| Author | Message | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 232 Registered: 6-2001  |
Today my (former adventist) husband said his and my salvation would protect my 3-year-old daughter in case she were to die before she was old enough to understand salvation. I am not familar with this in the Bible, so I wondered if it was a White-ism. It is my impression of the Bible that all little children go to Heaven. Any other thoughts? Angelicly, Hannah | ||
| Lydell Registered user Username: Lydell Post Number: 730 Registered: 7-2000 |
Hannah, it makes sense to me that a person has to be able to understand right and wrong before they can choose or reject Christ. A child that young can't understand and so can't be responsible for choosing. | ||
| Lynne Registered user Username: Lynne Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2005 |
I believe children do go to heaven. Acts 16:31 - .."Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved -- you and your household." I've been married to a Christian for 16 years. When I told my husband only recently that I wasn't saved, that was the scripture he told me he always believed. And I now know I am saved and we believe our children will be saved. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2970 Registered: 12-2003  |
The Bible just doesn't say exactly what happens to children. It does make sense to me, though, that the Holy Spirit can enlighten even a very young child (or an infant, for that matter) so spiritually they can be alive in Jesus. Certainly, in God's sovereign grace, He did enliven John the Baptist in this way; the Holy Spirit was in him before birth, and he leaped at the sound of Mary's voice when she came to visit Elizabeth. Since the Bible is silent about the specifics, I don't want to make any hard and fast conclusions. I see no need to limit God's sovereignty, though, by trying to figure out a "formula" for how these things work. That being said, 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 talks of a believing spouse staying with an unbelieving spouse if the unbeliever wishes to stay together. "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are clean." (v. 14) I don't completely understand that verse, but I do see that somehow the presence of believers in a family has a sanctifying, "setting apart" function on the children and any unbelieving spouse. In some way, the fact that the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and brings the presence of Jesus into the family is significant and protective. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 491 Registered: 4-2000  |
Hannah, God is sovereign, just, and fair in every way. We can fully place our trust in Him. However, His ways are truly beyond our finite comprehension. We all enter this world in a lost condition--thereby having the need to be spiritually reborn to enter heaven. Furthermore, we are all born with a propensity to sin due to original sin. In the event that God allows a child under the age of accountability to die, the child's salvation is solely dependent upon the exclusive data that only God has and utilizes; namely, divine election. Biblical history clearly shows us that God doesn't love all babies (e.g., He hated Esau before he was even born, but he loved Jacob). If not all twins go to heaven, it would be fair to conclude that not all single births will be saved either. The Bible doesn't teach universalism for babies, toddlers, nor anyone else. Yes, this is an another "Ellenism" that is taught by many other religionists as well. It is a concept that many parents would like to hear and believe. Adventists teach that if the parents end up in heaven, then their infants will also be there by virtue of parental righteousness. This aberration is akin to the Mormon view of being baptized for the dead--a proxy salvation. Our righteousness doesn't even save us as parents, so how can it save our children? Salvation is a gift to be received, and not a gift to be achieved. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2978 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Dennis--I agree. Infants are dealt with according to God's sovereign election--and that's the mystery we must accept. God simply hasn't explained how that election works so it makes sense to us. We have to trust Him. By the way, Wayne Grudem has an excellent chapter on this subject in his Systematic Theology (or the abridged Bible Doctrines). It was such an insightful chapter that when I read it a few months ago, it brought tears to my eyes. While I do see 1 Corinthians 7 saying that a believing parent has a spiritually protecting effect on his family, I don't see that text suggesting that a believing parents ensures a child's salvation. Again, I can't explain away all the questions--but ultimately, I have to say that an infant's salvation belongs to God's sovereign election. And we can trust Him! Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 492 Registered: 4-2000 |
