> >Every biblical reference that I can find on the >subject indicates that children who die before t>hey attain any sort of moral understanding go to >heaven.
>
> Can you give me any specific verses to read? I know you and I have discussed this before, but I don't recall ever reading anything specific.

It's interesting to note that on the whole, Christians didn't start believing that infants and small children go to heaven when they die until three hundred years ago or so. This coincides with a progression in social attitudes: formerly, small children had been thought of as a liability until they reached an age when they could work and help to support the family. Also, people were used to high infant mortality rates, and investing great emotional attachment in a very small child would too often lead to pain. So society as a whole distanced itself somewhat from the infant.

Later, as people became more affluent and able to support themselves without the aid of their young children, they began to have the luxury of being able to coddle their infants somewhat more (you've seen people treat their babies somewhat like cute little pets, haven't you?), and medical advances also drove down infant mortality rates. The social attitude towards infants began to change, and around the same time you can detect a shift in popular theology, so that the majority began to firmly believe that infants who die go to heaven.

I honestly don't think that this is a doctrine grounded in Scripture. Medically and financially, as a society we feel capable of preserving an infant's life and seek to do so to the extent of our ability. Our ability obviously doesn't extend to the child's postmortem state, and our popular doctrine seems to have adapted to our desire that the children should be in paradise. The rise of this belief also coincides with a decline in the belief in original sin as passed on through conception, so that's part of the equation too.

My own belief is that Scripture isn't at all clear on this issue. I can say, at most, that infants who die are thrown upon the mercy of God. But I don't think that this is an undesirable situation, either: I would rather depend upon God's mercy than that of anyone else, because of the gracious character that God reveals to us in the Bible and in His historical dealings with humanity. With God's mercy, there is great hope, at least.

> >God judges according to our capacity and >opportunity to understand, as far as I can tell.
> But you just said He judges according to his own perfect standards. How can we possibly understand His perfect standards?

Good point. We can't understand them perfectly. But God also tells us that He is pleased by our earnest efforts to obey Him, whether we fail or not. Over time, the effort alone helps to build a relationship with God in which we gain more wisdom and understanding of Him. Not perfect understanding, but ever better than before.

> >> All that free will and there is only ever one >>thing worth exercising it for?
> >
> > I never said that, nor did I mean it. Accepting >Jesus Christ is hardly the end of human >responsibility. You don't believe that, nor >should you, and I know you don't believe I >believe that.
>
> Right, I don't believe that. But what I'm getting at is this: You accept Christ and accept his sacrifice. That's it, you're saved, right? It doesn't matter *one bit* what you do after or before that point, you're in the club. You can be a murdering, lieing, thieving sack of scum before and after that one decision, and it is all forgiven when you die because you made that one choice. So in essence, there really *is* only one thing worth exercising your free will for. Everything else is pretty superfluous, in the grand scheme of things.

To an opportunist and an ingrate, of course there's only one thing worth using that free will for, because the oportunist sees salvation as "the best deal ever." Too many Christian preachers adopt a salesman-like attitude when preaching salvation through Christ, and their pitch is basically what you've just described: get saved, it's a free gift, and you're secure after that regardless!

This would be true if the only thing that happened in salvation were that God excused us from all penalties for wrongdoing. But salvation is also regeneration, and transformation: it's the beginning of what the Bible calls "a new creation in Christ Jesus". Again: "old things are passed away, and behold, everything is made new." Scripture is quite clear on this point: salvation is never without change within the saved person, and it matters very much to God what I do or do not do following my repentance and salvation.

> The point I'm trying to make is that there doesn't seem to be *any* accountability in the "system." You don't even have to feel *bad* about anything you did. You don't have to know why it was wrong, or even what it was you did that was wrong. You just have to accept a gift, and in you go.

The fact that you're looking for accountability suggests to me that you have at least some measure of insight into Scripture and the Christian faith. After all, it's Scripture that portrays a God who is interested in seeeing justice done, evil abolished, and all things made right. God's mercy is a factor in this God-man relationship, but it definitely does not eclipse God's intent to separate right from wrong and see to it that the one is blessed and the other condemned. There's plenty of accountability in all this, if you don't buy the "best deal of your life", sales-pitch version of salvation preaching.

I've tried to have these kinds of conversations on IRC before, and they never work, partly because the participants aren't mature enough to remain reasonable and on friendly terms with each other, and partly because the sheer number of persons in the conversation makes it too hard to express yourself at any length. The discussion devolves into a deployment of everyone's arsenal of one-line insults, stock questions, and jokes. Thank goodness for the RW Forum! :-)

Iss