Several months ago I received an email from a person who had happened by this blog. As you will see in the excerpt of that email, she had been searching for information about original sin and its application to babies who die in infancy (or who die because of abortion). Google led her here. This is what she wrote:
I volunteer at a pregnancy resource center here in Southern California. I teach a post abortion Bible study for women. Until yesterday, I believed that all aborted babies, including two of my own, were in heaven with their Father. Then I had a conversation with a family member who thinks otherwise, and after that conversation I went looking for additional information. I found your two columns on the doctrine of original sin. I’ve been on the verge of tears ever since last night. The idea staggers me. I’m not writing to argue the point. I understand it’s what you believe and, for all I know, you may be right. Meanwhile, all the years of peace that I enjoyed seem to have evaporated. You may be doctrinally accurate, but I am utterly miserable. I feel like I’m back at the edge of the religious hell hole I crawled out of some years ago. Not a good place to be. I will have to do some serious thinking and praying.
The articles she references state my position on children who die in infancy—that the Bible simply does not tell us beyond any shadow of doubt whether all children who die in infancy are saved. I understand the position of those who declare “instant heaven” for any child who dies in infancy and I do hope that this is the case. However, I do not find that the Bible tells us one way or another. Important to the discussion is my understanding of the doctrine of original sin. From this doctrine we know that no person is born innocent. Rather, in some mysterious way all of us fell in Adam and because of his sin are born as sinners. There is no one who is entirely innocent before God, even in the womb. It was this doctrine that so surprised and so upset this woman as she came to understand its implications. After all, a biblical understanding of original sin must have implications to everyone who ever lived or died.
While her story and her state is sad, I find it remarkable that a professed Christian who has had two abortions and ministers to others who have had abortions has never been faced with the doctrine of original sin. She has never come face-to-face with her own badness and with the overwhelming, inherent badness of others. She staggers under the weight of learning that all human beings are conceived as guilty sinners before God and the necessary implications of this. Yet this is hardly a new teaching and is not something that only a select few Christians believe. It is theology that is not far from the very core of the Christian faith. A person who does not understand original sin cannot truly understand anything else. How can we understand the cross, the atonement, without first properly understanding sin?
What’s even more sad is the fact that her hope has ultimately been placed in her babies being in heaven. For her to be thrown back into this “hell hole” means that she’d been finding peace in spite of her sin, not because of the finished work of Christ on her behalf. Her peace, such that it was, was built on the shaky foundation of God taking care of her babies. What we see is that she is still ultimately carrying the guilt of her sin. As my friend Julian said when I discussed this with him, “She needs a bigger cross, not just an assurance that her babies are in heaven.” And that is exactly what she needs! She needs a cross that can both forgive her and give her the assurance that God’s ways are best; she needs assurance of forgiveness that comes through Christ’s completed work there at Calvary.
It is interesting to think as well about how her pastors and counselors must have helped her think through this issue. The easy way is to give pat answers and quick lines about David’s baby being in heaven and about God being a God of grace. There may be arguments to make along those lines, but they can only provide so much comfort. The much harder—but cross-centered—way is to point her to the cross for the forgiveness of her sins (regardless of whether or not her babies are in heaven). As Julian said, “She needs to own that guilt and that possibility, then cast it on the cross of Jesus. Then, take her back and show her the cross again, and the grace and goodness and kindness and mercy of God and teach her to hope in that, not in some obscure verses that may imply some hope for the salvation of babies.” It is here, at the cross, that she can properly own her guilt and then cast it on the cross; it is here at the cross that she can receive forgiveness—true forgiveness; it is here at the cross that she can crawl out of that religious hell hole and know that she stands righteous before God, believing that his ways are always best.
Comments (103) »
1. Frustrated
August 5, 2009
9:18 AM
Really? You’re going to say that she shouldn’t be devastated by the potential that two babies are in hell?
Really? The answer to that is more guilt and focus on her ‘badness’ and the sinfulness of humanity?
Really? “she’d been finding peace in spite of her sin”?
Really? “A person who does not understand original sin cannot truly understand anything else.”?
Really?
Maybe what she really needs is more resurrection and the hope and redemption therein.
2. Garry Lay
August 5, 2009
9:43 AM
While agreeing completely with your view of the biblical doctrine of original sin and the need to understand this in order to appreciate Christ’s work on the cross, I would suggest that there is also sound biblical support for hope in the salvation of babies. Craig R. Brown in his book The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism (Ligonier Ministries) deals with this issue in chapter seven. It is well worth reading and considering.
3. Adam
August 5, 2009
9:48 AM
Frustrated….you sound frustrated? My wif and I were talking about this very issue last week. I am of the sad reality that original sin trumps our emotions about a lost child. I would LOVE to believe otherwise. I would LOVE to be wrong, and hope I am. But I believe the Word of God is true, and it leads me to the same path that Tim has found himself on.
And yes, I think this woman found peace in the idea that the babies she murdered would be waiting with open arms in heaven for her. That would be a lie she told herself.
And yes, you do need to understadn original sin before you can undersstand atonemement etc. How can you truly truly undersatdn what God did for us if you do not understand why he did it?
-Adam
4. Michele
August 5, 2009
9:54 AM
From the excerpt from the letter, it doesn’t sound like she’s finding her salvation in knowing her babies are in heaven, only hope.
You may want to check out John MacArthur’s teaching on this topic. (I think it’s titled “What happens when babies die” or “Safe in the Everlasting Arms”) It’s quite in-depth and excellent. He’s come to the conclusion the bible teaches they do go to heaven.
I’m sure you can podcast it.
5. Dan
August 5, 2009
10:03 AM
I don’t think that it’s her denial of original sin that is the problem, at least not in some respects. I was taught about original sin in a very conservative church growing up. Yet we were also fed the idea that babies are going to heaven because they don’t yet have the ability to choose Christ. So for a believer, at least of this generation (I can speak of no other) to think this way isn’t too far-fetched.
When we come to Christ, we can’t live in the past. That has been dealt with at the cross. So, she does need to be shown that she needs to deal with the sin, leave it for God to take care of (through the blood of his son), and go back to her ministry a little wiser.
In the end, the fact that she aborted two babies, or whether they are in heaven or not, is not the issue that will decide her own fate. Only by accepting Christ will her fate be decided. I suspect that she doesn’t yet accept the forgiveness that has already been served to her.
6. Renee
August 5, 2009
10:04 AM
Tim,
As a father, you know that your newborn baby is not culpable of any wrongdoing as he is not able to reason and to make choices….you have patience with your baby….you know better. If God has made you that way, to have wisdom, love and patience to nurture this young life, what does that tell us about Him?
I think sometimes we can be so rigid with the letter of the law that we forget the spirit of the law. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” [Hosea 6:6] While anyone can argue that this does not address the salvation of unborn children, I would say that it addresses something bigger - God’s mercy and love - and it covers over a multitude of sin. I think that, like the king who was said to be a man after God’s own heart, I will try and err on the side of believing God’s mercy as David so often did.
7. Joshua Butcher
August 5, 2009
10:05 AM
Greetings Tim,
It might be worthy to your readers to point out that Calvinism has a rish history of doctrinal support for the idea that children of the Covenant belong to Christ as much as their parents do. This doctrine has been called “Covenant Succession” and followed mainly in Puritan, Presbyterian and Congregationalist traditions. It is a contradictory doctrine for a credobaptist like yourself, but is consonant with a paedobaptist, or continuity-stressing Covenantal theology.
There are several good resources on Covenant Succession, but perhaps the best introductory book is “To You and Your Children” edited by Ben Wikner:
http://www.amazon.com/You-Your-Children-Examining-Succession/dp/1591280281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249481086&sr=8-1
8. Mike Garner
August 5, 2009
10:11 AM
Tim,
I agree with both your position on the subject and your view of this email 100%. That being said, I think you’re really going to take some heat on this post!
9. Bruce Meyer
August 5, 2009
10:12 AM
I had a child who lived an hour. I considered baptizing her in the Catholic understanding, “just in case”. I thought that would be superstition on my part, and therefore a bad thing. But I’ve often thought about her, my daughter, and wondered what to think and what I should have done. The justice of God condemning us looms large to me, as in the doctrines of grace. I’m tempted to think of God as capricious and arbritrary, that if He condemned my daughter, He would be totally righteous and right in doing so, and that if He extends mercy to her as to me in Christ, His doing so is totally because of his grace, by his magnanimity, and by the effectiveness of His call.
I’ve learned thru this experience to trust in God, “will not God do what is right?” That He has His will, but that His will is Good and Love, even while His love is a Just and Holy Love.
When I reach out to non-Christian Jews, I wonder what they have to wrestle with along these same lines. Not about their infant children, but about their family and friends and ancestors who are hindered from coming to faith.
