Forensic Brief Altruistic Filicide Summary
Author:
Gordon Wayne Watts
Role:
Editor-in-Chief, The Register | National Director, CONTRACT WITH
AMERICA: PART II®
Education:
BS, Biological & Chemical Sciences (Florida State University,
with honors); AS, United Electronics Institute
(Valedictorian)
Theological/Legal
Background:
Author, "When Babies Die: Where do they go?," ASIN:
B008J8RTOK, Publisher: Create Space (July 9, 2012) | Lead independent
pro-life litigant in the state and federal appeals regarding the
Theresa Marie Schiavo life-support cases (2004-2005). See:
[[17.]]
APPENDIX “B”
for sources to document background.
*** INTRO: This brief seeks to dismantle the theological 'Shortcut Logic' that provides a rationalized motive for altruistic filicide through a precise forensic and linguistic re-examination of Hebrews 9:27.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
The Problem (The "What") -- LEGAL AND MEDICAL FOUNDATIONS for ALTRUISTIC FILICIDE
The Catalyst (The "Why") -- CAUSES as shown by Case Examples
Exegetical Solutions -- (The "How to Fix") THE LINGUISTIC SAFEGUARD OF HEBREWS 9:27 and more
Published: Monday, May 4, 2026
Updated: Friday, May 8, 2026 (Refined Lexical Attributions ; supplemented citations ; fixed typos)
Updated: Thursday, May 14, 2026 (Added arguments 14 {Trib. Flight} & 15 {Faith} ; fixed typos)
Updated: Sunday, September 13, 2026 (To address peer-reviewed feedback, strengthen the credentials / background section, and to correct lingering minor typos) [18:57 EDT, 9/13/2026]
I. LEGAL AND MEDICAL FOUNDATIONS for ALTRUISTIC FILICIDE
** The Evidence: Andrea Yates (2001) explicitly told forensic psychiatrist Dr. Park Dietz that she killed her five children because she felt they were stumbling and, by killing them while they were innocent, she was ensuring they would go to heaven and be safe with God. Deanna Laney (2003) stoned her children believing God ordered it to save their souls. This is not theoretical; it is historical fact. Please remember the case of Andrea Yates, who explicitly stated she killed her children to ensure their safety in heaven while they were still innocent. This is a real, documented psychological phenomenon. These cases illustrate the 'Terminal Endpoint' of the logic I am highlighting."
“Murder and a Mother’s Love: Understanding Maternal Altruistic Filicide and Reshaping the Legal System’s Approach to Mentally Ill Mothers Who Kill Their Children,” Author: Morgan Woodbridge, 32 J. L. & Pol'y 251 (2024), Volume 32, Issue 2, Article 7, DATE: 5-1-2024, Quote from page 251, Law Journals at BrooklynWorks,
** QUOTE: “Every year, thousands of children are killed by their parents. Some of these killings are committed by mentally ill mothers who believe that death is in their children's best interest. This category of killings is called maternal altruistic filicide.” (Page 251) (Altruistic filicide is a phenomenon that affects both mothers and fathers, as shown below.)
Available at: https://BrooklynWorks.BrookLaw.edu/jlp/vol32/iss2/7
ARCHIVE-1: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20241005210442/https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/jlp/vol32/iss2/7/
Direct URL: https://BrooklynWorks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1658&context=jlp
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20240618015607/https://BrooklynWorks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1658&context=jlp
Some peer-reviewed feedback has expressed concerns that mention of Morgan Woodbridge’s article in the Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy (2024) argues for legal reform regarding mentally ill mothers — not for theological reform of evangelical doctrine. RESPONSE: This observation is correct, but I must mention these seminal cases to lay an academic foundation for the overall phenomenon of both filicide (in general) and the subset of this cohort, namely, altruistic filicide. These legal and medical sources establish the documented phenomenon of altruistic filicide. My concern is how certain popular theological simplifications, when combined with severe mental illness, can contribute to the rationalization in rare but tragic cases.
“The Andrea Yates Case: Insanity on Trial,” Author: Phillip J. Resnick, 55 Clev. St. L. Rev. 147 (2007), DATE: 2007, Quotes from pages 150 and 152, Cleveland State Law Review,
** QUOTE-1: “1. Mrs. Yates believed it was right to drown her children because she held a delusional belief that her children were not being raised “righteously” and that they would “burn in hell” if she did not take their lives. She faced a psychotic dilemma. She thought that she was doing what was right for her children by arranging for them to go to heaven while they were still “innocent.” She stated, “They had to die to be saved.”” (Page 150)
** QUOTE-2: “6. Finally, I reminded the jury of the psychotic dilemma that Mrs. Yates faced at the time she drowned her children. She believed that if she did not act, her children would burn in hell for all eternity. If she did take their lives before the age of accountability, her children would be with God in heaven for all eternity. Mrs. Yates believed that taking her children’s lives was the right thing to do in the face of this dilemma.” (Page 152)
Available at: https://EngagedScholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol55/iss2/4
Direct URL: http://EngagedScholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=clevstlrev
Some peer-reviewed feedback has expressed concerns that mention of Phillip Resnick, in his forensic analysis, cited in the Cleveland State Law Review (2007), consistently characterizes Andrea Yates' beliefs as psychotic delusions, not as logical inferences from sound theology, and therefore explains her acts independent of any pastoral teaching she may have received. RESPONSE: I agree that psychotic delusions were a factor – possibly the “main” factor – but Yates made a specific “theological claim,” namely that killing children before the age of accountability would guarantee salvation, something preferable to allowing them to grow up and risk being lost and ending up in hell for all eternity – a theological fact backed up by 2 Cor. 4:18. Yates' theological views did not form in a vacuum all by themselves, but were based on these exact claims made by many trusted theologians who – unbeknownst to them – pushed her over the edge and became the “tie-breaking vote” in an unstable mind. In my reading of Scripture, I place a greater blame upon these “trusted theologians” for planting a false-hope (i.e., sandy foundation) seed of theology, which would cause such an unstable person to believe that this shortcut would guarantee eternal salvation – something that is – as we all know – more important than temporal salvation: (“MY brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” James 3:1, KJV “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” James 3:1, NIV, Cf: 2 Corinthians 4:18, NIV “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” 2 Corinthians 4:18, KJV “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.”)
DISTINGUISHING the 2 premises (thus, factors) in the Yates case, above: Andrea Yates' belief that killing her children was “morally justified,” and this belief was based on two (2) distinct – but related – factors: [[#1.]] First, she believed that if such a “shortcut” existed (namely that killing her children under the age of accountability = “guaranteed salvation,” and on that count, I am analyzing Yates' internal logic: If such a 'shortcut' existed (that killing children guaranteed salvation), then per 2 Cor. 4:18, her desire to secure their eternal life would be scriptural – and thus appropriate for us to condone and support. (Scripturally, “temporal life” is LESS important than “eternal” life.) However, I reject premise #2—that such a shortcut exists—as unscriptural—and thus must reject her conclusion that altruistic filicide is justified. [[#2.]] But the key word there is “if”: I maintain that such murder of a child under the age of accountability is NOT a “guaranteed salvation” result, and, as such, cite Jas. 3:1 to exhort well-meaning, but incorrect, trusted theologians who push such a shortcut. Thus, I accept premise #1, but reject premise #2, as I argue in my paper.
Other statistics relevant to this phenomenon: Roughly 1-in-4 (25%) of all births end in miscarriage
These scientific findings of fact are included to demonstrate just how prevalent the loss of children before birth (and thus before the “age of accountability”) is in modern society to underscore the need for clarity on a topic that affects practically **all** families due to the very high incidence of child loss in this age-range.
“Pregnancy Loss,” Department of Public Health, © 2026 Commonwealth of Massachusetts. FAIR USE QUOTE: “Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in a loss, including miscarriage, recurrent pregnancy loss, fetal death, or stillbirth. The loss of a pregnancy has a profound impact on parents, families, and health care providers.”
LINK: https://www.Mass.gov/pregnancy-loss ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/0Ahvb
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20250901042240/https://www.Mass.gov/pregnancy-loss
“Men living through multiple miscarriages: protocol for a qualitative exploration of experiences and support requirements,” By Helen Marie Williams, Laura L Jones, Arri Coomarasamy, and Annie E Topping, Correspondence to Helen Marie Williams; h.m.williams.1@bham.ac.uk, BMJ Open, 2020 May 15;10(5):e035967. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035967. PMID: 32414830; PMCID: PMC7232625, FAIR USE QUOTE: “Up to 1 in 4 pregnancies and 1 in 20 subsequent pregnancies end in miscarriage. Despite such prevalence the psychosocial effects are often unrecognised and unsupported.”
LINK-1: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035967
LINK-2: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/5/e035967
LINK-3: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7232625/
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/whzeS ARCHIVE-2: https://Archive.ph/V3nrR
ARCHIVE-3: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20250202052813/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7232625/
II. CAUSES as shown by Case Examples
The theological bridge. – Full list of cases / studies numbered and in chronological order: These demonstrate some causes – which include psychological delusions amplified by assurances from trusted theologians and preachers that infant universalism (the belief that all deceased infants go to heaven, with no choice in the matter, no exceptions) is a correct theology.
