- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (8/5)
- Next Post »A La Carte (8/6)
The Religious Hell Hole
- 08/05/09
- 103
Several months ago I received an email from a person who had happened by this blog. As you will see in the excerpt of that email, she had been searching for information about original sin and its application to babies who die in infancy (or who die because of abortion). Google led her here. This is what she wrote:
I volunteer at a pregnancy resource center here in Southern California. I teach a post abortion Bible study for women. Until yesterday, I believed that all aborted babies, including two of my own, were in heaven with their Father. Then I had a conversation with a family member who thinks otherwise, and after that conversation I went looking for additional information. I found your two columns on the doctrine of original sin. I’ve been on the verge of tears ever since last night. The idea staggers me. I’m not writing to argue the point. I understand it’s what you believe and, for all I know, you may be right. Meanwhile, all the years of peace that I enjoyed seem to have evaporated. You may be doctrinally accurate, but I am utterly miserable. I feel like I’m back at the edge of the religious hell hole I crawled out of some years ago. Not a good place to be. I will have to do some serious thinking and praying.
The articles she references state my position on children who die in infancy—that the Bible simply does not tell us beyond any shadow of doubt whether all children who die in infancy are saved. I understand the position of those who declare “instant heaven” for any child who dies in infancy and I do hope that this is the case. However, I do not find that the Bible tells us one way or another. Important to the discussion is my understanding of the doctrine of original sin. From this doctrine we know that no person is born innocent. Rather, in some mysterious way all of us fell in Adam and because of his sin are born as sinners. There is no one who is entirely innocent before God, even in the womb. It was this doctrine that so surprised and so upset this woman as she came to understand its implications. After all, a biblical understanding of original sin must have implications to everyone who ever lived or died.
While her story and her state is sad, I find it remarkable that a professed Christian who has had two abortions and ministers to others who have had abortions has never been faced with the doctrine of original sin. She has never come face-to-face with her own badness and with the overwhelming, inherent badness of others. She staggers under the weight of learning that all human beings are conceived as guilty sinners before God and the necessary implications of this. Yet this is hardly a new teaching and is not something that only a select few Christians believe. It is theology that is not far from the very core of the Christian faith. A person who does not understand original sin cannot truly understand anything else. How can we understand the cross, the atonement, without first properly understanding sin?
What’s even more sad is the fact that her hope has ultimately been placed in her babies being in heaven. For her to be thrown back into this “hell hole” means that she’d been finding peace in spite of her sin, not because of the finished work of Christ on her behalf. Her peace, such that it was, was built on the shaky foundation of God taking care of her babies. What we see is that she is still ultimately carrying the guilt of her sin. As my friend Julian said when I discussed this with him, “She needs a bigger cross, not just an assurance that her babies are in heaven.” And that is exactly what she needs! She needs a cross that can both forgive her and give her the assurance that God’s ways are best; she needs assurance of forgiveness that comes through Christ’s completed work there at Calvary.
It is interesting to think as well about how her pastors and counselors must have helped her think through this issue. The easy way is to give pat answers and quick lines about David’s baby being in heaven and about God being a God of grace. There may be arguments to make along those lines, but they can only provide so much comfort. The much harder—but cross-centered—way is to point her to the cross for the forgiveness of her sins (regardless of whether or not her babies are in heaven). As Julian said, “She needs to own that guilt and that possibility, then cast it on the cross of Jesus. Then, take her back and show her the cross again, and the grace and goodness and kindness and mercy of God and teach her to hope in that, not in some obscure verses that may imply some hope for the salvation of babies.” It is here, at the cross, that she can properly own her guilt and then cast it on the cross; it is here at the cross that she can receive forgiveness—true forgiveness; it is here at the cross that she can crawl out of that religious hell hole and know that she stands righteous before God, believing that his ways are always best.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (103)
Really? You’re going to say that she shouldn’t be devastated by the potential that two babies are in hell?
Really? The answer to that is more guilt and focus on her ‘badness’ and the sinfulness of humanity?
Really? “she’d been finding peace in spite of her sin”?
Really? “A person who does not understand original sin cannot truly understand anything else.”?
Really?
Maybe what she really needs is more resurrection and the hope and redemption therein.
While agreeing completely with your view of the biblical doctrine of original sin and the need to understand this in order to appreciate Christ’s work on the cross, I would suggest that there is also sound biblical support for hope in the salvation of babies. Craig R. Brown in his book The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism (Ligonier Ministries) deals with this issue in chapter seven. It is well worth reading and considering.
Frustrated….you sound frustrated? My wif and I were talking about this very issue last week. I am of the sad reality that original sin trumps our emotions about a lost child. I would LOVE to believe otherwise. I would LOVE to be wrong, and hope I am. But I believe the Word of God is true, and it leads me to the same path that Tim has found himself on.
And yes, I think this woman found peace in the idea that the babies she murdered would be waiting with open arms in heaven for her. That would be a lie she told herself.
And yes, you do need to understadn original sin before you can undersstand atonemement etc. How can you truly truly undersatdn what God did for us if you do not understand why he did it?
-Adam
From the excerpt from the letter, it doesn’t sound like she’s finding her salvation in knowing her babies are in heaven, only hope.You may want to check out John MacArthur’s teaching on this topic. (I think it’s titled “What happens when babies die” or “Safe in the Everlasting Arms”) It’s quite in-depth and excellent. He’s come to the conclusion the bible teaches they do go to heaven. I’m sure you can podcast it.
I don’t think that it’s her denial of original sin that is the problem, at least not in some respects. I was taught about original sin in a very conservative church growing up. Yet we were also fed the idea that babies are going to heaven because they don’t yet have the ability to choose Christ. So for a believer, at least of this generation (I can speak of no other) to think this way isn’t too far-fetched.
When we come to Christ, we can’t live in the past. That has been dealt with at the cross. So, she does need to be shown that she needs to deal with the sin, leave it for God to take care of (through the blood of his son), and go back to her ministry a little wiser.
In the end, the fact that she aborted two babies, or whether they are in heaven or not, is not the issue that will decide her own fate. Only by accepting Christ will her fate be decided. I suspect that she doesn’t yet accept the forgiveness that has already been served to her.
Tim,
As a father, you know that your newborn baby is not culpable of any wrongdoing as he is not able to reason and to make choices….you have patience with your baby….you know better. If God has made you that way, to have wisdom, love and patience to nurture this young life, what does that tell us about Him?
I think sometimes we can be so rigid with the letter of the law that we forget the spirit of the law. “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” [Hosea 6:6] While anyone can argue that this does not address the salvation of unborn children, I would say that it addresses something bigger - God’s mercy and love - and it covers over a multitude of sin. I think that, like the king who was said to be a man after God’s own heart, I will try and err on the side of believing God’s mercy as David so often did.
Greetings Tim,
It might be worthy to your readers to point out that Calvinism has a rish history of doctrinal support for the idea that children of the Covenant belong to Christ as much as their parents do. This doctrine has been called “Covenant Succession” and followed mainly in Puritan, Presbyterian and Congregationalist traditions. It is a contradictory doctrine for a credobaptist like yourself, but is consonant with a paedobaptist, or continuity-stressing Covenantal theology.
There are several good resources on Covenant Succession, but perhaps the best introductory book is “To You and Your Children” edited by Ben Wikner:
http://www.amazon.com/You-Your-Children-Examining-Succession/dp/1591280281/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249481086&sr=8-1
Tim,
I agree with both your position on the subject and your view of this email 100%. That being said, I think you’re really going to take some heat on this post!
I had a child who lived an hour. I considered baptizing her in the Catholic understanding, “just in case”. I thought that would be superstition on my part, and therefore a bad thing. But I’ve often thought about her, my daughter, and wondered what to think and what I should have done. The justice of God condemning us looms large to me, as in the doctrines of grace. I’m tempted to think of God as capricious and arbritrary, that if He condemned my daughter, He would be totally righteous and right in doing so, and that if He extends mercy to her as to me in Christ, His doing so is totally because of his grace, by his magnanimity, and by the effectiveness of His call.I’ve learned thru this experience to trust in God, “will not God do what is right?” That He has His will, but that His will is Good and Love, even while His love is a Just and Holy Love.
