Do children who die in infancy go to heaven?
July 1st, 2008Danny Akin and Albert Mohler believe so:
It is our conviction that there are good reasons biblically and theologically for believing that God saves all who die who do not reach a stage of moral understanding and accountability. It is readily admitted that Scripture does not speak to this issue directly, yet there is evidence that can be gleaned that would lead us to affirm on biblical grounds that God receives into heaven all who have died in infancy.
Akin and Mohler offer several arguments from Scripture to support their position. It’s an excellent article that’s worth a read.
How could they not?
This is a great article with some really strong evidences for deceased infants going to heaven. I really appreciate you posting this. I have recently been questioned on this matter and this is a great help.
Interesting you posted this, Tim. I just posted it too - our pastor preached on the subject Sunday due to a tragedy in our church. His conclusion was the same.
Di - many would argue that infants do not go to heaven because they inherit the stain of original sin. Of course they do, and infants do not deserve heaven any more than you and I do. That God would choose to save them is a testimony to His mercy.
“Do children who die in infancy go to heaven?”
It’s like trying to answer, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”
No, it’s not — because while the Bible speaks to the first issue, it doesn’t to the latter.
This is a very touchy subject. We can not know for sure as was stated that the Bible does not clearly say. If one supports predestination you would almost have to say that some do and some do not. I do believe in predestination. My wife had a miscarriage a number of ears ago. This child never heard the word of God. I like to think that our child is in heaven, however I do not know
I used to be of the mindset that they do not go to be with the Lord due to their sin nature. I have since come to the same conclusion as stated above due to this article I read some time ago. Even though the context is meant for something else, the idea still carries over and applies to this situation. Pay particular attention to the arguments made concerning moral necessity and moral inability as well as natural necessity and natural inability.
j razz
I’m with Verne. The OT record shows that God has no qualms about killing children for their cultural wickedness. I think we should be open to the idea that some children die to spare the world the evil they would perpetrate as adults. If God goes on to forgive them, that’s up to Him and remains a mystery to us for now.
Re jrazz’s link: I don’t think anyone could accuse J.I. Packer of dumbly sitting back and not probing the depths of God. So I disagree with Piper’s statement: “I might just say in response to much silly talk about the dangers of exhausting the mysteries of God, that my conception of God makes such a thought ludicrous. If we may compare God’s wisdom to a ragged mountain and our growing understanding of it to a slow assent, I do not have the slightest fear that during some midnight meditation I may (by the grace of God) attain some new ridge and all of a sudden find I am on the peak of the mountain with no more cliffs to climb.” Anyone who thinks he can completely understand any particle of God (in other words, not always have vast cliffs to climb) is arrogant indeed. But in general I like Piper.
I am a fool to argue with Jonathan Edwards, but it seems to me his distinction between the will and motives is splitting hairs. His reasoning is based on the premise that we can know what good is. Jesus says only God is good, so then our very concept of what is good is limited and misguided or perhaps even twisted. Very few humans are truly amoral, seeking to do what they know is evil; even Hitler thought he was doing good. Similarly (to get back on point), our idea of innocence, which we freely apply to infants, is severely limited.
Craig,
I think Piper was reacting to a typical “casting aside” of this very hard issue and just accepting it as a paradox that will only be explained on the other side of death.
I forget which book Packer wrote of this in, (back in the 70’s) but even Piper gave Packer the benefit of the doubt after saying what he said (that you picked up on) above.
As for splitting hairs, I don’t know- it took me several times reading it, but it makes much sense to me and helps to shed some light on some very hard things to swallow.
j razz
Verne,
I appreciate that you are being intellectually honest in spite of what you’ve been through. I am not Reformed in my theological thinking so it’s interesting to me to see how Piper, Mohler et al perform theological gymnastics to get around what this doctrine plainly teaches.
Joel,
I don’t know that it requires doctrinal gymnastics. It all seems to fit under the umbrella of God’s sovereign choice yeah?
j razz
j razz
If you really believe that, then why sweat it that some if not most babies will be eternally damned to eternal torment. What difference does it make how old a “soul” is? If a person is saved by God’s sovereign choice then there are people who are damned by God’s sovereign choice. It doesn’t matter whether they are unborn infants, young children, teenagers or thirty somethings. God’s choice is simply God’s choice, right?
…then why sweat it that some if not most babies will be eternally damned to eternal torment.
It is not about sweating it, it is about understanding all that we possibly can about what scripture teaches, alludes to and presupposes. It has nothing to do with “sweating” it but all to do with coming to a greater understanding of our God. See again the article I linked to above Joel. The “age of a soul” holds no stick in the fire to what is being proposed here.
I affirm what you say at the end, I just don’t understand the question’s implication.
Have a good night Joel. By the way, how are things going with your wife?
j razz
Sorry if the comment came across wrong. All I meant was, if you feel that some are saved by sovereign choice, then that’s fine. Sovereign choice is what it is and God will save who he will save, period. Either he is sovereign or he is not. That should apply to all people regardless of age. If that strikes some people as wrong headed then so be it. Even Even Calvin himself recognized the issues related to this understanding of scripture and stated the following:
“[God] arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.”
Some will say, “Well, God knew that these people would do evil so he damned them before they were born knowing how they would live.” But Calvin himself thought this was ludicrous.
“…if God merely foresaw human events, and did not arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure…but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about foreknowledge, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment.” (Institutes, 3.23.6)
Calvin clearly foresaw the consequences of this line of thought. and accepted it.
“I again ask how is it that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy, unless it so seemed meet to God?…The decree, I admit, is dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree.” (Institutes, 3.23.7)
________________________________________
Anyway, thanks for the conversation. Traci is doing well. We got a clean report at our last visit. We don’t have to go back for another visit until November.
Joel,
For someone who is not reformed in their thinking you sure know a lot about Calvin and his Institutes. Which I think is great I enjoyed your comments and yours as well j razz. It really is a tough topic to grasp no matter what you believe.
I popped in on your blog today Joel great to hear about the clean report. Praise the Lord.
If I may, there is a lot of “linear” thinking in this discussion so far. It isn’t necessary to make this an “either / or” proposition when it is clearly a “both / and”.
The Bible obviously teaches that salvation is a sovereign work of God. He authors it, He accomplishes it, and He completes it.
But the Bible also teaches the responsibility of man to respond. John 3 tells us that if a man does not believe, he stands condemned already…because he didn’t believe.
I realize that this seems illogical. But many of the foundational doctrines of Scripture transcend logic. A God that has revealed Himself to us as “three in one” is not logical. Nor is the hypostatic union of the God-man considered rational to some. How can one entity be 100% of one thing and 100% another? Yet we believe these things because they are clearly taught in Scripture.
Is it such a stretch, then, to believe that the wonder that is God’s salvation might just transcend our ability to understand it, comprehend it, or adequately explain it?
David’s remarks about the death of his own child in 2 Samuel 12:23 has to be one of the best examples of support for the idea that, indeed, they do go to heaven.