Where do babies go when they die?

The eternal destiny of babies is a topic God has left a mystery to us. There's no way to prove anything either way. However, remember that God can reveal the Gospel to babies supernaturally. Yes, babies can be saved in the womb! God saved Saul (later to be Paul) by speaking to him supernaturally. We do not know if babies are conceived with an active hatred for God or with just a sin nature. If they hate God by themselves at conception, then they go to Hell. But if that is not the case, then they will not be punished because of the fallen race they were born in if they have not committed any sin themselves. It is the latter issue that this article will discuss.

Some people say that unborn babies cannot go to Heaven because they are born in sin. Adam was the head of the human race; therefore, every human being has sin on them by nature—we are all born sinners. The conclusion drawn is that babies go to Hell when they die.

What is frightfully wrong with this is that God would be punishing these babies for something they can't help—something they didn't do, but someone else is responsible for. This is different than Christ suffering for sins He didn't commit, because He chose to pay the sins for us as a gift. Also, we are not born sinners; we are born with a sin nature. There's a difference, which I will expound upon later.

We are born with a sin nature; we are not born guilty. Having a sin nature means we will eventually sin. There's nothing that can prevent us from sinning, and it will probably happen at the first opportunity we get. We don't know if a baby has a conscience or knows right from wrong as soon as it is conceived. But either way, there are probably practically no opportunities to sin while in the womb. If a baby sins, then dies, it goes to Hell (unless God reveals Jesus to it). But if the baby dies before it has sinned, it cannot suffer. When Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned", that is a general statement. There are dozens of examples of the Bible saying "all" and meaning it generally, not literally. And regardless, it's obviously general; because someone can't be called a sinner unless they have sinned! A sin nature does not make us guilty; we are guilty when we choose to act upon that sin nature. We cannot be born sinners unless it is a sin to be conceived.

When Adam sinned, all creation was cursed. This means that everyone will have earthly sufferings and everyone has a sin nature—which was just explained. It does not mean we are all guilty of the sin that Adam committed. If Adam was not elect, he went to Hell for his sin; if Adam was elect, then Jesus suffered and paid that sin. The sin of the forbidden fruit cannot be transferred to the account of all Adam's descendants. Many of the people who believe we are all guilty because of Adam's sin also believe in limited atonement—which makes no sense. We believe in limited atonement because if Jesus paid the penalty for everyone's sins, then everyone would be saved—a sin cannot be punished twice. But many of the same people who believe that also believe that we are all made guilty because of one sin. The reality is that we are all born with a sin nature—which is what the term "born in sin" means.

But can something born in sin be in the presence of a holy God? While the sin nature keeps the baby from being holy, its record is still perfect. Therefore, it is not pure; but neither is it dirty. This causes complication. There are two possibilities. One is that, since the baby is incapable of sinning after its body dies, it simply loses the sin nature and goes to Heaven. The other possibility, which is less likely, is that there is a painless place in Hell for these people—where they are not punished, but are not in the presence of God; perhaps it's like earth.

If you're going to believe that Adam's sin makes babies guilty in conception, then you must also believe that children of Christian parents are saved because of their parents' faith—because Christ would be the head of them. This proves that, while Adam and Christ are both heads, they are not heads in the same way.

A common argument in favor of babies going to Heaven is David's comment about his baby that died: "It will not come to me, but I will go to it." John MacArthur points out that David immediately stopped weeping after saying that, but that when his wicked son Absalom died, nothing could make him stop weeping. This baby was from an adultery, too! Some people will counter by saying that David was referring to the grave, not Heaven. But why would he say that? That is pretty morbid for a comfort. And if that comforted him when his baby died, why did he not say the same thing and stop weeping when Absalom died? It doesn't add up. And if the baby went to Hell, David would never see it again—even if he did go to the grave. So such a statement would provide no comfort.

I will remind you that this is all assuming that babies are not conceived with a conscience and a heart that desires evil. I believe the Bible implies that this is the case, but if babies are conceived with a hatred for God that actively burns in their own heart, then they go to Hell—because a desire for sin is in itself a sin. However, though everyone is subject to judgment, anyone who has committed no sin will not be found guilty simply because they inherited a nature that will cause them to sin when they are capable of it.

These are all the possibilities, but which one is true only God knows for certain. Which possibility do you think is most likely? Discuss!

Last time we had this discussion, it got locked, remember?

https://www.memverse.com/forums/theology-discussions/topics/does-god-make-you-sin?page=2

That was when a different topic went on a rabbit trail and a fight broke out.

The eternal destiny of babies is a topic God has left a mystery to us. There's no way to prove anything either way. However, remember that God can reveal the Gospel to babies supernaturally. Yes, babies can be saved in the womb! God saved Saul (later to be Paul) by speaking to him supernaturally. *I would agree.* We do not know if babies are conceived with an active hatred for God or with just a sin nature. If they hate God by themselves at conception, then they go to Hell. But if that is not the case, then they will not be punished because of the fallen race they were born in if they have not committed any sin themselves. It is the latter issue that this article will discuss. Some people say that unborn babies cannot go to Heaven because they are born in sin. Adam was the head of the human race; therefore, every human being has sin on them by nature—we are all born sinners. The conclusion drawn is that babies go to Hell when they die. *That's the bare-bones justice version. (As far as we can Biblically judge it.) Whether there is any divine revelation or intervention, we cannot say.* What is frightfully wrong *Aaaahh!* with this is that God would be punishing these babies for something they can't help—something they didn't do, but someone else is responsible for. *We _all_ sinned in Adam. That's like... fundamental.* This is different than Christ suffering for sins He didn't commit, because He chose to pay the sins for us as a gift. Also, we are not born sinners; we are born with a sin nature. There's a difference, which I will expound upon later. We are born with a sin nature; we are not born guilty. Having a sin nature means we will eventually sin. There's nothing that can prevent us from sinning, and it will probably happen at the first opportunity we get. We don't know if a baby has a conscience or knows right from wrong as soon as it is conceived. But either way, there are probably practically no opportunities to sin while in the womb. If a baby sins, then dies, it goes to Hell (unless God reveals Jesus to it). But if the baby dies before it has sinned, it cannot suffer. When Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned", that is a general statement. There are dozens of examples of the Bible saying "all" and meaning it generally, not literally. *Wow. I'm sinless too! Imma go apologize to that Pelagius guy...* And regardless, it's obviously general; because someone can't be called a sinner unless they have sinned! *A sinner in Adam...* A sin nature does not make us guilty; we are guilty when we choose to act upon that sin nature. We cannot be born sinners unless it is a sin to be conceived. *Adam, as our federal head, represented _all_ humanity. In him have we sinned, as he did.* When Adam sinned, all creation was cursed. This means that everyone will have earthly sufferings and everyone has a sin nature—which was just explained. It does not mean we are all guilty of the sin that Adam committed. If Adam was not elect, he went to Hell for his sin; if Adam was elect, then Jesus suffered and paid that sin. The sin of the forbidden fruit cannot be transferred to the account of all Adam's descendants. Many of the people who believe we are all guilty because of Adam's sin also believe in limited atonement—which makes no sense. We believe in limited atonement because if Jesus paid the penalty for everyone's sins, then everyone would be saved—a sin cannot be punished twice. But many of the same people who believe that also believe that we are all made guilty because of one sin. The reality is that we are all born with a sin nature—which is what the term "born in sin" means. *We're basically "accomplices" in Adam's sin. We deserve punishment as well. The sin which he personally would pay for (unless he be saved) is not what we are punished for. We are punished for our own guilt.* But can something born in sin be in the presence of a holy God? While the sin nature keeps the baby from being holy, its record is still perfect. Therefore, it is not pure; but neither is it dirty. *If good deeds are as filthy rags... it hardly follows that _no_ deeds are clean, in the presence of a sin nature.* This causes complication. There are two possibilities. One is that, since the baby is incapable of sinning after its body dies, it simply loses the sin nature and goes to Heaven. The other possibility, which is less likely, is that there is a painless place in Hell for these people—where they are not punished, but are not in the presence of God; perhaps it's like earth. *Wait... so after all that, you admit that we might be (frightfully) right?* If you're going to believe that Adam's sin makes babies guilty in conception, then you must also believe that children of Christian parents are saved because of their parents' faith—because Christ would be the head of them. *No. God never made such a covenant with our parents that he did with our first parent.* This proves that, while Adam and Christ are both heads, they are not heads in the same way. *So then how is Christ the last Adam, again?* A common argument in favor of babies going to Heaven is David's comment about his baby that died: "It will not come to me, but I will go to it." John MacArthur points out that David immediately stopped weeping after saying that, but that when his wicked son Absalom died, nothing could make him stop weeping. This baby was from an adultery, too! Some people will counter by saying that David was referring to the grave, not Heaven. But why would he say that? That is pretty morbid for a comfort. And if that comforted him when his baby died, why did he not say the same thing and stop weeping when Absalom died? It doesn't add up. And if the baby went to Hell, David would never see it again—even if he did go to the grave. So such a statement would provide no comfort. *Indeed. Fair evidence that God perhaps reveals himself to babies.* I will remind you that this is all assuming that babies are not conceived with a conscience and a heart that desires evil. *Whoah, what?? That's called a _sin nature_.* I believe the Bible implies that this is the case, but if babies are conceived with a hatred for God that actively burns in their own heart, then they go to Hell—because a desire for sin is in itself a sin. However, though everyone is subject to judgment, anyone who has committed no sin will not be found guilty simply because they inherited a nature that will cause them to sin when they are capable of it. *I like how you restated your thesis; I really do. But I won't argue it all over again.* These are all the possibilities, but which one is true only God knows for certain. Which possibility do you think is most likely? Discuss!

Ultimately, you have conceded that our whole position is possible, yet you almost completely deny a sin nature in the first place. You say that there is one, but you rip from it any effect. Don't take that to its logical extend, or you'll end up a heretic…
Really, we can't say, one way or another. I think God might reveal himself to babies, and you think babies might go to a relatively painless hell… So we're good.

Where does the Bible say that when Adam sinned, everyone who wasn't even born yet sinned at the same time?

What I'm saying is frightful is that some people believe God punishes babies for someone else's sin–not that He puts them in a painless place out of His presence.

I DID say sin nature has an effect: it causes babies to sin at the first opportunity, basically. I also specified that it might mean babies actively sin as soon as they're born by hating God.

Let's all remember to be loving as we discuss these things. God's Word is meant to be discussed, but not with sarcastic attacks and mockery.

1. He was our representative, standing for us all. God's covenant with him is described in such places as 1 Corinthians 15:22, or Romans 5.

2. Nobody believes that. (Mmm… maybe some do. I don't.) We are punished as being accomplices.

3. Yes, you did. But if that is the only power of sin nature, why could not Christ indeed have been Joseph's son, whom God specially allowed to never sin?

4. squirms Yeah, sorry. I don't try to be harsh, so much as humorous. (Why I have to be humorous… don't know.) Sorry.

Keep in mind what sin is: the choice to rebel against God. If sin is not by choice, then it is not rebellion, and if it is not rebellion, then it is not sin. So even if people who didn't even exist at the time did indeed assist Adam in eating the forbidden fruit, it wouldn't have been their choice. And God never forces people to sin. Why would an authority force someone to break the law, then punish the one who "broke" it?

1 Corinthians 15:22 is another such statement as Romans 3:23.

I might try to write up a longer response (I was heavily involved in this discussion last time it arose), but I will say that I agree with Nathan here. The chief question that needs to be answered is, what is a sin nature? As far as I understand, it does not mean we are conceived as though we had already sinned (impossible, as we did not exist). The Bible seems to speak of the sin nature as a natural propensity to sin such that Romans 3:23 is true. We have all sinned, because our natural propensity inherited from Adam led us to do it. The idea of a shared soul (we actually, before we were even born, committed sin with Adam) does not seem to have Scriptural support. Through Adam, we receive a nature, but God makes it clear that men are not to be condemned for others' sins (Ezekiel 18:20). What is the act of sin that babies committed then. What law did they knowingly or unknowingly break? This questions needs to be answered specifically in order to progress much further in this discussion.

