STEELIKAT SAID:
What you are proposing is a modified version of universalism (a sort of universalism before age 7), a philosophy that has been condemned by the church right from the beginning until today.
If tender feelings for babies makes you need to speculate I would suggest you confine your speculation to modes that don't contradict scripture. For example, we know from scripture that the degree of punishment in Hell is not the same for all the damned, that some are punished more than others. If that's the case, is it possible that unbaptized babies suffer the mildest amount possible for someone denied the opportunity to be with God forever and even a degree of happiness and grace? The Bible doesn't say one way or another, it only says there will be varying degrees of punishment, so as a matter of speculation it does not go directly against scripture. If you say that unbaptized babies go to heaven it seems to me (and to most of Christendom before the last century or so) you are going against scripture.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/04/lifes-bitch-then-you-die.html#3341416727683192333
So most of Christendom (before the last century or so) taught kindergarten hell with stuffed animals for unbaptized babies who died in infancy. Good thing we have tradition to guide us through the treacherous waters of sheer conjecture.
Steve:
ReplyDeleteMost of Christendom formerly believed that only Christian believers, not unbaptized infants, went to heaven
Therefore
Most of Christendom formerly believed that there are stuffed animals in Hell.
Clear as mud to me, I'm afraid. can you show me how the conclusion follows from the premise?
Anyway, here's what I said, rephrased slightly:
If tender feelings for infants makes you uncomfortable with the idea that unbaptized infants suffer in hell and you want to find a speculative solution that does not directly contradict scripture the solution you are pointing to (while holding up a sign that says it isn't something you believe but rather something various respected scholars have come up with) does not work. Pre-7-year-old Universalism goes against scripture, which clearly teaches that only Christian believers will go to heaven.
One example of a speculative solution that does not go against scripture relies on the scriptural teaching that not every one in hell will suffer to the same degree (for example Luke 12:47) If that is true (and if you are a bible-believing Christian you better admit it's true), an allowable speculation would be that unbaptized infants, while being denied heaven, receive the minimum possible punishment, or, as a skeptic who doubts the literal truth of scriptural passages that indicate degrees of punishment might put it, "kindergarten hell" There are other lines of speculation that might solve the perceived problem as well.
Does that clarify adequately?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIf the amount of suffering in Hell varies, there must be a range of punishments, from least to greatest. Do you understand why this must be so?
If there is a range of punishments it is possible that infants, who have not lived long enough to do great sins compared to those of us who have been sinning for years, receive the least amount. Do you understand why this is a possibility that is in conformity with the scriptural truth that there is a range of punishments, from least to greatest?
Lastly, do you understand now that none of that implies that there is a "kindergarten hell" or that our Christian forefathers believed that there is a "kindergarten hell?"
Do you realize that when you ridicule Christians you sound like an atheist?
Steelikat is wrong about the history of belief in infant salvation. See here.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteYou linked to the wrong article again.
"And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God..... And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them." Mk. 10
ReplyDeleteThis made me think of this incredibly loving scene. Jesus holding children and infants in His arms blessing them, and perhaps praying to His Father to bless them.
Surely all humans are conceived in sin. Even John the Baptist was. But God has a way with His sovereign mercy that is higher than the heavens. His ways are not our ways. The secrets things are His. Everything revealed is ours to embrace and study and ponder.
Have a fine Lord's day!
Jason,
ReplyDeleteOh, I get it. If we follow your link, which is an article about Limbo (!) and read the article carefully, we will find a link to a different article where you argue that the very earliest writings pointed to a belief in infantile universalism.
Thank you. That is a good point and a good argument, though it does not prove that I was wrong, except for the "novelty" misstatement.
I didn't read all of your references. Aristides was not too helpful. The other references I found were to more or less bald assertions not backed up by good arguments. For the time being, I will not presume to publically disagree with the very earliest fathers on this subject, though I disagree with them on other subjects. More than an appeal to earliest tradition is necessary here, however. We need an argument that shows that the belief does not contradict scripture, does not implicitly or explicitly deny original sin, or place us in essentially the same logical position as universalists.
Donsands:
ReplyDeleteYes, but it sounds like an argument from sentimentality. I like it but I think it's insufficient.
"Surely all humans are conceived in sin. Even John the Baptist was. But God has a way with His sovereign mercy that is higher than the heavens. His ways are not our ways."
A. Therefore, we can rest assured that God will save us (Christians) in spite of our iniquities, by virtue of Christ's sacrifice.
OR
B. Therefore, we can be confident that God will find a way to reward with heaven all who die as infants.
OR
C. Therefore, we can be confident that God will reward all relatively good people with heaven, even if they aren't Christians.
OR
D. Therefore, we can be confident that God will in the end find a way to reward everyone without exception with heaven, after all, none of us deserve it and he is merciful, his ways are not our ways, etc.
None of those conclusions are logically certain, and they can all in a sense be said to be supported. We know A. is true simply because it is the good news and we believe it. The rest are doubtful to varying degrees. If any of them are true I would think it's B but I need better evidence.
Steve Polson,
ReplyDeleteI have some reasons for linking that article instead of the other one within it that you’re referring to. For one thing, Eric Svendsen has taken down the New Testament Research Ministries site, and I don’t know how much longer he’ll keep the accompanying blog going. I’d prefer to link to something at Triablogue, since it’s more likely to be available in the future. And the article I linked at Triablogue also addresses infant baptism. You mentioned the baptism of infants in the other thread Steve Hays quotes from above, so I thought it would be better to link to an article in which I address both topics (infant salvation and infant baptism).
You write:
“That is a good point and a good argument, though it does not prove that I was wrong, except for the ‘novelty’ misstatement. I didn't read all of your references. Aristides was not too helpful. The other references I found were to more or less bald assertions not backed up by good arguments. For the time being, I will not presume to publically disagree with the very earliest fathers on this subject, though I disagree with them on other subjects. More than an appeal to earliest tradition is necessary here, however. We need an argument that shows that the belief does not contradict scripture, does not implicitly or explicitly deny original sin, or place us in essentially the same logical position as universalists.”
I said that you were wrong about the history of belief in infant salvation. I wasn’t addressing the other subjects you mention above.
But the early patristic sources I cited are relevant in other contexts as well. They don’t just tell us what they believed, but also serve as evidence of what other sources believed. If infant salvation is believed so early and so widely, by such a diversity of sources and with so little evidence of any contrary view that needed to be addressed, then the likelihood is increased that other early sources held that view as well and that the belief is apostolic. And I discussed some of the relevant Biblical evidence, though briefly, in the post you’re referring to. Even though I wasn’t addressing the other subjects you’re now raising, the material I linked does address those other subjects to some extent.
I don’t have much time to discuss other issues at this point. You’ve raised a lot of subjects without giving us much reason to agree with your position. You state or suggest that infant salvation has particular problems, but you don’t give us much of an argument, if any, for your conclusions. When I link you to some of my material on one of the issues you raised, you try to shift the discussion to other topics and you don’t give us much or any argumentation for your conclusions about those other topics. I’m short on time to begin with, and the way you’re framing this discussion gives me even less reason to participate.
Any man or woman, who is given mercy from god, is pure because of Christ. From Adam to the last person who is born in this age will find their salvation only in Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God.
ReplyDeleteMy point is the secret things are His.
Was John the Baptist fill with the Spirit from the womb?
God in His infinite wisdom has mercy on sinners in His infinite ways.
If I go to Nepal, and God wants me to share the Gospel with all the unbelievers there, than that is what i would do. I would share the good news of forgiveness of sin in Christ's broken body and precious blood. And this same savior rose from the dead, and sits at the right hand of the Almighty God.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThank you. You didn't show that I was wrong, since "the very earliest fathers did not believe in universal infant salvation" was not what I said or implied. I was referring to Christian dogmatic and theology as a whole, through the last 2 millennia.
But as I said, you have a good point. We should have an attitude of deference for how the early church understood what they had been given. They were the closest to the apostles whose writings survive, with the exception of the human authors of the NT itself.
