1. A child is benefited by the faith of those who bring it for water baptism. Augustinianism
2. A child is benefited by the faith of the parents who are believers and have been baptized by the Spirit.
3. Some children will go to heaven, others to Hell based on God’s Omniscience, His knowledge of what would have happened had the child lived or had not been stricken with mental disability.
4. A child who dies before the age of accountability is destined to Hell.

I can’t claim with absolute certainty that what I’m about to share is an infallible truth. But I can say this: I have not yet found anything in Scripture—nor has anyone shown me any biblical or theological argument—that contradicts what I’m about to explain. Until such evidence appears, and based on the Scriptural support that overwhelmingly seems to point this way, I believe there is strong reason for hope that every child who dies, and every person who suffers mental disability before reaching the age of accountability, will receive the saving grace of Christ. As always, I encourage everyone to test these things against God’s Character and His Word.

Not A Matter Of Water Baptism

The idea that a child is benefited by the faith of those who bring it for water baptism, is rooted in Augustinian theology where Augustine himself wrote: “no human being – whether adult or infant – has any claim or right to God’s grace, which is not granted or earned according to a person’s merits … About this there is a good and pious belief that the child is benefited by the faith of those who bring it for baptism. This belief is supported by the salutatory authority of the Church…What benefit did the widow’s son gain from his own faith, since being dead he had none? [1 Kings 17:17-24] Yet the faith of his mother helped bring about his resurrection. How much more probable is it that the faith of another can help a child, whose lack of faith cannot be imputed to it? “(Book 3, Chap 67).

Augustine taught that the faith of others is imputed upon those who cannot believe, and yet, this is in complete contradiction of Ezekiel 18:20 ESV: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself”.

Furthermore, Water Baptism has no salvational value. Water Baptism is an ordinance, a command given NOT to unbelievers but instead given to believers who are already saved by faith in Christ. Another ordinance is communion, in remembrance of Christ broken body and the shedding of His blood. Again, God commands this be done but it does not bring about salvation because you only do communion and water Baptism after you are saved, after you are baptized by the Spirit. The idea that a child is benefited by the faith of the parents who are believers and have been baptized by the Spirit, equally and as erroneously teaches that the faith of others, or lack of it, is imputed upon those who cannot believe. In both of these doctrines, faith and salvation of the child would be contingent upon the act of the parent and or water baptism and this is completely beyond the truth found within the context of Scripture.

This is an error that even Augustine should have realized. While such a teaching might provide a measure of hope and comfort to a grieving believer, it would be based on theological error. Furthermore, such a false teaching would not only serve to needlessly cause additional pain and guilt for a grieving unbeliever, but its misrepresentation of God, could cause an unbeliever unnecessary resentment / rejection of God.

Not A Matter of God’s Omniscience

The idea that some children will go to heaven, others to Hell based on God’s Omniscience, His knowledge of what would have happened had the child lived or had not been stricken with mental disability is not only unscriptural but a false logic. God’s Omniscience is such that He foreknew / knows of all that shall come to pass in this reality that He chose to create from among an endless array of possible uncreated realities. Uncreated realities that God equally foreknew all that could have come to pass but that (having not been created) will not come to pass. 

Of those endless realities that God foreknew of but chose not to create there would surely be the possible reality where the child who dies before adulthood in this reality, would have:

1. Grown up and rejected salvation through Christ.
2. Grown up and accepted salvation through Christ.
3. Never been conceived, and therefore never existed.

The same could be said of anyone of us as believers in so much that there surely exists a possible reality in which God could have created (but did not) where anyone of us would never have existed or far worse where we never accepted Christ. This is not what God does, that He should arbitrarily judge us on what should have, would have, could have been in any other of an endless array of possible realities, but instead He will judge us on the decisions we make in this reality and no other.

Not A Matter Of Guilt

The idea that a child who dies before the age of accountability is destined to Hell, is also somewhat rooted in Augustinian teachings that the “guilt” of Adam’s sin is imputed upon all his posterity. While those who hold to this belief might reject Augustine’s doctrine of the “benefit of infant water baptism”, they still believe that the child who dies, unable to repent and accept salvation by faith in Christ, will suffer God’s just punishment of that unresolved and imputed guilt of Adam’s sin. Granted there are yet others who do not necessarily believe in the doctrine of imputed guilt but instead claim it the circumstance of being born sinful and therefore God’s justness which demands punishment is the circumstance of that unresolved sinfulness. In either case, such views have to do with the doctrines of Original Sin and traducianism.

