What's Dead Looks Dead
A couple of months ago I wrote about Tiazzi’s last day. Tiazzi was our dog and, unfortunately, she began to lose her mind. Because her behavior was becoming increasingly erratic, we conferred with her veterinarian and decided that it would be best to put her down. It was a very difficult decision, but we are confident that we made the right choice. In order to help the children deal with the loss of the dog (whom they didn’t really like, but who had been in the family as long as they had been alive) we bought a small aquarium and some fish. They have gotten a great deal of pleasure out of taking care of these fish and going with me to Big Al’s, the absolutely superb fish store near our home. They chose a variety of colorful fish and even a couple of shrimp to live in their aquarium. They love to feed their fish and to show them off to anyone who comes to the house.
We have quickly learned that the average lifespan of a fish is significantly shorter than that of a dog. Fish, and tropical fish in particular, are not the hardiest animals and are prone to suffer from fluctuations in water quality and temperature and even from plain old stress. This morning I went downstairs to see one of the little blue guppies lying on the gravel at the bottom of the tank. Just yesterday he had been zipping around looking lively, but by this morning he was dead. Quite dead.
I stuck my hand in the tank and fished around (no pun intended) until I managed to get ahold of the slippery little thing. I hauled him out of the water and took a quick look at him. I was struck by how different he looked. The night before he had been brilliantly-colored with shimmering silver scales and beautiful streaks of blue through his tail. But this morning the blue was dull, the tail had collapsed and his body was pale and grey. He looked dead. Really dead.
It struck me just how much something that is dead looks dead. There is no disguising it. If you have been to a funeral that had an open casket you will know what I mean. A dead body looks dead. People usually insist that the person in the coffin looks just like he did when he was alive, but he doesn’t really. No matter what we do, no matter how much makeup we apply or how much we try to fool ourselves, a dead person looks dead just like a dead fish looks dead.
Children are born dead. I was reflecting on this just a short time ago when I came across a well-known excerpt from Augustine’s Confessions. Naturally, being the father of three young children, the subject of children and their sin has been much on my mind lately. Just this morning I had one of those experiences where one of my children proved her sin. “Eat your breakfast,” I said. “But I’m full,” she replied. This is a routine we go through at every meal (except for those occasional meals where we eat some type of junk food). She always eats half of her meal and then insists that she cannot eat another bite. “You’ve only eaten half a plum. You’re going to eat the whole thing. You can and you will.” Without missing a beat my little three year-old bundle of joy replied, “I can’t and I won’t!” She’s a little sinner, that child, just like her father and mother were until we grew up to become big sinners.
Here is what Augustine had to say about himself as an infant:
At that time I knew only how to suck and be deliciously comforted, and how to cry when anything hurt my body, but no more.After this I began to smile, at first only in my sleep and then when I was awake. So I have been told, and I believe it on the strength of what we see other babies doing, for I do not remember doing it myself. Little by little I began to notice where I was, and I would try to make my wishes known to those who might satisfy them; but I was frustrated in this, because my desires were inside me, while other people were outside and could by no effort of understanding enter my mind. So I tossed about and screamed, sending signals meant to indicate what I wanted, those few signs that were the best I could manage, though they did not really express my desires. Often I did not get my way, either because people did not understand or because what I demanded might have harmed me, and then I would throw a tantrum because my elders were not subject to me, nor free people willing to be my slaves; so I would take revenge on them by bursting into tears. I have learned that babies behave like this from those I have been able to watch, and they without knowing it have taught me more surely what I was like myself than did my nurses who knew me well.
Augustine goes on to make a penetrating observation about human nature. “The weakness then of an infant’s limbs, not its will, is its innocence.” An infant is innocent only because it is incapable of acting out the sin and the rage that lives within. Were an infant able, she would surely lash out and cause pain and harm. And, as all parents soon realize, this is precisely what children do as soon as they are able. Children are dead.
I assume my children are dead. They say they love God and, to some extent at least, I’m sure they do. They love to hear stories from the Bible and love to learn the truths that lie beneath those stories. They even love to pray and to sing to God. And yet in so many ways they look dead. None of them has claimed thus far to have been given new life. It has been my prayer, since before any of them were born, that God would grant them this new life. I am confident He will do so, but only when the time is right. While some children turn to Him at a very young age, so many wait until they are a little bit older. So my wife and I continue to pray and continue to teach the children. We continue to trust that the obvious signs of death will begin to fade and that new life will course through their veins; through their souls.
I guess that’s what the Christian life is all about. It is about being delivered from this body of death. It is about relying upon and yet working with with the Spirit to make what we know to be true positionally become true practically. It is about preaching the gospel to all men, but first and always, to ourselves. For if we are to be men and women that claim to be alive, we must look alive.
Comments (65) »
1. Bev
July 14, 2006
10:16 AM
One of the first things i told my husband after our son was born (at 3:23 AM) was that he was our little sinner. what a responsibilty we have to teach them and to pray for them! then, we have to trust that God will call them unto himself. we can do nothing more to bring them life.
2. anonintx
July 14, 2006
10:40 AM
Tim, this is a little off topic, but please dont try to “make” your children eat. This turns mealtime into a war and it’s one you will lose (you cannot make someone ingest anything unless you are prepared to be abusive) . It is extremely important with young children that you pick battles over things that really matter, and if you can actually “win.”. A better approach would be to say cheerfully ‘o.k. then that’s all you’re having.’ Take the food away, and then stick to your guns if later they are clammering for food between meals (unless it is a healthy, regular snack). I can assure you that within a few mealtimes of food presented and not eaten that they will begin to eat what is put in front of them at the proper time. Mealtimes (IMHO) should be happy times of family fellowship, never unpleasant wartimes over food. Mealtime is a form of worship, is it not? We teach our children that our food is from our gracious Father who provides richly all things for us to enjoy. We bless the food beforehand, and thank Him for it. Let us teach our children to eat with gratitude to the Lord. If mealtime becomes an unpleasant battle of our wills, focus on the Lord is lost. Incidentally “war” meals are extremely unpleasant for guests to endure as well.
3. Robbo
July 14, 2006
11:05 AM
“Mealtimes (IMHO) should be happy times of family fellowship, never unpleasant wartimes over food. Mealtime is a form of worship, is it not? We teach our children that our food is from our gracious Father who provides richly all things for us to enjoy. We bless the food beforehand, and thank Him for it. Let us teach our children to eat with gratitude to the Lord”
Thanks for going “off topic”, ANONINTX. I just have to let you know that your comment is extremely helpful to me as a father.
4. Tim Challies
July 14, 2006
11:32 AM
Anonintx - We’ve tried that, but have decided not to do it anymore. Instead, we’ve reduced her portions and expert her to eat what’s put before her. She is perfectly capable of eating a plumb. This is one of her ways of being defiant and of testing us. We give her small portions and expect her to eat them.
