BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

Do babies of unbelievers go to heaven if they die?

Z
ZealForTruth Sep 1, 2007

I have often wondered about this and I have to be honest, wouldn't really know how to answer this question if it came up other than the usual "trust in God, He is just" ;)

The way I have heard it explained that somewhat makes sense is as follows:

"1 Corinthians 7:13  And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14  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."

Therefore, if at least ONE of the parents is christian, the children (before reaching maturity to decide for themselves) are santified by God. And if they die as young children, they go to heaven.

But what about if neither of the parents were christian? Does that mean that a baby will go to hell? Seems kinda unfair...

When responding, please use scriptural references, since that is what we as christians are to base our beliefs upon, and not on other people's opinions which we think make sense.

Blessings in Christ!

S
sojourner7 Sep 1, 2007

This issue used to trouble me, too.
I always wondered what about all those
babies who are aborted, what happens to
their souls?? God has assured me in the
Spirit that they are "innocents" and He
takes them home to heaven.

sermonindex Sep 1, 2007

The only definite scripture I can find on this subjectis in 1Kings 14. However it speaks of a child; he may not have been a baby.

Jereboam's wife went to the prophet Ahijah when her son was ill, to find out if the child would live or die.

"12 Arise thou therefore, get thee to thine own house: and when thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die.
13 And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him: for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, [b]because in him there is found some good thing toward the LORD God of Israel[/b] in the house of Jeroboam."

God knows the heart. Our response to Him is spiritual not intellectual, so I see no reason why such a child can't respond to Him long before they can understand the words of the Gospel, or even before they can speak.

Blessings

jeannette

sermonindex Sep 1, 2007

ZealForTruth said,

But what about if neither of the parents were christian? Does that mean that a baby will go to hell? Seems kinda unfair...

Blessings Brother,

I think the best way you can sort this one out is to sit down in a quiet room with your Bible, flip through the pages of Matthew, Chapters 18 and 19, and read all the scriptures where Jesus speaks of "children", and "little ones".

Close your eyes and meditate upon His words. Then ask Him in prayer what He will do with infants and children (Christian or not) who die prematurely.

I imagine those large, calloused, pierced carpenter's hands would hold a baby, any baby, more gently and carefully than any mother could.

J
jlosinski Sep 2, 2007

I have heard it explained from J. Vernon McGee about how the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer:
The family may enjoy the benefits that come from a christian man or woman, the fruits of the spirit, but that does not necessarily mean that the non-believers are saved, of course.

It seems that the view that the children are sanctified by the christian is "salvation by association" or somthing to that effect, which is not biblical, therefore it seems that is is also not biblical to believe that children without godly influence will be sent to hell.

J
jordanamo Sep 2, 2007

Of course.


When responding, please use scriptural references

Not necessary.

since that is what we as christians are to base our beliefs upon, and not on other people's opinions which we think make sense.

Not all things are detailed out word for word in the Bible. Anyone could give a proof text to support their view concerning this, and it would get us no where. (This includes most other topics really.) For example, concerning salvation.. one could argue that the child that dies without having "called upon the name of the Lord" has not been saved (quoting that passage in Romans as a proof text for their view), and thus cannot walk into Heaven. I think that is an erroneous view of salvation and the mercies of God. And this is essentially why I refuse to give you your scripture. It is not enough, it won't ever be. This I appeal to your reason, to your reading of the God of the Bible and his dealings with Man, and specifically to his love expressed to the Children through Jesus. It should be common sense, but when people take passages too literally and not in context, it leads to such erroneous views as babies going to Hell. Nonsense. Absolutely.

P
philologos Sep 2, 2007

If there were an all-convincing verse someone would have posted it by now. However, there are a couple of verses that I expected to see posted...

[color=0033FF]And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. (2Samuel 12:22-23 KJVS)

“Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18:10 NKJV)[/color]

The latter reference is particularly interesting. Biblically, a persons' "angel" often represents the person themselves, as the angel of the Lord, or Christ's angel in the book of the Revelation. This latter verse shows the 'children's angels' with unhindered access to God.

