“Father asked us what was God's noblest work. Anna said men, but I said babies. Men are often bad, but babies never are.” Louisa Mae Alcott link
Today's post is divided into 4 parts. It is quite lengthy. Each section is divided by a line.
1. The first part outlines the controversy and why I believe that infants and the mentally handicapped who die are saved.
2.The second part is a historical record (a brief overview) of the belief in infant salvation/damnation. (This can be skipped for the sake of time.)
3.The third part is looking at the controversy in the SBC today. Dee gets a bit bent out of shape at the end of this section.
4. The fourth part is some speculation on my part why belief in active sin in infants could lead to child abuse.
The historical record is a bit difficult. It seems like our forefathers changed their minds a lot and some of the record is spotty. I did my best but I bet some of our readers can clarify aspects of what I have written. For the sake of clarity, I use the word "infants." Please understand that the same arguments apply to those who are mentally handicapped. Be sure to listen to the short video at the end. It nails it.
***************
Part 1 What is going on.
The night that my 3 year old daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumor, my thoughts were swirling as I navigated grief, shock and fear. I knew that her tumor was very large and realized that her life was hanging in the balance. There was one comfort that I clung to during that night and throughout her ordeal. I knew that no matter what happened, she and I would spend eternity together. I know that many people who have lost their little ones understand the enormous comfort such a thought brings in the midst of tragedy.
I have only met one person in my life who believed that infants who die go to hell. He seemed a bit bonkers to me in other ways as well. There was also one man on this blog who admitted that he did not know if his 5 adopted mentally handicapped children would go to heaven. That was one of the saddest comments that I have read on this blog.
The theological issue involved.
Most Christians would affirm that all of us are born with an inherited sin nature from Adam. (I know there is some debate but, to understand the controversy, it is important to understand this belief). Infants cannot purposely sin or understand the gospel message. For this I agree with John Piper (Mark this one down for the record books, folks) link.
The point for us is that even though we human beings are under the penalty of everlasting judgment and death because of the fall of our race into sin and the sinful nature that we all have, nevertheless God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure.
The controversy
I assumed that most Christian believed that all infants who die were saved. Recently, however, I have been catching whiffs of some different opinions on this matter. So, it was no surprise to me when this issue recently erupted in the SBC.
Here is the background. The Calvinist Advisory Committee was tasked with putting together a document exploring the ways in which both Calvinists and non-Calvinists could get along in the SBC.
But, the little word, "most," in the following statement, caught the eyes of some folks link.
Dr. Gerald Harris, the editor of the Christian Index, asked a pressing question in a recent editorial concerning the report of the Calvinism Advisory Team. He asked, "What Southern Baptists are there who do not believe that those who die before they are capable of moral action go to heaven?"
His query is based on a section in the report that says, "We agree that most Southern Baptists believe that those who die before they are capable of moral action go to heaven through the grace of God and the atonement of Christ, even as they differ as to why this is so." The key word is "most" in the preceding statement.
This is an issue because the SBC has affirmed, both in the Baptist Confession of 1679 here and the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 here, that infants who die are safely in the arms of Jesus. Even in between those dates are examples of Baptist beliefs.
Herschel Hobbs, chairman of the committee that drafted a previous version of the Baptist Faith & Message in 1963, wrote in a 1979 article in Review and Expositor the result of the fall is that people inherit a “nature and an environment inclined toward sin” rather than imputed guilt.
“This, of course, agrees with the position generally held by Baptists concerning God’s grace in cases of those under the age of accountability and the mentally incompetent,” the longtime pastor of First Baptist Church in Oklahoma City, who died in 1995, wrote in the article titled “Southern Baptists and Confessionalism: A Comparison of the Origins and Contents of the 1925 and 1963 Confessions.”
Therefore, it is a concern that apparently not "all" of those attempting to unify the SBC, would subscribe to this belief.
I have spent the last few days, glued to my computer, trying to figure out who does or does not believe that infants who die are saved.
Why I believe the Bible strongly indicates the infants (and mentally handicapped are saved)
Although this subject is not directly addressed in the Bible, there are some strong hints link.
The Bible does give us an account of David's infant son dying (2 Samuel 12:23). There, David makes the claim that he will join his son after death — and David was a strong believer who did rest in God for his salvation (Psalm 62:7).
Also, we read in the Gospel of Luke that John the Baptist was "filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15). From these passages we can at least deduce that it is possible to be saved as a pre-born infant.
20) That category distinction (between those who sin willingly and those who are born with a sin nature) is further strengthened by Paul’s introduction of those who sin by searing their conscience, and how that sin is seen in idolatry and sexual immorality—both sins that infants are incapable of. Because that passage sets the stage for understanding the soteriology of Romans, it is significant for this discussion that out of the gate, Paul frames the conversation in terms that exclude infants, and then seals that exclusion explicitly in Romans 5:13-14.
21) Jesus also validates this category distinction when he declares that there are people who die “in their sins” (John 8:24). Everyone who dies, dies because they are sinners by nature. If infants weren’t sinners by nature, they wouldn’t die! But there is a particular class of sinners—namely cognizant adults—that actively reject God. Those ones not only die, but they “die in their sins” because of their unbelief.
In Matthew 18, Jesus not only blesses the children, but uses them as an earthly analogy of childlike faith. He says that “unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child– this one is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Everyone is free to debate what exactly Jesus means here, and there are Christian answers all over the spectrum. But at the very least, Jesus has to be implying that children in their current state would go to heaven if they died. Consider this statement: “my car is as fast as a cheetah, and unless your car is like a cheetah too, it can never be fast.” Everyone can debate what it means to be fast, or how fast my car really is, or if your car even should be fast. But the entire analogy would break down if cheetahs were not indeed fast to begin with. That is the assumption that makes the analogy make sense. Whatever Jesus is saying Matthew 18, it only makes sense if the destination of children who die is an enviable one.
Part 2
What historical church leaders believed.
It was Augustine (354-430AD) who influenced the thinking in this area link. Baptized infants make it. Unbaptized infants do not.
"It was Augustine who first taught the damnation of infants (see Baptism, II.,1, § 3); but their sufferings, though eternal, are of the mildest character (De peccatorum meritis, i. 16); indeed, it seemed to him doubtful whether they were punished at all. The Roman Church, accepting Augustine's conceptions of the necessity of baptism to salvation and of the mildness of the punishment of those infants who died unbaptized, agreed with him that they were sent to hell and assigned to them a distinct place in it, the limbus infantium or puerorum (see LIMBUS; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, III.,quest. Ixviii. 2, Sup. quest. Ixxi. 7)."
In fact, many early church leaders believed that infants who died, without baptism, would go to hell. There are many quotes like this one.
Be assured, and doubt not, that not only men who have attained the use of their reason, but also little children who have begun to live in their mothers' womb and have there died, or who, having been just born, have passed away from the world without the sacrament of holy baptism, administered in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, must be punished by the eternal torture of undying fire; for although they have committed no sin by their own will, they have nevertheless drawn with them the condemnation of original sin, by their carnal conception and nativity." (sec. 70.)
—Bishop St. Fulgentius, 4th century
Limbo
Sometime in the 1200s, the concept of limbo slowly evolved. Please forgive the Wikipedia reference. I read so many sources and found that this one did a good job of summarizing the complexities. Basically, limbo is a place which is described as a state(and place) of natural happiness which means less happiness than supernatural happiness. Note that baptism is the key to salvation in this line of thinking.
In the 12th century, Peter Abelard (1079–1142) said that these infants suffered no material torment or positive punishment, just the pain of loss at being denied the beatific vision. Others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. This theory was associated with but independent of the term "Limbo of Infants", which was forged about the year 1300.[16]
If heaven is a state of supernatural happiness and union with God, and hell is understood as a state of torture and separation from God then, in this view, the Limbo of Infants, although technically part of hell (the outermost part, "limbo" meaning "outer edge" or "hem") is seen as a sort of intermediate state.
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) described the Limbo of Infants as an eternal state of natural joy, untempered by any sense of loss at how much greater their joy might have been had they been baptized. He argued that this was a reward of natural happiness for natural virtue; a reward of supernatural happiness for merely natural virtue would be inappropriate since, due to original sin, unbaptized children lack the necessary supernatural grace. In regards to baptism of desire, Aquinas stated that only adults were capable of this,and this view seemed to be accepted by the Council of Florence, which quotes Aquinas in its Eleventh Session concerning baptism of infants.
The natural happiness possessed in this place would consist in the perception of God mediated through creatures.[18] As stated in the International Theological Commission's document on the question:
Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all or even that they enjoy a full, though only natural, happiness through their mediated union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus).
This belief in limbo was not an ex cathedra position. In other words, Catholics were not required to believe it. Many did not and, instead, believed that infants went straight to heaven.
Here is an interesting perspective from the Catholic church on the history of the beliefs of popes.
However, in 2007, things changed link.
Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.
The Post Reformation view
Neither the Eastern Orthodox church nor the Protestant church believes in the doctrine of Limbo. In an article by Al Mohler here, we see that many theologians (Calvinist and not) believed in the salvation of infants.
John Newton, the great minister who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace was certain of this truth. He wrote to close friends who had lost a young child: “I hope you are both well reconciled to the death of your child. I cannot be sorry for the death of infants. How many storms do they escape! Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that they are included in the election of grace.”(6)
The great Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield held the same position.
One of the most eloquent and powerful expressions of this understanding of infant salvation came from the heart of Charles Spurgeon. Preaching to his own congregation, Spurgeon consoled grieving parents: “Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days.”(7) Spurgeon turned this conviction into an evangelistic call. “Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too? He continued: “Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise.
In fact, it appears that Spurgeon got a bit bent out of shape when accused of believing that infants who die go to hell link.
It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true…. I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect.
John Calvin believed that some infants who died would be saved and others would not link. However, I want to make a caveat. There are some who claim he said he believed all infants are saved.
“But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified.(Inst. Book 4, Sec. 17)
Here is a general overview on other historical figures.
It is interesting to discover that the Church has not been of one mind on this issue. In fact, the early and medieval Church was anything but united. Some Church Fathers remained silent on the issue. Ambrose said unbaptized infants were not admitted to heaven, but have immunity from the pains of hell. Augustine basically affirmed the damnation of all unbaptized infants, but taught they would receive the mildest punishment of all. Gregory of Nyssa offered that infants who die immediately mature and are given the opportunity to trust Christ. Calvin affirmed the certain election of some infants to salvation and was open to the possibility that all infants who die are saved. He said, “Christ receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach unto Him, but those who are not yet of age to know how much they need His grace.” Zwingli, B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge all taught that God saves all who die in infancy.
Martin Luther: Some are condemned?
Now this one I had to back into. My guess is that he believed that baptized infants would be saved and unbaptized infants might not link
Curiously, Warfield focuses his sights on Zwingli (who, by the way, held all infants who die in infancy are elect) and completely ignores John Calvin. In fact, Calvin's view is buried in a footnote in another essay! Why? Luther all but questioned whether Zwingli was saved over the universalism he held on Infant Salvation.
Another source notes link
In 1518 he still held that the infant is regenerated and saved through the merit of the faith of its sponsors; in 1520 (De Captiv. Baby. Eccl.) he abandons this view and holds that in Baptism infants themselves believe.
Another source remarks link that he gave infants a Christian burial so he probably believed they went to heaven.
John Wesley link and link: Some are condemned?
He had to deal with the issue of original sin. In a letter he indicates that, “Therefore no infant ever was or ever will be ‘sent to hell for the guilt of Adam’s sin,’ seeing it is canceled by the righteousness of Christ as soon as they are sent into the world.” (29W), 6:239-240.
Jonathan Edwards: They burn eternally.
This is by far the most troubling statement of belief link
[I]t is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments"
J. Edwards, The "Miscellanies," Entry Nos. a–z, aa–zz, 1–500, entry N
1619 Canons of Dort and 1649 Westminster Confession of Faith link
The Reformed view, which has been strongly based on the Falleness of mankind & the rejection of some neutral state has moderated over the years but originally held that the children of the Elect (Christians) automatically go to heaven.
Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy. (1619 Canons of Dort 1:17)
Or from later, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646,
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (WCF 10:3)
The overall sentiment by the Reformers is that while the infants of non-believers MAY go to hell, the children believers do automatically go to heaven.
Part 3
What do Reformed leaders, some of whom are Baptists, believe today?
Al Mohler and Danny Akin, here, John Piper, here, Wayne Grudem, here, and John MacArthur here all believe that infants who die go to heaven. They each have their reasons why they believe this. (Some believe that all infants who die are elect, for example).
However, just because they believe it, does not mean that others in their camp also believe it. In fact, a fairly common view amongst some conservative Calvinists is the salvation of some infants is dependent on one of the following two reasons.
1. Infants are divided into elect and not elect. The elect ones are saved.
2. Infants born into elect families are saved.
Here is a statement from the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) on the matter.
The Westminster Confession of Faith uses very precise and carefully chosen language on this matter: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (10.3).
The Confession entertains the idea that at least some infants who die in infancy and some others "who are incapable of being outwardly called" are among the elect. Note our Lord's words to His disciples in Luke 18:15,16 (the word for babies in v.15 indicates nursing babes, infants): He says that "such as these possess the kingdom of God").
However, the Confession does not say that all such infants, etc., are saved. What it does say is that the Holy Spirit can regenerate such who are elect by means of His sovereign choosing. Surely John the Baptizer presents an instance of infant regeneration (in the womb), Luke 1:39-44.
Division in the SBC continues.
A Between the Times post asserts that the salvation of all infants who die
has basically become the dominant view of the Church in the 20th century.
So, isn't the debate pretty much over?
From that same Between the Times article we read:
Yet, a popular evangelical theologian chided Billy Graham when at the Oklahoma City memorial service he said, “Someday there will be a glorious reunion with those who have died and gone to heaven before us, and that includes all those innocent children that are lost. They’re not lost from God because any child that young is automatically in heaven and in God’s arms.” The theologian scolded Dr. Graham for offering what he called “. . . a new gospel: justification by youth alone.”
I do not know which theologian made this remark, but one thing is certain. There is a divisive fight over Calvinism which is ongoing in the Southern Baptist Convention. There is a great deal of mistrust on both sides of the aisle. When there is controversy and mistrust, both sides must jump through hoops for the sake of peace and unity. That certainly does not appear to be the case in this instance.
Gerald Harris decided to write the committee members to ask who did not affirm that infants who die go to heaven. He did not receive responses from all of the members link.
Some did not respond and one would have to conclude that they did not receive my emails, they simply chose not to respond, or they were hesitant to acknowledge personally that they affirm that certain infants who die are not among the elect and will suffer judgment in hell.
Furthermore, Peter Lumpkins reports that
Harris cited committee member Eric Hankins, indicating Hankins suggested the wording of the section Harris cited and questioned had been crafted to "accommodate some members of the advisory team who were not comfortable with the assertion that all who are morally incapable who die go to heaven." Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary School of Theology dean and professor, David Allen, reportedly concurred with Hankins' statement.
At this point, Lumpkin queries whether Tom Ascol and Mark Dever may be two committee members who disagree with the salvation of all infants.
The Pulpit and Pen adds to the bonfire link.
Instead of saying "Come and let us learn to trust each other," JD Hall starts name calling. When names start flowing, you know that the battle has moved outside of the Bible and we are now playing the old Pharisee "sons of dogs" game. He accuses those who disagree of being "Semi-Pelagian" which in Calvinistaville means you are going to hell in a handbasket. Somewhere, in the middle of the name calling, he rises to the defense of Ascol and Dever. Well, Dever, anyway. Ascol is still "forthcoming." Why not call him and ask? Oh, that's right. Ascol doesn't need to answer such questions (how dare he!)
It appears that Lumpkins has again suffered from foot-in-mouth disease, as it was pointed out in the comments section following the post, Mark Dever has explicitly confessed belief that infants are heaven-bound click here for video In the meantime, a search for an Ascol quotation declaring the damnation of babies is still forthcoming.
I urge you to go listen to the 2 minute Dever video link. I do not know what Hall thinks constitutes proof, but this ain't it. It was a tap dance around the issue. For once, I think both Al Mohler and John Piper laid it on the line. Dever did not. So the question by Lumpkins is still in play, in my opinion.
JD Hall then says the following:
It seems that Harris’ accusation comes from the fact that some of the committee members did not respond to his email (how dare they!).
JD, if this keeps up, you may as well start collecting the wood for the bonfire. There will be a split in the SBC. When a brother asks for clarification, just give it to him and lay off the name calling. Good night! Take the high road!
Part 4
Could a belief in the damnation of infants lead to child abuse?
On Friday, Deb discussed the disturbing details of children being regularly beaten with the Pearl method. Apparently, one should discipline a child younger than a year old with a glue stick. Wiggling, when having a diaper changed, is seen as evidence of an active sin process!
TWW has also documented the accusation that a small child in SGM who was made to confront and forgive her molester. We have also discussed that pedophiles seem to get more care and attention in some churches than the little ones that they have harmed.
It is my opinion that there are some Christian leaders who believe that inheriting a sin nature means that little babies can actively or consciously sin. This appears to put the sin, and perhaps the blame for the sin, equally on the pedophile and the child. Both could be viewed as co-sinners. It also validates the Pearl method of beating a child under the age of one. This is deeply concerning.
In my opinion, the idea that any infant who dies in childbirth is bound for hell is a doctrine that must be repudiated for many reasons. The possible trajectory of such theology is deeply disturbing and potentially abusive.
***********
Finally, the best statement that I have heard on this matter came from Hank Hanegraaff. God is not looking for a way to keep us out. Instead, He has made a way because He loves us.
Lydia's Corner: Ezra 10:1-44 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 Psalm 31:9-18 Proverbs 21:3
I believe in the mercy and justice of God. Whatever He does with infants or the intellectually challenged who die before accountability etc. is just and right.
I acknowledge my personal impotence about understanding these difficult manners.
Some Lutherans will occasionally get a little twitchy if a baby dies before baptism – my family knows this because my infant cousin died of SIDS – but I’ve never actually heard one say that babies go to hell. And apparently the sermon at my cousin’s funeral (before I was born) consisted of the pastor reminding the congregation of the love and grace of God, not reminding them that little Johnny had a sin nature. (If Numo wants clarification, this was upper Midwest ALC/recently ELCA Lutherans in the very late 80s.)
Per Calvinists, why am I NOT surprised that Jonathan Edwards was the only one to come right out say that babies go to hell?! Also not surprised to hear that Spurgeon would be upset by the idea! Spurgeon is the only Calvinist author who never put me into some kind of mental feedback loop.
Me personally, babies go to heaven, born or unborn, period, end of story, stop talking. Ditto for mentally handicapped folks. The idea that baptism is connected to infant salvation makes me uncomfortable because it automatically excludes the unborn.
Hester wrote:
Others have speculated that Jonathan Edwards may have had clinical depression (possibly bipolar) and OCD. His church had a couple suicides where his sermons may have been a contributing factor.
