Jason, I appreciate you opening this topic up for discussion. My response is a slightly different expression of what had been said already, but I found thinking about it in the following way helpful.
When considering judgment, Christians often stumble over biblical references to believers being judged righteous through Christ and judged by their works. How can that be if we are saved by faith in Christ alone? The answer, of course, is that our works are the outworking of our faith in Christ, the demonstration and evidence of our regeneration.
When considering the judgement of non-Christians, we often have the same question. How can non-Christians be judged guilty by their inherited sinfulness if they are also judged by their works? The answer, again, is that sinful works are the outworking of inherited sinfulness, the demonstration and evidence of our birth in Adam.
I believe the biggest problem we have when thinking this through is that we are humans talking about humans. If we were talking about rats, I donât think the problem would be as difficult.
Imagine a rat had developed a disease that caused it to become aggressive and deadly to humans, a disease that was inevitably passed on genetically. I donât believe any of us would have a problem judging the children of this rat worthy of destruction because they were concieved as diseased rats. They would be judged and destroyed even before they demonstrated aggression and deadliness. If they were allowed to live, they would later be judged worthy of destruction because of their active aggression and deadliness arising from their diseased selves. Both of those scenarios are just.
I think sometimes we believe Godâs justice is subject to the same bias toward those we love or relate to as our justice. It is not. If Godâs justice was able to be swayed like that, he would not have had to send his Son to die for us to rescue us from the justice we deserve.
Thanks Alistair. It is helpful how youâve framed that. Iâve heard a similar analogy before, but with vipers instead of rats.
What the analogy fails to encapsulate, I think, is the exalted uniqueness of man in Godâs creation. Itâs fair to compare our vileness to rats and vipers to demonstrate our corruption and the rightness of destroying us, but we also need to factor in Godâs special purpose of glorifying himself in man which makes him distinct from the animals. Even for all our vileness, God does not regard us as he regards the rats and the vipers. For all our inherent corruption, it remains true that man was made in Godâs image, and he exists uniquely for his glory.
"When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
Psalm 8:3-4
Man. Created in honor, yet fallen to corruption and rebellion. Not only small and insignificant as compared to the majesty seen in Godâs creation, but utterly wicked and a hater of his maker. And yet for all this, still pitied and cared for by the Lord. Though God would be right to utterly exterminate us like the rats, he chose instead to forbear our sinful race in order that his glory may be made manifest through the coming redeemer.
This glory is made manifest both in vessels of mercy prepared for eternal life, and also in vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. For those destined for eternal life, he opens their eyes to see their sin and the glory of Jesus. He turns them into worshippers, redeemed and beloved children. For those destined for destruction, he leaves them in their sinful state to manifest their unrighteousness through their willful rejection of him.
Rev. 14:10 tells us that those who worshipped (another text that connotes active, personal sin, I would add) the beast and its image will be tormented with fire and sulfur, and the smoke of this torment will be in the presence of the Lord, rising up to him forever and ever â as a sweet aroma to his nostrils. Their smoke will adorn his dwelling place. In their destruction, he will be glorified.
And is he not glorified precisely because of their rejection of him? Is it not their willful, personal deeds committed in unrighteousness, and their refusal to turn to Christ and live, the very incense which adorns their suffering? The Lord of the universe, who crowned man with dignity and a glorious purpose, condescended in the person of Christ Jesus to save them, and they would not have him. This is the glorious justice of their torment.
This suffering is telling a much more profound and glorious story than a rat nest being fumigated.
âI spread out my hands all the day
to a rebellious people,
who walk in a way that is not good,
following their own devices;
a people who provoke me
to my face continually,
sacrificing in gardens
and making offerings on bricks;
who sit in tombs,
and spend the night in secret places;
who eat pigâs flesh,
and broth of tainted meat is in their vessels;
who say, âKeep to yourself,
do not come near me, for I am too holy for you.â
These are a smoke in my nostrils,
a fire that burns all the day.â
Isaiah 65:2-5
Though I suppose itâs only fair to continue and quote the next few verses as well:
âBehold, it is written before me:
âI will not keep silent, but I will repay;
I will indeed repay into their lap
both your iniquities and your fathersâ iniquities togetherâŚâ
Salvation happens in time, no doubt about it. It is one of the things that differentiates it from our fallen state. We are born fallen, thatâs why I called justification an interruption of the status quo. All we might do apart from salvation is heap up condemnation on ourselves.
John 8:44
zYou are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your fatherâs desires.
What did Jesus mean here? Did you join the devil when you started sinning? Were you adopted into the kingdom of darkness? Perhaps you started somewhat neutrally, and joined the devil because, being more subtle than all the beasts of the field, he tricked you into joining him?
No. The devil is your natural father. Sinning is your natural disposition. Hell is your natural destination. You are born into it. This is true of every son of Adam, and it is just because, as I said before, we sinned with him, as surely as, if we are Christians, we died and rose again to new life with Christ.
What happens with these infants if youâre right? Automatic salvation? From what, if they have no condemnation? Limbo? Whereâs that in the Bible? Some other category? Again, where does the Bible speak of this? Only two types of men- in Adam or in Christ. All those in Adam die and face judgement, with no hope of appeal. All those in Christ have a Mediator, one who suffered and made satisfaction on their behalf. Whereâs the third way?
This doesnât make our many sins irrelevant, or besides the point, anymore than our righteous deeds are irrelevant or besides the point following salvation.
âBut God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ â by grace you have been saved.â (Ephesians 2:4â5)
This isnât somehow lessened because we started as sinners.
I meant to add, if Adamâs sin is imputed, in any sense whatsoever, youâve already given up the argument. What does all sin, any sin, even the least of sins, deserve?
Nope. If Iâve failed to be clear, I deny any notion of moral neutrality or original righteousness. We are of our father the devil from the beginning Original sin = confirmed.
I donât believe in a third way. I donât believe in âautomaticâ salvation. I certainly donât believe in any sort of Limbo. Any who see the kingdom of heaven will only see it because they have been born again. New birth must have occurred (John 3:3). They must have been taken out of Adam, and placed into Christ, and it involved regeneration.
Let me try this analogy concerning federal headship, and I invite you to shoot holes in it or tell me if it works. And I grant the analogy isnât perfect, but keep bearing with me, please.
A year ago, Vladimir Putin, as the federal head of Russia, declared war on Ukraine (never mind the whole âmilitary operationâ or formal declaration of war thing for the purposes of my analogy). In doing so, he created a state of enmity between the people of Russia and the people of Ukraine. His action created a state of enmity for every citizen of Russia, whether they had anything to do with the act or not, and many Russians will die from it. This is how federal headship works.
At this very moment in Russia, there are infants in their mothersâ wombs. Whether they realize it or not, they, too, are in a state of enmity with Ukraine. A Ukrainian drone strike could end their life and the life of their mother at any moment. Though this child has nothing whatsoever to do with how this state of enmity was produced, the child is still subject to the consequences of the enmity thrust upon him by the federal head.
Whether the child ever has an opportunity to be born, grow, or ever decide to take up a rifle and actually fight the war (which I will ask you to assume that he will certainly do, so we can assume original sin for the purposes of my analogy ), the problem of enmity remains. And as long as enmity remains, then even while the child is yet in the womb, the only way this war is going to end and the enmity be removed is if someone, something, brokers peace between the warring parties. In other words, the Russian infant in the womb, though he has committed no act of war himself, still needs a savior.
Perfect analogy? No. But I think itâs meaningful.
We would agree, wouldnât we, that the Bible seems so full of warnings concerning personal sin, and how desires lead to sin, which leads to death, and so forth, right? It has an awful lot to say about personal sin and its connection with judgment. Seems to me that if Adamâs imputed sin alone damns us, then the Bible has a disproportionate amount of stuff to say about personal sin and the way that it leads to death.
Amen. I agree that original sin is something we must be saved from. But I donât think that diminishes the qualitative judicial distinction between original sin and committed sin.
If my argument was that there is some kind of distinction here that somehow gets someone in Adam out of the result of condemnation, then yes, Iâve lost. But that isnât what Iâm arguing for. Iâm arguing about the manner in which a person in Adam comes to actually be condemned at the final judgment.
To try to give some clarity to what I am and am not saying, Iâve drafted this set of affirmations/denials. Please donât take this as a, âHere I stand I can do not otherâ manifesto, and drive me out for my heretical pronunciations. I do recognize I am not on common footing with historical reformed orthodoxy here, so please work with me. Iâm just trying to condense what I understand to be true as far as I am convinced today:
I affirm the personhood of the child in the womb, from the moment of conception. I deny all arguments which seek to speculate as to when the soul quickens the body.
I affirm that all persons are conceived with original sin, inheriting the corrupt nature of our father Adam. The infant in the womb is therefore definitionally and positionally a sinner. I deny as heretical any notion that the infant in the womb possesses any sort of original righteousness. Those in Adam have but one appointed end, which is condemnation (Ps. 51:5, Rom. 5:18).
While infants in the womb are definitionally and positionally at enmity with God, having inherited the corrupt nature of original sin, I deny the notion that infants in the womb commit personal sin from the moment of their conception (Rom. 9:11). I deny also all speculation which would confidently assert when a child does definitively begin to sin.
I affirm that no human being will see the kingdom of God apart from the new birth. No man is saved apart from the redeeming work of Jesus Christ, and the regenerating work â taking place in time â of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3).
I affirm that all members of Adamâs race receive unto them the imputed guilt of our father Adam, the effects of which are manifest in a corrupt nature (original sin) and the sting of death. All men, regardless of any evaluations of their own personal sin or personal righteousness, will experience the first death, owing exclusively to the imputed sin of Adam (Rom. 5:14).
I deny that Adamâs sin is imputed to each and every human being as relates to the second death. Though God would be just to consign all of Adamâs race to hell on the basis of their original sin alone, the Scriptures declare throughout that at the final judgment, every soul shall be judged for their own personal sins committed in life, with no regard for the imputation of the sins of our fathers. As relates to eternal judgment, Scripture always has in view the sins of the individual (2 Cor. 5:10, John 5:29, Mat. 7:23, 12:36, 16:27, Luke 13:27, Rom. 2:6, Rev. 20:12-15, 21:8, Job 34:11, Jer. 32:19, Ezek. 18:20, Ps. 51:3-4, cf. 51:5).
I affirm, therefore, that the Scriptures teach as a matter of necessary inference, that the Lord does decisively, and mysteriously, regenerate and redeem unto Christ through the Holy Spirit infants in the womb who perish having accrued no personal sin unto their own account. Though conceived in Adam, possessing a sinful nature which â if permitted to grow and manifest itself â would decisively lead unto the end of their just condemnation, God demonstrates unto them a mercy which prevents them from accruing that for which God has constrained himself to judge the sons of men, namely their own iniquity. But being in Adam, and possessing a morally corrupt nature which is condemnable in the sight of God, and having no righteousness of their own, these infants may only be saved by the mediating work of Jesus Christ, the second Adam, and the federal head of all the elect.
Iâve been tracking with this discussion and have been helped to better understand where youâre coming from, especially your affirmations and denials. A few thoughts as I read:
While there are no discernible sins that doesnât mean there arenât sins being committed. I think your assessment of personal sin relies too heavily on manâs assessment of behavior and discounts Gods assessment. 1 Sam. 16:7. Even if the child truly hasnât sinned willfully yet and actively incurred Godâs wrath for their own personal sin, they also havenât manifested any good works either which is the fruit of regeneration. John the Baptist did manifest this sort of good work but we never would have attributed his leap in the womb to his eternal state unless the Bible told us. (My wife has had these sorts of conversations with women about their babyâs responses to stimuli while in utero. She generally throws cold water on this sort of reasoning if it gets anywhere near spiritual significance because of our limitations in discerning whatâs actually going on.) Good trees bear good fruit, though weâd all agree that in infancy weâre incapable of discerning it. Thereâs a lot of danger in ignoring the absence of good fruit but thatâs a discussion for another time.
I response to Jesse, you said:
The question that has to be answered definitively is whether Original Sin leaves the person spiritually alive or spiritually dead before they are born. What happens at the final judgement will proceed from the answer to this question. We have to settle the realities of Original Sin and its effects before we can begin to sort out the details of the Final Judgment.
