Gospel. Culture. Technology. Music.

Category: Theology Page 49 of 67


Who Are We To Judge?

This is a common phrase spoken constantly in our culture. And it has even made its way into the church now. Our culture has redefined the terms judgment, acceptance, and tolerance to say that if you say anything against anyone else, it is judging. They say, “Who are we to judge the words, thoughts and actions of others?” The pillar text to back up this statement- is Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” Also, Romans 2:1, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.” And while I absolutely agree that we should not judge others in the sense of seeing ourselves as morally superior and others as morally wretched (deluding ourselves), I believe a distinction must be made between two kinds of judgments or the church will continue to flounder in its influence to hold up the Gospel as THE WAY to God in this wretched, increasingly paganizing culture filled with poisonous doctrine that is against the Gospel. There is a type of judgment where you simply assess a situation, a persons’ words, understanding someone’s statements, and come to a discerning conclusion, based upon information given in that circumstance. Jesus spoke of this in John 7:24, “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” And then there is a judgment in which you make ultimately final, authoritative calls: that is not your place to do so, Jesus’s point in Matthew 7. It is God’s place, and we are not God, therefore, we should not assume His place in this. And if we presume to take God’s place as the judge, we should fear because it fundamentally shows we have not really gotten the Gospel, Pauls point in Romans 2. So on the one hand, we make probably thousands of judgments (discerning calls) every day concerning all kinds of things. Are these evil? No! What is an evil kind of judging though? When you take God’s place as judge and set yourself up as morally pure and others as morally wretched, looking down upon them. It is making the proclamation that you are morally worthy of God’s favor based upon your works, not Christ’s, and are therefore righteous as a final authority in all the universe. How evil. It is ultimately a rejection of the Gospel and God’s grace. We should beware if we fall into this. Romans 2 and Matthew 7 in particular speaks to this very point.

Now I want to show the other type of judgment, the discerning type, that is not evil by bringing in some other Scripture passages that speak of a kind judging, or making judgments, that are not to be taken in the same way Matthew 7 and Romans 2 are taken. Galatians 1:9 says, “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Romans 16:17, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” Ephesians 4:11-14, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry … so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.” 1 Timothy 1:3, “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine.” 1 Timothy 4:3-5, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”

Is Paul not making judgments here and telling those he writes to to do the same thing? But what kind of judgments are these? Is he asserting his place as God, presiding over the judgment of men’s souls? No, he is making calls concerning false teachers and every wind of doctrine that blows to and fro that would lead us astray, that is from man and not from God. Are we as the church not supposed to make these kinds of judgments? Yes. Are we not to be discerning of good and bad doctrine? Absolutely we are. If we don’t, we will lose the truth altogether in our culture. However, we are not supposed to judge by taking God’s place as the final judge of all things. We do not know men’s hearts ultimately and have no place to make such an assertion before the time of judgment by God. However, are we not supposed to be discerning about what people state as the truth of the Scriptures? Paul seems to think so. Are not Paul’s writings inerrant Scripture? It seems to me the postmodern talk of tolerance, acceptance, and the cultures’ understanding of Jesus’ words have infiltrated the church’s understanding of when to make calls concerning right and wrong doctrine. the more muddled and grey the statements of Scripture become, the more we forfeit the only hope given among men by which they must be saved: Jesus Christ crucified.

So when someone says to me, “Who are you to judge,” my response to them is, “Who are you to judge me?” I’m trying to make the point to them that they are making a judgment about me just as I am of whoever else we are talking about (remember, a discerning judgment). In attempting to be inclusive of all people, once again, they are making exclusive judgments and doing the same thing to me they accuse me of doing. This thought process must be confronted, lovingly, first in our churches (where we stand up for doctrine and confessions of the Scripture) and then secondly, address our culture, and in doing so recover the Gospel, the hope of the world. This thought process is self-refuting and hinders the progress of Gospel-truth in our churches.

