Where Do Babies Go When They Die?
For the longest time, I wrestled with the question regarding the eternal destiny of those who die in infancy. I had heard of an "age of accountability", but never with Biblical warrant. Later in life, I heard some Calvinists argue that all infants perish in hell, and others that only some infants are elected for heaven. Finally I have read what seems to me to be a biblically-sound and intellectually honest argument.
Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, offers such an argument in two articles that can be found here. The biblical loci of his arguments are in Deuteronomy 1:35, 39, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Revelation 20:11-12. Essentially, he argues that the latter two passages teach that humans are not condemned by their state of original sin but by sins committed "in the body" (2 Cor. 5), that they are judged "according to their deeds" (Rev. 20) done in the context of one's "knowledge of good and evil". The Deuteronomy passage appears to give a positive example of this.
He also points out that this is not at odds with Reformed doctrine (to which he subscribes), pointing out that the Westminster Confession's statement that all elect infants are received into heaven does not predicate the condemnation of some. In fact, he argues, the Confession affirms the possibility that all infants are among the elect, the position to which he ultimately adheres.
Does anyone see strong evidence against this argument? Is this an inherently Reformed position, or do other theological traditions adequately provide for this understanding? Read the article and then let me hear your thoughts.
Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, offers such an argument in two articles that can be found here. The biblical loci of his arguments are in Deuteronomy 1:35, 39, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Revelation 20:11-12. Essentially, he argues that the latter two passages teach that humans are not condemned by their state of original sin but by sins committed "in the body" (2 Cor. 5), that they are judged "according to their deeds" (Rev. 20) done in the context of one's "knowledge of good and evil". The Deuteronomy passage appears to give a positive example of this.
He also points out that this is not at odds with Reformed doctrine (to which he subscribes), pointing out that the Westminster Confession's statement that all elect infants are received into heaven does not predicate the condemnation of some. In fact, he argues, the Confession affirms the possibility that all infants are among the elect, the position to which he ultimately adheres.
Does anyone see strong evidence against this argument? Is this an inherently Reformed position, or do other theological traditions adequately provide for this understanding? Read the article and then let me hear your thoughts.
Thank you very much for addressing this. I will read the articles you link to. I think Christians stay away from this issue because we'd rather close our eyes, plug our ears and shout "la la la la la babies all go to heaven la la la!"
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's true, but there are certainly more productive approaches to the question.
Now that I've read the article, I have another comment.
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose Mohler is right about children going to heaven because they "have not yet become moral agents."
Is it then mere age and experience that give a young person the necessary tools to become spiritually accountable? Pardon the example, but what if you were raised by monkeys, and lived for 50 years without ever meeting another human being? Would you ever truly reach the age of accountability?
OK, that's a little silly, but let's take it up a step. What if you were raised by humans, but by terrible ones... distant, misguided, abusive and hateful? At what age would you reach accountability?
I'm trying to make the point that it takes some actual external influence on a person to help them reach maturity. Perhaps that outside influence is simply the Holy Spirit Himself. If He is the only influence, then we must concede that some people can be saved without being "evangelized" or "missionized". But if we concede that there must be another individual acting upon a young person's life to help him or her actually reach an age of accountability, then we must make a salvific exemption for those who, spiritually, never grow up.
I don't buy the socialization theory at all, and I'm certain it doesn't hold water biblically. Neither would I agree that the Holy Spirit is what/who causes people to 'come of age'. God hard-wired humans--albeit each one uniquely--genetically to comprehend good and evil through their conscience at a certain point, regardless of upbringing and apart from the Spirit. Scripture teaches that "eternity" has been placed in the hearts of humans, and that God's witness in creation is sufficient to condemn (though not sufficient to save--a paradox I have yet to reconcile).
ReplyDeleteSo far I don't think it is reconcilable that God's witness in creation is sufficient to condemn, and yet insufficient to save.
ReplyDeleteThat verse is the one that pulls me, more strongly than anything else I see in the Bible, towards the possibility of some who are saved outside of a specific knowledge of Christ.
It is not true that some are "without excuse" unless those people had a real, honest-to-God opportunity to be saved. Otherwise the argument falls apart.
The other issue is the way Hebrew culture treats the concept of "the name". They even call God "HaShem" which means "the name". For Jesus to be "the only name under heaven by which men can be saved" does not mean that you must know the letters J-E-S-U-S. First of all, that's just linguistic. The point is, Jesus is the only INDIVIDUAL (for lack of a better word) who has the power and ability to save.
I think we can agree that we don't need to know the actual letters of his name to be saved by him. The question is, how much do we need to know? Is it more an issue of quantity of accepted truth? Or is it an issue of accepting as much truth as we're offered? There is plenty of biblical support for the latter, and not much for the former.
Your point about the nature of "name" is well taken. But it's important to keep in mind that just because a word is used in multiple ways, does not mean that each time it is used, it carries all, or even multiple, of these meanings. Context determines the specific meaning for each word as it is being used. In the case of John 3, the context overwhelmingly attributes belief to "the Son". The point is not, as you mentioned, that they spell or pronounce his name the way English speakers do. Rather, the point is that they know the Son crucified in their place to atone for their sin. John does not teach a Gospel in terms of generic "faith in God".
ReplyDeletePaul likewise frames his persuasive speech in Romans 10:14ff to indicate that salvation is mediated only through messengers carrying the message of Jesus Christ: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?... faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (ESV).
Now, again, what about babies and those who are so mentally disabled so as to be inable to respond to a message even if it was preached to them? In this, and only this, instance can an exception be drawn from the passages expounded upon in the article. All else is pure speculation, and counterbiblical speculation at that.
I'm with you that the criteria for condemnation ought--in our finite thinking--to be the same criteria for justification, but insofar as I can see, it is not. Now it's very likely that I'm missing something, but that something must not diverge from what Scripture elsewhere explicates.
A few random thoughts as I respond to what others have written...
ReplyDeleteIt is fundamentally flawed to base the "age of accountability" discussion on Deut 1:39. The "infants" in question are those males under the age of 20 (see Num 14:29)!
God's choice is what matters -- He is sovereign -- what we think about His choices is essentially irrelevant. Rom 9:19-23 says, "You will say to me then,"Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will? On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...".
Whoever lacks the gonads to expound their theology in front of a congregation is a cowardly and lame theologian. Here's what I think about most of the Reformation churches when it comes to the real-life application of Calvin's soteriology: they either disguise it in the deceptive costume of paedobaptism (which the majority of their congregants undoubtedly believe is salvific for their infants, even though the elders recognize it is not) or they shirk it altogether. Do Reformation pastors get up and say from the pulpit that babies go to hell? How much brainwashing does it take to keep their members from lynching them when they do talk like that? Closed-door theologizing is sickening. If your theology doesn't stand up to the scrutiny of the people and their painfully practical experience of life, then not only are you irrelevant as a minister of the Gospel; you ought to rethink your gospel.
ReplyDelete