As I understand you (correct me if Iâm wrong), You affirm that Original Sin is sufficient to produce physical (or the first) death in all of Adamâs descendants. No disagreement there. You also affirm that Original Sin is sufficient to produce spiritual (or the second) death in all of Adamâs descendants, which is why the child must be regenerated to enter the kingdom of heaven. No disagreement here either. Then you take back this second affirmation by affirming that effect of Original Sin is enough to make them spiritually dead but not enough to condemn them to hell because they havenât personally sinned, yet. This is where we disagree. Are they spiritually dead or not? If they are, how can you affirm this without denying your previous affirmation and also create a category of (temporary) moral neutrality where they are not actually spiritually dead (enough?) to be condemned to Hell? This is where you bring in the discussion of personal vs federal sin but the consequences of your argumentation end up denying what youâve already affirmed (the spiritual death of the child). You canât have it both ways. Either the child is spiritually dead or not. The result of the Godâs judgment will reveal and not determine the answer to this question. Jesse expressed it like this:
Once you decide which category the child belongs to, your entire contention about the judgment according to works no longer applies in this situation because there are no works to judge, good or bad. All that exists is a moral condition, based on federal standing, that determines the judgment. This judgment will less severe because of the childâs lack of sins committed but it will still result in condemnation. Youâve affirmed that God would be just to do this. But youâve denied that he actually does it as a matter of course.
Instead of arguing for some sort of mysterious judgment of mercy based on the absence of personal sins, weâre much better off relying on the promises of God to our children while recognizing and living in the tension of Jacob and Esau. His mercies to us and our children are based on His promises not their apparent lack of sin.
Thanks for your reply, and for investing the time to follow along in this.
Couple things:
I think you misunderstand me. I affirm that original sin enough to make all human beings spiritually dead, and that original sin is enough to condemn them to hell. I donât at all assert that one can be spiritually dead and then be allowed into heaven because they havenât personally sinned. As I said, all must be born again. Only the regenerate will inherit the kingdom of heaven.
But what the Scriptures reveal about the judgment â as far as I can gather from the plethora of texts like the ones I cited â is that those who end up judged, in the final analysis, are judged on the basis of their manifest works: Workers of lawlessness. Every careless word spoken. Repay to each one according to his deeds. Judged by what was in the books, by what they had done. Repaid according to what he done in the body. The cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerers, idolaters. Men who worshipped the beast and its image, etc., etc. The focus, always and without fail, is on the activity of the individual.
And yet, as we affirm, original sin is condemnable and damnable. How then do we solve this conundrum, logically? Theologically? As Jesse pointed out, we certainly donât create an abominable machination like Limbo or purgatory. Neither do we equivocate on the truth of manâs corruption. I know of only one logical solution. God must regenerate those who have no manifest deeds of unrighteousness. He must take them out of Adam and put them into Christ before they die.
If I could try to summarize what I understand to be my deviation from reformed orthodoxy here, I think itâs this. Reformed orthodoxy says that God is just to condemn all human beings on the basis of original sin alone. I say, âYes, amen. I agree with that, but I also think God says in his word that just because he could doesnât mean he does.â Surely, if they die in their unregenerate state, they will be judged. But⌠I donât think he allows them to die unregenerate.
I want to point out though that I am not arguing for any mystery that isnât already affirmed in the great confessions. I return to where I began:
WCF Chapter 10, Paragraph 3
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who work-eth when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Again, whatâs notably missing from this paragraph is faith. The framers affirm that there must exist a type of regeneration among the infant or the severely retarded that is, indeed, saving regeneration, but it doesnât manifest itself in the normal, observable grace of responding to the outward call by the hearing of faith to which we would associate justification. Maybe their regeneration does manifest in some kind of faith, but whatever kind of faith it may be, it certainly isnât in response to the outward call. I agree with their conclusion here, and I think all I am doing is exploring the biblical implications one step further.
The framers wisely donât deal here with answering the question of who the elect are, and I respect this restraint. Notions of ages of accountability are not only speculative, they are necessarily dangerous as they would lead parents and children alike to not take the fear of the Lord seriously. But I donât think that means that we canât conclude at least a little bit more than what the framers here affirmed.
What I do think I would be helped by is if you men might take the time to take some of these texts I have cited concerning the judgment, and help me see them the way you see them. What do you make of Davidâs connection of his personal sin with the justice of God in Ps. 51:3-4, as I discussed further above? What do you do with the repeated specificity of Jesus turning away workers of lawlessness? What do you do with the books in Revelation 20, and the specificity of men being judged for their deeds? What do you make of the fact that those who have a part in the lake of fire are indicted for specific, committed sins? And so forth.
Youâre asking us to defend the historic position but the burden of proof is yours, not ours. I understand why youâd like us to interact with the many passages youâve cited, but I donât think weâd have much disagreement at all until we get down to the specific details weâve been discussing. The short answer to your question is: We sin because we are sinners. We arenât sinners because we sin. This applies to everyone, regardless of age or infirmity. Others can take up your request but I think our time is better spent on the issue at hand instead of there.
This is a good statement of the disagreement. And to be fair, itâs exactly what I said you do in your argument. This is where you falter. We affirm that there is a judgment of works and that this judgment results in greater or lesser blessing in Heaven as well as greater or lesser cursing in Hell. The question remains, what does Godâs Word teach us about those who have no works to be judged? You maintain that in the absence of works, God regenerates everyone. We deny and oppose that assertion out of hand. To accept you position we have to deny unconditional election because of the circumstances of the personâs death.
If Iâve understood your position correctly, youâve created a circumstance (the death of the pre-born or young children) where God does something extraordinary. Do you believe that all children who die before birth or shortly thereafter are regenerated and saved? It seems that you do. This creates a qualification for salvation entirely apart faith in the gospel or reformed soteriology. The surest way to be saved, is to die in utero or at least before you sin willfully. This isnât what youâve stated but it seems to flow from the logic youâre employing. This sort of thinking also denigrates Godâs promises to us and our children to the point of being meaningless until they believe. Iâve found this sort of thought with a number of baptists (Iâm credo-baptist) who have grown up outside of reformed circles and think itâs a holdover from their former hermeneutical approach to Scriptureâdispensational vs covenantal. But I digress.
In my first comment on this thread, I said that your position creates a monstrous event when the child sins willfully and loses whatever special privilege youâre attributing to those who havenât willfully sinned yet (presuming that they donât sin willfully as soon as theyâre born). I donât want to speculate any more than you do about when children commit their first willful sin but I donât think either of us would draw the line at birth. If you agree, then there is some period of time (only God knows when) after the childâs birth where they would still meet your qualifications for being regenerated because they havenât sinned willfully yet, though they will lose it at some point. This is what I called monstrous. If you disagree with me and maintain that as soon as the child is born they no longer meet your criterion for this extraordinary regeneration (because they have works to be judged by), then I want to know how you support that claim biblically and also how birth materially changes the childâs ability to sin willfully. I canât see how it does and if thereâs a third option, I donât see it. In my mind, then, your position leads to some sort of an age of accountability (though much younger and with different definitions of what it is and how it works), though you deny that you believe in anything like it. Help me understand if I have drawn illogical conclusions from the things youâve said.
In the end, I think we all feel the pressure to address the tragedy of miscarriage, stillborn birth and children dying in infancy. This isnât an academic discussion for me. Itâs pastoral. If this is just a theoretical debate, I can bow out and leave the discussion to others. These circumstances are among the most difficult that we will face in this world. Scripture gives us good hope that the children of believers who die in such tragic circumstances can and will enter the kingdom of Heaven, though not all of them. I think this is where we should stand and minister. There is solid ground to stand on, biblically, historically, and pastorally. Youâre trying to work out an understanding of these things through the judgment of works, which doesnât deal directly with young children who lack deeds. I think thatâs wrongheaded because itâs taking a general doctrine and applying very specifically, and in such a novel way. As I see it, the tail is waging the dog. If we take Godâs promises regarding our children at face value and claim them in humility and faith in the most difficult of circumstances, we will find the medicine we need.
I think thereâs a disconnect here, and I donât think youâre representing my view correctly. You seem to paint that I believe that the lack of personal sin is what precipitates election. Nobody âqualifiesâ for salvation. It is always of grace. Nobody is saved âbecause ofâ the circumstances of their death. The tail most certainly does not wag the dog.
Election is before the foundation of the world. The life we live out on this earth has already had its course sovereignly appointed from before we were conceived, and the manner in which that life is lived out here in time will correlate with and demonstrate the truth of that predestined outcome. A man who has been predestined unto eternal life will, in time, experience regeneration and come to faith in Christ. Likewise, a man predestined unto eternal destruction will sin against the Lord and never come to a saving knowledge of the truth.
Esau was hated by the Lord. He was destined for destruction. And as evidence of his destined destruction, it was the will of God to have him be born, grow, and manifest deeds of unrighteousness. His living and sinning and being left unregenerate (if that really was the outcome, God knows) was the outworking unto his predestined end.
I am not saying the infant in the womb is regenerated âbecause ofâ the fact that he died in infancy. I am saying that the fact that God allowed the infant in the womb to die in infancy may be reasonably understood as evidence that he was, in the final analysis, elect.
Exploring those details of disagreement is exactly what would help me. I hope youâre not just going to stop at, âWell, we have the reformed high ground, so youâre wrong.â There has been a lot of recitation of the reformed view here, but little interaction with the texts Iâve specifically inquired about. If it can be demonstrated that the texts I have cited actually serve your view and not mine, then I will be freed to change my mind. I donât hang around and engage on this forum to try to assault reformed orthodoxy; Iâm here because Iâm eager to be persuaded to align with it.
Again, itâs not that one âqualifiesâ for regeneration by not having works. But yes, I believe the absence of works in the life of an infant who providentially dies in the womb evidences election, which in turn implies regeneration prior to death.
I believe that salvation is of grace, and that damnation is of works, with Godâs sovereign election reigning over all of it. Jacob was loved in spite of his works, not because of them. Esau was hated as relates to election, and accordingly, his damnation was earned by works of iniquity (Rom. 6:23). The same works of iniquity that all of us do and would be damned for if not for grace.
Amen. The discussion is not theoretical. Far be it from me to be banging a drum like a doctrinaire twenty year old with an armchair theology hobby. My interest in the topic is completely pastoral, in all of the related aspects.
You may not be wrong, and Iâve spent more time considering this sort of thing than you know. Iâve learned to appreciate through the years that our hermeneutics are always influenced by presuppositions weâve inherited through our experience and how weâve been taught. At the same time, I do get annoyed â and Iâm not saying this is you â when the thoroughbred reformed men say this kind of thing as a sort of mic drop. âWell you see, if only you were reformed, then you would understand reformed theology.â Iâm sorry, but thatâs not an argument, and it doesnât really do much to teach those who are willing to be taught. If the reformed view really is the theological high ground, then is it too much to expect its stalwart professors to help teach it from the word of God without being condescending? But now Iâm the one digressing.
I donât know that my view really is novel. I donât think Iâm the first one to see inference in the Scriptures that lead to the conclusion. Piper and MacArthur argue from Romans 1 that there are those who are âexcusedâ due to their inability to perceive natural revelation. MacArthur highlights that the Bible really does refer to such a thing as âinnocentâ children. Many people draw implications from Davidâs confidence that he will return to see his dead infant son, and so forth. The view Iâm articulating shares the same inferential approach as these, though I canât take it quite as far as some of them.
Iâd like to hear more about this view. Can you elaborate (when you have time) on why you have more confidence that the children of believers who die in the womb are treated any differently in these situations than non-believers? I can imagine a particular kind of covenantal theology that would hold this position, but seems like something Iâd be more likely to hear from Moscow than being the majority reformed view? But I am admittedly ignorant.
I went back and re-read this slowly, and also went back and re-read my list of affirmations/denials. I see now why you read it this way, and I think there are things I want to phrase differently in my second to last paragraph.
When I say, âI deny that Adamâs sin is imputed to each and every human being as relates to the second death,â I do see why you would critique that I am taking back the previous affirmation. I agree with you that what matters in the final analysis is whether the child is spiritually dead or not, and this paragraph should be revisited. It is not my intent to communicate that the infant in question enters into glory with any stain of Adamâs imputed sin, as I hope the subsequent responses demonstrate.
Maybe ⌠we can easily affirm that God saves the children of Covenant families who die young, and also the children of people who arenât Christians at the time of the childâs death, but who come to faith later on. But I would like to put it out there that how this happens is not something we can know with too much certainly. It is still not that clear to me, tbh. Appealing to the mercy of God is one part-answer - and I know it doesnât cover everything - but Deut 29:29 is worth keeping in mind in this context.
Thank you for the affirmations and denials, and your further clarifications. As I understand you, you are saying that all those who die at some point in infancy are worthy of condemnation because of original sin, but God is unwilling to condemn them due to the fact that they have yet to commit any willful sins, therefore, in His providence, He has predestined all of these to election, and surely draws them unto Himself. Fair?
I must say, I find this view less objectionable than what I had thought you were saying, and I would have responded to you a little differently in some instances than I originally did (although you seem to have refined your view a little throughout this discussion). That said, I think it misses the mark in much the same way that MacArthurâs (and others) view of the age of accountability does, and for much the same reason.
Pastor Abu-Sara is right about this, and although you personally may never personally come to this conclusion, itâs where so many end up at.
Furthermore, in the end, I think your position tragically misunderstands the thrust of Paulâs gospel presentation in Romans, particularly Romans 5.
18 Therefore, as one trespass6 led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness7 leads to justification and life for fall men.
The trespass (Adamâs sin) and the act of righteousness (Christâs death and resurrection) are equivalent in the sense that they are operating in the same way. Thereâs no way to claim innocence or lack of sin. Thereâs no way someone can be âexcused.â
19 For as by the one manâs gdisobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one manâs hobedience the many will be made righteous.
Thereâs no gospel without the one manâs disobedience casting all mankind into sin. Without Adam as our Federal Head, we donât have Jesus as our Federal Head. Without Adamâs sin condemning us, we donât have Jesusâ righteousness redeeming us. This isnât just:
This isnât just âthe reformed position.â This is where Paul grounds his gospel presentation.
20 Now ithe law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, jgrace abounded all the more, 21 so that, kas sin reigned in death, lgrace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Here we come to the nuts and bolts of your claim, and the answer to it. The law, and disobedience to it, comes to increase the trespass, to increase manâs sinfulness, to show what he really is, as well as to magnify Godâs glory and grace to sinners such as we. Sin (personal sin) reigns in our death, so that grace might reign in our life. Itâs not some small thing, or irrelevant, or besides the point. Personal sin needs forgiveness, and God is glorified in His grace towards it, but it also doesnât change or negate vs 18-19.
When it comes to the list of verses about personal sin, and Godâs judgement of it, I donât think it really needs âgoing through,â because Romans 5 explains the relationship between original and personal sin, and truly, thatâs where the disagreement seems to lie. I could do things like discuss Ezekiel 18:20, and bring up the fact that it is started off by God rebuking the Israelites for saying:
The word of the LORD came to me: 2 âWhat do you1 mean sby repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, tâThe fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the childrenâs teeth are set on edgeâ?
And pointing out that Ezekielâs telling the Israelites to stop blaming their problems on their fathers and take personal responsibility. I could point out that many (most?) of the passages you brought up also say God will judge you on the basis of your good or righteous deeds, and bring up more passages that say this like Hebrews 6:10, but none of this proves works righteousness either. I truly donât think either the disagreement or the answer lies here.
If I could end by going back to your Russia/Putin analogy. Itâs not bad, and I wonât try poke any holes in it. I will make one change though. The Russian child is an enemy of Ukraine not because he will inevitably grow up to fight them, he is Ukraineâs enemy because, from the moment of conception, he hates Ukraine in his heart. This is why he will inevitably grow up to fight them.
If I could recommend a couple things to read, take it or leave it. The first is an excerpt from Jonathan Edwardsâ huge, multi-volume work on Original Sin (this is the only part Iâve read personally) titled The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended. In my opinion, he is a tad speculative in a few spots, but overall he ably defends his thesis:
THAT GREAT OBJECTION AGAINST THE IMPUTATION OF ADAMâS SIN TO HIS POSTERITY, CONSIDERED, THAT SUCH IMPUTATION IS UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE, INASMUCH AS ADAM AND HIS POSTERITY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME. WITH A BRIEF REFLECTION SUBJOINED OF WHAT SOME HAVE SUPPOSED, OF GOD IMPUTING THE GUILT OF ADAMâS SIN TO HIS POSTERITY, BUT IN AN INFINITELY LESS DEGREE THAN TO ADAM HIMSELF.
The next may help in answer to your question regarding the Reformed view of the death of Infants to Christian parents, itâs part of Joel Beekeâs writings on the Westminster Confession:
Yes, I would say I have refined my view throughout this, and have been helped by continuing to chew on what you two have said.
When I began this exercise, I think the starting point in my mind was one of recoiling at the assertion made my some that God condemns men to hell on the basis of imputed sin. From there, I think I framed my objection so as to state that itâs not true that Adamâs sin is imputed to us in such a way that merits, in and of itself, condemnation unto the second death. I do now concede that this was wrongheaded. While I retain the position that in the final analysis, I believe Godâs judgment does demonstrate that he doesnât condemn us on the basis of imputed sin, what we cannot do is diminish the imputed guilt of Adam on the way to that conclusion, which you men have been faithful to insist upon.
Something you said earlier that has replayed through my mind many times over the last few days, which youâve reiterated here, which was where you said, âTo deny [original/imputed sin] is to indirectly deny the gospel, because our salvation comes in the same way.â Amen. You are right. With no recognition of imputed sin, we have no hope of imputed righteousness, and it has been so rich for my own soul to think on this afresh the last few days. And it isnât just something we see in Romans 5. Itâs really everywhere. Our pastor happened to read from 2 Cor. 5:14-15 tonight:
For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
So yes, I have refined my view, though I donât believe the view I really meant from the beginning has changed. I disagree with the conclusion that God does judge men to hell on the basis of imputed sin alone, but I donât disagree that imputed sin alone makes men worthy of being judged to hell.
Again, I donât believe anyone is excused as though the circumstances of their death precipitated their election.
I do think this is something we are going to disagree on then. I think the Scriptures make very deliberate distinction concerning original/imputed sin and personal sin in the final judgment since the personal guilt of the sinner is the thing which makes their eternal torment glorifying to Christ. I think this aspect of the lake of fire gets overlooked, as I tried to articulate in response to Alistairâs rat analogy. I affirm what youâre saying about the law coming in increase the sin; to simply show us to be what we are.
I accept that weâre not going to be able to survey all of Scripture here, but I still think youâre ignoring something about personal sin that Scripture is so clear to highlight.
I came across this quote again recently from Robert Webb:
[If a deceased infant] were sent to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good reason to the divine mind for the judgment, but the childâs mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it would know suffering, but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering. It could not tell its neighborâit could not tell itselfâwhy it was so awfully smitten; and consequently the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings, being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of penalty would be absent, and justice would be disappointed of its vindication. Such an infant could feel that it was in hell, but it could not explain, to its own conscience, why it was there.
I think this is significant. Thereâs a qualitative difference between the kind of glory God receives from the eternal torment of the baby rat killed in the incinerated nest, versus the diseased rat who insisted on continuing in rebellion against and hating the God who was so kind as to take on rat flesh to redeem him.
I do agree that speculation about what goes on in the heart of an infant on the womb needs to be avoided, but I think neither Scripture nor natural revelation are mute on this. We donât need to know everything to know some things.
I will definitely look into these reading recommendations. Thank you!
I am thankful for you men, and for the time and engagement youâve given me. I know it is precious, and I donât take it lightly. I am content to wrap this topic up for the time being if you guys are, unless you have anything more to say.
EDIT: Forgive the numerous edits. Had submitted too soon unintentionally.
Thank you for your continued graciousness throughout this discussion and disagreement. Iâve appreciated your desire and willingness to be led where the Bible leads.
I have to admit I struggled to put into words exactly what I meant here, and so perhaps I shouldnât have said it at all. It does seem as though Iâm repeatedly claiming you think something you have already answered, and I apologize for that.
So am I, and I trust that God, through His Word and Spirit, will continue to work on all of our hearts to draw us further into His Truth.
Your EDIT about the edits made me laugh . Iâve hit the submit button sooner than I meant to more times than I can count, especially on my phone.
. Iâve hit the submit button sooner than I meant to more times than I can count, especially on my phone.