The Debate That Never Was

James White and Tom Ascol were going to debate Ergun and Emir Caner on Baptists and Calvinism back in the Fall of 2006. However, it never happened, for whatever reason (you decide (1), (2)). So White and Ascol decided to put together this audio clip with their opening statements for the debate that never was, as well as rebuttals to statements the Caner’s have made leading up to the debate. They give the Caner’s a fair look by playing audio clips from their sermons pertaining to Calvinism. Then White and Ascol respond to their statements. Very good …

https://www.westerfunk.net/download/?directory=sermons&file=/white/James%20White%20-%20Tom%20Ascol%20-%204liberty%20Students.mp3

What Do “The Secret” and the Church of Satan Have in Common?

Many people in our society simply cast aside such a comparison as non-sense, mainly because The Secret, authored by Rhonda Byrne, is a first place New York Times best seller (on the list for 25 weeks now!), at one point selling around 4 times the amount of the second place best seller. Let’s start by talking about how they are not related: one is blatantly calling itself Satanism (the religion of self as they proclaim) and the other is packaging itself in a much cleaner fashion, in the form of love and tranquility. One is abrasive, the other is seemingly harmonious. In my estimation, The Secret will do far more damage to our society than blatant Satanism. But how does the “theology” of The Secret differ from that of Satanism? Well it doesn’t really when you get down to what each “religion” is saying. Quote from Anton Szandor LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, from their website:

“Since Satanism is essentially a religion of the self, it holds that the individual and his personal needs comes first … Satanism is the only religion which serves to encourage and enhance one’s individual preferences, so long as there is admission of those needs. Thus, one’s personal and indelible religion (the picture) is integrated into a perfect frame. It’s a celebration of individuality without hypocrisy, of solidarity without mindlessness, of objective subjectivity.” – Taken from http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/MostPower.html (WARNING – be careful on this site, a few bad pictures and a few bad links, I would say just stick to that one page and that will be enough to give you the overview).

Well unfortunately, Satanism is not the only religion which holds to this kind of thinking.

In comparison, here are some audio sound bites from Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret (just hover over the links below to play them in the window that pops up):

The Magnificence of You (MP3)
The Sun Rises for You (MP3)
You Are the Creator (MP3) < This one just amazes me

This teaching is blatantly Satanic. How? Just rewind to the Garden of Eden. Satan told Eve, “You will be like God.” (Gen 3:5) What is the fundamental difference between these two “religions”? None. It is all about self. Satan fell from heaven because of his assertion that he was God and could conquer Him. Is The Secret any different? The church must embrace the Biblical Gospel and cast aside anything that would come into our churches that is not only non-Christian but anti-Christian, like The Secret. According to Al Mohler, from this radio program (mp3) he did back in March, ladies watching Oprah (also this) are bringing this filth into Bible studies! Unbelievable. This is why we must preach a clear Gospel and Biblical doctrine from Scripture. People in our Christian culture are so unfamiliar with their own belief system they cannot even recognize something as blatantly Satanic as The Secret.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without, until it has destroyed itself from within.”
– Will Durant

The Goal of God’s Love May Not Be What You Think It Is – John Piper

Definite Redemption – J.I. Packer

What is at stake in the debate over limited atonement? Well, ultimately the Gospel itself is. This is the very thing John Owen went to painstaking lengths to demonstrate in his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. How? Well, did Christ die to make salvation possible for all merely, not securing anyone’s salvation for sure, or did He die to actually and effectually save those given to Him by the Father, accomplishing everything necessary to save them, including the granting of faith and repentance? Particular redemption answers the two questions, for whom did Christ die, and what did Christ actually accomplish on the cross for those for whom He died (we believe He purchased not only the ends – salvation, but even the means to that end in the cross, that is Gospel preaching, New Birth, and the granting of repentance and faith by the Holy Spirit). J.I. Packer, from Concise Theology, does a great job in this short excerpt of explaining the other potential theories concerning the work of the cross and how none jive with the Biblical data the way this doctrine does.
————————————————————————-

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me–just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep.” – John 10:14-15

Definite redemption, sometimes called “particular redemption,” “effective atonement,” and “limited atonement,” is an historic Reformed doctrine about the intention of the triune God in the death of Jesus Christ. Without doubting the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice or the genuineness of God’s “whoever will” invitation to all who hear the gospel (Rev. 22:17), the doctrine states that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God’s elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve. From this definiteness and effectiveness follows its limitedness: Christ did not die in this efficacious sense for everyone. The proof of that, as Scripture and experience unite to teach us, is that not all are saved.

