Great news: babies who die go to Heaven!

Episode 1580

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Daily Clips and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Great news: babies who die go to Heaven!

  1. Truth2Freedom says:

    Reblogged this on Truth2Freedom's Blog.

  2. Linda Bowling says:

    Doesn’t this give the abortionists and the infants mothers comfort in what they are doing and encourage them to continue the practice of abortion? Wasn’t there a mother ( in Louisiana?) who drowned her young children so they wouldn’t go to hell? I thought that young covenant children and covenant mentally handicapped people who died, were saved, just as David’s infant son.

    • jasonjshaw says:

      It does reveal the ridiculous views of religious forced birth advocates as standing in opposition to the Bible. Shouldn’t Christians look to reflect God’s grace and forgiveness rather than try to impose their judgment on others when that is in God’s job description?

  3. Not entirely convinced by the theology here. This would also provide motive for not spreading the gospel, because those unaware of their sin wouldn’t be held accountable for it. Wouldn’t it be better to leave people in ignorance so they go to heaven, rather than give them the opportunity to reject God and go to hell?

    • ball0011 says:

      No, because the bible clearly states that we are without excuse because we clearly can see God in the works of His creation. Again, when you are at a level of accountability to understand that we have a creation and therefore must have a creator, you are accountable. The more we will seek God to answer these questions, the more He will show us, even to the point of bringing His good news to you.

  4. ball0011 says:

    Sorry I did not give verse I was referring to. It’s Romans 1:20

  5. I suppose we then ought to fervently pray that the Lord remove our children from earth before they cross that “level of accountability”. It would be better to have to temporarily suffer grief knowing we will see them again than to be grieved that our children may end up in Hell.

    • fleebabylon says:

      That is a pretty reprobate tongue in cheek argument to put forth. It would be better to point them to Christ that they may glorify God because he deserves to be glorified by them. For a ‘puritan’ you seem to know little of God’s glory.

  6. K Smith says:

    I understand the desire of those who believe in a level/age of accountability to try and offer comfort to those who are grieving. The difficulty is we don’t have a clear verse that says little babies who die before birth, or before X years or they hit a certain level of accountability, are saved. For if we did, Abortion is justified as well as infanticide, and more than that those things are good parenting. But God has said, You will not murder.

    The arguments that are used are centered loosely around scripture verses. For instance, at 3:00 he is talking about David’s Son, and the presenter says “it couldn’t have been the grave, he was talking about heaven in my opinion.” That isn’t proof its conjecture.

    Then at the end of the presentation he relies upon our conception of a merciful God and an emotional argument to justify that children who have been shredded in the womb wouldn’t end up in hell. For that matter, should anyone who dies at the hands of a serial killer, or is tortured, and dies end up in hell? If God is merciful, (according to his argument) God should grant them a place in his kingdom as well because of the suffering they endured.

    What he fails to address is Romans 3:23; 5:12ff; 6:23. If babies are without sin, then why do they die? Paul defeats the presenter in Romans 5:13 that sin is not counted where there is no law, and yet death reigned. It was not about the level of accountability nor their age. It was about an inheritance, a corruption, that afflicts each person from the moment of their birth. Psalm 51:5.

    What the presenter does not yet understand is that we do not naturally deserve to be saved, for we are all condemned in the sin of Adam, even babies. The best thing you can do for a baby after it is born is to baptize it. John 3:5-6, Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:4-5; Romans 6:3-11. What about those who die without Baptism? Hope, and have faith that God’s will is done.

    I understand the distress, and God has the ability to save those apart from His proclaimed Word and Sacraments, but I don’t have a verse that says He does. To any that claim to have one, then why would Jesus give us the Great commission, Matt 28:19-20, or Paul say, Faith comes by hearing?(Rom 10:14-17) For if God saves all without his proclaimed Word and without Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, then why would Jesus tell them to go and spread this good news? Why baptize? Why do this in remembrance of me?

    • fleebabylon says:

      ” The best thing you can do for a baby after it is born is to baptize it.”

      You are very religious but lack the holy spirit. May Jesus Christ save you from your roman catholicism (even if you call it by another name).

      • K Smith says:

        I thank you for taking the time to read it. It is a bit lengthy. However, to hurl names blindly in order to attack my person, does not mean you have upset my argument, you haven’t engaged my argument at all. You cite one sentence but don’t say whether you approve of it or reject it. If you do wish to tackle my argument, I am all for that, but ad hominem benefits no one, and for that reason I would urge you to engage rather than snipe.

