Do Christian babies all gain entry to Heaven?

[oldbadger]

This my question:-

If a Christian infant dies, will it automatically gain entry to Heaven?

[oldbadger]

Peace to you,

It was simply about what made a person Christian. That point brought us to babies born to a Christian parent (which is kind of what I think you mean by "Christian babies".) Since God saves entire households, that would include the children born to that household, so that "Christian babies" do receive a resurrection (if needed) and entrance into the Kingdom (in heaven and/or on earth).

OK.... so that is an answer....... You believe that Christian babies do get in to the Kingdom of Heaven. And I'm guessing that this refers to any Christian babies from any churches or denominations....would that be correct?

That is the topic right?

I'm not sure why you don't seem to want to discuss that?

Okay. But shouldn't you at least also discuss the topic?

Because I don't know what happens to Christian babies, all I can do is ask questions, but where folks tell me something that Jesus didn't tell anyone I do tend to question such answers.

This sounds to me as if you are ignoring any verses or explanation that might contradict your statement and simply repeating your belief. How am I supposed to respond to that?

Peace again to you.

I don't have any beliefs about Christian babies futures, Tam......... and so I have asked the question. But so many answers from various members all seem to contradict each other or just get dreamed up. nd very very few posts have mentioned ........ Jesus!

[POI]

The only point you seem to have to make is that some topics are clear and some topics are not clear. This is correct. Keep in mind, however, that not every topic would even have needed a discussion for those to whom Christ was speaking. Like I said.

Okay. The topic for dead infants is not clear. Hence, you apply wishful thinking, accompanied by ignoring some verses which suggest they are not saved.

If neither (a) nor (b) apply, this point also does not apply.

Not so fast. How do we know the sheep/goats parable does not apply to all? How do we also know the proselytizing passage does not apply to all? Remember what YOU want to insinuate, that when God was speaking to certain individuals, regarding "saving their entire households". If your message suggests god saves households still, then god may also suggest that all are under the two differing criteria I raised

tam You are free to guess all you want, but why should your guess have more merit than what 1213 thinks?

POI The point is, we both read the same passages, and get differing conclusions. This is because he emphasizes one area, and I raise another, which conflicts with that view. Same with you and I. I'm simply pointing out that you must ignore some stuff, to favor other stuff. And this is a rather large topic I reckon.

*******************

I'll respond to the rest later, when I have more time.

[POI]

Yes, Christ (Jaheshua) lives and speaks and His sheep listen to His voice. (That is also attested to in the very book you claim to be reading to draw your conclusions.) But I have made no secret that I bear witness to a living and speaking Christ. Did we not already have this exchange some time ago?

Many make this same claim, and yet, many apply differing answers to the same questions. 1) Is Jesus giving differing answers, 2) are some mistaken, 3) or are all in self-deception?

I'm placing my money on option 3), along with you just reading the Bible and feeling some warm-fuzzies.

there is no reason to think that infants MUST BE excluded.

POI The topic of 'original sin' alone defies your statement. Why do you think so many want to baptize their children?

tam Abraham saved His ENTIRE household. More than just His own children. Noah's faith saved his entire household. Not just his own children, but their spouses (and any children they might have had or been carrying). When Lot (Abraham's nephew) was told to leave Sodom and Gomorrah, the angels told him to gather everyone who belonged to him. Not just his children, but everyone, anyone, who belonged to him. His sons-in-law refused to come, but that doesn't change the fact that they were permitted.

POI If your example applies to all the dead infants today, then so are the examples I raise. Which one do you ignore, and why? You see, my point is, again, that you must become a cafeteria Christian to hold a view on this topic. I readily admit the Bible is conflicting and confusing. This would apply EQUALLY if I believed this nonsense or not.

tam Try again. The posts contain the 'homework'. Look or do not look, as you choose. But if you are going to suggest that I need to deal with something, and I show you the evidence that I have done so... well.. the only person in this conversation who seems to need to deal with it is you.

