Precious Lord, Take My Hand

In the mid-1990s, Dory and I got together with a Christian Friend, Gary Whitlatch, who is a gifted musician, and put together this presentation of the beautiful Spiritual "Precious Lord, Take My Hand."  

It was our way of telling people the reason this song was written, hopefully to encourage them to look at it, not as a dusty old hymn - but as a living testimony of how God works in the lives of those who love Him and know that they need Him.

I wrote the script and with Gary on guitar and acting as co-narrator, I read the part of Thomas Dorsey and Dory led us in singing. 

This took on new meaning tonight when I listened to Joey Feek, who passed away yesterday of cancer at the age of 40, singing this beautiful Spiritual with her husband and partner, Rory Feek.

Joey+Rory - Take My Hand, Precious Lord (Live)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2XHCpLFtxo

Thomas Dorsey wrote this song shortly after losing his wife and baby when both died in childbirth.  Through the pain of his double loss and his love for God, this song "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" was born.

So, as a memorial to the beautiful lady, Joey Feek, I have shared the video above of her singing "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" and our presentation of that Spiritual. God bless, Bill

PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND

BILL:               The apostle Paul, in Colossians 3:16, instructs us, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, sing with thankfulness in your hearts to God."

Again in Ephesians 5:18-19 Paul urges us, ". . . but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;"

GARY:             What did Paul mean in those words in Ephesians and Colossians when he gave this instruction to the first century Christians, to sing "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs"?  The psalms refer to the rich heritage of Jewish music of that time from the book of Psalms and other Old Testament scripture, directing man's worship to the greatness and majesty of God the Father. 

His reference to hymns was an encouragement for those early believers to also sing musical expressions concerning New Testament truths and doctrines which reflect the person and redemptive work of Christ. 

BILL:               But to give a proper balance to their worship, Paul wisely suggested the use of spiritual or experiential songs, those more spontaneous expressions that flow from one's innermost being, out of a very personal love relationship with the Lord, prompted by the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Isn't that what our praise songs are today?  The spirituals of that generation eventually become part of today's hymnals and, as such, get classified as "old music!"  Perhaps we should take another look.  We just might find that they contain a lot of spiritual "meat."

GARY:             Isn't Paul really saying, "When you sing and make melody with your heart to the Lord, make it a mix of the old, -- the Psalms; and the new -- the hymns, songs about what is happening now; and the spiritual songs -- songs of emotion and praise for the Lord."

BILL:               The song we are featuring today is one of those very intimate spiritual expressions, "Precious Lord, Take My Hand.”

GARY, ON GUITAR, PLAYS FIRST VERSE OF "PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND."

GARY:             "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" was written in 1932 by Thomas Dorsey, a black Gospel musician.  In Thomas Dorsey's own words,

BILL:               "I was born in the year 1899.  I grew up in a Christian home in Georgia.  My father was an itinerant preacher and my mother played the pump organ in the church.  By the time I was ten or twelve, I had learned to play that organ too.  As a preacher's kid, I was exposed to quite a bit of religious activity, and maybe that got into me some way, but I didn't follow it."

GARY:             Dorsey became interested in jazz music and during the first World War he began composing songs for blues singers, achieving considerable fame and financial success.  He put a band together and traveled quite a bit while writing over 150 blues songs.

But Thomas Dorsey could never forget the influence of his early religious training nor the memory of his godly parents.  Even when busily playing in bars and clubs around the country, he still thought a great deal about his early life.  Then as a young man in his twenties, Dorsey began to reflect seriously about himself; how God had preserved him on so many occasions, and that he was now foolishly wasting his time and his talents.

As Dorsey said,

BILL:               "It was in 1924 that I started to come back to God.  I knew that I was ruining my life.  That year I wrote 'If I Don't Get There,' a Gospel song that is still in the books today.  Today I can say that all that I am, and all that I ever will be, all that I have, all that I will ever possess, I owe to God.  He brought me out of my sin."

GARY:             For the next few years, Thomas Dorsey was actively involved in singing for church services and writing gospel songs.  One day while ministering in a revival meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, he received a telegram that his wife Nettie had just died delivering their first child.  Arriving home in South Chicago that same night, he was met with further bad news, his infant son had also died.  Both were buried in the same casket.  The sorrow was more than Dorsey could bear.

BILL:               "That was double trouble, and I couldn't take it.  I said, 'God, You aren't worth a dime to me right now.'  I felt as if He had treated me wrong.  A few weeks later I was sitting with a friend, Theodore Frye, the Gospel singer, trying to get over my grief.  As I fingered the keyboard of a piano, I picked up a tune, which wasn't so original, but the words were.  I called it 'Blessed Lord.'  After I had gone over it and over it, I said, 'Come here, Frye.  How do you like this song?'" 

GARY:             Theodore Frye responded, "Well, the words are good, but the 'Blessed Lord' won't work.  Why not call Him 'Precious Lord?"

BILL:               The next Sunday Frye's choir sang it at the Ebenezer Baptist Church with Dorsey accompanying on the piano and in Dorsey's words, "It tore up the church!"

DORY SINGS FIRST VERSE OF "PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND"

GARY:             Until his death in 1965 Thomas Dorsey wrote approximately 250 gospel songs, including the popular spiritual, "Peace In The Valley."  All of his songs were written with much conviction as shown in his own words,

BILL:               "My business is to try to bring people to Christ instead of leaving them where they are.  I write all my songs with a message,  If there is no message, there is no need for having a song.  I don't write for races, I don't write for colors, I write for all of God's people.  I want them all to use it.  I want the blessings to go to everybody.  All people are my people.  What I share with people is love, that is, the power of love.  I try to lift their spirits and let them know that God still loves them.  I want them to understand that God is still in business.  He's still saving, and He can still give that power."

GARY:             Thomas Dorsey left these instructions for enjoying gospel music:

BILL:               "To listen to a Gospel song properly, you've got to be in the mood.  You have to give God your whole intelligence, your whole heart, your whole feeling.  You have to be able to bring yourself inside the realm of this expression that is being handed out, so it will reach you."

GARY:             Yes, spiritual songs like "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" are born in the heart of one believer, often out of much adversity, and then they minister to the heartfelt needs of countless others who may be sharing a similar experience.  That is why the apostle Paul instructed us to sing spiritual songs to one another as an important source of learning and encouragement.

BILL:               You'll find a copy of "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" in your bulletin.  Please stand and join us in singing this beautiful spiritual song.

PRECIOUS LORD, TAKE MY HAND

Written by THOMAS A. DORSEY

Precious Lord, take my hand,
Lead me on, help me stand;
I am tired, I am weak, I am worn;
Thru the storm, thru the night,
Lead me on to the light,
Take my hand,  precious Lord, lead me home.

When my way grows drear,
Precious Lord, linger near;
When my life is almost gone,
Hear my cry, hear my call,
Hold my hand lest I fall;
Take my hand,  precious Lord, lead me home.

© 1938 Hill and Range Songs, Inc. 

           

"Because He Lives" - The Story Behind The Song

THE BEAUTIFUL CHRISTIAN SONG "BECAUSE HE LIVES" HAS LONG BEEN ONE OF MY FAVORITES.   But, I will bet that most folks mistakenly assume this second stanza of the song is referring to the birth of Christ.  When, in fact, it is referring to the birth of Bill & Gloria Gaither's only son, Benjamin. 

As you will see in both the article excerpt below and in the video - they wrote this song as the decadent 1960s turned into the turbulent 1970s.  They had financial and health worries, the country was in a turmoil, and here they were, about to bring another child into such a world. 

But, once Benjamin came and they were able to hold him - God put the words of this stanza on their hearts.  This was the first part of the song "Because He Lives" which they wrote.  And, then the rest followed later.

"How sweet to hold a newborn baby,
And feel the pride and joy he gives;
But greater still the calm assurance:
This child can face uncertain days because He Lives!"

This video is the Gaithers being interviewed by Mark Lowry about the writing of this song:

"Because He Lives" By The Gaither Trio 1972
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJgzd__SSBY

And this article excerpt will fill in some of the blanks:
 

The story behind “Because He Lives” .  .  .  In the words of Bill & Gloria Gaither the story behind the song:

We wrote “Because He Lives” after a period of time when we had had a kind of dry spell and hadn’t written any songs for a while.  .  .  Also at the end of the 1960’s when our country was going through some great turmoil with the height of the drug culture and the whole “God Is Dead”  theory which was running wild in our country, and also at the peak of the Vietnam War, our little son was born - Benjy (Benjamin).   At least Gloria was expecting him. 

And I can remember at the time we thought, “Brother, this is really a poor time to bring a child into the world.”  At times we were even quite discouraged by the whole thing.  And then Benjy did come.  We had two little girls whom we love very much, but this was our first son, and so that lyric came to us, “How sweet to hold our new-born baby and feel the pride and joy he gives, but better still the calm assurance that this child can face uncertain days because Christ lives.”

And it gave us the courage to say “Because Christ lives we can face tomorrow” and keep our heads high -  and hopefully that could be of meaning to other people.

It’s rather interesting now that, although we don’t consider ourselves as “old” writers, we’ve had many people tell us they have used that song at a funeral of a loved one; and it has been very encouraging to them, at a time when they were very discouraged.  So evidently a lot of people have shared the same kind of experience of being discouraged.    (https://austinbhebe.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/because-he-lives/)

I pray that this gives you a better understanding of the personal love which went into the writing of this beautiful Christian Gospel song, "Because He Lives."  And that, if it is not already one of your favorites, it will become a favorite as you listen to it being sung in a 1972 concert by the Gaither Trio, featuring Danny Gaither's beautiful tenor voice.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Study Of Gospel Of John - Dallas Theological Seminary

IF I WERE LEADING A BIBLE STUDY FOR NEW BELIEVERS, the first book I would suggest we would study is the book of John.  Why?  When we look at the four Gospels, their teachings can best be described this way:

Matthew:  Behold your King!
 
Mark:  Behold the Servant Son!

Luke:  Behold the Perfect Man!

John:  Behold deity, the Son of God!

The first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the Synoptic Gospels for they address the public life and ministry of Jesus Christ, mostly sharing the same events:  Matthew addressing a Jewish audience - Mark who was with Peter in Babylon and was an early disciple of Peter, seems to be addressing the Gentiles, i.e., those in the Romans provinces of northern Asia Minor - while Luke, being a Gentile physician, addresses a broader Gentile audience.

The fourth Gospel, the book of John has a singular focus: the deity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God - offering us eternal life in Him:

John 20:30-31, "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

 
While the book of Genesis is the foundation upon which our Bible, and the Creation record, are built - the Gospel of John, and the deity of Christ, are the foundation upon which our Christian faith stands.  So, you can see why I would begin any new believer Bible Study with the Gospel of John.

My reason for this introduction is to make you aware of a great opportunity.  While many of us may not be able to attend seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary is offering us a course on the Gospel of John - and the price is fantastic: FREE!

It is an 8-part study and I just finished watching the video for "Week One: The Word was with God, and the Word was God" taught by Dr. Mark Bailey, President and Senior Professor of Bible Exposition.  Whether we are Christian believers mature in the knowledge of the Word or God, or new believers, i.e., "babes in Christ" - this course will help us grow in Christ.  That is why I want to share this with you.

If you will open the web site below, you can register, log-in, and begin your study of the Gospel of John at your own pace.

On the first page, you will find the Video - Lesson Points - Worship Moment: The Word was with God, and the Word was God - and Discussion Questions.

Below the video, you will find: "Download this week’s course slides HERE."  By clicking on HERE, you will be able to download in PDF format all the slides presented by Dr. Mark Bailey in the video for further study, or to use in your own Bible Study.

So, click on this link and begin your "Study the Gospel of John with Dallas Theological Seminary – For Free." 
 

https://courses.dts.edu/register/gospel-of-john-registration/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_content=dts&utm_campaign=gospelofjohn

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Wisdom In Sharing - Tenacity In Defending!

Each evening, in my prayer time, I asked God to give me wisdom, understanding, and knowledge to enable me to share His Word - and tenacity in defending His Word.   Does tenacity in defending His Word sound too militant?   Are we called to only share the Gospel in love, but never to refute misunderstood, erroneous, or false teachings? 

Isn't that the meaning of Christian apologetics - to be bold in defending the Word of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for those who are still "babes in Christ," who are still immature in their knowledge of the Word of God - and in defending it against those who would twist, denigrate, or deny what the Bible teaches us?  A strong Biblical admonishment for defending our Christian faith is found in 1 Peter 3:15,  "But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence."

Should we only share when asked?  I have had sincere Christian Friends tell me, "Bill, if they want to hear about Jesus and salvation, they will ask me.  If they do not ask, I will not beat them over the head with my Bible."   Such a Friend I will politely, and with a smile, call a "couch potato" Christian, i.e., "If they want to know, they will come to me!"    But, what does Jesus tell us to do?  "GO!, Make Disciples, Baptize Them, TEACH Them.  .  . Be My witnesses in ALL the world!"  (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15).  He does not tell us to sit on our couch waiting for someone to come and ask us about Him.  No, He tells us to, "GO!"

True, we should never "beat" anyone with our Bible.  But we should be open at all times to sharing the Word of God with those who do not yet know Him.  If you have never been around or lived around water - will you know how to swim?  Or will you need someone to guide and teach you?  The same is true of God's Word; if a person has never been truly exposed to God's Word, how will they know they need it?  One cannot share the love of God, without sharing the Word of God.

You might ask, "But, Bill, if God is all powerful (omnipotent), all knowing (omniscient), and everywhere present (omnipresent) - cannot He defend His own Word?  Can't He just smite those who would defame His name, His Gospel?"  

Of course He can.  That is how we know the Bible, all 66 books, is the true Word of God - for He has protected His Word through thousands of years of copying, translations, and canonization.  That is how we know that the message of Jesus Christ and eternal life found in the Bible is the true Gospel, for He has defended and protected His Word.

But, like any good father, rather than doing everything for us - He most often allows us to do the task.  Why?  Well, could your child learn to do his math homework if you insisted upon doing it for him?   What would your child learn if you did all his math homework for him?  By guiding him, offering suggestions now and then, and then allowing him to do the work himself - he learns.

And, the same is true of us.  God has given each believer the absolute best Teacher that has ever existed, the Holy Spirit.  The moment we become new believers the Holy Spirit indwells us, i.e., comes to live within us, seals us in Christ (Ephesians 1:13) - never to leave us (Ephesians 4:30, John 14:16). 

Why does He dwell within us?   To help us better understand the Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-13) - To teach us what God would have each mature believer know about Him and His Word (John 14:26) - To convict us when we inevitably fail (John 16:7–11) - To guide us in our Christian walk (John 16:13) - To witness to us of the glory, deity, and works of Jesus Christ (John 15:26,  John 16:14, 1 Corinthians 12:3).

So, should we Christian believers be "defending the Word of God, our Christian faith"?  You betcha!  And, we do that by being prepared and ready to share the love of Christ, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with all people.  That is how we show that we are truly their Friends.

Last Sunday, in our sermon message Pastor Omer Mascarina shared with us about being Friends - with other believers and with those who are not yet believers.    He reminded us that Jesus was the Friend of sinners (Matthew 11:16-19).  Why did Jesus hang with the sinners? 

Mark 2:16-17, "And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, 'How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?'  When Jesus heard it, He said to them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.  I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.'"

 
Then, Pastor Omer shared how we believers are to be Friends with others, with Christian brethren and with those who do not yet know Him:
 

1.  A Real Friend Sacrifices (John 15:12-15) - Just as Jesus Christ came in human form to give Himself as the one true Sacrificial Lamb for us.

2.  A Real Friend Loves (Proverbs 17:17) - Just as Jesus loves us and died for every person in the world, believer and those yet to believe.

3.  A Real Friend Is Steadfast (Proverbs 18:24) - Jesus is always there for us - and, in like fashion, we should always be available and ready to lift up a brother or sister in need, spiritually or materially.

4.  A Real Friend Accepts (Matthew 11:18, Luke 19:7) - Even while we were still sinners, Jesus accepted us and made salvation available to each of us by taking our sins and our punishment upon Himself, dying in our stead.

5.  A Real Friend Offers Correction (Proverbs 27:6) -  Can we really say we are a Friend, that we love another, if we see that person walking in such a way that can only bring eternal destruction - and we do not offer corrective guidance?  If a brother or sister is living a lifestyle which we know, from the Bible, will keep that person from having eternal life in Christ - should we just be quiet, accept his/her lifestyle as normal and acceptable to God, when we know it is not? 

No, a real Friend will love that person enough to tell him/her that the lifestyle he is living is wrong - and that he truly needs to turn from that lifestyle, i.e., the world - and turn to follow Jesus Christ.

6.  A Real Friend Forgives (Matthew 26:50) - Jesus Christ forgives us when we seek Him.  Can we do less with others?

7.  A Real Friend Is Open (John 15:15) - Jesus Christ receives each believer as a brother, a friend.  Should we not receive others in the same love?  And, should we not receive even non-believers in love, not a sin accepting love - but in a love which is uplifting, not enabling of a sin lifestyle?

Hebrews 3:13, "But exhort one another daily, while it is called 'Today,' lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."

 
So, should we be Friends of sinners?  Yes.  Should we enable an aberrant lifestyle just to avoid upsetting that Friend?  No.

