Monday, February 6, 2017

Infant salvation: what is the ultimate destiny of those who die in infancy?


What happens to infants, and children, who die before they are capable of understanding and accepting the Gospel? And what about the infants and children who died before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Heaven, hell, 'limbo', non-existence; what/where is their eternal destiny?

When one turns to the Bible for an answer to this important question, the paucity of definitive/explicit references becomes all too apparent. In fact, some Biblical scholars admit that there are no explicit references to the question at hand. With that said, there are a number of verses from the Bible which I (and others) believe are germane, and offer some insights into our question. By use of the inductive method, multiple categories of Scripture will be examined, and then combined to obtain a cohesive conclusion.

One category of verses pertains to the issue of accountability as it relates to the individual:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16)

But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (2 Kings 14:6)

But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin. (2 Chr. 25:3)

Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Ps. 28:4)

Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work. (Ps. 62:12)

If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Prov. 24:12)

Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. (Isaiah 3:10, 11)

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer. 17:10)

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Jer. 18:4)

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: (Jer. 31:30a)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek. 18:20)

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matt. 16:27)

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. (Rom. 2:5-11)

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (1 Cor. 3:13)

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)

But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. (Col. 3:25)

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: (1 Peter 1:17)

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (1 Peter 4:16-18)

And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children* with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (Rev. 2: 18-23)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev. 20:12)

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Rev. 22:12)

[*The term "children" (Gr. tekna/teknon) in this context pertains to affiliation and not chronological age; see John 8:39 for a parallel usage of tekna/teknon.]

The above verses clearly demonstrate the truism that the accountability of mankind is based on what the individual has done. Adam's sin, and Jesus Christ atoning death on the Cross, do not invalidate this truism.

Though the accountability of the individual before God is clearly established, the Bible seems to suggest that there exists a 'mitigating factor' as to the WHEN the individual becomes accountable. This 'mitigating factor' is whether or not one has the capacity to understand the contrast between "the knowledge of good and evil"; note the following:

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. (Deut. 1:39)

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:14-16)

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; (Jer. 19:4)

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? (Jonah 4:11)

We also have those verses from the lips of Jesus Christ which strongly imply that children have a unique relationship/standing with him:

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 18:3, 4)

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 18:10)

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 19:13, 14)

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:14, 15)

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. (Luke 18:15-17)

An inductive assessment of the verses listed above strongly suggests to me that the ultimate destiny of infants—and children who have yet to obtain "knowledge between good and evil"—is with Jesus Christ in heaven.

Now, with that said, one cannot overlook those verses which seem to imply that all mankind—even infants and children—are in some sense accountable before God, and are not 'innocent':

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 14:2, 3)

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 53:2, 3)

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalm 58:3)

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Rom. 3:10-12)

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Eph. 2:2, 3)

Quite a bleak contrast. It could be argued (and has been), that this last list of passages contradicts a number of those from the prior lists. But, I am a firm believer in the inerrancy of the Scriptures; as such, the apparent contrast for me does not entail an actual contradiction. Instead, what we have are a number of compatible concepts/truths that can be reconciled.

The following verses from Paul's epistle to the Romans lays the foundation for a cohesive understanding of concepts/truths that have emerged from extensive lists of quotations provided above:

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Rom. 5:6-18; see also 1 John 2:2)

I would like to suggest that there are universal aspects to "Adam's transgression"; and that there are universal aspects to Jesus Christ's "free gift". I am inclined to deduce that one of the universal aspects of Jesus Christ's "free gift"—his death on the cross—is that of atonement/propitiation; and that his atonement/propitiation removes any accountability/condemnation from those who have yet to acquire a "knowledge between good and evil." As such, my current doctrine of infant salvation is that of universalism—i.e. the destiny of all infants is that they shall be with Jesus Christ in heaven.

In upcoming posts, I hope to examine the teachings of some of the various soteriological systems on this issue of infant salvation, and whether or not they are internally consistent.


Grace and peace,

David

13 comments:

Rory said...

Hi Dave.

1) Do you think the following passage is compatible with universal salvation for infants? The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant. (Gen. 17:14)

2) Are infants automatically sons of God and heirs of Jesus Christ because they have been regenerated, or because they do not need to be regenerated?

3) (To be answered only if infants do not need regeneration) If infants do not need regeneration, was Christ's passion and death still necessary for their salvation?

4)Besides the negative absence of actual sin, are there any positive qualifiers required for souls (infant or not) to be capable of entering and enjoying heaven?

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Rory

Rory said...

With regards to my first question above, I would not find the passage I cited absolutely incompatible with universalism. If I may I would amend the question to ask if you think the effects of the passage, in light of your previous evidence, must NECESSARILY be limited to the temporal realm?

Dennis said...

Hi Rory,

I wouldn't mind having a shot at answering this:

1. I don't think the OT is to be taken literally but needs to be read through the "fullness of revelation in Christ" as I believe patristics point to. I think the OT revelation is progressive until it comes to the full revelation of Christ. Thus circumcision is also "progressive"

It begins with a form that Abraham can understand in his cultural context & is thus quite crude. Gen 17:24 & Joshua 5 show that God isn't so interested in the 8 day old command as He is in it being done. The prophets later reveal that circumcision is to be of the heart. Romans 4:11 suggests it's a symbol of pre-existing faith.

So in the end it is about a "called / chosen" people confirming their faith to follow God. The initial symbol indicates God's gracious choice of them.

By Christ taking on our fallen "humaness", all humanity is now called to be chosen in Him. Baptism becomes the new sign of the covenant freely given to all. Christ's "humanity" is made effective in baptism as it makes us free from sin "in Him".

So can infants without baptism be regenerated ? Yes. In Christ's baptism by proxy. His perfect life, his perfect humanity is accounted to them. Maybe Holy Saturday takes these little ones in & they recognise Him as He proclaims Himself.

2. Regenerated in the baptism of Christ Himself.
He came down for "us & our salvation & became man". Every act he undertook was for our salvation to be made acceptable to God. So every imperfection in our faith response has been restored through Christ's responses to God.

4. How do you explain Holy Saturday if it isn't a day of liberation for the dead ?

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my opening post; you wrote:

==1) Do you think the following passage is compatible with universal salvation for infants? The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant. (Gen. 17:14)==

I think the "male" (Heb. zakar) mentioned in the above passage has reference to those males who have reached the age of accountability. I don't think an infant can actually transgress any of the commandments of God's covenant.

See Matthew Poole's comments HERE.

==If I may I would amend the question to ask if you think the effects of the passage, in light of your previous evidence, must NECESSARILY be limited to the temporal realm?==

No.

==2) Are infants automatically sons of God and heirs of Jesus Christ because they have been regenerated, or because they do not need to be regenerated?==

Not quite understanding the question, but will still attempt to answer it: infants need to be regenerated, and those who die in infancy are regenerated.

==4)Besides the negative absence of actual sin, are there any positive qualifiers required for souls (infant or not) to be capable of entering and enjoying heaven?==

They must be "born again"; must be united to Jesus Christ; and grafted into his "body".

I am sure you have further questions and comments; as such, I am looking forward to your next post.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Dennis,

Some excellent comments in your response Rory. I especially liked this:

==So can infants without baptism be regenerated ? Yes. In Christ's baptism by proxy. His perfect life, his perfect humanity is accounted to them.==

I know for my part that I sometimes forget to emphasize that it is not just our Lord's death on the Cross that has value, but also his "perfect life". Thanks much for pointing this out.


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Dave...I just lost it. It was over 4,096 characters..mostly to Dennis...but you too. Thanks guys for your thoughts. I don't have the heart to start back over today...

Maybe tomorrow, with less verbiage!

Rory

David Waltz said...

Rory,

OUCH! (BTW, most computers have a save button - wink).

For the future, when I learn that a comment I have written for the combox exceeds the 4096 limit, I break it up into two posts.

Looking forward to your thoughts...


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Hey Dave...it was too wordy anyway. I see you have another post up. I am writing my reply here first. I

So anyway, I have some misgivings.

It seems almost like we are proposing unlimited Immaculate Conceptions if everyone is conceived/born without original sin.

Would we hold to the Catholic view of venial and mortal sin? Presumably, upon the commission of the first mortal sin, the soul that has come of age needs to be re-regenerated? Certainly it seems like you would have to deny that stealing the first cookie (venial sin) undoes regeneration?

Born again in Christ, then we are born through our own actual sins back into Adam, and then we are "born again again" back into Christ?

If we commit another mortal sin after we have been born again again, is there a remedy? Can we be born again again and again? Our Lord talked about being born of water and of the Spirit. A first birth and a second birth. I would be uncomfortable building a theological system on a double or triple regeneration theory on the basis of Scripture alone. It seems like a novelty that could never be compatible with Catholic Tradition or even Protestant traditions. But maybe you have other ideas. I am not trying to mock.