When I reach out to non-Christian Jews, I wonder what they have to wrestle with along these same lines. Not about their infant children, but about their family and friends and ancestors who are hindered from coming to faith.
You might be “theologically right” (I’m not saying that you are, just that you might be), but I can’t help but saying that you came across quite harsh and “unloving” in your answer to this woman.
I only read the above excerpt of the email the woman sent you, so I may be wrong about this, but but is it possible that you are assuming too much in saying that ‘her hope has ultimately been placed in her babies being in heaven” ?
If I may be permitted, a couple of further sources on Covenant Succession:
http://www.credenda.org/issues/13-2verbatim.php
http://www.faithtacoma.org/doctrine/covenant.aspx
I agree with Michelle, I’ve read John MacArthur’s book, Safe in the arms of God. His first chapter answers the question Where Is My Child? Other chapter titles are What If My Child Is Not Elect? Will I See My Child Again? How Shall We Minister to Those Who Are Grieving?While I agree with pointing this woman to Jesus and God’s grace and mercy, finding hope in the cross. I’m not sure having a discussion on original sin with her is the first place I would have started with her, although she found you regarding this topic. There needs to be some pastoral care here, we’ve been in the pastorate for almost 25 years and have waited at the bedside of women giving birth to dead babies. We did not start with the original sin of the dead child. I also agree with Mike G. you will take a lot of heat for this post.
Joshua,
I believe you are right on. In addition, though, many Reformed Baptists believe that infants dying in infancy will be with Christ. Spurgeon, for example. I have referenced several at my blog, search “infants.” I also believe that Tim has missed it on this one.
I think it is important to remember God’s Sovereignty in spite of us and all our sin.
John MacArthurThe Salvation of Babies Who Die, Part 1&2http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/80-242http://www.gty.org/AudioPlayer/Sermons/80-243
Not trying to be harsh, but I wonder if the tone and approach of this response would have been different if the woman had lost her babies to miscarriage rather than abortion?
Tim,
I used to believe as you do until I read John MacArthur’s book “Safe in the Arms of God”. He lays out some very strong Scriptural arguments for children going to heaven, which have nothing to do with covenants. The Bible isn’t quite as silent as you think.
Certainly, the lady who wrote you might have misplaced her hope and might need a “bigger cross”, but don’t we all? What she’s crying out for is hope for her child who never heard the name of Jesus or was never able to recognize it’s sinfulness before a holy God. And if there is hope, then to withhold that from grieving parents is cruel and misrepresents God.
MacArthur has a sermon “The Salvation of Babies Who Die” at this link:Part 1http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-242Part 2http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/80-243
His book “Safe in the Arms of God” is here:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785263438?ie=UTF8&tag=toddshafferfinea&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0785263438
Andre, well said. Very little compassion, if any.
Wow. Tim - your response, while sound was vacant of the loving, caring, compassion of Christ. It reads more like a resounding gong. Like a baseball bat to the head and heart. If you present truth without love and compassion what is the point? Your tone really surprised me here.
I see a lot of people reading into Tim’s comments what they want to see, either good or bad. For example, Tyler says, “…I wonder if the tone and approach of this response would have been different if the woman had lost her babies to miscarriage rather than abortion?” First, Tim didn’t respond to the woman, she responded to his blog. Second, why would the circumstances of the death change the nature of God in relation to original sin (or not)? This is postmodern thinking with shoe leather.
Tim’s basic thesis is correct: “…the Bible simply does not tell us beyond any shadow of doubt whether all children who die in infancy are saved.”
Note the qualifiers, “shadow” and “all”. I agree there is biblical support for some babies going to heaven, but for all? And if this is so, how can we determine which? All of us have some inherent sense of mercy for women who’ve had abortions and repented. But we can’t let an emotional feeling override what scripture tells us, or doesn’t tell us, in this case.
The safest course is the one Tim chooses…to defer judgement to the Lord on this issue, and to rest in the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
You say that you “find it remarkable that a professed Christian who has had two abortions and ministers to others who have had abortions has never been faced with the doctrine of original sin.”
It one sense, it is remarkable. This truth is all over the Bible, and it is foundational to the gospel, which requires REPENTANCE and belief (not just belief).
