Reformed theologians, please help me

[Butch5]

I essentially asked beartheweak the same question at least five times but never did get a direct response. His Scriptural "issues" that is. So do you feel it's appropriate to just pick a potentially related Scripture and use this thread to discuss it? I've got one that might be appropriate here, for example. It's one Scripture that I'm not so much confused about or feel there's any contradiction with it elsewhere but it is one that I've never found any other discussion/commentary about, as it relates to this issue, if it does. I may be mis-applying it??? I feel it's potentially related, however. Most people (even my pastor) just shy away from it when I ask them what they think. But I feel it's related to the original OP, maybe, since I'm just guessing a little at beartheweak's specific concern.
Let me know if there’s any interest.

Hi Chessman,

I'm interested.

 

[chessman]

[

Sure fire away.

One thing I've picked up on the OP is the general topic of predestination, or God choosing the saved vs the unsaved. This interlocks with so many other issues. Once you get stated it's hard not to keep linking the "Golden Chain".

Yes I picked up on that too. The OP mentioned and various replies mentioned, infants or people that had never had an opportunity to even know who Jesus was. I've spent about 3 hours working on a larger post that's more comprehensive. It's not done yet and I'm off to spearfish in the Gulf most of the weekend. But Here's what I meant earlier. I just keep getting led back to the following passage when I hear about an infant child dying. However, my pastor and others have told me that it's not applicable to their salvation and afterlife. however, I'm not convinced.

Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
I know it doesn't say "all infants go to heaven" and I'm honestly not trying to make it say that. However, if sin is our problem (and it is) and Jesus prayed to the Father that at least those sinners "didn't know what they were doing" so forgive them and we can rest assured Jesus prayed in accordance with God's will such that it was answered and God's attributes do not change over time and God treats others fairly, etc. etc.
That's my problem, however. Are there to many and's and etc's to be good theology?
What I don't think it implies is that we are all not in need of forgiveness of a sin debt, even infants because of "original sin". Note, Jesus didn’t say they didn’t need forgiveness. But He did say (so to speak) that if someone (like an infant) truly didn't know what they were doing that they should be forgiven. Of course all adults do know what they are doing and sin. I'm no universalist. But infants????
I’m also not saying that their salvation (if that’s what total forgiveness of sin even implies) has got anything to do with anything they have done (only Jesus is doing the work).
Nor am I implying that their destiny hasn’t been known by God from before time.
I could go on and on, but I’m out of time for now.
But all things considered, does anyone see any problem with applying this passage/principle to the destiny of infants’ salvation?

 

[ezra]

I know it doesn't say "all infants go to heaven" and I'm honestly not trying to make it say that.

ok then i will say it infants and little Children go to heaven....they are innocent up to the age. they can understand the difference between lost/saved. it varies in age in which no body knows. lots have said age 12 scripture does not give age

 

[Deborah13]

I could go on and on, but I’m out of time for now.[/SIZE][/FONT]But all things considered, does anyone see any problem with applying this passage/principle to the destiny of infants’ salvation?

I really don't know about your above scripture but I would like to give to something maybe think about.

Jeremiah 32
35 And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’

God was appalled at what they were doing to their children. Do we really believe a merciful and loving God would do the same to innocents?

 

[Butch5]

[


Yes I picked up on that too. The OP mentioned and various replies mentioned, infants or people that had never had an opportunity to even know who Jesus was. I've spent about 3 hours working on a larger post that's more comprehensive. It's not done yet and I'm off to spearfish in the Gulf most of the weekend. But Here's what I meant earlier. I just keep getting led back to the following passage when I hear about an infant child dying. However, my pastor and others have told me that it's not applicable to their salvation and afterlife. however, I'm not convinced.

Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
I know it doesn't say "all infants go to heaven" and I'm honestly not trying to make it say that. However, if sin is our problem (and it is) and Jesus prayed to the Father that at least those sinners "didn't know what they were doing" so forgive them and we can rest assured Jesus prayed in accordance with God's will such that it was answered and God's attributes do not change over time and God treats others fairly, etc. etc.
That's my problem, however. Are there to many and's and etc's to be good theology?
What I don't think it implies is that we are all not in need of forgiveness of a sin debt, even infants because of "original sin". Note, Jesus didn’t say they didn’t need forgiveness. But He did say (so to speak) that if someone (like an infant) truly didn't know what they were doing that they should be forgiven. Of course all adults do know what they are doing and sin. I'm no universalist. But infants????
I’m also not saying that their salvation (if that’s what total forgiveness of sin even implies) has got anything to do with anything they have done (only Jesus is doing the work).
Nor am I implying that their destiny hasn’t been known by God from before time.
I could go on and on, but I’m out of time for now.
But all things considered, does anyone see any problem with applying this passage/principle to the destiny of infants’ salvation?

Hi Chessman,

I think some of the issues here come from the Penal model of the Atonement, which I don't hold, thus they are not an issue for me. However, I see the passage relating only to those people of which Jesus was speaking. Keep in mind that Jesus was speaking of Jews who were being blinded.

 

[Deborah13]

Hi Deborah13,

Sorry, I had the same file label as both a and b. I have fixed it. Here is a Romans 9A. As I said they are not organized or proofed so there may be redundant statements and punctuation mistakes.

Thanks Butch!

 

[Deborah13]

ok then i will say it infants and little Children go to heaven....they are innocent up to the age. they can understand the difference between lost/saved. it varies in age in which no body knows. lots have said age 12 scripture does not give age

I think Jewish boys barmitzpa at 13. Not sure of spelling and didn't look up.

 

[chessman]

Hi Chessman,

I think some of the issues here come from the Penal model of the Atonement, which I don't hold, thus they are not an issue for me. However, I see the passage relating only to those people of which Jesus was speaking. Keep in mind that Jesus was speaking of Jews who were being blinded.

What leads you to understand Jesus was speaking of Jews who were being blinded? And why, if they were being blinded would He ask the Father for their forgiveness?

 

[Butch5]

Hi Deborah13,

You're welcome!

 

[Butch5]

What leads you to understand Jesus was speaking of Jews who were being blinded? And why, if they were being blinded would He ask the Father for their forgiveness?

Hi Chessman,

It was prophesied in Isaiah that the Jews would be blinded.

9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.
10 For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. (Isa 29:9-10 KJV)

This passage is right after chapter 28 where Christ's coming is prophesied along with the destruction of Jerusalem. Paul quotes it in Romans 11.

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

(Rom 11:7-8 KJV)

Jesus also quotes Isaiah in this regard.

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

(Isa 6:8-10 KJV)

Compare this passage with Mark 4. Jesus said to His disciples.

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.(Mar 4:10-12 KJV)

I think this could be what Jesus was referring to when He said, 'they know not what they do'. Those Jews were blinded to what was going on. Paul says that things were kept hidden so that the Princes ( I believe demons) wouldn't know what was happening.

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1Co 2:7-8 KJV)

I believe the blinding was to bring about the crucifixion. It was necessary that the Jews reject Christ so that the crucifixion would take place.

 

[mondar]

In this case, it's being asked of those who hold a traditional reformed view to help explain that view; although it's not clear what view is being misunderstood totally.

Tell me, do you think it is possible for him to ask this question of people who are reformed in threads like this?

 

[chessman]

Hi Chessman,

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1Co 2:7-8 KJV)

I believe the blinding was to bring about the crucifixion. I was necessary that the Jews reject Christ so that the crucifixion would take place.

