Wednesday, September 28, 2011

"We Deserve to Die. Horribly." Really??

1997 Jordan Sarah by paynehollow
1997 Jordan Sarah, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

Okay, here you can answer the question. And I know we've covered much of this ground fairly recently, I'm just taking another shot at it.

Recently, I've read a more conservative fellow make the suggestion...

"When asked about the Galileans killed by Pilate, He assured His listeners, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:2-3). The message? Everyone deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy. Even me. Even you. That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice."

The context of that quote was the writer was speaking of God's command to Israel to attack and destroy Amalekite, a nation that had been quite evil in its dealings with Israel. The key passage in question was from 1 Samuel 15...

""Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child AND INFANT, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'"" [emphases mine]

Here we have that idea that a literal reading of this passage has one advocating a God who, AT LEAST AT TIMES, might command a people to kill infants. This is rather a shocking notion for a God of perfect love and perfect justice. Thus, this blogger had made the attempt to explain it by saying, "EVERYONE deserves to die. Horribly. Without mercy... That is not mean or evil or unkind. It is justice."

Again, his words.

My question (open to all, but especially our more conservative friends) in response to this rather astounding proposition:

1. Do you agree? Do we ALL deserve to die horribly and without mercy?

2. Do you think that one day old infants deserve to die horribly and without mercy?

3. IF SO, why?

What has a one day old infant done (or NOT done) that would suggest that they deserve to die horribly?

4. How is justice served by a one day old infant being killed horribly and without mercy?

Or, let's take it another way. Let's say that you can AGREE with me that a one day infant does not "deserve to die horribly," that this is YOUR opinion as a fellow human and Christian.

Nonetheless, some might argue that while THEY PERSONALLY don't think an infant should die without mercy, that God MIGHT think so.

If so,

5. Do you think that GOD thinks that we all deserve to die horribly, without mercy?

6. Do you think thta GOD thinks that a one day old infant deserves to die horribly, without mercy?

Note: I'm NOT asking if you think a one day old infant is a sinner. I'm not asking if you think God will ask YOU to kill an infant. I'm asking just the questions I've asked.

While I'm at it, this other fella insisted (or at least appeared to insist) that because the Bible says a infant can lie, that this means that a one day infant lies. The Bible says that is the case, therefore it must BE the case.

The passage in question is Psalm 58, where the Psalmist is writing a song about "the wicked" and unjust rulers...

Even from birth the wicked go astray;
from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.


Now, to me, this is obviously not a literal fact, but a poetic bit of hyperbole. Nonetheless, this other fella appeared to disagree, holding to the "if it says it, I'll believe it's literal until I have some reason to think it's NOT literal..." and my "it's obviously poetic hyperbole" is not reason enough to think it isn't literal.

So, a final question:

7. In what way is an infant "from the womb" spreading lies?

Any answers to these questions would be appreciated.

If you are going to say something other than an answer to these questions, please begin with "THIS IS NOT AN ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS..." and a brief summation of what you ARE addressing (ie, it might be reasonable to say, "This is not an answer to these questions, but rather, I'd like to point out WHY the questions are not reasonable questions..." if you could make such a case. Otherwise, you'll be off topic and likely ignored.)

79 comments:

Marshall Art said...

Do we deserve to die "horribly"? That's hyperbole. Death is horrible. The death of which the Bible speaks is the most horrible because it means no eternity in God's presence. But this is the horrible death we all deserve. The death Christ suffered is the death we all deserve. But each is withheld from us if we accept Him as our Savior.

We are born sinners. Thus, a newborn is equally deserving of the death Christ suffered because the wages of sin is death. Sin is death. God and sin don't mix. There is either One or the other.

The death of all sinners is justice because that is what God has mandated to be the consequence of sin, to be the only ramification to which sin can lead. The problem is that God's justice is judged according to human understanding of justice, not God's understanding.

Or rather, what is justice to God will not always seem just to us. Many don't understand why a nice guy won't gain heaven without belief in God and acceptance of Christ. It doesn't seem just to us. But it is exactly what justice is to God. In the same way, a baby dying may seem unjust to us, but isn't necessarily so to Him.

