Limbo was never defined as a doctrine, but speculated on in the middle ages as a response to earlier, harsher theological speculation that unbaptized babies go to hell.

Personally, I think that to say that one MUST believe and be baptized or go to hell, and so even babies will go to hell if they don’t, makes our faith (and baptism) seem mechanistic, faith itself as a kind of works. Faith is a gift of God, as is salvation, which He does because He loves us and wants to save us, not because He wants to set up some kind of test, and condemn those who fail because they’ve never even heard of the test, let alone studied for it. Does that sound like the kind of thing a just God would do?

We need to be freed of sin, and since God made us, He has the power to do it, and so can do it with babies who can’t do it for themselves. None of us can do it for ourselves, without His grace.

Thanks, Michael, for this great post.

Thought-provoking post. I’m a pastor who’s a Calvinist and who’s done my share of funerals (nearly one hundred in seven years). I trust the goodness, justice, and love of God – He’ll do what is right whether I understand it or not. John MacArthur’s little book “Safe in His Arms” has been helpful for me. I wrote a longer response that’s available on my blog “Coram Deo” (www.larrysnyder.blogspot.com). I certainly didn’t take any offense – it’s a good question.

Gratia Dei,
Pastor Larry

As a Believer who is “all-the-way-there” to Calvinism I must admit that this does not cause me problems…we serve the God who is both just and loving. Because we do not see indications of Spiritual Fruit in infants does not mean that God has not graciously saved them.

As you indicated in your essay, I too would point to “God’s commitment to glorify himself in the salvation of sinners through Jesus and to glorify himself in the redemption, resurrection and recreation of the cosmos.”

Ultimately, we rest in His Goodness and not in a systematic theology.

V

I’m not so sure it’s accurate to say that the children in Sodom and Gomorrah, Canaan, etc., were judged in the same way as the adults. If children of a certain age are not damned, then, in a sense, the fact that they perished during God’s judgment of those cities was a blessing for them, because they would likely have otherwise grown up to worship idols. Perhaps a wider view of God’s mercy here helps us understand just a bit more how these OT judgments could have extended to children. (But we need to be very, very careful here, because life is immeasurably valuable and there are no scriptural principles that would support any notion of holy war).

You could raise a related set of sticky wickets for folks who believe in the rapture. If there is a rapture, what happens to children when it occurs? What about the children of unbelievers? This is one of the key reasons I’m no longer convinced that the rapture is a Biblical doctrine — there’s no indication that a billion or so infants and children will suddenly disappear from the earth, and it’s impossible to consider something a “blessed hope” if it means my little ones will be left to fend for themselves.

I’m not a Calvinist, but I believe I can think like one if I wish. And this would be my answer:

Babies go to Heaven… but because of God’s mercy, not his justice.

Yes, infants partake of the sin nature and therefore are sinful from birth. Yes, they deserve to be condemned along with the rest of the sinful race of Adam.

However! Jesus is a gracious, compassionate, merciful being. I believe that means that he is looking for reasons to grant people mercy, not to damn them. If you think of him as an attorney, I believe that he would take up the case of an infant accused by Satan before the Father pro bono, even if the kid couldn’t ask him for an attorney. After all, he himself tells us to speak up for those who have no voices (Proverbs 31:8) — does anyone think he wouldn’t do the same thing?

So now that he’s agreed to take the case … well, first of all he’s got to acknowledge the justice of the charge. Child is a son of Adam and therefore guilty. Jesus then makes the argument that this is one of his sheep, paid for by his blood, and the Devil has no claim on him.

Devil: “But there’s no evidence he ever put his faith in you!”

Jesus: “But there’s no evidence he DIDN’T, either. ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy’ (Exodus 33:19). Since there is no indication of deliberate turning away on this child’s part, I choose to believe in his faith and to take him under my wing.”

The ball is then in the Father’s court. Now, if the Father really is the gracious, compassionate being that scripture describes him … and he has the choice entirely on HIM, all other things being equal, to show mercy or to not show mercy … which do you think he will do?

So I have no problems with believing both total depravity and believing that babies go to Heaven, because I believe in a merciful God who will not blot anyone’s name from the book of life without a good reason. Original sin is a technicality in the sense that an infant doesn’t have any other sins of commission or omission and had absolutely no control over his condition at birth. I don’t believe in a God who sends people into everlasting torment because of technicalities.

Revelation 20:12 tells us that the dead are judged according to their deeds. What deeds does an infant have, that would justify denying him or her mercy?

I believe that no one, even infants, deserves salvation. I believe that all, even infants, who reach heaven reach it because of the mercy of God.

And I believe that a God who desires that “none should perish” will extend his mercy on any reasonable pretext … and I simply can’t believe that he would fail to extend mercy to an infant, to someone who never had a chance to tell him to go to ****.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I have no doubt that if children who die without Christ go to to hell, then it is because of their sin and because God is just. Yet, as you have pointed out, the Bible does not teach this, which is important.

At the other end of the spectrum is the idea that all children are saved until they enter into the vague “age of accountability” that many Christians hold. Again this is problematic since it could be argued that Christians should murder their own children in order to get them to heaven, rather than allowing them to be corrupted by the world and be damned to hell. Again, there is no bible to back this up.

Since I believe in Sola Scriptura, what do I say? I say that God has chosen not to reveal this information to us, aside from the intentionally vague promises we get about the children of believers.

I used to hold the “children go to hell” belief many years ago because it appeared to be a logical and natural result of biblical teaching – original sin, only Jesus saves, and so on.

Yet while it may “fit” into our concepts, God has chosen not to reveal this information to us. The biblical response is not to advocate one particular point of view, but to deny that a point of view can be held.

And it’s not as though people at the time didn’t worry about such things. Infant mortality was very high in the ancient world and Christians would not have been immune. Yet in the midst of such a situation, Paul, Peter, John and the other NT writers ignored the topic completely.

Why? Because God has decided that we don’t need to know. And that’s good enough for me.

I hope my post hasn’t offended you. That was never my desire.

My subject of Calvinism and pastoral care is another essay for another day. I believe Calvinism gives certain comforts and raises certain questions. How an individual family would be comforted or distraught over either one is not for me to say.

As to the relative griefs of families who lose younger or older children, your point is well made and well taken. I do believe that if these families were interviewed, there would be differing perspectives on these experiences depending on a diverse number of factors. I did not mean to relativize your grief or loss in comparison to someone else. Forgive me if I did so.

I wrestled, for a while, trying to find the words to explain my gratitude for what you have written here, but I finally gave up. Let me just say that while I always find your writing interesting and thought-provoking, once in a while it has been, for me, a much needed and appreciated ‘breath of fresh air’ after a sometimes frustrating and discouraging tour of the Christian blogosphere.