Board index ‹ Salvation

[Newbie]

Of course I would never wish to harm a child, but wouldn't sacrificing my soul to hell to save the souls of thousands of children be noble and altruistic? The families will surely miss their children, but their suffering here on Earth doesn't compare to the great joy they will feel after being reunited with their children in Heaven, right?

I have another question. If those who weren't exposed to Christianity during this lifetime won't be judged for their lack of faith, aren't missionaries doing them a disservice by spreading the word of God? If you don't believe this is true, and you think all men will be judged for their lack of faith, isn't it extremely immoral to punish someone for not believing Jesus is the son of God when that person never had any contact with Christianity during their lifetime?

For those curious, I am a theist, but I am choosing to withhold my religion. Furthermore, I am not advocating for us to start killing children or stop spreading Christianity. These are merely questions that I have come across but haven't yet found an answer to.

[jimwalton]

Well, I think first we can (hopefully) agree that the end doesn't justify the means. We can trace many moral issues to the irrefutable idea that just because it ends up good does mean it's a good idea. Though heaven is the end in view, the means is abhorrent and abominable. God is a God of life. Life, both physical and spiritual, is one of the most prominent biblical themes from beginning to end. But the notion of taking life to gain life is both oxymoronic and misguided.

You ask about missions work, and doing people a disservice by teaching them the truth if they're just going to be judged for rejecting it. You're forgetting that all humans will be judged, though by different standards based on how much they had to work with (Rom. 5.13; 2 Cor. 5.10; and others), so that the judgment is fair. To expose someone to the truth is far more a measure to give them opportunity for greater gain than it is to expose them to greater liability.

[Mr. Bojangles]

But how can a baby be liable?

[jimwalton]

Hm. Not sure I understand the exact angle of your question, but I'll try. A baby isn't liable. We don't kill or not kill a baby because of any liability or lack of it (so I'm not sure I'm catching your drift).

In the Bible there are hints that babies who die go to heaven, because they were incapable of rational, moral decisions, and God doesn't hold people accountable for decisions when they are completely incapable of decisions.

Dt. 1.37-40: God's people are being judged for their rebellion, but the young ones who didn't have the mental capacity to make a reasoned and moral decision like that don't get judged.

Number 14.29 speaks of a kind of "age of accountability," just as Dt. 1.37-40 did.

Isa. 7.15. People can be too young mentally to know enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.

But I'm not sure I'm addressing your question, so ask again if I didn't hit it.

[Mr. Bojangles]

No, you answered it. So babies can go straight to Heaven. My question, in that case, is why does anyone need to live a life on Earth? Why doesn't God just create souls right in Heaven?

[jimwalton]

I would say that the idea of babies dying, even though they go right to heaven, is abnormal. The whole idea in having babies is that they live. What God is interested in is a relationship of love with people where he shares his love with them and they share their love with him. As you read the Adam & Eve story in Genesis 2, Adam and Eve were created to be priest and priestess in God's temple (the earth), and to meet with him in personal relationship in the "Holy of Holies," the Garden of Eden. They were given responsibilities to care for earth as stewards in God's name, treating the planet as he would treat it. Life is supposed to be lived, not snuffed out. Because God bears the little babies to heaven whose lives have been extinguished doesn't make it an ideal situation to snuff all lives out early.

> Why doesn't God just create souls right in Heaven?

Great question. Whether heaven or on earth, one can only have a love relationship with God by choice. Love has to be free or it isn't love at all. As it seems (though the evidence is slight), even the angels have to choose for God or against God. The domain of heaven or earth doesn't change the choice that each created being must make.

[Mr. Bojangles]

"Whether heaven or on earth, one can only have a love relationship with God by choice."

But if babies go to Heaven without having to make a choice, that proves no choice is necessary.

[jimwalton]

Now that's an interesting little twist. Thanks for pursuing it. God, in his justice, doesn't require a choice of those incapable of making choices. It would be ludicrously unfair if it were any other way. But God makes it clear that once a person is capable of choice, and makes choices, they are accountable for the choices they make. Frankly, our courtrooms in America work the same way. The laws (for instance, about murder) are mitigated for children, and somewhat for teens as well, because we all understand that the childhood mind works differently than an adult mind, and that an adolescent mind is in transition and can't necessarily be held to the same accountability standards to which we hold adults. Given that we know these realities and apply them in our own judicial system, it seems to be a little imprudent to assume that God doesn't make the same distinctions in his judicatory findings. I think it's more reasonable to say that choice is necessary when choice is possible, and that mercy is granted where it is not.

[Mr. Bojangles]

But the question is why does anyone ever have to be made capable? If all souls can be saved before they become accountable, then why ever ever let them get to that point?

[jimwalton]

I'll be honest, that sounds a bit odd to me. You think it would be best to keep everyone immature, stupid, unaccountable? I know you didn't use those words, that's what it sounds like. As long as we're all children or barbarians with no understanding, it'll work out better. The point that the Bible brings out is that God desires a loving relationship with the people he created. We all know that while children are quite capable of love, they don't really understand it fully until they mature and experience the fullness of rational and mutual relationships. It is the maturity that brings love to fruition and fulfillment. Despite that children can truly love in their own concrete operational mindset, we would never ask a 6-year-old to choose a life partner. They're just not ready to do that. Salvation is built on a relationship between God and a person because it's grounded in understanding what love is.