I think it would be better to have more than assertions from those writers, however. Your argument provides weak positive support but a biblical argument to my mind must show that a belief in "pre-7-year-old-universalism" survives the scriptural arguments against a more general universalism. The two positions are similar.
Steve Polson wrote:
ReplyDelete"You didn't show that I was wrong, since 'the very earliest fathers did not believe in universal infant salvation' was not what I said or implied. I was referring to Christian dogmatic and theology as a whole, through the last 2 millennia."
Earlier, you said that you were wrong. Here's what you said in your 4:21 P.M. post today:
"That is a good point and a good argument, though it does not prove that I was wrong, except for the 'novelty' misstatement."
Furthermore, what's the significance of your position as you're now defining it? If universal infant salvation was a popular belief in the earliest generations, then became less popular for a while, then became more popular later, why would the middle stage be the most significant one? Why wouldn't the belief's early popularity be more significant, for reasons like the ones I outlined in my last post?
You go on to say that universal infant salvation and universalism are "similar". They're also different.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThis really isn't really important, but what I meant was that I was talking about Christianity in general and before contemporary times, I was not focusing on the very earliest fathers. So by pointing to them you didn't show that I was wrong. You didn't have to show me that it was not a proper use of the english language to use the word "novelty" in that context. I realized it as soon as I gave it a moment's thought and acknowledged it instantly.
What do you want from me? I will comply if I can. I have already told you that I will not for the time being (until and unless I learn something substantial that changes my mind) actively speak against universal salvation out of deference to the chronological authority of the earliest fathers. I cannot personally square it with scripture but they undoubtedly understood more than I do. I will not pretend that the view of the early proponents of universalism prevailed or that I have as yet read from them (or from you, for what it's worth) an argument that I find convincing as that would not be honest.
What did Augustine say? What did the fifth ecumenical council say?
ReplyDeleteWhen some of the earliest fathers taught infant universalism, were they developing extended scriptural arguments or were they just asserting it? Is it possible that it was just a topic that no one that we know of at that time had thought to examine closely?
You can suggest that they simply received it from the apostles without question but will you also give that sort of answer who those who see in the earliest fathers already a soteriological and evangelical deficiency?
I think you would be right to say that we should just accept deferentially that which the earliest fathers teach us as long as it doesn't go against scripture. I would like to be shown it doesn't. Scripture has a lot to say about original sin and Adam's sin being imputed to us, Christ's being the only name under heaven by which we may be saved, etc. That's all I'll say on the subject until I've read more, especially Augustine and contemporary works contra Origen.
Steve Polson wrote:
ReplyDelete"I have already told you that I will not for the time being (until and unless I learn something substantial that changes my mind) actively speak against universal salvation out of deference to the chronological authority of the earliest fathers."
You go on, in your next two sentences and next post, to speak against universal infant salvation. And the objections you raise continue to be problematic. You ask about Augustine and an ecumenical council without attempting to answer the questions yourself and without explaining what significance those historical sources are supposed to have. You ask whether it's "possible" that the earliest patristic sources hadn't thought about the issue much. Once again, you don't answer your own question, and you frame the issue around possibility rather than probability. You raise issues that advocates of universal infant salvation have addressed many times, without making any attempt to interact with what's already been said and without offering much or any support for your own conclusions. You cite Biblical passages, like John 3:3 and Acts 4:12, without argumentation to accompany them, as if the citation of such passages proves that your position is correct without any accompanying argument. It seems that you want to get other people to defend their views in depth while you give a shallow defense of your own position. Why should I go along with that double standard?
You claim that your previous error was just a matter of "a proper use of the english language". Earlier, in the thread I linked above, you argued that universalism was condemned "from the beginning until today" (1:40 P.M. post on April 1). You said that universal infant salvation is a form of universalism. In your 5:49 P.M. post that same day, you used the word "novelty" that you've since retracted, and you said that Christianity "has never countenanced universalism". But now you tell us it's not inconsistent with your position if the earliest patristic Christians countenanced universal infant salvation, which you claim is a form of universalism. And you tell us, on the one hand, that it's not enough to know what the earliest patristic Christians believed about the subject. You want convincing arguments to accompany their assertions. On the other hand, when you initially brought up the issue of historical theology, you didn't tell us what those historical sources argued in support of their beliefs, but instead just told us what they supposedly believed.
