Pages

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Illiterate librarians

I think one of Babinski’s problems is that he’s just a librarian. As such, he’s good at quoting other people. He can copy/paste lots of stuff from databases.

But he has no analytical skills. Indeed, for a librarian, he lacks basic reading skills.

Mind you, not all librarians suffer from his intellectual impediments. Among other things, John Warwick Montgomery is a librarian, but he also has an analytical mind.

EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:

“Steve, Your mind must work overtime attempting to reconcile what you think is ‘good’ with what the Bible says about God, heaven, hell, infants dying, etc.”

Which has precisely nothing to do with my post. I simply evaluated an argument that some abortionists use against Christians.

I’ve already discussed the goodness of God in relation to all these other issues, but that wasn’t the point of this post.

“Do you really believe that God pre-arranged every which way each infant would perish and made sure that he implanted eternally saved souls inside each such infant?”

i) I explicitly said in my post that I have no firm position on the salvation of every dying infant. Try not to be such a knucklehead. Can’t you even read? How can you work at an academic library, but have such lamentable reading skills?

ii) Since, however, I am I Calvinist, then by definition I believe that God has prearranged when and where everybody is born and everybody dies. And he prearranged each life in relation to every other life, so that each and every life will contribute to his overall plan.

iii) From a Reformed standpoint, there’s no antecedent objection to the possibility that God prearranged all dying infants to be elect infants.

“So, you know God's secret concerning every infant that has died? They're all going to heaven?”

Let’s see. What did I say at the outset of my post? I said “I myself don’t have a firm position on the fate of infants. That’s because the Bible has so little to say one way or the other.”

How do you infer from that disclaimer that I know God’s “secret” concerning every infant that has died?

Do you really think it helps the glorious cause of infidelity when you’re such a dunderhead?

“Or are you admitting that you're simply inventing your own personal best guess?”

Since I didn’t speak to the issue one way or the other, I didn’t hazard a guess. What’s your problem, Ed? Was English your second language? Are you still laboring to master the rudiments of English?

“Maybe God does damn some people no matter how young. It's his Calvinist right to do so, isn't it?”

Correct.

“Didn't Calvin himself believe in infant damnation as well as Jonathan Edwards?”

So what?

“You really know nothing certain concerning this situation as I believe you admitted.”

So what accounts for all of your addlebrained imputations to the contrary?

“You've merely added another guess that you and other Calvinists might like to believe.”

I didn’t advance a position of my own. I merely answered the abortionist on his own terms. Do you lack the intelligence to grasp that rather obvious counterargument?

“I spoke with a Calvinist mother of many children via email. She was a member of Phelps' church, and she told me she was distressed over a miscarriage or two she'd suffered, and the fate of that soul. She was suffering over the very real possibility of infant damnation, one of her own infants.”

If she’s a Calvinist, she ought to attend a Reformed church rather than Westboro cult. Indeed, she wouldn’t have to attend a Reformed church to improve on Westboro.

“Yet you can't prove to her or anyone else just what DID happen to that tiny infant.”

i) If you’re attempting to use this as a pressure point against my Christian faith or Reformed belief-system, your tactic will backfire. It’s not as if atheism holds out any hope for the eternal fate of dying infants.

I prefer some hope to no hope. So if it’s a choice between hopefulness and hopelessness, Calvinism and atheism, then there’s still no comparison. Not evenclose.

Atheism is the counsel of despair. Not a flicker of hope. Just a smoldering wick where a person used to be.

ii) I’m not in the business of offering false assurance. However, I can say the following:

a) God will do right by every dying child.

b) God knows our feelings. Indeed, God gave us our feelings (i.e. maternal, paternal feelings).

God knows what we need in this life and the next. No Christian will suffer an inconsolable loss.

“So, don't you live with disconcerting and diverse views concerning the ETERNAL damnation of babies?”

i) What’s that suppose to mean, exactly? I myself don’t hold diverse and disconcerting views regarding the fate of dying infants. To be disconcerted, I’d have to hold a view which I find disconcerting.

ii) Or do you mean I live with the knowledge that diverse views exist on the subject? Yes. So what?

iii) Keep in mind, too, that "baby" is misleading. It's not as if dying infants are frozen at that age for all eternity, and thereby cease to mature physically and psychologically.

“You admit you really don't know and the Bible gives you little clue.”

That’s the walk of faith. To trust, to pray, and to wait. To live in hope and thankfulness.

8 comments:

  1. The thread Steve is referencing is here. And my response posted there is below.

    Ed Babinski wrote:

    "Or are you admitting that you're simply inventing your own personal best guess? Maybe God does damn some people no matter how young. It's his Calvinist right to do so, isn't it? Didn't Calvin himself believe in infant damnation as well as Jonathan Edwards? You really know nothing certain concerning this situation as I believe you admitted. You've merely added another guess that you and other Calvinists might like to believe."

    You're framing the issue in a misleading way. We don't need a "certain" answer in order to consider some possibilities or reach a conclusion about what's probable. And citing evidence for a high-level possibility or arguing for a probable conclusion isn't just a "guess". Furthermore, why only mention men like Calvin and Edwards? The most relevant extra-Biblical sources would be individuals who lived during Biblical times or shortly afterward. People living shortly after the apostles, for example, might have had some reliable information about what the apostles taught on a subject that's ambiguous in scripture or isn't addressed there, for example. One of the reasons why I believe in universal infant salvation is that it seems to have been a widespread view among patristic sources of the second century. Those sources represent a wide variety of locations, personalities, theological positions, etc. That sort of evidence carries some weight that the testimony of somebody like Calvin or Edwards wouldn't have.

    And you should be more careful about the timing of your posts. You didn't reply to Steve until more than a week after his last post. How many people are going to read your reply that late? And what if Steve hadn't seen it, since the thread was already so dated when you posted there? There can be good reason to post late in a thread, but you seem to do it far too often for it to make sense every time. If a thread is old and inactive, and you don't have much to add to it, why post at all?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve and Jason,

    First, does Steve know what "illiterate" means? Apparently not.

    Second, You both admit you don't know what happens to a fetus, but you also both admit you want to believe that infants who die are not eternally damned.

    Steve claims that he sees no reason why God could not have already preordained every infant that was going to die to eternal bliss. Jason points out that early church fathers also wanted to believe in the salvation of infants that died.

    My reply is this, your coulds and wishes disagree with those of Calvin, Edwards and Augustine (an early church father) who agreed that according to their studied interpretation of the Bible infants who died unbaptized were damned. Look up their arguments and how and why they based them on Scripture. Argue with your Christian mentors from the past.

    Third, If you both wish to believe that infants that die unbaptized go to heaven, then also note that abortion would thereby ensure the salvation of more souls percentage-wise than any evangelistic tent rally ever did.

    Fourth, let's even assume for the sake of argument that we could baptize babies in the womb with holy water and a syringe and some prayers by a Calvinist minister before aborting them. (Even though the Calvinist minister might abhor abortion he might compromise enough to at least ensure the salvation of each fetus before it is aborted.) That would certainly ensure their salvation, even per Augustine.

    Lastly, if you can prove that Augustine, Calvin and Edwards misinterpreted the Bible concerning original sin and the damnation of infants, I suppose the best you can do is reach a proposal of indeterminacy as Steve has, but that is also to admit that God does not exactly make a family great after a miscarriage, since they don't know whether their child is suffering eternity.

    You can hope all you want, and as an agnostic I too hope for the best. But at least this instance of what happens to an unbaptized dead infant, leaves us both wondering, and allows you to see something of what it's like to live as an agnostic, with uncertainties.

    Not consider broadening those uncertainties a bit more, asking more questions as I have above.

