He gives eight arguments to prove his point, which I summarize below. All Scripture references are his.
1. Romans 1:20 says that all who are exposed to general revelation are without excuse. Since infants are not “recipients of general revelation” then they have an excuse and are therefore “not accountable to God or subject to wrath.”
2. There are passages that assert that infants do not know good from evil (Deut. 1:39).
3. The story of David’s son dying after David’s adultery with Bathsheba. David says he will go to his son, which would indicate that his son with God.
4. There is the consistent testimony of Scripture that we will be judged according to our works (II Cor. 5:10, I Cor. 6:9-10, Rev. 20:11-12).
5. An infant sent to Hell would know pain and suffering, but would not know why he was there. He would be conscious of his suffering, but not conscious of his sin.
6. Some infants are clearly regenerate in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5, Luke 1:15).
7. Honestly, I am not sure what he is arguing with his 7th point. He talks about Matthew 19:13-15. But what he is trying to prove or disprove from the passage is unclear. If someone can explain his point to me, please do.
8. Here is a direct quote from his 8th point, “Given our understanding of God’s character as presented in Scripture, does he appear as the kind of God who would eternally condemn infants on no other ground than that of Adam’s transgression? Again, this is a subjective (and perhaps sentimental) question. But it deserves an answer nonetheless.”
Storms believes “the first, third, fourth, fifth, and eighth points sufficiently convincing” to prove “the salvation of those dying in infancy.”
Let’s walk through his points one by one. Continue reading