Ask the Pastors Season 7 Episode 11: "Do miscarried babies go to heaven?"
(00:04):
Welcome to Ask the pastors a segment of the West Hills Podcast where you have the opportunity to ask your questions and receive biblically grounded, pastorally sensitive answers from our pastoral staff. My name is Brian, I'm your host. I'm joined by are the pastor Will, that's me and Pastor Thad. And that's me. We've got a question today from Maggie. Maggie, thanks so much for your question. She writes in Why slash how do Miscarried Babies go to Heaven?
(00:39):
Well, kind of a heavy topic in some ways, but also really sweet. I mean, for context, I have mentioned this and sermons and stuff. For me personal, it's a personal, as well as obviously a biblical theological question, but speaking as a father of three miscarried babies, and it's crazy to think about, I think it's somewhere between a quarter and a third of women will have a miscarriage at some point, but that's just the ones that know about it. I mean, I think we won't even know until we get to heaven how many of those late periods and whatever else were really, I don't know, there was conception. If we as Christians believe that life begins at conception then, I mean I think you're factoring all of that into this question. I know too, just to give even more context to this question that we have, or maybe before it was the plural, ask the pastors, but I'm pretty sure I know that I touched on this question in a previous episode about the eternal fate of unreached peoples, of folks that live and die and never have the chance of even hearing about Jesus and how they can be saved That, I know I touched on that because to me, I view the argument that I'm going to make and I don't know if we are going to make about babies and folks with special needs, mental sort of handicaps and things like that.
(02:48):
And I view folks who never even have the opportunity to hear about Jesus and how they can be saved in that same kind of category. So I know I've touched on it in that episode,
(02:59):
Ask the pastor number 45 to unreached people Go to hell is on January 6th, 2022.
(03:06):
Great. January 6th, 2022. Thank you. Episode 45. And then we may have, Brian, you can also check Thanks. I don't know if we also maybe did an episode on the so-called age of accountability specifically, which
(03:21):
Is, I think it's the same episode.
(03:22):
Was it? Okay,
(03:23):
You make a John Stott.
(03:25):
I make a, yes, I know a similar in that, but I feel like I vaguely remember maybe even having had a whole separate standalone thing on age of Accountability too, but maybe not. So that would certainly be not the title
(03:42):
That I found.
(03:43):
Okay. Well maybe not then, but that would certainly be very connected to this question. I think as well, the kind of what a lot of Christians will again sort of read into or try and make sense of all the biblical kind of information that we have as far as a purported age of accountability at which children become accountable, liable, responsible for making that faith determination about whether I'm going to receive or reject Christ. So you want to take a first stab though at this one specifically about babies and even pre-born babies miscarriage. I mean, I think you could include obviously still birth and
-
(04:50):
Aborted babies,
(04:51):
Aborted baby, every iteration of the preborn in that the only two things that I was going to say before we even get to an answer to the question to me are the, I guess non-negotiables that I think you can't really question or mess with these two sort of doctrinal truths without really massive ramifications for your overall kind of theology and understanding of God. And scripture are number one to affirm out of the gate that I think have ramifications here are number one, that life begins at conception and that every human being is created in God's image. And part of what that means is that we are in dwell with eternal souls because you could, and maybe that seems obvious to any evangelical Christian listening, the podcast, but I do think that if you're trying to think through, okay, what happens to
(06:04):
The preborn baby, someone might otherwise argue if you take that plank out, they might otherwise argue well, that somehow maybe they weren't yet a human being. The soul hadn't somehow come into the body, and so therefore nothing happens. There's no need for anything to happen because you get a soul when you're born or something. And obviously we know a lot of Jews use and more sort of liberal progressive Christians believe things like that. But I think it's safe to say for us that's a pretty, we're not going to question the idea that life against a conception and all human life means you're created in God's image, therefore you are eternal. And it's not that you have a soul, you are a soul. That's who a person is. And so that would be one. The other is that there's only two eternal destinations.
