If we look back in the history of the Church there have been a great many debates on this topic. Few people want to say that unbaptized babies who die go to hell, though that was the position of some theologians.

Some hypothesized that there was a 'Limbo of the Innocents' where unbaptized babies who had committed no personal sent went. Here they were naturally happy but bereft of the vision of God. This idea was always nothing more than a theological hypothesis that gained traction in some circles. This idea has fallen out of favor recently.

More recently the Church simply says that it entrusts those babies who die to the mercy of God. The normative way for someone to enter into relationship with God is through baptism where original sin is wiped away, but while we may be bound by the Sacraments God is not so bound and can offer salvation to those He wishes, but it does illustrate the importance of having babies baptized as soon as possible. But at the same time we have to recognize that God is our loving Father and that loves those babies more than we do. We have to learn to trust.

JBC

EDIT: God is sovereign and all-powerful. He is also kind and good and loving. Scripture teaches both truths. And I think John MacArthur gave one of the best Biblical answers about the what-about-babies question, reconciling both Scriptural concepts. One article is here. The other is here.

Some more thoughts after WiseWoman's post on the previous page.

Also, this would be very hard to say in reality, much less over the internet, to someone with a spirit of grace and personal humility on my own part. Yet I will try. Perhaps it is worth it.

220, you are finding a lot of frustration here because of an issue that's been common to all your expressed opinions on things since you got here. It's this: you seem to say what you believe not on actions based on revealed truth, studied systematically, and Godly living in light of grace, but based on reactions to the things that are in your view the worst problems.

Instead, would you seek to understand God's revealed truth in all its different truths? In order? With balance? Systematically? With less yes-butting and assuming everyone else who doesn't follow must believe extreme views?

Frankly, I believe that is the reason why you've dodged the points before (and you'll dodge the above material too): you are reaction-based. Your personal agenda, based on your limited experience with Christians and Christians who have issues, has been blinding you, first to what Scripture says in balance, second to what people here have said.

You're either ignoring, or blindly missing, what people have really said they believe, and what they've said to oppose your opinions -- what you've said, with I-thinks and yes-buts, are the most important topics.

Thus, to your mind, the bigger problem is: too many Christians aren't serious enough. That assumptions has clearly become your filter.

Well, guess what. There is a slew of people out there (Christians or only thinking they are), who would die on the hill that Christians are just too serious and need to lighten up. That is their overused filter.

Both of those sides need Biblical balance: God is joyful. Jesus used humor. We should be joyful, even in giving, even in suffering. Answer this!

The Bible, not Reacting Against Bad Extremes, should be the filter.

Similarly, with the issue of same pages before, it's clear that your personal filter-topic is that Christians aren't discerning enough and that we need to concentrate on the parts of the Bible that address that issue (ignoring or disfavoring other verses that balance, such as Romans 14).

Meanwhile, plenty of others out there make the exact-opposite mistake: Christians are too strict and they discern too much that isn't evil.

They're both overcorrecting. They're both missing Biblical balance: yes, Christians must discern so they can avoid actual sin and dishonoring God, but some issues are not inherently sinful (holidays, music, foods).

Some Christians think other Christians are too involved in the world, darn it! So we need to pull back and make our own sequestered-away systems until Jesus returns. Other Christians, sick of the seclusion notions, go all-out and dive into the world, begging people to like us, modifying the Gospel, and trying to generate "social justice." Years later, the cultural-fundamentalists make those other people the villains and become even more entrenched in their extreme view. Meanwhile, the social-justice worldly Christians use the fundamentalists as a bogeyman too: we don't want to be like them, so let's keep compromising with the world!

Back and forth. Back and forth. Back and forth.

220, without realizing this, and seeking not just to React to the Mistake but to seek Biblical balance for God's own value -- you will also keep going from one extreme to the other, this side of Heaven.

You'll miss Biblical balance. You won't grow. You'll frustrate a lot of people. You'll misjudge Christian brothers and sisters, and miss out on the spiritual wisdom God has given them. When you come at them with the reaction-based agendas, likely assuming they believe things they don't (the bait-and-switch WiseWoman mentioned), you'll put them off, even from the good things you say and the Biblical things you do believe.

