At the sbctoday blog, Dr. Steve Lemke of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is currently writing a series of posts entitled “Distinctive Baptist Beliefs.” While pointing out the many bridges between Baptists and Presbyterian traditions, he is seeking to also provide a series of distinctives that separate Baptists from our Presbyterian brethren. The second distinctive concerns the age/state of accountability—a theological idea more readily recognized in the question, “What happens to babies when they die?”
Many in both traditions posit that infants (and people, such as those who suffer from severe mental retardation, who are incapable of exercising faith) go to heaven when they die. Dr. Lemke takes the position (and shows that many Baptist confessions of faith do the same) that this is because Baptists do not hold to original sin. He states:
While it may be more of a ‘state’ of being accountable rather than an ‘age’ of accountability…this state of accountability is normally associated with a ‘coming of age.’ No specific age is given; it is assumed that individual children mature at different paces from each other. By affirming the age of accountability, Baptists deny that children are guilty upon birth, and so deny the need for infant baptism.
As a Baptist who holds to original sin and inherited guilt, I am a bit confused by Dr. Lemke’s logic in linking original sin to infant baptism. It seems such a logical flow holds true only if we also believe in baptismal regeneration. We don’t baptize infants regardless of our beliefs concerning original sin and inherited guilt because we don’t hold to baptism as a means of conferring grace and salvation. Furthermore I would argue that the primary reason for a difference in practice between Presbyterians and Baptists on infant baptism flows more from our different views in understanding how the Old and New Covenants relate and within that the relationship between baptism and circumcision. But that’s another topic and another post for another day.
Instead what I want to do here is offer an alternative proposal to that of Dr. Lemke’s. With him I will affirm infants and others incapable of exercising faith are not held in judgment of their sins, while also affirming original sin and inherited guilt. Frankly, I do not see original sin as antithetical to Baptist tradition (though I will not deny many do), and as noted above I do not see original sin as logically leading to infant baptism. Yet I believe the Bible clearly teaches the concept of original sin.
So then, let’s return this to the underlying question at hand: What happens to infants when they die? To answer this, we must consider the answers to several related questions:
First, are infants guilty of sin (the question of original sin and inherited guilt)? While no one would deny that the youngest of children (and others mentally unable) are incapable of reasoned decision making, does this likewise mean they share no guilt of sin? The Bible gives us several answers about the origin of sin in our lives, and these inform us that all people share in the guilt of sin from conception.
In the beginning, when God created, he formed male and female in his own image. The depth of this has to do with our rule over the earth and our creative powers of life (procreation), etc., yet it also has to do with our sinlessness. We were created sinless in the image of God and were placed on an earth that had no stain of corruption. In the sight of God it was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Yet, shortly, something happened. God told Adam and Eve to refrain from eating of a single tree. Instead of heeding the voice of God, they obeyed the voice of Satan in the form of a serpent and ate. Adam and Eve went from being sinless ones identifying with God to rebels identifying with Satan. Their eyes were opened to realize shame and fear, and their good relationship with God was broken. More than this, they brought both spiritual death and physical death into the world, and brought the curse of God upon themselves and creation.
In this brokenness and corruption, the image of God still remained (9:6) but it was now marred and stained. The Bible then says “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God…when Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image” (5:1-3). Adam had a son in his likeness, but this likeness was not as the perfect image of God in which Adam was created. Instead, this likeness was the image of a man under sin, the curse, and death.
The Genesis narrative sets the stage for Paul’s argument in Romans 5. There Paul makes several statements, including: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (5:12). Also, Romans 5:15-17:
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. If because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life…
And Romans 5:18-19:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
And in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul states: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (15:21-22); and, “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (15:47-49).
Taken together this is what Paul is saying, relevant to our question:
- In life we either bear the image of Adam (condemnation) or we bear the image of Christ (salvation).
- The image of Adam is our natural state.
- It is through Adam we are guilty—it is through his “one trespass” that death and condemnation came.
- At the same time we are also guilty through our own sin—we all die because we all sin.
When it comes to guilt and the punishment of death we are guilty in both Adam’s sin and our own. One thing of note is what Paul says in Romans 5:12, “so death spread to all men because all sinned.” As throughout the entire storyline of the Bible—death is directly connected to sin. We die because we are sinners. The wages of sin is death. If this is true, and if infants only have the propensity to sin and not an actual inherited sin nature then infants would not die. Yet they sadly do die. The reality of their death must be connected either to personal sin or a sin nature. With all else that Paul says about humanity’s relationship with Adam then it must be a sin nature.
