The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum What happens to the unborn dead ?

No problem. I have made no effort to conceal my “emotive bias” and I still contend that there is nothing particularly wrong about this bias in and of itself. I realize that you believe it has led me (and perhaps others) to outrageous forms of eisigesis, presumption and speculation. And I would agree with you about this if I was dogmatically asserting that my very rough and very emerging views on this subject are clearly and plainly taught in Scripture. I am not. I am saying there are tentative grounds for hope; perhaps “clues” or “indications” that God will not finally condemn those who are unable to know or respond to the truths that He has revealed about Himself in nature and in the gospel (Romans 1:19-2:10).

I am still, however, unpersuaded by the examples and illustrations that you have cited. I do not believe they make your case that the Bible clearly and plainly teaches that some infants are elect and others are not. What you and I have together succeeded in doing is showing that I have to do a lot more reflecting on this matter before I say anything else. I intend to read Nash’s and MacArthur’s books and get back to you (and everyone reading this) some time in the future. If you’d care to recommend some classical text defending the position you hold I’d like to read that as well. And I’ve said it before but I obviously need to say it again in bold: I HAVE NOT RESTRICTED WHAT I HAVE SAID TO UNBORN CHILDREN – FROM THE BEGINNING I HAVE SPOKEN OF ALL CHILDREN WHO ARE TOO YOUNG TO KNOWINGLY AND CONSCIOUSLY SIN OR RESPOND TO THE REVELATION OF GOD IN NATURE OR THE GOSPEL. Would it help if I said “age of discretion” or “age of responsibility” or “age of accountability”? Yes, I have avoided those terms so far for fear that Jonathan Edwards would rise from the grave and stone me; but, there it is.

Unlike some who embrace this idea, I do not reject the teaching that we are all born sinful and worthy of judgment on account of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-21; Psalm 51:5), and that we are all, therefore, “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3): “The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth (Psalm 58:3). The unborn, very young children, and mental incompetents are not saved on the basis of their “innocence” or anything meritorious in them – they are guilty of Adam’s sin and sinful by nature – they are saved, like everyone else, on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:1-12, 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:12).


Again, what I am contending is not that babies “deserve” mercy or salvation; nor am I saying that they do not deserve judgment. What I am saying is that they are less deserving of judgment than the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin puts us all on a level playing field – we all deserve eternal punishment and separation from God: “There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). And God is certainly under no obligation to save or have mercy on anyone. But He is not blind to distinctions, differences, and degrees of sin. These little ones have not knowingly and consciously rebelled against God or rejected His revelation; therefore, they are guilty of much less sin. While there is a profound sense in which they are guilty, there is also a legitimate sense in which it is correct to say that, in comparison with older children and adults, they are innocent – they have not knowingly or consciously sinned or rejected or suppressed the knowledge of God. In terms of their legal standing before God they are as guilty as anyone else. One sin, Adam’s sin, is sufficient to destroy the legal standing of the entire human race before God. This is important, but it is not the whole story. The Bible still speaks of and distinguishes between “greater and “lesser” sins (Ezekiel 8:6, 13, 15; John 19:11), sins committed “unknowingly” or “unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22; 5:17), “lesser” commandments and “weightier” matters of the law (Mattthew 5:19; 23:23), and greater penalties and degrees of divine displeasure resulting from these (Numbers 15:30; Matthew 11:20-24, 12:31-32; Luke 12:41-48; Hebrews 10:26-31). This kind of distinction is the reason why Scripture enjoins capital punishment but forbids abortion. Unborn children are “legally” guilty before God; but, they are innocent of deliberate conscious sin and the greater guilt that it imparts. God is under no obligation nor does He have a duty to show mercy to these little ones since they are legally guilty and legally deserving of condemnation; but again I believe there are “clues” that God will treat them differently and show them greater mercy.

For example, there is the case in Deuteronomy 1 where God swears that all those who refused to take possession of the land of Canaan shall not enter therein, but also declares that their children, “who today have no knowledge of good or evil” shall go therein and “possess the land” (Deuteronomy 1:34-40). Although God did not have to show such mercy to the children of the men of that “evil generation,” He did, and I believe this demonstrates that it is consistent with His character to distinguish between those who “have knowledge of good and evil” and those who do not, and to reward, punish, or have mercy upon the basis of this; not because he owes them anything, but for His fame and glory.

Another indication is Romans 1:18-21, where Paul says that those who know God but do not honor Him or give Him thanks are “without excuse.” This implies that if someone were physically or mentally unable (not merely unwilling) to “know” or “perceive” or respond to what can be known about God, then he or she would have a legitimate “excuse” when “God’s righteous judgment is revealed” (Romans 2:5). Mentally competent adults such as ourselves have no excuse; but, I believe that this passage implies that very young children and the severely mentally handicapped do. Again, God is under no obligation to accept or recognize this “excuse,” but if He did it would reveal both great justice and rich mercy.


The difference between black females who die at age thirteen and black females who die in infancy (or anyone else who dies in infancy) is that by the age of thirteen most of them have “suppressed the truth” of what can be known about God that has been revealed to them. By that point most of them have already consciously sinned thousands of times and are conscious of their sinfulness – some responding in faith and repentance to the gospel and some acquiescing in their sinful nature. In your illustration or proposal, the distinctions of age and race are completely insignificant, irrelevant, and arbitrary; whereas, in the case of infants and the severely mentally handicapped, there is a valid and meaningful distinction – a real difference – between them and the rest of the human race, a difference that I believe is significant and meaningful to God. No verse that I am aware of clearly, plainly, and directly says that He will take that difference into consideration, at least with respect to one's final condemnation; but there are several that imply or suggest that He will.



Perhaps I am wrong, but I have never taken UNconditional election to mean that God has no reasons for electing some over others. I have always taken it to mean that God has reasons, but they are His reasons, part of His hidden eternal counsel and will, unknown, mysterious, and unfathomable to us - quite frankly, none of our business or concern. One of the reasons appears to be to show or demonstrate that He is loving and merciful. Many different things can manifest this, just as many can manifest His justice and holiness. My contention is that God’s justice is more evident and clearly seen when He allows those who are reprobate to live past infancy and display or demonstrate their sinfulness, and that His love, mercy, and compassion are more evident and clearly displayed when those who do not have the capacity or ability to see, embrace, or understand Him or His will are forgiven and absolved of the guilt of Adam. Again, this is not something that I believe is directly or clearly and plainly taught in Scripture (therefore, I would never “teach” it); but, I believe the grounds for believing it are as strong as those for believing that some infants are elect and others are not, especially since I do not find your interpretation of the Jacob/Esau illustration to be a compelling defeater. Of course, finding an argument or illustration compelling or cogent is subjective and person-relative; it has nothing to do with whether or not it is true, valid, or accurate. You may well be right and what you assert true; but, I cannot see it at this time. I also think if I have a conscious emotive bias towards “mercy” it’s at least possible that you may have an unconscious emotive bias towards “judgment” – a desire to not be “soft” or “wishy-washy” or play to this sinful generation's overwhelming desire to be comforted and coddled. I’m not saying I know this to be true (though I confess I have wondered about it), but I would ask you to consider whether or not it is possible, and if it might be influencing how “convincing” or "obvious" you think your case is, since many Godly men and "otherwise solid Calvinists" have held an opposing position. Anyway, you can respond to this post and I’ll certainly read it and possibly respond if I think it would be enlightening or fruitful; but I probably won’t post anything else on this until I’ve done some more reading. I think I've reached the limits of what I can say that might be constructive or illuminating. Thank you for your insight, input, patience, grace and charity. .