Where do babies go when they die?

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

Okay… then what did you mean when you said you don't think infant salvation is Biblical?

Because babies are not saved simply because their parents are, which is, as I believe, the basis of it. 'Infant salvation' if God takes them to heaven when they die is perfectly possible, but those that live on have to place their faith in God by themselves.

Does that make sense, or am I just being as illogical as normal?

Ohhhhhh, I definitely agree with that! A child has to have his own faith; his parents' faith can't save him.

By the way, I don't think you've been illogical in this discussion–I just don't agree with your logic. =)

So Jimmy, do you believe that infants are saved if their parents are saved? What if one is and the other isn't?

I agree with Dani that the parents' salvation or lack thereof has nothing to do with the baby's eternal destiny.

By the way, I don't think you've been illogical in this discussion--I just don't agree with your logic. =)

Okay, whew! My big sis calls me illogical all the time… And so does my Daddy… So I get worried sometimes. :)

I would agree. Parents' salvation has no impact on whether the infant/unborn child goes to Heaven. I would contend that all infants go to Heaven (All are elect) due to a special grace by God (in that they have not truly chosen to rebel or, if that is not the case, God extends grace or understanding to them), but I would like to discuss these different ideas more. :)

Okay, so it sounds like the three of us agree that God will probably send babies to Heaven, but with varying degrees of confidence. Dani and I should probably create a TD thread called What Is a Sin Nature? and copy+paste our whole discussion on there. xD Whether or not babies have guilt on their record from Adam's sin is not relevant to the question of whether or not God CAN save babies, because He is most certainly capable of it–which is obvious when we consider the fact that He can save people like us, who have been sinning for years.

I highly recommend this sermon by C. H. Spurgeon: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5110614222–audio; http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm–text. Spurgeon thinks the babies are guilty at conception, but gives reasons why he believes they all go to Heaven. If you listen to/read it, you'll be glad you did! =D

Ezekiel 28:15 puts the doctrine of original sin in context.

You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.

Ezekiel 28:15 puts the doctrine of original sin in context. _You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you._

Many people would consider that a reference to Satan/Lucifer.

Many people would consider that a reference to Satan/Lucifer.

If you read the context, you find that the words are spoken to a man.

If you read the whole context, you find that this "king of Tyre" was anointed as a guardian cherub. I have a feeling that that's not literal. This a prophecy directed at Tyre, specifically the king, rebuking them because in their greatness, they sinned. It's really not about original sin.

If you read the whole context, you find that this "king of Tyre" was anointed as a guardian cherub. I have a feeling that that's not literal. This a prophecy directed at Tyre, specifically the king, rebuking them because in their greatness, they sinned. It's really not about original sin.

That's how you're gonna interpret "perfect in your ways"?

Of course the word perfect is not 100% literal; I mean, they're still born in sin–meaning they'll sin at the first opportunity. But their record is spotless until that point. But they're not perfect in the sense that the record is guaranteed to get spotted unless the baby dies first.

Except that it has nothing at all to do with babies. It refers to the nation, or more narrowly, the king himself. He wasn't really in Eden, he wasn't really a cherub, he wasn't really perfect at all. Look at verse sixteen: in the abundance of his trade, he sinned. So… what, little baby king decided not to share, or something?
This is a good king we're talking about, who was not personally perfect, but a good, blameless ruler. Then he became proud, and sinned - very common.

So how would you interpret the parts that say he was in Eden, and a guardian cherub? To be honest, I'm surprised that you brought up this passage at all. :P

"Guardian cherub" and "in Eden" are metaphors. "Perfect" is not.

Why?

Since that's not very deep, I'll continue. The previous verses, containing what you acknowledge to be metaphors, and the verses after which reiterate the verse in question, showing that it he sinned in trade and in pride… how can they possibly be applied to a little baby? The entire context runs against it. (Also, can you summon any commentators to agree with you? Nobody I checked does.)
Besides, even if it did refer to baby king, he's blameless (perfect) in his ways. It would mean that he himself had never sinned (his ways), and wouldn't even be referring to original sin.
Also, I did some checking on the theory that these verse applies to Satan. While the verses in this and other chapters are addressed to men and countries, it is thought by some (such as John MacArthur) that certain of the things said apply to Satan. Much like prophecies that apply to a man, and also to the coming Christ. It makes sense, whether or not I agree with it.

You're right on this note. The word "perfect" must be a general statement, or maybe it meant he was a perfect king–otherwise it would mean that he was sinless until the time mentioned in the passage, which is totally unBiblical, because that couldn't have been the first opportunity he had to sin. Okay, so I've been proven wrong; this passage doesn't support my position.

There is also Romans 9:11, which says, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth."

This seems to indicate what I and Nathan were saying earlier. It seems that infants have not sinned or done wrong before they are born. Of course, they haven't done good either, but the point is they are incapable of either (they are incapable of most anything, without a certain level of physical and mental development). It also seems to indicate what was earlier said about original sin: It doesn't mean that we are conceived as sinners. It rather seems to mean that all are born with the insurmountable inclination to sin, to choose evil above good when we become capable of making that choice. We will always sin when given the choice. The point is the infants cannot yet make that choice.

Exaaaaaactly.

And sin is always a choice, by definition.

Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? *I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.*

-2 Samuel 12:20-23

True. Buuuut, some people have come up with the idea that David was referring to the grave, or death, rather than Heaven. What that sounds like to me is people trying to fabricate some way to change the meaning of the verse, because when you think about it, it's illogical in every aspect. Here's what I wrote about it:

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.

Exactly.

Rachel, the argument here isn't actually about whether babies go to heaven when they die - I think they do also. The argument is really about the nature of original sin.

Jimmy, that verse says that neither baby had yet done good or evil - which is of course true. But that doesn't mean they're not guilty, in Adam. Besides, your insurmountable inclination is broken all the time by reprobate sinners. Not everyone sins at every opportunity. Thus, would it be conceivable for a child to reach his "age of accountability", refuse his first opportunity to sin, and immediately thereafter die? (That's somewhat of a silly question, but apparently it needs to be asked.)

And yes, Nathan, sin is always a choice. In this case it was Adam's choice, representative of the entire human race.

Let me rehash an earlier question. If babies are guilty (my viewpoint), and they still go to heaven (also my viewpoint), how then would they be able to accept Christ - believe in him, when they are too young to believe anything?
The answer: they don't have to. In the grand scheme of things, from God's timeless point of view, the worst sinner on earth, if he be elect, is "saved", even though from a human point of view he has not yet repented. God has imputed the sinner's wickedness to Christ, and Christ's righteousness to the sinner, even though this sinner has not yet realized it. The human choice, the repentance is not what initiates justification, God is - to whom everytime (new word, folks) is now.
Of course, I'm not saying that this man is what some would call a "carnal Christian". There is no such thing as a carnal Christian. Any morally accountable sinner who is elect will repent from their sins at some point, and turn from living in them.
My point? Babies, though guilty in Adam, have no moral accountability for this or any other sin. God simply imputes the guilt of original sin to Christ, and imputes Christ's righteousness to the baby - not of the will of the flesh or of man, but of God.

After a brief talk with my pastor last Sunday, that's what seems most probable to my human mind.

Okay woah woah woah. You're saying they can go to Heaven without believing in Jesus?

Yes. And so are you.

Yes. And so are you.

If one is not guilty of sin, he doesn't need to be saved. But if you believe he is somehow guilty even though he didn't sin, then you can't say he can be saved by any means but believing in Jesus.

And to address your other question, no–when one reaches the point of accountability and is tempted, he WILL sin, inevitably. That's what the sin nature is.

But he is guilty. God steps in (or possibly doesn't), to impute Christ's righteousness to the baby. Human belief is unimportant in such a case. It is not belief which saves a sinner, anyway. It is God. Of course, any mature, morally accountable sinner will repent of his sins and believe in Christ. But neither of these actually bring about justification. (Ephesians 2:8)
Which gives more glory to God - perfect babies, or guilty babies, saved by grace?

So you think God allows unbelieving sinners into Heaven.

No. I have already said that there are no "carnal Christians". No one who can be called to account for sin gets to heaven without believing. (Though, conceivably, God could make this happen if he wanted.)
All are guilty in Adam, but there is no reason that, given their inability to believe, God could not redeem infants, who do not fall into the general classification of "sinner". Again: it is God who saves; we are not saved by believing - though belief is a mark of every morally accountable Christian.
Again I ask, which glorifies God more? God made the entire universe for his glory - to magnify his perfection in stark contrast to the totally depraved human race. Perfect babies, which ultimately make man look better than he really is, don't seem compatible with God's purposes.

Ligonier Ministries article about original sin and its effects:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/how-it-just-all-humanity-born-sin-because-adams-fa/

Then there's Jonathan Edward's The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, which is an entire book, but has a chapter on this subject, thus described: "That great Objection against the Imputation of Adam's Sin to his Posterity, considered, That such Imputation is unjust and unreasonable, inasmuch as Adam and his posterity are not one and the same…"
I read the whole chapter myself, and I'd appreciate it if everyone else found time for it also. That God should impute Adam's sin to all the human race is both just and reasonable. (Edwards also briefly discusses original sin as related to infants - I found no indication that he thought they ought to go to heaven. I agree with him, inasmuch as it would be entirely just of God to condemn them, though I do not necessarily believe that this is what he does.)
http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yOjc6My53amVv

Here's another short article, summarizing the situation:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/what-happens-children-who-die-they-can-accept-gosp/

If you're a sinner, then you're accountable. Period. Also, does God save adult sinners without making them believe?

Seriously, dude. I just said no. Babies have not committed what is theologically termed "actual sin". They are not sinners, because they have not committed this "actual sin". But they are still guilty, in Adam. (Please read this post - and maybe my previous ones too - before responding to it. Then go read the chapter by Mr. Edwards.)

Seriously, dude. I just _said_ no. Babies have not committed what is theologically termed "actual sin". They are not _sinners_, because they have not committed this "actual sin". But they are still _guilty_, in Adam. (Please read this post - and maybe my previous ones too - before responding to it. Then go read the chapter by Mr. Edwards.)

This whole thing is contradictory.

How, exactly?

How, exactly?

Everything you've been saying from the beginning of this forum to now conflicts.

Oh. Now I understand exactly what you mean.
Since you're leaving me to guess, I think you probably mean, How can one be guilty if he isn't a sinner? Read this:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/how-it-just-all-humanity-born-sin-because-adams-fa/
(Note especially the analogy of the hired murder.)
Until then, I have nothing else to say, for all of our sakes.

I already know all the arguments.

Said every lazy debater ever. :P Seriously, you should read it - if only to clarify whatever contradictions you think I'm making. :)

Said every lazy debater ever. :P Seriously, you should read it - if only to clarify whatever contradictions you think I'm making. :)

After all my participation on this forum, you call me lazy?

Jokes, sir. Sometimes people use them in debates. :P
I should probably get off here now, but before I leave I'll again present two things you apparently can't do:

1. Demonstrate how your theory glorifies God
2. Summon Jonathan Edwards (or anybody else) to back you up
3. Read the articles
   The heart of your problem is that you're not comfortable with having someone else represent you. You didn't appoint him or elect him, or whatever. But God is God - and as Edwards demonstrates, his decision to have it be so is in every way just - and would have been to our infinite benefit, had Adam not sinned.

Have I mentioned recently that our debate in this thread is grossly off-topic? :P

1. How my theory glorifies God? Uh… God created things the way they are, and that glorifies Him.
2. I can't think of any names off the top of my head, but lots of people believe the same.
3. I've read and heard other stuff using all the same arguments. No repetition necessary.

Very interesting perspective, InSoloCristo. I have done some research on the question of original sin, and this seems to be an issue that many prominent theologians are divided on (all of them very smart, biblically-read people). In order for me to get into this further, I will have to ask what you mean by "representation"? In what way where we represented by Adam, and how exactly is that passed on to us? Some theologians believe, in some way, our souls were present in the soul of Adam (not at all as creepy as it sounds), and his posterity, which were human, had human souls that were stained by this original sin, wherein they were, in a way present. This could be what is meant by representation. If this is not the case, are you saying that God arbitrarily said, "Let's let this person decide the fate of humanity?" How exactly does God justify that action (I am not saying that God needs to justify anything, but He always has a perfect reason for why he does what he does). I guess what I am trying to get at is, it is all very well to say we are "guilty" because Adam sinned, but without a theological explanation for this, it seems that this theory is just throwing out words to explain Biblical passages that might be referring to an entirely different understanding of original sin. I just want the terms to be defined a bit more.

Regarding your hypothetical question, I would answer that I do not know. I would say one of two things: 1. They would always choose sin the moment they are capable of it (in other words, the hypothetical is impossible). This could be the case and still be in line with the Scriptures. We inherit the inclination to sin from Adam, but not the condemnation until we are capable of doing so (and at that point we always will).

