From Rowland:

I got this email this morning (sometime May 2006):

Hi! My name is _ _ _ _ and I am the youth leader at _ _ _ _ Baptist Church. On Sunday at Bible Study some of the girls asked "where do babies go when they die?" My belief has always been that they go to heaven, as they have no understanding.

The girls said that their old Sunday school teacher told them that they go to hell. I know that this is not an easy answer and that there is no biblical answer that I am aware off. So if you could help me that would be great.

The Got Questions answer is fairly standard for conservative Christians (and probably others as well) - http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html

What do others think?

I'll incorporate your responses into an article for our website.

~~~

Here's a pot-pourri of responses, Calvinistic, Evangelical, Liberal: you name it: 'go figure'!

-- Shalom! Rowland Croucher

~~~

I believe the simple answer is found in Romans 9

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The answer is, if they are elect babies, they go to heaven. If they are not, they go to hell. Since we don't know whether babies who die were elect or not, we cannot assume they went to hell, and can maintain hope they will be in heaven. The idea that all babies must go to heaven if they die, however, presents a number of serious theological and practical problems.

First, we are not born innocent, but inherit a sin nature (Ps. 51:5). Every human being also has the sin of Adam imputed directly to their account (Rom. 5:12ff.). Even if someone never makes a conscious decision to rebel against God, they are born with a sin nature and have the guilt of Adams sin to prevent them from going to heaven.

Next, Romans 8 teaches everyone whom God saves in the first place, has been predestined to glory (Rom. 8:30). There is no way you can have someone starting out saved, then losing their salvation when they reach some supposed age of accountability, then needing to be saved all over again. This contradicts what the Bible says about predestination and election.

Third, if we were sure that all babies must go to heaven, what could be more compassionate than going around killing babies, to make sure they go to heaven? If babies are guaranteed to go to heaven, but they could loose their salvation when they reach some supposed age of accountability, why take the risk of loosing them to eternal hellfire, when you could insure their salvation by killing them? This is a terrible thought indeed, but this is the kind of mind set you could establish if you teach people that babies are insured of going to heaven if they die.

~~~

Hello,

The Bible answers your question on where babies go when they die. Notice carefully the following three Scriptures. Ec 9:5,

"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten." (NIV)

Ps 146:3,4,

"3 Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. 4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish." (NASB)

And Ec 3:19,20.

" 19. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return." (NIV)

Notice what God is telling us here. When a person dies "he returns to the earth". (he goes into the ground, into the "dust")

And while they are dead in the 'grave', their "thoughts perish". They "know nothing". (try to think of something without using thoughts)

Yes, God's word (not man's word) tells us that the dead are unconscience in the ground, or as the Bible says in the OT, they are in "sheol". (hell) And in the NT, they are in "hades". (hell) That must be what that person was talking about saying that those babies went to "hell" when they died. That actually is what the Bible teaches, so that person was correct on that statement. But the Bible's "hell" is not the same as the Churches' 'hellfire' place. (more on this if you wish)

That is why the righteous man Job wanted to go to "hell" (sheol) to get some relief from all the suffering he was undergoing. He just wanted to die to end it all. Job 14:13,

"O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, [sheol; hell] that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!" (KJV) (brackets mine)

But the Bible shows that "hell" (the grave-sheol, hades) will some day empty all its dead out. (recall if your pastors ever taught you that Bible teaching--or in my case, priests) Here is the proof. Re 20:13

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell [hades] delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." (KJV) [brackets mine]

This emptying out of "hell" occurs during the fulfillment of Acts 24:15,

"and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." (NIV)

Thus those babies will be a part of all those people in "hell" (the grave-sheol, hades) who will all be resurrected at some future time.

~~~

that is not an answer. Solomon says that animals and humans both die, but he claims to have no knowledge of the destiny of the soul. (just as you quoted)

~~~

Jesus said:

1. "Let the little children come unto me."

2. "No one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they become like a little child."

Now, if we need to become like little children in order to enter the Kingdom, the flip side is that little children get into the Kingdom if they die.

~~~

[____] since you hold that all infants who don't exercise conscious faith are consigned to Hell, I can only infer that it is because you hold Adam's sin as being imputed to them. If that is true, why cannot Christ's righteousness be imputed to them? If nothing else, it seems asymmetric to hold that sin can be imputed to infants but righteousness cannot. Are you sure there isn't something wrong with that picture?

~~~

Scripture says that the children of believers are holy (1 Cor. 7:14), not in themselves, but by virtue of the covenant of grace. It includes the children in the church ("Suffer the little children...", etc.) JTB gave evidence of pre-natal regeneration.

Since that is the case, godly parents of children who God has been pleased to call out of this life in infancy have no reason to doubt the little childrens' election and salvation...

We are saved by grace, through faith, which is a gift. Both the salvation and the grace are gifts.

The trials suffered by believers in their life are designed to bring them closer to God (a.k.a. sanctification). One of the severest trial I can imagine is the loss of a child in infancy. What a way to show to the grieving believing parents that their salvation is completely and totally dependent on God's loving grace -- by abiding in the comfort that their lost little one is in the Bosom of his Heavenly Father!

~~~

Looking at this in the braodest sense, we have two possibilities.

(1) The Reforned (or Calvinist, or Augustinian, or Pauline) position states that since salvation is by election by God's unchangeable decree, nothing that the child could do would affect his salvation, therefore we don't have to worry about whether death at a young age will result in damanation.

(2) The Arminian position (and I think the vast majority of Americans share this view) states that since salvation depends on the exercise of the will, and since the will must be free to be exercised, anything that prevents the exercise of the will cannot be held against the person.

I don't care which option you choose, and you don't care which option I choose. If you see a third alternative, let me know.

~~~

The answer to Rowland Croucher's question is found in the Book of Mormon and in revelations given to us through Joseph Smith. For example:

D&C 29:46-47 46. But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten; 47. Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me;

D&C 74:7 7. But little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.

However, I agree that we cannot not trust any answers that come exclusively from the "Mormon cult" of Brigham Young and his followers.

~~~

How ridiculous to assert that God would create helpless beings and then consign them to hell because they are unable to accept a bunch of rules they couldn't possibly understand. Ever hear of the Holy Innocents?

~~~

Do you really believe Romans 5:12 like you claim? Or are you making unwarranted exceptions for babies?

If babies automatically go to heaven when they die, then _ _ _ _ is right when he suggests calling Andrea Yates the Mother of the Year for killing her children and insuring their salvation. Let's not waste our time on this uncertain business of preaching and what not. Let's get them into heaven for sure and right away! Amen, brother!

~~~

I reject the whole "Age of Accountability" nonsense as you do -- all people fall under God's holy wrath toward sin, so the baby, the madman, or the imbecile have no better standing with God than anyone else.

In your schema though, a "Saved" person must repent, believe, have faith, and perform works of righteousness. This implies a certain level of cognitive development. While it seems that chronological "Age of Accountability" is out the window (rightly), your schema still demands a congitive "Age of Accountability" at which the physical brain, developed to a point that understands rational self-reflection and can be taught, is capable of being metamorphosed into a "Christian brain" that the Spirit can work with.

Should churches be giving cognitive tests to people who are interested in joining, to be sure that they have the gray matter necessary to repent, believe, have faith, and perform works of rightousness? Also, churches should be certain that these things are actually done via higher brain power, rather than how chimps are taught sign language to get things they want (i.e. simply by rote.) If a person doesn't have a minimum IQ, the police should be called immediately to get this reprobate of Satan out of the church premises, and a court order issued to ensure they never return.

What, by the way, is the minimum IQ score a person should have in order to be given Christian teaching? 70? Too low? Maybe 90? Should we give people that had honors or AP classes more points on the scale since they have shown to possess higher cognitive powers?