For starters I don’t think a belief in the damnation of infants leads to child abuse – I know some fundamentalist types who believe children who die in infancy go to heaven who still abuse their children. I don’t think child abuse comes from paper doctrine, but from a poverty of the heart (conversely, I know some secular humanists who love their children sacrificially; the question of heaven never entering their minds).
This subject is a hotbed of contention in Calvinistic Baptist circles. When I was a Calvinist pastor, I discussed this issue with a number of fellow pastors. I took the position that all infants who died and all mentally handicapped people were elect. This was a personal issue for me since I have a daughter with Down Syndrome. That said, I think my view was inconsistent and that Calvinism demands that Calvinists at least consider the possibility that some infants and mentally handicapped are not elect. There are many arguments for this that I will not bore you with. The interesting thing for me is how quickly I abandoned my Calvinistic theology once it became personal. Like with hell…it is one thing to say sinners are going to hell. It is another thing when you have a dead non-Christian teenager….
I was raised in the Refomed “covenant” and was taught that I was essentially “born saved” as a result. Unfortunately, the same people who are so adament about infant baptism refuse to acknowledge that there is absolutely NO place in the entire NT where a baby is baptized, for crying out loud! Not even ONE time is it ever mentioned! These people who get their undies in a bunch about all of this ought to shut up and say that God knows all these things, they are under His control, and that these issues just totally turn off the unbelieving world. I think this is one of those debates that will go on forever, and on and on, while there is a world going on out there with real needs, with real people who need Christ, and these theologians ought to get a life and get involved with the NON BABIES who need them to show the way!
“Yet, a popular evangelical theologian chided Billy Graham when at the Oklahoma City memorial service he said, “Someday there will be a glorious reunion with those who have died and gone to heaven before us, and that includes all those innocent children that are lost. They’re not lost from God because any child that young is automatically in heaven and in God’s arms.” The theologian scolded Dr. Graham for offering what he called “. . . a new gospel: justification by youth alone.”
Thank you! I have been trying to find this quote. I read it in World magazine, written by R. C. Sproul, and I was appalled by it. One of the very few letters to the editor I have ever written was the result. What possible good could result from adding to the sorrow of grieving parents by questioning the eternal destiny of their murdered child? If you don’t know for sure, then keep your mouth shut. Still makes me mad, even now.
emr wrote:
Did RC Sproul say it? It is important that I get an answer to this question. I plan to discuss Sproul on Wednesday and this quote would bolster an argument I am going to make.
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
I am so sorry for your loss. Thank you for being willing to share here. I look forward to meeting your son in heaven one day.
Seneca wrote:
Seneca admits a weakness?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I believe one of them was a family member.
One thought on the passage about David and his infant son: there’s really not anything concrete (that I know of) about heaven – as xtians believe in it – in the OT. People die and go to Sheol, the abode of the dead. As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, it seems like some people believed in a fairly developed afterlife, while others did not.
Either way, I think that it’s more than possible that David’s statement “I will go to him, but he will not return to me” re. his dead infant son is more along the lines of “I know that I will die and join him in death, but he will never come back to me in this life.” in other words, an acceptance of the finality of his son’s death… keeping in mind the context; that he had been in very deep mourning for some days but that after saying this, he got up, washed, etc.
I think we have to be careful about ascribing NT beliefs to those who were not xtians, although I *do* understand why folks would want to interpret the passage in this manner. (As David saying that he will join his son in God’s presence, or something along those lines.)
There seems to have been ongoing disagreement per the afterlife in the time of Christ – witness the Saducees, who are said to not have believed in an afterlife.
numo wrote:
And that is why they were so “Sad you see.” I could not resist! Sorry!
There is no controversy in the SBC concerning infants. No one in the SBC Calvinist or non believes that infants go to hell when they die.
As for information, Peter Lumpkins is the last person I would quote unless I had a agenda. But for accuracy, he is not the person to turn to.
@ numo:
more specifically… about ascribing NT-era beliefs to those who lived prior to the time when those beliefs developed.
@ dee:
I just googled the question on my phone so I can’t cut and paste the sites. But I found that RC sr thinks infants go to heaven by a special mercy of God and RC jr thinks similarly.
“4. The fourth part is some speculation on my part why belief in active sin in infants could lead to child abuse.”
I’ll be bold and say it DOES and HAS led to child abuse. I believe we have seen this played out in real life.
That’s as far as I got. I’ll finish reading now 🙁
@ janet:
Many thanks.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
How do you know this to be true? Can you get a quote by Tom Ascoll? As for Peter Lumpkins, I admire the work that he did to get the child abuse statement passed at the last meeting.
“Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for sauce is the kingdom of Heaven.”
Seems to me that those who need to be concerned are those who do not come as “children.”
Such… I evidently have fat fingers and failing vision!
@ Hester:
Well saved by baptisim makes no sense to me, but some do believe that non-baptism is a salvation stopper.
Randall Slack wrote:
LOL!
Randall Slack wrote:
Barbecue sauce is almost an otherworldly experience here in the South.
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
Good word. I know others who can relate to this.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
No one? That is a declarative statement. How would you know this?
The question might be asked: Why was the Unity committee statement changed to say “most” instead of “all” of the Unity committee members…..”?
dee wrote:
You should see the comments he made to Amy Smith on twitter: http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2013/07/vocal-for-victims.html
Hester wrote:
Baptism is indeed connected to salvation, as per the Holy Scriptures and the Book of Concord to which you and I both subscribe. That is why we Lutherans Baptize infants and the mentally handicapped, and why it is such an atrocity that some “Christians” do not.
God can and does save those who are not Baptized, but that does not mean that Holy Baptism is not an ordinary means by which God confers salvific Grace.
@ dee:
No. God just hasn’t given him the “grace to percieve” yet.
You see, since in his theology, truth is not learned, it must be bestowed, his knowledge weakness is ironically the very proof of the surety of his understanding on the matter. He is absolutely sure that this issue cannot be explained, because human beings can never understand outside of God’s “revelation”. God hasn’t revealed His truth in this matter, period. This is not a weakness, merely a reflection of Seneca’s categorical acceptance of his own divine understanding. The TRUTH is NOT having an answer. If you claim to have an answer as a non-Calvinist, Seneca will declare you a liar. Only he as a Calvinist has truth, and thus if he doesn’t have an answer, as a member if God’s chosen, you certainly cannot have one. His response to your post was nothing more than a flagarant dismissal of all your points.
@ Bruce Gerencser:
Beautiful post. You are a wise and thoughtful man. Your children are very blessed, I would assure them of that.
@ dee: You’ve been watching too much TNG – “resistance is futile.” 😉
This a big issue in the SBC. It is an Achilles heel for the Calvin wing. The name is “Baptist” which means believers baptism is a foundational belief. “Believers” baptism. Can an infant confess and believe?
It goes back to the issue of imputed guilt of Adam’s sin. Babies are born sinning. Their existence is sin.
I have heard some really weird sermons on this. One was Paul Washer talking about babies sinfully grabbing for the shiny object you are wearing and would ripe your hand off to get it. I have heard similar sermons by other Calvinists.
What I take as a natural instinct such as crying, grabbing, etc, they take as proof of original sin. Since a family member recently took in a foster baby who did not cry when wet, I see how important these instincts are. He had been neglected to the point his privates were burned from laying in his excrement over a long period of time. He had given up crying because no one came. The same with eating. The happiest day ever was when he cried to be changed or was hungry. They were thrilled.
There is a need for belief in the imputed guilt of Adam’s sin to us all in order for us to even entertain the question that infants may not be saved.
Instead of there being consequences that affect us all because of Adam/Eve sin, God holds us accountable for that specific sin. I don’t buy it. We would not think that fair if parents do that to their children….. but God does?
@ Anon 1: Geesh – these people don’t “get” babies at all. (Am willing to bet that these men grabbed at shiny things and cried when they were hungry when *they* were small.)
@ numo:
Numo, How about: Did JESUS cry when wet? Grab for a shiny item?
Or was He so perfect He did not need to be changed? :o/
We have two adopted African girls, Lydia Schatz and Hannah Williams, beaten to death by white IFB adoptive parents who followed Michael Pearl and TTUAC. I also know that there is a lot of racism in the IFB movement. Is there anyone besides me who sees another possible connection here?
Sorry, the above comment was posted on the wrong thread.
@ dee:
Dee: I know what Tom Ascol believes. I have dealt with Tom for 6 years. Silence says we are not going to deal with such silliness. It is not saying this is what we believe. If you can find anything in the vast amount of material Tom has written please feature it. But I have been silent as well, does that mean I believe that infants go to hell? No. But I do trust God no matter what He does.
I am angry my friend. I think that arguing from silence is a poor argument. This battle has been going on for years, and now a few voices are making accusations that simply are not true. Peter Lumpkins does not know what he is talking about. Pure and simple. He rarely does.
@ Nicholas:
Perhaps you will understand why it makes me uncomfortable when you consider the fact that an LCMS pastor’s son told me that someone who believes in Jesus but gets hit by a truck on his way to the river to get baptized is going to hell.
@ Hester:
That pastor’s son was certainly wrong.
Peter will out and out lie if it serves his purposes. To him and SBCToday, the ends justifies the means. They are dirty players who will stop at nothing to get a win in the end no matter the casualties, which is how the Convention at what time was under their thumb. That is thankfully no longer the case. I saw for a few years how bloody they are. Now is no exception except that no one, including me is willing to engage in their tactics.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
Lumpkins also likes to dig into peoples’ personal histories and publicize sins that they’ve already repented for. Lumpkins did this to Jonathan Merritt and Jason Smathers.
Lumpkins also said in a comment on this very blog that he considers Wade Burleson and James White to be his “adversaries” (read: enemies) even though neither likely even knew of Lumpkins’ existence until he started publicly attacking them on his blog for various reasons.
Addendum @ Nicholas:
The real question isn’t whether God saves people who aren’t baptized (He can and does), or even whether He can save infants at the time of their baptism (He can and does); but what to make of the people who were baptized as infants, and maybe even confirmed, but who obviously have no faith in or even understanding of Jesus whatsoever. For instance, my confirmation classmate who told me that you could be a Wiccan and a Christian at the same time as long as you believed that God was female.
@ Hester:
Salvation can be lost, contrary to what Calvinists and most Baptists/”Evangelicals” believe. Calvinists would view your classmate as never having been regenerate in the first place. Lutherans view her as having been saved at her infant baptism, but having lost that salvation when she lost faith in the true God and embraced paganism.
This was the verse quoted to me in catechism at my Christian Reformed Church growing up that was their claim that non elect infants go to hell. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 1Cor. 7:14
I was a trouble maker asking questions way back in jr. hi.
Nothing made sense until I started reading the Bible for myself in complete context.
Also, about infant baptism, I was taught that the sprinkling with water water was the NT way of like the sprinkling of blood in the Old Covenant and circumcision and whatnot.
I might add that Gerald Harris isn’t someone to rely on for facts either. He doesn’t.
A Tricky Paradoxical ‘Wasteland’ Perhaps: “Speculating About The Spiritual Disposition Of Dead Infants?”
hmmm…
The Son of God came to seek and to save that which was lost.
Among the livng.
Jesus called Apostle Paul to present that ‘good News’ ; that which God had done, ‘in Christ’ to the Gentiles.
Those who Apostle Paul viisted with, were ..
Among the livng.
Jesus asked His Disciples to take the Gospel worldwide.
Among the living.
Jesus said firmly, let the dead bury the dead, but that those He addressed should, “Follow Him”.
Focus?
We are called to take the Gospel to our neighbors, …those in our community, as well. (Their spiritual lives may depend on what we do in the here and now?)
Tell them!
The ‘good news’ is for the living, not for those who have passed on, regardless of their ‘delicate’ previous station in life.
Why abuse the living with speculative questioning? What does anyone venture to gain by all of this. Can we but help the dead? Can we but minister to those who have passed on out of this present life?
I think not.
Let us therefore, bring comfort to those among the living, who are in need of the water of life that only Jesus brings.
Many today a ‘thirst’…
The dead, however, are not among them.
(sadface)
Sopy
—
Sopy, I get your point that our mission is to the living but, among the dead are some dearly beloved by the living and so, for those living, the fate of those dead is of importance.
My personal belief is that as God is the good shepherd who goes after the one sheep, the Father who runs to greet the prodigal and lavish love upon him, the mother hen with her chicks under her wing, then I am sure that I can leave my loved ones in His care. Not everyone has that degree of trust in Him and I hope that we can bring real comfort to those who mourn.
Baptism is a sacrament and sacraments are ‘outward signs of inward grace.’ So, the lack of opportunity for an outward show (baptism) should not negate the validity of salvation (inner grace). Hester, I hope I would have reminded that pastor’s son about the penitent thief on the cross. He was in no position to be baptized yet Jesus promised him salvation that very day. But so often we think up good answers after the fact.
@ Nicholas:
Thanks for the clarification.
Addendum @ Nicholas:
BTW my ELCA pastor confirmed her anyway. 😉
@ Estelle:
I hope someone did (I didn’t have opportunity in the situation). His dad is my current pastor and I know he doesn’t believe that so I’m not sure where his son got it. He was only 15 or so at the time so hopefully he’s gotten over that by now.
dee wrote:
Dee, I could not find it in the World archives online, but I do remember that it was a column written by R. C. Sproul, criticizing Billy Graham for making this statement at a memorial service for victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. My parents are big fans of Sproul and I remember telling them that I just could not agree with him on that and was planning to write a letter saying so.
Okay, I’m going to quit now. Page 133 (http://books.google.com/books?id=hlAmZlssEoYC&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=rc+sproul+and+billy+graham+and+oklahoma+city&source=bl&ots=2WGput_fvp&sig=gEqDBmotxE7rZN4v-Q7BOnqzi6U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HAQvUrmqI8-x4APpvoHoDw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=rc%20sproul%20and%20billy%20graham%20and%20oklahoma%20city&f=false), from a book called “Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism” , David L. Allen and Steve Lemke, ed., clearly references it as being R.C. Sproul JR, and also lists in the footnote the World magazine issue (10, no. 7, May 5, 1995) and title of the article (“Comfort Ye My People — Justification by Youth Alone: When Does Comfort Become Confusion?”).
Yes, the thief on the cross who was not baptized but was going to paradise is what comes to my mind here. That, and the example of Christ’s attitude toward children.
The Lutheran teaching I have received states that baptism is “necessary but not essential” to salvation. Now this is classic Lutheran talk, and makes Calvinists very uncomfortable :), but to me it says that we need to let God be God.
Luther was emphatic about baptism, but he did give infants Christian burial. Most of the Reformers held a position on this that would seem harsh to us today, don’t you think? ( Wasn’t Spurgeon a treasure?)
I suppose that some of the debate here stems from the fact that most of our doctrine here is drawn from reading between the lines. But if children are what heaven is like (Jesus), and God deals with the unborn (Elizabeth),I cannot think anything other than He has a good plan for those who are taken as babies and children.
Anon 1 wrote:
I agree that the unity statement hints at a deeper problem.
@ numo: Last night, as i was falling asleep, I thought of 2 examples from the OT that point to a belief in an afterlife. Both Elijah and Elisha did not die but went straight into the presence of God.
@ Nicholas: He exhibits a problem that affects all of us, including myself. We are more than happy to point out problems in those we disagree with. When it comes to our own group of people, we don’t. I plan to write about this problem tomorrow.
@ dee: One further point, at least he stuck his neck out for some. That is more than we can say about a few others like Mohler and Piper. There seems to a a generalized blind view on some fronts.
@ Nicholas: This is another one of those issues that has caused disagreement for centuries. I know of some churches who allow for both infant baptism and believer’s baptism. I like that idea.
@ Argo: My comment was a joke directed at Seneca. We have a long history and I know he gets what I was saying.
@ numo: I have yet to be assimilated!
Anon 1 wrote:
I am so happy that the your family is fostering abused children. I said a prayer for them. This is an important issue and I am just beginning to get my hands around it. We are born with a propensity to sin. Sinful behavior occurs when we are able to do something and know we should not do it.
That is why I am beginning to think that this thinking could lead to child abuse. So, what does Paul Washer do with his babies when they reach out for a shiny object? Whoop them? I was appalled to read what he said.
@ Anon 1:
Here is another example. Some young teen boys were molested by a pastor. One of the elders met with one boy and asked him “Didn’t you know what you were doing was wrong?” Such compassion. Such knowledge! Such wisdom…..
@ Debbie Kaufman:
I disagree. When there is an issue that is potentially divisive, we should go out of our way to lovingly and kindly express our view. We are to be peacemakers and to try to bring unity where it is possible.
Look at the post. I have profound differences with John Piper. Yet I spoke positively about his view on this subject.
An answer should be given as to who objected to the statement and caused it to be changed from all to most. Then, if there are those who believe that some babies go to hell, they should be willing to stand up to the scrutiny and disagreement. You certainly did that with Ergun Caner. Did you have more guts than some men on this committee?
dee wrote:
Enoch, too
@ Nicholas: I had a wonderful discussion the other day with a medical student from Norway. I am quite close to her family. She said that the Lutheran church in Norway used to believe that infants who die outside of baptism would not go to heaven. She said that doctrine was changed and it is now the position of the church that all infants and mentally handicapped, regardless of their state of baptism, go to heaven.
@ Debbie Kaufman: My guess is that all of us have lied on occasion when it serves our purposes.
But, I think we may be shooting the messenger. He asked a question that I found fascinating. I couldn’t care less if it were Richard Dawkins asking the question. Why did the word “all” get changed to “most.?” Fair question, no matter who asked it.
@ dee: And, if he has made this all up, it will be proven by the answer.
Nicholas wrote:
There is a reason that we love Wade. He is able to take any attack and persevere. We have written how he brilliantly handled a divisive situation at his church.
You should see what some people say about us on their blogs. Heck, you probably have seen what they say about us on our blog. And you should see our emails!
Yet, all are welcome, including harsh opinions, here so long as they play by a few rules. Why? It is because of Wade’s example to us that we do so.
The best way to bring unity is to reach out to those who disagree. Can we find any common ground? I say we can. Maybe just an inch or two but better than nothing.
Patti wrote:
Which just goes to prove my point that the Bible can be used to “prove” just about anything. And everybody is darn sure that they *know* what the author meant.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
What facts? All I want to know is why the wording was changed from *all* to *most.* What was the problem behind the scenes? It is a fascinating question.
@ Sopwith: Good points, Sopy. This question is most important to many who have lost their babies or their disabled child.
@ Estelle
Estelle,
Hey,
I did not mean in any way to denigrate the dearly departed, they are after all, in His skillful hands.
(rewind)
The water was turned into wine all because of a Mother’s gentle request.
God has time and time again demonstrated clearly that an earnest prayer receives a fortunate answer.
let us have…because we took the time to ask the One who loves us best.
The effectual fervent prayer of the righteous avails much.
…love, joy, & peace, be multiplied in your life,
Sopy
—
@ emr: Thank you. I will do some searches.
@ emr: You are awesome! Billy Graham has become the whipping boy for some of this hard liners. They do not know how important he was to many of us growing up in the North where it was difficult to hear the simple gospel presented clearly. I will add this to the post tomorrow.
@ Anon 1: Right! I wish I had thought of that when I was writing the post.
“His Eyes Upon Da Lit’l Sparrow?”
@ dee
Dee,
Hey,
Certainly! 🙂
*
(…did you not know I must diligently be about our Father’s business?)
(grin)
Mucho Blessings!
“Suffer the dear little children, and forbid them not, –to come to Me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such a one as these.” ~Jesus
such a one as these…
Sopy
—
Hi Dee
Thanks for referencing some of the pieces I published. As for whether or not the content is trustworthy as some may have questioned, I’d simply suggest that all readers should check the sources I cite–check the sources EVERYBODY cites. Rarely do I put up pieces without offering plenty of documentation. If I don’t have the goods I make it a point not to post. People are welcome to dispute my inferences showing my conclusions not to follow from the sources I offer.
@ dee:
Tom chooses to not answer as many of us choose to not answer. I respect that and in no way would I interpret that silence to be believing children go to hell. I would interpret it as wisdom in not getting involved in yet another frivolous and non ending controversy. Wisdom is sometimes silent.
The child act is the only decent thing Peter has done. It seems to be the only and last thing unfortunately.
I rarely agree with JD Hall, on the comment he made concerning Gerald Harris, I agree. It was my thought on this and other articles he has written, for example, the name calling. That is as wrong as those who twist and lie.
Yes, I did think I was braver than leadership concerning Ergun Caner. I think Dr. White’s talk tonite is going to be interesting. These things need to stop in the church. I think that if Ergun would be Calvinist. It is why I researched and wrote on it.
Not to toot my own horn, but I guess I am for a point, I would never lie for my own gain. I did not write anything that I had not researched over and over again. I was intent on being truthful in all I wrote. I had a couple of trusted people that I checked in with to make sure I was being truthful on all I published.
If you ask the question, I assume they are based on facts. It is why I asked the question on Caner. I spent an all nighter going over all the material to make sure I had enough information to ask the question. People who had more resources than I did gave the answer to that question(questions).
I think the information that is available, some of which you quoted in your post, points to the fact that no Southern Baptist believes infants go to hell. As I said, I do trust God no matter what He does. He is God.
Hankins and Allen seemed to answer the question and believe me if that answer were not true, they are the two who would have jumped on it. They did not. I disagree with Hankins and Allen 99.99% of the time which gives their statement more credibility. If you knew about these two gentlemen I would think that would be enough. I quote:
“Harris cited committee member Eric Hankins, indicating Hankins suggested the wording of the section Harris cited and questioned had been crafted to “accommodate some members of the advisory team who were not comfortable with the assertion that all who are morally incapable who die go to heaven.” Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary School of Theology dean and professor, David Allen, reportedly concurred with Hankins’ statement. ”
I am satisfied. I am not usually satisfied as you know. I am on this.
There is a potential trap here that must be avoided. I hear a lot of argumentation based on who said what, as in Augustine of Hippo said, Luther said, Calvin said, Wesley said, Spurgeon said, etc. Paul addressed this issue in 1 Corinthians 1 about the I am of Paul, or …of Cephas, etc. At some point in our pursuit of pat answers to every detail of every question we find that scripture does not go that far, and we have to leave it alone. Think, for example, about infant baptism. We cannot let ourselves become Augustinians instead of Christians, or Lutherans instead of Christians, or much less Baptists instead of Christians. Those old preacher guys may have had a lot to say, but if it takes us so far from scripture that we have to actually justify some belief solely because some old preacher guy said so, perhaps that is going too far.
@ peter lumpkins:
Hi Peter
You asked a legitimate question. It deserves an answer. As we struggle through this issue of various doctrines, we must be in a position to speak open and honestly with one another. I do not get the response “I don’t have to answer you.” as proposed by some.
We must answer one another with honesty in the hopes of finding a bridge. If one person in the debate is mistaken, then it behooves the other to clearly speak the truth. Every last committee member should be willing to answer what they believe about this issue. That is one of the reasons that why are on the committee.
I slogged through the history of this issue in order to show that this issue is an historical concern addressed by many church leaders in the last 2000 years (give or take a few.) If Edwards, Calvin, Wesley, and Luther saw fit to address it, why don’t we? Has the matter been resolved?
For those of us who have had to confront the loss of a child or a mentally handicapped loved one, the answer to their eternal disposition is terribly important. This is not just a theoretical doctrinal dispute. It means something to me and many others.
I agree that it doesn’t matter who asks the question, if enough information is available to ask the question without unnecessarily destroying a person. I teamed up with a Muslim who is also now a friend. Talk about getting a beating! Yet, he had enough proof and was open enough with me with more that he had not published, for me to team closely with him. He was the only one to be honest through the whole process. Christians weren’t. So I do understand.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
That statement would seem to indicate that some Baptists believe that some infants go to hell which contradicts your statement that all Baptists believe that infants go to heaven.
Also, there is a difference between you and the others on the committee. You do not influence the SBC Calvinism Advisory Committee. The ones on the committee do speak for a broad swath of Baptists. Therefore, I would like to hear the answer to the question.
Finally, I have a much deeper concern about the answer to this question. I am working through my thoughts that there is a possibility that the belief that an infant actively sins could lead to corporal punishment of that infant. That is another reason that I want to learn what these guys think.
Enocho was not found for God had taken him.
Elijah et. al: I wonder when this was written down. Could be very important in understanding the development of concepts. (The afterlife as a concept is important; so is the devil as a concept – these things are ideas as much as they are tenets of certain faiths.)
Are some of the leaders being silent about this ‘theological’ issue because of job insecurity? I know a lot have to be able to say that they believe in the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dorbt, and the Belgic Confession as the true interpretation of the scriptures. I had to say it as a child just to be a part of the Calvinette ‘club.’
Those writings are extremely clear about election/predestination, infant baptism and infant salvation. As an adult I have out loud renounced my childhood oath that those three confessions are THE true interpretation of the scriptures.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
I don’t get it. I have no wish to destroy anyone. I could not find the answer to the question. If I can’t, imagine how hard it is for those who do not “google” for a job.
This is an historical question. The Baptists have had an historical answer which now seems to be debated.
Let me try this one on you. If there were a committee on the role of women, trying to find a unified solution, and the committee came out and said that “most” Baptists believe that women should not be pastors, can you imagine the uproar? There would be a bunch of Baptist leaders questioning who inserted that one in there. The person who did so should be prepared to answer the question.
This is NOT a referendum on Calvinism. I took care to compliment Piper, Mohler, and Grudem for their answers to this question. I believe the question should be answered and believe that anyone who will not do so, (of the ones on the committee) needs to develop the courage for his convictions.
Debbie, You say you “choose not to answer” but then you DO answer for both you and Tom Ascol:
“I think the information that is available, some of which you quoted in your post, points to the fact that no Southern Baptist believes infants go to hell. As I said, I do trust God no matter what He does. He is God. ”
Very confusing. How is it a fact when you choose not to answer? And your declarative statement answers for you as you include yourself as SBC, right?
You make the point that God can do what He wants. I am not sure what that has to do with anything as God has revealed Himself to us as Jesus Christ and cannot go against His own nature. God IS love and perfect justice. So how can a baby who has laid in their own exrement for weeks and weeks, not being born into an “elect” family be damned to hell if he dies as an infant…AND God be perfect Love and Justice? It is not a mystery. It is heinous.
One can believe this if they interepret scripture woodenly/literal as in man talking to God in poetry in the Psalms.
If God can do whatever He wants that is not communicated as part of His nature and truth from the indwelling Holy Spirit, all of us are in trouble. He is not to be trusted. Sounds like Allah.
@ Sopwith:
I appreciate your gentle wisdom.
Love, peace and joy to you, too, Sopy.
E x
Nevermind that I was already suspicious the T4G Facebook statement (which was deleted promptly because of negative comments) was released a few days before the Unity statement was set to be released providing perfect cover for Mohler/Dever of whom both were on the SBC “Unity” committee.
dee wrote:
The dangers of “willful blindness” http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2013/09/not-to-be-blind-not-to-be-silent.html
“Those who refuse to be ‘willfully blind’ in the face of evil are often accused of being troublemakers who should be ignored or ostracized.” Boz T
dee wrote:
I actually had a huge problem with this anyway. Why do they speak for the SBC at all on “Unity”? Al Mohler and Mark Dever have credibility on “Unity” after all their hard work to preserve and protect Mahaney? Mohler is even on record as saying that those who signed the Unity statement “should be marginalized”. Who is he to say such a thing?
I cannot believe the man still has a job as he IS an employee of the SBC and hugely divisive.
Seneca wrote:
Jimmy my man,
Listen up. Hurting a baby is just plain wrong. There is no holy god, holy book, or holy joe that will ever make it right.
This is a very interesting discussion! Perhaps this Friday Funny posted by Tom Ascol earlier this year will give us some insight into his theological leaning on the age of accountability.
What is the "Age of Accountability" Again?
Ascol writes:
And then he ends with what he deems an illustrative video. Take a look by clicking on the link.
Hopefully this won’t add fuel to the fire, just some light without heat.
At both my recent studies in Lutheranism and when I was a Baptist with a Calvinist for a pastor (note– NOT a Calvinista!) I was taught this:
Total depravity is not a “sin nature” nor is it that babies are born sinning. It is that everything about us–physical body, intellectual ability, emotions, spiritual life, everything, has been at least somewhat tainted by the fall. There is no part of us that is not in some way affected and in some way dying.
But the good news is that Jesus died for what we are as well as what we do. He has won the battle already. Infants can and indeed are innocent in action, but still tainted by the fall. So both groups taught me that Christ would lovingly accept them, not because they are innocent but because He died for them.
And yes, Lutherans baptize babies and would say they receive salvation at that point, but do not limit God to not be able to work without a human and some water.
But they both have taught me the theoretical possibility of an infant dying who was not elect, and who given enough time to live would reject Christ. Both groups left it possible, but not certain, that those infants would still face hell as simply dying young is not a means of salvation. And both groups stressed a belief that the afterlife for that child would not be the same as say, for Hitler. Both were/are content to say God is merciful, far more than we are, and God is just, far more than we are. And that time is linear to us, but not to God. So to us a babe has had no time to sin, to God it’s entire life is current. So in our linear time God may take it out of this life to prevent worse tragedy and if He does, we leave the judgment to Him.
Or as one explained it, when we wonder why God did not just kill Hitler as a baby, thus saving Hitler, the answer is that Hitler would still have been Hitler and guilty of his whole life.
Paradox. I’m coming to love it. It doesn’t claim to have all the answers. Not the ones that make me feel good or the ones that make me feel bad.
It just encourages me to leave this life and the afterlife in the hands of a loving, just, merciful God. (Even when, or ESPECIALLY when, nothing appears all that loving, just, or merciful.)
Deb: All have sinned, we are born into sin at birth. That doesn’t mean that babies go to hell, it does mean that babies need a Savior and there is only one way to heaven, not two or three. Babies are born sinful. Selfish. We don’t have to teach them to hit, spit, throw a tantrum. It is something we teach them not to do.
I believe God intervenes and regenerates hearts of children, babies.
Dee: I think you are reading way too much in that statement. I didn’t read babies go to hell in the statement from Hankins or Allen, neither have they stepped up and said that is what was meant. The Bible is vague on the subject, and I think these men are simply sticking with scripture. One cannot say 100% with surety that all who are morally incapable go to heaven. We can speculate at best. I do not see this statement as saying babies go to hell.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
I’m simply disappointed in this post. Very. I will continue to be. I would be disappointed if untrue things were said of a non-Calvinist.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
And I should say, God steps in and regenerates hearts of babies(including the unborn) who die and go to heaven. But I have no solid scriptural proof for that statement and the Bible is the final authority. I trust God no matter what He would do. He is God.
Anon 1 has a perfect example in the comment he/she made as to why answering would be non productive for Tom and I should not have answered other than baiting posts keep popping up and I guess I’m tired and weary of the whole thing. I should have known better than to post, but post I did.
Anon1 : I shouldn’t answer you but I will with this simple statement of God does what He wants, when He wants with who He wants and he is still all the attributes. He has a special love for those who are His. Christians. That is why He sent Christ to us. The Bible is about Christ from beginning to end. And our need for a Savior. That is the whole Bible interpreted in a nutshell. He did what we cannot do. Not even children.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
I want an answer to the question. They should answer it or they are a bunch of wusses.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
What in the world did I say that was not true??? Please tell me.
As for my asking the question on Ergun Caner, I had so many resources before I even asked the question, I asked the question, but I already knew the answer. :)It’s why I felt I could confidently ask the question.
dee wrote:
I saw that particular article because I had been given a 6-mo. subscription to World Magazine. During that 6 months I was baffled and dismayed at the constant criticism heaped on Billy Graham — mainly because he wasn’t against abortion *enough*. I though then, and still do, that there have probably been more babies rescued because people got saved at Billy Graham crusades, than by some of the die-hard right-to-lifers out there.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
Very good post Dr. Kaufman.
“There is a God, I am not He.” My idea of justice and mercy is not necessarily His.
Muff Potter wrote:
My personal life experience is this; God doesn’t ask my advice AND my take on what is right isn’t necessarily His. Like Job, I can’t begin to answer the difficult questions.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
I believe this is an important theological discussion, regardless of who is part of the conversation.
“The point for us is that even though we human beings are under the penalty of everlasting judgment and death because of the fall of our race into sin and the sinful nature that we all have, nevertheless God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure.”
-John Piper
No…Piper does not get away with this hypocrisy.
If we all have a “sinful nature”, and are therefore under the penalty of “EVERLASTING judgement” for merely existing as a human being, then how is it possible for man to have a “natural capacity to see His glory and understand His will”? The two ideas are in total contradiction. The whole point of Calvinist epistemology is that man CANNOT naturally understand God’s glory or will unless God elects them to have it. Remember, the same will which understands God’s goodness is the same will which pursues it. If we claim that men have a natural capacity to see God as GOOD, then salvation MUST be a function of FREE CHOICE to reject it, and NOT a function of sovereign election.
And if this is true, then Piper’s whole rationale goes over the handle bars.
By virtue of their very own doctrine, consistent Calvinists must concede then that all infants then are by definition utterly incapable of escaping God wrath, since they are as totally depraved as anyone else. They can by no means possess in themselves, by virtue of their age, a get-out-of-jail-free-card for the pure rebellion and blindness which they embody by existing as a HUMAN. If we say all baby’s are elected, then we have made salvation an obligation of God TO a human being by virtue OF a human being’s personal attribute, not on God’s sovereign will.
I am offended at the notion that somehow certain Calvinists think that in the case of babies THEY get to decide the limits of morality for God’s SOVEREIGN slavific actions, according to THEIR sensibilities. They have no problem conceding that the oppressed Chinese peasant living in squalor and filth and who has known nothing of Christ her whole stifled life goes straight to hell, but an infant…oh, no, that would be just so wrong!
@ Debbie Kaufman:
Debbie is going to run into Calvinists and Calvinist-apologists for her consistent and right understanding of her “sound doctrine”. Debbie is going to be brow beat back into her confusion…which is “truth” according to her own doctrine, so I suppose…er, just desserts. Debbie is making the common mistake of believing that SHE gets to decide the parameters of her doctrine’s rationale.
Tsk, tsk, Debbie. Didn’t anyone tell you you are not allowed to use reason to prove truth? You think too much. Stay a doctrinal hypocrite, and then you can be at least a “good” and “nice” Calvinist.
Look, a Calvinist simply cannot make a rational argument to the effect that all babies go to heaven. That makes salvation a function of the PERSON, not the sovereign will of God. It says that if a human being is below a certain age, then God is OBLIGATED to “elect” them. This puts salvation squarely in the hands of the HUMAN (the totally depraved and utterly rebellious baby) being saved. I know not one Calvinist who would ever concede this as a possibility.
We may not like what Debbie is saying, but she is at least consistent. She is a much more doctrinally sound “Christian” than Piper is.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
I give up.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
When you say “our” need for a Savior and that is why Christ came, according to your doctrine we had already been chosen before Adam even sinned so why was Christ needed? We would have been saved anyway since we were chosen before creation. So we have a special love from Him? What about those people He did not choose, what sort of love does He have for them?
There is no need for any speculation on infant salvation/damnation unless one reads imputed guilt for Adam’s sin into the equation. If not for proof texting out of context, this would not be an issue at all as a moral just merciful God would never condemn an infant to damnation. That would be Molech. Or Allah. Thank you, Augustine.
I am not one of those who thinks every passage in the OT (Proverbs?) points to Jesus….. because Jesus IS/WAS God in the Flesh. If we want to know what God is like, we look to Jesus Christ.
Why engage if you don’t want dialogue? I am really confused by your comments.
@ emr: There are many people who live in the South who have no idea how hard it was when I was growing up to hear the gospel spoken in a clear form. Billy Graham was one of the few who broke into TV and began exposing some of us to the faith. For that I will always be grateful.
@ Seneca:
That is too bad. He wants it to be.
“By virtue of their very own doctrine, consistent Calvinists must concede then that all infants then are by definition utterly incapable of escaping God wrath, since they are as totally depraved as anyone else. ”
This is why I believe those who say infants are damned, so better baptize them quick, are more honest. I don’t agree with it at all but it fits better the deterministic god/dualism of man paradigm as all are evil and born sinning. We have no way to know if they are chosen or not so baptism was instituted. some think by Augustine, who introduced the concept of original sin as it is understood today. That was a way of dealing with such a grueling topic and a tyrannical god.
What is, for example, Al Mohler’s rational for an infant, born guilty of Adam’s sin AND born sinning, being able to escape the Wrath of God for all that evil the baby is guilty of?
Original Sin was believed, and Infant Baptism was practiced, long before St. Augustine was born.
I wondered how long before I’d see more bashing of that “eeeeeeeevil” Augustine. Fundies and liberals are united on this.
@ Anon 1:
I agree…but it doesn’t make sense that “infant baptism” would then save the child. The point is that their is no act of man which can save other than God’s arbitrary pleasure. As soon as we make salvation a function of anything WE DO (baptize the child, be of a certain age, even “accept Christ”)we make Salvation a human CHOICE. And there is nothing about that idea which any Reformed Christian can find acceptable.
@ Nicholas:
Thanks nicholas but I need more than your word for it. I’ll be the first to admit my research is not exhausted but so far….. It was pretty much Augustine
@ linda:
It is not paradox, it is contradiction. Paradox is when seemingly contradictory ideas are reconciled through observational and empirical evidence that, despite what would seem logically incongruent, the observable truth cannot be denied. (Like particle/wave duality.)
This does not work in theology, or philosophy, or epistemology. Either an idea is rational or it is not.
Paradox is a get out of jail free card for rational larceny. It allows people to say “God does this or that based on what this or that person “would have done”. Well, “would have done” cannot be defined, because “would have done” doesn’t and didn’t actually exist. So how can God execute judgement on what someone did that they didn’t actually do?
Again, this is not paradox, it is impossible.
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
Bruce, same here. Two of my children died as infants during my years as a hard-line Calvinist. My whole world blew up when I started questioning Calvinism (shortly after my last child died) and I wrestled with intense temptation toward agnosticism for many months. That is because somehow Calvinism had BECOME my faith. Untangling the wreckage that remained of my faith from that mess was an all-consuming, exhausting experience. I am at a better place now. I know that God loves me and my children.
Looking for You wrote:
He most certainly does. I am so, so sorry for your loss.
dee wrote:
Good point Dee. We fixated ourselves in the Conservative Resurgence on making sure the overwhelming majority of those who held gender views leaning toward egalitarianism would pack their bags and leave. We wanted a complementarian convention and got one all legal and doctrinal (via BF&M). Hence the question applied to infants dying in infancy remains a sticking point, precisely what Harris had in mind. “Most” is much too weak when applied to what SBs hold toward infants dying in infancy. He simply wanted to know where this supposed representative group which apparently was significant enough to steer the committee to temper its language existed. I think he hit the mark when assumed it must be somebody on the panel itself. And, all they’d have to do is, say yea or na…
I do think that the belief in infants as SINNERS is completely different than the belief that infants are born with a SIN NATURE/inclination toward sin. And yes I certainly believe it contributes to the acceptability in some circles of spanking infants.
I remember arguing with a Calvinist female back when I was a Calvinist about this. It did not make sense to me that infants were not innocent human beings. I said “just because they have a sin nature does not mean that they have sinned or are even capable of committing sin.” She said, adamantly, that infants and the unborn DO SIN. They are both born and conceived already guilty. I believe it was an argument about child discipline that brought this up, actually. She suggested that using a ruler or other small, lightweight “rod” on an infant was a good idea. It really made me angry.
Muff Potter wrote:
Oh Muff, you took the words right out of my mouth. This is a topic that can send people crazy. I once read about a family who were utterly obsessed with where their dead child had gone to, & how they could know. I can’t deal with Jimmy’s ice-cold oh-so-obedient heart.
Some of us have lost, or watched loved ones lose, children in infancy in Arminian families. Many of those have also struggled with faith afterward.
So two quick question/comments:
1. Re wouldn’t a belief that all who die in infancy go to heaven lead to an increase in infanticide? Why risk your loved one maybe growing up to be an unbeliever?
2. Re the comment about a dead unsaved teenager. Would a parent be less distraught over a dead unsaved 40 year old son or daughter?
Personally I believe the little ones go to heaven because of the overwhelming grace of God. I can understand the opposite view without agreeing with it. The only view that gives me any pause is the idea that we puny human beings get to sort it out and decide what God may or may not do with us.
Those who are Calvinists often derive great consolation at the death of their little ones because they are comforted with the idea nothing they, or anyone else, did shortened the little one’s life. And they are comforted to know God is still in control.
I’ve watched the sheer hell Arminian family members endured at the death of loved one’s in their teens and twenties who had not yet professed faith in Christ. To go through the rest of one’s life wondering “what if I had said this or done that?” or “did I do enough?” can also be torture. And if they had professed faith in Christ, the wondering was still there concerning the length of the life. Questions like “What if I gone back to get a drink before we left for the game–would we have missed the accident and Susie still be alive?” can be torture.
I’m content to know we are all–infants, teens, adults, the aged, God’s babies. And He loves us.
Let me add: yes, hurting a baby is wrong. But I dare say those infants who die might not be perpetual infants. I do believe it wrong to characterize those who hold to the possibility some of them might not make heaven are NOT saying God is torturing little babies.
Then Job answered the Lord and said:
2 “I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
kI will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”
Like everyone else, I have suffered telling losses. And then I say, “Well you know God.”
I trust that he does.
Bruce Gerencser wrote:
Thank you for sharing your story.
I’ve said before on older threads that this is the case with a lot of Christian teaching on other topics, as well.
I used to have clinical depression very strongly, and I would see over the years many preachers condemning depression or depressed people, or blaming it on personal sin, or whatever, but I found an article by a preacher who said he used to do that until he himself came down with depression.
Now his outlook on depression is totally changed, and he tells other people taking medication for it is okay, etc.
It’s funny, or sad, how some Christians will condemn something until it happens to them, or a family member of theirs.
I don’t know much about Peter Lumpkins, except I think he may understand the seriousness of a joining together of SBC and SGM. I was a part of CJs cult since 1978. And this joining together concerns me more than anything else. The damage that could be done by the two of them could be serious.
linda wrote:
But where does that end and “Eh, Kismet?” fatalism begin?
Like most natural systems, I see no hard dividing line.
And (unless their insides have been burned out) Calvinists go through the rest of their life wondering “Were they one of the Elect”?
Though “what if I had said this or done that?” and “did I do enough?” is also “This Way Lies Madness”. Especially if you combine it with those passages from Ezekiel about “His blood shall I require of you” (i.e. “GOD WILL Hold You Accountable!!!!!!”). That way lies Madness — Wretched Urgency on steroids.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-classic-wretched-urgency%e2%80%94the-grace-of-god-or-hamsters-on-a-wheel
One way lies indifference — “In’shal’lah… Eh, Kismet?”
The other way lies madness — “Wretched Urgency”.
Looking for You wrote:
Welcome to The Gospel According to the Pearls….
(AKA “Beat your child into Sinless Perfection”)
Beakerj wrote:
Invoking Godwin’s Law, wasn’t an “ice-cold oh-so-obedient heart” the ideal of the SS?
(And NKVD, Oprichniki, Kempei Tai Thought Police, Fedayeen Saddam, and every terror/extermination unit of Enforcers for The Regime…)
Nicholas wrote:
No, I don’t think it can.
I don’t believe Conditional Security is true at all. It’s a works based salvation, that you must keep doing good works/ stay out of sin to “remain” saved. I don’t see the Bible as teaching that at all.
linda wrote:
But, non-Calvinists also believe that, in the end, everyone has had the opportunity to respond or not respond. As one, I believe that God is infinitely fair in this matter. I found great comfort in knowing that I would see my daughter in heaven if she had died with her tumor. It is what got me through many nights.
I understand that Calvinists derive comfort from their doctrines. Can you see how non-Calvinists can also experience comfort from a different set of doctrines? The idea behind this discussion is to increase understanding and awareness how folks on both sides of the spectrum can present a cohesive view on the working of God in pain and suffering.
I know that you might not understand how I find peace in my framework, just as I might struggle with yours. But we should be able to accept that both of us find strength and comfort in the faith even if we view the issue of pain and suffering from different angles.
linda wrote:
Quite simple to answer. Murder is against God’s commands. It is not a choice that He allows us.
linda wrote:
No less distraught but it is important to understand that the example given was for a mentally handicapped person which changes the discussion parameters. I believe that the mentally challenged, who cannot comprehend the Gospel will be saved through God’s infinite grace.
It is painful to lose children at all ages but it is particularly difficult when they are young. One does not expect to lose a young child.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: I;m no so sure that he is dealing with it so well, either.
Joy Huff wrote:
Others have expressed concern about this as well. Rumor has it that such a joining will not take place in light of the issues that have come to light.
linda wrote:
Please forgive me. It has been a long day and a trying subject. When i read your statement, it seemed like you might be saying that God would age them so He could torture them and that would be better than torturing them as infants? I know I lost something, somewhere.
Looking for You wrote:
This is very important to the discussion. There is a difference with being born with a propensity to sin and then actually sinning. The distinction must be made.
Nicholas wrote:
I have never heard Augustine being referred to as evil. Is that really the case?
Just like anyone else, he had some ideas that I do not accept and some that I do.
@ dee:
“You should see what some people say about us on their blogs. Heck, you probably have seen what they say about us on our blog. And you should see our emails!”
++++++++++++++++++
I consider that a badge of honor to wear proudly. In the best sense.
Seneca wrote:
That’s kind of a strange argument to make. I’ve seen some Christians, when debating with atheists, or about atheism, make an appeal to the idea that atheists are without a sure foundation of morality, since they don’t have a higher source for it to point to or base morality upon, as Christians with God.
If ideas about justice, morality, mercy, judgment, love, etc, cannot be known of or understood by humans at all, even in spite of the fact that the Bible tells us what God thinks about some of these things, that would leave Christians pretty clueless.
peter lumpkins wrote:
It’s attitudes like that, and views on gender and a woman’s role and value, which are contributing my drift away from Christianity and into agnosticism (among other reasons).
peter lumpkins wrote:
I am so terribly confused about this simple question. I have been blessed to be in a number of churches in my Christian life in which questions were encouraged and answers were given. Recently, I have heard of some churches in which asking questions is considered a sin (sinfully craving answers is one that i read about at SGM Survivors).
We must be honest with one another. When there is divisiveness, we must go out of our way to communicate in open manner. How will we ever get along if we cannot start with an understanding of our differences?
Tomorrow, i am going to discuss this matter from a different angle as I look at a recent post by RC Sproul on disunity. Although he made an accurate point, the fact is, he could have made the same point without doing what he did.
I am dumbfounded by the response of some folks to this issue. I spent untold hours reading the history of the salvation of infants. I truthfully thought that this could be discussed in a way to bring understanding to both sides. I tried to be truthful and accurately quote everyone in this debate. I complimented Piper and Mohler for speaking clearly to the matter.
I just spent the better part of an hour spouting of to my fellow blog queen. I can say, with all of my heart, that all I wanted to do was learn what in the world is going on. If the BFM is going to be disregarded, then, in my opinion, the SBC will split, once again. I am becoming pessimistic on the possibility of unity.
But, I shouldn’t complain. I left the SBC 5 years ago and attend a conservative, independent church. Deb is still hanging on by her fingernails. She is a better woman than I.
@ LFY:
I had a sort of microcosm of this happen to me. I said that infants can’t lie. Now outside of fundy circles this really isn’t debated, because lying takes some rather sophisticated mental processes that infants aren’t capable of. The SDA lady I’ve mentioned here before, though, was having none of that reality-based stuff, and countered that infants can tease, and that teasing is forbidden by the Bible in Proverbs 26:18-19. If you can get how she could legitimately connect that verse to infants, then you’re smarter than me.
Then again this is the same person that thought Hollywood was run by fallen angels because Harry Potter’s wand was made of holly wood.
elastigirl wrote:
I guess the positive part of this whole thing is that people on both sides of the issue think we are caving into the other side. Now, when I read those comments and posts, i stop a minute and pray for them and us.
Hester wrote:
Good night! Infants are sinful because they tease. That is one that will go down in TWW’s books.
Hester wrote:
I seriously think they should put Valium in the water supply.
Dee:
You said to Linda:” Let me add: yes, hurting a baby is wrong. But I dare say those infants who die might not be perpetual infants. I do believe it wrong to characterize those who hold to the possibility some of them might not make heaven are NOT saying God is torturing little babies.
Please forgive me. It has been a long day and a trying subject. When i read your statement, it seemed like you might be saying that God would age them so He could torture them and that would be better than torturing them as infants? I know I lost something, somewhere.”
Linda your statement is warped or sick IMO. I obviously am not familiar with your god.
Daisy wrote:
Why blame Jesus for those who claim to speak for Him?
@ dee:
I haven’t seen anyone use the word, but some who reject Original Sin try to portray Augustine as such.
dee wrote:
And this is why we cannot just bandy about traditional terms such as “original sin” as it does not mean the same thing to both who are using it. Terribly confusing as the gulf is wide on that one. “Propensity to sin” is a major difference from “born guilty AND sinning”.
linda wrote:
Short answer is love. But your question made me think of mass movements of killing off many babies (along with adults) from Stalin, Nazi’s to Pol Pot. Those certainly were not done out of love. Infanticide is hate.
Anon 1 wrote:
Because obviously the stuff Jesus taught either isn’t true, or does not work; many of those who claim His name don’t even bother to live up to his teachings, so I see little point in hanging on.
Also, there is no place for a never married, childless woman in Baptist and evangelical churches, and this gets down to their dismal view of women.
Many churches and denominations only have room or envision a place for women who are married and/or are mothers.
They don’t know what to do with childless or single women, and they don’t care to figure it out.
Some here on this blog claim that other sorts of churches are absolute heaven for single women, but I feel more comfortable in churches where I am already familiar with the culture.
I also am dubious about other churches being peachy keen swell for single and the childless, because I see a lot of other singles my age say on other sites they don’t feel welcome in any church of whatever theology or denomination, and these singles say they are still looking for a denomination or church that is inclusive of singles.
If Church X (or ‘denomination X’) is supposedly so great for singles, why do I not see more singles online suggesting Church X for all other singles? I don’t.
Overlooking singles is a widespread problem of all Christianity, not just Baptists or evangelicals.
Nicholas wrote:
Nicholas, So disagreeing with his doctrine means I think he was evil? Yes, I reject Augustine’s version of original sin and believe it has characteristics of the dualism of Greek Philosophy. All material world is evil (including humans which includes babies) and only spiritual is good.
Anon 1 wrote:
Since Augustine didn’t teach that “the material world is evil”, I have to wonder what kind of “research” you are doing.
@ Daisy:
Daisy, Childless unmarried women were traveling around with Jesus so we KNOW He liked them and had a place for them. Why blame Jesus for the ignorant who use His name for their own agenda’s?
Nicholas wrote:
Nick, I am really not interested in derailing the thread anymore on this one. I am sure my research would not be up to snuff. :o)
dee wrote:
………………
AMEN.
When Jesus held and blessed the little children, he didn’t tell their parents how wicked and wonten they were. He did warn the adults to not do anything to keep the little ones from coming to Him. Better a millstone be placed around the adults necks.
I can ‘t even fathom spanking an infant….for crying out loud God could wipe out all of His adult children for our disobedience, yet He “understands our frames and understands we are dust.”
dee wrote:
The church I attend may be Southern Baptist, but a Calvinista pastor wouldn't stand a chance there. 🙂
@ Joy Huff:
Joy,
I think it is too late for that. Bob Kauflin is partnered with SBTS in “worship music” training. Mahaney has a son in law there with a paid work study that did not go to an SBC student and so on. CJ moved to Louisville to “plant a church near the seminary” and just about every YRR/NC celeb has been to his little Marriott Hotel church to preach and affirm CJ including Piper and Dever. The T$G statement on facebook was deleted but not a word as to how they might be wrong. Only trying to make CJ more in the background. The only problem is now CJ brings very little to the table. But not ONE WORD about anything wrong with CJ or SGM from Mohler. In fact, Mohler is stronger than ever and knows it. Even those other leaders in the SBC who strongly disagree with Mohler’s doctrine or indoctrination of young men at SBTS ever mention his long time ties and affirmation of Mahaney and SGM EVEN after all the scandals broke.
I often wonder why they stay silent. But then they stayed silent about Driscoll, too. In the blogging world, the exception has been Peter Lumpkins.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Equating me ( Seneca) with the S.S. Fedayeen, Saddam etc? And yet you’ve never met me nor know what I in my daily life.
–
Interestingly, Lumpkins applied the “gossip” label to a critic of Mohler and Patterson, even though that critic was a conservative, inerrantist, BFM-affirming SBC seminary professor: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2007/09/dr-tom-ascol-is.html
Here is the post that ruffled the feathers of Lumpkins and Ascol: http://web.archive.org/web/20071024180440/http://sbcoutpost.com/2007/09/12/guest-post-an-sbc-professor-speaks-out/
As you can see from the comments on Lumpkins post, Mrs. Kaufman rightly defended the professor, which caused Lumpkins to lash out against her.
dee wrote:
Nicholas wrote:
Obviously Mohler and Patterson are gods and Gods Can Do No Wrong.
Trevin Wax responded the same way to the criticism of Mohler: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2007/09/22/why-the-sbc-outpost-should-change-its-name-to-the-sbc-outhouse/
Nicholas wrote:
Yeah. Monica’s son Auggie carried a lot of baggage from his younger days, but as far as I know that wasn’t part of it. He actually came out of a Manichaean Gnostic cult that taught that into an orthodox (not Orthodox) faith. He would have to repudiate the “spiritual good, physical baaaaaaaaad” of that cult in the process.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:g
Hug –
This example was “babies” ‘teasing’ others — not that I think babies are capable of teasing any more than I think they are capable of ‘sinning.’
I think what you experienced went into the realm of abuse. I have seen teasing cross the line into emotional abuse myself, all in the name of fun – ya right – fun for the abuser maybe.
This song is new to me but I find it to be soothing to an oft troubled soul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_7mcGqsKP8&list=PLFYCIonP6dVVbGBMAc_DF252D-nETklSh
@ Nicholas:
Guess what Nicholas? Peter was wrong. I know people who have worked for Mohler who say in secret that he is a tyrant. A big baby tyrant. They want to be able to work again somewhere.
The FTE’s under Patterson’s leadership at SWBTS is a joke. He was quietly taken from SEBTS and given SWBTS for his swan song.
Peter has gotten it wrong. Your point?
When it comes to the lying Caner, I have to ask what about protecting pedophiles and protecting those who protect them?
Seems strange to keep bringing up Caner when we have T$G protecting Mahaney who first ran to the arms of Dever and then moved SGM to Louisville to be near Mohler. The difference? Innocent children.
“Infant Miscreant: One Act”
Dee,
Hey,
Is religious ‘unity’ and religious ‘speculation’ ever completely compatible?
How can one expect ‘unity’ when advancing something the scriptures are somewhat obscure about?
huh?
…the determined spiritual state or condition of the immortal soul of a dearly departed infant?
hmmm…
speculation or grounding in Scripture?
What?
(rewind)
“it is appointed once to die, then the judgement.”
ok.
(fast forward)
so da lit’t dearly departed tyke is before the judgement seat of Almighty God, His Precious Son to His right… (Saint Pete is no where in sight -snicker-)
Crack! Crack! Goes da proverbial heavenly mallet. Crack! Crack!
The Almighty: ” Infant” how do you plead?
Infant: “goo!”
The Almighty: “Infant, can you speak up?”
Infant: “goo! Goo!
The Almighty: “Your forefather, Adam, the first Man, was a royalbutthead, therefore, on that basis, I pronounce you GUILTY !!! What do you have to say for yourself? Come now, Little Man, what do you have to say for your fifteen minutes of mortal existence?
Infant: “Ooooooo!” (a faint farting noise is heard)
The Almighty: “Infant, thou art burnt toast!…”
The Almighty: “Bailiff, take this micro-miscreant away!” Crack! Crack!
Infant: Waaaaaaaah!
The End.
—
@ Argo:
Ok, Argo, I wasn’t going to say anything, because I don’t want to derail the thread, but since you brought it up, yes, Piper is COMPLETELY inconsistent here. But those who come from historically reformed traditions have been saying all along that the neo-reformed aren’t really reformed; they just pick and choose what they want to believe out of the system (hint: TULIP does not a Calvinist make).
But I would also like to point out the vast disparity between what Piper says here about salvation and the Bible’s own words –
The Bible never mentions seeing God’s glory, understanding his will, or treasuring this (whatever that means) as a means of escaping damnation. The Bible mentions believing (Romans 10:9), repentance (Acts 3:19), and baptism (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16), but none of the touchy-feely “Christian hedonism” brand that Piper has been pushing for a while.
I say this because it seems that a lot of this conversation is rooted in soteriology and what faith actually is (I believe it is less about believing a set of propositions, and more about having a relationship with God), and what Piper says above clearly excludes infants. The Bible’s own teaching does not exclude infants – when Jesus blessed the little children, he said that unless we receive the kingdom as a little child, we shall not enter into it (Luke 18:16-17; cf. Matthew 19:14, 18:3-6).
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Or at least, doesn’t “Reformed” make: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/how-many-points/
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
This may be old news to most readers here, but I just found an interesting critique of Piper’s so-called “Christian Hedonism” over at iMonk: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-spiral-of-despair-in-christian-hedonism-steve-browns-take-on-john-piper
@ linda:
With respect to your first question, the answer is simple. Make individual human beings THE plumb line of moral value and then there can be NO argument EVER for the murder of infants. Any scenario involving the death of a human being in pursuit of that human being’s own “good” would immediately be an impossible contradiction. That human being’s LIFE is what is GOOD. So it is impossible to say that destruction of it leads to good.
But when mortal value is outside of man…that is when these terrible and evil ideas like killing babies for their own salvation begin to be bandied about.
That we even have a thread this long about it creeps me out. No wonder people scorn Christianity.
I mean look at the implicit assumption of the question “why not kill babies to save them from the chance of going to hell?”:
The assumption is: human existence period is THE cause of evil. As soon as you exist as a person, your evil is absolute…so we merely quibble about what age God actually damns to hell a person for their inherent depravity, as if in light of the assumption, we get to even debate this…it is ridiculous.
The assumption is that the person IS evil whether they actually “do” evil or not. So, again, hell has nothing to do with choice, but everything to do with LIFE.
Human life = evil
That is the inexorable equation that forms the crux of reformed theology. And why I have called it a cult of death worship.
@ Daisy:
Anon 1 wrote:
“Why blame Jesus for those who claim to speak for Him?”
Daisy wrote: “Because obviously the stuff Jesus taught either isn’t true, or does not work; many of those who claim His name don’t even bother to live up to his teachings, so I see little point in hanging on.”
+++++++++++++++
Don’t waste your time with nincompoops. Find one spiritually-minded friend and together pursue God, Jesus, & Holy Spirit.
@ Semeca:
That, Seneca, was for Job and Job alone to realize…and if anyone else comes to that same place as Job came to with God. Since you just used it as a preaching weapon you are not like Job but more like his very wrong friends whom Job was required to pray for.
@ dee:
“I am dumbfounded by the response of some folks to this issue. I spent untold hours reading the history of the salvation of infants. I truthfully thought that this could be discussed in a way to bring understanding to both sides. I tried to be truthful and accurately quote everyone in this debate. I complimented Piper and Mohler for speaking clearly to the matter.”
++++++++++++++++
I think your post is so well-done. The testy comments & whatever point was being made are bewildering & strange.
I’m astonished this is actually an issue to discuss (although I believe you). It is absolutely foreign to me.
By the way, I do miss the piss & vinegar you used to dish out.
dee wrote:
Canons of Dordt
Article 14: Teaching Election Properly
By God’s wise plan, this teaching concerning divine election was proclaimed through the prophets, Christ himself, and the apostles, in Old and New Testament times. It was subsequently committed to writing in the Holy Scriptures. So also today in God’s church, for which it was specifically intended, this teaching must be set forth with a spirit of discretion, in a godly and holy manner, at the appropriate time and place, without inquisitive searching into the ways of the Most High. This must be done for the glory of God’s most holy name, and for the lively comfort of God’s people.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
This brings up an interesting issue. Somebody commented about how some folks think that Augustine was “bad.” Actually, there is a lot of thinking that “christianity” as it has developed over the centuries was from early on has been “contaminated” by a lot of ideas that were not biblical but were derived from various non-christian cultures (including but not limited to Greek philosophy.) And one way that happened is that when people convert they do not leave all their former ideas behind. They bring the ideas with them, perhaps modified somewhat, but not abandoned. Consider, for example, the concern expressed in some catholic circles about the difference between cradle catholics and converts and the perhaps negative influence on catholicism of the number of evangelicals converting to catholicism.
If one says that Augustine, for example, had such a large impact on christian thinking, one has to ask where he got the ideas that caused the “impact.” Sola scripture? apparently not. Dreams and visions? apparently not. Did he see the risen Christ like Paul did? No mention of that. The man was a scholar before and after conversion to “orthodox” christianity and some of his previous ideas impacted the faith to which he converted.
Look at what Augustine said about the mechanism by which he thought original sin/guilt was physically transmitted to the next generation. The pleasure associated with heterosexual reproductive intercourse. So some folks have actually debated as to whether there could be a medical procedure by which the male could contribute a specimen while under anesthesia, and the female could be impregnated by medical means while also under anesthesia (lest even the thought of getting pregnant might be pleasant) then would the infant so conceived by without original sin/guilt?
Good grief! But that is a logical question to ask about one of Augustine’s ideas which took hold in christianity at one time. And that idea of Augustine’s in the first place does have to do with some essential badness of the physical.
I’s just saying, that we cannot think of anyone more highly than we should, including Augustine or whomever.
Anon 1 wrote:
Better answer than mine!
@ Nicholas: There are some conflicting reports on how things were handled through the years. Perspectives on issues are jaded by our doctrinal perspective. Mine as well. I am going to discuss this today as i look at a post RC Sproul to make my point.
Wr have got to be willing to leave our insular community of doctrinal groupies and figure out how to speak to one another. It is my opinion that things are not getting better, but slowly getting worse. If things do not change, the SBC will split.
@ Sopwith:
This is a difficult problem which has plagued the Christian community from the time of the Apostles.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I am currently learning from Roger Olson the vast split in the Reformed community. Some do not affirm the TULIP.
Patti wrote:
Good comment.
elastigirl wrote:
You’ll see a bit of that today. I have been holding back, trying to figure out a way to communicate across the Berlin Wall of “My doctrine is right and your is wrong and you will burn.”
However, did you see my “sons of dogs” comment in the post?
Patti wrote:
Was this a nice way of saying “sinfully craving answers?”
Nancy wrote:
Now that is one heckuva thought!!!And I thought Jim and Tammy Baker were a bit unusual…
dee wrote:
Janet wrote:
@ peter lumpkins:
Peter: You have no quotes or writing from Tom Ascol that show anything but children are born in sin. I see that as Biblical. As usual you are totally bypassing the actual charges that you have made. Your charge as it is here, are that those on the committee who believe infants go to hell. You and Gerald Harris are arguing on the basis of silence from Tom Ascol and Mark Dever. You have no quotes or articles from either of these men to back your claim. That is the point.
As usual you have not proven anything. In this case not answering you is wisdom.
It is a heavy weight, or it should be to destroy a person. It is not anything I relished and is the hardest thing I had to do, though cleaning up of the church is important. To destroy someone just to destroy is something that should be weighed heavily. You know this could destroy based on nothing more than disagreement with theology. To do so with relish, is something just as corrupt as lying or heresy in the church or yes, the Mahaney ordeal which is horrible and should have been brought out.
This however is just beyond my understanding. Destroying with the only evidence being silence. Using other writers to prove that Tom Ascol and Mark Dever believe infants to go to hell, yet not using Ascol and Dever’s own words is beyond my understanding.
In this article and “unknown minister” chided Billy Graham. No one knows if this minister is even Baptist or what his affiliation is.
You have not asked questions, you have made accusations that cannot be backed up except for silence. That is no proof at all, yet you have made how many posts about it?
@ Daisy:
Yep. And that is my point concerning Peter and SBCToday. This is the goal and how they operate. This subject is no different, whether with proof and using any means to do so. And why? Because they think they can. It is dangerous, in my opinion, to give this serious thought or consideration. It’s a few making a lot of noise, again, over nothing.
I would like to see one article, on quote from Dever or Ascol, especially Tom Ascol, that would prove this claim. So far there is nothing. Please do read Peter’s “sources.”
@ Debbie Kaufman:
That should be no proof
@ Debbie Kaufman:
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
I am confused by your comment. I am not sure you have really read Peter’s posts. The questions are being asked and I am confused how that is “destroying” someone. These men were asked to be on a unity committee for whatever reason. Why can’t they answer some questions since they were thought to represent the SBC for “unity”? Why can’t we know why the statement was changed from “all” to “some” and who had a problem with it? If they were put on the committee to represent the SBC why is answering that question a big deal?
Who are the “some” on the committee and why not make their case? Who are those who won’t answer a simple question from an editor of an SBC state publication?
You have been a big advocate of openness and transparency. Why is it ok for this to be a big secret? YOu have also claimed that NO ONE in the SBC believes in infant damnation. The “some” seems to negate your declaration about everyone in the SBC. Everyone on the committee has some leadership role in the SBC from Professor, seminary president to pastor. Why would hiding beliefs be acceptable as a leader?
What I have seen on Peter’s site is a lot of digging into history to see where some of the well known dead guys stood on this issue. They made their views public whether it was Edwards who thinks God throws babies into hell with relish to Spurgeon who finds such thinking repugnant.
Who is being “destroyed” by asking questions? And how can they be destroyed if they are pastors of autonomous churches? I simply do not get it. Your response to this seems to be OTT.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
Debbie, we should not have to “prove” anything. They should simply answer the question with a straight forward answer. It is called leadership.
Don’t forget the book Quiet Revolution is on the Founders site. And most folks should read chapter 4 if they wonder why this has become a concern about transparency and direct truthfulness. Lots of game playing out there, redefining words, etc. It is right in the book as strategy for fooling people.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
RC Sproul Jr.
@ Anon 1: Agreed! The silence is deafening.
Dee and I are getting really irritated at the wall of silence, and you can be sure that we are committed to shining the spotlight on how the Calvinistas dodge questions and redefine theological terms.
Anon 1 wrote:
I have spent hours trying to figure this stuff out. Last night, i was so upset, I asked my husband and Deb, “Why won’t they answer the #%&@ question?” The Bible says that we are to give a reason for the hope that we have.
As you (and most of the followers of religious blogs know) I was incensed by the days of silence by leaders on the SGM abuse claims and lawsuit. I keep the number of those days on this blog as a testimony of those who prefer to keep silent. I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now.
We must be willing to dialog on these issues, even if it means some awkwardness. The statement was changed from *all* to *most.* This is a change in the historical Baptist declarations that i read about for hours. When a change is made, those who requested the change should stand up and be courageous.
I do not get this “I don’t have to tell you” stuff by leaders. Why?
As for destroying people or intentionally telling a lie, I would never, ever want to destroy anyone. I am also willing to correct anything that I have said which is in error if someone could point it out. At the top of this post, I said this:
“The historical record is a bit difficult. It seems like our forefathers changed their minds a lot and some of the record is spotty. I did my best but I bet some of our readers can clarify aspects of what I have written.”
This is a discussion and disagreement about doctrine is a long Protestant tradition. This story is being picked up by groups such as ABP. It is out in the public. It was the ABP article that convinced me to write this post. Once it hits the press, the cat is out of the bag and all parties should work to increase understanding.
Heck, I even did the history of this issue to show that, historically, some leaders believed that infants go to hell and some did not.
I don’t even have a stake in the SBC. I left a few years back. This is an interesting story, it is public knowledge and some leaders have not answered the questions in any fashion that I could find. Why is that? Maybe they are bored and couldn’t care less what anyone thinks on this issue? Perhaps the issue of infant salvation is not important to them? I do not know.
@ Nancy:
Augustine was steeped in the philosophies of his day (more than one). . . if people think he converted without dragging his philosophies into his Christian walk, then they better think again. This link is an interesting read.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/felix
dee wrote:
It is incredibly important to many people, though, isn’t it! We can start with grieving parents first and foremost. And it also has HUGE implications in how one views God. And doctrinal implications as to why the infant could be damnable.
If they believe infants could be damnable, what hope do people have since the SBC does not practice infant baptism as was taught to do save the infant over the millennia? There is not even that as a possible hope. The hopelessness involved in this issue is huge.
I have really been mulling over something you said concerning women pastors and the SBC. Can you imagine the hunt if the situation were women pastors and the writing of the BFM? But that is not about the eternal life of the “least of these”. The most innocent of God’s creatures. That issue is a secondary non salvic issue. Yet, it was treated with the utmost importance.
But thinking back on that makes me realize how drastically the SBC has continued to change….for the worse. The fact we are even discussing this and wondering why some SBC leaders on a “unity” committee won’t answer the question in a direct manner, only proves it. Could we ever be unified on THIS issue? Would it be allowed in the BFM affirming infant salvation like they did disallowing women pastors?
I will take saved babies over women pastors any day.
In Augustine’s Confessions, he denounces his former belief in Neoplatonism, but I wonder how many people actually bother to read primary sources?
I also get the feeling that some people don’t believe that Augustine’s relationship with his mistress was sinful.
Nicholas wrote:
No, his treatment of her AFTER he was saved was brutal and cruel. He would not marry her even though he confessed he loved her. She was from the wrong social strata. They had a child together and he banished her and she was never able to see her son again after living with Augustine and their son for many years.
Conversion does not make us cruel to those we say we love.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, It seems Augustine thought that the sin guilt stuff was transmitted through intercourse. Inherited guilt of Adam’s sin has become a mainstay of much of Christendom. The Jews did not believe this, though.
He may have denounced his time as a Manichean auditor but much of how he wrote about God/Humans seems to have derived from that model. He is not the only one by far but because he wrote in Latin, his position (He was not very good at the Greek) and wrote so much his philosophy became somewhat embedded in Christianity. He was tame compared to what others after him did with it.
A sexual relationship outside of marriage is not true love.
@ Nicholas:
Nicholas, If you think Augustine’s behavior toward his son’s mother AFTER he was converted was right because he had lived with her and had a child with her before marriage was ok, then we have nothing to discuss. We simply disagree. It is that simple.
@ Nicholas:
He loved her but felt that sexual pleasure was evil and his mother had someone else in mind. That relationship also wasn’t his only sexual one. He could have married her AND been a Christian, but celibacy was a the virtue of the day. You weren’t much of a Christian if you didn’t give up what were considered “worldy” pursuits. It’s amazing how much philosophy had intermingled with the teachings of Christ, even in the few hundred years up to Augustine.
BTW – There are 74 footnotes in that essay. And no one said that this one essay was the end all.
Some years ago, there was this essay on the web called “The Christian Sex Cult”. And it mentioned Augustine as a primary originator of this “Christian Sex Cult” (an array of attitudes related to today’s Christianese Modesty/Purity Culture).
The essay claimed that Augustine brought a lot of baggage into his writing and theologizing about sex, and you had to take that baggage into account. Auggie was a real horndog in his younger days, and a monastic-level celibate afterwards. In neither case did he ever have a chance to relate to women as people; before they were sex objects, and afterwards they were The Forbidden Fruit. And that baggage colored his writings about sex (and that baggage was the basis of Medieval teachings about sex, and today’s Purity Culture).
Deb wrote:
Remember Screwtape’s letter to Wormwood regarding redefinition of words and terms into “their diabolical meanings.”
Nya Ha Ha, My Dear Wormwood…
dee wrote:
Remember “diabolical meanings”, My Dear Wormwood.
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
Nancy wrote:
More of Augustine’s sexual baggage. After conversion, he seems to have tried to distance himself as far as possible from his horndog younger days.
Communism begets Objectivism.
Bridget wrote:
And if not, “YOU’RE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM! CAN’T YOU TAKE A JOKE?” is a standard gaslighting tactic.
Why do there have to be answers for everything in the first place? If the Bible doesn’t say, can’t people say, “I don’t know because the Bible doesn’t touch on that subject, but I know God is a just and loving God and He works it out” and leave it at that?
And why do people place such emphasis on what mere Man says? Why do people follow Calvin’s teachings or Augustines’s teachings?
Shannon H. wrote:
For some, who have lost a child or who have come close to losing a child, the answer is vital.
For others, the idea of even leaving open the possibility of a God who allows infants to be tortured for eternity, is beyond imagining.
But other than saying what I quoted, there is no other known Biblical answer. Can it not be comforting enough to know God is loving and just and a person can draw their own conclusions? I don’t understand why a denomination has to take an official stand on having an absolute. Isn’t people coming up with their own imaginary answers, right or wrong–we won’t know on this planet–like what people do that make up religions?
Shannon H. wrote:
It is a position that hangs on the very character of Yahweh. It is not that a denomination has to have an official stand on it. It is that some leaders who want to be followed and were handpicked to be a “unity” committee for a convention that has embraced infant salvation….refuse to answer a simple question.
I always find it strange they want us to heed their preaching/teaching, buy their books and follow their church discipline methods as “Biblical” but when hard question like this is asked, they refuse to answer or are VERY vague.
Remember, they have set themselves up as the “experts” on what is biblical.
I have seen this debate on some pastor blogs and quite frankly, I am astonished at the hard heartedness. It is chilling.
Can one believe God is really that cruel and unjust? Yes, and they claim we are in sin for questioning whether He damns infants or not because we cannot prove it with a proof text. They say He can do what He wants. I say He has revealed His Character and attributes to us. They look for a wooden proof texted verse to claim He saves or damns infants. I look at what Jesus said and did and how He has revealed Himself to us with the Holy Spirit.
This question goes to the heart of something else. Infant damnation says that God actually created beings who are more just and moral than He is because some of those created beings would try and save a baby from such a thing.
I would like an answer from the Southern Baptist Convention leaders. Which of you believes in infant damnation? The leaders of the SBC who destroyed it by attacking any all who would dare support women pastors and/or women leaders–which of you believe this nonsense. Speak clearly please and identify yourselves clearly.
Is this what was once a great and mighty denomination has come to?
@ Shannon H.: Should a denomination take an absolute stand on the Trinity? That one is not spelled out directly in the Bible as well.
In this particular instance, this has been part of the Baptist faith since the 1600s. It is apparent that other theologians and Baptists throughout the centuries believed that all infants who die go to heaven.
Are you asking that such a statement be removed?
And, for many, the fact that God is loving and just makes it impossible to imagine Him torturing an infant for eternity. The loving and just statement is a two edged sword. Remember, a loving and just God destroyed the people groups in the Bible. So, loving and could mean He could torture a baby in hell. To many, that is a horrific possibility to leave open.
Again, those that believe in infant damnation (I DO NOT!)are NOT SAYING that God tortures infants for eternity.
They believe, rightly or wrongly, that just as the NT teaches we were all in Abraham’s loins when he tithed to Melchizadeck (can’t spell it) we were all in Adam’s loins when he sinned, so we all also sinned.
They also believe a person goes to heaven because they have been regenerated by God……who can regenerate a child in the womb just as easily as He can regenerate a 40 year old man.
And then say the unregenerate go to hell when they die. So by logic they say an unregenerate infant would go to hell. That doesn’t mean there are any–just that if there are unregenerate infants who die, that would be their destination.
But AGAIN, they are NOT SAYING those beings would be infants being tortured by God for eternity. They do not necessarily hold to the doctrine of perpetual infancy for them (nor do I).
At what size does a person become someone we would mourn for should they die unregenerate and experience hell? Do we mourn over dead babies and not over dead 46 year olds?
Now, I’m with you guys that hate Calvinism as far as disagreeing with them about this. But accusing them of saying God tortures infants for eternity? I would say tread lightly.
linda wrote:
I think I clearly showed in this post that there are many Calvinists who believe that infants go to heaven. This is not a Calvinist/nonCalvinist issue. It is dealing with a theological point and there were non Calvinists in history who believe infants goto hell as well.
Perhaps I do not understand your statement. I asked you last evening about a statement that appeared to me, in my tired state, that you believe that God does not keep infants as infants and grows them up so that they can receive their punishment. Could you please clarify that comment since it is germane to this discussion.
Perhaps I do not understand your view of hell. Do you not perceive hell as a place of punishment?
Shannon H. wrote:
The first part of this post gives the Biblical reason why I believe in infant salvation.
Sorry I have not read all posts since I last posted here yesterday. (I might read them later or at least some of them.)
I am pro-life. I don’t generally support abortion, not when used as a type of birth control. I would be willing to bet that most Christians who say they believe infants can, or do, go to Hell are also pro-life (anti-abortion).
If that is so, how can they reconcile being anti-abortion to believing that aborted babies (or ones who are miscarried) go to Hell, that God would allow that? It doesn’t seem consistent to me.
It would be interesting to see where the “Yes I believe babies go to Hell” group stand on abortion.
linda wrote:
As a child-less woman, I see a lot of “kid-centricity” going on in our culture and in churches, which can be a little troubling, but in the context of the specific topic under discussion:
I think a 46 year old is a little more culpable than an infant, since the adult has life experience, likely some education, and he or she knows the difference between right and wrong.
So I can see how the idea of a baby (or mentally retarded 46 year old with the mind of a 5 year old) going to hell is more upsetting to most people, than that of a normally functioning adult.
Even the Bible distinguishes on some of this stuff, like regarding death.
That is, if you accidentally took someone’s life, God said in the Old Testament your life should be spared.
If, however, you intentionally sought out to murder someone, if the murder was pre-meditated or intentional, God said your life should be taken.
If God is willing to assign degrees of responsibility, and take into account each situation on a case by case basis concerning adult death, and He does so, I don’t see why He would not also do so in regards to infant vs. adult, in regards to salvation.
You said,
So what does eternal damnation for a baby look like?
Do they get cookies, ice cream, and puppet shows in hell, or what?
Saying that babies who get condemned or damned to hell but that they get Kool-Aid and get to watch Mr. Rogers repeats on TV while they are there sort of takes any meaning out of the words and terms “hell,” “damnation,” and “eternal separation from God” as understood and defined by most Christians, making them meaningless.
(I realize you said you personally don’t subscribe to those beliefs yourself, I’m just tossing out some ideas about them.)
Linda:
Even though you do not believe in infant damnation, those that would, believe in a God I and many others do not. That God would send any infant to Hell–even one– is just not believable to me.
linda wrote:
I believe that was one of the reasons John List gave for murdering his children. It was also the primary reason Andrea Yates gave when she drowned her five kids in the bathtub: I’m a bad mother, I can’t teach them properly, I am sending them to heaven now.
In John List’s case, it was complete self-serving claptrap. He killed his family because he’d lost his job and could not keep his house and he didn’t want them to know. But he left a long whiny letter of explanation for his pastor, saying that his oldest daughter was getting involved with theater at school and by killing her when he did, he saved her from the damnation of a life in entertainment. Andrea Yates was clearly crazier than a sh*thouse rat but one of her delusions involved not being able to keep her children from sin, therefore by killing them so young she sent them straight to heaven.
I was looking at a blog called The Muncks Quiver today and the mother said something about how her 2-year-old was feisty, and then she blamed it on “that sin nature!” I thought, what? Who assigns “sin” to a 2-year-old? The kid is still in diapers, how sinful can she be? Crazy, like all toddlers are, but sinful?
Another example: I have a handicapped niece who is confined to a wheel chair. She is 23 chronologically, but mentally and emotionally I’d say she is about 12. Recently, my MIL decided that my niece had to be baptized into the Catholic Church (some of the family is practicing Catholic and some is not). Her reasoning? My nieces health is precarious because of her handicaps, and if she dies unbaptized she won’t go to heaven. Again, what? She is a total innocent. She’s obnoxious sometimes, like a teenage girl, but…hell? What loving God would consign her to hell for being too hung up on Justin Beiber and wanting an iPhone case with sequins? The kid has never even been kissed by a boy, and you are worried that if she does not go through this ritual she is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire?
I understand that there are theological arguments about it. I just don’t understand how anyone with a heart could think that a 2-year-old is sinful, or a woman who has spent her whole life in and out of hospitals and will never walk or drive a car or go on a date, who is mentally still in 7th grade and always will be–is going to hell if she dies unbaptized. Any God who consigns people like that to the flames, I don’t want any part of that God.
dee wrote:
First, as you know RC Sproul is not Southern Baptist. And this is interesting if true, considering RC Sproul Jr posted this answer to the question of infants and heaven and hell.
http://highlandsministriesonline.org/ask-rc/ask-rc-what-happens-to-babies-when-they-die/
“At what size does a person become someone we would mourn for should they die unregenerate and experience hell? Do we mourn over dead babies and not over dead 46 year olds?”
This is obviously oversimplified but here is a try.
If you believe that we are responsible for the sins we commit and know we commit that could be different for each child whether preteen or older as they become convicted of their sin. (Knowledge of good and evil) If looking for excuses we can read Romans 1. We CAN know good and evil and make choices, thanks to Adam.
Would a 46 year old mentally challenged person also be damned?
if your doctrinal view is that we are born guilty and sinning and cannot help but sin (even our existence is sin) instead of a propensity toward sin,then there is little hope really and gets more complicated because you have to hope for election if you were chosen to begin with. Because you really have nothing to do with it in the first place. You were born sinning and guilty and have no input into it at all. You cannot even repent or believe unless God makes you. It is hopeless unless God happened to choose you before Adam sinned.
In that scenario we can only hope the infant and the mentally challenged were chosen before Adam sinned.
Debbie:
RC Sproul said:”The Scripture is likewise clear that there is only one way for the guilty to be cleared. Their sins must be covered by the blood of Christ. And there is but one way for that to happen. A person must trust in the finished work of Christ alone. If this is true, then our answer is abundantly clear- those babies who trust in the finished work of Christ alone go to heaven when they die. Those babies who do not, go to hell when they die.”
What in the world? A baby must trust in the finished work of Christ alone to go to heaven when they die and those babies that do not go to hell.
I do not for a second believe this.
mot wrote:
Another gem to ponder from RC Jr: “It is His holy habit to bless the children of believers with faith. It’s not a mathematical promise. Sometimes He gives us Esaus. But we do have reason to hope, far more reason than those outside the kingdom who lose children.”
And we all know what God thinks of Esaus– Hate, right? Before the foundations of the world, right?
Sorry if I’m overly snarky here. Seriously, RC Jr and Jonathan have Reasons and Reason on their side. And Consistency, Based on their Doctrine which trumps love. Really, the surprise is that there are so few others like them in our time. Others whose Doctines generally trump love in other areas are, I suppose, reluctant to express this when the subject is dead babies. But they may really agree with R C Jr and Jonathan in their secret hearts.
I think there are those whose beliefs logically and consistently would lead them to deduce that MOST babies go to hell. But they make exceptions– which Jr might call other gospels.
You can tell there’s something wrong with a doctrine when it’s proponents won’t follow it to its logical conclusion and have to make up exceptions to avoid it. If you believe that God, from before the beginning of the world, chose some for heaven and the rest for damnation, then stick to your guns and admit that this then has to include infants and the mentally handicapped – the verses used to support an exception strain credulity – there is no biblical exception for infants and the mentally handicapped to the Horrible Decree (in my mind the Horrible Decree itself is unbiblical, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms)
Sopwith wrote:
Was your courtroom drama inspired by the Puritan mega-bestsller “Day of Doom” by Michael Wigglesworth?
“Then to the Bar, all they drew near
who dy’d in Infancy,
And never had or good or bad
effected pers’nally….”
(Just part of Christ’s judgement upon them:)
“You sinners are, and such a share
as sinners may expect,
Such you shall have; for I do save
none but mine own Elect.
Yet to compare your sin with their,
who liv’d a longer time,
I do confess yours is much less,
though every sins’s a crime.
A crime it is, therefore in bliss
you may not hope to dwell;
But unto you I shall allow
the easiest room in Hell.
The glorious King thus answering,
they cease, and plead no longer;
Their Consciences must needs confess
his Reasons are the stronger.”
(I snarkily add:)
“ThankYouJesus!” is their cry.
“For a cooler Hell-room thou didst die!
We’ll all go there with joy and mirth!
Doing Better Than We Deserve!” (TM)
This was one of a handful of uproarious arguments I had with my Calvinist pastor-father, and this one when I was 16. He believed that children “of the covenant” (those whose parents were believers) would go to heaven and the rest to hell. I told *him* to go to hell and there was trouble in our house for several weeks afterwards.
I will add that when we engage this argument, we are ten thousand miles from our real home where God lives. It is foul-hearted and pin-headed.
We get our sense of justice and mercy from God. If it offends our sense of fairness, then how much more wouldn’t it offend God’s!?
And that’s all I have to say about it.
@ Debbie Kaufman:He says the following
“It is His holy habit to bless the children of believers with faith. It’s not a mathematical promise. Sometimes He gives us Esaus. But we do have reason to hope, far more reason than those outside the kingdom who lose children.”
This is not an answer.he says the hope rests in the fact that the children of the elect go to heaven and the rest may not. This is not the God that I know. I do not believe, for one second, that God condemns one infant child who dies to hell. I believe there is a difference with being born with a propensity to sin as opposed to actively sinning.
As for the ability of a tiny infant to have faith in Christ, that has to be one of the most ridiculous things that I have heard in a long time.
Again, I think there is a whole lot of obfuscation going on. Here is what i think some who are refusing to speak(BTW-some of these guys talk and talk and rarely shut up so why now do they hold their silence?)might believe.
When they say Infants who die go to heaven, they may not mean all infants. I think they mean the infants of the elect. And they are the elect so their babies get to go and the rest of us who are barely Christians had better be worried about our babies.
@ Dave A A: It’s kind of nice proclaiming this doctrine when you are sure that you fit the description of the elect so your children go to heaven. The rest…well..”too bad, so sad.” Too bad God didn’t choose you and your little one.
Patrice wrote:
Sometimes teens can be much smarter than their parents.
Patrice wrote:
Absolutely.
@ dee:
None of us has the ability to have faith in Christ. That is why God intervenes and gives us the ability. There is only one way to heaven according to the Bible and that is faith in Christ. Therefore it’s not ridiculous, I see it as scripture. It is the Gospel. That is the whole message of the Bible from beginning to end.
God is God is God. Nothing limits Him, not even a little infant. He can and does give that child faith in Christ. That infant is born in sin as all of us are, it is not impossible to God as scripture says nothing is impossible for God. Luke 1:37.
There is not more than one way to heaven. There is not two or three or four ways. There is one according to scripture. Ephesians 2:8&9: For by grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” I do believe God gives faith in Christ to an infant for salvation and heaven. God’s character in my view, is also a factor. God speaks of children always as special and I believe He has a special love for infants and children, mentally incapacitated, as He has a special love for Christians.
I read RC Sproul Jr as saying,he doesn’t know but it could be….then he writes what he writes. But his answer is “I don’t know.” That is a reasonable answer while he also gives other views. But RC Sproul is Presbyterian, and while I agree with part of the Reformed theology Presbyterians believe, I am Southern Baptist and my concern lies there.
Given that, my objection is that Tom Ascol and Mark Dever have been targeted as believing infants go to hell, when no evidence has been given. It’s not up to me to prove anything. I didn’t make the accusation, or ask the question , however one wants to put it. They are silent because to deal with this takes up a lot of energy as I know from experience. And then it’s off to the next thing that is going to be an issue. It just never ends. I don’t blame them for being silent. We should know it’s not true. If nothing else, because no current SB has been found to believe infants go to hell. Of course there are 8 million(not 16 million has is used) of us, so there could be a handful or one or two, but not Dever or Ascol.
Touch Thou My Side? : “Part Of My Soul Seekest Thou Earnestly, Claim Thee My Other Half…”
@ Dave A A
hmmm…
Dave AA,
tick,tack, infant toes? …do you wanna be X’s or O’s?
-snicker-
…all things work together, for the ‘good’…?
In the year 2029, the tyrannical ruling super-computer, Skynet, sends an indestructible cyborg back in time to some 4BC to kill da baby Jesus before He can fulfill His destiny and save mankind.
What?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc9RgctrWXI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Homme drôle, Monsieur Sopy!
-snicker-
“Not so on Man; him through their malice fall’n, Father of Mercy and Grace, Thou didst not doom so strictly, but much more to pity incline:
No sooner did Thy dear and only Son
perceive thee purpos’d not to doom frail Man so strictly, but much more to pity inclin’d, He to appease thy wrath, and end the strife Of mercy and Justice in Thy face discern’d, regardless of the Bliss wherein he sat Second to thee, offer’d himself to die For man’s offence. O unexampl’d love,
Love nowhere to be found less than Divine!
Hail Thou Son of God!, Saviour of Men, Thy Name shall be the copious matter of my Song, Henceforth, and never shall my harp Thy praise forget, nor from Thy Father’s praise disjoin.” **
Could b.
(grin)
Sopy
___
** Quote: John Milton, “Paradise Lost”
—
Debbie:
IMO you still leave the door open for an infant to go to Hell. Surely you would not believe God would send an infant to Hell or do you?
Mot:No I do not, given God’s character and the passages I read in scripture concerning what Christ said “Let the little children come to me”, no. But….the Bible is relatively silent on whether children go to heaven or not, so it is conjecture on my part. A conjecture I am sure of in my mind…but conjecture none the less. The Bible is the final authority.
I think it is Seneca who wrote “God is God and I am not”. I agree. And whatever God does is good and just. He is good and just. That is what I believe. I don’t know how much clearer I can be.
In my opinion, I disagree that Peter asked a legitimate question or that he deserves an answer though I have chosen(rightly or wrongly) to discuss it here. It took a magnifying glass when all else failed for Peter and SBCToday.
@ dee:
You may or may not have a child or children who do not come to Christ. There is the doctrine of the age of accountability which to most non-Calvinists such as those at SBCToday or Peter possibly is age 12. I should point that out. That means at the age of 12 a child can go to hell if faith in Christ is not done. Is there much of a difference between what you are asking and this doctrine? In fact the age of accountability was posted in SBCToday as the age of 12. I have problems with that doctrine too, yet most SBC believe this.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
Non-Calvinists believe this as well. They believe that God gives all the prevenient grace with which to act and make a choice. It does not force, it compels but the individual has the capability to refuse. Even many of the Calvinist theologians recognize this fact.
I do not think you can speak for Dever and Ascol. I am inclined to believe that they think that the children of the elect go to heaven and the children of the unelect do not. This is due to extensive reading of their writings over time. I could be wrong and admit that. But, until they speak, I will use the argument others use for infants in hell. They are silent on the matter which means they leave open the possibility.
And I do blame them for being silent. Dever shoots off his mouth on any and all topics. I know because I read his stuff almost every day. And in this he keeps silent?
I am reading Instructions for Local Church Restoration as posted on the Founder’s website. Ad you know, that is Ascol’s baby.
In Chapter 4 Walking Without Slipping,under the section called “clarity,” this document says the following:
Don’t use theological language that is not found in the Bible. Avoid terms like Calvinism, reformed doctrines, doctrines of grace, particular redemption…Most people will not know what you are talking about.. and then they say this “Many who do will become inflamed against you.”
I find this arrogant and condescending and wussy. I believe that silence from some for these folks is a game. I don’t like games. Say it up front and let’s duke it out. Real men can do it.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
I disagree. The Bible is supposedly silent (I disagree ). When it is silent God still acts. The final authority on heaven and earth is Jesus Christ. He knows what is going on. Bit, I digress. I believe the Bible points to all infants going to heaven. I have no doubt on this.
To not say this and to remain silent is to say that there is a possibility that infants go to hell and I do not believe this whatsoever. This outcomes is diametrically opposed to the God who I know.
This is the exact argument that SGM Survivors say that pastors have said to them. They were “sinfully craving answers.” Any question by anyone (even if it is an atheist) is deserving of a response if we believe that we should give a reason for the hope that we had.
And now, add me to the list of illegitimate questioners. I think the question should be answered and you are well aware that Lumpkins and I have had some profound disagreements.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
The Bible does not address the stages of growth and development of a child. I also do not believe it is a science textbook.
Infants are not capable of perceiving of committing sin. Their neurons have not fully developed. Somewhere around the age of 2-3 children begin to understand that there are things they should not do because Mommy and Daddy say so. To say they understand their sin nature at this age is highly questionable. Children are concrete thinkers and begin to abstract thoughts somewhere around the age of 12. I think the age for this is fluid (for some 12, others 14, others 11).
It is also important to understand that they *begin* abstract thinking so it something which develops. We know that the law occasionally allows kids around the age of 15 to be tried as adults because, in their interviews with the teen, they believe he has a developed sense of right and wrong and should be tried on that knowledge.
So, it is just to try a 16 year old for murder (if he is not mentally disable) and it is not right to try a 2 year old for that same act. And any country which tried infants would receive the condemnation of the world.
PS-All three of my kids are committed Christians which should give my Neo-Calvinist critics, who think I am unregenerate, pause.
“It is also important to understand that they *begin* abstract thinking so it something which develops. We know that the law occasionally allows kids around the age of 15 to be tried as adults because, in their interviews with the teen, they believe he has a developed sense of right and wrong and should be tried on that knowledge. ”
I can remember reading several articles about brain development that I found fascinating. Being the peasant I am in science, it was written to my level. :o)
Anywho, The article outlined brainfunctions and age and discussed why many teens and those in early 20’s (generally) are more reckless and risk taking than when they are say, 30 or so. What is it? They showed it was defintely brain development process which is different for each person but you can generalize with groups. And who knows, if we had measured this 500 years ago, it might be different of cultural differences. Perhaps in general terms it is easier to get an 19 year old to run up a hill to attack the fort on order without questioning the tactic than a 35 year old? :o)
I immediately wondered how this might affect age of accountability? I have no idea but it is interesting to ponder.
@ Anon 1:
“….have no idea but it is interesting to ponder.”
Yes, these are things interesting to ponder.
Have pondered upon David’s plea in Psalm 25:7, when he asks the Lord……”Do not remember the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions;…”
Have no sure answer either when we become full adults.
@ dee:
Debbie,
How does God intervene? I thought all which happens is due to Gods sovereign will…that He is “in control”. How then can God intervene on Himself? If man does not posess the ability of choice, this fact must be by God’s willful design. So again, how does God intervene upon His own perfect willful design without contradicting Himself?
@ Argo:
“None of us HAS the ability to choose Christ. That’s why He gives it to us.”
Hmm…Debbie, can you explain how we can have that which you declare we DON’T have? How can none of us have the ability to choose and yet at the same time have it?
Do you mean none of us HAD the ability to choose, but now we do?
And who is “us” and when did we get this ability to choose? At conception? At 25?
@ dee:
I’m pretty sure you knew that I only pasted the content of the canon article and that I wasn’t the commentator but I am just checking.
@ mot:
Anyone who confesses the Heidleberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt, and the Belgic Confession as the true interpretation of scripture and does not at least throw in a clause to say which articles they do not agree with must be counted among the Christians who believe that babies of the non-elect go to hell.
@ Sopwith:
The Milton quote is beautiful- nearly in tears reading it. This after COBL (choking on bagel laughing) at the Arnold video.
Reminded of Tennyson’s “Strong Son of God, Immortal Love, Whom we, who have not seen thy face by faith and faith alone embrace, believing where we cannot prove”
Patti:
You said to me:”Anyone who confesses the Heidleberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt, and the Belgic Confession as the true interpretation of scripture and does not at least throw in a clause to say which articles they do not agree with must be counted among the Christians who believe that babies of the non-elect go to hell.”
In my 39 years as a Christian it never and I mean never occurred to me that some believers believed to babies of the non-elect go to hell.
I am honestly shocked by their belief in a god like that.
The church I grew up in has easy access to easy read links on their website of the three confessions important to all reformed churches that I am familiar with. Just click on beliefs, scroll past the Apostles Creed and click on the confessions.
http://tacomacrc.org/
I just had a memory looking at the picture of the church. I was 4 years old and I was running through the framing of the construction of what was to become the ‘sanctuary’. A big mean man (deacon) practically screamed “NEVER RUN IN THE HOUSE OF GAWD!”
Wow, with that and all the other reformed theology that seems unloving, I don’t have to wonder why the thought of eternity with God was never comforting to me until I got to know God.
Kevin DeYoung:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/09/14/how-did-we-get-the-canons-of-dort/
“Dort simply sought to declare what was “in agreement with the Word of God and accepted till now in the Reformed churches” concerning “Divine Predestination.” With that goal in mind I think the Canons can be counted as a faithful witness and a God-glorifying success.”
Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
Why oh why do we follow our leaders who are just following scholars who are just following dead theologians who who are just following philosophers. Where are the people who call themselves pastors who follow Christ alone.
Be Ye Glad: “Lõõketh Unto Da Hills?”
hmmm…
@ Dave A A:
“Strong Son of God, Immortal Love, Whom we, who have not seen thy face by faith and faith alone embrace, believing where we cannot prove”
e-x-a-c-t-l-y! 🙂
Thy face we pursue, by faith, trusting the content of Thy own words,
Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, who Stand before You continually, know the truth of them.
-snicker-
…so does Satan , Apollyon and Beelzebub , and their hoard, whom Hell was made for.
Gump!
The Harold of God, angel Gabriel who appeared to Mary (Luke 1: 26-38) was recorded saying:
“For there is nothing that God cannot do.” (Luke 1: 37)
As the word(s) of God declares: Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the very innermost recesses of the heart of Man, the things which God has ‘faithfully’ & ‘patiently’ prepared for them that love Him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRHv4L7NY_o&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Prove His words?
hmmm…
wisdom = do them.
Brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope.
huh?
For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him.
Ok.
According to the Lord’s holy word, I can solemnly assure you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
tooooooooooooot!
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,
Kirrrrrrrrrrrrrk! “Testing One, Two…”
yeah!
…with the voice of the Archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Whoa!
After dat, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with themz in da cloudz to meet the Lord in the air!
Yehaaaaaaaaaaa!
And so we will be ever with the Lord,
Therefore gentle kind folks, you do well to encourage one another with these words.
The Lord who has called you, dearly beloved, is faithful…
(Wittiness the ‘distinguishing’ marks upon His person when you behold Him! )
(grin)
*
(fast forward…)
Thy word have I forsaken, that I might do as I please?
Shreeeeeeeeeeeeeetch!
What?
For My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. ~ The Almighty
(sadface)
If God has magnified His Word above all else that His name represents, then it would seem that what the Scriptures actually say would be considered ‘somewhat’ important?
hmmm…
Thy words have I faithfully hid in mine heart…
…that I might rememba’s you alwayz,
…n’ that I’ze might behold Thy sweet, sweet face, some day…
hum, hum, hum…
Sin, n’ Death… where is Thy sting?
Ha Ha!
hmmm…
…that folk should a’ rise from da dead, at all, some future day, should astonish at the very least, some of us?
…me, a ramblin’ Rose?
(grin)
Could b.
(the zeal of my Father’s house has eaten me up?)
ba, ba, ba, Bountiful blessings youze way cometh!
Sopy
—
dee wrote:
As I said in a post up above, God distinguishes on this stuff among adults…
If an adult accidentally kills another adult God says in the Old Testament that person’s life is to be spared.
If the murder was intentional, then, God said, the adult murderer’s life was to be taken.
If God distinguishes levels and degrees of responsibility in such matters, and takes motivation into account, I would say He probably does the same thing in regards to a person’s age, maturity, and understanding in regards to soteriology.
God does not issue one blanket rule for all murder cases; he makes room for differences.
I don’t see why God would then operate under a totally different set of procedure and automatically send all babies to Hell.
Why would God show compassion to someone, an adult, guilty of man slaughter, but then show less compassion to a baby?
To turn around a comment I saw above, about, God isn’t going to let a baby get off for being just a baby (or youth is not excuse), the flip side is God is punishing a baby just for being a baby.
You’re saying the baby’s age is the reason why they are going to hell (because they are not old enough to make a conscious or well thought out decision for Jesus as Savior). They’re being condemned for not being adults.
(I know some Calvinists would want to bicker it’s about being elect vs. non elect, but really, at the end of the day, you’re saying God condemns babies for being babies. That’s how I’m reading it, despite any arguments to the contrary about God gets to choose whomever He may will.)
@ Debbie Kaufman:
I agree that the Bible teaches salvation comes through faith alone in Christ alone.
However, other than this “are babies saved?” issue, there is also the similar one about, “what about people who never hear of Christ, like the natives who wear grass skirts and use blow darts who live in jungles, are they automatically condemned to Hell?” question.
The book of Romans touches on that topic a little.
While the Bible teaches Christ is the only way to salvation, there seem to be hints and clues in some portions of Scripture that God takes every one on a case by case basis, that He will judge them on what light and understanding they did have, if they never heard of Jesus.
I think it safe to extrapolate from that scenario, that this also applies to those who were too young to understand the Gospel message – as with small kids, babies, and the mentally handicapped.
This may mean that people who do not explicitly hear the Gospel, or who cannot understand it, may get into heaven when they die. Perhaps Christ’s atonement covered those situations, and/or God is far more gracious than we often assume.
However, I am not a ‘Rob Bell’ type person: I’m not saying anyone and everyone gets in to Heaven.
If you have a normally mentally functioning 35 year old atheist adult who hears the Gospel but who makes the decision to reject Christ, or who later runs off and worships ‘Xenu’ as God, no, I don’t think that sort of person will receive an eternity with God.
(In other words, I’m not a Universalist, nor do I think Hell is an allegory, nor am I an Annihilationist. I do not think all religions are equal, all contain complete truth, or that all religions lead to salvation and God.)
Patti wrote:
That’s funny considering the Apostle Paul compares living the Christian faith to running a race, so you’d think that dude would be all for running.
Also, YOU are the “house of God,” not a brick building. The Holy Spirit indwells people who accept Christ.
@ Sopwith:
🙂
Patti wrote:
I was 17 and was walking through the church holding my palm branch by my side on Palm Sunday. I was stopped by two ladies sayingI was being disrespectful and that I needed to hold the palm branch reverently draped across my the palms of my hand.
@ Patti: I believe that this declaration is what is behind the silence of the Baptist on the Calvinism Advisory Com although I may be proven wrong and will gladly print that both Dever and Ascol believe all infants will be in heaven.
Patti wrote:
Me too. Went to Bible School at the mega-church a few blocks up the street.
@ Daisy:
Daisy,
You are reading it correctly. You have correctly discerned that election can have nothing to do with it.
Excellent thinking.
@ Argo:
To expand on the linked post if I may, Argo, add another question to it:
How do you know if God intervened to give you the power to make the decision or if you have simply fooled yourself into thinking that he has due to your totally depraved sin nature that you can’t control?
—–
I don’t like such statements. Not due to the relative truth or fiction of them but mainly because they are tired cliche platitudes spouted off time and time again with no meaning. They only serve to create a torrent of questions that all stem from a root question: “what are you even talking about?!”
@ Dave A A:
O wow, it was the People’s Church back in my day, then Cascade? Now Champion Center? I haven’t been down that road in years.
“I AM the resurrection and the life,
He who believes in Me,
…shall never die.” ~Jesus
…let us pray,
We are gathered here today Oh! Lord (to where ever possible…) to bring to a proper ‘rest’ to infants dearly departed (in times past) –into your precious care. Buried in death, in corruption, to be raised in the last day, at the trump of God to incorruption, to the world to come, to life everlasting, wherein the holy scriptures we find our great hope; not necessarily knowing not in this hour, the circumstances of their deaths nor of surety, the disposition of their eternal souls, we commit them earnestly into your care; we take comfort that You know both their disposition and their circumstances.
*
MERCIFUL God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the life; in whom whosoever believeth shall live, though he die; and whosoever liveth, and believeth in him, shall not die eternally; who also hath taught us, by his holy Apostle Saint Paul, not to be sorry, as men without hope, for them that sleep in him: We meekly beseech thee, 0 Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; that, when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him, as our hope is this our brother doth; and that, at the general Resurrection in the last day, we may be found acceptable in thy sight; and receive that blessing, which thy well-beloved Son shall then pronounce to all that love and fear thee, saying, Come, ye blessed children of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world: Grant this, we beseech thee, 0 merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.
In the language of ‘Shakespeare’, the following ‘prayers’ are offered:
I AM the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. St. John xi. 25, 26.
KNOW that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shalt stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another. Job xix. 25, 26, 27.
We bring nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the Name of the Lord. 1 Tim. vi. 7. Job I. 21.
Psalm 39 :
I SAID, I will take heed to my ways: that I offend not in my tongue.
I will keep my mouth as it were with a bridle: while the ungodly is in my sight.
I held my tongue, and spake nothing: I kept silence, yea, even from good words; but it was pain and grief to me.
My heart was hot within me, and while I was thus musing the fire kindled: and at the last I spake with my tongue;
Lord, let me know mine end, and the number of my days: that I may be certified how long I have to live.
Behold, thou hast made my days as it were a span long: and mine age is even as nothing in respect of thee; and verily every man living is altogether vanity.
For man walketh in a vain shadow, and disquieteth himself in vain: he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shall gather them.
And now, Lord, what is my hope: truly my hope is even in thee.
Deliver me from all mine offences: and make me not a rebuke unto the foolish.
I became dumb, and opened not my mouth: for it was thy doing.
Take thy plague away from me: I am even consumed by means of thy heavy hand.
When thou with rebukes dost chasten man for sin, thou makest his beauty to consume away, like as it were a moth fretting a garment: every man therefore is but vanity.
Hear my prayer, 0 Lord, and with thine ears consider my calling: hold not thy peace at my tears.
For I am a stranger with thee: and a sojourner, as all my fathers were.
0 spare me a little, that I may recover my strength: before I go hence, and be no more seen.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.
Psalm 30 :
I will extol thee, O Lord; for thou hast lifted me up,
and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me.
O Lord my God, I cried unto thee,
and thou hast healed me.
O Lord, thou hast brought up my soul from the grave:
thou hast kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit.
Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his,
and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.
For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life:
weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.
And in my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved.
Lord, by thy favour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong:
thou didst hide thy face, and I was troubled.
I cried to thee, O Lord;
and unto the Lord I made supplication.
What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit?
Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth?
Hear, O Lord, and have mercy upon me:
Lord, be thou my helper.
Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing:
thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness;
to the end that my glory may sing praise to thee,
and not be silent. O Lord my God, I will give thanks unto thee for ever.
Lamentations 3:31-33 :
For the Lord will not cast off for ever:
but though he cause grief,
yet will he have compassion
according to the multitude of his mercies.
For he doth not afflict willingly
nor grieve the children of men.
Domine, refugium. Psalm 90:
LORD, thou hast been our refuge: from one generation to another.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever the earth and the world were made: thou art God from everlasting, and world without end.
Thou turnest man to destruction: again thou sayest, Come again, ye children of men.
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday: seeing that is past as a watch in the night.
As soon as thou scatterest them, they are even as a sleep: and fade away suddenly like the grass.
In the morning it is green, and groweth up: but in the evening it is cut down, dried up, and withered.
For we consume away in thy displeasure: and are afraid at thy wrathful indignation.
Thou hast set our misdeeds before thee: and our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.
For when thou art angry all our days are gone: we bring our years to an end, as it were a tale that is told.
The days of our age are three-score years and ten; and though men be so strong, that they come to fourscore years: yet is their strength then but labour and sorrow; so soon passeth it away, and we are gone.
But who regardeth the power of thy wrath: for even thereafter as a man feareth, so is thy displeasure.
So teach us to number our days: that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.
Turn thee again, O Lord, at the last: and be gracious unto thy servants.
O satisfy us with thy mercy, and that soon: so shall we rejoice and be glad all the days of our life.
Comfort us again now after the time that thou hast plagued us: and for the years wherein we have suffered adversity.
Shew thy servants thy work: and their children thy glory.
And the glorious Majesty of the Lord our God be upon us: prosper thou the work of our hands upon us, O prosper thou our handy-work.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.
1 Cor. 15. 20. :
NOW is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s, at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead? and why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
I protest by your rejoicing, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not: for some have not the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body, as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory.
So also is the resurrection of the dead: It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, (for the trumpet shall sound,) and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality; then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 0 death, where is thy sting? 0 grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
MAN that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of misery. He cometh up, and is cut down, like a flower; he fleeth as it were a shadow, and never continueth in one stay.
In the midst of life we are in death: of whom may we seek for succour, but of thee, O Lord, who for our sins art justly displeased?
Yet, O Lord God most holy, O Lord most mighty, O holy and most merciful Saviour, deliver us not into the bitter pains of eternal death.
Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts; shut not thy merciful ears to our prayer; but spare us, Lord most holy, O God most mighty, O holy and merciful Saviour, thou most worthy judge eternal, suffer us not, at our last hour, for any pains of death, to fall from thee.
We therefore commit these infants bodies to the deep, tturned into corruption, looking for the resurrection of the body, (when the Earth and the Sea shall give up her dead,) and the life of the world to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who at his coming shall change our body, that it may be like his glorious body, according to the mighty working, whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.
*
OUR Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil. Amen.
a concluding prayer is heard:
ALMIGHTY God, with whom do live the spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord, and with whom the souls of the faithful, after they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity: We give thee hearty thanks, for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our brother and sister out of the miseries of this sinful world; beseeching thee, that it may please thee, of thy gracious goodness, shortly to accomplish thy grand purposes, and to hasten thy glorious kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of thy holy Name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in thy eternal and everlasting glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
THE grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.
*
Encourage one another of the resurrection to come, and the return of Christ Jesus, our Savior while these infants , and all those faithfully departed, sleep beneath the Earth and Sea, waiting for the last trump of God.
…concluded with a video, “I Am the Resurrection” by WORDology :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aMn3avhn6E&feature=youtube_gdata_player
*
“I HEARD a voice from heaven, saying unto me, Write, From henceforth blessed are the dead which die in the Lord: even so saith the Spirit: for they rest from their labours.” ~The Apostle John on the Island of Patmos.
Blessings!
Sopy
___
http://www.ftdimg.com/pics/products/S34-4515_330x370_premium.jpg
—
@ JustSomeGuy:
JSG,
Greta question. Excellent point.
Peter Lumpkins (and others) don’t know what they’re talking about when they disagree with the deterministic theological paradigms of Debbie Kaufman. She can’t defend the argument of silence (i.e. failure to accept Christ as primary criterion of biblical interpretation)so she goes vitriolic.
Excellent point Jeff. I like it.
Where in the world did Pete Lumpkins ever specifically state that he thought the age of accountability was “12”. I’m all over his site and I’ve never seen that.
A “god-glorifying success” until you take an actual look at world history under the deterministic influence of reform Calvinist theology from Geneva to the Netherlands, Africa, Reconstruction in the South following Civil War right up through the American Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 60’s.
Wish these YRR’s had decent history professors anymore.
VITRIOL EXHIBIT A
Peter will out and out lie if it serves his purposes. To him and SBCToday, the ends justifies the means. They are dirty players who will stop at nothing to get a win in the end no matter the casualties, which is how the Convention at what time was under their thumb. That is thankfully no longer the case. I saw for a few years how bloody they are. Now is no exception except that no one, including me is willing to engage in their tactics.
Scott
Would you please explain to me how he has lied in this particular instance?
Get a clue. Scott is pasting vitriol from Debbie Kaufman that you left unchallenged but now you think Scott is posting it and you challenge him? Yeah your a hypocrite – when your friends go all Calvinazi you let it slide, but you think it’s ok to jump on one you don’t know.
Dee:
It was an ill-fated attempt to refer to a previous posting of Debbie Kaufman. Not my comments about Peter….hers.
Wrong buttons obviously. See also previous reference to vitriol.
@ Scott Shaver: Scott
I have been out in the sun all day and misread your comment. Mea culpa.
get a clue
I do not know if your have ever run a blog in which you get a boatload of comments.Today I was at a retreat. I greeted the people who arrived, most of whom I did not know. I met about 100 people in a two hour period. Later in the day, I forgot I had met several of the folks and needed to apologize. They all laughed because they knew how hard it is to keep everyone straight.
I was away all day and tried to read through all the comments. I misread Scott and I have already apologized. I hope you will cut me a break. I am doing my best.
Well now you know it was Debbie spewing her hatred against SBC Today and Peter Lumpkins. I’ve somehow missed you demanding she tell you what they’ve lied about as you were demanding of Scott. Or is that unwarranted personal attacks and vitriol against certain people is acceptable to you?
@ get a clue:
Debbie was asked earlier in the thread by Dee to state the lie she was referring to.
@ get a clue:
You are most rude. This blog has been as even handed and as open to comments as any that exists in the blog world. And until you regularly deal with 500 plus comments on 3-4 posts per week, and handle them as well as they do, you have no basis for complaining.
You people seriously need to get off your self righteous high horses and stop making excuses. You are no different than any other blog and your “blog queens” aren’t any better even though they go on and on about this blog being somehow different. This blog is guilty of the same actions that are constantly denounced here. People are able to outright slander others with no push back at all and when it gets pointed out – excuses! Should others be shown the same grace you’re now demanding. No of course not because you all are so much better than everybody else in the blogosphere. GET. A. CLUE.
get a clue wrote:
Not Debbie mentioning “vitriol”, it was me mentioning the vitriol of Debbie against Pete et al. LOL
dee wrote:
Not your fault … mine for not knowing how to handle the format. I’m feeling much better now.
get a clue wrote:
Perhaps the reason some infuriate you is because they do have “clues”.
get a clue wrote:
That would be me highlighting the vitriol of Debbie against Pete et al. See Vitriol Exhibit A
get a clue wrote:
My position is that I started this whole thing inadvertently by calling attention to the vitriol of D.Kaufman toward Peter Lumpkins. Dee had nothing to do with what I posted and owes me apologies for nothing. She might pity my lack of familiarity with the format. Additionally, I never took one aspect of her subsequent comments to me at any point as being that of someone poised for attack. Just sayin.
Scott Shaver wrote:
Darn…..not Dee mentioning Vitriol. Me mentioning vitriol of D.Kaufman
Scott Shaver wrote:
This post was a response by S.Shaver to a previous comment by Kevin DeYoung
Arce wrote:
Perhaps Debbie and getaclue are twins? Debbie was rude not only about this post but made serious statements she can’t back up.
get a clue wrote:
[citation needed]
get a clue wrote:
I am going to ask you to document the slander on this blog. Please do so using the correct definition which means to purposely tell a lie in order to harm another person. The Bible does agree with this interpretation.
Before you comment again, I do need this documentation. Slander is a legal term and I am sure that you are well versed in the ramifications of such an accusation.
Since the two of are committed to never telling a lie in our writing, we are most concerned by your accusations.
@ Anon 1: Using the sing on information, I can tell you that they are highly unlikely to be the same person.
@ dee:
Dee, it was a metaphorical bad joke. Sorry!~
I will point out that Debbie never backed up what she accused Peter of lying about either.
Anon 1 wrote:
Nothing new about that. She very rarely backs up her tirades against Pete with anything of substance.
dee wrote:
I am so sorry. I meant sign on info.
@ dee:
Information CAN be sung, too. :o)
There is no slander on this blog, or any blog for that matter, nor will there ever be.
Slander is spoken, in print it’s libel. – J Jonah Jameson
;p
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Potatos, Potatoes, what’s your point?
Scott Shaver wrote:
This blog has addressed that slander/libel issue, including doing an entire post on the subject.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/03/18/slander-or-an-inconvenient-truth/
The confusion on the terms is due to hyper authoritarians pastor who do not know slander from libel from hard truth. It basically means “I don’t like what you are saying.”
Since it is a legal term, I agree with Just Some Guy that it should be used with caution and accuracy.
@ JustSomeGuy: Besides, slander in the mouths of church leaders usually means “I don’t like what you are saying even if it is true.”
There is among theologians, the “age of accountability” whereby a child comes out from parental authority and becomes accountable to God. Paul wrote of this to the Galatian believers.
Since God is a God of order and logic (howbeit not man’s logic to be certain) it is inconsistent with the character of God to condemn to to Hell those who lack the capacity to choose, I.e., babies, and I would believe the mentality disabled. Those who haven’t heard the Gospel have sufficent witness in the created world to acknowledge a Creator. (Romans 2). When the Gospel was shared with Hellen Keller, she replied, “I always knew He was there, I just didn’t know His name.” And she, of course, was blind to the witness of creation.
The real argument isn’t’ whether babies or the mentally disabled or pigmies in Africa are going to Hell; the real argument is whether you, having heard the Gospel, what decision are you going to make?
It is the refuge of the ignorant to resort to name calling.
@ get a clue: I have asked politely. I need an answer to this question. Please document the libel. As for Debbie, I asked her the same question about Peter and would like an answer.
Finally, you need to explain what you mean by Enid Cult. I love Wade Burleson and the people of his church. We differ on some points of theology.
I will put your comments into moderation until i receive your documentation of lies.
Comment removed by editor pending documentation,
get a clue
If you would look at the top of the post on RC Sproul, you will see some changes in our comment policy. If you could calm down and think, guess what precipitated that? As for being called hypocrites, so what? We have been called worse so it is not that which causes you to go into moderation. We have allowed you great latitude. As for my response to Debbie, it means far more than you think it means but you are just too upset to think about it.
You are officially put on ice for 2 weeks. You will be let back after that time but you will always be moderated which means your comments will get through but it will take a little time. We are faithful to our word. Ask Seneca and Mark-neither of whom are part of our vast base of fans….
This means that your second comment will not be approved/
dee wrote:
Makes sense to me and once again appears I need to read the whole thread.
One comment removed by editor.
Dee, Matt 5:11-12
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
NKJV
Those who would stand for the truth will be persecuted by those who seek to pervert it.
Keep up the good work that God has called you to.
randall
Thank you for such a kind comment.
@ dee:
And my reply is that we have talked and you shouldn’t even have to ask. However, you may go to any post on Peter’s blog, from the first to the last, and that will be my answer.
I will add a retraction. The posts on Mahaney were accurate and he did have a major part in an important resolution, but as his tweets to Amy show, even that was on his terms and does not include a blanket on all pedophiles hidden by the church. This will be my final comment, because I cannot read anymore from this blog at this time. It’s going in a direction in the next posts that I in all conscience cannot support.
I will always love and respect Dee and Deb and so many things they have uncovered, the direction now however is in my opinion and lack of a better word, horribly misdirected.
With all the love and grace through Christ I can muster right now, I think Dee and Deb are becoming the very thing they hate in the spiritual abuse department.
If that’s all the love and grace through Christ you can muster Debbie, my queston would be where’s the power?
Debbie
I am so sorry that you feel that way.
@ Scott Shaver: I do hope this will prove to everybody that we are apparently equal opportunity offenders in the idea department. We get excoriated in the anti-Calvinist blogs because we support certain pastors. We get slammed on Neo-Calvinists blogs because we support certain non-Calvinist ideas.
Remember this moment.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
Think through how this was handled. Who is still being allowed to comment and who is not?
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
Huh? Can women pray in the pulpit? Mental illness is cured by Bible reading and prayer? The Elephant Debt video? These are some of the subjects we are discussing next. These topics are not supported by you? But I thought these were important to you.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
I want to remind you that we supported your stand against Ergun Caner and even wrote a limerick to poke fun at Peter for his stand on the matter. I do not approve of his comments to Amy who we supported long before many others.
But I am glad he stood up on the resolution on child sex abuse. He did something many others do not seem to have been able to do. Good for him.
An important part of my faith walk is trying to to find points of agreement. It is on those points that sometimes we can grow to understand one another.
In keeping with your suggestion, i just went over to Peter’s blog. Here is what I found.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/09/southern-baptist-publication-society-the-human-being-that-dies-in-infancy-will-be-saved-but-not-thro.html
Here is my question. There is nothing wrong with this post. Do I throw out everything he has written because I deeply disagree with him on Caner and Prestonwood? Oh yeah, and I do like to have a good glass of wine on occasion.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
I am left speechless by your comment, Debbie.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
You share the same pastor as this blog. Doesn’t that tell you something?
Joy Huff wrote:
I was a part of CJs cult since 1978. And this joining together concerns me more than anything else. The damage that could be done by the two of them could be serious.
Joy: I find your testimony fascinating. Looking back on those years would you say that your impression of the nature and character of God was characterized more by a sense of His indifference to the “non-elect” or a sense of his compassionate and active desire to reach any and all?
Also, if you’re so kind to grant, would you say that period in retrospect was characterized more by a sense of brass-ceiling heaviness or a sense of better understanding and individual purpose (spiritually speaking)?
Thank you for sharing.
@ Anon 1:
What is meant by the term “spiritual abuse”
Scott Shaver wrote:
I’m sorry Anon 1, that question was meant for Debbie Kaufman
2 comments were not allowed. Sometimes I want to give up and spend my days playing cool sports like bocce, croquet, and jai alai. G’night all.
@ dee: You could also try Angry Birds (on your phone). there’s even a space-themed AB game, though it’s tough!
I enjoy popping pigs, I must admit.
@ dee: Jai alai is pretty brutal, y’know! Very, very hard on the shoulders, among other things. Definitely a *huge* step up from croquet and bocce.
@ numo:
Yeah, but it sounds cool, especially when you are getting beat on behind the scenes. Perhaps shoulder injury would be easier. However, it is morning, and my spirits are back to normal. Ready to take on weird doctrine and abuse once again!
@ dee:
You’re doing an excellent job of it, Dee. It took me years to learn how to handle those few angry class-destabilizing students with the intractability and equanimity (hard-fought) that you are presenting in these threads.
And it’s draining. Chocolate is needed.
Hester wrote:
Because the fruit of Calvinism is rotten… Calvinism was a horrible answer to corruption in the catholic Church.
WATER BAPTISM, DO INFANTS QUALIFY?
Are infants proper candidates for baptism? Do babies meet the requirements to be baptized? The short answer is no.
Acts 8:26-40 ….36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized? 37 [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”]
Unlike the Ethiopian eunuch; babies cannot believe with all their heart. Infants cannot make the confession, that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. Babies do meet the requirements for water baptism.
DAY OF PENTECOST
Acts 2:22-37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
There were no infants baptized on the Day of Pentecost. Why not?
1. They could not believe in Jesus the Nazarene.
2. Infants could not believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
3. Babies could not realize that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.
4. Infants could not be pierced to the heart, nor could they ask, ” Brethren, what shall we do?”
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them,”Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Infants do not need to repent; because they have no sin to repent from. Repentance means to turn from sin and turn toward God. Infants are not candidates for water baptism.
Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
There were no infants added to the church that day. Why not? Because babies could not receive Peter’s word. Infants are not capable of understanding the gospel. Infants are not qualified to be baptized in water.
THE JAILER AND HIS HOUSEHOLD SAVED
Acts 16:31-34 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household…..33…..and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 ….having believed in God with his whole household.
The jailer and his whole household believed before they were baptized. There were no babies baptized. Infants are not capable of believing. Infants are not qualified to be baptized.
THERE IS NO BIBLICAL RECORD OF ANY CHRISTIAN THAT WAS BAPTIZED BEFORE THEY BELIEVED.
INFANTS CANNOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST. THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO BE IMMERSED IN WATER.
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com
@ dee:
I had undeniable proof against Ergun Caner. I made sure it was true and iron clad before I posted anything. I also made sure that I was respectful in dealing with Ergun. At that time my goal was the hope that he would repent. He did not, but that was my goal. It was not something easy for me to do. I am still grieving that he has not repented. He seemed a good minister before 9/11 and his rise to fame based on a lie.
You can go after the bad guys in even reformed theology. They are there. They are there in Fundamentalism. Tom Ascol is not one of them, with no proof to contrary. It is not a matter of my picking and choosing. If there is corruption in those who share the same doctrine I do, it should be exposed. I hoped you knew me better than that. But… with no proof, Tom Ascol is who he says he is, he is a man of good reputation who I think you are trying to tear down needlessly with no proof. Again and again I have stated this is my objection. This is what I cannot in all good conscience support. Tearing down with no proof. Here I think it is seriously lacking. Thus my above statements.
I say all this with the deepest respect for both Dee and Deb, who I will always consider my friends.
Peter Lumpkins should not be partnered with as his past and present has shown that he is unsavory in his methods and he doesn’t care if it’s true or not. Not one post has he proven Tom Ascol is a man of anything less than good integrity. This is also something I can not support, having read and dealt with Peter for the past 6 or so years. He is not someone I think can be trusted. And I don’t say that about very many people.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
Once again, I ask you. How did we “tear him down?” We asked a question. There were two people on that committee for which I (I repeat, I) could not find what they believed aboutto a simple question. What do they believe about the disposition of the souls of infants who die?
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
I do not care if Richard Dawkins, Joel Osteen, or Lady Gaga asked the question. It is a question that deserves an answer. At this point, it has nothing to do with Peter Lumpkins. It has to do with ME. It is now my question.
Who said anything about Ascol’s integrity? I just asked about his answer to this question. Many well known leaders throughout history believed that unbaptized infants or infants or non-elect or all infants who die go to hell. It does not speak to their integrity. It merely speaks to their belief system. I did not equate integrity to doctrinal belief so i do not get where this is coming from.
Peter Lumpkins said that he thought there were some in the SBC who wanted the Calvinist resolution changed from “all” to “most” in the SBC believe that infants who die go to heaven. The stated belief that all infants who die go to heaven could be found for all but Ascol AND Dever , he surmised the change in wording may have came from either both or one of those men.
I am concerned that you are focusing exclusively on Ascol. Are you not concerned that Dever was in that mix? You have not spoken to Dever once.
Everyday, I scan about 50-60 websites and news organizations. I have been known to take statements from atheists, Hindus, agnostics, liberals, conservatives, gays, 6 day creationists, Planned Parenthood, Anglicans, IFB folks, Stephen Hawking, Mike Huckabee, Petter Enns, Bob Jones University, Berkley, the Christian Post, Westboro Baptists, the Church of the Wells, Roger Olson, Al Mohler, the Daily Beast, Wade Burleson, John Piper, Talbots, and on and on and on and on.
The fact that I choose to discuss a question raised by one of these sites does not necessarily mean that I endorse, or not endorse, the individual’s lifestyle, beliefs, manner, shoes, hairstyle, sport’s team or favorite beer. I pick what interests me and I write about it.
You can be sure that I read a whole bunch of stuff by both Ascoll and Dever and could not find their answer to the question. I am sure both of them would be nice to share a pizza with. But, I still would like an answer. Period.
Dee, @ dee:
Good for you. Keep standing up for your inherent fairness to everyone, and for your willingness to ask people to answer questions that arise from their choosing to serve in certain roles. Your query is most reasonable, and the refusal to answer is most unreasonable. My question: What are Ascol and Dever trying to hide? Could it be that they either have an answer that will cause some dissension in their church or other organization? Or is it that they have not come to an answer on the matter as yet and wanted to leave the SBC in a position of openness on this issue?
Of course, it is not in the nature of the “leaders” in the SBC to leave any issue open to the laity to choose for themselves, unless there is a significant difference of opinion among their “leadership” peers. (BTW, it is my opinion that anyone acting as a “leader” and making decisions for others without the overt consent of the laity is violating a direct command of Jesus.
Dee: I think you know the answer to your own question. It reads as an implication that Tom and Dever’s silence is wrong and means that they believe infants go to hell. That is meant by Peter’s posts as well. I think you are smart enough to know this. Good grief. It’s wrong. I would be silent too.
An attorney: There is not a conspiracy theory behind each rock That’s just paranoia.
I am against Dever’s stand protecting Mahaney. But this has nothing to do with that. I believe in bringing things out if there is proof enough to do so. It does ruin people and you of all people should know that. I never did that and would not. I as a Christian am held to a higher standard. I take that seriously and don’t “out” people just to have something to write or whine about. And frankly, I think the video in which Dever answered is a good answer. It should be an answer to your question. But if it isn’t oh well.
I just think Christians, whether leaders or not, are held to a higher standard and I am having a hard time seeing it in this post.
The past, if true, as so many things are taken out of context and I can’t find any of the quotes from the 1800’s, have nothing to do with now. We evolve in our understanding of scripture over time, and some, even in the 1800’s got it right. We may be wrong. I am sure in what I believe, and as I read scripture over the years, I am even more sure. But if you can find one quote from either Tom or Dever, or any time they have taught that infants go to hell, I can concede. But I haven’t found any. That is my problem. This is all based on silence and guessing. That is the problem and where great damage can be brought to Tom Ascol who has done nothing, other than be reformed in doctrine. A doctrine I happen to believe as well for the most part.
As for Peter, I have stated my view on that and can’t clarify it any further. Peter is after power for Fundamentalists and to be quite honest I don’t want the eldership view as part of the convention, but I do not want Fundamentalists either. I really don’t. You are giving Peter more power than he should have. That is a huge problem. Everything he attempts to lay on the Reformed is everything those who line up with Peter believe. I don’t think you get that. He is just as abusive toward others as those he claims to be against. He is no different. So yes, there is a huge problem with him asking this question.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
It doesn’t.
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
Then I am stupid because I do not know this. I was called a “prig” the other day by a godly member of James MacDonald’s church.
@ dee: However, my mother thinks I am smart…
@ Debbie Kaufman:
Now I am getting weary of this conversation. You can go at Peter all day long, say all kinds of things about him with impunity and you will not allow me the benefit of the doubt when I ask a simple question? Then you imply that I am stupid because I “should be smart enough” to see what I am saying?
This has nothing to do with Peter. This is my question and I would appreciate it if you address this to me and stop with the Peter tirade. Go over to his blog, call him or email him and tell him what you think. However, we all got your message. You can’t stand Peter and you love Tom Ascol. You made your point.
In the meantime, you can call me stupid, whatever. I am used to it. Please do not call my readers paranoid or any other name. An attorney is a thoughtful man. He and they are asking the same questions that I ask. They are discussing the issue of salvation of infants.If you do not like it, do not read any further. However, the discussion will, and can, continue. But it will continue without further discussion of your disdain for those who ask such questions. Enough. We got it the last volley.
@ Debbie Kaufman:
No one said anything about a conspiracy, except YOU, Ms. Kaufman. You have been on a tirade, most unreasonably, about Dee merely asking what one of these two mean believe. In fact, most of the lineage about Ascol is your comments or response to your comments, so start pointing your fingers to yourself on this one. Same for the commentary about Lumpkins. No one here, except you, has mentioned anything about anyone being dishonest on the issue of whether infants go to heaven or hell, and that whole discussion began with the report of a group on which the named individuals served.
Methinks the lady protesteth too much, and is finding error where none exists.
An Attorney
My om called it “getting a bee in your bonnet.” Sorry about the level of discussion. You are not paranoid. I am rarely paranoid. My husband thinks I am when picking out fresh fish to cook. I grew up on the ocean and am a bit picky…
Debbie Kaufman wrote:
Perhaps that is why some are having a hard time understanding why Ascol or Dever, as leaders in the SBC and on the Unity committee, won’t answer a direct question about infant salvation/damnation.
Comment not allowed. Dee is tired of being called stupid.
Debbie Kaufmann,
I, too, wish Ascol and Dever would take a position one way or the other.
I was listening to John MacArthur on the radio this morning, and his book Safe in the Arms of God was mentioned at the end of the broadcast. MacArthur unequivocally states that babies go to heaven. In the book he expressed dismay that some Christian leaders of the reformed persuasion are not so sure.