----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Arnzen" <carnzen@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation


>The non-elect don't go to hell simply because
> they are non-elect.

Revelation 20:15 is the reality; the indicative.  That makes the deeds of
20:12 the evidence of the reality: men are damned because they are not in
the book of life.  Reverse those two verses in terms of the ordo salutis and
punishment/reward and you're an Arminian.  :-)

>It is because they are non-elect that their sins have
> not been paid for at Calvary, and therefore, since Christ was not punished
> for their sins as their substitute, they must be punished for their own
> sins. That is why they will go to hell.

Again, this is an Arminian argument, albeit in reformed clothing.  One need
not "sin" to be a "sinner".  Our federal headship in Adam makes it so.
Sinners are punished for being sinners... that's the gist of Rev. 20:15.
The deeds that are cited in Rev. 20, Matthew 25 and elsewhere are in light
of the Rev. 20:15 reality.  Sinners are punished because they are not
elect... the non-election being born out in their deeds in the normal course
of a human life that is lived beyond infancy.

> [Chris] I did not say it was ultimate proof, but merely that it supports
the
> notion that believers can have confidence their children dying in infancy
> are in Heaven (non-believers would not necessarily be seeking this comfort
> about their children). The Scriptures never correct David if he spoke a
> non-truth here.

There's alot the Scriptures don't correct.  The theology is based on a
narrative.  And to be honest, I personally believe "support" is precisely
the loading of alot of theology into one measley statement.  Or to put it
another way... I do not believe this doctrine would have near the appeal it
seems to have if that statement didn't exist.  If David had never said that
one sentence (or Solomon had recorded it), this doctrine would be a mere
footnote in reformed circles... because without the statement, the only
thing left is the question of God's morality, IMHO.

> [Chris] How can you not find that problematic??? I did stress *doubtless*
> comfort for parents regarding the state of their dead infants.

I don't have time to dissect what Paul is saying in 1 Thess. 4, but the only
hope we can give parents of infants is on the chance that if their infant
died "in Christ" then that infant is "with Christ".  Unfortunately, that
kind of comfort isn't good enough for the sentimentalists who want to give
parents complete assurance.  Such a desire is a misplaced focus on the
child's destiny and has become that parent's "sufficiency" or "satisfaction"
rather than in Christ himself.  Ultimately, I must place my satisfaction in
Christ, the Supreme Judge, who is always good and always judges rightly.  If
"good" and "rightly" means my child goes to hell I must place my
satisfaction with that decision in Christ.  The comfort for the parent is
that the child is in the hands of Christ who is good and righteous.  Those
hands will either punish or bless, but they are still Christ's hands.  In
fact, our attitude toward our infants should be the same as our own
attitude... we, like Moses, Job, and Paul should be willing to be damned to
hell forever if it should further the glory of Christ.  I am satisfied to
leave my "fate" to Christ... and if I should be damned to hell, I will be no
more than clay that can say to the potter, "why did you make me thus"?  If
he sends me to hell, it is because he deemed it good and right for His own
glory.

> [Chris] My views in this regard have nothing to do with a false belief
that
> if God worked contrary to my views He would be unjust. I am merely basing
my
> views on the biblical evidence of WHO goes to hell and WHY they go there.
It
> is never because God has merely looked at the damned at their death and
> noticed the "non-elect" stamp on their foreheads that only He can see. It
is
> always biblically because the non-elect have sins that need to be
punished,
> and Christ has not been punished on their behalf, as He was for His elect.
> Biblically, although I believe even elect infants are deserving of hell
due
> to our inherited Adamic sin that elect and non-elect share, I have never
> seen a passage indicating that as a sole cause for the punishing of the
> damned in hell.

I do not believe that the "punishment for deeds" passages exhaust the
Bible's teaching on why the damned are damned... Rev. 20:15 is the one that
I pulled off the top of my head for the moment.  And again, I believe "Esau
have I hated" is itself an eschatological commentary on Esau's damnable
condition before birth... that he lived is beside the point.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH