In this post I'm going to respond to somebody who thinks everyone who dies before the age of reason is damned:
If it were enough be regenerated to be saved then the gospel was useless, the sacrifice of Christ would have been in vain. God could save those he wanted by simply regenerating them by sending the Holy Spirit.
i) That misses the point. This doesn't involve a universal principle, as if it must be the same for everyone regardless, but whether what's necessary under normal circumstances is necessary under abnormal circumstances.
Keep in mind that the content of faith is subject to progressive revelation and redemption. So it's not the same at all times and places.
ii) It hardly renders the atonement in vain. God only regenerates the redeemed.
iii) To take a comparison, ancient Israel had military conscription (Num 1:2-3,45). Yet there were exemptions (Deut 20:5-8; 24:5).
Notice, though, that there's no stated exemption for men who are blind, quadriplegics, or hemophiliacs. Does that mean blind men, quadriplegics, and hemophiliacs are not exempt? If they don't enlist, are they draft dodgers? Are they derelict in their duty? Have they broken God's law?
The silence of Scripture on possible exceptions doesn't mean there are no possible exceptions. It would make the Bible far too long to list every conceivable exception to commands and prohibitions. The Bible typically deals with commonplace sins, crimes, and duties rather than exotic cases or remote hypotheticals.
Biblical commands and prohibitions have an implied context. In this case, able-bodied men. The command is inapplicable to blind men, quadriplegics, and hemophiliacs. It doesn't envision that situation. It doesn't address the question of whether brains-in-vats are mandated to engage in hand-to-hand combat.
My arguments for regeneration by the word:John 3:3-8 (water here means the Word of God)
No, in context, water is a figure of speech for the action of the Holy Spirit. Vv6-8 are epexegetical of v5, and explicate "water" as a metaphor for spiritual renewal. Cf. 7:37-39.
Eph. 5:25-26
That's a corporate metaphor for the consecration of the church as God's people, accomplished by the atonement of Christ, proclaimed in the gospel (e.g. Eph 1:13).
1 Peter 1:23-25
i) In v23 he attributes birth to the word, but in v3 he attributes birth to the Resurrection. So Peter is using birth as a flexible metaphor.
ii) Birth can be a corporate metaphor for the "birth" of the Church (or Israel), rather than an individual metaphor.
iii) Is the imagery agricultural or procreative? In v24, the imagery is explicitly agricultural. That suggests the seminal imagery in v23 is agricultural (sowing, planting) rather than reproductive (birthing, begetting, conceiving). If so, that's a different metaphor than rebirth.
It's possible that Peter uses mixed metaphors. If so, that should warn us not to press or isolate the imagery. Rather, Peter's language is impressionistic.
James 1:18
There are roughly three possible interpretations:
1. It refers to regeneration. However:
i) It mentions birth rather than rebirth.
ii) Firstfuits and the implanted word (v21) are agricultural rather than reproductive metaphors. That might have its background in the agricultural parables of Jesus (Mt 13:18-43).
iii) It mentions the Father giving birth, which is oxymoronic. In terms of figurative consistency, regeneration is a masculine metaphor. A male impregnating a female.
2. It refers to God as Creator. That dovetails with the allusions to Gen 1 in the preceding verse:
i) God made the "lights" (sun, moon, stars).
ii) God made the world by commanding the world into existence.
iii) God's creative word is a good gift–the benedictory refrain in Gen 1 ("and it was good").
iv) The Torah as divine light (Ps 119:105,130).
3. If refers to God's adoption of Israel:
i) James opens his letter with Diaspora language (1:1)
ii) Israel as Yahweh's firstborn (Exod 4:22)
iii) Israel as firstfruits (Jer 2:3)
iv) Yahweh birthing/begetting Israel (Deut 32:18). That's the background for the oxymoron in Jas 1:18.
v) The Torah as God's true word (Ps 118/119:43,142,151, LXX; Mal 2:6, LXX).
vii) The Exodus as a new creation motif.
