Really working on a lack of sleep today - got to bed around 11:30 last night and met Mr. Pat Dirrim at the Racquetball Courts at 5:30 this a.m. Yikes! By the way, I have been able to snag one game per day for the last four days from Mr. Dirrim. Soon, I will take 2 out of 3. Of course this is assuming that he is not just letting me win. You’d never do that, right Pat?
This morning Pat and I discussed the merits of a Piper article I read yesterday. Piper’s basic premise was that it is a biblical concept that ALL infants who die are saved. Without getting into the messy details - I will say that his textual evidence is based upon several Psalms of David (which is kind of the obvious direction one would go) and a not so obvious reading and understanding of John chapter 9. Here is the link to the article.
An interesting blog on this subject that evidently Mohler and MacArthur both adhere to.
Feel free to comment on the article and its merits or demerits.
Another juicy tidbit, for all you rabid Dawg fans out there: As we move into July - we are almost to our beloved August, where two-a-days begin and the Dawgs prepare for another run at the SEC title. I can hear all of you Dawg fans giving a hearty bark out there! Thanks!! Just a reminder, August 19th is photo day with the Dawgs. I have been saying I was going to take the kids (at least the boys) for the last five years - but I never do. Maybe if another die hard fan would join me (Brad Williams, perhaps). Here is the grueling Dawgs schedule for 2006. Woo hoo!!! I love the fall.
Brad Williams | 30-Jun-06 at 11:21 am | Permalink
I would rather be doing time a Gitmo than spending a summer afternoon trying to snag autographs from UGA “student” athletes.
Brad Williams | 30-Jun-06 at 11:37 am | Permalink
Thanks also for Piper link. Obviously, Kathie and I have discussed this issue many times. This article takes a unique stance that we are glad to read. Although it does provide some comfort, trusting in God’s goodness provides more.
guiroo | 30-Jun-06 at 11:45 am | Permalink
In arguing election, the “ought v/s can” idea is frequently used. Does that go out the window because we are dealing with our own cute little babies here instead of third century Native Americans?
Arguing for an age of accountability in scripture results in vague speculation.
I just don’t know if there is enough evidence to definitively say ALL infants are saved. If that’s the case then great, but are we prepared to worship the God of the universe if it’s not?
Sidenote: If you want to base a theologial view on one Psalm (of a greiving father), then let’s see what kind of theology we can draw out of Psalm 137:8-10.
Hugh | 30-Jun-06 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
Sure, babies can go straight to heaven. The only thing that makes that possible is sovereign election.
But “all babies go straight to heaven?” Sounds like one of those “schweepin’ statements” that “jus’ makes y’sound igner’nt.”
(Yikes. I sort of accused Piper, Mohler, and MacArthur of sounding ignorant there, didn’t I?)
Maybe the scripture isn’t silent on the issue, but it certainly isn’t noisy about it. Let’s not make it say something it doesn’t…
bulldawgy | 30-Jun-06 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
Regarding the uber tuber’s issue of “cute little babies” and “third century Native Americans” - I would comment that Piper’s argument is that the third century Native American would fall under those described by Paul in Romans chapter 1. Our cute little babies could not fall under that category due to undeveloped cognitive abilities.
Thus, I think that argument goes “out the window” Mr. Guiroo.
To Hugh - if you read the entire Piper article - he goes on to agree with you, that all babies that do go to heaven are part of the elect. He even speculates that they will grow up in the Kingdom of Heaven (new heaven and earth, I suppose) and be granted faith in Christ then.
I want to do some more reading on what Moehler and MacArthur say on this issue. For those of you who know of Michael Horton, he subscribes to this theory as well.
Hugh | 30-Jun-06 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Thanks John, yes, I saw that Piper ultimately banks on election as the key issue here.
That takes care of the matter of infant salvation as a matter of possibility. It doesn’t get you to infant salvation as a matter of doctrinal certainty.
I just don’t see how you can get to “all babies go straight to heaven” without heavy reliance on speculation. I’m not saying that’s the final word, not by a long shot — I’m only saying I don’t see it. I’ll have to go back and give these guys another read.
Mueller’s attitude (that Piper quoted) resembles my practical take on the matter: when all is said and done, I won’t be able to shake my fist at God and impugn his righteousness in any judgment he makes. He gives and takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord…
guiroo | 30-Jun-06 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
Now I’m curious, based on Romans 1, do you say that a 3rd century Native American that has never heard of Jesus but realizes there is a creator and gives thanks and honor to Him will be saved?
The keyword in your response to Hugh is “speculates.” :^)
I too was going to say that:
“As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy.”
…sounds like a schweepin’ cop out for a difficult issue to me.
bulldawgy | 30-Jun-06 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
The 3rd century Native American realizes from creation that there is a creator - and is therefore without excuse. He is therefore condemned by his sin - and lost apart from Christ (which he never knew about).
Piper’s argument is that because infants do not have the cognitive ability to even know there is a creator or a creation for that matter - God allows them an excuse. The same would be said of persons mentally incapacitated from birth.
Overall - I think he is seeking to find a biblical answer to give to the grieving parents of deceased infants - and obviously he is angling for the one which provides the most comfort. I also understand his logical inference from the Scriptures - and wouldn’t be so quick to call it a “cop out”. I think that it deserves more reading on my part.
guiroo | 30-Jun-06 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
I could reverse engineer from Romans 1:20 that God could sovereignly save the Native American by giving them a heart of repentance to honor God as creator and then later give them faith in Christ once they are in the Kingdom.
Not quite pluralism in that the person isn’t trying to save themselves by means of another religeon/be good enough.
bulldawgy | 30-Jun-06 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
Your reverse engineering would be a much greater stretch than Piper’s interpretation of John 9:41.
Maybe you are a biblical heavyweight, but I just don’t know that I have the biblical prowess to dismiss Piper, MacArthur, Moehler and Horton out of hand.
guiroo | 30-Jun-06 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
Yes, I’ve got it all figured out. Don’t waste your time when I’ve already got the answer for you. ;^)
I’m just trying to see what other kinds of doors it opens up. Where it takes ya. Take the roof off. Unpack it.
So looking at John 9 in context, who are the blind in verse 39? Are they guilty?
pdiddy | 30-Jun-06 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
Bulldawgy-
I have not been “letting” you win. Your game is improving dramatically.
In regards to this passage, Matthew Henry has an interesting insight.
The times off ignorance God winked at; invincible ignorance, though it does not justify sin, excuses it, and lessens the guilt. It will be more tolerable with those that perish for lack of vision than with those that rebel against the light. (2.) “If you had been sensible of your own blindness, if when you would see nothing else you could have seen the need of one to lead you, you would soon have accepted Christ as your guide, and then you would have had no sin, you would have submitted to an evangelical righteousness, and have been put into a justified state.”
Perhaps Jesus just means, as Mr. Henry seems to take it, that if we remain blind/ignorant than our judgement will be less severe than if we openly reject and scoff at the light that God graciously provides us.
pdiddy | 02-Jul-06 at 6:29 am | Permalink
The link Bulldawgy posted to the other blog, Radon Thoughts, has the link within it to MacArthur’s sermon on this topic. The firs half is a little over the top, but once you wade through that portion he begins to lay out his case and does so fairly well. The main issue I have on this topic (and my mind is being switched as I study this) is that is still seems a little vague (although not silent) and thus I don’t think warrants a dogmatic position regardless what side you may come down on.
One question: What part does faith play in our salvation? It comes from grace, but if elect infants die and are showered with God’s grace obviously they have no faith. Again I ask, is faith only necessary for those who, according to MacArthur, “…have reached sufficient, mature understanding to comprehend convincingly the issues of law and grace and sin and salvation?” I’m not saying it is not possible for God to give that grace to faith-free infants, He can do what He chooses, I am just trying to figure out what role faith has.
One great quote: The following quote is from R.A. Webb in 1907 (from MacArthur’s sermon). While it is not a biblical text, philosophically I think it makes a great point. The significance of punishment in eternal hell (or any type of punishment) is lost on a mind that cannot comprehend. Thus, justice is not served as well as if said punishment were meted out upon one who could comprehend.
“If a dead infant were sent to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good reason to the divine mind for the judgment because sin is a reality, but the child’s mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it would know suffering, but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering. It could not tell itself why it was so awfully smitten and, consequently, the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings, being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of the penalty would be absent, and justice would be disappointed, cheated of its validation.”