Where do babies go when they die? Heaven?? Hell! ? NO! -Wrong on both counts -so says the Bible: (*)

* Theological Position Paper - Published: Friday, 22 January 2010 **
* Updated Tuesday, 20 September 2011 - This Position Paper has been overhauled; so, if you've read it before, you might want to re-read it again. Among other things, at 03:22 P.M., Tuesday, 03-22-2011, Jesus appeared to me in a dream, pointing out Scripture passages which are examples of both the prophet Jeremiah and also King David speaking metaphorically, not literally, so as to show that *other* passages written by David were NOT necessarily literal, but still true. NOTE: I thought I had added those passages, but, while they were in another paper on a related subject, they were missing from this paper, so, finding that the dream was both true AND Scriptural, I concluded that it really WAS a cameo appearance by Jesus, Himself in that dream! - The 'Big Guy' Himself approves of my research.

Summary: There are at least five (5) major positions on the end-fate of babies who die before the age of accountability (which includes both unborn babies killed via abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, or even Early Infant Death -AND ALSO persons born with mental disabilities who subsequently die --and by extension, this may possibly include: Peoples who have never heard of the Gospel of Christ -such as remote tribes of the world:

* Position 1: Babies who die before the age of accountability go to heaven. God's "grace" and "mercy" is the argument most commonly used -God would not send them to hell if they had not heard the Gospel and understood it.
* Position 2: Babies who die before the age of accountability go to hell (or are destroyed -or experience permanent 'Soul sleep': All the same difference). God's "holiness" and "justice" is the argument most commonly used -God could not send them to heaven if they were born into sin.
* Position 3: Babies who die before the age of accountability go to purgatory. This is a Catholic belief(#), and the argument most commonly used -God would have to be "fair" and not do 1 or 2 above -and allow these children to work out their sins.
* Position 4: Babies who die before the age of accountability go to heaven for the time being ("absent from the body" but "present with the Lord" -2nd Corinthians 5:8), but they eventually end up in the 1000-Year Millennium Reign of Christ Jesus (Rev. 20:4) --and are afforded an opportunity to hear the gospel. Since they never had an opportunity, this is not a "2nd chance": This is those children's *first* chance & opportunity to hear the Gospel of Christ Jesus -and to be raised with their family -from youth up to adulthood. It is this 4th position here that I take -and defend with exegetical support from the Bible -and using commonly accepted hermeneutic principles of scriptural interpretation.
* Position 5: Babies who die before the age of accountability "lived not again until the thousand years were finished." (Rev. 20:5), and would presumably get a chance to accept Christ at that time. I believe that Position 4 above is more likely, but this position has its supporters, and this option, while more 'abbreviated' would still not contradict either God's nature or known Scripture -and it discussed in more detail in APPENDIX-D below.

My reasons for writing this position paper -and taking position #4 above:

1- *Save Lives* Many mothers (and fathers) think they can 'send their children to heaven' by killing them. (This applies to both 'unborn' children parents might want to kill via abortion -and killing of 'born handicapped' kids. Yes, this happens! -- See e.g., "APPENDIX-A" news reports if you don't believe 'baby killing' is running rampant here!) While the kids will go to heaven "for the time being" ("absent from the body" but "present with the Lord" -2nd Corinthians 5:8), the parents CAN NOT force their eternal state in this fashion, and thus I write to show the fallacy of this so-called logic -and save some kids' lives in the process. In fact, the senior pastor preacher of a local mega-church, a well-respected local church leader, when I asked him about this, confirmed that parents can NOT twist God's arm and make The Maker do anything --it is God's choice, and, I add: Scripture says it depends ONLY on whether or not a person BELIEVES on Jesus --something a baby is incapable of doing. NOTE: When I asked another leader in this church what he thought of my Position Paper, while he was uncertain it was appropriate for Sunday School (since it is a controversial subject), he agreed with my premise that we should try to save lives by addressing parents who kill their children thinking they are 'sending them to heaven.' Ironically, my very conservative friend suggested that the parents who do this are under pressure, and chose a 'liberal' method of asking what pressures they were under to cause them to do this. While the 'liberal' method of lightening the load DOES have Scriptural support ("Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." -Galatians 6:2), nonetheless, THIS position paper relies on the 'conservative method of helping strengthen the person --instead of lightening the load ("Study to shew thyself approved unto God..." -2nd Timothy 2:15) --of teaching the person to fish -instead of GIVING them a fish. Both methods are Scriptural, but lightening the load *without* helping the person study Scripture will only get you so far --so LET's STUDY.

2- *Comfort Parents* Some parents have lost children -and wonder about their fate. Here are solid, Biblically scriptural answers -from the Word Of God.

3- *Interesting Subject* This is a genuinely interesting point of theology -and a good spiritual (and mental) exercise. YOU need the exercise -and will enjoy reading the 'back story.'

4- *Clear up CONFUSION on this subject* See the newly-added "Appendix F" which shows how many religions & prominent preachers (shepherds) contradict THEMSELVES, and so it's no wonder that the average citizen (sheep) are led astray & confused! – 1st Timothy 4:1: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;" It's not what it may seem - it's what the Word says: You have been warned...

(*) To clarify: When babies die, they probably *do* go to heaven --at least for the time *being* -a place analogous to the Abraham's Bosom mentioned in Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus. (Why, where else *would* dead babies go immediately after dying??) It is also possible -although less likely -that they enter into 'Soul Sleep.' When I ask 'Where do babies go when they die?' -and then say that they don't go to either Heaven *or* Hell, I am not talking about their destination and location *immediately* after dying; rather, I am talking about their eternal destiny -and there is a big difference here. Although I have had some people ask me where the babies go *immediately* after they die -and suspect it is some place in heaven -I honesty don't know -and this is a subject outside the scope of this paper -since it really is a moot point and does not make any difference regarding their 'eternal' destiny. Therefore, I shall stay on-topic and address only the 'eternal' destiny, not the 'proximal' one. In this paper, I am discussing the end-fate of both aborted babies and those who are killed as children -but before the age of accountability -and I suggest that they share the same fate. -- (#) Purgatory is a Roman Catholic Church doctrine, and the term comes from the Medieval Latin 'purgatorium,' and it means to cleanse or purge from sins. Purgatory is defined as a state or a place in which the souls of those who have died saved, i.e., in grace, must make amends or reparation for their sins -and thereby purge themselves from their sinful nature. Roman Catholics rely upon Revelation 21:27 to defend this doctrine, since Scripture states that nothing unclean shall enter Heaven -and that 'saved' people with character flaws must cleanse or purge themselves before entering heaven. This writer is Protestant and subscribes to the doctrine that those saved shall be changed (purged from sin) in a twinkling of an eye and raised incorruptible, as outlined in 1st Corinthians 15:52. This writer is aware of NO Scripture that clearly describes the existence of a place, such as Purgatory. However, as Scripture clearly says that we (saved people) are changed into the same image from glory to glory (2nd Corinthians 3:18), therefore, since we are not going to be static and stuck in a rut in Heaven, but always going "from glory to glory," even though there may not be a place specifically called 'Purgatory,' nonetheless, while here on earth (as well as possibly heaven), it might be possible that we continue to 'purge' ourselves of ignorance as we continue to learn and grow. Whether or not that is the case, however, is outside the scope of this paper, and I mention it solely to 'be fair' and offer "both sides" to the debate of the Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of Purgatory -to give depth and perspective to the issues here. - Permission is hereby granted to both link to, comment on, and even to and reproduce/copy this article unedited and in its entirety, as outlined here: Mirror 1 ; Mirror 2 ; Mirror 3

Before we get going here, I'd like to point out that on page 44 of the revised church constitution & bylaws for my church (First Baptist Church at the Mall, Lakeland, Fla., USA; dated: March 07, 2010), they claim that "There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord." Copyright © 1999-2009, Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv --Quoted under Fair Use: US CODE TITLE 17, Chapter 1. (And, I might add: All mainline Protestant and Catholic churches accept that faith is necessary for salvation.) The church is correct here Hebrews 11:6: Without faith it it IMPOSSIBLE to please God; these same denominations raise the bar even higher, adding that faith without works is dead: James 2:14-17, and that not everyone will get to heaven, but ONLY "he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven": Matthew 7:21 --and so, we see: Both faith, and the resultant works are ONLY done through free will and choice: Things a baby is incapable of doing -but I hasten to clarify that faith can happen ONLY after hearing the Word of God: Romans 10:17 –and then only by a choice of free will and volition -something a baby is incapable of doing:

Hebrews 11:6: “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” – The Greek word for 'faith,' “p?ste??” is 'pivstiß' (Strong's number 4102, transliterated: 'pistis' or 'pisteos'), and means, in this context, relating to God: “the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ.” – John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – The Greek word for 'believeth,' “p?ste???” is 'pisteuvw' (Strong's number 4100, transliterated: 'pisteuo' or 'pisteuon'), and means, in this context, relating to God: “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in, and, used in the New Testament of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith.”

A few well-meaning Christians claim that some BABIES who die before the age of accountability go to HELL -citing scriptures that speak of original sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12-18) –or election (Romans 9:11) –or the parents' sin (I Corinthians 7:14). (Children do NOT pay for their parent's sin: Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20; These Old Testament passages about God's fairness are supported by the New Testament's I Peter 1:17 and Colossians 3:25 -see below.) Many more well-meaning Christians (the vast majority, it seems) make the 'Politically Correct' claim that babies who die before the age of accountability go to HEAVEN, citing King David's claim that his dead son can't come to him (2nd Samuel 12:23: “But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me”), where David says that he **can** go to his dead son -implying he'll see his son in heaven -and uses this to 'prove' the claim that ALL dead babies that die before the age of accountability go to heaven. This is unbiblical and unscriptural: David was not literal here -as this would contradict other more literal scriptures. Likewise, Matthew 18:10, which says: “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven,” does not mandate that ALL “little ones” automatically go to heaven; it merely refers to “little ones” who, while alive on the earth here, just so *happen* to have angels who see God's face in heaven.

Some cite Mark 10:14 (“But when Jesus saw [it], He was indignant and pained and said to them, Allow the children to come to Me--do not forbid or prevent or hinder them--for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Amplified Version) –however, Jesus says “to SUCH,” not “to EVERY SINGLE ONE of them.” -LOL- Jesus COULD have said to “every single one” of them -but did not -obviously with good reason. -Read the passage already! Some even cite Jeremiah 1:5, which states that: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” Fine, but where does that say the person is saved -or lost?

Some even cite Deuteronomy 1:39, which says: "Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey [e.g., kidnapped for plunder], and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither [i.e., to the promised land], and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." -- HOWEVER, this does NOT refer to children going to Heaven; rather, a literal translation is proper here: This refers to children going in to the promised land after 10 of the 12 spies brought back a bad report and caused Israel to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. Do NOT read more into the Word than what is plainly written!! That is adding to or taking away from the Word, LOL -and this is strictly forbidden by Rev. 22:19, not just for the book of Revelation but for ALL the word of God.

To begin with, God is just and fair: "...the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work..." I Peter 1:17, KJV: ~ "...there is no respect of persons." Colossians 3:25, KJV (Note: "without respect of persons" does not mean that God is disrespectful; rather, it means that He is impartial, unbiased, FAIR, hello!? See e.g., either the NASB, Amplified, or, more preferably, the Original Greek to verify.) Since God is fair, He would not allow only some (but not all) people the benefits of heaven without having first made a choice -thus denying them free will -and make them into "robots" without free will. Babies getting into heaven without accepting Jesus?? I say 'NO!' -and this is supported, scripturally, by John 14:6, in which Jesus says: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Secondly, this is scripturally inconsistent: Even the angels (who were not born into sin like the aborted babies of the human race) -even these 'more pure' Holy Angels of GOD had free will -and yet about one-third of them fell, remember?

Now, I don't believe in “purgatory,” a Catholic belief, although there are, according to scriptures below, 'places of holding' -for example: The dry bones of those (humans) who (obviously) slept before they were awakened in the Valley of Bones (Ezekiel 37:4) -and, as is commonly known, the pit for those (Lucifer: Revelation 20:3 & demons: 2nd Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6 ) who are held in abeyance for now -etc. In any event, while it would be unjust of God to send some to heaven without giving them a chance to either accept or reject Jesus, it is also **very dangerous** theology. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it *is* true that aborted babies and children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven and STAY there -as in 'eternal' salvation...

Since we have children that live in the Millennium ("6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb...and a little child shall lead them. 8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." ISAIAH 11:6b,8, KJV) -and die -at a very old age (“And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.” ISAIAH 65:20b, NASB) in the 1,000 Millennium Reign –and people who EVEN STILL are rebelling! (“And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.” Revelation 20:9, NASB) -doesn't it make more sense that the Bible is referring to **these** children? They will, according to scripture, either accept or reject Christ -and Free Will is not denied them. Passages about the 1,000 Year Millennium include Revelation 20:1-15, Isaiah 11:4-12; Jeremiah 3:17; Zechariah 14:9; and Isaiah 65:17-25. Another thing to consider: Where WILL God get these many children to populate the Millennium? “Things that make you go 'hmm...'.” --Obviously, choosing **these** children is the only scripturally-permitted alternative. As Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying: “Eliminate all other [untrue] factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.” -- Oops! I made a 'leap in logic' - Did anyone catch it? I accidentally said that 'choosing **these** children is the only scripturally-permitted alternative,' but that was (a mistake) incorrect. There are at least THREE (3) groups of children that will probably populate the Millennium era: (#1) Those who 'walk into' the period because they were alive when the 7-Year Tribulation ended; (#2) Those who are born *during* the 1,000-Year Millennium period; and (#3) Those who were either aborted or killed as children before the age of accountability. All the same, I still have a strong Biblically-solid, scriptural case for my claims here. (Sorry for the leap in logic -I'm just human; I shall be honest and let my mistake stand for all to see.) Continuing...

These many Christians -on both sides of the issue (both the heaven AND hell supporters) are well-meaning (and 'Politically Correct') BUT WRONG -and have no scriptural support for this fairy-land approach that would deny God's justice or peoples' free will -not to mention (wrongly) encourage mothers to kill their children.

* (Part 1 of 5 of UPDATE)

A pastor who I greatly respect (not only for his brilliance but also for his integrity --and courage to regularly tackle “controversial” subjects from which many a pastor would veer away) just recently preached on the subject of Hell, and in his sermon-series he addressed this same question here; however, he came down on the other side of the argument. --LOL-- CORRECTION: I just now discovered that I made a mistake in how I characterized this preacher's sermon; although I did not name him, nonetheless, it was still wrong of me to make this mistake, so I shall now make a correction. When I listened to his sermon again, I discovered that he said that babies who die before the age of accountability go to heaven -and that I disagreed with him. HE IS PROBABLY CORRECT: They probably do go to heaven -for the time being (see above discussion). He did not specify whether they would go to heaven 'for good' and have 'eternal' salvation in heaven without having to accept Christ -or rather, that they would just go to heaven for the time being -while awaiting a chance to exercise free will. While he may have meant the former (-and not the latter -and it sure sounded like that to me), he did not explicitly state what he meant, and so I was wrong to say that his view was incorrect here. I APOLOGIZE to him and anyone I've offended -for I made an honest mistake in inference here. (Honestly, he could have -and probably should have -been more clear, but I shall not poke fun at him, for I too make mistakes --OK, with that said, here are my comments about his sermon.)

Since he *is* quite brilliant, I would be well-advised to address each and every scripture he used -hey, I might be wrong, so I'd better compare notes with him. (In addition, it would, I think, be disrespectful of me to fail to address his counter-points -in light of his known track-record of integrity: So, I too shall tackle this controversial subject.) You can maybe guess who he is, if you like, but, out of respect, I think I'll keep him anonymous, OK? (It's about God, not people, anyway, right?)

Without further ado, here are the five (5) passages he cited, without comment, after his presentation in support of his position (that all children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven upon death) -followed by my remarks and analysis:

(1) - II Samuel 12:22-23

(2) - Matthew 18:3

(3) - Matthew 19:14

(4) - Mark 9:37

(5) - Mark 10:14-15

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

ANALYSIS: He goes on to cite both verses (22 and 23) -to show the context -for ease of reading. I already covered verse 23 above, and I have nothing new to add, but I will clarify on my claims that David was **not** speaking literally. Here are other examples to show that I'm not just 'blowing smoke' here in my claims of “non-literal” translation: “Let the sea roar...Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful…” (Psalm 98:7-8, KJV) So, does the sea really “roar?” ~ Do floods have hands to clap? ~ Can hills express emotions? NO! This is metaphorical speaking -poetry, if you will, not literal. Likewise with the following: “3 The sea saw it, and fled: Jordan was driven back. 4 The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.” (Psalm 114:3-4, KJV) Cf: Job 38:7, KJV, which states: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Can the sea really see it and flee? Do mountains skip and dance around? Can the stars really sing? Scientists might describe a star as “singing” when it transmits light, like a singer transmits sound -and we can sometimes describe hills as “skipping” is under the influence of a major earthquake, but this is metaphorical poetry, nothing more. Same with David's claims here about his son -HE can not decide whether this son is saved (thus in heaven) or not: Only GOD ALMIGHTY can make this call! (David was apparently grieved when he made these allegorical non-literal statements -but we must compare Scripture with Scripture -and not take Scripture out of context like some do.)

Further ANALYSIS: After I initially published this paper -and made a few revisions hither and yon, I thought I was done with it. But, as of today, Tuesday, 22 March 2011, the unexpected happened: JESUS, Himself, appeared to me in a dream, suggesting I add a few more passages, so after I discovered that I had indeed overlooked them, I concluded that the dream made sense. -- Also, seeing as I had gotten in bed last night at 03:22am and gotten up at 03:22pm on 03-22-2011, that might indicate Jesus was "trying to tell me something," and this accords with Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17, in which God promises to send me dreams and visions, and as Saul of Tarsus (Paul the Apostle) said in Acts 26:19, I would not want to be disobedient to the Heavenly dream(s) and/or vision(s). So, here goes: HERE's what Jesus suggested I add to this section...

As we see above, I already addressed the possibility that King David was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Alright, but here is what Jesus suggest I add to verify my claim that 2 Samuel 12:22-23 might not be literal: what about the strong claims of DAVID and JEREMIAH, accusing God of very evil?!

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

ANALYSIS: Here, Jesus is saying “AS little children,” a GENERAL statement about how children have innocent faith not tainted by “knowledge” of adulthood. He did NOT say anything about the exact nature of ALL little children. In hermeneutics, the interpretation of Scripture, there is a principle of specifics verses generality. Let me show you a few examples: In Proverbs 3:1-2 (KJV), the Scripture commands: “1My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:,” and promises, in return: “2For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.” NOW, does this mean that EVERY person will have a “long life” if they are righteous? NO!! This is a general principle, not a specific and all-encompassing promise! The same thing goes for Ephesians 6:1-3 (KJV), which, quoting Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16 of the 10 Commandments, makes a similar claim. Let's look at that passage: “1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” Now, do ALL children who honour their parents “live long” on the earth?? NO!! (Many die of childhood diseases, tragic accidents, and the like.) ~~ LIKEWISE, Jesus was saying that, in GENERAL, kids have a greater innocent and virgin faith -not EVERY SINGLE ONE of them.

“14But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."”

ANALYSIS: Mark 10:14, a parallel passage, was addressed above by me here: I have nothing to add. NOTE: Matthew 18:3; Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:14; and, Luke 18:16 all say about the same thing --and the analysis given above for Matthew 18:3 addresses those who say that babies who die before the age of accountability automatically inherit the "kingdom of God." Notice again, if you would: Jesus says “to SUCH,” not “to EVERY SINGLE ONE of them.” - DON'T read into the passage something more than what it says.! -LOL-

“37"Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me."” Mark 9:37 (Holy Bible, NASB)

“37Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” Mark 9:37 (Holy Bible, KJV)

ANALYSIS: Jesus is nowhere making any statements or claims about the righteousness of the children in question here; He is **merely** making a statement of standard of treatment -namely, that the children are under His protection. To see what I mean, consider the parallel passages in Isaiah 58:6-7 and Matthew 25:31-46 (you look them up this time) that say a true follower of God SHOULD take in the homeless wandering stranger -as well as feed and clothe them is needed. With me so far? Well, NOWHERE do these passages make any claims guaranteeing that such people are going to heaven -much less righteous: Remember, there are WHEAT, but there ARE ALSO TARES: Matthew 25:24-30. Remember? Some of those who **appear** righteous AREN'T! Thus, it is erroneous and flat wrong to make this claim about children. In fact, NONE are righteous, NO NOT ONE: ISAIAH: 41:26; ISAIAH 57:1; ROMANS 3:10. (And, yes! That includes these kids here, lest we break out the dictionary and look up the word “none,” he heh.) Bottom Line: Don't read anything into the passage that it doesn't say.

“14But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

15"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."”

ANALYSIS: YOU WILL SEE that, in my position paper, here, I DO address Mark 10:14, SO there's no need to cover it again; HOWEVER, in my initial paper, I did NOT cover verse 15. NONETHELESS, in point (2) right above, I DID address, Matthew 18:3, a 'parallel passage,' which basically says the same thing: “...Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” THEREFORE, there is no need to cover it again.

Here is what I did not clarify in my initial draft above: The very underlying concept under review.

Now, some early feedback to my Position Paper, here, have hinted that what I am suggesting here is like purgatory -that is, that the person gets a second (2nd) chance. That is not what I'm saying.

Think of it this way: You are in high school or college, and you have a major test scheduled, but a tornado, flood, or hurricane intervenes. So, what does the school do?

Do they say you 'Passed' the test and award you with an 'A'? (That is the analogy to 'heaven.') - Rather, do they say you 'Failed / Flunked' the test and award you with an 'F'? (That is the analogy to 'hell.') NO!! ~~ They do NEITHER!!

Rather, they reset and reschedule the date of the test ... right?

Now, if you should FAIL and FLUNK the test, would you get another chance to 'redo' or 'retake' it? (If you did, that would be analogous to the Catholic belief in 'purgatory,' the place of 2nd chances.) --In this position paper, I am not suggesting a person gets a '2nd chance' -which would be a clear conflict with this passage:

Hebrews 9:27, Holy Bible, KJV: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

Notice, it said "men," not "children": BIG DIFFERENCE. (However, even IF this can include children -and it very well may -that does not mandate that they go TO HEAVEN; rather, it only mandates "the judgment." DON'T GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN!!) But, you may ask, what about women? Well, the Greek word for 'men' used here is "anthropois" (Strong's Number: 444), from which we get "misanthropic" (people hater). The definition of "anthropois," is a human being, whether male or female. HOWEVER, let me emphasis: "The Judgment" is reserved for GOD ALMIGHTY, NOT YOU!!

Therefore, if God sees fit to give the dead child a chance to accept or reject Jesus, this is not only HIS prerogative, but (and more importantly) it is something that comports, concurs, and agrees with other scripture on that subject -such as John 14:6, in which Jesus says: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Another good way to explain this would be to remember the old saying that "All Dogs Go To Heaven." While this may be true (a subject not within the scope of this paper), we remember that CHILDREN are not DOGS or CATS. (Grr... - rrrufff .. meoww, anyone?).

To say that a child automatically goes to heaven is to deprive him/her of his/her freewill -and equate his intellect with that of an animal. --NOT.

However compelling this analogy is, most importantly, it is supported by scripture -meaning you have the analogy (to understand my point) and the scripture (to verify and prove its correctness).

Editor's Note: I made the 1st couple updates, above, on Sat 23 Jan 2010; however, as of today, Wed 27 Jan 2010, I am fixing a few omissions:

As inevitably happens, I forgot a key passage (Isaiah 11:4-12) -which I am adding now, above. Also, I neglected to point out that preachers are being 'Politically Correct' when they say babies go to heaven upon death -this is important because scriptural soundness is more important than "Political Correctness." --LOL-- I am making these final corrections in various shades of bold-faced dark red above to indicate what exactly was added just now.

* (Part 4 of 5 of UPDATE)

Today, Saturday, 10 April 2010, I added a whole bunch of stuff that I initially overlooked -including an apology to the anonymous preacher -and some passages from Amos and James to show that it's NOT in the character of God to tempt a woman with the false heresy that is going around. Plus, I'm adding links to outside resources and making a 'Top 10' list of reasons why this theory is Biblically supported and the opposing theory is faulty. Therefore, it might behoove you to simply read through this missive 'from the top' -even if you've read it before.

* (Part 5 of 5 of UPDATE)

Today, Monday, 19 April 2010, I added a cite to a Southern Baptist church's bylaws (to help those church members understand this issue), added a few supporting scriptures to the 10 Commandments, and added one more item to the 'Top-10' list. ***The page has been totally re-worked, so if you've read it, you might want to refresh yourself again.

End of: 'VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE'

(-1-) “Mother who killed brain-damaged son with heroin injection told Old Bailey she was 'releasing' him”
* Helen Pidd guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010 14.48 GMT
"I can remember saying I felt I would rather he go to heaven than to hell on earth.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/20/frances-inglis-tom-inglis-heroin

(-2-) Mansfield father accused of killing daughter, 6
* July 24, 2009 06:51 PM, By Eric Moskowitz, Globe Staff
“Police charged a 35-year-old Mansfield man with murdering his 6-year-old daughter after being alerted to the crime by a note in which he allegedly asked forgiveness for sending her "to heaven."”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mansfield_fathe.html

(-3-) Mother says no deal made to kill baby
* By BOB GIBBINS, January 31, 2008
TAHLEQUAH DAILY PRESS — “Hurta testified she never told anyone she and Guthrie had decided to "send the baby to heaven."”
http://tahlequahdailypress.com/local/x519338834/Mother-says-no-deal-made-to-kill-baby

(-4-) Dad Tells How He Killed His Daughter, 7:02pm UK, Tuesday October 31, 2006
* 'A father has told a court how he had a "Romeo and Juliet" moment with his three-year-old child before he drugged and suffocated her.Gavin Hall sat and cuddled his daughter Amelia in the early hours of November 29 last year while his wife and younger daughter slept upstairs..."At the time it must have been clear," he said. "We talked about heaven and we talked about no more crying, no more sadness.'
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641239289

(-5-) Darkfall Forums > Non-Darkfall Related > Off-Topic Discussions
* “Mother kills Son to send him to Heaven,” 04-10-2009, 07:15 AM
entrailsgalore, Normal User, Join Date: Dec 2008 “If that is a guarantee to get your child into heaven (assuming that is how it works) then why not? Sacrificing your afterlife to insure your child's is set in stone.”
http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=3214553

(-6-) Casey Anthony Diary – 03-25-2009 (All The Latest News: Latest updates on news that matters)
* 'A secret diary kept by Casey Anthony includes a confession that she killed her daughter Caylee Anthony...“Casey snapped,” a source told reporters. “In her sick mind, she became convinced that Caylee would be better off dead, in heaven, than in the hands of her mother.”'
http://a11news.com/1610/casey-anthony-diary

(-7-) “World exclusive: John Hogan breaks silence about night he killed his son and nearly ended life of young daughter after row with wife,” 13/09/2008, Mirror.co.uk
* “It was a moment of unbelievable madness – a father throws his son from a fourth-floor balcony at their holiday hotel in Crete, then grabs his daughter in his arms and jumps...Hogan recalls that as the truth of his actions sunk in he spent six months in a suicidal state, in the belief that he would be reunited with Liam in heaven.”
http://mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/09/13/world-exclusive-john-hogan-breaks-silence-about-night-he-killed-his-son-and-nearly-ended-life-of-young-daughter-after-row-with-wife-115875-20735576

APPENDIX-B (Other links of interest)
* Probe Ministries article: "Do Babies Go to Hell?" (Prof. James Williams, author) (Outside link * Cached copy: MHT-file * Cached copy: HTML-file)
* Probe Ministries article: Copyright Notice (Outside link * Cached copy: MHT-file * Cached copy: HTML-file)
* Notes from Dr. Gary Williams' classes:
1) Various views on 'Salvation of Infants' (Not from the 'Intro to Prophecy' class I had, but from another class he taught)
2) 'Intro to Prophecy' cover page from my class notes
3) Table of Contents of that class
4) Different groups of tribulation saints (I am not sure, but it seems to describe children currently living -and also those born either during the tribulation or during the millennium; while it doesn't discuss the fate of children who die before the tribulation or the millennium, it makes a good 'circumstantial evidence' case for the aborted babies to share the same fate as the other two groups mentioned here.)

APPENDIX-C ((Support from the greatest preacher/prophet who ever lived))

When I initially wrote this paper on Fri. Jan. 22, 2010 & last updated it on Mon. Apr. 19, 2010, I had probably not seen this sermon preached by my favourite pastor -and, even if I had, I had not fully considered it. – However, seeing a lot of visits to this web page has made me reconsider updating it to add Rev. Roland H. Buck's take on this issue. – Now, before I quote Buck on this, if you are not familiar with this preacher, and are not sure if you trust him, please check out my book review –and other links –below to verify that this preacher was the “real thing.” – Immediately below is Buck's take on the fate of babies who die before the age of accountability; however, I would like to comment on it first: While Buck seems correct in what he is saying, he only addresses the intermediate fate of the children –agreeing with me that God's character and Word suggest He will probably see fit in His sovereign will to allow them to grow up to adulthood. Rev. Buck DOES NOT address the end fate issue, as do I, so we don't disagree on that point. While Buck agrees with me that the kids will probably get a chance to grow up, he does not elaborate as I do: I suggest the 1,000-year Millennium Reign of Christ and King Jesus is a likely candidate on the timeline for this event. – – – Without any further ado, here is Buck's take on this issue:

http://GordonWayneWatts.com/RolandBuck.pdf or: http://GordonWatts.com/RolandBuck.pdf
In Word format too: http://GordonWayneWatts.com/MasterCopyofLifeTeachingsofRolandBuck.doc or: http://GordonWatts.com/MasterCopyofLifeTeachingsofRolandBuck.doc

For a discussion of why I believe Rev. Buck was trustworthy to tell the truth on these matters, please see my defense of his theology: http://GordonWayneWatts.com/angels-Watts.html or: http://GordonWatts.com/angels-Watts.html
For a shorter, more easy-to-read narrative of Buck's reliability -and incredible prophetic gift -see e.g., my book review of his only book –below:

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

Source: http://www.Amazon.com/Angels-Assignment-BUCK-ROLAND/dp/088368697X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1299320973&sr=8-1

31 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Compassionate, Biblically accurate, and very fascinating!, September 30, 2004

By Gordon W. Watts "Flash Gordon" (Lakeland, FL USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)

Consider two prophetic predictions made by the author:

Rev. R.H. Buck (of the famous Buck knife family) passed away on November 06, 1979, long ago and had no way of knowing if his predictions would come true.

First, on page 93, Buck claims the Holy Spirit told him: "...I have already given wings to my messages brought to you by the angel of the Lord."

Then, on page 70, Buck claims "God told me the pope has no more influence with him than the least of his saints, and has no greater privileges, but because his influence with man is great, his choice is God's concern. Therefore, in order to help in the restoration of his fragmented body, God had chosen a man named Karol Wojtyla of Poland. This prophecy was fulfilled October 16, 1978, when he began his reign as Pope John Paul II."

Now, there's no way of proving God told Buck about the Pope before his selection. However, Buck, who died in 1979, had no way of knowing whether or not John Paul would even *live* after being selected, let alone be so influential -for over almost 30 years! -until John Paul's death on April 02, 2005, just two days after the passing of Terri Schiavo. Even quite a few Protestants, Jews, and Muslims think highly of John Paul, so it is safe to say Buck's prophecy came true.

Also, while there are many other angel books, it's safe to say that his other prediction has come true: Angels on Assignment is one of the classic books, and is circulated world-wide. Both prophecies came true.

I first read this book when I was much younger, and, as I recall, I couldn't put in down until I was finished. Clearly, this is a subject that fascinates most people! (Here, we find the account of an old country preacher, who didn't really want to cause any controversy or undo the years of hard work he had building up his ministry, suddenly telling of speaking with the Archangels, Michael and Gabriel, and other angels, not mentioned in scripture but who he claims visited him: Chrioni, apparently a warring angel who is Gabriel's bodyguard, and an angel of worship named Cyprion.)

