The Bible is NOT silent. Romans 5 and elsewhere specifically states that those who are in Adam will die and that if you are in Christ you are a new creation. Now, the Bible is silent on the issue of “where babies go”, but the Bible does not avoid the question of the guilt of the first Adam being applied to all his posterity.

If you want to argue that babies are innocent, you have to deal with the Psalmist who writes that “in sin I was conceived” and that babies “come forth from the womb speaking lies”. The fact of the matter remains that we sin because we are born sinners, we are not sinners because we sin.

If God chooses to save the unborn, infirm and stillborn, he does so by His grace and somehow these infants hear and are regenerate thereby, the are not, and cannot be innocent of the guilt of Adam for they are “in Adam”.

I kind of thought. I think that there is a problem with what Dr. Patterson has said and what many in evangelical circles believe about the condition of an infant, either en utero or breathing on their own, regards the condemnation of God.

If a baby is innocent of committing sin while having the sin nature, and outside the condemnation of God as I understand Patterson to say, then they are not saved by grace, for there is no need of grace. This belief would put salvation of infants outside of grace. If a child is born, and lives for several years (I am not sure under Patterson’s model at what point a person comes under condemnation) outside the condemnation of God, then it is feasible that someone could live on this earth without sin, just as our Lord, and die without sin and be saved through their own righteousness.

If, however, a baby is guilty before God for their inherited nature of sin from Adam, (because having the nature themselves is a sin for God looks at the heart of a man) then they must be saved by Grace, as I believe they are.

While the bible is silent to some degree on this matter regards babies in particular, it is not silent about salvation, righteousness, condemnation, and grace for humanity as a whole.

Is it profitable for the advancement of certain theological beliefs to play on the emotions of people and their feelings toward those we see through our own eyes as innocent by making their theological (opponents) look like monsters even though biblical basis for their claims are sparse and incongruous with much of what scripture claims? Could the evidence be largely ignored to appease the well meaning feelings of those who cry out in dismay?

What are your thoughts?

I know that this subject may be revolting to some people but it is helpful to know these things as it gives us a better understanding of humanity’s standing before a Just and Righteous Maker.

ABClay

Then a baby that dies is not saved by Grace? A baby is saved because they are without sin?

Humm….. I like to think that babies that die are all saved by the Grace of God… of course it doesn’t matter what I like to think, it only matters what the bible says…

It can’t be demonstrated?

Did he mention Romans 5? Romans 8:5-9?

Here’s a question for you to ask:

“Dr. Patterson, At what point does a person become depraved? Is it when we sin? Then what about David’s psalm about being conceived in sin?”

If he affirms the sinful nature (BFM 2000), then is not this nature alone enough to condemn us to hell? “For God sees the heart of a man”?

Of course, there will be no debate on this at the conference by design. We wouldn’t want anyone to mention the biblical record and support for this.

ABClay