Should we be serious about defending our Christian faith?   That depends upon how much you love Jesus Christ.  Did Jesus tell the money changers in the temple, "Oh, don't worry.  I will just look the other way while you cheat people and defame God's House.  After all, that is your way of life."

Or did He admonish them to change their ways? 

We all know the answer to that question.  And, if we are to be faithful Christ Followers, i.e., Christians - shouldn't we be doing all in our power to emulate Him?  Shouldn't we love our fellow man with a love strong enough to tell him/her when the path he is walking is leading him to destruction?   

Jesus Christ tells us that we should love our fellow man - love him - not enable and encourage his downfall through accepting a Godless lifestyle as normal - just to make him comfortable.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Salvation!

Long before you and I were alive, folks have been debating Calvinism vs Arminianism, most often in friendly debates; but, at times, in rather heated confrontations.  Over the years that I have been writing, I have had many of the more pleasant discussions - and I have had some of the other, from folks who would otherwise call me brother.

And, along the way I have had the terms "Calvinist" and "Fundamentalist" - and a few other names I will not mention in polite society, thrown at me from the Liberal and Legalistic theology teams. 

Also, not to forget my non-believing Friends who often hold the belief that calling me a Fundamentalist is worse than calling me Satan.  Although I have been called Satan a few times also.  We will discuss Fundamentalism in another writing; for now we will take another look at Calvinism vs Arminianism.

I have many Christian Friends who know nothing about either of these opposing theologies, preferring to just concentrate on loving and following Christ in their own fellowship and leaving all other discussions alone.  That is not a bad thing.  But, It is much like folks who grow up in a protected environment, not realizing or noticing many of the things happening in our secular society.  Many of those folks will also accept the secular version of "separation of church and state" - declaring, "Let the politicians do their thing and I will do my Christian thing."  Oh, if it were only that simple.

"So, Bill, why is it so important to recognize and understand the difference between Calvinism, Arminianism, and those other theologies which teach neither?"

A person would have to be blind to not recognize that we live in a fallen world, a world where evil abounds and where a person must be constantly aware, lest someone steal his property, defame him, cheat him, harm him and his family, even to the point of killing them.  Where does one find peace and security in such a world?  Some find it in accumulating wealth, often paying armed guards to protect them and their families.  Often they find security in knowing that with their accumulated wealth, they can buy themselves out of problems and harm.  But, is that really security?

Jesus Christ offers us "eternal security" - promising that once we have, by grace through faith, chosen to follow Him as Lord and Savior - NO ONE can snatch us out of His hands nor out of the Father's hands (John 10:28-29).  That is real security, not protection from tribulations of this world -  but, His promise to keep us secure eternally, not just for the few years we have in this mortal body.  That "eternal security" we claim the moment we believe and receive Him, for at that moment we are indwelled and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13), never to have that seal broken nor have the Holy Spirit evicted (Ephesians 4:30).   That is real Eternal Security, which no amount of accumulated wealth can buy; but which God freely gives to us the moment we are adopted into His family (Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 4:5-6, Ephesians 1:5).

"But, Bill, doesn't Calvinism and Arminianism offer that same Eternal Security?"

Glad you asked.  And, the only answer can be a resounding, "Yes and No!"   Confused?  No need to be, for ALL Christian believers have His "eternal security" even if the theology they follow teaches otherwise.

Calvinism tells us that before God created the heavens and the earth; before God created any living humans - but, knowing that He was going to create billions upon billions of humans, all created in His own image (Genesis 1:26) - God decided that He was only going to allow a small minority of those divinely created humans into His heaven (the Elect). 

And, according to the Calvinist theology, He decided, before the Creation, that the vast majority of those divinely created human souls He would condemn to eternal hell, misery, and suffering (the Reprobate) - without them having any opportunity to choose to enter His heaven.  Wow, what a God!

And, I have read Calvinist writings which tell us that God also applies that Elect or Reprobate classification to all babies - aborted, pre-born who die, infants who die, young children who die before reaching the age of understanding, all young children.  According to those writings, if that child: aborted, pre-born, infant, or young child - is conceived by an Elect couple - that child automatically has Eternal Security assured, that child will be in heaven.

On the other hand, if that child: aborted, pre-born, infant, or young child - is conceived by a Reprobate couple - that child automatically is condemned to eternal hell, misery, and suffering.   Is that the God you worship and serve?

Arminians believe that God offers salvation and eternal life to all who will believe and receive His Son as Lord and Savior.  That is good.  However, then Arminians tell us that, even though we have believed and received Christ - we can still lose that salvation.   They obviously ignore what Jesus taught in John 10:28-29, that no one (and that "no one" includes the believer) can snatch the believer out of His hands nor out of the Father's hands.

Yes, according to the Arminians, all Christian believers must go through life looking over their shoulders - lest they commit that one small sin, often a sin unknown to them, which will rob them of their salvation, rob them of the Eternal Security which Christ has promised to all believers.  Where is Eternal Security to be found in a life where we must constantly be looking over our shoulders lest we be robbed of our salvation?

In a sense, I relate to Dr. Norman Geisler's position of being a "moderate Calvinist."   But, in reality, I have a problem with any theology that is based upon the teachings of any man and given the name of that man, i.e., Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.  I prefer to follow a Christian Theology, based upon His name only.  So, I will often define myself as standing somewhere in the middle between the theologies created by John Calvin (1509-1564) and Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), denying some doctrines in both camps.

Norman Geisler
http://www.theopedia.com/norman-geisler

Theology:  Geisler maintains that he is a "moderate Calvinist," as outlined in his book Chosen But Free (1999).

