# "Infants" - Heaven or Hell?



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 12, 2010)

I recently found a video on Youtube which has to do with whether infants can be justly condemned by God or not. What I was really amazed at was I had never heard anyone address the issue from such perspective! So, here's the video (info below):

[video=youtube;wQZwPCtE9n4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQZwPCtE9n4[/video]

"Have Christians been looking at this the wrong way?

If the soul is not affected by physical death (brain dead), then I can conclude that the soul is not affected by a blow to the head (brain damaged), then I believe it is safe to conclude that the soul would not be affected by an underdeveloped brain (infant).

The argument has to do with the current state of the brain (infantile, damaged, dead) and how that relates to and affects the soul. If I am correct on my first 2 points (damage and death), then what would prevent me from concluding one step further (infants brain)?"


Here are some verses which play a high role in the discussion of this topic:

*Rom 9:11 *(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 

- I think _the italic phrase_ could be understood as follows, "Being not yet in existence, and _thereby_ having done no good or evil." I find it, however, hard to interpret the verse so in the light of its context which clearly talks about works that _are_ done in existence (by the children, Jacob and Esau), yet it is said God's election is not according to them.


*Rom 5:14* Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, _even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression_, who is the figure of him that was to come.

- As I understand this verse (and I may well be wrong), _not_ sinning "after the similitude of Adam's transgression" refers to sinning in ignorance (1 Tim. 1:13).

We dare not deny we are guilty of _the consequences_ of our own sins. Thus, even though we don't always make conscious choices, when we sin - "because of the blindness of [our] heart" (Eph. 4:18) - we are justly condemned for them. And I would say the same goes with babies; babies sin in ignorance, but they are justly hell-bound due to their _first sin in Adam_ which _was_ "after the similitude of Adam's transgression."


*Rom 4:12* _Neither is there salvation in any other_: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

- I've heard some, who defend infants' innocence, argue that while Christ indeed is the only _appointed_ way for salvation, God could, regardless His declaration, operate salvation by other means in men, who are not able to hear the Gospel. I mean, how absurd does that sound?! It's almost like God does not have the power to make these people hear the Gospel, and therefore will have to use some other means.


If any of you find my interpretations of the above verses wrong, please, by all means correct me, but please, bear with me, if I'm slow in the uptake!

Oh yes! and tell me what you think about the video!


----------



## Andres (Sep 12, 2010)

I find this easier: 



> WCF 10.3
> Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 12, 2010)

Andres said:


> I find this easier:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Simple, straightforward, Pastoral, and above all Biblical.


----------



## schwarzeneggerchia (Sep 12, 2010)

*Traducianism*

The answer lies in traducianism, whether be it mediate or immediate imputation. 
David mentioned that he had been sinful from the time his mother had conceived him, thus it could not be that ignorance allow for an exemption because David was he was cognizant that he was inherently sinful (immediate imputation) which had directly came through Adam. Mediate imputation can be questioned as to whether did his parent's sin come. Since one is inherently sinful from birth, from the time he is conceived (immediate imputation), infant mortality is therefore possible because the wages of sin is death as it is clear that it is in Adam, all sinned, and all died. 
Well of course pastorally speaking, this fact is not easily accepted. But to veer away from grappling with this may lead to Pelagianism. Even pastorally speaking, this is why a child is evangelised to given the earliest opportunity and this gives rise to the need and the passion to share the gospel. This fact is also realised in the baptising of infants. it is personally posited for an immediate imputation upon conception.

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

This in effect must not be discounted yet it must not be pre-judged as to who these elect infants are or how can one's infant be ascertained an elect.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 12, 2010)

Andres said:


> I find this easier:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So, if I'm understanding you right, you don't think infants are innocent in and of themselves before God, but rather hell-deserving? Therefore, you probably agree with me (and the video) that the soul of an infant is fully mature?

Why do you think it necessary for God to forsake His appointed means of regeneration, namely, the preaching of the Gospel? If someone is "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word", he/she is so only because it is the will of God! So, why don't you think God would just let the infant live and grow, and let the deaf person's ears be opened, in order to hear the Gospel message by its appointed means?