It is true that the prime reference here is to "one of these little ones who believe in Me" (Matt 18:6) but the concept of a child seeing the 'face of God' may be wider than this. The word for chld here presumes an infant so we are not talking about someone who could give you a detailed explanation of 'justification by faith' but just simple trust.

Z
ZealForTruth Sep 2, 2007

Not all things are detailed out word for word in the Bible. Anyone could give a proof text to support their view concerning this, and it would get us no where. (This includes most other topics really.)

True, but then why do we bother supporting any of our other beliefs with scriptures, since there is a possibility that those were taken out of context as well?

I believe that we SHOULD support our beliefs with scriptures as much as it is possible, and that is why a discussion like this on this forum is good to help us see if it's out of context. And even when it is not possible because the Bible doesn't talk about something directly, sometimes various verses point in a general direction that can help us make a right decision on what God really wants.

For example I have not yet found a verse in the Bible that speaks explicitly against masturbation, but there are many other numerous verses that speaks against lusting with the eyes which fuels the desire to masturbate.

Basically what I meant by that is I'm kind of tired of hearing, well, I feel this way, and Nooooo, that really can't be, I mean, think about it, does that really sound like God to you?!....without any scriptural backings because, sincerely, who really cares about how one person or another feels or thinks about something? The bible says "feelings are deceptive" so I would rather believe something that I can relate to the Bible supported with verses or not make a conclusion about something at all.

Because if I look at my feelings, I wouldn't like to believe that King David whose armies sawed people (which included children by the way) to death and chopped them with axes and cooked them in brick kilns (2 Samuel 12:31) should be called "a man after God's heart", but hey, lo and behold! It also "doesn't sound like God to me" when God got angry at Saul for not killing every last being of a nation (which again included children and babies) but hey! guess what the Bible shows us?

Okay, I'm done my little rant.....

sermonindex Sep 2, 2007

Although my response would not be considered 'right' humanistically speaking, the following thoughts always come to mind when I think of the question about where babies go, however my mind is by no means made up:


1) Romans 6:23 - [b]For the wages of sin is death[/b]; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

2) Romans 5:18 - [b]Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation[/b]; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

3) 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 - [b]For since by man came death[/b], by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22[b]For as in Adam all die[/b], even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


Paul tells us that '...as in Adam all die...' Any man born of Adam (meaning everyone) dies. Why do we die? Because of sin; '...the wages of sin is death...'. I believe we have all inherited a sin nature from Adam, because of Adam's original sin. This is why everyone who is born will die. Death only came into the world as a consequence of sin.

So if a baby is not a sinner through Adam, then surely they wouldn't die? If a little child was without sin, then that child would not die.

Although just babies, they still have a sin nature, as inherited from Adam. A sin nature which must be paid for.


I do understand, though, that it is very dangerous ground to put into question what God would do in certain situations. God is God, and He alone can, and will, act as He pleases. Who are we to question why the one and only, true, living and Holy God has done something?

sermonindex Sep 2, 2007


ZealForTruth wrote:
Not all things are detailed out word for word in the Bible. Anyone could give a proof text to support their view concerning this, and it would get us no where. (This includes most other topics really.)

True, but then why do we bother supporting any of our other beliefs with scriptures, since there is a possibility that those were taken out of context as well?

I believe that we SHOULD support our beliefs with scriptures as much as it is possible, and that is why a discussion like this on this forum is good to help us see if it's out of context. And even when it is not possible because the Bible doesn't doesn't mention something specifically, sometimes various verses point in a general direction that can help us make a right decision on what God really wants.

For example I have not yet found a verse in the Bible that speaks explicitly against masturbation, but there are many other numerous verses that speaks against lusting with the eyes which fuels the desire to masturbate.

Basically what I meant by that is I'm kind of tired of hearing, well, I feel this way, and Nooooo, that's really can't be, I mean, think about it, does that really sound like God to you?!....without any scriptural backings because, sincerely, who really cares about how one person or another feels or thinks about something? The bible says "feelings are deceptive" so I would rather believe something that I can relate to the Bible supported with verses or not make a conclusion about something at all.

