There used to be a Reformed professor in a seminary who claimed that if all
babies go to heaven we should practice "machine gun evangelism."

If the "instant heaven" is true then it would seem that the abortionist
have, unknowingly, been the instrument for the greatest eternal blessing on
mankind. Would that not be ironical indeed?    JGR




----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation


I am not saying Hell is full of babies, and Heaven empty of them.
But if Hell is guaranteed to be empty of them, as you insist, then the
Christian parent should desire that his child die young, before he has the
chance to ruin his eternity, which scripture assures us he will do.

Likewise, there should be great anxiety in his heart as his child matures,
especially in that ambiguous era when s/he might or might not yet be held
accountable.  There is no comfort a pastor can give him during that time,
because we can't biblically nail down an age of accountability, and we can't
force him to pray a prayer of salvation.  These are all the reasons the
church at large has developed risky doctrine about 'age of accountability',
and 'easy believism'.  Because rather than resting in Christ for sovereign
control of those around us, and His assurance to completely bring them to
heaven if they are chosen (whether we get to see that they are or not), we
trust more in our ability to persuade them, their walking the aisle, and God
being fair enough to give them opportunity to demonstrate it for us to see.

It's rather odd (IMHO) to say 'of course they deserve hell, but God won't
send them there because they haven't yet performed any deeds that scripture
says they'll be sent there for'.  No matter how you slice it, you're saying
they really don't deserve it quite yet. And you're saying a baby cannot
perform any deeds that are sinful.

That seems to be the crux of it.
Are we guilty because we inherit responsibility for Adam's sin, or are we
guilty because we are of Adam's stock, and like him, we are evil?
We, being Adam's descendents, possess a sinful nature just as he did.
That means, given the opportunity, we will commit the most horrendous of
sins, but for the grace of God holding us back.
Our guilt is not just tied to what acts of evil we rack up over a lifetime,
but in the fact that we are evil, and the acts of sin themselves are merely
the evidence that we are the sinners God says we are.  God doesn't need
maturity in sin to know we are evil.  It is we who benefit from being tested
so we can see just how evil we are.  And even then most of us still try to
live in denial.  'Well, if I hadn't been put in that predicament, I never
would have fallen to that sin.'

That is the point.  Because I am evil, given the right circumstance I WILL
CHOOSE to SIN, and in the same circumstance, CHRIST DID NOT.

Consider Pharaoh.
Many wrestle over God hardening his heart, and thinking somehow God is then
responsible for Pharaoh's sin.
On the contrary; Pharaoh was already evil, and God created a circumstance so
Pharaoh would show off his true colors and God could show His power and
judgment for us to see.

Pharaoh was already evil.  God didn't cause him to be more guilty.  He
simply forced Pharaoh's hand, to demonstrate the truth and God's
sovereignty, for all of God's children to learn from.

Infants are born inheriting the same evil nature we all inherit from Adam.
At it's root is selfishness, and one doesn't need to be with a newborn long
to experience the truth of that in them.  Ask any new mother who longs for
just one full night's sleep.

Both Jacob and Esau were already evil, even before their hand was forced to
demonstrate it for themselves or their parents.
God, in His sovereignty, chose to love and change Jacob for God's own glory.
Esau He chose not to change, but continue to hate as an enemy.
He would have been just in leaving both of them as enemies.  But He chose
one, for the sake of His own name.
And there was no comfort but a sovereign God for Isaac and Rebecca.  If they
were sure death as an infant would have trumped the plan and obtained heaven
for Esau, their only comfort would have been in letting him die helpless
before some mysterious age of accountability, after which he was guaranteed
to become guilty and never repent.

Romans 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by
one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done
nothing either good or bad--... 12 she was told, "The older will serve the
younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15
For he says to Moses, *****"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I
will have compassion on whom I have compassion."***** 16 So then it depends
not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the
Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that
I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all
the earth." 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens
whomever he wills.

Our peace is shallow if it rests in God being fair.
It is endlessly deep if it rests in God's merciful choosing, and leaving it
for Him to decide.  He can be trusted.  I have peace when I live as though
that is true above everything else.



Steve





-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Arnzen [mailto:carnzen@...]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 9:05 AM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Infant Salvation




> The word "such" is an indicator that Christ is not talking about
> children, but those who have child-like faith - which was the context
> of his
statement
> (Mark 10:15).

[Chris] Agreed, but there is a reason why Christ desires our faith to be
CHILD-like, and there is a reason that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to
such as these" (those whose faith is CHILD-like). I don't believe Christ
would have compared those who are going to Heaven with little children if
hell is filled with them (and especially during that day and age, where I'm
sure infant mortality rates were much higher than today, this issue of the
destiny of infants must have been on the minds of most people). 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. I actually think that speaks more loudly against infant baptism
than for it. 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)?




--
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