A Voice in the
April 16, 2001
Q/A on Salvation #7
Sin: by actions or inheritance?
However, I can see where there might be some confusion, because we also spoke of Adam and Eve; being in the "perfect environment" and sinning "anyway". That they had "one chance and they blew it".
God created man perfect, sinless. But Adam and Eve "committed" acts of disobedience to God. Notice what Paul says resulted, "..just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to every person, because everyone sinned.." (Rom5:12)
This word "entered" is an interesting word. It is not the same word that one might use when one 'opens a door' and "enters" a building. But rather, it means "entrance into a condition" or "come into existence" or "begin to be". In other words, when Adam sinned that first time, sin in the world began to exist. Prior to that, there was no sin in the world. Adam and Eve, by their acts, "introduced" sin into the world.
So then, now that sin 'was' in the world, the resultant "death" spread to all men. Yes, Adam and Eve became sinners by sinning. But their sin nature subsequently passed on down the generations at "conception". (Ps51:5) Thus, the sin nature produces sinful deeds in everybody since Adam. There is "none righteous...none who does good, no not one" (Rom3:10,12, Ps14:1-3) Remember, we were "by nature children of wrath". (Eph2:3) The only ones who -BECAME- sinners due to their 'deeds' were Adam and Eve. The rest of everybody since then -INHERITED- sin at birth.
Babies who die: Saved/Lost?
To give the short answer here, please notice 1Cor7:14. As long as there is a Believing parent in the family, the children are "holy". This word "holy" means "saint"; the same expression Paul uses repeatedly of Believers in the assemblies. (2Cor1:1) They are "called saints". (Rom1:7, 1Cor1:2) But conversely, when none of the parents are Believers, the children are "unclean". This is a ceremonial/Levitical kind of word. It doesn't mean that they have been playing and in coming into the house, need to wash their face and hands. But ceremonially, in the eyes of the Levitical Law (of God), they are unclean. Outside of God's grace; as we learned recently from Ephesians 2:12, how Gentiles were not part of the "commonwealth of Israel" and God's Salvation. In the same sense, Gentlies were Levitically, ceremonially "unclean". In other words, children of families with no Believing parents are not saved.
For past in-depth discussions on this please check out:
However, regarding the notion that we "should kill the babies" before they come to the age of understanding... NO! NO! NO! First of all, God did -NOT- "choose" for babies to be condemned to death. It was not His "purpose" that "any should perish but that all should come to repentance". (2Pt3:9) If an "unclean" baby is killed before that age, they never have the chance to "come to repentance". -THAT- is the whole scourge of abortion! That is what is SO WRONG WITH abortion, and why satan's servants are SO MILITANT about killing as many babies in the womb as possible with today's "abortion rights" feminism and activism. Satan doesn't want them to ever see the light of day, so as to be faced with Christ, and (perchance) 'some' of them -might- come to Saving Faith in Christ. It is not enough to him that 99.999% of humanity is already on the "broad..way that leads to destruction" (Mt7:13), but he wants them -all-!! to confine as many as possible before they even have the chance. Those are "100%"!! On this topic please see:
Oh yes...By the way... "Baptism" does not save babies. Dabbing some water on a baby's head is a pagan ritual. It is a practice not found in Scripture. Salvation is a "gift" and "not of [pagan] works". (Eph2:8-9) The only way a baby is saved is by being "-in-" a family with Believing parent/s... "you and your household" (Ac16:31) just as, the only way a person of 'understanding' is saved is by being "-in- Christ". (2Cor5:17)
Aborted Babies of Christian parents: Saved/Lost?
David and Bathsheba had a baby that died -because- of their sin, and David's sin of having Bathsheba's husband killed in battle. When David confessed, he was forgiven: "Jehovah also has put away your sin; you shall not die" but the promise was that the baby would die. (2Sa12:13-14)
So then... when the baby dies, this is what David says, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." (vs23)
Do we not know that David was pleasing to God: "because David had done what was right in the eyes of Jehovah, and had not turned aside from anything that He had commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (1Ki15:5) If David was pleasing to God, at death he went to be with God; Heaven. If he was going to -where- his baby had gone, is it not obvious that the baby was also in Heaven.
Which is a worse form of murder? By abortion, or as a consequence of God's judgment? Either way, the baby dies/died at the hand (because) of the parent.
Thus, would not the fate of David's baby be the same as the abortion of a [C]hristian's baby? Remember, Paul says the offspring of the Believer is "holy". Being a Believer is a "declared" position (Rom5:19), not one based on a person's momentary trespass or lapse in judgment before it gets confessed. Salvation and Security is "not of works" (Eph2:9, Rom8:35-39)
This coming August's article talks about the legacy a person leaves when they die. How are they remembered? And under what rewards and welcome are they received into Heaven? For all of whatever David's life consisted, including all its ups and downs, in the end when he died, it was declared that his life had been pleasing to God, -EXCEPT- in the matter of his having Uriah murdered. I suspect a similar case would exist for a Believer who has an abortion subsequent to their Salvation.
But even though the act was so heinous, but -because- they were saved, their aborted baby will be in Heaven; just as David's baby was.
I believe this is a proper understanding from Scripture.
No Clear Scripture?
A baby may not be "saved" in the truest sense of the word, however, Christ died to settle the sin question...therefore I believe it makes more sense to understand that Christ' saacrifice settled the sin-nature problem of the baby, and that baby is not consigned to hell, but rather than being saved...it is SAFE.
There is only -one- "true sense of the word" regarding being "saved".
One is either saved or lost. Heaven-bound, or on their way down the
"broad way" to "destruction". (Mt7:13) By this person's own words, if
the baby is not saved "in the truest sense", then, it is "condemned
already, because [it] has not believed in the name of the only begotten
Son of God". (Jn3:18)
She starts out by saying "all are born in sin and all must be born again". Correct. Now, if a person is in "need" of being born again, that means they are in a state of "death", because a person who has not yet been born again is a sinner, and the "wages of sin is death" (Rom6:23)... the "soul that sins...shall die" (Ezek18:4,20) So, if a baby is born in sin, and it dies, what is the wages of sin? Has the answer not been given already from Scripture?
But then, there is the complaint about "proclamation against newborn children". Why the complaint? If "Church doctrine is established" on the "Word of God", why did she not give us the Scripture where it says babies go to Heaven when they die? But, this is a response born out of 'emotions', not Scripture. [Editor: regarding emotions, see final item at bottom... from another woman]
Yes, I know this is an 'emotional' topic. We think of the cute little darlings as being "innocent". And how could a "God of love" condemn such cherubic innocence to hell?! After all... what did they ever do?? They were simply born into the world, and that, not even of their own doing, and they are already condemned before they ever get started?? Well... thanks to Adam and Eve... 'Yes'
Babies -are- born in sin. And they "behave" as children of sin. If you don't believe this, all one has to do is to be in a church service where the message begins to bring God's Word to the heart. Babies in the audience can all be peacefully quiet until it is time to bring application of the Word to the heart, and suddenly, almost as if 'on queue', they will start to make a fuss, cry, and generally, be 'loud' and disruptive to the Message. I've seen this from both sides of the pulpit. Who 'orchestrates' such disruption through the little 'innocent' sweet-hearts? The same one who doesn't want God's Word to reach the heart. They are obeying their master.
Babies are -NOT- "innocent". Little children are -NOT- "innocent". What we are conceived in (sin), is how we grow up. Invariably, the very first word a small child learns to use with 'understanding' is "No!" That is disobedience and rebellion. Society has taught each other that their tantrums are "cute", and win big bucks on "Favorite Videos" shows. But those tantrums are "sin". It is in their little hearts "at birth". And the "wages of sin is death". (Rom6:23)
Adults often make excuses for the little ones, that they are merely doing "what's natural". Exactly! That's called "sin". As such, they are "BY NATURE children of wrath" (Eph2:3) Jesus' death did not automatically change their natures, without repentance and faith.