Because if I look at my feelings, I wouldn't like to believe that King David whose armies sawed people (which included children by the way) to death and chopped them with axes and cooked them in brick kilns (2 Samuel 12:31) should be called "a man after God's heart", but hey, lo and behold! It also "doesn't sound like God to me" when God got angry at Saul for not killing every last being of a nation (which again included children and babies) but hey! guess what the Bible shows us?

Okay, I'm done my little rant.....

Amen.

P
philologos Sep 2, 2007

So if a baby is not a sinner through Adam, then surely they wouldn't die? If a little child was without sin, then that child would not die.

Although just babies, they still have a sin nature, as inherited from Adam. A sin nature which must be paid for.


This is widening the discussion into something far wider. Do men go to hell for Adam's sin or for their own? The penalty for Adam's sin was 'spiritual death' which passed to all the race. That sentence has already been passed and executed. We are all dead in trespasses and sins as a result of Adam's sin.

I don't think that the Bible anywhere teaches that people 'go to hell' for Adam's sin but because of their rejection of the gospel offer in Christ.

The consequence of Adam's sin was born in Christ when he embraced 'spiritual death' for us. Our old Adam was crucified with him and this becomes a personal experience to the man or woman who is 'baptised into Christ'. Personal sin and accountability is a different part of the question.

sermonindex Sep 2, 2007


philologos said
]

I don't think that the Bible anywhere teaches that people 'go to hell' for Adam's sin but because of their rejection of the gospel offer in Christ.
Thank you for explaining this thought.
It is true that the prime reference here is to "one of these little ones who believe in Me" (Matt 18:6) but the concept of a child seeing the 'face of God' [u]may[/u] be wider than this. The word for chld here presumes an infant so we are not talking about someone who could give you a detailed explanation of 'justification by faith' but just simple trust.
(underscore mine)

I don't offer these further thoughts as definitive, but they are from a different perspective.

Christian parents are often encouraged to consider themselves as representing God to their children. In the same way (therefore) non-Christian parents may [i]not[/i] be representing 'God' to their children.

A friend of mine who worked in children's nursing, had one two year old whom she was sure the Lord would heal, if his parents would receive the gospel and believe. But they refused. The child died. In this true event, I don't think it's possible to argue with the faith and leading of the nurse who believed God, and I also don't think one can generalise from one particular incident.

But, it brings to mind what Paul says here:

1 Corinthians 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: [u]else were your children unclean[/u]; but [b]now[/b] are they holy.


sermonindex Sep 2, 2007


philologos wrote:
So if a baby is not a sinner through Adam, then surely they wouldn't die? If a little child was without sin, then that child would not die.

Although just babies, they still have a sin nature, as inherited from Adam. A sin nature which must be paid for.


This is widening the discussion into something far wider. Do men go to hell for Adam's sin or for their own? The penalty for Adam's sin was 'spiritual death' which passed to all the race. That sentence has already been passed and executed. We are all dead in trespasses and sins as a result of Adam's sin.

I don't think that the Bible anywhere teaches that people 'go to hell' for Adam's sin but because of their rejection of the gospel offer in Christ.

The consequence of Adam's sin was born in Christ when he embraced 'spiritual death' for us. Our old Adam was crucified with him and this becomes a personal experience to the man or woman who is 'baptised into Christ'. Personal sin and accountability is a different part of the question.

Thanks Ron, I take that on board!

The reasoning behind my post was this: death came into the world as a consequence of Adam's sin. We inherit Adam's sin nature, and we in turn sin. Because we sin, we, like Adam, will die.

If a baby is not sinful, then why would it die?

L
Logic Sep 2, 2007

ZealForTruth wrote:
But what about if neither of the parents were christian? Does that mean that a baby will go to hell? Seems kinda unfair...
Since infants have not sinned yet, they go to be with the Lord that created them.

