Are children born saved?

Well they are the main perps. but they are not alone. I believe Lutherans, Anglicans and perhaps Episcopals believe in child baptisims also. For the forgiveness of natural inborn sins not yet commited.

So are the sins of adam & eve upon their quite little heads or not?

I've heard that too many times now. Christians need to stop just repeating what other people said who didn't know any more about the Bible than them. The fact that the poor beggar has a name has no logical connection to a narration of a real account. If somebody didn't tell you it did, you would never have connected the two ideas. The rich man had no name because he wound up in hell, and there is no use for a name in hell. Those who are saved have names, and are known by God. Lazarus was carried to Abraham's "side" or "bosom" or whatever the word means. This is actually a reference to being saved, and Jesus had not yet gone to the Cross and rose again. Abraham was justified by faith rather than the law. The rich man went to Hell, but nobody has gone to the burning fires of hell yet. This proves that Jesus was not giving a real incident, and the story is only relevant as a parable anyway, because the people there didn't likely know Lazarus, and Jesus doesn't explain who he is, as there were many beggars. If he was talking about something that actually happened (and in reality there were many incidents of that type), why didn't he specify the exact identity of the two men?

What proves this was not a real event? You saying it without any reasoning or evidence? Exact identity? HE DID! When you don't take the word of truth literally, you can make it say anything you want it to say. That's a dangerous viewpoint of Scripture. Are you promoting the RCC doctrine of purgatory?

I explained it completely, but the idea is lodged in your belief system. Believe what you want.

Not only this, but in 1 Cor 7:12-15 it says,

12To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

I think this applies to the believers baby for sure, but again taken with everything else we are told about our God I still trust Him with any child.

Oh. BTW, there is nothing but purgatory right now. I don't know who made up the erroneous doctrinal tenant that we all go to hell immediately after death. If we did, no one would be judged at the end of Millennium. Besides, I pointed out in another post that the demons who spoke to Jesus in two different incidents before being cast out indicated they were not in hell yet. One says "are you come to torment us before us before the time". The ones named Legion begged Jesus not to send them into the abyss. They didn't mean the water. They meant the lake of fire. Being literal in scripture refers to letters and words, not the meanings of the intentions of the writer. This is why fundamental and literal are inadequate ways of interpreting scripture.

I've heard that too many times now. Christians need to stop just repeating what other people said who didn't know any more about the Bible than them. The fact that the poor beggar has a name has no logical connection to a narration of a real account(Does the Lord use a proper name in any other parable?...Nope, so logically, yes it does agree). If somebody didn't tell you it did, you would never have connected the two ideas. The rich man had no name because he wound up in hell, and there is no use for a name in hell(Agreed). Those who are saved have names, and are known by God. Lazarus was carried to Abraham's "side" or "bosom" or whatever the word mean(Agreed). This is actually a reference to being saved, and Jesus had not yet gone to the Cross and rose again. Abraham was justified by faith rather than the law. The rich man went to Hell, but nobody has gone to the burning fires of hell yet(only your opinion with no biblical evidence). This proves (your using your own opinion as proof) that Jesus was not giving a real incident, and the story is only relevant as a parable anyway, because the people there didn't likely know Lazarus, and Jesus doesn't explain who he is as there were many beggars. If he was talking about something that actually happened (and in reality there were many incidents of that type), why didn't he specify the exact identity of the two men?

My father dropped out of school when he was 10 to work on the family farm in Tennesee about 1925. He was told he was a Southern Democrat, so that's what he claimed to be. He would never think of doing something as disrespectful like asking what does that mean? He just took it at face value, no questions asked, I know he voted for Roosevelt twice, he didn't know what socialist meant either. He also voted for Kennedy. He was shocked when he was drafted and learned black people don't have tails like he was taught.

I was taught I was a Catholic but when I got old enough to realize that it was mostly nonsense I quit believing in it and later took the time to investigate in order to chose for myself what I decided to believe and became a Christian by reading the Bible. Years before I went back to church so I really don't understand why people bet their souls on what they were taught when they become old enough to realize all men are liars. if I knew how to transfer this response to my other string about why do people belong to denominations in which they don't believe without retyping it I would. I took a why to reformulate my thoughts and post this so please be kind.

