In the article I wrote yesterday I began discussing the issue of what happens to children who die in infancy. I looked at the view which states that all children who die are immediately ushered into heaven and I pointed out what I feel to be a serious flaw with that argument. Today I’ll continue this discussion by commenting on the other two positions popular among Christians and end with a statement of my beliefs.
But before I do that, I’d like to return briefly to yesterday’s article. I tried to be as responsive as possible in the comments area, so it may prove valuable to read the comments posted there. I would like to respond to a concern expressed by a couple of people who suggested that the idea of an infant going to hell is repugnant.
I would tend to agree that the thought of a tiny infant in hell is repugnant. Such a view, though, presupposes that people who go to hell are the same age in hell as they were when they died. I think it is more likely that in eternity age will be of little consequence. Those who died old and infirm will likely be restored to when they were more able-bodied and when they were of sound mind. Or so I would think. I would also suggest that infants will be made older. Gene Bridges said it like this: “In heaven, wouldn’t you, in a sense, age up, age down, or both? You would age down in the sense that if you were past your prime when you died, you’d then revert to an optimal time of life—both mentally (in the intermediate state) and physically (in the final state). But you’d also continue to mature—in that same ageless and youthful state—to mature intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.” This is speculation, but speculation that seems consistent with what we know of God and of hell. Also, it seems clear in Scripture that, just as not all who are saved will receive the same degree of reward, so all who are condemned will not receive the same degree of punishment. It may well be that children, should they be condemned, will receive a much lighter degree of punishment than those who have committed many more and many greater sins. In my mind this is similar to how Christians are saved by grace but rewarded, at least partially, on the basis of works. Finally, God knows not only what a man has done, but what is in his heart and what he is capable of doing. An infant who died when still tiny, may well have gone on to lead a life in which he committed terrible and horrifying atrocities. God knows. We do not and we cannot.
Let’s turn now to the final two understandings of what happens to children who die in infancy.
The Children of Believers Are Saved
This view is held by many Reformed believers, especially those with firm beliefs in covenant theology. These people believe Scripture teaches that God continues to work through covenants, much as He did in Old Testament times. As God made a covenant with Abraham that extended not only to him but to his children, and thus entered into a relationship with both Abraham and Isaac, in the same way He sets apart to Himself the children of believers today.
This is the view of the writers of the Canons of Dort which says “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.” While it speaks of the salvation of infants of believers, it does not speak about the children of unbelievers.
The Westminster Confession takes a slightly different view, choosing not to explicitly mention the covenant. “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.” The question that might arise in response to this answer is “who are the elect infants?” I believe the writers would answer in a similar fashion to the Canons of Dort, indicating that believing parents can have assurance where unbelieving parents can not. In short, this view presupposes that God’s act of election foresaw which children of believers would die in infancy, and He sovereignly elected those children to be numbered among the elect. God graciously provided salvation for these children through His covenant.
I have more sympathy for the view of the Westminster Confession than that of the Canons of Dort. The Confession explicitly states that elect infants will be saved. And I agree that, if God has seen fit to elect children who die in infancy, they must be saved. I believe the Canons of Dort steps outside the clear teaching of Scripture when it says “godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.” This is a possibility, but hardly something that is made plain in Scripture.
We Can Have No Assurance
Surprisingly I was able to find little formal and well-articulated support for this view. I find this surprising because where Scripture does not explicitly state a doctrine, we might expect Christians to be slow to speculate. It would seem that this view requires the least amount of speculation. Herman Bavinck believed we could have no assurance saying “I would not wish to deny, nor am I able to affirm.” Cornelius Venema concurs, saying “caution is preferable to the confident denial or affirmation of this possibility.”
The weakness in this view is simply that it is not very satisfying. As inquisitive beings we wish to have answers to all of our questions. Stating that we do not and cannot know does not satisfy our desire to know.
My view
I suppose it would be unfair to do all this research and not indicate what I believe, so I will provide a few thoughts. I grew up in churches that had strong views on covenant theology and believed in the doctrine of presumptive regeneration (which states that children of believers are presumed to be saved until they prove otherwise). The view I was taught was that children who die in infancy and are members of believing families are saved, but that we can have no certainty about the children of unbelievers. I abandoned this view on the basis of empirical evidence long before I abandoned it on the basis of Scriptural evidence. I saw countless spiritual delinquents living with the belief that they were saved simply because they were children of the covenant. The inestimable privilege of growing up in a Christian family was reduced to a license to sin. Parents refused to challenge their children and felt little need to share the gospel with them. When I did turn to Scripture to wrestle with this issue I was not surprised to learn that it cannot be adequately supported. I am thankful that my parents did not support this view and that they constantly challenged myself and my siblings to know and believe and trust the gospel.
After doing much study and reflection on this topic, I find myself simply shaking my head and realizing I am unable to know from Scripture what happens to all infants who die. While I would like to believe that all children are immediately ushered into heaven, I simply do not find Scripture to support the idea that God will categorically overlook the imputation of Adam’s sin that is held against all humanity, and even the tiniest child. It seems to me that those who adhere to the view that all children are saved must gloss-over or downplay original sin, and that is something I cannot do. Children who die in infancy are as fully implicated in Adam’s sin as I am and are thus fully deserving of hell. While that does not necessarily indicate that God will not or cannot save them, I do not find evidence in Scripture that He always will. I also do not find strong support for the idea that only the children of believers will be saved and that all the children of believers will be saved.
What I believe we can know from Scripture is that at least some children who die in infancy will be saved, for the Scripture speaks of John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the womb. At least one child was saved before birth. If we are justified by faith as a free gift, and if we believe in our total inability without His grace, surely God, who creates tiny babies, can speak to their hearts in a way that can fill them with the Spirit. If God, through His grace, wishes to save an infant, I’m sure He can. But as to the extent or wideness of this grace, I cannot speak for God does not tell. I would also assume that, just as God is gracious to show mercy to generation after generation of believing families, it is likely that children who die in infancy as members of Christian families are more likely to be numbered among the elect than those who are members of unbelieving families.
And so my view seems to hover between the second and the third. I believe we can have little assurance about the eternal destination of all children, but that we can have some degree of assurance about some children. Scripture does not state that all children are saved and it does not say that all children are condemned. My position falls between these two. I believe, as did the Puritan divines, that “all elect infants dying in infancy go to heaven.” As with the rest of God’s elect, we will not infallibly know who these people are until we are ushered into God’s presence. And at that moment I am convinced that we will all be overwhelmed not by how few there are, but how many. I have concluded that in His wisdom God has chosen not to reveal what happens to all children who die in infancy. Thus it is best not to speculate or to comfort ourselves with false assurances, but instead take confidence in what we do know—that God is just, but gracious. I am left crying out with Paul “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!”
An article explaining John Piper’s understanding of this issue concludes with reflections on George Mueller’s sermon text after the death of his wife. His three points were: The Lord was good, and did good, in giving her to me. The Lord was good and did good, in so long leaving her to me. The Lord was good and did good, in taking her from me.” This is an attitude of great faith. Mueller knew that God always does good. We must conclude the same, even if God chooses to give us an infant for only a short period of time. I hope and pray that I would have the strength and faith to thank God for the time I’ve spent with my little Michaela, even if He took her from me after only three months. For certainly He was good to give her to me and to leave her with me for this long. Who am I to believe that He could take her from me too soon? He knows best and He does best. This must be my refuge.
Having discussed children who die in infancy, I’d like to turn in another article to a defense of my view that my children are likely unsaved.
Comments (75) »
1. wallyholt
July 20, 2006
10:38 AM
It seems to me that a loving and gracious God would do nothing more than welcome dying infants into Heaven.
2. The Rick
July 20, 2006
10:58 AM
Tim,
I have a question. If God knew before all time that a child was going to die in infancy, does He really have a long term plan mapped out for this child wherein the child could have been regenerated? (for example, you’ve mentioned children who might have grown up to be dangerous if they’d lived longer, etc). It does not make sense to me that He would so therefore, I DON’T SEE HOW HIS WILL ON WHICH INFANT GOES TO HEAVEN AND WHICH DOES NOT CAN HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A FUTURE THAT THEY WERE NEVER GOING TO BE GIVEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. It seems God’s decision on this matter must be one of the greatest mysteries which we will never be able to understand. What do you think?
3. Susanna
July 20, 2006
11:00 AM
Woops… the last comment was from me and not Rick!;)
4. Chris Roberts
July 20, 2006
11:32 AM
Since we’re discussing Hell, there isn’t a chance in Hell that God would allow an infant who dies to go to Hell. We can fully trust in the love, grace, and mercy of God. He has extended that grace to all people as a free gift which far too many people have rejected. Those unable to receive His grace will not be rejected because of their inability.
I saw countless spiritual delinquents living with the belief that they were saved simply because they were children of the covenant. The inestimable privilege of growing up in a Christian family was reduced to a license to sin.
Are you connecting works and salvation?
5. John
July 20, 2006
11:50 AM
I know this is a very emotional subject, especially for those of us who are parents and especially to those of us who have lost a child. My wife and I have suffered through 3 miscarriages. Our greatest comfort lies in that God knows what is best and that He is good and because of that, we have hope that we will see our kids in heaven someday. If not, then we trust that He knows what is best. Tim, I think I agree 100% agree with your position, and that comes from a guy who has experienced a loss.
6. Elisha
July 20, 2006
11:52 AM
“If we are justified by faith as a free gift, and if we believe in our total inability without His grace, surely God, who creates tiny babies, can speak to their hearts in a way that can fill them with the Spirit.”
I tend to agree with this, yet still struggle with the reality that God has repeatedly specified in what manner He speaks to hearts, and in what way He brings about new hearts. Though sparing infants seems consistent with what we know about His grace and mercy, it seems inconsistent with the vast majority of biblical evidence in reference to how He saves.
I understand that infants are in a unique category, but for the sake of argument, if little people can be saved without knowing Christ and trusting in Him alone, how can we know for sure that this isn’t also possible for other people groups in other parts of the world?
Also, is it possible that we have wrongly limited the capacity of an infant to understand… to trust? Is it possible that in their own small and seemingly indescribable way, they actually could have some sort of an understanding of Christ? I realize that science and the various official stages of cognitive development would suggest not… but could it be?
7. Philippa
July 20, 2006
11:55 AM
Tim said:
I think it is more likely that in eternity age will be of little consequence. Those who died old and infirm will likely be restored to when they were more able-bodied and when they were of sound mind. Or so I would think. I would also suggest that infants will be made older. Gene Bridges said it like this: “In heaven, wouldn’t you, in a sense, age up, age down, or both? You would age down in the sense that if you were past your prime when you died, you’d then revert to an optimal time of life—both mentally (in the intermediate state) and physically (in the final state). But you’d also continue to mature—in that same ageless and youthful state—to mature intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.” This is speculation, but speculation that seems consistent with what we know of God and of hell.
Yes, it is pure speculation. And I’m not sure that the biblical depiction of hell gives us much license to imagine anything very detailed about it, except that it is terrible.
I tend to side with the Mohler/Piper/Spurgeon view that all infants go to heaven. A flawed view, no doubt. Of course it’s what I would prefer to believe. Frankly, I think we’re all speculating here.
What of aborted fetuses and stillborn children? In heaven, are they the fullgrown adults they were intended to be? I would like to think so. But that too is pure speculation on my part. No biblical evidence for this whatsoever. In the light of the Bible’s silence on this subject, is it any wonder that we speculate … hopefully with much humility?
I’m not a Calvinist, Tim, but you have explained your position carefully and thoughtfully, and for that I’m grateful.
8. Mike Young
July 20, 2006
12:11 PM
This view is held by many Reformed believers, especially those with firm beliefs in covenant theology.
Well, not all believers of covenant theology believe things automatically extend to their posterior. This makes no sense. So, a child of an elect individual is elect. And when he grows up and defies God, he might lose his election. Nah. There’s no comfort there.
I agree that the westminster confession is much more comforting than dort’s. Elect children go to heaven just as elect adults go to heaven.
And the question of who’s elect and who isn’t, doesn’t just extend to infants. We don’t know at all who is and who isn’t. Likewise it’s not our place to go around guessing. God decrees it. He declares this to be truth in his word and we can either believe or disbelive it. I choose to believe it.
Now, one thing we don’t have with infants that we do have with adults is that we can’t examine fruit. Well, then again we’re talking about special circumstances, aren’t we. Remember the thief on the cross? Not much fruit there, either.
But I also wholly disagree with the notion of God being repugnant for sending anyone to hell— infant or otherwise. Bearing in mind that I previously stated that I believe the death of infant manifests his election, if we were to suggest it’s repugnant for an unrepentent child to suffer condemnation, what’s to stop us from applying this to all men. Obviously, there are those who profess to be Christian who do believe that it’s contrary to God’s “love” to elect some and to not elect others. What can I say to that? I don’t make the rules. I just consider the fact that there was absolutely zero basis for him to choose to impart such faith to me. I assure you there is no merit with me.
As to assurance, we cannot arbitrarily make up doctrine. The gospel has zip to do with God’s love for his creation. The gospel is completely for his sake and we merely benefit from it in a gracious and merciful way.
So, if one were to believe that infants in death were in fact elect, I would not think he was making too great a stretch. Of all the theories, it’s the only one I can find even a hint of assurance apart from my emotions.
9. Hoshea
July 20, 2006
12:30 PM
As I thought further through the topic, my mind kept coming back to this thought:
None of us are worthy of standing in the presence of God. That God would elect some to salvation is simply amazing since no one deserves God’s mercy and grace. In His prerogative He could have chosen to save no one (including infants), but to demonstrate His kindness, mercy and grace He has saved some. That’s what blows my mind.
Still undecided,
Hoshea
10. Tim P.
July 20, 2006
12:36 PM
Tim,
Thanks for the posts- good stuff. In the end I would have to land somewhere with you in the “I don’t know for certain” camp.
Those in the “infants are saved” camp emphasize the fact that infants are saved by grace through the work of Christ on the cross. The major issue that I have wrestled with in this is that in Scripture this saving grace through the work of Christ is always and only presented as coming to a person through faith (Elisha referenced this in his post).
Can an infant have saving faith? It doesn’t seem that the intellectual capacity is there to have faith in the salvation and Savior God has provided.
This line of thinking is what brings me back to the “I don’t know for certain” camp.
11. Chris Roberts
July 20, 2006
12:44 PM
None of us are worthy of standing in the presence of God. That God would elect some to salvation is simply amazing since no one deserves God’s mercy and grace. In His prerogative He could have chosen to save no one (including infants), but to demonstrate His kindness, mercy and grace He has saved some. That’s what blows my mind.
So much for His love being offered freely for His creation. May I never meet this deity you speak of who acts out of self-interest and doesn’t live up to what Scripture says about love. The heathen believes in a capricious deity that is ultimately unpredictable and uncertain, but the Christian believes in God who has revealed Himself to man. Included in that revelation is the truth of God’s love for us. He did not save us simply to demonstrate how cool He is; salvation is a gift of His love. No one deserves the mercy of God and yet everyone has received God’s mercy. That is truly amazing.
12. Brian Thornton
July 20, 2006
12:45 PM
As God made a covenant with Abraham that extended not only to him but to his children, and thus entered into a relationship with both Abraham and Isaac, in the same way He sets apart to Himself the children of believers today.
I see one big flaw in this particular aspect of covenant theology being in the example of Ishmael. He was circumcised as part of the new covenant, but it was known up front that the blessings would come through Isaac, and NOT through Ishmael.
Tim,
I think your position is a good one, AND a biblical one. From Scripture we cannot say either way, ‘all’ or ‘none’ in regards to heaven or hell for infants who die…what we CAN say is that ALL of the elect will be saved.
13. Tim Challies
July 20, 2006
12:45 PM
“It seems to me that a loving and gracious God would do nothing more than welcome dying infants into Heaven.”
That may be, but you’ll need to prove it from Scripture!
“Since we’re discussing Hell, there isn’t a chance in Hell that God would allow an infant who dies to go to Hell. We can fully trust in the love, grace, and mercy of God.”
Same for this one. We’ll need some type of Scriptural proof.
“Are you connecting works and salvation?”
Not necessarily, though the book of James tells us that they are intimately connected. I was saying that my experience showed that many who presumed they were saved were clearly not, for their words and actions betrayed them.
14. Tim Challies
July 20, 2006
12:57 PM
“does He really have a long term plan mapped out for this child wherein the child could have been regenerated?” I don’t know that we know. But certainly He knows the hearts and particular sins of each person. And regardless of how many sins and how serious the sins a person would have committed, he will commit fewer by dying earlier.
15. Hoshea
July 20, 2006
1:14 PM
So much for His love being offered freely for His creation. May I never meet this deity you speak of who acts out of self-interest and doesn’t live up to what Scripture says about love. The heathen believes in a capricious deity that is ultimately unpredictable and uncertain, but the Christian believes in God who has revealed Himself to man. Included in that revelation is the truth of God’s love for us. He did not save us simply to demonstrate how cool He is; salvation is a gift of His love. No one deserves the mercy of God and yet everyone has received God’s mercy. That is truly amazing.
Chris,
I’m not sure why you would assume that I believe that God’s love has nothing to do with salvation and election. It wasn’t my intent to state every facet of God’s plan of redemption. Neither do I believe that God is uncertain about His decisions and decrees. As far as “self-interest” is concerned, the wording is such that it seems God that only cares about Himself. That is in no way what I was referring to. Simply put, everything that God does will end in His being glorified and magnified—but of course He loves us. As for God displaying mercy to everyone, in a general sense, yes He has, because He has not stricken us all dead immediately for our sinfulness. In a particular sense, not all will receive eternal salvation type mercy because not all trust in Christ as Savior.
Of course, I agree that God has revealed Himself to man.
16. Hoshea
July 20, 2006
1:21 PM
Sorry for straying off topic…my bad.
17. Chris Roberts
July 20, 2006
1:25 PM
Simply put, everything that God does will end in His being glorified and magnified—but of course He loves us.
Yes, in everything God is glorified but I do not think God acts out of a desire to increase His glory and your earlier comment seemed to indicate that, as though He acted not because He loves us but because He wants us to see how great He is.
As for God displaying mercy to everyone, in a general sense, yes He has, … In a particular sense, not all will receive eternal salvation type mercy because not all trust in Christ as Savior.
Agreed and this was essentially what I was getting at. Everyone has received the mercy of God. Going further, I am not a Calvinist so I believe everyone has been extended the saving mercy of God. Everyone has received the mercy offered by Jesus Christ at the cross. Not everyone has accepted that gift and so not everyone is saved. There are many who are unable to accept that gift in any rational or credal sense, either because they are too young or have some cognitive disability. I believe that these are not cast off for being unable to accept the gift of God but are taken under God’s wing, as it were, without having to receive what they cannot receive.
Where is my Scripture reference defending this? Tota Scriptura. All of Scripture is the revelation of God and the truth about God is found in all of Scripture. Proof texts are bad things because arguments built off of them are usually wrong. But taking the whole of Scripture we see a God who always acts out of love for His creation. He never violates His own standards and holds all of creation to those standards but included with all of that is God’s character of mercy, grace, justice. He is the defender of the defenseless, the helper of the helpless and I cannot help but take all of that to mean He will never let go of the one who had absolutely no ability to respond to His gift of grace.
18. Michael Garner
July 20, 2006
1:35 PM
Wow. I agree with Tim, again. What is the world coming to?
Good set of posts Tim.
Quoting from one person but the sentiments of many: “”It seems to me that a loving and gracious God would do nothing more than welcome dying infants into Heaven.”“
The problem is, we are fallen individuals who delude ourselves constantly. At the end of the day, it really does not matter what it seems to us that God will do. We must form these conclusions from the Scriptural evidence and I have yet to see that done.
Furthermore, “there isn’t a chance in Hell that God would allow an infant who dies to go to Hell.”
I really do not see how such strong statements could be made (even if they are witty!) without clear Scriptural teaching.
In Christ alone,
mike
19. Chris Roberts
July 20, 2006
1:48 PM
Proof texts are bad things because arguments built off of them are usually wrong.
I cringed when I went back and saw this sentence. Getting quite off topic now, but let me restate for my own conscience sake. :)
Proof texts are bad things because they never give the whole picture. Arguments built on proof texts are usually wrong.
20. Chris Poteet
July 20, 2006
2:37 PM
I think this is the best, and most honest, approach to this question.
21. Nan
July 20, 2006
3:50 PM
Great post Tim. I share your stance.
Tim P., you say, “Can an infant have saving faith? It doesn’t seem that the intellectual capacity is there to have faith in the salvation and Savior God has provided.”
I think a good question to ask here is, “What constitutes faith?” Does the free gift of faith expressed by a fully functional, intellectual being mean the same thing as the gift of faith expressed by someone without the mental or intellectual capacity to express it as we do?
I have heard faith described as an empty hand before God. It does not require mental or intellectual capacity to be empty handed, relying fully on him for life, salvation and hope for eternity. If creation itself will cry out to God if we remain silent, if creation itself glorifies God simply by doing what it was created to do, then why not God’s elect who are incapable of intellectual understanding and assent to the gospel? Why can their faith not be expressed in terms of their utter dependance on him? Only God knows and judges the heart, even of infants and the mentally disabled.
Rom. 8
19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
Nan
22. Dex
July 20, 2006
4:37 PM
It must be “infant salvation days” or something. This issue is buzzing around the blogosphere.
Allow me to briefly repeat some questions I posted elsewhere about John the Baptist, since Tim brought it up, then make another point.
Was John the Baptist leaping in the womb:
1. a sign that John was regenerate
2. a response to Mary?s voice
3. a response to the infant Christ?s presence
4. part of a sign to Mary (and Elizabeth)
5. a response to the infilling of Elizabeth with the Holy Spirit
See Luke 1:39ff
Secondly, is it possible for a normal, elect adult to die before having come to Christ? Would this not deny God’s sovereignty in appointing the time and circumstances of their salvation, electing both the ends and the means, being in control of the universe? If it cannot be so for an elect adult, then how can it be so for an elect infant? “Elect infants dying” seems like a contradiction in terms in this light.
I guess this is ultimately a derivative of the “another way of salvation” argument. If God elect someone, they will be regenerated and come to Him. (unless…)
23. Gavin Brown
July 20, 2006
4:54 PM
Tim,
There are a few texts that are commonly cited as indicators that infants will be in heaven. I cited one from Jonah in yesterday’s coment thread, another is David saying that he would go to his deceased child, and there are a few sayings of Jesus that seem gracious to children.
In adressing this topic, it would be helpful if you would interact with some specific texts. Your two posts seem to focus more on generalities.
24. Joel
July 20, 2006
6:10 PM
In second Samuel 12, Nathan prophisied that because of David’s sin, his son would die.
When his son died, David knew he would “go to him”. Death followed by hope.
2 Sam 12:23
“But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
In Matthew 2, after Herod slaughtered the male babies, Matthew confirmed the prophecy of
Jeremiah was being fullfilled.
Jeremiah 3:15
“Thus says the LORD, “A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.”
The hope for the children follows in Jeremiah 3:16:
Thus says the LORD, “Restrain your voice from weeping And your eyes from tears; For your work will be rewarded,” declares the LORD, “And they will return from the land of the enemy.
Jesue Christ wasn’t agnostic about children and Heaven:
Matthew 18:3
“Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:4
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Mark 10:15
“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
Luke 18:17
“Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
25. John K
July 20, 2006
11:09 PM
I’m surprised that no one has addressed an age of accountability; a concept which I think is quite Biblically defensible. Compare the following passages:
“In this desert your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. ” (Num 14:29)
“And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.” (Deuteronomy 1:39)
“‘Because they have not followed me wholeheartedly, not one of the men twenty years old or more who came up out of Egypt will see the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-” (Num 32:11)
It seems to me from these passages that the age of accountability, the age under which children, “…do not yet know good from bad…” is the age of twenty. Now some may disagree, but God said it, I didn’t. Some may think it unfair that a person under the age of twenty committing a terrible crime might not be held accountable, but that’s no less emotional than saying it’s “repugnant” to think of a baby in hell. Both positions are based on feelings. Remember, we’re not talking about people not being held accountable for their actions societally, but what happens, before God, to those who die before this age of accountability.
What do you think? Prove me wrong.
John K
26. Jenn R
July 20, 2006
11:53 PM
John K~
It is my belief that these Scriptures you have cited are all dealing with one group of people in particular- the Israelites who were fleeing from Egypt under Aaron and Moses.
While Numbers 14:29 does say what you have quoted, if you read the rest of the passage (beginning in verse 26 and ending in verse 35) it says:
26And the LORD spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, 27”How long shall this wicked congregation grumble against me? I have heard the grumblings of the people of Israel, which they grumble against me. 28Say to them, ‘As I live, declares the LORD, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: 29your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, 30not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun. 31But your little ones, who you said would become a prey, I will bring in, and they shall know the land that you have rejected. 32But as for you, your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness. 33And your children shall be shepherds in the wilderness forty years and shall suffer for your faithlessness, until the last of your dead bodies lies in the wilderness. 34According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, a year for each day, you shall bear your iniquity forty years, and you shall know my displeasure.’ 35I, the LORD, have spoken. Surely this will I do to all this wicked congregation who are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall come to a full end, and there they shall die.”
All those over 20 (except Caleb and Joshua) had been “grumbling” against God. That is why he chose that specific age to be the cut off age of entrance into Canaan. They had also said that their children would become victims-therefore God spared their children. As an example that He alone is God.
What of Aaron? He was over 20 and a follower of the Lord God, and yet he was denied passage into the land of Canaan because he rebelled against God’s word (Number 20:24). Surely someone over the age of 20 can have a saving faith in Christ, yet sin and still enter into the kingdom. While Caleb and Joshua were faithful, surely they were not the only faithful ones in all of Israel-Moses and Aaron for example. If Moses is in the Hall of Faith in Hebrews 11 and is also said to have inherited the righteousness of Christ by looking TO the cross. Yet he was over 20 and therefore would never get to Canaan, yet we know from Scripture he is, by faith, in Heaven. Would you say that Moses and Aaron and all those who had faith and yet rebelled would not be in Heaven?
I am not a theologian or a writer so I don’t know if I am conveying my thoughts properly or eloquently enough to make sense, but what I am saying boils down to this: These verses aren’t talking about Heaven, they are talking about Canaan. These verses aren’t talking about an age of accountability for salvation or faith, they are talking about a punishment for an act of rebellion.
I’m not debating the age of accountability issue (while I happen to not believe it is biblical). I am simply stating that I do not believe these verses, when taken in context, can be used to support that arguement.
27. John K
July 21, 2006
12:43 AM
Actually, my point was not so much to equate Canaan with salvation, but to establish the age before which God says that children do not yet know good from bad.
Deut 1:39 confirms that there is such an age, Numbers 14:29 and 32:11 merely show that this age is twenty.
Take Care,
John K
28. Chris Roberts
July 21, 2006
1:46 AM
I think my view on the matter has already been made clear, but I did want to address age of accountability. This is what I usually hear people in the church refer to when they express their belief that children who die will go to Heaven. John, you’re the first person I’ve ever heard attempt to put Scripture with it. But I have to say that I agree with Jenn, I don’t think an age of accountability is a biblical idea.
The verses you referenced are firmly tied to the Exodus event. In Scripture, especially in the OT, we need to be careful not to make universal something that was very particular. Nowhere else in Scripture is something like this mentioned so that strikes me as a good indicator that these particular verses can only apply in the context where we find them.
Also I think you are mixing ideas that aren’t meant to be mixed. I don’t think the age of 20 years is given as the age at which people know right from wrong. Deut 1:39 doesn’t say there is a magic number at which people suddenly know right from wrong. It does, however, say that there is some point at which people don’t know right from wrong.
Here’s what I think about the 20 years age that is given. Deut 1:35 says: “Not a man of this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your forefathers…” How do we define a generation? Different people do it in different ways. In this particular situation, the generation that would perish in the wilderness was all people over the age of 20. The generation under 20 would go on to enter the land.
We tend think of generations in terms of ages, so it would make sense that God would clarify the age limit of the generation that would perish in the wilderness. As far as Deut 1:39, as I’ve already mentioned there is nothing in the passage even hinting that “not knowing good from bad” has a connection with a specific age.
29. steveprost
July 21, 2006
1:49 AM
Tim, I’m a paedobaptist minister who fully agrees with your stated position here; similarly, I think there is often a harmful ambiguity in how many Reformed thinkers use the term ‘promise’ in these types of contexts. While this fuzzy use of the word ‘promise’ in these contexts may allow pastoral short term comfort to grieving parents and give more emotionally palatable apologetics to skeptics, it can also detrimentally water down the meaning and sense of unalterable power of God’s Word of promise and covenant overall in other contexts where Scripture DOES indeed provide us with objective certainty.
Can we generally agree that it is ok to speak of a ‘presumptive’ regeneration of infants of elect parents so long as we use a soft definition of ‘presumptive’ to mean (contra the Canons of Dort) reasonable grounds for treating something as a true reality while also remaining humbly cogniczant that the hoped-for probability is not actually guaranteed by the Word? Analagously, we all ‘presume’ that a newly baptized adult who makes a credible profession of faith is among the elect (we have reasonable grounds for an assumption or sense of probability) and treat him as such, while at the same time knowing that we have no rock solid promise of Scripture that regeneration and justification are in actuality effectually and spiritually accomplished and applied to this certain individual rather than counterfeit, especially before biblical marks of a lively faith are seen in his life.
30. Phil
July 21, 2006
2:02 AM
An infant who died when still tiny, may well have gone on to lead a life in which he committed terrible and horrifying atrocities. God knows. We do not and we cannot.
We’ve seen this before. It’s the Arminian version of election, based on foreseen faith/works. This necessarily implies synergism. What you have proffered, therefore, seems some sort of foreseen synergism. But we know that God predestined the elect “according to the purpose of his will”, not foreseen sin. The idea of hellish punishment for foreseen sin also violates the clear teaching throughout Scripture that Christ will render to each one according to deeds actually committed (see Proverbs 24:12; Psalm 62:12; Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:6; Col. 3:25; and Rev. 2:23, 20:12, 22:12).
31. Joop
July 21, 2006
3:52 AM
What will happen to infants who died, who have never ever heard of Jesus, who never ever got a chance to repent, never ever sinned either…
Are some going to hell while others who happened to have christian parents will be saved?
Sounds like a lottery to me!
While I do not have a clear answer, I certainly believe that God is a justice God, giving every human at least a fair chance to repent and to choose for Jesus as saviour, also from ‘orinigal sin”.
You may also ask: what will happen to all humans, never been able to heard the gospel. What happened to all the people who died before Jesus was born? Believe me, its an awful lot of people!
As I said, I believe in a God who is rightious. One day we will know the full truth here!
(please forgive my grammar as English is not my native language : ) )
Joop
32. Michael Garner
July 21, 2006
4:33 AM
Joop,
Your English is pretty good for being a second language. :)
However, there are a few concerns that I have with your post. First, the Bible teaches that God elects those who will be saved and those who will be damned. How does he choose? The scriptures declare that it is based upon his own good pleasure. As sinful humans, we often want a different answer. However, God cannot appeal to anything greater than his own character. This is something that we must trust and ultimately must love.
Second, humans definitely do NOT want things to be fair. In fairness, God would cast every single one of us into hell and there would be no such thing as a Savior and certainly no opportunity to gain his righteousness as he takes our sin. God would be perfectly just to cast each and every one of us into hell.
Furthermore, God does not give to all equally. We may want to believe that God gives all equal ability to repent and choose Jesus as savior (in your words). However, I would ask if God, being the potter, is not free to choose some for eternal glory and others for destruction?
Your conclusion is correct: God is righteous. This is something that we must know and trust. However, the secret is not to redefine what God is based on our fallen conception of righteousness. Rather, we must look at what God has revealed about himself and has declared to be righteous and then allow that understanding to transform our hearts and minds. In time, doctrines that we once considered repugnant can prove to be something that is dear to our heart.
In Christ alone,
mike
33. Jabbok
July 21, 2006
7:26 AM
Concerning John being filled with the Spirit from the womb:
I have heard, and would agree, that the word “from” should be understood as “From without” or “Away From” as opposed to “From Within”.
Paul understood that he was seperated and chosen to be an Apostle from his mother’s womb (Galations 1:15) but we know that he wasn’t converted until later in life on the Damascus Road.
I believe the intent here is to let us know that John was elect and would be set apart for the Lord’s service but I don’t think this is an indication that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from before birth.
34. Chris Roberts
July 21, 2006
7:26 AM
Michael,
Scripture teaches that God has offered salvation to all on the basis of His free will and love of mankind, that we choose to accept His salvation, that when we do we are adopted into the church and that it is the church which He has chosen/elected for Himself.
Just wanted to clarify, I noticed your post had a few typos so it came out reading slightly different than what Scripture actually says. I know the above statement is what you actually meant to say.
Joop,
Do you have any thoughts about the answers to the questions you raised?
35. Joop
July 21, 2006
8:09 AM
To Michel:
You said, God elects, either for heaven, either to eternal comdemnation. Something isn’t quite right here I think. God sent His Son to die on the cross for the sake of the whole world. Further, it is God’s purpose that THE Gospel will be spread all over the world so EVERYBODY might hear from Jesus, repent and get converted (by the Holy Spirit). No election here to certain people!
Gods message: we are lost, we will go to hell unless we repent, so I believe it is Gods purpose that EVERYBODY should ask in despair: WHAT SHOULD I DO TO GET SAVED!!!
There is a great to out there to be done!
To Chris
What will happen to infants when they died?
I think they go to ‘hades’ (see David and Batheba’s son), to be ‘raised’ once. But then,
how to judge?
I think they will be made ‘adults’ able to discern right form wrong, and will see Jesus or hear the gospel. How? Lots to speculate upon. I like to be careful here…
36. Josh
July 21, 2006
11:31 AM
Joop,
I agree with you that God does want the gospel spread to all people (Matt 28:18-20), and that He desires all to have faith in Him.
However, the Bible also clearly indicates that unregenerate man (those who have not been born again of the Holy Spirit) is unable to come to God (Romans 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14). We are only able to come to God if He draws us (John 6:44, 65). And everyone is not drawn the same. Jesus says that His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:16), but then also says that not all are His sheep (John 10:26), and will not come to Him because they are not His sheep.
It is difficult to get around the fact that God has sovereignly chosen to save certain individuals, not because they deserved it, earned it, or because He needed to, but because it brought Him glory and pleasure to do so.
Some verses regarding election you may want to look at are: Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:3-6, Ephesians 1:11, Acts 13:48.
37. Ochuk
July 21, 2006
11:38 AM
Here is an annoying question: If children are born dead in sin (by virtue of Adam) and fall under the wrath of God from conception; and, if they die, are subject to an eternity of conscious torment, what is the moral justification of having children? Doesn’t bearing babies only serve to increase the anger and wrath of God?
38. Joop
July 21, 2006
1:32 PM
Josh,
Jesus commands: Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and its Rightiousness. I think this is our choice to make that decision. In the old testament God commands: choose what is right and be blessed, if not, then there are the many curses… So if God commands us to choose (right from wrong) we should be able to choose. Sadly, Israel repeately chosed to life according to the flesh (Rom 8:6-8). With all consequences…
2Peter 3:9 says “The Lord is (…) not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance (KJV)”, so we ALL can COME to REPENTANCE, I would say.
Also in 2 Tim. 2:4: [God] will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowlegde of truth (KJV).
It is true that only the Holy Spirit can convince people of sin. Obviously many unregenerated don’t want to be convinced.
Yes, we are bad by nature, however still being able to make good choices.
How should we obey if we can’t make good choices?
Anyway, I understand your arguments and appreciate your point of view, however, in the picture at large I disagree at some points with you. You may as well read the verses I looked up for you :)
God bless,
Joop
39. Michael Garner
July 21, 2006
1:53 PM
Well Joop, we clearly have a theological difference here (Same with Chris). This probably isn’t the thread to get into a long and detailed conversation about God’s plan of redemption. However, suffice it to say that I do believe that your theological view puts you in a very difficult position on the issue of infants dying.
From my perspective, which i believe is biblical, we all deserve hell from conception and it is only by God graciously giving us Spiritual life that we may spend eternity with him. Your view, at least how it sounds, suggests that we all deserve (or at least have been granted) a fair chance to hear the gospel (some form of it, anyway) and choose whether we want to repent and follow Jesus or not. Since infants have a nearly impossible time with this, all sorts of unbiblical views have to be proposed and speculated on.
However, the even more dangerous problem, from my view, is that I think that it usually does not stop with infants. One person has already raised the issue of the mentally handicapped. You yourself seem to have raised the issue of people A) who have not heard the Gospel B) died before Jesus. While I think (B) is unrelated, I think even the question of (A) that begins with your theological presuppositions leads straight towards inclusivism.
So, it is my contention that an Arminian understanding of God’s Grace, if held consistently, leads to A) unbiblical views on this topic (namely original sin and the death of infants) and B) ultimately to inclusivism.
Finally, what would be my exhortation? You said, “No election here to certain people!” This is quite a staggering statement considering the biblical evidence to the contrary. I would encourage you to continue to read and study scripture. You do have a good familiarity with Scripture (from what I can see), even in a second language! However, I do believe there are bits that you are possiblity blind to.
May we both continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
P.S. excuse my typos in the previous post. I wrote it at 2:00a.m. when I am not very lucid. Then again, I’m sure this post has some as well and sadly I do not have the time to reread it.
40. Chris Roberts
July 21, 2006
2:17 PM
Michael,
Please don’t fall into the error of assuming that if one isn’t Calvinist then one must be Arminian. Such silly games never help a discussion.
As for a free will view presenting problems, the view is actually quite consistent. In the Bible God gives man the gift of Himself. Those who accept Him are received into His elect body, the church. Those who do not accept Him are not received into His elect body.
There are, however, those who are unable to make that choice. Calvinists say that no one is able to choose God; Scripture teaches otherwise. But there are those incapable of understanding God, sin, damnation and salvation. Scripture is fully consistent in testifying that God upholds the needs of all people. Those whose needs are greater receive all the more grace and care from God. It is fully consistent with the character of God in the Bible that He would extend His salvation to those unable to make the choice themselves. What is not within the testimony of Scripture is the idea that God only desires salvation for some and not for others.
41. Joop
July 21, 2006
2:48 PM
Michael (spelled it right now!),
I’ll try to answer you all in relation to this topic.
You stated: Children deserve hell right aller being conceived. I cannot agree with that since Romans 6:23 KJV says: “For wages of sin is death. “However, A child, just after conception is not yet able to sin anyway, so it cannot deserve the wages of sin (with is “death”). And a child is not to held accountable for his parents sin. Maybe you show me from scripture otherwise?
I however, do believe that a preborn child isn’t entitled to heaven either. It has to hear the gospel once and be saved.
I would not say we ‘deserve’ a fair chance. God granted us grace, which is not to be deserved. Only God’s grace can ultimately save us.
I believe that it is God’s wish to save us all, including all stillborn infants. You may well read 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4. I honestly cannot find any election here.
We might agree on that we all can only be saved through the blood of Jesus Christ on Golgotha, and that is Gods wish (and command) that the gospel be spread all over the world so everybody (nobody excluded, so this is inclusivism?) should be able to hear the truth, and be able to make a choice. If that’s Gods wish and command, how then will God maybe exclude some people beforehand?
You tell me.
Yes, Michael, I will continue reading the scriptures ;)
God Bless,
Joop
42. Dex
July 21, 2006
3:38 PM
Joop,
You seem to be confusing ability with responsibility. Your reasoning seems to go “if God commanded it, then I must be able to obey.” This is exactly the same issue that Arius and Augustine clashed over. However, we are commanded to keep the whole Law, but scripture is clear that Christ is the only one who ever actually did so. Romans says that the purpose of the Law was to show how sinful we are. How could it do that if we were able to keep it perfectly?
You said, “How should we obey if we can’t make good choices?” Very good question! Imagine you are standing before a Holy God who tells you His requirements for righteousness and you realize, “I can’t do that!” What is your response? There are only two. You can object and say “That’s not fair” (I wouldn’t recommend that), or you can fall at His feet and say “I can’t do that! I’m in big trouble! Spare me!” It is with a response like that that our flesh dies and life in Christ begins.
P.S. The verses you used are very popular, but they have been responded to. If you are looking for answers, try searching for articles on these passages somewhere like http://www.monergism.com, or listen to the lessons here on “Common Attacks Against Reformed Theology” that deal with these: http://www.prbc.org/Sermons2.htm
43. Joop
July 21, 2006
4:33 PM
Dex,
Thanks for your answer. I have to admit, you are, at least partly, right.
In OT most kings were disobedient, didn’t keep the law, however, some kings were really dedicated to the Lord (David, Josia). Did theyalways keep the law completely. David didn’t. Was it possible to keep the law? In theory, maybe, (I really have to reflect on this)
You might be right about the law, for not be able to keep it all. About 613 rules? Pfoooi! That is to say, maybe I can keep then outwardly. However, that will be not sufficient anymore. Hating your brother, having bad (lustful,etc) thoughts etc is a sin as well. Yes, I need Christ to keep the law, or rather, the law to be fulfilled by Him. I agree on that one.
However, the gospel teaches to accept Jesus as my Saviour. Can I do that: accepting Jesus? Obeying God Who says: this is my only begotten Son, listen to Him. Could the Jews in those days do that? Sure they could!
Did they? Not all, and Jesus blamed them for not accepting and believing in Him.
So to answer your quenstion: I would respond (BTW a matter of choice!) to accepting Jesus so I might live and He glorified in me!
You said: the purpose of the law is to show how sinful we are. Really? Then why wasn’t the law given to Noach, Abraham, Isaak, Jacob etc? So they were less / not sinful? You tell me.
I realize we I are off topic a bit,
I quit now, it’s getting late (European Time :))
I will see your websites later!
God Bless,
Joop
44. Ray
July 21, 2006
4:57 PM
I have to confess that I was very angry with Tim when I first read this post, but having reread it I have to conlude that we’ve been tricked. Mr. Challes has raised this issue merely to increase traffic to his site. Good one!
Imagine a Reformed Baptist, a Calvinist ,speculating that God is damming unborn chidren for sins that they would have committed had they lived and grown up! Too precious!
Good way to generate a discussion though.
As for my thoughts on an academic level I would say, : 1. A scriptural case can be made raising the possibility that infants and young children go to heaven when they die.
2. Neither definitive nor conclusive evidence exists that such is the case so that exactly what happens to them cannot be proven.
3. The issue becomes then one of speculation which while useful, as an intellectual exercise serves no practicle purpose in ministering to those who have exprienced the death of a child.
45. Ray
July 21, 2006
5:06 PM
Note : by child I mean unborn or very youngchild.
46. JD
July 21, 2006
9:58 PM
Mr. Challes has raised this issue merely to increase traffic to his site.
I didn’t see anywhere where Tim stated such a thing. If not, then that would be an inappropriate judgment of motives on your part Ray. You may not agree with what he’s written, but you can not say that he’s merely blogging on certain topics to increase traffic or “popularity.”
47. Nan
July 21, 2006
10:59 PM
Michael Garner, wonderful handling of God’s word. Thank you for rightly dividing the word of truth and for doing it with grace! Ditto that to Dex as well.
Chris Roberts, how can you in the same sentence say “we choose” and “God’s elect”. When *we* elect a public official, is it she/he that casts the vote for us? Where in the Bible does it talk about election going from the direction of man to God? God elects. If you do not believe this or the doctrine of predestination how can you use phrases like “His ‘elect’ body” the church? While I agree that He has saved for Himself “a people”, Jesus did die for individuals that together are woven into His precious bride.
I highly recommend for you a rereading of Romans Chapter 9 (or better yet, all of Romans!) where you will find the following:
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”
making your statement, “What is not within the testimony of Scripture is the idea that God only desires salvation for some and not for others.” moot.
There are those who are comfortable with God’s sovereignty only in so far as it does not affect their own personal autonomy over salvation. He is the author and perfector of our faith from start to finish; He elects, He foreknows, He seeks us, He touches our lips with fire so that they may be cleansed…He, He, He. We only receive with an empty hand. We have but to cry out to Him in our first exercise of the brand new gift of faith, like a newborn baby screams with it’s first breath, who has just been given life by no will of it’s own.
I don’t think Michael made the error of assuming that all who are not Calvinist are Arminian. All who are not Calvinist can indeed be any combination of religious and/or denominational stripe, however the fact is that amongst ‘evangelicals’, the vast majority are in one of those two camps. As it is, Michael was specifically responding to Joop who by virtue of argumentation *is* Arminian.
Nan
48. Ray
July 22, 2006
1:26 AM
Note to JD: I think that if you look up SARCASM in a dictionary you’ll understand the first part of my post better.
49. Ray
July 22, 2006
1:34 AM
I accept, however, that humour and sarcasm may be inappropriate when dealing with such an emotionally charged issue.
For that mistake I apologise.
50. JD
July 22, 2006
11:17 AM
Sorry Ray. Sarcasm is often in tone and it’s hard to pick up on sometimes by reading. There are those “haters” out there that believe such things as you sarcastically wrote. Sorry I missed it. Had I gotten it, I would have enjoyed the joke seeing as how I love sarcasm. =)
51. Bus Driver
July 22, 2006
4:48 PM
I’m 81 and an avid reader of this site - also a blogger. I’ve read the discussion and note that it’s a theological argument that many have wrestled with through the years.
I do know a bit about babies having 9 children and after much study have my own views.
It’s a great site you have here Tim and thank you for all your help with mine.
The Gospel is more simple than one thinks.
Bus Driver
52. Michael Garner
July 23, 2006
3:30 AM
Thanks for the comments Nan.
Chris, I do not believe that I anywhere stated that if you are not a Calvinist than you are an Arminian. You could not be a Calvinist and be an Open Theist, for example.
However, I did pit my own views (which happen to also be the views of Tim) against the views of Joop. I am clearly a Calvinist and he has articulated very standard Arminian doctrine (at least the 20-21st century variation). So my comment was not so much “if you are not a calvinist than you are an arminian” as it was a statement of “I am a Calvinist and Joop seems to be an Arminian.” My apologies if that caused confusion.
Joop said, “I cannot agree with that since Romans 6:23 KJV says: “For wages of sin is death. “However, A child, just after conception is not yet able to sin anyway, so it cannot deserve the wages of sin (with is “death”). And a child is not to held accountable for his parents sin. Maybe you show me from scripture otherwise?”
I think that this is what Tim means when he says that he has never (or rarely) seen this doctrine articulated within the framework of those who hold to the federal headship of Adam and original sin. Joop, I would suggest Romans 5 as an answer to your question. When Adam sinned, we all were deemed sinners and deserving of condemnation.
You also stated, “You may well read 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Tim 2:4. I honestly cannot find any election here.”
I find the statement troubling for a few reasons. A) These verses have been answered by virtually every reformed scholar and lay-person alike. B) Simply because you cannot find election in 2 verses does not mean that you can discard the clear teaching found throughout Scripture. C) 2 Pet 3 is not even in the context of soteriology, but rather Eschatology and is written to believers (2 pet 1). It is very dangerous to take a verse that isn’t even dealing with the question of Salvation and use it to somehow nullify the verses that do clearly teach election. For example, election is even assumed earlier in the book (see 2 pet 2:10). I don’t have the time to do full exegesis on bother (or either) passage(s), but that is one very evident thing that jumps out to me.
In any event, you agreed to keep studying the Scriptures, and I will do the same. May God correct both of our misunderstandings in time. And even if we don’t ever reach agreement on earth, we can be confident that there will no longer be a day where we will see through a glass dimly.
In Christ alone,
mike
53. Joop
July 23, 2006
4:41 AM
To my dear calvinists,
Jesus would always invite children to come to Him,
orgininal sin, or not. So how, when scripture teaches that everyone who sees Jesus, sees the Father, how then is it possible that God (the Father) might send some of these children (even babies) to hell?
When Jesus spoke of hell, which he did quite a lot of times, he always was speaking of some kind of people who would be disobedient, indifferent, evil, etc. As far as I know, children were here never mentioned
Your discussion whether or not I would be Arminian… To be honest, I dont know all what Arminius taught. I might agree with some points, however, that doesn’t make me Arminian.
You may say I’m not Calvinist, which a consider true, though I might agree with some points of Calvin.
You better call me Christian, as I fully agree with Christ, though I might not understand yet all He teaches. Still learning :)
God Bless,
Joop
54. Michael Garner
July 23, 2006
12:43 PM
Joop,
Those are some good comments and questions. One thing that you can be quite confident of: Everyone who is currently a Calvinist was not always a calvinist. At one point we were all unregenerate men who hated God. At a later point Most of us were converted into some sort of Libertarian Free Will view (Arminianism, Molinism, etc.) So, while you may feel like we are not understanding you, you can rest assured that most of us have all wrestled with some of the very same questions and objections that you are raising.
With regards to children, you are correct (and I would agree) that Jesus always invited the children to come to him. Jesus often used the simple faith of a child as a guide for how our faith should look. We live in a culture that ironically both underemphasizes the importance of children and overemphasizes their importance. I want to guard as carefully as possible from underemphasizing them. I think that is partially what you are calling us to do. In that regard, I sincerely agree with you.
However, you then provide something that does not seem like it logically follows. Your syllogism (big fancy word - just ignore it) goes something like this :
All who see Jesus see the Father.
God will not send those who see Him to hell.
The children saw Jesus.
Therefore, God will not send them to hell.
However, this is simply not the case. The point that seems to be clearly errant is that God will not send those who see him (namely his Son) to hell. Many people came into contact with Jesus. Many even followed him around for a time and seem interested. However, many out of a coldness of heart went away and we have no reason to believe that they will be in Heaven. By the same token, the simple fact that the children were welcomed by Jesus and that they saw him does not imply that they were or will be saved.
Second, your next point returns to an argument that I cannot agree with. It is basically the conclusion that Hell is for people who sin and children do not sin (or are atleast not held responsible for it). However, I have never found any biblical support for this position. However, it has been my position all along that we Cannot know where all children will spend eternity. I believe God COULD choose to graciously save them, but we simply cannot know that from the limited revelation that we have.
Lastly, there is often a disdain for names and ISMs. Some people dread being labled a calvinist or an arminian or anything else. The fact is, everybody here would call themself a Christian and yet many have completely different beliefs (we have both Roman Catholics and Protestants, for one). It simply becomes easier to refer to peoples views based upon a name. If you cant to call your view the ALJKSHHIAIALk view, and we all knew that it meant you held to points A, B, and C, then that would be fine with me. I, for one, do not agree with every position Calvin held, but I still call myself a Calvinist because it clearly conveys my soteriological convictions.
In Christ alone,
mike
55. Joop
July 23, 2006
2:23 PM
To Michael,
Thank you for your efforts and ‘trouble’ to answer me and reply my comments.
At least we have some agreements here, which may be emphasized above our disagreements.
In your comments I think I can point at a disagreement which might not be.
For instance: I do agree with your point of view that people who saw Jesus, may ultimatily not get saved. This also may imply for children who once may have been invited to come to Him.
Children should make a disision for Jesus once grown adult, only then they will be saved.
However, God (i.e. Jesus) loves children to inviting to come to Him rather than sending (some of) them to hell.
Then you said:
Second, your next point returns to an argument that I cannot agree with. It is basically the conclusion that Hell is for people who sin and children do not sin (or are atleast not held responsible for it). HOWEVER, I HAVE NEVER FOUND ANY BIBLICAL SUPPORT FOR THIS POSITION. [capitals by Joop].
So you would suggest (some) children might end up in hell (without ever sinned). Then I say here: 1. I cannot find any biblical support for that position. 2. Hell is for sinners only. See Rev 21:8 KJV:
“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in th lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
Any room for children, infants, etc who never ever sinned?
Then you say: we cannot know where all children will spent in eternity.
I agree with that since children will one day have to make a disision for Jesus. I’m not sure all will decide for Jesus. (What would have happened to Adolf Hitler if he would never been born…?) How and when is a bit speculative, maybe when the dead will be raised and children might be ‘made’ adult so they are able to choose.
My background is Roman Catholic but I left RCC a long time ago. I’m now ‘evangelical / pentacostal’. As a Christian I believe EVERYBODY needs to get converted, repent and be born again by the Holy Spirit. It’s hardly taught in RCC.
I don’t believe in predestination since we all have our own responsibily and make our own choices.
I dont think the bible teaches predestination.
We might agree here in our disagreement.
God bless,
Joop
56. Nan
July 23, 2006
6:36 PM
Respectfully offered, Joop, but you simply cannot just decide that predestination is not true because overarchingly “free will” *feels* more important to hang onto. Please do know that Michael is very right in that many of us who now consider ourselves Calvinist have most certainly not always been so convicted. It is only by God’s grace in opening His word before us and revealing His glory to us in His sovereignty over all of life, including salvation; when, how and to whom it is given. For many of us, we fought it tooth and nail. We wrestled with it, not wanting to accept it as true because it was repugnant to us that God alone deserves the glory for our salvation, from start to finish. (You see, if *we* choose, then we can accept some of the glory of our salvation)
But scripture is *undeniably* clear to the contrary. For if we cannot accept that God planned salvation for certain people (by no merit of their own) and not for others, we then must assume we have a sad God who wrings his hands with worry and concern that His plans will not be brought to fruition, also that the plan of salvation was actually God’s “plan B” when the first plan in the garden with Adam and Eve fell through. We then must accept that He also did not put his son to death on our account but merely that he *allowed* it to happen. Jesus’ death didn’t make salvation *possible* for all, it actually accomplished something for those He had chosen. This is what gives me such joy in this hard doctrine… that the completion of my salvation is not resting upon me because it has already been accomplished, start to finish. If He needed our words of acceptance to seal the deal He would not have said, “It is finished” because it would have been an open ended incomplete act that would not have been sufficient for our sins.
I will not post the entire contexts that goes with this small list of references that confirm that predestination cannot be something that we just opt out of:
1. Acts 4:23-28
23When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25who through the mouth of our father David, your servant,[c] said by the Holy Spirit,
“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’[d]—
27for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
2. Romans 8:29
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
3. Romans 8:30
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
4. Ephesians 1:5
he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
5. Ephesians 1:11
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will…
Nan
57. Michael Garner
July 23, 2006
7:50 PM
Joop,
Nan provided some of the crucial texts that support the doctrine of predestination. I will not repeat that post.
However, one thing that I will say is that you have insisted that infants have not sinned. However, what I must reiterate is that they are still sinners. We are all brought forth in iniquity just as David was. When Adam transgressed God’s law in the garden, the entire human race fell and were made sinners deserving of condemnation.
I have suggested where to begin reading several times before, but I will now actually provided some of the key verses.
Romans 5:
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Please note: Through one sin condemnation was brought upon all men and that through one act of disobedience all men were made sinners.
These are just two of the verses of chapter 5. The whole chapter is quite beautiful showing the difference between the results of the Old Adam and the New. If we cannot accept the imputation of sin brought by Adam then I cannot see how we could accept the imputation of righteousness found in Christ. In my opinion, that is one of the key points of Romans 5: the comparison of the death brough through sin of the Old Adam and the life brought through righteousness of the New.
In Christ alone,
mike
58. pilgrim
July 23, 2006
11:18 PM
Lots of good stuff here on leection & Calvinism!
I am reposting part of comment I made on part 1 as it’s also relevant here, and it was the lost comment posted on part 1.
I’d also like to say to Tim, hmm, your view has echoes of mine—good way to think!
(Because we were looking at Scripture.)
Scientists have shown babies can hear voices inside the womb—who’s to say they didn’t hear the gospel, and were granted understanding?
I can neither state this to be true dogmatically—nor deny it dogmatically.
However, any infants saved are saved by grace—and somehow, some way, God works it out.
59. Joop
July 24, 2006
4:22 AM
To my dear Calvinist brothers,
Thank you for your time and efforts to answer me!
I will spell out Romans 5 (18-19) with a few words emphasized.
Romans 5:
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for ALL men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for ALL men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the MANY MADE SINNERS, so also through the obedience of the one man the MANY will be MADE RIGHTEOUS
Even for children being ‘sinners’, there still is -through Jesus Christ - justification that brings life for ALL men. (no children excluded, though they will have to choose once).
How to ‘receive’ justification?
See Acts 17:30 KJV (…) Sirs, what must I do to get saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
So, believing (a command) in Christ brings salvation.
Yes, I should have said: I believe in predestination, however predestination of ALL men, though not everybody will choose for Christ.
Like the old Jerusalem, which chose to reject and kill Jesus (like the prophets). They were to blame!
(Mat 23:37)
By saying that “choosing is to receive a part of the glory of our salvation” is nonsense to me.
We came to Christ with empty hands, nothing to offer!
I compare with making a traffic offence (speeding): I drove 100 Mph instead of 30Mph.
I beg the police officer for grace which he granted (yes, a real miracle!), So I chose to beg for mercy. Is there any honor for me? I dont think so!
We all, Christians, accepted grace, offered by de blood of Jesus Christ. That is, to declare we were (still are) ‘bankrupt’ and had no other choice but to accept Christ’ offer. All glory to Him!
That’s the meaning of GRACE, not to be deserved by ourselves, but only to accept by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. No honor to us, nothing!
Jesus offer was a complete and perfect offer (‘It is done’), not for some people and exclude others.
When I read scripture as a whole I come to the conclusion that Jesus died for all (as said in Romans 5:18). It’s, however, a fact that not everybode will accept Christ. The jews didn’t (apart from the ‘remnant’). Probably most of the Heathens won’t accept Him. Not because the Holy Spirit chose not to convince people of sin, rather people choose to disobey their Creator.
Lot’s more to be said, but it would (again!) be off topic.
One day we will all agree, one way or the other…
God bless,
Joop
60. chris
July 24, 2006
8:45 AM
Joop,
May I suggest that you really pray about this discussion. You see only God can give you eyes to see the “deep things” of God. By you fighting these deep doctrinal issues we are here discussing ( which is really Gods Sovereignty) you will never be able to understand. I used to have the same beliefs that you have now. And the more I read scriptures the more I fought Gods Sovereignty. But then there was a time I submitted to the Lord and said “Lord I believe in your Sovereignty, please give me eyes to see”. And through time I was able to see. Not because of my abilities but through prayer and study God showed me some of the “mysteries” of Salvation.
I have one question for you. Do you believe God is Sovereign? The answer to this question will help your struggles with this subject. You see you cannot say, (which most armininians say) Yes, I beleive that God is Sovereign! But not in Salvation. You see if God is truly Sovereign. Then He is Sovereign in Salvation as well. Just a thought.
61. Grant
July 24, 2006
9:35 AM
Joop said: “By saying that “choosing is to receive a part of the glory of our salvation” is nonsense to me.
We came to Christ with empty hands, nothing to offer!
I compare with making a traffic offence (speeding): I drove 100 Mph instead of 30Mph.
I beg the police officer for grace which he granted (yes, a real miracle!), So I chose to beg for mercy. Is there any honor for me? I dont think so!” and “Jesus offer was a complete and perfect offer (‘It is done’), not for some people and exclude others.”
But Joop, that’s the point. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 teaches that man who is sinful by nature WILL NOT and CANNOT accept the things of the Spirit of God, that is, the Gospel (the theme of wisdom and foolishness is developed from 1:18). That’s why God must work in people (Philippians 1:6), and regenerate them before they can be saved, because people as they naturally occur, that is, with a sinful nature (1 Corinthians 2:14) WILL NOT choose Jesus Christ unless God does this.
But John 6:44, 65, and Ephesians 1:3-12 teach that God is only going to do this in those whom He has predestined. He predestines them according to “the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:5), and not according to His foreknowledge that they would choose Him (as some have suggested). Indeed, that idea, as I understand it, is a kind of works-salvation, because God is choosing them on the basis of something that they will DO.
But what about those who aren’t predestined?
Isn’t that unfair?
Romans 9:14-24 teaches that God is utterly sovereign, and we are completely out of place to charge Him with wrongdoing because of predestination. It might seem unfair to us people, but God is jealous over his glory (Isaiah 42:8, see Exodus 20:4-6). Whatever He does, that is, whatever it pleases Him to do (Psalm 135:6), IS righteous because righteousness is defined by WHO God IS, His Character.
But you asked the question, and to answer, I ask another one: Well, to whom does God OWE salvation?
No one. You said: “That’s the meaning of GRACE, not to be deserved by ourselves.” I agree fully.
This predestination is TO salvation, and WILL result in salvation. Because God must draw people to Christ does not change the fact that no one deserves it.
That’s how we can see the love and the righteousness of God in harmony in the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the glory of God.
People are still unworthy of salvation, it is GOD Who must do it in them, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 3:7: “So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only GOD WHO GIVES THE GROWTH.”
Predestination means that we need to trust in God and revere Him more.
62. Lance Roberts
July 24, 2006
1:45 PM
“but I do not think God acts out of a desire to increase His glory”
Actually, God ONLY acts to glorify himself. His glory is the basis of love, and we can only love because we have a glorious God.
———————————-
Something some people seem to be missing in this discussion, is that babies in the womb are sinners. They have the imputed original sin nature, and need the righteousness of Christ as much as those who have left the womb.
I agree with Tim, in that I believe the elected unborn have received regeneration & faith.
63. Joop
July 24, 2006
2:56 PM
To Chris and Grant,
Is God Sovereign. Yes, He is. Is He sovereign about Salvation? Yes. But then, in what way?
See Joh 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, than whosoever believeth in hem should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
I think it’s quiet ease: You will have to BELIEVE in Him. So, what does this have to do with ‘predestination’: some would have been elected, others would not?
1 Cor. 2:12-15 Paul speaks about ‘natural’ and ‘spiritual’ men. 14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God God:
for they are foolishness unto him (…)
So this has to do with election and predestination?
Considering verse 14, you could even say: so why then evangelize at all?
Obviously there are also ‘spiritual men’. So how did they became ‘spiritual’? By selection or by faith in Christ? When I compare these verses above, I cannot conclude the sovereign Lord elects some people while rejecting others.
You Calvinist guys take some specific verses to ‘proof’ your point. To me it is that simple: Believe in Jesus and be saved!
I keep it short now: The question: to whom does God OWE salvation? Well, that’s what the gospel is all about, is itn’t? Read the whole Old Testament, all the sacrifices as images to the Ultimate Sacrifice.
Look at the old people of Israel (as ‘image’ of the ‘new Israel’, the Church) Also in old Israel there was Israel ‘according to the flesh’ and ‘the Israel of God’. Compare 1 Cor 2:12-15. In Elia’s days there were only 7000 people not worshipping Baal. Did God elect these 7000? And today there are hosts of so called Christian, running after the PDL fraud from Rick Warren. Is that all ‘spiritual’ according to 1 Cor 2:15?
Again, I’m way off topic again (my original sin :)).
There is much more to be said and to respond your remarks. I know I have not been answering everything.
One final remark: I think the gospel is that easy: believe in Christ (his sacrifice, atonement) and repent. We have to preach that and the Holy Spirit will finally convince people. Not that anybode deserve anything, but according to scripture God wants everybody be saved.
I have a few question for you Grant and Chris,
and other Calvinists who might read this stuff.
How do YOU know you’re saved c.q. ‘elected’?
was it possible for you guys, not be elected, but rather neglected?
Has everybody in your church assurance for being elected? Or do some of you feel ‘neglected’?
(I know I had but two alternatives: going astray and stay a slave of satan, or choose Him, Whom the Father send unto ….well…ME as well!!!
praise God for His Glory!
God bless,
Joop
P.S. please forgive my grammar errors, :(
English is my ‘second’ language. :)
64. Tim Challies
July 24, 2006
2:59 PM
“I don’t believe in predestination since we all have our own responsibily and make our own choices. I dont think the bible teaches predestination. “
I don’t think you mean that. After all, the Bible uses the very word. So you must believe in some kind of predestination, even if it is not a “Calvinistic” understanding of it.
65. Joop
July 24, 2006
3:15 PM
To Tim,
yes, you’re right Tim, I had to specify better (as I admitted earlier). Well, I don’t believe in election, that God elects some people while rejecting others beforehand. People are dead in sin and God sacrificed his only begotten Son for us all so we might live by accepting His Sacrifice. Not all will believe in Him while some prefer darkness rather than light. I don’t understand why, but scripture says so.
Gods ‘predestination’: to create mankind to have communion (fellowship) with Him. Likewise Christ as Bridegroom and the Church as the Bride,
So there will be a big ‘party’ once. That’s I think mankinds (the called ones) predestination.
God bless,
Joop
66. chris
July 24, 2006
5:25 PM
Joop,
As I said before it will be impossible to debate these issues. It takes years sometimes in order to see these doctrinal truths. But to stay closed minded as it appears you are, will result in no growth in this area. You must be more open minded and not be so dogmatic on the issue and allow God to teach you.
I did want to make a comment about the 7000 that you mention in your last email. I haven’t looked at my bible so I am going on by my memory (and that is very limited). But I think it says something to the fact that God reserved these 7,000 men. Once you truly submit to Gods Sovereignty you will see on every page of the written word Gods election and Salvation. Its truly amazing.
As for my Salvation. I used to think it was because I went forward in some service. But years later I knew God was converting me by His own will. I was literally clay and God for whatever reason started to mold me and changed my desires. For years I didn’t have fruit now its all I desire. God works in mysterious ways and I have nothing to offer Him. Thats really what election is all about. I think your biggest hangup up on election is that it appears unfair. And I would agree with you humanly speaking. But God is God. If it weren’t for Him electing some then none would be save. Whether that number is 1 million or ten. Whether it be as in the day of Pentecost or as in the calling of Saul, Abraham, Noah. Its God Sovereign will and we need to just submit to His will. One preacher once said and I agree we should preach and witness as an “armininian” but know that Salvation is of the Lord and let him do the choosing.
67. Nan
July 24, 2006
5:45 PM
Joop,
All of us, in our sinful state, dead in our transgressions are *unable* to respond to God’s call on our hearts unless the Father draws us. Jesus himself said that.
When you were converted did you suddenly understand that this message of grace was *for you*? How many times had you heard it before then? Some of us may be able to say that we grasped salvation in Christ the first time we heard it. Praise God for when that happens! But how many of us had heard it 1,000 times before we *really* heard it? Did something about the message change? Is it that the 999 people that told it to us before were inept teachers? Or is it that suddenly the Spirit of God burned these words into our hearts at that exact moment, opening before us the scripture and melting our hearts before Him, giving us the realization that this work that Jesus did was OURS! Shall we attribute our understanding of the gospel, when it finally took root, to our own preference to light over darkness? Shall we attribute it to our own wit and wisdom even in our spiritual state of deadness? How does a dead man come to his senses unless He is awakened by the Spirit of God? Did Lazarus call forth himself from the grave because He knew Jesus was there and he really wanted to be with him? No. In the same way, the Bible says we were *dead* in our transgressions giving us no choice but to lay there in our sins. Spiritually dead people cannot seek God or rouse themselves from their graves. It is God who does that drawing, the Spirit who awakens us to the gospel that we might be *able* to take hold of it and cry out in faith and belief. The faith is the gift of the Spirit that enables us to believe. Just like a baby cries, it only does so becaus it was just given life. That is what the cry of faith and belief is from the mouth or heart of a brand new believer. It *could not* express that belief unless it has just been granted new life! Just as the deaf man did not unplug his ears because He knew Jesus was going to impart wisdom to his ears. Jesus unplugged his ears that the deaf man might go forth and obey.
On our own, we do not have the life breath, the desire or the sense to choose God. If it is we who make the first move towards God then salvation is a synergistic thing. As God did not need Adam’s help in making Adam. God does not need our help in giving us spiritual life.
Romans 3:10-18
“None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13”Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14”Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15”Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16in their paths are ruin and misery,
17and the way of peace they have not known.”
18”There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
also Romans 10:20 says:
“I have been found by those who did not seek me;
I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”
God even reveals Himself to those of us who do less than not even wonder about Him… He seeks and saves the lost. He seeks and shows Himself to those who even scorn the cross.
Nan
68. Chris Roberts
July 25, 2006
1:02 AM
You see you cannot say, (which most armininians say) Yes, I beleive that God is Sovereign! But not in Salvation. You see if God is truly Sovereign. Then He is Sovereign in Salvation as well. Just a thought.
It always amuses me when Calvinists try to defend the sovereignty of God by limiting His sovereignty. If God is sovereign then He can do things as He wills without having to make sure it squares with Calvinist logic. If God is sovereign then He can give free will to man. Man’s will is never greater than God’s and ultimately God is in control. With His sovereignty He has chosen to give us the ability to choose.
It takes years sometimes in order to see these doctrinal truths. But to stay closed minded as it appears you are, will result in no growth in this area. You must be more open minded and not be so dogmatic on the issue and allow God to teach you.
I always say that I am proud of being closed minded. If I were open minded, my brains would leak out. But you do realize what you are saying is just like what the world says: “You must be closed minded! If you were truly open minded then you would agree with me!” In truth you are being as dogmatic and assertive as he. Such is the nature of belief and debate. I am glad to see you passionate on the subject, people should be passionate about the things they defend. But I am sad that you don’t seem to recognize your own passion. If you did you’d realize you’re arguing with the same kind of force as Joop and that your comments would apply to yourself.
69. Chris Roberts
July 25, 2006
4:46 AM
Nan,
All of us, in our sinful state, dead in our transgressions are *unable* to respond to God’s call on our hearts unless the Father draws us. Jesus himself said that.
Quite true. How wonderful it is that the Father has drawn everyone unto Himself! Sadly many resist His drawing. John 6 nowhere says that everyone drawn to the Father ends up with the Father; those that do respond to His call are promised that they will be found in Christ. John 6 affirms the truth throughout Scripture that salvation is God’s work by God’s initiative. Truly the Lord came seeking us. Having sought us and found us, He is the God who created us to freely love Him. He has called all men unto Himself and has offered salvation and a new life to all. He is the one who has done the work to reunite man and God and He is the one that invites all people back to Himself. He is also the one who then gave us the choice of how we would respond.
70. chris
July 25, 2006
6:05 AM
Chris Roberts,
You said,
“It always amuses me when Calvinists try to defend the sovereignty of God by limiting His sovereignty. If God is sovereign then He can do things as He wills without having to make sure it squares with Calvinist logic. If God is sovereign then He can give free will to man. Man’s will is never greater than God’s and ultimately God is in control. With His sovereignty He has chosen to give us the ability to choose.”
I think you are missing my point. I am not limiting God’s Sovereignty, I am establishing it. If you really think about it you are the one who limits His Sovereignty by giving man his supposed “freewill”.
Let me ask you this. If man has “free will” can God by His “freewill” choose to overpower man and change mans will by giving him a new heart, new eyes, and a “new birth”?
Is it your opinion that such men as Abraham, Noah, Jacob, Paul, Elisha, the thief on the cross, the fishermen who followed Jesus chose Christ by their own “freewill” or did Grace do something to change them to follow Christ.
And if they chose by their own “freewill” then what is the point of God sending the “Holy Spirit”. You do serious damage to the office and job of the “Holy Spirit” in order to establish man’s “freewill”.
God Bless you
71. Chris Roberts
July 25, 2006
6:26 AM
I think you are missing my point. I am not limiting God’s Sovereignty, I am establishing it. If you really think about it you are the one who limits His Sovereignty by giving man his supposed “freewill”.
Don’t mistake free will for sovereign will. God is sovereign, man is free. Our freedom is not greater than His sovereignty but underneath His authority we have been given the freedom to choose. He does often enforce His will over the will of man, but Scripture is crammed with accounts of people freely responding to God. Yes, including Abraham, Noah, Jacob, Paul, Elisha, the thief on the cross, and the fishermen who followed Jesus.
What else would be the purpose of the Holy Spirit if the will of man was not free? He is the instructor, teacher, guide, comforter. We need the Holy Spirit to instruct us and guide us so that we might freely choose to do the right thing. God has a will for man and God desires that we follow His will. A large part of the work of the Holy Spirit is to help guide us in that will.
72. chris
July 25, 2006
7:05 AM
Chris Roberts,
With your definition of the Holy Spirit’s job, how can you say man has “freewill”. Can man choose Christ without the “Holy Spirit”?
If your answer is yes than man truly has “freewill”. If your answer is no, than the “freewill” that you preach is quite weak and really is not as free as you think.
What I would say is that man truly doesn’t have “freewill” until God’s Grace is empowered. Man can only do evil in the sight of God one way, down.
You said,
” but Scripture is crammed with accounts of people freely responding to God. ” Really, please give me a couple of examples. Thanks
73. Matt
July 25, 2006
4:26 PM
And yet not a single person has made reference to baptism. If we are to presuppose that we are born into sin (through Adam) then we are in need of God’s grace from the start. From day one we are born in sin and deserve death. But, God through His grace gives us hope. God gave us the ability to “wash clean” in baptism. The Bible does say this for a fact. I really don’t see how you could claim that there is evan a chance that God would send a baby to hell if you don’t believe in the regenerative powers of baptism. And you can’t claim that God will not send infants to hell, because the Bible says no such thing. It also does not say that infants will go to hell if they are not baptized. So I will make no claim to either.
74. Chris Roberts
July 25, 2006
4:49 PM
Chris:
Well I posted a response but I must have missed a click somewhere because it didn’t go through. I will plead laziness and abstain from typing the response again. I think we’re about to the point of running in circles anyway so I’ll bow out. Interesting discussion!
75. Nan
July 25, 2006
4:53 PM
Chris Roberts,
The Bible is quite clear despite efforts to prove it unclear in this doctrine:
This is Jesus talking in the gospel of John.
* 6:37,39: “All that the Father gives me will come to me…. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.”
* 6:44-45: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.”
***Everyone who has heard (the Spirit gives ears to hear to the elect… until we are given ears to hear, we are deaf to the message of the gospel) and learned from the Father *COMES* to me. This does not say, “may come if they so choose.”
* 6:65: “(N)o one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
also here:
“Those whom (God) predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Romans 8: 28,30)
**The call postdated the predestination. Once God has made a plan, He WILL bring it to fruition. His plans cannot be foiled. He cannot ultimately be frustrated by the choices of man. Suggesting so actually does just what you accuse Calvinists of doing, rapes God of His sovereignty. If He planned salvation for all then salvation for all would have been acheived. As it is, we know that hell is real and is occupied so salvation for *all* has not been accomplished. This is not a result of His plan being ruined. If so, we would have a sad God. You merely must ask yourself, do we have a happy God who is sure of His ways and His plans and that they will all succeed? Or do we have a sad God, a worried God, a God who wrings His hands with concern that something might not happen as He plans it? If you believe that we can supercede His will by our own “free will” then you must believe we have a sad and frustrated God.
Have you ever spoken with someone who wanted to outrun God? Someone who truly and honestly did not want to become a Christian but no matter what they did or how far they tried to run, God chased them down and drew them in, placed Christians in their path, “Got a hold of them”? They couldn’t resist it! They might have been shaking their fist at Him up until the moment they finally said, “Why am I fighting this?! I give up God! Have your way with me!” That is irresistible grace brother! It’s not something to scorn. It’s beautiful!
I realize I might be beating a dead horse here but I will end off with this quote regarding this very issue. It is a tender and precious concept when you look at it in this light:
“Unless the Father draw him. To come to Christ being here used metaphorically for believing, the Evangelist, in order to carry out the metaphor in the apposite clause, says that those persons are drawn whose understandings God enlightens, and whose hearts he bends and forms to the obedience of Christ. The statement amounts to this, that we ought not to wonder if many refuse to embrace the Gospel; because no man will ever of himself be able to come to Christ, but God must first approach him by his Spirit; and hence it follows that all are not drawn, but that God bestows this grace on those whom he has elected. True, indeed, as to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him.”
—J.C.
Nan