Dear Friends,

We are moving on from babies, and will discuss today the eternal prospects of the mentally handicapped. Spoiler alert: Their prospects are excellent..as long as we properly interpret Scripture!

.

.

The inconvenient ones

In section 2d, we are talking about heaven’s “edge cases”. Many Christians believe that certain groups of people get to go to heaven even though these groups don’t fit into the popular “I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior” model.

So, they propose exceptions.

My main ideas in 2d are:

• These groups of people do in fact get to go to heaven
  • But this does not require any exceptions whatsoever!
• The proposed exceptions are unbiblical
  • The exceptions are also reflective of fundamental problems in the baseline system of salvation

In 2d1b (see link in collapsible outline above), I explained how babies go to heaven according to my beliefs. Today, we are talking about mentally handicapped people, but I have no need to offer any specific explanation of how they can go to heaven. I invite you to simply refer to 2d1b, because, as I said, the system of salvation I believe in works the same way for all of God’s children.

It is not so simple for my Christian friends in other denominations/fellowships, though. In 2d1c, I offered a critique of this proposed exception for babies (1):

“Infants and those with mental disabilities that preclude processing didactic information are believed by many (if not most) exclusivists to be in a separate category. Naturally incapable of exercising conscious faith, they cannot be included in the Romans 1 picture—that of a rebellious humanity “without excuse” on the basis of the fact that they “know” God and yet actively “suppress the truth.” An infant cannot be judged according to works (Rom. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:17). Many exclusivists believe God deals graciously with such non-sentient image-bearers, on the basis of Christ’s work, apart from personal faith.”

However, this proposal also includes “those with mental disabilities.” Much of my critique from last time, in relation to salvation of infants, also applies to the topic of salvation of the mentally handicapped, and I won’t rehash that today. Instead, I want to specifically speak to the case of mentally handicapped people, as opposed to babies.

Danger, Will Robinson!

Please look again at the proposed exception that I quoted above. It starts out talking about “infants and those with mental disabilities”, but it later comments specifically on babies. Specifically, it says “An infant cannot be judged according to works (Rom. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:17)”

So, it’s natural to ask…can a mentally handicapped person be judged worthy of hell fire due to their works? If the Gospel Coalition is defending infant salvation partly on the basis that an infant cannot be judged according to works, does this mean that mentally handicapped people are in danger of hell fire?

This is a good time to explicitly look at the provided verses. I will quote more from Romans 2 because I think the context is more necessary.

[1Pe 1:17 KJV] 17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear:

I quoted these for completeness, but I’m actually not going to say much about these verses today. My aim today is to raise a serious objection to what the Gospel Coalition is saying about Heaven’s edge cases.

Heaven’s DMZ

Pop quiz….which concept is more abstract?

Concept A:

“I am a sinner in the eyes of God, worthy of eternal damnation in a lake of fire, but if I repent of my sins and trust in Jesus Christ, I will be saved.”

Concept B:

“You didn’t give me the cookie. Take THIS!!!”

Hopefully we all guessed concept A.

Next question:

What does God do with a mentally handicapped adult who cannot process concept A, but doesn’t have any trouble with concept B? Yes, there are almost certainly people like this (2) and (3). I also found a specific case which seems to fit what I’m saying pretty well, but I won’t post the link because I want to be sensitive. Contact me and I will share it.

As a caveat, I said “almost certainly” because it’s possible for someone to appear to have very low intelligence from the outside, but to actually have a brilliant mind on the inside. I still think it’s very reasonable to believe, though, that there really are adults whose intellectual abilities lie somewhere between concepts A and B. After all, neurotypical children certainly gain the ability to grasp concept B at a younger age than the age at which they can grasp concept A, so an adult with a severe developmental delay may fit this description.

A human less capable than you is still a human

Please keep in mind as we continue that I am NOT trying to prove that some severely mentally handicapped people go to hell. I am NOT saying that if a severely mentally handicapped person hits somebody, the worst motive should be assumed and they should be punished. I am NOT offering advice about how to care for these individuals, because I have zero experience with that. I have nothing but admiration for all people around the world who dedicate their lives to helping mentally challenged people.

What I AM trying to show is that the standard prescription for the salvation of the mentally challenged is significantly flawed, from a Bible perspective.

Also, as a preface to the next section: Some may take exception to the idea that someone too mentally impaired to comprehend the spoken or written gospel can nevertheless be guilty of “sin”. Some may even consider that idea hateful and judgmental. One question I would ask you: How compassionate are we being, and how much dignity are we extending, when we look at someone with severe mental challenges and completely dissociate them from the distinctly human endeavor of making moral choices?

In other words, who is according these mentally handicapped individuals more humanity? The one who says there are still some moral choices they can make (however limited their set of moral choices may be compared to the vastly more complex set of moral choices a neurotypical person must consider), or the one who effectively says their humanity extends no further than their anatomy? I say, no matter how severe the disability, there is still a human soul in there!!

In short: A human less capable than you is still a human. Now let’s get back to the Book.

Here’s the rub

So: we’re talking about people who are, in the words of Matt Smethurst of the Gospel Coalition, “naturally incapable of exercising conscious faith” but don’t quite fit into the “cannot be judged according to works” category. After all, injuring someone out of anger because they did not immediately give you what you wanted is a sin. In a temporal sense, is it as bad as cheating on your wife? Of course not! But it’s still a sin:

We are talking in an eternal sense now…we are talking about God’s “great white throne” of judgment:

[Rev 20:11-13 KJV] 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Is there any Scriptural evidence for people getting a pass at that throne because their sins weren’t too bad? No! We are talking about a Holy God, who dwells in light which no man can approach unto. His righteous standard flies higher, far far higher than ours:

[Jas 2:10 KJV] 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

In fact, I wonder why the very verse that Matt Smethurst quoted in order to save infants couldn’t be used (per his framework, not mine) to condemn the specific group of mentally handicapped people I am talking about:

So, John 3:16 cannot mean God has 4 ways of saving people

The method of salvation proposed for babies by Matt Smethurst does not work, as I argued last time, and even if it worked for babies, it does not work for certain profoundly mentally challenged people. They cannot exercise conscious faith, but, in a final, eternal sense, they stand in just as much need of a Redeemer from their sins as the rest of us.

My suggestion: Let’s stop trying to come up with all these back doors and consider the possibility that the real problem is with our baseline system of salvation. Could it be that all of God’s children, whether babies, mentally handicapped, or the Apostle Paul, get saved entirely by a work of God, without any consent on the part of the person being saved? Could it be that the method I described in 2d1b is the way we all get born again?

Dear child of God, I pray I have convinced you that John 3:16 cannot mean what you’ve been told. Now, let’s close this out with this gorgeous poem by Helen Keller, who became deaf and blind at the age of 19 months (4):

They took away what should have been my eyes
(But I remembered Milton’s Paradise)
They took away what should have been my ears
(Beethoven came and wiped away my tears)
They took away what should have been my tongue
(But I had talked with God when I was young).
He would not let them take away my soul:
Possessing that, I still possess the whole.

Links:

(1) Gospel coalition

(2) Adults with mental age of 1 year

(3) Severe intellectual disability (Psych Central)

(4) Mine to Keep