Well, now. Check this out! JOHN PIPER.
------------------------------
Why do you believe that infants who die go to heaven?
I believe it not because of a sentimental notion that babies aren't participants in the Fall. They are. Babies are participants in original sin.
The question is whether God has a way to cover their sin even before they have a chance to believe. Babies are not mentally able to put faith in Jesus yet, at least not in any terms that we ordinarily understand. And so I think that God provides another way to cover their sin.
I base my belief that God does not condemn babies who die on Romans 1:19-20:
For what can be known about God is plain to them [that is, to mankind] because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. Therefore, they are without excuse.
The "therefore" at the end says that mankind would seem to have an excuse if they had not seen clearly in nature what God is like. And so, because I don't think little babies can process nature and make conclusions about God's grace, glory or justice, it seems they would fall into the category of still having an excuse.
The way I see it is that God ordains, for his own wise purposes, that at the judgment day all the children who died in infancy will be covered by the blood of Jesus. And they will come to faith, either in heaven immediately or later in the resurrection. And God will not condemn them because he wants to manifest openly and publicly that he does not condemn those who did not have the mental capacities to put their faith in him.
I don't think imbeciles have that capacity, and I don't think babies do. Therefore I hold out hope to parents that the loss of an infant is not their eternal loss.
-------------------------------
Heh. He may be closer to universalism than I thought.
You know what? If Piper caught a hold of the EO view of Grace, Logos/logoi...AND went back to his John Edwardian roots...he'd be right there. Heck, he could even (believe it or not) maintain his SOVEREIGNTY kick a bit ala Edwardian occasionalism.
More...
------------------------------
I think they're all saved. In other words, I don't buy the principle that says that children born into "covenant families" are secure, and children born into "non-covenant families" aren't. I don't go there.
My reason for thinking they're all saved is because of the principle in Romans 1 where Paul argues that all people know God, and they are "without excuse" because they do not honor him or glorify him as God.
His argument is that they are without excuse because they know things, as though accountability in the presence of God at the Last Judgment will be based, at least partly, on whether they had access to necessary knowledge.
And God says they've all got access to knowledge, because they can look at the things he has made and see his power and deity. But they suppress that knowledge instead of submitting to it, therefore they're all condemned.
So I ask the question: OK, is the principle being raised there that, if you don't have access to the knowledge that causes you to be held accountable, therefore you will not be accountable? And I think that's the case.
I think babies and imbeciles—that is, those with profound mental disabilities—don't have access to the knowledge that they will be called to account for. Therefore, somehow in some way, God, through Christ, covers these people.
So that, in a nutshell, is why I think all children who die in infancy are elect and will be, through Jesus Christ, saved in ways that I may not know how, as God honors this principle of accountability.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 8/7/2011 7:52:07 AM (GMT-5) |