Tranducianism

Traducianism is a mainstream Christian theological doctrine concerning the origin of the soul. This doctrine holds that the immaterial soul and its nature is transmitted through natural generation along with  the  material  body and  its  nature at  the  moment  of  conception.  In  other  words,  human propagation involves both the material and immaterial in so much that an individual’s soul is derived (propagated and inherited) from the soul of one or both parents. Psalm 51:5 ESV: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”.

This does not mean that the act of conception is sinful, else God would not have commanded that man “be fruitful and multiply”. It is however widely thought that the immaterial aspect of the soul and its nature is derived from the male parent only, thus explaining how since the fall of Adam, sin has been transmitted to all his posterity and likewise how Christ being born to a human female parent but not of a human male parent, was born without sin. Traducianism therefore is a fancy word for the Scriptural truth that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. It means that since the original sin, all of Adam’s posterity at the moment of conception is corrupted by sin. Just as darkness cannot exist in the presence of light, neither can that which is corrupted with sin, exist in the presence of our pure, perfect, and holy God.

We are not sinful because we sin, but instead we sin because we are sinful, and so ever since the advent of the original sin committed by Adam, all of Adam’s posterity are corrupted with a sinful, sin filled nature at the moment of conception and thus separated from God. Some like Augustine (who was a hard-core traducianist) have taken Traducianism beyond the teaching that the sin nature of the soul has been inherited by Adam’s posterity and also claim that the guilt of original sin committed by Adam, has been transmitted / inherited and thus imputed upon Adam’s posterity.

Inherited Guilt

The concept of inherited guilt, AKA Imputed Guilt or Mediate Imputation, originated with the writings of the theologian, Augustine. However, these writings did not appear until Augustine had formed his teaching of total depravity in direct opposition of Pelagian heresy. While Augustine is considered a great theologian of his time, he as a man was not beyond, nor was he without making some critical biased and interpretational errors that to this day are widely accepted and that have significantly influenced both Protestant and Roman Catholic theology in regard to the doctrine of Original Sin. The critical interpretational errors Augustine made regarding Original Sin and Imputed Guilt were not limited to but include his using and quoting the Latin version of Romans 5:12 VUL, which in Latin reads “in quo omnes peccaverunt” and means “in whom all have sinned”. Therefore, Augustine read and understood “in whom all have sinned” to imply that all humanity sinned in Adam himself and thus inherited his guilt. 

The problem, however, is that the Latin version was translated from the original Greek texts, which read “eph ho” and meant “because”. Thus, the original Greek version of Romans 5:12 LXX, read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned”. Thus, indicating that death spread to all people because each person sinned, not because Adam’s guilt was transmitted to his descendants. This distinction is crucial: Scripture teaches that humanity inherits mortality -death – and a fallen nature from Adam, but individual guilt is tied to one’s own sins, not to the sins of one’s ancestors. For this reason, the practice of infant baptism cannot be grounded in the New Testament pattern of baptism, which consistently presents baptism as a conscious, personal response of faith by someone who understands and embraces the gospel.

Augustine, then took his misinterpretation of Romans 5:12 and paired it with 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”, giving him what he needed to support his concept of imputed guilt. However, Augustine failed to account for Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18:19, Ezekiel 18:20 or Ezekiel 18:17.

A Matter Of Consequence

Alternatively, the theology of Inherited Consequence teaches Scriptures contextual truth that all people inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin, such as a corrupted material (body) nature and a corrupted immaterial (Soul) nature, as well as a cursed and fallen world. Inherited consequence teaches that it is not the guilt of Adam’s sin, nor is it the guilt of the parents nor the guilt of the nation’s sins that are visited upon their offspring, Ezekiel 18:20 ESV: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.  The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself”. This verse emphasizes individual responsibility of righteousness and unrighteousness, and clearly states that by God’s law, only the “soul who sins shall die “, be punished. If one sets aside their bias and allows Scripture to interpret Scripture, this verse brings clear contextual understanding of Exodus 20:5 ESV: “You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me”.