POI No, you try again. Please provide your favorite one and copy/paste the pertinent part(s). Spoiler alert, I will be able to find verses, and/or a rationale, which conflict.

tam Then why not answer the question I asked?

POI What question specifically would you like for me to answer?

tam What part of my analogy suggests selection based upon capacity?

POI The Ark example. God's instruction lists the criteria for admittance of being two. This relates to the criteria being capacity. The criteria for admittance to heaven is not based upon capacity.

[Clownboat]

I supported every single claim which I made with scripture verses which were inspired by God.

Which of the scriptures did I get incorrect?

For example:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Corinthians 15:22)

I claimed that this verse states that every human who ever lived and died will be resurrected -- including deceased infants.

Did I get that right?

I'm sorry, but you totally failed to address anything I wrote and instead asked me to critique your personal view on a scripture.

Copy/paste to save time:
Surely you have seen in this thread alone that there is no agreement amongst Christians, which makes your claim of victory odd and seemingly prideful don't you think? Or do you actually think you are the one that got it right and your other believers are wrong? What did that old book say about pride again?

Your holy book is unclear and Christians cannot come to agreement about many a topic. This just being one.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

It was simply about what made a person Christian. That point brought us to babies born to a Christian parent (which is kind of what I think you mean by "Christian babies".) Since God saves entire households, that would include the children born to that household, so that "Christian babies" do receive a resurrection (if needed) and entrance into the Kingdom (in heaven and/or on earth).

OK.... so that is an answer....... You believe that Christian babies do get in to the Kingdom of Heaven. And I'm guessing that this refers to any Christian babies from any churches or denominations....would that be correct?

Being a member of a religion/denomination is not what makes a person Christian (which is why I mentioned what makes a person Christian), though that might be another topic. I think my first post on this thread adequately answered the question with regard to "Christian babies":

...most infants are probably not Christian themselves (at least not at this point in their lives). But if an infant is born to a(n actual) Christian parent, then that infant will also be saved (from Death) and receive eternal life in the Kingdom. That infant might not be a member of the Bride (or reign with Christ for a thousand years), but the infant would still receive the promise of eternal life. Remember, the faith of Abraham saved his entire household. Same with Noah. Same with Rahab. Same with the people in Israel (the entire house was covered, every person within that house protected when Death passed over the land).

Peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

The only point you seem to have to make is that some topics are clear and some topics are not clear. This is correct. Keep in mind, however, that not every topic would even have needed a discussion for those to whom Christ was speaking. Like I said.

Okay. The topic for dead infants is not clear. Hence, you apply wishful thinking, accompanied by ignoring some verses which suggest they are not saved.

Here is the definition of wishful thinking:

: an attitude or belief that something you want to happen will happen even though it is not likely or possible

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/wishful-thinking

If there is evidence and examples that support something (showing that is is indeed possible, perhaps even likely, some things even certain), then it is not wishful thinking.

If neither (a) nor (b) apply, this point also does not apply.

Not so fast. How do we know the sheep/goats parable does not apply to all?

You are reversing your own point. You said this criteria cannot apply to infants; therefore, it is illogical for you to turn around and claim that the consequences of that criteria apply to infants.

How do we also know the proselytizing passage does not apply to all?

I don't know what world you are living in, but in mine, infants cannot speak.

Remember what YOU want to insinuate, that when God was speaking to certain individuals, regarding "saving their entire households". If your message suggests god saves households still, then god may also suggest that all are under the two differing criteria I raised

That would not make sense. That would render anything about 'entire households' moot, and yet entire households being saved is the example that we are given.

You appear to be grasping at straws.

tam You are free to guess all you want, but why should your guess have more merit than what 1213 thinks?

POI The point is, we both read the same passages, and get differing conclusions. This is because he emphasizes one area, and I raise another, which conflicts with that view. Same with you and I. I'm simply pointing out that you must ignore some stuff, to favor other stuff. And this is a rather large topic I reckon.

If you are ignoring some stuff to favor other stuff, you cannot do as you claim to have done: draw a logical conclusion that dead infants do not receive eternal life. The most you could say is that you do not know, you cannot draw a conclusion, period.



Peace to you.

[POI]

Peace to you,

The only point you seem to have to make is that some topics are clear and some topics are not clear. This is correct. Keep in mind, however, that not every topic would even have needed a discussion for those to whom Christ was speaking. Like I said.

Okay. The topic for dead infants is not clear. Hence, you apply wishful thinking, accompanied by ignoring some verses which suggest they are not saved.

Here is the definition of wishful thinking:

: an attitude or belief that something you want to happen will happen even though it is not likely or possible

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/wishful-thinking

If there is evidence and examples that support something (showing that is is indeed possible, perhaps even likely, some things even certain), then it is not wishful thinking.

If neither (a) nor (b) apply, this point also does not apply.

Not so fast. How do we know the sheep/goats parable does not apply to all?

You are reversing your own point. You said this criteria cannot apply to infants; therefore, it is illogical for you to turn around and claim that the consequences of that criteria apply to infants.

How do we also know the proselytizing passage does not apply to all?

I don't know what world you are living in, but in mine, infants cannot speak.

Remember what YOU want to insinuate, that when God was speaking to certain individuals, regarding "saving their entire households". If your message suggests god saves households still, then god may also suggest that all are under the two differing criteria I raised

That would not make sense. That would render anything about 'entire households' moot, and yet entire households being saved is the example that we are given.

You appear to be grasping at straws.

tam You are free to guess all you want, but why should your guess have more merit than what 1213 thinks?

POI The point is, we both read the same passages, and get differing conclusions. This is because he emphasizes one area, and I raise another, which conflicts with that view. Same with you and I. I'm simply pointing out that you must ignore some stuff, to favor other stuff. And this is a rather large topic I reckon.

If you are ignoring some stuff to favor other stuff, you cannot do as you claim to have done: draw a logical conclusion that dead infants do not receive eternal life. The most you could say is that you do not know, you cannot draw a conclusion, period.

Looks like a recap is in order here.

I'm going on record to state, again, that regardless of if one is a believer or not, the Bible does NOT read clear -- as to if dead infants are saved? This conversation is really two-fold. Meaning, 1) the dead infants of Christian parents, and 2) the dead infants of non-Christian parents. In regard to option 1), you state God/Jesus saves them all. I state, not-so-fast. Meaning, the Bible speaks about specific groups. Mostly polarizing specific characters in the Bible. Is this 'saving of the household' a universal law? Maybe not. Special people can receive special treatment. God raised favor towards some, especially in the Bible. This certainly could be the case here. How do we know this law applies always, and not just in such said examples? I mean, God made plenty of 'covenants' with specific folks, as an example.

In regard to option 2), you claim, "I don't know". And this is what I'm speaking about. You cannot say you know what happens to the dead infants of non-Christian parents, because it is not clear. This is part of my point. You state, in a wishful manor, that God would not just condemn them.

So again, I bring up my 3+ God-Jesus given methods for salvation:

1). Be deemed a sheep --- Is it possible god judges the dead infants on what they would have done, or what God sees in their "heart"? We really do not know. He just tells listeners that the ones who perform specific sets of works are selected, and the ones that don't, aren't. Dead infants, at face value, are then excluded.
2). Accept the message and get baptized -- This verse states to spread the word to ALL creation. This is pretty clear, This would then include little children. I know this sounds dumb, but this is the sloppy and haphazard words of the god YOU believe in. Maybe Jesus expects the little ones to receive the message and be baptized too. And if they did not receive the message before their death, oh well, it's too late.
3). Be deemed 'righteous'. I guess we would need to know who he deems 'righteous'?
3a). At bare minimum, is to be removed of one's 'original sin' that everyone apparently carries. This is exactly why Catholics/others invented an entire ad hoc / post hoc explanation to account for a "just" way that God handles these dead infants....

And yes, we cannot draw ANY conclusions. Why? Because it is NOT CLEAR. One of many topics. Hence, the reason 'Oldbadger' brought it forth. But, as I've told you many times, Jesus seems to be pretty crystal clear, when he wants to be. So why be ambiguous with such a topic, which would spawn countless debates, and cause possible endless heartache, to no end? Case/point... The grieving woman who fears her dead infant niece is rotting in hell because she was never baptized.

[myth-one.com]

I supported every single claim which I made with scripture verses which were inspired by God.

Which of the scriptures did I get incorrect?

For example:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Corinthians 15:22)

I claimed that this verse states that every human who ever lived and died will be resurrected -- including deceased infants.

Did I get that right?

I'm sorry, but you totally failed to address anything I wrote and instead asked me to critique your personal view on a scripture.

Copy/paste to save time:
Surely you have seen in this thread alone that there is no agreement amongst Christians, which makes your claim of victory odd and seemingly prideful don't you think? Or do you actually think you are the one that got it right and your other believers are wrong? What did that old book say about pride again?

Your holy book is unclear and Christians cannot come to agreement about many a topic. This just being one.

I can defend what I believe by quoting the scriptures. But I'm not responsible for what other Christians think.

The thread is entitled "Do Christian babies all gain entry to Heaven?"

I have given a detailed summary of the fate of deceased infants, with supporting scriptures.

And I escaped from what "many Christians believe" many years ago.

And I don't remember making any claim of victory?

[oldbadger]

Peace to you,

It was simply about what made a person Christian. That point brought us to babies born to a Christian parent (which is kind of what I think you mean by "Christian babies".) Since God saves entire households, that would include the children born to that household, so that "Christian babies" do receive a resurrection (if needed) and entrance into the Kingdom (in heaven and/or on earth).

But would it? Are you just imagining what your God would do?

Being a member of a religion/denomination is not what makes a person Christian (which is why I mentioned what makes a person Christian), though that might be another topic. I think my first post on this thread adequately answered the question with regard to "Christian babies":

I will review what you wrote before...............

......most infants are probably not Christian themselves (at least not at this point in their lives). But if an infant is born to a(n actual) Christian parent, then that infant will also be saved (from Death) and receive eternal life in the Kingdom. That infant might not be a member of the Bride (or reign with Christ for a thousand years), but the infant would still receive the promise of eternal life. Remember, the faith of Abraham saved his entire household. Same with Noah. Same with Rahab. Same with the people in Israel (the entire house was covered, every person within that house protected when Death passed over the land).

Peace to you.

But how did you come to believe the above? Abraham's, Noah's and Rahab's families were saved by the Abrahamic God, and so Muslims, Jews, Christians , Babis and Bahais are all following that God.......... so why won't all those babies get to Heaven?

[Clownboat]

I can defend what I believe by quoting the scriptures. But I'm not responsible for what other Christians think.

Your choir may be impressed by your scriptures, but we are thinking adults here and no one claimed that you are responsible for what other Christians think.

The thread is entitled "Do Christian babies all gain entry to Heaven?"

Yes, yes it is.

I have given a detailed summary of the fate of deceased infants, with supporting scriptures.

You and many other Christians, and that is the point. What you didn't address once again was:
- "do you actually think you are the one that got it right and your other believers are wrong?"

And I escaped from what "many Christians believe" many years ago.

I was also set free from my Christian beliefs, but I don't see how this is relevant here.

And I don't remember making any claim of victory?

Well that's odd...
"I claimed that this verse states that every human who ever lived and died will be resurrected -- including deceased infants." = myth-one.com
Please notice the topic once again and then your claim and it should then be more clear.