[[ #01. – 2006-10-31 ]]
“Girl killed after 'Romeo' moment: A father has described how he spent a moment "like Romeo and Juliet" with his three-year-old daughter before suffocating her, a court has heard.,” from News Front Page, BBC NEWS, Last Updated: Tuesday, 31 October 2006, 15:19 GMT, QUOTE: “Hospital radiographer Gavin Hall, 33, killed Amelia as her mother and sister slept upstairs in their Northants home. [] Mr Hall, of Irchester, denies murder but admits manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. [] "It seemed very Romeo and Juliet, we were distraught, we were distressed," Mr Hall told Northampton Crown Court..." At the time it must have been clear. We talked about heaven and we talked about no more crying, no more sadness," he said.”
LINK: https://News.BBC.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/northamptonshire/6103118.stm
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.ph/oM16j
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20180629040727/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/northamptonshire/6103118.stm
[[ #02. – 2007-12-31 ]]
“Andrea Yates case: Yates found not guilty by reason of insanity,” (Court TV) content from CourtTVNews.com, CNN, First published in 2006 ; Updated 11:03 a.m. EST, Mon December 31, 2007, QUOTE: “Yates told Resnick and others who evaluated her in the weeks after her arrest that she believed that, if she killed her children while they were still innocent, they would be sent to heaven and she would have defeated Satan.”
LINK: https://www.CNN.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.yates8/index.html
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.ph/wgYPh ARCHIVE-2: https://Archive.ph/SvmBi
ARCHIVE-3:
[[ #03. – 2008-01-31 ]]
“Mother says no deal made to kill baby,” by Bob Gibbins, TAHLEQUAH DAILY PRESS, January 31, 2008, QUOTE: “Hurta testified she never told anyone she and Guthrie had decided to "send the baby to heaven."”
LINK: http://TahlequahDailyPress.com/local/x519338834/Mother-says-no-deal-made-to-kill-baby
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/wip/6GhWT
[[ #04. – 2008-09-13 ]]
“World exclusive: John Hogan breaks silence about night he killed his son and nearly ended life of young daughter after row with wife,” by Mirror.co.uk, 22:24, 13 Sept. 2008; Updated 12:52, 3 Feb. 2012, QUOTE: “It was a moment of unbelievable madness – a father throws his son from a fourth-floor balcony at their holiday hotel in Crete, then grabs his daughter in his arms and jumps...Hogan recalls that as the truth of his actions sunk in he spent six months in a suicidal state, in the belief that he would be reunited with Liam in heaven.”
LINK:
http://Mirror.Co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/09/13/world-exclusive-john-hogan-breaks-silence-about-night-he-killed-his-son-and-nearly-ended-life-of-young-daughter-after-row-with-wife-115875-20735576
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/Q3MHJ
Some peer-reviewed feedback has expressed concerns that mention of the Frances Inglis case (below in #08) was euthanasia ideology, and the John Hogan case (above in #04) was post-event suicidal ideation. I concede these are less precise examples of the specific "infant universalism" trigger. It was also noted that the Lori Vallow Daybell case (below in #10) involves cultic "zombies" and fringe LDS-offshoot elements. RESPONSE: I agree that Vallow represents a cultic fringe; however, the underlying psychological mechanism remains identical: a mother was convinced by a warped theological guarantee that killing her children was the only way to secure their spiritual state. Thus, while these 3 references seem to be justified as factual and scientific sources, and shall remain in the main body of my references, I shall offer these clarifications here to ensure my white paper focuses strictly on mainstream evangelical misapplications, as these cases – while not as ideal as others – are nonetheless examples of the theological trigger being a silent – but ubiquitous and ever-present – factor. Additionally, sources #05 and #06 were flagged for removal my some of the peer-reviewed feedback the undersigned author received for this paper. For reasons explained in [[16.]] APPENDIX “A,” below, these two sources were removed from the main body of this paper, here, but retained in the Appendix for reasons more clearly elucidated in comments following the appendix.
[[ #07. – 2009-07-24 ]]
“Mansfield father accused of killing daughter, 6,” by Eric Moskowitz, Globe Staff, THE BOSTON GLOBE, July 24, 2009, 06:51 PM, QUOTE: “Police charged a 35-year-old Mansfield man with murdering his 6-year-old daughter after being alerted to the crime by a note in which he allegedly asked forgiveness for sending her "to heaven."”
LINK: http://www.Boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/mansfield_fathe.html (Link may be broken)
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/qyn6g
LINK: http://CrimesAgainstOurChildren.blogspot.com/2009/07/kristopher-griffin-charged-with.html
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/iMMGk
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20220221085802/http://crimesagainstourchildren.blogspot.com/2009/07/kristopher-griffin-charged-with.html
[[ #08. – 2010-01-20 ]]
“Mother who killed brain-damaged son with heroin injection told Old Bailey she was 'releasing' him,” by Helen Pidd, THE GUARDIAN, Wednesday, 20 January 2010, 14.48 GMT, QUOTE: “I can remember saying I felt I would rather he go to heaven than to hell on earth.”
LINK: http://www.Guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/20/frances-inglis-tom-inglis-heroin
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/2qG2G
ARCHIVE-2:
[[ #09. – 2015-05-01 ]]
“When God Demands Blood: Unusual Minds and the Troubled Juridical Ties of Religion, Madness, and Culpability,” Author: Rabia Belt, 69 U. Mia. L. Rev. 755 (2015), DATE: 5-1-2015, quote from page 791, Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository, QUOTE: “For example, Deanna Laney killed two of her children and tried to kill the third one in 2003...Laney also told investigators that God promised that she would be reunited with her children in heaven...”
Available at: https://Repository.Law.Miami.edu/umlr/vol69/iss3/7
ARCHIVE-1: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20200602152130/https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol69/iss3/7/
Direct URL: https://Repository.Law.Miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3057&context=umlr
Some peer-reviewed feedback has expressed concerns that mention of Rabia Belt’s U. Miami Law Review article (2015) does not endorse my proposed remedy of theological purity. RESPONSE: I do not doubt that secular, legal, papers would overlook theological solutions, but ((1)) First, Belt's overlook of a theological solution in a legal paper does not preclude, negate, or annul my proposed solutions as necessarily false, but more to the point, ((2)) her paper documents a key “factual claim” made by my white paper, namely the claims that Yates made: “Laney also told investigators that God promised that she would be reunited with her children in heaven,” it is nonetheless important to outline, identify, and describe the problem here, namely that Yates was advocating some bad theology, which, as we all know, was not learned “in a vacuum,” and that being the case, we are in need of searching out the origin of such bad theology. I say “bad” because if her theology were good, then her actions would be justified, since Scripture is clear: Eternal life (salvation) is always more important than temporal life (our temporary sojourn). Since we all know that Yates' actions were wrong, then at least one of the two premises of her logic were incorrect: Either eternal life is not more important, or the “shortcut” she described is not effective to achieve her goal. Since the first premise is certainly correct per 2 Cor. 4:18, then the second premise must be false, if we are to accept 2 Cor. 4:18 as true, and that I do. The reason such a proof, as I use here, is called “reductio ad absurdum,” is clear: If we use two supposedly “true” premises, but get an “absurd” result (that baby-killing is a good thing), then this clearly proves that one – or both – premises is/are incorrect. We've already seen #1 is true per 2 Cor. 4:18, so premise 2 (her shortcut) can not be true.
[[ #10. – 2023-04-13 ]]
“Idaho mom Lori Vallow Daybell believed her kids were 'zombies,' ex-best friend testifies,” by Terry Collins, USA TODAY, Published 10:22 p.m. ET April 13, 2023 ; Updated 10:27 p.m. ET April 13, 2023, QUOTE: “Gibb said Vallow Daybell told her people who were light had signed contracts with "the Savior," and those who were dark signed contracts with "Satan" before coming to Earth...Gibb said she did see JJ, but Vallow Daybell said JJ’s behavior was changing and he would say things like "I love Satan.",” yet another case of "altruistic filicide" involving a parent believing they are "sending the soul back to God" to prevent future spiritual corruption.
