Where do babies go when they die?

I've given explanations why I believe you are misinterpreting the passage. Remember that any Bible verse we read must not be considered by itself alone, but in light of Scripture as a whole.

Well it wasn't original, but yes I guess that is what I am saying. We don't really know, but whatever God does He will do what is right.

To better explain why the Deuteronomy and Joshua passages were not out of context: The children of Israel were totally depraved too, you know. If they chose obedience, that would not only lead to earthly blessings, but eternal life–because obedience to God is accepting salvation. If they chose disobedience, that would not only lead to earthly curses, but eternal death–because you're truly saved, you will not live in unrepentant disobedience. So if any of them chose obedience/life, it was because God chose them first.

Romans 2:12
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Romans 3:23
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 3:10
10 as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;"

Psalms 143:2
2 Enter not into judgment with your servant,
for no one living is righteous before you.

Romans 3:9
9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,

Psalm 14:3
there is none who does good,
not even one.

Considering the context of Romans 2:12, I hardly think it is referring to infants.

The Bible frequently uses the word "all" in a general way. I believe these verses refer to all who are capable of sinning on their own. (You're a Calvinist, right? Do you believe that Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world, like the Bible says? I think verses that say "all of sinned" are similar.")

Well of course infants who cannot sin cannot do "good deeds".

"All are under sin"–yes; we will all act upon our sin nature when we are able. We can't escape it.

Considering the context of Romans 2:12, I hardly think it is referring to infants. *It still says all.* The Bible frequently uses the word "all" in a general way. I believe these verses refer to all who are capable of sinning on their own. *One of those passages says all living. We both agree that a baby is living from conception, correct?* (You're a Calvinist, right? Do you believe that Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world, like the Bible says? I think verses that say "all of sinned" are similar.") *John 17:1-2 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, _to give eternal life to all whom you have given him._* Well of course infants who cannot sin cannot do "good deeds". *They can sin, believe me. I was just taking care of a very sinning infant on Sunday. And even the newborn in the church is a very obvious little sinner.* "All are under sin"--yes; we will all act upon our sin nature when we are able. We can't escape it. *We are born with a sin nature, yes?*

Well of course infants who cannot sin cannot do "good deeds". *They can sin, believe me. I was just taking care of a very sinning infant on Sunday. And even the newborn in the church is a very obvious little sinner.* _Just jumping in here. :) I think that it is impossible to state this definitely. How can we know what is in anyone's heart? Babies, as they cannot understand verbal or visual commands for a long time, would only, in your view, be capable of sinning in their heart. As outsiders looking in, it is impossible to prove a sin in such a one's heart. Only God knows, and while we may think we know what is going on in a baby's mind, we cannot be sure. And if you define sin as an outright action (whether of mind or heart, you are saying that sin involves an actual *sin*, if you follow me), than a baby no larger than a pea could not possibly be a sinner under what you are claiming (their brain is not fully developed at all at this point). It just seems like you are espousing two conflicting definitions of sin._

I can guarantee that babies are at least selfish, which is essentially the root of all sin. There are times, as I think I said before, that a baby cries because it needs something, but there are as many times that they cry for no reason other than they want attention.

^I would argue that pride is the root of all sin, not selfishness. Though selfishness does branch from pride. But anyway…off-topic, sorry.^

^I would argue that pride is the root of all sin, not selfishness. Though selfishness does branch from pride. But anyway...off-topic, sorry.^

I can see that. But they're pretty similar…

^I would argue that pride is the root of all sin, not selfishness. Though selfishness does branch from pride. But anyway...off-topic, sorry.^

I can see that. But they're pretty similar...

Yeah, to some degree.

It still says all. *Since when do we take every all we hear literally?* One of those passages says all living. We both agree that a baby is living from conception, correct? *The one that says "living" does not say that all living have sinned; it says that no one living is righteous--meaning that no one has done good deeds.* John 17:1-2 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, _to give eternal life to all whom you have given him._ Okay, there are other passages in the Bible that say Jesus died for all the world. My point in mentioning this is that not every "all" in the Bible is literal; it is frequently used generally. They can sin, believe me. I was just taking care of a very sinning infant on Sunday. And even the newborn in the church is a very obvious little sinner. *=O A newborn?! Now you think you know what's in the heart of someone when all they're doing is crying?!?! You have no idea what that baby may have been experiencing or what its motives might have been for crying. Babies can't talk, so when they want something, they scream. It's no different than when you say "please" when you want something. That's their only method of communication. It may have been in some kind of pain. It is possible that the baby was being sinful, but you don't know--you cannot. The point is only God can judge what was in its heart.*

</blockquote>

“We all say 'all' all of the time when we don’t mean it. No we don’t! Some people never say 'all.' They speak Chinese. You don’t say 'all' all of the time either, when you mean it or when you don’t mean it. There are sometimes that you sleep; there are sometimes that you eat; there are sometimes when you say other things. You really don’t say 'all' all of the time, do you? And so, therefore, these people don’t understand the figurative use of language. There are almost over six hundred different species of figures of speech found in the Bible. And they are found in most any large novel, or even in a big newspaper you will find them. They are everywhere! No they’re not! They’re not everywhere. They’re here and there and the other place. You see we do that all the time and we don’t even realize that we are doing it. No we don’t do it all the time. You see if I called you every time you used a universal word and you didn’t mean it universally, I would be having to stop you all the time. No I wouldn’t. The fact is that we all use this type of hyperbole, well, 'all' the time. Newscasters refer to 'the whole city' turning out to greet a World Championship team when what they technically mean is a very large crowd. We talk about the entire world being fixated upon the news of Princess Diana’s death. On and on it goes._
. . . The simple fact is that most scholars would suggest that it’s even more true–that hyperbolic speech was very common within the Hebrew culture.
This is not to say that the words 'all,' 'world,' and 'whole world' in the Bible can never be taken to mean every single person or thing. In some cases they can. But how we understand these words–like virtually every other word in the Bible–is based upon the context, when and to whom they were written, and then compared to other Scriptures.”

~D. James Kennedy, in the documentary +Amazing Grace+

^I would argue that pride is the root of all sin, not selfishness. Though selfishness does branch from pride. But anyway...off-topic, sorry.^

What is selfishness? Selfishness is putting our desires too high, which is pride. That begs the question: what is pride? Pride is the idea that we deserve height, which is selfishness. Pride and selfishness are one concept, and both are sinful by definition.
!http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Xpbz_jDf9Kg/TT2m-YAY2bI/AAAAAAAAArA/7ZZ0Rs1-CCI/s1600/arrow+circle.gif!

</blockquote><blockquote>We all say 'all' all of the time when we don’t mean it. No we don’t! Some people never say 'all.' They speak Chinese. You don’t say 'all' all of the time either, when you mean it or when you don’t mean it. There are sometimes that you sleep; there are sometimes that you eat; there are sometimes when you say other things. You really don’t say 'all' all of the time, do you? And so, therefore, these people don’t understand the figurative use of language. There are almost over six hundred different species of figures of speech found in the Bible. And they are found in most any large novel, or even in a big newspaper you will find them. They are everywhere! No they’re not! They’re not everywhere. They’re here and there and the other place. You see we do that all the time and we don’t even realize that we are doing it. No we don’t do it all the time. You see if I called you every time you used a universal word and you didn’t mean it universally, I would be having to stop you all the time. No I wouldn’t. The fact is that we all use this type of hyperbole, well, 'all' the time. Newscasters refer to 'the whole city' turning out to greet a World Championship team when what they technically mean is a very large crowd. We talk about the entire world being fixated upon the news of Princess Diana’s death. On and on it goes._
. . . The simple fact is that most scholars would suggest that it’s even more true—that hyperbolic speech was very common within the Hebrew culture.
This is not to say that the words 'all,' 'world,' and 'whole world' in the Bible can never be taken to mean every single person or thing. In some cases they can. But how we understand these words—like virtually every other word in the Bible—is based upon the context, when and to whom they were written, and then compared to other Scriptures.”

~D. James Kennedy, in the documentary Amazing Grace</blockquote></blockquote>

We've been watching that documentary lately - it is so good. We loved that part (which you quoted). ;)

God says all. That's enough for me.

And only those who are righteous go to heaven, correct? We are made righteous through Jesus' blood, and through that only.

I want to see specific passages that says Jesus died to save every single person in the world.

Believe me, she was just crying because she wanted her mom, not her dad. Once her mom took her. She stopped crying and just sat there.

I don't care what man says. If God says all, I believe He means all. I never believe a person if they say 'all', because man is sinful, and man exaggerates, which is essentially lying. God does not lie.

Oh, wait, that's even from a secular movie. Nah, not going to completely buy it.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept man's word over God's. If you will give me the same thing from Scripture, I will listen. Stop quoting people, please quote God when you are making an argument.

Are you asserting that nothing in the Bible (no phrase or turn of language) can be termed figurative? I find that rather a stretch (what about the parables? Were thy all real histories?). If one single passage or word of Scripture can be viewed as figurative, then that establishes the necessity to evaluate the others based on their contexts as well. This is not a slippery slope to saying that the whole Bible is figurative (far from it!), but it means that some wordings can indicate a second meaning other than the layman's reading, and that it is O.K. to explore the intent of the passage. Intent in speech often goes far beyond merely the surface level.

