T4G Session 3 - John MacArthur

(Photo by Tim Challies)

John MacArthur led the third session of the 2008 Together for the Gospel conference. His message, The Sinner Neither Able Nor Willing: The Doctrine of Absolute Inability, was exactly what its title suggested — a defense of the doctrine of human depravity.

MacArthur began by stating flatly that people hate the doctrine of total depravity. In fact, he said, it may be the most despised and attacked doctrine of all, and as a result it is the most distinctively Christian doctrine. All other systems of belief hold that man has some good in them and can work their way towards salvation. In other words, we think we are basically good and can contribute in our own salvation if not outright save ourselves. We can earn salvation by doing good works, attempting to live good lives, etc. We can “bribe” God into letting us into heaven by our actions.

The problem with this is that we are self-deceived. Sinners like you and me are unwilling to see ourselves as we really are. We do not see the evil in our “good” and the evil in our “religion.” We don’t really believe what Romans 3 says: none of us are righteous, none of us seek God, all of us have gone astray and are deserving of nothing but hell. Instead, we have blinded ourselves to the truth by telling ourselves we are “basically good” and that we can do something to merit salvation.

Many evangelicals (maybe even your pastor and you yourself) hate this truth and as such seem to hate the God of Scripture. Instead of telling the biblical truth, they deceive their people by preaching and teaching a God that has been tamed, a God that says you are good and must only act like it. This is a false God that has been made up and must be rejected. In contrast, the doctrine of total depravity is the most God-honoring doctrine because it teaches all of the good, all of the work that is done to merit salvation, belongs to God alone. This is not some newfangled invention of current times or even the Reformation, it was believed and taught from the earliest days of the church.

MacArthur then took us on a short historical survey of the errors that have sought to combat this doctrine. There is Pelagius (whom St. Augustine opposed), who taught the heresy that we are created without original sin. This means we are created good and must simply stop sinning in order to get to heaven. No need for Christ when we can do it ourselves. There is also its child, semi-Pelagianism, which came into force after Augustine and has prevailed up to this day. Semi-Pelagianism affirms that human depravity is real but not total; that is, we are definitely born with original sin, but there is a “core of goodness” within us that has not been touched which can respond to God. Those who hold to forms of this heresy teach that God gives something called “prevenient grace” which allows that core to respond freely without the corruption of sin preventing a response.

As such, most evangelicals preach as if our job is simply to “introduce God and people,” and then get out of the way. One of the most common ways this is done (of which I am guilty) is the “Try Jesus” exhortation. This is a false view! The Bible is clear that people don’t want God. They will reject him every time. Exhortations that invite people to “meet God and give him a chance” are quite simply unbiblical and unfaithful to the true Gospel proclamation.

Instead, we must understand that God not only commands people to believe in him, but he also gives life that people might believe. The command to believe, by itself, does not save; God must give life to those he commands if they are to obey! This is in contrast to semi-Pelagianism which teaches that God merely opens the door and it is up to us to walk through it. God actively brings us through the door. He briefly outlined several Scriptures to underscore this point. I will here address three of them.

John 3:8 tells us clearly that salvation depends on the will of God, not man. Remember, the Holy Spirit is like the wind — he goes wherever he wants, whenever he wants, and is not constrained by human action. Salvation works in this way; that is, God saves whomever he wants, whenever he wants, regardless of human merit. I could not help but think of countless sermons I’ve heard throughout my life that stressed that even the most “Christian” person one could ever meet could end up in hell, while great and evil sinners like Hitler, Jeff Dahmer, and others could be sitting at the right hand of Christ at the heavenly feast. Unwittingly, those speakers clearly preached an aspect of the doctrine of total depravity — there is nothing in us that guarantees salvation nor anything that makes salvation more likely.

John 6:44 also clearly shows that salvation belongs to God alone and nothing man could do can affect his decision to save. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” To be saved, you must be pulled by God; you cannot come to God on your own. This is the only way great sinners could ever be saved.

Romans 8:7-8 gives us the reason why salvation must be from God; and also the foundational concept of the doctrine of total depravity. “The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Lost people have minds that are set on the flesh and as such are enemies with God. Because they are his enemies, they cannot please him, nor do they want to. Do you want to make your enemy happy? No, you want to make your enemy miserable! There is no reason, especially in light of Scripture, to believe a person could ever come to God on his own. All people are at enmity with God and want nothing to do with him. Instead, all people want to find their own way. As such, it is impossible for a lost person, a mind set on the flesh, to please God.

Lastly, MacArthur asked what this doctrine should do for us as believers. His answer is one I have grown to use quite often when talking about salvation: the doctrine of total depravity means that those who preach the Gospel should be the most humble! We should be, first of all, staggered that God reached down and overcame our enmity with him to save us. He could have rightly consigned us to hell and been done with us. Knowing this, we should humble ourselves before him in thanksgiving and praise. Next, this doctrine should remind us that we can’t change people’s hearts, nor can we solve their problems. Only God is powerful enough to do that! I was reminded of a conversation I had with a good friend about secular counseling models — it seems that all psychology is able to do is offer behavior modification; it does not get at the heart change necessary to solve the problem. When we have a God who can save a person in their sins and from their sins, we should humble ourselves and look to him for the necessary change. We can take no credit for successes in our teaching and preaching; we can only take credit for the failures. God alone brings success.

In the final analysis, the doctrine of total depravity requires us to understand that the condition of a lost sinner is so desperate that no amount of manipulation on our part can fix the situation. Each heart is the same as the next one, and as such each heart needs the same message. Therefore, we cannot change the message of the Gospel, because the Gospel is what God uses to change sinners.

In the panel session that followed, MacArthur elaborated on these last two points a bit further. He said that this doctrine gives him great relief in his preaching, counseling, and evangelism; simply because it helps him remember that a person’s salvation is not up to him. His preaching and teaching is powerless to save. If it were his responsibility to save people, he would be so burdened, overwhelmed, and depressed by this that he would leave the ministry! But if it is God who saves and not John MacArthur, he is free to simply proclaim the message that God has commanded him to give. God will take care of the results. This makes evangelism easier, because one does not have to worry about the result of evangelism as much of evangelicalism today worries. Instead, one can get the Gospel to as many people as one can, and if some believe, God is more glorified!

I found this message to be just as freeing to me as MacArthur claimed. I have in the past year had to deal with certain people who have tried to cause trouble for me as a minister, as well as people who have tried to cause discord in the community between my church and other Deaf ministries in town; in fact we are still in the process of unraveling the web that was created. I probably sinned quite a few times during this season as I fought to protect my character and integrity, including a brief time when I was ready to simply pull up the stakes and shake the dust off my feet. Also, we are dealing with a church that is stagnating in many ways (quite like the majority of Southern Baptist churches); my senior pastor and I have become frustrated and disgusted about many things, and we have spent a lot of time in serious prayer over the church that we love. But as MacArthur talked about feeling freed from being responsible for another person’s salvation, I felt a similar burden lift from my own shoulders.

Neither I nor my senior pastor are responsible for the salvation and sanctification of our people. We are responsible instead to faithfully proclaim and live out the message and shepherd the people in that message. The Holy Spirit will do the rest. I am not responsible to defeat those who have borne false witness against me nor those who have acted against my church. Instead I am responsible to live out the Gospel by correcting their errors in love and forgiving them as Christ has forgiven me. God will take care of their hearts, not I. I cannot change a person’s heart; only the God who would take on human flesh and die on a cross for that person’s sins can do that. And knowing that, I can freely proclaim God’s forgiveness and forgive others in turn. It is truly all about God, not all about me!

T4G Session 2 - Thabiti Anyabwile (Race & Deafness)

Some of you looked at the title and thought, “What? Race and Deafness?” Bear with me through this one and all will be revealed.

Thabiti Anyabwile delivered perhaps the most provocative, thought-provoking, challenging, and convicting message of the conference. Thabiti, pastor of First Baptist Church – Grand Cayman, began his message by joking that his name means “Sure, invite the black guy to talk about race.” I’m sure the irony was lost on no one, and many of the blogs out there that are not as friendly to Christian conservatism and Reformed beliefs have taken it upon themselves to hammer away at this point.

Thabiti was actually mentored by Mark Dever at Capitol Hill Baptist Church for several years before becoming pastor at FBC Grand Cayman and they consider each other to be great friends and brothers. It was made known during the panel session that followed that C. J. Mahaney also developed a deep and abiding friendship with Thabiti during his years at CHBC. For these reasons alone I would like to invite my readers to throw out this silly and quite frankly stupid prejudice, especially in light of the message Thabiti gave us.

Thabiti began with an assertion that at first left many of us slightly confused. We must, he said, throw out our concept of race. Race is not a “black/white” type of issue. Instead, we must have a biblical view of race if we are to address this issue correctly.

Race, he continued, is a biological term. It talks about our inherited genetics from the human family that passed these genetic traits down to us. In contrast, we have many ethnicities – many cultural divisions among humanity. We are familiar with many of these: black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, etc. However, the world’s view of race is to conflate biology with ethnicity. Thus we have many “races” that follow these ethnic lines.

The biblical view of race is that there is one race, descended from Noah, who in turn is descended from Adam. The biology of every human being is derived directly from Adam through Noah. Every “race” is descended from one man, and as such it is wrong, biblically, to think that there are “many races.” This would mean that there is another person out there, not descended from Adam, who created a certain “race.” As such skin color, the world’s criteria for “race,” cannot be the correct criteria in determining “race.” Instead, it is biblically correct to think of one race but many ethnicities as humanity spread throughout the earth in obedience to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, as well as a result of the Tower of Babel.

Thabiti then gave six reasons why our modern concept of “race” is wrong:

1. It causes abuse of people and Scripture
2. It makes racism possible
3. Cooperation and fellowship becomes impossible, because “race” causes separation.
4. It removes the authority of the Bible, since the world’s concept of “race” denies that we are one in Adam, as the Bible says.
5. It causes us to resist the Holy Spirit – instead of being united, we are divided by “race.”
6. It destroys the Gospel.

This last point is likely the most serious, though it is the result of the five that precede it. The world’s concept of “race” destroys the Gospel because it makes Jesus’ death contentious. It forces us to look at Jesus’ death as not for all people, but only for the Adamic race. Because of this, we will spend the rest of existence arguing about which “race” is truly “in Adam.” Is it the blacks? The whites? The Asians? The Native Americans?

The world’s concept of “race” further destroys the Gospel because it gives us no motivation for missions. We are already experiencing this today – we don’t do missions because other “races” are not like us. We want to do missions in a comfortable setting. We don’t want to go out of our comfort zone. That’s why we send missionaries – “You do it for me. I’m not comfortable doing it myself!”

Thabiti then called us to think and act biblically on the issue of race. We must see each other as “in Adam.” In John 17:20-21 Jesus prayed that we who believe would be one just as he and the Father are one, and by doing so the world would believe in him. Again, in 2 Corinthians 5:14-18 exhorts us to have a spiritual perspective on this issue, not a fleshly view, a worldly view. We are to regard no one according to the flesh, and in terms of race, not by the color of their skin. Christ has died for all – biblically all “in Adam.” If we allow the world’s view of race to dictate our view, rather than being led by a spiritual view, we have capitulated to the flesh.

As such, when we look at a person, we cannot look at their skin. Instead we must think, “He is created in the image of God, just like me. He is descended from Adam, he is ‘in Adam,’ just like me. He is a sinner, just like me. Therefore I can fellowship with him as a brother in Adam.” With believers, we are to take that one step further: “He is a sinner saved by grace, just like me. Therefore I can fellowship with him as a brother in Christ!”

This is why unity in Christ is far more important than “race.” Ethnicity – which is what the world is really talking about when it talks about “race” – is not permanent. Rather, our identity in Christ is permanent. Therefore, our churches must be a reflection of this reality until we get to heaven.

This was a jaw-dropping, deeply applicational message for me. I and many of the Deaf pastors there constantly looked at each other knowingly all throughout this message. We were furiously nodding our heads and “amen”-ing many of the things Thabiti imparted to us.

You see, our Deaf community is fractured along the same worldly “lines” as race. There are great divisions in Deaf culture that have caused much friction. Deaf people divide along lines of deafness (deaf/hard-of-hearing), language (ASL vs. Signed English or PSE), culture (culturally Deaf vs. mainstreamed/Oral), and psychological makeup (high function vs. low function), just to name a few. The ouster of Jane Fernandes from the presidency of Gallaudet University is a glaring example of this.

Yet we Deaf people, of every stripe, are all “in Adam.” We are all created in the image of God. We are all sinners under the wrath of a holy God in need of a Savior. As such, the Deaf community, in order to survive, must throw out its concept of “Deaf.” We cannot afford to accept the world’s concept of “Deaf.” We cannot afford to accept the division we have created through accepting the world’s concept of “race.” We must accept a biblical view of “Deaf” if our community is to thrive in the 21st century and beyond. And ultimately, Deaf believers must strive to bring these fellow sinners into Christ, just like us.

This message was the capstone of a major shift in my thinking on Deaf issues that has slowly been taking place. I had begun to move away from the rigid categories many Deaf had created for the different types of Deaf people, in order to emphasize that we are one Deaf community, not many. With this message, all the pieces came together with a resounding click and thud that can be both heard and felt. It is my prayer this click and thud reverberates through the hearing and Deaf world for ages to come.

T4G Session 1 - Ligon Duncan

Ligon Duncan kicked off the 2008 Together for the Gospel conference in such a way that one was left with no doubt this would be a hard-hitting conference. No punches were pulled by “Lig” in his message, Sound Doctrine – Essential to Faithful Pastoral Ministry. I was at once wowed and deeply encouraged by this message.

In recent days I have struggled in getting the importance of doctrine across to certain friends and fellow ministers. In fact, one went so far as to leave a comment here that Jesus cared about people first, not information. I was so shocked at this statement, especially given the content of the Gospels, that I was left unable to draft a response that was worthy to publish. Ligon Duncan gave the exact response that is needed to such false views of Jesus and doctrine in his message.

The reason Lig gave this presentation is because there seems to be a deep suspicion of theology today. The quote I gave above from one commenter of this blog is a great example. But especially in the emerging and Emergent movements, as well as some moderate and most liberal movements, disdain for doctrine has led to much false teaching. Therefore we need to recover the study and teaching of doctrine in our ministries and in our churches.

Lig used as his foundational text John 17:13-17:

But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Why this passage? Because, Lig explained, joy comes from the word of God. If we keep God’s word, Christ’s joy is in us and we will grow in sanctification. Indeed, we grow by learning everything that Jesus taught, as commanded by Matthew 28:19-20. Jesus didn’t say in this passage, “teach them some of what I taught you,” nor did he say, “teach them only what you think they need out of what I taught you.” No, Jesus said, “teach them to observe everything I have commanded you!” This means that doctrine, especially sound doctrine, is the most important thing we can study or teach. Indeed, the study of doctrine is not optional, but mandatory.

Without sound doctrine, false doctrine will creep into our teaching and our churches. False doctrine will seriously hurt not only ourselves, but our churches; therefore we cannot teach it (1 Timothy 1:3-7). We must strive to teach only correct doctrine; this means we must study.

Perhaps the greatest point of this message was this: If we teach right doctrine, and the Holy Spirit is in us, love pours out! The only true way to put people first is to put Jesus first, and unless we study him and his Word, we will never have a right understanding of him nor a right understanding of how to relate to people. The book of 1 John gives the clearest example and exhortation of this point.

As such, if your doctrine is bad, your actions will be bad, too (1 Tim. 6:3-5). False doctrine, according to this passage, leads to ungodliness. Egotistical attitudes, airheadedness, love of controversy and useless quarrels, envy, dissension, slander, gossip, grudges, and constant strife are marks of those who have evil minds and do not have the truth. Further, this passage teaches that such people see godliness as a means of profit. We see this all the time in televangelists such as Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, and others — their false godliness and false doctrine is a smokescreen to swindle money from gullible believers who either won’t study doctrine or have been taught not to. Lig used Hitler as an ultimate human example of what bad theology can do.

By contrast, knowledge of God’s word leads to godliness (Titus 1:1). For this reason theology must be celebrated and preached in our churches!

Next, Lig sought to answer the question, “Why is theology important?” After briefly explaining the difference betweeen systematic theology and biblical theology, he used these to show that we can’t avoid doctrine. After all, the Bible is full of doctrine! Jesus did systematic theology after his resurrection on the road to Emmaus with two of the disciples. He frequently corrected his opponents’ theology. Even when exhorting people to follow him, he made theologically loaded statements. Paul and early believers taught it from the Old Testament. If Jesus and the disciples did theology, why do we say it is unimportant? This is why such platitudes as “people are more important than information” ring resoundingly hollow and are false.

Finally, Lig sought to answer the question, “What is theology good for?” In a word, everything! Theology affects how we live, how we think, how we act. It affects how we worship, how we counsel people, how we preach, how we teach. Theology affects every aspect of life! And, when rightly understood and taught, theology brings joy!

What an answer to the unfounded, unbiblical assertion that Jesus put people above information! Doctrine does not make people less important. Rather, as we develop a deeper and more correct understanding of God, we are better able to serve and love people. And as we serve and love our people through sound doctrine, we have the joy of Christ; and they grow to love the Lord and have the joy of Christ in them also.

I have a story that took place directly before and after the conference that illustrates this clearly. Due to time and space, I will share it when I get home from work in the morning. It deserves its own post since the incident is a direct testimony to the power of the Gospel in people’s lives. Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

Marriage as a Picture of God’s Grace

Welcome to the 500th post here at The Silent Holocron! I promised to post about how marriage mirrors God’s grace in salvation. This post is a reflection on my own marriage, as well as an application of Ephesians 5:22-33. Let’s take a look at this passage right quick:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

I have said this passage is the bedrock on which marriage should be established. It very neatly governs all aspects of marriage. What I have learned through meditation on this passage is that one of the reasons it is the bedrock or marriage is because it is a picture of our salvation. How? Well, let’s look at how marriage occurs.

Most marriages are the result of a courtship of some sort. In olden days, the man was expected to court the woman he desired and win her heart, whether the marriage was arranged or not. As arranged marriages began to give way, more and more men would choose the woman they wanted and have their families then arrange the marriage. But men were expected to win the affections of the young woman they were to wed. Today, we do not have arranged marriages. We still, however, have some form of courtship that takes place. And it usually begins with the man asking the woman out on a date. Yes, I know this is a generalization — these days it is not unusual for a woman to initiate the relationship. But you see, what happens is that the man chooses the woman he desires to be in relationship with. She does not choose him.

Once the man has set his heart upon the woman, he begins a long process of winning her heart. He seeks to change her inclinations towards him from coolness to love. Her heart must be softened until it is not only favorable to him, but pliant and joined to him. Only then can he ask the woman to marry him — when there is no doubt in both their minds that they are meant for each other.

This is a sad commentary on modern marriage in many ways. Many enter into marriage with less than devoted hearts. Doubt still exists as to whether the spouses are meant to be together. It is easy to blame the man, and it should be the man’s responsibility. He has not worked to make his woman’s heart soft towards him so that she will put him first among the men in her life. As a result, the woman will continually sin against her man, because she has not developed a heart that respects and loves him.

But the picture remains. The man chooses his woman. She is not forced to submit; rather she is free to accept or reject his choice of her. But the choice is not hers to make; it is the man’s! As such, by the time she is brought to the point where she must choose, her heart has already been changed. She has no other option but to say yes to her man, or she will be going against her heart, which has been radically changed by his love for her. If the man has done his job, he has left the woman he loves no other avenue but to submit to him!

Further, if a man is to continue to be the focal point of his woman’s love after they are married, he will do everything needed to be worthy of that love. He will take care of her, he will serve her, he give up his wants and needs — even his life — for her. If the woman has given herself to him, she will have no other avenue but to love and respect him. Anything less would cheapen what he has done for her.

But how does this idea of “marriage” teach us how God saves us?

New Blog Feature: “Beliefbusters”

Most of my readers likely have seen the fantastic Discovery Channel show Mythbusters. The premise of the show is the Mythbusters team takes on popular beliefs, urban legends, and myths and attempts to show whether or not the myths are true. This has made for one of the most informative and fun-filled television shows around. For several months I have been toying with the idea of doing a similar feature here at The Silent Holocron that I will call Beliefbusters.

Beliefbusters was inspired in part by learning, for the first time, that a belief I had held unquestionably was nowhere to be found in Scripture. This experience led to a critical examination of many of the things I had “grown up” (in 16 years as a Christian) believing, and finding the vast majority of them to be without Biblical warrant. Purging many of these popular beliefs, traditions, and outright “Christian myths” left me with only Scripture and my seminary education to fall back on. You see, for most of my seven years at SBTS I had simply cruised in an “absorb the knowledge” mode, rather than applying all I had learned. Then about one or two years into being an associate pastor at my church I began to see the links between what I believed and what I practiced. Slowly I began to learn to apply the training in hermeneutics and interpretation I had received. I began to merge together the information I had learned from my classes with the Christianity I had carried into seminary. The results have in some cases been jaw-dropping for me. All of the results have resulted in a much greater appreciation for what it means to “stick to Scripture.” And I hope every result has been glorifying to God.

This feature is not an “if-you-don’t-believe-this-you’re-going-to-hell” type of series. Nor is it intended to be argumentative and contrarian. If something that I write about in this feature offends you, I encourage you to let me know privately at the e-mail address referenced in my About page. If you’d like to dialogue on something I’ve written, or simply think I’m wrong, then I greatly encourage you to leave a comment so we can continue the discussion and let “iron sharpen iron” (Proverbs 27:17). If you attempt to use what I’ve written to attack me personally, you will quite simply be ignored. This is a place for brothers and sisters to come together to improve each other in the faith, not to tear down the body!

I would like to encourage my readers to let me know of “Christian myths” they would like to see examined in this feature. Any and all submissions will be considered. Again, you may send your submissions to the email address on the “About” page.

Now, tomorrow we will take a look at the first belief in this feature: Lucifer is Satan.

God’s Grace, UPS Style

You might remember that I moved out to the operation at UPS a little over a month ago, right after Grace was born. Well, last night I had a situation pop up which required me to act like a full-fledged boss-man.

I have an employee who had been disciplined for attendance problems prior to my arrival in the area. This employee had an occurrence this past Monday, in violation of the terms of discipline. My supervisor said that I could either suspend or terminate the employee based on the employee’s past history. Since the grunts at UPS are union employees, I would need to confer with the union steward before taking any action, and my sup told me he would stand behind whatever decision I made.

Well, this is the employee’s first occurrence under me (I have no history with the employee), so I decided to be gracious and overlook this one occurrence, preferring instead to give a “verbal” warning. The next occurrence would result in a suspension and further occurrences would result in termination. The steward said it was more than fair. The employee accepted this discipline and my supervisor also accepted the terms I laid out for them.

Later, while driving home, I reflected on what I had done. It was the first major disciplinary action I have had to take as an operations supervisor. I was praying for the employee when it hit me: what I did that night is exactly what God does to us.

You see, God has passed over our past sins, as per Romans 3:25. Why did God do that? The Romans passage says it was to show that God is both just and the justifier. Why “just?” Because God must judge the unrighteous. That’s right — we ought to have been judged immediately upon committing our very first sin. Even further, we ought to have been judged at birth, since the Bible teaches we are born sinners, condemned to hell for eternity. But God, who is sovereign, has elected not to do that; insted he passes over these sins. Why?

Romans continues by saying he does this that he might be “the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Did you get that? God passes over sins in order to save sinners. Could God ever show his mercy if he immediately judged sinners? No! To show his mercy in Christ, he must willingly overlook sins committed in view of a coming day of salvation. He has given us a “written” warning in the form of his Word, and “verbal” warnings through the words of Gospel preachers.

Interestingly, this makes God’s wrath much more just and holy and glorious. How? Because no one can say God did not offer mercy. “You can’t send me to hell! You never gave me a chance!” “Yes I did! I sent my only Son to take away the sins of the world! I commanded you, through my written Word and the words of my preachers, to believe in him! You, dead in your sins, would not! Depart from me, you cursed one, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels!”

You see, I had offered mercy to my employee by overlooking the occurrence, and shown the way of “salvation” in a sense and the consequences of failure, “commanding” this employee to comply. I had shown myself to be “just” in my judgment of the employee, and shown that I could be this employee’s “justifier” through obedience to my wish for them.

I was chilled to the bone, and not a little choked up, when I realized what God had shown me last night. Chilled, because it hit me just how merciful God has been to me, of all people, in saving me. God didn’t have to save me. He didn’t have to overlook my sins. He didn’t have to give life to my dead heart that I might obey his command to believe in Christ. By all rights, I should be destined for eternal judgment.

Choked up, because he showed me how much he has made me like him, and how much like him I have failed to be. When have I been merciful, as he is merciful? When have I judged as he judges? When have I justified others, as he has justified us? Last night I got a taste of what it is to judge, justify, and show mercy as he does. Oh, that he might give me more ability to be like him in this!

On top of that, when I got home, the verse of the day in the sidebar was for Proverbs 19:11. Look it up and prepare to be awed at God’s providence.

I’m convinced this job is going to make me a better believer, husband, father, and pastor just on the basis of events like this. And right on the heels of reading The Mystery of Providence. Praise the Lord, O my soul!

Infant Salvation: Final

We have, at long last, reached the end of our year-long journey. When this series originally began in January, I sought to answer the question, “Do babies who die in infancy go to heaven?” Searching Scripture and some of the resources that have been written, I think we have arrived at some conclusions.

First, it is clear from Scripture that all infants are born sinners and thus under the just condemnation of God. This means that, as sinners, the only hope for the sinner is the finished work of Christ. Yet, to our knowledge, infants are unable to place their hope in Christ.

Second, it is clear that there is no such thing as an “age of accountability” before which all infants and children are automatically saved. What Scripture does make clear is that there is a period in our lives, beginning at birth and lasting until some indefinite point in our childhood, where we cannot consciously distinguish between right and wrong. Scripture says nothing about salvation for those who die during this period.

Third, it is also clear that infants are not regenerated. If infants were regenerated, why do they not retain characteristics of a saved individual as they become conscious persons? I did allow that we must be willing to say that it is entirely possible for God to regenerate an infant or small child unto salvation. An omnipotent God can most certainly save an infant or small child if He so chooses. Indeed, we must fervently hope and pray that such is the case. But since Scripture is glaringly silent, we must not make inferences into this issue, nor can we state as fact that God does what this doctrine teaches.

Fourth, it is clear that Christ does not issue a special call to children. Such a doctrine has twisted Scripture to make it say something it does not. Instead, Christ calls upon us not to prevent children from coming to him, and that we ourselves must come to him in a similar manner as a child would.

What, then, can we believe?

So, up to this point, we have no clear teaching from Scripture on the issue of infant salvation. Indeed, Scripture is silent! But, tucked away in a corner of the Old Testament, we are given this astounding passage:

22He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12:22-23)

It is my contention, especially given the concession I make in point 3 above, that this is the only Scriptural position a believer may take as to the question of whether or not babies go to heaven when they die.

You see, David has made a very clear statement about the child between him and Bathsheba that the Lord took from them in punishment for their sin. The child is in a place where David can, at some point in the future, be reunited with him. This is an astounding declaration! But where, exactly, does David expect to meet his son?

I believe the case can be made, from even a cursory examination of the Psalms, that David believed those who were righteous and whom strived for righteousness would live in the presence of God forever. The Psalms are awash with this belief stated in the first person, which indicates David believed he would spend eternity in the presence of Jehovah. Not only that, the Psalms make clear that David relied totally on God to make him a righteous person! By all accounts, David expected to spend eternity with his Lord. That was his great hope.

If this is true, then it can only be the case that David believed his dead infant son was with the Lord. Where else would David meet him? In hell? No, David seems to have bet the farm that those who are righteous will be with the Lord forever, and had an expectation of doing so himself; which means that his son could be nowhere other than in the presence of God.

How does this happen? Scripture is glaringly silent about the hows and the whys. David simply says that is how it will be. He will march into the presence of the Lord and be reunited with his son. There are no explanations as to how the child is counted righteous. But I do think there are hints at how God brings dead infants into his presence.

Let us look at 1 Timothy 1:13-16:

13though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, 14and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 15The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. 16But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

And in a related verse, Acts 17:30:

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

Paul makes it pretty clear that God willingly overlooked the sins he committed ignorantly in his unbelief because it was God’s intention to save Paul. This passage also suggests that God does this only for those whom he intends to save. What does this tell us? It tells us that if infants who die are saved, it is only because God has chosen to overlook the taint of original sin in them. Furthermore, it tells us that if this is true, God therefore intends to save infants who die.

But we have a problem, brought up earlier in this series: infants, as far as we can determine, are unable to repent and believe. Both the 1 Timothy and Acts 17 passages are contingent on repentance and faith in Christ. How can we resolve this problem? The only way we can do so is to rest the salvation of infants solely on the mercy of God.

And it is this mercy that David seems to presume in the case of his dead son. Though God took his son as punishment for David’s sin, David is confident that God was merciful by not allowing his son to suffer eternally. It was a fervent hope that David held confidently, as confidently as he held the greatness of God. Therefore, if we are to believe that infants who die are in heaven, it must be only because we hold a similar confidence in the mercy of God towards these children.

No, I have no idea how. Scripture does not explain it. There is no clear-cut theology expressed in Scripture on which we can hang our hat. But there we have it. “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

What a God-glorifying position to take, to throw oneself totally on the mercy of God alone. No hermeneutical gymnastics, no logical tricks, just a simple faith and trust in the mercy of the Almighty. What should this belief do for us?

First, it should make us who remain here alive on earth utterly aware that we are sinners. Romans 3 makes it very clear that none of you are righteous and you are all under condemnation. Your only hope is that same mercy you trust God has lavished on a dead infant.

Second, it should cause us to realize that if we do not possess that mercy, we will never be reunited with our dead children. This is a shocking and sad fact. Many are those who believed they would see their dead children again, only to find they’d failed to obtain the mercy of God.

Third, it should point us to the source of that mercy, Jesus. God gives mercy for one reason only: to bring a sinner to repentance and faith in Christ. Christ came to earth to be born, lived a sinless life, and died on the cross to secure this mercy for all who believe. God fully intends to save anyone who experiences this mercy.

Fourth, it should make us aware that the right response to God’s mercy is to repent. You don’t deserve this mercy. Your sins are what put Christ on the cross. For this horrible offense, you should be cast into the deepest reaches of hell. But God decided otherwise. He decided that it would be the narrow gate to heaven for all who believe. And the only right response is to throw yourselves at his feet renouncing your sins.

Fifth, it should cause us to place our faith and trust in Christ alone. Since you have thrown yourself on the mercy of God, the right consequence is obedience to his command, and God has commanded you to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. It is the only action you could take if you have truly submitted totally to the mercy of God. Any other action would result in the despair of hell continuing to be your only destination.

Won’t you take a cue from David? Won’t you believe today that only the righteous will live in the presence of God forever? Won’t you repent of your sins and believe in Christ as the only righteousness that could bring you into God’s presence? God is calling all of you who read this to repent and place your trust totally in his son, Jesus. Believe in him today!

Infant Salvation: The Call of Christ to Children

Welcome back! It’s been a long time since we’ve discussed this subject, so let me give you the rundown on what we’ve covered thus far:

Original Sin
Beginning Assumptions
The Age of Accountability
Infant Regeneration Part 1 Part 2

Now today we will examine what is, I think, the last major position held by advocates of infant salvation; namely the call of Christ to children.

What is the Call of Christ to Children?

This call is based on two Scriptures — Matthew 19:13-15 primarily, and Matthew 18:1-6, 10 secondarily. Let’s start with Matt. 19.

“Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.’ And he laid his hands on them and went away.”

Parallel passages to this are Mark 10:13-15 and Luke 18:15-17. Advocates of infant salvation claim this passage (especially the Luke parallel) is a clear indicator that children who die, specifically children who die before reaching an age of moral responsibility, will be taken to heaven by Christ. The kingdom of heaven is theirs, and we should do nothing or say nothing contrary to that. Jesus clearly calls children to himself, therefore all children who die in infancy are saved.

Let’s examine this claim carefully. There are some big leaps in logic and hermeneutics being made here.

This interpretation very obviously takes the passage out of its context. What is happening in this brief aside in the Gospels is that people were bringing their children to be blessed by Jesus. Quite possibly this was another instance where people sought out Jesus for blessings, healings, and the like. Only this time, it was children specifically that were brought to him. The disciples were upset at this; they were rebuking the people for bringing children! Why would this be? It would seem that children were viewed as a distraction. Indeed, Jesus had “important” things to be doing, and he “didn’t need” children running around underfoot! Instead, Jesus rebukes the disciples, saying that it is children for whom he has come to preach the Gospel. It is children who will be given heaven. Therefore if one brings a child to Jesus, we should never stand in that child’s way, but willingly usher the child to the Savior.

Note that the passage does not say such children are saved. It seems to be saying something else entirely; namely that children who are coming to faith in Christ should not be blocked from accepting Christ. The parallel passages make this point a bit more forceful and the misinterpretation more clear, stating that whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it. First of all, childlike faith should not be discouraged, but encouraged. Second, we must all accept Christ in this manner. The second point makes it difficult for this passage to refer to infant salvation. Why? Because this type of faith is not automatic.

Not all children automatically trust “strangers.” And God is a “stranger” to all unbelievers. A child’s trust, beyond their parents (and sometimes even on the part of the parents), must be won. Have you ever noticed how some babies become upset when a stranger holds them? They don’t know who this person is. He/she is holding them the “wrong” way. His/her face is scary. And so on and so on. God is like that to an unbeliever. He holds us in ways we don’t like. He is scary to us. We get upset and push him away! It is only through constant exposure to the “stranger” that an infant becomes comfortable and accepting of him/her. That is how babies and children trust their parents almost completely — they are constantly exposed to them! And isn’t that what God’s Holy Spirit does when doing his convicting work on an unbeliever? Constantly expose him/her to the truth until the believer has no choice but to repent and seek Christ’s atonement? Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

So it’s clear that this passage does not teach that babies who die go to heaven, but rather that children who come to Jesus must never be turned away, because they will receive salvation. This passage has more to do with children’s ministry than anything else. Christ is not saying all children who die go to heaven. He is, instead, saying that children who come to him for salvation will receive it, and we adults must be like them.

Let’s look at a passage used to support the one we have just examined, Matthew 18:1-6, 10:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.”

Wow. What a powerful verse. I absolutely agree this passage fully supports the Matt. 19 episode. It would be much better for someone turning away a child who wants to receive Jesus as Savior to be utterly destroyed. But does this passage teach infant salvation? Not one bit.

Our prior discussion should make most of that clear. This passage also discusses children coming to faith in Christ. Advocates of infant salvation have also taken it out of context. Again, Christ is teaching that children who come to him for salvation will receive it, and for us adults to be saved, we must be like them. To be saved, we must have the deep, implicit, unwavering trust in the Lord that a child would have in a parent or other trusted person. That kind of trust only comes from constant exposure to God.

Now, do babies and pre-natal children have that kind of exposure? Unless we’re going to take a very generous reading of Jeremiah 1:5 (”Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”), no they do not. Without knowing what happens mentally or spiritually in the womb and in early life, we have absolutely no way of knowing if a child is actively exposed to the work of the Holy Spirit. Why, then, do I say no? Because quite simply Scripture teaches that no one can resist God (2 Chronicles 20:6; Job 9:12, 23:13; Daniel 4:35; Isaiah 14:27; Romans 9:18-20).

If it is true that children who die before reaching a point of moral responsibility go to heaven, this potentially means that all children must be actively experiencing the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit up to that point! This is absurd and cannot be sustained. But if we say, “no, only those whom God has allowed to pass on experience this work,” aren’t we only begging the question? Why would God, if this is true, allow some children to reach moral responsibility — and thus be certainly condemned to hell — and at the same time hold back some from such cruelty? We’re moving right back into one of our unbiblical positions, where we would have to affirm a universalist principle by stating that it would be better for all children to die before reaching moral responsibility so they would go to heaven! Since no one can resist God, shouldn’t all these kids be killed off before they have the conscious moral ability to resist God? Furthermore, why would God allow his salvation of those who are not morally aware to fail once they reach this awareness?

This is an untenable position. The convicting work of the Holy Spirit only comes upon those whom God has intended to save and none other. None can resist this work. The only clear choice when under the regenerating influence of the Spirit is faith in Christ. And since we have no idea from Scripture if this work extends to those infants predestined to die, we cannot say with certainty that they go to heaven.

To conclude, I think we can say that there is no clear reason to believe that Christ’s call to children teaches the salvation of infants. To believe such is to take this call out of its context. We are still left with no clear teaching from Scripture about the destiny of infants who die. Scripture has, up to this point, been glaringly silent.

Next time, we will look at a final position, one which I believe gives us the best position to take in this issue, from 2 Samuel 12:22-23, where David speaks of losing his first child with Bathsheba in punishment for his sin:

22He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 2

I said that in this installment we’d take a more direct look at the scriptures in question for this concept. Here’s a brief recap:

Luke 1:15: “For he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Here we see that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time he was but a mass of rapidly dividing cells and growing tissue in his mother Elizabeth’s womb. Wayne Grudem quips that “we might say that John the Baptist was ‘born again’ before he was born! (Systematic Theology, 500)”

Another instance is found in the Psalms, where David says of himself (and prophetically, of Jesus): “Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. (Psalm 22:9-10)” Note the similarities between David and John the Baptist.

Now, let us critique the interpretation of these verses. I think that we can clearly understand that infant regeneration does not have to be inferred from the passages quoted. Here is why.

With Luke 1:15, we can clearly see that in no way, shape, or form do we read that John the Baptist was “saved” from his mother’s womb. In fact, if we read our Gospels, we see that John the Baptist had his doubts about whether Jesus was the Messiah! It is debatable as to whether John knew his cousin Jesus was the Lord until just before His baptism. But as Scripture is silent on both matters (John’s prenatal salvation and a priori knowledge of Jesus’ Messiahship), these are issues we do not have to infer from the text.

To be “filled with the Spirit” appears to be something very Old Testament-like, and very, very likely it is this understanding of being Spirit-filled that Luke is referring to. Remember, the Holy Spirit was not given to believers in the manner we understand as salvific until Pentecost. This explanation is the simpler - and much more Biblical - of the two possibilities. Therefore we cannot say that John the Baptist was “saved from his mother’s womb.”

In the same manner, we cannot say that Psalm 22 states David was “saved” from his mother’s womb. We must understand that until the modern day, Israelites (or Hebrews, or in Jesus’ day until now, Jews) were raised from birth to worship Jehovah only. Think about this. A babe was circumcised on the 8th day and was also presented to the priest in the Temple. Worship of the one true God began the moment a child was born, not when they understood that it was right to worship. It is more likely that David is saying that he has been raised from birth to regard God as the only god worthy of worship.

Incidentally, Psalm 22 makes a stronger case for infant regeneration, since verse 9 says that God made David trust Him. But since it is not clear that trust is the regenerative trust of saving faith, we do not have to infer infant regeneration in this passage. Perhaps a better inference is to say that David learned what saving faith was like by trusting that he would be fed when suckled by his mother. Saving faith is utter dependency on the Lord, and a baby is utterly dependent on its mother for nourishment. Coupled with the understanding we have in the above paragraph, it is quite likely that David is saying he was raised from birth to be utterly dependent on the only God worthy of his worship.

We must, however, be willing to say that it is entirely possible for God to regenerate an infant or small child unto salvation. An omnipotent God can most certainly save an infant or small child if He so chooses. Indeed, we must fervently hope and pray that such is the case. But since Scripture is glaringly silent, we must not make inferences into this issue, nor can we state as fact that God does what this doctrine teaches.

So, I think that in conclusion we cannot accept the doctrine of infant regeneration. It is contrary to Scripture — it unwarrantedly bypasses the Scriptural means of salvation, it potentially (I won’t say ultimately) leads to a modification of post-mortem salvation (which is an un-Scriptural position), and it potentially takes the power of salvation out of God’s hands and puts it squarely in the infant’s. And we cannot accept a position that leaves us no hope that dead infants are with the Lord.

In the next post, we will look at a final position held by those who advocate infant salvation: the call of Christ to children.

Infant Salvation: Infant Regeneration, Part 1

This time we will look at the concept of infant regeneration.

Infant regeneration must be distinguished from our heretical position (see the Beginning Assumptions post) on baptismal regeneration. While baptismal regeneration is simply the doctrine that “baptism saves you,” and by extension stating baptized infants are saved, infant regeneration does not use the crutch of baptism to support it.

Infant regeneration, simply stated, is the position that children who die before this age, especially infants, are saved by God. How is this so? They are saved on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work and regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit within them. Remember, “unless one is born again, one cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). As such, infants and “innocent” children must be regenerated (born again) prior to their death.

Scriptural evidence for infant regeneration is found primarily in the story of John the Baptist.

Luke 1:15: “For he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Here we see that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the time he was but a mass of rapidly dividing cells and growing tissue in his mother Elizabeth’s womb. Wayne Grudem quips that “we might say that John the Baptist was ‘born again’ before he was born! (Systematic Theology, 500)”

Another instance is found in the Psalms, where David says of himself (and prophetically, of Jesus): “Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God. (Psalm 22:9-10)” Note the similarities between David and John the Baptist.

So advocates of this position say these Scriptures seem to suggest that God is able to save infants in an unusual way, a way that is distinctively separated from hearing the Gospel, repenting of sin, and trusting in Christ. It seems God is able to regenerate people early in life, in some cases even prior to birth.

Why would God do this? To quote Grudem again on the same page as above: “it certainly is possible that God would also do this where He knows the infant will die before hearing the Gospel.”

Incidentally, these verses have also been used to justify infant baptism and the baptism of small children. I also find it interesting that there are strong echoes of the Reformed ordo salutis (order of salvation) present here, namely, that one must be regenerated before one can willingly trust in Christ.

Deconstructing The Position
Now, let us remember the principle I introduced you to in the previous post; namely that we do not necessarily have to infer an understanding of Scripture where Scripture does not support that understanding. We are attempting here to allow Scripture to speak for itself, not trying to read our own beliefs, wants, and desires into the text.

The main problem with this perspective is that it directly bypasses the means of salvation. What do I mean?

In Romans chapter 10 we find the following passage:

13For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

So we see here that the only way for a person to be saved is through a direct response of faith that comes from hearing the Gospel preached. One must hear the Gospel and respond to it in order to be saved. That is the means by which God saves people. According to this passage, a baby must first have the Gospel preached to it, the baby must then hear (and by extension understand) the Gospel, and then the baby must respond in faith to the preaching of the Gospel.

For advocates of this position, this is not a problem. For those of us who have committed ourselves to “stick to Scripture,” this is a huge problem. A deeply important part of Scripture has been summarily crossed out of the Bible where infants are concerned! I do not want to accuse my brothers and sisters who hold this position of willfully ignoring the Bible. That will not help matters very much. But we cannot ignore that the means of salvation, according to the Bible, is through the preaching of the Gospel, and that this means has been ignored.

Immediately, however, we are faced with a problem. If Romans 10 is true, then how can a baby ever be saved?

Scripture is intensely silent on this matter. We are given hints at a solution by one of the verses used to support this perspective. In Psalm 22:9-10, David says that God “made him (David) trust God at his mother’s breasts,” that “God has been David’s God from the womb.” Advocates of infant regeneration will no doubt want to say, when faced with Romans 10, that God preached the Gospel to an unborn David, and caused David to believe in the womb.

If so, advocates of this position have fallen into a modification of another heretical position: post-mortem salvation. Instead of saying infants who die are given an opportunity to accept Christ after they die, they are saying that infants are given an opportunity to accept Christ before they are born!

This is totally absurd and violates one of our beginning assumptions, namely that Christ must be accepted in this life. How would you or I know if we accepted Christ before we were born? And why are we born without the quickened understanding given to us in the womb when the Gospel was preached to us? In addition, why does Scripture command that the Gospel be preached to us if we have already heard it and responded? No, this is an absurd and invalid position to take.

But here we have yet another error in thinking. We have, once again, been given an eisegesis, not an exegesis. This psalm in no way states that David was “saved from the womb,” nor does it say that “God preached the Gospel to David in utero (in the womb).” That has been read into the passage by advocates of infant regeneration. We have no idea from Scripture what God did to make David trust him from the womb, from birth. And as such, we cannot say with certainty that God brings the Gospel to an infant and allows the infant to understand and respond in faith. We will examine this verse more fully in Part 2.

We are also left with another problem given by such an odd interpretation of this Psalm in light of the Romans 10 objection. Who is responsible for our salvation?

Advocates of this position have no choice but to say that the baby is responsible. That is, the baby is responsible to respond once God makes the baby able to understand the Gospel. God is only responsible to preach the Gospel and enable the baby to understand it. We are left with no hope whatsoever that any pre-natal person is saved, just as in post-mortem salvation we are left with no hope that dead infants are saved! This is a direct contradiction of Scripture even for those who actually can understand the Gospel!

Scripture, instead, reveals that God is under no obligation to do anything to save us. That he saves anyone at all is a mystery! And it is just as clear from Scripture that we are all, from conception, children of wrath slated for destruction (see the post on original sin for more information). We are all going to hell! And we justly deserve hell. But God, in order to show his mercy, chose some of those children of wrath to become children of mercy (Romans 9:22-24) and graciously brings them to faith in Christ apart from any action on their part (Romans 3:20-28, 4:16; 2 Corinthians 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5).

We are left in the same position we were in the last post. As Scripture does not say how God deals with an infant where the preaching of the Gospel is concerned, we must be silent where Scripture is silent.

We will continue our look at the Scriptures supporting this position in the next post.