1. I could agree with you and simply say that they did inherit their guilt from Adam (though, again, how that works according to your view I can't quite make out).

In the end, I really could see it either way (I am open to being persuaded). However, as of right now I am not convinced by Ligonier and Edwards (whom I did read, by the way :) ), that everyone is "condemned" (in one sense of the word) and that God could outright forgive someone worthy of condemnation who did not choose to accept it. The multitude of verses in the Bible in which it says we have to choose Christ are not explicitly confined to those who have committed "carnal" sins, as you call them. To say that they do seems to be a covert way of trying to use an interpretation of words to force a theory of original sin to work, a theory that cannot be shown true (at least, as yet). Infants, according to your view, are condemned. They deserve Hell. There is no quantifiable difference between a carnal sinner and the condemned; they both deserve Hell. That being so, why would God take some of those deserving to be sent to Hell and leave others (regardless of their mental state or reasoning capabilities)? Again, God, as God, does not need to give reasons, but He does have a purpose behind what He does. How would that understanding accord with the whole of Scripture.

In the end, I am very open to being convinced. So far, however, the theologians that I have read have failed to really convince me of the view that you espouse. I think clearer definitions will go a long way toward sharpening the differences between us and working out a solution to those differences. :)

I mean by representation that through the Adamic covenant, Adam was considered responsible for the entire human race. It is the root representing all the branches. So when Adam sinned, all humanity was considered guilty, even those who never commit "actual" sin (again, a theological term that may be somewhat misleading).
If Adam had not sinned (in whatever way God could have "ended" the test of obedience, perhaps by eating of the Tree of Life), then the entire human race would be guiltless forever. That God should place our innocence in the hands of Adam is wholly reasonable, and could have been to our infinite benefit. (Of course, that Adam should sin was a part of God's plan, but from the human point of view, Adam made a choice.)
And, as Edwards points out, Adam was a good candidate to represent us. He was an adult, had very special access to God - and probably knew he was responsible for his posterity. How could he possibly reject all that for death? Eve. To be honest, if it weren't for Eve, I don't think Adam would have sinned. I'm not placing the blame on Eve - the blame fell entirely upon Adam and the race he represents.
If Adam did not represent humanity like this, every individual case would need to be treated differently. Some people would die and go to hell for sinning (though only Satan and other sinners could tempt them), and others would live forever. That glorifies God's justice, surely. But never affords an opportunity to demonstrate his mercy.
Or, less extreme, is your position. Everyone is conceived in perfection - but without exception all sin at the first opportunity. Thus it is somewhat more reasonable that Christ should come and redeem a remnant, demonstrating God's mercy.

But, humanity doesn't "choose" Christ to represent them either. God does. God elects us, says, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." He "arbitrarily" chooses one to be represented by Christ, and another not to be. (As per Edwards, "arbitrary" is only so from a human point of view. God's wisdom is involved in every decision he makes.) Then, at a point in time, the Holy Spirit works on the heart of that already justified sinner, turning them toward God through faith and repentance.
In the eternal scheme of things, we simply don't choose who represents us. God "arbitrarily" chose Adam to represent his seed - if that's unfair, so is his "arbitrary" decision to have Christ represent his seed. God doesn't have to justify either choice. Both are wholly reasonable and just.
Another demonstration of this: God chose Adam to represent us, and at some point in time that will manifest by doing the works of Adam: sin. Babies never get to this opportunity, but are still guilty. Much the same, God chose Christ to represent us, and at some point in time that will manifest in our doing the works of Christ: faith and repentance. Babies never get to this opportunity, but may (probably) still be redeemed. (Though it is entirely possible that God does condemn all babies - it would be justice. However, in the interest of glorifying his mercy, I think this is not what he does.)

Even I only just connected a few of those dots. The New Covenant is a parallel to the Adamic Covenant; Christ is truly the "last Adam". Reject one - reject the other, it seems.

By the way, "carnal Christian" isn't really my term. Some people believe a "carnal Christian" is one who has been saved (someone who has "prayed the prayer"), but later continues in sin and in the life that they lived before they "prayed the prayer". My point was that no such Christian exists. Anyone who has become morally accountable for their own "actual" sins, if they are elect, will at some point enter the process of sanctification. (James 2:17)