Once again, I take issue with this clear violation of the idea of serious and honest study of the Bible:

"Here we have that idea that a literal reading of this passage has one advocating a God who, AT LEAST AT TIMES, might command a people to kill infants."

A LITERAL reading can only lead an honest person to understand that God, at times, HAD commanded people to kill everyone includinginfants. To say He might is incorrect and dishonest, especially given that He does not deal with us as He did with the OT Jews.

"This is rather a shocking notion for a God of perfect love and perfect justice."

It is only shocking for those who fail to understand what God's idea of perfect love and justice means, or, to one who would conflate what is mandated for people and what is reserved to God. Thus, the failure and error is in you and not the blogger in question.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Thus, a newborn is equally deserving of the death Christ suffered because the wages of sin is death

So then, would you mind answering the question as asked?

That is, are you saying that it is your opinion that a one day old infants deserves to die horribly?

Two reasonable follow up questions:

Do you think a one day old infant deserves to die and go to an eternal punishment in a burning hell?

If so, what exactly is it you think the babe has done (or not done) to "deserve" an eternal punishment in hell?

Edwin Drood said...

life is a gift on-loan from God in does not belong to us, it's His. He can take it back no matter how young or cute you are.


What is the point of this useless exercise? What are you looking for Dan?

Dan Trabue said...

Answers to reasonable questions to the problematic claim that it is to say that a one day old infant deserves to die horribly.

I'm not talking about young and cute. I'm talking about questions about a God of perfect justice.

Got any answers to the questions asked?

Edwin Drood said...

^THIS IS NOT AN ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS..

Sorry didn't read the whole thing

Edwin Drood said...

Q1. no, but we all deserve to die. It will probably be unpleasant.

Q2. no but we all deserve to die, It will probably be unpleasant.

Q3. We were conceived in sin and have been condemned to die by God since the fall of man. Being conceived by sinful parents is why infants and everyone else deserves death.

Q4. In this case justice is served because God owns the child's life and takes what is His.

Q5. no, but we all deserve to die. It will probably be unpleasant

Q6. no, but they all deserve to die. It will probably be unpleasant

Q7. That question makes no sense since it premise is based on a historical interpretation of psalm. Picking and choosing now?

Craig said...

This probably won't be considered an answer.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—"

"For the wages of sin is death,"

Personally, while I agree that death may be horrible, and that we all as sinners deserve death, I don't think I'd phrase it "we all deserve a horrible death".

Dan Trabue said...

All right, Edwin! Some straight answers. I truly appreciate it.

Now, may we review?

2. Do you think that one day old infants deserve to die horribly and without mercy?

no but we all deserve to die, It will probably be unpleasant.

"No," so you are saying that an infant doesn't deserve to die HORRIBLY and WITHOUT MERCY? Is that what your "no," is in reference to? Or are you saying "NO, an infant does not deserve to die." period?

3. IF SO, why?

What has a one day old infant done (or NOT done) that would suggest that they deserve to die horribly?


We were conceived in sin and have been condemned to die by God since the fall of man. Being conceived by sinful parents is why infants and everyone else deserves death.

So, if I may think through your answer, you are saying what that ONE DAY OLD infant DID was to be conceived in sin, is that your position? That "being conceived by sinful parents" means you "deserve death," right? Is that your position?

If so, is that not a condemnation of the innocent based upon the sins of others? Is that not a shedding of innocent blood?

How does that square with the Biblical (and logical and self-evident) truth that "the child shall not pay for the sin of the father..."?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, for the most part, you answered questions I did not ask. But you did appear to attempt to get to the heart of the matter with your comment here...

Personally, while I agree that death may be horrible, and that we all as sinners deserve death, I don't think I'd phrase it "we all deserve a horrible death".

So, you think that "we all as sinners deserve death" - does that mean that you think the ONE DAY OLD INFANT "deserves death," too? If so, why? On what basis?

Dan Trabue said...

Edwin answered this question...

In what way is an infant "from the womb" spreading lies?

Thusly...

That question makes no sense since it premise is based on a historical interpretation of psalm. Picking and choosing now?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that this is not a literally historic passage, therefore it ought not be taken literally? If so, I agree.

Edwin Drood said...

Psalms is not a historical account, they are psalms. the word psalm is a proper noun with a definition:

psalm (säm)
n.
1. A sacred song; a hymn.
2. Psalms (used with a sing. verb) Abbr. Ps. See Table at Bible.
tr.v. psalmed, psalm·ing, psalms
To sing of or celebrate in psalms.

Once again Dan what are you looking for? If this passage is not a historical account then what is it? It has to be something? is it literal, symbolic, a psalm a proverb a parable or something else. You've written like three posts about what you DONT believe. Tell us what it is.

Dan Trabue said...

Edwin...

If this passage is not a historical account then what is it? It has to be something? is it literal, symbolic, a psalm a proverb a parable or something else.

I'm not sure what you're asking. I've ANSWERED this question about what I think this is...

"Now, to me, this is obviously not a literal fact, but a poetic bit of hyperbole."

THAT is what I think it is. What are YOU saying it is? A literal demand that we assume babies "from the womb" are lying? If so, what does that look like? How does a one day old lie?

Edwin Drood said...

that makes no sense to embed a hyperbole (a very long one at that) inside a historical book.

so is 1st sam a hyperbole, did David never exist? pretty important because Jesus claimed to come from Davids line. Did Jesus exist???

You believe in Jesus but not his ancestors. Interesting

Dan Trabue said...

Who says that Psalms are a history book? It's a poetry book. Psalms are songs, not history. Poetry uses imagery.

Agreed?

I'm speaking of Psalms in my question here, not 1 Sam. I DO believe that David was a real person (I don't know what brought that up since I never said otherwise).

So, given that Psalms are a collection of poetry, why would we think that something that sounds on the face of it like hyperbole is literal?

Are you saying you think a one day old infant lies? If so, why not answer the question directly and the follow up question: How does an infant lie?

Marshall Art said...

I believe the Psalm speaks of man's sinful nature. When the blogger in question referred to that Psalm, I feel confident that is what he had in mind as well. The idea, then was to point out that regardless of age, we are all sinful creatures, creatures of a sinful nature and thus equally deserving of a horrible death. Once again, the phrase "horrible death" to me is that Christ died a horrible death that we each deserve. "We each" being every human being who has ever been born from the moment each was born. We, including one day old infants, are deserving of that horrible death by virtue of being born human with a sinful nature. It isn't a matter of justice or mercy, it is a matter of fact. As we are each born, we are each human and thus sinners deserving of the horrible death Christ suffered.

If this, together with my original comments don't handle your questions comprehensively, then you're playing games, seeking to preach what isn't true about God or Scripture.

It should also be noted that to admit, and accept, that all are deserving of that horrible death has nothing to do with whether or not we will be shown mercy or why. But plainly obvious to me is the fact that you cannot come to grips with the notion that God might work on a different level than one that would leave you feeling comfortable, that somehow. You have decided what qualifies as "perfect love and justice" and God had better abide or else.

Will a day old child born of an obscure tribe in a remote and unknown jungle where Christianity is unknown be welcomed into heaven should it die on his first day on earth? Personally, I don't have any idea. But it seems rather plain that you believe he will because otherwise it conflicts with your idea of what "perfect love and justice" looks like. But this assumes that God MUST save all, that He is unable to live with Himself if He should not.

Marshall Art said...

BTW, there is no "what has a baby done to deserve it" response, because the deserving comes with the birth. What has any of us done but to be born a human being with a sin nature? Nothing. As was insisted, you focus on the doing or not doing. No action is necessary for us to be so deserving beyond existing.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

there is no "what has a baby done to deserve it" response, because the deserving comes with the birth.

So then, wouldn't THAT be your answer to the actual questions? Let me repeat back the questions and what I'm hearing you say is your answer and then you can say, YES, that is what I'm saying or NO, it's not...

2. Do you think that one day old infants deserve to die horribly and without mercy?

Marshall: Yes, I think a newborn babe deserves to die, I think GOD thinks a newborn babe deserves to die. (correct?)

3. IF SO, why?

Marshall: Because they were born, that's all. (Correct?)

What has a one day old infant done (or NOT done) that would suggest that they deserve to die horribly?

Marshall: They have not done or failed to do one single thing. It's just that being born makes you deserving of death. (Correct?)

4. How is justice served by a one day old infant being killed horribly and without mercy?

Marshall: It just is, the problem is, you don't understand God's justice... (correct?)

7. In what way is an infant "from the womb" spreading lies?

Marshall: Newborn babes don't actually lie, that passage just means that they are sinners. Where it says "They spread lies from the womb" is just a figurative way of saying that they are born sinners.

(correct?)

Dan Trabue said...

If those are your answers, Marshall, one reasonable follow up question is, "On what do you base your conclusion that a newborn baby "deserves" to die?"

Craig said...

This is also probably not and answer.

"Who says that Psalms are a history book? It's a poetry book. Psalms are songs, not history. Poetry uses imagery."

Dan, it seems as though your are saying that because Psalms is not a history book, we cannot glean anything much from it. I would wonder why (since we can glean "truths" from other non "historical" writings") we can't glean this particular "truth" from psalms. It seems doesn't seem reasonable, nor have I seen any evidence, to conclude that every single word written poetically must be untrue. Who says poems or songs can't contain anything but imagery? Seems like I've seen some historic poems before.

This might be an answer.

"So, you think that "we all as sinners deserve death"

Yes. IF ALL have sinned, AND the WAGES of sin is DEATH, then it seems like a reasonable inference that ALL deserve to die.


- does that mean that you think the ONE DAY OLD INFANT "deserves death," too?

Do I mean that a one year old deserves to physically die today, no I did not say that. Do I think that ALL includes everyone, then yes.

If so, why?

I think the above covers that.

On what basis?

Since this is just a reiteration of the previous "question", I still think the above answers that.


This is probably not an answer.

It seems as you are hung up on two things that seem extraneous to the point.

1. The word "deserve". Just because one deserves to die (Am I correct in thinking you are talking about physical death here?) does not mean one will die today. Further, the Hope of the Gospel is that even though we deserve death, we (Through Christ's death and resurrection)(Note the symbolism there. Christ defeats death. Death has no power.), we get life.

2. The word "horrible", I wonder if you would have gone to all of this trouble without this word. It seems as though you are expecting other people to explain/defend/whatever some anonymous persons use of this word. Quite frankly that a little strange.

Craig said...

Even if the phrase about "babies lying from birth is symbolic or hyperbole" all that does is raise the question of what it symbolizes.

What seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the symbolism (if it is) would be that we are all corrupted with sin from our birth.

So, even if this is symbolic language we can still ascertain the truths being communicated.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

It seems as you are hung up on two things that seem extraneous to the point...

Taking your last one first...

2. The word "horrible", I wonder if you would have gone to all of this trouble without this word. It seems as though you are expecting other people to explain/defend/whatever some anonymous persons use of this word. Quite frankly that a little strange.

Someone claims that infants deserve to die. Horribly. They claim that this is conservative theology. That IS a strange place for conservatives to hang their hats. I thought I'd open it up to other conservatives to have a chance to comment. It sounds like (although it's a bit hard to say for sure, given your answers) you all are saying that dying "horribly" is not the point. It sounds like that you would disagree with this conservative's use of the term.

Okay, that helps clarify that maybe this guy is outside the norm of conservative thinking. You all appear then, to think that an infant deserves to die, but that you would not go so far as to say that an infant deserves to die horribly. Good. That's a step in a good direction, it seems to me.

Nonetheless, the claim that infants "deserve to die" is still a troubling hunch and yes, I would probably have raised this with or without the use of the word "horribly," to answer that question you had.

Craig...

1. The word "deserve". Just because one deserves to die (Am I correct in thinking you are talking about physical death here?)...

Physical. Eternal. You tell me. I believe the fella making the original point (and probably you all) are suggesting that yes, infants deserve to die an eternal death in a fiery hell, but you tell me.

...does not mean one will die today. Further, the Hope of the Gospel is that even though we deserve death, we (Through Christ's death and resurrection)(Note the symbolism there. Christ defeats death. Death has no power.), we get life.

It would be my point that no, infants don't "deserve" to die. Why would they?

It would be my point that we humans have a sin problem. Sin hurts. Sin kills. It is that which is bad and bad for us. Sin separates us from each other and from God. Sin leads to a hellish life. God doesn't want that separation, that pain, that harm, that bad for us. God, in God's grace, offers us the chance and challenge to leave that all behind us and to embrace grace, love and justice.

So, it's not so much that we "deserve to die," (where in the Bible would you get that?), but that our sin is killing us physically and spiritually.

But God offers us life by grace, by love, by justice.

That seems to be the clear gospel message found in the Bible front to back.

So then, when some people take individual verses (verses that say "babies lie," that say "no one does good," that say "all have sinned," etc) and take those metaphoric/hyperbolic passages and treat them as literal demands, they end up with a skewed theology, one that says, "Infants deserve to die, both now and forever in hell."

That is a sickened theology, one that is not of grace or logic or the Bible, it seems to me.

So, Craig, do you think that infants deserve to die now and forever in hell? If so, on what basis?

Are you agreeing with Marshall that merely being born means that you deserve an eternity in hell?

Do you see the problem from a biblical point of view with such a suggestion?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

IF ALL have sinned, AND the WAGES of sin is DEATH, then it seems like a reasonable inference that ALL deserve to die.

But ONLY if you insist that "the wages of sin is death" and "all have sinned" must needs to be taken literally.

IF you think that they are metaphors or hyperbolic language to emphasize a point, then no, that is not a reasonable inference. Agreed?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

it seems as though your are saying that because Psalms is not a history book, we cannot glean anything much from it. I would wonder why (since we can glean "truths" from other non "historical" writings") we can't glean this particular "truth" from psalms.

I have never suggested that we cannot glean anything much from the Psalms. I don't think that. I love the Psalms and think we CAN glean much from it. It is FULL of great and powerful truths about God.

BUT, in order to understand any literature to its most fullest, we need to recognize hyperbole and imagery when we see it.

Obviously, a baby "from the womb" does not/CAN NOT tell or spread lies. That is obviously hyperbolic. That does not mean there is not a Truth to be gleaned, but if one gleans the truth that "babies lie," well, one has gleaned a rather stupid and false "truth." Agreed?

IF, on the other hand, one gleans the truth that we are all sinners, it is in our nature to make mistakes, to err, to sin, then one has gleaned an obviously TRUE truth.

It seems doesn't seem reasonable, nor have I seen any evidence, to conclude that every single word written poetically must be untrue. Who says poems or songs can't contain anything but imagery?

Not me. It's not what I said. Obviously, there ARE great and powerful truths one can glean from the Psalms. It appears you and I agree upon that much.

It's just not necessary to read the lines literally to glean those truths and, in fact, one would glean the WRONG "truth" - a "truth" that isn't even true! - if one reads it literally.

That's all I said. Perhaps we can agree on that much?

Craig said...

Some of this might be an answer, but not necessarily to the original question, I can't keep track of this new rule, sorry.

"...do you think that infants deserve to die now and forever in hell?"

I've already answered this. Everyone deserves death and punsihment. That does not mean that everyone will get what we all deserve.

"If so, on what basis?"

I believe that there is not reason to interpret the word all as meaning anything but all.

"Are you agreeing with Marshall that merely being born means that you deserve an eternity in hell?"

I honestly didn't read exactly what Marshall said on the point and I'm not sure I'd accept your interpretation of what MA said. With that caveat, I still believe that all means all. I further believe that what we deserve and what we actually get can be two different things.

"Do you see the problem from a biblical point of view with such a suggestion?"

I see no problem with the fact that the Bible suggests excatly that.

Regarding "truths" in psalms. I find it interesting that the "true" truth you gleaned is exactly the point being made here. That we ALL are born in sin.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that this anonymous person is suggesting that infants should die immeadiately. While I have nothing but your representation of this persons positions to go on, I would think that he/she does not believe this to be the case.

Edwin Drood said...

Dan you missed my point (on purpose I think),

In your post you mentioned the book 1 Samuel. You think that the book is hyperbole.

1 Samuel is also the book that introduces King David. Do you think King David is also a hyperbole.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

Everyone deserves death and punsihment.

Craig, if you believe a one day old infant deserves death and eternal punishment, would you just state so clearly?

When I ask, "On what basis?" You answer...

I believe that there is not reason to interpret the word all as meaning anything but all.