(07:17):
The Catholics tried inventing a third option, purgatory, limbo, whatever they want to call it. I know we've mentioned that on previous ask the pastor episodes as well maybe had a whole specific one on purgatory, kind of debunking biblically this idea that maybe there's a third option of a place because I mean that again is part of that I think Catholic, weird kind of leftover from the medieval ages belief of these babies go to limbo and then if you pray for 'em enough or give enough money to the church or whatever, you can get 'em out and get 'em into heaven. So all that to say, there's only a biblically two options right now. There's I guess different ways of conceptualizing of how one gets to either one of those options. You can speculate about whether Jesus said, I'm the way of the truth to life.
(08:27):
No one comes to the Father but through me. So in one way, shape or form, an unborn baby would have to, if they were going to be in heaven with God the Father, they would have to come to God, the Father through Jesus Christ. Is that through saving faith? Can a baby who doesn't even yet have a brain much less a developed brain, capable of reason and understanding things like sin and whatever else actually experience and express and faith. So you want to take a first stab? I just wanted to lay in my mind some of the groundwork of whatever we want to say here. I don't think you can say anything close to Annihilationism where it's like, well, they weren't really ever a person or a soul and therefore we don't have to deal with this problem at all. Or that there's some third option of the, I don't know if you would even want to call those easier options biblically or something like that, like exception clauses. So I think you're talking about eternity and you're talking about either heaven or health. So you agree? Yeah.
(09:48):
Okay. Sorry, I was about to go and
(09:51):
No, I feel like those are two. No, I think those are the guardrails we were operating between throughout this conversation and as well to just name, this is not something Nikki and I personally walk through the two of us, but we have a lot of really close dear friends who have and have wrestled through with this, and
(10:19):
God forbid, but you have children that are young enough that certainly with the age of accountability type of question, I think you'd have to wonder, especially your youngest Blair, does Blair really have the capacity yet to understand the gospel? Maybe? I don't
(10:41):
Know. I mean, she asked me all the time when Jesus is coming back.
(10:45):
We'll, that whole age of accountability, again, it's a whole nother topic, but I think oftentimes the kind of ages that are attributed to some, again hypothetical, somewhat theoretical age of accountability is like 12, 13. And a lot of that is just kind of Jewish tradition of when coming of age, someone gets bar mitzvah, bat mitzvah or whatever, but really has no biblical, you'd be hard pressed to find a real strong case biblically for, I mean, it would seem to have to be a more relative, I mean a real sharp three-year-old can probably understand I'm a sinner. There's a God like general revelation, Romans one, I'm looking around, okay, there's a God, it's not me to piece it together enough. Okay, then yeah, it makes sense that I need a savior. Tell me about Jesus. Anyway, maybe closer to three than 13, but sorry, go ahead. So just to say that it's not, miscarriage specifically might not be personal for y'all, but you have young children,
(12:00):
And so I have, there's no one specific verse. I mean I think one might be able to make some of an argument, but I don't think there's one specific verse that we can point to and be like, boom, here's our answer. And so to think about it theologically throughout the whole story of scripture, I kind of have four different aspects that have helped me think through this question. One is just addressing original sin. So there's for those who some argue that all babies who die go to heaven because they are innocent. I would argue that in Romans five, 12 through 19, every human born at Adam is born with sin. Nature imprinted on them that we enter the world as sinners, we are children of wrath. Ephesians two, three. So I don't think that's a great argument for that. But to move just past the original sin, to go back to Genesis 1825, I think it helps us answer the how or before answering the how or why God saves infants.
(13:32):
Scripture directs us to trust who God is, that Abraham, he's questioning God in Genesis 1825 shall not the judge of all the earth do right, meaning calling it a question God, you are the judge. Will you always do what's right? And the answer is yes, that God never does wrong. God never, misjudges never makes mistake in his justice, in his mercy, in his verdicts. And so before getting to where infants go, I think we can say confidently, we know who they are entrusted to, that although we view children as entrusted to us as parents, and that's right, ultimately we are entrusting them to God who is perfectly wholly just who makes no heirs in any of it. So every single infant and whatever at conception or miscarried or aborted or stillborn is in the hands of a God who always does what is right. And so I think that's a first rock of assurance and comfort in thinking about as we kind of back up and we think big picture about the Bible, the question we're asking coming to God is a judge who will always do what's right.
(15:07):
Yeah, I was going to end with that, but I think you're right. It probably should be set up front and at the end to book in the entire thing. Just your point that at the heart of the matter with this question I think is our view of God. And I always kind of think of Exodus 34 and God's kind of declarative self revelation kind of statement to Moses and Israel in sort of renewing the covenant that they've already broken at Mount Sinai where he says the Lord, the Lord a God, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding and steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, for giving iniquity, transgression, sin. And then he goes on to say, of course, but it will by no means clear the guilty. And I know that's going to be a question that we're going to get to, and this conversation is like guilt.
(16:07):
And like you said, you got babies, Romans five 12, Genesis five where it says, Adam and Eve start having kids in their own image, they were made in God's image, perfect. But when they start having children, Genesis five, and then Adam had a child in his own image, well, what image is that? That's sin, that's a sin nature. And so not that we don't also have God's nature, but it's God's image in us. But it's that twofold kind of sin, nature made in God's image for us now. But all that to come back to who is God? God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger. God is loving, steadfast, faithfulness, kindness, compassionate. So yeah, I think that that's like you said, probably right to start and end with that.
(17:08):
I think second piece moving, where are we looking to in this? Another place to anchor is with David's words about his son, two Samuel 2 23 that after David, he commits his sin with Bathsheba and his infant son dies. David responds, he will not return to me, but I will go to him and that if David is only meaning that someday I will die too, then his statement's not one of hope. It's not one of comfort. If anything, it's just a cry of distress and hopelessness. But I'm reading in the passage, David draws hope from this that he anticipates this future reuniting with his son, not a joining together in judgment, but a joining together in the presence of God. So a statement of hope not despair, a statement of joy, not resignation, that David expects anticipates being with his child in the presence of the Lord, that he will see him again, that there will be a relationship there together. And so again, this passage does not stand alone, but I think it helps in a theological pania case of what happens to children that starting with who God is and now moving to how has one of God's children spoken to us in this sense thinking about it. And then,
(18:47):
Yeah, I think
(18:50):
Don't think you can hang it on just that one verse, but that is a verse that you can definitely clinging to.
(18:56):
Well, and it's I think probably the single most relevant verse for shedding light on this particular issue when you're talking about, I mean, it is the question here because you're talking about a Preborn baby and it's eternal fate. Now again, we've done a whole other issue, maybe multiple episodes, sorry, on Sheel and what is sheel and what is kind of the Old Testament conception of the afterlife, and that maybe complicates this considering that David's writing pre Christ and he, yeah, so there's not the same kind of fully developed understanding of heaven and hell and that bifurcation. It's more that she and everybody kind of goes there and maybe there's different kind of places in Sheel. But regardless, all of that said, I think, yeah, to your point, it seems clear that David anticipates being with his child in the afterlife and that being a hopeful source of comfort to him, ergo not like we're going to hell together or something like that. So yeah, I think, yeah, second Samuel 1223 is a key one for sure. And
(20:34):
Then what has to be addressed is the logic of Romans one, you referenced this earlier, but in Romans one 18 through 25, Paul's explaining God's wrath is revealed against people who have received God's general revelation through creation, understood it, and as it use, it suppressed that truth and unrighteousness, that judgment comes to those who actively reject the revelation they've genuinely perceived. It is on full display from them. And they are rejecting the notion that there is a, again, they might use the language higher being, they are rejecting God in that through the general revelation. But with infants, again, whether at a young age or miscarried or stillborn, they do not and cannot do this. It's not been revealed to them. They've received no conscious general revelation. So I think an argument of the logic could be, therefore infants do not commit the very act that Romans one says, all people are without excuse.
(21:58):
And I would say there's other kind of supporting or corroborating scriptures that we could throw into that kind of line of reasoning or argument as well. For sure. Revelation 20 versus 11 and 12 makes it clear all are going to be judged based on what they've done. Like Revelation 20 11, 12 says is the great white throne judgment
(22:29):
Where John gets the vision, I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it from his presence, earth and sky flood away, no place was found for them. And I saw the dead great and small standing before the throne and books were open. Then another book was open, which is the Book of Life and the dead were judged by what was written in the books according to what they had done. And again, we believe is evangelical Christians that that's not like, let me make a list of Santa all the naughty and nice and all the good things you've done this year and the bad things you've done and does your good outweigh or bad in this book, but specifically John six or Jesus answers the question of what must we the Jews ask? What must we do to be doing the works of God? And he says, this is the work of God believe in me,
(23:21):
Believe in the Son whom he has sent. And so that's the defining work that we are judged by is not does your good outweigh your bad. But I think when John says here in Revelation 20, they're judged according to what they had done. Really, it's a one question, true or false judgment, did you receive or reject Christ? I think that is the doing that we are liable for. So to your point, I think that when you think about, yeah, Romans one, and we all almost all again, like you said, not those who can't really hadn't even been born and eyes haven't formed much less open and expanded and see past their mother's face. But to see the general revelation of the world and to see and to piece together, wait a minute, this had to come from somewhere and to piece together, okay, there's a God, okay, what can I know about that God, what can I know about myself? What can I know therefore about my need for a savior? So yeah, that Revelation 20, I think in the same way that you mentioned with Romans, one is talking about a conscious, willful, mindful sin that goes beyond Romans. One is talking about a suppressing of the truth. You can't suppress a truth, you don't understand, you don't even have the capacity to make sense of. So
(25:20):
Yeah, which I think along within Revelation is pointing to the fact that, again, as we're talking about this, it's not due to innocence, it's due to God's mercy in his graciousness that he is giving us that it's an act of compassion that he's not judging based on a rejection that they were incapable of making.
(25:46):
Right? And I was going to throw in a couple other scriptures that support that point as well. Deuteronomy 1 39, we'll go to Deuteronomy hopefully here in a couple weeks in the new year and look at this, but it describes children who do not yet know good from bad and God's mercy. And I'm by the way, getting help from God. questions.org, one of
(26:13):
Favorite sources on this as well as Costi hen wrote an article on this for the gospel website. But yeah, COSTI hen, specifically Deuteronomy 1 39, children who do not yet know good from bad and God's mercy toward them and allowing those children of the rebels in the wilderness en route back to Israel from Egypt. And God allows children to go into the land and take possession of it despite the rebellion of their parents. We can consider also a very similar statement made in Isaiah seven 16. Interestingly, we're coming up on Christmas here as we record this episode, but interestingly right after, and actually in reference to the son who would be born to a virgin that's prophesied in Isaiah seven 14, behold a virgin shall conceive and you'll call his name Emmanuel God with us. But that two verses later, there's this statement, and before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, so again, you have these references to there's a time in adolescence during which children don't even have that capacity
(27:30):
To understand. And we could tie this back if you want to build a whole bigger theological thing out of it to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden, and what is that all about and why did God not even want them to eat of that? And again, I think it's all connected to what Jesus says later. And I'll mention this one too about unless you have childlike faith, faith like a child, you can't get into the kingdom. And that is really what God desires and treasures for us is to have that kind of just humble, dependent, reliant trust in him. And like you said, take it back to Genesis 1825 with Abraham and his goodness and his judgments, his ways Isaiah 55, 8, 9 are higher than our ways and that we can be okay with that because he's got and we're not, he's dad and we're the kid.
(28:29):
And so yeah, the fact that Adam and Eve weren't content with that, they wanted to be like God, they wanted to be the parent. They want to call the shots, they want to know right from wrong and not simply trust in that childlike faith in what God tells them and in how he instructs them. So all of that to say though that there is something that clearly scripture that God communicates to us about his heart and about the uniqueness of this, but again, not maybe totally unique because I think most of us would apply this same kind of logic to, again, folks with severe autism down syndrome go down the list of just potential mental or emotional disability where you never develop ever that capacity for even making an informed rejection or reception of Christ as Lord and Savior. So anyway, Isaiah seven 16, same thing.
(29:45):
Before you know how to choose evil or good, and Insti just comments on that saying, God sees these children in Deuteronomy one not as willfully hell bound rebels, but rather as those who have not yet willfully hardened their hearts in rebellion doesn't change their nature as sinners. We've already talked about that. Romans five, Ephesians two, you were dead in your sins and trespasses in which you once walked. I mean, there's still that deadness, there's still that original sin that makes it necessary that if that preborn child or two-year-old child or whatever is going to be able to get to God the father, they're going to have to go through Jesus as the way the truth of life and their salvation. They're going to have to get that original sin cleansed somehow. It's just to say, again, we don't claim, I don't think scripture makes it clear. I don't think we claim to have any knowledge or understanding of how exactly, I guess to go to the how. Question,
(30:52):
Question was why do they go to, why do miscarriage babies go to heaven? How do they do? It has to have something to do with Jesus forgiving and cleansing their sin because sin is not just, again, the acts, the willful acts of disobedience that we do, but it really is a genetic condition, genetic spiritual condition that before you're born just in conception that we all suffer from and therefore need to be, like we say, often don't just a, we're not just sinners because we sin. We sin because we're sinners. And so that has to be dealt with. But again, we're falling back on God's mercy and his grace in his not only ability but his desire and faithfulness to deal with and unborn child's sin. Nature touched on already Matthew 18, one through six, Matthew 1913 through 15, won't read him, but just multiple different interactions where Jesus makes it clear his deep love and special care and concern for children, disciples being rebuked when they tried to keep the children from him. And then of course him making that famous statement about unless you become like them, you're not making it into heaven with
(32:23):
Me. I was going to say, the closest we get to the how is Jesus saying, let the little children come, that's the closest we can get to,
(32:31):
Don't get into them from coming to me. And so I think that's certainly just, again, not in none of these instances, like you've already said, can you just maybe draw a complete straight line between therefore they all go to heaven or something? But I think you're getting just lots and lots of evidence of God's heart for children in particular. And then I think two more that I'll add, John 9 39 through 41, there's this interesting interaction between Jesus and the man who is born blind, long chapter, long extended kind of back and forth, and the Pharisees just keep, they won't drop it. And how'd you hear about this guy? And well, he has to be possessed with demons and some of my favorite lines and all the Bible where the guy's like whether he's got a demon or not, I don't know. All I know is once I was blind, now I see. But anyway, Jesus, at the end of that chapter, John nine, Jesus says, for judgment, I came into the world that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind. And some of the Pharisees near him heard these things and said to him, are we also blind then you calling us blind? And Jesus said to them, no, actually if you were blind, you would have no guilt. But now that you say, we see your guilt remains.
(33:57):
And I think that has a lot of implication here. I throw in Matthew 1121 as well that I think we mentioned on the podcast last week actually where I, but just Jesus says, Woda, you ine. If the work's done and you had been done in Sodom and Gomorrah, they would've repented and sackcloth and ashes long ago. And basically it's going to be worse for you on that day than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. And what he's saying is this principle that again, I think we see time and time again, the parable of the talents to whom much is given, much more is expected. The whole principle is the more revelation. There's general revelation, Romans one, that at a certain point in time, again, we could get into the nitpick, the argument, but Romans one seems to say that everyone like you said, is liable because everyone can look and see what about people that are blind, literally physically blind.
(34:59):
They can't see, well, this amazing earth that God created. So again, might be exceptions or we'd have to discuss, but a general principle that the more revelation, the more reason you've been given to believe in number one God, that there is a God, that he is in charge and you're not. And number two, that you're a sinner, the more opportunity you've been given to see your sin and your need for some kind of reconciliation with that creator for whom you were created for his good purpose and pleasure and will, yet you live for your own will instead. And then Jesus, what's the answer? There's a, holy God, I'm a fallen sinner. What's the bridge? What's the connection or the reconciliation here? And that third and all important truth of the gospel, Jesus. Jesus is your salvation. Jesus is the one who forgives sins. Jesus is the one who can reconcile you to your holy Father.