In another sense, it’s not remarkable at all, since there are many religious who are not saved. The preaching in Western churches I think is, on the large, devoid of the gospel and bordering on the heretical. So, in this sense it’s no surprise she’s never heard of it. Most pastors have probably given her the pat answers that seem to encourage, but don’t care for her soul.
Doc, by saying
“I wonder if the tone and approach of this response would have been different if the woman had lost her babies to miscarriage rather than abortion?”
I was not implying that abortion or miscarriage change the reality of original sin, I was saying maybe the tone would be more sympathetic if there was not the abortion stigma attached.
The random use of ‘postmodern’ to attack statments you disagree with seems pretty off target for a question about tone. Or is tone postmodern now?
Our doctrines and practices should be grounded in Scripture, not in sentimentality or pragmatism. The quick and acceptable answer is that babies go to heaven but the reality is that babies are no different from anyone else in their sinful state. We may not like it but the fact is that Tim is right on this issue: the Bible does not give us an answer to this question, so rather than fill in the blanks to quiet our troubled hearts we should rest on the mercy of God that all will be done for His glory and not for our approval.
BTW Joshua, your idea of covenant succession flies in the face of reality, a reality where many, many children of Christian parents end up not being elect and many who are born to unbelieving parents turn out to be elect. Or does covenant succession only last until a certain age? We are not saved through our parentage and the children of unbelievers are sinners in need of salvation, born in original sin, just like the children of unbelievers.
HI Tim,
I have fond memories of riding with you on a tour bus in the Dominican Republic listening to you and Shaun and Brian discuss doctrine. And wishing the ride was a little longer so I could listen to more such talk.
Right now I am wrestling with some stuff in my life that is hard to understand, hard to justify, and impossible for me to fix. I think I know a better way for it to go, and yet God….at the very least, He seems to be saying wait. At the worst, it seems I am watching a precious person’s heart break slowly and painfully. And I am ever so helpless.
Right now, I don’t want some Bibilcal dissection of why God is allowing this thing. My only place of comfort is to turn my heart back again and again to the attributes of God. He is my Saviour. He is a good God. He is the hope of the the hopeless. He loves me with an everlasting love, and He loves my precious loved one with that same passion. All things WILL work together for good, according to His purpose.
If I fix my eyes on doctrine, I will be adrift in a sea of man’s interpretations. ONLY if I fix my eyes on my Saviour will my raging storm quiet.
Maybe that is what this precious mother needs too.
Standing by His grace alone.Your friend,Mary
I just have a few questions for all of you who are accusing Tim of being harsh on this issue, what happened to the children or babies of the enemies of God when Israel was ordered to kill them all? If God declared them His enemies and ordered their deaths, did He really then bring them to dwell with Him?
The next question, when does a child stop being innocent and start being “totally depraved”? I don’t believe in an age of accountability since it is nowhere taught in the Scriptures, so when is the magical time that God no longer overlooks the sins of a human? Is it 2,3,4,5,6,10,13? Well, since we are guilty of Adam’s sin, before we ever sin, I would say we are guilty starting at conception, and only God’s election of us before time, and Christ’s paying our ransom at the cross, sets us free. So we are to rely on God’s sovereignty in election, not our emotional approach to all things.
So we shouldn’t declare Tim harsh, but we should rest in God’s holiness, admitting in the end, we have no answer to the question, “Do all babies who die go to Heaven?” But what we have is God’s gift of faith and we rest in Him and Him alone. And we should not comfort someone with something we really don’t have the answer to anyway. God is enough and He alone is our comfort!
Tim,I read your blog frequently (and usually very much enjoy it) but I must admit I’m pretty thrown by this post.
I understand that you are not saying the children are necessarily in hell, just that we cannot know for sure as evidence one way or the other is slim.Personally I think the character of God as demonstrated in the life of Jesus is such that his grace and mercy extends to children like these, but you’ll get no argument from me that there is not much to work with textually.
Still, the tone I normally sense from you seems to be lacking here, to the point where it reads as being pretty cold, doctrinal point aside. Am I missing something here?
Thank you for refusing to go where the Bible doesn’t. I agree with your position and the best comfort I can give to a grieving mother of a dead infant or young child is that God is perfectly good and all-knowing. Whatever He does is perfectly right, whether or not we understand it or agree with it. In the end, that’s all that maters. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Well, Timothy, according to MacArthur and his view, all those who died prior to reaching some particular age are “safe in the arms of God”.
That also means that all those little ones who died in the flood are also in heaven, so I guess it was more than just the seven that were preserved during the flood.
I am always amazed at how this topic gets driven by emotion and feelings and not by Scripture. I guess too, according to my Paedo friends, that it is not according to faith, but according to the flesh as to whether or not one is saved…up until a certain age, anyway.
Come on guys, I hope all infants who die in infancy are saved too. I actually hope ALL people are saved (why do we only have compassion for the younger of our species???).
MacArthur, by the way, in his terrible book on this subject, denies original sin. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that all are born guilty, and then turn around and say that all who die before reaching a certain age get a free pass. Original sin refutes that emotion-based drivel.
Tim is not being unloving. On the contrary, he is being as loving as one can be, because he is sticking with Scripture (he is speaking the truth in love), and not emotion and certainly not according-to-the-flesh covenantal traditionalism. Everyone is thinking it, so I’m just going to go ahead and say it…IF what MacArthur teaches is true on this subject, then THE most loving thing a parent can do is to make sure their child NEVER reaches that age at which they become accountable.
The same goes for my Paedo brothers who believe their flesh-born infants are in the convenant until such time as they prove to covenant keepers or breakers (I thought the new covenant was unbreakable!).
It is proving to be true- “There’s a Pelagian spirit in all of us.”
Think about the crux of the tacit argument that, since babies have no moral ability (for right or wrong) it would be improper for God to do anything other than take them all to heaven. Have you forgotten that adults have no more moral ability to save themselves than do infants, or even pre-born (fetal) persons? It is God’s grace that saved us all, whether we were teens or octogenarians, children or still in the womb.
John MacArthur said this- “If infants were not sinful, if they were not morally corrupt, then they wouldn’t die. If they were born innocent or pure or morally neutral there would be no basis for their death.” So the Bible IS clear on that issue…that infants are inherently sinful (original sin, sin nature, whatever you want to call it). They ARE NOT morally neutral. Therefore, we can’t just jump to the conclusion they are all saved because it seems right to us that it be so.
What Tim has said is true. We should be willing to trust God in the salvation of the pre-born and the stillborn in the same way we trust God in our own salvation.
I have to agree that the tone seems a little harsh. The woman is, quite understandably, devastated at the possibility (which she concedes may be true) that her existing beliefs are wrong, and the implications that carries for her and the people she works with.
I agree with Tim in that I don’t believe that Scripture is clear on what happens to babies who die (although I will listen to those John Macarthur sermons, thanks for those links).
Whatever the case, she (and we) need to find our comfort in the sovereignty and goodness of God.
“The easy way is to give pat answers and quick lines about David’s baby being in heaven and about God being a God of grace. There may be arguments to make along those lines, but they can only provide so much comfort.”
So people who disagree with you on this are not careful, caring scholars or pastors with answers they believe to be biblical? They only have pat answers and quick lines? I would dare say that many of them believe Romans 15:4, that what was written about David’s baby was written to give real comfort and hope, not just “so much” comfort.
Whether or not I agree with some of Tim’s finer points the post was declaring something quite simple:
This women’s fundamental issue was her understanding of the gospel. Understand the gospel first, and the more unclear issues will be given the proper perspective.
To this point I wholeheartedly agree.
Brian @ voiceofthesheep,
MacArthur most certainly DOES NOT DENY original sin. Here’s a quote from him-
“the Bible is absolutely crystal clear that all children are sinners from conception…all children. The principle of iniquity is imbedded in the human race. Children are born morally corrupt. They are born with an irresistible bent toward evil. And any notion that children are born morally neutral and free from a predisposition to sin is absolutely contrary to Scripture. And as I said, this view was denounced as heresy after the death of the one who propounded it and has been considered heresy by those faithful to biblical theology ever since.