10. Andre
August 5, 2009
10:20 AM
You might be “theologically right” (I’m not saying that you are, just that you might be), but I can’t help but saying that you came across quite harsh and “unloving” in your answer to this woman.
I only read the above excerpt of the email the woman sent you, so I may be wrong about this, but but is it possible that you are assuming too much in saying that ‘her hope has ultimately been placed in her babies being in heaven” ?
11. Joshua Butcher
August 5, 2009
10:22 AM
If I may be permitted, a couple of further sources on Covenant Succession:
http://www.credenda.org/issues/13-2verbatim.php
http://www.faithtacoma.org/doctrine/covenant.aspx
12. Jody
August 5, 2009
10:29 AM
I agree with Michelle, I’ve read John MacArthur’s book, Safe in the arms of God. His first chapter answers the question Where Is My Child? Other chapter titles are What If My Child Is Not Elect? Will I See My Child Again? How Shall We Minister to Those Who Are Grieving?
While I agree with pointing this woman to Jesus and God’s grace and mercy, finding hope in the cross. I’m not sure having a discussion on original sin with her is the first place I would have started with her, although she found you regarding this topic. There needs to be some pastoral care here, we’ve been in the pastorate for almost 25 years and have waited at the bedside of women giving birth to dead babies. We did not start with the original sin of the dead child. I also agree with Mike G. you will take a lot of heat for this post.
13. Les Prouty
August 5, 2009
10:32 AM
Joshua,
I believe you are right on. In addition, though, many Reformed Baptists believe that infants dying in infancy will be with Christ. Spurgeon, for example. I have referenced several at my blog, search “infants.” I also believe that Tim has missed it on this one.
14. D. Harris
August 5, 2009
10:41 AM
I think it is important to remember God’s Sovereignty in spite of us and all our sin.
John MacArthur
The Salvation of Babies Who Die, Part 1&2
http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/80-242
http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/80-243
15. Tyler
August 5, 2009
10:41 AM
Not trying to be harsh, but I wonder if the tone and approach of this response would have been different if the woman had lost her babies to miscarriage rather than abortion?
16. Todd
August 5, 2009
10:44 AM
Tim,
I used to believe as you do until I read John MacArthur’s book “Safe in the Arms of God”. He lays out some very strong Scriptural arguments for children going to heaven, which have nothing to do with covenants. The Bible isn’t quite as silent as you think.
Certainly, the lady who wrote you might have misplaced her hope and might need a “bigger cross”, but don’t we all? What she’s crying out for is hope for her child who never heard the name of Jesus or was never able to recognize it’s sinfulness before a holy God. And if there is hope, then to withhold that from grieving parents is cruel and misrepresents God.
MacArthur has a sermon “The Salvation of Babies Who Die” at this link:
Part 1
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-242
Part 2
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-243
His book “Safe in the Arms of God” is here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785263438?ie=UTF8&tag=toddshafferfinea&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0785263438
17. Erik
August 5, 2009
10:53 AM
Andre, well said. Very little compassion, if any.
18. Keith
August 5, 2009
11:04 AM
Wow. Tim - your response, while sound was vacant of the loving, caring, compassion of Christ. It reads more like a resounding gong. Like a baseball bat to the head and heart. If you present truth without love and compassion what is the point? Your tone really surprised me here.
19. Doc B
August 5, 2009
11:08 AM
I see a lot of people reading into Tim’s comments what they want to see, either good or bad. For example, Tyler says, “…I wonder if the tone and approach of this response would have been different if the woman had lost her babies to miscarriage rather than abortion?” First, Tim didn’t respond to the woman, she responded to his blog. Second, why would the circumstances of the death change the nature of God in relation to original sin (or not)? This is postmodern thinking with shoe leather.
Tim’s basic thesis is correct: “…the Bible simply does not tell us beyond any shadow of doubt whether all children who die in infancy are saved.”
Note the qualifiers, “shadow” and “all”. I agree there is biblical support for some babies going to heaven, but for all? And if this is so, how can we determine which? All of us have some inherent sense of mercy for women who’ve had abortions and repented. But we can’t let an emotional feeling override what scripture tells us, or doesn’t tell us, in this case.
The safest course is the one Tim chooses…to defer judgement to the Lord on this issue, and to rest in the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
20. Matt Rodatus
August 5, 2009
11:13 AM
You say that you “find it remarkable that a professed Christian who has had two abortions and ministers to others who have had abortions has never been faced with the doctrine of original sin.”
It one sense, it is remarkable. This truth is all over the Bible, and it is foundational to the gospel, which requires REPENTANCE and belief (not just belief).
In another sense, it’s not remarkable at all, since there are many religious who are not saved. The preaching in Western churches I think is, on the large, devoid of the gospel and bordering on the heretical. So, in this sense it’s no surprise she’s never heard of it. Most pastors have probably given her the pat answers that seem to encourage, but don’t care for her soul.
21. Tyler
August 5, 2009
11:13 AM
Doc, by saying
“I wonder if the tone and approach of this response would have been different if the woman had lost her babies to miscarriage rather than abortion?”
I was not implying that abortion or miscarriage change the reality of original sin, I was saying maybe the tone would be more sympathetic if there was not the abortion stigma attached.
The random use of ‘postmodern’ to attack statments you disagree with seems pretty off target for a question about tone. Or is tone postmodern now?
22. Arthur Sido
August 5, 2009
11:14 AM
Our doctrines and practices should be grounded in Scripture, not in sentimentality or pragmatism. The quick and acceptable answer is that babies go to heaven but the reality is that babies are no different from anyone else in their sinful state. We may not like it but the fact is that Tim is right on this issue: the Bible does not give us an answer to this question, so rather than fill in the blanks to quiet our troubled hearts we should rest on the mercy of God that all will be done for His glory and not for our approval.
BTW Joshua, your idea of covenant succession flies in the face of reality, a reality where many, many children of Christian parents end up not being elect and many who are born to unbelieving parents turn out to be elect. Or does covenant succession only last until a certain age? We are not saved through our parentage and the children of unbelievers are sinners in need of salvation, born in original sin, just like the children of unbelievers.
23. owlhaven
August 5, 2009
11:14 AM
HI Tim,
I have fond memories of riding with you on a tour bus in the Dominican Republic listening to you and Shaun and Brian discuss doctrine. And wishing the ride was a little longer so I could listen to more such talk.
Right now I am wrestling with some stuff in my life that is hard to understand, hard to justify, and impossible for me to fix. I think I know a better way for it to go, and yet God….at the very least, He seems to be saying wait. At the worst, it seems I am watching a precious person’s heart break slowly and painfully. And I am ever so helpless.
Right now, I don’t want some Bibilcal dissection of why God is allowing this thing. My only place of comfort is to turn my heart back again and again to the attributes of God. He is my Saviour. He is a good God. He is the hope of the the hopeless. He loves me with an everlasting love, and He loves my precious loved one with that same passion. All things WILL work together for good, according to His purpose.
If I fix my eyes on doctrine, I will be adrift in a sea of man’s interpretations. ONLY if I fix my eyes on my Saviour will my raging storm quiet.
Maybe that is what this precious mother needs too.
Standing by His grace alone.
Your friend,
Mary
24. Timothy Scott Nixon
August 5, 2009
11:20 AM
I just have a few questions for all of you who are accusing Tim of being harsh on this issue, what happened to the children or babies of the enemies of God when Israel was ordered to kill them all? If God declared them His enemies and ordered their deaths, did He really then bring them to dwell with Him?
The next question, when does a child stop being innocent and start being “totally depraved”? I don’t believe in an age of accountability since it is nowhere taught in the Scriptures, so when is the magical time that God no longer overlooks the sins of a human? Is it 2,3,4,5,6,10,13? Well, since we are guilty of Adam’s sin, before we ever sin, I would say we are guilty starting at conception, and only God’s election of us before time, and Christ’s paying our ransom at the cross, sets us free. So we are to rely on God’s sovereignty in election, not our emotional approach to all things.
So we shouldn’t declare Tim harsh, but we should rest in God’s holiness, admitting in the end, we have no answer to the question, “Do all babies who die go to Heaven?” But what we have is God’s gift of faith and we rest in Him and Him alone. And we should not comfort someone with something we really don’t have the answer to anyway. God is enough and He alone is our comfort!
25. Mason
August 5, 2009
11:28 AM
Tim,
I read your blog frequently (and usually very much enjoy it) but I must admit I’m pretty thrown by this post.
I understand that you are not saying the children are necessarily in hell, just that we cannot know for sure as evidence one way or the other is slim.
Personally I think the character of God as demonstrated in the life of Jesus is such that his grace and mercy extends to children like these, but you’ll get no argument from me that there is not much to work with textually.
Still, the tone I normally sense from you seems to be lacking here, to the point where it reads as being pretty cold, doctrinal point aside. Am I missing something here?