This next bit is already covered in those linked articles, but... When David and Bathsheba's baby died, David was assured it went to Heaven. People use that example to teach that "all" babies go to Heaven. But remember, in accordance with 1Cor7:14, David and Bathsheba were "Believers". The other Scripture used to support the (alleged) "angelic" state of babies is Jesus' words that, "for of such is the kingdom of Heaven". (Mt19:14) Or, "unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of Heaven" (Mt18:3) that is taken out of context, too, because that is actually talking about what is often coined "childlike faith". But the fact that little children can be condemned, in Jesus' own words, "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." (Mk9:42) This word "stumble" is a word that OSAS proponents will gag over...it includes components of "trip, fall, FALL-AWAY". In the companion passage, Jesus says, "Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses -MUST-COME-, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" (Mt18:7) This word "offense" is the same Greek word translated "stumble" in Mk9:42.
Do you see why abortion has a special place of judgment from God? Jesus recognized that little children would be condemned due to the actions of adults. However "..it would be better for him [the one condemning the child].." if he was drowned in the sea by being dragged down by a weight...compared to what is in store for such a person from God's wrath.
1Cor7:14 defines the matter about as clearly as Scripture says anything. If a person cannot accept it, there is nothing more I can say. If you can't accept it "because Paul wrote it", well...sorry. Paul wrote half the N.T. And Peter even suggests that people who stumble over Paul's writings "twist [the Scriptures] to their own destruction". (2Pt3:16) The only way a baby/child can be saved prior to their own age of understanding is when/if at least one of the parents is saved. And if you want to strain at the gnats of "law/grace", even the context would indicate that the "unclean" is "unsaved", being the opposite (in the context) of "holy/saint", which is a N.T. (grace) expression. For you who didn't look it up, when the Philippian jailer was told how to be saved, he was told that if he "believed on the Lord Jesus Christ" that not only he would be saved, but also his "household". (Act16:31) Now, since we know that a person is answerable for "himself" before God (Rom14:12), the only explanation for Acts16:31 is that "household" is referring to the ones who are not yet of the age of "understanding". And, would you believe... Part of the definition for "household" in that spot includes "descendants".
Indeed, God sees people in these two catagories...understanding or not. When Nineveh repented before God, notice God's word to Jonah, "and should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than 120,000 persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left..[children/babies]" (Jonah 4:11) If God had been forced to destroy Nineveh because of their unrepentant hearts, the "unclean" [unsaved/non-saint] babies [of unbelieving parents] would have been destroyed, too. (1Cor7:14)
I'm truly sorry that this is painful to think about. But it is, indeed,
Again, sorry about the pain... but this is God's Word. The pain and "sorrow" is often used to bring people to repentance. "For Godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation." (2Cor7:9-10) If your heart is stricken because of these thoughts, and perhaps because of a sudden realization of things you have done, perhaps God is trying to get your attention?
"Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation" (2Cor6:2)
Where are they Now?
But if we know, for certain, that the asker is saved, and the question is asked similarly as summarized above, what is the answer?
Notice that when Paul speaks of this umbrella over the children due to the Believing parent, it is also in the context of the exhortation to "remain" married to the unsaved spouse, unless the unbeliever leaves. (1Cor7:10-13) In other words, there were children of unbelieving parents, and -then- one is saved. The newly saved parent brings "holy" protection to the children. (vs14) If the Believer were to leave, the children would be "unclean". And back to Acts16:31...when the jailer became saved, the promise was "you WILL BE saved". And this "will be" (future tense) is followed by the "household". In other words, prior to the moment the jailer was saved, the household was NOT saved. But -WHEN- he believed, -THEN- they were saved, too. But not before.
So then, a related rhetorical question: What about adoptive children? Based on these two passages, it would seem to be a "household" situation. But again, ultimately...the "Lord knows those who are His". And we can have confidence in this because God is the "righteous Judge" (2Tim4:8) He will determine correctly. The decision is not ours. So, while we may shed some tears, ultimately we can rest in God's justice.
When Israel killed all the babies?
So, these adults were being perverted with animals... and then, they also were with each other, procreating. What [nephesh] was going into their offspring? Remember that the primary reason God destroyed the world during Noah's time with the flood was because the "generations" had become "corrupt". Do we need to look up those references again? (Gen ch6)
So, is the answer obvious now?
Attitudes towards 'Believers' who support abortions?
The Horror of it all!
But eventually, for the child of God, the Lord gives a "calmness" regarding it with... "Even so, Amen!" (Rev1:7)