Worse, it will get in the way of the Gospel. From a human perspective, people will not see Jesus in those reaction-based attitudes. Despite your good intentions, it will make you seem unteachable and not humble. To be honest, that is very close to how you come across here.

"I am not trying to rob you! I'm trying to help you."

Along with what I said before, and what everyone else has been really saying here about Jesus and humor (or Christians and discernment before), that is something to think about.

Take the blinders off. Follow what you know He said in those other verses of the Word. And if there is really confusion, try some humility and questions and willingness to adjust. Ask a Christian (on here or in real life) if he or she really believes according to your interpretation of the Other Side that must be fixed and corrected. You just may be surprised. I have been. I have learned so much here.

Instead of a reaction-based agenda, I-thinks and yes-buts, try the whole Bible. All the chapters. All the books. All the verses. Not just favorite parts and preferred causes or assumptions about What is the Worst Error.

If the Spirit is trying to teach you something, either here or in your real life, something unpredictable but that He inspired in the written Word, something you would not have thought of in your own limited circles and personal favorite topics and causes, aren't you meant to listen and think?

EDIT: God is sovereign and all-powerful. He is also kind and good and loving. Scripture teaches both truths. And I think John MacArthur gave one of the best Biblical answers about the what-about-babies question, reconciling both Scriptural concepts. One article is here. The other is here.

Fascinating articles, Dr. Ransom. They seem to address the topic better than I could have. I only took a quick look because I don't have time to read all of them but I think I caught what they meant.

wisewoman, perhaps "age of accountability" is a bad phrase. Maybe I should have said "condition of accountability" (that is, how the articles state it.) In any case, you should take a look at the links too.

RE: Babies (again). It is clear that babies, toddlers, and even most pre-pubescent kids don't really understand the weight of the gospel. In fact, most adults don't either. So when it comes to an "Age of Accountability", what would the critieria be? Age? Maturity? A clear enough explination of the Gospel, regardless of the language being spoken? Most cultures have a day for 'coming of age'. Jews have the Bar Mitzvah, Hispanics have a Quincienera. Americans don't really have one per say. So which would it be? Due to the seriousness of salvation, and the fact that God is one God with one standard, the criteria should be the same for anyone regardless of culture. So where would the line be drawn?

I don't ask these questions with the intent of having them answered, but rather to get you to think. The Reformed will like what I am to say here. I believe God knows who will be saved and who won't from before the foundations of the earth. If God knew our exact lifespans from then, he knew who would come into the New Covenant or not. Do we have a choice in that matter? I say yes, but only in the context that God is drawing us to him and our say is only a response to that. The Reformed believe that God has already determined it and when he calls us, our response is natural and irresistable. But I don't see God ever acting that way. He hardens hearts for certain and the Bible does say he will not content with man forever. There will come a point where we would not accept salvation even if we wanted to. But I can't recall a Scripture where someone is completely drawn to him as though they had no choice. The ones that followed him were called and they followed, but they had a choice in that matter. The disciples could have chosen not to follow Jesus, but in that day, if a Jewish Rabbi called someone to be his disciple, that was the most presitgous position for a Jew to take. Of course they would have followed him. But they could have been completely irrational and not done so.

In regards to babies, these are ones that God would call innocent. Not in relation to their sinful status, but the kind of innocense that God said he would avenge. To kill a baby so the risk of rejecting the Gospel isn't there is a very dangerous approach. The truth is we don't know how God actually treats a killed baby in terms of salvation. We'd like to believe that he will save all babies, but where is the Scriptural basis for that? Some would say because of thier inherent sinful nature that all killed babies would all go to hell? If so, why would God call for judgement upon those that kill the innocent? So the truth is, we don't know. And if we take the approach of kill them so they won't run the risk of going to hell, we also take the approach Satan does: kill them so they won't run the risk (to him) of going to heaven. God still makes the ultimate judgement and God, having created each and every baby, knows that child, even if still in the womb, so well that he would know if that person would lay claim to his free gift. In that sense, it is like God predestines those that will be saved. But I still believe that God willingly sets aside his power to grant us the opponunity to respond to his message. I see it as both, not one or the other.

I'd like to think that Jesus would always show mercy to those little ones. Even the big ones in their early teens who are almost of an age to be confirmed - the rite of passage FencerforJesus mentions. It is because babies are too young to understand that we have christenings and godparents. The Catholics also have first communions once the child has reached the age of primary school level and both Catholics and Anglicans, especially the latter, conduct confirmations when those 14 and 15 year olds who wish to do so, take upon themselves the promises made for them at their christenings. The Jewish faith likewise has Bar Mitzvahs or Bat Mitzvahs, the female equivalent.

Didn't Jesus say: Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not? And what is the rest of that quote. Our local ordained minister told us how difficult and heartbreaking he finds conducting funerals for littlies, and how awful it is for the poor bereaved, mourning parents. In such a situation, how can one talk about heaven, hell or limbo?

Last week's sermon told us more about Jesus and hospitality. There was a verse from Luke where the woman washed his feet with her tears, and dried them with her hair, anointing them with precious unguents. This whilst he was dining out with a Pharisee. Jesus said that because she loved much she would be forgiven much.

I owe you all an apology for inaccurately misquoting a famous name on the previous page. I have corrected it now. Originally I called the bloke Corneliusz Jansz but his name was Geronimus Corneliusz, and his tale is relevant indeed. You see, Geronimus in 1629 organised a mutiny then when the Batavia was wrecked, proceeded to take over the castaways, murdering lots of them in turn. He died unrepentant of his sins, because he didn't believe he sinned in causing the mayhem by inciting his goons to murder all but one of their prelate's children plus his wife, plus many others, firstly in the name of justice then as time went on, out of sheer boredom. According to Jeronimus, all his killings were on God's orders, and the people he killed were predestined to die anyway. He could say this since he didn't kill anyone personally, though he firstly poisoned a crying baby then failed to strangle the comatose infant.

The Batavia, or what is left of her, is on display at the Shipwreck Gallery at the Western Australia Maritime Museum at Fremantle, and is well worth a visit for anyone who ventures to Perth. The story is also why any talk of predestination worries me. You can't say you accept salvation then go on to do such horrible things in God's name.

In that post I also asked what is Gnosticism? Unfortunately, so far, I seem to be ignored. Could someone please define this term for me?

I do have a Bible, or more than one as it happens. But the KJV versions, one of which I got for my Confirmation, are in too small a point form to read comfortably except in a very strong light, using a magnifying glass. I have a Douay version which I kept because it includes extra material not usually found in the KJV version though the language is similarly full of Thous and Thees and Hasts. But the extra material -the Apocrypha - shifts how the Bible is arranged, and the names of the Books tend to be mashed up a bit, such as Isaias rather than Isaiah. And I also have a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures which is much the same in text, but again has a different order for the prophets. I am exceedingly grateful to 220christian, who is happy and willing to make the effort to look up verses, whereas I would normally wait until I got to church, myself.

One thing that does interest me greatly, is when do you think the Old Testament was first written? After the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, in 1948, it seems their accuracy and concurrence with the Hebrew Scriptures lead some archaeologists to say that the earliest the Old Testament could have been written is about 220 BC, that is to say, about the time of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire. But I'd say earlier than that, and the Wikipedia article I linked to, vague as it is, seems to have a more accurate way of estimating it.

And now I am off to the Narnia and Christianity forum where I have to apologise some more on the Christian themes of the Voyage of the Dawn Treader thread.

The story is also why any talk of predestination worries me. You can't say you accept salvation then go on to do such horrible things in God's name.

If this Geronimus felt that he was following God's orders but the Bible is clearly saying he's violating every rule in the Book, I'm going to side with the Bible on this one. Now you can lump all of we Calvinoids ( ) together, but what you're really doing here is implying guilt by association. "This lunatic killed X number of people because of his purportedly Calvinist beliefs...who knows what you'll do", as though we would approve of, or at least understand his actions. Not a particularly fair tack to take, is it?

My excited anticipation is solely for the good rousing debate the topic of original sin can bring. Did anyone else misunderstand me?

Oh no, not at all! I completely understood what you meant, and had to smile when I read your sentence--I understand your eagerness-- I enjoy reading the debates too, and sometimes trying to add a feeble amount.

Few people want to say that unbaptized babies who die go to hell, though that was the position of some theologians.

Hm. If you're saved and don't have a chance to be baptized before you die, (death-bed conversion, or in this case, if a baby was saved) you're still saved. Baptism isn't what saves you. You're baptized because you were saved, (or, in some cases, baptized as a baby... ) but baptism is NOT what saves you.
(I don't know if this is what you were saying, but I'm just dropping this since I've heard a few arguments that baptism is absolutely-required-and-it's-the-saving-factor. Um, no. Baptism isn't what saves you.

Now, this here doesn't solve the topic of whether or not babies are saved: but I believe that the ones who are saved before birth, if they die in a miscarriage, just because they weren't baptized doesn't mean they're not saved...

*feels like she's rambling, and makes a note to try and research more on the topic of election, etc...*

Edit: Ok, I tried to read through most of the first article that Dr. Ransom posted.
I do have a question:
If all babies have salvation, and are saved, does that mean that some of the ones who don't die as infants lose their salvation later on in life? Because obviously not all adults are saved.
If so, this introduces the topic of whether salvation can be "lost"... Which is another topic.

RE: Babies (again). It is clear that babies, toddlers, and even most pre-pubescent kids don't really understand the weight of the gospel. In fact, most adults don't either.

If you say it in that sense it sounds like your roping babies and adults together in the same scope and I don't think that that is what you want to do. What I think you are really saying is that babies don't have the CAPACITY to understand the full weight of the gospel. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If that is the case then I think that that is true but I also think that babies act according to their environment. What I'm trying to say is that if their environment has God in it then they will be affected by it as will everyone else. If their environment has the devil in it the they will also be affected that as will everyone else.

So, even though babies don't have the capacity of understanding the gospel they are still subject to their environment just as we are. Sometimes I think that we don't give them credit for that. In that case God can influence them greatly at that point in their lives even though they won't be able to explain it or reason "why".

The story is also why any talk of predestination worries me. You can't say you accept salvation then go on to do such horrible things in God's name.

If this Geronimus felt that he was following God's orders but the Bible is clearly saying he's violating every rule in the Book, I'm going to side with the Bible on this one. Now you can lump all of we Calvinoids ( ) together, but what you're really doing here is implying guilt by association. "This lunatic killed X number of people because of his purportedly Calvinist beliefs...who knows what you'll do", as though we would approve of, or at least understand his actions. Not a particularly fair tack to take, is it?

Strictly speaking, he wasn't Calvinist, though the Calvinist church and Calvinist beliefs loomed big in the Netherlands in 1629, and also the VOC, a rather Godless organisation. Geronimus (Jerome to us, I suppose) was raised as an Anabaptist, or a Mennonite, whoever they may be, and however they interpret the Bible. Are they Calvinoids rather than Calvinists? As an adult, this 'lunatic' was buddies with Torrentius, who was tried and condemned for heresy, so I wouldn't necessarily take the unfair tack you say I am taking. On the other hand, various Churches were sometimes a bit too handy in trying people for heresy and heterodoxy etc in those days weren't they? Galileo, for example, for making a momentous and true scientific discovery? Or John Wycliffe for translating the Bible into English?

I can think of 'others', though, who just as famously have this idea of acting on their God's orders to carry out various atrocities, and that somehow it makes everything they do okay, now can't you? Some of these 'others' might say they are only following their Koranic injunction about unbelievers to 'Slay them wherever they are found'. (Sura 2:98), despite other such passages which forbid enforced proselytizing.

This is why I have a problem with fundamentalists of any creed or persuasion.

But when people say on this board that God knows His elect ahead of time, it doesn't say much for the others, who may or may not be his Elect, now does it? What if they choose to believe in Him, and follow the Bible's precepts, not being one of his appointed Elect? Like the Phoenician woman who said something about even the dogs being allowed to pick up the scraps at the feast? Or the Centurion whose servant Jesus brought back from the dead?

And what if believing they are one of his Elect they choose to behave disgracefully like this bloke did?

And what is wrong or right with Gnostics, whoever they are and whatever they believe?

Gnostics are a heretical branch of Christianity heavily into mysticism. If I understand their beliefs correctly, they seek hidden knowledge which will allow them to transcend their humanity and either become one with God or becomes gods or something like that. Sorta like Mormons, I guess.

wisewoman, perhaps "age of accountability" is a bad phrase. Maybe I should have said "condition of accountability" (that is, how the articles state it.) In any case, you should take a look at the links too.

I skimmed the first one and though in general I really like John MacArthur, he really seemed to be reaching to interpret those passages as he wished. I'm still not convinced that age is THE factor for salvation. I just don't think this is taught anywhere in Scripture.

I think ultimately we have to come to the place where we accept the fact that we don't know for sure, but we do know our Father. I don't see any reason why babies should get an automatic pass to heaven when they possess Adam's sin nature in common with the rest of humanity, but again, it isn't up to me, is it?

But I still believe that God willingly sets aside his power to grant us the opponunity to respond to his message.

But it is His power that gives us the very ability to respond! Faith is a gift. If God does His bit and then steps back, hands off, to let us work things out, that's still a works-based salvation because there is something we contribute to it, some part of God's work that is not complete until we act.

I'd like to think that Jesus would always show mercy to those little ones.

I know how you feel; I love children too. But we are seeing things from our earthly perspective. If we believe in the Bible's doctrine of original sin, sooner or later we have to come face to face with the fact that children — babies — possess it too. It's passed on through the male line (the big reason why it was important that Jesus not have an earthly biological father).

This is where the doctrine of election and predestination is so incredibly comforting. Arminian doctrine states that man must meet God halfway, must respond in order for salvation to become actual. Obviously babies can't do that; maybe this is where we have generated the notion that all babies who die go to heaven. It's not fair otherwise, right?

(I worry, when we start formulating doctrine according to our notions of fairness, independent of Scripture — of coming to Scripture as an afterthought, just to look for evidence to bolster our position.)

But the doctrines of grace make so much more sense when it comes to the salvation of babies who die. They say that unregenerate man is unwilling AND incapable of choosing God (Romans 8:7). Age has nothing to do with that fundamental inability. So what does God do about that? He sovereignly intervenes, saving some and allowing others to continue in their hatred and rebellion toward Him (Romans 9, Ephesians 1, etc.). He even gives us the faith to believe after He has worked in our hearts, so that we can respond to what He has already and irrevocably done.

This is much more hopeful! We know that man cannot save himself; babies are an especially poignant picture of this because they lack the ability to reason and articulate their thoughts, etc. What if the real state of all humanity is that kind of helplessness in the spiritual realm? I believe, from Scripture, that it is.

I think we should try to get past the "do babies go to heaven" question and look at humanity as a whole.

Didn't Jesus say: Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not?

Yes, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. This passage does not mean the kingdom of heaven belongs to *all* of these. Jesus was using the humility and childlike faith of the children as an example to His disciples. I don't think He is making a statement about the eternal destination of babies and children who die young.

The story is also why any talk of predestination worries me.

Why? Because there is a fanatic out there who latched on to one part of Scripture while ignoring the rest of it? Therefore the one part he latched on to must be evil?

The thing is, wagga, that predestination is all over the Bible. It isn't a word that theologians dreamed up. Romans 9, Ephesians 1, all the many passages that hammer home these truths can't be ignored. When you say talk of predestination worries you, do you find that same worry when you encounter the word in your Bible?

(On another note, and rather randomly, I recommend http://www.biblegateway.com if you don't have access to a printed Bible.)

In that post I also asked what is Gnosticism? Unfortunately, so far, I seem to be ignored. Could someone please define this term for me?

Gnosticism is somewhat complicated and people may not have answered you because they feel inadequate to do so. I know I do, but I'll take a stab at it anyhow . I haven't studied it or anything, so this is what I remember from seeing it discussed here.

Gnosticism is one of the earliest heresies to infiltrate the church. Its proponents taught that the spirit is pure and matter is evil — which led to the belief that it does not matter what you do with your physical body. Basically sin didn't matter. Also, I believe the Gnostics deny the deity of Christ. Gnostics seek truth everywhere and it is all very subjective. The New Age movement is closely related to Gnosticism. This is probably a very incomplete description, but it's what I have without Googling.

I completely understood what you meant...

Ah, thanks! I was hoping I had been clear. I agree with your thoughts on infant baptism, by the way.

If that is the case then I think that that is true but I also think that babies act according to their environment.

I could be wrong, but it seems that you are placing more emphasis on the environmental factors that cause people/babies to sin, rather than on their sin nature? The Bible never uses circumstances as an excuse or explanation for sin. It isn't about the environment — if it was, why would Adam and Eve have sinned? No, we sin because we are slaves to sin by nature, as the Bible says.

What if they choose to believe in Him, and follow the Bible's precepts not being one of his appointed Elect?

wagga, this is impossible. Without God's direct and personal intervention, no one would ever choose to believe in Him. Again, read Romans 8:7 (actually, read chapters 8 and 9 in full!) — man is hostile to God by nature and is, in that nature, unable to choose Him. It takes a sovereign work of grace for us to comprehend spiritual truths, and the faith we have in Him is not even of ourselves; it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2).

The Bible doesn't say much about "free will." It says we are slaves to sin, OR we are slaves to Christ. This may sound odd to our modern ears, but this is the language the Word uses and we should pay heed to it.

Like the Phoenician woman who said something about even the dogs being allowed to pick up the scraps at the feast?

Context is so important. In that passage, Jesus is saying that salvation must first be offered to the Jews as they are God's chosen people (there's that word "chosen" again...). After the Jews rejected their Messiah, His message would go out to all people and His church would be drawn from the Gentiles as well. It is bad hermeneutics to equate the Syro-Phoenician woman with people who are not elect, but who want to be. There are no such people.

And what if believing they are one of his Elect they choose to behave disgracefully like this bloke did?

What of it? It's sin, and this man is clearly proven wrong by the rest of the Bible. That doesn't prove that election as taught in the Word is bad. What if believing *anything*, someone chooses to behave in that way? You are trying to justify your beliefs by an evil-by-association argument. But the truths of Scripture are not measured by the actions of some fanatic. We need to go to Scripture first. Everything else is secondary.

wagga: here's Wikipedia on Gnosticism, with some external links at the bottom of the page. I'll have to read it for myself eventually, for my own understanding.

EDIT

Gnosticism is one of the earliest heresies to infiltrate the church. Its proponents taught that the spirit is pure and matter is evil — which led to the belief that it does not matter what you do with your physical body. Basically sin didn't matter. Also, I believe the Gnostics deny the deity of Christ. Gnostics seek truth everywhere and it is all very subjective.

Pretty good description.
/EDIT

I am exceedingly grateful to 220christian, who is happy and willing to make the effort to look up verses, whereas I would normally wait until I got to church, myself.

Lol. Thanks. Regarding Bible versions, I use KJV for personal study, and NKJV and NIV when I talk to others online. I know they don't like [or at least don't understand] the "thees," "thous," and "hasts" either. NKJV modernizes that part. But it makes me wonder if they don't like or understand Shakespeare either.

EDIT
As wisewoman suggested, http://www.biblegateway.com is a good online Bible with a search engine. It has probably a dozen English-language versions. I use it ALL THE TIME!
/EDIT

Didn't Jesus say: Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not? And what is the rest of that quote.

Matthew 19:14. The rest of the verse is "for of such is the kingdom of heaven." What does that mean? My Bible refers me to Matt 18 "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." I think Jesus was referring to the trusting and humble nature of children. We should be like that in our relationship with Christ.

EDIT

Jesus was using the humility and childlike faith of the children as an example to His disciples. I don't think He is making a statement about the eternal destination of babies and children who die young.

Agreed.
/EDIT

Praying for children
This is a practical issue. I care about the children in the various branches of my family. I want to know how to pray for them biblically – according to God’s will, not mine. So I’m not interested in armchair theology, in philosophical or religious debates. And I fear there’s too much of that in this thread. [But I want to say thank you to the many who gave me practical advice in response to my earlier post.] I think it would be better for all of us in the long run if as members of the body we tried to build one another up. Maybe along those lines, we could ask for and receive some practical, Bible-based advice on issues – personal, intellectual, social, financial, emotional [etc] – important to us.

“Take them now or save them” ... I’ve heard this argument/prayer for awhile [mostly as a cry of desperation]. And I never really thought through it until now. But I realized last night that I cannot recall anyone in the Bible praying for the death of a child, at least not their own. Instead, they prayed for a child to live [sick, dead, etc]. And God answered many of these prayers in the affirmative. When He didn’t, He usually explained why. Some like King David and the prophets prayed for the deaths of the children of their enemies. God also answered these imprecatory prayers according to His perfect will. And sometimes God Himself told Israel to wipe out a nation or group of people who had committed evil; in those times, children were not immune. I would say the most well-known example of God refusing an imprecatory prayer, or at least a desire, is that of Jonah. Jonah knew God would be merciful to the Ninevites. He selfishly wanted God’s mercy for Israel but not for their national enemy Assyria. But God told him, “Should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and much cattle?” [4] In other words, God spared the city because they repented and because they had 120,000 babies whom He loved. I think our attitude should be the same. Children are a treasure from the Lord, not a curse; “the fruit of the womb is His reward” [Psalm 127]. God has a plan for every person: those destined for salvation and those not, vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath, children born and those never given the chance. And I think when we pray for the death of anyone, we take his or her life in our hands. We don’t know God’s plan for that person. We don’t know the future. Only God does. And it’s up to Him how their lives fit into His plan, whether or not He saves them. “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away” [Job 1] – not us. God alone is the righteous Judge [2 Tim 4].

It angers me when I hear anyone pray for the death of a world leader, no matter which country. At one point last year I nearly prayed for the death of a ruler in Africa [name withheld]. And in that moment, God reminded me of when people prayed for the salvation of the ruler of Tahiti.

Prompted by the grave reports received from the field [in Tahiti], a special meeting was called in London in July, 1812, to pray for [King] Pomare’s conversion, and in that very month he gave up his idols and asked for baptism. This was the turning point of the work in Tahiti. Idolatry was completely overthrown, the king sent for a printing press to prepare Bibles and hymn books for his people, and at his own expense he built a huge church, where in the presence of 4,000 of his subjects he was baptized. The light spread not only over all Tahiti, but also from island to island of this and other groups, through the efforts of the Tahitian Christians as well as the missionaries, and Tahiti will ever be known as the seed-plot from which the gospel was scattered far and wide over Oceania.

[Source: Robert Hall Glover, The Progress of World-Wide Missions, 4th ed., New York: Harper & Bros., 1939.] Is that not the coolest?! I realized last night that my attitude toward the children in my family should be the same. God knows their future, not me. He knows how their lives now, however horrible and non-Christian they seem [most of the parents and children are totally unchurched], may be used for their good and His glory.

The true sadness should be over those children of yours who live and reject the gospel. Don't sorrow over your children in heaven; sorrow over your children on earth, that they should come to Christ. This is your great responsibility, your great opportunity.

Amen.

RE: Babies (again).

What does this mean?

Condition of accountability: as Fencer noted, each culture has a different rite of passage but I thought this had more to do with being treated as an adult, rather than being morally accountable. Also, as MacArthur noted, I’ve heard of 3- and 5-year-olds understanding the gospel and getting saved! It is different for each person. I honestly don’t think I understood the gospel before I was 11 or 12. However, I never took accountability to mean the age/condition when a person understands heaven, hell, and the gospel necessarily but the age/condition when he or she knows the difference between right and wrong. They’re not quite the same. So how early does that happen? And do you really think a baby who doesn’t know how to talk yet knows right from wrong? I know MacArthur brought this up. And I liked his explanation. But I just wanted to add that when David’s child died and he told his servants, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” [2 Sam 12], where did the child go? Sheol, the place of the dead. I don’t know that much about the Jewish concept of Sheol, but I once heard someone say there were two levels even then, differentiating between the righteous and the wicked [see Luke 16:22-26]. I don’t think David’s child went to the wicked level, certainly not if David could go to him after he died. I think both went to the righteous level. God also took the ill son of Jeroboam, a wicked king of Israel. Why? “In him there is found some good thing toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam” [1 Kings 14]. I don’t think this boy is in torment either.

It's not as if lives are being conceived willy-nilly and God is not involved. This is not just true of David; David is speaking for every man. He is speaking of intimate association between God and each human creation. God is intimately involved in every little life, every life. It's not just a chain of procreative acts that He inaugurated; He is there in every single conception.

I like what he said here. Just the other day, someone in my family was saying how there are no accidents. To some, we may have arrived here by accident – but not to God. There are no accidents with God.

Queen Susan: agreed on the baptism question. It doesn't save. The thief on the cross didn't have baptism or communion, but he went to paradise with Jesus. What's required? Faith.

Thanks, Dr Ransom, for posting those sites. I read and enjoyed them.

EDIT

If we believe in the Bible's doctrine of original sin, sooner or later we have to come face to face with the fact that children — babies — possess it too. It's passed on through the male line (the big reason why it was important that Jesus not have an earthly biological father).

What does this mean? Is this why Catholics think Mary was sinless?
/EDIT

(edited: I first read wisewoman's post only after posting this)

wisewoman, I was proving the point that the environment can influence children at an early age. Why is this important to this discussion? It's important because that means that a Godly environment can influence youngsters even when they are not old enough to understand that it is a Godly environment.

As to children being born with a sin nature I believe that is true. I will not go deeper into the subject however because the beliefs I hold don't show up in my life yet. When I am truly living them then I will comment further on the subject.

Strictly speaking, he wasn't Calvinist, though the Calvinist church and Calvinist beliefs loomed big in the Netherlands in 1629, and also the VOC, a rather Godless organisation. Geronimus (Jerome to us, I suppose) was raised as an Anabaptist, or a Mennonite, whoever they may be, and however they interpret the Bible. Are they Calvinoids rather than Calvinists?

No--the anabaptists/Mennonites were part of the so-called "radical reformation" which existed on the fringes of the movement--and of society. They were tolerated in Switzerland and the Netherlands but were never mainstream due to their pacifism, re-baptism of believers, and strange doctrines.

But when people say on this board that God knows His elect ahead of time, it doesn't say much for the others, who may or may not be his Elect, now does it? What if they choose to believe in Him, and follow the Bible's precepts, not being one of his appointed Elect?

But all who believe in Christ are the elect--only the elect follow Christ. To say that one is not elect and yet has true faith is to state an oxymoron. It's a contradiction in terms.

220, I notice you quoting the Calvinist (albeit dispensationalist) John MacArthur.

I can't claim to know whether there are elect infants or not--I would like to think so. However, the Scriptures give no indication (and I'm glad that they don't), so I cannot say categorically that infants who die go to Heaven or Hell--I don't know the number of the elect.

TBG

It's important because that means that a Godly environment can influence youngsters even when they are not old enough to understand that it is a Godly environment.

Agreed. A godly environment is important. Why else would many Christian parents take such earnest interest in their children's home and public environments, which includes church, prayers, Bible reading, safe and fun activities for kids, daycare, etc?

I will not go deeper into the subject however because the beliefs I hold don't show up in my life yet. When I am truly living them then I will comment further on the subject.

I've been there, Watz. I'm sure we all have.

But all who believe in Christ are the elect--only the elect follow Christ. To say that one is not elect and yet has true faith is to state an oxymoron. It's a contradiction in terms.

Agreed. Christ is "elect" [1 Peter 2]. And those in Him, all saved persons, are "elect." Click here for "elect" in BibleGateway.com [KJV].

220, I notice you quoting the Calvinist (albeit dispensationalist) John MacArthur.

Your point? I never said I was anti-Calvinist.