David makes this same point in Psalm 51. He cries out for God’s mercy upon his sin, asking God to cleanse him and give him a new heart. Within this plea (51:3-6), David speaks of his own sin and states, “I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” If this verse stood alone, one could get the impression he was speaking of the actions of his mother, but given the context it is clear David is speaking of his own life—his own sin and guilt. He stood guilty before God for sin from the moment of his conception.
All have inherited guilt and share in original sin from Adam. Infants, etc. are not guiltless before God.
Second, does the Bible give the notion of the age of accountability? People often turn to two verses to answer this with “yes.” One is Deuteronomy 1:39. Speaking about the wilderness journey and Israel’s unfaithfulness to go in and take the land due to fear of the people, God prevented the older generation from entering the land. But after they died, he gave it to the younger generation. The people complained their “little ones” would become a prey, but God said, “To them I will give it and they shall possess it.” These were children who had “no knowledge of good and evil.” While this might seem to speak to an age or state of accountability, in Numbers 14 the age of those allowed to enter the land is quite high. “As I live, declares the Lord, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: your 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, not one shall come into the land” (14:28-30). Here the “accountable” age is twenty years and older. All who were nineteen and younger were allowed to enter the land. When we speak of an “age of accountability” do we seriously speak of those up through the age of 19? Most would answer no it is much younger—but if that is the case we cannot truly use Numbers and Deuteronomy as a proof-text for the existence of such an age or state.
Another verse comes from 2 Samuel 12:23. Here David speaks of his first born son (with Bathsheba) who died shortly after birth. David prayed and fasted while the child was alive yet ended his pleas and mourning when the child died. When questioned about the reasoning behind his actions, David answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” Since God’s revelation and the Jews’ understanding of the afterlife was not as fully developed in the Old Testament, it’s hard to say for sure what David was thinking of when he spoke these words. Regardless, we must be careful of using them to build a particular aspect of theology. Was David a king and a prophet of God who often spoke under the direction of the Holy Spirit? Yes. But are David’s every words divinely inspired? No—as is the case with his lies before this as he attempted to cover his sin. Second Samuel 12:23 is the Holy Spirit inspired truth and part of an inerrant Bible so far as David truly spoke these words. However, the text doesn’t give us an indication one way or the other as to whether David’s words here are actually true. They may be, but they also may not be—they may simply be his own thoughts and opinions. If we are going to build a theology of the age of accountability, we need something more solid, and the Bible doesn’t provide it in terms of proof texts.
Third, so if infants are guilty before God and the Bible does not give solid evidence of an age of accountability, can we still say with good reason that infants go to heaven when they die? Here, I still believe the answer is yes but not based on the reasons Dr. Lemke argues (a denial of original sin), or for reasons that others argue (proof-text verses for an age of accountability). Instead, I reason it is due to the fairness of God in judgment.
From Genesis to Revelation the Bible teaches God is just—he is fair in all his judgments.
And Jesus asserts this about the day of judgment. In Matthew 10, he sends out the twelve and tells them, “And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (10:14-15). And then one chapter later he pronounces woe upon the unrepentant cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. He compares them to Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and tells them if those cities of old had witnessed the same works they saw, Tyre and Sidon would have repented and Sodom would have remained. But as it is, “it will be more bearable on the day of judgment” for the cities of old than those unrepentant cities.
In these cases, God’s judgment still stands against the cities and the people, but it is an equitable judgment based on the revelation given. They are still guilty, but those who have seen more of the power of God incur greater guilt because they have rejected more. Thus God’s judgment will be harsher.
We can take this truth and apply it to our main question here. The Bible makes it clear—the only way to be saved is to hear the Gospel and turn to Jesus in faith and repentance (Romans 10, etc.). According to Romans 1, the general revelation of God in nature is enough to cause people to stand guilty before God, because they see his power and might and should worship him but in their evil hearts they reject God and worship creatures instead. So we must hear the Gospel to be saved and our ignorance of the Gospel does not serve as a valid excuse.
But what about those who cannot hear and respond? Those such as infants and those who suffer from severe mental handicaps, etc.? Are they still guilty? Yes. But since God is fair and just, and since they are absolutely incapable of hearing and responding to the Gospel and seeing his power in nature, then I posit that God will not hold them culpable for their guilt.
Like Dr. Lemke’s position, this still implies the notion of a state of accountability, but it does not reject what I believe is the clear teaching of Scripture concerning original sin. As Baptists we have no need to reject original sin or inherently link the doctrine to infant baptism, and we can still maintain the state of accountability based on the justness of God.
Note: Dr. Lemke’s article can be read here: http://sbctoday.com/2011/08/25/distinctive-baptist-beliefsnine-marks-that-separate-baptists-from-presbyteriansdistinctive-baptist-belief-2%e2%80%94the-age-or-state-of-accountability/
Note 2: All scriptures quoted in this post are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright 2001—Crossway Bibles (Good News Publishers)
Mike,
Are you sure Lemke is denying original sin and not saying that infants have original sin but do not yet have the ability to knowingly act upon it? I ask while not agreeing with the age of accountability.
[shameless]You could also contribute to my post – Ethics: A Death and the Age of Accountability dealing with an application of this issue. [/shameless]
Dr. Lemke seems fairly clear in his proposition that Baptists deny original sin in regards to original guilt. A good part of his argument is to quote various confessions that “point to fallen human nature having a strong disposition or proclivity toward sin.” And he states (as I quote in the main post), “Baptists deny that children are guilty upon birth.” And he concludes, “Baptists have always believed that since infants are not yet capable of actual sin, they go to heaven.”
So through this all he seems to suggest the Baptist way is that we are not born with an inherited guilt from our nature, but simply a strong proclivity towards sin. In other words, we might have a corruption that will lead us to sin, but it’s not until we reach a certain “age” that we actually sin and have guilt for sin.
I disagree. I think the Bible teaches we are born guilty. Therefore, the belief that infants go to heaven when they die is not from a sense of innocence as opposed to guilt; but like I argue is rather from God’s justness.
My point, while based on Dr. Lemke’s post, wasn’t so much to argue against Dr. Lemke but rather present an alternative and still Baptist view that does not deny the inherited guilt of original sin.
Yeah, Mark, I was getting the idea that he was saying that we all had that original sin as a tendency, but also maintained that we were not held accountable for that sin nature until we reached the age in which we willfully sinned against God. That’s what I understood.
Lemke says,
By affirming the age of accountability, Baptists deny that children are guilty upon birth, and so deny the need for infant baptism. Only those who are of age for moral accountability are capable of recognizing their own sinfulness, the first step toward salvation in Christ.
Unfortunately, Lemke is dead wrong that Baptists deny children are guilty upon birth. About all he can realistically claim is that, “Southern Baptists since 1963 have confessionally suggested that children might not be guilty upon birth.” Prior to the 1963 BF&M, we find the doctrine of original sin plainly stated in the 1689 Baptist Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, and in the New Hampshire Confession. We also find it pretty clearly attested to in the 1925 BF&M:
“[Adam’s] posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, are under condemnation, and as soon as they are capable of moral action, become actual transgressors.”
Thus, Lemke’s universally-stated assertion that Baptists deny original sin is untrue. Perhaps some Baptists do and have, but he cannot speak for all Baptists (especially not all Southern Baptists), and he certainly doesn’t speak for me.
I’m starting to get the impression from reading his series that Lemke is trying to paint a picture of Southern Baptist doctrine that matches his own view and does not take into account the diversity of views among all Southern Baptists. It begs the question as to whether he has an agenda in painting SBC doctrine the way he does.
D.R., one thing that bothers me about this series so far is the term “Baptists” and how it’s used. “Baptists” believe x, y, z. Which Baptists? All Baptists through out all time? Including Anabaptists? The early English Baptist? American, etc.?
The above when and who questions bring me to another point that I’ve made in other comment threads. Does the origin and historicity of a Baptist doctrine or distinctive matter? So far, the distinctives in the series are positioned against Reformed/Presbyterian as if the Baptist position just materialized. If a distinctive is traced back to an early Reformation period when Anabaptists were persecuted I then wonder why one or so distinctives would be pulled from this time period and not most Anabaptist beliefs.
For example, Lemke stress the importance of believer’s baptist stating, “If Baptists today don’t see believer’s baptism as a crucial issue, it is a departure from our heritage. Baptists in prior generations suffered persecution and even martyrdom from Calvinist and Catholic authorities in defense of their beliefs.” Yet, today we are also specific about the mode of Baptism not just the timing. When arguments are set-up as such the distinctives seem to be selective.
BTW, do you, or anyone else, have any idea when the age of accountability was first believed?
Thanks to abortion 50,000,000 are in heaven today. Without it, many if not most wouldn’t be.
Seriously though, justice was served in the condemnation of the offspring in the first place. It would not be fairness but mercy that would spare them, for it is mercy and not justice that spares any.
