Children & The Rapture

[Wings Like Eagles]

As someone who has a daughter who was born into eternity (stillborn), this topic was on my mind. I once read a discussion on this topic on this site a while ago (before I joined) and someone's stance was that babies in the womb were sinners and wouldn't be in the rapture. It greatly upset my grieving heart to the point I stopped reading the site for a while. So I would implore people discussing this topic to be mindful about those parents whose young children/babies are no longer living. I'm not saying make things up that aren't in the Bible, but just be careful on how you phrase things.

As for my thoughts, I think back to King David's baby son. I'm also now very confident I will be reunited with my daughter in the future, and happy to know she's reunited with her daddy. I agree wholeheartedly with @Palehorse

I used to counsel young Christian women who had fallen away from the faith because they had had an abortion (yes, it happens among Christians). They were in agony thinking about having condemned their child to a Christ-less eternity because some Calvinist had told them that their babies were in hell. Jesus said the "angels" of babies and young children are ever before the throne of God and I believe Him.

 

[Jan51]

6. Would a just-God, allow a child who cannot make that eternal decision, to enter into a time when a mark will be imposed upon all, which then condemns the bearer of said mark to eternity in hell? Don't we make this same argument for why Christians can't be in the 70th Week?

But by this logic, why would God protect one batch of children while allowing the rest who are conceived and born during the tribulation to enter this time??

I don't find any Bible teaching that indicates pre-born, babies and children will be taken. There is much to imply they will not.

Was this teaching around before the Left Behind series, which taught this doctrine?

Here is part of an article critiquing the Left Behind movie that deals with this doctrine. It is from a reputable source: MiddletownBibleChurch.org:


2) It emphasizes repeatedly that at the time of the rapture all infants and young children will be removed from the earth, including infants and children of unsaved people. But does the Bible really teach this? The rapture is when Christ comes to remove ("catch up"-1 Thess. 4:16-17) the church (all true believers) from earth. He will come to receive His bride and bring her to heaven. Thus, the rapture is for those "in Christ," those who are part of the body and bride of Christ.

Infants are not saved and they are not in Christ; nor are they part of the church. It would be wrong to point to a living infant and say, "That baby is saved and has eternal life and his sins are forgiven!" On the contrary, every baby is born in sin and every infant has a wicked sin nature (Rom. 5:12, Psalm 51:5; Job 14:4; Psalm 58:3). Babies are not saved and they do not possess eternal life. If this were true, then does this mean that when they get older they become UN-saved and forfeit eternal life? This is Biblically absurd. It would also be absurd to say that all the unsaved children around the world growing up in Hindu and Muslim and Buddhist homes are part of the church that is in Christ.

Keep in mind that an infant that is a year old at the time of the rapture will be approximately 8 years old at the time when Christ returns to this earth to rule and reign, and thus will be certainly old enough to make a responsible decision for or against Christ at that time or even prior to that time.

Whether or not Christ takes infants that belong to saved parents is not revealed in the Scriptures, though it does seem reasonable to suppose that God would take such infants instead of leaving them parentless and defenseless. One thing we do know for sure is that God will do what is right (Gen. 18:25; Rom. 9:14). God is certainly far more concerned for every infant and young child (saved or unsaved) than we are.

What kind of concept of God does this book and film convey to the world when unsaved mothers are going around in deep panic crying, "Where's my baby?" It makes God look like a kidnapper! This gives Reformed men and others all the more reason to mock our "secret rapture theory" (as they call it). It is important to realize that the issue under discussion is not what happens to infants who die. Though it is not our purpose here to defend the doctrine of infant salvation, yet we are assured, based on Scripture, that they will be SAFE IN THE ARMS OF JESUS (see the helpful book by Robert P. Lightner entitled Heaven For Those Who Cannot Believe). The issue is this: What happens to infants that are alive at the time of the rapture? This is an entirely different question.

The book LEFT BEHIND is a fictional book based on prophecy, but it does teach doctrine. One of the very questionable doctrines it teaches is that at the time of the rapture pregnant women will suddenly become un-pregnant (that is, the unborn babies will be taken in the rapture and will leave the unsaved mother who be left behind, many pounds lighter!). A rapture for embryos! The following is found on pages 46-47 of the book LEFT BEHIND:

Most shocking to Rayford was a woman in labor, about to go into the delivery room, who was suddenly barren. Doctors delivered the placenta. Her husband had caught the disappearance of the fetus on tape. As he videotaped her great belly and sweaty face, he asked questions. How did she feel? .....

Then came the scream and the dropping of the camera, terrified voices, running nurses, and the doctor. CNN reran the footage in superslow motion, showing the woman going from very pregnant to nearly flat stomached, as if she had instantaneously delivered. "Now, watch with us again," the newsman intoned, "and keep your eyes on the left edge of your screen, where a nurse appears to be reading a printout from the fetal heart monitor. There, see?" The action stopped as the pregnant woman's stomach deflated. "The nurse's uniform seems to still be standing as if an invisible person is wearing it. She's gone. Half a second later, watch." The tape moved ahead and stopped. "The uniform, stockings and all, are in a pile atop her shoes." Etc.

According to this teaching, after the rapture there will be a period of nine months when no babies will be born anywhere in the world (the only exception being some babies conceived after the rapture that may be born pre-mature)! Maternity wards in hospitals will be empty for months! Later in the book there is an argument between Rayford and his flight attendant, Hattie, about Hattie's sister who is out of work because she worked at an abortion clinic and there simply aren't any abortions to be performed. In summary, the film and book teach that at the time of the rapture all infants on earth are raptured and taken to heaven including all unborn children (according to the book).

The tribulation is a period of time when God's wrath will be put on display. It will be the most severe period of judgment the world has ever known. It will be similar to the plagues that fell on Egypt, only on a world-wide scale and more severe. It is helpful to think back through history on other occasions when God's judgment fell in order to see what happened to infants.

Is it unthinkable that God should expose helpless infants to a terrible time of judgment? What about the babies in Jericho? Were they supernaturally delivered? What about the children of the kingdom of Bashan and the children of the kingdom of Heshbon (see Deut. 3:6)? In Egypt the firstborn of each household was slain from the palace of Pharoah and on down. In Bethlehem God allowed babies to be slain due to Herod's jealous rage (Matthew 2).

Children often in Scripture and in life bear the consequences of their parents' unbelief. Is this principle going to be overthrown at the rapture? Unsaved moms going around and saying, "Where is my baby?" eliminates one of the horrors of that time of judgment-having your children suffer with you throughout that period. It undercuts one important reason to be saved-that is, for the sake of our children and other family members (Acts 16:31; 2:39; 1Cor. 7:14 etc.). Was not one of the rich man's worst torments in Hell (Hades) the fact that his brothers were going to join him (see Luke 16:27-31)? One of the greatest reasons to be saved is for the sake of family and friends that we may influence, that they may save themselves from this wicked generation. Cornelius is to be the example of us all, who called together his kinsman and friends to hear the gospel (Acts10:24).

Why would God deliver infants and unborn of the unsaved just prior to the first half of the tribulation, which is much milder, and have other infants suffer in the last half which is more severe (Luke 21:23)? Why would God allow pregnant women to be ripped up in other historical judgments and do extraordinary things to avoid it in this last one (2 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13; Isa. 13:15-18)? See also Deuteronomy 28:54-56 and Lamentations 2:20 for other examples of children suffering (being literally devoured) in historical judgments.

The fact that people have experienced historical judgment does not automatically mean they have come under damnation. Moses is the classic refutation of this. He came under historical judgment which involved death, but certainly he was a saved man ( Hebrews 11: 24-26; Matt. 17:3-4). Are we to believe that all the infants that drowned in the flood are in hell because they experienced an historical judgment? Certainly not.

Those who advocate that all babies throughout the world will be raptured might reason in this way: Since infant salvation is true, then infant rapture must also be true. The rapture of infants of the unsaved is a very bold extrapolation on no Biblical grounds and seems an unwarranted sensationalist device for creating a dramatic effect in a book or film. The real horror is not babies disappearing, but remaining to grow up in those awful times. "Woe unto them with child and to them that give suck in those days" (Matthew 24:19).

Consider the message our Lord gave to the women of Jerusalem who were bewailing Him on his way to the cross. "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us [compare Hosea 10:8 and Rev. 6:16]. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" (Luke 23:28-31). If what God has done in the past is a indication of what He will do in the last great historical judgment, then this passage has great bearing. Children suffered greatly in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD which is a prototype of the last great judgment.

"But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people (Luke 21:23). This passage is significant because Luke seems to connect the sufferings in 70AD with end time events in the future at the return of Christ. The future tribulation will be a time of special suffering for those who are pregnant and for those who have small children who are nursing.

The days of Noah are parallel to the days just prior to Christ's coming to earth (Luke 17:26; Matt. 24:36ff). Certainly the unsaved babies of Noah's day did not escape the terrible judgment that came upon the entire world (and the fetuses did not escape either). They all drowned. I am not commenting on the eternal destiny of any of these children, but the historical judgments in this life certainly are experienced by them. Why would the judgments of the tribulation be any different than those of the past?

Conclusion to this section: It seems far more in line with Biblical teaching to suggest that infants of unsaved parents at the time of the rapture will enter the tribulation along with their parents, and with their parents will face whatever those frightful days will bring. If an infant should suffer physical death during the horrors of the tribulation period, God will take care of this person based on His abundant mercy and the work of Christ on the cross. The benefits of Christ's cross-work (justification, etc.) are applied to this person at the time of death and not before.

https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/lebehind.htm

 

[Andy C]

But by this logic, why would God protect one batch of children while allowing the rest who are conceived and born during the tribulation to enter this time??

I don't find any Bible teaching that indicates pre-born, babies and children will be taken. There is much to imply they will not.

Was this teaching around before the Left Behind series, which taught this doctrine?

Here is part of an article critiquing the Left Behind movie that deals with this doctrine. It is from a reputable source: MiddletownBibleChurch.org:


2) It emphasizes repeatedly that at the time of the rapture all infants and young children will be removed from the earth, including infants and children of unsaved people. But does the Bible really teach this? The rapture is when Christ comes to remove ("catch up"-1 Thess. 4:16-17) the church (all true believers) from earth. He will come to receive His bride and bring her to heaven. Thus, the rapture is for those "in Christ," those who are part of the body and bride of Christ.

Infants are not saved and they are not in Christ; nor are they part of the church. It would be wrong to point to a living infant and say, "That baby is saved and has eternal life and his sins are forgiven!" On the contrary, every baby is born in sin and every infant has a wicked sin nature (Rom. 5:12, Psalm 51:5; Job 14:4; Psalm 58:3). Babies are not saved and they do not possess eternal life. If this were true, then does this mean that when they get older they become UN-saved and forfeit eternal life? This is Biblically absurd. It would also be absurd to say that all the unsaved children around the world growing up in Hindu and Muslim and Buddhist homes are part of the church that is in Christ.

Keep in mind that an infant that is a year old at the time of the rapture will be approximately 8 years old at the time when Christ returns to this earth to rule and reign, and thus will be certainly old enough to make a responsible decision for or against Christ at that time or even prior to that time.

Whether or not Christ takes infants that belong to saved parents is not revealed in the Scriptures, though it does seem reasonable to suppose that God would take such infants instead of leaving them parentless and defenseless. One thing we do know for sure is that God will do what is right (Gen. 18:25; Rom. 9:14). God is certainly far more concerned for every infant and young child (saved or unsaved) than we are.

What kind of concept of God does this book and film convey to the world when unsaved mothers are going around in deep panic crying, "Where's my baby?" It makes God look like a kidnapper! This gives Reformed men and others all the more reason to mock our "secret rapture theory" (as they call it). It is important to realize that the issue under discussion is not what happens to infants who die. Though it is not our purpose here to defend the doctrine of infant salvation, yet we are assured, based on Scripture, that they will be SAFE IN THE ARMS OF JESUS (see the helpful book by Robert P. Lightner entitled Heaven For Those Who Cannot Believe). The issue is this: What happens to infants that are alive at the time of the rapture? This is an entirely different question.

The book LEFT BEHIND is a fictional book based on prophecy, but it does teach doctrine. One of the very questionable doctrines it teaches is that at the time of the rapture pregnant women will suddenly become un-pregnant (that is, the unborn babies will be taken in the rapture and will leave the unsaved mother who be left behind, many pounds lighter!). A rapture for embryos! The following is found on pages 46-47 of the book LEFT BEHIND:

Most shocking to Rayford was a woman in labor, about to go into the delivery room, who was suddenly barren. Doctors delivered the placenta. Her husband had caught the disappearance of the fetus on tape. As he videotaped her great belly and sweaty face, he asked questions. How did she feel? .....

Then came the scream and the dropping of the camera, terrified voices, running nurses, and the doctor. CNN reran the footage in superslow motion, showing the woman going from very pregnant to nearly flat stomached, as if she had instantaneously delivered. "Now, watch with us again," the newsman intoned, "and keep your eyes on the left edge of your screen, where a nurse appears to be reading a printout from the fetal heart monitor. There, see?" The action stopped as the pregnant woman's stomach deflated. "The nurse's uniform seems to still be standing as if an invisible person is wearing it. She's gone. Half a second later, watch." The tape moved ahead and stopped. "The uniform, stockings and all, are in a pile atop her shoes." Etc.

According to this teaching, after the rapture there will be a period of nine months when no babies will be born anywhere in the world (the only exception being some babies conceived after the rapture that may be born pre-mature)! Maternity wards in hospitals will be empty for months! Later in the book there is an argument between Rayford and his flight attendant, Hattie, about Hattie's sister who is out of work because she worked at an abortion clinic and there simply aren't any abortions to be performed. In summary, the film and book teach that at the time of the rapture all infants on earth are raptured and taken to heaven including all unborn children (according to the book).

The tribulation is a period of time when God's wrath will be put on display. It will be the most severe period of judgment the world has ever known. It will be similar to the plagues that fell on Egypt, only on a world-wide scale and more severe. It is helpful to think back through history on other occasions when God's judgment fell in order to see what happened to infants.

Is it unthinkable that God should expose helpless infants to a terrible time of judgment? What about the babies in Jericho? Were they supernaturally delivered? What about the children of the kingdom of Bashan and the children of the kingdom of Heshbon (see Deut. 3:6)? In Egypt the firstborn of each household was slain from the palace of Pharoah and on down. In Bethlehem God allowed babies to be slain due to Herod's jealous rage (Matthew 2).