(36:02):
And so again, without going into implications for unreached peoples and all that kind of thing, but there is this principle that the more you were blinded and just not able, didn't have access to what Jesus is saying is he didn't have access to the truth. The more you would be judged as having no guilt. John 9 41, if you were blind, you'd have no guilt. But because you say, we see, and because you do see, because you're Pharisees and because you've studied the scriptures like you of all people should know that it's me. Hey, I'm here the Messiah that your guilt remains. So again, all of that implications for this conversation and miscarried babies or babies, two years old, whatever, does their guilt remain if they never have that opportunity to see Jesus for who he is and turn to him in faith for healing and salvation?
(37:13):
And then the last one, and I don't know, this may be a stretch, but again, came across this in the got questions.org, and I thought, huh, that's an interesting way because there's a number of scriptures, if we're honest, that for us as evangelical Christians that are problematic. I mean there's way more, not again, can't overcome the problems problematic, but that we have to wrestle with and really feel the weight of and deal with. There's a way more that are problematic for non-evangelical Christians that they have to deal with. How does your theology work when Jesus pretty clearly says, you got to believe in me to have eternal life. But this one that again, comes up often as one John two, two where John says in verse one, I'm writing these things so that you don't sin, but if you do sin, we have an advocate, Christ, our propitiation for sin.
(38:17):
But then he says in verse two, he says, Jesus is the propitiation, the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And again, you just have to do something with that verse. If you are a reformed Calvinist, evangelical Christian who wants to believe in things like limited atonement like Jesus', blood only applied and covered and the sins of the elect, what do you do with one John two? Two, he's the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. What does that mean? And again, just reading the gut questions.org interpretation of it, this verse is clear that Jesus' death was sufficient payment for all sins, not only for the sins of those who would come to him in faith, the fact that Christ's death was sufficient for all sin would at least allow the possibility of God applying that payment to those who were never even capable of believing.
(39:34):
And so I thought that's an interesting, again, I don't know that maybe I have heard and thought of that interpretation of one John two, two, but again, and then maybe we get into a whole related conversation that maybe we have to have as part of this discussion is if you're a Calvinist, at least is the election and whether babies are therefore all elect or some could be unelect and how that would all work. But anyway, I personally, I like that interpretation one John two, two, because it allows us as evangelical Christians to avoid universalism on the one hand, which again, the mainline progressive Protestant Christian is going to read one John two, two and say, aha, there it is. Everybody gets saved. Nobody needs to worry about going to hell the Rob Bell thing. But it's like, no, that can't be true based on everything else that we read in scripture. So what does John mean when he says not only our sins but also the sins of the whole world? Well, maybe this is part of what John's pointing to there, is that Jesus' blood, his sacrifice, his necessary sacrifice for sins could also cover not just the active willful sins of those who would then repent and come to him for faith, but the sinful natures of Preborn babies
(41:15):
Or people who never even had the chance to hear the name of Jesus or wherever you want to draw the line on that spectrum. So I don't know. Again, none of those can stand alone as a case, but I think all
(41:33):
Altogether,
(41:34):
All of it, the cumulative case that's being built is again, and ultimately for me, going back to what's the strongest case in all of this is God's nature and just what we know to be true of God. He's gracious, he's merciful, he's steadfast in his love and faithfulness.
(41:56):
And I think that's part of the point. We would love for there to be perhaps more clarity in scripture about this and that I imagine everyone at some point wrestles with and feels this sort of tension, but where we can rest and find comfort, it is in that of knowing that God is just, and he's a good and faithful judge, and we rely on him to act according to his character, and that should bring us comfort knowing that he's going to act in that way and extend mercy and grace shall not the judge that the earth do what's right. Yes, always without exception.
(42:46):
I know for me, it personally brings me tremendous comfort. Again, to bring it back to the personal too. And I've said from the pulpit that I can't wait obviously to get to heaven period and be with Jesus. I guess that will be all that matters on that day. But to meet my three children, I never got to meet on this earth. And so yeah, I think you're right. God's nature and his grace and his mercy ought to give us great comfort in this area and in all sorts of areas too. The last, this thing that I think is we're saying, ti hen I think closed his article by saying this, which I again think is helpful, which is whenever scripture describes the inhabitants of hell, and you mentioned this already a little bit tha and alluded to whenever it describes the inhabitants of hell, it always does.