Obviously as a Catholic my options are limited. Regeneration imparts a character to the soul which can never be removed. After a fall from grace, the soul cannot be born again again, but is restored to God's friendship through the Sacrament of Penance.

These are some of the difficulties that have come to my mind. I believe all of the biblical references which refer to the justice of God towards every soul which affirms that the soul pays only for his own sins is more easily fulfilled through traditional Catholic theology.

I grant that the Limbo of the Children is undefined. As such, Catholics of good will can have differences of opinion about that. But in my opinion, as I have understood what you have taught so far, it would be difficult to square with Catholic doctrine on justification and regeneration. It would make infant baptism superfluous and even a sacrilege.

Now I'll go see what you have written Dave, about the Catholic position.

Thanks for your consideration of my misgivings.

Dennis said...

Hi Rory,

I would like to comment on your comments :)

You are right David & I are suggesting that infants are born without "actual sin". I'm not sure exactly what David's view is but I believe that humans are born with an inclination to sin & then become sinners later on, maybe some fairly early. However they don't carry the guilt of Adam. I think the Orthodox see it this way.

I guess my view of regeneration is that it has 2 sides like a coin. It includes baptism & faith. Not baptism alone (especially as it reflects the fullness of the covenant of circumcision Rom 4:11). Baptism washes away past sins and it breaks a person's slavery to sin as they are baptised into Christ's death. So God's grace breaks the automatic inclination to sin in baptism. After baptism the inclination to sin is there, but it is no longer automatic. However faith needs to enable the fruits of baptism, because "without faith its impossible to please God". Faith is not automatic due to baptism. Faith is of the Spirit. Which completes the "born of water & of the Spirit" circle.

Thus myriads of people are baptised but so few follow through in faith & are lost.

For infants baptism has the 1 function as they are too young to have sinned.
As to regeneration recurring it only happens once, confession & forgiveness follow in the life of faith, which pretty much describes what you said about penance.

Baptism isnt superfluous because where it can't be mediated by the church
acting on behalf of Christ, it is mediated by Christ himself in that He took on our full humanity & underwent baptism. Surely not for His own sins ?

Dennis said...

Rory,

What I've described isn't a typical Protestant view. I've come to this through reflection on scripture, some Patristic writings, Eastern Orthodoxy, Development of Doctrine & the writings of TF Torrance.

I encourage you to have a look at Torrance when you get a chance. There is a lot of intersection points with early Catholicism.

http://martinmdavis.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/tf-torrance-vicarious-humanity-of-jesus.html

Cheers
Dennis

David Waltz said...

Good morning Rory,

Thanks again for responding; you wrote:

==It seems almost like we are proposing unlimited Immaculate Conceptions if everyone is conceived/born without original sin.==

I respectfully disagree. The Immaculate Conception removed ALL stain of original sin at "the first moment of her conception", including concupiscence. Concupiscence remains for all other humans (except, of course, Jesus Christ). Further, I remain 'open' as to the when those who die in infancy are "buried with Christ"; it may be at conception, or at birth, or just prior to the moment of physical death (I have not fully thought this through yet).

==Would we hold to the Catholic view of venial and mortal sin? Presumably, upon the commission of the first mortal sin, the soul that has come of age needs to be re-regenerated? Certainly it seems like you would have to deny that stealing the first cookie (venial sin) undoes regeneration?==

Once again, I have not fully thought this through yet. What I currently believe is that those who died in infancy have had the guilt of original sin removed, and have been united to Jesus Christ, receiving all the benefits that are entailed therein.

==If we commit another mortal sin after we have been born again again, is there a remedy? Can we be born again again and again? Our Lord talked about being born of water and of the Spirit. A first birth and a second birth. I would be uncomfortable building a theological system on a double or triple regeneration theory on the basis of Scripture alone. It seems like a novelty that could never be compatible with Catholic Tradition or even Protestant traditions. But maybe you have other ideas. I am not trying to mock.==

The rebirth occurs only once.

==I grant that the Limbo of the Children is undefined. As such, Catholics of good will can have differences of opinion about that. But in my opinion, as I have understood what you have taught so far, it would be difficult to square with Catholic doctrine on justification and regeneration. It would make infant baptism superfluous and even a sacrilege.==

I disagree. Official Catholic teaching makes exceptions for millions who have not—through no fault of their own—received the sacrament of baptism (baptismus fluminus); and this via baptismus flaminis and baptismus sanguinis. All I am proposing (informed by the Bible and reflections from the document I linked to in my opening post) is that there may be a fourth type of baptism.

With that said, this is 'a work in progress' for me. In upcoming posts I plan to examine what other traditions (e.g. Reformed, Lutheran, Arminian, et al.) have to say about infant salvation—exposing internal inconsistencies—and then attempt to form a consistent, cohesive view.

I sincerely hope you continue to correct me along the way as you see fit...


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Hi Dennis...

Just so that we are using terms the same way, the Catholic Church teaches that no child is born with "actual sin". Original sin is distinguished from actual sin. All other sins are acts of rebellion against God, of which an infant is incapable. But "original sin" comes from our first parents. We still have natural goods and talents, but since they had lost sanctifying grace, their offspring would be "after their kind" according to the principle found in the early chapters of Genesis.

I almost think "original sin" is an unfortunate expression. It does not mean that we are punished for the crimes of Adam, but it does mean that we bear his fallen image. We resemble our father who fell and that would make us unsuited for heaven.

It is not punishment to make a dog that can only bark, likes to splash around in the water, and doesn't read the Scriptures. A dog does what a dog is suited for. People talk about dogs in heaven. A dog would have to stop being a dog to enjoy heaven. It might be that a dog could dwell in the same place, where heaven is physically. (hopefully there would be mud puddles? heh.) But when we speak of "going to heaven" we mean the capacity to be deified by perfect union with and contemplation of the Blessed Trinity. A dog could never go to heaven in this sense. In a way, we can say that a man has to stop being a man to enjoy heaven! A man has to become a god.

The Limbo of the Children proposes a place compatible with natural bliss where the soul (those who died in infancy) which commits no actual sin lives forever in perfect health, and with all of the other joys and wonders which are suitable to created man in a state of nature. I doubt there would be procreation, but if there were none, they would be like the angels without such desires. Certainly they would enjoy the company and society of their fellows. I say this because that is what such a soul is suited for. That God exalts only some men to become gods should not be considered punishment in the ordinary sense of the word.

The ONLY reason this deprivation of heaven is referred to as "punishment" is because of the almost infininitely greater joys of man redeemed and glorified, a god contemplating God for eternity.

To my way of thinking, Limbo is not such a "bad gig". I don't know how this should be considered "punishment" except by those who really have a "vision" of the Beatific Vision. It seems to me like a lot of Protestants and even uncatechized Catholics would be pretty satisfied with that kind of immortality. Unless I am mistaken, Mormons and Muslims, except that they procreate, envision exactly such a natural state of bliss.

The document that is the subject of Dave's second post emphasizes how pastors nowadays are confronted with such distraught parents that they do not know how to deal with them in such a way as to assuage the grief of parents who have lost their children before baptism. I think the biggest problem is that such parents are imagining this mean old God who sets aside a place of wrath and fire for their babies. Instead, there should be consolation in the knowledge that they can never suffer any of the sense pains of Hell. I tend to think that today's pastors are at fault and not the doctrine of Limbo if the souls under their care are inconsolable with what might have happened to their infant that miscarried or was for any other reason unable to be baptized.

I hope you are not scandalized by my use of the term "god" as I have done. You will find such language in the Fathers, in Scholastic thought, and indeed all through Church history. It seemed like a potent way of making my point. If you would like references for orthodox usage of the term "god", I know Dave keeps a file. If it isn't handy I could come up with a pretty impressive list of references later.

I hope this isn't 4,096 characters! Pressing "copy" to save.

Regards,

Rory

Dennis said...

Hi Rory.

I pretty much agree with your definition of original sin except that I don't think that sin is accountable in any fashion to kids. The human legacy is to have inbuilt passions that sway people away from God. The fact that a child is nt developed enough to experience or contemplate God shouldn't be an incumberance for heaven. All eternity is before us all to grow in grace as redeemed "gods".

In fact a child is closer to the "kingdom of heaven" & we are exhorted to have their kind of faith or we cannot enter in.

Sure there is no explicit mention of kids in Revelation but everyone & all nations appear before the throne of God. Any mention of exclusions ? To exclude kids does harm to the incarnation. Jesus could have "transported down" as a teenager, but no He came as a child. There is even a Coptic tradition mentioning He performed miracles in Egypt as an infant, whilst in exile. So His humanity covers all facets of our timeline.

I understand what the concept of Limbo is trying to do, but I believ e it is "Development of Doctrine" the wrong way. It is speculation similar to Origen's pre-existence of souls.

I guess it was developed as some clergy couldn't stomach augustines view of kids ending up in hell. I suppose that vision of Perpetua didn't help either.

Cheers
Dennis