5. Diane
July 14, 2006
11:35 AM
Back on topic….
Excellent Post Tim! Thank you!
6. 4ever4given
July 14, 2006
12:21 PM
I agree Tim. We have done the same in our home. Yes, it is important to choose battles wisely and sometimes we have to learn the hard way what those are. But, most parents are capable of recognizing when a child is being blatantly defiant and capable of eating what is put before them in reasonable portions. I always make my children, for instance, try a vegetable that they have previously abhorred. Why? Because taste buds change and they may really like it this time. I have 6 kids and time and time again, I have seen their taste buds change… I have seen when they are being blatantly defiant, I have seen them be honestly full, I have been in unwise battles, and I have been in battles worth fighting.
On topic: The Gospel divides families. My husband said to me the other day, “Do you realize our home is divided?” There are 5 of us that have professed to know and believe in Christ. And 3 that are children of wrath. It isn’t that I did not really know that. I just had not thought of it that way. It hurt and grieved my heart. These are my children… and even though they may sing songs about the Lord, and memorize Scripture with us, and are presented with the Gospel pretty much daily, they are unregenerate.
“Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. “They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” —Luke 12:51-53
I do not believe that paedo-baptism is Scriptural… and I imagine I will be given grief for that by some. But, I do not believe it wise to give those who have never professed to believe and are unregenerate a false security of salvation. I am not God. I do not know at what age it is considered a must to believe in Christ. That is not clear in Scripture. If it is and I have missed it, I am teachable as long as it is not a forced interpretation of something that is not there in context.
7. Ian Hugh Clary
July 14, 2006
12:22 PM
I think you should get a couple of baby pickerel, a few small-mouth bass and a perch for good measure. Then you study their feeding habits so that you’ll be the fisherman on the lake. That, and I’m sure fresh water fish that you could likely trap in a net are much more durable than some lame tropical fish!
8. Tim Challies
July 14, 2006
1:21 PM
“But, I do not believe it wise to give those who have never professed to believe and are unregenerate a false security of salvation.”
But only some paedo-baptists teach and believe this. Most Presbyterians, for example, wouldn’t believe that their children have any security of salvation because they’ve been baptized.
9. Carrie
July 14, 2006
1:36 PM
I remember a few years ago I was in an email discussion group and made some reference to children being sinners from birth. One woman was quite upset by that comment and said something like “you can believe your kids are sinners but I won’t believe that about my own”.
I had to wonder at what magical age a child became a sinner. At that time my first child was just a baby but before she was 2 years old she had already told her first lie, so I knew I wasn’t wrong about that one.
It is difficult to think of our children as unregenerate but it reminds me to pray continuously that that would be a short and temporary situation.
Nice post.
10. 4ever4given
July 14, 2006
2:50 PM
Thank you for clearing that up. I am obviously ignorant as to the motive behind paedo-baptism. I have only been exposed to those who believe it to be relevant to the security of salvation. Perhaps it is time for more reading. I already have a list of Scriptures used to justify paedo-baptism. Do you have any book suggestions? Forgive me for being off-topic.
Much to learn… teachable, but not tossed to and fro :-)
By the grace of God alone, Lisa
11. Tim Challies
July 14, 2006
3:17 PM
“I had to wonder at what magical age a child became a sinner. At that time my first child was just a baby but before she was 2 years old she had already told her first lie, so I knew I wasn’t wrong about that one.”
Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
So I’d say that children magically become sinners at the moment they are conceived! And it seems that they can be saved at any time between conception and death, since Scripture tells us of at least one person who seems to have believed before he was born. Amazing, that.
12. Chelsey Karns
July 14, 2006
3:33 PM
Lisa (4ever4given), My roommate is currently reading a book called Children of the Promise by Robert Booth. She was already fairly sure of the Biblical evidence for paedobaptism, but she said that reading this book has solidified the issue in her mind and heart. I haven’t read it yet (I’m waiting for her to finish) but I would definitely recommend it!
Tim, Thanks for the thoughtful, truthful post. I am only 20 years old and don’t have any kids (yet), but I already feel that it is so important to preach sin in the flesh as well as life in Christ. If we don’t preach both of those ‘halves’ of the Gospel, then we’re not really preaching the Gospel.
13. 4ever4given
July 14, 2006
3:39 PM
Thank you Chelsey. I have also gone to Challies “Discerning Reader” site and found a whole host of books to read on this topic.
14. Bill Barnes
July 14, 2006
5:10 PM
Tim:
Here’s a quote from John Piper. You would probably find the piece interesting and, at least partially, contrary to your current views. In anticipation of your response I realize that Piper is talking about infants only and not children altogether, I don’t see that you’ve made that distinction however.
“John Piper and many others, however, believe that there is one more biblical strand of evidence which must be considered. This evidence leads us to conclude that God saves all infants who die.”
http://www.desiringgod.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?http://www.desiringgod.com/library/theologicalqa/infantsalv/infants.html
Regards,
15. Elisha Galotti
July 14, 2006
5:34 PM
Hi Tim, I just wanted to tell you what a blessing your writing has been to Justin and I. We spend our summers in New York, and I realized a couple days into our ‘summer life’ that your blog is one of the appreciated constants in my life. Toronto or New York, Challies.com is the same! Invariably, after reading your words, I find myself encouraged, probed, convicted, or entertained. Thank you for that.
While reading this post, I was at first thinking about a dead and completely dried up turtle that I saw on the side of the road yesterday… but this was soon to be traded for a more substantial reflection prompted by your comments about your sinful little ones. Several days ago, I found myself in a long conversation about the age at which a child could express saving faith. Perhaps more specifically, at what age a parent or pastor could accept a profession coming from a child as authentic. Based on your comment about salvation potentially occurring at any moment in between conception and death, it seems clear you believe genuine faith to be possible at a very young age. Assuming this to be the case, would you think it is also possible for adults (parents) to see the fruit of this reality? If we can say yes to this, doesn’t a young child who claims Christ, who bears good fruit, meet the Biblical criteria for believer baptism? I’m aware of the practical reasons why we, as Baptists, often hesitate to baptize children… I guess I’m just curious where you stand on this.
Anyway, it was great to see you again at the McLaren thing. Hope you and your family are having a wonderful summer. We’ll have to invite ourselves over in the fall. :)
Blessings, Elisha
16. Brian Thornton
July 14, 2006
7:37 PM
Since there has been talk of paedo-baptism, can anyone provide an occurance of this in Scripture?
Thanks.
17. Jerry Morningstar
July 14, 2006
8:58 PM
Tim, you suggested that Scripture mentions someone that seems to have believed before they were born. I haven’t heard of that. Can you fill me in? Thanks for the post.
Jerry
18. 4ever4given
July 14, 2006
9:22 PM
Jerry, I think he is talking about John the Baptist.
19. 4ever4given
July 14, 2006
9:43 PM
Luke 1:15 “For he (John the Baptist) will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.”
20. Jabbok
July 14, 2006
9:55 PM
I believe your Southern Baptist shirt-tail is hanging out. Your children, as well as all of ours, have no love for God or for the things of God. The pleasure they take in Bible stories and church related activities comes from a deceitful heart that is desperately wicked.
Who was it that said, Faith is not assent, it is trust? (Assensus vs Fiducia)
Children learn by example to give assent but trust is God’s gift that we pray they receive.
Keep teaching, keep praying but don’t push for mere assent.
Your daughter may eat the whole plum but she won’t love you for making her!
21. Michael Garner
July 14, 2006
10:31 PM
Jabbok - I believe that is exactly what Tim was saying. They may enjoy stories and singing but it is not because they love God.
Jerry - John the Baptist is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit before he is born.
The only other narrative of note is that of David’s son who will be in Heaven.
While I reject any “Age of Accountability” type teaching, it does seem clear (as Tim stated) that God can and does save people of any age, ranging from infancy to mere seconds before death.
Brian - This may not be the best place to have a full discussion on Paedo-baptism. Suffice it to say, there are no concrete examples of infants being Baptized and yet there are still good arguments used for the position (even though at the end of the day I reject the position).
In Christ alone, mike
22. Brian Thornton
July 14, 2006
11:12 PM
Two thoughts.
I have heard Sproul put it this way…you can have knowledge without saving faith, but you CANNOT have saving faith without the knowledge. So, in light of that, I don’t know that I agree that John the Baptist had saving faith while still in the womb, for he would have already had to have the ability - as an unborn baby - to have the ability to have faith…because Scripture is clear that NO ONE is saved apart from faith.
This is where most of my disappointment comes from with MacArthur’s book on the subject of infant death (safe in the arms of God), because, while he talks of his belief that ALL individuals who never had the chance to assent to faith…he says they are ALL saved because they never had the chance to sin. And he NEVER, in this book, states that they are saved through faith, just that God sovereignly chooses to save them.
Again, I’m not trying to be mean or cruel here (I’m still not sure what I believe about infants who die, aborted babies, etc.), but we must be very careful NOT to step outside of biblical bounds just for the sake of emotions, or to comfort someone. False comfort - if it is indeed false - is no comfort at all.
23. Jerry Morningstar
July 14, 2006
11:26 PM
I find the children issue to be wrought with difficulties in many directions. I was not aware that John Piper held to the view that infants who die go to heaven. I believe that is also MacArthur’s view. It certainly is an attractive position.
Many find the idea of an age of accountability appealing - those who die before that age - go to heaven
This could also apply to mentally handicapped, etc.
Biblical support: none
Some believe that baptized babies go to heaven and unbaptized go to hell - which was Augustine’s view
biblical support: none
If we truly believe in the awfulness of hell - and that a baby that dies before faith goes there - what sane person would have children and ‘take the risk’
If God clearly told us that infants who die go to heaven - would we have more ‘idiots’ for lack of a better word that pull an Andrea Yates and kill their children to ‘send them to heaven’?
The Scriptures are clear that sin begins before birth - Ps. 51
But - there is not much there on dealing with infants
I think dogmatism [not accusing anyone of this] - is impossible with the issue of what happens to babies
Perhaps God has ‘elect’ babies - chosen from eternity past.
That makes more sense to me with John the Baptist than seeing faith in the womb
24. Stephen Morse
July 15, 2006
10:30 AM
As a pastor I tend to refuse to ‘counsel’ other families’ little children about their faith. Whenever I have a child (or most often their parent) come to me asking if I would talk to them about salvation, I always (have always in the past - I am sure there will be exeptions and I handle each situation as it comes) refer them to their father first. When the parents tell me that they don’t feel equipped to handle the situation then I correct them. If they don’t feel equipped then I remind them of Ephesians 4:11-12. I am here to equip them to fulfill their responsibility. I will answer their (the parents’) questions and help in anyway I can. What wonderful fruit is born through this!
As for children being sinners or not… I have nine children and can DOCUMENT sinful attitudes from birth! Have I ever taught them to sin… sure I have… did they need me to teach them? NO! I have only taught them how to sin more effectively.
As for making children eat the reasonable portions that they have been given…. When we all sit down and thank our Heavenly Father for His blessings and providence and then these hard-hearted children turn their noses up because ‘they would rather have something else’ or lie and say ‘they are full’ or whatever, I refuse to allow them to press their self-centered little hearts over the provision of God. This does, sometimes, cause some trouble at our table but it is not our problem… it is theirs. They are being ungrateful and rebellious. Where are we ever supposed to placate these attitudes just to avoid a little disturbance?
Tim; what a wonderful article. There is certainly something special about someone who is not dead… isn’t that special quality really amazing? I can remember holding our precious little rat terrier in my arms after it had tangled with a truck on the highway… she was almost all there… every molecule and atom that had been there before the incident was still present… she was even still warm… but there was something missing… LIFE!
As I prepare to worship in the morning I am so awed by the reality of Christ’s LIFE. In Him was LIFE (John 1:4)! He is THE resurrection and the LIFE (John 11:25; 14:6)! Knowing Christ is eternal LIFE (John 17:3)!
What an untangible and yet obvious example of the glory of God in the face of Christ!
25. Michael Garner
July 15, 2006
11:50 AM
Brian,
I also have difficulty with the entire children who die discussion. As I stated, I do reject any Age of Accountability arguments. I do not believe children are ever innocent.
Furthermore, I have had my share of difficulties trying to understand the positions of men who take the position that young children, aborted babies, etc., do in fact go to heaven. At the end of the day, the arguments are not very convincing.
However, what I can say is that each one of us does deserve hell but for God’s grace. If God is somehow gracious to the infant (david’s son’s case may be illustrative), or somehow regenerates the unborn child (John the Baptist) then I do not really have a problem with it. However, at this point I cannot say that I believe that every aborted baby, young infant, etc., wil go to heaven. I just think the Bible is too inconclusive on the topic.
Just my thoughts.
In Christ alone, mike
26. Chelsey Karns
July 15, 2006
11:56 AM
I think one of the problems with some of the arguments so far is that it makes it seem like unborn children will go to heaven because of their innocence. That is clearly unbiblical, and whoever posted the link to Piper’s article on the subject — read it carefully. He doesn’t say that babies are innocent.
Rather, I think that it is important to remember that God is sovereign, which means that He does whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants, to whomever He wants. It says in Scripture that no man can come to the Father except through Jesus. I do not think that verse precludes infants going to heaven because of God’s mercy that He is free to bestow on us through the work of Christ. If infants go to heaven, it is because of the lavish grace of God. And if they don’t go to heaven — God is still good and worthy of our praise.
27. Bill Barnes
July 15, 2006
1:14 PM
Chelsey,
Absolutely! I agree with your comments emphatically. Central to them is God’s infinite mercy as shown and proven on the Cross. Key too is man’s sin and rebellion which we all (from the moment of birth) are guilty of.
You misundertand me if you think I believe that infants will ascend to be with the Father because of their innocence. No, it is as you say, it is God’s lavish grace that persuades me to believe that infants might make it into the Kingdom. Ultimately though, I don’t think Scripture is perfectly clear on this matter.
By this same measure however I am unconvinced by those that are certain that there is no provision for infants to enter into the Kingdom. Candidly, I think I would rather concentrate on those things Scripture is clear about - God’s sovereignty and grace and His provision for sinners through the blood of His son Jesus Christ. Soli Deo Gloria,
28. Bill Barnes
July 15, 2006
1:14 PM
Chelsey,
Absolutely! I agree with your comments emphatically. Central to them is God’s infinite mercy as shown and proven on the Cross. Key too is man’s sin and rebellion which we all (from the moment of birth) are guilty of.
You misundertand me if you think I believe that infants will ascend to be with the Father because of their innocence. No, it is as you say, it is God’s lavish grace that persuades me to believe that infants might make it into the Kingdom. Ultimately though, I don’t think Scripture is perfectly clear on this matter.
By this same measure however I am unconvinced by those that are certain that there is no provision for infants to enter into the Kingdom. Candidly, I think I would rather concentrate on those things Scripture is clear about - God’s sovereignty and grace and His provision for sinners through the blood of His son Jesus Christ. Soli Deo Gloria,
29. Bill Barnes
July 15, 2006
1:15 PM
Chelsey,
Absolutely! I agree with your comments emphatically. Central to them is God’s infinite mercy as shown and proven on the Cross. Key too is man’s sin and rebellion which we all (from the moment of birth) are guilty of.
You misundertand me if you think I believe that infants will ascend to be with the Father because of their innocence. No, it is as you say, it is God’s lavish grace that persuades me to believe that infants might make it into the Kingdom. Ultimately though, I don’t think Scripture is perfectly clear on this matter.
By this same measure however I am unconvinced by those that are certain that there is no provision for infants to enter into the Kingdom. Candidly, I think I would rather concentrate on those things Scripture is clear about - God’s sovereignty and grace and His provision for sinners through the blood of His son Jesus Christ. Soli Deo Gloria,
30. Jerry Morningstar
July 15, 2006
2:08 PM
Bill - I think I agree with you. I appreciate whoever posted the Piper article. I found that helpful. If pressed into a corner - I would rather take the view that infants who die go to heaven. However - It just doesn’t seem like God wanted the issue directly addressed.
While we may not think the ‘age of accountability’ - is a very strong argument - I do think that the Bible clearly teaches that greater light brings greater responsibility. Jesus told those of Capernaum that their judgment would be more severe than Sodom and Gomorrah - because they had witnessed His miracles, etc.
Jesus even suggested that Tyre and Sidon would have repented had they seen such miracles as in Chorazin and Bethesda [Matt. 11:22]
i.e. - God in His omniscience sees not only rebellion in the sinner’s heart but the potential for faith given certain conditions.
We may wrestle with the puzzle of infants - but God looks at them - and knows exactly what kind of adult they would have turned out to be - had they lived and what would have sparked faith
I realize that could be construed in an Arminian sense of faith - but the reality is that God chose to reveal the miracles to Chorazin and Bethesda and not to Tyre and Sidon - taking one back to His ultimate sovereignty in the matter
He places us in this world - some of us in Christian homes - some not
Some where the gospel is preached - some where the law of Islam is enforced
Whatever God does is just - and in the end - I think the faithful will see that it is good.
Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is right?
Yes - He will
31. Brian Thornton
July 15, 2006
2:19 PM
I think that it is important to remember that God is sovereign, which means that He does whatever He wants, whenever He wants, however He wants, to whomever He wants.
I understand what you are trying to say here…but it is, in a way, not entirely true. God is indeed sovereign, but he cannot do something OUTSIDE of what He has already proclaimed He would do.
For example, salvation comes by grace, THROUGH faith, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
So, could He sovereignly choose an individual who has never had the chance or ability to come to saving faith, such as an aborted baby or mentally retarded person? ABSOLUTELY…but it would still have to be through faith.
This is one area that troubles me with respect to MacArthur’s theology on this, because, while he doesn’t say that babies are born innocent, he DOES say that a person is sent to hell based ONLY on what that person does, NOT as a result from original sin. Therefore, he concludes, ALL people, everywhere, who never had the chance to sin go automatically to heaven by God’s gracious favor.
Now, I don’t have any problem with all of them going to heaven…but I definitely have a problem with it if it is somehow apart from faith, because that would then make Scripture wrong.
Finally, one of the interesting ramifications of this belief, that ALL persons who die prior to being able to choose good and evil on their own, is that not only were there the ones in the ark who were saved through the flood, but ALL of the babies and unborn children who died as a result of the flood were also saved and are now in heaven along with the eight that were on the ark. But, Scripture says that there were only eight who were saved through the flood.
Interesting result from this theology, don’t ya think?
32. Lin
July 15, 2006
4:28 PM
I am totally ignorant on the subject of children going to heaven. But is there anything to this verse in relation to this discussion?
Matthew 19:14
14Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these
33. Goofycollins
July 15, 2006
5:27 PM
Brian,
You said, “Finally, one of the interesting ramifications of this belief, that ALL persons who die prior to being able to choose good and evil on their own, is that not only were there the ones in the ark who were saved through the flood, but ALL of the babies and unborn children who died as a result of the flood were also saved and are now in heaven along with the eight that were on the ark. But, Scripture says that there were only eight who were saved through the flood.”
While I personally believe that God saves those that have not the ability to chose sin or not will find themselves, through the saving grace and faith given by God, in Heaven, I will not argue that point now. I think that there are some scripture that allude to this but those that have said that one cannot be dogmatic and conclusive are right. There cannot be a dogmatic statement about something that is a little unclear in scripture.
But Brian, that last statement is a bit much even from you. Scripture does indeed state that there were only eight saved through the flood, but it is speaking of physical salvation not spiritual salvation. If it was spiritual in its wording then one would expect to find Ham the father of Canaan in Heaven as well. And, matter of factly, I do not expect to find Ham, one of the eight “saved through the flood”.
Bad Theology comes from taking things out of context, Brian, and you should know this. Be careful.
34. Brian Thornton
July 15, 2006
6:47 PM
Bad Theology comes from taking things out of context, Brian, and you should know this. Be careful.
Easy there, goofy…I wasn’t basing my whole point on this thought…and I wasn’t being dogmatic about it either. I was putting this out there to see what the responses would be.
Unfortunately, I think the bad theology (or at least, unbiblically supported thinking) on this topic comes from those like MacArthur who make statements suh as the one (questioning original sin) that people go to hell based solely on their own sins, resulting in those who have not had a chance to consciously sin being automatically chosen by God for salvation.
IF this is indeed true, then, regardless of whether temporally bad or not, the killing of babies and infants before they can knowingly sin is an eternally good thing, since it seals their eternal fate in heaven.
Again, I don’t know one way or the other, and so I will not be dogmatic about it one way or the other…but, I will be dogmatic that salvation only comes through faith, and faith only comes through hearing, and hearing only comes through the word of Christ.
35. Michael Garner
July 15, 2006
6:59 PM
Chelsey - You are correct that even if infants are saved it is not because they are innocent. That is an important point that we must keep reiterating.
Brian - I think your central argument is a good one. The Bible does teach that Salvation is by Grace through Faith. Furthermore, it says Faith is by hearing and hearing from the Word of Christ. By that token, it would seem nearly impossible for an unborn (or recently born) child to be saved. I definitely sympathize with you argument.
That being said, I am not fully persuaded that all infants will be Lost either. The two examples mentioned previously would be my primary basis for this thinking.
Jerry - I think your view is beginning to lean a way that I would be uncomfortable with. Personally, I think your argument only holds if Tyre and Sidon were not judged. But I definitely have a very difficult time accepting anything that sounds like “Well … God knows they would have believed given the time/setting … and therefore He will still save them.” I am not sure if that is what you are saying, but if so, I must say that I do not believe the teaching can be found biblically.
Lin - I’m not really sure if that verse fits within the discussion of unborn babies / infants and their eternal destiny. However, I suppose I can see what you might be thinking. Should be interesting to think through.
Goofy - While we probably ultimately disagree on this issue, I do think you said something that is important to remember: “There cannot be a dogmatic statement about something that is a little unclear in scripture.”
I might even make that sentence stronger since I believe it is “definitely unclear in scripture.”
In Christ alone, mike
36. Goofycollins
July 15, 2006
8:55 PM
Brian,
You continue to kinda quote Romans 10:17 (you are mixing a couple but still getting the basic gist), but what you are leaving out is that this faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). If it is God that gives this faith then God can give it to infants if He has chosen to do this as a part of His eternal plan. Again, scripture is unclear on this issue and no one can be dogmatic.
Also, just to throw this in for MacArthur’s sake, because I am not sure if he reads this blog and can defend himself. But he does not deny the doctrine of original sin and that all are sinners from conception. He says all these things are true and Biblical. All he is saying is that every time someone is condemed to hell in scripture, it is their individual sins that are cited as reasens for thier condemnation.
37. Brian Thornton
July 15, 2006
9:09 PM
goofy,
You may not have been on this site for very long, and if not, then I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But, if you have read any of the bulk of what I have written here and defended for the last year or so, you would know that I am one of the strongest proponents of God’s sovereignty, holding dogmatically to the doctrines of grace.
Also, I didn’t say directly that Mac denies the doctrine of original sin, only that he says in one of his books that people go to hell only because of the sins they commit. That seems, seems…to go against what David says about his being conceived in sin.
And, yes, God CAN indeed give the gift of faith to whomever he chooses…but NOT apart from the word of Christ, and I believe, probably not apart from conscious intellectual assent to faith in Christ, which results from the gift of faith. Confusing enough???
Wish I had more time now…gotta run.
38. Jerry Morningstar
July 15, 2006
11:02 PM
Michael - I appreciate your point. I have reservations with all the positions on infants and salvation - mainly because I don’t feel the Scriptures address it directly - but I have to say that i lean pretty hard to making room for them in heaven.
My point with The Tyre and Sidon verse was to suggest that God’s knowledge of the human is so far beyond what we can attempt or fathom.
I think I may have been addressing an argument that says, ‘that’s not fair - they never had a chance to believe.’ According to that verse - God could see what they would do given any set of potential life circumstances. I just marvel at the implications of that verse. Whether it applies or not - I leave open.
Jesus also says to Capernaum that judgment would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah - because of the great miracles that Capernaum witnessed and were not moved by.
i.e. - I think the greater light - greater responsibility idea is fairly easily established in Scripture. The implication for this issue then becomes - what light has an infant received?
Piper quotes John 9:41 - ‘If you were blind you would have no sin’ - Jesus statement to the Pharisees
He also brings up Romans 1:20 - a verse often used to show how the unbelieving pagan who never hears the gospel is still under the guilt of sin. He is ‘without excuse’ because God’s power and nature are revealed thru the creation.
i.e. - there is a witness - a message even to them that they see - light is given
By implication - would an infant be without excuse given the fact that the baby never developed enough to mentally see God’s attributes in the creation
Perhaps it would be ‘with excuse’
He also goes on to point to the fact that grace would still be required to save an infant given the taint of original sin
I believe that would also be Mac’s view as well
Personally - I would like to see someone to do a theodicy from a perspective that all infants who die go to hell.
i.e. - try to show rationally how that would make sense for an all powerful and benevolent God to do that given His options in creating all different kinds of universes.
I think we as believers have enough of a challenge in defending our belief in an all-powerful, benevolent deity - just in the context of things like the holocaust - and the wicked acts done in our world
I think it can be done - but if you throw in a quick ride to hell for all the babies who die in the Oklahoma City bombing or whatever other terror attack you want to throw in - you make the task far more difficult
Also: I am uncomfortable with the idea of infants believing - mainly because I don’t see any support for it in Scripture - and it seems to be connected to a lot of infant baptism argumentation.
Spurgeon’s sermon on baptismal regeneration is a classic on this issue.
One other thought is out there - In Rev. 5:9 - we are told that Christ purchased for God with His blood men from ‘every tribe and tongue and people and nation.’
What about the tribes that never heard?
Perhaps - and it is a big perhaps - but perhaps the infants who died of those tribes went to heaven and are covered by the blood
That’s it
Grace and Peace to you guys!
39. James H
July 15, 2006
11:14 PM
Tim:
Thanks for the post. Nice site, btw! Thought for a moment my ISP had goofed on me or someone bought your website and did the bait-n-switch…darn EC’ers!
On topic: I agree with the view of original sin. Obviously this is biblical, with Adam representing our fallen race to a T. We are born in sin. I am sad to hear the baptists here saying matter-of-factly (though not all) that until we parents or others can discern a regenerate heart in our children, that we ought to view our children as unregenerate.
First, there are biblical examples, from Jacob (vs. Esau) to Jeremiah to Jesus and John the presbyterian (er…baptist)…examples of those chosen from the womb NOT based on “perceived faith” nor based on faith at all (viz: Romans 9)—but SOLELY based on God’s sovereign will to choose.
Also: see God’s argument for why He chose Abraham a la Gen 18:19ff, esp. ESV translation. He chose that man so that he would raise/teach his children to uphold the covenant and fear God. God is in the “business” of households. This is where the Randy Booth argument comes in, and the whole of “Covenant” or “Federal” theology (paedobaptists who aren’t Lutheran or Catholic).
In my home, I have 5 children (and counting). My wife and I have baptized them all, though we came to the paedobaptist view late in life. Formerly, I would have been “at home” with all that has been posted, from the MacArthur-ish/Reformed Baptist persuasion. I look back and don’t miss it. (No offense)
I think my children are part of the household of God, whether they are “elect” or not is up to God to prove. All is done here for the “sake of the elect”—and not for the “sake of the tares” or unsaved. Remember, Jesus told us that there are tares and wheat, and the time of HARVEST (aka the perousia/second coming) is when it will be sorted out.
I will raise my children to trust Christ, not their rite of baptism. However, for the sake of that baptism, they will either reap blessing or curse: blessing for following/fearing God (and trusting GOD and Jesus’ work on the cross, not their “good life” or church membership), curse for breaking the covenant they have been born into.
I would highly recommend Jay Adams’ “The Meaning and Mode of Baptism” as well as Booth’s “To a Thousand Generations” (or was that Douglas Wilson?…was it “Children of the Promise” that Booth wrote?…)…in any case, to say that proper paedobaptists “assume” their kids are saved is to assume all are equally ignorant. On the flip side, to say “My house is full of sinners: 5 kids vs. 2 parents!” is to ignore this from Peter:
“This promise is to you and YOUR CHILDREN…” From Acts 2.
The Covenant of Grace has always included the children of that covenant, and as always: NOT all of those children have been saved. It is up to God to decide.
40. Brian Thornton
July 16, 2006
12:25 AM
“This promise is to you and YOUR CHILDREN…” From Acts 2.
The Covenant of Grace has always included the children of that covenant, and as always: NOT all of those children have been saved. It is up to God to decide.
Interesting comment, James. Though, if the covenant of grace (given to Abraham) was to ALWAYS include the children, then why didn’t Abraham circumcise Ishmael (I think I might know how you would respond to this, but am still curious)? Also, where does the concept of confirmation for the paedo-baptist come from in Scripture?
Secondly, there is a little bit you left off of the quote above from Acts 2. In totality it reads: “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
If you are connecting the promise with the covenant sign of baptism (and I don’t think I have a problem with that), it MUST be viewed in light of the qualifier at the end of the verse: as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.
This is a much different sign than the covenant sign of circumcision that was for all of visible Israel (some who were part of the true church, many who were not)…baptism, though, is a sign of the INWARD change of the heart (Col. 2:11-12).
It is an outward sign of the INWARD circumcision of the heart. This is the key difference between circumcision and baptism…and I believe the main reason why there is NOT a one-to-one correlation between the two.
41. Kevin D. Johnson
July 16, 2006
11:15 AM
Of course, from our perspective, the sort of theology Challies outlines is at once pathetic and deeply troubling. Where is the scriptural justification for this sort of theology? It’s not the way Jesus spoke of children. Where is this stuff in the Bible? I find it interesting that not one passage of Scripture was offered to support the pessimistic view of children put forward by Challies.
I can just imagine Challies writing about John the Baptist in the womb…”that really wasn’t the Holy Spirit Elizabeth, you’re just having a little indigestion—after all, children aren’t really capable of spiritual discernment before they’re born! I mean, these children are still-born, spiritually speaking.”
Thankfully, the Church has seen fit to view children in a much more positive light throughout its history.
Challies’ view (and that of Baptists trying to unlink circumcision and baptism) is a minority position that has no roots in Scripture but only in the warped theology of an individualistic and modern understanding of what salvation is all about.
What has Challies offered us really other than his own fallible perceptions?
42. John H
July 16, 2006
12:11 PM
Our children were born dead. But then we brought them to the waters of Holy Baptism, and God brought them to new life. How do I know that? Because our children are unusually obedient and well-behaved for their age? Hardly! But because Scripture tells us that “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27), and “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17), and because of the assurance that “Baptism … now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).
You say that “what looks dead is dead”, but the whole point of the gospel is that we can’t believe our eyes. A condemned man hanging on a cross in agony is the Saviour of the world; a few drops of water (combined with the Word of God) are the vehicle for new life; a man preaching is an agent of God’s power for salvation; bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. And a naughty child refusing to eat his/her dinner is a beloved child of God and member of the body of Christ.
43. Michael Garner
July 16, 2006
12:38 PM
“Personally - I would like to see someone to do a theodicy from a perspective that all infants who die go to hell.”
I should point out something. I do not maintain this position. My only position on this issue (which is actually more of a non-position) is that the Bible does not speak conclusively either way. I am not persuaded that all infants go to heaven nor am I persuaded that all infants go to hell. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that some infants go to heaven and others go to hell! I just think that this is an issue that Scripture does not speak very clearly about.
John, you said: “But because Scripture tells us that “as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27), and “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17), and because of the assurance that “Baptism … now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).”
I do not believe that any (must less all) of these verses affirms what you seem to be saying.
And to Jerry one last time. You said: “Spurgeon’s sermon on baptismal regeneration is a classic on this issue.”
I must defend the Paedo-baptist at this point (although I am not one). There is a protestant view of Infant-baptism (speaking mostly about the Reformed view) and there is a Roman view. The only one that would fall into the baptismal-regeneration camp is the Roman view (although some Lutheran churches are perilously close).
In Christ alone, mike
44. Ellen
July 16, 2006
6:43 PM
Brain, you asked, “Though, if the covenant of grace (given to Abraham) was to ALWAYS include the children, then why didn’t Abraham circumcise Ishmael (I think I might know how you would respond to this, but am still curious)?”
Brian, my answer is: Abraham did circumcise Ishmael.
Genesis 17:23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
45. Brian Thornton
July 16, 2006
7:02 PM
Ellen, you are right. Thanks for the correction.
46. Phil
July 16, 2006
9:14 PM
Tim,
Your post greatly saddens me and I’m not sure where to begin.
According to your post, your children: 1. Say (profess) love for God 2. Worship (bless God in song) 3. Pray 4. Enjoy hearing the Word of God 5. Enjoy the truths contains in the Word
So, profession, prayer, praise, and desire for God and His Word aren’t enough. What then? You don’t believe they are reeallllly “alive” in God because� they sin, they rebel, they throw spaghetti on the floor, and they do it consistently. From what is sounds like, they’re just a bunch of praying, God-worshiping, Bible-reading souls � with the minds and bodies of children � who continue to struggle in their flesh� just like every Christian reading this, Tim.
“We continue to trust that the obvious signs of death will begin to fade and that new life will course through their veins; through their souls.”
Fade? How far? And by what measure you do determined that they are alive? Unless you’ve jumped ship for “total sanctification,” you are looking for something that does not exist so long as we are in the flesh struggling with the body of death. This is not to say that they won’t mature, but rebellion is the heart of the fallen human condition. That condition changes in our glorification after death; sanctification is only the woefully incomplete earthly process.
I mean what I say here as a brother, in love: Tim, you’re a rebellious sinner who (like all of us) cannot begin to comprehend the depth of your sin before a Holy God, and you and your wife have given birth to little rebellious ones who also cannot totally comprehend their sinfulness. So they may be just going through the motions. Ok, do we not do the same all too often?
As you said, the “[Christian life] is about being delivered from this body of death,” which is true, but it’s never about having achieved it in this life. Your kids “delight in the law of God” but you “see in [their] members another law waging war against the law of [their] mind and making [them] captive to the law of sin that dwells in [their] members.” We look for signs of life in spite of this death.
“For if we are to be men and women that claim to be alive, we must look alive.”
What does this “aliveness” look like? Whenever I see the word “looks” I step back and wonder, “What is this person �looking’ for?” If profession, prayer, praise, and desire for God and His Word aren’t enough, then you’re looking to judge the conditions of a soul at a much deeper level. This road is fraught with peril and temptation for parent, especially when we see our rebellion and childishness reflected in the rebellion and childishness in our own darlings.
I could just be my perception (which is all any of us visitors have) that you’re just seeing in your children what our own Father sees in us. So you see it for what it is: sin, of the wretched, in-God’s-face, yer’doing-it-again-and-ya-know-it rebellious type. Are you or I any different? Would our Holy God who knows your heart and deeds agree with your conclusion? With that in mind, are you equally willing to see their prayers, worship, confession and reading of the word for what it is, too? If God measured unto YOU the same standard of judgment toward obedience as you do unto your kids, how would you fare? Give grace, get grace, Dad.
Phil
47. Kathy
July 16, 2006
10:22 PM
This really disturbs me when children are being spoken about in such dark, dakr terms. How can you look at a three year old girl and see death? Some of the behaviors you’re describing are simply stages of child development. Children are body-mind-spirit creatures, and they must go through certain stages of development in all these areas as they mature. God created them to grow in wisdom and in stature. They may have a sin nature, but they are not hardened and scarred and degererate. Your job as a parent is to establish boundaries, give consistent discipline and nurture and love them. I know you do, so take heart, rejoice in them and keep parenting and modeling Christ to them.
48. Jamey Bennett
July 17, 2006
12:23 AM
Shame on you, Tim. May God refuse to treat you with the treachery that you treat your children!
49. Barbara K
July 17, 2006
9:17 AM
Mr. Challies, You write, “They say they love God and, to some extent at least, I’m sure they do. They love to hear stories from the Bible and love to learn the truths that lie beneath those stories. They even love to pray and to sing to God. And yet in so many ways they look dead.”
I’m curious what signs would tell you that they belong to Jesus? Are you looking for a certain prayer prayed or a certain sequence of words? If a child, even a very young one, wants to belong to Jesus and has asked how to give his life to Jesus, is there a certain procedure that you must see before you determine them to be alive? I can’t imagine that you will only see them as alive when they obey perfectly, because NONE of us obey perfectly, even as adults. If that is the measure of our salvation, we are ALL dead men, walking.
I’m not asking this challengingly. I’m curious. I have four children of my own. Some of them have been very young when they were made alive in Christ. They weren’t immediately “cured” of their childishness or immaturity, but even at a very young age, they began to evidence fruit of the spirit and changed lives. And now as teens and young adults, they each have very serious relationship with God. Of course, they aren’t perfect, but neither am I. Their hearts, however, are clearly alive to God.
So I’m curious….what would it take for you to look at your child and say, “Aha, that little one who prays and loves Jesus BELONGS to Him”?
50. Brian Coffey
July 17, 2006
1:00 PM
“I assume my children are dead….They even love to pray and to sing to God. “
This is not a simple topic and there seems to be few cut and dry answers. Let me ask this though, and I do not ask to be difficult but to get your perspective.
If you are assuming that your children, at present, have no real relationship with God through Christ and (based on the above) assume that their prayers must be insincere—why have them pray? Certainly, forced prayers to God that are insincere are of no benefit to anyone. If anything, it seems this heaps more condemnation on the guilty children. The same might be asked about the singing. If you believe it is insincere and is motivated by something other than a desire to praise God—why encourage it?
This is one of the areas that needs to be considered, IMO, as discuss how to treat children and raise them in a way that honors God. Also, I am not saying children shouldn’t be taught to pray. I am simply asking if it consistent to do so in light of the other statements you have made.
Thank you, Brian
51. Brian Coffey
July 17, 2006
1:02 PM
“I assume my children are dead. …They even love to pray and to sing to God. “
This is not a simple topic and there seems to be few cut and dry answers. Let me ask this though, and I do not ask to be difficult but to get your perspective.
If you are assuming that your children, at present, have no real relationship with God through Christ and (based on the above) assume that their prayers must be insincere—why have them pray? Certainly, forced prayers to God that are insincere are of no benefit to anyone. If anything, it seems this heaps more condemnation on the guilty children. The same might be asked about the singing. If you believe it is insincere and is motivated by something other than a desire to praise God—why encourage it?
This is one of the areas that needs to be considered, IMO, as discuss how to treat children and raise them in a way that honors God. Also, I am not saying children shouldn’t be taught to pray. I am simply asking if it consistent to do so in light of the other statements you have made.
Thank you, Brian
52. Brian Coffey
July 17, 2006
1:04 PM
“I assume my children are dead. …They even love to pray and to sing to God. “
This is not a simple topic and there seems to be few cut and dry answers. Let me ask this though, and I do not ask to be difficult but to get your perspective.
If you are assuming that your children, at present, have no real relationship with God through Christ and (based on the above) assume that their prayers must be insincere—why have them pray? Certainly, forced prayers to God that are insincere are of no benefit to anyone. If anything, it seems this heaps more condemnation on the guilty children. The same might be asked about the singing. If you believe it is insincere and is motivated by something other than a desire to praise God—why encourage it?
This is one of the areas that needs to be considered, IMO, as discuss how to treat children and raise them in a way that honors God. Also, I am not saying children shouldn’t be taught to pray. I am simply asking if it consistent to do so in light of the other statements you have made.
Thank you, Brian
53. Michael Garner
July 17, 2006
1:50 PM
Wow. That was an interesting turn of events. I’m not sure how exactly it came to be that Tim was suddenly turned loose to the firing squad.
Many of the things that have been suggested simply so plainly to be untrue that it seems slanderous to suggest so. For example, as Tim ever given the impression that he requires perfection to believe his children have been justified?
There is a good post by Mark Dever online right now (see T4G) about whether or not Evangelists should question professions of faiths. His answer is a categorical Yes and I think he proves his point quite well. From my perspective, it looks like that is all that Tim is doing.
Lastly, “How can you look at a three year old girl and see death?” I think that the answer is that Scripture plainly teaches so and experience proves it so. Have some 3 year olds been brought (by God) to saving faith in Jesus? I’m sure. Are there plenty of others who are very plainly dead? Absolutely.
54. PaedoBaptist
July 18, 2006
12:45 AM
I wonder why Tim and others never says his children are clean and holy since that is exactly what the Scriptures says about them?(1 Cor. 7:15)
55. Dallas Pymm
July 18, 2006
4:10 PM
Paedo,
You must be mistaken. That verse says nothing about children.
1 Corinthians 7:15
“15But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”
56. Rob Smith
July 18, 2006
5:58 PM
1 Corinthians 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
But the children of the believer are “holy” in the same sense that the unbelieving partner is “sanctified”. Whatever this means, it can’t mean “saved”.
57. GaryP
July 19, 2006
12:54 AM
Wow! What a discussion.
I cannot hold to “Saved by Youth Alone” - so anyone who says that all children go to heaven, is just wanting the easy way out of a difficult question.
Maybe God did elect all children who die. In this case it is better for a child to die than to grow to maturity.
Maybe God elected who He wills. And those that happen to die in infancy will be with him in eternity. Our “profession of faith” is simply an outworking of that original election from before the world began. Faith is evidence of an already pre-existing election by God - if a child dies before that Faith can be evidenced - it is not proof that he was not elect - just that he was not mature.
58. PaedoBaptist
July 19, 2006
8:40 AM
Rob Smith, thanks for the correction. I meant v14, however I never said the children were saved. My point was twofold. First, that they are in covenant with God and therefore in a different class than a pagan. Second, why do Baptists never refer to their kids in the way the Scripture does(i.e. clean and holy)?
59. Philippa
July 19, 2006
12:25 PM
An infant is innocent only because it is incapable of acting out the sin and the rage that lives within. Were an infant able, she would surely lash out and cause pain and harm.
I find this an extraordinary statement. A young infant, incapable of rational thought, only capable of feeling, simply wants - and NEEDS - to be fed, cuddled and loved. A young baby smiles and coos at her mother. What rage is she feeling? None. She cries when she is hungry and when she needs her nappy changed. That’s not rage, that’s basic need which a responsible and loving parent must provide, or else the baby will die because of abuse and neglect.
I’m not denying original sin. All too soon our human nature warps and twists as we grow throughout childhood into adulthood.
I don’t know what I think about children and salvation. Certainly I believe that young children CAN know Jesus.
Like GaryP, I am uncomfortable about subscribing to a ‘saved by youth alone’ mentality, but on the other hand, GaryP also makes a statement that makes me boggle:
Maybe God did elect all children who die. In this case it is better for a child to die than to grow to maturity.
But surely you Calvinists believe that the elect are the elect? What difference does getting older make to one’s election? In other words: what’s so great about dying young????? The death of a child always seems so very cruel … a young life cut off before its prime.
60. GaryP
July 19, 2006
11:20 PM
I agree, the statement I made “Maybe God did elect all children who die. In this case it is better for a child to die than to grow to maturity.” boggles me too.
I should have phrased it a little better - more as a question than as a statement. “If all children who die go to heaven, then wouldn’t it be better for a child to die than to grow to maturity?”
I do not think anyone would answer yes to that questions (or agree with my original statement).
Yet that is what I hear some folk saying in their comments.
If ALL children are heathen then either 1) they are all going to hell (but then how can heaven be made of such as these) or 2) they are all going to heaven and God is going to ignore their sin nature (I really want to make a snide comment then that our sin nature must not be much of a problem if God can just ignore it).
If neither of those is correct then ALL children must not be heathen. Since they are too young to profess faith then it must be something that was done for them. It must be grace. Before the foundation of the world. Then we only need to trust God that our children, who have died in infancy, were set apart (holy) by Him.
61. Mirele
July 22, 2006
9:38 AM
Apparently God cannot be gracious to little children.
I seem to recall that Jesus stood up a little child among his disciples and told them that they needed to be like a little child to be part of the Kingdom of God. I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about the intrinsic evil of little children and how they needed to be saved to be with God. I do recall reading that in the works of people like Augustine.
Everything I’ve read here, all this discussion, comes out of a legalistic desire to be right, rather than taking God’s grace as an example.
I would love to see what you people tell parents who lose children at a very young age. “Well, they didn’t know Jesus, they’re not with God…you can assume they’re elsewhere.”
Yuck. Just yuck. It’s attitudes like these that keep me from darkening the door of a church. Why would I want to “worship” your terrifying version of a god, where every i has to be dotted and every t crossed before he’ll love you and recognize you?
62. cinderella
July 22, 2006
3:26 PM
Who are we to sit and judge and consider how God will handle any situation or person? What kind of thinking is that? Isn’t He ALONE God? Can anyone definitely say,for themselves, that they are 100% sure of their own righteousness apart from what Christ ALONE has done for them? It’s in this graciousness of Christ alone that anyone stands; not on any merit of our own! And yet here I see the gall to contemplate someone else’s salvation (even their little own child) and from the get go assume the very worst about that soul, so as to go on and pronounce an ugly judgement upon them!
I’ll tell you what I believe. That pronouncement and believing that that pure little soul is a “sinner” IS the sin that Christ has come to save us from. Sin is believing the lie that God created trash, blamed that trash for existing and then came to “save” them from their being trash.
Believing in the trashiness of a soul is the sin you all need to be saved from. Why don’t you start with that and then see how your little child looks in your eyes when He finally delivers you from that “trash” thinking. Until then, you’re not going to enjoy your children, you’re going to only consider what a burden they are! God help you!
63. Cal
July 24, 2006
1:43 PM
Well said my dear brother.
64. Cal
July 24, 2006
1:47 PM
My comment is concerning the original post by Tim. I will be the following posts and give a collective post on my blog.
65. Cal
July 24, 2006
1:50 PM
Let me try this again.
My comment is concerning the original post by Tim. I will be reading the following posts on original sin and give a collective post on my blog.