Do All Babies Really Go to Heaven When They Die? Pt. 1 | An Interview with Conley Owens

As we were talking about it, this really is like the sacred cow question of sacred cow kind of questions. And so we really wanted to have you on so that we can have plausible deniability and basically get you to say what we want to say, but we're far too afraid to say.

I've listened to your podcast. I don't think you're that afraid to say.

This crosses the line even for us. And so the first question for you, Connelly, is why do you hate babies so much?

Warning, the following message may be offensive to some audiences. These audiences may include, but are not limited to, professing Christians who never read their Bible, sissies, sodomites, men with man buns, those who approve of men with man buns, man bun enablers, white knights for men with man buns, homemakers who have finished Netflix but don't know how to meal plan, and people who refer to their pets as fur babies.

Viewer discretion is advised. People are tired of.

Hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio. As salvation is found in Christ, you reject Christ, therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of heaven. The issue is that humanity is in sin and the wrath of almighty God is hanging over our heads.

They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed and they will perish. God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended, and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the right hand of the Father, where he sits now to make intercession for us.

Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

The Question of Whether Babies Go to Heaven

Welcome to Bible Bash, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask. We're your hosts, Harrison Kerrig and Pastor Tim Mullett, and today we're joined by Pastor Conley Owens as we answer the age-old question, do babies really go to heaven when they die?

Now Conley, this is actually not the first time you've been on the show. We've had you on one time before when you came on to talk about your book, The Dorian Principle. I think that has to have been, what, probably seven, eight months ago now?

I can't quite remember, but it's been a while. How are you doing?

I'm doing good. How are you?

Pretty well. We've been staying busy with the podcast, but it's good to have you back on. I think we definitely picked a doozy of a topic to have you on to discuss.

You said, what could we have you on? What could we talk about? I think the way Tim put it is, what really pushes Conley's buttons?

Tim has a knack for finding those things.

I was trying to get a feel for the kind of question that we could get a real passionate answer about. As we were talking about it, this really is the sacred cow question, sacred cow kind of questions.

We really wanted to have you on so that we can have plausible deniability and basically get you to say what we want to say, but we're far too afraid to say.

I've listened to your podcast. I don't think you're afraid to say it.

This crosses the line even for us. The first question for you, Conley, is why do you hate babies so much?

For the sake of the audience, I think it's good to tell the story. Right before we were discussing, Tim said he was going to ask a question when we started. I said, is the first question, why do you hate babies?

And it turns out that was the question.

We did. I sat Harrison down and I said, the first question I'm going to ask him is, why does he hate babies so much? And you caught it.

He did do that. He did say that to me.

No, I mean, this is a topic that it is assumed in the evangelical world in general that if a baby dies, the baby will automatically go to heaven. And I literally can't think of any big name evangelical person who has taken the position that they don't just automatically go to heaven.

But then the problem is that as you read the Bible, one of the things that you're going to find is that it really is very difficult to make a case that every baby in particular, or any baby, will automatically go to heaven.

And a lot of this is based on the assumption that there's some sort of age of accountability in the Bible. And so we do want you to answer the question, do all babies really go to heaven when they die?

But then is there any kind of age of accountability that the Bible teaches or where do people come up with that? And what do you think about some of these things? Sure. Yeah. Let me start it off with a couple.

Of those things that have come up. First, you didn't read a full bio for me, so people don't know. I have eight children. And to be a little more somber, I have had one miscarriage. So this is something where, one, I do love children.

Two, I recognize that this is a sensitive topic.

To people for very personal reasons. My wife and I have had a miscarriage, too.

Okay, yeah. So we're not coming at this from a place of total callousness and experience. And then you also mentioned that you don't know of any big names who have taken a vocal stance on this. I recall hearing someone at some point, and I don't remember if this was in person or on a podcast or what, but they said something small about this and then said they were considering writing their dissertation on it.

And their advisor told them not to because you don't want to be that guy. And then they decided not to. That's really true. It is just a very unpopular thing to say. But throughout the course of Christian history prior to the 18th century, this was a very common position that not all babies die and go to heaven.

