- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (07/20)
- Next Post »A La Carte (07/21)
Original Sin & The Death of Infants (2)
- 07/20/06
- 75
In the article I wrote yesterday I began discussing the issue of what happens to children who die in infancy. I looked at the view which states that all children who die are immediately ushered into heaven and I pointed out what I feel to be a serious flaw with that argument. Today I’ll continue this discussion by commenting on the other two positions popular among Christians and end with a statement of my beliefs.
But before I do that, I’d like to return briefly to yesterday’s article. I tried to be as responsive as possible in the comments area, so it may prove valuable to read the comments posted there. I would like to respond to a concern expressed by a couple of people who suggested that the idea of an infant going to hell is repugnant.
I would tend to agree that the thought of a tiny infant in hell is repugnant. Such a view, though, presupposes that people who go to hell are the same age in hell as they were when they died. I think it is more likely that in eternity age will be of little consequence. Those who died old and infirm will likely be restored to when they were more able-bodied and when they were of sound mind. Or so I would think. I would also suggest that infants will be made older. Gene Bridges said it like this: “In heaven, wouldn’t you, in a sense, age up, age down, or both? You would age down in the sense that if you were past your prime when you died, you’d then revert to an optimal time of life—both mentally (in the intermediate state) and physically (in the final state). But you’d also continue to mature—in that same ageless and youthful state—to mature intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.” This is speculation, but speculation that seems consistent with what we know of God and of hell. Also, it seems clear in Scripture that, just as not all who are saved will receive the same degree of reward, so all who are condemned will not receive the same degree of punishment. It may well be that children, should they be condemned, will receive a much lighter degree of punishment than those who have committed many more and many greater sins. In my mind this is similar to how Christians are saved by grace but rewarded, at least partially, on the basis of works. Finally, God knows not only what a man has done, but what is in his heart and what he is capable of doing. An infant who died when still tiny, may well have gone on to lead a life in which he committed terrible and horrifying atrocities. God knows. We do not and we cannot.
Let’s turn now to the final two understandings of what happens to children who die in infancy.
The Children of Believers Are Saved
This view is held by many Reformed believers, especially those with firm beliefs in covenant theology. These people believe Scripture teaches that God continues to work through covenants, much as He did in Old Testament times. As God made a covenant with Abraham that extended not only to him but to his children, and thus entered into a relationship with both Abraham and Isaac, in the same way He sets apart to Himself the children of believers today.
This is the view of the writers of the Canons of Dort which says “Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.” While it speaks of the salvation of infants of believers, it does not speak about the children of unbelievers.
The Westminster Confession takes a slightly different view, choosing not to explicitly mention the covenant. “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” The question that might arise in response to this answer is “who are the elect infants?” I believe the writers would answer in a similar fashion to the Canons of Dort, indicating that believing parents can have assurance where unbelieving parents can not. In short, this view presupposes that God’s act of election foresaw which children of believers would die in infancy, and He sovereignly elected those children to be numbered among the elect. God graciously provided salvation for these children through His covenant.
I have more sympathy for the view of the Westminster Confession than that of the Canons of Dort. The Confession explicitly states that elect infants will be saved. And I agree that, if God has seen fit to elect children who die in infancy, they must be saved. I believe the Canons of Dort steps outside the clear teaching of Scripture when it says “godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.” This is a possibility, but hardly something that is made plain in Scripture.
We Can Have No Assurance
Surprisingly I was able to find little formal and well-articulated support for this view. I find this surprising because where Scripture does not explicitly state a doctrine, we might expect Christians to be slow to speculate. It would seem that this view requires the least amount of speculation. Herman Bavinck believed we could have no assurance saying “I would not wish to deny, nor am I able to affirm.” Cornelius Venema concurs, saying “caution is preferable to the confident denial or affirmation of this possibility.”
The weakness in this view is simply that it is not very satisfying. As inquisitive beings we wish to have answers to all of our questions. Stating that we do not and cannot know does not satisfy our desire to know.
My view
I suppose it would be unfair to do all this research and not indicate what I believe, so I will provide a few thoughts. I grew up in churches that had strong views on covenant theology and believed in the doctrine of presumptive regeneration (which states that children of believers are presumed to be saved until they prove otherwise). The view I was taught was that children who die in infancy and are members of believing families are saved, but that we can have no certainty about the children of unbelievers. I abandoned this view on the basis of empirical evidence long before I abandoned it on the basis of Scriptural evidence. I saw countless spiritual delinquents living with the belief that they were saved simply because they were children of the covenant. The inestimable privilege of growing up in a Christian family was reduced to a license to sin. Parents refused to challenge their children and felt little need to share the gospel with them. When I did turn to Scripture to wrestle with this issue I was not surprised to learn that it cannot be adequately supported. I am thankful that my parents did not support this view and that they constantly challenged myself and my siblings to know and believe and trust the gospel.
After doing much study and reflection on this topic, I find myself simply shaking my head and realizing I am unable to know from Scripture what happens to all infants who die. While I would like to believe that all children are immediately ushered into heaven, I simply do not find Scripture to support the idea that God will categorically overlook the imputation of Adam’s sin that is held against all humanity, and even the tiniest child. It seems to me that those who adhere to the view that all children are saved must gloss-over or downplay original sin, and that is something I cannot do. Children who die in infancy are as fully implicated in Adam’s sin as I am and are thus fully deserving of hell. While that does not necessarily indicate that God will not or cannot save them, I do not find evidence in Scripture that He always will. I also do not find strong support for the idea that only the children of believers will be saved and that all the children of believers will be saved.
What I believe we can know from Scripture is that at least some children who die in infancy will be saved, for the Scripture speaks of John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. At least one child was saved before birth. If we are justified by faith as a free gift, and if we believe in our total inability without His grace, surely God, who creates tiny babies, can speak to their hearts in a way that can fill them with the Spirit. If God, through His grace, wishes to save an infant, I’m sure He can. But as to the extent or wideness of this grace, I cannot speak for God does not tell. I would also assume that, just as God is gracious to show mercy to generation after generation of believing families, it is likely that children who die in infancy as members of Christian families are more likely to be numbered among the elect than those who are members of unbelieving families.
And so my view seems to hover between the second and the third. I believe we can have little assurance about the eternal destination of all children, but that we can have some degree of assurance about some children. Scripture does not state that all children are saved and it does not say that all children are condemned. My position falls between these two. I believe, as did the Puritan divines, that “all elect infants dying in infancy go to heaven.” As with the rest of God’s elect, we will not infallibly know who these people are until we are ushered into God’s presence. And at that moment I am convinced that we will all be overwhelmed not by how few there are, but how many. I have concluded that in His wisdom God has chosen not to reveal what happens to all children who die in infancy. Thus it is best not to speculate or to comfort ourselves with false assurances, but instead take confidence in what we do know—that God is just, but gracious. I am left crying out with Paul “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!”
An article explaining John Piper’s understanding of this issue concludes with reflections on George Mueller’s sermon text after the death of his wife. His three points were: The Lord was good, and did good, in giving her to me. The Lord was good and did good, in so long leaving her to me. The Lord was good and did good, in taking her from me.” This is an attitude of great faith. Mueller knew that God always does good. We must conclude the same, even if God chooses to give us an infant for only a short period of time. I hope and pray that I would have the strength and faith to thank God for the time I’ve spent with my little Michaela, even if He took her from me after only three months. For certainly He was good to give her to me and to leave her with me for this long. Who am I to believe that He could take her from me too soon? He knows best and He does best. This must be my refuge.
Having discussed children who die in infancy, I’d like to turn in another article to a defense of my view that my children are likely unsaved.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (75)
It seems to me that a loving and gracious God would do nothing more than welcome dying infants into Heaven.
Tim,
I have a question. If God knew before all time that a child was going to die in infancy, does He really have a long term plan mapped out for this child wherein the child could have been regenerated? (for example, you’ve mentioned children who might have grown up to be dangerous if they’d lived longer, etc). It does not make sense to me that He would so therefore, I DON’T SEE HOW HIS WILL ON WHICH INFANT GOES TO HEAVEN AND WHICH DOES NOT CAN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A FUTURE THAT THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO BE GIVEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. It seems God’s decision on this matter must be one of the greatest mysteries which we will never be able to understand. What do you think?
Woops… the last comment was from me and not Rick!;)
Since we’re discussing Hell, there isn’t a chance in Hell that God would allow an infant who dies to go to Hell. We can fully trust in the love, grace, and mercy of God. He has extended that grace to all people as a free gift which far too many people have rejected. Those unable to receive His grace will not be rejected because of their inability.
I saw countless spiritual delinquents living with the belief that they were saved simply because they were children of the covenant. The inestimable privilege of growing up in a Christian family was reduced to a license to sin.
Are you connecting works and salvation?
I know this is a very emotional subject, especially for those of us who are parents and especially to those of us who have lost a child. My wife and I have suffered through 3 miscarriages. Our greatest comfort lies in that God knows what is best and that He is good and because of that, we have hope that we will see our kids in heaven someday. If not, then we trust that He knows what is best. Tim, I think I agree 100% agree with your position, and that comes from a guy who has experienced a loss.
“If we are justified by faith as a free gift, and if we believe in our total inability without His grace, surely God, who creates tiny babies, can speak to their hearts in a way that can fill them with the Spirit.”
I tend to agree with this, yet still struggle with the reality that God has repeatedly specified in what manner He speaks to hearts, and in what way He brings about new hearts. Though sparing infants seems consistent with what we know about His grace and mercy, it seems inconsistent with the vast majority of biblical evidence in reference to how He saves.
I understand that infants are in a unique category, but for the sake of argument, if little people can be saved without knowing Christ and trusting in Him alone, how can we know for sure that this isn’t also possible for other people groups in other parts of the world?
Also, is it possible that we have wrongly limited the capacity of an infant to understand… to trust? Is it possible that in their own small and seemingly indescribable way, they actually could have some sort of an understanding of Christ? I realize that science and the various official stages of cognitive development would suggest not… but could it be?
Tim said:
I think it is more likely that in eternity age will be of little consequence. Those who died old and infirm will likely be restored to when they were more able-bodied and when they were of sound mind. Or so I would think. I would also suggest that infants will be made older. Gene Bridges said it like this: “In heaven, wouldn’t you, in a sense, age up, age down, or both? You would age down in the sense that if you were past your prime when you died, you’d then revert to an optimal time of life—both mentally (in the intermediate state) and physically (in the final state). But you’d also continue to mature—in that same ageless and youthful state—to mature intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.” This is speculation, but speculation that seems consistent with what we know of God and of hell.
Yes, it is pure speculation. And I’m not sure that the biblical depiction of hell gives us much license to imagine anything very detailed about it, except that it is terrible.
I tend to side with the Mohler/Piper/Spurgeon view that all infants go to heaven. A flawed view, no doubt. Of course it’s what I would prefer to believe. Frankly, I think we’re all speculating here.
What of aborted fetuses and stillborn children? In heaven, are they the fullgrown adults they were intended to be? I would like to think so. But that too is pure speculation on my part. No biblical evidence for this whatsoever. In the light of the Bible’s silence on this subject, is it any wonder that we speculate … hopefully with much humility?
I’m not a Calvinist, Tim, but you have explained your position carefully and thoughtfully, and for that I’m grateful.
This view is held by many Reformed believers, especially those with firm beliefs in covenant theology.
Well, not all believers of covenant theology believe things automatically extend to their posterior. This makes no sense. So, a child of an elect individual is elect. And when he grows up and defies God, he might lose his election. Nah. There’s no comfort there.
I agree that the westminster confession is much more comforting than dort’s. Elect children go to heaven just as elect adults go to heaven.
And the question of who’s elect and who isn’t, doesn’t just extend to infants. We don’t know at all who is and who isn’t. Likewise it’s not our place to go around guessing. God decrees it. He declares this to be truth in his word and we can either believe or disbelive it. I choose to believe it.
Now, one thing we don’t have with infants that we do have with adults is that we can’t examine fruit. Well, then again we’re talking about special circumstances, aren’t we. Remember the thief on the cross? Not much fruit there, either.
But I also wholly disagree with the notion of God being repugnant for sending anyone to hell— infant or otherwise. Bearing in mind that I previously stated that I believe the death of infant manifests his election, if we were to suggest it’s repugnant for an unrepentent child to suffer condemnation, what’s to stop us from applying this to all men. Obviously, there are those who profess to be Christian who do believe that it’s contrary to God’s “love” to elect some and to not elect others. What can I say to that? I don’t make the rules. I just consider the fact that there was absolutely zero basis for him to choose to impart such faith to me. I assure you there is no merit with me.
As to assurance, we cannot arbitrarily make up doctrine. The gospel has zip to do with God’s love for his creation. The gospel is completely for his sake and we merely benefit from it in a gracious and merciful way.
So, if one were to believe that infants in death were in fact elect, I would not think he was making too great a stretch. Of all the theories, it’s the only one I can find even a hint of assurance apart from my emotions.
As I thought further through the topic, my mind kept coming back to this thought:
None of us are worthy of standing in the presence of God. That God would elect some to salvation is simply amazing since no one deserves God’s mercy and grace. In His prerogative He could have chosen to save no one (including infants), but to demonstrate His kindness, mercy and grace He has saved some. That’s what blows my mind.
Still undecided,Hoshea
Tim,
Thanks for the posts- good stuff. In the end I would have to land somewhere with you in the “I don’t know for certain” camp.
Those in the “infants are saved” camp emphasize the fact that infants are saved by grace through the work of Christ on the cross. The major issue that I have wrestled with in this is that in Scripture this saving grace through the work of Christ is always and only presented as coming to a person through faith (Elisha referenced this in his post).
Can an infant have saving faith? It doesn’t seem that the intellectual capacity is there to have faith in the salvation and Savior God has provided.
This line of thinking is what brings me back to the “I don’t know for certain” camp.
None of us are worthy of standing in the presence of God. That God would elect some to salvation is simply amazing since no one deserves God’s mercy and grace. In His prerogative He could have chosen to save no one (including infants), but to demonstrate His kindness, mercy and grace He has saved some. That’s what blows my mind.
So much for His love being offered freely for His creation. May I never meet this deity you speak of who acts out of self-interest and doesn’t live up to what Scripture says about love. The heathen believes in a capricious deity that is ultimately unpredictable and uncertain, but the Christian believes in God who has revealed Himself to man. Included in that revelation is the truth of God’s love for us. He did not save us simply to demonstrate how cool He is; salvation is a gift of His love. No one deserves the mercy of God and yet everyone has received God’s mercy. That is truly amazing.
As God made a covenant with Abraham that extended not only to him but to his children, and thus entered into a relationship with both Abraham and Isaac, in the same way He sets apart to Himself the children of believers today.
I see one big flaw in this particular aspect of covenant theology being in the example of Ishmael. He was circumcised as part of the new covenant, but it was known up front that the blessings would come through Isaac, and NOT through Ishmael.
Tim,I think your position is a good one, AND a biblical one. From Scripture we cannot say either way, ‘all’ or ‘none’ in regards to heaven or hell for infants who die…what we CAN say is that ALL of the elect will be saved.
“It seems to me that a loving and gracious God would do nothing more than welcome dying infants into Heaven.”
That may be, but you’ll need to prove it from Scripture!
“Since we’re discussing Hell, there isn’t a chance in Hell that God would allow an infant who dies to go to Hell. We can fully trust in the love, grace, and mercy of God.”
Same for this one. We’ll need some type of Scriptural proof.
“Are you connecting works and salvation?”
Not necessarily, though the book of James tells us that they are intimately connected. I was saying that my experience showed that many who presumed they were saved were clearly not, for their words and actions betrayed them.
“does He really have a long term plan mapped out for this child wherein the child could have been regenerated?” I don’t know that we know. But certainly He knows the hearts and particular sins of each person. And regardless of how many sins and how serious the sins a person would have committed, he will commit fewer by dying earlier.
So much for His love being offered freely for His creation. May I never meet this deity you speak of who acts out of self-interest and doesn’t live up to what Scripture says about love. The heathen believes in a capricious deity that is ultimately unpredictable and uncertain, but the Christian believes in God who has revealed Himself to man. Included in that revelation is the truth of God’s love for us. He did not save us simply to demonstrate how cool He is; salvation is a gift of His love. No one deserves the mercy of God and yet everyone has received God’s mercy. That is truly amazing.
Chris,I’m not sure why you would assume that I believe that God’s love has nothing to do with salvation and election. It wasn’t my intent to state every facet of God’s plan of redemption. Neither do I believe that God is uncertain about His decisions and decrees. As far as “self-interest” is concerned, the wording is such that it seems God that only cares about Himself. That is in no way what I was referring to. Simply put, everything that God does will end in His being glorified and magnified—but of course He loves us. As for God displaying mercy to everyone, in a general sense, yes He has, because He has not stricken us all dead immediately for our sinfulness. In a particular sense, not all will receive eternal salvation type mercy because not all trust in Christ as Savior.
Of course, I agree that God has revealed Himself to man.
Sorry for straying off topic…my bad.
Simply put, everything that God does will end in His being glorified and magnified—but of course He loves us.
Yes, in everything God is glorified but I do not think God acts out of a desire to increase His glory and your earlier comment seemed to indicate that, as though He acted not because He loves us but because He wants us to see how great He is.
As for God displaying mercy to everyone, in a general sense, yes He has, … In a particular sense, not all will receive eternal salvation type mercy because not all trust in Christ as Savior.
Agreed and this was essentially what I was getting at. Everyone has received the mercy of God. Going further, I am not a Calvinist so I believe everyone has been extended the saving mercy of God. Everyone has received the mercy offered by Jesus Christ at the cross. Not everyone has accepted that gift and so not everyone is saved. There are many who are unable to accept that gift in any rational or credal sense, either because they are too young or have some cognitive disability. I believe that these are not cast off for being unable to accept the gift of God but are taken under God’s wing, as it were, without having to receive what they cannot receive.
Where is my Scripture reference defending this? Tota Scriptura. All of Scripture is the revelation of God and the truth about God is found in all of Scripture. Proof texts are bad things because arguments built off of them are usually wrong. But taking the whole of Scripture we see a God who always acts out of love for His creation. He never violates His own standards and holds all of creation to those standards but included with all of that is God’s character of mercy, grace, justice. He is the defender of the defenseless, the helper of the helpless and I cannot help but take all of that to mean He will never let go of the one who had absolutely no ability to respond to His gift of grace.
Wow. I agree with Tim, again. What is the world coming to?
Good set of posts Tim.
Quoting from one person but the sentiments of many: “”It seems to me that a loving and gracious God would do nothing more than welcome dying infants into Heaven.”“
The problem is, we are fallen individuals who delude ourselves constantly. At the end of the day, it really does not matter what it seems to us that God will do. We must form these conclusions from the Scriptural evidence and I have yet to see that done.
Furthermore, “there isn’t a chance in Hell that God would allow an infant who dies to go to Hell.”
I really do not see how such strong statements could be made (even if they are witty!) without clear Scriptural teaching.
In Christ alone,mike
Proof texts are bad things because arguments built off of them are usually wrong.
I cringed when I went back and saw this sentence. Getting quite off topic now, but let me restate for my own conscience sake. :)
Proof texts are bad things because they never give the whole picture. Arguments built on proof texts are usually wrong.
I think this is the best, and most honest, approach to this question.
Great post Tim. I share your stance.
Tim P., you say, “Can an infant have saving faith? It doesn’t seem that the intellectual capacity is there to have faith in the salvation and Savior God has provided.”
I think a good question to ask here is, “What constitutes faith?” Does the free gift of faith expressed by a fully functional, intellectual being mean the same thing as the gift of faith expressed by someone without the mental or intellectual capacity to express it as we do? I have heard faith described as an empty hand before God. It does not require mental or intellectual capacity to be empty handed, relying fully on him for life, salvation and hope for eternity. If creation itself will cry out to God if we remain silent, if creation itself glorifies God simply by doing what it was created to do, then why not God’s elect who are incapable of intellectual understanding and assent to the gospel? Why can their faith not be expressed in terms of their utter dependance on him? Only God knows and judges the heart, even of infants and the mentally disabled.Rom. 819For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.Nan
It must be “infant salvation days” or something. This issue is buzzing around the blogosphere.
Allow me to briefly repeat some questions I posted elsewhere about John the Baptist, since Tim brought it up, then make another point.
Was John the Baptist leaping in the womb:1. a sign that John was regenerate2. a response to Mary?s voice3. a response to the infant Christ?s presence4. part of a sign to Mary (and Elizabeth)5. a response to the infilling of Elizabeth with the Holy Spirit
See Luke 1:39ff
Secondly, is it possible for a normal, elect adult to die before having come to Christ? Would this not deny God’s sovereignty in appointing the time and circumstances of their salvation, electing both the ends and the means, being in control of the universe? If it cannot be so for an elect adult, then how can it be so for an elect infant? “Elect infants dying” seems like a contradiction in terms in this light.
I guess this is ultimately a derivative of the “another way of salvation” argument. If God elect someone, they will be regenerated and come to Him. (unless…)
Tim,
There are a few texts that are commonly cited as indicators that infants will be in heaven. I cited one from Jonah in yesterday’s coment thread, another is David saying that he would go to his deceased child, and there are a few sayings of Jesus that seem gracious to children.
In adressing this topic, it would be helpful if you would interact with some specific texts. Your two posts seem to focus more on generalities.
In second Samuel 12, Nathan prophisied that because of David’s sin, his son would die.When his son died, David knew he would “go to him”. Death followed by hope.
2 Sam 12:23”But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
In Matthew 2, after Herod slaughtered the male babies, Matthew confirmed the prophecy ofJeremiah was being fullfilled.
Jeremiah 3:15”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.”
The hope for the children follows in Jeremiah 3:16:
Thus says the LORD, “Restrain your voice from weeping And your eyes from tears; For your work will be rewarded,” declares the LORD, “And they will return from the land of the enemy.
Jesue Christ wasn’t agnostic about children and Heaven:
Matthew 18:3”Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:4But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Mark 10:15”Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
Luke 18:17”Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
I’m surprised that no one has addressed an age of accountability; a concept which I think is quite Biblically defensible. Compare the following passages:
“In this desert your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. ” (Num 14:29)
“And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.” (Deuteronomy 1:39)
“‘Because they have not followed me wholeheartedly, not one of the men twenty years old or more who came up out of Egypt will see the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-” (Num 32:11)
It seems to me from these passages that the age of accountability, the age under which children, “…do not yet know good from bad…” is the age of twenty. Now some may disagree, but God said it, I didn’t. Some may think it unfair that a person under the age of twenty committing a terrible crime might not be held accountable, but that’s no less emotional than saying it’s “repugnant” to think of a baby in hell. Both positions are based on feelings. Remember, we’re not talking about people not being held accountable for their actions societally, but what happens, before God, to those who die before this age of accountability.
What do you think? Prove me wrong.
John K
John K~
It is my belief that these Scriptures you have cited are all dealing with one group of people in particular- the Israelites who were fleeing from Egypt under Aaron and Moses.
While Numbers 14:29 does say what you have quoted, if you read the rest of the passage (beginning in verse 26 and ending in verse 35) it says:
26And the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, 27”How long shall this wicked congregation grumble against me? I have heard the grumblings of the people of Israel, which they grumble against me. 28Say to them, ‘As I live, declares the LORD, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: 29your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, 30not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. 31But your little ones, who you said would become a prey, I will bring in, and they shall know the land that you have rejected. 32But as for you, your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness. 33And your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years and shall suffer for your faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness. 34According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’ 35I, the LORD, have spoken. Surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation who are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall come to a full end, and there they shall die.”
All those over 20 (except Caleb and Joshua) had been “grumbling” against God. That is why he chose that specific age to be the cut off age of entrance into Canaan. They had also said that their children would become victims-therefore God spared their children. As an example that He alone is God.What of Aaron? He was over 20 and a follower of the Lord God, and yet he was denied passage into the land of Canaan because he rebelled against God’s word (Number 20:24). Surely someone over the age of 20 can have a saving faith in Christ, yet sin and still enter into the kingdom. While Caleb and Joshua were faithful, surely they were not the only faithful ones in all of Israel-Moses and Aaron for example. If Moses is in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 and is also said to have inherited the righteousness of Christ by looking TO the cross. Yet he was over 20 and therefore would never get to Canaan, yet we know from Scripture he is, by faith, in Heaven. Would you say that Moses and Aaron and all those who had faith and yet rebelled would not be in Heaven?
I am not a theologian or a writer so I don’t know if I am conveying my thoughts properly or eloquently enough to make sense, but what I am saying boils down to this: These verses aren’t talking about Heaven, they are talking about Canaan. These verses aren’t talking about an age of accountability for salvation or faith, they are talking about a punishment for an act of rebellion.
I’m not debating the age of accountability issue (while I happen to not believe it is biblical). I am simply stating that I do not believe these verses, when taken in context, can be used to support that arguement.
Actually, my point was not so much to equate Canaan with salvation, but to establish the age before which God says that children do not yet know good from bad.
Deut 1:39 confirms that there is such an age, Numbers 14:29 and 32:11 merely show that this age is twenty.
Take Care,John K
I think my view on the matter has already been made clear, but I did want to address age of accountability. This is what I usually hear people in the church refer to when they express their belief that children who die will go to Heaven. John, you’re the first person I’ve ever heard attempt to put Scripture with it. But I have to say that I agree with Jenn, I don’t think an age of accountability is a biblical idea.
The verses you referenced are firmly tied to the Exodus event. In Scripture, especially in the OT, we need to be careful not to make universal something that was very particular. Nowhere else in Scripture is something like this mentioned so that strikes me as a good indicator that these particular verses can only apply in the context where we find them.
Also I think you are mixing ideas that aren’t meant to be mixed. I don’t think the age of 20 years is given as the age at which people know right from wrong. Deut 1:39 doesn’t say there is a magic number at which people suddenly know right from wrong. It does, however, say that there is some point at which people don’t know right from wrong.
Here’s what I think about the 20 years age that is given. Deut 1:35 says: “Not a man of this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your forefathers…” How do we define a generation? Different people do it in different ways. In this particular situation, the generation that would perish in the wilderness was all people over the age of 20. The generation under 20 would go on to enter the land.
We tend think of generations in terms of ages, so it would make sense that God would clarify the age limit of the generation that would perish in the wilderness. As far as Deut 1:39, as I’ve already mentioned there is nothing in the passage even hinting that “not knowing good from bad” has a connection with a specific age.
Tim, I’m a paedobaptist minister who fully agrees with your stated position here; similarly, I think there is often a harmful ambiguity in how many Reformed thinkers use the term ‘promise’ in these types of contexts. While this fuzzy use of the word ‘promise’ in these contexts may allow pastoral short term comfort to grieving parents and give more emotionally palatable apologetics to skeptics, it can also detrimentally water down the meaning and sense of unalterable power of God’s Word of promise and covenant overall in other contexts where Scripture DOES indeed provide us with objective certainty.
Can we generally agree that it is ok to speak of a ‘presumptive’ regeneration of infants of elect parents so long as we use a soft definition of ‘presumptive’ to mean (contra the Canons of Dort) reasonable grounds for treating something as a true reality while also remaining humbly cogniczant that the hoped-for probability is not actually guaranteed by the Word? Analagously, we all ‘presume’ that a newly baptized adult who makes a credible profession of faith is among the elect (we have reasonable grounds for an assumption or sense of probability) and treat him as such, while at the same time knowing that we have no rock solid promise of Scripture that regeneration and justification are in actuality effectually and spiritually accomplished and applied to this certain individual rather than counterfeit, especially before biblical marks of a lively faith are seen in his life.
An infant who died when still tiny, may well have gone on to lead a life in which he committed terrible and horrifying atrocities. God knows. We do not and we cannot.
We’ve seen this before. It’s the Arminian version of election, based on foreseen faith/works. This necessarily implies synergism. What you have proffered, therefore, seems some sort of foreseen synergism. But we know that God predestined the elect “according to the purpose of his will”, not foreseen sin. The idea of hellish punishment for foreseen sin also violates the clear teaching throughout Scripture that Christ will render to each one according to deeds actually committed (see Proverbs 24:12; Psalm 62:12; Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:6; Col. 3:25; and Rev. 2:23, 20:12, 22:12).
What will happen to infants who died, who have never ever heard of Jesus, who never ever got a chance to repent, never ever sinned either…Are some going to hell while others who happened to have christian parents will be saved?Sounds like a lottery to me!While I do not have a clear answer, I certainly believe that God is a justice God, giving every human at least a fair chance to repent and to choose for Jesus as saviour, also from ‘orinigal sin”.You may also ask: what will happen to all humans, never been able to heard the gospel. What happened to all the people who died before Jesus was born? Believe me, its an awful lot of people!As I said, I believe in a God who is rightious. One day we will know the full truth here!(please forgive my grammar as English is not my native language : ) )Joop
Joop,
Your English is pretty good for being a second language. :)
However, there are a few concerns that I have with your post. First, the Bible teaches that God elects those who will be saved and those who will be damned. How does he choose? The scriptures declare that it is based upon his own good pleasure. As sinful humans, we often want a different answer. However, God cannot appeal to anything greater than his own character. This is something that we must trust and ultimately must love.
Second, humans definitely do NOT want things to be fair. In fairness, God would cast every single one of us into hell and there would be no such thing as a Savior and certainly no opportunity to gain his righteousness as he takes our sin. God would be perfectly just to cast each and every one of us into hell.
Furthermore, God does not give to all equally. We may want to believe that God gives all equal ability to repent and choose Jesus as savior (in your words). However, I would ask if God, being the potter, is not free to choose some for eternal glory and others for destruction?
Your conclusion is correct: God is righteous. This is something that we must know and trust. However, the secret is not to redefine what God is based on our fallen conception of righteousness. Rather, we must look at what God has revealed about himself and has declared to be righteous and then allow that understanding to transform our hearts and minds. In time, doctrines that we once considered repugnant can prove to be something that is dear to our heart.
In Christ alone,mike
Concerning John being filled with the Spirit from the womb:
I have heard, and would agree, that the word “from” should be understood as “From without” or “Away From” as opposed to “From Within”.
Paul understood that he was seperated and chosen to be an Apostle from his mother’s womb (Galations 1:15) but we know that he wasn’t converted until later in life on the Damascus Road.
I believe the intent here is to let us know that John was elect and would be set apart for the Lord’s service but I don’t think this is an indication that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from before birth.
Michael,
Scripture teaches that God has offered salvation to all on the basis of His free will and love of mankind, that we choose to accept His salvation, that when we do we are adopted into the church and that it is the church which He has chosen/elected for Himself.
Just wanted to clarify, I noticed your post had a few typos so it came out reading slightly different than what Scripture actually says. I know the above statement is what you actually meant to say.
Joop,
Do you have any thoughts about the answers to the questions you raised?
To Michel:
You said, God elects, either for heaven, either to eternal comdemnation. Something isn’t quite right here I think. God sent His Son to die on the cross for the sake of the whole world. Further, it is God’s purpose that THE Gospel will be spread all over the world so EVERYBODY might hear from Jesus, repent and get converted (by the Holy Spirit). No election here to certain people!Gods message: we are lost, we will go to hell unless we repent, so I believe it is Gods purpose that EVERYBODY should ask in despair: WHAT SHOULD I DO TO GET SAVED!!!There is a great to out there to be done!
To Chris
What will happen to infants when they died?I think they go to ‘hades’ (see David and Batheba’s son), to be ‘raised’ once. But then,how to judge?I think they will be made ‘adults’ able to discern right form wrong, and will see Jesus or hear the gospel. How? Lots to speculate upon. I like to be careful here…
Joop,
I agree with you that God does want the gospel spread to all people (Matt 28:18-20), and that He desires all to have faith in Him.
However, the Bible also clearly indicates that unregenerate man (those who have not been born again of the Holy Spirit) is unable to come to God (Romans 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14). We are only able to come to God if He draws us (John 6:44, 65). And everyone is not drawn the same. Jesus says that His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:16), but then also says that not all are His sheep (John 10:26), and will not come to Him because they are not His sheep.
It is difficult to get around the fact that God has sovereignly chosen to save certain individuals, not because they deserved it, earned it, or because He needed to, but because it brought Him glory and pleasure to do so.
Some verses regarding election you may want to look at are: Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:3-6, Ephesians 1:11, Acts 13:48.
Here is an annoying question: If children are born dead in sin (by virtue of Adam) and fall under the wrath of God from conception; and, if they die, are subject to an eternity of conscious torment, what is the moral justification of having children? Doesn’t bearing babies only serve to increase the anger and wrath of God?
Josh,
Jesus commands: Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and its Rightiousness. I think this is our choice to make that decision. In the old testament God commands: choose what is right and be blessed, if not, then there are the many curses… So if God commands us to choose (right from wrong) we should be able to choose. Sadly, Israel repeately chosed to life according to the flesh (Rom 8:6-8). With all consequences…2Peter 3:9 says “The Lord is (…) not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance (KJV)”, so we ALL can COME to REPENTANCE, I would say. Also in 2 Tim. 2:4: [God] will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowlegde of truth (KJV).It is true that only the Holy Spirit can convince people of sin. Obviously many unregenerated don’t want to be convinced.Yes, we are bad by nature, however still being able to make good choices.How should we obey if we can’t make good choices?Anyway, I understand your arguments and appreciate your point of view, however, in the picture at large I disagree at some points with you. You may as well read the verses I looked up for you :)God bless,Joop
Well Joop, we clearly have a theological difference here (Same with Chris). This probably isn’t the thread to get into a long and detailed conversation about God’s plan of redemption. However, suffice it to say that I do believe that your theological view puts you in a very difficult position on the issue of infants dying.
From my perspective, which i believe is biblical, we all deserve hell from conception and it is only by God graciously giving us Spiritual life that we may spend eternity with him. Your view, at least how it sounds, suggests that we all deserve (or at least have been granted) a fair chance to hear the gospel (some form of it, anyway) and choose whether we want to repent and follow Jesus or not. Since infants have a nearly impossible time with this, all sorts of unbiblical views have to be proposed and speculated on.
However, the even more dangerous problem, from my view, is that I think that it usually does not stop with infants. One person has already raised the issue of the mentally handicapped. You yourself seem to have raised the issue of people A) who have not heard the Gospel B) died before Jesus. While I think (B) is unrelated, I think even the question of (A) that begins with your theological presuppositions leads straight towards inclusivism.
So, it is my contention that an Arminian understanding of God’s Grace, if held consistently, leads to A) unbiblical views on this topic (namely original sin and the death of infants) and B) ultimately to inclusivism.
Finally, what would be my exhortation? You said, “No election here to certain people!” This is quite a staggering statement considering the biblical evidence to the contrary. I would encourage you to continue to read and study scripture. You do have a good familiarity with Scripture (from what I can see), even in a second language! However, I do believe there are bits that you are possiblity blind to.
May we both continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
P.S. excuse my typos in the previous post. I wrote it at 2:00a.m. when I am not very lucid. Then again, I’m sure this post has some as well and sadly I do not have the time to reread it.
Michael,
Please don’t fall into the error of assuming that if one isn’t Calvinist then one must be Arminian. Such silly games never help a discussion.
As for a free will view presenting problems, the view is actually quite consistent. In the Bible God gives man the gift of Himself. Those who accept Him are received into His elect body, the church. Those who do not accept Him are not received into His elect body.
There are, however, those who are unable to make that choice. Calvinists say that no one is able to choose God; Scripture teaches otherwise. But there are those incapable of understanding God, sin, damnation and salvation. Scripture is fully consistent in testifying that God upholds the needs of all people. Those whose needs are greater receive all the more grace and care from God. It is fully consistent with the character of God in the Bible that He would extend His salvation to those unable to make the choice themselves. What is not within the testimony of Scripture is the idea that God only desires salvation for some and not for others.
Michael (spelled it right now!),
I’ll try to answer you all in relation to this topic.You stated: Children deserve hell right aller being conceived. I cannot agree with that since Romans 6:23 KJV says: “For wages of sin is death. “However, A child, just after conception is not yet able to sin anyway, so it cannot deserve the wages of sin (with is “death”). And a child is not to held accountable for his parents sin. Maybe you show me from scripture otherwise?I however, do believe that a preborn child isn’t entitled to heaven either. It has to hear the gospel once and be saved.I would not say we ‘deserve’ a fair chance. God granted us grace, which is not to be deserved. Only God’s grace can ultimately save us.I believe that it is God’s wish to save us all, including all stillborn infants. You may well read 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4. I honestly cannot find any election here.We might agree on that we all can only be saved through the blood of Jesus Christ on Golgotha, and that is Gods wish (and command) that the gospel be spread all over the world so everybody (nobody excluded, so this is inclusivism?) should be able to hear the truth, and be able to make a choice. If that’s Gods wish and command, how then will God maybe exclude some people beforehand?You tell me.
Yes, Michael, I will continue reading the scriptures ;)God Bless,Joop
Joop,
You seem to be confusing ability with responsibility. Your reasoning seems to go “if God commanded it, then I must be able to obey.” This is exactly the same issue that Arius and Augustine clashed over. However, we are commanded to keep the whole Law, but scripture is clear that Christ is the only one who ever actually did so. Romans says that the purpose of the Law was to show how sinful we are. How could it do that if we were able to keep it perfectly?
You said, “How should we obey if we can’t make good choices?” Very good question! Imagine you are standing before a Holy God who tells you His requirements for righteousness and you realize, “I can’t do that!” What is your response? There are only two. You can object and say “That’s not fair” (I wouldn’t recommend that), or you can fall at His feet and say “I can’t do that! I’m in big trouble! Spare me!” It is with a response like that that our flesh dies and life in Christ begins.
P.S. The verses you used are very popular, but they have been responded to. If you are looking for answers, try searching for articles on these passages somewhere like http://www.monergism.com, or listen to the lessons here on “Common Attacks Against Reformed Theology” that deal with these: http://www.prbc.org/Sermons2.htm
Dex,
Thanks for your answer. I have to admit, you are, at least partly, right.In OT most kings were disobedient, didn’t keep the law, however, some kings were really dedicated to the Lord (David, Josia). Did theyalways keep the law completely. David didn’t. Was it possible to keep the law? In theory, maybe, (I really have to reflect on this)You might be right about the law, for not be able to keep it all. About 613 rules? Pfoooi! That is to say, maybe I can keep then outwardly. However, that will be not sufficient anymore. Hating your brother, having bad (lustful,etc) thoughts etc is a sin as well. Yes, I need Christ to keep the law, or rather, the law to be fulfilled by Him. I agree on that one.However, the gospel teaches to accept Jesus as my Saviour. Can I do that: accepting Jesus? Obeying God Who says: this is my only begotten Son, listen to Him. Could the Jews in those days do that? Sure they could!Did they? Not all, and Jesus blamed them for not accepting and believing in Him.So to answer your quenstion: I would respond (BTW a matter of choice!) to accepting Jesus so I might live and He glorified in me!
You said: the purpose of the law is to show how sinful we are. Really? Then why wasn’t the law given to Noach, Abraham, Isaak, Jacob etc? So they were less / not sinful? You tell me.
I realize we I are off topic a bit, I quit now, it’s getting late (European Time :))I will see your websites later!God Bless,Joop
I have to confess that I was very angry with Tim when I first read this post, but having reread it I have to conlude that we’ve been tricked. Mr. Challes has raised this issue merely to increase traffic to his site. Good one!Imagine a Reformed Baptist, a Calvinist ,speculating that God is damming unborn chidren for sins that they would have committed had they lived and grown up! Too precious!Good way to generate a discussion though.As for my thoughts on an academic level I would say, : 1. A scriptural case can be made raising the possibility that infants and young children go to heaven when they die.2. Neither definitive nor conclusive evidence exists that such is the case so that exactly what happens to them cannot be proven.3. The issue becomes then one of speculation which while useful, as an intellectual exercise serves no practicle purpose in ministering to those who have exprienced the death of a child.
Note : by child I mean unborn or very youngchild.
Mr. Challes has raised this issue merely to increase traffic to his site.
I didn’t see anywhere where Tim stated such a thing. If not, then that would be an inappropriate judgment of motives on your part Ray. You may not agree with what he’s written, but you can not say that he’s merely blogging on certain topics to increase traffic or “popularity.”
Michael Garner, wonderful handling of God’s word. Thank you for rightly dividing the word of truth and for doing it with grace! Ditto that to Dex as well.Chris Roberts, how can you in the same sentence say “we choose” and “God’s elect”. When *we* elect a public official, is it she/he that casts the vote for us? Where in the Bible does it talk about election going from the direction of man to God? God elects. If you do not believe this or the doctrine of predestination how can you use phrases like “His ‘elect’ body” the church? While I agree that He has saved for Himself “a people”, Jesus did die for individuals that together are woven into His precious bride.I highly recommend for you a rereading of Romans Chapter 9 (or better yet, all of Romans!) where you will find the following:14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”making your statement, “What is not within the testimony of Scripture is the idea that God only desires salvation for some and not for others.” moot.There are those who are comfortable with God’s sovereignty only in so far as it does not affect their own personal autonomy over salvation. He is the author and perfector of our faith from start to finish; He elects, He foreknows, He seeks us, He touches our lips with fire so that they may be cleansed…He, He, He. We only receive with an empty hand. We have but to cry out to Him in our first exercise of the brand new gift of faith, like a newborn baby screams with it’s first breath, who has just been given life by no will of it’s own.I don’t think Michael made the error of assuming that all who are not Calvinist are Arminian. All who are not Calvinist can indeed be any combination of religious and/or denominational stripe, however the fact is that amongst ‘evangelicals’, the vast majority are in one of those two camps. As it is, Michael was specifically responding to Joop who by virtue of argumentation *is* Arminian.Nan
Note to JD: I think that if you look up SARCASM in a dictionary you’ll understand the first part of my post better.
I accept, however, that humour and sarcasm may be inappropriate when dealing with such an emotionally charged issue. For that mistake I apologise.
Sorry Ray. Sarcasm is often in tone and it’s hard to pick up on sometimes by reading. There are those “haters” out there that believe such things as you sarcastically wrote. Sorry I missed it. Had I gotten it, I would have enjoyed the joke seeing as how I love sarcasm. =)