All humans are born in sin. If infants were not sinful, if they were not morally corrupt, then they wouldn’t die. If they were born innocent or pure or morally neutral there would be no basis for their death. The very fact that they die indicates that the disease of sin is there in them because sin is the killer. It is in their inherited sin nature that the seeds of death are planted. ”
” So, the Bible tells us that sinfulness is not a condition that comes upon people when they’re old enough to choose to do evil. It is the condition of the entire human race and every conception brings into being a sinful life. Ever since Adam and Eve everyone born has been born in a fallenness sinful state. That becomes evident as soon as any behavioral choice is made. We’re born sinners, we are also born guilty because we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. ”
” Now this is important. Every child is conceived with a deadly virus, the S-I-N virus with corrupt motives, corrupt attitudes, corrupt desires, corrupt ambitions, corrupt objectives and bears the guilt of Adam’s sin. So we cannot answer the question by saying all babies die and go to heaven because they’re sinless. They’re not. They’re not. The very fact that they die proves that they have inherited the corruption of sin that produces death. ”
To call this a denial of original sin is an outright lie, caused either by ignorance or malevolence.
For those of you who would like a more concise (MacArthur’s sermons are long winded on this topic) and, in my opinion, precise answer to this question read what Desiring God has on this (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1622_Wha…) .
We all have opinions on this, and Tim’s is just as likely as anyone else’s. I don’t think it is fair to think his post is harsh since he did not say this to the person who emailed him. He is commenting on the underlying issues she had in feeling her despair creep back in after reading his opinion on the matter.
He is definitely right that the only place we can find lasting hope and comfort is in Christ, not in wishful thinking. He even said that this is not a clear issue. Even if it were, the principle remains: Hope in Christ… not in our doctrinal understanding.
For those who want an excellent treatment of the topic, I’d recommend “The Theology of Infant Salvation” by Robert Webb available at www.sprinklepublications.net, a publisher of Puritan and Reformed literature. The Bible has a great deal more to say about the issue than I had ever been taught.
Everyone,
Having looked over my response, I can see why you are saying that I have been unloving in my response. However, I do think you should note that what I posted here is not my response. I responded to her in an email several months ago and that reply was far different from this. When I replied to her directly, I said few of the things I mentioned here. This article was more just a summary of my thoughts about the whole situation.
So please, do note, that this was not meant to be pastoral counsel or anything of the sort.
My point about MacArthur is that he says both: that babies are not born innocent AND that babies who die are immediately saved because they haven’t reached some age whereby they become accountable. Original sin declares that we are all accountable at conception, not at an age of accountability. MacArthur tries to straddle this fence with a foot in both camps, and one of those feet denies original sin.
You can’t have it both ways.
Tim, can you please provide the links to your columns on original sin?
Thanks
I agree with Tim’s position, but I think he was a little quick to go to “this woman never understood the gospel.” Yes, lack of understanding of original sin is a serious lack of understanding. And yes, to the extent a professing Christian is devastated and deeply shaken, there is a lack of grounding in the gospel.
But these things are (dare I use this word) relative. Genuine faith in the gospel, genuine hope in Christ, is no guarantee that there will not be things that shake us deeply. Ultimately, if our hope is in Christ, we will stand despite being shaken. But the “being shaken” is not in itself an indication that our hope was never truly in Christ.
I guess what I’m saying is that my response to hearing of this lady’s situation is more like, “How sad that there was such a gap in her understanding of the faith that she is so deeply shaken at this point. Let us exhort and encourage her to place her hope more firmly in Christ and His work,” than like, “How sad that she never really put her hope in Christ.” All I’m saying is that I find it dubious to too quickly diagnose someone as “never really hoping in Christ” rather than being in need of encouragement to better grasp and exercise that hope.
Brian,
MacArthur does indeed wander around a bit (unlike him) toward the end of his first sermon. However, he never (not even close) comes to the point of denying original sin. Re-read the quotes I posted up in # 32. If anything, he goes to far in defending his view of original sin. Here’s his summary statement-
“No view of infant salvation which denies original sin and total depravity is true. Did you get that? No view of infant salvation which denies original sin and total depravity is true. Babies are not free from sin, they are sinners. ”
Where he loses his train of thought a bit is on the idea of condemnation and the deeds written in the “book of death”. But this never approaches even semi-Pelagianism.
Original sin really doesn’t speak to accountability, it is about the sin nature. To summarize it, “We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.” Don’t confuse the repercussions of sin with the doctrine or original sin, which is about the nature and origin of sin in general and in us.
I have read all of the responses as well as Tim’s article twice. Honestly, when discussing sin, death, abortion, and hell, emotions are hard to identify or control. I understand this woman’s feelings: frustration about lack of information before, heartbreak over her guilt, new fear over the destiny of her children. These are all quite real and reasonable considering what she just learned. I want to embrace her and let her talk it out… None of which can be done via internet.However, all of this aside, what Tim outlined is true. While feeling better, having hope, and feeling forgiven is comfortable, these things do not provide your salvation or the salvation of your loved ones… The only place where salvation is found is in Christ, and that is where she will find true hope, true forgiveness, true relief and freedom. I am encouraged that she is now thinking about this important albeit painful reality, and I pray that she will turn to God to heal her heary completely and let her live in freedom. We all must trust God not ourselves for our own salvation… Why trust in the innocence of children for their salvation?
I agree with Tim, it would be one thing to respond directly to the distraught woman with this response…its something else to post a summation months later.
As far as the age of accountability goes…it would take a lot of motivation away from the fight against abortion if we knew all the aborted babies were going to heaven.
John Piper, whom I respect immensely, does not really solve the problem. His citing of John 9:41 and Romans 1:20 is kind of an argument for the age of accountability (without the age!). At what point does a child gain “the natural capacity to see the revelation of God’s will”?
Furthermore, Spurgeon’s claim that “He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy” appears to have no biblical basis.
I’m not saying they are wrong. But sometimes it is better to say “I don’t know” than to make weak arguments in favour of a position.
There seems to be many assumptions being made about this young lady. 1. She has never been confronted with original sin. She never makes that claim. She may have never tied her original sin with that of a baby who has yet to be born. 2. That her hope is in her babies being in heaven. Again a claim she never makes. I draw hope on loved ones who have died that at some point God may have brought them into a relationship with Himself. Something I can only discover once I am there, but I still draw hope from the possibility. 3. That she has peace in spite of her sin. Perhaps her peace has come from the fact that she has repented of the abortion and has wrapped herself in the forgiveness that only God can give. I am a sinner who has asked for and received forgiveness. I am at peace that my sins have been dealt with. I am not at all at peace with what I did. I was forgiven, but I have not forgotten.
Just some thoughts…
Ricky
From Spurgeon, just to add another voice besides MacArthur:
“Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest.”
Spurgeon’s sermon on this is excellent.
wow.
sorry tim but i couldn’t help sensing an utterly judgemental attitude seeping through your post.
then again, i don’t know all of what this person wrote and revealed to you in her email. but from the excerpt you provided she seems shattered by the thought that perhaps dead babies are not really in heaven as she’s been taught but are in fact burning forever in hell.
seems enough to shatter anyone if you ask me.
does this reveal an insufficient faith on her part? i don’t know. she did end her excerpt with “I will have to do some serious thinking and praying” which is a good thing to do when confronted by truth (or even untruth). so i give her props for that.
but to say, “What’s even more sad is the fact that her hope has ultimately been placed in her babies being in heaven” is reading a bit much into her faith don’t you think? again, i don’t have the benefit of a complete email so i don’t know what she told you. but nothing in the excerpt you provided says her hope is placed in the fact that her babies are in heaven. she seems largely gutted by the idea her kids could be burning forever and it’s mainly her fault. understandable, no?
i mean, it’s a terrifying prospect. i have a 14 month old baby and it would just devastate me if she died and went to hell. the thought is too grim for me to contemplate.
how do i handle the idea? by thanking God that at least i’m saved and been showered with grace and forgiveness? i don’t know. certainly i must run to the cross and cast these thoughts to Jesus. praise Him for His ultimate goodness and perfect wisdom. He’s the only one who can provide comfort in such a situation.
but to grieve - i think it’s healthy, whether you’ve experienced losing a baby or not. the lady who wrote to you was grieving, and perhaps still is. she says she feels “back at the edge of the religious hell hole I crawled out of some years ago.” her world is rocked by the Bible, “original sin”. that’s good. she’s thinking about it and searching for the truth.
will she find a definitive answer?maybe not. john macarthur has written some good stuff on this very issue and believes that God spares “the innocents” (according to his study of the old testament).
i side with dr. macarthur. but as you say, there’s nothing definitive.
what is definitive is this woman needs prayer and consolation. the idea of a sovereign God who does as he pleases whether we like it or not is so abominiable to our nature, it’s testament to God’s grace that we can even accept this gloriously hard truth. some Christian’s are ready to embrace it. some aren’t. but with much prayer and Biblical teaching, they’ll get there.
i hope she regains her peace and the joy of her salvation be fully restored.
dan
Nick (#42),
Your are correct about John Piper’s arguments. They are implicit, not explicit. John Piper is one of my heroes of the faith, and if he (and MacArthur) can’t be explicit from Scripture, then Tim’s original claim is upheld as both valid and true by two of my heroes.
I have lost a child to miscarriage. I rest comfortably in the grace of the Lord. If He has saved that child, praise be to Him. If He has not, then praise be to Him. He is right, and will be proven right to the rest of us in the end, whatever His will.
I think this was Tim’s point all along, and why I have commented so vociferously in support of it. The woman who had the abortions can’t really be comforted by the state of her two babies, but she can be comforted in the sovereignty, grace, mercy, and justness of God.
I know one pro-abortionist who utilizes the teaching or doctrine “that all dead babies go to heaven” to argue that mothers choosing abortion is doing an eternal favor to their unborn babies.
By the way, A Theology of Infant Salvation by Webb referenced above is a great read and compelling.
David Powlison, in his little booklet Healing After Abortion, writes:Trust God’s Character
Some women who have had an abortion struggle with questions about where their baby is now. These are questions that thoughtful Christian people have wrestled with down through the ages. I don’t claim to have the one solve-it-all answer on this. But there are two important things you need to think about.
First, the most fundamentally sane answer to these question is, “I don’t know. I can’t know. I do know that God is good. I do know that God is merciful. I do know that his ways are not my ways. But I don’t know.” You can only live with that “I don’t know” as your trust in God’s goodness, love, and mercy deepens and grows.
Knowing that you worship the Lord of heaven and earth who is all-just and all-merciful, who is working to redeem you, will fill you with confidence that you can absolutely trust his character. You can trust that everything God does will express his perfect justice and perfect mercy.
I think Powlison has the most helpful answer to the woman’s question. We do not need to deny the grievous effects of original sin, but we must admit that we don’t know. We can still have peace despite our ignorance because God is just, merciful, and God.
Wow. Such heat. Such frustration. Such conviction.
In three weeks, my wife will be giving birth to our first son. I know that child is already sinful and under the curse. He is making my wife suffer (because of the curse and as a reminder of his sinfulness) in ways that I will not permit once he enters the world.
Sin is real, particularly in infants, even in the womb:Ps. 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb;they go astray from birth, speaking lies.”
And yet God is faithful toward his own:Ps. 71:5-6 “For you, O Lord, are my hope,my trust, O Lord, from my youth.Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;you are he who took me from my mother’s womb.My praise is continually of you.”
We are to rest on the revealed nature of God:Jer. 9:23-24 Thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches, but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the Lord.”
I thank Tim for addressing such a difficult issue where people desire to go beyond scripture to offer immediate comfort. Thank you for pointing to the cross where “the Lord who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness” shows us grace and gives us confidence that though death may cause temporary sorrow, it will ultimately give glory and honor to God. It is here that Christians find peace.
…and to the MacAuthurites and Coventalist: keep in mind that systematic doctrines, though helpful, are only true so far as they are articulated and supported by Scripture. Though thoughtful and passionate, many of the theologians, pastors and preachers who encourage their views are not linguists or a logisticians and are prone to inconsistencies that we all suffer from. Look rather to the Word which MacAuthur and the Reformers submitted to and like good Bereans “examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things are so.” (Keep in mind Paul was an apostle; Johnny Mac is not.)