Will Jesus Save All Infants?

In the online world of theological debate, everyone is talking about “infant damnation.” This is in response to the “#baalgate” controversy, in which Warren McGrew (aka “Idol Killer”) compared the mentality of those who hold this doctrine to that of ancient pagan worshipers of Baal who offered their babies as sacrifices in exchange for their own rewards. His comments were taken by many Calvinists as a slam against Calvinism in general, though he has clarified that he was speaking only of those who also affirm infant damnation. Regardless of whether or not his comparison is valid, the spotlight is shining on this important, yet highly unpleasant topic. While most contemporary Calvinists outright reject infant damnation, some, including one of McGrew’s most vocal critics, James White, affirm it to one degree or another. Why would anyone support such a troubling doctrine? Why is this even a question? 

Historical Background 

The doctrine of infant damnation is inseparably tied to the doctrine of original sin, which can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.). Prior to Augustine, all orthodox Christians agreed that each and every human being suffers the consequences of Adam’s sin, which are a natural bent towards sin and, ultimately, death. This view is commonly referred to as “ancestral sin.” What makes original sin distinct is the added imputation of guilt for all humanity thereafter. All of Adam and Eve’s children, and all children thereafter, were then conceived with his willful sin attributed to their account, and thus they are justly deserving of eternal punishment. This view is echoed by 18th century preacher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards: 

“It is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments.” 

For Augustine, water baptism was necessary to wash away original sin for each and every person, infants included. Without baptism, the soul would certainly be punished in hell for all eternity. This became the predominant view within the Roman Catholic Church, at least until limbo emerged as a more gracious alternative. “Limbo of the infants” can be defined as an eternal state for those who did not personally commit sin, but also did not receive baptism for the removal of original sin. Opinions have varied through the ages, with some proposing it as a mild form of punishment. Others, such as Thomas Aquinas, suggested that it is experienced by inhabitants as a place of everlasting joy, while they remain ignorant of the greater joy of heaven. In any case, limbo is a permanent state. Such a “middle place” was previously condemned by Augustine:

“…let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness…”

In the past few centuries, many Catholic theologians have expressed hope that even unbaptized infants could be saved. In 2007, the International Theological Commission, under Pope John Paul II, release the document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” It reads: 

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.”

While landing short of affirming the salvation of all infants, this represents considerable movement in that direction since Augustine. It is worth noting that no view regarding the eternal destiny of infants has ever been made official Catholic doctrine, which has allowed for this shift. However, the affirmation of the necessity of baptism into the Catholic Church has been consistent.

On the Protestant side, it has always been a question of Heaven or hell with no third option. While reformers such as Calvin and Luther echoed Augustine in regard to God’s justice in damning all humans souls to hell, they also maintained that God has the right to choose to save whoever He pleases. As such, the vast majority of Protestants have maintained that at least some infants who die are saved. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states: 

“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ.” (10.3)

Many Calvinistic Protestants insist this doesn’t imply that there are reprobate infants who are cast into hell, but the wording leaves room for most adherents of infant damnation to affirm the statement.

Calvinists divide into at least four camps. Most believe God elect all infants to salvation by appealing to the goodness of God’s grace. Loraine Boettner says: 

“The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen.”

Some Calvinists believe that God elects some infants and not others irrespective of their parents, just as he elects and reprobates all people for no reason in and of themselves. Others believe that the children of believers are counted as elect, while those of unbelievers are not. A very small minority believe all infants are punished eternally in hell. (Yes, they do exist) What unites all Calvinists is that salvation is not granted on the basis of faith. 

Arminians and other non-Calvinistic Protestants have the challenge of showing how God can grant salvation to those who haven’t yet placed their faith in Christ. To justify universal infant salvation, most simply appeal to the goodness of God. The only way around this would be to allow for the possibility of postmortem salvation. If infants could be given a chance to mature and place their faith in Christ, then no exceptions would need to be made. A small minority of Protestants have presented postmortem opportunity for salvation as a way in which many could be saved. Among them are C.S. Lewis, and more recently, Jerry Walls. 

Weighing Our Options 

For all our differences, it is interesting how most Christians across denominations seem to be converging on this issue from a variety of angles. That being said, there remains no consensus. From what I’ve observed, there are seven ways Christians have answered the question, “What happens to babies when they die?” What are the pros and cons for each position? Allow me to present and critique each.