Contradiction between the two verses only exists where one interjects their biased notion of “guilt” and presupposes Exodus 20:5 to mean “visiting the guilt of iniquity of the fathers” and thus requiring punishment. There is, however, no contradiction between the two verses, if we allow Ezekiel 18:20 to contextualize Exodus 20:5 and understand it to mean “visiting the consequence of iniquity of the fathers”, not as punishment. The concept is similar to an expectant mother taking illegal drugs to feed her addiction.  Although the baby, even before it is born, is by consequence of the mother’s drug abuse, addicted to those very drugs running through its veins and organs, the child is not guilty of taking illegal drugs. It is the mothers’ sins that are visited upon the child and not God’s punishment upon the child. While it might be comforting for the mother to deflect blame for the child’s suffering onto God, “the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself”.

Inherited Consequence holds to Scriptural truth of Traducianism, in that since the advent of original sin committed by Adam, we are conceived in sin and thus born in sin (as per having inherited a sinful / sin filled nature). In the same manner one cannot be a little bit pregnant, we are not conceived nor are we born a little bit sinful as per our nature, but instead we are conceived and born completely depraved in both our material and immaterial nature, sinful. Like the child born to a drug addicted mother, we are full of the toxin called sin that courses through our body, our mind and our spirit. We are conceived in it, and born to its addiction, a slave to sin with the propensity to sin. Thus, as per Inherited Consequence, people are not imputed with the guilt of Adam’s sin but instead, as a consequence of Traducianism, Adam’s sinful act, we are conceived with a sinful nature.

We become guilty at an age of accountability, having ability of awareness, understanding and thus fall under God’s condemnation for our own sins of commission and omission, Romans 7:9 ESV. 

While it is important to understand the difference between inherited consequence and imputed guilt as it pertains to the original sin, age of accountability. Judgement and Punishment, it is equally important to understand that regardless of inherited consequence or imputed guilt, that which is of a corrupt sinful nature cannot exist in the presence of that which is of a pure nature without being consumed or having been redeemed. Simply put, darkness cannot exist where there is light.

Not A Matter Of The Parents 

The idea that a child is benefited by the faith of the parents who are believers and have been baptized by the Spirit is often linked to 1 Corinthians 7:14 ESV. However, Paul was not speaking of the covenant of Salvation but instead he addressed the covenantal sanctity of marriage, sexual relations between husband and wife united in holy matrimony. Among the crowd of Corinthian listeners were believers who had recently embraced the Christian faith, seeking guidance on how to navigate their marriages with spouses who had not yet accepted Jesus Christ. Many questioned whether a marriage of mixed faiths was not an unholy alliance that bore the fruit of unholy children and therefore such marital unions should be abandoned to divorce or celibacy. While Paul does not promote mixed faith marriages, he neither promotes, nor condones divorce or celibacy in answer to the potential problems often faced by believers in mixed faith marriages.  

Instead, Paul upholds that as per God’s decree, that His original, unchanged design for men and women be they believers or not, in the covenantal institution of marriage and the sexual relations between husband and wife is still considered a holy institution in the eyes of God. Therefore, as for children, Paul says “but as it is, they are holy”, as in regardless of the parents’ faith and salvational status. Although at first glance, being “holy” as in “being blameless” may seem synonymous with being saved, we must understand that is a false inference for many people were made holy apart from salvation such as Aaron’s sons, the Levites including Korah and the nation of Israel. The very context of the word “holy” in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is further established in 1 Corinthians 7:15-16 ESV.

Paul is clearly saying that not only is sexual relations between husband and wife of mixed faiths still considered a holy matrimony, but that the faith of the believing spouse might be of influence in bringing the unbelieving spouse to faith in Christ / salvation. We must be careful not to take passages out of Scriptural context and It is made clear that Scripture absolutely teaches that all children conceived by the seed of the human male parent are conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5 ) and there is nothing that the child, nor its parents can do in and of themselves to cleanse themselves or the child of their sinful nature, and be restored, period! To believe otherwise is unscriptural and a fallacy, for “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself”.

The Sins Of The Father Are Visited Upon The Children

This is not to say that our conduct be it righteous or unrighteous has no effect on our children for God makes it clear that what we do in this life, has consequences (Is visited) upon our children in this life, Exodus 20:5 ESV. Everything that we do as parents and as a society, as a nation, impacts and is visited upon our children. This is clearly illustrated in the story of Exodus, a paradigm for salvation, in which the pattern is not only of Israel’s salvation from slavery and death in Egypt, but also of our own salvation from the bondage of sin and death, in Christ. In Exodus we read that the children of those parents and the nation of Israel, who in rebellion against God, refused to enter the promised land, equally suffered wandering, the desert for 40-years with their parents and the entire nation of Israel. After all, where else would the children go, or who else would raise them? Certainly, God would not leave them to raise or fend for themselves. Neither would God leave them to be raised by the Canaanites who were known to be sacrificing children. 

Instead, they would have to remain with their parents and unfortunately suffer the consequences of their parents’ sinful rebellion and punishment. However, God did not impute the children with the guilt of their parents or national sin, else He would not have allowed those who were under the age of 21 at the time of their parent’s sinful act, to enter the promise land 40 years later. As a paradigm of salvation this should be Scriptural evidence / indication that neither will God hold the “guilt” of the sins of unbelieving parents against their children and keep them from the Kingdom of God. I would give caution, however, not to automatically conclude that the age of accountability is a fixed age of 21, for it could be based on individual awareness and maturity.

A Matter Of Who God Is

In the story of Exodus, we clearly see not only what God is in regard to His glorious nature / His attributes, but who God is, in His glorious Character, in what He chooses to do. This is important because without understanding who God is in character is to understand God as an impersonal machine, without purpose. and to know God’s character without His nature is to know God as capable of thinking and acting with purpose, but without ability. Equally it is important to understand both what and who God is when interpreting Scripture. So, let’s look at what Augustine said of God: “But God does good in correcting adults when their children whom they love suffer pain and death. Why should this not be done, since, when the suffering is past it is as nothing to those who endured it? Those…for whose sake this has happened will either be better men if they make use of the temporal ills and choose to live better lives [according to the aforementioned process of perfection] or they will have no excuse when they are punished at the future judgement, if in spite of the sufferings of this life they refuse to turn their hearts to eternal life?” (Book 3, Chap 68).

In other words, Augustine says the suffering and death of children is considered “good” because it potentially makes other people “better men”. Everyone is given the chance of feeling “pity,” discerning God’s “unity”, reflecting on their own mortality, or whatever, thanks to the death of children. Even those who do not repent! Now let’s compare that to what God says of Himself, Deuteronomy 12:31. This verse refers to the horrible practices associated with the worship of Molech and Chemosh by idolaters who practiced child sacrifice in service to their false god and in the belief that the sacrificial death of a child bettered them. It breaks my heart when I read comments from the likes of influential men like Augustine and so many others who are actually good men, who have a personal relationship with God and yet have no understanding of Him, despite what He has revealed of Himself in Scripture.

A Matter of God’s Grace

It must also be made clear that Scripture absolutely teaches that there can be no salvation apart from faith in Christ and the substitutional sacrifice He made for us, but what of Noah, Moses, Abraham, Solomon, David and all the other prophets, patriarchs and or even the common Jew of the Old Testament? Are we to understand that they all knew of Jesus Christ as their personal savior? They understood that there would be a Messiah, even the Pharisees and Sadducees understood that, but they never truly understood that Jesus would die on a cross for their sins. Even the disciples as well as the Apostle Paul himself did not understand that until after it had happened. Paul clearly says this in Ephesians 3:4-5 ESV, Colossians 1:26 and in Romans 16:25-26. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 2:7-10: “No, we speak of the mysterious and hidden wisdom of God, which He destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it. For if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Rather, as it is written: ‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him.’ But God has revealed it to us by the Spirit.”.

Are we to believe then that all the Old Testament Patriarchs and Prophets are going to Hell? No! God credited these people with righteousness for their faith in Him and I believe that God had already applied the substitutionary, sacrificial and salvational works of Christ to them. Otherwise, how else can they be saved? Now if God is able to attribute the substitutionary, sacrificial and salvational works of Christ to them, then God is able do the same for children who while corrupted with sin, have no knowledge of good or evil and are incapable of knowing Christ little lone deciding to accept Him. Titus 3:5 ESV: “he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”.

The question then becomes, would God choose to do that, is that in the character of God?  The answer to that question is found not only in the context of Scripture but is also found in black and white in Deuteronomy 1:39 and in red lettering in Luke 18:15-17. Now each  person must  decide  for themselves if the answer to the following question is Yes or No. Would Jesus make this statement if the truth was that if any of these children died, or that any child who dies, will not enter to the kingdom of God?