• Sin: by actions or inheritance?
• Babies who die: Saved/Lost?
• Aborted Babies of Christian parents: Saved/Lost?
• No Clear Scripture?
• Where are 'those' babies 'now'?
• When Israel killed 'all' the babies
• Attitudes towards 'Believers' who support abortions?
• The Horror of it all!

READER QUESTIONS:
are you saying that ,we are sinners because we sin or do we sin because were sinners?

VW ANSWER:
Perhaps you missed the paragraph: "So, the question then. Which comes first; the sin, or the sinner? We do not sin, and thus BECOME sinners. We are born in sin, and thus, we sin. A dog barks, ducks quack, ...sinners sin." ??

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.

[Top]

READER QUESTIONS:
we here [sic] it stated that if a person dies before they reach the age of knowledge they go to heaven, were is this found in scripture? from the verses you stated ,this is not the case. They go to hell unless they are of the elect. like the elect angles, if what they are saying is true and they beleve it ,should they not be going around and killing them before thay reach that age and choose not to beleve,and then go to hell? Because of my nature iam seperated from GOD not my action,i was born comdemed, GOD choose this way

READER QUESTIONS:
I am quite confused now.. are you telling us that a baby who dies shortly after birth is lost to hell because he was born in sin.. or the baby that lives a few months then dies with out having been baptized is lost for ever ? please clarify this..

VW ANSWERS:
Children/babies of the unsaved do not go to Heaven. Sorry if this hurts anybody with memories of lost ones. Let's explain...

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:

Q/A -Age of Accountability
Q/A -Children at the Rapture?

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:

Abortion: What's REALLY at Stake?

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)

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
If a believer does an abortion willingly knowing full well its wrong does the aborted child end up in heaven?

VW ANSWER:
A Christian Believer should -NOT- have an abortion. It is murder. However, what a Christian -should- do vs what a Christian sometimes -does- might be two different scenarios. That's why we also periodically need to "confess our sins" and receive God's forgiveness. (1Jn1:9)

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.

[Top]

READER COMMENTS:
In your Q/A regarding babies dying and not going to heaven...thus you imply that they go to hell. You do not have any Biblical evidence that that is the case. In using the Levitical law to substantuate your opinion you are mixing Law and Grace.

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.

READER COMMENTS/QUESTION?
Please furnish me with name and address of whoever answered the question concerning babies born dammed. ALL are born in sin and ALL must be born again, How ludicrous can one get? Paul spoke a lot of Pharasitical [sic] law in his writings to the churches he established. No Prophet, other Apostle or Jesus Christ ever gave such a proclamation against newborn children and church doctorine is established on what is written in the Word of God...not pharasitical mumbo jumbo...else women could not cut their hair, speak in church..etc..and men shouldn't marry if they want to be like Paul...or better yet marry and allow their wive to remain virgins.

VW ANSWERS:
The first comment, while complaining that I gave no "Biblical evidence" goes on, not giving any "evidence" of their own, and going on the -assumptions- of what "makes more sense" [to them], comes to a conlusion not found in Scripture. I would have to guess that this person did not go read the articles at the website from the links in the last Q/A. Either that, or they read without understanding...since a lot of Scriptural "evidence" -was- given in those articles.

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)

As for the second set of comments, let's analyze them briefly:

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, God's Word.

Oh, by the way, back to the first comments... Yes, Jesus' death "settled the sin question". But "remission of sins" -follows- "repentance". (Lk24:47) That is a conscious response, based on "understanding". Yes, Jesus died for "the world" (Jn3:16), but "everlasting life" only comes to "whoever believes in Him". Let's repeat... if they don't believe, they are "condemned already". (vs18) A baby/child who is not yet old enough to understand, has -not- believed, by the very definition of the fact that they are too young. They are "condemned already". They are born that way. They are "conceived" that way.(Ps51:5) They are "born of the flesh". (Jn3:6) And "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1Cor15:50)

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)

[Top]

QUESTION:
Another one too 'personal' to quote, so let me summarize the scenario. While a lady was unsaved, there were miscarriages and an abortion. Now, she is saved. The question: Where are 'those' babies now?

VW ANSWER:
The ultimate answer to a question like this is, "the Lord knows those who are His". (2Tm2:19) After a topic like this one, if somebody walks up and asks, "Where are my (dead) babies?" we can only answer on an individual basis..."The Lord knows". The Lord gives life. And just as He knows each sparrow that falls (Mt10:29) He also knows each baby. For any generic person who might ask a question like this, we cannot answer such a question because, first, we don't truly know the heart of the person asking the question. They might make claims to being saved... but are they 'really'? Only God knows the "thoughts and intents of the heart" and the "division of soul and spirit". (Heb4:12) And so, if we don't know the heart of the asker, we certainly cannot tell, with certainty, about their baby/s, can we.

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.

[Top]

READER QUESTION:
one thing when Bible reading that hit me on this topic and as a "baby Christian" at the time really had to do some deep thinking. It was in Duet. and Joshua when Joshua went and slew all the people that were in the current Holy Land-canannites I think-anyway-God commanded to kill every man, women and child! He didn't have them spare the children and then have the Israelites raise them. When I was NIV reading-this fact was very warm and fuzzied over and it was when I was NKJV reading that was when I first read it-I "SAW" it-what was being said.

VW ANSWER:
Remember back to the recent series beginning with the April article "Life is in the Blood". One of the Q/A items addressed Israel's killing of all the animals. The pagans of Canaan were engaged in beastiality, along with all their other perversions. Remember the [nephesh]?

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?

[Top]

QUESTION:
This question was too 'personal' in nature to quote. But let's consider the basic concept. You have an acquaintance or family member, who claims to be a Believer, and has an abortion, knowing full-well what Scripture teaches. Or you know somebody who claims to be a Believer and supports, encourages, or even 'pays' for somebody to have an abortion. What should the Believer's attitude be towards such a person?

VW ANSWER:
If she is a Believer (or if she isn't, but makes claim as such), she needs to be confronted with her actions, and see how she responds. If she refuses to confess the matter, then "deliver such a one to satan for the destruction of the flesh" and "not to keep company with" her. (1Cor5:5,9-11) There is always forgiveness from God when a Believer confesses. (1Jn1:9) And then, restoration of fellowship is possible. (2Cor2:7-10)

[Top]

READER COMMENTS:
What you are saying about what happens to them eternally is really making me deeply horrified and appalled.

VW ANSWER:
Truly! When the Lord brought "Abortion: What's at Stake" to my heart, that was an extremely "heavy" article to write. You know how Isaiah speaks of "The burden against..." Tyre, Egypt, etc. That article was a burden due to its content. "Horrifying" is an appropriate term. These people go into the sterile room, and leave... all cleaned up... not seeing what has happened...not even being aware of the barbaric procedure by which the little one is ripped apart inside the womb. And while they often have depression following the "procedure", they go blissfully along...the "problem" is "fixed". Blissfully ignorant of their participation in satan's scheme.

READER COMMENTS:
My heart is grieving even more over these murders. I know God is absolutely just and fair but it is a hard thing to come to terms with this especially for a weaker (emotional) vessel.

VW ANSWER:
Don't imagine that it's all that "easy" for us (men), either! When I came to the full realization of this matter, I was in a sort of "stupor" over the matter for a period of time.

But eventually, for the child of God, the Lord gives a "calmness" regarding it with... "Even so, Amen!" (Rev1:7)

Related topic:
Q/A -is God allowing abortion to save eternal lives? Harvesting! Innocent babies?

[Top]