Huge mistake with origins of Catholicism.

You're right. I think a one year old baby can choose to be repentful for the sins he hasn't commited. God would not send babies to Hell. They are not old enough to comprehend things like that.
 
where exactly does it say God doesnt send babies to hell, because i have looked and really there is no clearly defined area where it says where they go, as a parent, i am sure you would love to believe that, as a preschool teacher and someone who loves to work with kids i WANT to believe it, but there is no clear defined YES for it, infact if you want to go with Paul and say that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God and with out Him there is no Life, well then if a baby cant accept that would mean a baby cant have Life.... some hard food to sallow, but its the turth, kinda sucks doesnt it
 
I don't know if were talking about the God who didn't claim to know love but said he was Love. The God who did not come to condem the world, but to save. The one who told the prostitute her sins are forgiven, and welcomed the children even though most found them to be annoying. The God I know loves the babies he created, and would not send them to hell with them only comming into the world, and leaving before they have a chance at life. God is a God of justice, and will handle the situation with perfect justice. He will not throw an ignorant baby into eternal damnation. If your God would, I don't think we have the same God. Where does it say that God does send babies to hell?
 
Ezekiel 18:20 says, "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

This totally eliminates the idea of original sin, so don't even start that subject -_-.

God cannot send an innocent and pure being to Hell. Christ took that burden for us.

Therefore, a baby, which is given a spirit by God, cannot be sent to hell because that spirit is still clean and pure.

Paul speaks of it when he says...."Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died" (Romans 7:9). This shows that he was alive apart from the law---in other words, he was not going to be judged until sin came into his life, and when sin DID come into his life, he spiritually died.

Christ also insinuates, and reaffirms that children will go to heaven when in Matthew 18:3 he says, "And he said: 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.'"

I've more, but I need to run. Dog needs letting out

Van
 
OKAY, well, my other scripture I was going to give was...

"And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad --they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it." (Deuteronomy 1:39)

Van
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Vanaze @ Mar. 12 2004,9:22)]This totally eliminates the idea of original sin
Click to expand...
Wait, you don't believe in original sin? So you're Pelagian? Good to know we have a heretic in the group.
biggrin.gif



On another note...I think you've misinterpreted Matthew 18:3. I don't think Christ is saying here that all children will go to heaven; I think he's saying that unless you have the same faith and trust as a child (which requires a subordination of the self in order to correctly respond to Christ), you will not ever be capable of truly loving God, the requirement for entrance into Heaven. At least, that's my take on it.
 
ok as for going to Bible College i Went, am at home this semester, big long discussion there thad if you want to know fully about it(or anyone) email me.

as for the verses time to break out my Word of God, (zonderman LOL ) and check your context van.

First off the Duet verse is referring to the grumbling and sins of the first generation who left egypt and had decided that the canaanites were to big for them and their God.

Paul is talking about how sin had warped the law into making sin, the law it self is not sin, but rather the outward actions not matching up with inward feelings, and if you take a look at puals teaching in general Hes says NONE (PERIOD NONE) are worthy, and the over all context of Romans is to show Grace....

the Ezekiel quote is also taken out of context the context of this entire book is talking about how the sins of one generation sent them into exile, and that God would no punish the child for the sins of their parents (in keeping them in exile).

Like i said so far there has been no Biblical proof for babies going to heaven, just some verse taken out of context to mean what you want, if you want to play that game van i can make just about anything permissable quoting from the Bible.
 
seems more like an argument designed for baptism than for whether or not babies go to heaven or hell

*on a note i do want believe that but i am playing devils avocate because there is no clear biblical proof for it like i stated earlyer you can take verse and play with the context and interrupt them your own way*
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The issue before us is this: If an infant should die in infancy, will this person be in heaven.

Note: A similar question relates to those who are severely mentally retarded even though they might be older. They do not have the mental capacities to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in Him.

2. We are not saying that (living) babies are saved. A little baby, as cute and as innocent as it looks, is not saved, is not regenerated, is not justified and is not a child of God. Babies are born in sin and are dead in sin (Psalm 51:5; Eph. 2:1). As they get older their depraved sinful nature will manifest itself in many ugly ways. The question involves what happens to an infant if the infant should die.

3. The issue we are discussing is not whether babies are taken to be with Christ at the rapture. That is an entirely different issue which we have discussed in the following document: Some Questions on the Rapture.

4. There are certain false teachings regarding the spiritual state of infants. We totally reject the idea that infant baptism confers grace upon the infant. It does absolutely nothing for the child. Moreover, infant baptism is totally unscriptural. In the New Testament only believers were baptized and a baby is not capable of exercising saving faith. See the study entitled Does Water Baptism Save? Also, contrary to what some Reformed theologians teach, babies are not regenerated or born again (see Reformed View of Regeneration Answered). Some go so far as to say that a baby can be regenerated as an infant and yet not come to faith in Christ until years later. This is a Biblical absurdity. It is also wrong to make a connection between male circumcision of the Old Testament and infant baptism. Male circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Christian baptism (for those old enough to understand salvation) is an ordinance of the church of Jesus Christ. Infant baptism is a religious rite practiced by many churches today, although there is not one example in the Scriptures of a baby being baptized.

5. Do babies go to heaven when they die? The ultimate answer to this question is found in the answer to another question: "Will not the God of all the earth do right?" (compare Genesis 18:25). Concerning the infant who dies---God will do the right thing. The all-wise, loving God will do what is right, in light of God's holy and righteous character. May we learn to rest on this wonderful fact.

6. Although the Bible does not specifically declare that infants who die will go to heaven, there is a weight of Biblical evidence which points in this direction: Infants who die will be safe in the arms of Jesus and will spend eternity with Him in heaven.

Some reasons for reaching such a conclusion are as follows:

1. The Lord Jesus Christ died for all of Adam's race (for all mankind), including every infant that has ever been born. Consider the following study: For Whom Did Christ Die?
2. A person is condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ and for refusing to believe in Him: "He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). An infant is not capable of rejecting Jesus Christ. An infant is incapable of committing the sin mentioned in John 16:9.

3. Those who go to hell in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 are those who have deliberately disobeyed the gospel by refusing to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Infants have not willfully disobeyed the gospel. Note: The heathen, who are not under the hearing of the gospel, are condemned for rejecting the lesser revelation that God has given to them (Rom. 1:20-21, etc.). For a detailed study of this see Romans chapter 1. But an infant would also be incapable of rejecting this lesser revelation.

4. Revelation 20:11-15 indicates that all of the unsaved are resurrected to appear before the Great White Throne, and twice it is stressed that each will be judged according to their works. How can infants be included, if they have never done any works or committed acts of sin?

5. Consider the compassionate heart of God for those who are lost: "Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4--this is God's desire). "Not willing that any should perish" (2 Pet. 3:9). "Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14). "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezekiel 33:11). While these verses do not refer specifically to infants, they do teach us that the loving and merciful heart of our God desires the salvation of all men.

6. We know that the Lord Jesus had a tender and compassionate heart for the little children and was much displeased when His disciples were hindering them from coming to Him (Mark 10:13-14). We assume that our Saviour has this same kind of compassion for infants.

7. King David had a child by Bathsheba which died in infancy. David's words are significant: "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, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:22-23). The clear sense of this passage is that David believed that he would be reunited with his child in the next life. He knew the baby, having died, could not come back to this life, but he believed that he would go to him. While we can't be dogmatic that such a passage teaches infant salvation, yet it does seem to point in that direction.
Click to expand...

Taken from HERE

Cory
 
Just one churchs view, like i said (not trying to discredit the church or anything) but you can take verses and make them believe just about whatever you want, its just about word play and presenting it right.
 
Of course, the verses answer the questions. I would not agree just because there are verses in his post.
 
The point of the article is that we don't know for sure. We can speculate based on scriptures provided to us that yes, it is possible and likely, but we don't know. Yes or no either way, we don't know. It is one of those unanswerable questions.

As for word play, I don't know where your seeing that. What in the article is presented with word play? Please, point it out to us.

With a negative view of how things are presented, how do you view what you learn at school or what your pastor teaches? Is it with the same skepticism that you give us here on the boards?

Cory
 
not saying there is word play in the article, and at school i do challenge my teachers often, many of them are Mid-Western Bible scholars, it is either THIS WAY, or NO WAY. personally i dont by that, but that is just me. i Think Gods plan will happen no matter what,

Thad all i am trying to point out is there is no clear yes or NO for this issue, BUT on judgement day those that are not saved will be judged by their works, now what kind of works does a 6 month yr old child have? nothing good and nothing bad in my oppion, but i am not God and i am not the judge (thankfully).

the "negitive" view, is just my personallity when it comes to debates and learnings, i tend to challenge everything accepting nothing at face value, just because someone says it doesnt mean its true, maybe my "negitivity" has cuased some people to dive into their bibles more, is that such a bad thing? all i am trying to do is for people to stop accepting what the preacher and teacher says just because they say it, why not look it up your self a little bit, not saying they are lieing to anyone, but whats wrong with getting people to look it up and do some research themselves a little bit.
 
I really have to side with LoJ on this one. The Middletown Bible Church stuff is one interpretation of those scriptures. For them to say that while those scriptures do not specifically mention infants, we can infer blah blah blah, yet to reject another denominational belief as "totally unscriptural", "absurdity", and "wrong" when those other beliefs use similar scriptural influences is at best intolerant and at worst bigoted and slanderous.

In Acts 2:38, Peter says "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." He does not specifically mention infants, but it can be inferred that they are included. Especially when you note that in the very next verse, Peter says, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Acts 2:39) Now, is that conclusive proof that infant baptism is valid and necessary? Hardly. But the use of these verses alone as input for the inference that infant (and child) baptism is acceptable is every bit as valid as the inferences made by the author of the quoted article.

Just looking at the other side to again reinforce LoJ's point that while all of those scriptural references can be used to infer one thing about infants and their eternal fates, those same scriptures could be used to point out that by not specifically mentioning infants, it is proof that infants are not included. This would be just as valid an interpretation as the first. I think the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and the Spanish Inquisition proved that, if the shepherd is clever enough and the sheep are hungry enough, you can make the Bible say anything you want it to.
 
I'm the same way LoJ. My grandfather whom I respect very much as a Christian told me to review everything you are taught, don't just take the persons word for it. I agree with you whole hardily, and that is why I posted the article as it states the same thing. We don't know for sure.

People should get off their keisters and read their Bible more. If they are nothing but pew warmers, they will never grow in the Word. By all means, I am far from a great example of someone who reads every day, and I know I should.

Anyway, sorry if I sounded short, I just thought you was saying the article used play on words to make a point. In my opinion it validated what you was trying to say, that we don't know for sure.

Cory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top