Bravo, Chris! Are you sure J. MacArthur didn't consult with you on his book? ;) I believe that God is sovereign AND that we can find rest in Christ because His Word is true, and we believe His Word teaches that babies will be in heaven with Him. Is there sentimentality involved? Oh, maybe. If someone who carried a baby for weeks or months, praying the Lord's protection and health and trying themselves to protect the baby as best they were able was not somewhat attached to it, I would have to guess there was something wrong there. I don't think it seems strange then that we would take comfort in our baby being in the loving arms of our heavenly Father. For all the talk about Christ being enough, there's a REASON Christ is enough. It is because He is the Creator, the Redeemer, the Word, the Lord, the image of the invisible God, the One who keeps all His promises, and so much more! For people to twist things around to where those who firmly believe and have assurance that babies will be in heaven to somehow not be rooted in the sufficiency of Christ is just nonsense. There's no reason whatsoever to separate the two and make a false dichotomy. By the way, your reasoning about "let the children come unto me" was really good. John expounds on that more fully in his book, and he also shows that God Himself called babies and little children "innocent ones." I had so many questions answered as I read and studied the Word through this book. I think you would really like it. I also don't get the arguments about Esau and Jacob being chosen before either of them were born. So what? I'm under the impression from Scripture that neither of them died in infancy. To say that we would be doing all babies a favor by killing them before they could reach a maturity to where they may go to hell is a "hyper" argument. I think we all know that we are to obey God in His REVEALED will. He has said not to murder, so that should take care of that! In His amazing grace, Nancy >From: Chris Arnzen <carnzen@...> >Reply-To: soundofgrace@... >To: soundofgrace@... >Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation >Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 13:12:07 -0500 > > >[Chris (from previous post)]> > I don't believe this is a paedobaptist >argument > > > at all, since Christ was not baptizing these little children in the > > passage, > > > nor was any of His disciples. > >[Chad]> Have you read what the paedobaptists say about this passage? I >have >yet to > > see any of them suggest that Christ was baptizing little children in the > > passage. What he is affirming, in their system, is covenantal children >who > > are given the promises and blessings of the kingdom by the mere fact >that > > they are children of the covenant. > >[Chris] I am merely saying that the fact that Christ and His disciples did >NOT baptize these children speaks loudly against paedobaptism to me, not >that the majority of paedobaptists claim that there were baptisms performed >in this passage. > > >[Chris (from previous post)]> > I am finding it quite interesting to see > > > how tenaciously and passionately brethren are to attack the view of >infant > > > salvation, even when some are merely agnostic over it. Why does it >bother > > > you so very much that I and other Calvinists have been convinced by >the > > > Scriptures that infants and little children will not populate hell > > > (especially the agnostics--just because you are not convinced either >way, > > it > > > should not bother you quite so much that some of us are)? > >[Chad]> I think this is a fair question... I cannot speak for the rest, but >it > > grieves me to know that some parents in our flocks are being given > > unwarranted comfort when the only comfort to give is Christ himself. I > > wholeheartedly believe that Christ is slighted in your view... I guess > > that's why my "agnosticism" in this instance is a little more passionate > > than it would be for the color of church carpet. :-) > >[Chris] Christ is slighted by reciting 1 Thes.4:13-18 to give comfort???? >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???? 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). > > >[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. 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. > > >[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. > > >[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. > > > >-- >Read the Sound of Grace pages at >http://www.soundofgrace.com > >To unsubscribe, send ANY message to ><soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...> > >To view our online archive go to our web page at >http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > _________________________________________________________________ Have fun customizing MSN Messenger — learn how here! http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_customize