Who's the audience for his letter? Messianic Jews? Gentiles converts? A mixed audience? He might be evoking OT redemptive categories to depict the church as the new Israel or extension/continuation of ancient Israel. We should also make allowance for mixed metaphors.
John 6:63
Does it denote spiritual rebirth? A flashback to Jn 3:3-8?
No. In context, it refers to the resurrection of the body. Jesus will raise the saints (6:39-40,44,51) at his word/command (5:21,25; 11:43-44). So the reference is eschatological. Not to regeneration but the endtime resurrection of the just.
I argue based on David's dead newborn and John the Baptist in uetero that babies can be saved without fully-formed faith. That said, I don't think Scripture addresses the issue in a universal manner. So making a blanket statement towards "no babies" seems very much incorrect, and Scripture doesn't seem to address "all babies".
ReplyDeleteGiven Romans 10, I would argue know able-minded person who doesn't have conscious faith in Jesus is saved, even if they've never heard of them.
My position does not depend on how regeneration is produced (Holy Spirit or Holy Spirit + Word of God).
ReplyDeleteI am conditioned by language and I will not comment on all your elaborate interpretations, but I also have good resources on my side, for example:
One must be born again to enter the kingdom. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5). "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Pet. 1:23).
Other expressions in the New Testament help us understand the significance of the birth of water and the Spirit into the kingdom of God. The germ of life is in the seed. Jesus said, "...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). Peter said, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever" (1 Pet. 1:23). The seed is the word of God (Luke 8:11). "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (James 1:18). Paul said to the Corinthians, "...I have begotten you through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).
There are parallel passages to John 3:3-5 which make the meaning clear. Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5:26). That statement is equal to "birth of water and of the Spirit." In the New Testament there is no cleansing or sanctifying by washing of water except by baptism of a penitent believer.
Another is Titus 3:5, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." The washing of regeneration is the washing of rebirth. The renewing of the Holy Spirit is the effect of the work of the Spirit through the word. "Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." (Rom. 12:2). The renewing of the mind comes from the teaching of the Spirit by the word.
Searching the Scriptures, February 1992, Volume 33, Number 2
http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-born-again-into-the-kingdom.htm
In your position there is no exception to the rule, because there is no rule. God arbitrarily saves among babies by the simple regeneration of the Holy Spirit. No saved baby does a different act from a damned baby. It is just an arbitrariness of God.
Obviously, in this way the gospel is not necessary in any way, the sacrifice of Christ is useless. God can save all men in the same way without repentance and saving faith.
Your comparison with the law of the OT is not valid, because men are not condemned for not obeying the gospel, but they are saved by obeying. They are already in a situation of condemnation. Situations are not parallel.
i) Most of this is a rehash of your stock prooftexts which I refuted in detail. You have no counterargument. You have nothing in reserve.
DeleteIf you wish to retain the privilege of commenting on my blog, don't mechanically repeat the same objections. You need to argue in good faith. That means engaging my responses rather than pushing the rewind button followed by the replay button.
ii) You try to use Rom 12:2 to gloss Tit 3:5, as if they're referring to the same thing.
iii) In 1 Cor 4:15, Paul is depicting himself as a spiritual mentor, using figurative paternity. That doesn't prove your point.
iv) You can't use a passage in Paul to interpret a passage in John–as if both writers had each other's statements in mind.
v) No reason to think Eph 5:26 refers to water baptism. To the contrary, the imagery in vv26-27 alludes to the bridal bath in Greco-Roman wedding ceremonies–as well as Paul's adaptation of Ezk 16–as documented by commentators like O'Brien and Thielman.
vi) It isn't arbitrary for God to make allowance for a natural impediment. Even in a sinless, unfallen world, babies and young children lack adult cognitive faculties.
vii) Although men are culpable apart from the gospel, disobeying the gospel aggravates their guilt.
viii) You evade the issue of tacit exceptions.
My point does not depend on how regeneration takes place. So I will not waste any more time with these verses.
DeleteYou have to decide whether child salvation is universal or partial. Then you postulate two forms of salvation, one for the children until the age of reason, and another for the rest of the men.
This, apart from being foreign to scripture, makes God unjust. Because God saves children without them taking any action that imputes justice to them and does not do the same with the rest of men. It is an unjustified age discrimination. You have not solved this problem yet.
Salvation without a justifiable action on the part of the saved person will always result in an arbitrariness of God. Or God saves all or does not save anyone.
And I end up here because I've actually repeated the same things ad nauseam in various ways.
"My point does not depend on how regeneration takes place. So I will not waste any more time with these verses."
DeleteWhat the Bible says about regeneration is fundamental to the debate. So much the worse for your position if you can't or won't address what the Bible says about regeneration.
"You have to decide whether child salvation is universal or partial. Then you postulate two forms of salvation, one for the children until the age of reason, and another for the rest of the men."
This isn't an accurate representation of Steve's position. It's as if you're attempting to caricature Steve's position
"This, apart from being foreign to scripture, makes God unjust. Because God saves children without them taking any action that imputes justice to them and does not do the same with the rest of men. It is an unjustified age discrimination. You have not solved this problem yet."
Since the above wasn't Steve's position, none of this follows.
"Salvation without a justifiable action on the part of the saved person will always result in an arbitrariness of God. Or God saves all or does not save anyone."
Be specific. What do you mean by "a justifiable action on the part of the saved person"? Are you referring to a baby consciously repenting and exercising faith in Christ?
"And I end up here because I've actually repeated the same things ad nauseam in various ways."
Senselessly repeating senseless remarks won't make your remarks sensible.
"Conhecereis a Verdade My point does not depend on how regeneration takes place. So I will not waste any more time with these verses."
DeleteIt's a waste of time to discuss verses that you cited in defense of your position. Okay.
"You have to decide whether child salvation is universal or partial"
I've repeatedly stated my position on that.
"It is an unjustified age discrimination."
Like not letting 5-year-olds drive a car.
"You have not solved this problem yet."
I haven't solved a nonexistent problem. A child's mind is different from an adult mind. That's not a defect, but a natural difference.
In this life or the next, elect children come to believe in Christ.
Given your resentful attitude towards kids, I hope you're not a father.
DeleteThe question of whether infant salvation is universal or partial is relevant because it makes injustice even more evident. And you were ambiguous in your last post.
DeleteA 5 year old is not in the same condition as an adult to drive.
In salvation, they are both condemned.
Natural impediment does not justify unequal treatment. Imagine a group of prisoners who will be released if they meet certain requirements. There is one that can not fulfill these requirements by some impediment. Is it fair to release this and keep the others in jail?
My attitude is to try to be fair to everyone.
It's only unjust to treat people unequally if they have equal claims. Salvation is an act of mercy, not obligation.
Delete"In this life or the next, elect children come to believe in Christ."
DeleteThis changes everything.
You imagine that changes everything based on your flawed paradigm.
DeleteBut God's mercy does not mean that God is an arbitrary judge. When God has mercy on a sinner he creates conditions in his providence to justify him.
DeleteWhich God does for elect infants.
DeleteSteve and Bnonn have pointed out that there is a fairly strong case that Matthew 18:10 refers to the spirits of infants who have died residing in heaven. In context, this would seem to at least apply to the children of believers who die in infancy.
ReplyDeleteWe don't seem to have any scriptural promise that the children of unbelievers who die in infancy are heaven-bound. While that reality is a possibility, there is no promise.
I don't think scripture gives folks the certainty they would like on this. Personally my wife and I have miscarried three that we know of, so I can understand wanting to know. Our certainty lies where we believe scripture is clear, that we are to commend our children to God both unborn and born. This has allowed us over time to push through holding on to 'possibilities' and instead rest our hope in Him.
ReplyDeleteYes, sometimes God gives us reason for hope. That's less than certainty but more than wishful thinking. We can't live with despair but we can lived with hope.
Delete