Jonathan: First let me say thank
you to David for participating in this discussion. We appreciate
it.
Bill Taylor wrote:
> Many, many children have died in infancy before
giving
> or even being able to give any indication that
they are
> in a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yet you
agree with
> me that these children are not destined for
damnation.
> They are safe and will "go to heaven." The
question is,
> why are they safe?
David: Simple. They have not
sinned.
Jonathan: For all have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God. This �all� word seems to give you
problems. Are you saying that this sin that Paul speaks of is not enough
sin to condemn us? Note that I do not believe that babies are condemned as I
am approaching it in the same fashion as Bill here.
David: I believe that the judgment is based upon
works.
Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent,
we may be accepted
of him. For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ; that
every one may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he
hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing
therefore the terror of
the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest
unto God; and I
trust also are made manifest in your consciences. (2
Corinthians 5:9-11
KJV)
Jonathan: A light bulb just clicked on
for me. This helps me understand why you put so much primacy on works
instead of the work done by Jesus Christ.
Bill Taylor wrote:
> If "faith" and "repentance" (and on and on) are
> the conditions which must be met on our end in
> order to be saved, then we can only speculate as
> to how anyone can be saved in the absence of
these
> things -- even though we may know intuitively
that
> our God is not a god that would send infants to
hell.
David: You don't seem to make a distinction between
the person who has
committed sins deserving of death and the infant who
has committed no
sins. The former needs a way out of his problem,
whereas the latter
does not.
Jonathan: This sounds much like
how the RCC makes a difference between mortal and venal sin. How many
categories of sin do you have? Some sins are worthy of death and others
are not? Is there such a thing as a �white� lie? Are there
different levels of sin? Where is the line that states one is now due
judgment? When is a sin not a sin?
Bill Taylor wrote:
> What I want to know, is IF this first Gospel is
> present and set forth in the Bible, where do we
> find the second gospel, the one that explains WHY
> kids don't need these things? It's one thing to
> believe THAT they don't (even if this is true);
> it is another to explain WHY they
don't.
David: The why is EASY. The wages of sin
is death. Infants have not sinned.
The why is answered.
There is no need for any "second gospel." The
gospel is for those who
have found themselves sinners, those who have heard
the law and have
been convinced of their deserving damnation.
Infants don't need any
gospel, either first or second.
Jonathan: Please note that it
appears to me that you do have a second gospel. It would be the
condition of faith (something the infant did not have). But I think you
are saying here that infants do not need the gospel (meaning that they do not
require Christ to do anything for them?).
Bill Taylor wrote:
> There is much more to Christ's atoning work than
> the Protestant theory of substitutionary
atonement
> can explain. This theory in and of itself is
incapable
> of addressing certain questions (the one
regarding infants
> in particular).
David: It seems to me that all the problems you
perceive were caused by Calvin, and if you would completely ditch the Reform
theology, you would easily come to a much more clear and simple theology that
answers all these
questions.
Bill Taylor wrote:
> Torrance gets us through this problem. He finds
in
> Scripture through the examples of atonement in
the
> OT several other aspects of atonement besides
just
> a penal substitution. As I have stated before,
one
> of these aspects is realized through the go'el.
> What Christ did in his flesh he did in all flesh
> because he is our Kinsmen Redeemer.
David: Do you think this teaching is original with
Torrance? I have heard this
Kinsman Redeemer thing preached in church from the
pulpit of a
non-denominational church by someone I am fairly
certain never heard of
Torrance.
Jonathan: This teaching is
original to orthodoxy :) Although I believe this to be true, note that I am
jesting here.
David: As I think more and more about this, I
don't think the problem has much
to do with Torrance's view of the Atonement. The
problem is in
understanding how that Atonement is applied to
us. Is it applied
through us being born a human? The problem with
that idea, in my way of
thinking, is similar to the problems created by making
baptism a
replacement for circumcision. It is a way of
making a spiritual
covenant carnal again. The law was of the flesh,
but the covenant of
grace is of the spirit. We partake of it by
faith, not by being born as
a human being.
Jonathan: This is where the
vicarious humanity of Christ comes into play. Taking that which is
carnal, cleansing it and returning it to the Father. We need to be
careful with the flesh/spirit dualism that you have created here. I
believe it is more appropriate to speak of humanity being born again, not just
the spirit (or body).
Bill Taylor wrote:
> He is our blood relative, the one who through his
> lineage is qualified to represent us all; thus
> when he defeats sin, death, and the devil, in his
> flesh he defeats these things in all flesh. All
> humanity is included in his humanity. When he
died,
> we died. When he was raised we were raised. When
> he ascended we ascended. Our ontological status
> is in Christ Jesus:
David: Amen! This is Bible. No
problem with this view at all. I have
preached this for decades. How do we get in
Christ Jesus? By faith.
We come into Adam by natural birth. We come into
Christ by spiritual
faith.
Jonathan: I must disagree with
you here. I very much doubt that this is what you have preached for
decades. You add the condition of faith to what Bill said. That
addition is huge and completely changes what Bill said as well as your
preaching. I think that you would rewrite it to state all who by faith
accept Christ are included in his humanity. That is radically different
(and not Bible). Let me confess something here. I have (as I would
think most others have as well, at least any that I have spoken to about the
subject) a stereotype of what a street preacher is like. Works and
judgment and as much fear as possible are all wrapped up within the gospel
that most who hear it are unable to see it. It does not appear as good
news to them since there are a rare few in society that think that judgment
and works are good news. There are two major doctrines that run through
scripture: justification and adoption. The western church has given
primacy to justification, leading to its demise in my opinion. Adoption
always comes first (tis grace). I think you would put justification
first as well. 2 Cor 5:19 states: "For God was in Christ, reconciling the
world to himself, no longer counting people's sins against them. This is
the wonderful message he has given us to tell others." This is what
Torrance is talking about, the gospel.
Peace and joy,
Jonathan
