RE: [TruthTalk] Back tot he garden

[ShieldsFamily]

Izzy in blue:     Hi Iz,   First off, I want you to know that I think your position is correct in the sense that you have a positive and affirmative answer, which is biblically supported within your theology, to the questions of what happens to deceased infants and why: (1) they go to be with the Lord forever, (2) because they have not sinned. And this is something about which you are rightly confident. That, in my opinion, is far superior to the view which maintains that we can't really know what happens to babies when they die. We can surmise that a good God wouldn't send them to hell, but that is as far as it goes; from a biblical point of view, we can't say anything beyond that.   And so, Izzy, kudos to you. You are tuned into the affirmative "what" and "why" of this issue.   Having said that, I would like to go on to suggest that your view is still somewhat deficient, in that it does not address the questions of how it is that these babies are enabled to receive life eternal, and who it is that makes this possible. I agree with you, and Terry, that they have not sinned personally. Nevertheless, they have died; they are deceased, and something must happen to them in order to "save" them from the sting of that death (which includes not only sinful acts but their nature of sin). What is that something? You have not proven to me that infants need to be saved from their nature of sin.  You have made that conclusion, but have not taken me there with you.   There is a deeply engrained misconception in the Church that there would be some sort of "hereafter," an eternal awareness and activity, for humans, even if Jesus had not come and lived and died and rose again. Granted, the vast consensus is that this hereafter would be quite horrific for humanity, because of its having turned away from God (unless it be for infants who, for whatever reason, don't need to be saved), but the belief is, nonetheless, that there would be an eternal hereafter. This, however, is impossible. There is no hereafter for humans apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ -- period, end of discussion -- and this because there is no resurrection from the dead apart from his resurrection. Again—where’s the proof? Scripture refers to the dead burning in hell forever, as you know and ignore. Before Christ death meant returning to nothingness (cf. Gen 3.19). This is an unrelated scripture to your point. Yes, God preserved the dead throughout the OT in anticipation of the Christ event, but it is only because of this pending event that he did so (cf. Gen 3.15,unrelated 20;unrelated 2Cor 5.19 I’m going to stop looking up all of your scriptural references—do you just pick them out of thin air???). If Christ had not come and accomplished what he did and had he not been resurrected from the dead, deceased infants would not go to be with the Lord. They would turn to dust and cease being anything at all forever. Hence, in order to receive eternal life, they too must be saved -- if only from the sin which brought them death (i.e., "original sin"). To suggest that they do not need to be saved, that they would go to heaven because there is nothing to keep them out (which is essentially what you are saying), is to suggest, even if unintentionally, that there is eternal life apart from the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is not so (see Joh 14.6; “I am the way the Truth and the Life” does NOT mean that those outside Him are not resurrected to eternal death/damnation. Acts 4.12 “There is no other Name under heaven by which men can be saved.”  What does THAT have to do with your point??? Totally unrelated.).   How then may we know that deceased infants are saved and will go to "heaven"? There is much Scriptural support from which to draw the conclusion that they (and all who die without the intellectual/moral capacity to make a counter decision) will spend eternity with the Lord. The Scriptures involved are those passages which speak to the issue of Christ's atoning work, specifically the go'el (Kinsmen Redeemer) aspect of atonement. So here you agree with me!This is that which establishes the ontological relationship between Christ and humanity: i.e., humanity in Christ by way of inclusion. Hence, it speaks to Representation, the representation of the many by the One.   Throughout the Old Testament there are instances of this type of redemption, one man representing or standing in for an entire group, the account of David and the Philistine being the prime example: what happens to David happens to all the Israelites, his victory being their victory as well. Go'el, therefore, expresses the idea of someone redeeming others out of a situation of bondage or forfeited rights. Moreover, we see that the "redeemer" or go’el always possesses some kind of kinship or relationship or bond of affinity or love to those in need, and thus he can claim the cause for their needs as his own and can stand in for his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. In addition to OT accounts of David and others doing this on behalf of their kinsmen, this ontological concept of redemption is also applied to God acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of their special covenant relationship with him; for example, in Isaiah we see this go'el aspect applied to God's servant—the Holy One of Israel—who offers himself for the transgressions of Israel and intercedes for them. More agreeing with me.   In the New Testament it is Paul -- especially, but not exclusively -- who reinterprets this OT conception of redemption in terms of what Christ had actually become and had actually done in the flesh. To the Romans he wrote, But the free gift (of salvation) is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to the many (Note:"many" in the context of this verse means "all"). And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience the many (again meaning "all") will be made righteous. (5.15-19) Here Paul contrasts two representatives, Adam and Christ: Adam's sin brought death and condemnation to all; by contrast, Christ's righteousness brings justification of life and righteousness to all. Later in the same passage he echoes these thoughts: "For the death [Christ] died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God" (6.10). Thank you, but so far you have given me Pablum.  I am not a baby Believer. I celebrate these facts with every breath—PTL!  You and I just disagree about who the “many” are, as you seem to believe that includes anyone/everyone regardless of response or repentance issues.   Paul writes elsewhere concerning the inclusive nature of Christ's one-for-the-many representation. To the Ephesians he writes that God the Father gathered "together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth -- in Him" (1.10). And to the Colossians he writes of Christ that he is "before all things, and in Him all things consist" (1.17 -- with "consist" coming from a word which means "exist" or "have existence"). He tells Timothy that there is one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus, "who gave himself a ransom for all" (1Tim 2.5-6). And in one of his most powerful and reassuring statements concerning the inclusive aspect of Christ's atonement, Paul writes to the Corinthians:  For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and he died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again. Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh (Note: "flesh" here is a reference to the sin nature). Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. -- (2Cor 5.14-19) John likewise speaks to the inclusivity of Christ: "And he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world" (1John 2.2 -- emphasis mine).   Noteworthy to this discussion is the disclosure that not a single one of these statements is predicated upon or conditioned by a positive human response. That is simply because you have left out every single reference to such.  You know they are there!!! One does not have to go through a litany of qualifying steps for these statements to be effectual and true. They are true based upon the finished work of Christ. The astonishing truth contained herein is that all humans are included in Christ by way of his ontological representation of them -- the One for the many. A willingness on our part to take these statements at face value, then, brings with it the disclosure that infants too are included in him. They are secure in Christ because they have not rejected him. How do we know this? Because even those who reject Christ and damn themselves to hell, do it from a position of redemption (see 2Pet 2.1). Infants too are included in Christ and will remain in him until they mature to the point that they make a cognitive decision to reject him.* In their current state, however, they have not the capacity to do so; hence we my be confident in the knowledge that deceased infants will go to be with their Lord. So you think that someone must actively reject Christ, rather than actively receive Christ.  I see no difference in your beliefs than in mine except that yours is backwards.  J izzy   Bill    * This, then, is why the severity of Jesus' statement: "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble" (Luk 17.1-2).  He is speaking of children who are capable of stumbling obviously—not very young infants.