So this is a new one, yeah. We imagine that if there's anything that we would finally cross the line and get canceled about, it could possibly be this topic in general. But we'll see what happens with that.

But basically, there's a historical case to be made to say that this may be standard fare now, but it hasn't always been the case. And so maybe you could elaborate on some of that. Right, yeah. Or why do you think that is?

Why do you think it is that this has become so uniquely dominant right now? Right. I guess I'd start off by saying there's a really.

Great article written on this by B .B. Warfield. He was writing during the 1800s, and he acknowledged that in his own time, it had changed. And he was trying to elaborate on why that is. And he says that either logically or illogically, both the reformed and the non-reformed positions are coalescing on this one.

So he was trying to stab at that question. And yeah, it does seem that there's an introduction of humanism and the Enlightenment and various things that seem to cause people to feel differently about the human condition and original sin and things related to that topic.

Even those people who are of the most orthodox affirming these things, the way they end up practically applying them. So I don't have a lot of, I don't know, really good thoughts about why this has changed, but it really has.

And I'll add to that that the strongest traditions, and by strong, I mean, in a bad way, like the ones that are the most uncontestable are the ones that are unacknowledged. And this is one that's unacknowledged.

A lot of people don't realize that this is a new position. It's something that they think has been just said throughout the course of human history. And that's a real shame. I mean, there's even, there's a pretty famous Spurgeon sermon that people refer to on this topic, where Spurgeon, he seems to think this has just been the position of Calvinist, except for Calvin, right?

This has been the position of Calvinist all the way back. Oh, and in fact, I think he actually, he also enlists Calvin on his side, which I would disagree with that take. But anyway, yeah, a lot of people seem to think that this is just what people have always believed.

And if you really think that, then there's not a lot of reason to examine it. But if you realize, oh, wait, people have thought very differently about this before the past couple of hundred years, maybe I should re-examine what the Bible actually says.

It feels like, you know, as you're trying to make a case for this, if you put the emotion aside just for a second and you try to say, well, how can I logically or biblically defend this case? It really does feel like you have to be an Arminian to make this kind of thing make sense.

Like, I can't really make it make sense in a Calvinistic kind of framework. And is that your observation about it? And if you were trying to make the case, does it feel to you like you'd have to basically become an Arminian to make it make sense?

Right. Yeah, that's what I've observed.

You know, everyone in the Reformed camp, everyone in the Calvinist camp that argues for a universal salvation of those dying in infancy, even if they acknowledge original sin, they end up making some kind of practical denial of it where they say, okay, well, maybe God would have the authority and he'd be just to damn even an infant.

But is that really the kind of thing that he would do? You know, and when they're asking that, what they're implying is it would be wrong, right? And so they're making this practical statement that they're stating, you know, didactically that it would be just if he decided to condemn.

And then they're stating practically.

That it would not be just if he decided to condemn. It doesn't feel just. It feels like an emotional argument, but then how does that relate to the doctrine of original sin? Maybe you can spell that out for some people who are not following the original sin, the case.

Yeah, and maybe it would be worth it before that if you don't mind. I'd like to give a couple of, I think it would be worth talking about some statements that are any infants saved, dying in infancy. And then second, you know, what kind of things break down if you end up denying.

This? Because there's things other than original sin. I was going to ask you about our any or all, but yeah, go for it. What do you think is the best start? Yeah, so I have no reason to doubt.

That there are some who die in infancy that would be elect. That's what reformed confessions say. It's also, you have evidence in scripture that there are those who believe in infancy. Psalm 22 verses nine through 10, David says, yet you are he who took me from the womb.

You'd made me trust you at my mother's breast on you. I was cast from my birth and from my mother's womb, you have been my God. And so there you have a statement of, you know, trust at birth. Now most Christians know Psalm 22 is speaking prophetically of Christ.

But even if you, even if you take this as referring to Christ, what it's describing is a work of God and establishing that relationship. And so it's certainly something God is capable of and has done.