What impressed me most initially was the fact that the preacher was an old man with health conditions and knew he probably had only a few more years, thus I don't feel he had a motive to profit by lying. In fact, as I recall, he did not even try to write a book. Charles and Frances Hunter came to HIM and offered to write a book. Later, I was able to reflect on what he had claimed the angels told him, and I was glad my background in the Bible was strong.

(Also impressive is the fact that his accounts of the many private things he told about people, things revealed to him by angels, has NEVER been refuted in the press, and I've followed this case for years: I think it's true!)

First, he never says that we should try to seek contact with angels, and this seems correct to me, because the Bible forbids us to practice witchcraft or divination or communication with the spirit world.

One very important point that I must make is that the pastor does not preach down to people; he is very compassionate and shows love towards all, whether they deserve it or not, but he does not ever compromise Holy Standards and say that anything goes and just anything is OK.

Also importantly, he underscores that the Angels tell us that we should not seek Angels because Jesus is far greater than any angel!

A later book by his daughter included contributions from the whole family and others to show that this man was a sincere person who loved people and was not irresponsible or given to fads.

One thing that is real unusual is that after about twenty-five long years of being in print, I felt God calling me to buy his book in case it went out of print or otherwise became unavailable (the book I had was my mom's, not mine). When I eventually got around to looking for it online, I discovered that at almost the exact time that I felt the urge to buy it, the book (and a sequel by his daughter) became available for free online. What coincidence that just when I would try to find it online, it be newly put up after a quarter century! (I downloaded a free copy anyhow, but purchased the a hard copy because it was cheaper than printing out the one I had downloaded.)

You can look at any claim that Pastor Buck makes and line it up with the word of God, and it does not contradict the Holy Bible! For example, when he says that the angels told him a major implication of God being omnipresent: The Holy Spirit (Also God) constantly monitors the whole world and knows if one sparrow drops dead to the ground, and additionally can send instructions in real time to angels to address any problem that may exist. This not only gives new meaning to God is "all present, all powerful, all knowing, etc.," but also does not contradict scripture.

He says that he is not trying to make you believe him, merely telling what he saw as he was asked to do by God, and he says that he hopes that the reader draws closer to God as a result of his testimony of what he experiences.

Lastly, "Don't forget to show hospitality to strangers, for some who have done this have entertained angels without realizing it!" Hebrews 13:2 New Living Translation; see also: Genesis 18:1-3 about Abraham and Genesis 19:1-3 about Lot. (They met undercover angels!)

This book is a very inspiring -and very trustworthy book. That is probably one reason it was a top seller and remains very popular to this day. I highly recommend it.

Gordon Wayne Watts; Lakeland, Florida USA

Source: http://www.BibleStudy.org/basicart/do-babies-go-right-to-heaven-when-they-die.html

What is the spiritual condition of the unborn, infants, and young children? Some believe that because the unborn have never sinned they will be granted salvation and that infants and very young children who die are granted salvation, because they could not possibly understand what sin is. Others suggest that before a certain age, children are not held accountable for sin. The major problem with these beliefs and assumptions is that no one can find scriptural conformation to support them.

Some point to Matthew 18:3-6 and Mark 10:13-16, which say that one must become as a little child to enter the Kingdom of God. Therefore, infants and young children are granted salvation by virtue of their youth. Notice what Jesus really said:

"And he said, Truly I say to you, Unless you convert, and become as the little children, in no way can you enter into the Kingdom of God. Therefore, whosoever will humble himself as this little child, this one is the greater in the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 18:3-4, Paraphrased).

Jesus did not say that little children will enter the Kingdom of God nor did he imply they are granted salvation. In this example, Jesus noted two things that are necessary in order to enter the Kingdom of God. First, a person must be converted. Second, a person must become child-like in humility. It is very clear that Jesus was merely using young children as an example of the attitudes and attributes a person should have if they expect to enter the Kingdom of God.

The Age of Accountability

The age a person must be before they are spiritually accountable is impossible for humans to establish with certainty, because this is God the Father's decision and it is predicated on belief, understanding, and repentance. All three of these are mental conditions and are prerequisites to conversion and baptism. All three are dependent on each other. For a person to have belief, there must be some understanding of what is to be believed.

"Now that after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent you, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15 Paraphrased).

To repent, a person must have an understanding of what to repent (literally, re-think) and what the gospel (good news) of the Kingdom is. Notice Acts 16:31-33 and Acts 8:27-38. In both scriptures the people spoken of understood the circumstances surrounding Jesus and what he preached. Therefore, they were able to make their decisions based on the facts presented.

A major prerequisite for baptism is repentance:

"Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the holy spirit" (Acts 2:38 KJV).

But, repent of what? Be sorry for what? Desire to change what? In order to repent, a person must first understand something about the plan of God.

It is quite evident that a person cannot have the kind of belief, understanding, and repentance necessary for baptism unless he or she is old enough to have developed the mental capacity to make intelligent decisions based on the information presented. It is also evident that infants and young children have not developed the life experience and emotional stability to make and stand behind decisions of the magnitude that must be made before and after baptism. All of the scriptural examples show only adults (including young adults) being baptized. There are no examples of infants or young children being converted.

The setting of a minimum age requirement for conversion is an impossibility because of the differences in the speed with which each individual grows into mental and emotional maturity. The ability to make decisions concerning conversion depends entirely on a person's maturity level, understanding of the gospel, and desire to follow God's way of life. (See Luke 3:8)

Common sense dictates that the unborn, the infant, and young children have not had the time or the life experience necessary to understand the requirements of salvation. They are certainly not able to understand the awesome implications or responsibilities of making a covenant with God. Therefore, the spiritual condition of the unborn, the infant, and young children is the same as any unconverted person who has never had the opportunity for salvation.

God will only grant immortality and eternal life after a person goes through the process of conversion. The unborn, the infant, and young children who die before the return of Christ will be resurrected in the resurrection of "The Rest of the Dead". Those who remain alive at his coming will live into the first thousand years of Christ's reign and have their opportunity for salvation at that time.

Written by:  B. L. Cocherell

---

I'd like to make some brief comments about Bro. Buddy L. Cocherell's article above. As uncommon a position as this is, Bro. Buddy is not the only person to espouse this view. In the article, "When babies die do they IMMEDIATELY go to heaven?", a similar argument is made by Eric V. Snow. Bro. Eric Snow writes the following:

"The Bible teaches that unsaved people who die are NOT immediately put into an eternal hell fire. Instead, they simply aren't judged until the resurrection occurs. This would be true for babies as well as for adults who were uncalled in this lifetime. It may seem hard to believe that people could be saved after they die. But notice this very interesting passage in Ezekiel 37, the vision of the valley of dry bones. Notice that the house of Israel in the Old Testament was mostly not saved then...Babies are not automatically saved because they cannot understand nor choose to have saving faith...Does the baby of an unsaved person (like an ignorant Chinese peasant) AUTOMATICALLY receive salvation until that child reaches a particular age? If this were true, then wouldn't it be BETTER for the child to die very young rather than grow up pagan (not believing in the true God)?

All those (including babies) who were never given a FULL chance to knowingly understand the truth of the Bible and repent WILL be given a chance to receive salvation after they are resurrected at the end of the millennium (see Revelation 20:5)."

So, both Bro. Eric Snow, and (in his last paragraph, above), Bro. Buddy Cocherell are making obvious reference to Rev. 20:4-6. Let's take a brief look at that passage:

Revelation 20:4-6 (HOLY BIBLE, King James Version)
4 - And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 - But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 - Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

OK, from the passage, it would appear that there are at least 2 resurrections in question here, and it would appear that Buddy is saying that these babies would not be raised to life to live during the Millennium, but rather be a part of the "rest of the dead [who] lived not again until the thousand years were finished." While I agree that it is theoretically possible for the babies to be given an opportunity to accept Christ -and to live a life -at some different time-period other than the 1000-year Millennium -and still not be contrary to the mercy and justice of God, I personally feel that the 1000-Year Millennium Reign of Christ Jesus is the most likely candidate for this event. This feeling is in part due to the fact that the Millennium is the most convenient manner to afford these children an opportunity to hear the Gospel (they would be around other people -and possibly family members: You know, a 'normal' life!) --and in part due to the compelling arguments made by Rev. Roland Buck above. Plus, really: How would it be contrary to either God's justice or His mercy to allow these children to live during the Millennium? Also: How would it be contrary to the WORD of God? These children would not be getting a "2nd chance," since this would be their *first* opportunity to hear the Gospel and accept Christ.

My thoughts? I've always thought that the Rev. 20:5 'Rest of the Dead' resurrection here was solely for the lost -right before their 'White Throne' judgment, which could not include the babies who never rejected Christ before dying prematurely; however, it is theoretically possible that these babies would be resurrected -and have an opportunity to either accept Christ -or reject Christ by siding with Satan, when he raises a rebellion in Rev. 20:7-9. I think that I've heard in theology classes that this would be about a 60-90 day time-period -not as long as the 1,000-year Millennium, but still long enough to satisfy both God's mercy (to not just send the kids to hell) and God's justice (to not send them to heaven without an faith in Christ) --and would not seem to contradict Scripture.

So, while I think 'Position 4' above (Rev. 20:4 - Millennium) is more likely -and more logical, I can not rule out or preclude the Rev. 20:5 'Rest of the Dead' Position 5 here.

Just thought I'd address Buddy's point here before moving on. --Editor, Gordon W. Watts

---

This just in: I have been reviewing some books that Bro. Buddy Cocherell has sent me, and in one of them ("The Resurrections, A Day of Salvation, Predestination, Immortality, The Dead, Heaven, Hell," ISBN: 0-7392-0264-2; Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 99-93291, by: B.L. Cocherell, Copyright©, 1999, 2nd printing 2005 rev.1, Morris Publishing), on page 75, Buddy reminds us of Jesus' comparison in Matthew 11:20-24, in which he said that it would be better for Sodom (pagans, sexual deviants, unloving) on Judgment Day than for Capernaum, a contemporary city who had seen Jesus' works and rejected Him & would NOT repent of their wickedness. So, why is this relevant to the end fate of babies who die before the age of accountability?

ANSWER: As Buddy says on p.75, "Logically, the only way these pagans [in Tyre & Sidon] and sexual deviants [in Sodom] could do better in a judgment [than Chorazin & Capernaum, cities contemporary with Jesus] is if they [Sodom, et al.] had repented of their wickedness. [But!... since] We know [that] the people of Sodom were destroyed in their wickedness; therefore, it is obvious that Jesus referred to a time in the future in which these wicked people [Sodom, et al.] will be given an opportunity to repent." [Gordon's comment: Without this postmortem chance to repent, there would be no WAY that Sodom & crew could be better off then these wicked cities contemporary with Jesus; so, for Jesus' words to be true regarding Sodom's 'better off' status, this postmortem chance for them to be able to repent is a 'Sine Quo Non' required event that MUST happen!]

Therefore, this *proves* that a person *can* still get saved AFTER they died, IF they died without having Christ preached to them, using Sodom as an example, and if it is true of Sodom, then (since we know that God is fair, impartial, & unbiased to all) it can likewise be true of the babies, who also did not get a chance to hear the gospel of Christ preached to them while they lived. So, let's look at that passage to verify Bro. Buddy's strong claims here:

Matthew 11:20-25, Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), in the Public Domain; Cf: Luke 10:12-15
20 - Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
21 - Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 - But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
23 - And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
24 - But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
25 - At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Buddy concludes his argument by addressing people who think that a postmortem chance to hear the Gospel & get saved would be a 'Second Chance.' WRONG. Neither those in Sodom, nor the babies who died very young ever got a 'First Chance' to hear the gospel & be saved, so this time in the future would be their first (and only) chance --just like those people to whom Jesus was speaking in Matt.11 who had their first (and only) opportunity to hear the gospel & get saved: They didn't repent, & their fate is sealed! No 2nd chance for *them* LOL.