I am not sure we can use one OT scripture to secure the emotional belief that all children are saved and neglect countless others which would deny us such comfort. For instance, the passover took the lives of the first-born males, but no one else. Are we to conclude that they we exempted from the judgement in spite of being left behind when the Hebrews left? And weren’t some of those thousands of firstlings, children, even infants. And they were not spared. Or, following the parallel that the children of Israel were spared the judgement, are we to conclude that since the children of Egypt were not allowed to enter the promise, they were condemned regardless of their age? You see, we can make verses sing any song that we like. Supposing that the children of Israel are a type of children who are spared and not held accountable for their parents sins, how is it then that later the Scripture concludes the children to be among those who are always sinning as their parents did and because of that they are they are to be cut off? So what, they were they save and lost their salvation? And what of those towns that the children of Israel exterminated? Are we not to take that action of God as a type? None were spared in some of those places. Everyone, toddler, infant, and foetus alike were killed. Are we to conclude that no one will be save in the end because no one was saved out of these towns? Now even if some may have been able to hear, the infants and toddlers, what of the foetus’. Surely, judgement fell upon them without hearing the Gospel. Or did it? Maybe the whole towns were innocent such that the Scripture might be fulfilled in saying that the righteous are taken away to spare them the evil? Selective versing blinds the mind, donnit?
And here we must rest our case… we don’t know the disposition of all who have ever been conceived and the Scripture gives us no clue about it. Where it is silent, it is a safe bet to be like it.
I think a whole lot of yall are taking Dr. Lemke’s statements out of context, and I wonder if some of yall read what he said, or just going by what others are saying about what he wrote. He is not denying the sin nature of the children. He is not saying that they dont sin, as children. He was simply saying that they are not held responsible for their sins until they reach the age of knowing right from wrong….a baby does not know this…. retarded people do not know this….and, I like Dr. Lemke, believe that they go to Heaven. I do not believe that a gracious and merciful God would send babies to Hell…nor would He send retarded people to Hell…I do believe that the Scriptures mentioned imply this…especially the one about King David and his baby. True, there are no direct, plain Scriptures which teach this…but there’s no doubt in my mind that children and retarded people go to Heaven.
Anyway, Thomas, do you believe that those 50 million babies are something to joke about? Seriously? They were murdered by abortion, and you’re making a joke about them? I guess that tells us a lot.
And, you also think that we cant know what happens when children die? That parents are left to grieving doubts about the death of their baby? Seriously? Dude, I hope you never get the chance to tell some crying Momma, who just lost her toddler, this kind of “good news.”
David
Vol,
I agree with you here. Actually the scripture I believe is fairly clear about how God feels about children and the eternal condition of children who die. Thomas is using examples of temporal judgment in order to prove his point of uncertainty about the condition of those children. While I agree here with the majority that all are born guilty, I believe there is a special provision made for redemption based on Christ’s sacrifice. Otherwise the scripture would not make sense in several places. For example Ecc 6:3 “If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life’s good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.” if that stillborn baby could not be assured of heaven then this statement would make no sense.
I don’t have too much to say on this other than like most here, I believe God saves those who are unable to exercise faith. I will say that I don’t think a strong exegetical case can be made for the doctrine other than a sense, from taking the whole of scripture, that God is just AND merciful. The various passages that people have used to support the doctrine seem very strained to me, especially the verses about David and his child. That one is very weak.
Bill,
Very weak? David said that he would go to be with his child, one day. I doubt very seriously if the thought of going to the grave was the comfort that David was thinking about, here….I seriously doubt that David was drawing comfort in a time of grief, by saying that one day, he would go to the grave to join his dead baby…..c’mon, fellas….
I think that passage of King David and his dead baby is the strongest passage on young children going to heaven…the strongest…
And, all these people, who think that a baby would be sent to Hell….wow…that’s all I can say, is “wow.” That’s one hard, harsh, twisted view….
David
Where does it say David was drawing comfort from anything in this situation? It doesn’t say that anywhere. David makes a simple statement: I will go to him, he cannot return to me.
That might mean heaven, that might mean the grave. I am leaving it open. You are making it say what you want it to say.
I just consulted 7 different study bibles on the passage in question. One unequivocally states that David was certain the child was in heaven. One unequivocally states that David meant “the grave”. One suggests that David didn’t know if the child was in heaven, but that the New Testament sheds further light on the subject. The other 4 either take no position at all, or give both interpretations. Believe what you like, but it isn’t nearly the slam-dunk interpretation people make it out to be. That was my only point.
Also, I don’t recall anyone saying that babies were going to hell, so I don’t know who is “twisted” here.
Bill Mac,
Do you believe that all babies go to Heaven? And, do you not know of anyone who says that we just cant know where babies go? or, who just flat out say that some babies are elected to Heaven, and others do go to Hell?
David
Yes I do, although I might characterize it as a hope rather than a strongly held belief. It is informed by what I believe about God from scripture, although I doubt I could build an airtight exegetical case for the doctrine, and all such exegetical cases I have read seem rather weak to me.