He is widely considered a conservative evangelical, in spite of the misgivings that both Arminian and Calvinist polemicists have with his "moderate Calvinism."  He rejects the classical Calvinist tenets of unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace - yet retains modified versions of total depravity and perseverance of the saints.  In response to this James R. White, a Calvinist pastor and apologist, wrote The Potter's Freedom (2000).  One of White's contentions is that Geisler's "moderate Calvinism" appears to be an "inconsistent" Arminianism, in opposition to the more robust views espoused by John Calvin.

Dr. Geisler has also been an outspoken critic of "open theism," especially it's doctrine of "limited foreknowledge" - which he maintains is a deeply flawed subversion of "classical theism." .  .  .

Bill Gray Note:  Open Theism denies the full foreknowledge of God, thus denying His omniscience.

Norman L. Geisler is an evangelical scholar, Christian apologist, and the author/coauthor of over fifty Christian books defending the Christian faith by means of logic, evidence, and philosophy.  He has also authored many scholarly articles on a wide range of theological and philosophical topics.  Dr. Geisler has taught at the university and graduate level for over forty years.  Geisler's work Baker Encyclopedia of Christan Apologetics has been well received and is considered a systematic and comprehensive work of Christian apologetics.

Another view is found in the Calvinist leaning web site GotQuestions:   http://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html

Question: "Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct?"

Answer:  Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation.  Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564.  Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609.

Both systems can be summarized with five points. 

T -  Calvinism holds to the total depravity of man while Arminianism holds to partial depravity.  Calvinism’s doctrine of total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is corrupted by sin; therefore, human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord.  Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that human beings are unable to place faith in God of their own accord. .  .

U -  Calvinism includes the belief that election is unconditional, while Arminianism believes in conditional election.  Unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will, not on anything inherently worthy in the individual.  Conditional election states that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation, thereby on the condition that the individual chooses God.

L -  Calvinism sees the atonement as limited, while Arminianism sees it as unlimited.  This is the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect.  Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person receives Him by faith.

I -  Calvinism includes the belief that God’s grace is irresistible, while Arminianism says that an individual can resist the grace of God.  Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation.  Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.

P -  Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation.  Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will not permanently deny Christ or turn away from Him.  Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation. .  .

So, in the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate, who is correct?  It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism.  There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views.  Ultimately, it is our view that both systems fail in that they attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Human beings are incapable of fully grasping a concept such as this.  Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and knows all.  Yes, human beings are called to make a genuine decision to place faith in Christ unto salvation.  These two facts seem contradictory to us, but in the mind of God they make perfect sense.

Recommended Resources:

Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views, by Hunt & White
Chosen But Free, revised edition: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will, by Norm Geisler
The Potter's Freedom, by James White
Why I Am Not a Calvinist, by Walls & Dongell
Why I Am Not an Arminian, by Peterson & Williams

Bill Gray Note:  The underline, bold, and cap TULIP letters were added by me.

Keep in mind that if you accept the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination, you are also accepting that God has chosen before the Creation - to condemn billions of people, including babies, to eternal hell, misery, and suffering with no possibility of salvation.

And, if you chose to follow the teaching of Arminianism, that believers can lose their salvation - then you are refusing to accept the promise of Christ in John 10:28-29, "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.  My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand."

So, where do you stand - in the "Predestination For All" corner - or - in the "Lose Your Salvation" corner.  OR, do you stand in the Biblical Christian center which tells us, in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world (you, me, all people) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (you, me, all people) believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

If you choose the Calvinist corner, you must ask yourself, "Am I really sure that God chose me before the Creation to be among the Elect?  How am I to know, for sure?"

And, if you choose to stand in the Arminian corner, you must ask yourself, "Why does Jesus, over and over in the Bible, promise the believer eternal life - if He is not going to keep the believer secure in that promise?"

Praise God, I KNOW, with no doubt, that I have eternal life in Christ, i.e., eternal security.  And, I KNOW, with no doubt, that all believers, regardless of the fact that some follow an erroneous theology - are saved and will have eternal fellowship with Jesus Christ and all other believers.  For ALL my brothers and sisters in Christ, even those I do not know in this life - I will see in heaven!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Do Babies Go To Heaven Upon Death?

The relatively recent practice on Facebook of giving us reminders of things we had posted on this day in past years is good.  It gives us a chance to look back and see if there is reason to change our thinking based upon further studies of God's Word.

Recently, I was reminded of a question posted to my page by my Christian brother, Jonathan Benjamin, on January 19, 2012.  In that post, Jon asked me, "Hey brother Bill, I wanted to ask you if you believe in original sin?"   And, that question led me to write my Facebook Note titled "'Original Sin' Or 'Sin Nature' - Is There A Difference?"   Below is an excerpt from that Note:

"Original Sin" Or "Sin Nature" - Is There A Difference?
Bill Gray, January 20, 2012
https://www.facebook.com/notes/306589322720561/

Bathsheba had conceived a child which died in infancy.  Yet, in this passage David is sure that this child, innocent of the sins of his parents, would be in heaven - for David, who had repented of his sin before God, says of the child, "Can I bring him back again?  I will go to him, but he will not return to me."   David knew his child was with God - and that, one day, he would join that child in the presence of God.

And, in Luke 18:16, Jesus tells His disciples, and us, "But Jesus called for them, saying, 'Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.' "

From these passages, and knowing that God's love and justice are perfect - we know that He will bring all children who die early, before the age of understanding, into His arms.

Later that same day Jonathan replied: 

That's a very well detailed explanation of your position.  I want to thank you.  Also, I wanted to ask you about the portion on babies and young children.  It is commonly believed in the mainstream evangelical church that God would never send a child or a baby to hell.  They'll point to several passages like David lamenting over his baby or Jesus stating, "Don't deny those that come to me such as these."

But as I examined those verses I can't find exegetical reason to believe they state children go to heaven automatically.  Doesn't it go against certain solidified doctrines such as: Jesus is the only way to the father.  Any other way is trying to climb over the fence?  When a child gets to heaven and God asks, "Why should I let you in?" - from what I understand, if it's any reason other than Christ, they aren't getting in.  Does God have a soft spot in his heart for babies and young children?  I'm sure he does, but that doesn't mean it nullifies His Word, does it?  Thanks for responding!

First, I would question whether God would ask a child who has not yet reached an age where he/she is capable of understanding and believing in Jesus Christ, "Why should I let you in?"    But, that is just a personal position and not specifically Biblical.

True, the Bible does not tell us absolutely that unborn babies, infants, and children who have not reached the age of understanding, i.e., the age of accountability, will go to heaven.  But, I do believe there is enough evidence to believe that He does have a special dispensation for such.

Let's look at what several Christian leaders, teachers, and scholars have to say on this issue:

Do Babies And Others Incapable Of Professing Faith In Christ Automatically Go To Heaven?
John F. MacArthur, Grace to You
http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA101/do-babies-and-others-incapable-of-professing-faith-in-christ-automatically-go-to-heaven

 People often wonder about the eternal destiny of the unborn, babies, and those unable to intellectually understand the gospel.  That question is a difficult one.  Unfortunately, the Bible offers us no explicit answer.  However, based on several passages, as well as an understanding of God's character and His dealings with men, we can develop a good idea of how He works in such situations.  .  .  .

Second Samuel 12:23 is one of the passages often quoted to imply that babies go to heaven.  Though the verse doesn't explicitly say that, David clearly does expect to one day be reunited with his departed child.  Since we know David is a believer whose destiny was heaven, we can infer that his hope of reunion means he expected his child to be in heaven.  Thus, 2 Samuel 12:23 suggests strong evidence for a heavenly destiny of the unborn and children who die young.

If this were all we had to support our position, it would be admittedly less than stalwart.  However, there are other evidences that point us to the same conclusion.  First, the Bible clearly teaches that God cares deeply for children.  Passages like Matthew 18:1-6 (Jesus' discourse on humility like a child) and 19:13-15 (Jesus blesses little children) affirm the Lord's love for them.  Those verses don't state that children go to heaven, but they do show God's heart toward children.  He created and cares for children, and beyond that, He always accomplishes His perfect will in every circumstance.

However, another point may be helpful in answering this question.  While infants and children have neither sensed their personal sin and need for salvation nor placed their faith in Christ, Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God's revelation - whether general or specific - not simple ignorance of it (Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8).

Can we definitely say that the unborn and young children have comprehended the truth displayed by God's general revelation that renders them "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20)?  They will be judged according to the light they received.  Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin - including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin.  But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? 

Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord.

From the GotQuestions web site:
 

What about babies and young children who never attain the ability to make this individual choice?  The age of accountability is the concept that those who die before reaching the age of accountability are automatically saved by God’s grace and mercy.  The age of accountability is the belief that God saves all those who die never having possessed the ability to make a decision for or against Christ.  .  .  .  

A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.  Charles Spurgeon’s opinion was that “a child of five can as truly be saved and regenerated as an adult.”

Bill Gray Note:  When my Friend, Pastor Sam Lacanienta, interviewed our five year old granddaughter, Elyssa, and decided she had the knowledge and understanding to receive Christ and to be baptized, I will admit that, as a relatively new Christian then myself, I wondered about his decision. 

However, when I now look at the young Christian woman, Elyssa, in her final year of getting her Teaching Credentials at a leading Christian college and engaged to a wonderful Christian man - I see that Pastor Sam knew a lot more than I did back then.  He was right - and Elyssa is living proof.

With the above in mind, also consider this: Christ’s death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind.  First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”   This verse is clear that Jesus’ death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. 

The fact that Christ’s death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.   (Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?  http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html)

And, from the CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) web site:

What happens to babies or infants who die?  Do they go to Heaven or Hell?
https://carm.org/what-happens-to-babies-or-infants-who-die

While the Bible does not explicitly say where young children go when they die in infancy, it seems to imply that they go to Heaven.

First, there is no verse in Scripture which states that those unbelievers will go to Hell because they were not old enough to believe.  Since God is just, it would appear that He would allow these infants to go to Heaven.

Second, perhaps the only passage in Scripture which explicitly speaks about where babies go who die in infancy is 2 Samuel 12.   In the context of this passage, David committed adultery with Bathsheba.  The prophet, Nathan, boldly confronts David about his adultery and tells him that the child that Bathsheba has conceived will die.  As a result of the confrontation, David confesses his sin, puts on sackcloth and ashes, fasts, and mourns the fact that he will lose his child.

When David receives news that the child has died, he quits mourning and fasting and changes his clothing.  The prophet, Nathan, comes to David and asks him why he quit mourning the loss of his son.

David replies, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me"  (2 Sam. 12:22-23).  The text seems to imply that the child went to Heaven since David says, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me," and elsewhere Scripture indicates that David went to Heaven (Psalm. 16:10-11, Heb. 11:32-33).

Third, Scripture may allude to an age of accountability in Isaiah 7:15 which speaks of a child who "will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good."  If a child dies before this "time" - it would seem that he or she would go to Heaven.

It is difficult to be dogmatic about this issue, but we can rest in the fact that God is holy, righteous, and just.  Therefore, whatever God chooses to do with infants will be best for them.1

1. References: Norman Geisler, "Infants, Salvation of," in The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999, pp. 363-65.

In his book "Bible Doctrine" (Zondervan 1999 pages 216-217) Dr. Wayne Grudem tells us:

3. Are infants guilty before they commit actual sins?  Some maintain that Scripture teaches an "age of accountability" before which young children are not held responsible for sin and are not counted guilty before God.  However, the passages noted above about "inherited sin" indicate that even before birth children have a guilty standing before God and a sinful nature that not only gives them a tendency to sin but also causes God to view them as "sinners" in his sight.  "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me"  (Psalm. 51:5).  .  .

4. How can infants who die be saved?  But what do we say about infants who die before they are old enough to understand and believe the gospel?  Can they be saved?

Here we must say that if such infants are saved, it cannot be on their own merits, or on the basis of their own righteousness or innocence, but it must be entirely on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work and regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit within them.  .  .  However it certainly is possible for God to bring regeneration (that is, new spiritual life) to an infant even before he or she is born.  

It is clear, therefore, that God is able to save infants in an unusual way, apart from their hearing and understanding the gospel, by bringing regeneration to them very early, sometimes even before birth.  This regeneration is probably also followed at once by a nascent, intuitive awareness of God and trust in Him at an extremely early age, but this is something we simply cannot understand.

We must, however, affirm very clearly that this is not the usual way for God to save people.  Salvation usually occurs when someone hears and understands the gospel and then places trust in Christ.  .  .

To this point, I agree with Dr. Grudem.  However, in the continuation of his teaching on infant death, I find it hard to stay with him.  For here, he falls back to the Reform/Calvinist teaching of Predestination, i.e., Elect and Reprobate.  The way I read this following excerpt from page 217 of Bible Doctrine, he is saying that only the children of the Elect chosen before the creation are saved.  That implies that the children of the Reprobate go to hell.

How many infants does God save in this way?  Scripture does not tell us, so we simply cannot know.  Where Scripture is silent, it is unwise for us to make definitive pronouncements.  However, we should recognize that it is God’s frequent pattern throughout Scripture to save the children of those who believe in him.  .  .  God’s ordinary pattern, the ‘normal’ or expected way in which he acts, is to bring the [infant] children of believers to Himself. 

With regard to believers’ children who die very young, we have no reason to think that it would be otherwise (see 2 Sam. 12:23 and Psalm. 23:6).  .  .  This should be of assurance to all believers who have lost children in their infancy, that they will one day see them again in the glory of the heavenly kingdom.

Regarding the children of unbelievers who die at a very early age, Scripture is silent.  We simply must leave that matter in the hands of God and trust him to be both just and merciful.  If they are saved, it will not be on the basis of any merit of their own or any innocence that we might presume that they have.  If they are saved, it will be on the basis of Christ’s redeeming work.  Salvation is always because of God’s mercy, not because of our merits (see Rom. 9:14-18).  Scripture does not allow us to say more than that.

As I have written many times before, I find it impossible to believe the Bible teaches that billions of people, i.e., the Reprobate, are condemned to hell with absolutely no opportunity to choose eternal life in Christ.  That is virtually impossible for me to believe regarding the God I worship - a God of perfect Love and perfect Justice.  

The Bible tells us that, until we breathe that last breath - even the most heinous of sinners can still choose to follow Christ into eternal life.  Jesus teaches of this in Matthew 20:1-16, the parable of workers hired at different times, i.e., those saved late, even just before their last breath, have the same eternal life in Christ.

However, when it comes to the unborn, infants, and young children -  how can we accept that God would have divided those infants into Elects and Reprobates knowing they would never reach an age of understanding?  How can we accept the teaching that my God would choose to condemn billions of these young babies to the misery of eternal hell.  

Think about it.  God is absolutely sovereign, God is absolutely omniscient, God is absolutely omnipotent.  So, why would God allow the unborn, infants, and young children to be born - knowing that He has already condemned them to suffer miserably in hell for eternity?   Is that really the God you worship?

From the Back To The Bible (Dr. Warren Wiersbe) web site:

What About the Age of Accountability?
Some people say that there is an age when children become accountable for their actions. But the Bible does not mention an "age of accountability." Children are culpable for sin when they draw their first breath, but are they accountable at that moment as well? I don't think so. We must make a distinction between culpability (liability for their sin nature) and accountability (liability for their sinful actions). Isaiah said, "For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings" (Isa. 7:16). It's evident that little children do not have the ability to make moral decisions and to take responsibility for their sins. Still, they are sinners and need a Savior. Perhaps the "age of accountability" should be called "the age of moral awareness." Children come to a point where they become morally aware; that is, they understand what's right and what's wrong.
So what happens if your child dies before he is aware of what is morally right or wrong? He is still guilty of his sins and must pay the penalty for his sins. That's where the blood of Jesus Christ comes in. Young children have not rejected the blood of Jesus as the heathen have. It is there for them, covering their sins, washing them clean, even though they have not had the ability to exercise faith in Jesus, which is required for the salvation of men and women who understand the consequences of their sin. A child's lack of understanding doesn't deter the power of Jesus' blood. Only rejecting the blood deters its power, and babies haven't done that.
- See more at: https://www.backtothebible.org/is-my-child-in-heaven#sthash.lpToUUww.dpuf

What About the Age of Accountability?  Some people say that there is an age when children become accountable for their actions.  But the Bible does not mention an "age of accountability."  Children are culpable for sin when they draw their first breath, but are they accountable at that moment as well?  I don't think so.  We must make a distinction between culpability (liability for their sin nature) and accountability (liability for their sinful actions). 

Isaiah said, "For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings" (Isa. 7:16).  It's evident that little children do not have the ability to make moral decisions and to take responsibility for their sins.  Still, they are sinners and need a Savior.  Perhaps the "age of accountability" should be called "the age of moral awareness."  Children come to a point where they become morally aware; that is, they understand what's right and what's wrong.

So what happens if your child dies before he is aware of what is morally right or wrong?  He is still guilty of his sins and must pay the penalty for his sins.  That's where the blood of Jesus Christ comes in.  Young children have not rejected the blood of Jesus as the heathen have. 

It is there for them, covering their sins, washing them clean, even though they have not had the ability to exercise faith in Jesus, which is required for the salvation of men and women who understand the consequences of their sin.  A child's lack of understanding doesn't deter the power of Jesus' blood.  Only rejecting the blood deters its power, and babies haven't done that.   (Is my child in heaven?   https://www.backtothebible.org/is-my-child-in-heaven)

Jonathan, I will offer this one last excerpt from Come Reason Ministries, for the man, Nick, seems to ask the same question you asked me earlier:

Do Babies Go To Heaven When They Die?

http://www.comereason.org/do-babies-go-to-heaven.asp

I just discovered your website, and as a believer, teacher, and advisor for the philosophy club at my school, I found your site valuable.  .  .  

1. Man has a sin nature.
2. Without salvation from his sin nature (see #1), he will go to Hell.
3. Upon salvation from his sin nature, he will go to heaven (after death or the rapture)
4. Man's life begins at conception. (We use this to argue abortion)
5. Therefore, at man's conception, he has a sin nature.
6. Therefore, aborted or miscarried babies do not go to heaven.

I don't like this conclusion; I don't think anyone does!  However, I can find no Biblical argument to the contrary.  Many try to formulate an "age of accountability" which I cannot find Biblical support for.  Some say, the Grace of God covers their yet unrepented sin nature, yet I can find no Biblical support for this. 

Any argument that seems to save these unborn children from Hell, also seems to argue a second way for salvation, or a compromise of some Biblical truth.  Can you help?  I asked the wisest person I know, and wisely, he said, "I don't know.  I guess I'll know when I get to heaven."   Thanks,  Nick

+++++++++++++++++

Hi Nick, There is probably no more plaguing difficulty to the doctrine of original sin, what is referred to as a "sin nature" - than the one you outline in your letter.  How can God, who is all-loving, condemn babies to hell?  We bristle at the conclusion - it doesn't seem to be in keeping with what we'd expect.

Naturally, because this is a controversial topic, there are different schools of thought depending on how you understand the concept of original sin. Different churches understand the doctrine differently.  So before we go further, I'd like to look at the main passages from where this doctrine stems.

The Basis for Belief in Original Sin:

• Romans 5:12, 19 - "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned .  .  . For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."

Here Paul states that the sin of one man (Adam) has caused us all to be sinners.  Paul here links death and sin together and argues that we share in Adam's death because we share in Adam's sin.

•  Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Here we see the Psalmist noting that even at his birth he was considered sinful.  This idea is reinforced by the command in Leviticus 12:7 for a sin offering after having a baby.

St. Augustine brought the doctrine of original sin to prominence in his writings against the Pelagians and their heresies.  The Pelagians held that "every human being is by nature as pure as Adam was before he sinned."    Augustine argued against the Pelagians to show original sin existed in every person.   His argument can be summarized as follows:

1. Death is a consequent of Adam's sin (see Gen 3:19, 1 Cor. 15:21)
2. All men are Adam's progeny, inheriting Adam's conditions.
3. All men are mortal, prone to die.
4. Therefore, all men share in the consequent of Adam's sin.
5. Therefore, all men have inherited Adam's sin.

The Meaning of Original Sin:

So the doctrine of original sin seems well established, but we haven't really said what original sin is exactly, or what it means to us.  Some denominations maintain that original sin is merely a proclivity towards doing sinful things, not necessarily being in sin.  While I agree that we do have a proclivity towards sin (what Wayne Grudem terms "inherited corruption" ) I also see the Scriptures teaching that sin is an individual, spiritual condition. 

Romans 5 goes on to explain this in verses 18-19.  There Paul writes, "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.  For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One many will be made righteous."

In this way we are directly imputed (attributed) with Adam's sin.  Adam was the representative for all mankind and his sin is imputed to us directly as if we had done it ourselves.  However, as Dr. Grudem points out, "if we think that it's unfair for us to be represented by Adam, then we should also think it is unfair for us to be represented by Christ and have his righteousness imputed to us by God."  And this is the key point in my answer as to your question.

Before I go farther, I must say that one of the reasons this question is so difficult is that we are not explicitly told that the pre-born, infants, those with serious mental impairments who cannot understand the Gospel, will be held accountable because they did not accept it.  Again, this strikes us as unfair and not what we'd expect from a just God. 

The Bible does give us an account of David's infant son dying (2 Samuel 12:23).  There, David makes the claim that he will join his son after death - and David was a strong believer who did rest in God for his salvation (Psalm 62:7).  Also, we read in the Gospel of Luke that John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15).  From these passages we can at least deduce that it is possible to be saved as a pre-born infant. 

How God Can Save an Infant:

In your argument you make an explicit statement that salvation is "provided by God, through Jesus, to the repentant believing sinner."  This statement is true. However, it also must be noted that the Old Testament saints were saved although they did not have a complete knowledge of the salvation act (see 1 Peter 1:10-11).  So it is possible to be saved by God through Christ even if you don't understand all the facts of the Gospel.

Wayne Grudem supports this view as well.  He writes "God is able to save infants in an unusual way, apart from their hearing and understanding the Gospel, by bringing regeneration to them very early, sometimes even before birth.  This regeneration is probably also followed at once by a nascent, intuitive awareness of God and trust in him at an extremely early age, but this is something we simply cannot understand." 

Grudem continues, "How many infants does God save in this way?  Scripture does not tell us, so we simply cannot know.  Where Scripture is silent, it is unwise for us to make definitive pronouncements.  However, we should recognize that it is God's frequent pattern throughout Scripture to save the children of those who believe in Him."

Bill Gray Note:  Once again, we see Wayne Grudem leaning toward God saving only the children of the Elect.   Would God condemn billions of unborn and infant children to the misery of eternal hell without a chance for eternal life?  Not my God.

The salvation of those who cannot cognitively understand their sinful condition or God's cure is a mystery.  It is not clearly revealed to us.  But we have shown above that it is possible and has happened with at least David's son.  Beyond that, we must trust the fact that God is not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance.  .  .

I hope that this has shed a little light on a difficult issue.  I pray that God will continue to bless you as you seek to not only know Him, but teach His truth to others.

 
Let me close by offering this four minute video which I think is well done and speak to the issue of heaven or hell for babies:

Do Babies Go to Hell?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvQPsThF6zI

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill