-----

The issue of God's sovereignty has many implication that are sometimes disturbing at first glance. None more than the issue of the eternal destiny of children who die early in life. Joe is a colleage of mine at Providence Baptist Fellowship and has some comforting words regarding this issue. One note from the beginning. We know that some may still be unsatisfied with his explanation, but I appreciate his honesty and desire to think through this critically and I hope you will too! Tom

The issue of what happens to infants and the mentally disabled when they die is a difficult and sensitive issue. It is difficult because nowhere in Scripture can we find a verse that plainly teaches whether or not infants and the mentally handicapped go to heaven or hell when they die. The Scripture simply does not plainly speak to this. It is a sensitive issue because of the huge amount of emotional longing for the salvation of our loved ones that all believers have for their family members. This longing is a good and right longing for all parents and family members to have! So approaching this topic should be done with humility, grace, and compassion.

In light of this, we must be humble enough to say that since the Scripture does not speak plainly on this issue, we cannot say with 100% assurance one way or the other. However, though Scripture doesn’t speak clearly to the point, I do think that there are Scriptural principals that seem to point to an understanding of great hope for the salvation of infants and the mentally handicapped. Thus it is my strong conviction from everything I understand about Scripture and the nature of our great God that all infants and all those who are mentally handicapped will join believers in heaven. Furthermore I believe that all young children who have not reached an age of moral accountability will also join believers in heaven.

It must be noted that any answer to the question “must take into account that all of us are born sinful and thus worthy of judgment. The consistent New Testament emphasis upon the need for a second birth indicates that our natural state is that of sin, not innocence (John 3:1-12; Ephesians 2:1-5; cf. Psalm 51:5). We are "by nature children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). If we are all born under sin, and salvation is by faith in Christ (which those in question do not seem to have the mental capacity to exercise), then it might at first seem that no infants can be saved.”[1]

But it is apparent in Scripture that there have at least been some babies who were in a saving relationship with the Lord from Birth. These include David and John the Baptist (though an argument for the prophet Jeremiah could possibly also be made). Of David the Scriptures read "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God." (Psalm 22:9-10). Of John the Baptist the Scriptures record that “John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while yet in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15). In Luke's theology, being filled with the Spirit is consistently seen as an aspect of the Spirit's work among those who are regenerate (Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 9:17; 11:24).”[2] These verses seem to indicate that at least these two Old Testament saints had a saving relationship with God from birth, and therefore it seems very unlikely that all infants who die are lost.
Let us be clear as the guys over at Desiring God Ministries have written, “God is not saving infants because they are innocent. They are not innocent, but guilty. He is saving them because, although they are sinful, in his mercy he desires that compassion be exercised upon those who are sinful and yet lack the capacity to grasp the truth revealed about Him in nature and to the human heart.”

They continue, “It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the individual). As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy. God's justice in condemnation will be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing transgression.”[3]

There are several other reasons for great hope concerning the salvation of young children and the mentally handicapped. This is because the Scriptures taken as a whole do seem to point to an understanding of an age of moral accountability.

It is true that the phrase “Age of Accountability” is nowhere found in the Bible. But what does that prove? Nothing! The age of accountability is just a phrase we use to describe a principle that I believe we find in the Word of God. If we went by the logic that “If the word is not in the Bible, that thus means it is not true”, then we would have to throw out the Word “Trinity” as well because that word is not in the Scriptures, even though it is overtly obvious the principle is. In no way am I saying that the Age of Accountability is anywhere in the realm of being as clearly spoken of and taught as the Trinity is in Scripture, or that it is in any way as remotely as important as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Our whole theology rises and falls with the Trinity! Rather, my point is only that one cannot use the argument that if the “word” is not in the Bible it must not be true. Obviously issues concerning the death of young children or those who are mentally handicapped, etc, are much, much more ambiguous, but I do believe that the Scriptures teach something like an age of accountability. I admit that I could be wrong, but I do believe that if any of my young children died today, that they would go to heaven! I rest in the truthfulness of God’s Word —"Thou art good and doest good." (Psalm 119:68)

Additionally, recall the narrative of the wandering of the nation of Israel in the desert for 40 years. It was only the adults who were barred entrance into the Promised Land because of their idolatrous sin. The children of Israel, (along with the faithful spies Joshua and Caleb) were not rendered guilty and after the forty years, once all of the other adults had passed away, then these now grown children were allowed to entered the Promised land.
Furthermore, recall the story of the death of David’s son born out of adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:15b-23). Admittedly, the construction of the Hebrew is such that we cannot draw firm conclusions, however the phrase “shall go to him” seems to point to a personal reunion of David and his dead baby boy.
In Matthew 19:14 Jesus states “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Concerning this verse John MacArthur writes:
“These children were too young to have exercised personal faith. See Luke 18:15 where Luke refers to them as “infants.” Therefore, it is all the more significant that Christ used them as an illustration of those who make up “the kingdom of heaven”. Mark 10:16 also says He “blessed them.” God often shows a special mercy to those who because of age or mental deficiency are incapable of either faith or willful unbelief (Jonah 4:11). They are called “innocents” in Jer. 19:4. This does not mean they are free from the inherited guilt and moral corruption of Adam’s sin, but rather that they are not culpable in the same sense as those whose sins are premeditated and deliberate. Jesus’ words here suggest that God’s mercy is graciously extended to infants and young children so that those who die are sovereignly regenerated (they still need redemption for their inherited sin, and this is still only accomplished by Christ’s sacrificial atonement) and granted entrance into the kingdom – not because they are deserving of heaven, but because God in His grace chooses to redeem them.”[4]
The reference MacArthur gives to Jonah 4:11, is where God inquires of Jonah “Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?” At the very least this shows the huge concern that God has for young children and the mentally challenged, those who do not know their right from their left hand.
Another text for consideration is Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made so that they are without excuse.” Here Paul is dealing with people who have not heard the gospel because they have no access to it, but who can clearly see that there is a God through “natural revelation”, that is what they can simply see in creation around them. As Paul states, this “natural revelation” leaves them without excuse. However if a person cannot recognize this natural revelation whether by age or mental disabilities it seems as if Paul implies that they would have an excuse. Again, Desiring God Ministries is helpful here, “The point for us is that even though we human beings are under the penalty of everlasting judgment and death because of the fall of our race into sin and the sinful nature that we all have, nevertheless God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure. Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.”[5]

But by far the strongest argument for the salvation of infants and the mentally-handicapped comes from the worship around the throne of the lamb for all of eternity. Revelation 7:9 clearly points to the fact that around the throne there is a “great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” worshipping and giving glory to God (emphasis mine). Notice the text reads “every nations, and all tribes and peoples and tongues.” Not one nation, not one tribe, not one people group, not one subset of people with a different dialect/ language will be left out! However, there are obviously people groups who once were, and have ceased to exist who never heard the Gospel, yet the Bible is explicit that God’s people come from every nation, and all tribes and all peoples and all tongues. How is this possible when these people never heard the Gospel? How will they be “represented” among God’s people? It is by all their young children who died and all their mentally handicapped. These are the ones from those tribes who are numbered among God’s people; those who passed on before reaching the age of moral accountability.

Because of all of the above, I firmly believe that every single child who is killed by abortion, or dies in miscarriage, birth, or childhood before the age of moral accountability is numbered among God’s chosen and will enjoy the presence of Christ forever in Heaven. This is true also of all who are mentally handicapped and/or suffer from mental retardation. How this exactly works, I admit is a mystery, I do know that our Heavenly Father is just, fair, and exceedingly good, and I rest in Him.

I am extremely concerned about some of the mantra coming out of the evangelical camp these days. With the election of Barrack Obama as our president elect, conservatives are coming out of the woodwork acting as if now that the liberal left has gained control of our government that now we are on course for the second coming of Christ! God is not taken off guard by the election of Obama as president, in fact, it was by his design!

Now I know this bothers some people and let me say from the outset, I am a heart and soul conservative. But we must never forget that our agenda as the church is build God's kingdom in whatever circumstance He deems necessary. Some of you know that I am not discouraged at all by Barrack Obama being our president. Why you may ask? Because I believe God has ordained it as an opportunity to point people to the true hope found only in Christ, not in politics, economics, conservatism, liberalism, or any other "ism." When people realize that no matter who is in charge of the government (republican, democrat, constitutionalists, or independent), they will realize that government is no place to find redemption. They will realize that government is no place to find renewal! Government is no place to expect lasting change! The only place for lasting change is the unchangeable, immutable, renewing, and redemptive God of glory!

I know that this sounds a little hard to hear, but when I read Romans 13:1-7, I awestruck at the hope I find in a God who frustrates the works of man and ordains ALL who lead in the magistrate. God wills what he wills, so apparently we wishes that our great nation be led under this leadership for such a time as this. As Christians, we must be more concerned about the spread of the Gospel than the spread of conservatism and capitalism.

Jesus is not the least bit concerned about the party platforms of politics! Here is the message Jesus has for the church...BUILD MY KINGDOM! God is in the heavens and He does what he pleases! Nothing will thwart that cause! We, as His church, must be about this cause and no other! Come, Lord Jesus, Come!

I spent some time perusing through the humanities department of my Alma Mater a couple weeks ago. The Humanities hall houses the Religion and Philosophy departments at Carson Newman. Now let me say from the outset, I am a proud Carson Newman Eagle as am I a proud graduate of those those departments at Carson Newman, but as I walked up and down those hallways, I was struck by the level of close mindedness that was masked with a piety of "openness." The walls were filled with the same quotes and books that were there when I attended CNC. One display reflects Baptist's involvement in the "separation of church and state." Indeed, Baptists did champion separation during those days, but for the purposes of restricting "state" from manipulating the religious freedom and establishing a "state" church. Baptists were pivotal in the movement but we must not think they had any other motives beyond that. Some would have us believe that the long held conviction of "priesthood of the believer" was a Baptist doctrine of tolerance toward many views and interpretations of the scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth. Priesthood of the believer is a reformed conviction set forth by Martin Luther where by they fought for the write of every believer to have his or her own bible in a readable language. The fact is that Luther saw this a point of discipleship not a point of personal freedom. He was repulsed by the manipulation of the Bible by the Catholic church. Luther would have dismissed some of these silly ideas being set forth today by some so called "theologians" as pure jibberish!

Does this not have a contemporary ring to it? There at those who find Christians who are vocal about their political involvement repugnant. Certainly, some have sold their allegiances to one party as if that party is a savior for biblical values. This of course is lunacy! But lets make a clear distinction, every believer must be fully engaged in life and be so affected by the scriptures that it causes a deep passion to well up in them for the glory of God! This means being passionately involved in every area of life...including politics. The distortion of Church/State issues and the human bend toward unbalanced tolerance is causing some to privatize their Christian values and convictions. This is truly sad! Yes, Baptists fought hard for religious freedom and yes they believed that a truly believed that every faith should have freedom to carry out their religious convictions as they wished. But a resounding no must be said to a conviction that a society must be completely pluralistic in order to be free. Ideas are only as good as our ability to set forth some as good and others as bad. To echo the mantra of our day that no one has an exclusive right to truth is simple irrational and right down silly. If that statement is true, our society would not be where it is today. Pluralism does not equate to a dismissal of conviction. We must not be duped into thinking that the modern definition of tolerance is accurate. Tolerance is not what our world wants. They want affirmation. They want us to say "I'm OK, your OK...now lets get some pie!