Children often in Scripture and in life bear the consequences of their parents' unbelief. Is this principle going to be overthrown at the rapture? Unsaved moms going around and saying, "Where is my baby?" eliminates one of the horrors of that time of judgment-having your children suffer with you throughout that period. It undercuts one important reason to be saved-that is, for the sake of our children and other family members (Acts 16:31; 2:39; 1Cor. 7:14 etc.). Was not one of the rich man's worst torments in Hell (Hades) the fact that his brothers were going to join him (see Luke 16:27-31)? One of the greatest reasons to be saved is for the sake of family and friends that we may influence, that they may save themselves from this wicked generation. Cornelius is to be the example of us all, who called together his kinsman and friends to hear the gospel (Acts10:24).

Why would God deliver infants and unborn of the unsaved just prior to the first half of the tribulation, which is much milder, and have other infants suffer in the last half which is more severe (Luke 21:23)? Why would God allow pregnant women to be ripped up in other historical judgments and do extraordinary things to avoid it in this last one (2 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13; Isa. 13:15-18)? See also Deuteronomy 28:54-56 and Lamentations 2:20 for other examples of children suffering (being literally devoured) in historical judgments.

The fact that people have experienced historical judgment does not automatically mean they have come under damnation. Moses is the classic refutation of this. He came under historical judgment which involved death, but certainly he was a saved man ( Hebrews 11: 24-26; Matt. 17:3-4). Are we to believe that all the infants that drowned in the flood are in hell because they experienced an historical judgment? Certainly not.

Those who advocate that all babies throughout the world will be raptured might reason in this way: Since infant salvation is true, then infant rapture must also be true. The rapture of infants of the unsaved is a very bold extrapolation on no Biblical grounds and seems an unwarranted sensationalist device for creating a dramatic effect in a book or film. The real horror is not babies disappearing, but remaining to grow up in those awful times. "Woe unto them with child and to them that give suck in those days" (Matthew 24:19).

Consider the message our Lord gave to the women of Jerusalem who were bewailing Him on his way to the cross. "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us [compare Hosea 10:8 and Rev. 6:16]. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" (Luke 23:28-31). If what God has done in the past is a indication of what He will do in the last great historical judgment, then this passage has great bearing. Children suffered greatly in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD which is a prototype of the last great judgment.

"But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people (Luke 21:23). This passage is significant because Luke seems to connect the sufferings in 70AD with end time events in the future at the return of Christ. The future tribulation will be a time of special suffering for those who are pregnant and for those who have small children who are nursing.

The days of Noah are parallel to the days just prior to Christ's coming to earth (Luke 17:26; Matt. 24:36ff). Certainly the unsaved babies of Noah's day did not escape the terrible judgment that came upon the entire world (and the fetuses did not escape either). They all drowned. I am not commenting on the eternal destiny of any of these children, but the historical judgments in this life certainly are experienced by them. Why would the judgments of the tribulation be any different than those of the past?

Conclusion to this section: It seems far more in line with Biblical teaching to suggest that infants of unsaved parents at the time of the rapture will enter the tribulation along with their parents, and with their parents will face whatever those frightful days will bring. If an infant should suffer physical death during the horrors of the tribulation period, God will take care of this person based on His abundant mercy and the work of Christ on the cross. The benefits of Christ's cross-work (justification, etc.) are applied to this person at the time of death and not before.

https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/lebehind.htm

Im not sure how “Left Behind” books entered this thread, but perhaps we should stick with the Words of bible only for this topic?

This is always an interesting subject to discuss.

 

[mattfivefour]

onclusion to this section: It seems far more in line with Biblical teaching to suggest that infants of unsaved parents at the time of the rapture will enter the tribulation along with their parents, and with their parents will face whatever those frightful days will bring. If an infant should suffer physical death during the horrors of the tribulation period, God will take care of this person based on His abundant mercy and the work of Christ on the cross. The benefits of Christ's cross-work (justification, etc.) are applied to this person at the time of death and not before

This seems correct to me, as I understand Scripture.

 

[soundingthealarm]

Very interesting topic and I’m thankful for the insight and I only add the following as more of something I’ve wondered on this topic

only 7 besides Noah entered the Ark ….children faced the flood

Only Lot’s family were removed from Sodom, not all the children.

But death obviously doesn’t always equate damnation…

Just chiming in and learning more on this topic as I go from what is being shared.

 

[Tall Timbers]

Im not sure how “Left Behind” books entered this thread, but perhaps we should stick with the Words of bible only for this topic?

The Left Behind series was relevant to this thread because it lent itself to the belief that children, born and unborn would be taken up in the Rapture. Because it was a very popular book series, millions were exposed to that theology whether it is correct or not.

 

[Andy C]

The Left Behind series was relevant to this thread because it lent itself to the belief that children, born and unborn would be taken up in the Rapture. Because it was a very popular book series, millions were exposed to that theology whether it is correct or not.

Fair enough point, but still, not needed.

 

[Epieikes]

As someone who has a daughter who was born into eternity (stillborn), this topic was on my mind. I once read a discussion on this topic on this site a while ago (before I joined) and someone's stance was that babies in the womb were sinners and wouldn't be in the rapture. It greatly upset my grieving heart to the point I stopped reading the site for a while. So I would implore people discussing this topic to be mindful about those parents whose young children/babies are no longer living. I'm not saying make things up that aren't in the Bible, but just be careful on how you phrase things.

As for my thoughts, I think back to King David's baby son. I'm also now very confident I will be reunited with my daughter in the future, and happy to know she's reunited with her daddy. I agree wholeheartedly with @Palehorse

Hugs, crunchymama...my heart goes out to you and all in my path (and even not) who have borne this especially difficult cross. I imagine this could set off a maelstrom...but fortunately on this site, we're all family, right? Randy Alcorn has written extensively about Heaven in both nonfiction and allegorical fiction books/articles. I was astounded to read for the first time that he felt (and he did say "speculation--but hear me out") that perhaps if babies go Home en utero or perhaps way younger than we'd like once born, that there is room for the theory that perhaps parents who didn't get to see them mature would possibly get to raise them in Heaven. I've not been yet, so I can't let RF know if it's right, but if one of you does get there first, can you please bump an angel or some other means of portal communication to type us a response and let us know?

 

[usoutpost31]

Was this teaching around before the Left Behind series, which taught this doctrine?

It was in the Thief in the Night film series from the 1970s. Which itself was a big influence on Left Behind.

I'm not old enough to remember if any prominent prophecy teachers believed it, but I think the idea has been around for a while.

 

[Endangered]

If you believe in Christ that is a decision YOU made. When you made that decision you became saved. Those that are too young to make that decision are not saved. But they may be taken in the Rapture. They will be given the option to make or refuse the decision during the rebellion at the end of the Millenium.

 

[crunchymama]

Hugs, crunchymama...my heart goes out to you and all in my path (and even not) who have borne this especially difficult cross. I imagine this could set off a maelstrom...but fortunately on this site, we're all family, right? Randy Alcorn has written extensively about Heaven in both nonfiction and allegorical fiction books/articles. I was astounded to read for the first time that he felt (and he did say "speculation--but hear me out") that perhaps if babies go Home en utero or perhaps way younger than we'd like once born, that there is room for the theory that perhaps parents who didn't get to see them mature would possibly get to raise them in Heaven. I've not been yet, so I can't let RF know if it's right, but if one of you does get there first, can you please bump an angel or some other means of portal communication to type us a response and let us know?

I read that in one of his books I read after the loss of my daughter. It's an interesting thought. For me, personally, I'm just content to be with her again for all of eternity. It would be nice to hold her as a baby, but I'll take her grown, too.

 

[crunchymama]

Very interesting topic and I’m thankful for the insight and I only add the following as more of something I’ve wondered on this topic

only 7 besides Noah entered the Ark ….children faced the flood

Only Lot’s family were removed from Sodom, not all the children.

But death obviously doesn’t always equate damnation…

Just chiming in and learning more on this topic as I go from what is being shared.

I actually think this points more to the "children of believers go". Noah and his children and Lot and his children.

 

[Wings Like Eagles]

But by this logic, why would God protect one batch of children while allowing the rest who are conceived and born during the tribulation to enter this time??

I don't find any Bible teaching that indicates pre-born, babies and children will be taken. There is much to imply they will not.

Was this teaching around before the Left Behind series, which taught this doctrine?

Here is part of an article critiquing the Left Behind movie that deals with this doctrine. It is from a reputable source: MiddletownBibleChurch.org:


2) It emphasizes repeatedly that at the time of the rapture all infants and young children will be removed from the earth, including infants and children of unsaved people. But does the Bible really teach this? The rapture is when Christ comes to remove ("catch up"-1 Thess. 4:16-17) the church (all true believers) from earth. He will come to receive His bride and bring her to heaven. Thus, the rapture is for those "in Christ," those who are part of the body and bride of Christ.

Infants are not saved and they are not in Christ; nor are they part of the church. It would be wrong to point to a living infant and say, "That baby is saved and has eternal life and his sins are forgiven!" On the contrary, every baby is born in sin and every infant has a wicked sin nature (Rom. 5:12, Psalm 51:5; Job 14:4; Psalm 58:3). Babies are not saved and they do not possess eternal life. If this were true, then does this mean that when they get older they become UN-saved and forfeit eternal life? This is Biblically absurd. It would also be absurd to say that all the unsaved children around the world growing up in Hindu and Muslim and Buddhist homes are part of the church that is in Christ.

Keep in mind that an infant that is a year old at the time of the rapture will be approximately 8 years old at the time when Christ returns to this earth to rule and reign, and thus will be certainly old enough to make a responsible decision for or against Christ at that time or even prior to that time.

Whether or not Christ takes infants that belong to saved parents is not revealed in the Scriptures, though it does seem reasonable to suppose that God would take such infants instead of leaving them parentless and defenseless. One thing we do know for sure is that God will do what is right (Gen. 18:25; Rom. 9:14). God is certainly far more concerned for every infant and young child (saved or unsaved) than we are.

What kind of concept of God does this book and film convey to the world when unsaved mothers are going around in deep panic crying, "Where's my baby?" It makes God look like a kidnapper! This gives Reformed men and others all the more reason to mock our "secret rapture theory" (as they call it). It is important to realize that the issue under discussion is not what happens to infants who die. Though it is not our purpose here to defend the doctrine of infant salvation, yet we are assured, based on Scripture, that they will be SAFE IN THE ARMS OF JESUS (see the helpful book by Robert P. Lightner entitled Heaven For Those Who Cannot Believe). The issue is this: What happens to infants that are alive at the time of the rapture? This is an entirely different question.

The book LEFT BEHIND is a fictional book based on prophecy, but it does teach doctrine. One of the very questionable doctrines it teaches is that at the time of the rapture pregnant women will suddenly become un-pregnant (that is, the unborn babies will be taken in the rapture and will leave the unsaved mother who be left behind, many pounds lighter!). A rapture for embryos! The following is found on pages 46-47 of the book LEFT BEHIND:

Most shocking to Rayford was a woman in labor, about to go into the delivery room, who was suddenly barren. Doctors delivered the placenta. Her husband had caught the disappearance of the fetus on tape. As he videotaped her great belly and sweaty face, he asked questions. How did she feel? .....

Then came the scream and the dropping of the camera, terrified voices, running nurses, and the doctor. CNN reran the footage in superslow motion, showing the woman going from very pregnant to nearly flat stomached, as if she had instantaneously delivered. "Now, watch with us again," the newsman intoned, "and keep your eyes on the left edge of your screen, where a nurse appears to be reading a printout from the fetal heart monitor. There, see?" The action stopped as the pregnant woman's stomach deflated. "The nurse's uniform seems to still be standing as if an invisible person is wearing it. She's gone. Half a second later, watch." The tape moved ahead and stopped. "The uniform, stockings and all, are in a pile atop her shoes." Etc.

According to this teaching, after the rapture there will be a period of nine months when no babies will be born anywhere in the world (the only exception being some babies conceived after the rapture that may be born pre-mature)! Maternity wards in hospitals will be empty for months! Later in the book there is an argument between Rayford and his flight attendant, Hattie, about Hattie's sister who is out of work because she worked at an abortion clinic and there simply aren't any abortions to be performed. In summary, the film and book teach that at the time of the rapture all infants on earth are raptured and taken to heaven including all unborn children (according to the book).

The tribulation is a period of time when God's wrath will be put on display. It will be the most severe period of judgment the world has ever known. It will be similar to the plagues that fell on Egypt, only on a world-wide scale and more severe. It is helpful to think back through history on other occasions when God's judgment fell in order to see what happened to infants.

Is it unthinkable that God should expose helpless infants to a terrible time of judgment? What about the babies in Jericho? Were they supernaturally delivered? What about the children of the kingdom of Bashan and the children of the kingdom of Heshbon (see Deut. 3:6)? In Egypt the firstborn of each household was slain from the palace of Pharoah and on down. In Bethlehem God allowed babies to be slain due to Herod's jealous rage (Matthew 2).

Children often in Scripture and in life bear the consequences of their parents' unbelief. Is this principle going to be overthrown at the rapture? Unsaved moms going around and saying, "Where is my baby?" eliminates one of the horrors of that time of judgment-having your children suffer with you throughout that period. It undercuts one important reason to be saved-that is, for the sake of our children and other family members (Acts 16:31; 2:39; 1Cor. 7:14 etc.). Was not one of the rich man's worst torments in Hell (Hades) the fact that his brothers were going to join him (see Luke 16:27-31)? One of the greatest reasons to be saved is for the sake of family and friends that we may influence, that they may save themselves from this wicked generation. Cornelius is to be the example of us all, who called together his kinsman and friends to hear the gospel (Acts10:24).

Why would God deliver infants and unborn of the unsaved just prior to the first half of the tribulation, which is much milder, and have other infants suffer in the last half which is more severe (Luke 21:23)? Why would God allow pregnant women to be ripped up in other historical judgments and do extraordinary things to avoid it in this last one (2 Kings 8:12; 2 Kings 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13; Isa. 13:15-18)? See also Deuteronomy 28:54-56 and Lamentations 2:20 for other examples of children suffering (being literally devoured) in historical judgments.

The fact that people have experienced historical judgment does not automatically mean they have come under damnation. Moses is the classic refutation of this. He came under historical judgment which involved death, but certainly he was a saved man ( Hebrews 11: 24-26; Matt. 17:3-4). Are we to believe that all the infants that drowned in the flood are in hell because they experienced an historical judgment? Certainly not.