I was akso taught America is always right, we can't be beaten and God is on our side so I joined the military 'cause I wanted to be on the right side for world war 3. Then found out the truth about viet nam when I was 20 so there is a wide margin between what I may think and what I believe. I'm done with this string. If you'd like to discus it like adults, PM me but don't try and lecture me because I won't accept your authority any more than the Popes'.

My father dropped out of school when he was 10 to work on the family farm in Tennesee about 1925. He was told he was a Southern Democrat, so that's what he claimed to be. He would never think of doing something as disrespectful like asking what does that mean? He just took it at face value, no questions asked, I know he voted for Roosevelt twice, he didn't know what socialist meant either. He also voted for Kennedy. He was shocked when he was drafted and learned black people don't have tails like he was taught.

I was taught I was a Catholic but when I got old enough to realize that it was mostly nonsense I quit believing in it and later took the time to investigate in order to chose for myself what I decided to believe and became a Christian by reading the Bible. Years before I went back to church so I really don't understand why people bet their souls on what they were taught when they become old enough to realize all men are liars. if I knew how to transfer this response to my other string about why do people belong to denominations in which they don't believe without retyping it I would. I took a why to reformulate my thoughts and post this so please be kind.

I was akso taught America is always right, we can't be beaten and God is on our side so I joined the military 'cause I wanted to be on the right side for world war 3. Then found out the truth about viet nam when I was 20 so there is a wide margin between what I may think and what I believe. I'm done with this string. If you'd like to discus it like adults, PM me but don't try and lecture me because I won't accept your authority any more than the Popes'.

Sorry about the wall of text, I didn't look at it again until it was too late.

We become too familiar with words. Saved...saved from what? I hope everyone agrees from the punishment of sin. What sin could the baby have committed? If the baby hasn’t sinned, why should they be punished or saved from punishment?

Children before the age of accountability if they die will either go to heaven, or they will cease to exist for they surely do not have punishment coming.

We are born innocent until we are at the age of accountability, which God knows that, and we would also know right from wrong in the proper perspective at that time.

Angels are ministering spirits sent to all who shall inherit salvation, and the angels always behold the face of the Father for the little ones, for they are protected spiritually before the age of accountability.

We are born innocent, and the sin of Adam and Eve does not come upon us when we are born, for everybody shall bear their own sins.

It would of never entered Adam and Eve's mind to eat off of the forbidden tree unless an outside source tempted them, so God allowed Satan to tempt Eve and she sinned, and then Eve was the outside source that tempted Adam by showing him she did not die and he sinned.

Then they knew good and evil, which means they had a choice how they would conduct themselves upon earth, so all their offspring is born with a choice, so they are born not knowing God, so they will do wrong before they come to God and repent, so all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

So we are born innocent until we understand wrong and do it instead of the good.

So babies are born innocent with no sin attached to their record, which is why the Bible says the angels always behold the face of the Father for the little ones, but are born not knowing God, and will do wrong before they come to God and repent of the wrong.

Since babies are born innocent do they go to heaven, and the question is do they have a soul or not, for if they have a soul it would live forever, but if they do not have a soul until the age of accountability then they would cease to exist but not be punished.

If babies have a soul then they would be saved from birth, and they lost it only because they sinned before they ever acknowledged the truth of God, which everybody will do.

So are we born with a soul, or do we receive it later.

It kind of does not make sense that a baby would be saved for they did not have to go through any trials or tribulations, and the things a saint at the age of accountability has to go through, so it would seem like they would not qualify, for they knew nothing about it.

But they might be saved.

I tend to believe that they would be saved if they are born in to this world, and die before the age of accountability, but not saved as a miscarriage.

But I do not know, but I know they are born innocent with no sin on their record, and the angels always behold the face of the Father for the little ones, so they are protected spiritually until they do wrong with an understanding of it, and the angels are sent to the saints that shall inherit eternal life.