We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.

What happens to babies who die?

The Bible does not directly address the issue of what happens to babies who die before being able to make a decision for or against Christ. People have thus had to arrive at conclusions about this matter on the basis of other beliefs they hold to be true.

The majority of evangelicals today assume that children who die before “the age of accountability” automatically go to heaven. (The same holds true for severely mentally incapacitated adults, though historically this topic has rarely been addressed). What drives this view is the conviction that babies are not guilty of any explicit sin, and therefore, it would be unjust for God not to save them. The view is so self-evident to some today that they are surprised to learn that few church spokespersons throughout history have shared this assumption.

The prevailing opinion from Augustine through the medieval period was that all babies who had received Christian baptism went to heaven, while all others went to hell. This view was driven by a particular understanding of inherited original sin and the belief that baptism washed away this sin. The difficulty of accepting this conclusion led to the qualification that the level of hell babies go to (limbo) was devoid of pain. Some evangelicals within liturgical traditions continue to hold to a form of this belief

Some Christians in the late Middle Ages and Reformation period, focusing on the importance of family covenants in Scripture, maintained that the fate of babies was directly connected to the faith or unbelief of their parents. This view is embraced by some evangelicals today. Children of Christian parents who die go to heaven, while others go to hell.

Yet another view has traditionally been espoused by Reformed theologians. Rooted in a particular understanding of divine election, this view maintains that the fate of babies is decided in the same way as the fate of adults. As spelled out in the Westminster Confession of Faith, elect babies are predestined to salvation; non-elect babies are not. Often this view is combined with the above mentioned covenantal theology, assuring Christian parents that their deceased babies are indeed elect.

Finally, many evangelicals who are convinced that love must be freely chosen hold to the belief that perhaps babies who die are somehow allowed to mature in the afterlife, at which point they, like the rest of us, decide for themselves whether they want to submit to Christ. I find in the New Testament, especially in the teachings of Jesus, a recurring theme that all processes that are incomplete in this age will be completed in the next. On this basis, along with my belief that love must be chosen, I’m inclined toward the view that all people who have not solidified a decision for or against Christ, including infants, are somehow allowed to do so in the next age.

Further Reading

  • Boors, L. The Mystery of Death. Trans. G. Bainbridge. New York: Herder & Herder, 1965.
  • Buswell, J. O. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962.
  • Dyer, G. J. “The Unbaptized Infant in Eternity,” Chicago Studies 2 (1963): 147.
  • Gumpel, P. “Unbaptized Infants: May They Be Saved?” Downside Review 72 (1954): 342–458.
  • Hastings, Adrian. “The Salvation of Unbaptized Infants.” Downside Review 77 (1958–59): 172–78.
  • Sanders, J. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
  • Warfield, B. “The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation.” In Studies in Theology, ed. E. D. Warfield, 411–44. New York: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Related Reading

Is the Bible against body piercing and tattoos?

Some Christians argue against body piercing and tattoos on the basis of a couple of Old Testament verses that prohibit them (Lev. 19:28). Several years back an aggravated lady tried to get me to preach against these things in my church (she’d observed that a number of people in the congregation had body piercings and…

What do you think of the classical view that God is impassible?

The classical view has historically held that God is impassible, meaning he is above pathos (passion or emotions). The main reason the church came to this view was that, following the Hellenistic philosophical tradition, they associated emotions with change while believing God was above all change (immutable). Moreover, experiencing emotions implies that one is affected…

How can you put your trust in a God who’s not in control of everything?

Question: I read your book Is God to Blame? and found it to be very compelling. It’s rocking my world. But I’m also finding I’m now having trouble trusting God like I used to. I used to believe that God ordained or at least foreknew all that was going to happen. Now I’m questioning this,…

How do you respond to Isaiah 14:24, 27?

The Lord of hosts has sworn: As I have designed, so shall it be; and as I have planned, so shall it come to pass… For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who will annul it? his hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? The fact that Scripture frequently speaks of…

How do you respond to Judges 9:23?

“…God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the lords of Schechem; and the lords of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech.” (cf. 1 Sam. 16:14; 1 Kings 22:19–23). Some compatibilists cite this passage to support the view that evil spirits always carry out the Lord’s will (though they contend that God is good for willing…

What is the significance of Deuteronomy 13:1–3?

Moses tells the Israelites that God allowed false prophets to sometimes be correct because “the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.” If God already knows such matters with certainty, Scripture’s inspired description as to why such testings take place…

Topics: