Hi again Steve, You said: I didn't say "it's not to prove whether he's right or wrong." I'm not sure >where you got that idea. I got it from you saying this previously: Unfortunately, that weakens Mac's whole premise. > >He may or may not be right in his conclusions, but he's gone so far to > >prove > >what he believes to be true that he's made the scriptures he uses say the > >opposite of what they do say. And that's unfortunate for everyone. > > If you aren't saying there that he may or may not be right in his conclusions, but he mishandles scripture, then I misunderstood, and I apologize. I still am not sure what your point is, but that's okay. I'm probably not going to be able to. Probably most people have their minds made up on this matter, and it doesn't appear that anyone is convincing anyone else otherwise. I do, however, have to say that for some reason, it seems to anger some that people hold to the view that Mac does, and I haven't quite figured out why. I simply disagree with you that he did poor work or that he was trying to make scripture fit what he wanted it to. This is where I see that we need more charity. I find it grievous the way people here have needed not only to disagree with someone's view on this matter, but to go further and tell WHY the person holds to their view, as if they can read their motives! It's almost as if it's not possible for us to just think another person is in error and made a mistake. We have to impute motives like "they just don't want to believe it," or "they are being too sentimental," etc. That type of psychoanalysis is unnecessary at best and uncharitable at worst. I can see no godly purpose served in such judgmentality. Nancy >From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...> >Reply-To: soundofgrace@... >To: <soundofgrace@...> >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'??? >Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:20:02 -0800 > >I didn't say "it's not to prove whether he's right or wrong." I'm not sure >where you got that idea. > >However, I'm not focusing on John. I'm focusing on the misuse of >scripture, >which he may have done here, and the willingness of so many to just 'buy >it' >because it was a reputable guy like Mac who said it. It's the willingness >to just accept poor use of scripture that concerns me. >But I don't bring up the issue to attack Mac. He is very respectable. I'm >a little surprised he missed this one, but I do not intend to make him out >to be unworthy of teaching. I apologize if I sounded otherwise. I suppose >it's hard to distinguish between questioning and challenging a teaching and >questioning/challenging the particular teacher who said it. But I am >sincere when I say it is not my goal to challenge his reputation. Only >this >particular teaching, which unfortunately he has publicized. > >You said: "I think we can generally say that a people who practices >sacrificing their >babies to false gods by burning them is a pagan people." > >We might think that, but does God? I don't think he ever says it. >If you read the context of the passages we're talking about, God is upset >by >the very fact that it is his own children, not foreign pagans, who copied >the foreign behavior. He's expressing disgust that HIS children did this, >not that it is done by anyone. > >He doesn't address the pagans doing their natural sins. He doesn't address >whether their children are innocent. He doesn't bother to go there. >In the context he's specifically addressing his own children to say 'you >should know better', 'You are my children and these are MY babies which YOU >bore to me'. >In other words, the elect during this time in redemptive history were >predominantly descendants of Abraham, so when Abraham's offspring burn >their >babies to pagan Gods, they are God's very own people undoubtedly burning >elect children - even if not all of them were elect, certainly a good >number >of them had to be. They should know better. Why? Because they are NOT >pagans. They are God's chosen race. > >That doesn't say the pagans were sinless in doing it, or that if we could >know which babies are the non-elect we could burn them without guilt. >It just means he isn't commenting on the pagan's behavior or their children >at all, so it is unwarranted to conclude that his calling babies 'innocent' >means even pagan children are saved automatically. The scriptures quoted >don't go there at all. It's a leap for us to do so, especially as a >defense >for a doctrine. > >In this instance, I believe Mac mis-quoted or misunderstood the texts. >So what theologian (or any of us) has never done that? (with all due >respects to our resident JGR) > >Steve > >-----Original Message----- >From: Nancy Newcomb [mailto:nan_new39@...] >Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:33 PM >To: soundofgrace@... >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'??? > > >Steve, > >If you are not meaning to discredit John MacArthur, I guess I'm not sure >what your point is. You said it's not to prove whether he is right or >wrong > >in his conclusions, but that he weakens his premise by making scriptures he >uses say the opposite of what they do say. Maybe I'm missing something, >but > >it sounds quite like you ARE trying to discredit him by saying he is >handling Scripture in a wrong way, whether or not his conclusions are >correct. I guess I just don't see what your point is. > >I think we can generally say that a people who practices sacrificing their >babies to false gods by burning them is a pagan people. > >Nancy > > > >From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...> > >Reply-To: soundofgrace@... > >To: <soundofgrace@...> > >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'??? > >Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:12:58 -0800 > > > >I don't mean to discredit Mac. He is respectable. > > > >My point is just that I have seen him make statements, title chapters, > >and quote verses in his book that don't stand up to the context of the > >passages they are taken from. > > > >This is Mac's word: "...you are not talking about a baptized baby; > >you're not talking about a baby who has parents in the covenant; you're > >not even talking about a Jewish baby - you're talking about a Gentile, > >pagan child, and it is determined by God to be an innocent." > > > >He says that God, in the verses mentioned, calls even pagan children > >'innocent', and he has taken that word out of the context from which it > >was written. Those verses do not address pagan children at all. God's > >not talking to pagans or about pagans. He's talking about His own > >people turning to mimic pagan worship. If you read the scriptural > >context of the verses he relies upon, it's pretty > >clear. > > > >Unfortunately, that weakens Mac's whole premise. > >He may or may not be right in his conclusions, but he's gone so far to > >prove > >what he believes to be true that he's made the scriptures he uses say the > >opposite of what they do say. And that's unfortunate for everyone. > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Nancy Newcomb [mailto:nan_new39@...] > >Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 12:08 AM > >To: soundofgrace@... > >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'??? > > > > > >Steve, > > > >I'm not sure I follow about who is being talked about in that passage. > >But whoever it is, I still think John's point is that BABIES are > >considered "innocents." He says this: "Sometimes the question arises > >whether the children of unbelievers are received by God as His unique > >possessions in the > > > >same way as infants whose parents are believers are safe because of the > >parents' faith, but infants from heathen cultures are condemned for > >their parents' sins. On the contrary, Scripture clearly teaches that > >the children > > > >of idolatrous parents are also considered "innocent" in God's eyes > >until they reach a state of moral culpability." He also thoroughly and > >satisfactorily discusses the whole "moral culpability" issue and > >contrasts it with an AGE of accountability. > > > >I agree that it would be stretching that one verse in Jonah too far to > >say that alone makes a case that all babies who die in infancy go to > >heaven. However, if you read the book, that is not what is being put >forth. > >There's > > > >a whole chapter on How Does God Regard Children? and that is only one > >part of it. The book is thorough, and to say that his view rests on > >one passage like that is simply incorrect. There are numerous > >passages in numerous chapters that he uses and explains. > > > >Nancy > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...> > > >Reply-To: soundofgrace@... > > >To: <soundofgrace@...> > > >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'??? > > >Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 23:10:57 -0800 > > > > > >Interesting. > > > > > >When I read Jer 19, I don't see him talking about pagan kids: > > > > > >Jer 19:3 says: You shall say, 'Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of > > >Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem." > > > > > >That indicates He's talking to his own people, I think. > > >It goes on: > > > > > >Jer 19:4 "Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien > >place > > >and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor > > >their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because > > >they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent > > >5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the >fire > > >as > > >burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, > > >nor did it ever enter My mind; > > > > > >He's talking to His people about turning to other God's, 'whom their > > >forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known' and 'which I never > > >commanded or spoke of'. Again, these are not pagan children > > >sacrificed that he's calling innocent blood. It's the children of > > >God whom are called innocent. > > > > > >Looking at Ezekiel I see the same thing: > > > > > >Ezek 16:20 "you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne > > >to me, > > >and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your whorings so > > >small > > >a matter 21 that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as >an > > >offering by fire to them?" > > > > > >These are God's people's children, whom 'you had borne to me...you > > >slaughtered my children'. He's speaking to his own people about > > >their turning away from Him into whoredom. > > > > > >I'll grant that the Jonah passage is certainly talking about people > > >God created in Nineveh, and the reference most likely refers to the > > >children, but it's stretching that one verse quite far to make it > > >solely defend a doctrine of 'all babies go to heaven.' > > > > > >In fact, knowing what we do from the rest of the redemptive story, > > >there was > > >a (rather large) remnant of elect in Nineveh God had chosen to convert. > >He > > >was teaching Jonah (and us) that His people are not chosen from just > > >one nation or blood line. > > > > > >God was speaking about people he'd chosen. Not non-elect pagans. > > > > > >It appears that even a great man like MacArthur sometimes reads > > >things he wants to see into scripture, even if they aren't there. I > > >suppose that shouldn't shock any of us. We all do it. What > > >surprises me is that it seems to have gone completely unnoticed by > > >many. > > > > > >Steve > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Nancy Newcomb [mailto:nan_new39@...] > > >Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:55 PM > > >To: soundofgrace@... > > >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'??? > > > > > > > > >Hi Steve, > > > > > >Having read the book, I understood John MacArthur mostly to be saying > > >that babies, regardless of who they are born to, are referred to by > > >God as "innocents." He quotes Ezek. 16:20-22 in speaking about > > >babies being sacrificed to false gods. He also quotes Jonah 4:11 > > >which says, "And should > > > > > >I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one > > >hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their > > >right hand and their left--and much livestock?" He says that those > > >who couldn't tell their > > > > > >left hand from their right were little children and those who were > > >mentally disabled. They were clearly the object of God's pity. > > > > > >He has a section in chapter 3 subtitled "Children in a Heathen > > >Culture Are 'Innocents.'" He quotes there Jeremiah 19:4-7. > > > > > >Nancy > > > > > > > > > >From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...> > > > >Reply-To: soundofgrace@... > > > >To: <soundofgrace@...> > > > >Subject: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'??? > > > >Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:39:28 -0800 > > > > > > > >It's interesting to me that MacArthur makes such a strong argument > > > >that the sacrificing of 'innocents' refers to pagans, but when I > > > >looked up the passages, Psalm 106 seems to be one of the few places > > > >it actually says 'innocents', and yet it is not talking about the > > > >pagan children. It is referring to Israel's adoption of pagan > > > >practices, INCLUDING the sacrificing of Israel's children to pagan > > > >gods. > > > > > > > >MacArthur says: "That, as well as in the Old Testament, where God > > > >talks about the babies who were offered to pagan gods - they were > > > >burned in the fire as human sacrifices - He called them 'the > > > >innocents.' If God says that little one is innocent, even though > > > >it's a child of a pagan, offered in a pagan sacrifice - you are not > > > >talking about a baptized baby; you're not talking about a baby who > > > >has parents in the covenant; you're not even talking about a Jewish > > > >baby - you're talking about a Gentile, pagan child, and it is > > > >determined by God to be an innocent."" > > > > > > > >But here's the text from scripture. Note WHO it's calling > > > >'innocents'... > > > > > > > >Psalm 106:35 But they (Israel) mingled with the nations (pagans) > > > > And learned their (pagan) practices, > > > >36 > > > > And served their (pagan) idols, > > > > Which became a snare to them (Israel). > > > >37 > > > > They (Israel) even sacrificed their (Israel's) sons and > > > >their daughters to the demons, 38 > > > > And shed innocent blood, > > > > The blood of their (Israel's) sons and their (Israel's) > > > >daughters, > > > > Whom they (Israel) sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; > > > > And the land was polluted with the blood. > > > > > > > >I couldn't find a reference where it calls the pagan children > > > >'innocents'. Can anyone else find such a passage? > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: Bill Tonn [mailto:btonn@...] > > > >Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 2:37 PM > > > >To: soundofgrace@... > > > >Subject: [soundofgrace] RE: soundofgrace Digest 23 Jan 2004 > > > >23:45:03 -0000 Issue 246 > > > > > > > > > > > >FYI ... Found this article on Crosswalk.com ... not sure if it > > > >(John MacArthur's book) was mentioned when this issue was discussed > > > >recently? > > > > > > > >Safe in the Arms of God: What Happens to Babies Who Die? Janet > > > >Chismar Senior Editor for Faith > > > > > > > > > > > >Parents who have lost a child often are haunted with disturbing > > > >questions. Why my child? Where is my baby now? Will I ever see my > > > >child again? And it's perfectly normal. "The death of a child is > > > >the most devastating experience a parent can ever face," explains > > > >pastor and author John MacArthur. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >In his book, Safe in the Arms of God, MacArthur tackles the > > > >question of infant death (in the womb or following birth) with > > > >compassion and honesty. No death occurs apart from the purposes of > > > >God, MacArthur assures readers, just as no life occurs apart from > > > >the purposes of God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"This book is a great tool at those times when emotions run high > > > >and losses are felt deeply," MacArthur told Crosswalk.com in a > > > >recent interview. "When you are struggling with the feelings, when > > > >you come to grips with things in a more stark way, you need the > > > >anchor that comes from the absolute truth of the word of God." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Those who are grieving deserve an answer rooted in the truth of > > > >Scripture, MacArthur notes. The parents need them, other family > > > >members need them, friends need them, and pastors and counselors > > > >need them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Where Are They Now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"Is my baby in heaven?" It is natural for grieving parents to ask > > > >this question. They are not alone in wondering. Many people wrestle > > > >with what happens to children in third world nations - those who > > > >may die of starvation without ever knowing God. What happens to > > > >aborted babies? Where do the innocent babies of Hindus and Muslims > > > >go? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The Bible teaches that all children who die are in the special care > > > >of God, MacArthur explains. "I think one of the really great > > > >passages along those lines is in Mark 10, where Jesus said, 'Permit > > > >the little children to come to me and forbid them not, for such is > > > >the Kingdom of God.' That, as well as in the Old Testament, where > > > >God talks about the babies who were offered to pagan gods - they > > > >were burned in the fire as human sacrifices - He called them 'the > > > >innocents.' If God says that little one is innocent, even though > > > >it's a child of a pagan, offered in a pagan sacrifice - you are not > > > >talking about a baptized baby; you're not talking about a baby who > > > >has parents in the covenant; you're not even talking about a Jewish > > > >baby - you're talking about a Gentile, pagan child, and it is > > > >determined by God to be an innocent." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >MacArthur shares another illustration, that of King David in the > > > >Old Testament. When David and Bathsheba's infant son became ill, > > > >the Bible says David pleaded, fasted and mourned. But when the baby > > > >died, he washed himself and no longer mourned in any sense. Then he > > > >said, "I shall go to him, but he cannot return to me." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >According to MacArthur, "David was comforted in thinking of that > > > >reunion, but the opposite was true with Absalom. When his adult son > > > >Absalom died, he wept and wept, and mourned and mourned, and could > > > >not be comforted, because he knew he would never see that child > > > >again. The difference there is pretty significant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"I think when we understand that these little ones - and the Bible > > > >makes this very clear - belong to Him until they reach the age > > > >where they choose, then we understand why He takes them to heaven," > > > >MacArthur adds. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The Anguish of Abortion > > > > > > > >Women who have aborted their babies are particularly prone to > > > >despair, loss, guilt and unresolved grief. They, too, may wonder > > > >where their babies are now. > > > > > > > >Ezekiel 18:20 clearly states that "the son shall not bear the guilt > > > >of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son," MacArthur > > > >points out. "Scripture says that babies do not have culpability for > > > >the sins of their parents." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Sadly, women who abort do not realize that long-term, emotional > > > >devastation will follow. "When a woman is considering an abortion, > > > >she is usually told abortion is a simple medical procedure with no > > > >lasting side effects," says Mary Comm, founder of SafeHaven , a > > > >website created to help women understand and deal with > > > >post-abortion syndrome. "What a woman is not told is that abortion, > > > >like a miscarriage, can cause tremendous feelings of loss and > > > >grief. But because abortion is a 'choice,' those feelings are > > > >multiplied." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Comm started SafeHaven in 1996 after seeing how post-abortion > > > >syndrome devastated the lives of two friends. The site is staffed > > > >entirely by women, all who are intimately familiar with abortion > > > >and its after-effects. Visitors to SafeHaven find a variety of > > > >links to help guide them in their efforts to deal with > > > >post-abortion syndrome. Some information is designed to help a > > > >post-abortive father begin to understand his own feelings of loss, > > > >grief and regret. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"The hardest thing for these women to do is reach out for help," > > > >says Comm. "They don't know what they are feeling is common and > > > >they are ashamed to admit they have had an abortion. At our site, > > > >they can remain anonymous for as long as they like. They are > > > >welcome to read messages and follow chats, and are invited to > > > >participate only when they are comfortable doing so. Even when they > > > >do begin participating, no one has to know who they are. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"But when a woman finally decides to participate, we accept her, we > > > >love her, and we let her know her feelings are normal," Comm adds. > > > > > > > > > > > >A dedication on the SafeHaven home page reads: "For all the mothers > > > >and fathers whose arms ache for children they will never hug; for > > > >all the bandaged knees they will never kiss; for the college > > > >graduations and weddings they will never celebrate, and for the > > > >grandchildren that will never be born: this site is dedicated to > > > >them." > > > > > > > > > > > >For more information about Safe in the Arms of God, click here. To > > > >purchase this book, visit CBD. > > > > > > > >For information about SafeHaven, click here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________ > > > >Bill Tonn Newmarket, Ontario, Canada > > > > > > > >-- > >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 > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Find high-speed 'net deals - comparison-shop your local providers here. >https://broadband.msn.com > >-- >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 > >-- >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 > > > _________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up — fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1