Universal Damnation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy, suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This view is consistent in that it upholds that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ alone. Since infants have not come to understand the Gospel and respond in faith, they have not obtained salvation. This also upholds the universal need for a Savior.

Cons: It is simply unfathomable that the same God revealed in Jesus Christ would condemn billions of children throughout history to eternal punishment without any ability to commit personal sin, or to trust Him to forgive them of such sins they have yet to commit. This view presents God as having the opposite posture towards children as that of Jesus in Scriptures such as Mark 10:14 and Matthew 18:2-6. Also, the Holy Spirit-led conscience of believers cries out against this. It would seem that for this to be true, the Trinity would be hopelessly divided.

Covenantal Election of Infants

Summary: Children of the elect are saved. The rest suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: Comfort can be given to Christian parents who grieve the loss of a child. King David can be cited as an example of one who would be reunited with his child in eternity. One might also point to the conversion of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-40, most notably verse 31: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Cons: In addition to those of #1, this view lacks consistency in a number of ways. First, it creates a class of “elect” who die without professing faith in Christ. Salvation cannot be through “faith alone” unless this is coupled with the belief in postmortem salvation. Once postmortem salvation becomes a possibility, why then should that be limited to those children with elect parents? Second, how do we suppose that salvation is transferred from parents to children? Can it be father or mother, or must both parents be saved? What if they aren’t believers when the child is conceived, but one or both become believers later in life, after the infant dies? Also, if salvation is transferred, how would it be lost if the child survives to an age that he or she rejects Christ? This distinctly Calvinistic version of infant damnation would have to either reject the Perseverance of the Saints or conclude that salvation was never transferred from the parents. The most glaring issue for the Calvinist is that election based upon the faith of the parents is conditional election.

Unconditional Election of Infants

Summary: Elect children are saved irrespective of their parents. All other children suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This seems to me to be the most consistently Calvinistic position. There is truly nothing in the child upon which God bases his decision to save. Election is unconditional. The remaining children are left to the eternal consequences of their sinful state.

Cons: Like #2, salvation cannot be said to be through “faith alone” unless there is postmortem opportunity for salvation. Also, this is not comforting for grieving Christian parents. If most adults are not saved believers, certainly most infants would also not be saved, since God saves infants in the same manner as adults. Moral objections to #1 also apply here.

Damnation of Unbaptized Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All others who die without baptism suffer eternal punishment.

Pros: This is a very clear method for knowing if your child is saved. If your child has been baptized, you are assured they are saved if they should die in infancy.

Cons: This does nothing to comfort those who have suffered miscarriages or whose child died before he or she could be baptized. While eternal punishment may be of a lighter form than for adults who added their own personal sin, the implications are still awful for the majority of infants who have died throughout history. From a Protestant perspective, it is easy to see how this can create a system rife for abuse. Since salvation can only be obtained through baptism into the Roman Catholic Church, believers can also have their salvation revoked by the same authority. 

Limbo of the Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All other infants who die remain in limbo for all eternity.

Pros: Children don’t suffer eternal punishment. This middle ground seems more just in that God is neither rewarding with Heaven nor punishing with hell those who have not done anything to deserve either.

Cons: While this offers some consolation, parents are still left grieving the loss of their unbaptized children for all eternity. They have no hope of being reunited. The default position of humans then is to remain lost, and that is a troubling conclusion when considering the salvific work of Jesus. Is He the Savior of all humanity from conception or just a portion? While God may show them mercy, it seems there is no salvific grace for those who die too young, through no fault of their own.

Universal Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are saved.

Pros: This is truly good news for all parents who grieve the loss of infants, and for the children themselves. The heart of Jesus for children we see in the Gospels is consistent with the gracious gift of salvation for those who have suffered the consequences of sin without personally committing sin.

Cons: As with the previous options, other than universal damnation, salvation is not through “faith alone” since infants are incapable of consciously placing faith in Christ. Thus, the standard for receiving the gift of eternal life is inconsistent across the human race. This may not be a dealbreaker in itself, but it is especially problematic for the Reformed. Central to Calvinism is Unconditional Election. If all who die as infants are saved, how is this not a condition for salvation? For God to say, “You died as an infant. Therefore, I will save you,” is a very clear example of God choosing to save an individual with respect to something about that individual. While most Calvinists today believe all infants who die are saved, they do so in a way that undermines Calvinism.

Postmortem Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are given the postmortem opportunity to express faith in Christ and be saved.

Pros: In addition to upholding the goodness of God and Trinitarian unity in the welcoming of children, this position also has the advantage of a consistent standard of salvation through faith in Christ alone. There would be no theoretical case of a child being welcomed into Heaven while refusing to worship Christ as Lord. 

Cons: There is no guarantee that all infants would willingly place their faith in Christ. Here is where our views on the created state of human souls will make a huge difference. If souls are created in a fallen, totally depraved state, then it would seem that they would universally reject Christ postmortem, just as they would in this life. However, if souls are created innocent, and not in a hardened state of rebellion against God, it would seem quite likely that most, if not all, would willingly receive the offer of salvation in Christ. So our views on original sin will determine whether we think this will result in some infants being damned. Perhaps the greatest challenge for this view is the lack of clear biblical support. Hebrews 9:27 is often cited as evidence against postmortem opportunities, though it must be interpreted in an absolute, immediate, and final sense to rule them out.

Where I Stand 

As children often repeat in Sunday school, “God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good!” Do we as Christians sincerely believe this? Do we believe what Jesus said about children?

“Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19:13-14)

Considering the goodness of God and his love for children, the only good options are #6 and #7. In years past, I would have ruled out the possibility of postmortem salvation, but I lean towards that view now, especially as I consider how it can resolve all of these difficulties. The words of Jesus, counter to Augustinian anthropology, suggest that children are predisposed to believe. He cites them as possessing the kind of faith we should all desire to have. It is only as we grow older that we can become cynical and jaded. Thus, hearts become hardened. They don’t begin that way. For this reason, I am convinced that all infants, given the opportunity by Christ Himself to place their faith in Him, will do so. 

This could even make sense of the Catholic conviction concerning baptism. If infants have the opportunity to grow enough to place their faith in Christ, it’s no stretch to imagine that they might also have the opportunity to be baptized in a temporary dwelling place prior to entering the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. 

I am not convinced that Hebrews 9:27 rules out postmortem opportunities, and I do think that Scripture teaches of the “Harrowing of Hell” in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6. In these verses, it seems that Peter is teaching that Jesus preached the Gospel to lost souls in Hades while He was bodily in the grave prior to His resurrection. If I am interpreting 4:6 correctly, Jesus was giving these people the opportunity to receive Him as Savior or be judged for their sins in their rejection. There are alternate theories to explain these verses, but I believe this makes the most sense, and is consistent with the expressed desire of God to save each and every person (see 2 Peter 3:9). If God was willing to give wicked sinners another chance to believe and be saved, why wouldn’t He give innocent children that opportunity?

Logically, it would seem that some form of postmortem faith in Christ is necessary for any view where infants are saved. Faith can only be exercised by those who have developed the maturity to understand and believe, and it seems reasonable to assume that infants in the afterlife will not remain infants forever. So the question then is WHEN do they express faith in Christ: before or after they enter Heaven? Additionally, evidences from near death experiences suggest that individuals who have died as infants are present, and they mature in the afterlife. Of course, NDEs are controversial, and it’s debated whether they say anything about eternity. I believe they make a compelling case for postmortem opportunities, but that’s a topic for another day.

Some might object that if infants are not personally guilty of sin then they do not need a Savior. Infants have not sinned, but those who died suffered the consequences nonetheless. Is their suffering in vain? Will those who suffered the cruel injustice of abortion be vindicated, or will such evil remain eternally victorious? Everyone needs a Savior because everyone dies. Only Jesus has the power to raise us up out of our graves. 

I am convinced that the Good News of the Gospel is for all of the human race. Jesus has redeemed the totality of mankind. It is only those who willfully reject Him that will not receive His salvation. It is never a matter of Him first rejecting us. Whether it’s through an act of instantaneous transformation, or the grace to simply allow these souls to choose life with Jesus, I cannot know for certain, but I can be sure that our God loves these infants. He sympathizes with their suffering, and will call them to Himself with His arms stretched out to receive them.

And what a glorious reunion that will be for those of us who have lost a child so young! Many of us have experienced the sorrow of miscarriage, and never had the joy of meeting our child face-to-face. Yet something within our souls knows that this isn’t the end. We will meet them someday, and we will never again have to say goodbye.

Concluding Thoughts 

Looking back on the history of infant damnation within Christendom has left me with conflicted emotions. On one hand, I am saddened to see how pervasive this doctrine has been throughout the centuries. On the other hand, I am greatly encouraged that the Holy Spirit is at work, pricking the conscience of believers to a place where we can all hope for the salvation of “the little ones.” We are, slowly but surely, being brought into conformity with Christ.

Making Sense of Christianity 7: Resurrection

While I have explained the healing purpose of the atonement, and shown how the crucifixion of Jesus was a blood sacrifice that displayed for all people the severity of sin, I have yet to show how any of this is effective in restoring human beings to a right relationship with God. It is common for Christians to look to the cross as the place where we were saved, but I would suggest that it is more accurately the place where the barrier to salvation was removed. Because of the cross, our sin no longer disqualifies us from being reconciled to God. However, the death of Christ alone is powerless to save. Had Jesus simply died on the cross, we would likewise remain in the grave after we die. How then can we be saved? The answer is the resurrection. Because Jesus conquered death, we can likewise be raised to eternal life in the presence of God.

“In Adam” vs. “In Christ”

In reading through Paul’s epistles in the New Testament, I began to notice a theme: the contrast between the “old man” and the “new man.” The old man is represented by Adam. The new man is Jesus Christ. Adam is defined by his sin and the condemnation that followed, resulting in death. Christ is defined by His righteousness (moral perfection) and the resurrection to eternal life. Those who are “in Adam” remain condemned (John 3:18-20). Those who are “in Christ” will rise to eternal life in like manner to how He has risen from the dead. Romans 5:12-21 is a key passage that explains this contrast. Verses 18-19 say, “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Jesus is the new man who becomes the proxy for many. 

Predestination of Christ

Romans 8:29-30 says: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” People often focus on the word “predestined” and come to the wrong conclusion about what Paul is saying here. This has nothing to do with the predetermination of individual believers to be saved and everything to do with the predetermined plan of salvation accomplished by Jesus through His incarnation, sacrificial death, and resurrection. Ephesians 1 makes this clearer. Just count how many times you find “in Him” or “in Christ” in that passage, and you will begin to see how Paul is emphasizing Christ as our representative in the “heavenly places.” In Romans 8, he does the same thing. “Whom He predestined” can be translated as “Christ Himself,” with all those “in Christ” being connected to Him through representation. What is true then of Christ is true of those “in Christ.” The link is made: predestined → called → justified → glorified.

Glorified?

While we can certainly make a case that the first 3 steps apply to believers, it can only be said that Christ is presently “glorified:” raised from the dead into an immortal body. So how can we be said to be glorified (past tense emphasized)? Some have suggested that the past tense verbs refer to Old Testament believers. But they are, like us, waiting for the future redemption of their bodies. They cannot be said to be glorified any more than we are. Yet Jesus IS glorified! And because He is, we can be assured that we will be. Notice that Jesus is the “firstborn among many brethren.” How so? He is the first to be raised into a glorified body. Paul here is pointing to the victory of Christ over death that will be shared by all of us who have Him as our representative.

Consider also 1 Corinthians 15:20-23: “But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.” This makes it clear that “firstborn/firstfruits” is a reference to His resurrected body. Just as Adam was the first “old man,” Christ is the first “new man.”

Spiritual Bodies

Paul continues in verses 39-45: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’” Clearly Paul is emphasizing the importance of the glorified body in contrast to the fallen flesh we inherited from Adam. The old flesh, with its sinful appetites and inevitable breakdown, is unfit for eternal life. We need our bodies to be renewed. 

Atonement Made Effective

He goes on (48-49): “As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.” There is a mirroring of Christ to those “in Christ.” And it should become clear as we make these connections that the atonement is not summed up in the death of Christ on the cross, but is accomplished through the resurrection. Therefore the atonement has 3 significant steps: incarnation, death, and resurrection. The resurrection required His death to precede it, and His death was only made possible through the authenticity of His incarnation. Each step is needed to bring healing to the human condition.

We can see from all these passages that the atonement is made effective through Christ’s resurrection to eternal life. He died for the sin (singular and plural) of the world. This includes the sins of every individual who has ever lived. But will everyone then be saved? Based on what we’ve read, it is evident that salvation is for those who have their faith in Christ. So we can sum it up by saying that Jesus died for the sins of all individuals in all times and all places, but He is risen for the salvation of those who are in Him. (For an explanation of why those not in Christ suffer eternal punishment, see addendum.)