Maybe you haven't communicated some of your positions as clearly as you should have. Or maybe you've been contradicting yourself. Either way, it doesn't seem that you're putting much effort into this discussion. As I said earlier, I'm short on time. And the way you're behaving gives me even less reason to spend more time on this exchange.
Jason,
ReplyDelete"You go on..."
I don't and I won't. I'm sorry I cannot agree with you on this.
"And the objections you raise continue to be problematic"
So you say now. Nevertheless, I'm going to withhold judgment for the time being on how problematic they are.
" You ask about Augustine and an ecumenical council without attempting to answer the questions yourself and without explaining what significance those historical sources are supposed to have."
Well, if you won't answer them I'll have to answer them myself, I guess, in which case I will have asked them in vain. Anyway I probably would have gone on to try to answer them myself even if you had answered them so that's OK.
" You ask whether it's "possible" that the earliest patristic sources hadn't thought about the issue much"
Well clearly if it turns out to be the case that none of them give any evidence in their writings of having thought it out but just report bold assertions it will be true that we have no evidence that they thought it out. Written evidence is all we can have.
" Once again, you don't answer your own question"
If I knew the answer I wouldn't have to ask the question, would I?! If you guess that I ask these questions because I think their answers might be important in regards to the question of infant universalism your guess is correct. You can be sure that I will try to find answers.
"You cite Biblical passages, like John 3:3 and Acts 4:12, without argumentation to accompany them"
Well I could tell you how what the bible says in those passages but doing so would violate a promise I just made to you. If you guessed that I was inviting you and anyone else reading this to take a look and consider those passages you will be guessing correctly.
And I'm sorry I've made this a guessing game for you. That wasn't my intention. When someone asks me a question it never occurs to me to think "why didn't he answer it himself?" I think, rather, "he asked me a question so he must be interested in learning what my answer is." It honestly would never have occurred to me that you might approach such a social situation in so radically a different way.
"It seems that you want to get other people to defend their views in depth while you give a shallow defense of your own position. Why should I go along with that double standard?"
I am surprised that you think I have taken an adversarial stance with you. I tried to approach you as an ignoramus approaches an expert, reminding you that to me you are an expert on the writings of the early fathers. Come to think of it you initiated our conversation, but if you remember my response was one of deference to you, praising your apologetic work on the early fathers. I guess I failed to make my intentions clear.
"You claim that your previous error was just a matter of "a proper use of the english language". Earlier, in the thread I linked above, you argued that universalism was condemned "from the beginning until today""
ReplyDeleteThat's right. Thank you.
"You said that universal infant salvation is a form of universalism"
Are you suggesting that it isn't? Perhaps we differ on the meaning of the words. When I talk about "universal" infant salvation I am referring to the idea that all infants without exception, the "universe of infants" if you will, are saved. This is a universalism of infants (but not adults).
"But now you tell us it's not inconsistent with your position if the earliest patristic Christians countenanced universal infant salvation"
Well, you should say "my former position." As you know, I've given up my opposition to infant universalism in light of what you've told me. This really isn't important but it seems important to you so I'll try to explain again: I was talking about Christianity in the last two millennia, and infant universalism as something relatively new in that sense, a modern development. I was speaking generally, not focusing on the earliest fathers. I did not say this but I was not speaking absolutely, as if there were absolute total agreement by all without exception. That goes without saying, it seems to me, it is obvious that there is never absolute agreement about anything. Do you understand what I'm saying now? I have a sense that you want something more from me, since you keep bringing this up even after I've repeatedly explained myself. If so, please tell me what it is. I am eager to give it to you if I can do so in good conscience.