---

APPENDIX-E ((Selected feedback on a blog I found online -very enlightening)) Source: http://ContendEarnestly.blogspot.com/2008/04/where-do-babies-go-when-they-die.html Friday, April 04, 2008 Where Do Babies Go When They Die? (What follows is a copy and paste of selected feedback on a blog I found online -very enlightening, I must say! – Seth BcBee is the blog owner, and the others are people who commented on his entry, asserting that babies who die before the age of accountability automatically go to heaven. Dominic and his wife, Sarah 'smokering' Tennant, make particularly good points, in my opinion.) The following material is believed to be covered by “Fair Use,” as described in the legal section of my own blog: http://GordonWatts.com/legal.html – http://GordonWayneWatts.com/legal.html – http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/legal.html – editor, Gordon Wayne Watts of http://GordonWatts.com and http://GordonWayneWatts.com Seth McBee said... smokering: I hesitate to even engage with someone who is anonymous on issues like these. I really don't think that you read my posts. I think this is a little of the "pot calling the kettle black". I specifically said that I don't have much patience for those who believe that all babies go to hell, which is not point number 3. You also say that since I desire babies to go to heaven, which is true , then I derive my theology through that lense. Did you not read why I believed this? Or did you come on wanting to cause strife and not read the post? It would seem from your comments that you aren't in for a discussion but you are here to throw out disdain for those who don't believe as you do. Dom: Thank you for showing others how to engage in a discussion about biblical topics. I would still believe that there was some hope from David of the eternality of his son. The reason is because his remorse is completely gone from him. If his baby was just going to be meeting him in Sheol (which you and I would not see this as the same thing as I see Sheol as hell or a place of destruction) and not for an eternity in heaven then why the peace? Also, those going to hell and those in Abraham's bosom would be in different places with a chasm too large to cross as we find in Luke 16. William: Thanks for stopping by and I hope that the piece is of comfort to you and the boy's family who passed away. 4/09/2008 08:48:00 AM Robert said... Seth, If you don't mind me saying so.... Comfort comes from knowing that no matter what the eternal fate of loved ones, Heaven or Hell, that God is just, merciful, and true, and will always do the correct thing. I say that having a father than died unsaved, a twin brother that died at birth, and my family currently is either unsaved or in cults. The only peace and comfort I CAN have is knowing whatever God does with them, He's perfectly correct in doing so. 4/09/2008 09:44:00 AM Seth McBee said... Robert. I completely agree with you. This is why those who trust God for the answers on this, based on Scripture, will always find my respect. 4/09/2008 09:47:00 AM Smokering said... Seth: Yes, point 2, not point 3. Sorry. My real name is Sarah Tennant, although I'm actually a lot less anonymous posting as Smokering online (Googling-wise, that is). How is my anonymity relevant to the validity of my argument? If I misunderstood your intentions I apologise; however, if your aim is truly to take an unbiased look at Scripture's position on babies and salvation, why even bring up your personal feelings about those who believe Point 2 at all? It damages your credibility to point out your lack of respect for these people. Similarly, your desire to believe that all babies go to heaven is (or should be) irrelevant, so why bring it up? You're right that I didn't address all the points you raised. The reason for this is simply that I think my argument is more fundamental. If Scripture clearly indicates how salvation is obtained (and it does), and if babies are clearly unable to obtain salvation in that manner (and they are), and if no exception to the rule is given (and none is), then babies cannot be saved, and any other passages of Scripture need to be examined in light of this doctrine. If babies cannot be saved, then whether or not they know good from evil is irrelevant. Spurgeon's and Newton's views on the matter are irrelevant. As for your reasons 4 and 5 (previous comments have already sufficiently dealt with points 1 and 2), I can't see how they are relevant given the doctrine of election? In short, I cannot see that you have proven your case at all. The only reason I can see for even thinking there might be an (unwritten, extrapolated) exception to the rule of 'salvation is by grace through faith' is emotion--which, while understandable, is not qualitatively different to the emotion which accompanies the death of adult unbelievers. Finally, I agree with Robert. It may seem cold comfort, but knowing that God will act in a just and holy way is ultimately the only real comfort--more real than knowing things will turn out the way we want them to. 4/09/2008 06:08:00 PM Dominic Bnonn Tennant said... Seth, it's always a pleasure. Smokering is my wife, so let her be considered anonymous no longer (: And, though she may have misread which of your points was numbered which, I believe that her comments are sound regarding the passages in Matthew 18 and 19. It just isn't exegetically warranted to infer from them that babies or children are automatically saved. The most that can be inferred with any level of certainty is that God loves children—but that is already clear from other passages such as John 3:16, which assert that God loves everyone. Yet not everyone is saved. The emphasis in Matthew 18 and 19 is clearly on humility: on how salvation is only possible if we make ourselves lower than anyone else (which we do in Christ)—since that is the status afforded children in ancient near-east society. You would have to show me some real exegetical reasoning which engages with established Reformed soteriology before I could accept this passage as even superficially suggesting that all children will be saved. Remember, Scripture must be read in light of Scripture. Given what we know about salvation, it is no more reasonable to think that Jesus is here implying that children will be saved as to think that, in Matthew 5:20, he is implying that only those more outwardly righteous than the pharisees will be saved. Regarding David's actions concerning his son, you ask, "why the peace"? Well, firstly let me remind you that you are begging the question against my previous post by continuing to assume that David had a defined concept of heaven and hell. Sheol just doesn't mean what you think it means. It is not hell; it is simply the place of the dead. Consider Job 14:13 and 17:13, where clearly Job does not understand Sheol to be a place of eternal torment. Or consider Habakkuk 2:5, where Sheol just means death. Or Ecclesiastes 9:10, where it evidently means simply the grave (unless you believe that no one is conscious in hell). Or Psalm 89:48, where it may mean death, the afterlife, or even a place of judgment. As you can see, the precise meaning depends heavily on context. Sheol can mean death or the grave. It usually means the afterlife in general. Sometimes it appears to be referring to a place of judgment in the afterlife. However, it never always means hell, and it is not clear that it ever means hell in the way we think of that term. The fact that Sheol has a largely negative connotation when used in Scripture is simply because it is the place of the dead, and death is not something with generally positive connotations. For example, it would be a mistake to confuse the use of death as a temporal judgment on sin—described as going down to Sheol—with the eternal judgment of the reprobates in hell. I can certainly understand how it is easy to make this conflation; but it is wrong. Because of this, the only interpretation which is exegetically warranted of David's comment "I shall go to him" is that it is referencing Sheol. This is simply a grammatico-historical fact; and it is even more clear from what appears to be a conscious citation on David's part of Job 7:9: "he will not return to me". Now, I agree that it may be the case that David believes his son has gone to heaven. That is a possible interpretation of the text; one possible answer to your question, "why the peace?" However, it is not a warranted interpretation; it is not a warranted answer. Therefore, to build any kind of theology on it (especially one which causes so many difficulties for established and very strongly warranted soteriology) is thoroughly dubious. The far more obvious interpretation, and one which you yourself have already mentioned and affirmed several times, is simply that David trusts God. And this is where we get to the crux of the matter, because you are discounting a priori the possibility that someone who believes all babies go to hell can be trusting God! What is the point of saying that you have little patience for those people who believe that all babies go to hell, as I tentatively do, when those people themselves are trusting God to do what is right? I am sensitive to the fact that this is a particularly emotional topic, but shall not the judge of all the earth do what is just? The problem I have with your position on this topic is that it is simply a case of special pleading. You acknowledge that you want babies to go to heaven, and you have found reasons to believe this from Scripture. However, these reasons are flawed, as I think I've shown. You then say that you respect those who trust God to elect some babies while damning the rest, because they are trusting God to do what is right. Remember, this is another way of saying that they are content to accept that their baby might be going to hell, because their emotional reaction is superseded by their faith. This is not a faith that their baby is going to heaven—it is a faith that God will do what is right. You would presumably be willing to accept the interpretation that David was trusting God in this way in 2 Samuel. But then you have no patience for those who take the third position that all babies go to hell. You would not accept that David could have trusted God and believed positively that his child was going to hell (rather than simply believing that it might go to hell). Well, notice the assumption you've snuck in here: the implicit judgment of God that says he could not be right to send all babies to hell. Is this not just the same as the judgment universalists make on God? Is it not the same as the judgment Arminians make on God? Seth, where is your scriptural warrant? Where is the exegesis which shows that those who believe all babies go to hell must be wrong? That they are simply mistaken to trust in God's justice, because it is not just for God to send all babies to hell? Isn't this an obvious inconsistency, coming from someone I know to be a firm Calvinist who loves the doctrines of grace? In closing, let me remind you that I don't believe dogmatically that no infants are saved. What I believe is that no scriptural warrant exists upon which to formulate a doctrine of infant salvation. Therefore, I trust God's justice. If all infants go to hell because salvation is through faith alone, and babies cannot have faith, I trust God's justice. If some babies are elected to salvation through a means which God has not revealed, while others are damned just as are damned adult sinners who have not believed (whether or not they had a chance to do so), I trust God's justice. And if all babies are saved and none perish in hell, I trust God's justice. Regards, Bnonn 4/09/2008 06:14:00 PM

APPENDIX-F -- RED ALERT !! -- -- How many religions & prominent preachers (shepherds) contradict THEMSELVES... and so it's no wonder that the average citizen (sheep) are led astray & confused! * For my 1st example, I am going to cite to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints aka "LDS" aka Mormons. -- Now, I do NOT mean any disrespect for this religion or its followers, as they are very often good Americans and honest citizens, contributing to society at large in beneficial ways. However, if even the Mormons can 'miss it' on occasion, who else might be led astray? “What will happen to children in the Resurrection? President Joseph F. Smith wrote: “Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: ‘You will have the joy, the pleasure, and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit.’ There is restitution, there is growth, there is development, after the resurrection from death. I love this truth. It speaks volumes of happiness, of joy and gratitude to my soul. Thank the Lord he has revealed these principles to us.” (Gospel Doctrine, pp. 455–56.) * http://www.ldsces.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-131-137.asp * or: http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-in/dc-in-131.htm Comments: Joseph Smith is correct, but that would mean D&C (Doctrines & Covenants) 137:10 disagrees with Smith: {{“10And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.”}} The children, if they are raised as Smith claims (he is correct!), will grow up to have a chance to reach the age of accountability, where they will have freewill -and may –or may not accept Jesus Christ –and thus be may or may not be “saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” -LOL- * http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/137.10?lang=eng#9 So, they CAN be saved, but are no more guaranteed of salvation than you or me: It must be a personal choice. So, who is correct? D&C 137:10- or Joseph Smith?? * For my 2nd example, I am going to cite to Rev. Jack Hayford, the worldwide leader of the 'Foursquare' church --and a respected church leader. Again, he is a pro-life Christian, whose book I am going to quote offers many positive things to say about how life is valuable --and worth a lot to God --and how to treat your neighbour with love --WITH examples of HIS good deeds. NONETHELESS, Dr. Hayford is a confused individual. Observe: “I'll Hold You In Heaven: Healing and Hope for the Parent Who has Lost a Child through Miscarriage, Stillbirth, Abortion or Early Infant Death” is a book by Dr. Jack W. Hayford: Gospel Light Pubns (ASIN: B0038D9F8O), Regal (ISBN-10: 0830714596, 0830732594; ISBN-13: 978-0830714599, 978-0830732593; ASIN: B0029OX5AM, B002QBQMA8, B003AX1AUS ), RrgalBooks (ASIN: B003ZPGPQU) Rev. Hayford contradicts himself: On page 64 (near the middle of the page), he says "But in saying this, the Bible neither declares nor implies that parents determine the eternal destiny of their children...Salvation is always an individual choice." – Right – He is correct here, I would agree. However, let's back-track to page 60 (also near the centre of the page), where, referring to children killed by abortions and Early Infant Death, Dr. Hayford makes *this* statement: "Doubtless we would all argue for their being instantly ushered into the Creator's heaven-home forever. And that answer is right..." Did you catch that? Here, Dr. Hayford is saying that if you kill your handicapped or unborn child, he/she will go to heaven "eternally." That is, the writer is saying that the parents *can* determine their children's' "eternal" destiny -but that is NOT what he said on p.64. -LOL- So, if MAJOR religions and leaders get confused and contradict themselves, what hope is there for Joe Average Christian...? ANSWER: Read this Position Paper until you're blue in the face, and then re-read it *again*.

---

---

Top-10 (Plus-3) List of Scriptural reasons

Top-10 (Plus-3) List of Biblical and Scriptural reasons why aborted babies -and children who die before the age of accountability -don't necessarily end up in Heaven or Hell, but rather the 1,000-Year Millennium of Christ (or: some similar place where free will is exercised to accept or reject Christ – Example: Angels had free will to reject Christ in HEAVEN, and one-third of the Holy Angels fell from grace and became demons)

10. Rev. BUCK says so, and I agree with practically anything Rev. Roland Buck says, and this qualifies as a scriptural validation of my point, since Rev. Buck and I -and any like-minded constitute 2 or 3 Biblical witnesses: 2nd Corinthians 13:1; Deuteronomy 19:15; etc. -- but as if this is not enough... see below:

9. Though babies are born into sin (Rom 3:23: ALL have sinned -yes, even the babies if we are to believe scripture here), and thus deserve Hell-Death (Rom 6:23), God has determined that the children shall NOT pay for the sins of their parents: Deut 24:16; Ez 18:20; I Pet 1:17; Col 3:25 -see article herein.

8. King David's claim of his son going to heaven (see article) must be understood to be allegorical and metaphorical (as many scriptures are: see my article for scripture passages), since it conflicts with known literal scriptures on the same subject matter.

7. Passages in which Jesus describes little children (Except ye be converted, and become as little children – Mt 18:3) are a general description of children's differences with adults -not a guarantee of the nature of all children (Example: Children obeying their parents are promised length of days -in GENERAL -not in EVERY case)

6. Passages describing children's angels seeing the face of God do not address the children's' character -or eternal salvation. Likewise, passages like Mark 9:37 (“Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me:...”) address standards of treatment -not character of the children in question here. Lastly, passages like Deut. 1:39 address little ones (children & babies) during the Moses/Joshua era entering the promised land --NOT heaven! -LOL- DON'T ADD TO SCRIPTURE!!

5. Jer 1:5, which states “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” does not address or state whether the person is saved or lost.

4. Scriptures (above) demonstrate that God is not biased, and thus it is not in the character of God to give some people free will and deny the same to others. (Even though God knows by omniscient foreknowledge who will be saved, He doesn't deny you free will, and thus, by these scriptures, He would not deny another person.)

3. Man is created in the image of God – with Free Will -and thus it is not in the nature of man to be denied free will. (All dogs go to heaven -or so the saying goes, but humans are not dogs -and babies are not robots stripped of free will; to do so would be offensive to the nature of God, as we are created in His image.)

2. God does nothing without first revealing it to His prophets, and thus, if killing her unborn child or toddler would increase the odds of that child having eternal salvation, God would tell it to that woman -or to a prophet to pass along to her -but, since we know that God is neither tempted -nor temps any person to sin (killing a child, for example), this is not something He would do, and thus this theory about a 100% guarantee of salvation to the aborted child cannot be true.

1. Sending babies into the Millennium (or some similar place, such as in Heaven -like the angels had) to have a chance to exercise free will would not be cruel nor outside the character and nature of God. After all, this fate would be no worse than what mankind is given, and, being in a more pure environment, it would even be better in some ways.

"Plus-1" Top Reason: Some people think that they can 'cast a spell' on God and *make* Him grant eternal salvation to their child. You can't *make* The Maker do *anything* --and to even consider this is offensive to God!@. God Almighty does *what* He wants *when* He wants -and does not consult with mere mortals to get permission.

"Plus-1" Top Reason: In Matthew 11:20-25, Jesus says that it would be better off for Sodom (a REAL wicked place whose citizens were KILLED by God & died in their sins without repenting) than for some contemprary cities; however, there is no WAY that Sodom could be 'better off' if they didn't have a 'postmortem chance' to hear the Gospel, repent, & get saved AFTER they died. So, since we know Jesus is NOT a liar, this proves the existance of some sort of chance for them to get saved AFTER they died --not a 2nd chance, since they never got their 1st chance, and, God being fair & impartial, would likewise grant such a chance to hear the Gospel, repent, & get saved to babies who died without having first heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Plus-1" Top Reason: There is no free pass – No Free Lunch: Denying the child a chance to exercise free will to accept Christ would violate John 3:16 and John 14:6 -the 'bright line' standards for salvation. These scriptures can not be satisfied unless the person exercises free will, and if someone tells you any differently, they are just blowing smoke. God, being fair, would not deny any person a chance to accept Christ -but, NO man comes to the Father BUT by the Son. The Greek word here in John 14:6 is “oujdeivß,” Strong's Number 3,762, which literally means “no one, nothing.” Get over it: You can't come to the Father BUT by the Son: It is God's Word. Thus, the Baptists' claim that you must have faith to be saved -and my claim that faith involves free will -for EVERYBODY (not just some) is backed by scriptures.

Conclusion: It all points to Jesus * If both the angels of God (including Lucifer aka Satan) AND the babies who die before the age of accountability are given free will, then when Scripture says that WE are given volition, "Free Will," and "choice" to exercise our faith to accept and believe or disbelieve and reject God, then I believe the Word means business. So, in the conclusion of the whole matter is this: Every person (AND every angel) will, at one point in time or another, have a chance to trust, accept, and rely on, and even worship –or, rather: reject The Messiah, Christ Jesus. (Yes! Even angels must place their faith and worship in JESUS!: "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him": Hebrews 1:6, Holy Bible, KJV) The simple answer is to simply trust that He is both willing and able to save to the utmost ends of the earth those who believe. A more detailed answer for those wanting further clarification is found in my own personal testimony of how I got saved:

* http://GordonWatts.com/theology/MyTestimony.html *

* http://GordonWayneWatts.com/theology/MyTestimony.html *

* http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/theology/MyTestimony.html *

* It all points to Jesus, and we should too. *

About the author:

Gordon Wayne Watts, A.S., B.S. (Main homepage / Alt. homepage) resides in Lakeland and Plant City, Florida, and his main claim to fame is a lawsuit (Copy 1 / (Copy 2) that got further in court than former Florida Governor, Bush's similar attempt (Copy 1 / (Copy 2), in their respective attempts to save Terri Schiavo. Mr. Watts is also a graduate of The Florida State University, with his double major with honours in Biological and Chemical Science, some post baccalaureate education, a vocational associate's degree from United Electronics Institute, and some recent theological classes at Evangelical University -and a few classes in the "school of hard knocks." Mr. Watts is a Protestant Christian, attending the First Baptist Church at the Mall in Lakeland, Florida, the same church attended by famous Preterist author, Rev. John L. Bray. Gordon has read the Bible from cover-to-cover in the KJV, and now is part-way through in the AMP version.

---

Gordon Wayne Watts

* www.GordonWAYNEWatts.com / www.GORDONWatts.com *

* http://FaceBook.com/GordonWayneWatts *

* http://YouTube.com/GordonWayneWatts *

* http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html *

LAKELAND, Florida, U.S.A.

---

KEYWORDS: abort, aborting, abortion, abortions, aborts, age of accountability, apologetic, apologetics, babies, baby, Bible, Bibles, Christ, color, colored, colors, colour, coloured, colours, death deaths, die, died, disabilities, disability, disable, disabled, divine, dream, dreamed, dreampt, dreams, dream(s), dreamt, drempt, dremt, dying, Early Infant Death, Father, God, gods, grace, Heaven, Heavens, Hell, Hells, Holy, Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Jesus, kill, killed, killer, killers, killing, kills, life, lifes, live, lived, lives, living, love, loved, loves, loving, mercy, millennium, millenniums, miscarriage, miscarriages, miscarry, miscarrying, reign, reigns, Savior, Saviour, Scripture, Scriptures, Soul, Souls, Spirit, Spirits, stillbirth, stillbirths, stillborn, stillborns, theologies, theology, theologys, thousand, thousands, vision, visions, vision(s), Word, Words, worship, worshiped, worships, worshiping, worshipped, worshipping, year, years