Spirit vs. Flesh

Those who have their faith in Christ receive the Holy Spirit, which Ephesians 1:13-14 describes as “the guarantee of our inheritance.” The Holy Spirit does the work of restoring our souls to alignment with God’s will. In this sense, eternal life begins at the moment one believes and receives the Gospel of salvation, as the soul is “born again” of the Spirit (John 3:3-8).

A big question inevitably follows: “Why do Christians still sin?” Paul anticipates this as he transitions from his explanation of Christian freedom from sin (Romans 6) to the inconsistency we find in our actions (Romans 7). Verses 18-20 say: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.”‭‭

While there is much controversy around this passage, it makes perfect sense in the context of all that I have explained up to this point. Going back to the idea that we are souls that have bodies, we can see that while our souls are reconciled to God in Christ, the body remains in its fallen state. We still suffer, and we still die. We experience the working of the Holy Spirit in our desire to please God and forsake sin, but the flesh still pulls us toward disobedience. This is why Paul can say that it is no longer “I” who sins, but the body of sin that he inhabits. He explains further: “I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.” ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭7:21-25‬) 

Our Future Hope

Paul points to Jesus Christ as our hope to be freed from the desires for sin that continue to war against our souls. That hope will be realized in the future resurrection, when Christ returns, as we receive bodies that perfectly align with our souls, enabling us to live sin-free in the presence of God. Then, as Revelation 22:1-5 describes, we shall eat from the “tree of life,” whose leaves are for the “healing of the nations.” (v. 2) “And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads.” (v. 3-4) Having our identity “in Christ,” we will be reconciled to God, the curse will be undone, and we will live forever with Him.

Atonement Summarized 

The Word of God became a man so that He could, like the rest of us, suffer the curse of death, and that through His resurrection, He would defeat death and offer the same victory to those who desire to be free of sin. As the unblemished “Lamb of God,” He suffered the consequences of sin in a bloody, horrific display of self-sacrifice on the cross that demonstrates the severity of sin and God’s wrath towards it. Through His resurrection, He displayed the victory over the devil and sin in His glorified body, showing how we can likewise be made new and freed from the body of death that we currently inhabit. Jesus died for all “in Adam.” He rose for those “in Christ.” The atonement shows how the curse is both shared and overcome by God, and how those who place their faith in Him will ultimately be restored to a place of moral innocence where they can dwell in His presence forever and ever. 

Looking Ahead / Catching Up

How then can we be “in Christ?” Join me next time to find out, as we conclude this series with “Grace Through Faith.”

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith 

Addendum: Eternal Punishment

Since “ the wages of sin is death,” it might seem cruel and unnecessary for God to punish unbelievers in hell. However, I think there is a distinction to be made in the kinds of sins that Jesus atoned for and sin that results in eternal punishment, whether that be eternal conscious punishment or a second physical death that also kills the soul. 

As I explained earlier in this series, there are sins we commit as we follow the desires of our flesh, but there is also the sin of willful rebellion against God. This may be a temporary rebellion out of anger or frustration with God, but it might also become a hardening of the will at the deepest levels of the soul in rejection of the one true God. In this sense, the human has joined forces with Satan and the demons in war against Him, whether they are conscious of this fact or not. This individual will regard the truth of Christianity and the Gospel of salvation with contempt. He/she will reject the conviction of the Holy Spirit that draws the unbeliever towards Christ, regarding that very conviction as evil. In so doing, what the unbeliever is guilty of is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. 

Jesus said, “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.” (Mark 3:28-29) It seems that Jesus is saying that one kind of sin is different from all others, and is unforgivable. Other sins are forgiven. Jesus has provided atonement for these, but not the other. 

His intention has always been to reconcile sinners to our Creator by restoring us to the purpose for which we exist. Yet He cannot restore those souls that are unwilling to bow before Him as Lord. They, like Satan and his demons, will never surrender to Him. This alignment with the Satanic rebellion is made evident in Jesus words: “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” (Matthew 25:41) Therefore, eternal punishment is a distinct punishment for joining in the Satanic rebellion. 

This should give comfort to those who mourn the loss of children and others who die before they can understand the Gospel. All sins done in ignorance are covered in the saving work of Christ. God is the source of all goodness, and we can know that how He deals with those who have not expressed faith in Him is good and right. By the nature of who He is, it cannot be otherwise. 

With all of this in mind, consider the following passages, which demonstrate that our God is compassionate and just:

“But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd.”

Matthew 9:36

“And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. Then Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.’”

Luke 23:33-34a

“And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left—and much livestock?”

Jonah 4:11