Should all Sunday Schools be closed since children, in general, can't benefit from the hearing of the Word, as they do not yet have the higher brain functions necessary to parse the information into "Saving Data" that the Spirit can use to transform their souls? Why bother wasting a "Sunday School" teacher's time on these rugrats, when the teaching given to them has no more effect on their spiritual condition than, say, "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers." Oh, you might have the occasional gifted child, like Mozart who was composing symphonies at seven, but there will be plenty of time for them later to be given Christian teaching (and if they die before that, well they were obviously reprobate anyway, so who cares?)

Also, I've always understood Reformation theology to say that repentance, belief, faith, and works are *consequents* of regeneration and resulting final salvation, not *antecedents.* In other words, the faith and works are both results of the person being transformed into something new, and in no way are proximate determinates that induce God into saving a person ("Well, Dan had great faith and works, so let's regenerate him now.")

Do you really mean to say that God requires human action of some kind to bring a person to salvation? That without displayed faith and good works, a person cannot possibly be saved?

If you are going to take seriously the Reformation message that salvation is "wholly of God, not of man," it seems to me that this demand on displayed faith and performed works is more in the Catholic camp than the Reformed. Jim and Ronda have gone to elaborate pains to show that faith and works are consequents of being saved, not antecedents, but your view places these things squarely in the antecedent camp.

My own view: pray for the salvation of all, and let God seperate His sheep from the wolves. As the Good Book says:

Romans 9:14-18 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! For he says to Moses: "I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will." So it depends not upon a person's will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth." Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.

If God wills the salvation of a child, a madman, or an imbecile, it seems to me that such salvation is independent of any faith or works, since it is God that saves, not man's actions. Do they all go to hell? Maybe. Do they all go to heaven? Probably not. Do some get saved, other damned? Perhaps. I think being dogmatic on either side is reading more into the mind and will of God than we could possibly know.

As salvation is God's work, I leave it in his hands. These kind of arguments are really speculative since we have no firm knowledge of how God operates.

~~~

Let's say that we ignore all of God's revealed plan of salvation and base our entire soteriology on 2 Samuel 12:21-23 with the usual unfounded self-serving assumptions. In short, all children are guaranteed heaven until they hit the arbitrary Age of Accountability, in which case they, like in the game of "Shoots 'n Ladders" ride the lengthy Shoot of Doom to square one and now they must earn their salvation like everyone else and conjure up their own faith, belief, repentance and works of righteousness.

Is the Houston mother, Andrea Yates, who baptized her children to death in the bathtub eligible to be Mother of The Year since she selflessly sacrificed her own desires to raise children to guarantee that they would have eternal life by murdering them before they reached the Age of Accountability? For if a child dies before the Age of Accountability, then they are 100% certain to awake from death in the Arms of Jesus, whereas selfishly allowing them to live past that age places them in almost certain jeopardy of going to Hell! How many billions of dollars are spent each year in the course of evangelism that often results in rejection after rejection? The Pro Choice movement, through their advocacy of abortion in effects saves more souls than the entire modern magnum-powered Evangelical Movement. In the United States alone, the abortionists have "saved" well over 45 million souls from Hell through their Early Salvation Program orchestrated through Planned Parenthood offices nationwide.

We should be throwing stones at Randal Terry and others within the demonic Operation Rescue program - clearly Satan is behind the Pro LIfe movement since in reality, sparing the life of a child steals salvation from her forcing her to blow her Sunday mornings (or Saturday evenings) in one prayer rally after another until she finally comes around to faith, belief, repentance and works of righteousness. What happens if she turns away from the Wham Bam Jesus Jam down at the local Big-Box Cathedral of What's Happening Now and ends up burning with STDs and then Hell? Can we blame the the Pro Life movement for being too effective?

The Abortionist is heaven's greatest Soul Winner! And since God forgives all sins, no matter how many or how bad, then if the Abortionist murders five thousand children and dies, the punishment in Hell is no different that if he didn't abort any child - yet if he repents, then none of the five thousand deaths will effect his eternal reward. The best thing that can happen is that abortionists murder dozens of kids a day for several decades, and then repents after the very last abortion - a true win-win situation!

And if the "Accountability Factor" is the reason why children are automatically exempt from Hell, then lets not pussy-foot around and instead truly exploit God's "love, grace and mercy" in the grand and ostentatious American way and force God to save innumerable multitudes of other people too by removing the accountability from those who are dangerously close to being reprobate.

Let's say that we have a blaspheming heretic Satanist who has performed numerous rapes and murders. Since Jesus Loves Everybody, then let's make Jesus love this rascal into heaven. How do we force God to save him after the Age of Accountability? Simple, beat the asshole's head in with a shovel just short of death - preferably into a coma, or administer some truly powerful psychotropics that permanently destroy the brain's ability to reason. That way the former hell-bound reprobate will no longer be able to "reject Christ" and since there will be absolutely no way for this dude to accept responsibilities for any sin past, present or future, then we can exploit that "Accountability" Loop Hole that God foolishly left open and then God is forced to save Him. Since the author of the article has opened up the abuse of Scriture as a perfectly acceptable way to force an invented doctrine, lets go and twist an old Free Will Theorist Favorite:

1 Timothy 2:3 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved" and 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Clearly this means that God would heartily approve of our inventions to create retroactive childhood, by effectively turning back the hands of time so that the mind is morally unaccountable. This is the classic insanity defense amped up to the highest level. God wants us to kill children, retards and the insane because he wants everyone to be saved and because God subordinates Himself to Man's Free Will, God is left helpless in the salvation process - so clearly He must be pleased when we creatively dream up new ways to get around God's weakness - His inability to actually save people. So the New Evangelism is to create retarded and insane people the moment they leave the safe and natural salvation of childhood.

Here is one way we can pull off this Most Holy Scheme of Salvation

We get some Christian psychologists to dope the criminal up until his mind is a total compliant sponge open to any sort of suggestion or prodding. Give the guy a few days to repent on his own, if he does, then he is saved and we can electrocute him with a clear conscious since he will die and awaken in Heaven. If this trick doesn't work, then use a fire hose to pump him up with drugs, or suffocate him sufficiently where the oxygen deprivation kills off the cognitive function of the brain - or just work him over with a baseball bat - it doesn't really matter what the procedure is, just as long as the final product produces a drooling imbecile incapable of making any sort of rational judgments. Then when the psychologists are satisifed that the death-row candidate is totally unaccountable - electrocute him and send him to heaven. Make God take this human trash. When we run out of death row inmates, go after pedophiles and then drug pushers and then whoever is next on the prisoner list.

Once we empty the prisons and garner the praise and admiration of the world for our humanitarian works, we can move on to worthless reprobates like the Katrina victims. The illegal aliens could be the next target of our aggressive Salvation Program. Why build a wall when you can bash their heads into one and save their soul for all eternity? Then we can "Save" fat people, junkies, ugly people, and those who just plain annoy us. Round em up, stuff em in boxcars and gas them all with a Stupid Gas® until their brains rot and they are as interactive as Terri Schiavo in her last few days.

I guess in summary we should resolve as serious Christians to encourage the church and the religious right to promote on a national, if not worldwide level a one-child policy similar to China's. Since the Muslims piss us all off, lets show them Real Christian Love, by literally pouring heaps of burning embers on their backs. The resulting pain ought to put them into a compliant state where we can then chemically induce a Salvation Experience. Once we stick Satan in the ass by subjugating that horde of otherwise unsavable demon possessed Hell bound reprobates we can turn our eyes to actually and quite literally giving birth to brand new markets.

We issue out to everyone, globally, Viagra, Fertility drugs, a canvas bag and directions to the nearest body of water. Every nine months a woman can, in an almost ritualistic fashion, head on down to the shoreline and populate heaven in the same manner as the man alongside her is dispatching a litter of kittens. Full immersion water baptism immediately followed by a glorious salvation experience. I'll volunteer to write the appropriate hymns to sing.

If you are offended at this whole premise, then good. The bogus and blasphemous "doctrine" of Age of Accountability is just as likely to offend God.

~~~

More in What Happens When Babies Die? [2]