Since Francis Chan has a couple of books for free this weekend, I downloaded Erasing Hell. Haven't read it yet but it made me think. Please tell me where I'm going wrong because I hate the conclusion I have reached.
Our church teaches there are two options, we either end up in heaven, or will suffer eternally in hell. It also teaches that children, below a certain age, are not responsible for their actions and hence, if they die, they will surely go to heaven. We also teach that "once saved, always saved" is not true. It is possible, though not necessary, to fall from grace by our own doing, by not using the grace we've been given.
Now the very idea of spending eternity in hell is terrible, to say the least. When people are being punished, a judge will assign punishment according to the crime. The worse the crime, the tougher the punishment. That makes sense. But by definition, an endless punishment is worse than any possible crime that we can conceive of could be! So this is really serious business and by any means, if we love people, we need to avoid them getting into hell for all eternity!
What can we do? Of course we can share about Christ and pray they will come to believe in Him. But even then, we're not certain they will make it.
Would it not be best to kill them when they are still children? That avoids the risk they might not come to believe, or one day, God forbid, forsake of their faith. It sounds awful, disgusting even, but is not the logical conclusion that this is the most merciful thing we can do? Avoiding a risk that is too terrible to consider taking?
Would this reasoning not make the Pharao, king Herod, and in fact even the abortion doctors the most merciful people of all?
You'll understand why I do NOT want to come to such a blasphemous, distorted and evil conclusion. But where is the fault in the logic?