L
Logic Sep 2, 2007

richardf wrote:
Paul tells us that '...as in Adam all die...' Any man born of Adam (meaning everyone) dies. Why do we die? Because of sin; '...the wages of sin is death
People do not die physicaly because of sin, the evidence for this claim is that plants and animals die but they never sin.
Therefore sin is not the reason for physical death.
Sin is the reason for spiritual death.

richardf wrote:
I believe we have all inherited a sin nature from Adam, because of Adam's original sin.
the true fact is that we inherited a human nature from Adam.
Physical death is the outcome of "Adam's original sin".

richardf wrote:
Although just babies, they still have a sin nature, as inherited from Adam. A sin nature which must be paid for.
Sin Nature is a mith!!!

Why would God, with such a great love for His creation, condemn it with Adam's sin when it has not yet sinned as a new born infant?
Furthermore, put a nature on creation for it to do naturaly what HE hates?

To put the indictment or a responsibility of "sin nature" that has not yet been committed and put a penalty or a price on the inocent is unjust.

If "Sin Nature" is true, it would pervert the justice of God and distort the love of God.

Since God loves His creation so much, why would He impose a nature on it againt it's will and/or charge it with an indictment or a responsibility which they don't deserve, because Adam did the crime and not his offspring, Furthermore, a nature of which HE hates?

Our natuer comes from what we are, which is human.

People do not have a "sin nature" just as an apple tree does not have an apple nature.

Just as an apple tree is created to bear fruit, so is man.
Sin is fruit, the fruit of unrightousness.
Good works from faith is fruit of rightousness.
All sin is fruit from what man is rooted in, which is of eather three things. Rooted in Christ, the world or self.

John 15:4b ...As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Romans 11:16b ...and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
Romans 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree...

Since Christ is the Root/Vine & man a tree/vinebranch.
If man is not grafted into Christ, he is selfish &/or wotldly, because he has his own self as his root. Or he may also be worldly, for that is all he has(John 15:9, 1John 2:15)
This is the cause of all mans wickedness, that man is of the world and selfish and not of Christ and loving.

Therefore, the fruit does not make its nature, nor does the nature deside what its fruit is.

What ever fruit it bears, the tree still has a plant nature. not an apple nature, oriange nature, banana nature.
The kind of fruit obviously does not change what it is or what nature it has.
However, what ever it is grafted into does change it's fruit, just as my analogy shows, which is of Scripture as I have shown.

What ever fruit man bears, sin or righteousness, it is still human nature.

sermonindex Sep 2, 2007

Apologies, I mean to write sin[u]ful[/u] nature.

Z
ZealForTruth Sep 2, 2007

Since God loves His creation so much, why would He impose a nature on it againt it's will and/or charge it with an indictment or a responsibility which they don't deserve, because Adam did the crime and not his offspring, Furthermore, a nature of which HE hates?

I see your argument, but I can't help thinking, why would God increase women's childbirth pains then since it was Eve that sinned and not the women afterwards? Why should all men have to work hard and toil and win their bread by the sweat of their brow since it was Adam that sinned and not other people? (Genesis 3:16-19)

sermonindex Sep 3, 2007

Gen 3:16-19

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken:[b][i] for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.[/b][/i]
KJV

Rom 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
KJV


It don't get much plainer than that on what physical death is and also why. Through Jesus is the only way we can overcome that death.

As for how old a child has to be responsible for rejecting Christ, I will leave that answer for the Judge, our Lord, who knows all of all hearts.

One of the biggest hinderances on a person accepting Christ is self. A child does not need to be taught about self. We are born centered on self, all of us. Only Christ can change a heart.

P
philologos Sep 3, 2007

People do not die physicaly because of sin, the evidence for this claim is that plants and animals die but they never sin.
Therefore sin is not the reason for physical death.

Yes, it is and the creation is subject to its sorrows because of what Adam did; not because of what you or I do.

[color=0033FF]Rom. 5:12 (KJVS) Wherefore, as [u]by one man[/u] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom. 5:15 (KJVS) But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if [u]through the offence of one many be dead[/u], much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Rom. 5:16 (KJVS) And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for [u]the judgment was by one to condemnation[/u], but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Rom. 5:17 (KJVS) For if [u]by one man’s offence death reigned by one[/u]; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Rom. 5:18 (KJVS) Therefore as [u]by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation[/u]; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Rom. 5:19 (KJVS) For as [u]by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners[/u], so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
[/color]

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 19 posts