----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Arnzen" <carnzen@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation
> [Chris] Christ is slighted by reciting 1 Thes.4:13-18 to give comfort????

If that passage is not meant as comfort for infant salvation, Christ is
slighted.

> Would Christ be slighted if I did the same in regard to an adult loved one
> of a friend who dies that I believe is with Christ????

I believe there is a huge gulf in scriptural warrant between adult loved one
and infants when it comes to being "in Christ".

>If I believe dead
> infants are with Christ I don't believe I am slighting Him at all.
Although
> His Sovereignty should be our chief comfort, it is not the only message of
> comfort the Scriptures give. 1 Thes.4:13-18 specifically says "comfort one
> another with THESE THINGS" (those who are asleep are with Christ and will
> rise and return with Him).

I disagree.  Christ, and his sovereignty over all things is the only message
of comfort the Scriptures give.  Both the object and source of our comfort
is ever and only Christ, even in that passage. "These things" is informed by
and predicated by "in Christ", which is the chief focus of this passage (as
it is with all Pauline theology).  Meeting "Christ" and "ever with Christ"
(vs. 17) is the dominant focus of this passage.  Our comfort is not that
we're going to see our loved ones again.  That is not Paul's primary concern
here.  Our comfort is that our hope is in Christ with whom we and our dead
loved ones will "always be".  Yes, as humans, we find comfort that our loved
ones will be always with Christ as we are.  But we do grave disservice to
the flock if the sole object and source of our comfort is not Christ
himself.  Christ isn't merely a catalyst for comfort as if he makes it
"possible" for us to see loved ones again.  Christ himself is the comfort
(this is what is meant by "he is our portion"... and the moment I depart
from that emphasis in that passage (or any other for that matter) I have
slighted Christ.


> [Chad]> Again... to paraphrase what I wrote yesterday...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".  It is an emphasis on sentimentality,
> > rather on Christ, that is giving these parents assurance and comfort.
> 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.
>
> [Chris] But you are speaking as one who does not have certainty in the
> destiny of deceased infants. I believe the Scriptures do give me
certainty,
> and I take offense by your imputing a motive to my beliefs which I do not
> accept as true. As I said earlier, it is not "sentimentality" driving me
to
> this conclusion.

Apologies for imputing motive.  I believe that the logical and experiential
end of your belief takes the focus off of Christ.  It doesn't have to be
intentional... I do not believe you're driven by sentimentality, nor do I
believe that you intend to move the focus off of Christ.  I'm merely stating
what I see as the end result of the "infant salvation" dogma.

>If I was driven by "sentimentality" I would also become an
> annihilationist, or better yet, a universalist (I am not a parent, but I
can
> imagine that the grieving process could be infinitely greater for a
> Christian parent who loses an older child who they had more time to know
and
> love deeply, especially if the child was in open rebellion to Christ
before
> death--I am not so sentimental that I would candy-coat the truth to such a
> grieving parent). We as Baptists reject infant baptism because the
> Scriptures describe who the proper candidates for baptism is, and they are
> totally absent of any example of an infant baptism. I have the same
evidence
> for my views of hell. I reject the notion that infants are there because
the
> Scriptures only describe wicked individuals who are conscious rebels being
> tormented there for there *deeds* (not solely due to inherited Adamic
sin),
> and are totally absent of any example of an infant being tormented there.

No... the scriptures also say the wicked are in hell because they are not in
the Lamb's book of Life.  That makes it an either/or, not a both/and.

> [Chad] 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.
>
> [Chris] Agreed, but if one believes the Scriptures offer additional
comfort
> to that truth, there is no reason to withhold it. You would not be so
> ambiguous about the destiny of the deceased while offering comfort to
> mourners who lost a loved one you were certain was a Christian. I have
that
> same confidence from Scripture about the destiny of deceased infants.

Granted.

> [Chad]> As for Spurgeon, as a systematician he was brilliant (not to
mention
> his
> > unparalleled oratory).  But I tend to find his biblical theology lacking
> at
> > times (allowing the whole of the scripture to inform the exegesis).  But
> > that's just my opinion.
>
> [Chris] And that is why I look to no uninspired writer as an infallible
> guide but to the Scriptures alone as an inerrant authority.

Agreed.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH