Saturday, December 27, 2008

Arminianism in Diapers

At Arminianism Today the question of the eternal state of infants was pondered. I'll briefly correct the understanding of the "standard Calvinist answer," and then offer some brief critical remarks of the two Arminian positions offered.

1. "However, the standard Calvinist answer is that Jesus died only for the elect so therefore not all babies born are the elect so some do not go to heaven when they die."

The "standard Calvinist answer" is non-committal. It is true that the standard answer is that Jesus died only for the elect. It would follow from this that the standard Calvinist view would be that Jesus died only for those infants who die in infancy that are elect. It is a qualitative stance, period. What is not entailed, or inferred by, this claim is the quantitative position on how many infants who die in infancy are elect. The "standard answer" is consistent with 1 or 1,000,000 (or however many infants die in infancy). You will find some Calvinists who believe that all infants that die in infancy are elect, and some who believe that not all are. Both views are entirely consistent with the standard Calvinist answer. It is dishonest to pretend that there are disparate views by Calvinists on this matter as concerns quality. Those who believe that all infants who die in infancy are elect are not holding to the Arminian position, as the author falsely claims, for they hold that those infants were elected. Indeed, there is only one Calvinist answer - elect infants that die go to heaven.

2. "The standard Arminian answer is that all children go to heaven by virtue of the cross of Christ and the mercy of God given in Christ. Arminians further appeal to the unlimited atonement of Jesus Christ as basis for infants being in God's presence. While Calvinist insist that Jesus died for only the elect, Arminians insist that the atonement was for all. What keeps sinful man from enjoying this salvation from sin and its power? Unbelief, and since babies can not either believe or have unbelief, they simply can not be condemned."

It appears that this view states that Jesus died for all and secured their salvation. Every single person comes into this world saved, then it is "up to them" whether they "lose" this salvation by rejecting Jesus' death for them. Thus no person is born condemned. Not born sinners in need of a savior. Later, if they don't believe, then they lose this salvation. Then, later, if they believe again, they get it back again.

So, even the native in the jungle is born saved. He never hears of Jesus, why does he go to hell, then? The answer is given:

2. a. "Romans 1:18-32 clearly shows that God has revealed Himself to all men through both creation and their conscience but men reject the truth for lies. But babies are not even capable of doing so neither are those who are severely handicapped. Where would the justice of God be in condemning children who have yet the mental ability to even know they are alive let alone sinful?"

But, it is one of the most agreed upon truths of the Christian faith that natural revelation does not reveal salvific truths. It reveals, simply, that God exists and that we are guilty. So the native in the jungle is born saved, and doesn't believe because he has never heard of Jesus death on the cross for him. How can he be held responsible for not believing in a Jesus he never heard about?

At any rate, this Arminian view posits that we are born saved and that we can lose this salvation. Needless to say, the idea that all men whoever are born saved is completely foreign from Scripture. In fact, the opposite seems the case. For example, Ephesians 2 doesn't claim that "once we were alive, then dead in sins, then alive again." It doesn't say that we were all first children of grace, then children of wrath, then children of grace again."

3. However, is it possible that infants are born not guilty for Adam's sin but they are born "saved" standing in original grace given to Adam and restored through Christ, the second Adam? While Adam's sin most certainly brought physical death (and thus why some infants die), does this also mean that Adam also brought spiritual death to infants as well? In fact, if Romans 5:12 establishes the reality of total depravity in all then Romans 5:15 must also signal that all now have original grace in all as well. Romans 5:14 seems to hint at infants when it says, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come" (NASB).

i) But position two also logically implies that all are born saved. It does so because if any person whoever dies in infancy, then they go to heaven because Christ died for them, then this means that all men whoever are born saved. So it's hard to see how this position is different that point two.

ii) I am unclear as to how Romans 5:14 hints at supporting this Arminian interpretation? The passage doesn't say that that the "those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam," did not sin at all. Indeed, it implies the opposite, or so it seems. Moo claims that those who did not sin "after" is an important Pauline category meaning "copy" or "likeness" in a "sense which is not identical to, but resembles in some important way, that with which it is concerned" (333, n.84).

iii) Paul is probably talking about people who lived between Adam and Moses, they didn't have special revelation from God in the form of commands (so Schreiner, p.279).

iv) Paul is establishing more than physical death, as v. 16 shows (condemnation, legal categories).

v) If all infants are not spiritually dead, then they are spiritually alive. So, we are spiritually alive, then dead, then alive.

vi) If infants are born in original grace, how is this not Pelagian?

vii) If they are not born guilty, why did Christ have to die for them? He didn't. Hence, since Jesus never died for the millions of babies that die in infancy, then this is millions of people never died for, and so it looks like "all" doesn't mean "all."

35 comments:

  1. What keeps sinful man from enjoying this salvation from sin and its power? Unbelief...

    Of course that falls prey to John Owen's famous response in The Death of Death, namely: if unbelief is a sin then either Christ died for that sin or He did not. If He did die for that sin, then one ought not be held accountable for unbelief any more than any other sin. If He did not die for that sin, then all are damned for we all have the sin of unbelief before we are saved, and Christ didn't die for that one...

    I'd further point out that the Arminianism Today perspective actually requires the Calvinist view of total depravity to get started. In other words, when they say

    since babies can not either believe or have unbelief, they simply can not be condemned

    then implicitly acknowledge that, were the baby able to form belief, he would be condemned. But why would this be the case unless all babies are born depraved?

    In any case, Arminians have two different ways to be saved. The first is by having faith in Christ; the second by being unable to have faith in Christ.

    On the other hand, the Calvinist position is the same regardless of whether we're dealing with infants or adults. One is saved because God has regenerated one's spirit, which causes us to respond in faith.

    BTW, I should also point out that I do not believe that babies are incapable of belief. John the Baptist recognized Jesus in the womb and leapt for joy. This makes no sense from the Arminian position that infants cannot have any faith at all, whereas it makes perfect sense from the Calvinist concept that John the Baptist could have been regenerated by the Spirit in the womb and responded in faithful joy to Christ's presence.

    Finally, as regards the distinction between spiritual death and physical death. Why would it be just for God to have infants go through physical death when that's Adam's fault, but it's not just for God to have infants go through spiritual death when that's Adam's fault? I don't see why one is deemed okay and the other not. Consistency would seem to dictate that either all the punishments against Adam's offspring apply to infants too, or else none of them should. In other words, the onus would be on the Arminian to demonstrate why God would only inflict the physical punishment and not the spiritual punishment too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll state up front that I'm not an arminian. These are just some question that popped or pooped into mind as I read your post.

    Manata said,

    "vii) If they are not born guilty, why did Christ have to die for them? He didn't. Hence, since Jesus never died for the millions of babies that die in infancy, then this is millions of people never died for, and so it looks like "all" doesn't mean "all.""

    I think you are linking this with what they said earlier, that babies cannot be condemned because they lack belief, correct?

    Coulnd't they say (1) all men are born with original sin. (2) After the cross, men are only condmend for the sin of unbelief (all men have original sin removed). (3) Since babies lack the ability to form beliefs, they are not condmend for unbelief. Thus, Christ had to die for the babies so that they could have their original sin erased and thereby go to heaven.

    Peter Pike said,

    Finally, as regards the distinction between spiritual death and physical death. Why would it be just for God to have infants go through physical death when that's Adam's fault, but it's not just for God to have infants go through spiritual death when that's Adam's fault? I don't see why one is deemed okay and the other not.

    That's an interesting way to look at it. Physical death is a penalty of sin. Since those who are justified by God still experience physical death, does that mean God only paid for our spiritual penalties? Perhaps what you may say in response is transferrable to them.

    Good post. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for this post. I recently went through this in our Bible study and came to the same conclusions. Arminians have two methods of salvation if they hold to infant (or fetus) salvation, while Calvinists remain consistent in their soteriology.

    Red Monkey said,
    (1) all men are born with original sin. (2) After the cross, men are only condmend for the sin of unbelief (all men have original sin removed). (3) Since babies lack the ability to form beliefs, they are not condmend for unbelief. Thus, Christ had to die for the babies so that they could have their original sin erased and thereby go to heaven.

    I think Peter Pike dealt with this. Your second statement poses problems. If someone has original sin erased, why does everybody end up sinning? Why does everyone universally choose unbelief when they reach the age to form a belief? And does that mean Christ didn't die for the sin of unbelief?

    And also, what do you mean by original sin? If you mean that we all sinned in Adam, then everyone is guilty of more than just unbelief. If you don't think we sinned in Adam, then why did Christ die for the sins of infants, since they apparently don't have any.

    It also seems absurd to say that Christ's death had salvific power, but only up to an age of accountability and after that, the sin of unbelief can overcome it.

    I think the Arminians will have to do some exegetical gymnastics to establish infant salvation. Or just drop total depravity completely. But they hate being called Pelagians.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But they hate being called Pelagians.

    Do Arminians prefer to be called semi-Pelagians then?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Almost as much as Calvinists like being called fatalists.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Needless to say, the idea that all men whoever are born saved is completely foreign from Scripture. For example, Ephesians 2 doesn't claim that "once we were alive, then dead in sins, then alive again."

    Ephesians 2 says "You were dead in your trespasses and sins". Obviously then, if you haven't yet trespassed or sinned, you weren't dead in them.

    "vi) If infants are born in original grace, how is this not Pelagian?"

    How has it got anything to do with being Pelagian? Pelagius taught that our will is not corrupted and is not impaired in any way from choosing good. But infants come into existence pre-choice. What they are prior to choosing is beyond the scope of Pelagianism.

    "vii) If they are not born guilty, why did Christ have to die for them?"

    Because the whole of creation is under a corruption which leads to death. Col. 1:20 "and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." Jesus' death is a cosmic action.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I find it intresting that the standered Arminian answer is the same a the standered Mormon answer according to this person.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Ephesians 2 says "You were dead in your trespasses and sins". Obviously then, if you haven't yet trespassed or sinned, you weren't dead in them."

    So you're saying that all men whoever are not born dead in their sins. Only dead men need to be saved, to be born again.

    "How has it got anything to do with being Pelagian? Pelagius taught that our will is not corrupted and is not impaired in any way from choosing good."

    How is a person born not dead in sins, a child of wrath (don't get wrath when you haven't sinned) born with a corrupt nature that can only choose bad?

    "vii) If they are not born guilty, why did Christ have to die for them?"

    Because the whole of creation is under a corruption which leads to death."


    So Jesus died for your poop?

    And, the infants weren't spiritually dead. Jesus' death didn't keep them from dying, obviously. They were only separated from body, but not God 'cause that weren't spiritually dead. Why wouldn't they get a rez body without Jesus having died for them? Why did he have to die for them? Does the Bible teach Christ died for sinners? That the sick, not healthy, need a physician?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Obviously then, if you haven't yet trespassed or sinned, you weren't dead in them."

    "Because the whole of creation is under a corruption which leads to death."

    So they're not dead in sins, but they're under a corruption that leads to death. Is that corruption worthy of judgment? If so, then why are they judged if they've never transgressed? If not, why did Christ have to suffer wrath for them?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mark B Gomez said,

    Your second statement poses problems...

    Word. I agree that the Arminian has many other problems. I just don't think that the two particular points I responded to are problems in themselves and you didn't show how those two particular points are problems, in themselves. Rather, you showed that they have other problems.

    Paul said, "If they are not born guilty, why did Christ have to die for them? He didn't." But I can only make sense of Paul's statement that "He didn't" if he means babies are not condemned for some other aformentioned reason (unbelief)... but, as I was saying, this seems to confuse the order of how an Arminian would understand the process.

    I agree with you, that we are punished for only the sin of unbelief is stupid, but this is different from saying that Christ shouldn't have had to take away the original sin of babies.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "So you're saying that all men whoever are not born dead in their sins. Only dead men need to be saved, to be born again."

    No, all men born with the corrupt nature need to be born again. "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

    "How is a person born not dead in sins, a child of wrath (don't get wrath when you haven't sinned) born with a corrupt nature that can only choose bad?"

    Because sinning and having a corrupt nature are not the same thing. Thousands of pages have been expended on people discussing the difference between an Eastern and Western conception of original sin. I suggest you avail yourself.

    "Why wouldn't they get a rez body without Jesus having died for them? Why did he have to die for them?"

    Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam"

    All of creation is affected by Adam. Everything is in decay, even things and animals that didn't sin.

    "Does the Bible teach Christ died for sinners? That the sick, not healthy, need a physician?"

    Matt. 9:12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.

    Are you suggesting that Christ is of no possible use to the righteous according to this verse?

    " Is that corruption worthy of judgment? If so, then why are they judged if they've never transgressed? "

    To what do you refer?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "To what do you refer?"

    Well, I think what we're trying to establish here is, from an Arminian perspective, did Christ die for infants and why.

    You said,

    "Because the whole of creation is under a corruption which leads to death."

    This seems to imply that infants/fetuses are corrupt so Christ must die for them. But what does Christ's death accomplish for them? Did Christ propitiate for them and take God's wrath in their stead? If so, why did God's wrath rest on them if they'd never transgressed? If not, then what did Christ's dying do for them?

    "Because sinning and having a corrupt nature are not the same thing."

    So Christ paid for corrupt natures as well as sins? If that's the case, then why do men still have corrupt natures post-infancy?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Manata, Peter Pike, et al.

    If you have time, would you mind commenting on some of the perspectives from Calvinists like Piper and MacArthur?

    Piper seems to take the approach that since Romans talks about men being without excuse because of general revelation, then infants would have the excuse since they can't understand general revelation so God elects them.

    MacArthur says that since God's judgments are based on willful sins, then He does not have a basis to judge infants in that way, so He chooses to elect them.

    Both take your view of all elect infants will go to Heaven, but extend that to say that all infants are elect. What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "This seems to imply that infants/fetuses are corrupt so Christ must die for them."

    You are thinking too invidualistically. The whole created order is corrupted, which infants are a part of.

    "Did Christ propitiate for them and take God's wrath in their stead? "

    No. Christ's death has wider ramifications than just this.

    " If not, then what did Christ's dying do for them?"

    As it says in Ro 5:14, death has reigned since Adam. The whole of creation is subject to this disease.

    In the liturgy we say "Christ is risen from the dead! By death He trampled Death, and to those in the tombs He granted life."

    An Orthodox cross has under Christ's feet some bones to symbolise that Christ trampled down death.

    The answer to your question is that Christ died for them to overcome death.

    "So Christ paid for corrupt natures as well as sins?"

    You are too immersed into the whole payment theology to see wider.

    " If that's the case, then why do men still have corrupt natures post-infancy?"

    Well, why do you die if you have been born again? Because the redemption is not yet complete.

    Rom. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
    Rom. 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

    ReplyDelete
  15. At any rate, this Arminian view posits that we are born saved and that we can lose this salvation. Needless to say, the idea that all men whoever are born saved is completely foreign from Scripture. In fact, the opposite seems the case. For example, Ephesians 2 doesn't claim that "once we were alive, then dead in sins, then alive again." It doesn't say that we were all first children of grace, then children of wrath, then children of grace again."

    What do you think of Romans 7:9 in this regard?

    ("I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.")

    It would seem to be a potentially useful Arminian prooftext for their concept of original innocence. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Addressing a couple of points...

    Mark Gomez asked about infant election:
    ---
    Both take your view of all elect infants will go to Heaven, but extend that to say that all infants are elect. What say you?
    ---

    The Bible doesn't say. While not a very satisfying answer, it's the only truthful one. We can speculate, of course, but speculation is not the same thing as exegesis.

    In my opinion (which is just an opinion, not to be taken as anything substantial), there are some passages that lead me to think that the infants and children of believers would definitely be elect. Given the covenental aspects of God, this is at least harmonic with other Scriptures (I use the term "harmonic" in a more musical sense--wherein it "sounds" like it fits--rather than in an exegetical sense, such as harmonizing the gospels).

    As to children of the non-Elect, I cannot say what would happen to them. I would lean toward them not being saved because there are no covenental blessings extended to them like there are children of believers, but would not be dogmatic about it.

    LockTheDeadbolt said (of Romans 7):
    ---
    It would seem to be a potentially useful Arminian prooftext for their concept of original innocence. What do you think?
    ---

    Actually, that wouldn't demonstrate original innocence at all (well not in the Arminian sense, anyway). In fact, this passage is more useful examining issues such as Divine Comamnd Theory.

    Paul's point in the passage isn't about one's nature (which is discussed more fully earlier in Romans) as he is dealing with what the Law itself does. Strictly speaking, the individual before the Law is exactly the same as the individual after the Law; the only difference is now he is condemned whereas before he was not.

    This is why Paul also says in the same passage that where there is no Law sin is not taken into account. His emphasis in this passage is on how the Law exists to condemn, to point out the sins that already exist, and to expose them so that there is no excuse.

    God would not have needed to issue the Law if people were already obeying it. That is, if there was no coveting in fact before the Law, God would not need to issue a Law against coveting. But the fact is that there was coveting before the Law, which is why God gave the Law, and with the Law came punishment for infractions. So before the Law, Paul could covet without penalty, and he would be legally innocent because he's broken no Law; but once the Law came, Paul's actions would no longer be legally innocent and he would merit the punishment under the Law.

    If we wanted to link this back to our natures, I think it's actually more damning of man than it is praising man. That is, it shows depravity rather than innocence. After all, Paul says that as soon as the Law is given, sin comes to life. This would make no sense unless man's nature was predisposed toward disobeying God no matter what.

    So the way I look at this passage, either we're dealing with the fact that people were already engaged in sin before sins were condemned (which wouldn't help mitigate against original sin and depravity), or they were not engaged in sinful behavior until they knew it was sinful behavior, at which point they immediately engaged in sinful behavior (an option which, to me, seems even more depraved than the first option).

    In neither case do humans conform to God's standards. So if God is the standard of objective morality, then in both cases man is objectively evil, even though pre-Law he would be legally innocent.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dear Paul Manata, Peter Pike, and other Calvinists,

    I have recently studied this body of work titled How to defeat Calvinism and it is very convincing. Can you help me refute this, otherwise I will probably convert to Arminianism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "What do you think of Romans 7:9 in this regard?

    ("I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.")"

    The verse doesn't directly address this question, however it is very informative in telling us what Paul means by "dead in sin". Unlike what Calvinism says, Paul's concept of dead in sin is not about some kind of total depravity we have from birth, that we don't shake off until regeneration.

    ReplyDelete
  19. TUAD,

    Refuting Arminianism is quite simple actually. After all, Arminians fail to distinguish between the revealed truth (what the Bible says) and the secret truth (disclosed only to those enlightened by the doctrines of grace). Whenever the Arminian claims that Jesus died for all (revealed truth), point out that it actually means "all of the elect" (secret truth).

    ReplyDelete
  20. I sense sarcasm. I love the "all always means all" arguments that don't deal with any specific texts. Thanks for jumping in Tyler, you've added so much to the conversation.

    Mandalay,
    Let me see if I've got what you're saying:
    1) Infants are not dead in sins, but are part of creation and so are under a corruption that leads to death.
    2) One purpose of Christ's death was to redeem creation from this corruption and infants are part of that.
    3) Since infants have never transgressed, and have been delivered from corruption leading to death, they go to Heaven when they die.

    Do I have that right? BTW, I'm not conceding any of those points, just clarifying. I think our disagreement lies along the lines of original sin and total depravity, an argument I don't have the time to take up right now.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Red Monkey,

    "Paul said, "If they are not born guilty, why did Christ have to die for them? He didn't." But I can only make sense of Paul's statement that "He didn't" if he means babies are not condemned for some other aformentioned reason (unbelief)... but, as I was saying, this seems to confuse the order of how an Arminian would understand the process."

    The post I responded to said infants are uncable of belief or unbelief, so that is not a sin they can be condemned for. Keep in my my post had a context.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "No, all men born with the corrupt nature need to be born again. "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

    But Mandalay, the view is that Jesus died for them and if they die in infancy they go straight to heaven. How could they go "straight to heaven" if they are born with a corrupt nature? Do they go into heaven all corrupt?

    And, does't "all" mean "all"? So, they are born "alive," not "dead," right?

    And, doesn't this text prove universalism for you? If not, then why do you get to use the front end to answer me and then cheat on the back end?

    "Because sinning and having a corrupt nature are not the same thing. Thousands of pages have been expended on people discussing the difference between an Eastern and Western conception of original sin. I suggest you avail yourself."

    I never made that assumption. There have been thousands of pages on how to make logical inferences, I suggest you avail yourself.

    At any rate, if they are not children of wrath then why did Jesus have to die for them? Does having a corrupt nature place you under God's wrath?

    "All of creation is affected by Adam. Everything is in decay, even things and animals that didn't sin."

    Even your poop? And, where do you get the idea that Jesus died for rocks and trees and boogers?

    "Are you suggesting that Christ is of no possible use to the righteous according to this verse?"

    That's vague. I'm sure he could be of use as a friend. A creator and sustainer. Not a savior, though.

    So, now I've answered your red herring, answer my question: where do you get the idea that Jesus died for non-sinners? Again, why did Jesus have to die for the infants who go to heaven because they haven't sinned? Isn't that one of the main themes in the Bible? Two paths to heaven? One path for those who have never sinned and are not guilty of sin, or unrighteous. The other for the weak sinner who needs another's righteousness? Wait, do you even believe Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who go to heaven?

    "To what do you refer?"

    I'm wondering what basis Jesus had to die for the infants for. Did they stand under God's wrath and judgment even though they were sinless? Does having a corupt nature render you guilty before a law court? If so, how on libertarianism and Arminianism can you say it's fair to judge someone for what someone else did? Hold them guilty for a choice they didn't make?

    ReplyDelete
  23. In other words, why does a corrupt nature require the death of an innocent man?

    The bible tells us that without the shedding of blood there can be no remission for sins.

    Okay, got that. Sins require punishment. There's a penalty.

    In biblical theology, we have the doctrine of double imputation. Man doesn't just need to be neutral, he needs positive righteousness.

    So I'm still not seeing how sinless infants fit in here. They are not unrighteous.

    Why couldn't God just change their nature when they die and go to heaven? Why did Christ have to die the death of the cross? Die like a criminal?

    Are they guilty for Adam's sin and thus need to be covered with the skins just like Adam and Eve did (BTW, they didn't "choose" the coverings, God just did it, out of his grace. Not very "wuving" to plop down coverings on people who didn't freely choose it). Do they have his unrighteousness imputed to him?

    If they are, then this sort of ruins libertarian complainings about how "unfair" it is to punish someone for someone elses choices. To consider people guilty for a choice they didn't freely make. Guess responsibility doesn't presuppose ability, then, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mark Gomez: You've basically got it.

    Paul: "But Mandalay, the view is that Jesus died for them and if they die in infancy they go straight to heaven. How could they go "straight to heaven" if they are born with a corrupt nature? Do they go into heaven all corrupt?"

    I don't understand the objection. Even elect Calvinists are imperfect and corrupt. Do they go to heaven corrupt? The corruption of this world does not extend into heaven and the new earth.

    "And, does't "all" mean "all"? So, they are born "alive," not "dead," right?"

    I'm not sure what you are saying. "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

    I take it then that all men die (death and taxes are certainties, don't we agree?). And all in Christ are made alive. Where is the controversy?

    "And, doesn't this text prove universalism for you? If not, then why do you get to use the front end to answer me and then cheat on the back end?"

    How does "all in Christ are made alive" prove universalism for anyone?

    "At any rate, if they are not children of wrath then why did Jesus have to die for them? Does having a corrupt nature place you under God's wrath? "

    If I don't hold the position that they are children of wrath, why should I defend the proposition that having a corrupt nature puts you under God's wrath? The only verse I know about that refers to children of wrath is Eph. 2:3, and this refers to indulging lusts of the flesh etc etc, and the context simply doesn't fit infants.

    Why did Christ die for them? I don't know how many times I can say it. All in Adam die, but all in Christ are made alive. As the Orthodox liturgy says, Christ trampled down death by death. He died to defeat death in Adam.

    "Even your poop? And, where do you get the idea that Jesus died for rocks and trees and boogers?"

    It is significant that Christ became matter to redeem matter. Rev. 21:5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”

    and

    Rom. 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
    Rom. 8:21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
    Rom. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

    I think this is very clear: creation itself is to be delivered from the same bondage and corruption of the children of God into the same glorious liberty of the children of God. Our corruption is creation's corruption. Our salvation is creation's salvation. Creation was waiting until the same moment of Christ's redemption with "groans and labors".

    "Wait, do you even believe Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who go to heaven?"

    You mean Luther's snow covered dung hill imputation? No, Christ redeems creation by "making all things new". He takes away the corruption inherent in being born in Adam. "All in Christ are made alive", that is how Christ's righteousness redeems us.

    "Did they stand under God's wrath and judgment even though they were sinless? Does having a corupt nature render you guilty before a law court?"

    No, we are not into the whole law court theology. The infant's problem is being in Adam, it dies. "All in Adam die", that was the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I don't understand the objection. Even elect Calvinists are imperfect and corrupt. Do they go to heaven corrupt? The corruption of this world does not extend into heaven and the new earth."

    They don't go to the new heaven and earth. That's after the consummation.

    Christians have a new nature. That's regeneration. We still suffer the effects of sin, though. We are not slaves to sin anymore though.

    "I'm not sure what you are saying. "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

    I take it then that all men die (death and taxes are certainties, don't we agree?). And all in Christ are made alive. Where is the controversy?"


    This isn't simply talking about physical death.

    People were alive before Jesus died - so your analogy is off. This is talking about spiritual death and spiritual life. Life or death everlasting.

    If Jesus death made ALL alive, then we are not born dead in sins.

    Also, does ALL mean ALL? How do you escape universalism?

    "And all in Christ are made alive. Where is the controversy?"

    Jesus died for ALL, right. That's why if ANY one died at infancy they would go to heaven since they are ALL alive.

    And, nice qualification on "all", you sound like a Calvinist.

    "How does "all in Christ are made alive" prove universalism for anyone?"

    Guess "all in Adam" doesn't prove universal corruption, then. So you just lost your basis to say Christ had to die for ALL.

    "If I don't hold the position that they are children of wrath, why should I defend the proposition that having a corrupt nature puts you under God's wrath?"

    Right, so you hold the unbiblical position that we are first not children of wrath, then children of wrath, then not children of wrath again.

    And, I'm unsure why Christ had to die for them. They were not under God's wrath. I am starting to get the oppression that you think re-asserting things makes them true. Where do you get the idea that Jesus HAD TO die for non-sinners who were not under God's wrath???? I guess I don't see why that requires the bloody death of an innocent man.

    "The only verse I know about that refers to children of wrath is Eph. 2:3, and this refers to indulging lusts of the flesh etc etc, and the context simply doesn't fit infants."

    You're dumb or playing dumb. The sins were the WALKING or OUTWORKING of the "children of wrath by nature." You need to drop the Pelagian notion that we are sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. And, it says "we were children of wrath LIKE THE REST OF MANKIND." Oh, guess "all doesn't mean all again." I hope you see why Calvinists scoff at inconsistent Arminians. Especially ones who proudly and arrogantly say things like the guy above about all not meaning all.

    "Why did Christ die for them? I don't know how many times I can say it. All in Adam die, but all in Christ are made alive. As the Orthodox liturgy says, Christ trampled down death by death. He died to defeat death in Adam."

    Right, you think repeating yourself somehow magically makes things true. First, you cut out the ground to say that they are "in Adam." Second, it's not talking about physical death only or primarily. Third, it's not clear why Jesus had to die a bloody death as a criminal on a cross for them. I don't get it. If it's so simple, spell it out.

    "It is significant that Christ became matter to redeem matter. Rev. 21:5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”

    Rev. 21:5 says nothing of the sort.

    Really, me makes your poop new poop?

    And, does he make Satan "new?" Or, does all not mean all again?

    Rev.22:5 does not say "I came to redeem matter." You're reading that into the text.

    Prove your view that you are highly dependant upon fr your argument.

    Likewise, Romans 8 does't say "Christ came to redeem matter." He didn't die FOR matter. he died FOR sinners. For the sick. For the lost. That has *effects* that are broader than just the PEOPLE he died for.

    Anyway, it's nice to know that Gnosticism is alive and well in the church today. Matter is "evil."

    "You mean Luther's snow covered dung hill imputation? No, Christ redeems creation by "making all things new". He takes away the corruption inherent in being born in Adam. "All in Christ are made alive", that is how Christ's righteousness redeems us."

    Didn't Luther take that from Zechariah 3? Anywho...

    No, I mean Paul's statements in Romans 5, II Cor. 5:21, places like Is. 53, Zech 3, Gen 3, &c.

    And, thanks for destroying the credibility of Arminian theology. Christ "redeems" by "making all things new," not, as you make clear, "by dying the bloody death of a criminal on a cross."

    "No, we are not into the whole law court theology. The infant's problem is being in Adam, it dies. "All in Adam die", that was the problem."

    You know, the Arminians tell me to go read Olsen to see what they believe, then you come along and say things like this and the above...

    Anyway, again, you don't know that the infant is in Adam because you said "how does all IN Christ prove universalism for anyone?" Right. I see that point and raise it to the other side of the equation.

    "No, we are not into the whole law court theology. The infant's problem is being in Adam, it dies. "All in Adam die", that was the problem."

    It's obvious you don't like law courts because you want to flee as fast as you can from the idea that Jesus died the death of a criminal.

    But, even those who don't like forensic categories see it there (Fitzmyer), and Wright says that the law-court terminology is obvious, he just doesn't think the metaphor should carry that much weight.

    So, at best, your statement is sloppy and in need of massive qualification.

    It's unclear why you don't want to admit of forensic categories with statements like "judged righteous," "condemnation," "justified," "innocent," "law," "acquit," & CO!

    ReplyDelete
  26. It should also be noted that the very form of the verb, dikaiow, makes it a declarative verb necessitating its Law Court context.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Paul said:

    It's unclear why you don't want to admit of forensic categories with statements like "judged righteous," "condemnation," "justified," "innocent," "law," "acquit," & CO!

    It's because if they did accept those ideas, they might end up becoming Calvinists, which is not allowed according to their "Sacred Tradition". Even if the atonement of Christ brings broader benefits than just those associated with the "payment theology" of Reformed Protestant theology, the simple fact is, exegesis bears out all of these forensic categories, plain and simple.

    Exegesis has never been the strong suit of the EO church. And why should it be, when Tradition is always the trump card?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Craig,

    It was unclear to me because the forensic terminology is so ubiquitous in Scripture that I was sure that such a Bible only, no creed by Christ, lover of the Bible would see the obvious. So, I thought he was probably joking around with us. But you seem to imply that he is serious.

    :-D

    ReplyDelete
  29. "People were alive before Jesus died - so your analogy is off. "

    "Made alive" refers to physical resurrection. You could I suppose back-date eternal life to the point of conversion, but it is about physical life. Now physical life is related to the whole spiritual redemption as well, but you can't cut out the physical life from the whole deal.

    "Also, does ALL mean ALL? How do you escape universalism?"

    All in Christ. Why is this so hard?

    "Guess "all in Adam" doesn't prove universal corruption, then. So you just lost your basis to say Christ had to die for ALL. "

    ?????

    All in Adam die. If you find someone who doesn't die, let me know, and we can talk about whether all doesn't mean all.

    "Right, so you hold the unbiblical position that we are first not children of wrath, then children of wrath, then not children of wrath again."

    It's not unbiblical when the verse mentioning "children of wrath" refers to sins of the flesh which new borns have not committed.

    "Where do you get the idea that Jesus HAD TO die for non-sinners who were not under God's wrath?"

    All in Adam die. All in Christ are made alive.

    Where do you get the idea that new borns have sinned?

    " You need to drop the Pelagian notion that we are sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners."

    No we sin because we have a sinful nature. And throwing around the term "Pelagian" when you don't even know what that means (or even if you did) is not an argument.

    "And, it says "we were children of wrath LIKE THE REST OF MANKIND."

    What verse are we discussing now?

    "First, you cut out the ground to say that they are "in Adam."

    Wha... ?

    "Second, it's not talking about physical death only or primarily."

    Right, you think repeating yourself somehow magically makes things true.

    "Third, it's not clear why Jesus had to die a bloody death as a criminal on a cross for them. I don't get it. If it's so simple, spell it out."

    Heb. 9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

    The Jews sacrificed animals as to purify themselves and atone for sins, not to re-enact some cosmic court room scene where a particular penalty is due, and the animal steps in to take the punishment. In fact, the first mention of sacrifice where Abraham is called to sacrifice Isaac, its doubtful that Abraham had even come into contact with the concept of a court room.

    "No, I mean Paul's statements in Romans 5, II Cor. 5:21, places like Is. 53, Zech 3, Gen 3, &c."

    Statements like "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us", does not prove a scenario where we are in a kind of court, God needs to punish someone, so Christ steps in and substitutes for the penalty we were supposed to take.

    We see a hospital model. We are in hospital with this disease called sin, and the sinful nature. Christ becomes sin, so that we can be freed from sin. He takes on the disease to free us from the disease. He becomes sin so that we can shed sin.

    Why do we take the hospital model and not the court model? Because it is more consistent with the entirety of scripture. God the Father in the Luke 15 parable is not sitting at home with an unsatiated need to punish his son until someone steps in to take the penalty. Rather he is making every effort to save the son because he loves the son.

    That doesn't mean we totally reject the court model. But we don't see everything through the court model like you do.

    Now, if you're not familiar with the hospital model, in opposition to the court model, you would do well to study it and come back with some meaningful interaction. Simply listing verse references doesn't cut it.

    "Likewise, Romans 8 does't say "Christ came to redeem matter."

    It says creation groaned waiting for the same moment of redemption that we do. Simply contradicting Romans 8 is not an argument.

    "Anyway, it's nice to know that Gnosticism is alive and well in the church today. Matter is "evil.""

    How is matter evil if Christ redeems it? Your rejection of this redemption of matter is *very* gnostic.

    "You know, the Arminians tell me to go read Olsen to see what they believe, then you come along and say things like this and the above."

    I don't claim to be Arminian, I claim to be Orthodox. Whether you think that label applies or not, you can decide yourself.

    "Anyway, again, you don't know that the infant is in Adam because you said "how does all IN Christ prove universalism for anyone?""

    What?

    "So, at best, your statement is sloppy and in need of massive qualification."

    That's what "into" means. If I'm not "into" wine, it means I'm not a big drinker like some others. It doesn't mean I never drink wine.

    "And, does he make Satan "new?" Or, does all not mean all again?"

    Satan is not a "thing", and he is not part of this creation, as he predated it.

    S&S:
    "It should also be noted that the very form of the verb, dikaiow, makes it a declarative verb necessitating its Law Court context."

    What? Declarative verbs always indicate law courts? What grammar are you reading?

    ReplyDelete
  30. If we take the Arminian view of things off the table and examine the question of infant salvation from the Reformed perspective, we have quite a different situation. If Christ died specifically for those whom God chose or elected, then infant salvation becomes possible, because God in his grace is fully capable of electing infants as well as adults. As long as we think salvation depends on our doing something that only a rational adult can do, it should be obvious that infants who cannot perform those actions are beyond the reach of God's salvation. If humans must do some act that only a mature, rational person can perform in order to become the beneficiary of God's redemption, it is clear that no infant can be saved. But if we assume that salvation results from God's activity and that humans are the recipients of God's gracious acts, we can see how infants, not only adults, can be recipients of that grace. It is certainly clear that infants and mental incapables cannot operate with God in human salvation, as is required in the Arminian scheme of things.

    -- Ronald Nash, When a Baby Dies

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mandalay,

    "Made alive" refers to physical resurrection."

    Eph. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

    But they hadn't physically resurrected yet, Mandy.

    "Also, does ALL mean ALL? How do you escape universalism?"

    All in Christ. Why is this so hard?


    (i) Why can't ALL be IN CHRIST? So, you didn't tell me how you escape universalism just by saying "all in Christ." Yes, not even if you write it in CAPS.

    (ii) 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for ALL!!!!!!!!!!! men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

    Where's "in Christ?" It says ALL!!!!! Are you saying that ALL!!!!! somehow doesn't mean ALL!!!!!? It does when you want it to and it doesn't when you do? I expect you to now drop your dishonest tactics with Reformed when you point out Jesus died for ALL!!!!!! men because it says ALL!!!!!! men.

    iii) So, either (a) admit you don't have a case against us with the "all" passages just because they say all, or (b) demonstrate why all doesn't mean all here. It doesn't say "in Christ." I didn’t see those words.

    "All in Adam die. If you find someone who doesn't die, let me know, and we can talk about whether all doesn't mean all."

    That's dishonest misdirection. You just said that the ALL saved doesn't mean ALL so how do you know that the ALL in Adam really means ALL? Because you believe ALL die, right? But where do you get that idea? What justifies that belief? You don't know ALL, do you? You haven't seen 'em all die. And the Bible even tells us of two people who went right into heaven without dying. No, you believe all die because you believe the Bible means ALL men whoever are in Adam, ergo, they would all die. BUT(!), this BEGS THE QUESTION. Doesn't it. Furthermore, since you haven't seen people in hell, how do you know that ALL doesn't mean ALL when it comes to salvation? The universalist would catch you on your hypocritical reasoning here.

    ""Where do you get the idea that Jesus HAD TO die for non-sinners who were not under God's wrath?"

    All in Adam die. All in Christ are made alive."


    That doesn't tell me anything. Think about it.
    Does it say anything about Christ having to die? No. C'mon, Mandy. If your anti-intellectualism continues, your next post will be deleted.

    "It's not unbiblical when the verse mentioning "children of wrath" refers to sins of the flesh which new borns have not committed."

    It doesn't. It mentions sins they did because they were BY NATURE children of wrath. Guess what, we are BY NATURE rational. So, we will DO rational things. But, just because we haven't DONE a rational thing - like a baby in the womb - doesn't mean she isn't rational BY NATURE.

    ""And, it says "we were children of wrath LIKE THE REST OF MANKIND."

    What verse are we discussing now?"


    Ummm, Ephesians 2, Mandy. Try and keep up. So, after you've dodged, can you give me an answer?

    It says we were children of wrath LIKE THE REST OF MANKIND. So, I guess "all doesn't mean all again." It only does when you want it to. When you want to talk about a wuving God who had to die for everyone. But all of a sudden, we have a big ole mean God who doesn't let ALL get in Christ. Why do I get "in Adam" regardless of my choice and I get "in Christ" only by a free choice? Not very fair or wuving. Hence, you see the ridiculousness of your position.

    "Heb. 9:22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

    The Jews sacrificed animals as to purify themselves and atone for sins"


    But not other nations. The atonement is only for Jews. You just saw the proof for limited atonement smack you in the head.

    "not to re-enact some cosmic court room scene where a particular penalty is due, and the animal steps in to take the punishment. In fact, the first mention of sacrifice where Abraham is called to sacrifice Isaac, its doubtful that Abraham had even come into contact with the concept of a court room."

    You need to link things. Jesus was sacrificed FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION. Justification is a forensic declaration. It properly means to absolve anyone in a trial or to hold or declare just. It is commonly used opposite to the verb 'condemn' and 'to accuse' (ex. 23:7, det. 25:1, prov. 17:15, like 18:14, rom. 3-5).

    The unbeliever stands "condemned" (court room terminology) and the believer stands "justified" (court room terminology). There is "therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus" (rom. 8:1).

    Paul quotes David when speaking of our justification: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whome the lord will not count sin" (court room). Again, (rom 2) 12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Law court.

    This last judgment, this standing before the tribunal, is law court terminology - "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked" (ex 23:7, deut 25:1, prov 17:15). We read that Jesus will "judge" all mens' works (court room).

    Adoption is part of salvation - adoption is a legal concept. Trespasses bring condemnation - more legal categories.

    More below

    ""No, I mean Paul's statements in Romans 5, II Cor. 5:21, places like Is. 53, Zech 3, Gen 3, &c."

    Statements like "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us", does not prove a scenario where we are in a kind of court, God needs to punish someone, so Christ steps in and substitutes for the penalty we were supposed to take."


    So we don't need to be punished for sins?

    Anyway, you asked about *imputation* here. So, if you can't even keep up with the discussion I will delete further posts.

    "We see a hospital model. We are in hospital with this disease called sin, and the sinful nature. Christ becomes sin, so that we can be freed from sin. He takes on the disease to free us from the disease. He becomes sin so that we can shed sin."

    Right, I understand you view things ontologically.

    But, I don't go to the hospital and tell the doc: "I'm feeling condemned today, can you justify me?"

    Furthermore, “dead’ people aren’t “sick” people.

    Get real.

    "That doesn't mean we totally reject the court model."

    And

    "No, we are not into the whole law cort analogy"

    You switch back and forth when things suit you.

    I don't debate dishonest debaters.

    "It says creation groaned waiting for the same moment of redemption that we do. Simply contradicting Romans 8 is not an argument."

    That doesn't say Christ redeemed nature. Died for it. So, of course I didn't contradict Romans 8. But you, you have YET to show where Christ died for poo poo, pee pee, and boogers. All means all, right!

    "Satan is not a "thing", and he is not part of this creation, as he predated it."

    He's not a *physical* thing, but he is a "thing." If being non-physical means you don't get made new, that sucks for your soul.

    And, he is part of "this creation." He was "created."

    And, poo poo and pee pee and boogers are "part of" this creation." We your new poo poo and pee pee be in heaven? Or, does "all not mean all" when you don't want it to?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Faith is not a "head thing." It has nothing to do with understanding. Faith is of the spirit, and the spirit is ageless.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mandalay continues to dodge questions and act dishonestly.

    One the one hand he wants all to be ALL, on the other, he doesn't. He doesn't want his poo poo and pee pee and boogers to be made new.

    He doesn't want Satan to be made new. Says he isn't a thing. Only physical things are things for Mandy. But then we have no idea that Jesus makes *souls* new. And, what about "logic?" Does Jesus make a "new" logic? No, because it's not physical. So, "make all things new" doesn't mean "all" it means "all physical." But then this includes his poo poo and pee pee and boogers and vomit. He must believe it's waiting in his heavenly mansion, right by his bed on the dresser, all shiny and new.

    for next time, Mandy, if questions are repeatedly asked in my comboxes, you will answer them. If not, then you're only here to get off talking points, that isn't allowed.

    ReplyDelete