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.ph/JUSnA
Responding to Additional Concerns Regarding My Citation Base from peer-reviewed feedback:
Addressing core “cause-effect” argument: Some peer-reviewed feedback has expressed concerns that “In each case, the consistent variable is severe mental illness, not orthodox theology. This is critical, because the causal claim of your white paper — that evangelical infant-salvation teaching is the proximate cause of these killings — is not supported by the very experts you cite.” RESPONSE: I fully concede that severe mental illness is the dominant factor in the documented cases, as Dr. Webb’s careful covenant theology rightly emphasizes God’s sovereignty rather than human presumption. However, my narrower pastoral concern remains: when popular evangelical teaching on infant salvation is simplified without sufficient safeguards (such as Hebrews 9:27 — ‘it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment’), it can inadvertently lower the threshold for delusional ‘shortcut logic’ in vulnerable individuals. This is not a critique of orthodox Reformed theology itself, but a call for greater precision in how these truths are communicated. I agree with most of the factual claims of the myriad of feedback I have received: Indeed, the common element in most or all cases is severe mental illness—and, I will add—it appears even to be the “main” causal factor. However, here, I must gently push back because some have overlooked a critical distinction, namely the “pushing him over the edge” factor. To show readers that this “core” argument is wrong, I'll pick a few common example, and then assume (for the sake of argument) that the disputed core argument is correct, and see where that takes us. [[#1.]] First, let's assume that there are twenty (20) documented cases of people threatening suicide (on a bridge, window sil, have a gun or bottle of pills handy to overdose, shoot themselves, jump out a window, off a bridge, etc.). We'd all agree that the “consistent variable” across all 20 cases is severe mental illness, no? Ok, then, enter a crisis counselor, police officer, or local church pastor to “talk the person” off the ledge. Now, QUESTION: What if, in a few of those cases, the cop or pastor told the person “go ahead and jump—after all, life if hard, and your pain (cancer, divorce, loss of a loved one, loss of a job, or arrest for someone on the lam, as a few examples)... John and Mary Sue, your pain is far worse, but you're 'saved', so go ahead and JUMP off that bridge! You'll be 'in a better place' very fast!” I believe we would all agree that a crisis counselor telling a jumper they are guaranteed a better place carries a severe moral and practical liability, no? If “no” (if readers have no problems with the pastor telling the suicidal person “go ahead and jump”), then please make your argument in defense of that cop or preacher. If, however, readers agree with me and most/all others, that “yes,” that preacher should be shamed, that cop, fired, that mental health counselor sued... i.e., if readers say “yes” to my question, then, I would respectfully point out the situation is comparable 100%, and here is why: In both cases (Andrea Yates and a person planning to jump off a tall bridge to suicide) are mentally ill and delusional—and that this is likely the “main” factor. However, in the case of the cop or mental health counselor, that does not exonerate or clear **their** legal, moral, and practical duties to oppose such harmful behaviour. If this “core” implied argument were correct (that “mental illness” – not “trusted theologians” with infant universalism doctrine – are totally to blame), then we would, perforce and of necessity – **have** to absolve, clear, and condone the cop, mental health counselor, or local preacher who argued that “jumping off the bridge” or “taking those pills” would “100% guarantee” the person be in a “better place.” The end result of this “core” logic produces an “absurd” outcome, and thus we must reject the disputed “core” premise that “it's ok to consider only mental illness” in cause-effect analyses, but “ok to ignore” the other “trigger” factors – even if “less than 50%” in magnitude – be it “bad theology” or “bad advice.” In fact, a good argument could be made that the preacher, cop, mental health counselor, in both scenarios was MORE to blame – not less: (“MY brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.” James 3:1, KJV “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” James 3:1, NIV. Reminder: While theological malpractice lawsuits are rare, the very specter of a lawsuit should be a gentle reminder that God put all authority in place (Romans 13), including the courts – and that the judicial review (be it of a preacher that told a “mentally ill” person to “go ahead and jump—you'll be in a better place” – or a trusted theologian who tells listeners “all deceased babies are 100% guaranteed of **eternal** salvation and being in 'a better place', no questions asked”) is authority from God which aims to make it illegal to do immoral things – and thus a reminder to find out that is indeed “moral,” which requires us to use Scripture – not emotion – as our standard.
III. Exegetical Solutions -- (The "How to Fix")
THE LINGUISTIC SAFEGUARD OF HEBREWS 9:27 and more
[[1.]] THE LINGUISTIC SAFEGUARD OF HEBREWS 9:27
The foundational theological "trigger" for altruistic filicide often rests on a misinterpretation of Hebrews 9:27: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” Contemporary teaching frequently inserts the qualifier "final" before "judgment," treating the event as an immediate sentencing to a fixed destination. However, a technical analysis of the original Greek reveals a critical distinction. The text uses the word κρίσις (krisis), which denotes a process, a trial, or an investigative "turning point." This is distinct from κρίμα (krima), which refers to the result of a judgment—the final decree or sentence.
By applying krisis here, the Writer of Hebrews establishes that death is not the moment of automatic "entry," but the commencement of an individual’s accountability before God. When theologians replace krisis (process/turning point) with the functional equivalent of krima (final sentencing) for infants, they inadvertently create a "100% certainty" of salvation that does not exist in the text. Restoring the proper meaning of krisis ensures that death is viewed as an appointment with a Just Judge, rather than a mechanical "shortcut" to a guaranteed outcome. *** While venerable commentators like Matthew Henry, John Calvin, or perhaps A.T. Robertson traditionally interpreted this as the 'final sentence' (krima), they did so without the benefit of today's forensic psychological data regarding how that specific interpretation acts as a catalyst for altruistic filicide.
Dr. Kenneth Wuest, however, a respected professor of New Testament Greek at the Moody Bible Institute, is an absolute titan in MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE'S theological circles, and he provides documented lexical definitions to help clarify the meaning of Hebrews 9:27.
|
Greek Term |
Strong's # |
Meaning |
Application in Heb. 9:27 |
|
Krisis |
G2920 |
The Act of Judging / Investigation |
An appointment for a process. |
|
Krima |
G2917 |
The Sentence / Final Decree |
The eventual result of the krisis. |
In Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, he is famous for rigidly enforcing the morphological rules of Greek suffixes. Wuest repeatedly notes that Greek nouns ending in -sis (like krisis) denote the action or process of the verb, while nouns ending in -ma (like krima) denote the result of the action. This linguistic correction is a vital forensic safeguard; by removing the "certainty" of the result, we dismantle the rational motive for a mentally fragile parent to "ensure" salvation through the crime of filicide. See also: W.E. Vine (Vine’s Expository Dictionary), BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich), the undisputed heavy-hitter of modern translation, which categorizes 'krisis' as "the legal process of judging, judging, judgment" and reserves 'krima' for "the decision of a judge, verdict." Cf: Richard Trench (Synonyms of the New Testament).
The Krisis vs. Krima Distinction
Matthew 12:41: "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment (krisis) with this generation, and shall condemn it..."
The Logic: This implies an interactive, comparative process occurring within the judgment period. If judgment were a final, immediate sentence at death, this comparison wouldn't be logically possible.
1 Peter 4:17: "For the time is come that judgment (krisis) must begin at the house of God..."
The Logic: This proves that krisis has a start date and a duration. It is a "season" or an "event" with a chronological flow.
Revelation 20:4: "...and judgment (krima) was given unto them..."
The Logic: This describes the authority to pass final sentences. It is a verdict – the end-state of the judicial process.
Hebrews 6:2: "...and of eternal judgment (krima)."
The Logic: This is the most powerful citation for this distinction. Just three chapters before Hebrews 9:27, the author uses krima to refer to the eternal, final verdict.
The Forensic Argument: If the Author of Hebrews meant that death brings an immediate final sentence, He would have used krima (as He did in 6:2). By switching to krisis in 9:27, He is explicitly pointing to an appointment for an investigative process. I don't imply that all judgment is delayed, but rather that Hebrews 9:27 establishes the appointment for the process, not the finality of the sentence.
Some peer-reviewed feedback has expressed concern that the Krisis/Krima Distinction is overstated in context: It was argued that the word "once" (hapax) in Hebrews 9:27-28 does the “heavy lifting,” establishing an appointment that admits no exception or repetition, emphasizing finality. RESPONSE: I agree entirely that death happens "once" (hapax). The singularity of physical death is absolute. However, the text says it is appointed unto men once to die, "but after this the judgment (krisis)." The hapax modifies the death; it does not dictate the duration, mechanism, or finality of the krisis that follows. Death is an instantaneous event (hapax); krisis is a subsequent process. The finality of the first (death) does not erase the duration of the second ('krisis' judgment). Therefore, the "once" in Heb. 9:27 dictates the absolute certainty of our appointment with death and God's complete fairness in the subsequent krisis, not a ticking clock shutting a door. I also notice that none of my reviewers have refuted my counter-examples of either Lazarus or the hardened heart – both examples of physical death not being linked to a closing of the chance to get saved: Lazarus WAS dead, but did NOT have his free will abrogated – and contra-wise, those with hardened hearts did NOT need to encounter physical death in order to “close the door” to salvation. Their global silence implies that, at some subconscious level, they accept my claim that physical death is not a mechanical door that closes a door to a “complete” and “fair” judgment process – as 'krisis' would seem to say. This fact begs the question of why the Writer of Hebrews did not use 'krima' in Heb. 9:27 as He did in Heb. 6:2 “...and of eternal judgment (krima).” No peer-reviewed feedback has ever offered a satisfactory explanation of why Jesus, speaking through the writer of Hebrews, didn't use 'krima' in Heb. 9:27, which He easily could have, as He did in Heb. 6:2, if 'final verdict' and 'sentence' was indeed what He meant to say. Even the KJV does not insert 'final' – not even in italics – which is sometimes used to add clarifying words not in the original text. Hapax (ἅπαξ) is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs, not nouns. In Hebrews 9:27, hapax modifies the verb phrase apokeitai... apothanein (appointed to die). It grammatically cannot carry over the conjunction de (but) to modify the noun krisis (judgment). Grammatically, the adverb hapax exclusively modifies the verb phrase regarding death. It cannot “leap over” the conjunction to modify the duration or finality of the subsequent noun, krisis. To argue that 'once to die' means 'finality of judgment' is not exegesis; it is eisegesis (reading into the text something that's not there), e.i., syntactic overreach. The text establishes the absolute certainty of Event A (death) and the inevitability of Event B (krisis). It is entirely silent on the mechanics, duration, or finality of Event B. “Exegesis” vs. Eisegesis,” key concept.
