What happens to babies and young children when they die? Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible?

It is because we have this sinful nature that we find the expression in Eph. 2:3, "By nature the children of wrath, even as others." If I have a nature that hates God, and does nothing but sin, I am always, so to speak, drawing down the wrath of God upon me. It is because we have this sinful nature that we are not only guilty, but lost. Guilty, refers to what we have done; lost, to what we are. Thus a little child that is born into the world is lost, but could not be said to be guilty till responsibility begins. An infant, if it dies, requires the death of Christ to save it as much as a grown-up person. We find this in Matt. 18:10-14. The Lord says "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." A little child is lost by nature; but it is not the will of the Father that it should perish. (v. 14.) And the Son of man is come to save the lost, therefore it is unmistakahly plain from this passage, that little children who die are saved on the ground of the death of Christ. When we think of our lost condition, and our sinful, corrupt nature, we might easily say with the disciples, "Who then can be saved?" With man it is impossible; but with God all things are possible. As it is shown how God delivers us from our sins in the former part of the epistle, we see in the latter part how God delivers us from sin, the evil nature. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Rom. 5:12.) We are here led back to the one through whom we got this sinful nature - Adam, the head of this sinful race; and in the following verses we have first, what Adam was, and the condition in which the whole race was involved through him; and then, Christ is brought in as the head of a new race, and the results of what He has done are also extended to those who belong to Him. From the beginning of verse 13 to the end of verse 17 is a parenthesis entering more into detail upon the subject. It was then by "one man" that sin entered into the world. Adam sinned, and became a fallen creature, and subject to death, as God had forewarned him. Then he "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." (Genesis 5:3.) And his son inherited his fallen nature; and his son's son, and so on; and that is why you and I were born into this world fallen and with a sinful nature. And mark, it is not sins entered into the world, but sin, the principle, and with it death; "and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Thus by one man all this sin and death came in; and all through committing one offence, transgressing one command that God had given him; but (omitting the parenthesis), as by this one offence all were brought under condemnation, so by one act of righteousness (see margin), i.e. what Christ has done, justification of life is held out to all. (v.18.) Here we have contrasted the effects of what Adam has done, and what Christ has done. For "as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (v. 19) It is not the question here of our sins being forgiven, but of being made righteous; not of our actions, but of our state before God.

He adds even as to men as the ground of the penalty, "for that all have sinned;" and here the main discussion immediately begins. There are a number of different explanations of these words, but most of them really alter what they would explain. To read "in whom all sinned" is impossible as a translation; nor can one say "all have become sinful," or "all have been treated as sinners:" it is exactly the statement of Rom. 3:23, where "all have sinned" speaks of literal, personal sins committed. In complete opposition to the thought of sinning in Adam, nothing can surely be intended but that men have come under the dominion of death on account of their own sins. The contradiction of fact is, of course, the main, if not the only reason why this is not at once accepted. How could this be true of infants? is naturally asked, and might at first sight seem unanswerable. But the passage just now referred to has exactly the same thing to be said of it, but where it is no difficulty at all. If it be a question of salvation, infants cannot be saved as sinners, nor can be justified by faith; yet no one would contend on this account that this could not be God's way of salvation because it did not take in infants. The apostle speaks there simply of those standing in their own responsibility before God. Infants are therefore understood as excepted, and that applies to both statements. As soon as you can speak of accountability at all this becomes true that all sin; and that shows of course the ruin of the race. Death has come in through the one man Adam, as has been said; and yet not because of any such formal covenant with Adam on behalf of his posterity as many plead, but because through that mysterious oneness of the race which, whatever question may be raised about it, cannot be denied, the fall of Adam did involve the corruption of his posterity. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" asks Job; and answers himself, "Not one." Thus the "all have sinned" in this place demonstrates the fitness of God's sentence of death passed upon all. For, if you plead the exception of infants from the penalty on Adam, your exception ought to plead for them as much as to their exemption from the inheritance of corruption, which is a more terrible fact, and from which yet the justice of God does not exempt them. The greater fact of the general corruption proved so sadly as each emerges into the common world of men, implies the parallel fact of death as its accompaniment. But in this very way the consideration of the case of infants may be omitted from the statement before us.

p479 MY DEAR BROTHER, - Another word is used for death as to the saints falling asleep, otherwise, in reasoning on man's state, death is often spoken of. But death and going to heaven have mischievously taken the place of the Lord's coming and being like Him. Going to glory when we die is quite unscriptural. As to funerals, I would not go to any where the clerical system is kept up, I did not to my father's. If it gives offence, you cannot expect other than the offence of the cross. As to the age of infants, the statement you refer to is as to when conscience begins to work. I have no doubt that little children are saved. We cannot fix a date, for it varies with each. Matthew 18 seems to me quite clear.

It may be that in only looking at a little one men will despise the child, but verse 10 is a serious warning. That child, if dying in childhood, would not be cast into hell fire, but his spirit in heaven would always behold the face of the Father. "For," He adds, "the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost." Children too are lost, just as are adults, but where adults are concerned, Luke 19:10 shows that they need to be sought in order to be saved. As regards little ones, their wills have not been turned against God as is the case of those in older years. Certainly for them too it was just as necessary that Christ should suffer and die as for the most wicked adult, but he has not as yet formed the character of rebellious self-will that afflicts those older.

208 I do not think children enter into the question here — no more than when the apostle says, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." They really begin to sin as soon as they begin to live: though it be undeveloped, their will works. I do not doubt they go to heaven: Matthew 18, I think, shews it, and the ground; but the apostle is looking at man manifested as man, that is, what he is and does. Children are saved, not by innocence, though practically an expression of it, but because Christ came to save what was lost. This question then I dismiss; I refer to it merely as an objection which might be made.

208 I do not think children enter into the question here — no more than when the apostle says, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." They really begin to sin as soon as they begin to live: though it be undeveloped, their will works. I do not doubt they go to heaven: Matthew 18, I think, shews it, and the ground; but the apostle is looking at man manifested as man, that is, what he is and does. Children are saved, not by innocence, though practically an expression of it, but because Christ came to save what was lost. This question then I dismiss; I refer to it merely as an objection which might be made.

But observe in chapter 3 that the point is not knowledge of good and knowledge of evil, which is a mere blunder. The question of the tree was not conscience. If it had not been forbidden, he was just as free to eat as anything else. Thus we acquire the knowledge of good and evil, and hence conscience. You see it as early as anything in a child. It slaps its mother, say, and you hold up your finger - it understands very well that it has done wrong. God says, "the man is become as one of us"; that is, he has got intrinsically the knowledge of good and evil. If a boy at school steals one of his companions' marbles, he hides it, for he knows he has done wrong. It is no question of commandments here; though it was by the breach of a commandment that conscience was got.

64 Adam was enjoying good in the garden, although the knowledge of good would not have been so full. I quite admit my knowledge may be corrupted; still, I do a thing because it is right. I may think I am doing a very good thing to put my father in the Ganges at a certain time of life, because then he will go to Buddha or some one; but it is only the difference of good and evil I know; it is not knowledge of good and knowledge of evil. The thing for Adam was not an intrinsic knowledge of good and evil, which was not required, but only a question of obedience. Man got a conscience by the fall, and he never got a conscience till it was a defiled one. But it may get hardened or seared.

We all know that much depends upon the way in which our children are brought up and trained. A pliant twig may be formed and fashioned while it is tender and young, and in the same way we may train our children to a comparatively sound judgment of that which is evil and contrary to Christ. Even children are, in their measure, capable of forming a judgment and of knowing sufficiently well what is according to the word of God and what is opposed or indifferent, and therefore they have their responsibility. But there can be no doubt that Christians are responsible, more particularly as parents or guardians, in whatever position we may stand related to those put under us by God. And assuredly no person allows that which is contrary to God in his child without showing how lamentably feeble and. false they become in their own ways. It is impossible to lay all the blame upon the child. Even the world acknowledges that such are under our authority and that we as parents are bound to train them in early days in spite of discouragements, instead of making excuses for giving up, if one or another breaks through. If there has been a slur upon ourselves for too easy-going and a deep sorrow on our hearts for the ill effect on the children, why should we be discouraged or despair? Have we not title in Christ to approach with boldness the throne of grace that we may receive mercy and find grace for seasonable help?

Paul then came to an additional proof connected with this sonship. “As long as the heir is a child,”and so in a state of immaturity, he was not yet accountable and he could not be held responsible for his father’s business. The father might have had a company, and he might have allowed the bondman to take care of everything, but only when the child came of age would he have been able to take care of everything and take full responsibility. As long as he was a child, as long as he was under a tutor, he couldnot have this responsibility, although he was lord of all. He was the heir, but he could not function as such yet.

The Bible gives no direct answer to this question either. There is, however, a hint given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10: 15. Paul introduces his thoughts concerning the Lord’s Table by addressing those among the Corinthians whom he calls “wise men”. Those are wise in the sense intended here who show understanding and the ability to judge matters. That must make it clear that younger children, who do not possess such understanding and judgment, cannot take part in the Breaking of Bread. Now it would be going beyond the teaching of the Bible if we were to make intelligence as to all God’s mind a condition for breaking bread, but the ability to recognize just what we do there must be present.