Theological Position Paper - Published: Friday, 22 January 2010 ; Last Updated: Monday, 19 April 2010 (FIVE {5} very important updates - see below)
(*) To clarify: When babies die, they probably *do* go to heaven --at least for the time *being* -a place analogous to the Abraham's Bosom mentioned in Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus. (Why, where else *would* dead babies go immediately after dying??) It is also possible -although less likely -that they enter into 'Soul Sleep.' When I ask 'Where do babies go when they die?' -and then say that they don't go to either Heaven *or* Hell, I am not talking about their destination and location *immediately* after dying; rather, I am talking about their eternal destiny -and there is a big difference here. Although I have had some people ask me where the babies go *immediately* after they die -and suspect it is some place in heaven -I honesty don't know -and this is a subject outside the scope of this paper -since it really is a moot point and does not make any difference regarding their 'eternal' destiny. Therefore, I shall stay on-topic and address only the 'eternal' destiny, not the 'proximal' one. In this paper, I am discussing the end-fate of both aborted babies and those who are killed as children -but before the age of accountability -and I suggest that they share the same fate.

Before we get going here, I'd like to point out that on page 44 of the revised church constitution & bylaws for my church (First Baptist Church at the Mall, Lakeland, Fla., USA; dated: March 07, 2010), they claim that "There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord." Copyright © 1999-2009, Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/BFM/bfm2000.asp --Quoted under Fair Use: US CODE TITLE 17, Chapter 1. The church is correct here -but I hasten to clarify that faith can only happen by a choice of free will and volition. My claims that the babies who die before the age of accountability will be given free will choice to accept or reject Jesus is thereby implied by my church's bylaws. (Although the bylaws state clearly that faith in Jesus is needed to be saved -no exceptions -not all church members have realised that "free will" is a Sine Quo Non required element of "faith," so I remind you of this fact: this point will be important later, so take note; this is a difficult topic, so I will also give scriptural support for this view.)

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 (who were not born into sin like the aborted babies of the human race) -even these 'more pure' Holy Angels of GOD had free will -and yet 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. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it *is* true that aborted babies and children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven and STAY there -as in 'eternal' salvation...

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.” -- Oops! I made a 'leap in logic' - Did anyone catch it? I accidentally said that 'choosing **these** children is the only scripturally-permitted alternative,' but that was (a mistake) incorrect. There are at least THREE (3) groups of children that will probably populate the Millennium era: (#1) Those who 'walk into' the period because they were alive when the 7-Year Tribulation ended; (#2) Those who are born *during* the 1,000-Year Millennium period; and (#3) Those who were either aborted or killed as children before the age of accountability. All the same, I still have a strong Biblically-solid, scriptural case for my claims here. (Sorry for the leap in logic -I'm just human; I shall be honest and let my mistake stand for all to see.) Continuing...

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 5 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-- CORRECTION: I just now discovered that I made a mistake in how I characterized this preacher's sermon; although I did not name him, nonetheless, it was still wrong of me to make this mistake, so I shall now make a correction. When I listened to his sermon again, I discovered that he said that babies who die before the age of accountability go to heaven -and that I disagreed with him. HE IS PROBABLY CORRECT: They probably do go to heaven -for the time being (see above discussion). He did not specify whether they would go to heaven 'for good' and have 'eternal' salvation in heaven without having to accept Christ -or rather, that they would just go to heaven for the time being -while awaiting a chance to exercise free will. While he may have meant the former (-and not the latter -and it sure sounded like that to me), he did not explicitly state what he meant, and so I was wrong to say that his view was incorrect here. I APOLOGIZE to him and anyone I've offended -for I made an honest mistake in inference here. (Honestly, he could have -and probably should have -been more clear, but I shall not poke fun at him, for I too make mistakes --OK, with that said, here are my comments about his sermon.)

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 ease 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, quoting Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16 of the 10 Commandments, 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).

Editor's Note: I made the 1st couple updates, above, on Sat 23 Jan 2010; however, as of today, Wed 27 Jan 2010, I am fixing a few omissions:

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.

* (Part 4 of 5 of UPDATE)

Today, Saturday, 10 April 2010, I added a whole bunch of stuff that I initially overlooked -including an apology to the anonymous preacher -and some passages from Amos and James to show that it's NOT in the character of God to tempt a woman with the false heresy that is going around. Plus, I'm adding links to outside resources and making a 'Top 10' list of reasons why this theory is Biblically supported and the opposing theory is faulty. Therefore, it might behoove you to simply read through this missive 'from the top' -even if you've read it before.

* (Part 5 of 5 of UPDATE)

Today, Monday, 19 April 2010, I added a cite to a Southern Baptist church's bylaws (to help those church members understand this issue), added a few supporting scriptures to the 10 Commandments, and added one more item to the 'Top-10' list. ***The page has been totally re-worked, so if you've read it, you might want to refresh yourself again.

End of: 'VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE'

(-1-) “Mother who killed brain-damaged son with heroin injection told Old Bailey she was 'releasing' him”
* Helen Pidd guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010 14.48 GMT
"I can remember saying I felt I would rather he go to heaven than to hell on earth.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/20/frances-inglis-tom-inglis-heroin

(-2-) Mansfield father accused of killing daughter, 6
* July 24, 2009 06:51 PM, By Eric Moskowitz, Globe Staff
“Police charged a 35-year-old Mansfield man with murdering his 6-year-old daughter after being alerted to the crime by a note in which he allegedly asked forgiveness for sending her "to heaven."”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mansfield_fathe.html

(-3-) Mother says no deal made to kill baby
* By BOB GIBBINS, January 31, 2008
TAHLEQUAH DAILY PRESS — “Hurta testified she never told anyone she and Guthrie had decided to "send the baby to heaven."”
http://tahlequahdailypress.com/local/x519338834/Mother-says-no-deal-made-to-kill-baby

(-4-) Dad Tells How He Killed His Daughter, 7:02pm UK, Tuesday October 31, 2006
* 'A father has told a court how he had a "Romeo and Juliet" moment with his three-year-old child before he drugged and suffocated her.Gavin Hall sat and cuddled his daughter Amelia in the early hours of November 29 last year while his wife and younger daughter slept upstairs..."At the time it must have been clear," he said. "We talked about heaven and we talked about no more crying, no more sadness.'
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641239289

(-5-) Darkfall Forums > Non-Darkfall Related > Off-Topic Discussions
* “Mother kills Son to send him to Heaven,” 04-10-2009, 07:15 AM
entrailsgalore, Normal User, Join Date: Dec 2008 “If that is a guarantee to get your child into heaven (assuming that is how it works) then why not? Sacrificing your afterlife to insure your child's is set in stone.”
http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=3214553

(-6-) Casey Anthony Diary – 03-25-2009 (All The Latest News: Latest updates on news that matters)
* 'A secret diary kept by Casey Anthony includes a confession that she killed her daughter Caylee Anthony...“Casey snapped,” a source told reporters. “In her sick mind, she became convinced that Caylee would be better off dead, in heaven, than in the hands of her mother.”'
http://a11news.com/1610/casey-anthony-diary

(-7-) “World exclusive: John Hogan breaks silence about night he killed his son and nearly ended life of young daughter after row with wife,” 13/09/2008, Mirror.co.uk
* “It was a moment of unbelievable madness – a father throws his son from a fourth-floor balcony at their holiday hotel in Crete, then grabs his daughter in his arms and jumps...Hogan recalls that as the truth of his actions sunk in he spent six months in a suicidal state, in the belief that he would be reunited with Liam in heaven.”
http://mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/09/13/world-exclusive-john-hogan-breaks-silence-about-night-he-killed-his-son-and-nearly-ended-life-of-young-daughter-after-row-with-wife-115875-20735576

APPENDIX-B (Other links of interest)
* Probe Ministries article: "Do Babies Go to Hell?" (Prof. James Williams, author) (Outside link * Cached copy: MHT-file * Cached copy: HTML-file)
* Probe Ministries article: Copyright Notice (Outside link * Cached copy: MHT-file * Cached copy: HTML-file)
* Notes from Dr. Gary Williams' classes:
1) Various views on 'Salvation of Infants' (Not from the 'Intro to Prophecy' class I had, but from another class he taught)
2) 'Intro to Prophecy' cover page from my class notes
3) Table of Contents of that class
4) Different groups of tribulation saints (I am not sure, but it seems to describe children currently living -and also those born either during the tribulation or during the millennium; while it doesn't discuss the fate of children who die before the tribulation or the millennium, it makes a good 'circumstantial evidence' case for the aborted babies to share the same fate as the other two groups mentioned here.)

Top-10 (Plus-1) List of Biblical and Scriptural reasons why aborted babies -and children who die before the age of accountability -don't necessarily end up in Heaven or Hell, but rather the 1,000-Year Millennium of Christ (or: some similar place where free will is exercised to accept or reject Christ – Example: Angels had free will to reject Christ in HEAVEN, and one-third of the Holy Angels fell from grace and became demons)

10. Though babies are born into sin (Rom 3:23: ALL have sinned -yes, even the babies if we are to believe scripture here), and thus deserve Hell-Death (Rom 6:23), God has determined that the children shall NOT pay for the sins of their parents: Deut 24:16; Ez 18:20; I Pet 1:17; Col 3:25 -see article herein.

9. King David's claim of his son going to heaven (see article) must be understood to be allegorical and metaphorical (as many scriptures are: see my article for scripture passages), since it conflicts with known literal scriptures on the same subject matter.

8. Passages in which Jesus describes little children (Except ye be converted, and become as little children – Mt 18:3) are a general description of children's differences with adults -not a guarantee of the nature of all children (Example: Children obeying their parents are promised length of days -in GENERAL -not in EVERY case)

7. Passages describing children's angels seeing the face of God do not address the children's' character -or eternal salvation. Likewise, passages like Mark 9:37 (“Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me:...”) address standards of treatment -not character of the children in question here. DON'T ADD TO SCRIPTURE!!

6. Jer 1:5, which states “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” does not address or state whether the person is saved or lost.

5. Scriptures (above) demonstrate that God is not biased, and thus it is not in the character of God to give some people free will and deny the same to others. (Even though God knows by omniscient foreknowledge who will be saved, He doesn't deny you free will, and thus, by these scriptures, He would not deny another person.)

4. Man is created in the image of God – with Free Will -and thus it is not in the nature of man to be denied free will. (All dogs go to heaven -or so the saying goes, but humans are not dogs -and babies are not robots stripped of free will; to do so would be offensive to the nature of God, as we are created in His image.)

3. God does nothing without first revealing it to His prophets, and thus, if killing her unborn child or toddler would increase the odds of that child having eternal salvation, God would tell it to that woman -or to a prophet to pass along to her -but, since we know that God is neither tempted -nor temps any person to sin (killing a child, for example), this is not something He would do, and thus this theory about a 100% guarantee of salvation to the aborted child cannot be true.

2. Sending babies into the Millennium (or some similar place, such as in Heaven -like the angels had) to have a chance to exercise free will would not be cruel nor outside the character and nature of God. After all, this fate would be no worse than what mankind is given, and, being in a more pure environment, it would even be better in some ways.

1. Some people think that they can 'cast a spell' on God and *make* Him grant eternal salvation to their child. You can't *make* The Maker do *anything* --and to even consider this is offensive to God!@. God Almighty does *what* He wants *when* He wants -and does not consult with mere mortals to get permission.

"Plus-1" Top Reason: There is no free pass – No Free Lunch: Denying the child a chance to exercise free will to accept Christ would violate John 3:16 and John 14:6 -the 'bright line' standards for salvation. These scriptures can not be satisfied unless the person exercises free will, and if someone tells you any differently, they are just blowing smoke. God, being fair, would not deny any person a chance to accept Christ -but, NO man comes to the Father BUT by the Son. The Greek word here in John 14:6 is “oujdeivß,” Strong's Number 3,762, which literally means “no one, nothing.” Get over it: You can't come to the Father BUT by the Son: It is God's Word. Thus, the Baptists' claim that you must have faith to be saved -and my claim that faith involves free will -for EVERYBODY (not just some) is backed by scriptures.

LAKELAND, Florida, U.S.A.