HERMENEUTICS: So, since both the KJV (which lacks 'final' before 'judgment' in 9:27) and the original Greek (which chose krisis over krima) are quite clear that to not place arbitrary time-limits on judgment or to limit that judgment to a final verdict and sentence, then the First Rule of Hermeneutics (plain and literal reading without fancy guesses) and the Second Rule of Hermeneutics (which says unclear Scripture – clearly Heb. 9:27 – must be interpreted in light of clear Scripture on the requirements of Salvation pretty much make clear that faith is required. If I could add a THIRD and FOURTH rule, it might be (3rd Rule) “don't put God in a box by putting words in His mouth – adding limitations to God not found in Scripture” (a restatement of the First Rule) and (4th Rule) “look at the fruits of the doctrine” (I.e., test the fruits: unscriptural doctrine that tempts parents to kill children and also creates arguments amongst the brethren = bad fruit = bad tree doctrine).
Regarding the “HAPAX” deliberate parallel context argument: Above, my response to the “parallel context” argument raised by some reviewers was strictly syntactical. I argued that the adverb hapax (once) strictly modifies the verb "to die" (we physically die only one time), and that it grammatically cannot be carried over to modify the duration or finality of the noun krisis (judgment). However, a closer look at both structural context (verses 25-28) linguistics and high-level Hermeneutics context give a clearer picture: Hebrews 9:25-28 (KJV) {9:25} Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; {9:26} For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. {9:27} And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: {9:28} So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. RESPONSE: Traditional modern interpretations of Heb. 9 claim that "once to die" in 9:27 are parallel to "once in the end of the world hath he appeared" in 9:26 and "once offered" in 9:28, to make the argument that the "once" in 9:27 must require a person's judgment to be "once" and thus final judgment, but I reject that argument because [[A]] It is just as likely to make a comparison that the "once" meant "complete,” as in “once is all that's needed” = “complete / done” judgment was paid for in 9:26 and 9:28, and that "complete" fairness is required in 9:27, and [[B]] Since both comparisons are linguistically possible, then [[C]] we must accept the one that best fits the grammar (krisis more fits ongoing investigation, non-final judgment), and [[D]] "final" judgment is not only linguistically strained, but it also violated the known character of God to be fair and give the child a chance to exercise faith: if God “calls” the child to faith, He will “equip” the child to obey – otherwise His character of fairness disappears, and clearly, allegations that God “forces” belief upon this cohort – as opposed to Free Will He affords angels and humans – is not within the character of a “fair” God (perhaps an unfair one, yes, but my God is not unfair). Therefore, [[E]] such an interpretation would violate the fundamental Hermeneutic Principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, if we attempted to force a guaranteed “salvation apart from faith” by using an unclear passage (Heb. 9:27 is unclear because it can be interpreted several ways) to interpret clear passages (which both require faith and require the exercise to be made of free will and conscious choice, not forced). [[F]] Lastly, let's use the “First Rule of Hermeneutics,” the “LITERAL MEANING PRINCIPLE”: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest you wind up with nonsense! This principle, often called the "Golden Rule of Biblical Interpretation," argues that a literal, common-sense reading is primary, and looking for hidden meanings (allegorizing/spiritualizing) is usually wrong, leading to subjective “nonsense!” Applied here, a plain-language literal reading shows that Jesus is not like other priests and sacrifices (which must be offered yearly, vv.25-26), and we see that these 2 verses are not connected at all to vv.27-28. However, here's where a closer look is needed: I see the possible connection: “And as it is appointed unto men once to die...” in v.27 to “So Christ was once offered...” in v.28. I now clearly see the confusion from a superficial glance from the “And as it is...So,...” apparent connection. But a plain-language reading merely mandates that men die once (v.27) and that Christ was offered once (v.28), but says nothing about the nature or duration of the judgment. This is Eisegesis, not Exegesis, someone adding their view when a “plain language” reading does not explicitly state one way or the other about the nature/duration of the krisis judgment. To finish the review – and answer unanswered questions – here is where we marshal the “Second Rule of Hermeneutics,” the principle of “SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE” (also known as the Analogy of Faith – analogia fidei), the rule that the Bible is its own best interpreter. It's based on Romans 12:6, suggesting a harmonious, unified divine message where unclear passages (like those you cited) are understood in light of clearer ones (like John 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Heb. 11:6, Rom. 10:13-17, and Eph. 2:8-9, which all show that faith is a Sine Qua Non required element), stemming from the Greek analogia (proportion) and logos (word/ratio), emphasizing a consistent, coherent system of belief revealed by God, not human reason alone. The bright-line standard is clear: Faith is required to be saved, but faith requires intellect—as shown in Rom. 10:14 “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” Belief and faith require the gospel to be preached and understood—something of which infants are incapable. Thus, a clear definition of “faith” and “salvation” – and their interplay – is in order:
FAITH CLARIFICATION: To be clear, salvation actually requires three (3), not two (2), elements of faith: First, 1. intellect, then 2. faith/belief, and lastly 3. volition or free-will choice. Let's use the RMS TITANIC as an example: [[#1.]] First, passengers had to have intellect to understand the claims made of “life boats and life jackets” being offered—intellect: without the intellect, the ability to accept fails. [[#2.]] Second, the passengers had to also have “faith/belief” in the claims, or else they'd reject the offer as nonsense. But even this was not enough: Many passengers had intellect (1st element) and faith or belief (2nd element), but lacked the 3rd and last element: [[#3.]] Free Will choice and volition: perhaps they willingly chose to “stay behind” to give up their seat to another passenger or to be with a relative who refused to board a lifeboat. CAVEAT: Even demons have faith and believe (JAMES: 2:19 “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”), because demons have intellect and belief/faith, but are not saved: They lack the 3rd Sine Qua Non element: Free Will choice and volition to follow Jesus. Infants don't have **any** of these 3 elements, and, thus (if we are to believe Scripture) can not – at that time – be saved: Can infants understand, and have faith? No. That limitation, however, does not preclude God from issuing a just judgment which would afford them an opportunity to believe, as this would align with His known character of fairness, insofar as both angels and adults are afforded such opportunity—not unlike the hypothetical judge in my White Paper who was not forced to issue a final judgment, verdict, and sentence upon a convicted defendant if a hurricane lighted down upon the courthouse on the court date: The judge likely would enter neither an “innocent” not a “guilty” plea, but rather reset the court date: This does not give the defendant a “second chance,” as he never had a “first” chance: The hurricane shut down the courthouse. Likewise, a baby entering into the millennium doesn't get a “second” chance to believe, as he/she never had a “first” chance. Is God (Almighty Judge) not at least as capable and fair as a human judge? Or should be insist on putting God in a box and saying He will do something that violates His Word regarding the requirements of salvation?
ANALYSIS: This begs the question: “Why doesn't God tell us precisely how, when, and where infants can get saved?” ANSWER: God doesn't tell us precisely the “rapture” timing (pre-, mid-, post-Trib, etc.), but wise theologians DO NOT refute or deny that there **IS** a rapture, so likewise, wise theologians should not doubt that God will be fair to those deceased babies—even if we don't know the timing (e.g., millennium? Rest of the Dead? In heaven like angels?) or details. But we do because it's an emotional topic. Scripture > Emotion. (As an aside, I understand why preachers are reluctant to tell grieving parents that their deceased infant could be reunited in the millennial period, but still have an opportunity to reject Jesus in the Rev. 20:7-9 rebellion. But saying the child **can** reject Jesus and end up “lost” is not the same as saying that he/she **will** be lost, and – in fact – describing God's justice for the deceased infant – who will be given a chance to hear the gospel – is actually less emotionally stressful than discussing a deceased parent or grandparent who was evil and likely lost – and with little or no chance at salvation – which I mention because preachers and trusted TV/Radio theologians who oft-times discussed deceased parents who appeared lost, based on an evil lifestyle, should view infants as an “easier” – not “harder” topic when being honest about Scripture, as opposed to clinging to non-biblical universalism or other dangerous heresy fairy tales of false hope that might tempt unstable parents to seek a non-scriptural shortcut guarantee of salvation.
