Does 2 Samuel prove infants can go to heaven?

[Moireach]

I'm not interested in opening up this topic as a whole. Please, do not argue the whole topic.
Only the following verses,

" He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”"

I'm asking does this verse ALONE prove that infants do/can go to heaven?
My thoughts at first were, just because David said this it doesn't mean what he said was true. The passage only tells us David said it. It wasn't Nathan the Prophet with divine revelation from God who said it, it was David.

However I was told I was wrong, and am totally open to correction.

 

[JML]

I don't know the answer to your question but the two views of these verses that I have heard are:

1. That the infant was in Heaven.
2. That "I will go to him" meant death. That David would join his child in the grave.

My confession says this in 10.3 and I believe it to be true:

3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

 

[Moireach]

Thanks John, I did actually google it and I found out about that 2nd point you mentioned.

 

[he beholds]

I think David was right or he'd have been corrected. The Bible records him saying it, and it seems to be in part to teach us.
Whether it meant death or heaven, I don't know. Though of course infants that are elect will go to heaven.

 

[saintandsinner77]

Where does the Scripture speak of non elect infants who die in infancy (Esau being passed over doesn't count since he grew up and committed actual sin)?

 

[Skyler]

Where does the Scripture speak of non elect infants who die in infancy (Esau being passed over doesn't count since he grew up and committed actual sin)?

Same place it talks about all the other non elect people who die, I would assume.

 

[saintandsinner77]

Where does the Scripture speak of non elect infants who die in infancy (Esau being passed over doesn't count since he grew up and committed actual sin)?

Same place it talks about all the other non elect people who die, I would assume.

Which is where? What I am asking is that as Reformed people, we say that there are elect infants...and by implication that there are some non-elect infants. Where does the Bible speak of any infants going to hell?

 

[AThornquist]

It can go either way, depending on who is arguing the position. It's much too little to be dogmatic about.

 

[Grillsy]

Where does the Scripture speak of non elect infants who die in infancy (Esau being passed over doesn't count since he grew up and committed actual sin)?

Same place it talks about all the other non elect people who die, I would assume.

Which is where? What I am asking is that as Reformed people, we say that there are elect infants...and by implication that there are some non-elect infants. Where does the Bible speak of any infants going to hell?

We can infer from the Flood and the Canaanite children. Also, let us not forget, the guilt of original sin.

 

[Skyler]

Where does the Scripture speak of non elect infants who die in infancy (Esau being passed over doesn't count since he grew up and committed actual sin)?

Same place it talks about all the other non elect people who die, I would assume.

Which is where? What I am asking is that as Reformed people, we say that there are elect infants...and by implication that there are some non-elect infants. Where does the Bible speak of any infants going to hell?

When it speaks generally of non-elect persons going to hell, I see no reason to exclude a particular group of non-elect persons on the basis that Scripture does not specifically include them. We don't ask where Scripture speaks of non-elect rock stars dying and going to hell.

 

[au5t1n]

For whatever my opinion's worth, I think David was referring to death and the grave, not heaven. I would support the doctrine that infants can be regenerated from other verses.

 

[MW]

Which is where? What I am asking is that as Reformed people, we say that there are elect infants...and by implication that there are some non-elect infants. Where does the Bible speak of any infants going to hell?

I'm not sure that "hell" is the appropriate point of emphasis. That sounds more fundamentalist than Reformed. It is more the case that we leave those outside the visible church to the judgment of God. Concerning the election of infants, Romans 9 is as clear as day that God has His electing purpose amongst infants; it is before the children, Jacob and Esau, have done anything good or bad that the one is loved and the other is hated.

Concerning the OP, two options have been presented -- heaven or death. In the Psalms those who go down to the grave are never described in terms of life and hope, e.g., Psalm 30:9. Conversely, the hope of the Psalmist is, after death, in seeing the face of God, e.g., Psalm 17:15. Given the living and hopeful nature of David's expression it is appropriate to understand it as referring to heaven.

 

[Moireach]

Everyone, I made it crystal clear this thread was not for discussing the topic as a whole!
Only this verse!
I know some of you did answer the thread. Thanks Jessica, that is what was said to me, I wasn't sure though. Does anybody else have more to add to what Jessica said? Do people agree with that?

 

[Andres]

David, first, calm down a bit. You're thread will be okay. Second, to answer your question:

I'm asking does this verse ALONE prove that infants do/can go to heaven?

I would say, no, that verse ALONE is not sufficient proof that infants go to heaven. As pointed out, the verse could be describing David going to the grave. I would also add that even if the verse is referencing heaven, I would assume David's son to be elect, as he would be a covenant child. Then the reason the child went to heaven would have to do with the fact he was one of God's elect, not simply because he was an infant.

 

[brianeschen]

How would David be comforted with the thought that he would die and go to the grave just like his little baby did? Would it not be more natural to read it as Rev. Winzer described?

