Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

What happens to babies during the Rapture?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

We know what most of us feel that happened to David's baby at death, that he went to heaven. But yet that is a completely different situation than the rapture.

Plus as previously stated, when the flood came, there were no babies on the ark, just 8 souls.

I know of nothing that backs up the thought that babies will be ruptured at Jesus' coming.


Good OBservations. Also, with regards to David's baby, there is not even agreement as to just what David meant when he said his dead baby couldn't come to him but he (David) would go to him. Many hope, perhaps even 'want' this to mean that the baby went to heaven and David will follow him there. However, it's also possible David was simply talking about death and David only meant that he would go to his son in the grave.

As you say, there is nothing in Scripture that says babies will be raptured or that when a baby dies they automatically go to heaven. For whatever reason Scripture is rather silent in this area.

Even so, from what we know of God we can rest assured that whatever the case is with babies and youngsters who die or who may go through the Tribulation, however God handles them it will be perfect and best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

I think the concern for me would be if my one year old now did not get saved and she gets to age 6-7 and then bam the rapture happens. By the end of the tribulation she'd be 13-14 which would most likely be well past, generally speaking, the age of accountability. I'd be happy to put my trust in God and like John had said about the widows and orphans it's right to trust God with that. But, my daughter would be raised from 6-7 to 13-14 by whom? Someone that is unsaved, maybe not even a family member. So, my concern aren't the babies born right after but the ones that are part of a saved family that are just getting the point where they might call on Jesus to save them but then poof and then no one is there to guide/lead them.

With all that said, I would hope I could still put my faith in God that He would take care of her and somehow get her to someone else that does eventually get saved in the tribulation.

Very interesting but somewhat sad topic to think about.


We can't know but as part of how God cares for orphans it's very possible God could make sure our children would end up with someone saved during the Tribulation. Even if our children might end up with unbelievers it's yet within Gods power to protect them and save them in some manner too. There will be those spreading the Gospel during the Tribulation and osme will be saved.

Also, after the Tribulation those who are still alive will enter the Thousand Years so all is not over yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe that they'll get raptured out because there's enough indicators in scripture that lean that way. If not, we all have no choice but to trust God to take care of them some way. He's a kind and loving God, and His way is always best whether we understand it or not.

Here's some more food for thought. I believe in a pre, mid, and post trib rapture. To be clear, that is not a split rapture where some of the church goes up and some stay. I believe all of the church goes up in the pre, and the mid and post trib is for tribulation saints.

If babies go up in the first rapture, then I'd lean towards them going up in the second one as well. Meaning, that child that is concieved after the rapture (I believe babies in the womb have a soul and would be taken as well) would not have the opportunity to reach the age of accountibility. He'd be raptured out mid trib.

Furthermore, accepting the mark of the beast also includes worshipping him (Rev. 13), a child (imagine your child) under 3 1/2 years old doesn't know how to really worship. So, I see God, who loves little children more than we could ever imagine, placing multiple ways of protecting them.

To recap:

1. Rapture of those under the age of accountability, whether in the womb or not.
2. Mid trib rapture saves all the children from the chance of taking the mark or reaching the age of accountability.

This makes sense to me, because the tribulation is certainly not God's judgment on little children. It's God's way of drawing Israel back to Him and punishing a rebellious human race.

Jesus said that there's never been anything like the tribulation, and that there will never ever be anything like it ever again.

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

These discussions sound great, but much is assumed about an "Age of accountability". That happens to be a term (terms) that man has made up, and it is nowhere seen in scripture. consider this:

1. If the babes are too young to understand, that defeats "Faith cometh by hearing"...if they hear the Word as a baby, then it says that faith comes that way. It may be a seed of faith, but even a mustard seed sized faith would do.

2. If their innocence excuses them until they come to the age of understanding, then what about the mentally impaired who may never come to understand the Word of God. They can still "hear" as well as the deaf can "hear" by sign language. God would have to be a respecter of persons of sorts if he excused some and not others without a profession or a seed of faith.

3. Along with this, many have asked "What about the primitive tribes say in New Guinea? Will they go to heaven having never heard? The "age of accountability" theory leaves too many questions.