And then maybe a better example even is in Luke 115, there's a prophecy given that John the Baptist will be great before the Lord and he must not drink wine or strong drink. And he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.

And then what you see later in that chapter is that Elizabeth and Mary are in each other's, Mary is visiting Elizabeth and John the Baptist is late in gestation. You know, if you look at the timeline, he's close to being the full nine months.

And Jesus could be quite possibly in his first month of gestation. And John the Baptist, this prophecy that was just read is fulfilled and he leaps for joy in the presence of his Savior. And Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, observes what has happened.

And so you have John the Baptist trusting in his Savior, being filled with joy. So you do have instances of infant salvation. First of all, this is talking about those who go on to live a full life. So this is not a special casing of those who have not had a sufficient chance.

And so God gives them a free pass. Secondly, this is not a case where people are being saved apart from faith, apart from the justification that comes by faith. And so what you don't have here is the breaking down of salvation and the steps of salvation that the Bible describes that so many people do.

Because what a lot of people imagine is that, okay, all infants dying in infancy are saved and they're just saved without faith, without justification. You have some post-mortem justification, some post-mortem faith, but they don't have what the Bible describes, which is someone believing and being justified here on this earth prior to going and being with the Lord.

And that is what you need to be in the presence of the Lord. You.

Need to be right with him for that. So what you're articulating is essentially some sort of elect, non-elect infant kind of position over and against the standard, which I mean, appears to me to be an Armenian kind of position, which is based on some notion of age of accountability.

So maybe you could distinguish between how that elect, non-elect kind of infant position would be distinct from just standard fare. Right. So in this position, God is free.

To choose some for salvation, even those who don't have the normal means by which they hear. You know, we really should recognize here what Romans 10 says, everyone who calls in the name of the Lord will be saved.

How can they call on him whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard, et cetera? So one needs to actually have the gospel in order to believe it and proclaim it.

What the standard fare is, is that you don't actually need the gospel. You're given a free pass because you haven't actually had opportunities to sin. And so essentially it's either a denial of original sin or something else.

And we can talk about original sin in a minute, or maybe now if you'd like to transition to that.

Original Sin, Original Corruption, and Actual Sin

Yeah. Well, I mean, I think maybe you can articulate what you see to be wrong with just your standard view on this topic and, you know, why you have a difficult time believing it.

Right. So the standard view….

Maybe spell out the standard view, what's your argument with it?

Right. So I guess outside the Reformed camp, the standard view is just that you are not guilty before God until you've done something wrong. And that's essentially Pelagianism, right? There is Augustine and Pelagius, and they argued about original sin.

And Pelagius' argument was pretty much that no one was guilty before God until they had done some actual sin in their life. You know, there was no guilt in Adam. There's no original corruption that also counts them guilty.

And so it's not until they actually do something that it would be right for.

God. The original act of the will, right?

Right. Yeah, exactly. And so that's one, that's the standard fare outside the non-Reformed camp, in the non-Reformed camp. In the Reformed camp, the standard fare is, well, it all happens within the guise of—guise is probably not the right word—it all happens within the rubric or framework of election.

And so God has just, in His sovereignty, chosen that anyone dying in infancy is one of His elect. In fact, that is one of His means of election. You know, some people, the means of election is they hear the preaching of the Word and repent.

For others, it's that they die in infancy, and that's the means by which He's elected them. And so He's sovereign and can do that. However, Scripture says much to the contrary about how His election works.

So I don't see place for a faithless salvation. I don't see place for an election that goes contrary to many things Scripture teaches about election, which include His impartiality. It includes unconditional on the person and their state.

Maybe we could start out with the Arminian position, then, in terms of—start by critiquing that. So the standard Arminian view, essentially, is that a person doesn't become a sinner until they have a volitional act of sin.

And then there's some kind of notion of age of accountability imported into that as well. So maybe we'll start just critiquing that, and then we'll move on to the Calvinist position, which at times—I mean, you know, most Calvinists kind of sound like Arminians on this one, too.

It's true. It's true. So, I mean, they don't sound very Calvinistic when they're making the same kind of argument. So we'll get to that next, but then start with just the Arminian. So there's two components you mentioned.

