Archives For Infant Salvation

Posts related to Infant Salvation

I do not usually join online conversations when the topic is God, faith, religion, etc.

It is not because I am ashamed of my God, my faith, or my religion.

It is because God is bigger than my faith and my religion. And He is most certainly bigger than a tweet, a Facebook status update or a clever meme.

God is big. The God idea is big. The God conversation is big.

God is bigger than evolution.

God is bigger than abortion.

God is bigger than “the gay agenda” or even the “Hollywood agenda.”

God is bigger than my shit.

God is bigger than your shit.

I am sorry that so many Christians forget that we have our own shit or act like our shit does not stink.

When, in actuality, our shit probably stinks even more than your shit.

So here is what I will say.

Jesus did not die to prove me right and you wrong.

Jesus did not die to prove you right and me wrong.

Jesus did not die so that you would not @#$% around before you get married or after you get married.

Jesus did not die so that you would not get an abortion after you @#$% around.

Jesus did not die so that you would not @#$% around with another man.

Jesus did not die so that you would not @#$% around with another woman.

Jesus died because God loves you and wants you to be reconciled to Him.

Jesus did not die to disprove evolution.

Jesus did not die to prove creationism.

Jesus did not die to prove evolution.

Jesus did not dies to disprove creationism.

Jesus died because He loves you and wants you to be reconciled to Him.

Jesus did not die so that you would not dance, drink, smoke or chew (or even date the girls that do).

Jesus did not die so that you would not watch Rated R movies (except for the Passion of the Christ, of course).

Yes, these topics are important and yes, God has something to say about them.

But God is bigger than any one of these topics and He is bigger than all of these topics.

Here is what I know: God loves me and God loves you.

I do not know why He loves us so much, especially since you and I can be so unlovable.

But He does.

So much so that he would die for you.

And that one thing is worth sharing.

God loves me and wants me to love Him. I will let Him take care of all my other shit.

God loves you and wants you to love Him. I will let Him take care of all your other shit.

MLK

January 21, 2013 — Leave a comment

MLK

My Testimony

November 25, 2012 — Leave a comment

So, my testimony is this: I trust in a God that I do not always understand and I continue to love a savior that I do not always like.

But like the father from Mark, chapter 9, I cry out, “I do believe; help my unbelief.”

Bono and Duality

September 11, 2012 — Leave a comment

“Duality is the mark of a lot of great art and it’s one of the things missing from a lot of, for instance, Christian art, because there’s no tension.”

Amen Bono. Amen.

I feel like this today…

September 10, 2012 — Leave a comment
Rage

Today I feel like this….

In Defense of Infant Salvation - a study from the Book of Job - Part 2 – Rest in Peace?

As stated earlier this is a look at the biblical book of Job and how it relates to Infant Salvation.

That is all. There is a LOT in the book of Job. This is not a defense or decree of anything else.

Last week we looked at part of Job chapter one to see that Job, the man, has some understanding of sin and of substitutional atonement.

This week we will take a look at part of Job chapter three.

(Job 3:11-19 NET)
“Why did I not die at birth, and why did I not expire as I came out of the womb? Why did the knees welcome me, and why were there two breasts that I might nurse at them?

For now I would be lying down and would be quiet, I would be asleep and then at peace with kings and counselors of the earth who built for themselves places now desolate, or with princes who possessed gold, who filled their palaces with silver.

Or why was I not buried like a stillborn infant, like infants who have never seen the light? There the wicked cease from turmoil, and there the weary are at rest.”
(Job 3:11-17 NET)

Job wished he was dead.

Yes, it is a bit morbid.

It is a bit depressing.

And it is a bit emo.

It actually reminds me a bit of the Smiths’ How Soon is Now, ”And you go home, and you cry, and you want to die.”

So what happened between Job’s substitutional sacrifice for his kids (Job 1:4-5) and this desire for death?

By Satan’s hand — but with God’s permission – Job lost everything.

Job’s riches (cattle) were stolen or destroyed (Job 1:13-17).

Job’s children were killed at one of their parties (Job 1:18-19).

Job even lost his health (Job 2:1-7).

The only thing he didn’t lose was his wife, and her best advice was for Job to curse God so God would kill him. Nice. Thanks babe.

At this point in the story — after losing everything – Job makes this declaration of his desire for death.

Dying – whether in the womb or at birth – would have been better than living the life he led, which was filled with crazy amounts of loss.

“Why did I not die at birth, and why did I not expire as I came out of the womb? Why did the knees welcome me, and why were there two breasts that I might nurse at them?”

He goes on to lament, “Or why was I not buried like a stillborn infant, like infants who have never seen the light?”

Job’s lament is pretty clear.

Dying as an infant would have been better than his life, which was filled with crazy amounts of loss.

Even Job’s “visuals” are compelling.

Why did the knees welcome me? I wish I had died and did not see them.

Why were there two breasts to nurse? I wish I was dead and did not need to nurse.

But why?

Because he, Job, wanted rest, quiet and peace in the midst of his lose, trials, tribulations, or whatever we would call it.

“For now I would be lying down and would be quiet, I would be asleep and then at peace…”

Job longed for rest.

Job longed for quiet.

Job longed for peace.

Job’s loss was so large and his agony so great that he would have rather died as an infant. He would have rather died as an infant than lived the life he led or lost what he lost.

It does not seem that Job held to the “it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all” philosophy.

No, Job says it would have been better to have died as an infant – to have never actually lived life – than to go through what he went through.

Have you ever felt that much pain? Can you relate?

Job is nothing if not honest.

But this is about Infant Salvation.

Job – who we already knows believes in substitutional atonement – seems to believe that dying as an infant would have been better than living the life that he led.

So, is this the poetic – or even metaphoric – ramblings of a man experiencing extreme loss?

Or is this the “theological” understanding of a man who still trusts God?

I think both.

Next time we will look at what Job says about the after-death-life and if it applies to any of this.

Until next time.

In Defense of Infant Salvation – a study from the Book of Job - Introduction
In Defense of Infant Salvation – a study from the Book of Job - Part 1 – Substitutional Atonement

 

Image from http://www.flickr.com/photos/jokerphotography/2154887761/

In Defense of Infant Salvation - a study from the Book of Job - Part 1 – Substitutional Atonement

There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And that man was pure and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil. Seven sons and three daughters were born to him. His possessions included 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, and 500 female donkeys; in addition he had a very great household. Thus he was the greatest of all the people in the east.
Now his sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one in turn, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. When the days of their feasting were finished, Job would send for them and sanctify them; he would get up early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job thought, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s customary practice. (Job 1:1-5 NET)

Job was rich and had a lot of kids, seven boys and three girls.

It appears that his riches afforded his kids the ability to party, and apparently to party often as it was their “habit or ritual.”

Job’s ritual, however, was to offer a sacrifice to God on their behalf.

Job was concerned that while partying it up they would sin against God. This did not sit well with Job so after they did party he would offer a sacrifice to God on behalf of his kids.

Let me offer a few observations in light of infant salvation:

First, this is *not* an age or an age of accountability thing. Job’s children were old enough to know better. They were old enough to know what they did or did not do.

Job knew that sin is a big deal.

He knew that his children’s sin negatively affected their relationship with God.

Job knew that God required (demanded?) a payment for sin.

Because of this Job made a payment for his kid’s sin.

As I stated in the intro I firmly believe that the story Job is ”pre Law” and that the detailed sacrificial system was not yet in place. Regardless, Job knew that sin was a big deal and he made a payment for their sin.

Job understands substitutional sacrifice or substitutional atonement.

Job did not sin against God, his children did (or might have). His kids committed the offense. Job, however, is the one who made the payment.

This idea – someone else paying the price – is foundational to the historical gospel story.

We sin.

We are separated from God (the Father).

We are restored to God through Jesus’ (God, the Son) death and resurrection.

We don’t pay the price, just like Job’s children didn’t pay the price.

We benefit from someone else’s sacrifice, just like Job’s children did.

Job teaches us a lot about infant salvation. The first thing he teaches us is substitutional atonement.

More in the weeks ahead.

In Defense of Infant Salvation - a study from the Book of Job - Introduction

I love the book of Job. So much so, in fact, that I named my first-born son Job – Job Daniel Smith.

Job is commonly called the afflicted one, but we are also told (in the KJV) that he – Job – purposed to never lose his integrity.

And Job took up his discourse again: “As surely as God lives, who has denied me justice,the Almighty, who has made my life bitter – for while my spirit is still in me, and the breath from God is in my nostrils, my lips will not speak wickedness, and my tongue will whisper no deceit. I will never declare that you three are in the right; until I die, I will not set aside my integrity! I will maintain my righteousness and never let it go; my conscience will not reproach me
for as long as I live. (Job 27:1-6 NET)

He questioned God.

He accused God.

He fought God.

But he purposed to follow God.

Continue Reading…

As a parent who has lost a child I am very interested in how Love Wins relates to my questions about Infant Salvation and the fate of my son, Jude.

Therefore, this review of Rob Bell’s book Love Wins is rather specific and is limited to the topic of Infant Salvation.

A list of other more detailed reviews can be found at the bottom of m review of Love Wins and Infant Salvation – Preface.

Love Wins and Infant Salvation – Preface

Love Wins and Infant Salvation – Chapter 1 – What About the Flat Tire?

 

In chapter two Rob Bell talks about Hope, Heaven and Help, as well as flat tires.

What about hope?

While the Love Wins Preface does not speak directly to Infant Salvation, chapter one, What About the Flat Tire?, does.

For a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived the context of infant salvation is rather dark and lacks comfort or hope.

Chapter two starts with the now infamous line of questioning about Gandhi’s eternal fate. These question, which were asked in the book’s trailer, helped ignite the firestorm that spread across the blogosphere.

Really?

Gandhi’s in hell?

He is?

We have confirmation of this?

Somebody knows this?

Without a doubt?

And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know? (pages 1-2)

Along with these questions he goes on to ask dozens more.

Some silly. Some serious. All designed to generate an emotional response.

Like a caged animal, these questions quickly turn on us and attack the very heart of the Christian message; hope.

He writes:

Several years ago I heard a woman tell about the funeral of her daughter’s friend, a high-school student who was killed in a car accident. Her daughter was asked by a Christian if the young man who had died was a Christian. She said that he told people he was an atheist. This person then said to her, “So there’s no hope then.”

No hope?

Is that the Christian message?

“No hope?”

Is that what Jesus offers the world?

Is this the sacred calling of Christians – to announce that there’s no hope? (pages 3-4)

Hope is a funny thing.

I have written about it often (here, here, here, here, here, and here)  and I understand Rob Bell’s frustration.

While my frustration comes from empty or vague comments about hope, Rob Bell turns the tables like a New Jersey Housewife and implies that the traditional, historical, Orthodox Christian message is actually a message of no hope!

I think he knows better, but more on that in a moment.

What about heaven?

Immediately after assassinating hope he then goes all Emo on us and takes Infant Salvation to its (morbidly) logical conclusion.

He writes:

The death of this high-school student raises questions about what’s called the “age of accountability.” Some Christians believe that up to a certain age children aren’t held accountable for what they believe or who they believe in, so if they die during those years, they go to be with God. But then when they reach a certain age, they become accountable for their beliefs, and if they die, they go to be with God only if they have said or done or believed the “right” things. Among those who believe this, this age of accountability is generally considered to be sometime around age twelve.

This belief raises a number of issues, one of them being the risk each new life faces. If every new baby being born could grow up to not believe the right things and go to hell forever, then prematurely terminating a child’s life anytime from conception to twelve years of age would actually be the loving thing to do, guaranteeing that the child ends up in heaven, and not hell, forever.  Why run the risk? (pages 3-4)

I, too, have raised this very question.

I usually do it when a conversation turns into a confrontation.

When a conversation starts to get out of hand I bring up the same “logical” conclusion.

I know it is mean, but I don’t always bring it up and it is usually as a last resort to get someone to shut up or at least step back and acknowledge that the topic is not an easy one.

Why is it not an easy topic to discuss?

Because Infant Salvation is not directly discussed in the Bible.

It is indirectly discussed – and hinted at – but there is no one “chapter and verse” where it is defended or defined.

When people start acting like it is I usually bring up the same points that Rob Bell does in chapter one, about guaranteeing a child’s salvation.

Also, where Infant Salvation is at least indirectly addressed in the Bible, Age of Accountability is not. It is simply a logical assumption based on the indirect discussion.

And this is where Rob Bell’s writing style starts to get him in trouble.

Rob Bell likes to start with very general and high level comments, but end with specific conclusions and applications.

General (yet sometimes valid) questions will end with a specific (and usually misleading) response.

For example, “generally considered to be sometime around age twelve” (emphasis mine) is a general comment. He even uses the word “generally.” He concludes, however, with a very specific application stated as being absolution true; “Prematurely terminating a child’s life anytime from conception to twelve years of age would actually be the loving thing to do.”

With that he leaves the idea of Infant Salvation and begins to create a straw man of sorts in Age of Accountability.

He again asks questions but provides no answers.

This is disingenuous as the questions certainly have implied answers that are very negative – or contrary – to traditional orthodoxy.

He may not give answers, but the questions are worded in a way as to show the answer he wants to give, but does not.

But it’s ok that the idea of Infant Salvation and the Age of Accountability don’t make sense; neither does Jesus when He talks about salvation.

Rob Bell goes on to imply that Jesus can’t even explain how someone “gets saved.”

He quotes many verses that seem to contradict each other about how someone “gets saved.” He goes so far as to imply that Jesus doesn’t even know how to save anyone.

His concluding straw man question is “which Jesus do we believe in?” Which Jesus should we follow?

For example, Rob Bell quotes Renee Altson’s Stumbling Toward Faith:

I grew up in an abusive household. Much of my abuse was spiritual – and when I say spiritual, I don’t mean new age, esoteric, random mumblings from half-Wiccan, hippie parents… I mean that my father raped me while reciting the Lord’s Prayer. I mean that my father molested me while singing Christian hymns.

That Jesus? (page 7)

The question, as presented in the context of chapter one, is should we follow “that Jesus?”

The problem is that this quote is not even about Jesus.

It is about a horrible man.

A real !@#%@$$ of a man.

It is horrible. It is heinous. It is disgusting.

But it is not about Jesus.

The emotions are real and the implied answer is a resounding “NO! WE WILL NOT FOLLOW THAT JESUS!”

But it was her father who was a monster, not Jesus.

It was the father who committed the crime, not Jesus.

It was the father who sinned, not Jesus.

Rob Bell ends the chapter by implying we don’t know to get saved, that we don’t know what to believe, and that our current understanding of salvation and faith is obviously wrong.

It is ironic that he ends the chapter by saying, “But this isn’t just a book of questions. It’s a book of responses to these questions.” (page 19)

So far he has asked a lot of questions, but has provided almost no answers.

Maybe he will in chapter two, Here is the New There, the chapter about heaven.

What about help?

So what about the flat tire?

While dissecting our (mis)understanding of salvation he also puts evangelism on trial.

He writes:

If our salvation, our future, our destiny is dependent on others bringing the message to us, teaching us, showing us – what happens if they don’t do their part?

What if the missionary get a flat tire? (page 9)

Earlier I stated that I think he knows better. Here’s why.

It is one thing to ask questions (even misleading questions) about our understanding of salvation; it is another thing all together to question the purpose of the church and the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation.

As a pastor Rob Bell knows the work and purpose of the Church.

He knows our “great commission” (Matthew 28:16-20).

He even discusses it in the next chapter about heaven.

He also knows that the Holy Spirit – and not just missionaries with flat tires – has a role in our salvation (John 16:8-11, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30).

To imply that God has stepped away from His creation and left it all up to us is extremely arrogant. Even more arrogant than the person who thinks Gandhi, a man who publicly rejected Jesus, will be separated from God forever.

In conclusion.

I find it funny that so many people will tell you that there is nothing you can do to get saved and then say all you have to do is believe.

Or when people say there is nothing you can do to be saved so say this simple prayer.

It’s funny. Not slap you knee funny, but ha ha funny.

But in the ends it is simply our way of trying to verbalize – explain – something spiritual, mystical, and supernatural.

It’s as if Rob Bell does not understand that there are different types of speech.

We say that we saw a beautiful sun set, even though the sun did not set.

The earth turned.

The sun did not set. But it looks like it did so we call it a sun set.

Also, belief, whether religious or not, leads to action.

If I believe I should help someone then I will help them. If I believe that they need to learn a lesson and do something on their own, then I won’t help them. In this case my inaction becomes my action.

For Rob Bell to play loosey goosey with his words as he tries to explain God’s words is irresponsible. I know he wants to defend his beliefs (oh yea, and even his actions are based on his beliefs) so I think he should defend them.

If you want me to agree to flush 2000 years of tradition and Orthodoxy down the toilet, at least show me why I should.

So far he has not.

As a parent who has lost a child and has (sometimes) struggled with Infant Salvation I have yet to find hope, or even comfort, in Love Wins.

Maybe I will find it in chapter three, Here is the New There, the chapter about heaven.

Please subscribe to be notified when the next post is available.

Until next time.

Love Wins and Infant Salvation

I like Rob Bell. I really do.

I bought, read and enjoyed Velvet Elvis.

I bought, read and mostly enjoyed Sex God.

I got Drops Like Stars from the library, read most of it, but got tired if it quickly.

I skipped Jesus Wants to Save Christians. The name bugged me and I was not willing to stop reading what ever it was I was already reading.

I recently got Love Wins from the library and am reading it now.

There is no doubt the controversy is justified. There is also no doubt that the book is designed to create controversy and to get people talking.

And boy are people talking.

People far smarter than me (and some of them a bit ruder than me) have reviewed Love Wins. Some have been helpful, some have not. There are links at the bottom of this post if you are interested reading what others have said about Love Wins.

My review, however, will be rather specific. My review will be limited to Love Wins and Infant Salvation.

I plan to post one review per chapter, starting with the preface.

 

Love Wins and Infant Salvation, Preface

While the Preface to Love Wins starts with a bang in the context of hell (Who knew what you were taught was all wrong and way too mean?) and salvation (Who knew that none of us really knows how to be “saved” or even what “saved” really means?), there is no specific mention or illusion to Infant Salvation.

I would suggest, however, that the Preface does address the emotions and frustration I have felt while wrestling with a biblical understanding of Infant Salvation.

Rob Bell writes:

I’ve written this book because the kind of faith Jesus invites us into doesn’t skirt the big questions about topics like God and Jesus and salvation and judgment and heaven and hell, but takes us deep into the heart of them. (page ix)

Some communities don’t permit open, honest inquiry about the things that matter most. Lots of people have voiced a concern, expressed a doubt, or raised a question, only to be told by their family, church, friends, or tribe: We don’t discuss those things here. (page ix)

My hope is that this frees you. There is no question that Jesus cannot handle, no discussion too volatile, no issue too dangerous. (page x)

I wholeheartedly agree.

God is not afraid of your emotions.

He is not afraid of your questions.

He can even handle your anger and your doubt.

As I have written before (here and here) I have faced this very attitude; the attitude that Infant Salvation is not to be questioned, doubted or talked about.

I have tried to talk about my concerns, my doubts, my frustration and most of the times they are met with cliché responses or disapproval. Most of the time people (especially pastors) simply say, “Of course your son is in heaven!”

If only the answers to my questions were that simple.

As the controversy surrounding Love Wins shows, the idea that someone can “go to heaven” without knowing God is a hard pill to swallow.

What is Rob Bell saying that I am not saying?

I do believe in Infant Salvation. I believe my son is with God even now, even though he never believed.

Maybe I should go easy on Rob Bell and Love Wins.

It is my desire that this can be a place where you can grieve, question, vent, and grow. Instead of running from Him, run to Him – draw near to Him. He can take it.

Love Wins and Infant Salvation

While I do agree with what Rob Bells says about asking questions and addressing doubts, I do not agree with the way he argues.

For example, in trying to show that his view is not really new (or wrong) he writes:

And then, last of all, please understand that nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me. I haven’t come up with a radical new teaching that’s any kid of departure from what’s been said an untold number of times. That’s the beauty of the historic, orthodox Christian faith. It’s a deep, wide, diverse stream that’s been flowing for thousands of years, carrying a staggering variety of voices, perspectives, and experiences. (pages x-xi)

First, slavery and mass genocide (think Holocaust, Rwanda, etc.) have been taught, suggested and even celebrated. That doesn’t make them right or good.

The converse to his main point has also been taught, suggested and celebrated.

Both cannot be right.

Anyway, this starting argument style is sloppy logic at best, and at worst misleading.

Second, while it has been discussed in “orthodox” Christianity, he leaves out that it has also been rejected again, and again, and again as being contrary to what the Bible teaches.

 

A dark understanding of Infant Salvation is brought up in Chapter 1, What About the Flat Tire?, and will be the topic of our next post.

Please subscribe to be notified when the next post is available.

 

Until next time, here are a few other reviews, comments, complaints about Love Wins:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/omeoflittlefaith/2011/02/thoughts-rob-bell.html

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/books/reviews/25070-love-wins-by-rob-bell

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/26/rob-bell-universalist/

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03/16/we-have-seen-all-this-before-rob-bell-and-the-reemergence-of-liberal-theology/

http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/03/rob-bell-love-wins-review-ish.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/lovewins.html

http://www.redletterchristians.org/love-wins-rob-bell-and-the-new-calvinists/

http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/03/02/rob-bells-new-book-love-wins/