I wonder if it is a matter of the Lord knowing (not "causing") who will be saved, and who will not. Only He could know that, and only those that would have been saved would go to heaven. Kids raised in a heathen family (like Pharaoh's kids) may not therefore go to heaven, because they are raised in unbelief, with little chance of "hearing" the Gospel. Only God, in His foreknowledge could know such a thing, and that may be why He hasn't told us!

The Lord has instructed us to pass on the gospel to other generations, that our children may be blessed and saved. (Deut. 11:18-21)

Deut. 11:21 "That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth."

Notice "and the days of your children"

Edited by irishman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe that they'll get raptured out because there's enough indicators in scripture that lean that way. If not, we all have no choice but to trust God to take care of them some way. He's a kind and loving God, and His way is always best whether we understand it or not.

Here's some more food for thought. I believe in a pre, mid, and post trib rapture. To be clear, that is not a split rapture where some of the church goes up and some stay. I believe all of the church goes up in the pre, and the mid and post trib is for tribulation saints.

If babies go up in the first rapture, then I'd lean towards them going up in the second one as well. Meaning, that child that is concieved after the rapture (I believe babies in the womb have a soul and would be taken as well) would not have the opportunity to reach the age of accountibility. He'd be raptured out mid trib.

Furthermore, accepting the mark of the beast also includes worshipping him (Rev. 13), a child (imagine your child) under 3 1/2 years old doesn't know how to really worship. So, I see God, who loves little children more than we could ever imagine, placing multiple ways of protecting them.

To recap:

1. Rapture of those under the age of accountability, whether in the womb or not.
2. Mid trib rapture saves all the children from the chance of taking the mark or reaching the age of accountability.

This makes sense to me, because the tribulation is certainly not God's judgment on little children. It's God's way of drawing Israel back to Him and punishing a rebellious human race.

Jesus said that there's never been anything like the tribulation, and that there will never ever be anything like it ever again.


I've never heard of the idea there would be three separate raptures. Could you explain why you believe this?

I would also be interested in reading the indicators you mentioned which you say lean towards babies being raptured.

The "age of accountability", while it may have merit, is not in the Bible. Given that God is all-knowing then God would know if someone who was a baby at the beginning of the Tribulation would or wouldn't accept Christ before the end of the Tribulation...or ever, for that matter.

I agree there seems to be no reason to worry about children having the mark of the beast. The mark is so people can buy and sell, which adults tend to handle. Also, Scripture indicates that to take or reject the mark is a choice. Along with this is the fact that Scripture says all who take the mark are doomed. If a child isn't capable of understanding the Gospel they aren't capable of making a choice regarding the mark.

Good thoughts you are putting forth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It seems this thread is about writing your own doctrine. 3 raptures? Give us a break, or better give us a few scriptures to back up your ideas.


I don't know if anyone is writing their own doctrine but since Scripture is rather silent in this area whatever we discuss will be a matter of some speculation.

Myself, I've never heard of a three rapture belief but if such exists I would like to hear about it. So, I agree with you that I would like to see what Scripture is used to support this idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I lean towards the thought that the babies are sanctified by the parents (don't have the verse right off hand...) so I think babies of at least one saved parent will go to Heaven.

Unfortunately its a theory that uses only one verse and "human logic" to come up with.

I have heard people also teach that ALL babies/young children will go, but then they will have to grow up in the millenium and choose for or against Christ. I'm not sure what I think about that.... I guess its very possible since everyone would still have a choice. If it won't happen that way, then it would seem like there would have to be a little stricter method of letting babies into heaven, either by death or especially by way of rapture.

I honestly do not think that unsaved families will lose their children in the rapture (they won't be taken) but again other than that one verse I have no real other things to back it up...okay going to look up the verse quick...

I Cor 11:14 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.


It *seems* like God is saying that without at least one saved parent, the children would be considered unclean. But that having at least one saved parent will set apart the children and make them "holy"...under the age of accountability, I'm assuming.

The more I look at it, the more I really do think that its going to matter whether or not the children have a saved parent, if they are not of the age of accountability. Scary to think about in a way, but then anything regarding children is scary anyway...on the other hand, if millions upon millions of babies and children end up in heaven, and they DID have to choose Christ in the millenium...think about this, who will raise them, if they were raptured or taken from unsaved homes? "Holy" children would at least have one parent to be with them in the millenium to make sure they choose christ...unsaved children would have nOBody.

Stuff to think about. Sorry if I was a bit disjointed, I have to leave soon and wanted to type this quick as its a topic of interest to me, as mom of four kids!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've heard this verse (I Cor 11:14 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.) preached as dealing with a right family situation, not as anything to do with a just standing before God or in any manner towards the Rapture.

What about all the babies and young children prior to the Rapture? Why would babies and young children at the time of the Rapture be viewed or treated differently than those multiple millions prior to the Rapture?

Multiple millions of babies and young children have died during various judgements of God (the Flood and the tribes God order eliminated in the Promised land to name two), as well as during centuries of war, famine, severe weather and the general things that happen over the course of time in this fallen world. Why did babies and youngsters go through that but we think they won't go through the Tribulation?

Another point, I can see where ones view of when the Tribulation actually takes place (as another mentioned the idea of three separate raptures) could make a difference in how they view this too.

We know from Scripture that we are all born tainted by sin so even as babies we are not actually "innocent". Scripture also tells us that we can't get into heaven because of the actions or beliefs of another. These need to be considered as well.

This might fall in the "age of accountability" realm, but what about Romans where we are told that even those who have never heard the Gospel are told enough by God through the Creation to be able to make a choice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not really sure if they will be rapture. If a christian was about 4 or 5 months pregnant, wouldn't it be weird her baby would be motherless? And it would die anyway.


An excellent consideration! What about babies still in the womb...of both believers and unbelievers? Wow, now that's another game altogether.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John, if its in a family situation only....then what exactly does it mean that the children are either "unclean" or "holy"?

Number one, it has to mean under the age of accountability...otherwise the children decide for themselves if they are "unclean" or "holy". Number two, what is the significance of the children being either "unclean" or "holy"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John, if its in a family situation only....then what exactly does it mean that the children are either "unclean" or "holy"?

Number one, it has to mean under the age of accountability...otherwise the children decide for themselves if they are "unclean" or "holy". Number two, what is the significance of the children being either "unclean" or "holy"?


I've heard this preached a number of times that it's referring to the legitimacy of the child. Recall a bastard child was looked down upon and even God's law demanded such not be allowed in the temple unto the 10th generation (or something near that). Such children were considered "unclean" while children with married parents were "clean".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out how I've heard this verse preached upon. There may be others who preach it differently; I don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Suzy! Is God great or what?

I was just surfing the web and came across something that takes the position you put forth regarding the verse you listed. I haven't finished reading it yet but I do believe this touches on covenant theology which I know many Baptists/Fundamentalis (and others) argue about, some accepting, some rejecting...I've noticed a lot of arguments over some of Andrew Murray's books because of this topic.



There Is Something That Just Isn't Right About Baptists
March 10th 2010

This post title is "There Is Something That Just Isn't Right About Baptists"
Recently, John Piper decided to go public w/ his trenchant and deep theological insights regarding infants visited w/ death.


Piper writes,

I think they’re all saved. In other words, I don’t buy the principle that says that children born into “covenant families” are secure, and children born into “non-covenant families” aren’t. I don’t go there.

Piper may not go there but Scripture certainly does.

I Corinthians 7:14 – For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

The Apostle’s point here is that the belief of one of the parents insure that the Children are set apart as Holy unto God. Based on this passage we are certainly able to affirm that children of covenant parents who die are saved by grace alone.

Now, as to the destiny of the children whom perish and who belong to parents who are outside of the covenant we should be more inclined to just say w/ Father Abraham, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” We can remain agnostic, choosing to be satisfied with the doctrine of election.

The Confused Piper continues

“My reason for thinking they’re all saved is because of the principle in Romans 1 where Paul argues that all people know God, and they are “without excuse” because they do not honor him or glorify him as God.

His argument is that they are without excuse because they know things, as though accountability in the presence of God at the Last Judgment will be based, at least partly, on whether they had access to necessary knowledge.

And God says they’ve all got access to knowledge, because they can look at the things he has made and see his power and deity. But they suppress that knowledge instead of submitting to it, therefore they’re all condemned.”