    ReplyDelete
  3. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF
    “INFANT DAMNATION”

    According to Augustine an unbaptized infant was a “limb of Satan”:

    Infants, When Unbaptized, are in the Power of the Devil… The Christian faith unfalteringly declares that they who are cleansed in the laver of regeneration (i.e., the baptismal font) are redeemed from the power of the devil, and that those who have not yet been redeemed by such regeneration are still captive in the power of the devil, even if they be infant children of the redeemed … From the power of the devil … infants are delivered when they are baptized; and whosoever denies this, is convicted by the truth of the Church’s very sacraments, which no heretical novelty in the Church of Christ is permitted to destroy or change, so long as the Divine Head rules and helps the entire body which He owns--small as well as great. It is true, then, and in no way false, that the devil’s power is exorcised in infants, and that they renounce him by the hearts and mouths of those who bring them to baptism, being unable to do so by their own; in order that they may be delivered from the power of darkness, and be translated into the kingdom of their Lord.
    - Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Book 1, Chapter 22

    Some Catholic saints even experienced “spiritual visions” that depicted little children suffering in hell. Saint Fulgentius in the sixth century taught that “little children who have begun to live in their mother’s womb and have there died, or who, having just been born, have passed away from the world without the sacrament of holy baptism must be punished by the eternal torture of undying fire.”

    Later, the church settled on a more merciful destination for unbaptized infants, “Limbo,” which was kind of like “Hell Lite.” But recently the Catholic Church has even abolished “Limbo,” and stated that unbaptized infants who die go directly to heaven. (Ironically, that’s the “heretical novelty” that Saint Augustine expelled so much hot air arguing against!)

    Even as late as 1890, at least one approved Catholic work continued to depict young children suffering in hell, Rev. J. Furniss’s, Tracts for Spiritual Reading, designed for First Communions, Retreats, Missions, etc. (New York: Excelsior Catholic Publishing House, 1890). The Reverend wrote, “See the little child in this red hot oven. Hear the fire! It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor. You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell--despair, desperate and horrible.”

    JONATHAN EDWARDS - The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever… Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell? I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss. [“The Eternity of Hell Torments” (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738]

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jonathan Edwards: The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever… Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell? I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss. [“The Eternity of Hell Torments” (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738]

    [T]he extermination of the Canaanite children [by the Hebrews as commanded by God and described in the book of Deuteronomy] was not only an act of mercy and love to the world at large; it was an act of love and mercy to the children themselves.
    - R. A. Torrey [one of the contributors to The Fundamentals, a series of tracts published in the 1920’s that helped popularize "fundamentalist" Christianity. Torry argued in the above case that slaughtering the children was an act of infinite mercy because it ensured them eternal paradise.]

    A small Danish (Protestant) sect went around killing as many newly baptized infants as they could discover, thereby preserving them from sin, from the miseries of this life, and from hell, and sending them infallibly to heaven. In the light of their beliefs they were acting rationally, but they did not secure Voltaire’s approval: “These charitable persons omitted to consider that most fathers and mothers are sufficiently worldly to prefer having their sons and daughters with them than to see them slaughtered as a passport to Paradise.”
    - A. J. Ayer, Voltaire

    Some (Catholic) Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants then immediately dash their brains out; by this means they secured that those infants went to heaven.
    - Bertrand Russell, Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?

    ReplyDelete
  5. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SOULS OF FETUSES THAT DIE?

    THEOLOGICAL OPTION #1
    THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES GO TO HEAVEN
    This first option is the most optimistic, loving, and forgiving, but seems to turn abortions into “altar calls” with 100% assurance of eternal salvation for each and every aborted fetus.

    THEOLOGICAL OPTION #2
    THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES GO TO WHEREVER GOD ORDAINS THEM TO GO, EITHER HEAVEN OR HELL
    According to various Bible verses, God “ordains” all things, including the premature deaths (including executions) of fetuses, pregnant women, and children. In other words, each soul in this world “gets” what God has “ordained” for it, regardless if they are aborted in the womb, or reach old age.

    THEOLOGICAL OPTION #3
    THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES WHOSE BODIES ARE NOT BAPTIZED, GO TO HELL
    Theologians from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards considered it right for God to send to hell the souls of fetuses whose bodies were not baptized before they died. Their doctrine was called “infant damnation” and it was taught by Christian churches for centuries. So, all fetuses that are not baptized before they die go to hell.

    THEOLOGICAL OPTION #4
    BAPTIZE FETUSES IN THE WOMB
    If baptism spiritually cleanses the fetus’ “original sin,” ensuring it goes to heaven, then why take any risks of it not getting baptized, and instead baptize fetuses by inserting a syringe filled with water into the womb? This would be especially useful in cases where the life of a fetus and/or the mother was at risk. Indeed, the option of syringe baptism continued to be taught to Catholic seminarians right up till Vatican II in the 1960s.

    Attempting to counteract such Catholic excesses as he viewed them the Protestant Reformer, John Calvin, forbade mid-wives (or anyone else for that matter) from hastily baptizing sickly newborn infants, because Calvin believed in waiting a few days until a proper baptism ceremony in church could be conducted. According to Calvin, it was God’s providential choice, not human effort, that determined who would wind up in heaven or hell, and if the fetus or newborn didn’t survive long enough to have a proper baptismal ceremony, it was God’s will that it die prematurely and/or suffer in hell for eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. THEOLOGICAL OPTION #4
    BAPTIZE FETUSES IN THE WOMB
    If baptism spiritually cleanses the fetus’ “original sin,” ensuring it goes to heaven, then why take any risks of it not getting baptized, and instead baptize fetuses by inserting a syringe filled with water into the womb? This would be especially useful in cases where the life of a fetus and/or the mother was at risk. Indeed, the option of syringe baptism continued to be taught to Catholic seminarians right up till Vatican II in the 1960s.

    Attempting to counteract such Catholic excesses as he viewed them the Protestant Reformer, John Calvin, forbade mid-wives (or anyone else for that matter) from hastily baptizing sickly newborn infants, because Calvin believed in waiting a few days until a proper baptism ceremony in church could be conducted. According to Calvin, it was God’s providential choice, not human effort, that determined who would wind up in heaven or hell, and if the fetus or newborn didn’t survive long enough to have a proper baptismal ceremony, it was God’s will that it die prematurely and/or suffer in hell for eternity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SOULS OF FETUSES THAT DIE?

    THEOLOGICAL OPTION #1
    THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES GO TO HEAVEN
    This first option is the most optimistic, loving, and forgiving, but seems to turn abortions into “altar calls” with 100% assurance of eternal salvation for each and every aborted fetus.

    THEOLOGICAL OPTION #2
    THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES GO TO WHEREVER GOD ORDAINS THEM TO GO, EITHER HEAVEN OR HELL
    According to various Bible verses, God “ordains” all things, including the premature deaths (including executions) of fetuses, pregnant women, and children. In other words, each soul in this world “gets” what God has “ordained” for it, regardless if they are aborted in the womb, or reach old age.

    THEOLOGICAL OPTION #3
    THE SOULS OF DEAD FETUSES WHOSE BODIES ARE NOT BAPTIZED, GO TO HELL
    Theologians from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards considered it right for God to send to hell the souls of fetuses whose bodies were not baptized before they died. Their doctrine was called “infant damnation” and it was taught by Christian churches for centuries. So, all fetuses that are not baptized before they die go to hell.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve has replied to Ed here.

    Notice that Ed ignores my distinction between probability and certainty. He ignores what I said about how the earlier patristic sources are more significant than the later sources he cites. And he posts a lot of comments about infant baptism and Catholicism that are irrelevant to a credobaptist Evangelical like me. It doesn't seem that Ed is making much of an effort to interact with his opponents. Apparently, he's largely copying and pasting material he compiled in other contexts, without much concern for interacting with the beliefs of the people he's currently responding to.

    ReplyDelete