Most everyone I know personally is pretty much in the same boat as me.
I haven’t decided about the original sin/ original guilt issue. My only contribution was that I believe the passages about David and his son were a weak argument.
But hey, I’m the guy who says that you can’t biblically prove that Lucifer is the same being as Satan, so perhaps I just like to be contrary.
That David knew he would one day join his child in the grave does not mean David believed he would one day see his child again. The verse is far too vague to present a strong assurance of infant salvation.
Chris,
I disagree. Even though its not a clear teaching of Scripture, I do believe that it’s very strongly implied here.
David
I know two things about the subject:
1) God is holy, just and loving.
2) When we find out what God did in this regard, we will all agree that God was holy, just and loving in his dealings with mankind, even babies and small children.
The rest is pretty much speculation. I tend to believe with most that those who die as children are taken to heaven. It’s more based on the goodness of God than on any proof texts (the David story is the closest we come to infromation on that subject).
I do think it is odd that Dr. Lemke would make a particular belief on this subject some kind of Baptist distinctive.
Explain to me how it is strongly implied.
Volfan,
Show me where anyone who has posted here thinks a “baby would be sent to Hell”.
Scott,
Do you believe that all babies and retarded people go to Heaven? Yes, or no.
There are people, out there, in the Reformed camp…which Dr. Lemke was writing about…who believe that some babies do go to Hell. And, there are some in here, in this thread, who seem to be saying that its foggy at best, about what happens to babies after death.
Have you read the OP and the comments in here? Have you read Dr. Lemke’s post at SBC Today on this subject? That’s what I’m talking about.
Now, do you believe that all babies and retarded people go to Heaven?
David
One more thing, Scott…if babies dont go to Heaven…guess where they go…there’s only 2 places to go…Heaven or Hell.
David
Yes.
Yes, I read the original post and comments. No one said babies go to Hell. Not one. Yet, that is what you accused some of saying. Are there some believers, somewhere, who think that? Sure, but they had not stated such here.
Scott,
If babies dont go to Heaven, where do they go?
I understand that most people are saying that they just dont know where babies go…that’s its just some foggy, something that we just cant really know for sure. So, would you not agree that these people are at least saying that there’s a chance of a baby going to Hell?
David
You have a reading comprehension problem. I said they go to heaven. Now, how about answering mine? I’ll repeat it for you: Show me where anyone who has posted here thinks a “baby would be sent to Hell”.
“I understand that most people are saying that they just dont know where babies go…that’s its just some foggy, something that we just cant really know for sure.”
No, most people are saying (to use my words) they believe babies go to Heaven when they die but such a belief must be held tentatively since Scripture is not clear enough on this to be dogmatic.
So I believe babies who die go to Heaven, but I would not offer this as a promise of assurance to parents who have just lost a child. I would not tell them that we can know for sure something Scripture has not told us plainly.
Because I hold this as a tentative view, do I think it possible that young children and infants who die may end up in Hell? Yes, it is possible. And if this were the case, God would still be just and we would still have no cause to complain or criticize about his judgment.
What Scripture tells us plainly is that all people must have faith in Christ in order to be saved from their sins. Young children are sinners, but do not have faith in Christ. If that were the end of the story, we would have to conclude that children will go to Hell for their sins. But we do have hints – only hints – that leave room for the belief that there is something different taking place with the very young (and possibly mentally disabled) which would make them secure despite their sin and unbelief.
That’s quite an emotional belief system you’ve got going there David. I don’t think it is a joke, but you’re welcome to read into what I wrote anything you want to. People do use the justification of the lesser evil when aborting children. I don’t think it is a far stretch the say that those who believe in an AOA are influenced by the disposition the the child in the decision. In a twisted way, to lay down one’s life that another might live, that is to commit murder so that the victim would have eternal life, is not without its merit to some. I agree that it was murder and a crime not to be taken lightly, however, under your paradigm, it was murder that saved from the second death. The reality is, that if they hadn’t been, they might well have died and been eternally lost.
It is apparent that you didn’t read Lemke. At least you didn’t understand him. He denied original sin, a fundamental doctrine of the faith. His strawman was that Presbys don’t believe infants go to heaven. That is simply a lie. The long history of Reformed thought is that most believed that they do indeed, and not just the elect child as in some, but most believed that all were elect who died in infancy. You and Lemke, on the other hand, believe in decisional regeneration, that is, that only those who can exercise the moral decision to receive Christ can be saved. The result is a dilemma for you. For how does a child exercise faith who has not come to the age of ability to do so? Simply mercy? Well, that is the Presbyterian’s claim about all who are saved and that through election. But Lemke rejects election. But we must ask, has God chosen to save some? But if mercy as you see it is only for those who cannot choose, what is it that saves those who can? Justice, the law? The again, I would as you, how merciful is it that God allows any to reach the AOA. Wouldn’t mercy stop someone before the could kill theirself?
You can say you believe anything, but where is the proof? What you believe means nothing. What Scripture teaches means everything and on the subject of infant salvation it is silent. We can only make inferences about some, and not about all. When we step over that line we fall into error. Yes, even the great fathers of the modern church, the Reformers, worked often from an emotional appeal, as you and Lemke do. That doesn’t make their argument Biblically sound.
Lemke turned not only historic othodoxy on its head, but rejected the SBC’s own confession on the subject. The historic tradition is upheld in the BFM as serving the same thought as those it was derived from and they are explicit in the fact of inherited guilt.
I make no determination about the disposition of infants. I remain silent, because Scripture does. On the predication that regeneration is an act of grace that precedes faith, I am on the only foundation that can support the salvation of infants. You on the other hand reject regeneration before faith, and are therefore without any means by which any child might be saved. You admit that there are no plain Scriptures that teach that all children go to heaven. Isn’t it telling that you can be convinced of what is not in the Bible and yet stand condemning those who do not even take a stand one way or the other. You seemingly have a faith that is the issues out of your imagination and that you emote over. Like Lemke you use emotion as a bludgeon without ever understanding the issues at stake. Let me amend that, I think Lemke does know what is at stake, and he consciously has rejected what Scripture does teach about original sin.
You are wrong about David’s child. The only thing that can be said about that is that that one child would go to heaven. But I am wondering why you don’t go to the text. Why was the child’s life taken? Was it not because of his father’s sin? What can we learn from that? Perhaps it is a type of Adam and his offspring? Perhaps also, that despite David’s sin, the grace of God saved the child even though the judgement due his father was carried out upon it?
You really need to drop you traditional blinders and involve yourself in the texts more fully. You then might not be so quick to use emotion as a club.
Thomas,
For one thing, you told it as a joke. There’s no denying that. You did. You were insensitive, harsh, and wrong to do so. Just admit it, instead of trying to pass it off. There’s nothing humorous about 50 million babies being murdered.
Secondly, you have absolutely no understanding about what I believe. Your diatribe above is full of assumptions, conjecture, and misunderstanding on your part. Its almost laughable.
Thirdly, all that I believe is based on the Scripture….not my emotions. The very reason that I believe that children and retarded people go to Heaven is, in fact, based on many Scriptures which are discussed in Dr. Lemke’s post, and in the comment thread. There are much more passages which hint strongly at children and retarded people not being HELD RESPONSIBLE for their sinful hearts and acts. So, I personally believe that they do go to Heaven…also based on the mercy and grace of God.
David
No, I didn’t. What I did was state an absurdity to make a point. It is called facetiousness, or tongue in cheek, and doesn’t necessarily connote a joke. It was meant, properly so to show the absurdity of the doctrine of the AOA, thus I went on, “Seriously…”
Yes I do have an idea of what you believe. What? You think this is the first time I have read your diatribes? A diatribe, by the way can either be posititve or negative. I am sure you appreciate Erasmus’ Diatribe against Luther’s doctrine of the Bondage of the Will.
Mormons believe based upon Scripture, so your claim rings hollow. The fact being, you believe what you believe because you are emotionally vested. You appeal to David’s child is a case in point. Why is it that you cannot handle the fact that the child was killed by God as retribution for David’s sin? Judgement was rendered agains that child for David’s action, not his own. Even Lemke cannot distance himself from the fact that the sinful tendency is the result of judgement against Adam which is impute to all his children. And that before the supposed AOA. In fact, Lemke cannot even get to the AOA without it. So why is that you cannot grip the whole testimony of Scripture? How is it that children are saved? I agree that those who are are saved by the mercy of God through his grace, but upon what basis? Something in the child? Or is it without reference to the child? If mercy, as opposed to what? Justice? Law? Merit? Why mercy if there is nothing about the child which is to be commended? Is there something inherent in the child, such as innocence, by which God judges him, or is it by grace without and not within the child?
You say that you believe in Scripture, but it is Scripture that declares the mercy of God granted not as if he were a respecter of persons, but on the account of Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf. So what, then, when you say you found your doctrine in Scripture, so do I. Now what is left, nannynanny boo boo?