"which you claim is a form of universalism"
Its not a question of anyone "claiming" anything. I was simply using words according to my understanding of what they mean. If you mean something else than I do about what "universal" means or what "univeralism" means or what it must mean to modify "universal" with the genitive noun "infant" and you think it's important for me to understand that you tend to use the words differently I don't doubt that you'll tell me. I use the word universal to mean all, the word universalism to refer to the idea that all are saved, the word infant to refer to very young people, and the phrase "infant universalism" therefore (is there an adjective we can make from "infant" that has more appropriate connotations than "infantile?" I can't think of it right now) to refer to the idea that among very young people but not necessarily older ones all are saved.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou asked a question and I should not simply ignore it:
"Furthermore, what's the significance of your position as you're now defining it?"
You should say "my former position." As I've told you repeatedly, in light of the fact that you say that the earliest apostles universally (as far as we can know from the evidence available) held to infant universalism, it would be rash for me personally at this time to actively oppose it. It has no particular significance in respect to myself since I stopped asserting it several conversational exchanges ago. You keep telling me that my former position was one that you proved incorrect and I keep reminding you that my former position was not one the one you seemed to think it was. I wasn't talking specifically about the earliest fathers I was talking more generally about Christianity from the earliest times until relatively recently, a period of about two millennia. Does this seem unnecessarily repetitive to you? It does to me as well which is why I keep asking you what you want from me that I'm not giving you. I am eager to comply if I can.
"why would the middle stage be the most significant one."
The most significant? I was speaking in general terms, not focusing on a specific time or context. I don't know if it's the most significant one but it is the longest one, hence the generalization. Again, let me remind you that we are talking about something I told you that I had abandoned (perhaps temporarily) in light of what you said about the "earliest" fathers. I don't understand why you are doggedly pursuing it with me. It seems that you want something from me that I'm not giving you. Please help me by telling me what that is.
Steve Polson wrote:
ReplyDelete"Well clearly if it turns out to be the case that none of them give any evidence in their writings of having thought it out but just report bold assertions it will be true that we have no evidence that they thought it out."
Polycarp doesn't claim to be a disciple of the apostles in the only document he wrote that's extant. People reach conclusions about his relationship with the apostles, as well as the likely influence that relationship had on his beliefs, based on information from other sources. One of the factors that's taken into account is the general tendencies of human behavior. What do people normally do in particular circumstances? We also consider other factors, like the general tendencies of the churches of that day, what circumstances Polycarp was involved in and how those circumstances probably would have influenced him, etc. We don't rely only on "evidence in their writings" when evaluating what historical sources believed and did and why they believed and did those things.
One of the questions we should ask in the context of infant salvation is how prominent the relevant issues would have been at the time when these historical sources lived. Infants would have been born into Christian families frequently. We'd expect issues like whether infants should be baptized and whether deceased infants go to Heaven to have been considered often. Infant mortality rates were high in antiquity. We should also take into account the diversity of sources involved, as I mentioned earlier. The more diverse the sources, the more significant their agreement on an issue. We would also consider the degree to which opposing positions are extant in the historical record. Etc. There are a lot of factors to be taken into account, some of which I've discussed earlier in this thread and in the material I've linked. You haven't made much of an effort to interact with that sort of data. Even if I hadn't mentioned such things, you should have been taking them into account. Instead, you keep ignoring them even when I mention them, and you keep asking questions and making insufficiently supported assertions without putting forward much effort to advance the discussion.
You write:
"If I knew the answer I wouldn't have to ask the question, would I?!"
So, you don't know what Augustine believed or what the ecumenical council you asked about taught? Then why did you previously make such broad claims about the history of belief in infant salvation? And why did you ask about those particular historical sources (Augustine and the fifth ecumenical council)? Another of your questions was whether it's possible that the earliest sources didn't think about the issue much. What kind of a question is that? Historical research is about probabilities, not possibilities. I don't see the reasoning behind singling out sources like Augustine and the fifth ecumenical council and asking whether some scenario favorable to your position is possible, unless your aim was to tilt the discussion in your favor by asking particular questions.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Well I could tell you how what the bible says in those passages but doing so would violate a promise I just made to you."
That doesn't explain why you didn't say more about the passages when you initially cited them. It also doesn't explain why you referred to such passages again later on and didn't say more about them then either.
You write:
"If you guessed that I was inviting you and anyone else reading this to take a look and consider those passages you will be guessing correctly."
There's nothing about the passages in John 3 and Acts 4 that obviously leads to your conclusions. Sometimes citing a Biblical passage without further commentary is appropriate, but this isn't one of those occasions. Regarding John 3:3, I doubt that many, if any, advocates of universal infant salvation would argue that infants go to Heaven as unregenerate individuals. And regarding Acts 4:12, I doubt that many, if any, believe that infants are saved by the name of somebody other than Jesus. Just as you and others think that deceased infants were able to be regenerated in the name of Jesus by means of baptism, an advocate of universal infant salvation can think that deceased infants were able to be regenerated in the name of Jesus without baptism.
You write:
"When someone asks me a question it never occurs to me to think 'why didn't he answer it himself?' I think, rather, 'he asked me a question so he must be interested in learning what my answer is.' It honestly would never have occurred to me that you might approach such a social situation in so radically a different way."
As Rob Bell's video promoting his latest book illustrates, people often ask questions for other reasons as well.
You write:
"I am surprised that you think I have taken an adversarial stance with you. I tried to approach you as an ignoramus approaches an expert, reminding you that to me you are an expert on the writings of the early fathers. Come to think of it you initiated our conversation, but if you remember my response was one of deference to you, praising your apologetic work on the early fathers. I guess I failed to make my intentions clear."
I'm not an expert, but I appreciate the sentiment. However, I entered the discussion to respond to your claims about the Bible and later church history. You were already making such claims when I entered the discussion. And you told me that your claims were correct after I argued against them. You weren't just "approaching me as an ignoramus approaches an expert". You were making broad historical claims, and you persisted in those claims in opposition to what I wrote in response. You deferred to me on some issues, but not on others. Even after I linked my material on universal infant salvation, you kept referring to what the early patristic sources said as just "bald assertions not backed up by good arguments" and "weak positive support". You kept comparing universal infant salvation to universalism. The reason why I've responded to you as an adversary is because you've repeatedly posted comments against my position. You've taken an "adversarial stance" toward me, so I've taken one toward you. The fact that you deferred to me on some points doesn't change the fact that you initially didn't do so or the fact that you continued opposing me on other points.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Are you suggesting that it isn't? Perhaps we differ on the meaning of the words. When I talk about 'universal' infant salvation I am referring to the idea that all infants without exception, the 'universe of infants' if you will, are saved. This is a universalism of infants (but not adults)."
And if you believe that Joseph and Mary were saved, you believe in universalism within the category of Jesus' earthly parents. If you believe that all of the New Testament authors were saved, then you believe in universalism within that category. The same would hold true of baptized infants and other groups. But that isn’t what's normally meant by "universalism" in this context. You're applying an abnormal meaning to the term. The fact that a historical individual or group condemned universalism in the context of all humans doesn't prove that he would also condemn universalism in the context of all deceased infants, all baptized infants, all New Testament authors, etc. And if he would condemn one or more of those other types of universalism (if we're to call them forms of universalism), it doesn't follow that he'd condemn them in the same way. He might consider such a belief an error, but one that's significantly less of an error than universalism in the category of all humans.
And the issue isn't whether all infants are saved. An adult who never becomes a Christian wasn't saved when he was an infant. I and others who believe in universal infant salvation only argue that all who die in infancy are saved, not that all infants are saved. Sometimes the position is referred to as something like "universal infant salvation", which could be taken as a reference to all infants without qualification, but the qualifier that only those who die in infancy are included is commonly assumed. What people have in mind is whether infants are saved if their life ends in infancy, so that qualifier is often assumed without being stated.
You write:
"Do you understand what I'm saying now? I have a sense that you want something more from me, since you keep bringing this up even after I've repeatedly explained myself."
I understand what you're saying. Your past comments and what you seemed to be saying in the past keep coming up because of what you've been saying since then about those past comments. If you're going to tell me that your initial comments were correct in some way in which I think they weren't, then it makes sense for me to reply by explaining why I think your initial comments were wrong. I understand your current position, but you've also been making claims about your previous comments. Your current position isn't all that's relevant.
You write:
"I don't understand why you are doggedly pursuing it with me."
I'm replying to what you're saying. If you keep defending something you said, and I don't think what you said should be defended, then I may keep responding. I'm doggedly pursuing because you're doggedly asserting.
Jason
ReplyDelete"So, you don't know what Augustine believed or what the ecumenical council you asked about taught?"
Oh, I have some idea. But in the case of Augustine you know more than me because you've read more extensively (or so I gather from the apologetic work you've done on the fathers).
Let me give you a more complete explanation of why I asked those questions. They really were questions and I was puzzled and amused when you asked "why do you ask those questions without answering them?" If I had the answer I wouldn't have to ask! But there's more to it than that. I said to you: "based on what you've told me about the earliest fathers, I'm dropping my opposition to infant univrsalism--for the time being." Now anyone reading that must be thinking, "why does he qualify it, why is he hedging his bets?"
The questions I asked are some of the sorts of question I need answered before I can say "The earliest fathers said it, it must be true." That's why I mentioned them. I felt I owed it to you and anyone else reading what I had to say since I made that rather strange qualification. Of course I need to answer the questions for myself but I am honestly interested in what anyone else here might have to say about it.
"That doesn't explain why you didn't say more about the passages when you initially cited them. "
Oh. I remember the timing differently. I'm sorry.
"Just as you and others think that deceased infants were able to be regenerated in the name of Jesus by means of baptism..."
Yes!
"an advocate of universal infant salvation can think that deceased infants were able to be regenerated in the name of Jesus without baptism."
Indeed, but to be convincing to me that's not sufficient. I am responsible to understand things according to what I've been given. I'm glad you mentioned that, however, if it helps me to understand and appreciate your position.
"You were making broad historical claims, and you persisted in those claims in opposition to what I wrote in response."
As my claims were broad and yours far more narrow (but with a particular significance that cannot be discounted!) it did not and does not seem to me that I was opposing you. I was clarifying in regards to the broadness of my claim, trying to get you to understand that I was not focusing on the earliest fathers nor did I think such an approach should be generally taken. We have a lot of data to consider, and particular kinds of data have particular kinds of special significance. We've already talked about the special significance of the earliest fathers. In addition creeds have a unique kind of significance and importance--Early ecumenical councils another, etc. And please understand that I'm simply explaining myself here. I'm not trying to begin a new argument with you.
"You kept comparing universal infant salvation to universalism."
Specifically "infant universalism," and I'm sorry, but simple logic and semantics compels me to do that, and I cannot understand why you'd object. The two of us must be defining one of those words differently.
I am not consciously trying to be an adversary to you nor am I opposing you. I'm trying as hard as I can to explain myself to you and to respond to you, to tell you where I am "coming from" and why I think the way I do.
"And if you believe that Joseph and Mary were saved, you believe in universalism within the category of Jesus' earthly parents."
Yes if I thought it was because of their being His parents and not a mere coincidence...
continued...
ReplyDelete"If you believe that all of the New Testament authors were saved, then you believe in universalism within that category."
Yes, of course. (assuming I believed they were saved because they belonged to that category rather than being a mere random coincidence."
"The fact that a historical individual or group condemned universalism in the context of all humans doesn't prove that he would also condemn universalism in the context of all deceased infants, all baptized infants, all New Testament authors, etc"
Yes, That's true. Some of the arguments against universalism could be thought applicable to infant universalism and some could never be.
Steve Polson wrote:
ReplyDelete"I remember the timing differently."
Go to your 1:40 P.M. post on April 1 in the thread here. You were citing the two passages of scripture I mentioned, without arguing for those citations, before I entered the discussion. You did it in the first sentence of your first post. You cited Acts 4:12 again, and still without any supporting argument, in your 5:49 P.M. post that same day. Etc. Your memory of the timing is wrong, and you could easily have seen that by reviewing your previous posts. And I didn't just refer to the timing of your use of passages like John 3 and Acts 4. I also referred to your failure to argue for your interpretation of those passages.
You write:
"Indeed, but to be convincing to me that's not sufficient."
That's a vague assertion that fails to fully interact with what I said. I was addressing your use of John 3 and Acts 4. You're not explaining how your citation of those passages is justified in light of what I said about the passages. An advocate of infant salvation apart from baptism can apply those passages in much the same way as an advocate of infant salvation through baptism would apply them. Why are we supposed to believe that the passages refute the former position, but not the latter?
You write:
"Yes if I thought it was because of their being His parents and not a mere coincidence."
You're changing the subject from whether a person believes in universalism to the basis on which he thinks individuals are saved. That doesn’t make sense. Why would the term "universalism" be used to describe the basis of salvation? Different universalists hold different positions on that issue. One universalist might believe that all people are saved prior to death, regardless of whether they come to faith in Christ in this life, whereas another universalist might believe that all people are saved through faith in Christ, but that some come to that faith after spending time in Hell. Or one universalist might have more Arminian leanings, while another has more Calvinist leanings. Both are universalists. The term universalism refers to the scope of the people who are saved, not the basis on which they're saved. To say that one person is a universalist because he believes in infant salvation apart from baptism, whereas another person avoids being a universalist by affirming infant salvation through baptism, doesn't make sense. Why should we think that whether baptism is the means of justification is what determines whether a view amounts to universalism?
You write:
"Some of the arguments against universalism could be thought applicable to infant universalism and some could never be."
That's an unsupported assertion about what "could be thought", without any attempt to argue for its probability, and I don't know what you think the statement proves even if it's true.
Steve Polson wrote:
ReplyDelete"On the timing thing I believe you I just don't know what I can do with that. I cannot go back in time."
That's a ridiculous response, and it's different than what you said earlier. You claimed to not remember doing something that you did repeatedly. After I documented that you did it, you posted your response above, which is irrelevant. The issue isn't whether you should "go back in time". You're like a bank robber who claims to not remember whether he robbed the bank. When video footage of the robbery is shown in court, he replies the same way you did above. Apparently, you're trying to shift the readers' focus from your misbehavior to my supposed unreasonableness, since I'm allegedly suggesting that you should "go back in time". That's not the issue, and your attempt to make it the issue is dishonest.
The remainder of your response is similarly evasive, such as when you change the subject from the meaning of John 3 and Acts 4 to whether justification is attained through baptism. Not only is that a change of subject, but you also made no effort to interact with what I and other posters at this blog have argued many times about the relationship between baptism and justification. Even if you missed all of those posts, you could have at least made some effort to interact with the arguments that are commonly raised when that issue comes up. You didn't. In other words, you changed the subject, and you made no effort to advance the discussion even on that new subject you brought up.
You also repeated your claim that universalism refers to the basis on which individuals are saved rather than the scope of individuals who will be saved. You don't interact with the counterarguments of my last response, but instead just repeat your position in different words. That, too, is evasive.
That sort of behavior is unethical. Among other problems, it wastes the time of readers and the people who are writing responses to your posts.
I'm not the only person who’s noticed problems like these with your posts. Others have made similar comments about your behavior in other threads. Steve Hays warned you about deleting your posts if you continued behaving like that in another thread. Your two latest posts in this thread, which I've replied to above, have been deleted. You're no longer permitted to post, in this thread or anywhere else on the blog. That includes all of your past, present, and future screen names.
Steve Polson wrote: "What did Augustine say? ...
ReplyDeleteWhen some of the earliest fathers taught infant universalism, were they developing extended scriptural arguments or were they just asserting it?"
Augustine didn't believe in universal infant salvation. Where on earth did you get that?
-TurretinFan