As a second note, the Bible was translated into English. "All" and words like it might not be so strong in Hebrew (though I am not sure). I am just saying that some rules of the language accuracy game change with translation.

But there are so many passages that say all. Sure, there can be figurative language. There is quite a bit. I agree. But He says 'All' over and over again. 'All have sinned' seems very clear.

True. I was just trying to make sure I understood exactly what you were saying. :)

xD That quote is from the documentary about Calvinism, not the movie about William Wilberforce.

+1 John 2:2+~ He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
+2 Corinthians 5:15+~ and He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised.
+1 Timothy 2:6+~ Who gave Himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
+Hebrews 2:9+~ But we see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
+John 12:32+~ And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself.”
+John 4:42+~ They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”
+Luke 2:10+~ And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.
+Isaiah 25:8+~ He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people He will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.

That seems pretty reiterative to me.

So what was this baby supposed to do, say "May I please see my mommy?"

It also says, "Whoever believes on the name of the LORD shall be saved." Babies simply cannot. But I also think that God in His mercy can certainly, and probably will, take some/most/all babies to heaven. But He never says it. We cannot prove either way.

He says that Christ says for all, but He never says that all are saved.

Her mom was right there. Reaching out her arms would do just fine. She didn't want what was best for her, her mom, and her family- her mom had a reason for giving her to hr father. but the only thing she cared about was herself. granted, this is a baby, and can't be expected to understand that. But it seems to illustrate sin nature as opposed to not being born sinful. This particular baby cries nearly the whole time she's not held by her mother. ^In fact, the only time I've seen her not cry being held by someone else was when Mum or I held her… But that's off topic.^

It also says, "Whoever believes on the name of the LORD shall be saved." Babies simply cannot. But I also think that God in His mercy can certainly, and probably will, take some/most/all babies to heaven. But He never says it. We cannot prove either way. *But if babies don't have any sin on their account when they're born, they don't need to be saved. And I believe that it is impossible to have sin if it's impossible to call on the name of the LORD. I actually think babies can call on the name of the LORD... how I don't know... but I think they can.* He says that Christ says for all, but He never says that all are saved. *Wait... you believe in limited atonement, right??* Her mom was right there. Reaching out her arms would do just fine. *Not all babies think of the same things.* She didn't want what was best for her, her mom, and her family- her mom had a reason for giving her to hr father. but the only thing she cared about was herself. *How is she supposed to know what's best for her family?* granted, this is a baby, and can't be expected to understand that. But it seems to illustrate sin nature as opposed to not being born sinful. This particular baby cries nearly the whole time she's not held by her mother. ^In fact, the only time I've seen her not cry being held by someone else was when Mum or I held her... But that's off topic.^ *I'll say again: an infant's primary method of communication is crying; it doesn't always think of any other way because its mind is so limited. Why would you assume the worst about a infant?! It might have been sinning, of course; but only God knows the heart of someone whose communication is so limited.*

So, let's boil it down? Are we born with a sin nature, or are we inherently good?

We're born with a nature that will sin when it can, but we're not guilty until we actually sin. I mean, just think about that–it's impossible to be guilty if you've committed no crime, and it's impossible to commit a crime if you don't exist to have a choice.

Ah, but we have inherited it from Adam.

So, when do you say that a baby loses it's ticket to heaven? Is it when he, at about 12-15 months of age, first says "No" to his parents?

And, if babies can call on the name of the LORD, and therefore be saved, isn't padobaptism okay? Why did I have to call on the name of the LORD again?

Ah, but we have inherited it from Adam. *What we have inherited is not someone else's guilt, but the inevitability of our own guilt if we live long enough to be able to sin.* So, when do you say that a baby loses it's [sic: its] ticket to heaven? *We he sins. Remember, sin is always a choice; and everyone has a conscience.* Is it when he, at about 12-15 months of age, first says "No" to his parents? *It can be any sin.* And, if babies can call on the name of the LORD, and therefore be saved, isn't padobaptism okay? *No, because we can't know whether or not they've called on the name of the LORD when they're an infant.* Why did I have to call on the name of the LORD again? *Because you're a sinner.*

Ah, but we have inherited it from Adam. *What we have inherited is not someone else's guilt, but the inevitability of our own guilt if we live long enough to be able to sin.* So, when do you say that a baby loses it's [sic: its] ticket to heaven? *We he sins. Remember, sin is always a choice; and everyone has a conscience.* Is it when he, at about 12-15 months of age, first says "No" to his parents? *It can be any sin.* And, if babies can call on the name of the LORD, and therefore be saved, isn't padobaptism okay? *No, because we can't know whether or not they've called on the name of the LORD when they're an infant.* Why did I have to call on the name of the LORD again? *Because you're a sinner.*

^These are good points.

So then, why can all babies go to heaven, if not all call on the name of the LORD?

Babies sin from the beginning. Babies also have a sin nature from the beginning.

I suppose Nathan's (and my) question is: What sin do babies commit? If babies, in the very first part of their live, do not even have the ability to think (they are only composed of a few cells), what have they done to rebel against God?

They have to be able to rebel, to choose to take part in Adam's sin. From him, we receive a propensity to sin so strong that all who are able to do it. But are babies able to do it? Not until a certain stage is our contention. We are not condemned for others' sins, only for our own.

I didn't get the choice whether or not to choose to take part in Adam's sin. I was sinning long before I could understand why it was wrong. I don't think I'm that unique, though some people seem to think that I am pretty… ahem special.

So then, why can all babies go to heaven, if not all call on the name of the LORD?

That verse means that anyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved from their sin. Babies who have no sin cannot be saved from it (as it doesn't exist); therefore they don't need to call on the name of the LORD–especially if they don't understand any of that. So babies aren't saved from anything except the sin they would have committed if they had lived longer.

I didn't get the choice whether or not to choose to take part in Adam's sin. I was sinning long before I could understand why it was wrong.

Sin, by definition, is rebellion; and rebellion, by definition is the CHOICE to defy God. We can't be forced to sin.

So, potentially, someone could go through life and be perfect, by never choosing to sin?

So, potentially, someone could go through life and be perfect, by never choosing to sin?

not sure if he wants to post here or not xP

Not exactly. Sure, theoretically, yes, it's true that one could go through life never once choosing to sin (and, I may add, Someone did. :) ) But God knows that all of humanity, saving His Son, if given the choice, would always choose sin.

But God knows that all of humanity, saving His Son, _if given the choice_, would _always_ choose sin.

Then we are all sinners.

Then we are all sinners.

Yes, once we are given the choice to sin and therefore do sin.

All who are living are not righteous.

Through one man came death, not just through each person as they choose to sin.

God is clear. But He doesn't tell us if babies go to heaven when they die, so let's stop arguing about something that neither f us can prove.

_All_ who are living are not righteous. *Correct, but that doesn't mean that babies have sin on their account when they're conceived (especially because it's a sin someone else committed.)* Through _one man_ came death, not just through each person as they choose to sin. *Through one man came the impossibility to not sin when given the choice.* God is clear. But He doesn't tell us if babies go to heaven when they die, so let's stop arguing about something that neither f us can prove. *It is true that neither of us can prove it, but we can figure out which possibility is more likely.*

Through one man came the impossibility to not sin when given the choice.

No, through him came death. Separation from God forever.

I'm done arguing.

So, I guess we shall all have to agree to disagree on this point. But regarding infant salvation itself (outside this debate), what do you think?

I don't believe it's biblical.

So, you would contend that all infants who die, as well as aborted children, have gone to Hell?

Wait… I thought you said God probably would take "some/most/all" babies to Heaven (even though you can't prove it). How do you believe that, then?

I looked up that verse you referenced. It says death entered the WORLD by one man. I think that means physical death. If it means eternal death, it still says death through sin, I think then it would mean that in this way, since everyone has sinned when given the choice, everyone gets eternal death–and again, the word "all" is used generally, like it often is in the Bible. But I don't see how it can be referring to eternal death, because it says death entered the WORLD–and the world is not of eternity.

But regarding infant salvation itself (outside this debate), what do you think?

I'm about to go listen to a Spurgeon sermon entitled Infant Salvation; I'll get back to this!
(If you're interested in hearing it, you can listen here–http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5110614222–or read here–http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm.)

Dani, I guess our discussion is rather off-topic. The issue will inevitably be mentioned here, but I think we've drawn it out so much that we've forgotten the real question. =)

No, I would not. I think that God probably does have grace on some/most/or even all babies who die. Especially with abortion now. And, since God elects people before they're born (Romans 9:11), why not elect babies who die as well?

But He never says that He does, and He does say that all have sinned, all have a sin nature, and there is none righteous.

But if God has grace on anyone, that's salvation…

Did I say anything not of the sort?

Did I say anything _not_ of the sort?

You said you don't believe infant salvation is Biblical, and then you said you think it's likely that God has grace on some/most/all. I'm confused.

Some/most/all of those that die as infants.