The Baby Salvation Loophole

[Whag]

At 2:17 in this video, William Lane Craig partly defends the killing of babies in OT conquest wars by saying that the Canaanite babies inherited an eternal gift by being killed, nullifying the seeming crime done against them. That defense has always puzzled me, so I'd like to scratch the surface of it.

That defense seems to imply a massive loophole in the salvation system whereby a human being who could very well grow up to be a monster and go to Hell is luckily spared justice and gets a free pass to Heaven. If that is literally true, then it would make sense to kill as many children as possible and usher them into Heaven to bypass the judgment. How is that not a massive loophole? Surely, we can posit a person like Andrea Yates with a much bigger delusional agenda who determines this ultimately would be a moral act, and indeed it would be--if Craig is right--because it would result in the rescuing of souls that might have gone to Hell had they lived. Even if that delusional person was sent to Hell, a clear alleviation of the worst kind suffering is the result. (I do not argue that Craig's defense implicitly encourages such actions.)

A less comfy and more realistic perspective would be that God, being God, would be able to see how those babies might have lived had they grown and mete out punishment in that context. That bypasses the loophole and doesn't leave Craig and similar apologists vulnerable to the glaringly obvious (and I would say vastly superior) counterargument.

[Soyeong]

We do not have the authority to murder, so it is immoral for us to do so, unless we are granted that authority by someone who does, whereby it becomes lawful killing. We are not supposed to do evil so that good may abound, so even though murdering a child might be for their long term good, it is not something that we should do on our own authority. The possibility of God judging children on the lives they would have led sounds reasonable, however, the Bible does not say one way or the other, so I simply trust God to act justly.

[Whag]

We do not have the authority to murder, so it is immoral for us to do so, unless we are granted that authority by someone who does, whereby it becomes lawful killing. We are not supposed to do evil so that good may abound, so even though murdering a child might be for their long term good, it is not something that we should do on our own authority. The possibility of God judging children on the lives they would have led sounds reasonable, however, the Bible does not say one way or the other, so I simply trust God to act justly.

What does that say about the soundness of Craig's specific apologia?

The rightness of a baby slaughterer's act is immaterial. The flaw in the apologia is that is assumes judgment can be bypassed. It's a loophole.

[seanD]

Craig is merely struggling with something we all struggle with because of our inherent rebellious nature against God -- God's sovereignty. The fact that an omnipotent being can order whatever he wants to order is a bitter pill for us to swallow, so we need to find rationales.

[Whag]

Craig is merely struggling with something we all struggle with because of our inherent rebellious nature against God -- God's sovereignty. The fact that an omnipotent being can order whatever he wants to order is a bitter pill for us to swallow, so we need to find rationales.

I think that misses the point of his apologia. It's a theological kanoworms because it assumes a loophole exists, meaning that God is easily hoodwinked. Crudely summarized, babies are cute and innocent, so they get a free pass to Heaven irrespective of the decisions they would have made in their adulthood.

[Chrawnus]

I think that misses the point of his apologia. It's a theological kanoworms because it assumes a loophole exists, meaning that God is easily hoodwinked. Crudely summarized, babies are cute and innocent, so they get a free pass to Heaven irrespective of the decisions they would have made in their adulthood.

Is it right to condemn people based on what they would/might have done if they had only been able to live longer?

[Whag]

Is it right to condemn people based on what they would/might have done if they had only been able to live longer?

Great question! As seanD pointed out, God is sovereign, so He can order whatever he wants.

[seanD]

I think that misses the point of his apologia. It's a theological kanoworms because it assumes a loophole exists, meaning that God is easily hoodwinked. Crudely summarized, babies are cute and innocent, so they get a free pass to Heaven irrespective of the decisions they would have made in their adulthood.

Craig is just theorizing because he doesn't know the reason God ordered this anymore than anyone else does. We can debate about Craig's theory, but I was just making sure that it's understood that it's a theory and nothing more. As far as a "loophole," there is no "loophole" for the reasons that Soyeong stated.

[Whag]

Craig is just theorizing because he doesn't know the reason God ordered this anymore than anyone else does.

Sure he knows. He explains why here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaug...the-canaanites

We can debate about Craig's theory, but I was just making sure that it's understood that it's a theory and nothing more. As far as a "loophole," there is no "loophole" for the reasons that Soyeong stated.

There is a loophole inasmuch as one human being can help another bypass judgment. Whether or not the slaughterer himself earns judgment is immaterial. In this way, abortion can be interpreted as a mercy.

[seanD]

Sure he knows. He explains why here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaug...the-canaanites




There is a loophole inasmuch as one human being can help another bypass judgment. Whether or not the slaughterer himself earns judgment is immaterial. In this way, abortion can be interpreted as a mercy.

He doesn't know because the explanation is not given; it's called theological theorizing. Read Soyeong's post again and explain to me how it's a loophole in light of what he said.

[Whag]

He doesn't know; it's called theological theorizing. Read Soyeong's post again and explain to me how it's a loophole.

Do you mean the reasons Craig offers for the slaughter could be completely wrong and that the babies didn't, in fact, go to Heaven?

Soyeong's point only addresses the rightness of the slaughterer's justification, not the bypassing of judgment that Craig "theorizes" occurs. Irrespective of the rightness of the act, babies still get translated to Heaven according to Craig.

[Chrawnus]

Great question! As seanD pointed out, God is sovereign, so He can order whatever he wants.

Sure He is, but he is also just, and I have some problems with how a just God would judge people based on "What if"-scenarios. Not to mention that going by this logic someone might be allowed into Heaven because they would have believed if only they had lived a bit longer. So your "less comfy and more realistic perspective" seems more absurd the more I think about it.

There is a loophole inasmuch as one human being can help another bypass judgment. Whether or not the slaughterer himself earns judgment is immaterial. In this way, abortion can be interpreted as a mercy.

Sure it can be interpreted that way, but is it a "mercy" we have the right to mete out? I'd say no, for the same reasons as Soyeong gave. In fact, the only case where it might be allowed would be an express command that is unmistakably by God.

[seanD]

Do you mean the reasons Craig offers for the slaughter could be completely wrong and that the babies didn't, in fact, go to Heaven?

Soyeong's point only addresses the rightness of the slaughterer's justification, not the bypassing of judgment that Craig "theorizes" occurs. Irrespective of the rightness of the act, babies still get translated to Heaven according to Craig.

Craig's theory is certainly possible. It's possible that Calvinism is true -- that God knew beforehand that the babies fully grown would have never made it anyway and would have caused even greater immoral acts against his people. Even if Criag is correct, and this was a divine "loophole" at the time, I still don't see your point.

[Whag]

Craig's theory is certainly possible. It's possible that Calvinism is true -- that God knew beforehand that the babies fully grown would have never made it anyway and would have caused even greater immoral acts against his people. Even if Criag is correct, and this was a divine "loophole" at the time, I still don't see your point.

Maybe because my point was dead simple. It's a theological kanoworns to justify infant slaughter this way. The counterarguments (baby slaughterers are essentially heroic, God is a dupe, etc etc) nullify the "justification."

[seanD]

Maybe because my point was dead simple. It's a theological kanoworns to justify infant slaughter this way. The counterarguments (baby slaughterers are essentially heroic, God is a dupe, etc etc) nullify the "justification."

God isn't ordering infanticide today, nor do I know of any abortion doctors claiming this.