Theological Position Paper - Published: Friday, 22 January 2010 ; Last Updated: Wednesday, 27 January 2010 (THREE (3) very important updates - see below)

A few well-meaning Christians claim that some BABIES who die before the age of accountability go to HELL -citing scriptures that speak of original sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12-18) –or election (Romans 9:11) –or the parents' sin (I Corinthians 7:14). (Children do NOT pay for their parent's sin: Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20; These Old Testament passages about God's fairness are supported by the New Testament's I Peter 1:17 and Colossians 3:25 -see below.) Many more well-meaning Christians (the vast majority, it seems) make the 'Politically Correct' claim that babies who die before the age of accountability go to HEAVEN, citing King David's claim that his dead son can't come to him (2nd Samuel 12:23: “But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me”), where David says that he **can** go to his dead son -implying he'll see his son in heaven -and uses this to 'prove' the claim that ALL dead babies that die before the age of accountability go to heaven. This is unbiblical and unscriptural: David was not literal here -as this would contradict other more literal scriptures. Likewise, Matthew 18:10, which says: “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven,” does not mandate that ALL “little ones” automatically go to heaven; it merely refers to “little ones” who, while alive on the earth here, just so *happen* to have angels who see God's face in heaven.

Some cite Mark 10:14 (“But when Jesus saw [it], He was indignant and pained and said to them, Allow the children to come to Me--do not forbid or prevent or hinder them--for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” Amplified Version) –however, Jesus says “to SUCH,” not “to EVERY SINGLE ONE of them.” -LOL- Jesus COULD have said to “every single one” of them -but did not -obviously with good reason. -Read the passage already! Some even cite Jeremiah 1:5, which states that: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” Fine, but where does that say the person is saved -or lost?

To begin with, God is just and fair: "...the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work..." I Peter 1:17, KJV: ~ "...there is no respect of persons." Colossians 3:25, KJV (Note: "without respect of persons" does not mean that God is disrespectful; rather, it means that He is impartial, unbiased, FAIR, hello!? See e.g., either the NASB, Amplified, or, more preferably, the Original Greek to verify.) Since God is fair, He would not allow only some (but not all) people the benefits of heaven without having first made a choice -thus denying them free will -and make them into "robots" without free will. Babies getting into heaven without accepting Jesus?? I say 'NO!' -and this is supported, scripturally, by John 14:6, in which Jesus says: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Secondly, this is scripturally inconsistent: Even the angels had free will -and about one-third of them fell, remember?

Now, I don't believe in “purgatory,” a Catholic belief, although there are, according to scriptures below, 'places of holding' -for example: The dry bones of those (humans) who (obviously) slept before they were awakened in the Valley of Bones (Ezekiel 37:4) -and, as is commonly known, the pit for those (Lucifer: Revelation 20:3 & demons: 2nd Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6 ) who are held in abeyance for now -etc. In any event, while it would be unjust of God to send some to heaven without giving them a chance to either accept or reject Jesus, it is also **very dangerous** theology: If this were true, a mother who lived in poverty and was afraid her son might get into drugs would be better off killing him before he reached the age of accountability -or still better yet -while in the womb: Evangelism by abortion - now there's a thought! Since God so loved the WORLD (John 3:16) and does not want ANY person lost: (Ezekiel 18:23) but all saved (1st Timothy 2:3-4), it would please God BEST to just kill **ALL** the little babies -IF that was a 100% certain way to send them to heaven. Since God doesn't like baby-killing, obviously they are not best off or headed to heaven this way -and thus we must reject the 'baby killing' = 'headed to heaven' theology put forth by some. Put another way, should we sin more by baby-killing that grace may abound with them going to heaven? ROMANS 6:1-2 says 'NO!!' in the STRONGEST of terms (look it up yourself to see). -So, we must know, by scripture -and by reason -that baby-killing is not a heaven-grace-abounding thing. So, what **is** their destination upon death?

Since we have children that live in the Millennium ("6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb...and a little child shall lead them. 8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den." ISAIAH 11:6b,8, KJV)) -and die -at a very old age (“And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.” ISAIAH 65:20b, NASB) in the 1,000 Millennium Reign –and people who EVEN STILL are rebelling! (“And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.” Revelation 20:9, NASB) -doesn't it make more sense that the Bible is referring to **these** children? They will, according to scripture, either accept or reject Christ -and Free Will is not denied them. Passages about the 1,000 Year Millennium include Revelation 20:1-15, Isaiah 11:4-12; Jeremiah 3:17; Zechariah 14:9; and Isaiah 65:17-25. Another thing to consider: Where WILL God get these many children to populate the Millennium? “Things that make you go 'hmm...'.” --Obviously, choosing **these** children is the only scripturally-permitted alternative. As Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying: “Eliminate all other [untrue] factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.”

These many Christians -on both sides of the issue (both the heaven AND hell supporters) are well-meaning (and 'Politically Correct') BUT WRONG -and have no scriptural support for this fairy-land approach that would deny God's justice or peoples' free will -not to mention (wrongly) encourage mothers to kill their children.

* (Part 1 of 3 of UPDATE)

A pastor who I greatly respect (not only for his brilliance but also for his integrity --and courage to regularly tackle “controversial” subjects from which many a pastor would veer away) just recently preached on the subject of Hell, and in his sermon-series he addressed this same question here; however, he came down on the other side of the argument. --LOL--

Since he *is* quite brilliant, I would be well-advised to address each and every scripture he used -hey, I might be wrong, so I'd better compare notes with him. (In addition, it would, I think, be disrespectful of me to fail to address his counter-points -in light of his known track-record of integrity: So, I too shall tackle this controversial subject.) You can maybe guess who he is, if you like, but, out of respect, I think I'll keep him anonymous, OK? (It's about God, not people, anyway, right?)

Without further ado, here are the five (5) passages he cited, without comment, after his presentation in support of his position (that all children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven upon death) -followed by my remarks and analysis:

(1) - II Samuel 12:22-23

(2) - Matthew 18:3

(3) - Matthew 19:14

(4) - Mark 9:37

(5) - Mark 10:14-15

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

ANALYSIS: He goes on to cite both verses (22 and 23) -to show the context -for east of reading. I already covered verse 23 above, and I have nothing new to add, but I will clarify on my claims that David was **not** speaking literally. Here are other examples to show that I'm not just 'blowing smoke' here in my claims of “non-literal” translation: “Let the sea roar...Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful…” (Psalm 98:7-8, KJV) So, does the sea really “roar?” ~ Do floods have hands to clap? ~ Can hills express emotions? NO! This is metaphorical speaking -poetry, if you will, not literal. Likewise with the following: “3 The sea saw it, and fled: Jordan was driven back. 4 The mountains skipped like rams, and the little hills like lambs.” (Psalm 114:3-4, KJV) Cf: Job 38:7, KJV, which states: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Can the sea really see it and flee? Do mountains skip and dance around? Can the stars really sing? Scientists might describe a star as “singing” when it transmits light, like a singer transmits sound -and we can sometimes describe hills as “skipping” is under the influence of a major earthquake, but this is metaphorical poetry, nothing more. Same with David's claims here about his son -HE can not decide whether this son is saved (thus in heaven) or not: Only GOD ALMIGHTY can make this call! (David was apparently grieved when he made these allegorical non-literal statements -but we must compare Scripture with Scripture -and not take scripture out of context like some do.)

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

ANALYSIS: Here, Jesus is saying “AS little children,” a GENERAL statement about how children have innocent faith not tainted by “knowledge” of adulthood. He did NOT say anything about the exact nature of ALL little children. In hermeneutics, the interpretation of Scripture, there is a principle of specifics verses generality. Let me show you a few examples: In Proverbs 3:1-2 (KJV), the Scripture commands: “1My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:,” and promises, in return: “2For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.” NOW, does this mean that EVERY person will have a “long life” if they are righteous? NO!! This is a general principle, not a specific and all-encompassing promise! The same thing goes for Ephesians 6:1-3 (KJV), which makes a similar claim. Let's look at that passage: “1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” Now, do ALL children who honour their parents “live long” on the earth?? NO!! (Many die of childhood diseases, tragic accidents, and the like.) ~~ LIKEWISE, Jesus was saying that, in GENERAL, kids have a greater innocent and virgin faith -not EVERY SINGLE ONE of them.

“14But 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."”

ANALYSIS: Mark 10:14, a parallel passage, was addressed above by me here: I have nothing to add.

“37"Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me."” Mark 9:37 (Holy Bible, NASB)

“37Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.” Mark 9:37 (Holy Bible, KJV)

ANALYSIS: Jesus is nowhere making any statements or claims about the righteousness of the children in question here; He is **merely** making a statement of standard of treatment -namely, that the children are under His protection. To see what I mean, consider the parallel passages in Isaiah 58:6-7 and Matthew 25:31-46 (you look them up this time) that say a true follower of God SHOULD take in the homeless wandering stranger -as well as feed and clothe them is needed. With me so far? Well, NOWHERE do these passages make any claims guaranteeing that such people are going to heaven -much less righteous: Remember, there are WHEAT, but there ARE ALSO TARES: Matthew 25:24-30. Remember? Some of those who **appear** righteous AREN'T! Thus, it is erroneous and flat wrong to make this claim about children. In fact, NONE are righteous, NO NOT ONE: ISAIAH: 41:26; ISAIAH 57:1; ROMANS 3:10. (And, yes! That includes these kids here, lest we break out the dictionary and look up the word “none,” he heh.) Bottom Line: Don't read anything into the passage that it doesn't say.

“14But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

15"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."”

ANALYSIS: YOU WILL SEE that, in my position paper, here, I DO address Mark 10:14, SO there's no need to cover it again; HOWEVER, in my initial paper, I did NOT cover verse 15. NONETHELESS, in point (2) right above, I DID address, Matthew 18:3, a 'parallel passage,' which basically says the same thing: “...Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” THEREFORE, there is no need to cover it again.

Here is what I did not clarify in my initial draft above: The very underlying concept under review.

Now, some early feedback to my Position Paper, here, have hinted that what I am suggeting here is like purgatory -that is, that the person gets a second (2nd) chance. That is not what I'm saying.

Think of it this way: You are in high school or college, and you have a major test scheduled, but a tornado, flood, or hurricane intervenes. So, what does the school do?

Do they say you 'Passed' the test and award you with an 'A'? (That is the analogy to 'heaven.') - Rather, do they say you 'Failed / Flunked' the test and award you with an 'F'? (That is the analogy to 'hell.') NO!! ~~ They do NEITHER!!

Rather, they reset and reschedule the date of the test ... right?

Now, if you should FAIL and FLUNK the test, would you get another chance to 'redo' or 'retake' it? (If you did, that would be analogous to the Catholic belief in 'purgatory,' the place of 2nd chances.) --In this position paper, I am not suggesting a person gets a '2nd chance' -which would be a clear conflict with this passage:

Hebrews 9:27, Holy Bible, KJV: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

Notice, it said "men," not "children": BIG DIFFERENCE. (However, even IF this can include children -and it very well may -that does not mandate that they go TO HEAVEN; rather, it only mandates "the judgment." DON'T GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN!!) But, you may ask, what about women? Well, the Greek word for 'men' used here is "anthropois" (Strong's Number: 444), from which we get "misanthropic" (people hater). The definition of "anthropois," is a human being, whether male or female. HOWEVER, let me emphasis: "The Judgment" is reserved for GOD ALMIGHTY, NOT YOU!!

Therefore, if God sees fit to give the dead child a chance to accept or reject Jesus, this is not only HIS prerogative, but (and more importantly) it is something that comports, concurs, and agrees with other scripture on that subject -such as John 14:6, in which Jesus says: “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Another good way to explain this would be to remember the old saying that "All Dogs Go To Heaven." While this may be true (a subject not within the scope of this paper), we remember that CHILDREN are not DOGS or CATS. (Grr... - rrrufff .. meoww, anyone?).

To say that a child automatically goes to heaven is to deprive him/her of his/her freewill -and equate his intellect with that of an animal. --NOT.

However compelling this analogy is, most importantly, it is supported by scripture -meaning you have the analogy (to understand my point) and the scripture (to verify and prove its correctness).

As inevitably happens, I forgot a key passage (Isaiah 11:4-12) -which I am adding now, above. Also, I neglected to point out that preachers are being 'Politically Correct' when they say babies go to heaven upon death -this is important because scriptural soundness is more important than "Political Correctness." --LOL-- I am making these final corrections in various shades of bold-faced dark red above to indicate what exactly was added just now.

End of: 'VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE'

LAKELAND, Florida, U.S.A.