It did. It vaccinated the universe forever against sin. Sure, God did not desire or intend or plan that the rebellion should happen; but it did serve a purpose.


Of course, but it did serve a purpose. Everything cruel that happens in this world demonstrates the sinfulness of sin.


The only children Ellen White mentions clearly that won’t be saved are unruly children, and she says that many unbelievers raise their children better than many believers. How do you know that the children God permitted to die unsaved were exactly those He knew wouldn’t be saved as adults?

Your question to me, if I understood it correctly, is how do I know that none of the unsaved children would have been saved had they lived?

You will notice in e) I wrote



which is what you are questioning. That is, you are suggesting the end of e) is a good hypothesis:



where "them" are the unsaved children.

To pick some numbers out of hat, let's say there were 2,000,000 unsaved children. What percerntage of unsaved children do you think become saved later on in life? Let's arbitrarily pick 5%. That comes to 100,000 children. So you're asking me how I know that how none of the 2,000,000 children would be saved when normally one would expect 100,000 to be saved?

Well, there's no way I can know something like this, but it seems like a desperate tack to take. When a hypothesis needs something this desperate to make it stand, I think a better path to take could be to look for an idea which doesn't require something like this.

The question indeed is not well expressed. What I meant was, How do you know if the children God permitted to die unsaved (not all the children who died, but just those who would imperil heaven) weren’t exactly those He knew wouldn’t be saved as adults (mostly because their sinful disposition would be seen through their whole lives)?

“In this rebellious age children who have not received right instruction and discipline have but little sense of their obligations to their parents. It is often the case that the more their parents do for them, the more ungrateful they are and the less they respect them. Children who have been petted and waited upon always expect it; and if their expectations are not met, they are disappointed and discouraged. This same disposition will be seen through their whole lives; they will be helpless, leaning upon others for aid, expecting others to favor them and yield to them. And if they are opposed, even after they have grown to manhood and womanhood, they think themselves abused; and thus they worry their way through the world, hardly able to bear their own weight, often murmuring and fretting because everything does not suit them.” {AH 294.1}

Anyway, this is a personal opinion of mine, and of course there is no general statement about this either in the Bible or in the writings of Ellen G. White to support it. What we have, both in everyday life and in the writings of Ellen White, are many examples of God preserving the lives of people until they have the opportunity to accept Him. My reasoning is just, If God does this for some, why not for all? God is love, all the inhabitants of earth are His children and He gave His life for them all. God is in the business of saving people. In view of this, it strikes me as unjust that He does some things in behalf of some and not in behalf of others.

This is what I've been discussing for the last several posts now. e) in the argument is addressing that. You are essentially suggesting that the last part of e) is true, that none of the unsaved children would have accepted Christ had they lived.

I'm saying if you look at the numbers involved, this hypothesis doesn't seem tenable. If you say there 2,000,000 unsaved children, and 5% of those would normally have been expected to accept Christ later in life, that would be 100,000 children one would expect to become saved later in life. Your hypothesis would require that not one of these 100,000 would have been saved.

Even if we allow for the miracles God performed to allow some of the children to be saved later in life, the number still falls way short.

Regarding if God does this for some, why not for all, the answer is that we live in an unjust world. Some children get to have loving Godly parents. They die saved. Other children get crack prostitutes for parents. They have a much smaller probability of being saved than do children raised by godly parents. God, of course, does all He can to save the child of the crack prostitute (even to the extent of providing an extra measure of grace, as EGW suggests), but it cannot be denied that it is much better to be raised by God fearing parents than by drug addicts. This isn't fair. We live in a world that isn't fair. God does the best that He can. The judgment will show that God has been fair, and done all He can. But there are inequities in the world. Some have a better chance to be saved than others.

Look at the slaves, for example, that are not resurrected. How many of these might have been saved had they not been treated like beasts? Surely some of them. This isn't fair. They never had a chance to be saved. Why didn't God do something to all them at least the opportunity to be saved?

Your hypothesis does not appear to me to be allowing for the fact sin causes unfair things to happen.

As to why God acts in the cases of some but not others, we don't have enough information to answer that question. We can't assert that God will always act, because the evidence doesn't support that. For example, God heals some people, and not others. We don't know why. All we can do is trust that the judge of the universe will do right.

a) Millions of Jews before the age of accountability were killed.

b) Presumably most of these were brought up by unbelieving parents.

c) Some pct. of these will not be saved.

d) This leaves a huge number of children who will not be saved (i.e. take part in the first resurrection) unless you wish to make the claim that *all* children of unbelieving parents will be saved.

e) The only way that none of the huge number of children would be better off had they not been killed is if none of them would have been saved had they lived.


Yes! However, like the Gentiles in Romans 2:13-15, accepting Jesus as their personal Saviour is not necessarily a prerequisite to be saved in heaven.

Again, since God knows ahead of time who will chose to be saved and who will not chose to be saved (or whose character indicates they would have chosen Jesus if they had known about Him, or who would have embraced the 3AMs if they had known about them), since God knows all things, He chooses the best time to allow each person to die, and how they die.

There is no other way. Why? Because God is in control. God is omniscient. He will not take anyone to heaven who will rebel again. Thus, in order for Him to take children to heaven, people who died before they had a chance to choose salvation, it is imperative that He knows they will not rebel again. How can He know if they died before their final decision was obvious? What do you think? Are they automatically lost? If not, why not?


The idea that Hitler counteracted God’s will sounds heretical to me. God successfully prevented Balaam from cursing the Jews. God successfully influenced Cyrus to fund the Jews’ return to Jerusalem. God successfully prevented the Jews from killing Jesus prematurely. God successfully saved millions of Jews from dying during the Holocaust. Do you really believe God was unable to control Hitler?


“e) The only way that none of the huge number of children would be better off had they not been killed is if none of them would have been saved had they lived.” Why do you believe it is “the only way”? Are you assuming they died saved? How do you know if they were lost or saved when they died?

Also, why do you say, “if none of them would have been saved had they lived”? In the previous point you wrote, “This leaves a huge number of children who will not be saved”. Your assumption that they “will not be saved” does not allow for the “if” in your following point.


God allowed Hitler to kill Jews. But God did not allow him to kill all the Jews. God protected certain Jews. But He allowed the rest to die. Why did God save some and not the others? We will not know or understand why until God explains it to us in heaven. So, yes, people die when and how they do because God either causes it or allows it. Do you agree?


Do you agree?

I'm not understanding you.
Number of children who died in the holocaust - 2,000,000
Number of children who won't be saved - ?
Let's suppose that, from these 2,000,000, just the unruly children won't be saved. My point is that if a child is permitted to be disobedient and unruly, this is something extremely difficult to be reverted later in life. It's not probable that they will accept God's rules, since they rebel against rules.

I'm saying if you look at the numbers involved, this hypothesis doesn't seem tenable. If you say there 2,000,000 unsaved children, and 5% of those would normally have been expected to accept Christ later in life, that would be 100,000 children one would expect to become saved later in life. Your hypothesis would require that not one of these 100,000 would have been saved.

I'm not understanding you.
Number of children who died in the holocaust - 2,000,000
Number of children who won't be saved - ?
Let's suppose that, from these 2,000,000, just the unruly children won't be saved. My point is that if a child is permitted to be disobedient and unruly, this is something extremely difficult to be reverted later in life. It's not probable that they will accept God's rules, since they rebel against rules.

If only unruly children won’t be saved, would that be something like saying 95-99% of children will be saved? What’s the percentage of the saved population once passed the age of accountability? 5%? 25%? Something like that? What you are suggesting seems to be that the moment one goes from the age of before accountability to accountability, one’s chances of being saved plummets from the 95-99% range to a much lower range. That seems unlikely to me. I think the probability of being saved would stay similar. Iow, I don’t think a vastly greater number of children before the age of accountability will be saved then older children and adults. If this were the case, we would be doing young children a great service by killing them.

It sounds like you are suggesting that none of the unsaved children would become saved later in life. That solves one problem, but creates another. If only, say, 5% of children are unruly, so that 95% are saved, and a much smaller pct. of adults are saved, and God chooses the best moment for all to die, why doesn’t God choose for all the saved children to die? (or, at a minimum, those children that are not a part of the 5% or 25% of adults that will be saved).

Tom, your formula and premise is faulty. Please see my last post. Thank you.

PS - Your last post seems to assume God does not know who will be saved or lost if they die before their final decision is obvious to the onlooking universe. If so, how will God decide during judgment who is lost or saved, especially as it relates to children who die before they reach the age of accountability, before their final decision is obvious? And, if you happen to have an answer, why couldn't God apply it to determine when and how He should allow them to die? If you don't have an answer, does it mean everyone who dies before their final decision is obvious is lost?

Well, if you are an adult within the SDA Church, what are your chances of being saved? 1/20 or 5%? If you had died as a baby within the SDA Church what would your chances be? 100%? Unfortunately, as adults, we start making wrong choices.


Well, but then I suspect we wouldn't be saved.


Then I suppose that the adult population would be composed of just saved people. No crime, no war, no adultery on planet earth. And no demonstration of the sinfulness of sin.

Tom, your formula and premise is faulty. Please see my last post. Thank you.

PS - Your last post seems to assume God does not know who will be saved or lost if they die before their final decision is obvious to the onlooking universe. If so, how will God decide during judgment who is lost or saved, especially as it relates to children who die before they reach the age of accountability, before their final decision is obvious? And, if you happen to have an answer, why couldn't God apply it to determine when and how He should allow them to die? If you don't have an answer, does it mean everyone who dies before their final decision is obvious is lost?

Regarding your first comment, you appear not to be following the argument. It’s well described. All I can suggest is to re-read it, or perhaps follow the conversation with Rosangela.

Regarding the PS, I was pointing out a contradiction you had. On the one had, you say that all will have made a final decision which is obvious to onlookers. On the other, you point out that God makes a judgment based on something which inside His head. That would hardly be obvious to onlookers.