rfwu

Many christians assert that children under a certain age will go to heaven no matter what (like stuff in "Left Behind"). I don't recall anything from the actual bible that refers to anything like that.

Mageth

You're right; the Bible doesn't conclusively answer the question of the eternal fate of infants and children one way or another.

exile

Would be interesting to know the Catholic position on naturally aborted babies. They won't have been baptised - so aren't they condemned to limbo?

Mageth

This page gives a good overview:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo.htm

Basically, the RCC does not appear to have a firm doctrine as to what exactly happens to the souls of aborted fetuses (they make no distinction between naturally or artificially aborted fetuses, BTW). Their position seems to be "We don't know, but God will provide".

Mathetes

For that matter, I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where it says that abortion is bad, or that fetuses are human from the moment of conception.

Or, even, that killing kids is wrong. Yahweh was a firm cheerleader of infanticide in many places during the Conquest.

Chris Weimer

You're right actually. In fact, Exodus 21:22 is proof that unborn children aren't considered human.

Aravnah Ornan

Some Christians cite 2 Samuel 12:23 for the proposition that dead babies go to heaven no matter what, but that seems to me to be the slenderest of reeds to grasp. Besides, as with so many other issues, you can quote-mine the Bible for proof texts that "prove" multiple, mutually exclusive positions.

Once, a Christian brought up the "age of accountability" to me. When I asked her where in the Bible the age of accountability was specified, she gave me that all-purpose scathing rebuttal known as pretending not to have heard the question.

johntheapostate

The Bible can convincingly be interpreted to indicate that children who die before they can believe in Jesus go to hell.

John 14: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for Gods wrath remains in him"

Here we have testimony that Jesus is the only path to salvation and we can see that in the choice of words "Gods wrath remains in him" that the condemnation of the individual is a preexisting condition as the wrath was not a result of the rejection but simply remains in him due to his rejection of Jesus.

John 6:40 "For my Fathers will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

My father was fond of this verse and used it to impress on me the free nature of salvation. He chose to ignore the testimony of the author of John only a few verses down.

John 6:44 " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up on the last day"

Some would argue that God has drawn everybody, but this is a very weak argument in the context of the verse For shortly afterward Jesus again formulates the same concept to explain his betrayal by Judas.

John 6:64-65 " For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him"

Here the text specifically links unbelief to the concept that God had made belief impossible by withholding the enabling that had made it possible for the other disciples to believe.

John 8:47 " He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God"

Jesus had just gone on a fairly extended rant denouncing his countrymen as children of the devil etc and here he also specifies the reason that they reject him. They simply are those whom God has not extended the ability to believe.

So an argument could be made that God has extended the ability for some people to accept or reject Christ but certainly not the ability of everyone to do so on the basis of free will. and even that is a weak argument considering that Jesus insisted that everyone the Father would give him would come to him and would not be lost.

John 6:37 " All the Father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never drive away"


These verses hit hard at the concept of free will as far as the most important decision any person could make if in fact the New Testament is true. The decision on which rests the fate of ones eternal destiny. We could have perfect free will in all areas of life but it would be of zero value if the ability to reject or accept salvation rest on the good pleasure of gods will.


It is very important to some people that this be denied at all costs. For in their belief in the free will to accept or reject Christ rests there justification for infant salvation.

They just cant bear the thought of deceased infants suffering in agony for an eternity in hell. They subordinate the concept of original sin and make a conscious act of rejection of Christ the determining factor in the condemnation of certain persons to hell.


They insist that because the infant has not consciously rejected Christ he has automatic entrance into heaven.

They choose to ignore the testimony of the author of John which states that the wrath of God was a preexisting condition and that eternal life is dependent on a conscious act of belief on the part of the believer and this is only achieved by god enabling the person to do so.

The logical conclusion would be that as part of that enabling god would also have granted the infant the ability to live to an age where such a decision could be made.

I personally do not believe in anything I have just written. I am only showing the flexibility of Biblical interpretation using proof texts, which indicates that there is not a great truth contained in the Bible, but simply a selection of doctrines which Christians can and have chosen what suits them.