Church Leadership, Wealth, and Privilege

James 2:1-9
"My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts? Do they not blaspheme that noble name by which you are called? If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors."

A few days ago I read a really good post on Dr. Albert Mohler's website (find post here). In it he addressed the sale of a personal letter from Albert Einstein to a friend of his in which he (Einstein) dismisses belief in God as "childish." This letter should put an end to the claim of many evangelicals that claim Einstein as a Believer and rabidly defend this...as if the Truth depends on whether or not this or that individual believes in Him. This whole thought reminds me of that shirt and bumper sticker I've seen in which a picture of Friedrich Nietzsche is shown with that infamous quote "God is dead." The next image shows the stereotypical image of God made famous by Michelangelo (the bearded man pointing a finger) and the following quote: "Nietzsche is dead." You see, God's power and existence does not depend upon the belief of any person, no matter how great in the world's eyes they may be. He simply IS! And when mankind puts his puny efforts into toppling our Almighty God from His throne, it is He that shall have the last laugh.

Indeed, look at Psalm 2:1-3 which states:
"Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us.”

God's reply?

Psalm 2:4-6
"He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure: “Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion.”

So let's see...the kings of the earth think they will set themselves free from the Sovereignty of God...yet the true King scoffs at them and His will is still accomplished!

So returning to Mohler's blog...he writes the following:

The emergence of the letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind goes a long way toward setting the record straight. Evangelical Christians are prone to over-excitement when any famous person, living or dead, is claimed as a believer in God. This is not an attractive habit, and it often leads to intellectual embarrassment. The truth of the Gospel and the reality of the self-revealing God are not enhanced by vague expressions of a non-theistic spirituality or a sense of nothing more than an inexplicable sense of meaning in the cosmos.

Beyond this, the witness of an honest Christian is far more powerful than a listing of the rich, intelligent, and powerful who may or may not have believed in some kind of God. Attempts to claim Einstein for theism reveal a deep intellectual insecurity.

Truly Mohler speaks powerfully here. Because this, I believe, is exactly where one of the biggest challenges lies for the modern church in America. This is why I started this post with James 2:1-9, because it is so applicable to this sin that Mohler refers to...the sin of favoritism towards those with fame and/or money. The church today extols the standars of the book of James while practicing the very opposite every day! People who are well off do not need to attend a church for very long before they are invited to teach or even to preach from the pulpit. People of wealth are immediately placed a step above those without it...because obviously the money they possess is a sign of God's blessings upon them! This at least is how the church behaves! Indeed, the pastors are usually the very first to give this person a place of honor within the church...sometimes letting in false teachers who will mislead many, to the shame of that pastor.

The shameful behavior of such church leaders makes me think of one of my favorite movies, "The Fiddler on the Roof." Do you remember the song "If I was a rich man"? Do you recall how the main character sings about what he would do if he himself were rich? The most telling point of the whole song contains the following words:

The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them, Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!
(emphasis mine)

That last part speaks volumes of how people view people of wealth! Have you not observed the same yourself? Have money? You can't be wrong! And as silly as this is in the secular world, it is a travesty, a disgrace, and completetly sad when it happens within the church! Indeed, "if you show partiality you commit sin, are are convicted by the law as transgressors." Why is that? Why does James speak so strongly? I think it is because of what I've already said...because this partiality towards the rich blinds the church and allows the false teachers into the church! I mean, seriously, does money allow a person to view the Bible more clearly? You would think so the way church leaders fall over themselves to welcome in someone who smells of money, driving into the parking lot in their shiny new cars, perfectly groomed, etc...

But you may think to yourself...am I just being petty and jealous? Maybe! :)

Seriously though...there are times when I wish I had more material comforts than what I have right now...I wish I did not have to worry about the gas to go to church, or about how much milk I'm drinking 'cause we can't afford to buy more. But I fight against these thoughts...I want so much to be like Paul who said that he had "learned in whatever state [he was] to be content: I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need." (Ephesians 4:11-12)

So yes, there are times when I fail and begin to covet...but those are times of weakness. Knowing myself all too well I know that riches would turn me into a horrible person. I would become materialistic and greedy and so I stronlgy believe that the Lord keeps me in my current financial state because He loves me. I take comfort from that thought above all. So in reality it is not jealousy that leads me to write this post, but sadness. I have belonged to three churches in the last 10 to 12 years, and in every one of them I observed this failure to obey the Word of God. Even from a preacher that taught through the book of James for quite some time! So I write this in order to plead with anyone reading this to cleanse our ways...to repent of this sin as a church, to uphold our church leaders in whatever churches you are, that they may truly honor His Word and protect His sheep. Let us keep out the wolves even when they come with full wallets!

Amen?

A Letter Promising a Blessing but Bringing a Curse

So about one week ago I received a letter many of you probably received as well. It was from some church based in Tulsa, Oklahoma that wanted to give me a free cross which was supposedly blessed specifically for me! Included in this letter was a poster sized “prayer rug” with a huge picture of what was supposedly the face of Jesus…a face with eyes closed and a blood teardrop falling from one of his eyes! I was directed to immediately take this rug somewhere where I could be alone and then kneel on it and pray. Supposedly, all my wishes would then come true because the genie in the bottle…oh wait, I mean Jesus…has promised me every financial and spiritual blessing I can possible desire. This must be somewhere in Genesis 51, right?

On the outside of the envelope was the following prayer:

Dear Jesus,
We pray that you will bless someone in this home spiritually, physically & financially. And please dear Lord, bless the one who’s hands open this letter. Make good changes in this one’s life and give them the desires of their heart. We pray over and bless this letter in your holy name. Amen.

Huh? Where do people come up with this type of babble?

Worst of all though, within this envelope was a taped up letter which purported to be a prophecy I should not read until I’d returned a list of my prayers to this “church.” Oh, and if I was especially lacking in brain matter, I could also give some money to this “church”, I assume the money was so that my prayers would be more rapidly answered! I won’t tell you what was included in this “prophetic” letter because it was full of demonic trash about opening yourself up to some spirit and so you could be “infused in a divine manner.”

Sorry, I don’t think so. I’m already infused with the Holy Spirit and need no counterfeit “divinity” in my life!

The reason I wanted to write this post, however, is because as I read the contents of this letter I was struck first with sadness as I thought of all the simple minds that will be deceived by these workers of iniquity from Tulsa. Also though, I was upset that God’s name would be mocked by these people, that His glorious reputation would be taken advantage of…but then I had to stop and think. Wait a minute…what is so different between these deceivers and the ones within our so called evangelical churches today?

Do you understand what I mean?

How many conservative churches today subscribe to a prosperity message? How many teach that if you only pray with faith your wishes will be granted? I could share many stories of people I know who believe that if you only pray hard enough you will get what you want…as if God were some celestial genie just wanting to release His power upon you….as if Christ came to seek and save that which was poverty stricken rather than that which was lost!

You know what? Such a foolish and arrogant attitude makes a mockery of the faith of our brothers and sisters in Asia, the Middle East, and other areas where persecution, including death, are the norm. What prosperity are they receiving? Well from the world’s perspective they are seeing nothing…but what spiritual blessings they probably have! And what crowns they will be able to present to our Lord! Brothers and sisters…WE are the poverty stricken ones! We in the West are the ones lacking in true prosperity!

I know I have written of this before…but one of my favorite passages comes from Daniel 3. Do you remember that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego refused to bow down before the image which King Nebuchadnezzar had built? The King, who had honored these friends of Daniel by making them governors of sorts in Babylon (Daniel 2:49), had them brought before him:

“Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the gold image which I have set up? Now if you are ready at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, and you fall down and worship the image which I have made, good! But if you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?” Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter, if that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.”
Daniel 4:14-18

Now in this case, God chose to intervene in a miraculous way and saved these men from the furnace. But other times, God chooses not to act to save His children. The important thing is that our attitudes be as these men…God CAN save us, but if He chooses not to, we still will serve only Him!

When God does not act to reward your faith or your prayers it is not because you have not had enough faith, or prayed hard enough…it is because it was not His will to do so. Deal with it.

Better yet, praise Him for it!

Amen?

Original Sin, Infants, and Hell

It has been over 10 days since I last posted...mainly because I've been overwhelmed with different things at work and just not having enough time to sit in front of the computer lately! :)

Although I'm going to pick up on posting again, this first post tonight is not my own but is that of a dear friend and brother in the Lord who is currently at The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. If it were not a sin to be covetous I would definitely covet all of the knowledge that he is absorving there! j/k!

Seriously though, this brother is a strong man of faith and one whose walk with God is impressive. I wish that I was always surrounded by men like him but unfortunately they are very rare. But in any case, he has written the following paper for one of his classes and I begged his permission to post in on here because I liked it so much. I hope whomever reads this blog will enjoy it as well...maybe even be comforted.

Here goes:

Does original sin mean that those dying in infancy go to HELL?

Introduction

It is difficult to imagine a more tragic event than the death of a child. A child dying in infancy leaves so many questions about what their life would have been like. For those who have lost children, “The pieces don't fit together and perhaps never will. We cling to our faith, pick up the pieces, and make the most of what life has left for us.”1 The effects on parents include anger, guilt, loss of sleep, and loss of appetite.2

Sadly enough this tragedy is all to common. For 2006 alone, UNICEF estimates that there were 9,733,000 deaths of children between birth and exactly five years of age worldwide.3 Few people haven't either experienced this tragedy personally or else know someone who has. While there are countless (many times interesting) theological and philosophical debates about issues such as the age of the earth or the Imago Dei, this issue is a more personal one that touches on a deep emotional level. This is a crucial question that must be answered for those who are in ministry. As John MacArthur said, “how can you be a pastor and not get an answer to that question? Because you're dealing with people constantly who go through this.”4 The reason for a given answer should rest on solid biblical support and not on sentimental hope. Parents and family members need strong assurance in such situations.

Positions

At one level, there are three simple answers to the question of whether original sin means that those dying in infancy go to hell: “yes”, “no”, or “it depends.” Under the prevailing pluralistic views of our day, there are probably very few who would answer in the affirmative. People would rather believe that hell does not exist, and even if it does, a loving God would certainly not send babies there. However, the other two answers (“no”, or “it depends”) can be further differentiated by the reasons for answering in a particular way. Although there are several possible positions on this topic, this paper will focus on four common ones.

For a universalist the answer to the question under consideration is an easy one: ultimately, no. J. I. Packer defines a universalist as “some who believes that every human being whom God has created or will create will finally come to enjoy the everlasting salvation into which Christians enter here and now.”5 The reasoning is that since God is love, “eternal punishment” is not worthy of Him.6 Thus those dying in infancy will either not go to hell at all, or only be there temporarily.

For those who believe in a second chance for salvation after death or post-mortem salvation, the answer would be “it depends.” Gregory of Nyssa and “many contemporary theologians” hold this view.7 According to this view, the gospel is preached to those who have died and they have an opportunity to accept or reject salvation.8 Those who hold this view typically see a connection between 1 Peter 3:18-19 and 1 Peter 4:6, and appeal to these verses for biblical support.9 These verses state that Christ preached to spirits in prison. Therefore whether or not those dying in infancy go to hell depends on whether or not they accept God's gift of salvation.

The question of the eternal state of those dying in infancy could also be answered “it depends” for a completely different reason. Others would take the position that it depends on whether or not the infant was baptized. Under this view baptism is required for forgiveness of sins and salvation.10 Although there are variations in this teaching, it can be found in Lutheranism, British Anglicanism, American Episcopalianism, and Roman Catholicism.11 John 3:5, which speaks of being born of water and Spirit, is appealed to by Roman Catholics to support this view.12

Although supported by some and opposed by others, infant baptism was practiced in the church as early as the third century.13 Tertullian for instance opposed it, but referred to it in one of his works.14 Due to the fact that baptism was believed to be required to enter heaven (based on John 3:5), infants for whom imminent death was probable were baptized.15 Augustine was a notable figure who supported the practice and used it to argue for original sin.16

The final position considered in this paper denies that those dying in infancy go to hell, but for different reasons than the positions with the same answer discussed above. In other words, all infants do not go to heaven because they are innocent or because everyone eventually goes to heaven. To put it simply they go to heaven for the same reason children and adults do: God's grace. Those who hold this position include John Newton, Augustus Toplady (author of the words to “Rock of Ages”), and Benjamin Warfield.17 Dr. Nash also takes this position and establishes it on four propositions: 1. original sin leaves infants guilty, depraved, and in need of salvation, 2. “it must be on the basis of Christ's atonement”, 3. it can only be the result of regeneration and sanctification “by the grace of God”, and 4. “salvation must occur before death”.18 His book When a Baby Dies argues that not only infants, but also “all mentally handicapped persons whose intellectual and moral judgment cannot surpass that of children are saved”.19

Support

The final position discussed above, namely that all those dying in infancy do not go to hell is the position advocated by this paper. On the face of it this appears to be a very bold claim. Such a conviction, if strongly held would provide great assurance to grieving parents, family members, and friends. However the reasons for such a conviction must be carefully considered. This paper now intends to show that there is biblical support for this contention.

Before going further an important presupposition should be pointed out in the title of this paper: “original sin.” This is also referred to as “inherited sin”, and is defined as the “guilt and tendency to sin that all people inherit because of Adam's sin.”20 In other words, it will not be argued that infants (born or unborn) do not go to hell because of their innocence.

In his book Dr. Nash bases his position an four main points. First is that “infants are incapable of moral good or evil.”21 They do not know right from wrong and “are not moral agents” (Deuteronomy 1:39).22 For example, in Jeremiah 19:4 they are even referred to as innocent.23

The second point builds on the first: “divine judgment is administered on the basis of sins committed in the body”.24 In several passages of the Bible it is clear that God judges people based on their good or bad actions (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 2 Corinthians 5:10). The great white throne judgment in Revelation 20 is a case in point. Here the dead are judged based on their actions as recorded in books. Since infants have not committed any consciously evil acts (point 1), there is therefore nothing for which they can be judged.25

The third point is that there are examples of regenerate infants in the Bible.26 The examples given are Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15).27 His reasoning goes that if “this sort of thing happens even once, it can certainly happen in other cases”.28

The last point has to do with little children and their relationship to Jesus in the Gospels.29 An account is recorded in Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, and Luke 18:15-17 where parents brought their children to Jesus for Him to bless them. Although the disciples discouraged the parents from doing this, Jesus actually welcomed them. Charles Hodges and John Calvin's comments on these verses are cited, indicating that children can indeed be saved.30

In their article “The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?”, Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin argue in much the same way as Dr.Nash. They also emphasize that judgment will be based on actions and do not believe that those dying in infancy have committed sins in the body.31 In Deuteronomy 1, the Israelites are punished for their rebellion by not being allowed to enter the Promised Land. Their children however are excluded from this judgment because they don't know good or evil. Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin “believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy”.32

C.H. Spurgeon held a similar view on infant salvation, which he espoused in a sermon. He began by discussing the way he believed infants are saved. He denied that it was based on innocence. Instead they are saved because they are elect, “redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ”, and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.33 Some of the reasons he gives for believing that infants are saved are the “goodness of the nature of God”, “the known character of our Lord Jesus Christ” in accepting children, and “the ways of grace”.34 Infant salvation is also inferred by Spurgeon based on the very great number of souls that will be saved. He cites the great number of redeemed in Revelation and God's promise to Abraham that he would have children as numerous as the stars in heaven. Further support for infant salvation is seen in David's expectation of going to be with his first child by Bathsheba after it died (2 Samuel 12:23). Spurgeon thoughtfully points out that David did not say the same thing, but only wept bitterly at his rebellious son Absalom's death. In passing it is also noted that God refers to the Israelite children who were sacrificed to idols as “My children” (Ezekiel 16:21).

MacArthur shared his own similar view of infant salvation in two sermons. He begins his case by citing God's intimate and exhaustive knowledge of every life as personal creator. In Job 3:16-17 and Ecclesiastes 6:3-5, it is also noted that stillborn children are referred to as being better off because they are at rest. Rather than focus on a particular age, the emphasis is on a condition of accountability that varies from child to child. The salvation of infants is consistent with the doctrine of election in reformed theology and magnifies God's grace. The means of salvation, MacArthur contends is “the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ because that is the only means that anybody can be saved.”35

The case MacArthur builds is further supported by judgment based on sins, primarily unbelief, in Revelation 20:11-12. In Romans 1, pagans are “without excuse” because they willfully choose not to believe, whereas children don't understand sin, God, or the gospel. Although many other verses are cited, perhaps the strongest support for this argument is in Matthew 18. Here while using a child as an analogy for a believer Jesus says it's not the Father's will that one of them should perish.

Objections

The strength of any position depends not only on the support for it, but also its ability to handle objections. Space does not allow every objection to be addressed in detail. However, the major assertions of the other views will be discussed.

Original Sin Rejected, Innocence of Children Asserted
One objection could be made against the presupposition of original sin inherent in the title of this paper. Are infants and even unborn babies really guilty of sin? How can this be when in the case of an unborn infant they have not committed any sinful acts? Under this view they are innocent as infants and only become guilty when they commit sinful acts later in life. Based on their innocence, a loving God would not send them to hell.

Universalism – All Will Be Saved
Another objection that could be made to this paper's position could be made by a universalist. Such a person would say that all the theological justification for infants going to heaven is really unnecessary. After all, everyone goes to heaven eventually. For such a person the answer is simple since infants are just another group of God's people that will be included under the broad statement, “all will be saved.”

Post-mortem Salvation
An individual who believes that people will have a second chance to hear and respond to God's offer of salvation after death would bring an entirely different objection. This view would stress the conditional aspect based on an individual's response. In this case it would be wrong to comfort parents and family members that a deceased child is in heaven. This would be giving them false hope, since the child might reject the gospel.

Baptism Is Required For Salvation
And finally those who hold to some form of baptismal regeneration would vehemently object to this paper's position. They would contend that it is an error to insist that all dying in infancy will go to heaven. Instead they would affirm that only those children who were baptized before death will be saved. Under such a view it would be deceitful to answer questions from grieving parents with assurance that their child is in heaven.

Defense

The objections listed above are mostly related to assertions in the other positions. Each one will now be examined in turn. Throughout this section the intention is to show that the other positions lack biblical support.

Original Sin Rejected, Innocence of Children Asserted
Discussing the doctrine of original sin could easily take up an entire paper itself. Pelagius taught that “the sin of Adam and Eve injured themselves alone” and that “a newborn child is in the same state as Adam before the fall”, but in 418 a council at Carthage pronounced anathema “on those who say a newborn child is not condemned to eternal punishment for what was acquired from Adam.”36 The key passage for original sin is Romans 5:12-19. Based on it, infants “begin life with both the corrupted nature and the guilt that are the consequences of sin.”37 Romans 3:23 indicates that all have sinned, and Romans 6:23 pronounces the punishment as death. Since all people die, which is the penalty for sin, this proves the universality of sin.38 Aside from verses like Romans 3:23 which teach that all sin (see also Psalm 14:3, Romans 3:10, and 1 John 1:8), numerous other verses attest to the sinfulness of children. Genesis 8:21 for example speaks of evil inclinations of the heart from childhood. David admits that he was sinful at the time of his birth (Psalm 51:5). The wicked are sad to go astray and speak lies from the womb in Psalm 58:3. Apart from scripture, most parents if they are honest will admit that their babies are not born innocent. Children don't have to be taught how to be selfish!

Universalism – All Will Be Saved
Universalists typically maintain that a loving God would not send people to hell. They appeal to passages in the Bible that indicate that God desires all to be saved (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). However the universal terms “are all limited or generalized by their context in such a way that it is nowhere possible to maintain that every human being everywhere, past, present, and future, is being clearly, specifically, and inescapably spoken of as destined for salvation.”39

From a philosophical standpoint, universalism also has an inherent weakness. Most universalists uphold the free will of man. Yet, they are not able to demonstrate how God “can bring about the reconciliation of all free creatures . . . if the creatures remain forever free.”40

Another flaw in universalism is that it conveniently ignores more numerous passages anticipating “the final rejection and destruction of some because of their unbelief” (John 3:18; 5:29; Hebrews 3:14-19).41 The parables of Jesus regarding the end of the age consistently portray two classes of people: believers and unbelievers, sheep and goats, wheat and tares. In Matthew 25:31-46, there is a clear parallel between eternal punishment and eternal life for these two groups.

While it is certainly true that the Bible teaches that God is loving (1 John 4:8), there are numerous other attributes of God affirmed as well (holiness, righteousness, omniscience, justice, etc.). The essence of an infinite divine being cannot be summed up in a single quality (1 Timothy 3:16). In conclusion, Dr. Mohler and Dr. Akin refer to Universalism as “a dangerous and unbiblical teaching” that “offers a false promise and denies the Gospel”.42

Post-mortem Salvation
This view is related to universalism in that it postulates a way that all can be saved, but it too has no biblical support. J. I. Packer offers a couple of critiques of this view. There are numerous passages which emphasize that the decisions made in this life are decisive (Matthew 12:32; John 8:21; Galatians 6:7). The central passage used to support it (1 Peter 3:19), speaks of Christ preaching to spirits in prison. The interpretation of this text is disputed. According to Packer, the best explanation of this passage is Wayne Grudem's view that it “speaks of a message to a particular group, not to all the dead as such.”43

The link between 1 Peter 3:18-19 and 4:6 which is used to expand the scope of the preaching, is also tenuous at best. Dr. Nash gives several reasons why these verses do not teach post-mortem salvation. First it would contradict scripture (2 Corinthians 5:10 for example). Secondly, 1 Peter 4:1-5 breaks any continuity which could be used to equate the spirits in prison and the dead.

Thirdly, there are other plausible interpretations of the dead in 1 Peter 4:6. One interpretation is that it refers to spiritual death at one time and that the gospel brought spiritual life.44 Finally, note that in context it does not make any sense for Peter to tell persecuted Christians to remain faithful when the “unbelievers behind all their suffering will have a second chance to be saved after they die.”45

Baptism Is Required For Salvation
This objection has been debated for centuries and could also easily be the topic for a paper in itself. Dr. Mohler dismisses this contention by noting that there “is simply not a shred of biblical support for this argument.”46 The book Is Baptism Essential to Salvation? by Austin Crouch examines nine main passages used by advocates of baptismal regeneration to support their position.

One passage cited actually teaches the opposite. Mark 16:15 states that belief and baptism results in salvation, while unbelief results in damnation. Note that “Jesus did not say 'he that believeth and is not baptized shall be damned.'”47

Based on Romans 6:3 and 1 Peter 3:21, Crouch concludes that baptism “is a likeness or figure of the facts of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.”48 Salvation is by belief in Jesus Christ while the “believer symbolizes in baptism the grounds on which his salvation depends.”49 Crouch wonders how anyone can “hold that baptism must be added to bring about remission of sins or salvation” in light of the many passages on faith (e.g. John 3:15-16, 18, 36; Romans 1:16; 1 John 5:13).50 MacArthur states that “this would make salvation not an act of grace but an act of works. That is no credit to the grace of God. The point must be rejected outright.”51

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to show that there is a biblical basis for the belief that all those dying in infancy go to heaven. This is an issue that all pastors should wrestle with due to the likelihood of someone under their care experiencing a loss of a child. Whatever position is arrived at should have biblical support and be held with firm conviction.

1Richard S. Hipps, ed., When a Child Dies: Stories of Survival and Hope. (Macon, Georgia: Peake Road, 1996), preface.
2John MacArthur, “The Salvation of Babies Who Die, Part 1” Grace To You [on-line], accessed 2 April 2008; available from http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/80-242; Internet.
3The State of the World's Children 2008. (United Nations Children's Fund Division of Communication, 2007), 117. Available from http://www.unicef.org/sowc08.
4John MacArthur, “The Salvation of Babies Who Die, Part 1” Grace To You [on-line], accessed 2 April 2008; available from http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/80-242; Internet.
5J.I. Packer, “Universalism: Will Everyone Ultimately Be Saved?,” in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 170.
6Ibid., 172.
7Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin, “The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?” www.AlbertMohler.com [on-line], accessed 30 March 2008; available from http://www.albertmohler.com/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel036; Internet.
8Ronald H. Nash, When a Baby Dies: Answers to Comfort Grieving Parents. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999), 34-35.
9Ibid., 36.
10Ibid., 45.
11Ibid., 46.
12Ibid., 46.
13Everett Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation, vol. 1 of Church History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 148-50.
14Ibid., 150.
15Ibid., 151.
16Ibid., 279.
17Ibid., 69-70.
18Ronald H. Nash, When a Baby Dies: Answers to Comfort Grieving Parents. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999), 59.
19Ibid., 59-60.
20Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 1245.
21Ibid., 60.
22Ibid., 60.
23Ibid., 60.
24Ibid., 60.
25Ibid., 60-62.
26Ibid., 64.
27Ibid., 64.
28Ibid., 65.
29Ibid., 65.
30Ibid., 67-68.
31Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin, “The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?” AlbertMohler.com [on-line], accessed 30 March 2008; available from http://www.albertmohler.com/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel036; Internet.
32Mohler and Akin, “The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?”.
33C. H. Spurgeon, “Infant Salvation” The Spurgeon Archive I. [on-line], accessed 30 March 2008; available from http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm; Internet.
34C. H. Spurgeon, “Infant Salvation” II.
35John MacArthur, “The Salvation of Babies Who Die, Part 1” Grace To You [on-line], accessed 2 April 2008; available from http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/80-242; Internet.
36Everett Ferguson, From Christ to Pre-Reformation, vol. 1 of Church History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 280-81.
37Millard J. Erickson. Introducing Christian Doctrine, ed. L. Arnold Hustad. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 637.
38Ibid., 624.
39J.I. Packer, “Universalism: Will Everyone Ultimately Be Saved?,” in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 187.
40Ibid., 189.
41Ibid., 187
42Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin, “The Salvation of the 'Little Ones': Do Infants who Die Go to Heaven?” AlbertMohler.com [on-line], accessed 30 March 2008; available from http://www.albertmohler.com/FidelitasRead.php?article=fidel036; Internet.
43J.I. Packer, “Universalism: Will Everyone Ultimately Be Saved?,” in Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), 188.
44Ronald H. Nash, When a Baby Dies: Answers to Comfort Grieving Parents. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999), 40.
45Ibid., 41.
46Albert Mohler, Jr., “In the Shadow of Death--The Little Ones Are Safe With Jesus” AlbertMohler.com [on-line], accessed 5 April 2008; available from http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-01-05; Internet.
47Austin Crouch, Is Baptism Essential for Salvation? (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1953), 26.
48Ibid., 20.
49Ibid., 26.
50Ibid., 74.
51John MacArthur, “The Salvation of Babies Who Die, Part 1” Grace To You [on-line], accessed 2 April 2008; available from http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/80-242; Internet.

Church Membership

Well this is not going to be a big post on church membership...it is simply a post/announcement of our family's new transition. A number of weeks ago we submitted a request to be admitted as members of Heritage Bible Church, and at their last meeting the elders of the church voted to accept us as members! So this last weekend, on Mother's Day, our membership was publicly announced during the service. I have been quite impressed by our pastor's sense of humor and he did not disappoint me when he told me we'd been accepted "though it was a close vote." :)

When we left/were invited to leave our last church I told my wife that I would not join any church until we'd been attending for at least one year, so in a sense I have not kept that vow since it's only been 10 months that we've been attending Heritage! However, it was the right thing to do and since we know now that there is no other church out there for us we decided to move forward on this decision. Besides which, I've been helping out with the youth group for some months, so it is only right that I be a member before I begin twisting young minds! lol

Anyhow, thank you to all who have been praying for us!