        For instance, for me to engage you I would say that your statement that a person is “very religious but lacks the [H]oly [S]pirit” doesn’t make any sense since Christianity is the only true religion, how can a person be simultaneously religious and lack the Holy Spirit which makes us Children of God, the Spirit by which we cry, Abba, Father, the Spirit which we receive in Baptism? (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; Acts 2:37-40) You cannot call a person religious who lacks the Holy Spirit for they have do not have the only religion of the world, and thus cannot be religious. So if you wish to explain what you mean by religious, by all means do, or if there is a better word to use, let us know, but what you are saying at present, doesn’t make sense. Also, Jesus doesn’t save people from Roman Catholicism. Jesus saves them from sin, death, the devil, and the wrath of God. (2 Cor 5:17-21)

        And if you are referring to Bethke’s poor attempt to address this in “Why I hate religion but love Jesus,” I would point you to a response by Worldview everlasting, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbsadOQK_6A

  7. Jacob Hamilton says:

    This should be a non argument for anyone even remotely familiar with the God of the Bible. The idea of infants and children going to hell is absolutely absurd. If you (K Smith) believe that that God sends infants to hell, then you should be losing a lot of sleep at this point. If that is the God that is running this universe, that is quite terrifying. Also, there are no examples of infants or children getting saved in the whole Bible, yes I say that with certainty. No Timothy, Samuel, etc. were not little children when they came to know God. The books of the law make it clear that God did not hold people morally accountable until the age of 20. Read Exodus 30, it is an incredible passage on the tithe for the atonement of the souls. I am not saying that 20 is a blanket age for all of time, but I think we can glean several things from this: 1) there is an age that exists in which God does not hold people accountable for morality and actions, granted it may be different for each person. 2) I think we can certainly rule out any young ages, such as under 10 with no hesitation. 3) This shows that God’s character is one of mercy. Also, the Bible numerously speaks of God being “long-suffering” How could God fit this definition and send infants and children to hell? I think I have given you enough to chew on for now. This belief of infant damnation has never been considered orthodox.

    • K Smith says:

      I will grant that you assert much and do so boldy, but assertions don’t prove an argument. Any fool can assert, the question is whether or not you can prove what you say, and this is where you failed.

      Let me take up your assertions and by so doing may you actually form an argument, instead of swinging blindly and tearing down the verses which you yourself cite, and by so doing overturn your own assertions.

      “The idea of infants and children going to hell is absolutely absurd.” You assert then that if I believe in a God that sends infants to hell and is in control of the universe, that I should be losing sleep and should be terrified. I am terrified of the Holy and Righteous God, for I am sinner, as is each and every person on earth. (Rom 3.23) Secondly, the reason we all die is because of the wrath of God against sin. For God is not the friend of sin, but is its enemy. (Psalm 5.5) The wages of sin is death, and we see the wrath of God made manifest at the moment of our death.

      If this was the only thing that God taught, then you are right we should lose sleep, we should be terrified, and there would be nothing we could do to change it. However God has also revealed that He does not desire the death of the wicked, and this is no more clearly made manifest anywhere else in the Scriptures than in the Cross of His Son. For He sent His Son into this world to be crushed for our iniquities and by his stripes we have been healed so that we might be saved.

      Now as for your assertions which to attempt to prove but overturn, you ask me to read Exodus 30 in order to show that the census tax of all of those who are over the age of 20 shows that those prior will not be held accountable for their sins. However, you then disregard this age of 20 and say that is potentially different for each person. But where does that come from? It didn’t come from the Scriptures, for by your own admission in the second point, these are your own thoughts. You turned an objective number from the Scriptures, 20 years of age, into a subjective number, who knows what age, but then set a firm number of 10, and then you conclude from this passage that because people have to pay a tax for the atonement that God is merciful? No. This isn’t mercy, this is Works-based righteousness. That is what makes the Catholic Church Apostate, that they reject the gift of salvation freely offered through the Blood of Christ.

      Yes God is long suffering, He is patient, but He also has wrath and judgment that He brings to bear against the unrepentant. Lest you forget Ananias and Sapphira, Sodom and Gomorrah, Korah and his Family, Noah and the Flood, and Adam and Eve. When you speak of a God of mercy, He can only show mercy, if He has wrath against sin. A god that knows only mercy and love is the god of the carnal world, which seeks to know only a kind grandfather. That is not the God of the Bible, who because of the Sin of Adam cursed all mankind in Genesis 3, and He was right to do so. This curse carried through to all mankind, Romans 5:12, and He was right to do so. It is not for me to determine whether or not God is just, fair, or right. The Fact that He is God makes Him Just, Fair, and Right even if He brings His judgment against people that are 1 month old or 100 years old.

      As for stuff to chew on, if, as you assert, that those under the age of 20, who knows, or 10 are not held accountable for their sins. Why doesn’t this god of mercy that you present, let us all die before that age of accountable that we might be saved? If he lets live past the point that we would certainly be saved to endure hardship and pain, and perhaps the loss of faith and salvation, does that fit inside your definition of merciful or loving? In addition to this, Christians should apply to work in Planned Parenthood Clinics, for they can save more souls by making sure children die before they reach that unknown age of accountability.

      As for me, I will stick with the God of the Bible who does have wrath against Sin, and Love through Son, Jesus Christ, and I will baptize babies in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that they might receive the forgiveness of Sins, and the Spirit of God, for Baptism saves them. (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38-39; 1 Pet 3:21)

  8. Jacob Hamilton says:

    The apostate Catholic Church, I feel I should mention, is the entity most responsible for spreading this sort of nonsense. Infant baptism speaks for itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s