It's similar to when David leapt for joy when the Ark of the Lord came unto him. I think it is quite faulty and premature to build a theology of infant regeneration in the womb around one passage of Scripture that doesn't even speak of regeneration.

I'm not going so far as to say that that verse is definitive in regards to infant regeneration, only that it supports the position. I'm certainly not trying to 'build a theology of infant regeneration in the womb around one passage.'

The argument really centers around our differences in understanding soteriology in general.

I'm not going so far as to say that that verse is definitive in regards to infant regeneration, only that it supports the position. I'm certainly not trying to 'build a theology of infant regeneration in the womb around one passage.'

The argument really centers around our differences in understanding soteriology in general.

Click to expand...

I agree with your last statement, but not with the first. As for the first, one could easily argue from this passage for a view that John was regenerated because of his act of faith, and not before it. The Calvinist view of regeneration preceeding faith must be imported into this passage with arguments developed elsewhere. Like you said, how you view this passage is based on one's understanding of soteriology in general.