One is, essentially, you don't become a sinner until you volitionally commit your first sin. So that's a denial of original guilt. But then there's also that whole notion of age of accountability that's assumed in there, that there's some sort of age of accountability that is only known to God, where at some point God will determine—you know, who knows when it is, right?

Three, four, five, six. You know, for—apparently for Me Too victims, it doesn't happen until they're like 30 or 40. But, you know, it's confusing. It's confusing. But what do you think about age of accountability?

What's wrong with the Arminian view? Yeah, so there's three ways that we're accounting guilty before God. The first is original sin, the second is original corruption, and the third is actual sin. And so I can break each of those down, and I believe even that last one—actual sin—even that last one comes very early on.

So let's just talk about original sin. And we were just breaking this down as, like, the Calvinist and Arminian position. I don't—I'm not an expert on Arminius, but I think this is even far farther than Arminius.

This is more Pelagian. This is more Pelagian, right?

People don't realize how far they've fallen in their biblical literacy and theological thinking. And so this—just to call it Arminian is to fail to recognize just how backwards it is from even the debates they were having during that time period.

It's more of a Pelagian view that we've—that has now become standard Arminianism in America or something. Yeah.

So yeah, original sin. Okay, so let's go through just a few verses here. Psalm 51, 5 says, Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Romans 5, 12 says, Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

This is—this is a description of because Adam sinned, all sinned. And it's not because Adam sinned, we were born with the sin nature, and then we sinned. Because—because Adam sinned, that means that all sinned.

We all sinned in him. And this is said directly in the context of the righteousness which comes by Jesus. Did we commit his acts of righteousness? Did he give us a righteous nature whereby, you know, we live righteous lives that then make us right before God?

Well, certainly God sanctifies us, but that's not how justification works. His righteousness is imputed. It is credited entirely to us in the new covenant. And so what you see in the Garden of Eden is when Adam sins, his sin is credited to all his posterity by—by natural procreation.

And that—that phrase is designed to exclude Jesus Christ who, by the virgin birth, is excluded from it.

All right, so how does that relate with—so basically you're saying, you know—and I think it's right. I mean, the Bible teaches there's three forms of guilt. There is, you know, original guilt. There's original corruption, and then there's actual sin, as far as that goes.

But then how would you respond to the age of accountability argument? Yeah, sure.

Well, maybe—well, that was just original sin. Maybe I should go through the others. That was just the original guilt. So Adam's—so Adam's guilt is credited to us. And it's amazing how many people who consider themselves fairly reformed don't even—don't even believe that.

They usually think, oh, it's just because of the corruption, just because of the sin nature. You know, I'm not even sure how old the term sin nature is. I think that's more of a modern phrase. But yeah, they usually think it's just by that that they're counted guilty.

And that was a—that's also known as Plossianism, or immediate imputation of guilt. It's—yeah, that's something that came later after the Reformation when people started suggesting such things. Anyway, okay, so original corruption.

So on top of—on top of having Adam's guilt credited to us by means of covenant, the same way that Christ's righteousness is credited to us. I keep saying that because, you know, if you find that—if you find that offensive, that Adam's guilt would be credited to us, Adam's sin would be credited to us, we should also find it offensive that Christ's righteousness would be credited to us.

But as 1 Corinthians 15 .22 says, for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made.

Alive.

Okay, so original corruption. We are—we are born, as Psalm 51 .5 says, in sin. And so we go astray from birth. And this corruption, even if we have not acted on that corruption, even if we have not committed some actual transgression, that corruption itself is not something that can go into the presence of God.

It is something unholy, something evil. And so that is not a—so that makes us guilty in the court of God as well. And then—and then there's actual sins. That's the third kind of way that we are guilty before God is actual sin.

This is where someone is committing sin for themself. Now, when does someone commit actual sin? This is where we get to your question of the age of accountability. At what point is someone accountable for their actions and is actually committing sin?

Is it, you know, at 12 years old? For some reason, I was—I grew up thinking that. I don't remember when I was taught it, but someone had taught it to me that at 12 years old, that was the—that was the point.

