T
Tommy_B
Guest
Can unbaptized infants go to heaven? Is Limbo a settled issue?
- Status
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Tommy,
Limbo for unbaptized infants was a theological speculation. There was a “Limbo of the Fathers” which is where those who would have been saved “waited” for Jesus to open the gates of heaven.
As for unbaptized babies, the Church says we have to depend on the mercy of God – we don’t know the answer.
Deacon Ed
Limbo for unbaptized infants was a theological speculation. There was a “Limbo of the Fathers” which is where those who would have been saved “waited” for Jesus to open the gates of heaven.
As for unbaptized babies, the Church says we have to depend on the mercy of God – we don’t know the answer.
Deacon Ed
B
Brendan
Guest
The effects of Baptism, namely Salvic Grace is required to enter Heaven. That is definitive Catholic Doctrine
This Grace is promised to us in the Sacrament of Baptism, and renewed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
But this Grace is an unmerited gift on God, and while God works through the Sacraments, He is not limited by them.
So a Catholic may, in good conscience, place hope in the Mercy of God.
(a Deacon Ed is quite correct, Limbo is a theological speculation only, it was never more than that in Catholic teaching) A Catholic may freely believe in Limbo or freely reject it. The Magistarium has made no pronouncements on it.
This Grace is promised to us in the Sacrament of Baptism, and renewed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
But this Grace is an unmerited gift on God, and while God works through the Sacraments, He is not limited by them.
So a Catholic may, in good conscience, place hope in the Mercy of God.
(a Deacon Ed is quite correct, Limbo is a theological speculation only, it was never more than that in Catholic teaching) A Catholic may freely believe in Limbo or freely reject it. The Magistarium has made no pronouncements on it.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Tommy B:
The Church in the Catechism strongly urges all parents to have their children Baptized as soon as possible after birth, and not take a chance of the child dying without Baptism.
“Limbo of the Infants” was/is a way of explaining the teaching of the Church, which is : Scripture specifically says “No unbaptized person can enter Heaven.” But that God wills all to be saved. So we hope that there might be a way for God to supply the Grace of Baptism outside of the Sacrament of Baptism. We don’t know.
The Church in the Catechism strongly urges all parents to have their children Baptized as soon as possible after birth, and not take a chance of the child dying without Baptism.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
If we don’t do it because we have to touch the child with oil and pour water, I would think theologians could figure a way around that since we can even use proxies for godparents.
If we don’t do it because we can’t physically see the baby or that the baby is not yet separated from its mother’s flesh, then we weaken our own pro-life arguments about the reality and individualality of the baby.
If we don’t do it because we need to know the baby’s name and/or sex which may not be known yet, then perhaps some pre-baptismal rite could be invented to help bridge this gap.
If we don’t do it because the baby has to hear what’s going on or feel the water, then I submit it already feels plenty of water and according to pro-life religious and secular scientific teaching, and as taught in LaMaze, it can hear us while still in the womb.
If we don’t do it because nobody has ever thought of it before, then I hereby make a suggestion to the Church that she has the power and authority to make certain of these babies’ destinies, if she chooses to do so.
Alan
This may sound weird, but as I read your post I wondered if there is any theological reason we have to wait for the birth to baptize the infant? We teach that the baby is fully human from conception and that civil rights should be granted it, why not the religious right (or rite) of baptism? We have Catholic funerals and/or burials for children who died before birth, don’t we?
If we don’t do it because we have to touch the child with oil and pour water, I would think theologians could figure a way around that since we can even use proxies for godparents.
If we don’t do it because we can’t physically see the baby or that the baby is not yet separated from its mother’s flesh, then we weaken our own pro-life arguments about the reality and individualality of the baby.
If we don’t do it because we need to know the baby’s name and/or sex which may not be known yet, then perhaps some pre-baptismal rite could be invented to help bridge this gap.
If we don’t do it because the baby has to hear what’s going on or feel the water, then I submit it already feels plenty of water and according to pro-life religious and secular scientific teaching, and as taught in LaMaze, it can hear us while still in the womb.
If we don’t do it because nobody has ever thought of it before, then I hereby make a suggestion to the Church that she has the power and authority to make certain of these babies’ destinies, if she chooses to do so.
Alan
M
mrsarchieleach
Guest
I have a further question on this toptic - I have had some miscarriages and found the same above answers to my inquiry as to the eternal state of my children. However, I was told by a priest once that the Pope had made some statement on this issue (unfortunately the priest did not sight the source at the time) that (perhaps it is only miscarried children, I don’t know?) these souls are in heaven. Since he said it came from the Pope himself, I am curious about it but I wish I knew where this has been said - would anyone know anything about this??? It leaves me in two minds still.
Thanks - God bless.
Thanks - God bless.
M
mrsarchieleach
Guest
Alan,
Your above post makes a lot of sense for all of us that have suffered with miscarraiges or stillbirths - the Church teaches that these are indeed fully human beings and our children, that we can pray to them and that they can interceed for us but at the same time there is no baptismal opportunity until after physical birth. I have heard about “baptism by intention” - that if able, the child would’ve been baptised and that can aid in the destiny of the child’s soul. It does leave those of us in this situation at a loss to truly know our child’s untimate destiny. When miscarriage is in the first trimester, there is often no fetal remains for a proper burial or funeral which can make it that much more difficult because it is such a silent grief that must be endured by the couple. However, there is a blessing that a preist can perform for a couple who have lost a child to miscarriage or stillbirth which can bring healing and comfort - it makes you feel like your loss has finally been acknowledged and is real and that there was a real baby that has a soul that God set aside for a special purpose.
Thanks so much for your post - it touches me heart and stuck a chord.
God bless.
Your above post makes a lot of sense for all of us that have suffered with miscarraiges or stillbirths - the Church teaches that these are indeed fully human beings and our children, that we can pray to them and that they can interceed for us but at the same time there is no baptismal opportunity until after physical birth. I have heard about “baptism by intention” - that if able, the child would’ve been baptised and that can aid in the destiny of the child’s soul. It does leave those of us in this situation at a loss to truly know our child’s untimate destiny. When miscarriage is in the first trimester, there is often no fetal remains for a proper burial or funeral which can make it that much more difficult because it is such a silent grief that must be endured by the couple. However, there is a blessing that a preist can perform for a couple who have lost a child to miscarriage or stillbirth which can bring healing and comfort - it makes you feel like your loss has finally been acknowledged and is real and that there was a real baby that has a soul that God set aside for a special purpose.
Thanks so much for your post - it touches me heart and stuck a chord.
God bless.
T
Teresa9
Guest
Dearest Alan
First of all your posts always touch my heart you are very sincere with your words and thoughts and your heart shows in what you write, thank you.
Second, I think the ‘baptism of desire’ would apply to babies who die before birth, that the parents would desire their baby to be baptised and therefore had they been born they would have been and as such the Lord accepts them as if they had been.
Having lost a baby in miscarriage myself, this is what I think and I have no doubt my baby is in heaven with Jesus.
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
First of all your posts always touch my heart you are very sincere with your words and thoughts and your heart shows in what you write, thank you.
Second, I think the ‘baptism of desire’ would apply to babies who die before birth, that the parents would desire their baby to be baptised and therefore had they been born they would have been and as such the Lord accepts them as if they had been.
Having lost a baby in miscarriage myself, this is what I think and I have no doubt my baby is in heaven with Jesus.
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
The Sacraments are individual encounters with Christ. All the Sacraments require the person to be physically present and for the action to take place on the physical person receiving the Sacrament. This relates to the “Form and Matter” spoken of by Trent.
Baptism requires water to flow on the skin of person being Baptized.
Confirmation requires the hand of the minister to come into contact with the person receiving the Sacrament.
Holy Communion requires the comsumming of the Blessed Sacrament by the individual.
Anointing of the Sick requires the oil be applied to the person receiving the Sacrament.
Holy Orders requires the laying on of hands on the head of the person being Ordained.
Reconciliation requires the presence of the person confessing the sins.
Even Marriage though the Mariage Rite allows the exchange of vows by proxy the Marriage is not Sacramentally complete until consumated which if I understand things right requires both persons to be present in the same space!
My mind is drawn to the image of the hand during the surgery in utero a few years back. This child could have been Baptized before birth at the time his hand was exposed.
This question also brings to mind the fact that John the Baptizer was Sanctified in his mothers womb and The Blessed Virgin was conceived without and preserved from the effects of Original Sin. With God nothing is impossible with God.
Personal opinion here:
I believe that there is a big difference between a child who dies without Baptism when there was no possibility of receiving Baptism, such as a miscarriage. And the child who dies without Baptism because of human failure to approach the Sacrament on the part of the parent, priest or other person who should have Baptized the child.
Adition:
Baptism of Desire only applies to a person who individually expresses a desire for the Sacrament of Baptism but dies before being able to receive the Sacrament. One person cannot “Desire Baptism for another” any more than a person can desire Absolution for another persons sins.
T
Teresa9
Guest
Dearest Br Rich
Thank you for your post it is most informative and very helpful. Thank you very much.
I would like to ask you further about the baptism of desire as you are far more knowledgeable than myself in this matter.
QUOTE : Baptism of Desire only applies to a person who individually expresses a desire for the Sacrament of Baptism but dies before being able to receive the Sacrament. One person cannot “Desire Baptism for another” any more than a person can desire Absolution for another persons sins.
If this is the case, how does infant baptism stand in that a parent desires it, brings it about and the child is obviously too young to be consulted…you can see where I am going with this…I am Catholic and believe as a Catholic a baby should be baptised as soon as is possible (weeks) after birth, but were it not for the parents desire for this to happen it would not happen, not at least until the child is of an age of reason to bring this about for his/herself. Very soon after her birth my daughter was ill in hospital and she was so sick I baptised her prior to her baptism ( a nun years ago told us if ever a child was seriously ill to do this if they had not been already baptised and I remembered it sitting in the hospital) Obviously when she was better I had her baptised by a Priest.
Maybe ‘baptism of desire’ is the wrong term to use in cases of unborn chidlren who die without baptism, maybe there should be another term for it, or maybe there is a doctrine already established by the Majesterium.
I would appreciate anything you can tell me about this in relation to a child that is not born but the parent would also have had that child baptised had they lived.
God Bless you and much love and peace to you.
Teresa
Thank you for your post it is most informative and very helpful. Thank you very much.
I would like to ask you further about the baptism of desire as you are far more knowledgeable than myself in this matter.
QUOTE : Baptism of Desire only applies to a person who individually expresses a desire for the Sacrament of Baptism but dies before being able to receive the Sacrament. One person cannot “Desire Baptism for another” any more than a person can desire Absolution for another persons sins.
If this is the case, how does infant baptism stand in that a parent desires it, brings it about and the child is obviously too young to be consulted…you can see where I am going with this…I am Catholic and believe as a Catholic a baby should be baptised as soon as is possible (weeks) after birth, but were it not for the parents desire for this to happen it would not happen, not at least until the child is of an age of reason to bring this about for his/herself. Very soon after her birth my daughter was ill in hospital and she was so sick I baptised her prior to her baptism ( a nun years ago told us if ever a child was seriously ill to do this if they had not been already baptised and I remembered it sitting in the hospital) Obviously when she was better I had her baptised by a Priest.
Maybe ‘baptism of desire’ is the wrong term to use in cases of unborn chidlren who die without baptism, maybe there should be another term for it, or maybe there is a doctrine already established by the Majesterium.
I would appreciate anything you can tell me about this in relation to a child that is not born but the parent would also have had that child baptised had they lived.
God Bless you and much love and peace to you.
Teresa
J
joehar
Guest
Where in the word of God is baptism of an infant mentioned ? its like babies that are aborted they still go to heaven they werent baptized. also i dont want to hear about the catholic bible.
Thanks
Thanks
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
I respect this is your personal opinion, but you touched on another of many things that I’ve wondered about for a long time. I’ve always heard (dunno exactly where it comes from) that “a child suffers for the sins of its parents.” I seem to remember that in the OT there were some places where misdeeds were punished for many generations, but I’ve hardly read or studied OT.
My question is, based on either Church teachings or your personal opinion, what is the deal with God allowing the fate of an innocent child being left completely in the hands of its parents? My wife told me of a friend whose “Catholic” children would not baptize their children, so she did it herself when they weren’t around. Does this really make the difference between whether a baby goes to heaven or hell? If so, an atheistic view that they simply quit existing seems more comforting than to think an innocent child is going to endure eternal suffering (presumably as some sort of cruel punishment) for something totally beyond its grasp, much less control. Perhaps this is just my wordly mind and not my spiritual mind, but this has been quite a stumbling block for me.
I can’t stand to see people get punished on this earth unless two criteria are met, 1) they knew what they were doing (or not doing) was wrong when they did it (or should have done it), and 2) based on their situation they knew how they could have avoided it, or as a very minimum are instructed along with the punishment how they might avoid it in the future. Without meeting those criteria, I call any punitive action “abuse” rather than “punishment.” Those are “Alan’s rules” for just punishment, not God’s. If God’s are less forgiving than mine, then what am I to believe about love and forgiveness?
Sorry for laying this all on you; you just triggered up some old memories involving some of the nuns who ran my grade school.
Alan
Dear Br. Rich,
I respect this is your personal opinion, but you touched on another of many things that I’ve wondered about for a long time. I’ve always heard (dunno exactly where it comes from) that “a child suffers for the sins of its parents.” I seem to remember that in the OT there were some places where misdeeds were punished for many generations, but I’ve hardly read or studied OT.
My question is, based on either Church teachings or your personal opinion, what is the deal with God allowing the fate of an innocent child being left completely in the hands of its parents? My wife told me of a friend whose “Catholic” children would not baptize their children, so she did it herself when they weren’t around. Does this really make the difference between whether a baby goes to heaven or hell? If so, an atheistic view that they simply quit existing seems more comforting than to think an innocent child is going to endure eternal suffering (presumably as some sort of cruel punishment) for something totally beyond its grasp, much less control. Perhaps this is just my wordly mind and not my spiritual mind, but this has been quite a stumbling block for me.
I can’t stand to see people get punished on this earth unless two criteria are met, 1) they knew what they were doing (or not doing) was wrong when they did it (or should have done it), and 2) based on their situation they knew how they could have avoided it, or as a very minimum are instructed along with the punishment how they might avoid it in the future. Without meeting those criteria, I call any punitive action “abuse” rather than “punishment.” Those are “Alan’s rules” for just punishment, not God’s. If God’s are less forgiving than mine, then what am I to believe about love and forgiveness?
Sorry for laying this all on you; you just triggered up some old memories involving some of the nuns who ran my grade school.
Alan
H
hlgomez
Guest
Then, why are you here? If you believe in the word Trinity–it is not found in the Bible. Even the word “bible” is not found in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t even lists the sacred books that should be in the Bible. So, what do you want to believe?Where in the word of God is baptism of an infant mentioned ? its like babies that are aborted they still go to heaven they werent baptized. *also i dont want to hear about the catholic bible.
*
Thanks
Pio
J
JGC
Guest
Acts 16:15Where in the word of God is baptism of an infant mentioned ? its like babies that are aborted they still go to heaven they werent baptized. also i dont want to hear about the catholic bible.
Thanks
Acts 16:33
Acts 18:8
I Cor 1:16
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
You acted correctly any time anyone especially a child is in danger of death or serious illness and is not Baptized. Anyone who knows how should Baptize the child and notify the local parish that this has taken place. Your child was not Baptized by the priest but by you. The priest only supplied the additional Rites of Baptism.
“Baptism of Desire” has a specific meaning in the Catholic Church. When we use the common language understanding of this term is when we get into trouble and want to apply it to unbaptized children. It can’t be allpied to unbaptized children. Now if a child of 4 or 5 comes to you and says mommy I want to be Baptized, even with their limited knowledge of Baptism, and they die the next day. Then I could see this being a case of “Baptism of Desire”. Parents especially and the Faithful in general have a very grave responsibility to see to it that these children who have not received Baptism do so, without delay!
As to your last paragraph. We can only hope and trust in Gods mercy. Maybe instead of trying to make “Baptism of Desire” apply to infants we need a new term like “A Hope of Baptismal Grace”. The Catechism speaks of the funreal Rites of the Church for children and infants. Many do not realize that there are TWO different funeral rites for children and infants. One for Baptized children and one for unbaptized children and they have different wording in the prayers.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Yes this is found in many places in the Old Testament. It has also been used to explain Original sin.
God does not cause a parent to not use the means available to them to fullfill their obligation to their children. God gives us the means to wash away Original SIn and it’s effects. If we do not use them for ourselves or for others it’s not God’s doing.
Does Being Baptized or not really make a difference? YES!
If a child dies after being Baptized but before the age of reason(personal sin) it is certain that they are in Heaven.
The Church condemns the idea that a child or infant suffers in Hell for only Original Sin. Innocent children who die with only Original Sin on their soul are not condemned to suffering in Hell. That is a teaching of the Church according to a Universal Council.
T
Teresa9
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
Thank you for your reply. What you have said makes sense. “A Hope of Baptismal Grace” As it is virtually impossible to have a miscarried child baptised, unless it is a late miscarriage, I think God graces them with remission of original sin and as they are incapable of sinning, He takes them to him, how can it be just or merciful to have babies who are miscarried or who are medically aborted suffering the pains of pergatory? How can they be left in limbo, what but the grace of God could take them then to Himself?It can’t be the case, I trust in a loving and merciful God and say with full confidence in Him, my baby is with Him in Heaven. I think to propagate anything else would be then to question the goodness of God, God is love …
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
Dear Br Rich SFO
Thank you for your reply. What you have said makes sense. “A Hope of Baptismal Grace” As it is virtually impossible to have a miscarried child baptised, unless it is a late miscarriage, I think God graces them with remission of original sin and as they are incapable of sinning, He takes them to him, how can it be just or merciful to have babies who are miscarried or who are medically aborted suffering the pains of pergatory? How can they be left in limbo, what but the grace of God could take them then to Himself?It can’t be the case, I trust in a loving and merciful God and say with full confidence in Him, my baby is with Him in Heaven. I think to propagate anything else would be then to question the goodness of God, God is love …
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Br. Rich SFO:
Thank you. and I certainly hope they don’t suffer for nothing they’ve done wrong, or it would seem to this worldly mind to be abusive.
If they don’t go to hell, though, and not to heaven if they haven’t been baptized (and as I understand purgatory is always a step toward heaven) then does the Church have a specific belief about what happens to them?
Alan
Dear Br. Rich,
Thank you. and I certainly hope they don’t suffer for nothing they’ve done wrong, or it would seem to this worldly mind to be abusive.
If they don’t go to hell, though, and not to heaven if they haven’t been baptized (and as I understand purgatory is always a step toward heaven) then does the Church have a specific belief about what happens to them?
Alan
M
mrsarchieleach
Guest
Br. Rich,
Where can these funeral rites be found of which you have spoken? Can we, the laity, gain access to them to see the difference in wording and prayers? Can the infant funeral rite be used for miscarried children? I am curious to know if these include burial rites - what if there is no body or fetal remains (as in the case of many first trimester miscarriages - the baby is often reabsorbed)? My husband and I were offered a blessing by our priest for our second miscarriage - I can’t remember anything specific that the blessing expressed, unfortunately, but do remember how deeply it touched me and helped me. I’m assumming that this is different than the funeral rite of an infant that you mentioned but would like to know for sure if that is correct.
Also, I’m afraid that a question that I asked a while back got over looked - perhaps you or someone might know the answer: I was told by a priest that the Pope has said (I don’t know where - the priest did not reference it for me and I am wanting to know this) that miscarried babies are in heaven and the priest kind of seemed surprised that I didn’t aleady know this because I had expressed to him that I hope my two miscarried babies are in heaven and that I’m hoping that I make it to heaven so that I can see them some day (since no one can be truly assurred of heaven, even St. Paul hoped he endured to the end). A different priest seemed sure that I would see my two children in heaven. This kind of talk seems not quite in line with the teaching that we truly don’t know the fate of these babies and that we must rely on God’s mercy - that there is not absolute certainty. Why do people talk like there is certainty (I hope it’s not to “make the mourner feel better”) and that these babies are now little angels in heaven (that is not even accurate Church teaching). It seems that folks often have this idea that all you need is the belief, the faith belief and you are destined for heaven - the “we’re all sinners and fall short and that will never change - we’re never going to be perfect, so we have to have the faith in Christ who died for us - that alone will save us” kind of theology. I am a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant background and it seems like the “faith alone” theology of Martin Luther is just as common among many Catholics as it is Protestants or even the “once saved always saved” theology - many people live thier lives this way. Perhaps I’m stretching it here but I do think that this theology has been influencing the kind of comments that I often hear and have directly heard from people locally with our two losses. I very much do realize that innocent babies are not in the same situation as those of us beyond the age of reason but my point revolves around the degree to which we can have absolute certainty regarding this issue - salvation is a difficult issue to tackle, at any stage of life, with absolute certainty, it would appear (St. Paul, I think, would agree). We should never presume to know with certainty where we are destined to live out our eternity or our babies for that matter - that in itself seems to be sinful - an act of pride - to think one can know the mind of God. What we must do is have the hope of God’s mercy and that is something that our faith teaches us - to have hope that an all- loving God that willed these little babies into existence for only a short, short time would not damn them to Hell for all eternity because they did not live long enough to receive baptism. Am I way off base here?
Sorry so long - thanks for reading!
God bless!
Where can these funeral rites be found of which you have spoken? Can we, the laity, gain access to them to see the difference in wording and prayers? Can the infant funeral rite be used for miscarried children? I am curious to know if these include burial rites - what if there is no body or fetal remains (as in the case of many first trimester miscarriages - the baby is often reabsorbed)? My husband and I were offered a blessing by our priest for our second miscarriage - I can’t remember anything specific that the blessing expressed, unfortunately, but do remember how deeply it touched me and helped me. I’m assumming that this is different than the funeral rite of an infant that you mentioned but would like to know for sure if that is correct.
Also, I’m afraid that a question that I asked a while back got over looked - perhaps you or someone might know the answer: I was told by a priest that the Pope has said (I don’t know where - the priest did not reference it for me and I am wanting to know this) that miscarried babies are in heaven and the priest kind of seemed surprised that I didn’t aleady know this because I had expressed to him that I hope my two miscarried babies are in heaven and that I’m hoping that I make it to heaven so that I can see them some day (since no one can be truly assurred of heaven, even St. Paul hoped he endured to the end). A different priest seemed sure that I would see my two children in heaven. This kind of talk seems not quite in line with the teaching that we truly don’t know the fate of these babies and that we must rely on God’s mercy - that there is not absolute certainty. Why do people talk like there is certainty (I hope it’s not to “make the mourner feel better”) and that these babies are now little angels in heaven (that is not even accurate Church teaching). It seems that folks often have this idea that all you need is the belief, the faith belief and you are destined for heaven - the “we’re all sinners and fall short and that will never change - we’re never going to be perfect, so we have to have the faith in Christ who died for us - that alone will save us” kind of theology. I am a convert to Catholicism from a Protestant background and it seems like the “faith alone” theology of Martin Luther is just as common among many Catholics as it is Protestants or even the “once saved always saved” theology - many people live thier lives this way. Perhaps I’m stretching it here but I do think that this theology has been influencing the kind of comments that I often hear and have directly heard from people locally with our two losses. I very much do realize that innocent babies are not in the same situation as those of us beyond the age of reason but my point revolves around the degree to which we can have absolute certainty regarding this issue - salvation is a difficult issue to tackle, at any stage of life, with absolute certainty, it would appear (St. Paul, I think, would agree). We should never presume to know with certainty where we are destined to live out our eternity or our babies for that matter - that in itself seems to be sinful - an act of pride - to think one can know the mind of God. What we must do is have the hope of God’s mercy and that is something that our faith teaches us - to have hope that an all- loving God that willed these little babies into existence for only a short, short time would not damn them to Hell for all eternity because they did not live long enough to receive baptism. Am I way off base here?
Sorry so long - thanks for reading!
God bless!
T
Teresa9
Guest
Dear friend
We are to know the mind of God, Jesus’ ministry was to give us knowledge of what God desires and wills. It would be sinful then to know in all confidence that God is our Father…can you see what I mean by this, now as being our Father who loves us with infinite more love than we can imagine, He will have love for those babies, beyond any love we have for our babies. God’s love is pure, our love is frustrated by sin. If you desire that your child who has done no wrong, cannot sin, has never seen the world, that heaven should be there eternal rest, then what more would God give to them? as Jesus said ‘If you who are evil know how to give your children good gifts, how much more does your Father in heaven give’ (paraphrased but is more or less what the verse says)
I say what I say in confidence because I trust my Father in heaven, that He is all good and all good things come from Him, that He is just and merciful, but of all these, He is loving, He is LOVE. So us with our poor human love cannot grasp the infinite love of our Father, nor the goodness of His ways…this is why I have confidence my child is with Him not because anyone consoled me because no-one did,(most people said my baby was nothing but a bunch of cells and couldn’;t see why I was so upset) this I feel is a truth in my heart and I trust God.
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
We are to know the mind of God, Jesus’ ministry was to give us knowledge of what God desires and wills. It would be sinful then to know in all confidence that God is our Father…can you see what I mean by this, now as being our Father who loves us with infinite more love than we can imagine, He will have love for those babies, beyond any love we have for our babies. God’s love is pure, our love is frustrated by sin. If you desire that your child who has done no wrong, cannot sin, has never seen the world, that heaven should be there eternal rest, then what more would God give to them? as Jesus said ‘If you who are evil know how to give your children good gifts, how much more does your Father in heaven give’ (paraphrased but is more or less what the verse says)
I say what I say in confidence because I trust my Father in heaven, that He is all good and all good things come from Him, that He is just and merciful, but of all these, He is loving, He is LOVE. So us with our poor human love cannot grasp the infinite love of our Father, nor the goodness of His ways…this is why I have confidence my child is with Him not because anyone consoled me because no-one did,(most people said my baby was nothing but a bunch of cells and couldn’;t see why I was so upset) this I feel is a truth in my heart and I trust God.
God Bless you and much love and peace to you
Teresa
- Status