The only possible alternatives are (a) actual universalism, holding that Christ’s death guaranteed salvation for every member of the human race, past, present, and future, or (b) hypothetical universalism, holding that Christ’s death made salvation possible for everyone but actual only for those who add to it a response of faith and repentance that was not secured by it. The choices are, therefore, an atonement of unlimited efficacy but limited extent (Reformed particularism), one of unlimited extent but limited efficacy (hypothetical universalism), or one of unlimited efficacy and unlimited extent (actual universalism). Scripture must be the guide in choosing between these possibilities.

Scripture speaks of God as having chosen for salvation a great number of our fallen race and having sent Christ into the world to save them (JOHN 6:37-40, 10:27-29, 11:51-52; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Pet. 1:20). Christ is regularly said to have died for particular groups or persons, with the clear implication that his death secured their salvation (JOHN 10:15-18,27-29; Rom. 5:8-10, 8:32; Gal. 2:20, 3:13-14, 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6, 5:9-10). Facing his passion, he prayed only for those the Father had given him, not for the “world” (i.e., the rest of mankind, JOHN 17:9,20). Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only one of the three views that harmonizes with this data.

There is no inconsistency or incoherence in the teaching of the New Testament about, on the one hand, the offer of Christ in the gospel, which Christians are told to make known everywhere, and, on the other hand, the fact that Christ achieved a totally efficacious redemption for God’s elect on the cross. It is a certain truth that all who come to Christ in faith will find mercy (JOHN 6:35,47-51,54-57; Rom. 1:16, 10:8-13). The elect hear Christ’s offer, and through hearing it are effectually called by the Holy Spirit. Both the invitation and the effectual calling flow from Christ’s sin-bearing death. Those who reject the offer of Christ do so of their own free will (i.e., because they choose to, Matt. 22:1-7; JOHN 3:18), so that their final perishing is their own fault. Those who receive Christ learn to thank him for the cross as the centerpiece of God’s plan of sovereign saving grace.

The Interpretation of Scripture – J.I. Packer

This is excellent.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/packer1.html

The Protestant Church in America Would Do Well to Listen to Luther

“Paul had preached the Gospel throughout Galatia, founding many churches which after his departure were invaded by the false apostles. The Anabaptists in our time imitate the false apostles. They do not go where the enemies of the Gospel predominate. They go where the Christians are. Why do they not invade the Catholic provinces and preach their doctrine to godless princes, bishops, and doctors, as we have done by the help of God? These soft martyrs take no chances. They go where the Gospel has a hold, so that they may not endanger their lives. The false apostles would not go to Jerusalem of Caiaphas, or to the Rome of the Emperor, or to any other place where no man had preached before as Paul and the other apostles did. But they came to the churches of Galatia, knowing that where men profess the name of Christ they may feel secure.”

– Martin Luther in his commentary on Galatians Chapter 1.

In this excerpt, Luther compares the false teachers in Galatia with the Anabaptists of his time during the Reformation, who were not willing to take the Gospel to the hard places (the Catholic provinces in Europe as he states), but rather desired to congregate with other Christians only. It is clear, at the very least from Luther’s assessment, that the Anabaptists’ actions of not going to the hard places with the Gospel, as he says, parallels that of the false teachers in Galatia. I’m not knowledgeable enough to say whether or not Anabaptists were indeed false teachers (they were definitely at the very least synergists, which says a lot), but I also don’t necessarily agree with everything Luther said either. Regardless, this is off topic … you could call the Anabaptists unwillingness to go to the hard places with the Gospel the “Reformation Christian Bubble” I guess, just as we have our own in America, which is why this amply applies. It is very tempting to only surround ourselves with believers. But it is in my opinion the modern church in America should listen to Luther when he says believers who only congregate together and do not go out into the world with the Gospel (the workplace, areas where unbelievers congregate, bars, the big cities vs rural areas) where there is hostility towards the Gospel and God’s glory, are paralleling the actions of the false teachers mentioned in Galatians. If these actions continue, we risk becoming totally irrelevant in our society, at which our culture will further digress into even more depravity. Those believers who totally separate themselves from society are not willing to be scorned for their faith in Christ. It is apparent by their actions. Instead they become puffed up with pride that they may somehow be polluted by worldliness if they go to those places, when really this is an excuse to escape persecution at the hands of those who hate the Gospel. At the heart of this belief system is legalism, the idea we are approved by God because of our works. And isn’t it ironic this is the very heresy Paul is refuting in Galatians, that had entered the church there by false teachers? I’m being sarcastic, it’s not at all ironic, because beliefs and actions go hand in hand.

I constantly hear preachers, teachers and others within our Christian culture who condemn the actions of unbelievers (many times yelling at them in public; still not understanding how a heart changed by Christ can do this) and have not the Christ-like courage to befriend them, be kind to them in Christ, in order to share the Gospel, in order that they may be restored to the glory of God through the Gospel by the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead these professed believers publicly persecute unbelievers by calling them names, bashing them with the poison of asps that is on their lips. I read one quote recently on a comment to a blog from someone stating, “As a Christian, I’m sick and tired of this Babylonian culture around us!” Well, let us love this “Babylonian culture” by entering their lives and preach the Gospel to them then! Many professed believers are quicker to condemn the actions and behaviors of unbelievers than preach the Gospel to them. But just as Paul says in Romans 10:13-15, “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ But how are they to 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? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” In His High Priestly prayer to the Father in John 17:15, Jesus prays, “I do not ask that you take them [the disciples] out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.” And then He goes on to say in verse 18, “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” So our calling is not to remove ourselves from the pagan culture surrounding us, but to enter it and embrace these people as those who need the Gospel desperately, without which they are lost forever, and share it with words and actions, by entering into their lives, no matter how messed up it may be.

Might I remind all of us as well, that we as believers need the Gospel just as they do, everyday, for progression in our faith in Christ. We do not start with the Gospel and then “move on” by trying harder. Rather we start, progress and finish with the Gospel. Just as we gave up on our works when we came to faith in Christ, so also we lose confidence in ourselves and abilities and look to Christ more and more for these things, provided in the cross. Even as believers, we are broken sinners in need of restoration and healing that can only be found in Christ and His work for us, not through “trying harder” to become moral. Everyday, we need a spiritual heart-change by the Holy Spirit to turn from sin and replace it with Christ. Believers and unbelievers alike are sinners. Is the believer better than the unbeliever even after being saved? No! Then what is the difference? The grace of God alone making us to differ, not that we earned it or merited it at all, but based upon His own purpose and grace to us in Christ purposed from the foundation of the world, He has made us alive spiritually to see the truth of the Gospel and beauty of Christ. May He do the same to our unbelieving friends! May we take this wonderful message of salvation to those who are in bondage and captivity to the work of Satan by loving them with the Gospel at the expense of ourselves and our comfort, even though our culture may be detestable. And of course the world is morally detestable … how do you think the perfect Son of God felt everyday of His life on earth submerged in a world of sinning? Do you not think it vexed His soul on a scale we cannot even fathom? And yet who did He hang out with the most? The “Sinners” and “tax collectors”, the “Samaritans”, those considered to be on the outside of the faith as professed by the Pharisees. He poured Himself out even unto death in obedience to the Father to bring people to Himself, to deliver us from the wrath of God by His blood! May we have the same mind as that of Christ by taking this message of the cross and redemption thereby to those within our culture, even if it injures us! May we enter culture, not reject it, for the sake of Christ and His Gospel.

“For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” – Romans 1:16

One of the Main Differences Between Catholicism and Protestantism



The Existence of Evil – Charles Hodge

“How can the existence of evil, physical and moral, be reconciled with the benevolence and holiness of a God infinite in his wisdom and power?