26. Jennifer
August 5, 2009
11:31 AM
Thank you for refusing to go where the Bible doesn’t. I agree with your position and the best comfort I can give to a grieving mother of a dead infant or young child is that God is perfectly good and all-knowing. Whatever He does is perfectly right, whether or not we understand it or agree with it. In the end, that’s all that maters. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
27. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
August 5, 2009
11:36 AM
Well, Timothy, according to MacArthur and his view, all those who died prior to reaching some particular age are “safe in the arms of God”.
That also means that all those little ones who died in the flood are also in heaven, so I guess it was more than just the seven that were preserved during the flood.
I am always amazed at how this topic gets driven by emotion and feelings and not by Scripture. I guess too, according to my Paedo friends, that it is not according to faith, but according to the flesh as to whether or not one is saved…up until a certain age, anyway.
Come on guys, I hope all infants who die in infancy are saved too. I actually hope ALL people are saved (why do we only have compassion for the younger of our species???).
MacArthur, by the way, in his terrible book on this subject, denies original sin. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that all are born guilty, and then turn around and say that all who die before reaching a certain age get a free pass. Original sin refutes that emotion-based drivel.
Tim is not being unloving. On the contrary, he is being as loving as one can be, because he is sticking with Scripture (he is speaking the truth in love), and not emotion and certainly not according-to-the-flesh covenantal traditionalism. Everyone is thinking it, so I’m just going to go ahead and say it…IF what MacArthur teaches is true on this subject, then THE most loving thing a parent can do is to make sure their child NEVER reaches that age at which they become accountable.
The same goes for my Paedo brothers who believe their flesh-born infants are in the convenant until such time as they prove to covenant keepers or breakers (I thought the new covenant was unbreakable!).
28. Doc B
August 5, 2009
11:39 AM
It is proving to be true- “There’s a Pelagian spirit in all of us.”
Think about the crux of the tacit argument that, since babies have no moral ability (for right or wrong) it would be improper for God to do anything other than take them all to heaven. Have you forgotten that adults have no more moral ability to save themselves than do infants, or even pre-born (fetal) persons? It is God’s grace that saved us all, whether we were teens or octogenarians, children or still in the womb.
John MacArthur said this- “If infants were not sinful, if they were not morally corrupt, then they wouldn’t die. If they were born innocent or pure or morally neutral there would be no basis for their death.” So the Bible IS clear on that issue…that infants are inherently sinful (original sin, sin nature, whatever you want to call it). They ARE NOT morally neutral. Therefore, we can’t just jump to the conclusion they are all saved because it seems right to us that it be so.
What Tim has said is true. We should be willing to trust God in the salvation of the pre-born and the stillborn in the same way we trust God in our own salvation.
29. Nick
August 5, 2009
11:40 AM
I have to agree that the tone seems a little harsh. The woman is, quite understandably, devastated at the possibility (which she concedes may be true) that her existing beliefs are wrong, and the implications that carries for her and the people she works with.
I agree with Tim in that I don’t believe that Scripture is clear on what happens to babies who die (although I will listen to those John Macarthur sermons, thanks for those links).
Whatever the case, she (and we) need to find our comfort in the sovereignty and goodness of God.
30. Dean
August 5, 2009
11:41 AM
“The easy way is to give pat answers and quick lines about David’s baby being in heaven and about God being a God of grace. There may be arguments to make along those lines, but they can only provide so much comfort.”
So people who disagree with you on this are not careful, caring scholars or pastors with answers they believe to be biblical? They only have pat answers and quick lines? I would dare say that many of them believe Romans 15:4, that what was written about David’s baby was written to give real comfort and hope, not just “so much” comfort.
31. JR
August 5, 2009
11:41 AM
Whether or not I agree with some of Tim’s finer points the post was declaring something quite simple:
This women’s fundamental issue was her understanding of the gospel. Understand the gospel first, and the more unclear issues will be given the proper perspective.
To this point I wholeheartedly agree.
32. Doc B
August 5, 2009
11:43 AM
Brian @ voiceofthesheep,
MacArthur most certainly DOES NOT DENY original sin. Here’s a quote from him-
“the Bible is absolutely crystal clear that all children are sinners from conception…all children. The principle of iniquity is imbedded in the human race. Children are born morally corrupt. They are born with an irresistible bent toward evil. And any notion that children are born morally neutral and free from a predisposition to sin is absolutely contrary to Scripture. And as I said, this view was denounced as heresy after the death of the one who propounded it and has been considered heresy by those faithful to biblical theology ever since.
All humans are born in sin. If infants were not sinful, if they were not morally corrupt, then they wouldn’t die. If they were born innocent or pure or morally neutral there would be no basis for their death. The very fact that they die indicates that the disease of sin is there in them because sin is the killer. It is in their inherited sin nature that the seeds of death are planted. “
” So, the Bible tells us that sinfulness is not a condition that comes upon people when they’re old enough to choose to do evil. It is the condition of the entire human race and every conception brings into being a sinful life. Ever since Adam and Eve everyone born has been born in a fallenness sinful state. That becomes evident as soon as any behavioral choice is made. We’re born sinners, we are also born guilty because we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. “
” Now this is important. Every child is conceived with a deadly virus, the S-I-N virus with corrupt motives, corrupt attitudes, corrupt desires, corrupt ambitions, corrupt objectives and bears the guilt of Adam’s sin. So we cannot answer the question by saying all babies die and go to heaven because they’re sinless. They’re not. They’re not. The very fact that they die proves that they have inherited the corruption of sin that produces death. “
To call this a denial of original sin is an outright lie, caused either by ignorance or malevolence.
33. Chris
August 5, 2009
11:50 AM
For those of you who would like a more concise (MacArthur’s sermons are long winded on this topic) and, in my opinion, precise answer to this question read what Desiring God has on this (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1622_What_happens_to_infants_who_die/) .
We all have opinions on this, and Tim’s is just as likely as anyone else’s. I don’t think it is fair to think his post is harsh since he did not say this to the person who emailed him. He is commenting on the underlying issues she had in feeling her despair creep back in after reading his opinion on the matter.
He is definitely right that the only place we can find lasting hope and comfort is in Christ, not in wishful thinking. He even said that this is not a clear issue. Even if it were, the principle remains: Hope in Christ… not in our doctrinal understanding.
34. Ralph T.
August 5, 2009
11:51 AM
For those who want an excellent treatment of the topic, I’d recommend “The Theology of Infant Salvation” by Robert Webb available at www.sprinklepublications.net, a publisher of Puritan and Reformed literature. The Bible has a great deal more to say about the issue than I had ever been taught.
35. Tim Challies
August 5, 2009
11:51 AM
Everyone,
Having looked over my response, I can see why you are saying that I have been unloving in my response. However, I do think you should note that what I posted here is not my response. I responded to her in an email several months ago and that reply was far different from this. When I replied to her directly, I said few of the things I mentioned here. This article was more just a summary of my thoughts about the whole situation.
So please, do note, that this was not meant to be pastoral counsel or anything of the sort.
36. Brian @ voiceofthesheep
August 5, 2009
11:55 AM
My point about MacArthur is that he says both: that babies are not born innocent AND that babies who die are immediately saved because they haven’t reached some age whereby they become accountable. Original sin declares that we are all accountable at conception, not at an age of accountability. MacArthur tries to straddle this fence with a foot in both camps, and one of those feet denies original sin.
You can’t have it both ways.
37. Laz
August 5, 2009
12:02 PM
Tim, can you please provide the links to your columns on original sin?
Thanks
38. pentamom
August 5, 2009
12:10 PM
I agree with Tim’s position, but I think he was a little quick to go to “this woman never understood the gospel.” Yes, lack of understanding of original sin is a serious lack of understanding. And yes, to the extent a professing Christian is devastated and deeply shaken, there is a lack of grounding in the gospel.
But these things are (dare I use this word) relative. Genuine faith in the gospel, genuine hope in Christ, is no guarantee that there will not be things that shake us deeply. Ultimately, if our hope is in Christ, we will stand despite being shaken. But the “being shaken” is not in itself an indication that our hope was never truly in Christ.
I guess what I’m saying is that my response to hearing of this lady’s situation is more like, “How sad that there was such a gap in her understanding of the faith that she is so deeply shaken at this point. Let us exhort and encourage her to place her hope more firmly in Christ and His work,” than like, “How sad that she never really put her hope in Christ.” All I’m saying is that I find it dubious to too quickly diagnose someone as “never really hoping in Christ” rather than being in need of encouragement to better grasp and exercise that hope.