Given the living and hopeful nature of David's expression it is appropriate to understand it as referring to heaven.

 

[bill]

I don't know. I believe David is referring to death. David is fasting and praying, but once he gets word that his child had died he cleans himself up and moves on. I believe David was comforted in the fact that Gods will was done. We know scripture also says that "But how are they to call on him in whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." Romans 10:14-17 (ESV)

That is my opinion, but refer to my first comment

 

[au5t1n]

How would David be comforted with the thought that he would die and go to the grave just like his little baby did? Would it not be more natural to read it as Rev. Winzer described?

Given the living and hopeful nature of David's expression it is appropriate to understand it as referring to heaven.

Where does it say David was comforted? He says that there is no longer a point in fasting because he cannot bring the child back.

 

[Moireach]

Hypothetically, if David does mean heaven, does that make what he says true?
Is it wrong to say it doesn't have to be true just because David said it to his servants?

 

[proregno]

1. The immediate context, v.24a ('comforted'), shows that content of v.23b ('I shall go to him') is the 'comfort' of v.24.

2. David lived from the Promise (as did all OT saints, John 8:56; Acts 26:6), the Promise that because Christ will be raised from the dead (Ps.16:10b; see Acts 2:25-28), and therefore his 'only comfort and live and death' was Ps.16:8-10a: "8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".

3. Therefore, David's comfort and hope, with which he also comforted Bathsheba (v.24), were not 'death/hell', but Christ and eternal life/heaven, where he will be united with his son, because of the Covenant of Grace (Gen.17:7).

 

[JML]

1. The immediate context, v.24a ('comforted'), shows that content of v.23b ('I shall go to him') is the 'comfort' of v.24.

2. David lived from the Promise (as did all OT saints, John 8:56; Acts 26:6), the Promise that because Christ will be raised from the dead (Ps.16:10b; see Acts 2:25-28), and therefore his 'only comfort and live and death' was Ps.16:8-10a: "8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".

3. Therefore, David's comfort and hope, with which he also comforted Bathsheba (v.24), were not 'death/hell', but Christ and eternal life/heaven, where he will be united with his son, because of the Covenant of Grace (Gen.17:7).

You may be right. However, I think this is a stretch. The text just doesn't say and I don't think we can come to an absolute conclusion on it. Someone who has lost an unconverted loved one can be comforted as well. See Bill's comment above.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

How is it a "stretch"? You say "the text doesn't say that," by which you seem to mean the single verse doesn't contain a whole theology of the afterlife, or an epitome of the afterlife.

However, proregno's post contains not only references to the verse in question, and the context, but also five other Scripture references, one of which directly quotes David expressing his hope, and another quoting a NT figure referencing David's hope.

The issue isn't "what could this verse possibly mean to anyone who reads it?" but "what should we expect a faithful man like David to believe?" Christians have promises, and they are expected to hope in promises. Unbelievers have no promises. David, like believing parents today of dead infants, have nothing more to cling to than the promises of God--and they are encouraged to hold on to them, and believe in them. "I will be God to your children."

Believers have MORE to hope in than "God will do what is right and good... whatever that is!" There just seems to be a perverse determination to forbid David an expression here of hope in what God has given to Israel. It is only after we hope in God's mercy, that we acknowledge the "but"--but if God has another hidden, unstated purpose, we will not murmur or repine.

"I will go to him," is a pretty terse statement. David's theology of the afterlife (as expounded by Christ) is that God is the God of the living, not of the dead. Rather than claiming for David a skeptical, bleak, or (at best) brave-face-resigned-to-the-will-of-God attitude, its obvious to me that his language is properly interpreted only in the light of his covenant faith.

 

[au5t1n]

1. The immediate context, v.24a ('comforted'), shows that content of v.23b ('I shall go to him') is the 'comfort' of v.24.

2. David lived from the Promise (as did all OT saints, John 8:56; Acts 26:6), the Promise that because Christ will be raised from the dead (Ps.16:10b; see Acts 2:25-28), and therefore his 'only comfort and live and death' was Ps.16:8-10a: "8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. 9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. 10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell".

3. Therefore, David's comfort and hope, with which he also comforted Bathsheba (v.24), were not 'death/hell', but Christ and eternal life/heaven, where he will be united with his son, because of the Covenant of Grace (Gen.17:7).

Thanks for answering my question. You have made me reconsider. Thanks to Rev. Buchanan as well.

 

[saintandsinner77]

So then, if the babies of Canaanites who die in infancy go to hell, but babies of Christians do not go to hell, then isn't the inference that salvation is in part due to spiritual heritage? If the children are not punished for the sins of the parents, why should ipso facto, the Canaanite babies who die in infancy go to hell? You'll say, because of original sin. Fine. Then what of the original sin of babies who die of Christian parents? You say it is removed when they die, when God regenerates them. So then, God regenerates the babies of Christians who die in infancy, but doesn't do so for babies of unbelievers. So, what I see as election of infants who die in infancy is due to the spiritual condition of their parents. And all this time, I thought election wasn't based on anything that someone does, good, or bad, in order that God's election might stand (Romans 9). But, if all the Canaanite babies who die, burn in hell, I guess it does have to do with their bad parents- if only they had been born to faithful Jewish parents in the OT, they would be in heaven.

 

[brianeschen]

Walter,

It is different than what you are presenting. Christian parents are taught to believe their babies who die in infancy are saved because of the promises of God, not because of something good about the parent or the baby. Non Christian parents do not have that hope because the promises of God do not apply to them nor to their children.

 

[saintandsinner77]

Walter,

It is different than what you are presenting. Christian parents are taught to believe their babies who die in infancy are saved because of the promises of God, not because of something good about the parent or the baby. Non Christian parents do not have that hope because the promises of God do not apply to them nor to their children.

That's my point- the promise is if and only if you are a Christian parent who has a baby who dies in infancy, you have the promise. So then, how can we simultaneously turn around and say, "well the baby's election had nothing to do with the fact that the baby had a Christian parent," when the promise is attached to the fact that it is only for Christian parents.

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

Our Lord said, "Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14). How do we know that all of the parents of these little ones were regenerate? For all we know, the parents of these little ones could have had simply temporal faith or miraculous faith, but not saving faith in Jesus.

 

[Skyler]

@Walter: Read Matthew 18:6. The "little ones" Jesus is talking about are the ones who believe in Him.

 

[au5t1n]

So then, if the babies of Canaanites who die in infancy go to hell, but babies of Christians do not go to hell, then isn't the inference that salvation is in part due to spiritual heritage? If the children are not punished for the sins of the parents, why should ipso facto, the Canaanite babies who die in infancy go to hell? You'll say, because of original sin. Fine. Then what of the original sin of babies who die of Christian parents? You say it is removed when they die, when God regenerates them. So then, God regenerates the babies of Christians who die in infancy, but doesn't do so for babies of unbelievers. So, what I see as election of infants who die in infancy is due to the spiritual condition of their parents. And all this time, I thought election wasn't based on anything that someone does, good, or bad, in order that God's election might stand (Romans 9). But, if all the Canaanite babies who die, burn in hell, I guess it does have to do with their bad parents- if only they had been born to faithful Jewish parents in the OT, they would be in heaven.

Let's apply the same logic to children who grow up and die as adults. A far, far greater percentage of children of Christians become (remain) believers than children of unbelievers. According to your logic, this would contradict Scriptures that say election is not based on anything in the person.

 

[MW]

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

If these verses are taken out of their covenantal context, they do not teach the universal salvation of infants dying in infancy, but their universal damnation. I fail to see how any good can come of this. Why are we not allowed to rest assured in the everlasting purpose of grace?

 

[Skyler]

A far, far greater percentage of children of Christians become (remain) believers than children of unbelievers.

I've often wondered about that. Can you provide your source for that statistic, please?

 

[saintandsinner77]

So then, if the babies of Canaanites who die in infancy go to hell, but babies of Christians do not go to hell, then isn't the inference that salvation is in part due to spiritual heritage? If the children are not punished for the sins of the parents, why should ipso facto, the Canaanite babies who die in infancy go to hell? You'll say, because of original sin. Fine. Then what of the original sin of babies who die of Christian parents? You say it is removed when they die, when God regenerates them. So then, God regenerates the babies of Christians who die in infancy, but doesn't do so for babies of unbelievers. So, what I see as election of infants who die in infancy is due to the spiritual condition of their parents. And all this time, I thought election wasn't based on anything that someone does, good, or bad, in order that God's election might stand (Romans 9). But, if all the Canaanite babies who die, burn in hell, I guess it does have to do with their bad parents- if only they had been born to faithful Jewish parents in the OT, they would be in heaven.

Let's apply the same logic to children who grow up and die as adults. A far, far greater percentage of children of Christians become (remain) believers than children of unbelievers. According to your logic, this would contradict Scriptures that say election is not based on anything in the person.

Is that why 70-80% of evangelical children drop out of church when they go to college?

---------- Post added at 07:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 PM ----------

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

If these verses are taken out of their covenantal context, they do not teach the universal salvation of infants dying in infancy, but their universal damnation. I fail to see how any good can come of this. Why are we not allowed to rest assured in the everlasting purpose of grace?

Actually, it's the opposite- babies don't go to hell because their parents were not in the covenantal community. Revelation speaks of the judgment of the world and that each are judging according to their works- what works will non-elect infants be judged for (I am not referring to original sin, but actual sins)? It is the everlasting purpose of grace that would teach us God is a merciful God who does not send babies who die in infancy into the lake of fire.