Tentative Theology

Okay, I'm going to tell you from the very start that this is tentative. I'm not making a doctrinal statement for the Church to follow. This isn't a hill on which I'd be willing to die. Agreeing or disagreeing with me will not make you a heretic or not in my eyes. It's just a thought, an idea, a possibility. Still, I've never really voiced it, so I thought I'd give it a shot here.

First, the origin of the question, so to speak. I believe that human beings are sinners from birth. I see it in Scripture. I see it in life. I read in the Psalms as David writes, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5), suggesting that he was "in sin" at conception. I read elsewhere "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). God Himself says, "The intention of Man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21) (where "youth" is actually "anything prior to adulthood"). Paul quotes the Psalms and assures us "None is righteous, no, not one; ... no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10, 12). So if we have genuinely innocent children, it would seem to me that these are false statements which, of course, is a problem. Therefore, I can only conclude that human beings are born spiritually dead, separated from God, and justly condemned from birth.

This, of course, raises the nasty specter, "What about all those children who die before being able to receive Christ?" The core of that question, of course, is based on Jesus's assertion, "No man comes to the Father but by Me." So if my premise is correct and all humans are born sinners, justly condemned for being separated from God before they even make a choice, then am I not also claiming that all children who die without receiving Christ automatically go to Hell? It is this very thought that spawned two lines of thinking. One was infant baptism. To this day the Roman Catholic Church as well as the conservative side of the Lutheran Church practice infant baptism as a means of spiritual regeneration for infants so that they are at least temporarily safe from that condemnation. They're still stuck, I suppose, with the awful idea that every aborted baby goes to Hell, but what can they do about that? The other line of thinking is "the age of accountability". In this line of thought (which has shifted and migrated over time), children may (or may not) be born guilty, but they are not culpable for that guilt until they are mature enough to be accountable. This is a pleasant thought and very popular. I can't find it in my Bible, but it is a nice thought. It keeps children off God's radar of condemnation. It even keeps safe those who are impaired. It does beg the question, "If people are not held accountable until they are aware of their accountability, wouldn't it be best to put off as long as possible any information about their accountability?" I mean, if you never tell them the rules for which they would be accountable, they'll be free and clear, right? On the other hand, if you buy this argument, then wouldn't Christians be fairly pleased about 2 million babies aborted every year? Oh, sure, it's sad, but, hey, when was the last time we had 2 million people automatically sent to heaven in a year? That's 2 million people who never had to choose Christ, never even faced the possibility of rejecting Him. No revival ever spawned 2 million decisions for Christ, did it? That's safe, isn't it?

Well, as you can tell, I'm having difficulty with both the concept of baptismal regeneration from infant baptism and the age-of-accountability theory. I'm not finding either in my Bible, and it seems like they cause other theological and practical problems. So what am I to do? Some in my position would surrender. "Yep! I admit it! I believe that all children who die before receiving Christ go to Hell. It's justice. That's all there is to it." Frankly, I don't like that response either. In fact, biblically I know it isn't true. Remember when David's son, born of adultery with Bathsheba, died? He told his people, "Now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Sam 12:23). David believed that his son went to Heaven without ever having a chance to "receive Christ" or any such thing. It would appear that it is not true that all children who die before having the opportunity to receive Christ go to Hell. So how do I respond to the question, "What about all those children who die before being able to receive Christ?"

Well, here's where I get to my tentative position. I note that when Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me", He did not specify how that was to occur. Further, if we consider the history prior to Jesus's arrival on Earth, we have a lot of people whom we believe or are quite sure have gone to heaven without, apparently, receiving Christ as their personal Savior. I don't find any account where David prayed the Sinner's Prayer. I don't see anything that tells me that Elisha responded to the altar call at church. Yet I'm quite sure that the term "the saints" includes a bunch of Old Testament folk. So if Christ is the only way to the Father and these people seem to have gotten there without a confession of faith, how is that possible? I am of the opinion that when Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me", He was simply saying, "I decide who will and won't be forgiven." Take, for instance, the thief on the cross. You don't find the Sinner's Prayer there, either. His "confession of faith" was quite odd in our eyes: "Remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). That's it? That's a "Sinner's Prayer"? That's repentance and confession and faith and all that? Well, maybe, but it looks quite odd to me. So what if Jesus's claim to exclusivity was simply His claim to being the authority who determines who does and who does not go to Heaven?

Jesus defined eternal life in a manner different than most of us do. While we tend to think of it as "living forever", He defined it as knowing God (John 17:3). Further, we can be quite certain that Jesus's propitiation for our sins was certainly sufficient to cover the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2). He would, then, be within His rights (in terms of authority) to forgive whom He pleases and He would be capable of conferring eternal life on whom He pleases and the means by which He accomplishes this are His to determine. It is my belief, then, that Jesus chooses to save children however He pleases. I think this also carries over to Old Testament saints as well as that sticky "native in the jungle who never gets to hear" question. I believe that, by virtue of His sacrifice and His ultimate authority, He is free to save whomever He pleases by whatever means He chooses, and that would include whatever children He chooses to forgive and save.

But, like I said, it's not a hill on which I choose to die. If you are of a different opinion, that's fine. You're wrong, of course, but that's fine. (No, just kidding.) It's my belief and (until talked out of it) I'm going to stand by it.