Among the sentiments that have been written or spoken, have been these:
“Your loss is heaven’s gain”
“Heaven is sweeter now”
“One day you’ll see him again”
Some, if not all, have been said by fellow loss moms as their source of comfort. If true, these would provide the sweetest comfort of all, so that I can picture my perfect boy with big clappers clapping away while worshiping his Creator. But I just need to know these are Scriptural statements. Of course, I am no theologian (and slightly embarrassed to attempt an understanding), but what else is there to do but try?
Is an unborn baby's name written in God's book of Life, as it appears to be in Psalm 139?
Does my little guy have an angel in heaven, as read in Matthew 18:10?
If Ky was blind in his ignorance of good v. evil, was he without sin? John 9:41; but this is asked with the knowledge that we were all conceived in sin Psalm 51:5
If John 12:48 says "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day," can we assume rejecting the offer is very different from not consciously knowing the offer?
"From my mother's womb you have been my God" Psalm 22:10
As Dr. Martin reminded us before ever leaving the hospital, the Holy Spirit communed with Kyler each and every day he was being formed. God Himself did the knitting together of Ky, and what God makes is wonderful Psalm 139. Surely what God makes so intricately does not cease to exist completely; for "to be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord" and "if our earthly tent is destroyed, we have a new building from God in heaven, not built by human hands" 2 Cor. 5
I have read it argued by another mother that Job 3:11-19 describes heaven as a place for a stillborn child. I don't see that, even after reading commentaries on this passage. But, I do see this section depicting the grave as a place of rest from the toil of living. Suppose there is still comfort somewhere in that. He will never lose a job, have his heart broken, get sick, have an accident. God is merciful to spare Ky and give him a life without pain (and better than that... life with the purest joy).
David's son dies in 2nd Samuel after a 7 day illness. David spent the 7 days prostrate, begging the Lord to heal his son. When the child finally dies, David cleaned up, began eating again, and went to worship the Lord. Obviously, this confused alot of people. In time, I hope to find David's response beautiful:
David replied, “I fasted and wept while the child was alive, for I said, ‘Perhaps the Lord will be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But why should I fast when he is dead? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him one day, but he cannot return to me." 2 Samuel 12.
I get why this sounds harsh, but the implication is awesome: one day Shay and I will join baby Ky in heaven. Perhaps this looks like David simply says he will die and be buried alongside his son (an argument that crossed my mind). Elliott's commentary responds this way: As far as the mere words themselves are concerned, this might be taken as the expression of a Stoic’s comfort, “I shall go to the dead, but the dead will not come to me;” but David, in his whole nature and belief, was as far as possible from being a Stoic, and these words in his mouth can scarcely be anything else than an expression of confidence in a life of consciousness beyond the grave, and of the future recognition of those loved on earth.
And why would David be so happy to worship the Lord if the place they were going was the ground and not heaven? Though this can't probably assure that all infants are saved, it's encouraging. And we know Jesus took the OT scriptures seriously. I have to assume David's theology will always trump my small-minded efforts.
Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and Aaron were all "gathered up to their people," as opposed to "were buried" as others were. And as far as recognizing each other in heaven, it may be that, like many doctrines, they are implied though not explicitly expressed. “Many, I say unto you, shall come from the east and the west, the north and the south, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven?” (Matt. 8:11) If we will sit at the table with them but won't know them, why would Jesus mention their names?
The Apostles also recognized Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration, assuming they are in their glorious states.
Some interesting thoughts from The Gospel Coalition:
1. In Romans 1:20 Paul describes recipients of general revelation as being “without excuse.” They can’t blame their unbelief on a lack of evidence. There is sufficient revelation of God’s existence in the natural order to establish the moral accountability of all who witness it. Might this imply that those who are not recipients of general revelation (i.e., infants) are therefore not accountable to God or subject to wrath? In other words, wouldn’t those who die in infancy have an “excuse” in that they neither receive general revelation nor have the capacity to respond to it?
2. There is the consistent testimony of Scripture that people are judged on the basis of sins committed voluntary and consciously in the body (see 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Rev. 20:11–12). In other words, eternal judgment is always based on conscious rejection of divine revelation (whether in creation, conscience, or Christ) and willful disobedience. Are infants capable of either? There is no explicit account in Scripture of any other judgment based on any other grounds. Thus, those dying in infancy are saved because they do not (indeed cannot) satisfy the conditions for divine judgment.
3. "[If a deceased infant] were sent to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good reason to the divine mind for the judgment, but the child’s mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it would know suffering, but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering. It could not tell its neighbor—it could not tell itself—why it was so awfully smitten; and consequently the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings, being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of penalty would be absent, and justice would be disappointed of its vindication. Such an infant could feel that it was in hell, but it could not explain, to its own conscience, why it was there." - R.A. Webb
4. Here is a subjective (and therefore of questionable evidential value). 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. -Sam Storms
As much as I don't want to include this thought, I feel that I have to, as I want to understand God's plan more than to mold it into what makes me feel better:
"Some reformed theologians have argued that imputed sin entails real imputed guilt, and that imputed guilt is real guilt (the infant is really guilty of having sinned, even though he has not actually sinned). Because the infant is really guilty of sin, he may be justly punished for this sin. If it were not just to punish someone for imputed sin, then Jesus could not justly have suffered for the sins of men. Thus, infants who die may justly be sent to hell. Most who believe that infants may justly be sent to hell, however, do not believe that all infants who die actually go to hell. Rather, most believe in the existence of elect infants -- infants whom God sovereignly regenerates and saves, despite the fact that they deserve hell. This does not necessarily imply that all infants who die are elect, though some Reformed theologians have also held this position. Further, a good argument can be made that God shows particular favor upon covenant children who die, so that believers may have more confidence than others that their children who die in infancy are among the elect. He also has a special love for the children of believers (Ps. 103:17). Further, God's love for believers inclines him to be good to believers, and the Bible tells us that children are God's gift to believers (Ps. 127:3). This implies that one way that God blesses covenant members is by treating their children with mercy (compare Gen. 26:24; 1 Kings 11:12). Moreover, the ideal blessing which God describes for his people includes the lives and blessing of their children (Isa. 65:18-23)."
'John Evans, the quaint Scotch minister, was seated in his study one day, and his wife came and said, “My dear, do you think we shall know each other in heaven? “Why, yes,” said he. “Do you think we shall be greater fools there than we are here?”'
Westminster Catechism: “Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."
Does the question come down to original sin being applied to infants vs. the question of salvation of infants being unable to consciously reject God??