This is really quite excellent for it shows us the Arminian nature of non-covenantal Reformed Baptist thinking. All these folks believe that knowledge is a work that is traded for salvation. For the Baptist a child can not be baptized because they don’t yet have the knowledge that is required to bring in order for man to use to barter in exchange for Baptist salvation. Since this is true, it naturally follows that if a child has not yet had the opportunity to gain the required knowledge to trade in for salvation then it is only “Fair” of God to save that child.

Note, also here that Piper completely flies by issues like the imputed sin of Adam to all Adam’s seed – the imputation of which makes us, from birth, altogether fit for damnation – and the teaching of original sin which teaches that all of Adam’s seed are born with a corrupt nature. Piper’s prOBlem here is that he wants to focus on a lack of access to knowledge that allows infants or imbeciles who die to go to heaven, w/o acknowledging that it is a corrupt sin nature that man is born w/ that explains how it is, that even w/ access to knowledge, men hate God.

Also, Piper doesn’t know what a infant knows and doesn’t know. All of that is complete presumption on Piper’s part. I affirm that if an infant can know its Mother than that infant can know its creator.

Piper continues,

So I ask the question: OK, is the principle being raised there that, if you don’t have access to the knowledge that causes you to be held accountable, therefore you will not be accountable? And I think that’s the case.

I think babies and imbeciles—that is, those with profound mental disabilities—don’t have access to the knowledge that they will be called to account for. Therefore, somehow in some way, God, through Christ, covers these people.

So that, in a nutshell, is why I think all children who die in infancy are elect and will be, through Jesus Christ, saved in ways that I may not know how, as God honors this principle of accountability.”

Piper seems to be suggesting that people are born judicially innocent. What does Piper do with David’s inspired comment, in sin did my mother conceive me."?

Secondly, if people can be born and die w/o the sin that only comes from having access to knowledge then what, in the upside down Baptist world of John Piper, is there need for them to be covered by Christ for anything?

In short here are questions that Dr. Piper needs to answer,

If dead infants have no sin because they have not yet been exposed to the knowledge that brings sin what do they need Christ to cover for? To the contrary, If they do have sin because of being born w/ a sin nature and with the imputation of Adam’s sin then what could lack of access to knowledge have to do with going to heaven?

I’m telling you, there is something that just isn’t right about Reformed Baptists.

http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=there_is_something_that_just_isn_t_right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So as to not de-rail the thread, here's a quick synopsis on the 3 raptures. I didn't include it the first time because I didn't want to de-rail, but I've been asked to provide Scripture so here it is. :)


Pre-Trib:

I Thess: 4:14-18, "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. "15": For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. "16": For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: "17": Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. "18": Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

I Thess. 1:10, "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

I think we all agree that the entire church is raptured out before the tribulation begins, so as to avoid the wrath to come.



Mid-Trib:

Matt. 25:1-13, "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. "2": And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. "3": They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: "4": But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. "5": While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. "6": And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
"7": Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. "8": And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. "9": But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. "10": And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. "11": Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. "12": But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. "13": Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh."

These virgins are not the bride of Christ. They go to meet the bridegroom, not marry Him. They go in to meet the Bridegroom, and take part in the wedding. You'll read about guests and other members of the marriage of the Lamb in Song of Solomon. This is the 144,000, they're the only virgins you'll read about in Revelation, and they're jOB is to go out and evangelize the Gentile (like Paul did). The emphasis in the middle of the tribulation moves solely towards the nation of Israel, and the 144,000 are replaced by Moses and Elijah. Or Ben-hadad and Jerband, or whatever name you want to name the two witnessess. :)

Rev. 14:1-4, "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. "2": And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: "3": And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. "4": These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb."

One minute they're on earth, the next minute there's a voice heard from heaven, and then all of a sudden they're redeemed from among men and standing before the throne of God. Sounds like a rapture to me.



Post-Trib

Matt. 24:29-31, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: "30": And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. "31": And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

This one is really clear, how else can you interpret "Immediatly after the tribulation..." to be anything but immediatly after the tribulation?

Rev. 14:14-20, "And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. "15": And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. "16": And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. "17": And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. "18": And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. "19": And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. "20": And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs."

I believe the earth being reaped here is the post trib rapture, followed by Armageddon. There you have it, I'm a pre-tribber, a mid-tribber, and a post-tribber. I guess that means I'm everyone's friend, or everyones enemy! :icon_mrgreen:

Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...