Filicide Case Study: Medical / Legal background, Causes, and Proposed Solutions
*** Author: Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The Register ( GordonWayneWatts.com / GordonWatts.com )
National Director, CONTRACT WITH AMERICA: PART II® https://ContractWithAmerica2.com
BS, The Florida State University, double major with honours: Biological & Chemical Sciences
AS, United Electronics Institute, VALEDICTORIAN
Author: "When Babies Die: Where do they go?," ASIN: B008J8RTOK, Publisher: Create Space (July 9, 2012)
INTRO: This brief seeks to dismantle the theological 'Shortcut Logic' that provides a rationalized motive for altruistic filicide through a precise forensic and linguistic re-examination of Hebrews 9:27.
Prepared for scholarly theological research for my friends at Moody Bible Institute and for a broader public discussion.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
The Problem (The "What") -- LEGAL AND MEDICAL FOUNDATIONS for ALTRUISTIC FILICIDE
The Catalyst (The "Why") -- CAUSES as shown by Case Examples
Exegetical Solutions -- (The "How to Fix") THE LINGUISTIC SAFEGUARD OF HEBREWS 9:27 and more
Appendix: Proposed Clarification for Broadcast/Print Mailbags (Q/A Session)
Published: Saturday, 2 May 2026
Updated: Friday, May 8, 2026 (Refined Lexical Attributions ; supplemented citations ; fixed typos)
I. LEGAL AND MEDICAL FOUNDATIONS for ALTRUISTIC FILICIDE
** The Evidence: Andrea Yates (2001) explicitly told forensic psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz that she killed her five children because she felt they were stumbling and, by killing them while they were innocent, she was ensuring they would go to heaven and be safe with God. Deanna Laney (2003) stoned her children believing God ordered it to save their souls. This is not theoretical; it is historical fact. Please remember the case of Andrea Yates, who explicitly stated she killed her children to ensure their safety in heaven while they were still innocent. This is a real, documented psychological phenomenon. These cases illustrate the 'Terminal Endpoint' of the logic I am highlighting."
“Murder and a Mother’s Love: Understanding Maternal Altruistic Filicide and Reshaping the Legal System’s Approach to Mentally Ill Mothers Who Kill Their Children,” Author: Morgan Woodbridge, 32 J. L. & Pol'y 251 (2024), Volume 32, Issue 2, Article 7, DATE: 5-1-2024, Quote from page 251, Law Journals at BrooklynWorks,
** QUOTE: “Every year, thousands of children are killed by their parents. Some of these killings are committed by mentally ill mothers who believe that death is in their children's best interest. This category of killings is called maternal altruistic filicide.” (Page 251) (Editor's Note: Altruistic filicide is a phenomenon that affects both mothers and fathers, as shown below.)
Available at: https://BrooklynWorks.BrookLaw.edu/jlp/vol32/iss2/7
ARCHIVE-1: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20241005210442/https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol32/iss2/7/
Direct URL: https://BrooklynWorks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1658&context=jlp
“The Andrea Yates Case: Insanity on Trial,” Author: Phillip J. Resnick, 55 Clev. St. L. Rev. 147 (2007), DATE: 2007, Quotes from pages 150 and 152, Cleveland State Law Review,
** QUOTE-1: “1. Mrs. Yates believed it was right to drown her children because she held a delusional belief that her children were not being raised “righteously” and that they would “burn in hell” if she did not take their lives. She faced a psychotic dilemma. She thought that she was doing what was right for her children by arranging for them to go to heaven while they were still “innocent.” She stated, “They had to die to be saved.”” (Page 150)
** QUOTE-2: “6. Finally, I reminded the jury of the psychotic dilemma that Mrs. Yates faced at the time she drowned her children. She believed that if she did not act, her children would burn in hell for all eternity. If she did take their lives before the age of accountability, her children would be with God in heaven for all eternity. Mrs. Yates believed that taking her children’s lives was the right thing to do in the face of this dilemma.” (Page 152)
Available at: https://EngagedScholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol55/iss2/4
Direct URL: http://EngagedScholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=clevstlrev
Other statistics relevant to this phenomenon: Roughly 1-in-4 (25%) of all births end in miscarriage
These scientific findings of fact are included to demonstrate just how prevalent the loss of children before birth (and thus before the “age of accountability”) is in modern society to underscore the need for clarity on a topic that affects practically **all** families due to the very high incidence of child loss in this age-range.
“Pregnancy Loss,” Department of Public Health, © 2026 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. FAIR USE QUOTE: “Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in a loss, including miscarriage, recurrent pregnancy loss, fetal death, or stillbirth. The loss of a pregnancy has a profound impact on parents, families, and health care providers.”
LINK: https://www.Mass.gov/pregnancy-loss ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/0Ahvb
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20250901042240/https://www.Mass.gov/pregnancy-loss
ARCHIVE-3:
ARCHIVE-4: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/PregnancyLossMass.gov_Wayback.pdf
“Men living through multiple miscarriages: protocol for a qualitative exploration of experiences and support requirements,” By Helen Marie Williams, Laura L Jones, Arri Coomarasamy, and Annie E Topping, Correspondence to Helen Marie Williams; h.m.williams.1@bham.ac.uk, BMJ Open, 2020 May 15;10(5):e035967. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035967. PMID: 32414830; PMCID: PMC7232625, FAIR USE QUOTE: “Up to 1 in 4 pregnancies and 1 in 20 subsequent pregnancies end in miscarriage. Despite such prevalence the psychosocial effects are often unrecognised and unsupported.”
LINK-1: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035967 LINK-2: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/5/e035967
LINK-3: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7232625/
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/whzeS ARCHIVE-2: https://Archive.ph/V3nrR
ARCHIVE-3: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20250202052813/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7232625/
II. CAUSES as shown by Case Examples
The theological bridge. This is where Mildred's question and the responses from Moody staff demonstrate how the "Shortcut Logic" forms in the minds of listeners. – Full list of cases / studies numbered and in chronological order: These demonstrate some causes – which include psychological delusions amplified by assurances from trusted theologians and preachers that infant universalism (the belief that all deceased infants go to heaven, with no choice in the matter, no exceptions) is a correct theology.
[[ #01. – 2006-10-31 ]]
“Girl killed after 'Romeo' moment: A father has described how he spent a moment "like Romeo and Juliet" with his three-year-old daughter before suffocating her, a court has heard.,” from News Front Page, BBC NEWS, Last Updated: Tuesday, 31 October 2006, 15:19 GMT, QUOTE: “Hospital radiographer Gavin Hall, 33, killed Amelia as her mother and sister slept upstairs in their Northants home. [] Mr Hall, of Irchester, denies murder but admits manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. [] "It seemed very Romeo and Juliet, we were distraught, we were distressed," Mr Hall told Northampton Crown Court..." At the time it must have been clear. We talked about heaven and we talked about no more crying, no more sadness," he said.”
LINK: https://News.BBC.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/northamptonshire/6103118.stm
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.ph/oM16j
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20180629040727/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/northamptonshire/6103118.stm
ARCHIVE-4: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/TalkedAboutHeaven_BBC_Wayback.pdf
[[ #02. – 2007-12-31 ]]
“Andrea Yates case: Yates found not guilty by reason of insanity,” (Court TV) content from CourtTVNews.com, CNN, First published in 2006 ; Updated 11:03 a.m. EST, Mon December 31, 2007, QUOTE: “Yates told Resnick and others who evaluated her in the weeks after her arrest that she believed that, if she killed her children while they were still innocent, they would be sent to heaven and she would have defeated Satan.”
LINK: https://www.CNN.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.yates8/index.html
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.ph/wgYPh ARCHIVE-2: https://Archive.ph/SvmBi
ARCHIVE-3:
ARCHIVE-4: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/AndreaYates_CNN_ArchiveToday.pdf
[[ #03. – 2008-01-31 ]]
“Mother says no deal made to kill baby,” by Bob Gibbins, TAHLEQUAH DAILY PRESS, January 31, 2008, QUOTE: “Hurta testified she never told anyone she and Guthrie had decided to "send the baby to heaven."”
LINK: http://TahlequahDailyPress.com/local/x519338834/Mother-says-no-deal-made-to-kill-baby
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/wip/6GhWT
[[ #04. – 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,” by Mirror.co.uk, 22:24, 13 Sept. 2008; Updated 12:52, 3 Feb. 2012, QUOTE: “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.”
LINK:
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
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/Q3MHJ
ARCHIVE-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/Hogan_ArchiveToday.pdf
ARCHIVE-4: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/Hogan_Wayback.pdf
[[ #05. – 2009-03-25 ]]
“Casey Anthony Diary,” by All The Latest News, 03-25-2009, QUOTE: “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.””
LINK: https://A11News.com/1610/casey-anthony-diary ARCHIVE-1: https://archive.vn/LJLjJ
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20090327105444/http://a11news.com/1610/casey-anthony-diary/
LINK: https://www.TapaTalk.com/groups/watchingrobertpickton88015/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=2434
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/VZ79W
ARCHIVE-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/CaseyAnthonyDiary_ArchiveToday.pdf
ARCHIVE-4: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/CaseyAnthonyDiary_Wayback.pdf
[[ #06. – 2009-04-10 ]]
“Mother kills Son to send him to Heaven,” by “entrailsgalore,” Normal User, Join Date: Dec. 2008, Darkfall Forums > Non-Darkfall Related > Off-Topic Discussions, 04-10-2009, 07:15 AM, QUOTE: “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.”
LINK: http://Forums.DarkFallOnline.com/showthread.php?p=3214553
Editor's Note: Some original URL's seem bad or broken links; thus, we depend on archives.
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/YIFM8
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20120305142113/http://Forums.DarkFallOnline.com/showthread.php?p=3214553
ARCHIVE-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/DarkfallForums_ArchiveToday.pdf
ARCHIVE-4: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/DarkfallForums_Wayback.pdf
[[ #07. – 2009-07-24 ]]
“Mansfield father accused of killing daughter, 6,” by Eric Moskowitz, Globe Staff, THE BOSTON GLOBE, July 24, 2009, 06:51 PM, QUOTE: “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."”
LINK: http://www.Boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mansfield_fathe.html (Link may be broken)
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/qyn6g
LINK: http://CrimesAgainstOurChildren.blogspot.com/2009/07/kristopher-griffin-charged-with.html
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/iMMGk
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220221085802/http://crimesagainstourchildren.blogspot.com/2009/07/kristopher-griffin-charged-with.html
[[ #08. – 2010-01-20 ]]
“Mother who killed brain-damaged son with heroin injection told Old Bailey she was 'releasing' him,” by Helen Pidd, THE GUARDIAN, Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 14.48 GMT, QUOTE: “I can remember saying I felt I would rather he go to heaven than to hell on earth.”
LINK: http://www.Guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/20/frances-inglis-tom-inglis-heroin
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/2qG2G
ARCHIVE-2:
ARCHIVE-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/MotherKillsSon_TheGuardian_1-20-2010_ArchiveToday.pdf
[[ #09. – 2015-05-01 ]]
“When God Demands Blood: Unusual Minds and the Troubled Juridical Ties of Religion, Madness, and Culpability,” Author: Rabia Belt, 69 U. Mia. L. Rev. 755 (2015), DATE: 5-1-2015, quote from page 791, Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository, QUOTE: “For example, Deanna Laney killed two of her children and tried to kill the third one in 2003...Laney also told investigators that God promised that she would be reunited with her children in heaven...”
Available at: https://Repository.Law.Miami.edu/umlr/vol69/iss3/7
ARCHIVE-1: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20200602152130/https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol69/iss3/7/
Direct URL: https://Repository.Law.Miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3057&context=umlr
[[ #10. – 2023-04-13 ]]
“Idaho mom Lori Vallow Daybell believed her kids were 'zombies,' ex-best friend testifies,” by Terry Collins, USA TODAY, Published 10:22 p.m. ET April 13, 2023 ; Updated 10:27 p.m. ET April 13, 2023, QUOTE: “Gibb said Vallow Daybell told her people who were light had signed contracts with "the Savior," and those who were dark signed contracts with "Satan" before coming to Earth...Gibb said she did see JJ, but Vallow Daybell said JJ’s behavior was changing and he would say things like "I love Satan.",” yet another case of "altruistic filicide" involving a parent believing they are "sending the soul back to God" to prevent future spiritual corruption.
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.ph/JUSnA
ARCHIVE-3: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/LoriVallowDaybell_ArchiveToday.pdf
ARCHIVE-4: https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/DrCharlieDyer/FilicideCaseStudy/LoriVallowDaybell_Wayback.pdf
|
A deeper dive into infant soteriology: What does MBI (Moody Bible Institute) believe?
The theological bridge. This is where Mildred's question and the responses from Moody staff demonstrate how the "Shortcut Logic" forms in the minds of listeners. These demonstrate some causes – which include psychological delusions amplified by assurances from trusted theologians and preachers that infant universalism (the belief that all deceased infants go to heaven, with no choice in the matter, no exceptions) is a correct theology. |
|||
|
DATE: |
Sender / Recipient: |
Topic: |
Summary of Response: |
|
Sat. 01-03-2015 |
Gordon Wayne Watts (To: Open Line Live / Dr. Rydelnik) |
Open Lines Live not truly open |
OpenLinesNotTrulyOpen_Sat03Jan2015_WATTS.pdf ** Watts has concerns about "Open Line Live" not keeping their word when call-screener refused to take caller's question on infant soteriology issue, diplomatically concludes question was too hard (blames question, instead of blaming Moody Radio staff). |
|
Sat. 01-30-2016 |
Deb Solomon / Dr. Rydelnik (To: Listener "Mildred") |
Infants going to heaven / Shortcut Logic |
** Mildred asks if all babies go to heaven, wouldn't it be better for them to all die so they can avoid possibility of hell? ** TRANSCRIPTION - Webpage: OLL_Transcription_Sat30Jan2016.html PDF: OLL_Transcription_Sat30Jan2016.pdf Mildred asks if dying in infancy is better to avoid Hell. Dr. Rydelnik admits the "logic" but he & Deb offer 5 counterpoints: Image of God, opportunity for faith, service, God's glory, and free will. ** Audio / Notes
of this question on Sat. 1-30-2016 program in 5 formats -- short
"Fair Use"
clips: ** Watts has concerns about "Open Line Live" *again* not keeping their word in this 2016 call-in, like they did in 2015 (see above), when call-screener refused to take caller's question on infant soteriology issue, and again, diplomatically concludes question was too hard (blames question, instead of blaming Moody Radio staff). QUOTE from email: "Even if my question was too hard (and, I admit, it may have been too difficult), the call-screener should have kept his word to let me ask it: He did not...So twice in a row, the call-screener didn't keep his word to take my question." E-mail: ScaryConsequencesOfBabyUniversalism_Sat30Jan2016.pdf Web-page copy/paste: open-line-live-Moody-radio-question-too-hard.html |
|
Sat. 8-28-2021 |
From: Unnamed listener To: Jon Gauger (who reads question) and Dr. Charlie Dyer (who answers it). |
QUESTION: “At the time of the rapture, will children, who have not reached the age of accountability, be raptured?” |
** DR. CHARLIE DYER responds: He admits that no Scripture directly answers this, but sees 2 passages that indirectly may help: FIRST, in 1 Cor. 7:14, Paul tells believing spouses married to unbelievers that if non-believing spouse is willing to remain married, the children would be holy, and not unclean, implying these children are somehow set apart due to believing spouse. SECONDLY, in Matt. 24:19, Jesus tells of pregnant women & nursing mothers in the middle of the Tribulation, begging the question: If God takes some unborn children at rapture, but leaves others unborn immediately afterward, implying an inconsistency that God wouldn't do. Charlie says ultimately we must remember God's word to Abraham in Gen. 18, asking will not the Judge of all earth do right? (Editor's Note: This seems to me, Gordon, to imply unborn children are neither saved nor lost, otherwise they'd be raptured, from which I infer that deceased babies will get a chance to exercise faith at some point and have free will – like angels and adult humans – God being a fair Judge.) ** Audio / Notes of this question on Sat.
8-28-2021 program in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sat. 10-23-2021 |
From: Dr. Dyer (To: Gordon Watts -- 2-part exchange) |
Millennial Theory |
BibleQuestion_MillenialTheory.pdf **
Dyer rejected Millennial but alluded to Rev. 20:5. Audio / Notes
of this question on Sat. 1-22-2022 program read from Watts'
10-23-2021 email in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sat. 11-13-2021 |
Gordon calls in Open Line Live |
Infant soteriology question re Millennium possibility |
** Dr. Rydelnik refuses to take question on-air but tells Gordon off-air that he agrees "100%" with Dr. Charlie Dyer. ** Audio / Notes of this brief, off-air
(commercial break) conversation on Sat. 11-13-2021 program in 4
formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sat. 01-22-2022 |
Gordon emails question |
Infant soteriology |
BibleQuestion_MillenialTheory.pdf ***
Dr. Dyer gives similar response on-air (Sat. 01-22-2022) as his
Sat. 10-23-2021 emailed
response. |
|
Sat. 02-26-2022 |
Question from: Bob, audience member ; To: Dr. Michael Rydelnik |
Crossbridge Church, Boca Raton, FL hosts live audience Q/A |
** OPEN LINE LIVE didn't take phone calls or "mail-bag" (e-mailed) questions, but rather, live from Boca Raton, FL, Dr. Rydelnik took questions from a live audience about God’s faithfulness to Israel. Bob, a Boca Raton, FL resident, and member of Crossbridge Church, asks what happens to unborn babies & infants who die before the age of accountability. Dr. Rydelnik (#1) admits that Bible doesn't directly address it, but says that God will always be fair, (#2) says we have sin nature, but can not knowingly sin if under the age of accountability, citing Romans chapter 5 (but admits he's totally in "Conjecturville"), implying they go to heaven upon death, and (#3) That King David's comment about going to his dead son might've meant that David thought he'd go to the grave, instead of going to heaven, to see the child, or perhaps that David would see the baby again, i.e., "infant universalism," but offers no Scriptural support otherwise. ** Audio / Notes of this brief, off-air
(commercial break) conversation on Sat. 02-26-2022 program read
from in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sat. 10-22-2022 |
From: Dr. Charlie Dyer ; To: Kirby (listener) |
Infant soteriology question / fate of people God orders killed |
** Kirby asks about God ordering death of large group of people: What's the eternal fate of the faithful followers and children in that group? Charlie admits uncertainty, but mentions God can take physical life without impacting eternal destiny (cites 1 Cor. 5, handing over immoral church member to kill body, but save soul). Secondly, Heb. 11:6 shows God rewards those who diligently seek Him, but only God knows a person's heart. Third, Romans 1 shows God gives revelation to all people of His existence. Concludes we don't know, but leans towards infant universalism (all babies go to Heaven period, without any need for faith in The Lord). ** Audio / Notes of this question on Sat.
10-22-2022 program in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sat. 07-13-2024 |
From: Dr. Charlie Dyer ; To: a listener |
Salvation question |
** Charlie says, 'no', we *can't* lose our salvation: John 10:26-30 gives 'eternal' life, protection from being snatched out of Jesus' & The Father's hand. Also, 1 John 5:11-13 says God gives us 'eternal' life. Charlie adds: If we can lose it, it's not eternal, but Charlie adds a word of caution: It's possible for a person to make a false profession of faith: Matt. 7 tells of Jesus telling people to depart from Him as Jesus never knew them. This question is added to offer context on infant salvation: Charlie (& other Moody Radio hosts) have said deceased infants are saved & automatically go to heaven. However, this contradicts OSAS, what Charlie said: If all infants are saved (Charlie's theory), and once saved, always saved, then all adults are saved. Since we know that's not true (many walk the wide path, Matt. 7:13-14), then the one or both premises are false. It's not OSAS, so it must be infant universalism. Infants CAN get saved, but need faith, meaning a fair God will give them an opportunity at some point, even if we don't know when: We mustn't cling to false beliefs (infant universalism) just because we lack God's secret knowledge. ** Audio / Notes of this question on Sat.
07-13-2024 program in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sat. 09-13-2025 |
From: Dr. Gerald Peterman ; To: a listener |
Infant soteriology question |
** Listener ask what happens to babies lost in miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion? Do they go to heaven? If so, will they be grown up adults? Dr. Gerald Peterman admits that he doesn't know, but thinks so and cites Ps. 139 (God knew David when he was in the womb), 2 Samuel (David says he will go to his deceased son), and rejects the idea that David means he'll go to the grave, but instead references heaven. But does not grapple with the harder question of how a baby will exercise faith, or of they'll have a shortcut to 'eternal' salvation without faith in Jesus. Editor's Note: Just as many see no prohibition against animals being in heaven or Millennium, I see no prohibition against babies being in Millennium to have a chance to exercise faith – not prohibited, but not guaranteed. ** Audio / Notes of this question on Sat.
09-13-2025 program in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sat. 11-08-2025 |
From: Dr. Gerald Peterman ; To: Anna, a listener |
Infant soteriology question |
** Anna asks what happens to babies who die in miscarriage, and will I meet them in heaven, & will they grow up into adults? Dr. Gerald Peterman says he thinks we'll see them but doesn't know if they'll be adults. He cites Ps. 139 where God says He knew David before he was born. He also mentions David lost his son with Bathsheba, and mentions that David says he'll go to his son, not to the grave, and thus does not mourn. However, like before, doesn't grapple with the harder question of how a baby will exercise faith, or of they'll have a shortcut to 'eternal' salvation without faith in Jesus. Editor's Note: Just as many see no prohibition against animals being in heaven or Millennium, I see no prohibition against babies being in Millennium to have a chance to exercise faith – not prohibited, but not guaranteed. ** Audio / Notes of this question on Sat.
09-13-2025 program in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Tue., Dec. 23, 2025 at 2:52 AM (EST) |
From: Gordon Watts (To: Dr. Peterman ; Cc: Dr. Dyer ; Bcc: Dr. Jobe, Dr. Rydelnik) |
Anna's infant soteriology Question / Universalist Leanings |
BibleQuestion_AnnasQuestion.pdf ** Peterman admitted "don't know" on prior program, but had Universalist leanings in his response to Anna; Watts had questions about Peterman's response, warns this creates a "100% vs. 50%" math delusion for at-risk parents to commit "altruistic filicide" (i.e., killing children for supposedly altruistic motives). |
|
Tue., Dec. 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM (EST) |
From: Dr. Dyer (To: Gordon Watts ; Cc: Dr. Peterman, Jon Gauger, MR Programming Comments) |
The "Misquote" |
BibleQuestion_TheMisquote.pdf ** High-tension exchange; Dyer claimed that Watts both "misunderstood—and then subsequently misquoted—me in your response below to Dr. Peterman," requested no more emails. |
|
Tue., Dec. 23, 2025 at 8:58 PM (EST) |
From: Gordon Watts (To: Dr. Dyer ; Cc: Dr. Peterman, Jon Gauger, Dr. Jobe. Dr. Rydelnik, Dan Anderson, and "Tricia.McMillan@mody.edu," a mis-spelled email address; correct spelling is "Trish.McMillan@moody.edu," no 'a' in name, and two o's in Moody.edu) |
Diplomatic response |
BibleQuestion_DiplomaticResponse.pdf ** Watts disclaims misquoting Dyer, challenged him to compare his original email with what was quoted, but apologised for misunderstanding his intent; offered some closing thoughts on the dangers of infant regarding how it has been documented to tempt parents into altruistic filicide (so-called justifiable infanticide), but Watts failed to do proper Exegesis by looking at original Greek text of Heb. 9:27 to support his claims that KJV was correct in its rendering of "judgment" as not necessarily necessitating "final judgment," as Dyer had claimed. ** I note that the KJV uses "the judgment" (including the definite article) and specify that the Greek uses the article (ηκρισις), which reinforces it as a specific, appointed event/process rather than a generic concept. |
|
Sat. 02-28-2026 |
From: Gordon, who calls in to Open Line Live (Moody Radio) ; To: host, Dr. Michael Rydelnik |
Heb. 9:27 exegesis question re infant soteriology |
** Gordon calls in to Open Line Live with host, Dr. Michael Rydelnik, and asks whether his technical exegesis of Heb. 9:27 is correct regarding the Greek word used for 'judgment' to reveal a critical distinction: The text uses the word κρίσις (krisis), which denotes a process, a trial, or an investigative "turning point." This is distinct from κρίμα (krima), which refers to the result of a judgment—the final decree or final sentence. POINT: Since Jesus could have said "krima" in Heb. 9:27 had He wanted to, but He didn't, so for theologians to say that death seals the baby's fate in incorrect -- and a huge theological motive for altruistic filicide -- parents killing babies to send them to heaven when a trusted theologian tells them that this shortcut 100% guarantees the baby will have 'eternal heaven' as a judgment [κρίμα (krima)] without an exercise of faith [κρίσις (krisis), which denotes a process, a trial, or an investigative "turning point."] ** Gordon recalls Dr. Rydelnik refused to take his similar question on air back in 2021, but with a better understanding of the issue, calls back to clarify theology -- and to save lives -- figuring Dr. Rydelnik has had time to think this through & not be caught off guard with too hard of a question. ** Call-screener, Cheyenne, tells Gordon that Dr. Rydelnik refuses to take that question on-air, and to ask his pastor for help with this. ** Editor's Note: Dr. Rydelnik doesn't keep his word to take any legitimate question ("Open" Line Live), and misses a chance to clarify correct theology to save lives by refuting the incorrect theological motive of a "guaranteed salvation" theology by infant universalism. (Note: Clip is short, but there's a break: I was "on hold" for about an hour.) ** Audio / Notes of this question on Sat.
02-28-2026 program in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sat. 03-21-2026 |
From: Fran in GA, question ; To: Dr. Michael Rydelnik (host) |
Dead in Christ / Infant soteriology question |
** Dr. Rydelnik takes this caller's question (but not Gordon's), and says he's uncertain, but leans towards "all babies go to heaven." Fran, in Georgia, listening to WPLE, calls in to ask Dr. Michael Rydelnik about where the Bible says that the dead in Christ will rise first: Fran asks what happens to those who are still in the womb, or who've been aborted, or who die before the age of accountability. How will they be raised? Dr. Rydelnik admits that Scripture isn't clear on this issue, but he leans towards the belief that all babies go to heaven and alludes to King David's infant who died, and David said he would go to his child. Dr. Rydelnik admits that some people “get mad” about his belief that all babies go to heaven because of the implicit altruistic filicide (murder of children to “send them to heaven” or for other altruistic motives). Rydelnik says the infants haven't sinned. Editor's Note: If he doesn't want these pro-life folk mad, perhaps he should abandon an unscriptural infant universalism view that provides a Scriptural warrant for Altruistic Filicide. He cites Deut. 29:29 about the hidden things of The Lord, and assures listeners that The Lord will be just. But, like before, doesn't grapple with the harder question of how a baby will exercise faith, or if they'll have a shortcut to 'eternal' salvation without faith in Jesus. Editor's Note: Just as many see no prohibition against animals being in heaven or Millennium, I see no prohibition against babies being in Millennium to have a chance to exercise faith – not prohibited, but not guaranteed. ** Audio / Notes of this question on Sat.
03-21-2026 program in 4 formats -- short "Fair Use"
clips: |
|
Sun., March 22, 2026 at 3:39 PM (EDT) |
From: Gordon Watts (To: Gordon Watts) |
File copy of research on several aspects of the previous infant soteriology Bible question submitted to Dr. Dyer |
BibleQuestion_GeminisTakeOnCharlieDyerAndMoody.pdf ** Gemini's Technical Exegesis of Heb. 9:27 & Filicide Warning for Dr. Charlie Dyer & MOODY RADIO. Excerpt: "You asked me to "refine the Legal/Medical warning" and were unclear on what that meant. Let me clarify: By "Legal/Medical Warning," I mean a specific section of your argument that moves away from Bible verses and speaks the language of Forensics (Law) and Psychiatry (Medicine). This is crucial because if you want to warn an institution like Moody, you must speak to their liability and risk management, not just their theology. Here is the Refined "Clarion Cry" / Legal-Medical Warning Section for your Statement of Record. This is designed to be the "Cold Water" that wakes them up to the real-world danger. SECTION 3: THE
"CLARION CRY" — MEDICAL & LEGAL RISK
ANALYSIS Re: The Foreseeable Danger of "Altruistic Filicide" Motivated by Soteriology 1. The Medical Diagnosis: "Altruistic Filicide" In forensic psychiatry, "Altruistic Filicide" is a documented classification where a parent kills their child out of love, believing death to be in the child's best interest. Unlike localized abuse, this is often driven by a delusion that the parent is "saving" the child from a fate worse than death.
|
|
Date TBA |
From: Gordon Watts (To: TBA) |
Potential response if warranted |
BibleQuestion_APOLOGY.pdf ** If any response is submitted: Gemini notes that altruistic filicide and proper Greek Technical Exegesis of Heb. 9:27 were both overlooked in Watts' reply -- a huge oversight and glaring omission on key, foundational facts on an important and life-threatening subject. Watts notes that he feels that he owes Dyer/MOODY an apology on several fronts: (i) failing to more-fully acknowledge his past work at answering Bible questions; (ii) failure to provide a proper Technical Greek Exegesis of Hebrews 9:27 to get a clear understanding; (iii) failure to grasp/share the magnitude of the altruistic filicide moral/legal dangers poses by infant universalism; and, (iv) failure to more-quickly share a 2nd dream Watts had about his friend, Dr. Charlie Dyer that greatly concerned/worried Watts. |
|
Date TBA |
From: TBA (To: Gordon Watts) |
Potential response if applicable |
BibleQuestion_MoodyResponse.pdf ** If any reply is given. |
|
Date TBA |
To: / From: recipients TBA |
Placeholder table entry for any potential reply. |
BibleQuestion_Reply.pdf ** In case new developments or replies ensue. |
|
Sat. 04-25-2026 |
Gordon Watts (To: Dr. Dyer / Moody) |
Forensic Brief: Altruistic Filicide |
BibleQuestion_Reply2.pdf ** FilicideCaseStudy.pdf: Watts submits a 3-section forensic brief documenting 10+ cases (e.g., Andrea Yates , Gavin Hall) where "Shortcut Logic" provided the motive for murder. |
III. Exegetical Solutions -- (The "How to Fix")
THE LINGUISTIC SAFEGUARD OF HEBREWS 9:27 and more
[[1.]] THE LINGUISTIC SAFEGUARD OF HEBREWS 9:27
The foundational theological "trigger" for altruistic filicide often rests on a misinterpretation of Hebrews 9:27: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” Contemporary teaching frequently inserts the qualifier "final" before "judgment," treating the event as an immediate sentencing to a fixed destination. However, a technical analysis of the original Greek reveals a critical distinction. The text uses the word κρίσις (krisis), which denotes a process, a trial, or an investigative "turning point." This is distinct from κρίμα (krima), which refers to the result of a judgment—the final decree or sentence.
By applying krisis here, the Writer of Hebrews establishes that death is not the moment of automatic "entry," but the commencement of an individual’s accountability before God. When theologians replace krisis (process/turning point) with the functional equivalent of krima (final sentencing) for infants, they inadvertently create a "100% certainty" of salvation that does not exist in the text. Restoring the proper meaning of krisis ensures that death is viewed as an appointment with a Just Judge, rather than a mechanical "shortcut" to a guaranteed outcome. *** While venerable commentators like Matthew Henry, John Calvin, or perhaps A.T. Robertson traditionally interpreted this as the 'final sentence' (krima), they did so without the benefit of today's forensic psychological data regarding how that specific interpretation acts as a catalyst for altruistic filicide.
Dr. Kenneth Wuest, however, a respected professor of New Testament Greek at the Moody Bible Institute, is an absolute titan in MOODY BIBLE INSTITUES theological circles, and he provides documented lexical definitions to help clarify the meaning of Hebrews 9:27.
|
Greek Term |
Strong's # |
Meaning |
Application in Heb. 9:27 |
|
Krisis |
G2920 |
The Act of Judging / Investigation |
An appointment for a process. |
|
Krima |
G2917 |
The Sentence / Final Decree |
The eventual result of the krisis. |
In Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, he is famous for rigidly enforcing the morphological rules of Greek suffixes. Wuest repeatedly notes that Greek nouns ending in -sis (like krisis) denote the action or process of the verb, while nouns ending in -ma (like krima) denote the result of the action. This linguistic correction is a vital forensic safeguard; by removing the "certainty" of the result, we dismantle the rational motive for a mentally fragile parent to "ensure" salvation through the crime of filicide. See also: W.E. Vine (Vine’s Expository Dictionary), BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich), the undisputed heavy-hitter of modern translation, which categorizes 'krisis' as "the legal process of judging, judging, judgment" and reserves 'krima' for "the decision of a judge, verdict." Cf: Richard Trench (Synonyms of the New Testament).
The Krisis vs. Krima Distinction
Matthew 12:41: "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment (krisis) with this generation, and shall condemn it..."
The Logic: This implies an interactive, comparative process occurring within the judgment period. If judgment were a final, immediate sentence at death, this comparison wouldn't be logically possible.
1 Peter 4:17: "For the time is come that judgment (krisis) must begin at the house of God..."
The Logic: This proves that krisis has a start date and a duration. It is a "season" or an "event" with a chronological flow.
Revelation 20:4: "...and judgment (krima) was given unto them..."
The Logic: This describes the authority to pass final sentences. It is a verdict – the end-state of the judicial process.
Hebrews 6:2: "...and of eternal judgment (krima)."
The Logic: This is the most powerful citation for this distinction. Just three chapters before Hebrews 9:27, the author uses krima to refer to the eternal, final verdict.
The Forensic Argument: If the author of Hebrews meant that death brings an immediate final sentence, he would have used krima (as he did in 6:2). By switching to krisis in 9:27, he is explicitly pointing to an appointment for an investigative process. I don't imply that all judgment is delayed, but rather that Hebrews 9:27 establishes the appointment for the process, not the finality of the sentence.
The Septuagint is the Koine Greek translation of the Old Testament, completed roughly 200–300 years before Christ.
Why it matters for Section III: The New Testament writers (including the author of Hebrews) primarily quoted from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic text.
The Linguistic Bridge: When Daniel 7:10 says "the judgment was set," the Septuagint uses the exact same word as Hebrews 9:27—krisis.
The Proof: By showing that the Greek translation of Daniel uses krisis for a courtroom scene where "books are opened," we clearly see that the "investigative process" is the intended meaning of the word in a biblical context in Heb. 9:27, not a final verdict / sentence: This leaves the door open for The Judge to enter ANY appropriate sentence, i.e., it avoids “putting God in a box,” by a misunderstanding – and subsequent misrepresentation – of Heb. 9:27 – by “adding to the Word of God” a “final” judgment/sentence which is NOT in the text, thereby creating a “sandy foundation” upon which prohibited universalism is created.
Applying Kenneth Wuest’s documented lexical definitions of κρίσις (krisis, the act of judging) vs. κρίμα (krima, the sentence rendered) to the text of Hebrews 9:27, we find that – while modern translations often imply a singular "final judgment" – the presence of the definite article in the Greek κρίσις (krisis) supports the KJV's specific focus. As noted in various lexicons, krisis refers to the act of investigating or deciding (the trial), whereas κρίμα (krima) refers to the sentence rendered (the verdict). If death leads to a krisis (process), the "Immediate Finality" used to justify altruistic filicide is Scripturally undermined. *** This specific linguistic data, alone, renders the interpretation of 'final sentencing' in Hebrews 9:27 structurally untenable." ***
[[2.]] OSAS is irrefutable proof that all babies aren't saved
If “once saved, always save,” and if all babies are saved, then all adults are saved, but as we know that's not true (Matt. 7:13-14, many walk the wide road), then one or both bases is incorrect. Moody hold OSAS, so infant universalism is false. *** This point – all by itself – proves that all babies are NOT automatically saved, as some allege. ***
[[3.]] LAZARUS testifies as a counterpoint to "final judgment" interpretation of Heb. 9:27
If some interpret Heb. 9:27 to mean that physical death closes the door for any further free will and "locks in" salvation, then this theory is shown false by the case of Lazarus (John 11:1-46). Jesus made sure to not heal Lazarus til he had been dead four (4) days (John 11:17), well-past the "3-day" standard Jewish scholars set[[**]], to show that Lazarus wasn't just "sleeping" or "kind of" dead, but rather, Lazarus was totally dead, graveyard dead, so if death closes opportunity for free will and "locks in" salvation, then Lazarus would've lost all free will, here. We have no records of such an event, so obviously physical death does not close the door to free will exercise re salvation. [[**]] Editor's Note: According to some midrashic tradition, the soul hovers over the body for either three days: see e.g., Genesis Rabbah 100:7, Leviticus Rabbah 18:1, and Ecclesiastes Rabbah 12:6). *** This counterpoint ALONE shows that physical death doesn't close the door to free will and its use for salvation. ***
[[4.]] Another example disproving a link between physical death and "final" judgment
The
opposite is also true: Above (#3) we see free will CAN happen after
physical death (proving the two events are not strictly linked).
There is also Scriptural warrant for the opposite: the capacity for
"free will" regarding salvation being lost BEFORE physical
death occurs.
If physical death is the sole mechanism
('Biological
determinism', so to speak)
that "locks in" one's eternal state, then a living person
would always have the free-will capacity to repent right up until
their final breath. Scripture thoroughly refutes this: Christ
explicitly warned of the "Unpardonable Sin" (Matthew
12:31-32), a state where a living person is barred from forgiveness
"in this age." Furthermore, Paul describes living
individuals whom God "gave over to a debased mind" (Romans
1:28) or whose consciences were "seared with a hot iron" (1
Timothy 4:2), rendering them incapable of repentance. The author of
Hebrews confirms it is "impossible... to renew them again to
repentance" (Hebrews 6:4-6) if certain conditions are met, even
while the physical body remains alive. Therefore, the moment of
physical death cannot logically be the sole boundary line for
spiritual culpability or the cessation of free will. This proves that
those who interpret Heb. 9:27 to link "physical death" with
"the closed door" to free will
are wrong—two counter examples (3 and 4, here) exist to
disprove that interpretation of Heb. 9:27.
Yes, for some, physical death **will** be the time of final judgment, but that is not a guaranteed link.
[[5.]] The Davidic argument disproven by David's own words elsewhere
Some cite 2 Samuel 12:23 as proof that David's son would go to heaven forever: [[""But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Sam 12:23, NIV]]. However, this is an unclear verse: First, David might've referred to sheol the grave. Secondly (more likely) David shares his opinion, but his opinion is NOT theological fact, as shown by counter-examples: 1 Samuel 27:1 ("And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul...," KJV: This was a flat-out false statement of faith. God had already promised him the throne. Or: Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?...," KJV: FALSE – These are the opinion of David (in emotional distress over his son's death), not theological fact, which show that citation of 2 Sam 12:23 as theological fact is using an "unclear" verse to interpret a "clear" verse on the requirements of faith: HERMANEUTIC PRINCIPLE: unclear passages (like 2 Sam 12:23) are understood in light of clearer ones, like John 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Heb. 11:6, and Eph. 2:8-9, which all show that faith is a Sine Qua Non required element, and "David's opinion" does not trump theological fact.
[[6.]] Is God really less capable or less just/fair?
A concept in MATTHEW 7:9-11 [[9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?]] and in LUKE 18:1-8 [[Parable of The Unjust Judge]] cf: Jesus as ULTIMATE Judge in JOHN 5:22 [["22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:"]] shows God will NOT be less just than mere mortals. Cf: Psalm 89:14 — “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne.”
** 6a: If a mere "mortal" judge, being evil, knows how to issue both "FINAL" and "interlocutory" or "NONFINAL" judgments (as the situation call for), how much more shall JUDGE JESUS give "fair and just" judgments to those who die (meaning Jesus is NOT precluded by the language of Heb. 9:27 from giving a post-mortum judgment to deceased infants who never got a "first chance" to hear gospel, thus this wouldn't be a "second chance."
** 6b: If a hurricane lights down on a University Campus and shuts down final exams for ALL classes, what college professor is just going to "Give A's to all students" who never had a chance to take final exams? If mere mortal college professors are fair, how much MORE fair is GOD ALMIGHTY to deceased infants in giving them an opportunity of Free Will? (You really don't aspire to call God Almighty less capable or less just than human judges or human college professors, do you?)
** 6c: If angels had free will (one-third fell), as do adults on earth, and those in Millennium (cf: Rebellion in Rev. 20:9), and The Millennium features free will (Rev. 20:9), people in physical bodies (Isaiah 65:20), and infants (Isaiah 11:6-8), and if we have successfully shown respected Moody scholars accept Heb. 9:27 to NOT necessarily mean "final judgment/sentence), then why would a fair/just God not give **more** fairness to deceased infants than humans in 6a and 6b, above?
[[7.]] Commonly cited passages that are NOT on-topic, thus DON'T apply
** 7a: Passages where Jesus describes little children (Except ye be converted, and become as little children, Mt 18:3) are general descriptions of children's differences with adults, not guarantees for all children (Example: Children obeying their parents and God's Law are promised length of days in general, NOT in all cases: Deut. 11:18-21, Prov 3:1-2)
** 7b: Passages describing children's angels seeing the face of God don't address children's' character –or eternal salvation.
** 7c: 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.
** 7d: Jer 1:5, which states “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” doesn't address or state whether the person is saved or lost.
** 7e: Gen. 18:25b "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" -- TRUE: That being the case, this proves that God would not approve of adding a new meaning to Jesus' quote in Heb. 9:27 not actually in the Scripture – or creating another Gospel (2 Cor. 11:4 ; Gal. 1:6) that lacks the Sine Qua Non element of faith. (John 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Heb. 11:6, and Eph. 2:8-9)
** 7f: Deut. 29:29 "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." -- TRUE: But this is not a license to add to God's Word, by adding a new meaning to Jesus' quote in Heb. 9:27 not actually in the Scripture. (Quoting Jesus correctly, but misunderstanding, and subsequently misrepresenting Jesus' words, in Heb. 9:27, is adding to The Word of God.)
** 7g: Ps. 89:14 — “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne.” -- TRUE: But see above.
** 7h: Is. 55:8-9 -- 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. -- TRUE: But see above.
** 7i: 1 Cor. 13:12 -- “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” -- TRUE: But see above.
** 7j: Lastly, passages like Deut. 1:39 address little ones (children & babies) during the Moses/Joshua era entering the promised land --NOT heaven!
[[8.]] IMAGE OF GOD implies FREE WILL
Man is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) – with Free Will (Ez. 18:20); thus, denying some deceased infants free will is an insult to the image of God. (All dogs go to heaven -or so the saying goes, but humans aren't dogs -and babies aren't robots stripped of free will; to do so would be offensive to the nature of God, as we are created in His image!)
Cf: Ezekiel 18:20 — Very strong for individual responsibility (“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father…”), i.e., free will / personal accountability.
[[9.]] REVEALED WORD
God does nothing without first revealing it to His prophets (Amos 3:7); thus, if killing her unborn child or toddler would "lock in" a "100% 'Guarantee' of Salvation" for the child, God would put this "shortcut" in Scripture – That he did not do.
[[10.]] TWISTING GOD'S ARM TO FORCE ACCEPTANCE OF ONE'S CHILD by ALTRUISTIC FILICIDE?
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. GOD ALMIGHTY is both capable and just (see, e.g., point 6., above, and Gen. 18:25b).
[[11.]] CONSIDER JESUS vs. SODOM
Matthew 11:20-25 quotes Jesus saying that it'd be better off for Sodom (a REAL wicked place whose citizens were KILLED by God and died in their sins without repenting) than for some contemporary cities; however, there is no WAY that Sodom could be 'better off' if they didn't have a 'postmortem chance' to hear the Gospel, repent, & get saved AFTER they died. So, since we know Jesus is NOT a liar, this proves the existence of some sort of chance for them to get saved AFTER they died –not a 2nd chance, since they never got their 1st chance, and, God being fair & impartial, would likewise grant such a chance to hear the Gospel, repent, & get saved to babies who died without having first heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
[[12.]] THE FIRST RESURRECTION ADDRESSED – (Revelation 20:4-6)
Some point out that those who are resurrected in the first resurrection (those killed for their faith) cannot go to hell (Revelation 20:4-6), since they had already passed the test of loyalty to Jesus. ** RESPONSE: If these people refused the mark, how them can this include babies who die as infants? They did not refuse because they COULD not refuse: Isaiah 7:16 (KJV) “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good...” [He was under the age of accountability, as discussed above.] God, being just, would not hold them accountable for not doing that for which they were incapable, thus would not render final judgment one way or another.
Point: While I see no Scripture that mandates or requires deceased infants to be included in the 1,000-year Millennium Reign of Jesus, neither do I see any Scripture that precludes or forbids it. Thus, while we don't know the precise timing and location of their opportunity to exercise Free Will – nonetheless, neither do we know the “day of the rapture,” either. Yet, lack of knowledge of the “rapture timing” is NOT a license to deny the rapture's existence. Likewise, lack of knowledge of the “Free Will timing” for deceased infants is NOT a license to deny the existence of this opportunity to hear the Gospel – as all others have had a chance to hear.
This is not to say that those living elsewhere in the world who might not have heard the gospel will get such treatment: Romans 1 and 2 say that creation and conscience will be evidence to heathen & gentiles:
** GOD revealed in CREATION: “19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:.” [Rom. 1:19-20] Cf: “THE heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” [Psalm 19:1]
** GOD revealed in CONSCIENCE: “14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;).” [Rom. 2:14-15] Cf: “6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” [Heb. 11:6]
[[13.]] LINGUISTIC SAFEGUARDS in Heb. 11:6 ; John 3:16 ; John 14:6 (Believing and Faith)
** Hebrews 11:6: “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” – The Greek word for 'faith,' is 'pivstiß' (Strong's number 4102, transliterated: 'pistis' or 'pisteos'), and means, in this context, relating to God: “the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ.”
** John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – The Greek word for 'believeth,' is 'pisteuvw' (Strong's number 4100, transliterated: 'pisteuo' or 'pisteuon'), and means, in this context, relating to God: “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in.
** John 14:6b: “...no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The Greek word in John 14:6 is “oujdeivß,” Strong's Number 3,762, which literally means “no one, nothing.” Thus, infants, too, must have faith to be saved –and my claim that faith involves free will –for EVERYBODY (not just some) is backed by scriptures. (Cf: John 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Heb. 11:6, and Eph. 2:8-9) If infants can't exercise free will now, then God – being just – will NOT call them to faith without first equipping them to so do. (Is God both capable and just – or not?)
** There is no free pass – No Free Lunch: Denying some infants a chance to exercise free will to accept Christ would violate Heb. 11:6, John 3:16, and John 14:6, the 'bright line' standard for salvation. Scripture cannot be satisfied unless the person exercises free will, and if someone tells you any differently, they're just blowing smoke. God, being fair, wouldn't deny any person a chance to accept Christ: NO man comes to the Father BUT by the Son. Period.
[[14.]] EDITOR'S NOTE (regarding "where are deceased infants right now," distinct from 'eternal' fate)
** In prior theological discussions and communications, the question was posed as to "where are deceased infants right now" (distinct from their eternal fate). In prior communications, I supported the 2—3 witnesses standard (Deut. 17:6, Deut. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, II Cor. 13:1, I Tim. 5:19, Heb.10:28), and, relying upon dreams, visions, NDE's, and OBE's, there was much testimony that people saw deceased infants in heaven. Dr. Charlie Dyer responded to me with scepticism, citing Paul's tesimony in Acts 14:19–20, in which he tells readers that he "heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell." While I don't see this as on-topic or necessarily precluding the testimony of others (it addressed PAUL'S experience), nonetheless, I concede that even with 2-3 witnesses, it's possible that people lie – or make mistakes – and that the "2-3" witnesses standard is a general principle, not a brightline standard. Also, the "current" state of these infants is nowhere near as important as the "eternal" fate – so, for that reason, I will agree with Dr. Charlie Dyer that this matter is sufficiently uncertain – and refrain from addressing it in this Executive Summary – because I want to avoid unnecessary distractions, and keep "the main thing" the main thing.
Note to self: In my email to Dr. Gerald Peterman and Dr. Charlie Dyer, dated Tuesday, December 23, 2025 at 12:58 AM, I brought up this point: "...if all little children are saved, and “once saved,always saved” is true – as many believe – then ALL people are saved because they once were as children," but in his response, later that day, dated Date: Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM, Charlie does not address this salient point. In all fairness, the email exchanges were lengthy, and Charlie has a busy schedule, but – strictly-speaking – he didn't answer all of my question's point in his reply (that was a human error on his part), and neither of us brought up the Greek language of Heb. 9:27, both of us were at fault, here – me, moreso than him for 2 reasons: First, it was my question, and secondly, while he's smarter than me overall, I'm a specialist on infant soteriology, and thus, LUKE 12:48 places more blame on me than on him. This is a reminder that we're all human and should be patient and forgiving on one another. This executing summary aims to address those areas that were overlooked first pass because of (a) the life/death nature of altruistic filicide – something I overlooked first pass, and secondly: (b) fidelity to Scriptures is key: We must trust God to be right even on 'hard' topics that catch us off guard. Try to briefly incorporate this in any potential followup and apology. Perhaps, if I do email Charlie and offer an apology for misunderstanding his position, followup with a brief note online to the effect: Dr. Dyer, I have just submitted a formal Forensic Brief to your email regarding the exegesis of Hebrews 9:27 and its clinical impact on altruistic filicide. I am sending this via the portal to ensure it reached you safely through institutional filters. My deep apologies for not thinking to do a linguistic exegesis of the nuances in the original Greek of Heb. 9:27, which offer better clarity to address the confusion we initially had on this important topic: Both fidelity to Scripture as well as Scriptural ways to dissuade the ever-growing altruistic filicide phenomenon are of great importance to us "pro-life" and "sola scriptura" believers. I look forward to your scholarly perspective. -- Gordon///
IV. Appendix: Proposed Clarification for Broadcast/Print Mailbags (Q/A Session)
Proposed Q/A format for live program --- Note to self: Hold myself to same standards as I ask Dr. Charlie Dyer & other MOODY RADIO shows to do: Publish my own Q/A segment.
JON GAUGER (proposed dialogue, not actual transcript, here & below) says: Charlie, today we have several questions on the same topic, so why don't we go ahead and take them all together?
DR. CHARLIE DYER: That sounds great, Jon! Today, we have a guest host in the studio, with us, a listener named Gordon, from Florida. He will be "pinch hitting" and helping us in an area of his research on a hard topic. Dr. Gerald Peterman is taking the week off for some much deserved rest, so let's get to it.
JON GAUGER: Our first question comes to use from Anna, who asks: "what happens to babies who die in miscarriage, and will I meet them in heaven, & will they grow up into adults?" We took this question before, but with an expert in studio, we'll revisit this because we missed key nuances. Gordon will help us here.
Our second question is from Mildred, who wrote in, and she said: "I've heard the teaching that all babies go to heaven. If this is so, would it [not] be better for all people to just die in infancy – and [thus] avoid the possibility of hell? If all babies go to heaven?" Wow, tough take. OPEN LINE LIVE took that question from Mildred back in 2016, with out colleague, Dr. Michael Rydelnik and Deb Solomon hosting the program, but it's a common question—so, we're revisiting it afresh.
Our third and Final question comes to us from Gordon, listening in on WKES in Plant City, Florida. Gordon writes: "You are one of my favourite Bible Answer hosts because you always try to respond to genuine questions, and I can testify that you've always responded to my occasional Bible question down through the years. Thank you for responding to my email back in 2021, where you write that Hebrews 9:27 supports the general principle that "unless someone is born again, physical death closes the door to any further opportunity to respond spiritually. One’s eternal destiny is fixed at that point," to support your view that deceased infants have no opportunity to exercise Free Will and hear/accept the gospel, and thus, it is your view that deceased infants will automatically go to heaven. My question, then, is this: How can you hold to that view, when the Greek word 'krisis' is used in Hebrews 9:27, to denote Judgment as a process or non-final investigation, instead othe Greek word 'krima', which means a final judgment or sentence. If it's alright, I have a second, related question that I overlooked last time: If “once saved, always save,” is a true theology, and if all babies are saved, as you say in your response to me, then all adults are saved. But as we know that's not true (Matt. 7:13-14, many walk the wide road), thus one or both bases is incorrect. Moody hold OSAS (once saved, always saved), as do you, so the other premise – that all babies are automatically saved, must be false. This point – all by itself – proves that "infant universalism," as some call it – the view that all babies are NOT automatically saved, as some allege – can not be true. Can you clarify the apparent contradiction between OSAS and your infant universalism view? Thank you!" Gordon asks 2 good questions, so this segment, we have 4 questions in total from listeners.
DR. CHARLIE DYER: Wow, that's a lot! And, in an ironic case of "man bites dog," we have Gordon here in studio with us to help us tackle these 4 questions – 2 of which are his own questions! Gordon, it's your turn!
GORDON WAYNE WATTS: Thank you for having me on, Charlie! It's a pleasure! This is a sensitive subject, so we must be respectful in approaching this hard topic, as many women lose children, and in fact, about 1-in-4 pregnancies – yes, 25% -- end in miscarriage, so almost all familes are affected by this tragic loss. Let's address the last once first:
As the listener noted, the original Greek uses the word 'krisis', which refers to a process or a 'trial' rather than a final verdict ('krima'). This suggests that while everyone faces the 'Day of the Lord' process, the final sentence is not a foregone conclusion based solely on the timing of death. This prevents the dangerous 'Shortcut Logic' that some have used to justify tragedy of altruistic filicide (killings one's children for altruistic motives) under the guise of 'guaranteed' salvation. Thus, to answer Gordon's question, we know that infants aren't capable of faith, and we know that faith is a requirement to be saved, as required by John 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Heb. 11:6, and Eph. 2:8-9. First, we must be clear and admit that Scripure is silent on the precice time and place for these deceased infants to have a "fair" chance to accept/reject the gospel with their Free Will, so the view that these infants will reappear in the 1,000-year Millennium Reign (Rev. 20:4) or be among the "Rest of the Dead" (Rev. 20:5) is NOT guaranteed. Where Scripture is silent, we must trust God.
However, Scripture is not silent on God's character of being just, fair, and more-than-capable, like human judges who often enter "non-final" judgments, so while – like the "rapture timing" debate, we don't know the timing of the rapture, that's not a licence to deny the rapture. How muc more fair/capable is god than mere mortal judges! Thus, we believe, based on Scripture, that, God, being fair, will give those babies a chance to hear the gospel and respond. Some feel that the rebellion in Rev. 20:9 includes some adults who perished as infants, and were in the millennium, which is not prohibited by any Scripture. But it's also not guaranteed-- and, like the "pre-trib" theory, Scripturally-possible, but not guaranteed, and we must trust God, here.
Gordon's second question of OSAS (once saved, always saved) is a 'clincher' to defeat infant universalism. As he says, in his email, if all infants were saved, and once saved, always saved, than all adults would be saved. This is simply not true, so one of the bases, at the least, must not be true. Thus, we must avoid this commonly-held belief that many on the wide road believe. Deceased infants CAN go to heaven, but only through approved means: By Grace and through Faith – not of works, lest any man should boast. Again, if you didn't catch Gordon's point: If all babies are saved, and OSAS, than all **people** are saved, but this isn't true, so we must dig deeper.
Thirdly, to address Anna's 2-part question, "what happens to babies who die in miscarriage, and will I meet them in heaven, & will they grow up into adults?," I'll take the last part first. Many people claim to have visited with children lost in miscarriages, abortions, etc., in NDE's (near death experiences), OBE's (out of body experiences), dreams, or visions. With that many witnesses, it seems likely that is true. But the "2-3 winesses" Scriptural standard is a general principle, not a brightline standard, so, while, yes, I lean in that direction, I must admit that we don't know, and frankly, the eternal fate is the "main" question. As to what happens to them, and whether we'll meet them, again, Scripture is silent, so we must trust. But this much we can say: God is more-than capable of giving them a "fair shake" like both angels and most humans have: God's character is to not be unfair to ANY person—they'll get an opportunity to exercise faith / Free Will: Whom God calls, He equips – including these babies!
Lastly, Mildred asks an age-old toughie, which many have asked: If killing the baby bumps salvation odds from less than 50% narrow road (current situation) to a 100% guarantee, then, yes, I agree with Dr. Rydelnik here: Eternal life is superior to temporary life because it is imperishable, offering an everlasting, unseen reality (2 Cor 4:18) “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4:18, KJV). But that assumes that we can force the hand of God, "make the Maker" accept our kids into heaven by killing them. But, based on our prior responses to the other questions, that assumption is false: Killing your child under the age of accountability to "send them to heaven," and assure aa 100% chance of eternal life is a false assumption: Parents, please don't kill your kids – it'll neither help nor hurt their "eternal salvation" odds – and, instead, only shed blood unnecessarily. Dr. Rydelnik really struggled with that question, and – no disrespect meant to him – he seemed to miss that the underlying assumption was false. But I know my dear colleague, Professor Michael Rydelnik, to be pro-life, as am I. He and Deb Solomon do, however, offer additional reasons to opt for life, and not kill your child if timesget tough: 1. Image of God, 2. opportunity for faith, 3. service, 4. God's glory, and 5. free will.
JON GAGUER: Wow, good attention to detail. Thank you for sitting in with us this segment, Gordon. We'll offer a download of notes for this segment along with our MP3 audio. Dr. Rydelnik's Q/A section is in a recent news update on Gordon's blog, and MOODY RADIO producers will work to make that available to you, soon, too, because – while Michael missed the mark on the main point, he still works very hard and has a lot to offer listeners – and he, and Dr. Peterman, are espeically helpful in fielding questions, so Charlie and I don't have as many. Thank you for listening. Segment 3, the questions and answers with The Land and The Book is over, and next, a devotional with Dr. Charlie Dyer.