39. Doc B
August 5, 2009
12:10 PM
Brian,
MacArthur does indeed wander around a bit (unlike him) toward the end of his first sermon. However, he never (not even close) comes to the point of denying original sin. Re-read the quotes I posted up in # 32. If anything, he goes to far in defending his view of original sin. Here’s his summary statement-
“No view of infant salvation which denies original sin and total depravity is true. Did you get that? No view of infant salvation which denies original sin and total depravity is true. Babies are not free from sin, they are sinners. “
Where he loses his train of thought a bit is on the idea of condemnation and the deeds written in the “book of death”. But this never approaches even semi-Pelagianism.
Original sin really doesn’t speak to accountability, it is about the sin nature. To summarize it, “We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.” Don’t confuse the repercussions of sin with the doctrine or original sin, which is about the nature and origin of sin in general and in us.
40. Sarah Cumming
August 5, 2009
12:12 PM
I have read all of the responses as well as Tim’s article twice. Honestly, when discussing sin, death, abortion, and hell, emotions are hard to identify or control. I understand this woman’s feelings: frustration about lack of information before, heartbreak over her guilt, new fear over the destiny of her children. These are all quite real and reasonable considering what she just learned. I want to embrace her and let her talk it out… None of which can be done via internet.
However, all of this aside, what Tim outlined is true. While feeling better, having hope, and feeling forgiven is comfortable, these things do not provide your salvation or the salvation of your loved ones… The only place where salvation is found is in Christ, and that is where she will find true hope, true forgiveness, true relief and freedom. I am encouraged that she is now thinking about this important albeit painful reality, and I pray that she will turn to God to heal her heary completely and let her live in freedom. We all must trust God not ourselves for our own salvation… Why trust in the innocence of children for their salvation?
41. Joey
August 5, 2009
12:14 PM
I agree with Tim, it would be one thing to respond directly to the distraught woman with this response…its something else to post a summation months later.
As far as the age of accountability goes…it would take a lot of motivation away from the fight against abortion if we knew all the aborted babies were going to heaven.
42. Nick
August 5, 2009
12:14 PM
John Piper, whom I respect immensely, does not really solve the problem. His citing of John 9:41 and Romans 1:20 is kind of an argument for the age of accountability (without the age!). At what point does a child gain “the natural capacity to see the revelation of God’s will”?
Furthermore, Spurgeon’s claim that “He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy” appears to have no biblical basis.
I’m not saying they are wrong. But sometimes it is better to say “I don’t know” than to make weak arguments in favour of a position.
43. Ricky
August 5, 2009
12:20 PM
There seems to be many assumptions being made about this young lady. 1. She has never been confronted with original sin. She never makes that claim. She may have never tied her original sin with that of a baby who has yet to be born. 2. That her hope is in her babies being in heaven. Again a claim she never makes. I draw hope on loved ones who have died that at some point God may have brought them into a relationship with Himself. Something I can only discover once I am there, but I still draw hope from the possibility. 3. That she has peace in spite of her sin. Perhaps her peace has come from the fact that she has repented of the abortion and has wrapped herself in the forgiveness that only God can give. I am a sinner who has asked for and received forgiveness. I am at peace that my sins have been dealt with. I am not at all at peace with what I did. I was forgiven, but I have not forgotten.
Just some thoughts…
Ricky
44. Les Prouty
August 5, 2009
12:23 PM
From Spurgeon, just to add another voice besides MacArthur:
“Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest.”
Spurgeon’s sermon on this is excellent.
45. dan abbey
August 5, 2009
12:23 PM
wow.
sorry tim but i couldn’t help sensing an utterly judgemental attitude seeping through your post.
then again, i don’t know all of what this person wrote and revealed to you in her email. but from the excerpt you provided she seems shattered by the thought that perhaps dead babies are not really in heaven as she’s been taught but are in fact burning forever in hell.
seems enough to shatter anyone if you ask me.
does this reveal an insufficient faith on her part? i don’t know. she did end her excerpt with “I will have to do some serious thinking and praying” which is a good thing to do when confronted by truth (or even untruth). so i give her props for that.
but to say, “What’s even more sad is the fact that her hope has ultimately been placed in her babies being in heaven” is reading a bit much into her faith don’t you think? again, i don’t have the benefit of a complete email so i don’t know what she told you. but nothing in the excerpt you provided says her hope is placed in the fact that her babies are in heaven. she seems largely gutted by the idea her kids could be burning forever and it’s mainly her fault. understandable, no?
i mean, it’s a terrifying prospect. i have a 14 month old baby and it would just devastate me if she died and went to hell. the thought is too grim for me to contemplate.
how do i handle the idea? by thanking God that at least i’m saved and been showered with grace and forgiveness? i don’t know. certainly i must run to the cross and cast these thoughts to Jesus. praise Him for His ultimate goodness and perfect wisdom. He’s the only one who can provide comfort in such a situation.
but to grieve - i think it’s healthy, whether you’ve experienced losing a baby or not. the lady who wrote to you was grieving, and perhaps still is. she says she feels “back at the edge of the religious hell hole I crawled out of some years ago.” her world is rocked by the Bible, “original sin”. that’s good. she’s thinking about it and searching for the truth.
will she find a definitive answer?
maybe not. john macarthur has written some good stuff on this very issue and believes that God spares “the innocents” (according to his study of the old testament).
i side with dr. macarthur. but as you say, there’s nothing definitive.
what is definitive is this woman needs prayer and consolation. the idea of a sovereign God who does as he pleases whether we like it or not is so abominiable to our nature, it’s testament to God’s grace that we can even accept this gloriously hard truth. some Christian’s are ready to embrace it. some aren’t. but with much prayer and Biblical teaching, they’ll get there.
i hope she regains her peace and the joy of her salvation be fully restored.
dan
46. Doc B
August 5, 2009
12:24 PM
Nick (#42),
Your are correct about John Piper’s arguments. They are implicit, not explicit. John Piper is one of my heroes of the faith, and if he (and MacArthur) can’t be explicit from Scripture, then Tim’s original claim is upheld as both valid and true by two of my heroes.
I have lost a child to miscarriage. I rest comfortably in the grace of the Lord. If He has saved that child, praise be to Him. If He has not, then praise be to Him. He is right, and will be proven right to the rest of us in the end, whatever His will.
I think this was Tim’s point all along, and why I have commented so vociferously in support of it. The woman who had the abortions can’t really be comforted by the state of her two babies, but she can be comforted in the sovereignty, grace, mercy, and justness of God.
47. Truth Unites... and Divides
August 5, 2009
12:24 PM
I know one pro-abortionist who utilizes the teaching or doctrine “that all dead babies go to heaven” to argue that mothers choosing abortion is doing an eternal favor to their unborn babies.
48. Les Prouty
August 5, 2009
12:25 PM
By the way, A Theology of Infant Salvation by Webb referenced above is a great read and compelling.
49. Micah Bickford
August 5, 2009
12:30 PM
David Powlison, in his little booklet Healing After Abortion, writes:
Some women who have had an abortion struggle with questions about where their baby is now. These are questions that thoughtful Christian people have wrestled with down through the ages. I don’t claim to have the one solve-it-all answer on this. But there are two important things you need to think about.
First, the most fundamentally sane answer to these question is, “I don’t know. I can’t know. I do know that God is good. I do know that God is merciful. I do know that his ways are not my ways. But I don’t know.” You can only live with that “I don’t know” as your trust in God’s goodness, love, and mercy deepens and grows.
Knowing that you worship the Lord of heaven and earth who is all-just and all-merciful, who is working to redeem you, will fill you with confidence that you can absolutely trust his character. You can trust that everything God does will express his perfect justice and perfect mercy.
I think Powlison has the most helpful answer to the woman’s question. We do not need to deny the grievous effects of original sin, but we must admit that we don’t know. We can still have peace despite our ignorance because God is just, merciful, and God.
50. ReformedCE
August 5, 2009
12:35 PM
Wow. Such heat. Such frustration. Such conviction.
In three weeks, my wife will be giving birth to our first son. I know that child is already sinful and under the curse. He is making my wife suffer (because of the curse and as a reminder of his sinfulness) in ways that I will not permit once he enters the world.
Sin is real, particularly in infants, even in the womb:
Ps. 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speaking lies.”
And yet God is faithful toward his own:
Ps. 71:5-6 “For you, O Lord, are my hope,
my trust, O Lord, from my youth.
Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;
you are he who took me from my mother’s womb.
My praise is continually of you.”
We are to rest on the revealed nature of God:
Jer. 9:23-24 Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”
I thank Tim for addressing such a difficult issue where people desire to go beyond scripture to offer immediate comfort. Thank you for pointing to the cross where “the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness” shows us grace and gives us confidence that though death may cause temporary sorrow, it will ultimately give glory and honor to God. It is here that Christians find peace.
…and to the MacAuthurites and Coventalist: keep in mind that systematic doctrines, though helpful, are only true so far as they are articulated and supported by Scripture. Though thoughtful and passionate, many of the theologians, pastors and preachers who encourage their views are not linguists or a logisticians and are prone to inconsistencies that we all suffer from. Look rather to the Word which MacAuthur and the Reformers submitted to and like good Bereans “examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so.” (Keep in mind Paul was an apostle; Johnny Mac is not.)
51. Todd
August 5, 2009
12:43 PM
ARTHUR “Our doctrines and practices should be grounded in Scripture, not in sentimentality or pragmatism. The quick and acceptable answer is that babies go to heaven but the reality is that babies are no different from anyone else in their sinful state.”
Amen on being grounded in Scripture, and that babies are no different in their sinful state. However, my position is opposite to yours and I take issue with assigning “sentimentality or pragmatism” and “quick and acceptable” to it. I used to be in your camp until I wrestled with the issue and found great help by MacArthur’s book and sermons, which are referenced in other comments.
NIXON “what happened to the children or babies of the enemies of God when Israel was ordered to kill them all?”
They went to heaven.
NIXON “when does a child stop being innocent and start being “totally depraved”?”
They are never “innocent” of original sin. God’s grace spares them.
JENNIFER “Thank you for refusing to go where the Bible doesn’t.”
Read MacArthur’s book ‘Safe in the Arms of God’ before you say the Bible doesn’t go there.
BRIAN “That also means that all those little ones who died in the flood are also in heaven, so I guess it was more than just the seven that were preserved during the flood.”
No, they all died physically in the flood thanks to their parents sin.
BRIAN “I am always amazed at how this topic gets driven by emotion and feelings and not by Scripture.”
Welcome to the club!
BRIAN “Come on guys, I hope all infants who die in infancy are saved too. I actually hope ALL people are saved (why do we only have compassion for the younger of our species???).
We can’t evangelize children who are dead! It has nothing to do with compassion.
BRIAN “MacArthur, by the way, in his terrible book on this subject, denies original sin. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that all are born guilty, and then turn around and say that all who die before reaching a certain age get a free pass. Original sin refutes that emotion-based drivel.”
It’s called GRACE. God’s extension of GRACE to sinners nullifies the penalty of original sin whether you receive that grace in conscious salvation or at the hand of God’s mercy as a child who dies. Either way you didn’t deserve it and you did nothing to receive it. If grace extended to a child who dies denies original sin, then your salvation denies original sin. Or did you do something to merit that grace? By the way, MacArthur’s book is excellent.
DOC “Think about the crux of the tacit argument that, since babies have no moral ability (for right or wrong) it would be improper for God to do anything other than take them all to heaven. Have you forgotten that adults have no more moral ability to save themselves than do infants, or even pre-born (fetal) persons? It is God’s grace that saved us all, whether we were teens or octogenarians, children or still in the womb.”
AMEN!
BRIAN “My point about MacArthur is that he says both: that babies are not born innocent AND that babies who die are immediately saved because they haven’t reached some age whereby they become accountable. Original sin declares that we are all accountable at conception, not at an age of accountability. MacArthur tries to straddle this fence with a foot in both camps, and one of those feet denies original sin.”
Brian, original sin does declares we are sinfully corrupt at conception. We are accountable at birth and we are accountable at age 50. But your argument only holds up if man contributes something in salvation. We are either totally depraved or we are not — no age specificity. Does God save us because we understand our sin and repent? Or do we understand our sin and repent because God is saving us through his unmerited grace? Who is at work? God chooses. Not you. Not the child. Original sin. So, if God extends grace to you or David’s child from Bathsheba—you are both unconscious, undeserving recipients of his grace. Apart from his grace you would be going to hell.
David suggested that his child is in heaven. Now, either David was sentimental and pragmatic with a faulty view of original sin. Or he was right and his child made it to heaven apart from it’s understanding of sin or it’s active repentance.
52. Doug
August 5, 2009
12:44 PM
Phil Johnson preached a great message on this subject, and a great deal of the message answers the issue of original sin, as well as historical belief on the subject.
http://www.thegracelifepulpit.com/philsermons.htm
Sermon 2005-01-30-PJ
What About Infants Who Die?
53. Renee
August 5, 2009
12:59 PM
Micah - what a great excerpt. Yes! Trust God’s character and not man’s interpretation of it!
If we are taught as Christians (little Christs) to be Christlike, to have His likeness; and if He teaches us to forgive even our debtors and pray for those who hate us; and if He sent His Son for us while we were yet sinners; and if He insists that He desires mercy not sacrifice - could we not deduce at least a little something about His character, even when scriptures are silent on a matter? Trust God’s character!
Owlhaven - thanks for your post - Trust God’s character.
54. Mark
August 5, 2009
1:00 PM
Even though I read through rather quickly ( could have missed it though) I cannot believe it took 51 comments to get to this point made by Todd:
“David suggested that his child is in heaven. Now, either David was sentimental and pragmatic with a faulty view of original sin. Or he was right and his child made it to heaven apart from it’s understanding of sin or it’s active repentance.”
55. Flora
August 5, 2009
1:00 PM
I counseled at a Pregnancy Centre for some time, a few years ago. I watch the Toronto news with a new murder daily and recall that many of the babies we helped save were born to single mothers and are now possibly part of the gangs that are killing each other.
We were right to try to save these lives because God says, ” Thou shalt not kill”. If we listen to some of the emotional arguments in this discussion ,we would conclude that it would have been better to have allowed these babies to be aborted and go straight to Heaven.
Not all paedobaptists believe that their children are automatically elect. They have great privileges being part of the covenant, but many may go to a lost eternity if they are not regenerated. I believe that the final tears God will wipe away from our eyes when we get to Heaven, will be over those who are missing.
Ultimately, what is of is of the utmost importance is that we make our own “calling and election sure” and leave the ‘secret’ things to the Lord with the confidence ,”Shall not the judge of all the earth do right”
56. Mike Garner
August 5, 2009
1:12 PM
We were right to try to save these lives because God says, ” Thou shalt not kill”. If we listen to some of the emotional arguments in this discussion ,we would conclude that it would have been better to have allowed these babies to be aborted and go straight to Heaven.
Although I hold the position that the Bible is unclear (and therefore babies could very well go to hell), I have to disagree with this point.
It is definitely possible that if they die they go to heaven AND we should still fight so that they don’t die. Consider a Christian slave who is being beaten to death by his master. If he dies, he goes to heaven, but it is still correct to fight for justice (and in doing so fight for his life).
As to all the other comments, this thread has exploded and it’s impossible to respond to everything. I will say that I did not find MacArthur’s treatment very helpful (although, I confess, I never find him persuasive unless I already agree). At best he argues that the Bible allows for the possibility that some babies are saved. I definitely do not think that he correctly argues then that we can have hope that all aborted infants will be in heaven.
Some things that both sides should agree on in this debate:
1) God would be just in sending aborted infants to hell
2) God is not morally obligated to save anyone
3) God is free to show mercy/grace to whomever he wants, regardless of their capability to know/accept him
If we can agree on these three things, and done down the emotional rhetoric, I think it would be helpful.
57. Ashley
August 5, 2009
1:19 PM
I grew up in an Assembly of God church that did not specifically teach on the doctrine of original sin. I grew up thinking that I had to repent and get “re-saved” every time I sinned. It doesn’t surprise me that this woman didn’t understand her own sin, either. It wasn’t until I attended a Sovereign Grace church with solid, biblical teaching that the full Gospel was preached to me.
58. E.G.
August 5, 2009
1:27 PM
David expected to someday see his first son by Bathsheba who died in infancy.
A bit of a proof-text, yes. But there you go. There may be something to it.
But, beyond that, you need to show more compassion, brother. Your response to this should have never gone online. If she reads this - and she does pass by your blog - it’s sure to distress her more.
I, frankly, suspect that you are wrong in your thinking on this issue, and some of your co-theologues would agree with me (although I doubt that they or I would agree on a number of other things).
Two other points that I can hang my hat on are God’s justice and His love. Both would point to an outcome different than Hell for babies… particularly unborn babies.
In any case, who are you to be even implying that you know who is going to Hell? We both can say, in general terms, that if someone has not believed and lived the Gospel, that they are going to Hell. But, to claim condemnation for any one individual (i.e., this woman’s babies), particularly when you really have no clue whatsoever about that person’s life, is crass. It is God who makes those decisions, not you or anyone else.
But, even if you are right on this matter - and you may be - it is better to provide hope and peace *in private* to a distressed sister than to air out her letter in public and then use it as a means to flog a dead-horse topic of poor teaching in our churches.
I fear that this says less about the supposed topic of this post than it does about your desire to drive traffic to your site via the creation of controversy. In other words, the use of this poor woman’s dilemma in this fashion shows a distinct lack of discernment in daily living on your part. If you take a step back and look at what you’ve done, I think that you’ll realize that too… because, in general, you have great discernment and, in general, I respect (although I don’t always agree with) what you post here.
59. Scott
August 5, 2009
1:29 PM
I personally find myself sacrificing love for others for correct doctrine and truth frequently. The balance is not always easy, and I fail all the time. It is my impression that this woman needed love and gentle correction at most in any perceived doctrinal errors. The fact is that it is not clear what happens to children who die before the age of accountability. What I do know is we have a great, good and merciful God. The question to Tim is was his main objective to help this woman or was it to be correct? I suspect the former but the post suggests the latter. After all, the gospel is good news. This woman appears to be terribly burdened by her sin of the past. Application of the gospel would give her relief not more angst. I don’t see that happening based on Tim’s blog post. Maybe the email was different.
60. Melanie
August 5, 2009
1:30 PM
This is CRUEL CALVINISM at its finest! It does not represent true Calvinistic teaching! Consider what John Calvin himself taught,
“I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost.”
AND “to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers’ arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested” (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).
Spurgeon preached that infants who die are absolutely saved, as well as Piper and MacArthur.
Could you really look in the eyes of a woman holding her dead infant in her arms and tell her, “Your child may be in hell, but don’t worry you have to go there too.” Utter cruelty and as Calvin wrote, you are teaching “a blasphemy to be universally detested.”
It is a very small cross that would allow for me to hope in my own salvation but not that of my dead child. It is your cross that needs enlarging and may you never have to wrestle through this over the grave of your own infant son or daughter.
61. Flora
August 5, 2009
1:42 PM
Mark,
I wasn’t saying this was my conclusion!
Melanie,
Elect infants go to Heaven. I believe that Calvin was referring to those who are regenerate from the womb as John the Baptist was. There is no way that we can conclude from Scripture that all who die in the womb are elect.
62. Renee
August 5, 2009
1:44 PM
Mike,
I don’t think that God’s divine “right” (for lack of a better term ascribed to the Alpha and Omega) to do what He pleases was ever in question by anyone here. I think that people who write “emotionally” about the possibility that unborn babies might land in hell are acting quite appropriately.
While I’m not big on the emotional rants from people who insist that if God sends people to hell, He is not a good God and therefore He is not to be revered - neither am I big on the doctrinal babble from people who are all about the letter with little or no concept of His stupendous love and mercy.
This verse bears repeating:
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” [Hosea 6:6]
You said:
“I will say that I did not find MacArthur’s treatment very helpful (although, I confess, I never find him persuasive unless I already agree). ”
A little confirmation bias here?
63. Greg Long
August 5, 2009
1:50 PM
If I were counseling this woman, Tim, I would offer her the same hope that David had in 2 Sam. 12:23.
64. Larry Geiger
August 5, 2009
1:52 PM
35Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
I think that Jesus answers this question fully in verse 39. Everyone God has given him for salvation will be raised up on the last day.
65. Stephanie
August 5, 2009
1:53 PM
While I whole heartedly agree with the theology of original sin, I do not think nor surmise from the Bible that infants who die go to hell. I do believe that God is just and loving. Pastor John Piper addresses this doctrinal issue in his podcast “Ask Pastor John” dated 1/30/08. I am sure he is better equipped to agrue this point than I am. Also, in Hank Hanegraff’s book “The Bible Answer Man” - he also addresses this from a biblical stand point. Neither one of these men use the scripture regarding David and his baby that died. The way Pastor Piper addresses this also encompasses salvation for someone who is mentally handicap.
To whoever this woman was who wrote to you - I hope some of these comments will deliver the peace of God’s Spirit while not overlooking our retchedness.
66. Mike Garner
August 5, 2009
1:55 PM
In any case, who are you to be even implying that you know who is going to Hell?
If you read what Tim wrote, you’ll see he does not say or imply that they are in hell. What he says is that the Bible is not clear on the topic, which means that they MAY be in hell. The question could be reversed and asked, who are you to be implying that you know who is going to heaven? Unless God has told us specifically, then I don’t think we’re in a position to know that.
Renee, that’s not exactly confirmational bias, but sure it is bias. I’m pretty sure that I made that point. I don’t find his book convincing, but I’m biased. Are you suggesting that anyone in this thread isn’t biased?
And I’ll note that my third point is that God is FREE to show Mercy/Grace to whomever he pleases, whether they can know/accept him or not. This makes it clear that I believe that it is POSSIBLE for God to extend mercy and save these infants.
I’m just allowing the possibility that he may not and saying that he would be JUST in sending infants to hell, based on my understanding of original sin. For in one man’s sin, many die, just as in one man’s righteousness many live. The question is whether God imputes Adam’s sin or Jesus’ righteousness to the infants.
I don’t think either of us are in a position to answer that.
67. Mike Garner
August 5, 2009
1:57 PM
Just to reiterate (since this point seems to keep being overlooked), nobody in this tread (least of all TIM) is claiming that infants who die necessarily go to hell.
He is saying that it is possible that they go to hell, possible that they go to heaven, and possible that some go to heaven while some go to hell. That is it.
68. Mark Richardson
August 5, 2009
2:16 PM
Tim,
I appreciate your balanced approach to this really hard dilemma for this woman and others who struggle with the guilt of their own sin from past choices and the eternal destiny of their aborted children. The psychological and emotional issues are really stressful and may spiral to longlasting impact on living children and other family members.
I believe you honestly presented the record of Scripture. Here, we take positions from silence balancing the grace and mercy of God compatible with His utter sovereign and righteous justice. I draw peace from Ephesians 1:4 where Paul states, “even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…”
Those He chose, He will draw into heaven, even those who are aborted (and other situations) and not able to come to Christ and repent for salvation and everlasting life.
69. Renee
August 5, 2009
2:18 PM
Mike,
On biases, sure…is objectivity even possible? I personally doubt it.
On your point being overlooked, I don’t believe any Christian here would say that God has no right to do what He please.
Having said that, the discussion rages on because God’s character is being overlooked if we end the conversation just there.
70. Doc B
August 5, 2009
2:18 PM
Melanie (#60),
Try reading what Tim actually said, rather than responding emotionally to what you thought he might be thinking.
He said nothing of the sort of which you accuse him.
Reread my #19 post about emotionalism in response instead of Scriptural clarity. All Tim ever addressed was the Scriptural clarity (or lack of it) on this topic. He NEVER said, intimated, or hinted at those two babies going to Hell.
71. Michael
August 5, 2009
2:18 PM
Melanie wrote: “It is your cross that needs enlarging and may you never have to wrestle through this over the grave of your own infant son or daughter.”
My 16 year old son, whom I love dearly, has not professed faith in the Lord. If he died this moment I would have no doubt about his eternal condition and I would weep and mourn for his soul. How is my situation ANY different than the father that has lost his infant son? Is God’s wrath just in this action? How would my situation be any less difficult?
I believe it all comes down to a belief that infants are innocent when they are not!
Any argument that you use to say it would be a cruel God that would condemn an infant to hell, I could use just as well in my situation. But I have a feeling you would not except that.
My son was an infant once. What changed?
72. Ralph T.
August 5, 2009
2:19 PM
Here is how God comforted women whose children were taken from them in death. It’s a prophecy of Herod’s slaughter of the infants after Jesus’ birth:
Jeremiah 31:15-17
15 Thus says the Lord: A voice is heard in Ramah,
lamentation and bitter weeping.
Rachel is weeping for her children;
she refuses to be comforted for her children,
because they are no more.
16 Thus says the Lord: Keep your voice from weeping,
and your eyes from tears;
for there is a reward for your work,
says the Lord: they shall come back from the land
of the enemy;
17 there is hope for your future, says the Lord:
your children shall come back to their own country.
Notice that God promises these women that their children would come back. How is it possible for them to come back if they are dead? The resurrection. That’s the hope that we should give when a child dies, along with the fact of God’s mercy and grace, which is what saves anyone who is saved.
“Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
73. Nick Mitchell
August 5, 2009
2:19 PM
Mike,
I think that clarification needed to be made more strongly initially. Sometimes in this debate there is so much arguing against those who believe in infant salvation that is seems as though one is endorsing the opposite position.
74. Melanie
August 5, 2009
2:21 PM
Flora,
“If we listen to some of the emotional arguments in this discussion, we would conclude that it would have been better to have allowed these babies to be aborted and go straight to Heaven.”
This simply does not wash. If that were the case, maybe all Christians should commit one mass suicide to get on with a life in glory! Murder is wrong not just because it breaks God’s command, but because it is an assault on the image of God and a move to put ourselves in his place deciding over life and death. That is why we fight against abortion, because those little infants bear the image of God.
Also, please re-read the second quote I posted by Calvin: he was suggesting ALL infants who die are among the elect NOT that only elect infants will be saved.
75. connie
August 5, 2009
2:21 PM
What an awesomely bad misinterpretation of that woman’s letter.
This may be splitting doctrinal hairs, but altho we are born with a sin nature, seems like we would actually have to COMMIT a sin in order to be hellbound. Babies are unable to do that. And there are places where the Bible does address the fact that young children do not have the knowlege to choose good from evil.
This whole line of reasoning is an insult to a loving Father God. Jesus Himself said the Kingdom belonged to “such as these” and since He’s Jesus I can safely rest in the belief He knew what He was talking about.
76. Mike
August 5, 2009
2:32 PM
Well Tim you’re being provocative again I believe. I think you’re also being a little harsh and with the sound of these comments you don’t have much support. I would be curious to hear what MacArthur says about this, it is suggested here, though I have not read his book, that infants go to heaven. And mark Gardner you sound a little harsh too. Sometimes we can be so doctrinally correct that we miss God and that was the problem with the Pharisees. We should not belittle this hope for parents that David had in 2 Sam. 12:23 wether david was right or wrong we have to hope.
Mike
77. Doc B
August 5, 2009
2:44 PM
Renee (#69),
If you don’t believe objectivity is possible, read Michael (#71). That’s the best bit of objectivity I’ve seen on this issue.
Well said, Michael.
Connie (#75),
You completely miss the doctrine of original sin. Remember, “WE ARE NOT SINNERS BECAUSE WE SIN, WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE SINNERS.”
78. Larry Geiger
August 5, 2009
2:48 PM
Scott
“I personally find myself sacrificing love for others for correct doctrine and truth frequently.”
Your statement is self contradicting.
“correct doctrine and truth” are about God
“God is love”
“correct doctine and truth” is love.
We believe that Jesus never sacrificed love and was always correct doctrinally and truthful.
79. Joel
August 5, 2009
2:51 PM
I am also suprised that the situation with David’s child took so long to come up.
Another note from Spurgeon on the issue. Interestingly enough it is from his sermon “A defence of Calvinism.”
“I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to Paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them!”
80. Melanie
August 5, 2009
3:05 PM
Ralph T, such words of comfort! Thank you!
Michael,
God is sovereign over life and death. Connie makes it very clear what the difference is between your 16 year old son who could die without a saving faith and thus face eternal condemnation and my infant daughter who died at 28 weeks gestation. Though she may have had a sin nature, what possible sin could she have committed that God could hold her accountable for on that day of judgment? As with my living children, your son has many sins for which he can give an account of and know he justly deserves God’s wrath for. There is a big difference.
Spurgeon asserts that only the elect die in infancy and then wisely advises us not to mourn for our deceased children but for our living sons and daughters who are at risk of eternal damnation should they not repent and place their trust in Christ.
Is it possible that God will save ALL infants who die, based on the redemptive work of Christ and His propitiation for sin? YES. So why debate if it is “possible” God wouldn’t? Why not focus on the living, like your son who may very well perish but as he is still living has the opportunity to come to Christ for salvation?
Also, to the man who asserts it is his unborn child that is sinning against his wife and causing her discomfort in pregnancy - that is utter nonsense. Your child has willfully done nothing against her - discomfort in childbearing is a result of sin, yes, but not your particular child’s sin. . That line of thinking is the same kind of reasoning many women use to justify having an abortion. That we can bear children and receive these blessings is evidence of God’s grace to us in the midst of a fallen world.
81. Stuart
August 5, 2009
3:07 PM
What hope do you offer to the parents of children who have cared for years for children with disabilities, which are so profound that they will never have the capacity to hear the gospel and receive it?
82. Josiah
August 5, 2009
3:09 PM
Just for the purposes of discussion:
2 Sam. 12:21-23 (ESV)
Then his servants said to him [David], “What is this thing you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” [David] said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, the the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”
What is David’s ground for saying “I shall go to him?” Is he looking here to his own death, or to a “future personal reunion?” (ESV Study Bible Notes). Remember, this is the same person who wrote Psalm 51 (one of the main texts for developing the doctrine of original sin!) after his sin with Bathsheba. During a period of his life when he’s writing Psalm 51, he also ceases mourning for his son out of hope that he’ll see the child again. Thoughts?
83. Doc B
August 5, 2009
3:23 PM
Melanie (#80),
Connie’s “clear difference” happens to be Pelagianism.
We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners.
84. Jeff
August 5, 2009
3:39 PM
Tim I tend to agree with most who have posted here. You seem a little callous in your post and if this was only a summary of what you wrote originally to this woman, I can only imagine the blow to her spirit and heart. Dr. Mohler, who believes in original sin and also believes the Bible does teach that babies who die in infancy will go to heaven, would disagree with your contention otherwise. Those who would like to read a portion of what he as written can find it here: http://albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-01-05
85. Melanie
August 5, 2009
3:56 PM
Doc B,
Exactly! I don’t think Connie wrote anything that would contradict that. We sin because we are sinners but when has an infant willfully sinned in such a way that they are consciously aware and accountable for that sin?
Our own sin condemns; Adam’s sin guarantees all will sin leading to a just condemnation for that sin. I guess it comes down to an age of accountability, or age of reason that only God can determine in His perfect, righteous wisdom.
In my mind either ALL infants are condemned based on their inherited sin nature or ALL infants are saved based on the saving work of Christ. It can’t be some are and some aren’t in this case - that is an extremely inconsistent line of reasoning.
Again, I will assert ONLY THE ELECT ARE ALLOWED BY GOD TO DIE IN INFANCY.
86. Kim
August 5, 2009
4:05 PM
Is this the kind of thing that makes people accuse Calvinists of being so rigid and cold-hearted? Perhaps.
As a mother who has lost eleven babies before birth, I feel this post shows a lack of compassion for this hurting woman. I totally agree that the Bible does not answer this question definitively, and I am at peace with God’s divine plan…now. But it took me a long time to get here. Wrestling with hard doctrines is healthy and one of the ways God grows and matures us. This woman needs time to work through this issue, not to be raked over the coals by sound biblical doctrine. By all means, point her to Christ and His work on the cross, but please do it with patience and a bit more compassion for the pain she is experiencing.
I know that email and blogging and the written word does not always convey the tone we mean it to, especially when we are laying out difficult truths. My assumption is that you did not mean to sound as callous as you came across in this post, but it certainly made my heart ache for this woman if this is how you responded to her email.
By His Grace
87. Michael
August 5, 2009
4:05 PM
Melanie, I’m sorry for your loss and I thank you for your response. It shows the distinct difference in our understanding of original sin. You do not see a direct connection between original sin and accountability. I do.
I too lost an infant before birth. I trust in the Lord that he will do what’s right. There are no innocent souls, we all deserve his wrath, but in His mercy He saves some. I see no warrant in scripture to exclude infants from that wrath. The age of accountability is a man-made idea.
As Doc B. said in post 28 “What Tim has said is true. We should be willing to trust God in the salvation of the pre-born and the stillborn in the same way we trust God in our own salvation.”
88. julius mickel
August 5, 2009
4:16 PM
Perhaps, it would have been better not to include the story of the lady and just address the issue. I wonder if the lady is reading this now?
Rest? Must come in Christ and MUST come in the person of God, all comfort must be found in who God is. Regardless of the who’s right, ultimately it must rest in His hands and whatever He does IS best, good, holy, loving, and just.
TO ALL:
It’s not fair to accuse people of why they come to their conclusions (unless they are babes in Christ and ignorant OR outrightly dening a foundational truth- which it sounds like some are almost implying Macarthur is a heretic??), , perhaps the doctrine of original sin may be brought to an extreme (just throwing out something to consider, not saying it can), like hyper-calvinists take God’s sovereignty to an extreme?!
As for me I can’t grasp the ‘some’ position, the bible (New Testament) gives no indication that children get in because of parents (baptised or not). It would seem only consistent with scriptures that either ALL babies are sent to hell or ALL are redeemed.
Age of accountability? Of course it’s not in the bible, yet it does make some sense when you consider such things as Is 7:16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. —-So it would seem to not be an ‘age’ thing but an understanding thing (hence I believe children should be EXPOSED to the gospel even while toddlers, for who’s to say when they’ll understand; though I also believe they will show fruit).
89. Kim
August 5, 2009
4:19 PM
Tim,
I mistakenly thought I had read all the comments when I left mine a bit ago (somehow I thought there were only 24). I’m happy to have read your comment that this wasn’t how you responded to this woman in your email to her. Assuming the best of our fellow believers is always the best thing to do!
By His Grace
90. Mike
August 5, 2009
4:35 PM
Tim you have really struck a nerve here!
91. E.G.
August 5, 2009
4:41 PM
Kim wrote: “I’m happy to have read your comment that this wasn’t how you responded to this woman in your email to her.”
It’s good that that wasn’t how he responded to her by email. But he has now responded to her in a public forum here with, I presume, a different tone. This post counts as much as an email - perhaps more, because it is our there, flapping in the wind.
That is the issue. It would have been better for him to either broach the issue without mentioning the actual letter, or to forego this discussion all together.
Since she has stopped by this blog before, it is likely that she will do so again. Hopefully, now that this is posted and what is done is done, she will take comfort in some of the more reasoned and gentle comments here.
Aside: to whoever commented that a child sins by causing the mother pain in childbirth… whoa. I don’t even know where to begin with that.
92. John Challies
August 5, 2009
4:54 PM
I believe that a giant of the faith, Charles Spurgeon believed that all children who die in infancy go to heaven and become part of the innumerable saints who will populate heaven to worship their Saviour forever. The Canons of Dordt, addressing the sobering reality of high infant mortakity among professing Christian families stated something to the effect that confessing parents of children who die in infancy should not doubt.,ie that God would be faithful to his covenant promises[blessing to a thousand generations of those who fear me]. The Westminster Confession was brilliant in the way in which is dealt with the theological positions that pitted the supra and infra lapsarians against one another. It stated a truism: that the “elect” children of believers who die in infancy will be saved.
There are two issues with which contemporary Christians seem to have trouble. The first is accepting the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Read Exodus chapter 19 where the Israelites were not to touch the foot of the mountain - just a pile of barren rock - or God would strike them dead. That’s the distinction between an holy God and sinful, polluted man, something the Puritans well understood but modern man rejects.
In the second place you cannot have the Second Adam, the representative man and the sin bearer whom God the Father strikes in His infinite wrath as the propitiation for Adam’s and our sin unless you concede, as Paul teaches in Romans 5, that we all sinned in Adam. Exactly how that phrase is to be understood, one thing is clear, Adams sinful act of disobedience was attributed to us even though we were not present when he sinned. We make not like the representative idea. But i is on the basis of Christ as the representative head of the new human race that we find the ground of our salvation.
Infants fit into the categaory of all those who sinned in Adam. They are justifiably condemned along with the entire human race. How God determines to deal with infants who have not yet wilfully sinned is unanswerable. But God is just and I am sure that He whatever He determines will reflect His glory, His justice and His mercy.
93. Jeff Peterson
August 5, 2009
5:20 PM
When people ask me this question and I respond by saying, “I don’t know, they look at me like I have six heads or something.
Do I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God? Yes.
Do I believe in the doctrine of Original Sin? Yes.
Do I believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity? Yes.
Do I believe God can work in the spiritual realm where we can’t see it (e.g., John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth’s womb)? Yes.
Do I want to see the child my wife had aborted in 1981 in Heaven? Yes. Does my wife? Oh, you know she does.
Do I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints? Yes.
Do I believe that participants in the New Covenant have the assurance of salvation? Yes.
Can I make a dogmatic, universal statement that every single infant/aborted child has an automatic ticket to Heaven? I…wish…I….could…REALLY…..but… I just can’t.
You know how I wish I could in good biblical conscience NOT answer, “I don’t know,” when asked this question? A lot, trust me. I just can’t see the text allowing us to say anything but “I don’t know.” All we can do is pray that God does intervene and save them. Could He save them all? Sure. Do I hope He does. You bet. I just can’t square a definitive “yes” - in the here and now - with the text.
94. Tim Irvin
August 5, 2009
5:23 PM
I didn’t read ALL of the comments but enough to get a general idea of the tone and directions of the comments.
I’ve always believed that many (false) doctrines came into existence because of people’s emotional feelings regarding children.
What is the chief end of man? To glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
We believe that God is just and if God delivers a child (aborted or otherwise) to eternal punishment because they were conceived in sin then we must believe that God is just in doing so.
I personally believe that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. I also believe in the doctrine of unconditional election. I’m not convinced that we will be able to distinguish how old a soul was at the time of their death when they are cast into the lake of fire. I don’t believe this will be an issue on judgment day.
I thought your “tone” and your defense of your position was spot on. The emotional comments to the contrary are to be expected when dealing with this subject.
95. Kara
August 5, 2009
5:51 PM
Wow. Even though I agree with you…
harsh much?
96. Tim
August 5, 2009
6:00 PM
People who take a hard line on either side of this issue need to have at least a little humility. Scripture does not explicitly say for certain, either way. I, personally, lean in the direction of babies being elect. And I am not in bad company: Al Moehler, John MacArthur, etc.
I was just reading Deuteronomy 1 today. I don’t know how else to read verse 39. At least using grammatical, historical hermeneutics. Regardless, we don’t know for sure. And while I think alot of what Tim C. said has validity. Tim, I hope you aren’t counseling people in her situation that way out of the gate. I hope it starts with compassion for her.
97. Mike Garner
August 5, 2009
7:08 PM
Wow. The number of Mike’s and Michael’s responding here is making this difficult to track who is being responded to.
Although I don’t profess to know more or be wiser than Calvin, Spurgeon, MacArthur, etc., the fact that they believed one thing does not make that belief correct. The fact of the matter is that several of these theologians arrive at their view based on different reasoning.
Although I like the sentiment that only the elect die, I don’t see biblical warrant for that view.
Although I believe that God is free to (and may very well choose to) save each deceased infant, I don’t believe that he must as a matter of justice.
My understanding of Origianl Sin is that in Adam we are all found guilty, before we are even born and commit sin ourselves.
Some may argue that this isn’t fair/just. Perhaps not. But if I’m going to argue for fairness/justice, then I’m going to be in trouble once we start talking about Jesus’s righteousness being imputed to me. Am I really okay with imputation of righteousness if I cannot accept imputation of sin?
98. Victoria
August 5, 2009
7:18 PM
I can just see it now—babies in hell screaming as they are tormented, suffering the wrath of God because of their sin—and maybe, if they are able, just wondering what in the world sin is???
I am reformed but sometimes you people just go to far and write and think stupid stuff about God. It would be better to keep your opinions to yourself rather than cause some poor mother(believer or unbeliever)to be tormented. This is a subject that NO ONE knows the answer for sure. Why not just tell a young and grieving mother that” THE JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH WILL DO RIGHT?”
THAT MY FRIENDS WOULD SATISFY MY GRIEVING HEART MORE THAN 10 MILLION OF YOUR FOOLISH WORDS!!!!!!
99. E
August 5, 2009
7:19 PM
HI Tim,
I just managed to stumble upon this site and this is was the first article i read. First off I want to thank you for posting a statement based soley on scripture and not that of emotion. I agree with you and i cant imagine the kind of flack you have and will recieve
100. Reg Schofield
August 5, 2009
7:42 PM
Wow Tim , you have ignited a powder keg. It is an emotional issue that is for sure.
I have read the arguments for babies or the unborn going immediately to heaven and I can understand the want to think that way and I wish I could but form a plain reading of scripture I cannot.
Couldn’t the same reasoning be used for all those who have never heard the gospel. Now one might say well they sinned , yes they have but the reason they sinned as they got older is they were sinners from the point of conception. A baby doesn’t have the potential to sin , they are sinful to the core, therefore they will only live out what they are. If we only become condemned when we act , that implies a true position of true innocence . Something I don’t think you can argue from scripture.
However ultimately all we can say is that I trust God , He is perfect , full of mercy and grace . I know that all He decrees is just and holy. To go beyond that is I believe purely speculative.
101. Michael
August 5, 2009
7:54 PM
Victoria…first off I don’t except your characterization of babies screaming in hell wondering what sin is. You should reconsider your use of it. That is a blatant and shocking emotional image meant to shut the mouths of those who think differently than you. To paraphrase someone above…will we know the age of a soul in heaven or hell? Taking a small liberty with your image, why would my sixteen year old screaming in hell be any different?
Would God be just in condeming all souls to hell? I believe He is.
Does He display His mercy by not only saving some but glorifiy them? Yes He does.
Do I, a fallen creature, have any right to judge His choices? Absolutely not.
This is Romans chapter 9 folks. He is the Potter. We are the clay.
To this question I say “I don’t know”. I know what I want the answer to be but God’s word does not reveal it to me. I’m not God.
102. Alan Kurschner
August 5, 2009
8:08 PM
Tim,
Well said. I have not read any comments here so what follows may have already been said.
If we trust God in the election of “adults,” then we should be able to trust God in the election of the unborn.
Reformed theology has the most Biblical and pastoral response to infant death. If God is all-wise and all-good, then that is where our comfort should reside. “Is my baby in heaven?” is a valid question. But it is not the most appropriate question. “Do you trust God in the destiny of your child?” is the most Biblical, and points to the griever to the Comforter.
103. David Kjos
August 5, 2009
8:32 PM
And I think that’s a good note upon which to end this long and increasingly redundant, emotional thread.