I have a question...

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
H

hopesprings

Guest
#1
I am really not asking this to start an argument...so please please don't take it that way...I have a question about Calvinism doctrine. (oh boy...here we go again...)

If God chooses people based completely on his own will, and not because of something He forsees them doing, then how is it that all children (below the "age of accountability") can be saved? I consider myself more 'reformed' then anything else, but this is one of the those questions that really bothers me. Anyone care to comment?
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#2
I am really not asking this to start an argument...so please please don't take it that way...I have a question about Calvinism doctrine. (oh boy...here we go again...)

If God chooses people based completely on his own will, and not because of something He forsees them doing, then how is it that all children (below the "age of accountability") can be saved? I consider myself more 'reformed' then anything else, but this is one of the those questions that really bothers me. Anyone care to comment?
That question should bother you because the logical outcome of those teachings you believe is the sure damnation of un-elect infants. It is a topic many Reformed Theologians prefer to avoid for it tends to make people very uncomfortable.

I consider Reformed Theology as utter heretical yet you'll have have to follow your own road on that one. All I can do is implore you to dig deep and ask yourself if the Scripture actually matches the dogma of the Reformers.

The teaching that God condemns un-elect infants to destruction is an abominable maligning of the character of God.

Here is what two of the principle architects of Reformed Theology wrote on this very issue...





Augustine of Hippo addressed this issue when he wrote...

let us suppose certain twins, born of a certain harlot, and exposed that they might be taken up by others. One of them has expired without baptism; the other is baptized. What can we say was in this case the “fate” or the “fortune,” which are here absolutely nothing? What “acceptance of persons,” when with God there is none, even if there could be any such thing in these cases, seeing that they certainly had nothing for which the one could be preferred to the other, and no merits of their own,—whether good, for which the one might deserve to be baptized; or evil, for which the other might deserve to die without baptism? Were there any merits in their parents, when the father was a fornicator, the mother a harlot? But of whatever kind those merits were, there were certainly not any that were different in those who died in such different conditions, but all were common to both. If, then, neither fate, since no stars made them to differ; nor fortune, since no fortuitous accidents produce these things; nor the diversity of persons nor of merits have done this; what remains, so far as it refers to the baptized child, save the grace of God, which is given freely to vessels made unto honour; but, as it refers to the unbaptized child, the wrath of God, which is repaid to the vessels made for dishonour in respect of the deservings of the lump itself? But in that one which is baptized we constrain you to confess the grace of God, and convince you that no merit of its own preceded; but as to that one which died without baptism, why that sacrament should have been wanting to it, which even you confess to be needful for all ages, and what in that manner may have been punished in him, it is for you to see who will not have it that there is any original sin.
St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings
NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Chapter 15.—The Apostle Meets the Question by Leaving It Unsolved.
Since in the case of those two twins we have without a doubt one and the same case, the difficulty of the question why the one died in one way, and the other in another, is solved by the apostle as it were by not solving it; for, when he had proposed something of the same kind about two twins, seeing that it was said (not of works, since they had not as yet done anything either of good or of evil, but of Him that calleth), “The older shall serve the younger,” 2644 and, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated;”2645 and he had prolonged the horror of this deep thing even to the point of saying, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth:”2646 he perceived at once what the trouble was, and opposed to himself the words of a gainsayer which he was to check by apostolical authority. For he says, “You say, then, unto me, “Why doth He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?” And to him who says this he answered, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Doth the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power of the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?2647 Then, following on, he opened up this great and hidden secret as far as he judged it fit that it should be disclosed to men, saying, “But if God, willing to show His wrath and to demonstrate His power, endured in much patience the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, even that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.”2648 This is not only the assistance, but, moreover, the proof of God’s grace—the assistance, namely, in the vessels of mercy, but the proof in the vessels of wrath; for in these He shows His anger and makes known His power, because His goodness is so mighty that He even uses the evil well; and in those He makes known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, because what the justice of a punisher requires from the vessels of wrath, the grace of the Deliverer remits to the vessels of mercy. Nor would the kindness which is bestowed on some freely appear, unless to other equally guilty and from the same mass God showed what was really due to both, and condemned them with a righteous judgment. “For who maketh thee to differ?”2649 says the same apostle to a man as it were boasting concerning himself and his own benefits. “For who maketh thee to differ” from the vessels of wrath; of course, from the mass of perdition which has sent all by one into damnation? “Who maketh thee to differ?” And as if he had answered, “My faith maketh me to differ,—my purpose, my merit,”—he says, “For what hast thou which thou hast not received? But if thou hast received it, why dost thou boast as if thou receivedst it not?”—that is, as if that by which thou art made to differ were of thine own. Therefore He maketh thee to differ who bestows that whence thou art made to differ, by removing the penalty that is due, by conferring the grace which is not due. He maketh to differ, who, when the darkness was upon the face of the abyss, said, “Let there be light; and there was light, and divided”—that is, made to differ—“between the light and the darkness.”2650 For when there was only darkness, He did not find what He should make to differ; but by making the light, He made to differ; so that it may be said to the justified wicked, “For ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord.”2651 And thus he who glories must glory not in himself, but in the Lord. He makes to differ who—of those who are not yet born, and who have not yet done any good or evil, that His purpose, according to the election, might stand not of works, but of Himself that calleth—said, The older shall serve the younger, and commending that very purpose afterwards by the mouth of the prophet, said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”2652 Because he said “the election,” and in this God does not find made by another what He may choose, but Himself makes what He may find; just as it is written of the remnant of Israel: “There is made a remnant by the election of grace; but if by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.”2653 On which account you are certainly foolish who, when the Truth declares, “Not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said,” say that Jacob was loved on account of future works which God foreknew that he would do, and thus contradict the apostle when he says, “Not of works;” as if he could not have said, “Not of present, but of future works.” But he says, “Not of works,” that He might commend grace; “but if of grace, now is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.” For grace, not due, but free, precedes, that by it good works may be done; but if good works should precede, grace should be repaid, as it were, to works, and thus grace should be no more grace.
St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings
NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

John Calvin referred to the destruction of un-elect infants as the dreadful decree.

Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of God. It is very absurd 2232in these worthy defenders of the justice of God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: “Let us confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do; and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous judgment could do,” (August. Enchir. ad Laurent).
Institutes of the Christian Religion
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#3
I am really not asking this to start an argument...so please please don't take it that way...I have a question about Calvinism doctrine. (oh boy...here we go again...)

If God chooses people based completely on his own will, and not because of something He forsees them doing, then how is it that all children (below the "age of accountability") can be saved? I consider myself more 'reformed' then anything else, but this is one of the those questions that really bothers me. Anyone care to comment?
Scripture gives no clear answer to the question of salvation for babies.

But everyone is born guilty of the sin of Adam (original sin), per Ro 5:12-21.

If Calvinism is consistent, then only the elect of them will be saved.
 
Last edited:

Radius

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2013
1,138
180
63
#4
Scripture gives no clear answer to the question of salvation for babies.

But everyone is born guilty of the sin of Adam (original sin), per Ro 5:12-21.

If Calvinism is consistent, then only the elect of them will be saved.
It does not give a direct answer, but it does provide a basis on which many people believe it is true that babies will go to heaven if they die before the age of accountability:

“What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David's response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David's response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord.

Meaning the baby cannot come back to David on Earth, BUT David will go to the baby after death in Heaven.


 
Mar 15, 2013
1,245
14
0
#5
Scripture gives no clear answer to the question of salvation for babies.

But everyone is born guilty of the sin of Adam (original sin), per Ro 5:12-21.

If Calvinism is consistent, then only the elect of them will be saved.
The elect are priestly associates with Christ. We see that priestly function in places like as, Matthew 24:21-22 "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

A character quality of these elect ones God has chosen is that they share God's love toward man and God's desire to see as many as might be, saved. 1 Timothy 2:3-6 "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times.." (ASV)

We see that quality in Paul, Romans 10:1 "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Romans 11:14 "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them." 1 Corinthians 9:22 "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

The great multitude of Revelation chapter 7 are those who paid heed to the faith exemplified through Christ's body of elect and amidst the final searing heat of the great tribulation repented and turned to faith in Christ, washing as it were, symbolically, their robes to make them white in the blood of the Lamb. These ones then receive the life giving word through Christ's body of elect over the thousand years that they too might make their way to the tree of life by the end of that thousand years. And when that is done, then it is that death will be swallowed up forever. Yes, swallowed up by life.

Within one's family a husband's or a wife's faith is very important to the salvation of the children within the family. The person of faith is a type of priest to his or her children and an unselfish sacrifice of love on behalf of an unbelieving spouse, even as Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For 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. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"
 
Last edited:

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
#6
We are born innocent, and God sees us that way until whatever point we think we know enough to make a decision about Him. The curse of Adam, the original sin's effect on us, is to be born into a world and flesh that strives to see us make the wrong decision.
 
1

1still_waters

Guest
#7
I think with things like this, we need to interpret things biblically, and not necessarily through the lens that makes us the most or least outraged.

Let's assume folks are right who say that babies can go to an eternal punishment in hell.
The automatic reaction is outrage that God would create someone only to send them to hell.

Yet even the staunchest anti-reformed/anti-predestination person believes that God creates people who he knows won't choose him, thus resulting in them going to an eternal punishment. Thus implying God created someone he knew would just go to hell anyways.

There are people who may be outraged by one of the above.
There may be people who are outraged by both of the above.

If you're outraged by the first one, and not the second one, why is that?
In both cases God is making someone he knows is going to spend eternity in punishment.

My point?
Be sure you're interpreting Bible based on what it says, and not based on what creates the least human outrage.
God's ways are not our ways.
Sometimes it's our job to shut our mouths and acknowledge that fact.

40 Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said:
[SUP]2 [/SUP]“Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him?
He who rebukes God, let him answer it.”

Job’s Response to God

[SUP]3 [/SUP]Then Job answered the Lord and said:
[SUP]4 [/SUP]“Behold, I am vile;
What shall I answer You?
I lay my hand over my mouth.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Once I have spoken, but I will not answer;
Yes, twice, but I will proceed no further.”
 

starfield

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2009
3,393
58
48
#8
I don't think children below the age of accountability will go to Hell. God is just. When the generation of Israel that left Egypt were denied entrance into Canaan because of their rebellion, God permitted those under the age of 20 to enter. While the age of accountability varies for each individual, I believe that action of God suggests that He doesn't hold those who cannot comprehend their sinful state and the gospel liable for their sins.

 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#9
We are born innocent, and God sees us that way until whatever point we think we know enough to make a decision about Him. The curse of Adam, the original sin's effect on us, is to be born into a world and flesh that strives to see us make the wrong decision.
Great post.

We are not born already dead in Adam and condemned due to Adam's sin. The curse indeed strives to see us CHOOSE sin and thus reap its wages.

Sin can only kill through the law which is why Paul stated...

Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.


Paul understood that we are not "born dead" but rather we die when we CHOOSE to sin.

It was Augustine who misread Romans 5:12 by using the Latin Vulgate which says "in whom all sinned" as opposed to "for that all have sinned."

Augustine saw all humanity as being in the loins of Adam and thus being imputed guilty due to his sin. This tradition of man was the little bit of leaven that was able to leaven the entire lump.

Sin is a choice, not a disease.

We are slaves to whom we obey. Jesus gave Himself for us to set us free from the dominion and bondage to sin. It is through repentance and faith that we can access the blood and be cleansed of all unrighteousness that henceforth we longer serve sin but rather serve righteousness.
 
H

hopesprings

Guest
#10
Elin pointed out the basic problem that I have with this. It lacks follow-through. If we are consistent, then only the elect of babies will be saved; yet the elect cannot be people that God foreknew would die young, they would be people that God chose as His own. I understand the argument for ‘the age of accountability’ but I am lost when it becomes incompatible with the rest of Calvinistic theology. :(


That being said, I do not believe that we can do anything to merit our own salvation. No good works, following God’s laws, or abiding by certain commands will get us into His good graces. Like my signature says: it’s all because of what Jesus did for us (sorry Skinski).


Most Calvinist’, that I have encountered, do not believe that babies go to hell. I don’t understand how that be explained without being grossly inconsistent.


Still_waters, you are entirely right in what you posted. It’s a hard thing to acknowledge that sometimes. :)
 
H

hopesprings

Guest
#11
I don't think children below the age of accountability will go to Hell. God is just. When the generation of Israel that left Egypt were denied entrance into Canaan because of their rebellion, God permitted those under the age of 20 to enter. While the age of accountability varies for each individual, I believe that action of God suggests that He doesn't hold those who cannot comprehend their sinful state and the gospel liable for their sins.

Interesting...
 
H

hopesprings

Guest
#12
Sin is a choice, not a disease.

We are slaves to whom we obey. Jesus gave Himself for us to set us free from the dominion and bondage to sin. It is through repentance and faith that we can access the blood and be cleansed of all unrighteousness that henceforth we longer serve sin but rather serve righteousness.
If sin is a choice, then how can you be in bondage to it?
 
B

BishopSEH

Guest
#13
First, I would roundly ignore the post by Skinski7 as the post by Augustine were not in reference to Calvanism in the slightest and are used out of context. Worse the one by Calvin he highlightes that which would seem to make his case but should have read the whole thing. What he did was show the value of not isolating a piece from the whole.

Remember Adam and Eve? They were not made in sin and until they fell under the law, which God explained to them and its consequences, they could not be held as guilty. The same goes for children under the age of accountability. While we are all born under original sin and therefore under the law and the Covenant of Works, in order to be charge guilty the person must be able to first understand their guilt and the path to salvation which is through Jesus Christ.

Note carefully that instruction in the things and ways of God are not a requirement. Only the ability to comprehend and make a choice. For this reason the age of accountability is slightly different for each person. Jesus exhorted His disciples to let the little children come to Him and not to oppose them for the Kingdom belongs to such as these. Children have always been drawn to Jesus and for good reason. Its after the age of accountability has arrived that not only can we make a choice from Christ but we can understand reasons to not choose Him. We can even go so far as to convince ourselves that there is no God or the God is not so cruel that He would send someone to hell or even that there is not hell.

Unlike God sending people that could have chosen for Him but chose to be in rebellion to hell, sending children that never had the chance to make a choice would actually be cruel. To believe that god would do such a things is to believe that God delights in our suffering. While life is a time of testing it is not designed to be cruel. If it was there would be no salvation at all.

In Christ,

Bishop SEH
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#14
If sin is a choice, then how can you be in bondage to it?
Addiction.

Habitually yielding to the lusts of the flesh and sinning hard wires itself into the human brain thus a disposition to sin grows.

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Nature - G5449 -phusis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: - ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

This is why we have to be renewed in our mind.

Rom_12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
 
Mar 15, 2013
1,245
14
0
#15
If sin is a choice, then how can you be in bondage to it?

It is a choice to eat food but we can let ourselves fall enslaved to it. Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"


If sin were not a choice we could not be held accountable for it and thus there would have been no point to condemning sin by law or to providing freedom from that condemnation with the provision of Christ's ransom.

Romans 6:13 "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God."
 
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#16
First, I would roundly ignore the post by Skinski7 as the post by Augustine were not in reference to Calvanism in the slightest and are used out of context. Worse the one by Calvin he highlightes that which would seem to make his case but should have read the whole thing. What he did was show the value of not isolating a piece from the whole.

Remember Adam and Eve? They were not made in sin and until they fell under the law, which God explained to them and its consequences, they could not be held as guilty. The same goes for children under the age of accountability. While we are all born under original sin and therefore under the law and the Covenant of Works, in order to be charge guilty the person must be able to first understand their guilt and the path to salvation which is through Jesus Christ.

Note carefully that instruction in the things and ways of God are not a requirement. Only the ability to comprehend and make a choice. For this reason the age of accountability is slightly different for each person. Jesus exhorted His disciples to let the little children come to Him and not to oppose them for the Kingdom belongs to such as these. Children have always been drawn to Jesus and for good reason. Its after the age of accountability has arrived that not only can we make a choice from Christ but we can understand reasons to not choose Him. We can even go so far as to convince ourselves that there is no God or the God is not so cruel that He would send someone to hell or even that there is not hell.

Unlike God sending people that could have chosen for Him but chose to be in rebellion to hell, sending children that never had the chance to make a choice would actually be cruel. To believe that god would do such a things is to believe that God delights in our suffering. While life is a time of testing it is not designed to be cruel. If it was there would be no salvation at all.

In Christ,

Bishop SEH
I didn't take John Calvin out of context. That quote is from his Institutes from Chapter 23 where he is is attempting to defend his erroneous doctrine from the claims that the destruction of the un-elect is unjust. The section I quoted is where John Calvin in particular alludes to the destruction of infants as dreadful yet certain for to admit otherwise would be a denial of the omnipotence of God (in Calvin's mind).

You just responded with some smoke blowing rhetoric in claiming that I took Calvin out of context.

While there are Reformers who claim that infants will be saved, it is not due to the theology they believe but rather due to a sense of justice they still have. The logical conclusion of Reformed Theology is the damnation of un-elect infants due to infants being born already under a state of condemnation (ie. imputed guilty). If all infants that perish in their infancy are elect then they couldn't be "born condemned" under the Reformed framework due to how Reformed doctrine teaches that people are brought to salvation by the irresistible grace of God.

Both Augustine and John Calvin clearly believed that there were un-elect infants who were indeed damned.

Many Reformers simply want their cake and to eat it to and thus like to avoid the uncomfortable implications of their doctrinal system.



Reformed Theology actually denies that people can choose God of their own ability (for it denies that the grace of God that brings salvation is accessible by all men). Total depravity teaches that human beings are completely disabled in regards to the virtuous choice and that means seeking our God. This inability has to be offset by Irresistible Grace, a grace which is NEVER GIVEN to the non-elect. So all the talk about "choice" (in the context of Reformed Theology) is an utter contradiction of the fundamental construct of the system.

If a human being is born in a Totally Depraved state which necessitates actual sin then there is no such thing as the free agency of man. Any assertion of free will is limited to within the framework of "choices between evils."
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2011
3,818
62
0
#17
It is a choice to eat food but we can let ourselves fall enslaved to it. Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"


If sin were not a choice we could not be held accountable for it and thus there would have been no point to condemning sin by law or to providing freedom from that condemnation with the provision of Christ's ransom.

Romans 6:13 "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God."
Amen to that.

It is so simple what the Bible teachings regarding these things.

It is the tradition of men that brings confusion and leads people astray. We all just need to believe what the Bible plainly states.
 
Feb 17, 2010
3,620
27
0
#18
Is there a difference between these NEWBORN babies? ...It looks like it to me.... Some babies are born HOLY and others unclean....
1 Cor 7:14..For 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.
 
Jan 19, 2013
11,909
141
0
#19
It does not give a direct answer, but it does provide a basis on which many people believe it is true that babies will go to heaven if they die before the age of accountability:

“What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David's response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David's response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord.

Meaning the baby cannot come back to David on Earth, BUT David will go to the baby after death in Heaven.
Or meaning he will join the baby in death, but the baby will not join him in physical life.