Proverbs 22:6 admonishes parents, "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it" (NASB). Some parents view this passage to be an ironclad promise for the salvation of their children. However, this proverb is actually instructing parents to provide personalized training for the specific talents and gifts that God gives to each individual child. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Windmotion Registered user Username: Windmotion Post Number: 233 Registered: 6-2001 |
I have wondered about this larger picture myself a little, not just adventist thought vs. non-adventist thought. I was curious what Heaven would look like if all babies ended up there. If you think about all the babies, (unborn, newborn and young children) who have died in the world, in Heaven they would far outnumber the adults! But it does seem harsh to send an unborn baby to Hell because of what he/she didn't even have a chance to do or not do. Maybe the "being as if they never were" idea has some merit. Confusedly, Hannah | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1200 Registered: 7-2003  |
Or for those like me, who parent DD (aka retarded) children... What kind of hope is there for her? Is her retardation a "sign" God "hates" her as he hated Esau? As Javagirl has said on the other thread, it is hard for me to think that there are some God chooses not to love. How do you tell someone that? Or if someone says "God must not love me", how can you, in good conscience, say "yes he does" when reality is you don't know? You can quote "For God so loved the world..." or you can quote "Jacob God loved, Esau he hated". Both are accurate. It is very confusing and very disheartening for a mom like me who knows my child has had no choice or chance out of the gate to follow Christ. Some would say I had no choice either. It just brings in other questions on how you can really know when scripture also says that not all who say "Lord, Lord" will be saved. How do you know when you have the right kind of faith? And given the concept of pre-destination, how can I change it if I wasn't chosen by God to begin with? How is that for a confused set of rambling questions? All of which have floated through my head at one time or another... Some park longer than others. | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 779 Registered: 7-2004 |
God knows the end from the beginning. I've always seen the statement about God having hated Esau from the womb having been associated with that. Esau didn't die as a child or baby. Esau grew to be a man, a man that was materialistic and chose not to care about the things of God. That was made clear by his willingness to sell his birthright for a bowl of soup. There are a lot of enigmatic comments made in the scriptures. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1075 Registered: 7-2003  |
I just finished rereading Romans recently and for the first time I was able to see how chapter 9 might harmonize with the rest of scripture. The concept of "Middle Knowledge" has given me a great deal of peace and confidence that God's absolute sovereignty and choice vs. man's free-will and choice can in fact be harmonized and understood. In my ever so humble opinion, Arminianism and Calvinism are really just two extremes on a scale. Both carry the burden of needing to emphasize some passages while deemphasizing or reinterpretting other passages. But what if that type of proof-texting wasn't necessary at all? What if God truly creates some for salvation and others for damnation and yet those creatures still have completely free-wills? Does that sound like a contradiction or an impossibility. I used to think so, but I've changed my mind. I highly recommend: THE ONLY WISE GOD: THE COMPATIBILITY OF DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN FREEDOM by William Lane Craig. The most often repeated argument I hear against Middle-Knowledge is that "it's not biblical, it's philosphy". This is quite obviously a straw-man argument. Arminianism and Calvinism are in the same boat. All three are philosophical frameworks for understanding the data contained in scripture. All three interact with the same passages, but come to different conclusions on the basis of the theological AND philosophical model applied. The fact is, all three use scripture to support their position, they just understand that scripture differently. So what one has to do is compare the models and see which one best explains and harmonizes the TOTALITY of the data. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2981 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes, Chris, Romans 9 does make sense with the rest of Scripture to me now, also. I still see God's absolute sovereignty and election standing in tension with our freedom. (Please don't hear me saying I have ONE THING--however tiny--to do with my salvation!) I also see extreme Calvinism and extreme Arminianism as extremes on a scale. Melissa, my understanding of God "hating" Esau does not mean the opposite of "loving". I see it more as a positional relationship. When Jesus died on the cross, God essentially removed His presence and pleasure from Him. He turned His back on Him for those hours, figuratively speaking. Did He no longer love Jesus? Of course not. His love for Him never ended. It was nowhere reachable, though. Jesus Himself pleaded to know why His Father had forsaken Him. As far as Esau goes, God sovereignly chose Jacob to be a patriarch of His people. He "favored" Jacob and blessed him with His covenant promises, but not Esau. That fact, though, does not necessarily mean Esau was not "saved". In fact, during the inter-testament period, the EdomitesóEsau's descendantsówho had traditionally been hostile and warrior-likeówere conquered and brought against their will into Israel's territory. They became incorporated into Israel, even though they as a people did not choose to become incorporated. In fact, most of the "herods" of the Roman empire were descended from the Edomites. They were considered by the Romans to be Judeans, just as the Jews were Judeans. In His sovereignty, God eventually brought even Esau's descendants into Israel's society. Salvation, of course, is a different matter. Salvation is individual, not corporate. Yet even Esau's descendants were eventually brought into the realm of the covenant people--even though they were not Israelites. God's ways are so inscrutableóand so much bigger and redemptive and just than we can comprehend. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1034 Registered: 3-2005 |
Chris, I guess I will have to get that book you recommend. I have been reading Grudem this weekend while watching it snow here at Lake Tahoe, and he mentions middle knowledge as still being an Arminian position. But you are far more knowledgable than I am on this, and I always respect your opinions, but when I read Grudem's explanation of what middle knowledge is, I, too was thinking that it sounded much more philosophical than I could ever get from scripture. After reading Grudem on this topic, and after reviewing his scriptural evidence, (since I am not a trained theologian), I am more convinced than ever that the Reformed position is correct on salvation. The weight of the Biblical evidence for monergistic regeneration, and God's sovereign calling to salvation seems irrefutable. But, if I see other evidence to the contrary that is convicting, then I will have to consider the new evidence. At any rate, after meditating on God's Word, all weekend while here in the beautiful sierras, I am reminded all the more of God's infinite and wondrous grace in deciding to save such a sinner such as I. Soli Deo Gloria, Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1076 Registered: 7-2003 |
Well, extreme Calvinist (and I would certainly put Grudem in that category) believe that everything short of their position is Arminian. It just ain't so as Norman Geisler proves with such great clarity in his classic book, "Chosen but Free". Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1077 Registered: 7-2003 |
Here's what I mean when I say that all three systems are both philosophical and theological. All three start with a presupposition (philosophy), then compare that presupposition to scripture (theology). Calvinism starts with the idea that if God is truly sovereign, then humans do not have libertarian free-will. So Calvinist are forced into the position of having to minimize or reinterpret passages that do not fit their philosophy (the five points of Calvinism). Arminianism starts with the presupposition that if humans have libertarian free-will, then God has voluntarily laid aside certain prerogatives of His sovereignty. Arminians are then forced into the position of having to minimize or reinterpret passages that do not fit their philosophy (the five points of Arminianism). Molinism (Middle Knowledge) starts with the presupposition that both things are true, God is fully sovereign and fully exercises His sovereignty and libertarian free-will truly exist. Granted, this takes considerably more explanation to unravel why and how both these things can be true at once and there is no nice neat 5-point system with individual proof texts for each point. However, that does not necessarily make it more philosophical than the other systems, just more complex (as most middle of the road positions are). One could argue that it is more theologically sound as I see no reason to have to emphasize any particular proof texts over others or to minimize any particular groups of texts. I seriously doubt if any die-hard proponents of either Arminianism or Calvinism will be swayed though. Arminians will call it a modified Calvinist position because it affirms that God really does predestine some for heaven and other for hell. Calvinist will call it a modified Arminian position because it affirms that humans have a real choice and true free-will. Perhaps opposition from both extremes of the scale is a good sign in this case.  Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 493 Registered: 4-2000 |
Melissa, The key word in John 3:16 is "whosoever." The "whosoever" are the called or elected ones that respond to God's call. Fallen man would never choose God on his own. God must do something first. The ability to come to Christ is a gift from God. The Fall was so great that sinful man would never seek Christ on his own. Importantly, we cannot choose what we do not desire. Thus, John 3:16 fits beautifully into the Calvinist view. Linguistically and lexiographically, the Greek word for "draw" actually means "to compel" in John 12:32 and John 6.44. This is what God does to many who are called. "To compel" is a far more forceful word than merely "drawing" or "wooing" us to Him. In certain cases, God actually knocks them down to get their attention (i.e., like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus). God leaves no stone unturned to reach his elect. He will pursue us untiringly and persistently. The arrogant concept of having a NEUTRAL free will is impossible. "It involves choice without desire. That is like having an effect without a cause. It is something from nothing, which is irrational. The Bible makes it clear that we choose out of our desires" (excerpts from "Chosen by God" by R. C. Sproul, pp. 59, 60). Jesus said, "You did not choose Me but I chose you..." (John 15:16 NASB). Indeed, our salvation is all about Jesus and nothing about us. Regarding the parenting of disabled children, it is our God-given mission to teach the love of Christ to all people. Let God take care of the electing and calling. As far as we are concerned, our job is to view every human being as a potential candidate for heaven. God has graciously given us our wonderful little flock to raise for him. Let nothing detract us from that divine mission. Actually, parenting never ends for all children. Obviously, some children require much more assistance and love than others. In this regard, God will make up to us for all our heartaches. In this teaching and parenting process, we become ennobled sons and daughters of God. What a distinct honor it is to know that God is actually counting on us! Maranatha! Dennis Fischer | ||
| Lars Registered user Username: Lars Post Number: 8 Registered: 7-2005 |
I find comfort, and am challenged by knowing how God has dealt with man from the time of Adam and Eve. When Eve and Adam chose to partake of the forbidden fruit, their sinfulness caused them to attempt to separate themselves from God, and in their own works, to cover their newly discovered nakedness with fig leaves which they sewed together. The manner in which God deals with fallen man is revealed in how He sought after the sinner, confronted him, and implemented the plan of salvation with the shedding of the blood of the innocent animal from which He took the skins to make the acceptable covering for man. God did not just indifferently sit outside the Garden gate and proclaim, ìWhen you disobedient children come to your senses, recognize your sinful state, have done everything in your power to correct your wrongs, come on out here and weíll talk. Maybe Iíll forgive you, or maybe I wonít. It will depend on how much you have accomplished. You wonít know when you have done enough, or even how much you have to do, but at the time I select, I will proclaim, ëThatís it!í and I will make a judgment about whether or not it was enough. Then Iíll decide whether to accept you back into My good graces, or not.î NO!!! God sought after fallen man, ìAdam, where are you?î He confronted them, ìWho told you that you were nakedÖ?î ìDid you eat of the fruit of the treeÖ? He made the acceptable sacrifice for them from which ìHe made garments of skin and covered themÖî Now, my point is, was this a once in eternity event or does it reflect the love of God and how He deals with man from the beginning? Whenever I consider the way God deals with man, I always begin with Genesis 3. I may be too elementary in my thinking, but I see infants and children as being under Godís grace as Adam and Eve were, in their spiritual infancy in the Garden. It was, and is, a continual deep and unique sorrow my wife and I have experienced through the death of our granddaughter. We know that she is in the presence of Jesus and that we will be united with her for eternity. The Scriptures that come to mind that confirm the source of the essence of life as the Sovereign God. NASB: Isaiah 42:5-6: 5 Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it, And it returns to Him. Ecclesiastes 12:7: 7then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it. Praise God! Larry | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1079 Registered: 7-2003 |
Dennis, I believe you have highlighted one of the greatest weaknesses of the Calvinist philosophy: the necessity of carefully parsing certain verses in an unnatural way to prevent them from contradicting "Limited Atonement". No straight forward reading of John chapter 3 will lead you to the idea that Christ died for a few, but not for most. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true, but certainly the third chapter of John and many other verses are problematic to "Limited Atonement". You might think I am being overally harsh towards Calvinists. That is not my intent. Extreme Arminians have the same problem that extreme Calvinist do. Both ends of the scale are forced to minimize or redefine certain problematic texts. It would be better if all of us (me included) admitted that it is not easy to package up all the Bible has to say on this into a nice neat philosophical box. Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 494 Registered: 4-2000 |
LIMITED ATONEMENT For whom did Christ intend to die? Whose sins did Christ actually pay for? For whom did Christ go to hell? Whom did Christ reconcile to God? For whom was Christ a substitute? What was His intent, His purpose, in dying? To save everyone or only those whom God elected? The Arminian has said, "Christ died for everyone"; whereas the Calvinist has said, "Christ died for the only the believer." The Arminian has taught universal atonement; whereas the Calvinist has taught limited atonement. The Arminian says that Christ died for all the world, including Esau and Judas. Christ, they say, paid for the sins of even the reprobate, those who consciously reject Jesus, those who go to hell. They make a disjunction between what Christ did (He died for all) and what Christ accomplished (all are not saved). To them the atonement is like a universal grab-bag; there is a package for everyone, but only some will grab a package. Christ not only shed His blood, He also spilled it. He intended to save all, but only some will be saved. Therefore, some of His blood was wasted: it was spilled. Indeed, a surprise to many, Arminianism actually teaches limited atonement as well. When the Calvinist uses the term "limited," he does not mean that atonement is limited in its power to save. On the contrary, he believes that the atonement of Christ is unlimited in its power, that Christ saves to the "uttermost," and that the atonement is of infinite worth and value. But he does believe that the unlimited atonement of Christ is limited in its scope, that Christ intended to and actually did remove the guilt of the sins of a limited number of people; namely, those whom God has loved with a special love from eternity. The atonement of the unlimited value is limited to certain people. This is an unlimited atonement. Perhaps the most forceful passage of all that shows intimate and necessary relationship between limited election and limited atonement is Romans 8:32. This verse is all the more striking because it is one to which the unlimited atonement theorists constantly appeal to. It reads: "He who spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all, will he not also with him freely give us all things?" At first blush, it may seem that Paul is clearly teaching the Christ died for all. But on more matured reflection it becomes clear that this is impossible. The "all" of verse 32 refers to the elect, not to every single person in the whole world. The reason for saying this is that the entire passage of Romans 8:28 to the end of the chapter deals with only Christians. Everything immediately before and immediately after verse 32 refers only to God's special people. All things work together for good for the whole world, but only those who love God and who are called according to His electing purpose (v. 28). God's promises are only for those whom He has foreknown and foreordained and justified and glorified (vv.29-30). It is for these people that Paul says, "If God is for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?" (v. 32). The "us all" for whom Christ died, are those Christians Paul has just mentioned. Then, in the very next sentence, Paul continues to speak of only the elect: "Who will lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" The idea is: nobody can, because Christ died for them. See the close connection between the elect and those for whom Christ died? They are the same. Everything that precedes and follows the "us all" in verse 32 is restricted to the elect, to those loved by God. Therefore, this verse, instead of supporting a universalistic atonement, does the precise opposite: it limits the "us all" to those who love God. That is limited atonement. In summary, the Bible teaches that the purpose of the Father's predestination and the Son's atonement is the same: the salvation of a limited number of people, God's elect. In other words, limited atonement is based on unconditional election. Furthermore, limited atonement means that Christ died for the sins not only of Jews, but also of Duthmen, Italians, and Swedes--in fact for the whole world. It does NOT mean for every single Jew, Dutchman, Italian, and Swede. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1080 Registered: 7-2003 |
Dennis, perhaps you misunderstand me. I know and understand the definition of limited atonement. My point is that Limited Atonement is not directly taught anywhere in scripture. It is a derivative of a philosophical construct. That does not necessarily make it wrong, but it does create a problem for Calvinism. The first passage you cited in John 3 certainly does not make the case for Limited Atonement; in fact it tends to weaken the argument. I agree that the second passage you cite in romans 8 has as its focus the elect. However, it is a leap of logic to say that since Romans 8 is speaking to the elect, therefore Limited Atonement is true. Do you see why this is a leap of logic? Itís a little like saying, ìBob was invited to a party, therefore only men named Bob receive invitations to parties.î Unfortunately, these leaps of logic and proof-texting methods are required when we attempt to shoe horn all the biblical data into a nice neat 5-point system. Itís incredibly seductive because itís simple, logical, black and white, and leaves no room for paradox. Chris |
