There are certain theological questions that the Bible doesn’t address directly. The Westminster Confession of Faith states: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” (WCF 1.6). 

My aim in this article is to demonstrate that there are good reasons for believing that all infants who die will go to heaven. What I want to try to develop here depends on the “good and necessary consequences…deduced from Scripture” that Westminster speaks of.

Argument #1: All Sinners Are Saved by Grace Alone

God sovereignly predestines all who will be saved unto salvation (Eph 1:4-6). Our salvation is a gift freely given by God, despite our own inherent depravity which—if left to ourselves—would render us all incapable of being saved (Eph 2:1-9). Sin blinds all of us, making us “children of wrath” (Eph 2:3). By arguing that infants who die go to heaven, I am not claiming that they are innocent. They are not (Ps 51:5). They are born in sin (Eph 2:1-3). What I am claiming here is that despite this sin, we know that God can still single-handedly save, because this is what He does with us. So, He can predestine infants who die to be saved. The Bible does teach, however, that we must receive this gift through faith, that we must turn from sin and towards Christ (John 3:1-8). What could this possibly look like for an infant? I am not sure, but that brings me to my next argument. 

Argument #2: Biblical Evidence for Infant’s Possessing Faith

When John the Baptist was in utero, we are told that he is filled with the Spirit (Luke 1:15), and in Luke-Acts, it is only those who are regenerate who are filled with the Spirit (Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 9:17; 11:24). Further, David explains that, “Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God,” (Ps 22:9-10; see also Isa 49:1, 5; Jer 1:5). Further, when David’s first child with Bathsheba dies, David explains: “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me,” (2 Sam 13:23). In a sermon defending the salvation of all infants who die, Charles Spurgeon points to this passage and comments:

Now, where did David expect to go to? Why, to heaven surely? Then his child must have been there, for he said, “I shall go to him.” I do not hear him say the same of Absalom. He did not stand over his corpse, and say, “I shall go to him;” he had no hope for that rebellious son. Over this child it was not— “O my son! would to God I had died for thee!” No, he could let this babe go with perfect confidence, for he said, “I shall go to him.” 

This doesn’t prove that God saves all infants who die, but it does prove that God cansave from infancy. How do infants exercise faith? Again, I do not know, but I am content to let that remain a mystery. Spurgeon reflects:

No doubt, in some mysterious manner the Spirit of God regenerates the infant soul, and it enters into glory made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light…We believe, therefore, that even before the intellect can work, God, who worketh not by the will of man, nor by blood, but by the mysterious agency of his Holy Spirit, creates the infant soul a new creature in Christ Jesus, and then it enters into the “rest which remaineth for the people of God.”

Argument #3: Guilt in the Bible Assumes a Certain Mental Faculty

This, I believe, is the strongest argument. Everything said above shows that God is free to elect some infants to salvation. This argument, I believe, provides good reason for believing all infants who die experience salvation. 

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them,” (Rom 1:18-19). 

God’s wrath is revealed to those who “suppress the truth.” What truth? The truth of “what can be known about God.” This is “plain” to them because “God has shown it to them.” How has God shown it? The next verse explains:

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse,” (Rom 1:20). 

God has plainly revealed what can be known about him, “his invisible attributes…eternal power and divine nature.” These have been “clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” The existence of God, His nature and character, are obvious to all people because when they look around at the world around them, at their own bodies, as they reflect on their own consciences (cf. Rom 2:14), they then can deduce from these realities: God exists, and I owe Him my honor and thanks (Rom 1:21). Because they fail to do this, Paul says, “they are without excuse.”

But what if you lack the mental faculties capable to make deductions? What if you can not infer from your surroundings around you that God exists, and so lack the knowledge that leaves you without excuse? Then you are not without excuse (cf. John 9:41). So, John Piper argues, “I think babies and those with profound mental disabilities don’t have access to the knowledge that they will be called to account for. Therefore, somehow in some way, God, through Christ, covers these people.”

Argument #4: Infants Are Incapable of Committing Acts of Evil

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil,” (2 Cor 5:10). We all will be judged for what we have done in the body—but can infants commit “good or evil” acts? Consider a couple of verses:

“And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there,” (Deut 1:39). Notice that just a few verses earlier, God judges the adults of these children for their sin, but exempts the children (Deut 1:35). Consider also Isaiah’s language of Immanuel who is too young to know how “to refuse the evil and choose the good,” (Isa 7:16).

Or, lastly, consider Paul’s description of Jacob and Esau“…though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—” (Rom 9:11). Again, this isn’t stating that infants are morally innocent—they have a fallen nature just as we all do. But we should heed the language of the Bible here. Apparently, Scripture is stating that there is a difference between the potentiality for evil and the act of evil itself. If the final judgment is a judgment of the deeds we commit in the body, whether good or evil, and infants are described as those who are not yet capable of making moral choices, then this at least puts into question how they could be held liable to the same judgment as older adults. Add this to argument #3, and there is a sufficient case for arguing that all infants shall be saved.

Argument #5: The Fullness of Heaven

When Abraham is told of how numerous his descendants will be, he is told to count the stars, to count the sand of the sea (Gen 22:17). When the apostle John looks to see the whole host of the redeemed in heaven, he views a throng so vast that no one could count (Rev 7:9). “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured,” so too will God multiply all His elect (Jer 33:22). This innumerable host of elect seems hard to square with Jesus’ teaching on the broad and narrow path, which explicitly states that many are led to destruction and few choose life (Matt 7:13-14). Unless, of course, the salvation of infants is included. The majority of human deaths throughout history have been those of infants, and if they all are elect, then that would mean that the number of those in heaven would far outweigh those in hell.

Argument #6: Jesus’ Love of Children

This isn’t decisive by any means, but when set in context with the previous five arguments, I think it is worth mentioning. It is impossible to ignore the special affection Jesus appears to have for children. He welcomes them: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God,” (Luke 18:16; cf. Matt 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16). He takes them up in His arms (Mark 9:36; Matt 19:15), and blesses them (Mark 10:16). He uses children as model exemplars of faith (Luke 18:17; Matt 18:3) and so identifies with children that He claims that if you receive children in His name you actually receive Jesus Himself (Mark 9:36-37). Lastly, Jesus threatens terrifying judgment against any who cause children to sin: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea,” (Mark 9:42). If Jesus is the image of the invisible God, then that means that in His life we see God’s heart revealed most clearly. And, apparently, part of God’s heart is a particular fondness for children.

One argument that Spurgeon appeals to in his sermon is God’s character, supremely revealed in the person of Jesus. While our moral intuitions can be skewed and so always need to be in submission to God’s Word, it is not illegitimate to consider what corresponds with the revealed character and nature of God. Spurgeon writes: “He that has tasted, and felt, and handled the grace of God, will, I think, shrink instinctively from any other doctrine than this, that infants dying such, are most assuredly saved.”

In Sum

Thus, I believe that all children, infants, fetuses, and severely mentally handicapped individuals who die are part of the elect and will be saved. This, of course, naturally leads to wondering when one no longer is considered a “child.” For that, the Bible doesn’t provide any clarifying guide, and it is best to probably err on the side of emphasizing God’s generosity and charity.