Regarding Postmortem Opportunity Contradicting Scripture: Some critics of this concept cite Luke 16:19-31 (the fixed chasm) and 2 Corinthians 6:2 ("now is the day of salvation") to close the door on postmortem opportunity. RESPONSE: Luke 16 deals with a Rich Man who was a conscious adult who already had his opportunity to heed "Moses and the Prophets" during his lifetime (Luke 16:29). He made his choice. Deceased infants never received their first chance. Traditional theology uses this verse to prove that one's eternal state is instantly, physically locked at the moment of death, preventing any crossing over—but overlooks the key distinction: the chasm is, indeed, fixed for those who have already made conscious rebellion, but does not preclude a pre-chasm "waiting/educational" state for the cognitively unformed. Please look more closely at Jesus' parable: It lists conscious adults—capable of making decision, not children or infants, thus it is a “category error” even to apply this parable to infant soteriology. Similarly, 2 Corinthians 6:2 is an urgent plea addressed to living, breathing, cognitively aware humans capable of hearing Paul's letter. To apply "now is the day" to a miscarried fetus or an infant who possesses zero cognitive ability to understand the Gospel is a category error. If they cannot hear it "now," God, being perfectly just (Gen. 18:25b), must provide a "now" for them at a later point.
Regarding the Historic Evangelical Position vs. Automatic Universalism: Some have argued that I am attacking a strawman and have claimed that conservative evangelicals do not teach "automatic age-based salvation," but rather that "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit," apart from conscious cognitive faith (citing Westminster Confession 10.3, Warfield, MacArthur, Sproul). RESPONSE: This is the crux of the matter, and I must respectfully push back here. By relying on WCF 10.3, historic Reformed theology bypasses the Sine Qua Non requirement of conscious faith. Arguing that the Holy Spirit implants a "seed of faith" or regenerates an unconscious infant reduces conscious Sola Fide to an invisible ontological change, entirely divorced from the biblical mandate of human volition. If faith does not require a conscious, volitional trust in Christ (John 3:16, Heb. 11:6), it ceases to be biblical faith. (Recall, above: Biblical faith has three Sine Qua Non elements: Intellect, Faith-proper aka belief, and lastly volitional Free Will choice, and intellect can not be divorced from biblical faith without contradicting Scripture.) To clarify: I am not attacking the intent of the theologians (Sproul, MacArthur), but rather the sociological consequence of their teaching in a crisis state, which I state to clarify and assure that my argument is not a personal attack. I'm tracking with my critics who, effectively say: "We don't teach universalism, we teach election." I acknowledge that distinction, but I must point out that a “theological distinction” without a “practical difference” is moot in a psychiatric ward. If a mother in the pew is taught that all dying infants happen to be elect (as Webb and Spurgeon ultimately conclude), she doesn't care about the theological mechanics of why they are saved; she only hears the 100% guarantee – which, as we've discussed earlier, is unsupported by Scripture.
APPLIED – This begs a second – and more important – question: What about us, adults? We all have wondered “if there's a 'God', why did this tragedy happen?,” and thus wonder if **we** have hope? Since it is clear that the deceased infants – even with the “perils of free will” – will get a fair shake, as did both angels and patriarchs before us (including Sovereign Jesus, Who beat death and endured many real-life struggles) – then we can see God's track record of success “applied” to us, mere mortals – and have hope. “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” (I Cor. 15:14) But Christ **did** beat death, so there is hope for us!
CATEGORY ERROR: Furthermore, some of my peer-reviewed feedback has claimed that my argument about my "Filicide Concern" is “category error” because my Millennial postmortem framework could also be abused by a disturbed parent who thinks that “my child will get a fair Gospel presentation in the Millennium.” RESPONSE: That argument meets its match right here, and here is why: my framework requires the child to exercise Free Will, meaning they could still reject Christ. My theology (as supported by the numerous Scriptural requirements of faith) removes the 100% guarantee. Conversely, the Reformed position (as popularized by MacArthur and others) practically functions as a 100% guarantee in the pews. The sociological reality is that whether a pastor preaches "covenantal election of dying infants" or "automatic infant universalism," the psychological result on a severely depressed mother is identical: “The grave guarantees paradise.” It is that absolute certainty of outcome that provides the rationalization for altruistic filicide. TO CLARIFY: A delusional parent committing altruistic filicide is not looking for a "fair opportunity" for their child; they are looking for risk elimination. They are terrified of the risk of their child going to hell. My framework introduces risk (the child could use their Free Will to reject Christ). The Reformed framework offers absolute certainty (all dying infants are elect and guaranteed heaven), i.e., to be clear: psychotic syllogisms rely on absolute guarantees. In plain English – My theology destroys the delusional incentive because it introduces the risk of eternal damnation via the requirement of future free will. The Reformed position, albeit unintentionally, provides the absolute certainty required to close the loop on a psychotic rationalization.
Responding to Dr. R.A. Webb: Some of the peer-reviewed feedback that the undersigned author has received has highly recommended R.A. Webb’s The Theology of Infant Salvation (1907), noting his careful Reformed conclusion that affirms salvation based on “sovereign election” rather than “postmortem opportunity.” RESPONSE: I am familiar with Dr. Webb's massive 339-page treatise. While he is certainly a heavyweight, his defense relies on the exact theological technicality I addressed above: an unconscious "seed" of faith planted prior to death. Because Webb strictly cuts off any grace beyond the grave, he is forced into a theological corner where he must invent a non-biblical mechanism for God to save people who possess zero cognitive awareness of who He is. Furthermore, Webb builds this massive theological architecture to ultimately conclude that all infants who die in infancy happen to be elect. Therefore, Webb himself proves that one can hold to strict Calvinistic Election AND still teach that 100% of dying infants are saved—which loops us right back to the very 100% guarantee that fuels the filicide crisis in the first place. Dr. Webb is committing a theological invention – i.e., 'infant universalism', a “salvation” apart from faith, and thus unsupported by Scripture – to protect a systematic assumption—and he assumes the door to grace closes at death. Because infants cannot meet the biblical requirements of faith (intellect, belief, volition) before death, Webb is forced to invent a non-biblical category: "unconscious faith," which is an oxymoron that violates Sola Fide. If faith requires no intellect or volition, it is simply arbitrary regeneration. Webb builds a massive theological architecture to defend a premise nowhere found in Scripture: unconscious faith. He does this strictly to avoid the logical – and Scriptural – necessity of postmortem grace. By stripping faith of intellect and volition, Webb reduces Sola Fide to an invisible, 'mechanical' transaction—an ontological change that contradicts the active, volitional faith demanded throughout the New Testament.
Hebrews 9:27 is an eschatological summary statement—and is notoriously debated. To use a single, highly contested verse to completely overwrite the foundational, crystal-clear soteriological mandate of the entire New Testament (that salvation requires conscious, volitional faith—John 3:16, Rom 10:9, Heb 11:6, etc.) is a textbook hermeneutical fallacy—and textbook “taking a verse out of context” to build a preferred theology, as opposed to an actual theology: the historic Reformed camp are taking an obscure passage about the timeline of death and using it to invent a "behind-the-scenes, unconscious faith-seed" mechanism that contradicts the plain reading of the Gospels. Sometimes “the majority” ISN'T always right (think: Noah's neighbors, Lot's neighbors, RMS Titanic staff, TITAN SUBMERSIBLE command staff, etc.).
CONCLUSION: My insistence on a Free Will opportunity for these infants is not philosophical Arminianism, as some would all it; rather, it is a defense of the Imago Dei and the biblical mandate that salvation requires a conscious response to the Gospel. We cannot use an ambiguous interpretation of Hebrews 9:27 to annul the explicit, conscious-faith requirements of John 3 and Romans 10. “The 'clear' must interpret the 'unclear'.”
If we hold fast to the truth that God is the Ultimate, Fair Judge (John 5:22), who will not deal less justly than a human judge, we can rest easy. We do not need to invent theological shortcuts or "seeds of unconscious faith." We can have absolute faith in the babies' fair treatment by a Sovereign God. This truth should help us to not get discouraged when confronting these emotional tragedies, knowing that God will provide a legitimate, conscious opportunity for every soul to choose Him. While I find Dr. Webb's Reformed conclusion ultimately unsatisfactory for the reasons stated, I acknowledge his rigor and thus update my paper to reflect that he is the primary scholarly foil to my position.
In closing, I am grateful for much rigorous feedback and pastoral concern I have received from multiple reviewers, and, to that end, have implemented all of the recommended changes to strengthen the citation integrity and clarity of this white paper. My goal is not to indict any orthodox tradition but to highlight a potential pastoral vulnerability so that the Church might better guard the vulnerable. I remain open to further dialogue and would welcome any additional thoughts other theologians might have of my treatise.
The Septuagint is the Koine Greek translation of the Old Testament, completed roughly 200–300 years before Christ.
Why it matters for Section III: The New Testament writers (including the author of Hebrews) primarily quoted from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic text.
The Linguistic Bridge: When Daniel 7:10 says "the judgment was set," the Septuagint uses the exact same word as Hebrews 9:27—krisis.
The Proof: By showing that the Greek translation of Daniel uses krisis for a courtroom scene where "books are opened," we clearly see that the "investigative process" is the intended meaning of the word in a biblical context in Heb. 9:27, not a final verdict / sentence: This leaves the door open for The Judge to enter ANY appropriate sentence, i.e., it avoids “putting God in a box,” by a misunderstanding – and subsequent misrepresentation – of Heb. 9:27 – by “adding to the Word of God” a “final” judgment/sentence which is NOT in the text, thereby creating a “sandy foundation” upon which prohibited universalism is created.
Applying Kenneth Wuest’s documented lexical definitions of κρίσις (krisis, the act of judging) vs. κρίμα (krima, the sentence rendered) to the text of Hebrews 9:27, we find that – while modern translations often imply a singular "final judgment" – the presence of the definite article in the Greek κρίσις (krisis) supports the KJV's specific focus. As noted in various lexicons, krisis refers to the act of investigating or deciding (the trial), whereas κρίμα (krima) refers to the sentence rendered (the verdict). If death leads to a krisis (process), the "Immediate Finality" used to justify altruistic filicide is Scripturally undermined. *** This specific linguistic data, alone, renders the interpretation of 'final sentencing' in Hebrews 9:27 structurally untenable." ***
Some peer-reviewed feedback has expressed concerns that my Lexical Authorities, above, do not support my conclusion: It was observed that Kenneth Wuest, W.E. Vine, Richard Trench, and BDAG do not apply the krisis vs. krima distinction to argue for a postmortem evangelism opportunity, and that BDAG actually categorizes Hebrews 9:27 under decisive divine judgment. RESPONSE: I do not claim that Wuest or Vine explicitly endorsed postmortem evangelism; rather, I am utilizing their rigid, documented morphological rules regarding Greek suffixes (-sis denoting process, -ma denoting result). The fact that BDAG categorizes Hebrews 9:27 under decisive judgment in its contemporary editions reflects the prevailing traditional theology of its editors, but it does not erase the root etymological definition of krisis as an investigative process. My argument is that the morphological potential of the word leaves the door open for God's process, preventing us from adding the unscriptural word "final" to the text in a case where the text does not specifically and explicitly require it. Hermeneutics may not be adjusted by case studies, as some say, but neither should lexical definitions be forced into a "final" box when the Greek suffix strictly denotes a process.
[[2.]] OSAS is irrefutable proof that all babies aren't saved
If “once saved, always save,” and if all babies are saved, then all adults are saved, but as we know that's not true (Matt. 7:13-14, many walk the wide road), then one or both bases is incorrect. Moody holds OSAS, so infant universalism is false. *** This point – all by itself – proves that all babies are NOT automatically saved, as some allege. ***
[[3.]] LAZARUS testifies as a counterpoint to "final judgment" interpretation of Heb. 9:27
If some interpret Heb. 9:27 to mean that physical death closes the door for any further free will and "locks in" salvation, then this theory is shown false by the case of Lazarus (John 11:1-46). Jesus made sure to not heal Lazarus til he had been dead four (4) days (John 11:17), well-past the "3-day" standard Jewish scholars set[[**]], to show that Lazarus wasn't just "sleeping" or "kind of" dead, but rather, Lazarus was totally dead, graveyard dead, so if death closes opportunity for free will and "locks in" salvation, then Lazarus would've lost all free will, here. We have no records of such an event, so obviously physical death does not close the door to free will exercise re salvation. [[**]] According to some midrashic tradition, the soul hovers over the body for either three days: see e.g., Genesis Rabbah 100:7, Leviticus Rabbah 18:1, and Ecclesiastes Rabbah 12:6. *** This counterpoint ALONE shows that physical death doesn't close the door to free will and its use for salvation. ***
[[4.]] Another example disproving a link between physical death and "final" judgment
The
opposite is also true: Above (#3) we see free will CAN happen after
physical death (proving the two events are not strictly linked).
There is also Scriptural warrant for the opposite: the capacity for
"free will" regarding salvation being lost BEFORE physical
death occurs.
If physical death is the sole mechanism
('Biological
determinism', so to speak)
that "locks in" one's eternal state, then a living person
would always have the free-will capacity to repent right up until
their final breath. Scripture thoroughly refutes this: Christ
explicitly warned of the "Unpardonable Sin" (Matthew
12:31-32), a state where a living person is barred from forgiveness
"in this age." Furthermore, Paul describes living
individuals whom God "gave over to a debased mind" (Romans
1:28) or whose consciences were "seared with a hot iron" (1
Timothy 4:2), rendering them incapable of repentance. The author of
Hebrews confirms it is "impossible... to renew them again to
repentance" (Hebrews 6:4-6) if certain conditions are met, even
while the physical body remains alive. Therefore, the moment of
physical death cannot logically be the sole boundary line for
spiritual culpability or the cessation of free will. This proves
that those who interpret Heb. 9:27 to link "physical death"
with "the closed door" to free will
are wrong—two counter examples (3 and 4, here) exist to
disprove that interpretation of Heb. 9:27.
Yes, for some, physical death **will** be the time of final judgment, but that is not a guaranteed link.
[[5.]] The Davidic argument disproven by David's own words elsewhere
Some cite 2 Samuel 12:23 as proof that David's son would go to heaven forever: [[""But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Sam 12:23, NIV]]. However, this is an unclear verse: First, David might've referred to sheol the grave. Secondly (more likely) David shares his opinion, but his opinion is NOT theological fact, as shown by counter-examples: 1 Samuel 27:1 ("And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul...," KJV: This was a flat-out false statement of faith. God had already promised him the throne. Or: Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?...," KJV: FALSE – These are the opinion of David (in emotional distress over his son's death), not theological fact, which show that citation of 2 Sam 12:23 as theological fact is using an "unclear" verse to interpret a "clear" verse on the requirements of faith: HERMENEUTIC PRINCIPLE: unclear passages (like 2 Sam 12:23) are understood in light of clearer ones, like John 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Heb. 11:6, and Eph. 2:8-9, which all show that faith is a Sine Qua Non required element, and "David's opinion" does not trump theological fact.
[[6.]] Is God really less capable or less just/fair?
A concept in MATTHEW 7:9-11 [[9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?]] and in LUKE 18:1-8 [[Parable of The Unjust Judge]] cf: Jesus as ULTIMATE Judge in JOHN 5:22 [["22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:"]] shows God will NOT be less just than mere mortals. Cf: Psalm 89:14 — “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne.”
** 6a: If a mere "mortal" judge, being evil, knows how to issue both "FINAL" and "interlocutory" or "NONFINAL" judgments (as the situation call for), how much more shall JUDGE JESUS give "fair and just" judgments to those who die (meaning Jesus is NOT precluded by the language of Heb. 9:27 from giving a post-mortem judgment to deceased infants who never got a "first chance" to hear gospel, thus this wouldn't be a "second chance."
** 6b: If a hurricane lights down on a University Campus and shuts down final exams for ALL classes, what college professor is just going to "Give A's to all students" who never had a chance to take final exams? If mere mortal college professors are fair, how much MORE fair is GOD ALMIGHTY to deceased infants in giving them an opportunity of Free Will? (You really don't aspire to call God Almighty less capable or less just than human judges or human college professors, do you?)
** 6c: If angels had free will (one-third fell), as do adults on earth, and those in Millennium (cf: Rebellion in Rev. 20:9), and The Millennium features free will (Rev. 20:9), people in physical bodies (Isaiah 65:20), and infants (Isaiah 11:6-8), and if we have successfully shown respected Moody scholars accept Heb. 9:27 to NOT necessarily mean "final judgment/sentence), then why would a fair/just God not give **more** fairness to deceased infants than humans in 6a and 6b, above?
[[7.]] Commonly cited passages that are NOT on-topic, thus DON'T apply
** 7a: Passages where Jesus describes little children (Except ye be converted, and become as little children, Mt. 18:3) are general descriptions of children's differences with adults, not guarantees for all children (Example: Children obeying their parents and God's Law are promised length of days in general, NOT in all cases: Deut. 11:18-21, Prov. 3:1-2)
** 7b: Passages describing children's angels seeing the face of God don't address children's' character –or eternal salvation.
** 7c: Likewise, passages like Mark 9:37 (“Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me:...”) address standards of treatment –not character of the children in question here. If, in fact, Jesus cares about little children, then this paper's opposition to a “false hope” guarantee of salvation that's been documented to tempt parents to kill children to “guarantee salvation,” should make infant universalism **less** acceptable – not **more** as some use these passages to argue.
** 7d: Jer 1:5, which states “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” doesn't address or state whether the person is saved or lost.
** 7e: Gen. 18:25b "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" -- TRUE: That being the case, this proves that God would not approve of adding a new meaning to Jesus' quote in Heb. 9:27 not actually in the Scripture – or creating another Gospel (2 Cor. 11:4 ; Gal. 1:6) that lacks the Sine Qua Non element of faith. (John 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Heb. 11:6, and Eph. 2:8-9)
** 7f: Deut. 29:29 "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." -- TRUE: But this is not a license to add to God's Word, by adding a new meaning to Jesus' quote in Heb. 9:27 not actually in the Scripture. (Quoting Jesus correctly, but misunderstanding, and subsequently misrepresenting Jesus' words, in Heb. 9:27, is adding to The Word of God.)
** 7g: Ps. 89:14 — “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne.” -- TRUE: But see above.
** 7h: Is. 55:8-9 -- 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. -- TRUE: But see above.
** 7i: 1 Cor. 13:12 -- “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” -- TRUE: But see above.
** 7j: Lastly, passages like Deut. 1:39 address little ones (children & babies) during the Moses/Joshua era entering the promised land --NOT heaven!
[[8.]] IMAGE OF GOD implies FREE WILL
Man is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) – with Free Will (Ez. 18:20); thus, denying some deceased infants free will is an insult to the image of God. (All dogs go to heaven -or so the saying goes, but humans aren't dogs -and babies aren't robots stripped of free will; to do so would be offensive to the nature of God, as we are created in His image!)
Cf: Ezekiel 18:20 — Very strong for individual responsibility (“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father…”), i.e., free will / personal accountability.
[[9.]] REVEALED WORD
God does nothing without first revealing it to His prophets (Amos 3:7); thus, if killing her unborn child or toddler would "lock in" a "100% 'Guarantee' of Salvation" for the child, God would put this "shortcut" in Scripture – That he did not do.
[[10.]] TWISTING GOD'S ARM TO FORCE ACCEPTANCE OF ONE'S CHILD by ALTRUISTIC FILICIDE?
Some people think that they can 'cast a spell' on God and "make" Him grant eternal salvation to their child. You can't "make" The Maker do *anything* --and to even consider this is offensive to God! God Almighty does *what* He wants *when* He wants -and does not consult with mere mortals to get permission. GOD ALMIGHTY is both capable and just (see, e.g., point 6., above, and Gen. 18:25b).
[[11.]] CONSIDER JESUS vs. SODOM
Matthew 11:20-25 quotes Jesus saying that it'd be better off for Sodom (a REAL wicked place whose citizens were KILLED by God and died in their sins without repenting) than for some contemporary cities; however, there is no WAY that Sodom could be 'better off' if they didn't have a 'postmortem chance' to hear the Gospel, repent, & get saved AFTER they died. So, since we know Jesus is NOT a liar, this proves the existence of some sort of chance for them to get saved AFTER they died –not a 2nd chance, since they never got their 1st chance, and, God being fair & impartial, would likewise grant such a chance to hear the Gospel, repent, & get saved to babies who died without having first heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
[[12.]] THE FIRST RESURRECTION ADDRESSED – (Revelation 20:4-6)
Some point out that those who are resurrected in the first resurrection (those killed for their faith) cannot go to hell (Revelation 20:4-6), since they had already passed the test of loyalty to Jesus. ** RESPONSE: If these people refused the mark, how then can this include babies who die as infants? They did not refuse because they COULD not refuse: Isaiah 7:16 (KJV) “For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good...” [He was under the age of accountability, as discussed above.] God, being just, would not hold them accountable for not doing that for which they were incapable, thus would not render final judgment one way or another.
Point: While I see no Scripture that mandates or requires deceased infants to be included in the 1,000-year Millennium Reign of Jesus, neither do I see any Scripture that precludes or forbids it. Thus, while we don't know the precise timing and location of their opportunity to exercise Free Will – nonetheless, neither do we know the “day of the rapture,” either. Yet, lack of knowledge of the “rapture timing” is NOT a license to deny the rapture's existence. Likewise, lack of knowledge of the “Free Will timing” for deceased infants is NOT a license to deny the existence of this opportunity to hear the Gospel – as all others have had a chance to hear.
This is not to say that those living elsewhere in the world who might not have heard the gospel will get such treatment: Romans 1 and 2 say that creation and conscience will be evidence to heathen & gentiles:
** GOD revealed in CREATION: “19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:.” [Rom. 1:19-20] Cf: “THE heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” [Psalm 19:1]
** GOD revealed in CONSCIENCE: “14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;).” [Rom. 2:14-15] Cf: “6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” [Heb. 11:6]
[[13.]] LINGUISTIC SAFEGUARDS in Heb. 11:6 ; John 3:16 ; John 14:6 (Believing and Faith)
** Hebrews 11:6: “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” – The Greek word for 'faith,' is 'pivstiß' (Strong's number 4102, transliterated: 'pistis' or 'pisteos'), and means, in this context, relating to God: “the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ.”
** John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” – The Greek word for 'believeth,' is 'pisteuvw' (Strong's number 4100, transliterated: 'pisteuo' or 'pisteuon'), and means, in this context, relating to God: “to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in.
** John 14:6b: “...no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The Greek word in John 14:6 is “oujdeivß,” Strong's Number 3,762, which literally means “no one, nothing.” Thus, infants, too, must have faith to be saved –and my claim that faith involves free will –for EVERYBODY (not just some) is backed by scriptures. (Cf: John 14:6, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, John 3:16, Heb. 11:6, and Eph. 2:8-9) If infants can't exercise free will now, then God – being just – will NOT call them to faith without first equipping them to so do. (Is God both capable and just – or not?)
** There is no free pass – No Free Lunch: Denying some infants a chance to exercise free will to accept Christ would violate Heb. 11:6, John 3:16, and John 14:6, the 'bright line' standard for salvation. Scripture cannot be satisfied unless the person exercises free will, and if someone tells you any differently, they're just blowing smoke. God, being fair, wouldn't deny any person a chance to accept Christ: NO man comes to the Father BUT by the Son. Period.
[[14.]] Matt. 24:19 / Mark 13:17 pregnant / nursing women flight disprove infant universalism
Jesus gives a specific “woe” in Matthew 24:19 and Mark 13:17: “Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days!”
(A) CONCEPTION RATES: Under standard Pre-Tribulation rapture timing (which places this flight ∼3.5 years after the Rapture), this statement creates real problems for any theory of automatic infant salvation / rapture: If all unborn and infant children are guaranteed salvation (and therefore raptured), we should not see pregnant & nursing women as a continuing demographic group several years later during the Tribulation flight: Historical data from wars & disasters confirm that birth rates drop sharply — often by 20–50% or more — during times of extreme danger, displacement, and societal collapse. The idea of normal conception rates continuing at the height of God’s wrath is demographically strained.
(B) The Covenant/Parental Trap: Critics often argue these Tribulation infants remain because their parents are unsaved. However, appealing to parental status proves that infancy itself was never the trigger. If parental faith determines an infant's presence in the Tribulation, then infancy alone never guaranteed salvation pre-Tribulation. This would imply an inconsistency that God wouldn't do: 1 Peter 1:17; Colossians 3:25; Acts 10:34; and, Romans 2:11 all show that God is impartial, unbiased.
(C) In Context with OSAS: When this passage is combined with the OSAS argument above (Argument #2), the case becomes even stronger. Automatic infant salvation, paired with Once Saved Always Saved, leads to universalism — a conclusion that contradicts the Narrow Gate (Matthew 7:13-14, see also John 3:36, Matt. 25:46, Rev. 20:15.). Even attempts to explain this away by saying “these infants remain because their parents were unsaved” backfire: it proves that infancy alone was never the saving mechanism. Parental status ends up mattering, which destroys the “guaranteed shortcut” claim.
Note: While this argument is secondary to the OSAS reductio in #2, it adds important narrative and practical weight against any form of infant universalism – and does, however, strongly challenge any teaching that offers a guaranteed “shortcut” to heaven based solely on dying young — a shortcut that has, in many documented cases, contributed to tragic “altruistic filicide,” as shown by well-documented facts: “Every year, thousands of children are killed by their parents. Some of these killings are committed by mentally ill mothers who believe that death is in their children's best interest. This category of killings is called maternal altruistic filicide.” “Murder and a Mother’s Love: Understanding Maternal Altruistic Filicide and Reshaping the Legal System’s Approach to Mentally Ill Mothers Who Kill Their Children,” Author: Morgan Woodbridge, 32 J. L. & Pol'y 251 (2024), Volume 32, Issue 2, Article 7, DATE: 5-1-2024, Quote from page 251, Law Journals at BrooklynWorks, and cited in the introduction.
[[15.]] The Requirement of Personal Faith and Response
Salvation in the New Testament is consistently tied to personal faith and response where moral accountability exists. This is not optional — it is the Sine Qua Non (essential element) of salvation:
John 3:16 – “whosoever believes” is saved
John 3:36 – “He who does not believe… the wrath of God abides on him”
John 14:6 – “No one comes to the Father except through Me”
Acts 2:38 – “Repent…”
Acts 16:31 – “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved”
Ephesians 2:8-9 – Saved by grace through faith
Hebrews 11:6 – “Without faith it is impossible to please Him”
Infants lack the capacity for conscious faith, belief, and repentance. Therefore, placing them in a completely separate “automatic salvation” category creates a second pathway to heaven that bypasses the clear New Testament requirement of personal faith.
If God calls infants to salvation, He will also equip them to respond — because God does not call anyone to do what He will not enable (a principle consistent with His character). Since infants cannot exercise conscious faith in this life, a just and truthful God must provide them an opportunity in another time, such as during the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4) or in the resurrection of “the rest of the dead” (Revelation 20:5).
Note: While Scripture does not guarantee this opportunity for every deceased infant, neither does it prohibit or preclude it. The absence of explicit details is not license to invent a “guaranteed shortcut” that contradicts the consistent biblical requirements of faith.
[[16.]] APPENDIX “A”
Selected sources which were removed from the main body of this paper, and reasons for their removal.
[[ #05. – 2009-03-25 ]]
“Casey Anthony Diary,” by All The Latest News, 03-25-2009, QUOTE: “A secret diary kept by Casey Anthony includes a confession that she killed her daughter Caylee Anthony...“Casey snapped,” a source told reporters. “In her sick mind, she became convinced that Caylee would be better off dead, in heaven, than in the hands of her mother.””
LINK: https://A11News.com/1610/casey-anthony-diary ARCHIVE-1: https://archive.vn/LJLjJ
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20090327105444/http://a11news.com/1610/casey-anthony-diary/
LINK: https://www.TapaTalk.com/groups/watchingrobertpickton88015/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=2434
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/VZ79W
[[ #06. – 2009-04-10 ]]
“Mother kills Son to send him to Heaven,” by “entrailsgalore,” Normal User, Join Date: Dec. 2008, Darkfall Forums > Non-Darkfall Related > Off-Topic Discussions, 04-10-2009, 07:15 AM, QUOTE: “If that is a guarantee to get your child into heaven (assuming that is how it works) then why not? Sacrificing your afterlife to insure your child's is set in stone.”
LINK: http://Forums.DarkFallOnline.com/showthread.php?p=3214553
Some original URL's seem bad or broken links; thus, we depend on archives.
ARCHIVE-1: https://Archive.vn/YIFM8
ARCHIVE-2: https://Web.Archive.org/web/20120305142113/http://Forums.DarkFallOnline.com/showthread.php?p=3214553
Regarding the two sources which some peer-reviewed feedback had flagged for removal: There was concern that the AllNews.com citation regarding Casey Anthony lacks credibility, and the Darkfall Forums citation is an anonymous video game board comment. RESPONSE: The peer-reviewers, who were gracious enough to offer constructive criticism of my white paper, here, are 100% correct. I concede this entirely. Including a defunct news outlet and an anonymous forum post within the “main” body of my sources weakens the academic rigor of my brief. Thus, they are struck from the main sources section above in this updated paper. However, I am constrained to retain them here, at the end in footnotes as “additional, but unreliable” sources, simply for context and completeness, for the following reasons: First, while AllNews.com lacks credibility, and thus can not be relied upon as a definitive authoritative source to quote Casey Anthony, nonetheless, it must be conceded that there is no definitive proof that Anthony did not make this claim, and – given all we know – it is highly plausible that she probably held this mindset, as the spiritual zeitgeist on the “eternal” fate of deceased infants has been polluted with a ubiquitous and ever-present claim that their “eternal” fate (and not merely their “for the time being” fate) is indeed heaven. Secondly, it is readily conceded that the Darkfall Forums citation is an anonymous video game board comment is highly suspicious, I – the undersigned author – feel that this sources is actually the “stronger” of the two “unreliable” sources, and here is why: While it is plausible that the author of the tabloid (read: unreliable) “news” source, AllNews.com, may have had motive to exaggerate a bit for flair and “clickbait clicks,” nonetheless, the author of the video game comment had NO such motive: She can not be confirmed (and the actual link is now dead, remembered only in various archive websites), however, when an “ordinary citizen” (even if wholly anonymous) makes such a claim as to their belief that “dead babies” = “guaranteed salvation,” no reasonable reader with a conscious and a brain would ever conclude that this person is lying about their belief. Is her believe unsupported by the doctrines of faith (in Scripture) and very risky as a temptation to kill the child? YES. Is she lying about what she believes. PROBABLY NOT. Thus, while these 2 sources don't belong in the main body of my references, nonetheless, for context and to be complete – and thereby fortify my white paper.
[[17.]] APPENDIX “B” Theological/Legal Background references
Selected references to document the Theological/Legal Background of the undersigned author – because, as a practical matter, this paper is a bit lengthy (though not near as long as Dr. Webb's massive, 339-page treatise), and uninitiated readers may be hesitant to do such a deep dive. Given the gravity of the “life/death” nature of this matter – and given that the “very definition of salvation” has been altered from clear, bright-line Scriptural standards, inclusion of section 17, here, is a Sine Qua Non requirement.
Note on Professional Standing & Credibility: This new section is not added lightly. My direct involvement has been recognized in high-stakes litigation, notably in the Terri Schiavo matter: In Re: Gordon Wayne Watts (as next friend of Theresa Marie 'Terri' Schiavo), Fla. Sup. Ct. No. SC03-2420 (2005). In that instance, my petition performed as a lone pro se litigant with more procedural success than the then-Governor of Florida. I bring that same academic rigor and persistence to this white paper. Additionally, I was the only pro se amicus litigant granted leave by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to file in the consolidated Florida gay marriage cases (Brenner v. Armstrong, Nos. 14-14061 & 14-14066), demonstrating a mastery of federal appellate procedure recognized by the Court.
Legal / Academic Credentials:
Lead pro se litigant in In Re: Gordon Wayne Watts (as next friend of Theresa Marie 'Terri' Schiavo), Fla. Sup. Ct. No. SC03-2420 (2005), securing 4-3 denial on rehearing—outperforming Gov. Jeb Bush (7-0 loss in SC04-925) in the 3rd-largest pro-life case since Roe v. Wade. My petition was one of a select few 'Next Friend' filings accepted for full review during the crisis.
Amicus Curiae in Brenner v. Armstrong, 2015, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, consolidated appeal, Nos. 14-14061 & 14-14066, challenging Florida's same-sex marriage bans. I was the only pro se litigant granted leave by the Court to file an amended amicus brief (Order dated 01/06/2015), demonstrating a recognized mastery of Federal Appellate Procedure.
Full docket: https://gordonwatts.com/DOCKET-GayMarriageCase.html or https://gordonwaynewatts.com/DOCKET-GayMarriageCase.html
Citations:
[1] In
Re: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE 'TERRI'
SCHIAVO), No.
SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2005), denied 4-3 on rehearing. (Watts got
42.7% of his panel)
https://Web.Archive.org/web/20190207185410/https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/362481/3162079/03-2420reh.pdf
** https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/03-2420reh.pdf
** https://Web.Archive.org/web/20260204092845/https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/03-2420reh.pdf
[2] In
Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO,
GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No.
SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), denied 7-0 on rehearing. (Bush got 0.0%
of his panel before the same court)
** https://FLCourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/362481/3162079/04-925reh.pdf
** https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/04-925reh.pdf
** https://Web.Archive.org/web/20260204094025/https://contractwithamerica2.com/04-925reh.pdf
[3] Schiavo
ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo ex rel. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 2005
WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar.23, 2005), denied 2-1 on appeal. (Terri
Schiavo's own blood family only got 33.3% of their panel on the
Federal Appeals level)
** https://Media.CA11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200511556.pdf
https://Web.Archive.org/web/20141219133738/https://Media.CA11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200511556.pdf
**
https://ContractWithAmerica2.com/200511556.pdf
[4] Consolidated Appeals Docket: 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:
** Case #: 14-14061 (James Brenner, et al v. John Armstrong, et al) Appeal From: N.D. of Fla. before Robert L. Hinkle, U.S. Dist. Judge: 4:14-cv-00107-RH-CAS
** Case #: 14-14066 (Sloan Grimsley, et al v. John Armstrong, et al) Appeal From: N.D. of Fla. before Robert L. Hinkle, U.S. Dist. Judge: 4:14-cv-00138-RH-CAS
((1)) “ORDER: Motion for Leave to File Out of Time filed by Not Party Anthony Citro is DENIED. [7355890-2]; Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Not Party Anthony Citro is DENIED. [7343975-2]; Motion for Leave to File Out of Time amended amicus brief filed by Amicus Curiae Gordon Wayne Watts is GRANTED. [7348496-2] BBM [14-14061, 14-14066],” by Hon. Beverly B. Martin, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, Entered 01/06/2015:
** Amicus Curiae, GORDON WAYNE WATTS
** Represented By: Gordon Wayne Watts
** Brenner v. Armstrong, No. 14-14061 and 14-14066
** (U.S. Eleventh Circuit, Sep. 19, 2014)
** https://www.PacerMonitor.com/public/case/10403199/Sloan_Grimsley,_et_al_v_John_Armstrong,_et_al
** https://Archive.ph/txmnY AND: https://Archive.vn/TKnsW AND: https://Archive.vn/5YKAc
Full Docket:
** https://GordonWatts.com/DOCKET-GayMarriageCase.html
or
** https://GordonWayneWatts.com/DOCKET-GayMarriageCase.html
** https://Web.Archive.org/web/20181121192659/https://GordonWatts.com/DOCKET-GayMarriageCase.html
[5] Author: "When Babies Die: Where do they go?," ASIN: B008J8RTOK, Publisher: Create Space (July 9, 2012)
[6] Key point: The undersigned has legal and academic credentials as proven by fire to ensure the reader that his/her time will not be wasted in reading the analyses herein.