First of all, I see that this is to be more of an argument over the nature of the Adamic covenant and of sin nature than over whether babies go to heaven or to hell when they die. Fine by me.

As to the effects of the Adamic covenant, simply look at Romans 5:12-21. Verse twelve certainly does say that the first sin leads to our new sins, and that all sins lead to death.

Verse 13 says, "sin is not counted where there is no law". That would seem to argue for you, right? That babies weren't sinning, because they didn't have the law?

No; look at verse 14: "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."
Paul basically says, "There cannot be sin without the law, but yet everyone was dying even until Moses, when 'the law' was given. Even they died who committed sins other than the one which was expressly forbidden." He seems to take it for granted that Adam's sin condemns us, then continues to say that Adam is typical of Christ, as a covenant head.

Verse 15 says, "But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many."
Having established that Adam is typical of Christ, he proceeds to show that Christs covenant gives salvation to more people than are condemned by Adam's sin. Condemned by Adam's sin. (It is probable that they who are condemned by their own sin outnumber those who have obtained salvation.)

Verse 16: "And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification."
We here have another difference. The judgment following "that one man's sin" brought condemnation, while Christ's gift brings justification. Adam sinned once; we are condemned. Christ lived a perfect life and bore our sins; we may be saved. Having once accepted Christ, we don't have to live a perfect life to get to heaven, and so attain it by works. Nor, having been born under Adam, need we sin, in order to be condemned.

Verse 17: "If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ."
Death reigned through Adam. Not simply physical death, as can be seen by the comparison with "life" in Christ.

Verse 18: "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."
Could the comparison between the Adamic Covenant and the New Covenant get any clearer?

Verse 19: "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous."
By his disobedience we were made sinners. That could mean, as you will think, that because of his sin we are simply given the propensity to sin. But by the plain meaning, in light of what has gone before, is that we are sinners because of his sin. The comparison with Christ's obedience only makes this more plain: it is not necessary for us to be perfectly righteous after Christ (though we should be). One obedience saves us, just as one sin condemns us.

Verse 20: "Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,"
The law increases the trespass, it does not create it.

Verse 21: "so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
Having said it twice before, I'll only say it briefly here: Christ's one obedience is sufficient for us all, as is Adam's sin!

That of Paul. Matthew Henry said this: "A general truth laid down as the foundation of his discourse—that Adam was a type of Christ (Rom. 5:14): Who is the figure of him that was to come. Christ is therefore called the last Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45. Compare v. 22. In this Adam was a type of Christ, that in the covenant-transactions that were between God and him, and in the consequent events of those transactions, Adam was a public person. God dealt with Adam and Adam acted as such a one, as a common father and factor, root and representative, of and for all his posterity; so that what he did in that station, as agent for us, we may be said to have done in him, and what was done to him may be said to have been done to us in him. Thus Jesus Christ, the Mediator, acted as a public person, the head of all the elect, dealt with God for them, as their father, factor, root, and representative—died for them, rose for them, entered within the veil for them, did all for them. When Adam failed, we failed with him; when Christ performed, he performed for us. Thus was Adam typos tou mellontos—the figure of him that was to come, to come to repair that breach which Adam had made."
More of which is found in his commentary on Romans 5:6-21.

Calvin says, "This is no tautology, but a necessary explanation [verse 19] of the former verse [verse 20]. For he shows that we are guilty through the offense of one man, in such a manner as not to be ourselves innocent. He had said before, that we are condemned; but that no one might claim for himself innocence, he also subjoined, that every one is condemned because he is a sinner. And then, as he declares that we are made righteous through the obedience of Christ, we hence conclude that Christ, in satisfying the Father, has provided a righteousness for us."

I'm quite happily willing to agree with such personages. There's more I could say, and that they have said, but I'll stop there. I was planning to have a second section more specifically targeting the sin nature… but after all I have already said? It would hardly be necessary.

Thank you so much for the Ezekiel verse, Jimmy! You're right–we can't apply H. P. Lovecraft's commentary on Poe's The Fall of the House of Usher–which is the theory of spiritual oneness–to Adam's relationship to the human race. Adam is not like the Hindu Brahman.

The passage Caleb posted could be interpreted other ways, especially in light of many other passages in the Bible. There are other passages in the Bible that would seem to say the opposite–yet we know they all mean the same thing. They are ambiguous on their own, and even together, to some degree.

We need to realize that God has not chosen to reveal the definition of a sin nature to us specifically, and what the Bible says on the issue can be interpreted in multiple ways that are perfectly Biblical.

I shall wait for Jimmy's response before I break my rule… (Hopefully he hasn't any straw men in his inventory. And perhaps he'll actually provide explanations and objections, so continuing the discussion.)
Sorry if that's harsh. It's just hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that I've been a Hindu this whole time, without even realizing it! But at least I stand (generally speaking) in the shadow of Calvin…

I committed no straw man, nor did I call you a Hindu. And you know it. Now I'm only going to respond to you if you debate reasonably. I'm not being a jerk about this, and we don't need crass people on here to ruin this discussion. So if you can't debate politely, don't do it at all. Your opinions would be appreciated if you didn't throw in all the rudeness with it.

Mmm… actually, I found it rather rude of you to compare the statements of Matthew Henry and John Calvin to Hinduism. The nature comparison itself was the straw man, though you didn't (of course) call us Hindus.
Perhaps, though, we should stop. I'm sure the fact that we're brothers hasn't helped -much- at all… (Maybe we should simply have had this conversation in real life first.) Moreover, having found the point of disagreement, there's not much point in further debate.

If Jimmy gets back on (without being scared away), I might continue. Otherwise, it's probably best for me, you, and these poor forums, if we both stop. :P wink wink

I said that the idea of human souls being one with each other is like Hinduism.

The reason we're not having this discussion in real life is so others can be involved. =)

Oh, I can assure you I am not scared away (no one should ever be scared away from a post. If they are, it is probably because they have a point and it would be wise for him to reconsider his own point). :) I did appreciate your post, and thought you raised some good points, and I will try to get back to you if I can (the problem is I am at college, and it is Midterms, so it might be awhile, but not out of my inability to speak. I apologize if it does take me awhile, or if I don't respond (if that is the case, it would just be because I had forgotten about this thread :( ).).

Just in the mean time, though, guys, I would encourage you to chillax. ;) Perhaps we can/should just orient our conversation a bit more directly to the baby discussion, since this albeit important side trail is getting a bit heated.

Indeed. I rather meant that you'd be scared by our, shall I say, non-chillaxedness. :) I'm glad you aren't.

Haha! Oh, I am sorry. I misinterpreted what you said. ;)

I was working on a passage yesterday, and I forget which one it was, and what exactly it said. So, when I find it, I'll put it on here, but it was talking about election, which made me think about this. I don't think it's about whether or not the baby has sinned. Romans is very clear that we have all inherited a sin nature through Adam. But I do believe that God absolutely has both the power and the grace to elect babies who die before they are born or can actually understand sin.

Possibly. Election, though, is based upon those who choose to accept God (not in the arminian sense, but salvation does require an act of acceptance). According to election doctrine, God decides who is saved, and they choose to accept His offer of salvation. How then can infant salvation be determined via election? Babies cannot really "choose" God, in the sense that we think of it. They cannot understand much of anything inside the womb (their brains do not really develop until later on, though they are still alive) and cannot make that decision. God's election works in tandem with choice. Personally, I think God extends grace (or, if infants have not sinned, justice) to infants such that they all go to Heaven. The alternative is condemnation for all (which I believe is not supportable with Scripture, for Biblical reasons I argued in the previous thread on this topic). You bring up a very interesting point, and I am curious to see what the rest of you think. :)

Wow… very good point, bringing up election! That could change the perspectives a lot…

Okay. There are two possibilities for babies who have not sinned. Either election doesn't apply, because it doesn't need to; or else all babies who have not sinned are elect–because God cannot punish a baby for another man's sin.

(And again–no, we were not accomplices in Adam's sin; the Bible does not say that, and it's obvious consider the fact that we didn't even exist yet.)

I think I agree with that. You're saying that although they by nature deserve punishment, God can easily save them much as he saves us, by having elected them for salvation in Christ, right? (Not the best sentence I've ever constructed; sorry.)

@jimmy: I get your point. But by nature, those even who do have well developed minds are incapable of choosing God, by nature. They are dead in their sins, and it requires a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit to change their wills. It isn't hard for me to believe that the Holy Spirit can similarly "give" a baby the proper will, in a spiritual sense. Whether or not he does, I don't know.

@Nathan: At first I suspected it, now it's obvious: you didn't even read my post, or if you did, you've completely forgotten everything I said. Calvin was a smart guy, but somehow it wasn't obvious to him that us "not existing yet" completely blows the idea that Adam was representative of all humanity. (That's right, he—we—believe it doesn't.) If your best argument doesn't even take any of mine into account… maybe you should try again. :)
I don't think I'll break my rule this time… maybe next time…

If you think I believe you know everything, you're wrong. I DID read what you posted, and I have NOT forgotten it. But I find it to be unBiblical.

(You DON'T know that I know everything? Not even my brother…?)
You think it's unbiblical, okay. No biblical explanation of how, why… Biblical reasons that it's unbiblical? Maybe some theological giants you could pull out of history to support you? Anything… 'Cause that's what the Theology Discussions are supposed to be like, right?
Please, even a little bit?

Have you been reading what I post? How much do you need??? Everything I've been saying is explanation! Jimmy and I have given Scripture references, and I mentioned John MacArthur.

Have you been reading what I post? How much do you need??? Everything I've been saying is explanation! Jimmy and I have pointed to Scripture, and I mentioned John MacArthur.

... and I mentioned John MacArthur.

John MacArthur is not God. We shouldn't be saying this man says this, so it's right. What determines what is right and wrong is what God says.

The shortness of your posts facilitates easy reading, so yes. (I'm afraid I can't say that of myself sometimes.)
I'm talking about my interpretation of the Adamic Covenant as in Romans 15:12-21, along with Matthew Henry's and John Calvin's. So far you've done nothing (biblically speaking) to address that except to say that we're wrong and unbiblical, and that there are other interpretations. I'm just wondering how we're unbiblical, and whose (not even to mention what) are the other interpretations, that's all.

Romans 5:12-15

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to _all men, because all sinned—_
13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, *even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam*, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

It's clear that sin is through Adam. Babies are also included in all men. He doesn't say all men but not the babies. Why do babies cry? Sometimes it may be because they're hungry, or need to communicate something, but often enough it's because they want attention, which is selfishness. Does God have the power or grace to take some or all of the babies who die to heaven? ABSOLUTELY! But He doesn't say that He does.

Romans 9:10-19

10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.”[d] 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”[f] 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

Can this apply to babies? Sure, I think it can. I cannot think that God will send all 55 million aborted babies, or whatever number it is, to hell. I think that its perfectly possible that God would take them all to heaven. But God never says that.

I think I agree with that. You're saying that although they by nature deserve punishment, God can easily save them much as he saves us, by having elected them for salvation in Christ, right? (Not the best sentence I've ever constructed; sorry.

That's about the jist of it.

Wow... *very* good point, bringing up election! That could change the perspectives a lot... Okay. There are two possibilities for babies who have not sinned. Either election doesn't apply, because it doesn't need to; or else all babies who have not sinned are elect--because God cannot punish a baby for another man's sin. *Just because you haven't sinned doesn't mean you're elect. Babies cry because they're selfish. Nuff said.* (And again--no, we were not accomplices in Adam's sin; the Bible does not say that, and it's obvious consider the fact that we didn't even exist yet.) *Romans 5:12-21*

I know John MacArthur is not God; I said that because Caleb asked me to use something from a "spiritual giant" to support what I said (even though I don't have to).

Romans 5:12 means that we were all put in a rebellious party by Adam; but it doesn't mean we made the wrong choices with him. If some wicked people start a gang to rebel against the government, and one of the women has a baby in that gang, it's a born rebel (against the government). That's its purpose and environment. But the government will not put it in jail until it actually breaks the law. So just because it's a rebel doesn't mean it has its own personal criminal record. I think it's similar with us and Adam. Just that verse by itself might be interpreted differently, but my explanation makes sense in light of the rest of the Bible.

In Romans 9:20-22–the next few verses after the ones Dani put in her post–Paul points out that we're in no position to judge God for where He puts His creations. And I understand this, but the Bible makes it clear that God is loving and will not send people to Hell for things they can't help.

If babies cry out of sinful selfishness, that's sin; and they will be condemned for it if Christ has not paid for it.

@Caleb, I've been giving Biblical explanations all the way through; you just don't find them Biblical (just like I don't find yours Biblical). There's nothing we can really do except keep discussing.

Here, to make more sense of my analogy: Let's say a bunch of people get together to form a gang to rebel against the government, and all the men declare themselves and all of their descendents rebels–so the family name is one of rebellion. The father is the head of the family and makes the decisions. (Of course, assuming the rebellion is sinful, the children don't have to obey that–but that's off-topic from the analogy.) So the children are born-rebels. But the government won't arrest the children until they have their own criminal records.

Meh. I'm not going to get into this debate really, but I had to respond to this. Your analogy is different…cause they are men – human beings. But this is God…and babies are born with a sin nature. These children of the rebels aren't necessarily a part of their fathers rebellion…

Nathan… you simply won't understand what I was asking for, apparently. Never mind, then. By your analogy, you have at last provided something (though extrabiblical, quite a valid objection) to go against.
I agree with Carissa, that the analogy doesn't hold up. God covenanted with Adam that if he sinned, he and mankind with him would die. He was our representative, just as Christ is our new representative. Christ, the head of the New Covenant, lived the perfect life, and we reap the benefits. Adam did not, and all members of the Adamic Covenant (i.e., all humanity), deserve hell for it. Christ is called the Last Adam, but this title means nothing if the two covenants are not analogous.

@Dani: Thanks for mentioning the passage in Romans 9; I had quite forgotten about it. :)

Meh. I'm not going to get into this debate really, but I had to respond to this. Your analogy is different...cause they are men -- human beings. But this is God...and babies are born with a sin nature. These children of the rebels aren't necessarily a part of their fathers rebellion...

Yup.

Okay, then. Would it be justice for the government to make an agreement with a father that if he rebelled, that his children would go to prison before they rebelled, because they would be considered rebels even though they had no choice?

I know that not every detail of my analogy fits the covenant, but neither did every detail of Jesus's parables fit what He was talking about. The only details that fit are the ones I mention–you can't look at anything in them outside of that or you'll trip and miss what I'm saying.

Again, if Christ's relationship with the elect works exactly the same way Adam's does with the human race, then all babies born to Christian parents are born Christians.

Okay, then. Would it be justice for the government to make an agreement with a father that if he rebelled, that his children would go to prison *before they rebelled*, because they would be considered rebels *even though they had no choice*? *I'm not sure about you, but I didn't make the choice to be born a sinner, but I am. If I had the choice, I'd be a different person than I am.* Again, if Christ's relationship with the elect works *exactly* the same way Adam's does with the human race, then all babies born to Christian parents are born Christians. *Art thou saying that thou ist not a sinner because thou art a Christian, then?*

God _covenanted_ with Adam that if he sinned, he and mankind with him would die. He was our _representative_, just as Christ is our new _representative_. Christ, the head of the New Covenant, lived the perfect life, and we reap the benefits. Adam did not, and all members of the Adamic Covenant (i.e., all humanity), deserve hell for it. Christ is called the Last Adam, but this title means nothing if the two covenants are not analogous.

The comparison drawn between these two is actually logically strained if you mean it to support your argument. In the case of Christ, He is our representative in the sense that we choose (or are elected to choose) Him to be our representative. We don't share in the consequences of his representation unless we make the choice to do so (this point is so clearly ingrained within Scripture that I don't think I need to bring up a bunch of verses). If you want to draw the comparison, you are forced to say that a child must choose (or be elected to choose) to be under the consequences of the representative Adam in sin. This, however, you deny on the grounds that, without any specific action, babies are conceived as sinners. Babies are not born rebellious (again, what are they guilty of?), but the Bible describes us as having the natural, incredibly powerful inclination (inherited from Adam) such that we (everyone) chooses to sin. Jonathan Edwards, as an example of someone who holds this view, concludes that within the nature of man there is a propensity toward sin. This inclination is part of the inherent or constituent nature of man (the "natural man" mentioned in Scripture). It is natural to fallen mankind. Humans choose to take part of Adam's representation, and thus they are condemned (or, in the case of babies who cannot understand either, justice; in the case of babies who are miraculously endowed with special understanding before their deaths, grace).

In sum, though, if you would like to dispute this perspective of the Adamic covenant, then that would logically invalidate the comparison between Adam's representation and that of Jesus.

Also, to those suggesting that babies cry because they are selfish, could you provide proof of this? Is the desire for bodily needs to be satisfied selfish? How can we tell what is in a baby's heart?

I'm not sure about you, but I didn't make the choice to be born a sinner, but I am. If I had the choice, I'd be a different person than I am. *That's basically my point--rebellion, by definition, is the _choice_ to defy.* Art thou saying that thou ist not a sinner because thou art a Christian, then? *I'm saying that, using thy logic, all babies born to Christian parents are born sinners saved by grace.*

I think that in regard to the New Covenant, we see things differently because of our presuppositions. You see the membership primarily as by choice, whereas I see it primarily as by spiritual rebirth. As we are born of the flesh without our "consent" (man, it was comfy in there), so we are reborn, revived, by the Spirit, without our consent. He changes us so that we are willing, then we may, and without doubt will, make our choice.
As we are involuntarily born into the Adamic Covenant and its condemnation, so we are involuntarily reborn into the New Covenant. There is no invalidation involved. :) (Though obviously, anyone can poke small holes in the analogy of the covenants, because they are always some differences.)

The BIG difference is that we have a choice between spiritual rebirth and continuation in the flesh. Of course, God's will decides everything that ever happens, so I am not forgetting that God chooses who will choose Him–notice I did not say "free will". ;-D But we have NO choice whatsoever over between conception and continuation in nonexistence.

Thou wouldst renounce thy Calvinism?? Or wait…
You're saying that we have a choice, but that God ordained the choice. That's like… halfway to my point. It's not us. John 15:16, anyone? Still, don't you dare even say the name "Calvin" for a month. Or I'll tell the pastors!

says "CALVIN" Okay, now that I've done that…

John 15:16 is in the Bible, but so are Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15, Psalm 119:30, Matthew 23:37, John 7:37, Acts 2:21, Acts 10:34-35, Revelation 22:17, etc (thanks to Eden S. for being a reference consultant). These verses do not disprove calvinism, but they show that we choose God–and this is because He chose us. In John 15:16, Jesus ways saying that we do not ultimately choose God. But those other verses are speaking in a different sense. Irresistible grace does not mean that people are brought into Christianity sad because they don't want to be there, but that they will want to be there! Nothing happens apart from God's will; and we choose God because He willed it to happen–so all the glory still goes to Him.

Yup. (Although I should mention that the Deuteronomy and Joshua verses were not in their proper context.) So, yeah, God chose us, the Spirit rebirthed (…) us, and we chose him.
You explained it in the wrong ways (a matter of opinion; don't worry), but it's all sorta what I just said. Let's drop the issue, being in apparent agreement. :)

No; the Deuteronomy and Joshua verses were totally in context. God said "obedience leads to life", and anything but excepting God's Son as the Messiah is disobedience.

That's off-topic, so I won't argue it, though I could. :P

I believe with abraham, that "the judge of all the earth will do what is right." Gen 18:25

I believe with abraham, that "the judge of all the earth will do what is right." Gen 18:25

Maybe that's the best Scripture shared here so far. Thanks for the reminder. =) (I'm assuming your point is that we don't know, but we don't need to know, as we can be at peace knowing that God's will will be done?)

I'm not sure about you, but I didn't make the choice to be born a sinner, but I am. If I had the choice, I'd be a different person than I am. *That's basically my point--rebellion, by definition, is the _choice_ to defy.* Art thou saying that thou ist not a sinner because thou art a Christian, then? *I'm saying that, using thy logic, all babies born to Christian parents are born sinners saved by grace.* Tisn't mine, it's what God said. Or did you not read Romans 5?