(43:47):
So with lists of sins and abominations that they deliberately committed, we might look at the biblical data and conclude that when God takes the life of a little one, it is actually an act of mercy, keeping that child from being hardened by a life of exposure to evil and a life of deliberate rebellion against God. And then he just ends by saying, one's position on this issue is going to say a lot about one's view of God and his grace. So I'd always personally rather err on the side of just like you said, believing and trusting myself to God's grace. And so, yeah, I don't know if anything else for you guys that needs to be said on this
(44:35):
Topic. I think just one word of pastoral encouragement that if you find yourself in this particular season, like speaking of miscarriages, is we've talked about it. That one, you're not alone and there's others who can walk alongside you. And this don't feel as extremely personal as it may feel that inviting in the church community and family or one or two individuals into that to help bring you comfort and point you back to truth and sit there with you and be with you to just not feel like you have to walk through this alone, but that others can walk through this with you.
(45:18):
Yeah, that's good. I guess I want to say one more. I always think,
(45:22):
But I just had this thought, and this might just drop a grenade and then walk out of the room and if you guys feel like you need to comment on this, but again, maybe it's a separate topic, one of the biggest, as I've already said, I view the eternal fate of unreached peoples, people who truly have never even had the opportunity to receive or reject Jesus Christ in a very similar way to how I view people with disabilities or unborn babies all kind of in the same category. Theologically for me, more or less, one of the strongest counter, or I guess most common, I'll say, counter arguments to espousing that kind of theological view of the unreached, is that truly believe that would completely undermine evangelism. Because if that's true, and people who never even have the chance to hear about and therefore receive or reject Jesus can or even automatically go to heaven or something like that, that therefore the worst thing we could possibly do is go evangelize and tell them about Jesus, because then we're giving them the chance to reject him and go to Hell.
(46:49):
And so again, I recorded my own view on that and my response to that objection in a previous episode of the podcast. But the only thing I guess for this conversation about miscarriage that I think applying that same logic in this case with miscarriage or unborn babies or whatever, you could make the case in my theology, I could respond to someone who makes that objection about my view of unreached peoples and say, well buy your logic, then the best thing we could do to all of our babies is to abort them before they're born because therefore they'll never have the chance to accept or reject Jesus and they'll go straight to heaven. So I just point that out to say, I think it's to just further make the point that I think that's a bad, and if we need to talk, maybe it's a separate issue and argument, but I think it's relevant in this case because I want to be wary of treating Jesus just a get out of hell, free pass or something like that. We as Christians don't, we aren't because then you get them for free into heaven without the chance of them rejecting Jesus because we're pro-life and because life is good and because Jesus is the way, not only the way to God and the truth, but He's the life and because life with Jesus starts in this can start and should start, and in a best case scenario wants to start, we want it to start for people in this world and continue on into the next as
(49:00):
Well. Yeah. Not just life, but abundant life.
(49:02):
Exactly. And so again, it's a different issue we can come back to if we need to do a part two on the unreached peoples, but I mean, the reason I am still strongly pro evangelism is because those people aren't living life to the fullest if they don't have Jesus. And so it's not about just like, oh, let's keep Jesus from them any more than with our unborn babies. Like, oh no, I don't want to tell my three-year-old son Beau about Jesus, because then what if he doesn't accept Jesus? It's like the worst thing I could do is bring him with me to church. No, that's not how we think about this. So anyway, yeah. Is that a grenade that we,
(49:46):
How you framed it up is problematic, but we'll do that for another time.
(49:50):
Okay. I think there's a very strong Yeah,
(49:53):
Correlation. I think your examples are problematic, but anyways,
(49:57):
Yeah, don't purposely kill babies so that they'll go to heaven. That's my last
(50:06):
Point. Well, that's it. On that note for this week's episode of Ask the Pastors. Remember that you can submit your questions by visiting the info bar at West Hills or by asking them online through our website at www.westhillstl.org. If you enjoyed this week's episode, hit that like button, subscribe, share it with a friend. Thanks so much for listening, and Lord willing, we'll catch you right back here next week.