Those who advocate that all babies throughout the world will be raptured might reason in this way: Since infant salvation is true, then infant rapture must also be true. The rapture of infants of the unsaved is a very bold extrapolation on no Biblical grounds and seems an unwarranted sensationalist device for creating a dramatic effect in a book or film. The real horror is not babies disappearing, but remaining to grow up in those awful times. "Woe unto them with child and to them that give suck in those days" (Matthew 24:19).

Consider the message our Lord gave to the women of Jerusalem who were bewailing Him on his way to the cross. "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us [compare Hosea 10:8 and Rev. 6:16]. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?" (Luke 23:28-31). If what God has done in the past is a indication of what He will do in the last great historical judgment, then this passage has great bearing. Children suffered greatly in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD which is a prototype of the last great judgment.

"But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people (Luke 21:23). This passage is significant because Luke seems to connect the sufferings in 70AD with end time events in the future at the return of Christ. The future tribulation will be a time of special suffering for those who are pregnant and for those who have small children who are nursing.

The days of Noah are parallel to the days just prior to Christ's coming to earth (Luke 17:26; Matt. 24:36ff). Certainly the unsaved babies of Noah's day did not escape the terrible judgment that came upon the entire world (and the fetuses did not escape either). They all drowned. I am not commenting on the eternal destiny of any of these children, but the historical judgments in this life certainly are experienced by them. Why would the judgments of the tribulation be any different than those of the past?

Conclusion to this section: It seems far more in line with Biblical teaching to suggest that infants of unsaved parents at the time of the rapture will enter the tribulation along with their parents, and with their parents will face whatever those frightful days will bring. If an infant should suffer physical death during the horrors of the tribulation period, God will take care of this person based on His abundant mercy and the work of Christ on the cross. The benefits of Christ's cross-work (justification, etc.) are applied to this person at the time of death and not before.

https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/lebehind.htm

Your post is too long to effectively rebut, but, I will say that citing Romans 5:12 is not going to help your argument. In the very next verse, the text tells us that sin was not counted as sin before the Law was given. Babies and young children are incapable of understanding the Law and what it means to break it and offend God. I think you are confusing physical death (which Paul speaks of in that passage) and spiritual death. Did Adam and Eve die physically on the day that they violated God's clear mandate? No, but, I would posit that they died spiritually when they shed their innocence (signified by shame over their nakedness) and from that point, they needed a Redeemer. Job, (arguably the oldest book in the Bible) speaks of the Redeemer and the proto-evangelium that is spoken by Yahweh to Adam and Eve makes it clear that they were to be given a second chance through the "seed of the woman". He could have killed them right on the spot but, instead, He gave them a covering for their nakedness/sin and sent them out from Eden to fill the earth with their descendants. That passage also makes it clear that God did not intend for mankind to live forever in a state of sin.

Every child is born in a state of innocence, until the day that he/she chooses to rebel from what he/she knows is right (i.e. to sin) and then, as Paul says in Romans 7:10, that spiritual death occurs at that point. Scripture tells us that we are dead in trespasses and sin, BUT, we are spiritually born again to life when we believe in Christ and the power of His Blood to remove our sins. Physically, He shortened the lives of Adam and Eve and they had suffering from that day forward, but we shouldn't confuse physical suffering (and ALL humans suffer in this way, redeemed or not) with eternal spiritual suffering in a Christ-less eternity. If babies and young children are not saved, then who are the "angels" of the babies and young children that Our Lord Jesus told us are ever before the throne of God? The Blood of Jesus is mighty to save.

 

[Tall Timbers]

If you believe in Christ that is a decision YOU made. When you made that decision you became saved. Those that are too young to make that decision are not saved. But they may be taken in the Rapture. They will be given the option to make or refuse the decision during the rebellion at the end of the Millenium.

Those taken in the Rapture won't be part of a rebellion against God at the end of the Millennium. Those unfortunates will be some who were born during the Millennial reign who refuse Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Epieikes]

I believe Yahweh has the Rapture not only timed for perfection, but design/timed-for-impact-perfection in style and substance. What that will look like we can only ponder, using Scripture as best as we can interpret it. Being Who He is, there will be some elements of what He's done in the past, as well as things we could not possibly imagine. To me, what He's done with Noah, Lot, Enoch, Elijah, John, Paul, and the rest are only partially able to be paralleled. Each lived in his own time, purpose, and geopolitical background...and, as well, as part of the massive timeline God created to begin with to bring things to pass, full-circle. Once, when I was heartsick over witness (with and without words) to my brother falling on deaf ears after decades of doing so, I told the Lord that I wanted to be WILLING (no, I wasn't asking for it) to give my life for his in the sense that perhaps seeing me go through a life-and-death trial victoriously in His strength might bring him to Jesus. At that time, I began to feel the Spirit press upon my heart..."Do not presume to know what will bring Me the most glory." I believe that applies here as well--and no matter what, the Rapture is designed to, will be the greatest wake-up call the (remaining) world has ever known.

 

[Jan51]

Fair enough point, but still, not needed.

I felt it was needed to point out the apparent origin of this now-popular belief. It did not originate in the Bible. That is very important to establish.

 

[Jan51]

Your post is too long to effectively rebut, but, I will say that citing Romans 5:12 is not going to help your argument. In the very next verse, the text tells us that sin was not counted as sin before the Law was given. Babies and young children are incapable of understanding the Law and what it means to break it and offend God. I think you are confusing physical death (which Paul speaks of in that passage) and spiritual death. Did Adam and Eve die physically on the day that they violated God's clear mandate? No, but, I would posit that they died spiritually when they shed their innocence (signified by shame over their nakedness) and from that point, they needed a Redeemer. Job, (arguably the oldest book in the Bible) speaks of the Redeemer and the proto-evangelium that is spoken by Yahweh to Adam and Eve makes it clear that they were to be given a second chance through the "seed of the woman". He could have killed them right on the spot but, instead, He gave them a covering for their nakedness/sin and sent them out from Eden to fill the earth with their descendants. That passage also makes it clear that God did not intend for mankind to live forever in a state of sin.

Every child is born in a state of innocence, until the day that he/she chooses to rebel from what he/she knows is right (i.e. to sin) and then, as Paul says in Romans 7:10, that spiritual death occurs at that point. Scripture tells us that we are dead in trespasses and sin, BUT, we are spiritually born again to life when we believe in Christ and the power of His Blood to remove our sins. Physically, He shortened the lives of Adam and Eve and they had suffering from that day forward, but we shouldn't confuse physical suffering (and ALL humans suffer in this way, redeemed or not) with eternal spiritual suffering in a Christ-less eternity. If babies and young children are not saved, then who are the "angels" of the babies and young children that Our Lord Jesus told us are ever before the throne of God? The Blood of Jesus is mighty to save.

No one is disputing that babies and children will not go to heaven when they die.

The article points out the truth that the Bible teaches the rapture is for the church.

 

[lamborgini]

I’m also not convinced it’s 20. I think maybe, at one point, sure.

..but as we near the end..

That age has gone significantly lower. As children now have access to the internet in the palm of their hands. I fully believe that the fruit on the back of the phone with a bite out of it is coming full circle.

Porn alone is rampant and CHILDREN easily access this if they have phones. I do believe that Satan uses this once again for his gain. I think the most recent study I read was that a high percentage of 8-9 year olds have seen and/or regularly access.

 

[Lovin Jesus]

Again, not to be contrary, but what's doesn't make sense?

Honestly, if God had created man to be fully mentally cognizant by the age of say, 6, or 10, then that would be the age.

But the one tool He gave us to believe with, doesn't fully develop until our 20s. That's not my opinion, that is a biological standard long established.

But even going further, if it were just a biological argument, and scripture said something else, I would side with Scripture.

As it stands, human biology coincides with what Scripture has been saying now for nearly 4,000 years. It just makes sense.

I accept the bible's position on the age of accountability but after examining the human standard for a human brain to be fully developed and maturity to make decisions based on studies I found that those results are in agreement with your findings based on the scriptures you cited.

At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed?

It is widely debated as to which age the brain is considered “fully mature” or developed. In the past, many experts believed that the brain may have been done developing in the mid to late teens. Then along came some evidence to suggest that development may last until at least age 20. These days, a consensus of neuroscientists agree that brain development likely persists until at least the mid-20s – possibly until the 30s.

The fact that our brains aren’t developed until the mid 20s means that “legal adults” (those age 18+) are allowed to make adult decisions, without fully mature brains. Someone who is 18 may make riskier decisions than someone in their mid-20s in part due to lack of experience, but primarily due to an underdeveloped brain. All behaviors and experiences you endure until the age of 25 have potential to impact your developing brain.

https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

 

[Lovin Jesus]

I accept the bible's position on the age of accountability but after examining the human standard for a human brain to be fully developed and maturity to make decisions based on studies I found that those results are in agreement with your findings based on the scriptures you cited.

At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed?

It is widely debated as to which age the brain is considered “fully mature” or developed. In the past, many experts believed that the brain may have been done developing in the mid to late teens. Then along came some evidence to suggest that development may last until at least age 20. These days, a consensus of neuroscientists agree that brain development likely persists until at least the mid-20s – possibly until the 30s.

The fact that our brains aren’t developed until the mid 20s means that “legal adults” (those age 18+) are allowed to make adult decisions, without fully mature brains. Someone who is 18 may make riskier decisions than someone in their mid-20s in part due to lack of experience, but primarily due to an underdeveloped brain. All behaviors and experiences you endure until the age of 25 have potential to impact your developing brain.

https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

I found this interesting as well that there was a reason Jesus didn't begin his ministry until he was thirty.

Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age,

a. Thirty years of age: This seems to have been the age of full maturity in the Jewish mind. Priests could begin their service only at 30 (Numbers 4:2-3).

Source:
https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/luke-3/