There are other examples of God blinding persons (Pharaoh, even King David temporarily) in the Bible. You are right. as to whether Jesus asked forgiveness in this prayer for; 1) all mankind (universalism), 2) just the Jewish people, most of them, at that time 3) just the Jewish leaders at that time 3) Pilate 4) the few soldiers that drove in the nails or 5) infants, you may very well have the best evidence. but that's not the aspect of Jesus words i am applying to infant deaths. It's the justification FOR that i apply. What is perfect justification for whoever He meant, is justification for all who are likewise meeting the same criteria ( in my opinion). Infants, don't know they are "sinners", so to speak. But then again, some teenagers living in my house "say" that lying to me is not sin, but I'm sure in their hearts they know better But toward the OP issues, does He? 1) blind those further that have used their freewill and rejected him already like Pharaoh and who are non-elect, never were 2) blind elect persons temporarily for a special purpose holding them accountable for their freewill sins, yes, but applying forgiveness via Christ or 3) blind 50% of people arbitrarily? I say the Biblical evidence is for 1) and 2) but NOT 3).

Not that you meant 3) but the OP confusion might have. As you say (1Co 2:7-8 KJV) proves case 1). King David's example or even more literally Paul's blinding proves 2). I see no biblical evidence for 3) however. Only popular opinion!

 

[chessman]

Tell me, do you think it is possible for him to ask this question of people who are reformed in threads like this?

Obviously it's "possible", beartheweak did ask the question in the OP. Did you mean is it appropriate or acceptable under the ToS? I wouldn't see why not.

As to whether he'll get a good biblically proven answer, that's TBD. But it will not come via any unrespectful, unfounded and extremely presumptive posts like:

chessman, it is quite easy to tell you are not reformed, but want to speak for we who are reformed.

 

[Butch5]

There are other examples of God blinding persons (Pharaoh, even King David temporarily) in the Bible. You are right. as to whether Jesus asked forgiveness in this prayer for; 1) all mankind (universalism), 2) just the Jewish people, most of them, at that time 3) just the Jewish leaders at that time 3) Pilate 4) the few soldiers that drove in the nails or 5) infants, you may very well have the best evidence. but that's not the aspect of Jesus words i am applying to infant deaths. It's the justification FOR that i apply. What is perfect justification for whoever He meant, is justification for all who are likewise meeting the same criteria ( in my opinion). Infants, don't know they are "sinners", so to speak. But then again, some teenagers living in my house "say" that lying to me is not sin, but I'm sure in their hearts they know better But toward the OP issues, does He? 1) blind those further that have used their freewill and rejected him already like Pharaoh and who are non-elect, never were 2) blind elect persons temporarily for a special purpose holding them accountable for their freewill sins, yes, but applying forgiveness via Christ or 3) blind 50% of people arbitrarily? I say the Biblical evidence is for 1) and 2) but NOT 3).

Not that you meant 3) but the OP confusion might have. As you say (1Co 2:7-8 KJV) proves case 1). King David's example or even more literally Paul's blinding proves 2). I see no biblical evidence for 3) however. Only popular opinion!

Hi Chessman,

I agree with what you've said here. Also, regarding infants, I don't think the can sin. A infant that can't comprehend or do anything can't sin. This is only a problem for the Penal model of the atonement not for the Classic view. I don't hold to the idea of original sin either so, that wouldn't be problem I would encounter either.

 

[chessman]

Hi Chessman,

I agree with what you've said here. Also, regarding infants, I don't think the can sin. A infant that can't comprehend or do anything can't sin. This is only a problem for the Penal model of the atonement not for the Classic view. I don't hold to the idea of original sin either so, that wouldn't be problem I would encounter either.

It seems logical to me that even if someone did hold to "original sin's" universal effect upon all humanity, even infants, you could still place .. Forgiveness for they know not what they do ... firmly within a Reformed Theology. Therefore, even within RT's Penal Substitution, it's proof God is fair in the end. After all, the infants do suffer death such that the "penalty for sin (Adam's) is death". It's their eternal state that most people have confusion over.

From Wiki; Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory)[1][2] is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition.[1][2][3][4][5] It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.

Which makes it even more profound for Christ to have said this while on the cross.

So, are you sure my point about ... Forgiveness for they know not what they do ... is a problem within a Penal Model? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Danus]

Tell me, do you think it is possible for him to ask this question of people who are reformed in threads like this?

Sure. If there is a question about a particular theology & your seeking more understanding wouldn't you ask those who hold to it?

 

[mondar]

Obviously it's "possible", beartheweak did ask the question in the OP. Did you mean is it appropriate or acceptable under the ToS? I wouldn't see why not.

Chessman, there is nothing "obvious" about it at all. If anything is obvious it is the opposite. If he wants to ask a question of reformed people, he should go where reformed people hang out. There are few to none here. All he is going to do is draw out people who want to bash anything reformed.

As to whether he'll get a good biblically proven answer, that's TBD. But it will not come via any unrespectful, unfounded and extremely presumptive posts like:

The post I made was not unfounded, or presumptive in any way. You are indeed not reformed. As far as a biblical answer, I would be happy to discuss the scriptures with beartheweak, but probably not here.

 

[mondar]

Sure. If there is a question about a particular theology & your seeking more understanding wouldn't you ask those who hold to it?

He is certainly welcome to try, but why ask such a question in an environment where so many are extremely hostile and ignorant of reformed theology?

 

[mondar]

Sure. If there is a question about a particular theology & your seeking more understanding wouldn't you ask those who hold to it?

Danus, maybe I should just give up and go with the flow? These threads have always been a free for all with no structure where anyone can say anything, no matter how unrelated to the OP.

 

[mondar]

[


Yes I picked up on that too. The OP mentioned and various replies mentioned, infants or people that had never had an opportunity to even know who Jesus was. I've spent about 3 hours working on a larger post that's more comprehensive. It's not done yet and I'm off to spearfish in the Gulf most of the weekend. But Here's what I meant earlier. I just keep getting led back to the following passage when I hear about an infant child dying. However, my pastor and others have told me that it's not applicable to their salvation and afterlife. however, I'm not convinced.

Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
I know it doesn't say "all infants go to heaven" and I'm honestly not trying to make it say that. However, if sin is our problem (and it is) and Jesus prayed to the Father that at least those sinners "didn't know what they were doing" so forgive them and we can rest assured Jesus prayed in accordance with God's will such that it was answered and God's attributes do not change over time and God treats others fairly, etc. etc.
That's my problem, however. Are there to many and's and etc's to be good theology?
What I don't think it implies is that we are all not in need of forgiveness of a sin debt, even infants because of "original sin". Note, Jesus didn’t say they didn’t need forgiveness. But He did say (so to speak) that if someone (like an infant) truly didn't know what they were doing that they should be forgiven. Of course all adults do know what they are doing and sin. I'm no universalist. But infants????
I’m also not saying that their salvation (if that’s what total forgiveness of sin even implies) has got anything to do with anything they have done (only Jesus is doing the work).
Nor am I implying that their destiny hasn’t been known by God from before time.
I could go on and on, but I’m out of time for now.
But all things considered, does anyone see any problem with applying this passage/principle to the destiny of infants’ salvation?

chessman, your interpretation of Luke 23 has absolutely nothing to do with the context. That context has nothing to do with infants, nor does it have to do with those who never hear the gospel.

Luk 23:32 And there were also two others, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
Luk 23:33 And when they came unto the place which is called The skull, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the left.
Luk 23:34 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And parting his garments among them, they cast lots.

The words "them" (αυτοις) and the words "they" (endings on οιδασιν and ποιουσιν) cannot refer to infants. The word ποιουσιν (they do) must refer to the Roman soldiers crucifying Jesus. In the very same sentence, they are casting lots for Jesus outer garnment. He is asking the Father to forgive those Roman soldiers because they are completely unaware of who he is, and therefore are unaware of what they are doing. This has reference to only a specific group of soldiers in a specific place at a specific event in a specific time. To make this a general rule for those who never heard the gospel is just completely unwarranted in this context.