Well, it's because the Jewish bar mitzvah is at 13, but I don't know how you got 12. Maybe you just subtracted a number.

I have—yeah, I have no idea.

Well, at 13, you become a son of the Torah, essentially, in Jewish tradition. And, you know, at that point, you're accountable to the law. So that's maybe where you're coming from.

Right.

Yeah, but scripture teaches—scripture teaches everyone's accountable for the law. We may suppress the truth and unrighteousness, but Romans 2 says the law is written on our.

Heart.

It's not written on the heart once we're a certain age. It's written on our heart in the beginning. And when is actual sin committed? So, yeah, let me go through. Matthew 22, 36, Jesus is asked, what is the greatest commandment?

Jesus says, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. Now, at what point does anyone do that, to the smallest degree? What point does a child do that?

They're breaking that commandment every time they have a conscious thought. Every time someone has a conscious action, they are committing sin. Romans 14, 23 says that anything that does not proceed from faith is sin.

You just saw Psalm 22, which prophetically speaks of Christ and the trust that he has from the womb. The reason why no sin is counted to Christ in his infancy is because he is trusting in God even from the womb, right?

And we are not doing that. We are not trusting in God from the womb. We are faithless. And as it says in the Psalms, we go astray from birth speaking lies.

Well, I'm really glad you mentioned that because it seems like there are a lot of people, including Christians who, well, I mean, there are a lot of Christians who basically look at children as if they're blameless, right?

Even up to little angels. They're little angels, right? I think anyone who understands the Bible and is honest and also has children of their own can understand that they're anything but blameless. I mean, I just had my second daughter born a few weeks ago, and all she does is think about herself.

She doesn't think about, I mean, she probably doesn't even really think about me and her mom that much. She thinks about herself, right? And if she's only thinking about herself, she's definitely not honoring God with her thoughts even as a newborn.

And so I look at those types of situations, and I have to say to myself, there's no way that children don't sin, I mean, immediately, right? And that's basically what you're saying, right?

Yeah, even from the womb. And by from the womb, I mean in the womb. If there are conscious thoughts that are had in the womb, and I'm no biologist.

Can you explain at what point that happens?

Yeah, I don't know at what point.

Yeah, we need to know what gestation stage they start having those sinful thoughts of theirs.

Yeah, I mean, people don't want to think of giggles and coos as being sinful, but if they are not done with faith, Romans 14, 23 says that they are.

Augustine, yeah, in his book Confessions, it's really interesting that he has a chapter devoted to confessing the sins of his infancy. And he got that because he observed that the angry baby who was breastfeeding at his mother's womb, angry because they're not getting the milk in time.

I mean, we just did an episode on this. We were talking about should I repent of my emotions? But as you read through the Bible, one of the things you're going to find is sin is not just a volitional act.

It's not just about your thoughts. It's like you're told to rejoice with those who rejoice, you weep with those who weep. Sin is much more comprehensive than what we realize. We're told to love the Lord our God with all of our heart and soul, mind and strength.

And it's much more than just volitional actions. And these things happen very early. But what do you think about the idea that God would just overlook certain sins if they happen below the age of accountability, whenever that is?

And so the idea of the Jewish idea of the age of accountability essentially is the idea that when you become 13, you become a son of a Torah, meaning you legally become accountable to the law. And we have some kind of mirror to that in our legal system today, in that if you're below the age of 18, that doesn't mean you can't sin, but you're not going to be charged with a crime if it happens below a certain age.

And so does God have some sort of legal system that mirrors that aspect of human legal systems? Does he refuse to impute the guilt of our sin on us until we reach a certain age where we become successful?

Because that seems to be the backdoor that some people are using.

Right.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense in human courts. You can't punish every sin. You can't see every sin. That's only for God to do. Vengeance is his. But in a divine court, he is perfect. He does not clear the innocent, or excuse me, he does not clear the guilty, right, without some kind of payment.

And that's what we have Jesus Christ for. But you asked the question, you know, does he just not impute that sin if they don't.

Know?

One strategy a lot of people take is they look at Romans 5, 13 through 14, it says, For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. And so they apply this to the children.

They say, look, children don't have the law. They don't know. And so God wouldn't count their sins towards them. Even if they are sinning, he doesn't count their sins towards them. Well, there are several things to say about that.

The first is that this is specifically talking about before the law of Moses. And so what do you say about all those adults that lived before the law of Moses? Is their sin not imputed to them? Is it not?

Well, that's what's weird about it. What's weird about that kind of form of argument is that you basically have to say that anyone who has not had access to the gospel or the law and history are okay.

So, I mean, basically everyone in the flood of Noah are all okay because they haven't been given a chance. And I mean, these feel more like universalist arguments at this point.

Right.

Yeah.

And let's say you say, okay, well, you know, a child sort of begins to understand God's law by observing the world and things. So eventually they understand. But if that's the case, if God does not impute sin where there is no law and they don't have the law until a certain age, why do they die?

Why do infants die? They have to be guilty if God would take them from this earth, right? There wouldn't be death if there were no sin, if there were no guilt. It's not just an unfortunate consequence.

It is indeed evidence that there is sin in this person.

That and sunburns.

That and what? Sunburns, yes.

Sunburns.

Yeah.

And then, of course, you have earlier in Romans a statement that even those who do the law without having the law show that they are law unto themselves, they have the law written on their heart. So, we have sufficient evidence that everyone has the law of God and they have it by virtue of their creation, not by virtue of observation or deduction, by virtue of their creation.

Why People Concede Too Much on This Topic

So, I think we've kind of established that with a lot of these arguments that try to prove that God is not sending babies to hell, basically, it seems like you basically have to at least momentarily become an Arminian or even worse, universalistic in your theology.

So, why do you think it is that people, even Reformed Christians, are willing to concede in certain theological areas that normally you would never dare think of conceding just for this one topic? Why do you think that is?

Right. First of all, because everybody else is doing it. I mean, that's just what you see in a lot of things. You know, if this is the standard way to go, it's very easy to say what everybody else.

Is saying.

It's very hard to say the opposite, especially when it doesn't sound loving. And that's the real kicker here, is it doesn't sound loving. I mean, you start off with this interview with, why do you hate babies?

Because it sounds like someone who says this does hate babies, right? So, truth has got to be important to us. It can't just be what we think will comfort people, what has pastoral utility or anything like that.

It has to be what is true. Well, I've heard people, Conley, I've heard people say that, and that's what's been always so disturbing to me is that I've heard people say, if you can't stand, like big-name pastors say, if you can't comfort a grieving mother who's just had a miscarriage with the knowledge that their baby will be in heaven, then you need to get out of the ministry.

That's awful. Can you comfort a grieving daughter about her unbelieving grandmother? You know, you can apply this in all kinds of ways. You know, little old ladies that die that you think of as sweet and innocent, that doesn't make them sweet and innocent.

Everyone is guilty before God unless they have the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And that's the thing, you know, comparing this to universalism and asking the question, you know, is this truth a good truth?

That's really like a good question here. Is this truth a good truth? All of God's truth is good truth. And so why is it that we say it's a good truth that not everyone is saved? You know, not universalism is true, but instead only some people are saved.

Well, the reason is it shows both the mercy and the justice of God and that both are glorified. And the same is true with the way He saves infants. If it were the case that every single infant dying in infancy were saved, then there would not be the same kind of praise of God's mercy towards us.

Now, maybe at this point, we don't feel it. But on that last day, when we see the hordes of those who did not make it, not because of the difference between them and us, right, in our natural state, but rather the difference in God's mercy towards His particular people, the far more we will praise Him for it.

You know, if there's something that illustrates that, oh, well, you know, there was this kind of this innocence and etc., there's not the same praise. You don't have the same kind of redemption. You don't have the same thing to glorify Him over.

And His wisdom is vastly greater than our wisdom. And we should not take Him down to our level and demand that He loves the way we love and that He has wisdom the way we have wisdom, that His ways are our ways.