Like Button

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Tentative Theology

Okay, I'm going to tell you from the very start that this is tentative. I'm not making a doctrinal statement for the Church to follow. This isn't a hill on which I'd be willing to die. Agreeing or disagreeing with me will not make you a heretic or not in my eyes. It's just a thought, an idea, a possibility. Still, I've never really voiced it, so I thought I'd give it a shot here.

First, the origin of the question, so to speak. I believe that human beings are sinners from birth. I see it in Scripture. I see it in life. I read in the Psalms as David writes, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5), suggesting that he was "in sin" at conception. I read elsewhere "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). God Himself says, "The intention of Man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21) (where "youth" is actually "anything prior to adulthood"). Paul quotes the Psalms and assures us "None is righteous, no, not one; ... no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10, 12). So if we have genuinely innocent children, it would seem to me that these are false statements which, of course, is a problem. Therefore, I can only conclude that human beings are born spiritually dead, separated from God, and justly condemned from birth.

This, of course, raises the nasty specter, "What about all those children who die before being able to receive Christ?" The core of that question, of course, is based on Jesus's assertion, "No man comes to the Father but by Me." So if my premise is correct and all humans are born sinners, justly condemned for being separated from God before they even make a choice, then am I not also claiming that all children who die without receiving Christ automatically go to Hell? It is this very thought that spawned two lines of thinking. One was infant baptism. To this day the Roman Catholic Church as well as the conservative side of the Lutheran Church practice infant baptism as a means of spiritual regeneration for infants so that they are at least temporarily safe from that condemnation. They're still stuck, I suppose, with the awful idea that every aborted baby goes to Hell, but what can they do about that? The other line of thinking is "the age of accountability". In this line of thought (which has shifted and migrated over time), children may (or may not) be born guilty, but they are not culpable for that guilt until they are mature enough to be accountable. This is a pleasant thought and very popular. I can't find it in my Bible, but it is a nice thought. It keeps children off God's radar of condemnation. It even keeps safe those who are impaired. It does beg the question, "If people are not held accountable until they are aware of their accountability, wouldn't it be best to put off as long as possible any information about their accountability?" I mean, if you never tell them the rules for which they would be accountable, they'll be free and clear, right? On the other hand, if you buy this argument, then wouldn't Christians be fairly pleased about 2 million babies aborted every year? Oh, sure, it's sad, but, hey, when was the last time we had 2 million people automatically sent to heaven in a year? That's 2 million people who never had to choose Christ, never even faced the possibility of rejecting Him. No revival ever spawned 2 million decisions for Christ, did it? That's safe, isn't it?

Well, as you can tell, I'm having difficulty with both the concept of baptismal regeneration from infant baptism and the age-of-accountability theory. I'm not finding either in my Bible, and it seems like they cause other theological and practical problems. So what am I to do? Some in my position would surrender. "Yep! I admit it! I believe that all children who die before receiving Christ go to Hell. It's justice. That's all there is to it." Frankly, I don't like that response either. In fact, biblically I know it isn't true. Remember when David's son, born of adultery with Bathsheba, died? He told his people, "Now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Sam 12:23). David believed that his son went to Heaven without ever having a chance to "receive Christ" or any such thing. It would appear that it is not true that all children who die before having the opportunity to receive Christ go to Hell. So how do I respond to the question, "What about all those children who die before being able to receive Christ?"

Well, here's where I get to my tentative position. I note that when Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me", He did not specify how that was to occur. Further, if we consider the history prior to Jesus's arrival on Earth, we have a lot of people whom we believe or are quite sure have gone to heaven without, apparently, receiving Christ as their personal Savior. I don't find any account where David prayed the Sinner's Prayer. I don't see anything that tells me that Elisha responded to the altar call at church. Yet I'm quite sure that the term "the saints" includes a bunch of Old Testament folk. So if Christ is the only way to the Father and these people seem to have gotten there without a confession of faith, how is that possible? I am of the opinion that when Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me", He was simply saying, "I decide who will and won't be forgiven." Take, for instance, the thief on the cross. You don't find the Sinner's Prayer there, either. His "confession of faith" was quite odd in our eyes: "Remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). That's it? That's a "Sinner's Prayer"? That's repentance and confession and faith and all that? Well, maybe, but it looks quite odd to me. So what if Jesus's claim to exclusivity was simply His claim to being the authority who determines who does and who does not go to Heaven?

Jesus defined eternal life in a manner different than most of us do. While we tend to think of it as "living forever", He defined it as knowing God (John 17:3). Further, we can be quite certain that Jesus's propitiation for our sins was certainly sufficient to cover the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2). He would, then, be within His rights (in terms of authority) to forgive whom He pleases and He would be capable of conferring eternal life on whom He pleases and the means by which He accomplishes this are His to determine. It is my belief, then, that Jesus chooses to save children however He pleases. I think this also carries over to Old Testament saints as well as that sticky "native in the jungle who never gets to hear" question. I believe that, by virtue of His sacrifice and His ultimate authority, He is free to save whomever He pleases by whatever means He chooses, and that would include whatever children He chooses to forgive and save.

But, like I said, it's not a hill on which I choose to die. If you are of a different opinion, that's fine. You're wrong, of course, but that's fine. (No, just kidding.) It's my belief and (until talked out of it) I'm going to stand by it.

6 comments:

Science PhD Mom said...

We discussed this in systematic theology and I remember discussing a particular passage which seems to infer that children of believers are sort of under the umbrella of their parents' faith, but I can't find the passage now so I will have to try to dig through my notes on Grudem at some point and see if I can find it. Interesting post.

Sherry said...

Hi, Stan.

A sticky problem this has been for us humans. Here's a few somewhat disorganized and random thoughts on it.

It would seem Heaven's population is going to be composed of a disproportionate number of babies and children! Or else... not. Almost nobody can imagine that children might end up anywhere but in Heaven. And yet, it seems to some, only by what little information we have been provided in the scriptures on the topic, that is not where children would end up. Inconceivable. I would imagine God really lowers the bar when it comes to their entrance exams. (Exams? I think He really only examines the conditions of our hearts and what they are toward Him.)

I have nothing good to add to this discussion. I wish I did, but I have only my same old lament and question: Why was such a seemingly big issue as this not addressed in God's word (or better addressed) but other much less important things were? I can't help but wonder.

That just irks me, and I see no good reason why we were and are just left to have to guess about such an important thing as the eternal destination of billions of people.

I don't suppose God is concerned about little ant-like me being irked about something He has completely under control, but we spend an awful lot of time down here trying to figure such things out! And, unfortunately, such things divide us. Do we divide because we were just not provided enough information? Or is it the enemy dividing us because we have been and still are focusing far too much upon things about which we should not be all that concerned?

I lament that some things weren't better explained so that we didn't and don't have to guess about them. Most of us don't like to have to guess or speculate about things we feel are very important. With certainty can't it be said that certainly we prefer to know things for certain?

Gee, good thing my parents had me baptized as an infant. Ha! Sorry, but I have always thought that well-meaning little ritual was and is pretty silly. Like I had any say in the matter! So, if we had gotten in an accident on the way to that church that day and we all died, I wouldn't have made it in? I don't think so!

I lead the singing in a Sunday school class and, though this is not exactly spelled out in the scriptures and I realize sounds very base and simplistic, here's what comes to mind right here: "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

Stan said...

The "umbrella" concept comes from the 1 Cor 7 passage where Paul tells believers "The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy" (1 Cor 7:14). I'm not sure how far to take it.

Stan said...

I am heartened by the passages that seem to indicate that, even though I'm quite sure children are sinners from birth, children are not held accountable early on. As an example, when the Israelites sinned in the desert, they weren't allowed into the Promised Land. The Bible says, however, "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there" (Deut 1:39). David was quite sure his dead son had gone to heaven. James wrote, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins." Does that mean that not knowing isn't sin? And there are more. Add to that the number of teachers I know and trust who hold to the view that the very young are saved, and it "feels" better.

For me, the bottom line is this. Do I trust God to do what is right, or don't I? Do I think that I'll get to heaven, see what He ultimately decided was right, and say, "No, I think you were wrong there, God."? Not even the remotest possibility. So I don't need to know beyond all doubt as long as I trust His goodness.

Anonymous said...

John MacArthur did a terrific sermon series on this (he has a book on it as well -- can't recall the title). He makes a strong case for infants who die being in Heaven. The basic reasoning was that they are saved by the same thing we are (grace) and while having a sin nature they didn't have the guilt of actually sinning (he pointed to distinctions about biblical punishments always being for actual sins).

I highly recommend it to anyone in that situation.

Ryan said...

I believe that book is called, Safe In the Arms of God. It was an excellent read that I would recommend to anyone wrestling with this.