This is the question which has exercised the reason and tried the faith of men in all ages of the world. Such is the distance between God and man, such the feebleness of our powers, and such the limited range of our vision, it might seem reasonable to leave this question to be answered by God himself. If a child cannot rationally sit in judgment on the conduct of his parents, nor a peasant comprehend the affairs of an empire, we certainly are not competent to call God to account, or to ask of Him the reason of his ways. We might rest satisfied with the assurance that the Judge of all the earth must do right. These considerations, however, have not availed to prevent speculation on this subject. The existence of evil is constantly brought forward by skeptics as an argument against religion; and it is constantly in the minds of believers as a difficulty and a doubt. While it is our duty to obey the injunction, “Be still and know that I am God,” it is no less our duty to protest against those solutions of this great problem which either destroy the nature of sin or the nature of God.”

“The third method of dealing with this question is to rest satisfied with the simple statements of the Bible. The Scriptures teach, (1.) That the glory of God is the end to which the promotion of holiness, and the production of happiness, and all other ends are subordinate. (2.) That, therefore, the self-manifestation of God, the revelation of his infinite perfection, being the highest conceivable, or possible good, is the ultimate end of all his works in creation, providence, and redemption. (3.) As sentient creatures are necessary for the manifestation of God’s benevolence, so there could be no manifestation of his mercy without misery, or of his grace and justice, if there were no sin. As the heavens declare the glory of God, so He has devised the plan of redemption, ” To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.” (Eph. iii. 10.) The knowledge of God is eternal life. It is for creatures the highest good. And the promotion of that knowledge, the manifestation of the manifold perfections of the infinite God, is the highest end of all his works. This is declared by the Apostle to be the end contemplated, both in the punishment of sinners and in the salvation of believers. It is an end to which, he says, no man can rationally object. ” What if God, willing to shew his wrath (or justice), and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.” (Rom. ix. 22, 23.) Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness. And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.

The glory of God being the great end of all things, we are not obliged to assume that this is the best possible world for the production of happiness, or even for securing the greatest degree of holiness among rational creatures. It is wisely adapted for the end for which it was designed, namely, the manifestation of the manifold perfections of God. That God, in revealing Himself, does promote the highest good of his creatures, consistent with the promotion of his own glory, may be admitted. But to reverse this order, to make the good of the creature the highest end, is to pervert and subvert the whole scheme; it is to put the means for the end, to subordinate God to the universe, the Infinite to the finite. This putting the creature in the place of the Creator, disturbs our moral and religious sentiments and convictions, as well as our intellectual apprehensions of God, and of his relation to the universe.

The older theologians almost unanimously make the glory of God the ultimate, and the good of the creature the subordinate end of all things. Twesten, indeed, says’ it makes no difference whether we say God proposes his own glory as the ultimate end, and, for that purpose, determined to produce the highest degree of good; or that He purposed the highest good of his creatures, whence the manifestation of his glory flows as a consequence. It, however, makes all the difference in the world, whether the Creator be subordinate to the creature, or the creature to the Creator; whether the end be the means, or the means the end. There is a great difference whether the earth or the sun be assumed as the centre of our solar system. If we make the earth the center, our astronomy will be in confusion. And if we make the creature, and not God, the end of all things, our theology and religion will in like manner be perverted. It may, in conclusion, be safely asserted that a universe constructed for the purpose of making God known, is a far better universe than one designed for the production of happiness.”

Taken from The Existence of Evil by Charles Hodge at http://www.mbrem.com/apologetics/chodge-evil.htm

Talking About Idolatry in a Postmodern Age – Tim Keller

“There is [a] reason we need a different definition of sin for postmodern people. They are relativists, and the moment you say, ‘Sin is breaking God’s moral standards,’ they will retort, ‘Well, who is to say whose moral standards are right? Everyone has different ones! What makes Christians think that theirs are the only right set of moral standards?’ The usual way to respond to this is to become sidetracked from your presentation of sin and grace into an apologetic discussion about relativism. Of course, postmodern people must be strongly challenged about their mushy view of truth, but I think there is a way to move forward and actually make a credible and convicting gospel presentation before you get into the apologetic issues. I do it this way, I take a page from Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death and I define sin as building your identity—your self-worth and happiness—on anything other than God. Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their careers and romances to save them, to give them everything that they should be looking for in God. This idolatry leads to drivenness, addictions, severe anxiety, obsessiveness, envy of others, and resentment.

