Kizzy wrote:mappatazee wrote:You can't go to heaven if you didn't accept God though, right? So that kid might not be Christian, so he gets to burn in hell.
I could be wrong, and I am sure Mindia will correct me if I am, but doesn't teh Bible say that all children go to heaven? (Kinda like Dogs)
I cut & pasted this from a website that explains it pretty well...
Matthew 18:3-4 (KJV)
3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
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.
A logical case can be made that if God allows some people to go to hell without ever hearing the gospel, why would it be any more unjust to let babies go to hell without being old enough to hear the gospel? We know there are other areas in which God does things that seem unjust to us. (We’re wrong of course, but that’s our perception.) So why are we sure this isn’t another one? We must realize that God's perspective on life and death is completely different than that of ours. We consider life and death to be a most important matter. To God, He speaks life into existence and likewise can take life away according to his will. I believe life and death is of much less importance to God than it is to us in our human way of thinking.
So, if children are saved, it cannot be because of innocence, because while they are cute and adorable and a pleasure, they are not innocent. For any person to be saved, it must be through the work of Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). So how can this be for an infant? This is the difficult part of the question, however, I believe that 1 Corinthians 7:14 may shed some light on it.
1 Corinthians 7:14 (KJV)
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Our cannonized Scripture just doesn't have anything to say about infant salvation. However, this verse in 1 Corinthians I believe may give us some clues. Here we are told that an unbelieving husband is sanctified by a believing wife. Even though he is a non-christian he is set apart or cleansed through the believing wife. It does not say that he is saved but only that he is sanctified. The same is true, if there was a believing husband and an unbelieving wife. The wife would be cleansed or sanctified by the believing husband. The verse goes on to say that if the unbelieving parent was not sanctified by the believing parent then the children would be unclean. We stated above that all children are born sinners. I think this verse indicates that they would still be sinners and lost if the unbelieving parent was not purified by the believing parent. God in his mercy has allowed one believing marriage partner to sanctify, justify, or cleanse the other in order to allow the infant child to be considered clean, holy, without blemish, without sin and is therefore saved if it should die at that point. The verse also implies that if both the husband and wife are unbelievers then the resulting children would be considered to be unclean, unholy or unsaved and if it dies before it reaches the age where it becomes responsible for its own decisions it would be lost.
At what age does a child reach the point where they become accountable for their own actions and decisions? The Scriptures again are mostly silent but I think each person as they grow reaches a point where they recognize their conscience is directing them as to what is right and what is wrong. At this point they must become responsible for their decisions and actions. They must choose right or wrong. This age, I believe, is different for different children. For some I think it may be at a fairly young age and for others it may be at a much older age. Jewish tradition considered a Jewish boy to be accountable and responsible for his own actions at the age of 12. This age may represent an average age when a child reaches the age of accountability but individuals, I believe, may reach that age much sooner or much later depending upon that individual.
If the above is a correct interpretation of the 1 Corthinians scripture then it makes it extremely important for parents to be believing Christians, at least one of them. For a family in which neither are Christians then the children born to that relationship have no hope if they die before they reach the age of accountability.
I think that most people base their beliefs about infant salvation on a ground that is not biblical--"children deserve to go to heaven" or "children don’t deserve to go to hell." From a human point of view, that seems right. (And I’m human enough for it to appeal to me.) But from a Scriptural point of view it is not a correct point of view. The Scriptures in a number of places indicate that the heathen are lost and many of them may not have had the chance to hear the gospel. Is God unfair to them? They didn't even have a chance. We don't fully understand all of God's ways, but one thing is sure, his perspective on humans and their life and death is much different than ours. Is it any more unjust for God to allow an infant to die in a lost condition than to allow a heathen person who has not heard about the plan of salvation to die in a lost condition? I don't think so.
I do believe that there are degrees of punishment in hell. Some may just be restricted from ever being in the presence of God, while others who have committed great attrocities may endure great punishment. I also do not believe that any who die lost will have eternal life in hell. They will receive everlasting punishment, not everlasting punishing. They will receive their just punishment and will cease to exist anymore forever. The wages of sin are death and destruction while the reward for righteousness is eternal life. Only saved people will receive eternal life. The lost will be eternally destroyed after receiving their applicable punishment. Sometimes this is referred to as everlasting punishment or eternal punishment. It is eternal or everlasting because those people will never exist again. I believe that an infant who in our eyes is innocent of any sins other than those of their parents will most likely receive no punishment other than separation from God and will quickly just cease to exist. Just as chaff thrown in a fire quickly goes up in smoke and quickly disappears while some other substance such as asbestos may burn in a very hot fire for a long time before it is eventually consumed. Just as physical death for some comes quickly and quietly, maybe even in their sleep, and for others there may be a long and painful period leading up to their point of death. I'm not necessarily saying that a prolonged, painful physical death is a punishment for acts of unrighteousness, I'm only using it as an example.
In conclusion, I think the answer to our original question is a definite "NO". And I also think this study points out how important it is for the parents in a family to be Christians. It is not only their own salvation which is at stake, but also the salvation of all the children which are born to them, at least until the children reach the age of accountability. It should also be noted that it is probably much harder for a child to make the right decision when he reaches the age of accountability concerning his salvation if he has grown up and been trained throughout his childhood in a non-Christian family.