David,
When I read Thomas’s post, particularly his statement regarding abortion, I did not at all take it as a joke, but exactly as he was claiming – to be an example of potential false reasoning in regard to allowing abortion. Your conclusion that it was a joke is only based on your own biased reading. It’s pretty clear he was showing how the idea that all children unconditionally go to Heaven at death could be a slippery slope that leads one to conclude that abortion is not as evil as we all believe it is – that there is some potential spiritual reason to actually allow abortion, namely that one is assured of eternal life if he/she is aborted. That’s all Thomas was pointing out. For you to see it as a joke says more about you and less about him. Now, move on and deal with his actual argument instead of continuing to use ad hominems as red herrings.
oh brother….lol
My thoughts exactly when I read your assertion that Thomas was making a joke of abortion. Hopefully my comments here will end all that silliness.
Chris,
Go back to SBC Today and read all the comments made over there. It looks as if you did read all of them, and you commented many times. If you did not accept what was written over there, then I see no need to continue this conversation any further. It will apparently be futile. Why rehash what you’ve already read and commented on over there?
David
Because there, as here, what was lacking is a clear, strong biblical argument for an age of accountability. I believe children who die go to Heaven, but I hold it as a very tentative belief because Scripture is simply not clear on the matter. I’ve offered where I think hints are found and am content to leave it there. But you have said you see more than hints and think the matter is fairly clear in Scripture, yet I’ve not seen you or anyone else offer a reason why a passage like 2 Samuel 12:22-23 is clear and compelling as a defense of the salvation of infants.
But let me ask this question instead. Can you at least understand where I’m coming from, that I do not think 2 Samuel 12:22-23 offers a strong defense of infant salvation but more likely is a reference to the grave? Even if you disagree with me, can you see from the passage why I would draw the conclusion I do?
Chris,
If you’ll go back and read what I have written, you’ll see that I have consistently said that the Scripture strongly implies that children go to Heaven. No where did I say that it clearly teaches that children most certainly go to Heaven. I have said, and I do believe, that the Bible strongly implies it, without clearly teaching it.
And, along with the nature of God…causese me to firmly believe it.
David
So let me modify my question… how does Scripture strongly imply the salvation of children who die? I’ve yet to see the argument laid out.
And what about my second question?
Chris,
It is laid out…at SBC Today…and laid out very well, I might add…by Dr. Lemke, and by the commenters in that thread. I guess that you dont agree with them. Okay.
So, what’s the point of discussing this further? I doubt that there’s anything I could add that would cause you to change your mind…..soooooooooo
David
“I have said, and I do believe, that the Bible strongly implies it, without clearly teaching it….And, along with the nature of God…causese me to firmly believe it.”
But you are not allowed to create out of your mind what you want to believe. You are to establish the truth and hold it. Not your opinions. How then can you say you firmly believe it, but not know it is true? Faith is substance, not speculation. Building houses upon shifting sands is not the wisdom of Scripture. Jesus makes the point, doesn’t he? Words that work for edification are only those which are truth and any others are idle and condemnable. When he said we worship what we know, he wasn’t saying that we can believe anything, was he? No. He was saying that only the truth will set a person free. So you can continue to share your opinions, but if, as you admit, it cannot be clearly established Scripturally as the truth, your emoting about it will not make it true. And if not true, it is not doctrine, just old wives tales and myths about which the Scripture says you are forbidden to teach.
Scott,
I have already answered you twice. Those people, who teach that we cant know what happens to babies and retarded people after they die, are at least hinting at the possibility of them going to Hell….are they not?
David
Here’s what you actually said:
“And, all these people, who think that a baby would be sent to Hell….wow…that’s all I can say, is “wow.” That’s one hard, harsh, twisted view….”
You may not see it, but there is a difference between saying that you aren’t certain of the eternal destiny of dead infants, and saying a “baby would be sent to hell”.
What some people on this thread are in fact saying is that they don’t know what happens to infants when they die. Why? Because they believe scripture doesn’t answer the question to their satisfaction. I agree with them that the evidence for infant salvation is not overwhelming, but I do think it is sufficient. I have yet to read a robust defense of infant salvation, including Dr. Lemke’s.
Well, let’s do more than hint…
In the opening piece I wrote, I obviously believe infants, etc. go to heaven when they die, I base this on the justice/justness of God. However, there is no Scripture that clearly supports the idea.
The Bible does not say infants or people under a certain age/in a certain state of mind do indeed go to heaven when they die.
Proof texts such as 2 Samuel are problematic at best. While we know that is what David truly said after the death of his son, we have no indication from context one way or the other that David was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit to make that statement. It might simply be his own uninspired expression. We also don’t know what David meant exactly by his choice of words. We can speculate, but that’s just it–we can’t prove anything with them.
The Bible gives no definitive and clear answer to the question: what happens to infants when they die.
Therefore, it is possible some go to hell when they die.
BUT…based on the character of God, I think it is far far more probable they do not. However, we cannot be dogmatic one way or the other about it because the Scripture does not afford us that right.
David (Volfan),
You seem to continue to push this issue of others answering your question, so why not answer some of ours:
“If, when we got to Heaven, we found out that God did send some infants or mentally handicapped individuals to Hell, would you then accuse God of being unfair or immoral?”
and
“Would God still be worthy of worship even if you didn’t approve of what He did or if His actions didn’t square with your own personal viewpoint of Him?”
DR,
1. I would not accuse God of being unfair. God is God. He can do whatever He wants to do. Its His universe.
2. God is worthy of worship whether I approve of Him, or not. Who am I to approve, or disapprove of God? I am but a man, who has failed God too much….He is God.
David
PS. I still think the verses talked about here, and over at SBC Today…along with the nature of God….all make me believe that children and retarded people go to Heaven when they die. THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT CLEARLY TEACH THIS, but I personally believe it…based on the Scriptures and the nature of God.
“THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT CLEARLY TEACH THIS, but I personally believe it…based on the Scriptures and the nature of God.”
David, that’s just what everybody has been trying to say. If you had posted that back at the beginning, the whole argument would have not happened.
the other TN David
David, what you said above is exactly what everyone else believes on this thread. That’s exactly what everyone has been trying to tell you. Most of us don’t want to make claims that the Bible doesn’t make. Those of us who don’t hold to an “age of accountability” explanation just seem more comfortable with that tension because of your exact answers above. Thus, as David T hints at below, this really ends any debate.
My guess is that the difference is that I can tell a grieving Mom that her baby is in Heaven…with full confidence. I’m not so sure about some of the others, who have commented in here…nor Sproul, and others….
David
There in lies the rub. You are comfortable having “full confidence” in something that “THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT CLEARLY TEACH”, whereas many of us don’t. And you want to make us out to be the ones with the problem? Hmmm…
So you put your confidence in your reasoning and I will put mine in the Scriptures. If you want to criticize me and others for that, then so be it.
We have a saying in my faith:
‘we must never despair of the Mercy of God’,
so for those who know of Our Lord and His Compassionate Love, there need be no fear for the babies and the little ones who die
DR,
YOu still just dont get it. Oh well, have a great day, Brother. God bless.
David
“YOu still just dont get it.”
I can say the same thing about you. It seems like when you don’t have a response, you respond with faked exasperation as if someone else is the problem.
So, there’s a lot in here about how a baby can’t exercise faith, etc., so people go to places like 2 Samuel to prove that David knew his son was in heaven.
I’d like to posit that it is indeed possible for a baby, even a baby in utero, to exercise faith. And I’d like to posit that the bible clearly demonstrates this.
Luke 1:39-45 (ESV) (39) In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, (40) and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. (41) And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, (42) and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! (43) And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (44) For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (45) And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”
So, unless this is one of those cases where Elizabeth really didn’t know why her baby lept and she just attributed it to “for joy”, I’m pretty sure that John the Baptist was joyful that his in-utero savior was present.
My theology tells me that God can work faith into any human at any stage of physical or mental development. I don’t have to worry about ages of accountability (physical OR mental) because the God of all the earth will do right. I don’t have to make special cases that would call abortion the greatest evangelism method the world has ever thought of. I don’t even have to worry about explaining why, if a child died yesterday, she would have gone to heaven, but if she died today, well, it’s hell for her.
The idea that one minute death => heaven and the next minute death => hell is antithetical to the gospel which says one minute death => hell and the next, death => heaven. In the “age of accountability” worldview, every human starts out “saved” and then loses that “salvation” and then maybe gets it back again.
It seems to me that the exclusivity of the gospel – by grace through faith – is immutable. If a Hindu baby dies but is guaranteed heaven without faith, or ever hearing the word of Christ, how does that square with “by grace through faith”?
I would say “Christ can and does speak faith into babies – He did it with John the Baptist, He can do it now.” But I’d also say this – “eternal security also applies to these babies – if Christ speaks faith into them, they will never be lost.” Which is why I must believe that Christ does not speak faith into every baby.
Now, Spurgeon believed in a modified version of an age of accountability in that he believed that if a human died in infancy, it proved he was elect – in other words, in His providence, God would not allow a non-elect human to die before they understood their sin.
At least Spurgeon’s view kept “by grace through faith” intact. I could much more easily accept his view than a view that says “we all start out in heaven and can only lose it.”
Later!
Jeff.