I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not offer much resistance. They doubt there is any real alternative, but they admit sheepishly that this is what they are doing. I have also found that this makes sin more personal. Making an idol out of something means giving it the love you should be giving your Creator and Sustainer. To depict sin as not only a violation of law but also of love is more compelling. Of course a complete description of sin and grace includes recognition of our rebellion against God’s authority. But I’ve found that if people become convicted about their sin as idolatry and mis-directed love, it is easier to show them that one of the effects of sin is to put them into denial about their hostility to God. In some ways, idolatry is like addiction writ large. We are ensnared by our spiritual idols just like people are ensnared by drink and drugs. We live in denial of how much we are rebelling against God’s rule just like addicts live in denial of how much they are trampling on their families and loved ones.”

– Tim Keller

http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/theo … ern%20Age/

Surely I was sinful at birth … Psalm 51:5

“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” – Psalm 51:5

http://www.westerfunk.net/archives/chri … 20pretend/

Interesting … science backing up the Scriptural, spiritual reality of our hearts. We are sinful from birth, even from the time our mothers conceived us, just as David says in this Psalm. Well, we at least begin lying at six months old, as this article states. Before this study, it was thought babies did not lie prior to 4 years old. Now the bar has been lowered to six months. This study simply confirms that which is stated in the Scriptures: we are sinners from the womb. Our disposition, from the very beginning, is bent on evil, namely a suppression of the glory and righteousness of God. We must be delivered from this very nature by the work of Christ alone in order to even see Christ at all as worthy of our praise. The only difference between a grown up and a baby is that the adult has the means to carry out the wickedness that lies within the heart. Babies can’t talk in tangible language, they have very little strength to exert, but they can throw tempter tantrums, scream until they get their way, and as shown in this article, they have scientific proof babies begin conceiving deception in their hearts as early as six months. As cute as babies are, this is the reality of all of us and it starts at conception (just as the Psalm said). “It is hard to exaggerate the importance of admitting our condition to be this bad.” (Piper) We must be saved utterly by the work of God in Christ to deliver us from the deadness and nature of our hearts that are turned away from the glory of God. It is by grace alone (God granting regeneration, repentance, and faith) through God-wrought faith alone, in Christ alone that we are saved. Praise God for His mercy and may He move on my daughter Adelaide to turn her heart from the natural deadness that lies within, turned away from God, and draw her to Himself. May He raise her up, by His pure mercy, even now, and grant her regeneration unto salvation. We are prone to wander unless God holds us back by His mercy. This verse and this science both show this to be the case.

NOTE: I am NOT in any way saying I believe that babies who die either in the womb or at a very young age go to hell, as someone may think I lean based on my above statements. But unfortunately, there is not a lot of Scriptural evidence pertaining to this subject, except for one place that alludes to it in 2 Samuel 12:22-23. David has committed adultery with Bathsheba, she conceived, and now as a result of God’s punishment on David for committing the sin he did, the baby died. It states, “[David] 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?” But 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.'” In other words, as it seems the Scripture says here, I shall go to the child in heaven upon dying, but he will not come back to me in this life. Other than this, there are really no other places that speak of what happens to them upon death. And really this statement begs a lot of questions pertaining to the subject in my mind. Having affirmed the “sinful from conception” verse above that David himself wrote in the inspiration of the Spirit, whatever level of sinning a baby can do must be covered by the blood of Christ. So it is likely God, in His mercy, delivers children at this age from wrath through the work of Christ. But you must believe in order to be saved, someone may say. Right. So, how does that work? I have no clue, nor does Scripture say. We have this one ambiguous verse pointing that direction. And that’s about it. All in all, it is speculation to delve too deep into the subject, but rather we should simply trust the Lord that He knows what He is doing and know His actions are wise, just and righteous. This is an area where I believe we are forced to trust the Lord and know that He is good and find comfort in Him, not in answers to things that are not revealed. So really all I can do is leave it there.

Page 49 of 67

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén