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?
Simple. They have not sinned. 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) Bill Taylor wrote: > If a "relationship" with Christ is a prerequisite > to being "in" Christ, ... No, I don't mean to say that it is a "prerequisite" but rather that being IN CHRIST conveys a relationship. My newborn child has a relationship with me because that child was born to me. In the same way, those IN CHRIST have a relationship with Christ, even infants. Bill Taylor wrote: > then we may want to believe > that children are safe (and this because of things > we believe about the kind of God we have) but we > have no real assurance that they are. Sure we do, just as much assurance as we can have that if an innocent man appears before an all knowing and just Judge, that man will not be condemned for something he did not do. Is it possible that you have not separated yourself from Calvin enough to recognize the problems it is creating for your present theology? You seem to be trying very hard to resolve a problem that for someone like me is extremely simple. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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: 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. I may respond to some other things you have said when I get time. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
