Here is a weird thought, if babies grow up to be Godless people they will go to hell, right? So if they are born into horrible, loveless, drug abusing, violent households they are unlikely to become christians, right? So if we abort lots, we will save lots from hell, unusual outreach and soul winning strategy. Is there a flaw in the reasoning? I hope so.
Um, not sure that Limited Atonement is about limiting God’s mercy. I wonder whether hoping that God will act according to our preferences in areas where we lack scriptural data is a bit fraught.
The point I am trying to make: give the message of hope and eternal life to the mothers lining up for abortion, bring your knowledge of the Truth to bear on the benighted in our society. Shine your light into the dark world. Leave the fate of the unborn victims of man’s sin in the hands of our merciful heavenly father.
Do we have any biblical reason to have any certainty regarding the fate of the children of unbelievers? The traditional arguments for infant salvation in Reformed circles have focused on the covenant. Whilst many have believed that God is gracious in not sending the infant children of unbelievers to hell, there is no real ground for certainty. There is, of course, real certainty for the children of believers.
Re: CAPS: Are yet-to-be-born unbelievers any less sinful before God than the adult unbeliever? I’d love to see the biblical grounds for the CAPS statement.
Hans: re: your first statement – I’m not sure that I’d agree that it is necessarily the case that the person born into a horrible, loveless, drug abusing, violent household would be less likely to become a Chrstian.
I feel that the CAPS statement is similar to telling your child that, yes, their recently deceased puppy has gone to heaven, in order to calm them and make them happy. I dunno.
I’m with Al – I agree that the only real certainty is if the child is of a believer, and hence included by covenant.
Hell is a concept fraught with philosophical difficulty, and its mentions in the bible use greeks/hebrew words that signify remedial, rather than eternal, punishment.
dan: are (un|newly)born babies of believers any different from (un|newly)born babies of unbelievers? Unless Christianity is genetic, I don’t think so. And, yeah, let’s sidestep the problem of a Christian abortion by using a Christian miscarriage as our example. I don’t think the spiritual status of the parents has too much to do with it.
Hans: Regarding your initial point, saving someone from hell is different to securing entry into heaven. I mean, suppose infants are given a get-out-of-hell-free card because they’re not “all there” enough to make a real decision. That being the case, maybe it also denies them an afterlife at all. But that would make them soulless, like cute little kitties and puppies. It’s an unpopular conclusion, but it raises the question: if a newborn baby / foetus isn’t a morally responsible agent, what is it?
Digitaleous : In 1 Cor 7, Paul says (vv13,14): “And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
Here the holiness of the child is not dependant on their being a morally responsible agent, but rather through the belief of a parent.
I guess some might say that this sanctification is effected through baptism, and therefore the unborn child is not included.
I think you’re undervaluing the family – there are many references in the OT to God exacting the punishments of the fathers on the sons to a number of subsequent generations.
Perhaps I am. Although I tend to think of punishment being exacted in a “So if they are born into horrible, loveless, drug abusing, violent households they are unlikely to become christians, right?” manner, and unclean children being the result of divorced parents, which cause all manner of problems.
The interpretaion requires that you hold the scripture at arms length a bit, viewing it as God speaking in a way that the author would understand, in a context relevant to his culture – certainly not a “reformed perspective” ;)
Here is a weird thought, if babies grow up to be Godless people they will go to hell, right? So if they are born into horrible, loveless, drug abusing, violent households they are unlikely to become christians, right? So if we abort lots, we will save lots from hell, unusual outreach and soul winning strategy. Is there a flaw in the reasoning? I hope so.
Hans, it is best not to argue (or enter into any discussion) with THE CAPS
Perhaps God is more merciful than limited atonement suggests
Um, not sure that Limited Atonement is about limiting God’s mercy. I wonder whether hoping that God will act according to our preferences in areas where we lack scriptural data is a bit fraught.
The point I am trying to make: give the message of hope and eternal life to the mothers lining up for abortion, bring your knowledge of the Truth to bear on the benighted in our society. Shine your light into the dark world. Leave the fate of the unborn victims of man’s sin in the hands of our merciful heavenly father.
Do we have any biblical reason to have any certainty regarding the fate of the children of unbelievers? The traditional arguments for infant salvation in Reformed circles have focused on the covenant. Whilst many have believed that God is gracious in not sending the infant children of unbelievers to hell, there is no real ground for certainty. There is, of course, real certainty for the children of believers.
Re: CAPS: Are yet-to-be-born unbelievers any less sinful before God than the adult unbeliever? I’d love to see the biblical grounds for the CAPS statement.
Hans: re: your first statement – I’m not sure that I’d agree that it is necessarily the case that the person born into a horrible, loveless, drug abusing, violent household would be less likely to become a Chrstian.
I feel that the CAPS statement is similar to telling your child that, yes, their recently deceased puppy has gone to heaven, in order to calm them and make them happy. I dunno.
I’m with Al – I agree that the only real certainty is if the child is of a believer, and hence included by covenant.
Hell is a concept fraught with philosophical difficulty, and its mentions in the bible use greeks/hebrew words that signify remedial, rather than eternal, punishment.
dan: are (un|newly)born babies of believers any different from (un|newly)born babies of unbelievers? Unless Christianity is genetic, I don’t think so. And, yeah, let’s sidestep the problem of a Christian abortion by using a Christian miscarriage as our example. I don’t think the spiritual status of the parents has too much to do with it.
Hans: Regarding your initial point, saving someone from hell is different to securing entry into heaven. I mean, suppose infants are given a get-out-of-hell-free card because they’re not “all there” enough to make a real decision. That being the case, maybe it also denies them an afterlife at all. But that would make them soulless, like cute little kitties and puppies. It’s an unpopular conclusion, but it raises the question: if a newborn baby / foetus isn’t a morally responsible agent, what is it?
Digitaleous : In 1 Cor 7, Paul says (vv13,14): “And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
Here the holiness of the child is not dependant on their being a morally responsible agent, but rather through the belief of a parent.
I guess some might say that this sanctification is effected through baptism, and therefore the unborn child is not included.
I think you’re undervaluing the family – there are many references in the OT to God exacting the punishments of the fathers on the sons to a number of subsequent generations.
Sam, Covenant.
yeah – what he said.
I think you’re undervaluing the family
Perhaps I am. Although I tend to think of punishment being exacted in a “So if they are born into horrible, loveless, drug abusing, violent households they are unlikely to become christians, right?” manner, and unclean children being the result of divorced parents, which cause all manner of problems.
The interpretaion requires that you hold the scripture at arms length a bit, viewing it as God speaking in a way that the author would understand, in a context relevant to his culture – certainly not a “reformed perspective” ;)