Do Christian infants get to Heaven? Do all infants get to Heaven?

[eider]

Do Christian infants get to Heaven?
Do all infants get to Heaven?

[rogue06]

Do Christian infants get to Heaven?
Do all infants get to Heaven?

From Got Questions:

Do babies and children go to heaven when they die?

The Bible doesn’t explicitly answer the question of whether children who die before they are born again go to heaven. However, enough indirect information can be pieced together from Scripture to provide a satisfactory answer, which relates to infants as well as those with mental handicaps and others.

The Bible speaks to the fact that all of us born of human parents are born with an inherited corruption from Adam that ensures we will inevitably sin. This is often referred to as original sin. While God created Adam and Eve in His own likeness (Genesis 5:1), the Bible says that, once Adam and Eve fell and became sinful, Adam fathered children “in his own likeness” (Genesis 5:3, emphasis added; cf. Romans 5:12). All human beings have inherited a sinful nature through Adam’s original act of disobedience; Adam became sinful, and he passed that sinfulness along to all his descendants.

The Bible speaks matter-of-factly about children who do not know enough “to reject the wrong and choose the right” (Isaiah 7:16). One reason people are guilty before God, Romans 1 says, is that they refuse to acknowledge what is “clearly seen” and “understood” concerning God (verse 20). People who, upon seeing and evaluating the evidence of nature, reject God are “without excuse.” This raises some questions: If a child is too young to know right from wrong and possesses no capacity for reasoning about God, then is that child exempted from judgment? Will God hold babies responsible for not responding to the gospel, when they are incapable of understanding the message? We believe that granting saving grace to babies and young children, on the basis of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, is consistent with God’s love and mercy.

In John 9, Jesus heals a man born blind. After the physical healing, the man goes through a process of receiving his spiritual sight. At first, the man is ignorant; he knows Jesus’ name but not where to find Him (John 9:11–12). Later, he arrives at the truth that Jesus is a prophet (verse 17) and that He is from God (verse 33). Then, in speaking to Jesus, the man admits his ignorance and his need for the Savior. Jesus asks him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” and the man replies, “Who is he, sir? . . . Tell me so that I may believe in him” (verses 35–36). Finally, having seen the light spiritually, he says, “Lord, I believe” and worships Jesus (verse 38).

Following the expression of faith from the man born blind, Jesus encounters some spiritually blind Pharisees: “Jesus said, ‘For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.’ Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, ‘What? Are we blind too?’ Jesus said, ‘If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains’” (John 9:39–41). In other words, Jesus says, “If you were truly ignorant [blind], you would have no guilt. It’s because you are not ignorant—you are willfully unbelieving—that you stand guilty before God.”

The principle Jesus lays down in John 9 is that God does not condemn people for things they are unable to do. “Sin is measured by the capacities or ability of people, and by their opportunities of knowing the truth. If people had no ability to do the will of God, they could incur no blame. If they have all proper ability, and no disposition, God holds them to be guilty” (Albert Barnes, New Testament Notes: Explanatory and Practical, ed. by Robert Frew, Baker Book House, Vol. 1, “Jn. 9:41”). According to this principle, babies and young children who are unable to accept or reject Christ are not held accountable for unbelief.

Before people mature enough to discern right from wrong (sometimes called reaching “the age of accountability”), it would seem that they are not held responsible by God. Toddlers sin, and they bear Adam’s corrupt nature, but lacking the ability to understand the concept of right and wrong, they are under God’s grace, in our opinion.

Other biblical anecdotes (e.g., David testifying that he would be reunited with his dead child after death in 2 Samuel 12:23) support the reasonable belief that infants go to heaven when they die. The same holds true for those with mental disabilities who cannot comprehend right and wrong.

According to Deuteronomy 1:39, infants are not capable of distinguishing good from evil and hence lack the capacity to make morally informed -- and thus responsible -- choices. This doesn't mean that they aren't under Adam's sin, but rather that they never had the opportunity to repent and follow Jesus.

[Sparko]

From Got Questions:

Do babies and children go to heaven when they die?

The Bible doesn’t explicitly answer the question of whether children who die before they are born again go to heaven. However, enough indirect information can be pieced together from Scripture to provide a satisfactory answer, which relates to infants as well as those with mental handicaps and others.

The Bible speaks to the fact that all of us born of human parents are born with an inherited corruption from Adam that ensures we will inevitably sin. This is often referred to as original sin. While God created Adam and Eve in His own likeness (Genesis 5:1), the Bible says that, once Adam and Eve fell and became sinful, Adam fathered children “in his own likeness” (Genesis 5:3, emphasis added; cf. Romans 5:12). All human beings have inherited a sinful nature through Adam’s original act of disobedience; Adam became sinful, and he passed that sinfulness along to all his descendants.

The Bible speaks matter-of-factly about children who do not know enough “to reject the wrong and choose the right” (Isaiah 7:16). One reason people are guilty before God, Romans 1 says, is that they refuse to acknowledge what is “clearly seen” and “understood” concerning God (verse 20). People who, upon seeing and evaluating the evidence of nature, reject God are “without excuse.” This raises some questions: If a child is too young to know right from wrong and possesses no capacity for reasoning about God, then is that child exempted from judgment? Will God hold babies responsible for not responding to the gospel, when they are incapable of understanding the message? We believe that granting saving grace to babies and young children, on the basis of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, is consistent with God’s love and mercy.

In John 9, Jesus heals a man born blind. After the physical healing, the man goes through a process of receiving his spiritual sight. At first, the man is ignorant; he knows Jesus’ name but not where to find Him (John 9:11–12). Later, he arrives at the truth that Jesus is a prophet (verse 17) and that He is from God (verse 33). Then, in speaking to Jesus, the man admits his ignorance and his need for the Savior. Jesus asks him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” and the man replies, “Who is he, sir? . . . Tell me so that I may believe in him” (verses 35–36). Finally, having seen the light spiritually, he says, “Lord, I believe” and worships Jesus (verse 38).

Following the expression of faith from the man born blind, Jesus encounters some spiritually blind Pharisees: “Jesus said, ‘For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.’ Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, ‘What? Are we blind too?’ Jesus said, ‘If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains’” (John 9:39–41). In other words, Jesus says, “If you were truly ignorant [blind], you would have no guilt. It’s because you are not ignorant—you are willfully unbelieving—that you stand guilty before God.”

The principle Jesus lays down in John 9 is that God does not condemn people for things they are unable to do. “Sin is measured by the capacities or ability of people, and by their opportunities of knowing the truth. If people had no ability to do the will of God, they could incur no blame. If they have all proper ability, and no disposition, God holds them to be guilty” (Albert Barnes, New Testament Notes: Explanatory and Practical, ed. by Robert Frew, Baker Book House, Vol. 1, “Jn. 9:41”). According to this principle, babies and young children who are unable to accept or reject Christ are not held accountable for unbelief.

Before people mature enough to discern right from wrong (sometimes called reaching “the age of accountability”), it would seem that they are not held responsible by God. Toddlers sin, and they bear Adam’s corrupt nature, but lacking the ability to understand the concept of right and wrong, they are under God’s grace, in our opinion.

Other biblical anecdotes (e.g., David testifying that he would be reunited with his dead child after death in 2 Samuel 12:23) support the reasonable belief that infants go to heaven when they die. The same holds true for those with mental disabilities who cannot comprehend right and wrong.

According to Deuteronomy 1:39, infants are not capable of distinguishing good from evil and hence lack the capacity to make morally informed -- and thus responsible -- choices. This doesn't mean that they aren't under Adam's sin, but rather that they never had the opportunity to repent and follow Jesus.

I think that also extends to adults who are not able to discern good from evil, like those who are mentally ill to that extent or those who are mentally handicapped to that extent.

[NorrinRadd]

From Got Questions:

Do babies and children go to heaven when they die?

The Bible doesn’t explicitly answer the question of whether children who die before they are born again go to heaven. However, enough indirect information can be pieced together from Scripture to provide a satisfactory answer, which relates to infants as well as those with mental handicaps and others.

The Bible speaks to the fact that all of us born of human parents are born with an inherited corruption from Adam that ensures we will inevitably sin. This is often referred to as original sin. While God created Adam and Eve in His own likeness (Genesis 5:1), the Bible says that, once Adam and Eve fell and became sinful, Adam fathered children “in his own likeness” (Genesis 5:3, emphasis added; cf. Romans 5:12). All human beings have inherited a sinful nature through Adam’s original act of disobedience; Adam became sinful, and he passed that sinfulness along to all his descendants.

The Bible speaks matter-of-factly about children who do not know enough “to reject the wrong and choose the right” (Isaiah 7:16). One reason people are guilty before God, Romans 1 says, is that they refuse to acknowledge what is “clearly seen” and “understood” concerning God (verse 20). People who, upon seeing and evaluating the evidence of nature, reject God are “without excuse.” This raises some questions: If a child is too young to know right from wrong and possesses no capacity for reasoning about God, then is that child exempted from judgment? Will God hold babies responsible for not responding to the gospel, when they are incapable of understanding the message? We believe that granting saving grace to babies and young children, on the basis of the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, is consistent with God’s love and mercy.

In John 9, Jesus heals a man born blind. After the physical healing, the man goes through a process of receiving his spiritual sight. At first, the man is ignorant; he knows Jesus’ name but not where to find Him (John 9:11–12). Later, he arrives at the truth that Jesus is a prophet (verse 17) and that He is from God (verse 33). Then, in speaking to Jesus, the man admits his ignorance and his need for the Savior. Jesus asks him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” and the man replies, “Who is he, sir? . . . Tell me so that I may believe in him” (verses 35–36). Finally, having seen the light spiritually, he says, “Lord, I believe” and worships Jesus (verse 38).

Following the expression of faith from the man born blind, Jesus encounters some spiritually blind Pharisees: “Jesus said, ‘For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.’ Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, ‘What? Are we blind too?’ Jesus said, ‘If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains’” (John 9:39–41). In other words, Jesus says, “If you were truly ignorant [blind], you would have no guilt. It’s because you are not ignorant—you are willfully unbelieving—that you stand guilty before God.”

The principle Jesus lays down in John 9 is that God does not condemn people for things they are unable to do. “Sin is measured by the capacities or ability of people, and by their opportunities of knowing the truth. If people had no ability to do the will of God, they could incur no blame. If they have all proper ability, and no disposition, God holds them to be guilty” (Albert Barnes, New Testament Notes: Explanatory and Practical, ed. by Robert Frew, Baker Book House, Vol. 1, “Jn. 9:41”). According to this principle, babies and young children who are unable to accept or reject Christ are not held accountable for unbelief.

Before people mature enough to discern right from wrong (sometimes called reaching “the age of accountability”), it would seem that they are not held responsible by God. Toddlers sin, and they bear Adam’s corrupt nature, but lacking the ability to understand the concept of right and wrong, they are under God’s grace, in our opinion.

Other biblical anecdotes (e.g., David testifying that he would be reunited with his dead child after death in 2 Samuel 12:23) support the reasonable belief that infants go to heaven when they die. The same holds true for those with mental disabilities who cannot comprehend right and wrong.

According to Deuteronomy 1:39, infants are not capable of distinguishing good from evil and hence lack the capacity to make morally informed -- and thus responsible -- choices. This doesn't mean that they aren't under Adam's sin, but rather that they never had the opportunity to repent and follow Jesus.

Nice. This is basically my view.

However, isn't the practice of "infant baptism" based on the notion that "salvation" is tied to water baptism, and that those who die unbaptized do not "go to Heaven"?

[tabibito]

Nice. This is basically my view.

However, isn't the practice of "infant baptism" based on the notion that "salvation" is tied to water baptism, and that those who die unbaptized do not "go to Heaven"?

The claim that baptism is an essential for salvation is correct, but that essential might apply only to people who are able to receive and assimilate the message.

[rogue06]

The claim that baptism is an essential for salvation is correct, but that essential might apply only to people who are able to receive and assimilate the message.

That gets into the issue of infant baptism.

What about someone who lives in an area where he might be the only Christian in a couple hundred miles and Christians in general are persecuted? Does he baptize himself?

[tabibito]

That gets into the issue of infant baptism.

What about someone who lives in an area where he might be the only Christian in a couple hundred miles and Christians in general are persecuted? Does he baptize himself?

Consider

A person who, whilst in waste deep water, knowing nothing about baptism, and almost nothing about Christ. That person makes a heart-felt prayer of repentance and gives an undertaking to do all he can to serve God. He takes a step just as he finishes the prayer, and suddenly finds himself completely underwater. He struggles and surfaces. Thinking that he stepped into a hole, he carefully searches the area and finds that the water is never more than waist deep. Perhaps he has moved from the spot - he widens the search ... same result no hole deep enough to allow him to be completely submerged, or even to chest depth is anywhere in the vicinity.

Your assessment?

[rogue06]

Consider

A person who, whilst in waste deep water, knowing nothing about baptism, and almost nothing about Christ. That person makes a heart-felt prayer of repentance and gives an undertaking to do all he can to serve God. He takes a step just as he finishes the prayer, and suddenly finds himself completely underwater. He struggles and surfaces. Thinking that he stepped into a hole, he carefully searches the area and finds that the water is never more than waist deep. Perhaps he has moved from the spot - he widens the search ... same result no hole deep enough to allow him to be completely submerged, or even to chest depth is anywhere in the vicinity.

Your assessment?

Is that what someone should expect to happen?

[tabibito]

Is that what someone should expect to happen?

Only after the event. Expectations about what might be possible have a way of limiting a person's perceptions.

[Sparko]

Only after the event. Expectations about what might be possible have a way of limiting a person's perceptions.

What about the thief on the cross. Baptism does not save. It is an act of obedience and public confession showing the world who you belong to. We get baptized because Jesus told us to. It represents the death of our sin and rebirth as a child of God. Just like the ring in a wedding represents the vows. It is a public declaration that you are married and belong to another. But you could get married without the ring. It is not what makes you married. The vows make you married.

[tabibito]

What about the thief on the cross. Baptism does not save. It is an act of obedience and public confession showing the world who you belong to. We get baptized because Jesus told us to. It represents the death of our sin and rebirth as a child of God. Just like the ring in a wedding represents the vows. It is a public declaration that you are married and belong to another. But you could get married without the ring. It is not what makes you married. The vows make you married.

Do you have evidence to show that 1Peter 3:21 is wrong? or that I am somehow misreading it?

[Sparko]

Do you have evidence to show that 1Peter 3:21 is wrong? or that I am somehow misreading it?

He is saying that the water represents the baptism of the holy ghost. The water baptism represents the person being reborn. Exactly what I said. Otherwise the sentence makes no sense. If the water baptism saves, then the water mentioned IS the baptism, so how could it represent the baptism? He is saying the water (baptism) represents the (holy spirit) baptism. Water baptism represents that you are reborn a new creation in God. It doesn't save you itself. You are saved when you ask God to save you through the sacrifice of Jesus. Then God gives you the Holy Spirit and makes you reborn.

See Acts 10 for an example of people being saved without baptism. After they were saved and received the Holy Spirit, THEN they were baptized.

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

[tabibito]

He is saying that the water represents the baptism of the holy ghost. The water baptism represents the person being reborn. Exactly what I said. Otherwise the sentence makes no sense. If the water baptism saves, then the water mentioned IS the baptism, so how could it represent the baptism? He is saying the water (baptism) represents the (holy spirit) baptism. Water baptism represents that you are reborn a new creation in God. It doesn't save you itself. You are saved when you ask God to save you through the sacrifice of Jesus. Then God gives you the Holy Spirit and makes you reborn.

1Peter 3 states that baptism is the antitype of the means by which Noah and family were saved. The verse does not say that baptism represents anything, but there is plenty to show that baptism is a necessary component in salvation, though other passages show that by itself, baptism is not enough to secure salvation. The passage also shows that baptism is effective in salvation because it is a call to God for a clean conscience, not because dirt is washed from the body ([dirt is not washed from the body when a person receives the Holy Spirit]). The only mention of the Holy Spirit in the entire pericope relates to Jesus being made alive in the Spirit. In Acts, baptism is said to be the means by which sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), not that it represents a cleansing from sin.

See Acts 10 for an example of people being saved without baptism. After they were saved and received the Holy Spirit, THEN they were baptized.

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Not a word about them being saved - just the receiving the Holy Spirit. Nothing there modifies the claim made in 1Peter, though it seems that some urgency attended getting those who had received the Holy Spirit baptised.

[Sparko]

1Peter 3 states that baptism is the antitype of the means by which Noah and family were saved. The verse does not say that baptism represents anything, but there is plenty to show that baptism is a necessary component in salvation, though other passages show that by itself, baptism is not enough to secure salvation. The passage also shows that baptism is effective in salvation because it is a call to God for a clean conscience, not because dirt is washed from the body ([dirt is not washed from the body when a person receives the Holy Spirit]). The only mention of the Holy Spirit in the entire pericope relates to Jesus being made alive in the Spirit. In Acts, baptism is said to be the means by which sins are washed away (Acts 22:16), not that it represents a cleansing from sin.

It says "symbolizes" which means "represents". Pick nits much?

Baptism is commanded as an act of obedience and a public witness. You do it BECAUSE you are saved, not to BE saved. The thief on the cross was saved without baptism, wasn't he? Therefore Baptism is not necessary. That simple.

Not a word about them being saved - just the receiving the Holy Spirit. Nothing there modifies the claim made in 1Peter, though it seems that some urgency attended getting those who had received the Holy Spirit baptised.

You don't receive the Holy Spirit unless you are saved.

[tabibito]

It says "symbolizes" which means "represents". Pick nits much?

"symbolises"? The saving of Noah and family symbolises baptism, not baptism symbolises something. (and that is without complaining about rendering "antitype" as "symbolises")

Baptism is commanded as an act of obedience and a public witness. You do it BECAUSE you are saved, not to BE saved.

Most assuredly baptism is commanded as an act of obedience. According to the explicit texts, baptism is the means by which sins are washed away, and it saves. It is also a demonstration of obedience, a public witness (and a few other things, I think). One thing it is never listed as: an optional extra. Baptism is an act of obedience (so - not getting baptised would be an act of disobedience to an explicit command)

You don't receive the Holy Spirit unless you are saved.

I don't recall seeing any scripture that says as much: nor does it seem that the Holy Spirit can be received by a person who is recalcitrant.