----------



## schwarzeneggerchia (Sep 13, 2010)

I do not think that God absolutely forsakes the necessary appointed means for regeneration. But we cannot limit the extent God extends His Grace be it common or irresistible and His providence for which He has for every individual in the light of His wisdom and sovereignty. There is no way to determine the counsel of His will for why He does what He does. And as you'd probably expect, [BIBLE]Deuteronomy 29:29[/BIBLE]. The whole doctrine of election lies under that very rubrick of why God would choose a certain individual. My lecturer who asked "what is it that is so good about you that God would choose you" in attempt to disparage the whole notion of Calvinism, because Im in an Assembly of God bible college,to which I replied "unconditional election". Why, when or the means He has foreordained for an individual's salvation can be answered by this [BIBLE]Romans 9:16[/BIBLE]. It is the Grace and mercy of God whether He has the infant to live on to receive by means of the gospel or purely by means of election that He saves, similarly for those who are impaired in speech to confess with their mouths nor be able to have faith affected by the word through the hearing of the word to those who are deaf, yes they have the means of sign language but it is undeniably God's working in depraved human condition to effect His power to save. There is a place for that to happen just as there is also a place where God works just that same saving power through having to receive Him and believing in Him [BIBLE]John 1:12-13[/BIBLE], and still its not wrong to say, God is at work in us to will and to effect His good pleasure [BIBLE]Philippians 2:12-13[/BIBLE].


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 13, 2010)

Do we need to teach babies to lie, hate or act selfishly in order for them to do so? Absolutely not! Babies are _brutal beasts_ that are simply limited in their power. I wonder what the world would look like, if all people were born as fully developed men and women (as Adam and Eve). It would be a total chaos!


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Sep 13, 2010)

> Why do you think it necessary for God to forsake His appointed means of regeneration, namely, the preaching of the Gospel? If someone is "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word", he/she is so only because it is the will of God! So, why don't you think God would just let the infant live and grow, and let the deaf person's ears be opened, in order to hear the Gospel message by its appointed means?



He can do whatever he wants. John the Baptist was filled with the spirit in his mothers's womb. Would anyone like to bring God up on charges for that decision?


----------



## Andres (Sep 13, 2010)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > I find this easier:
> ...



The selection I quoted is not my original thoughts, but rather it's from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Of course, I agree with what I quoted wholeheartedly. 



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Why do you think it necessary for God to forsake His appointed means of regeneration, namely, the preaching of the Gospel? If someone is "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word", he/she is so only because it is the will of God! So, why don't you think God would just let the infant live and grow, and let the deaf person's ears be opened, in order to hear the Gospel message by its appointed means?



I am obviously not God, so I will not suppose to speak for Him. I don't know the answer to those questions, but I don't see God forsaking His appointed means of regeneration. Elect infants are still regenerated by The Spirit. Also, I would note the WCF states that Spirit "worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth". 



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Do we need to teach babies to lie, hate or act selfishly in order for them to do so? Absolutely not! Babies are _brutal beasts_ that are simply limited in their power. I wonder what the world would look like, if all people were born as fully developed men and women (as Adam and Eve). It would be a total chaos!


 
Good point. I would agree with you on this.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 13, 2010)

puritanpilgrim said:


> > Why do you think it necessary for God to forsake His appointed means of regeneration, namely, the preaching of the Gospel? If someone is "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word", he/she is so only because it is the will of God! So, why don't you think God would just let the infant live and grow, and let the deaf person's ears be opened, in order to hear the Gospel message by its appointed means?
> 
> 
> 
> He can do whatever he wants. John the Baptist was filled with the spirit in his mothers's womb. Would anyone like to bring God up on charges for that decision?


 
What's the biblical evidence for John the Baptist's regeneration in his mother's womb? Give me verses.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 13, 2010)

Andres said:


> I would note the WCF states that Spirit "worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth".



I totally understand the Spirit works _when_ and _where_ He wants (John 3:8; 1 Cor. 12:11), but I'd really like to know on what biblical basis does the WCF state the Spirit would work _how_ He pleases.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 13, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Samuel,
> 
> Can you please reveal at what you're trying to get? I confess I'm not inclined to watch the video, but is your question _simply _"Can God justly condemn infants dying in infancy or the unborn?" Simply it for me.


 
Yes, my question is not, "_Does_ God condemn infants to hell," but rather "_Is there a just way_ for God to do so."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 13, 2010)

Joshua said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> > Andres said:
> ...


 
I guess you're right.

---------- Post added at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 AM ----------

Josh,

Could you give me some feedback on my interpretation of Romans 5:14?


----------



## Zenas (Sep 13, 2010)

Scripture indicates that we are concieved in sin. Guilt is imputed not only by our own actions, but by those of our natural federal head, Adam. From the moment of conception, an infant is at emnity before God unless God acts to intervene for them. They are the offspring of the original rebel and are under the same curse pronounced on him and all of creation. 

We cannot make sweeping generalizations and say that all infants are saved or that all infants are damned. Would God be right in doing either? Of course. He may sentence all rebels against Him to punishment, or He may cover them with the blood of His Son. It's His sovereign prerogative though. We cannot know what He does: only that His plans are perfect and that whatever happens, what did happen happened according to His will. 

Can we have hope? Of course, the same way we hope for ourselves and for each other.


----------