Referring, I suppose, to "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," is that right?

Craig...

That does not mean that everyone will get what we all deserve.

Understood.

So, then is it your position that a newborn infant has sinned and thus is immediately deserving of an eternity in hell?

A simple yes or no would be appreciated, IF that is your position.

Craig...

I honestly didn't read exactly what Marshall said on the point and I'm not sure I'd accept your interpretation of what MA said. With that caveat, I still believe that all means all. I further believe that what we deserve and what we actually get can be two different things.

What Marshall said was, "What has any of us done but to be born a human being with a sin nature?" I've asked him to clarify if he means that because a baby is born with a sin nature, that newborn deserves to spend an eternity in hell, which is what it SOUNDS like he's saying. It also SOUNDS like that's what you're saying, but neither of you will come right out and say it.

If you believe an infant merely being born means that newborn deserves to spend an eternity in hell, go ahead and own that beleif! Say it.

I suspect you ALL are reluctant to come right out and say it because it sounds so utterly immoral and logically preposterous on the face of it, but that's just my suspicion. Maybe you all don't really believe it and that's why you don't say it.

My questions to you all are,

"Do you believe that a newborn's merely being born means it deserves an eternity in hell?" Yes? No?

and

"Or, do you believe that, ONCE A NEWBORN IS BORN, they have become a 'sinner,' and thus, having that 'sin nature' means that this newborn deserves an eternity in hell - whether or not they actually do anything in those first few hours of life?" Yes? No?

Craig...

I find it interesting that the "true" truth you gleaned is exactly the point being made here. That we ALL are born in sin.

I don't know why you'd find that interesting. That is and has been my position - that we all have a sinful nature (if that is what you mean by "born in sin.")

Craig...

It seems to me that you are suggesting that this anonymous person is suggesting that infants should die immeadiately. While I have nothing but your representation of this persons positions to go on, I would think that he/she does not believe this to be the case.

I'm not sure why this is hard. I'm not stating WHAT their position is, I'm QUOTING THEIR WORDS and asking reasonable follow up questions. I have not/did not say that this person thinks that infants should die immediately.

Rather, I stated that this person said, "Everyone deserves to die." (I'll leave off the "horribly" part, since no one here seems to think that's important or agree with it). They said that in context of the killing of Amalekite infants. I was merely asking, "Do you mean to say that a one day old infant deserves to die?" (whatever THEY meant by "deserve to die" - it's THEIR words, not mine) and, "If so, what has a newborn infant done/not done that makes them deserving of death?" (whatever THEY meant by that).

I would not guess that they mean "infants deserve to die right now," but rather, I would GUESS that they mean, "infants deserve to die in a burning hell for eternity," but that is another question that remains unanswered.

Dan Trabue said...

Edwin...

In your post you mentioned the book 1 Samuel. You think that the book is hyperbole.

1 Samuel is also the book that introduces King David. Do you think King David is also a hyperbole.


I think that 1 Samuel is written in more of an epic style (not hyperbole). Epic writings are often/generally based on real historic people, places and events, but parts of the story are exaggerated. It is the style of storytelling common to the day and it appears to be done in that style.

Thus, I do not think that King David was "hyperbole," I think he was an actual living king in an actual Israeli history

"Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period."

source

Edwin Drood said...

so if you're just going with

"im just going to believe what I want to believe"

why do you invite debate on your blog? Waist of time

Dan Trabue said...

Edwin...

so if you're just going with

"im just going to believe what I want to believe"

why do you invite debate on your blog? Waist of time


I'm going with "what makes the most biblical and logical and moral sense to me, as I prayerfully seek God's will, led by the Holy Spirit and using my gift of discernment..." and I invite you to answer hard questions that point out problems with your apparent positions, Edwin.

Do you think that's a bad approach? What would you have me do other than seek God's will and go with what makes the most logical, moral and biblical sense to me? Ignore where I think the Spirit's leading and just blindly listen to you?

I have no idea what your comment is really speaking to, and I notice you have passed on answering direct questions with direct answers. I hope you can see how I don't find that very rational or biblical and why I choose to bypass your hunches.

In this case, your last comment was suggesting that I thought 1 Sam was written as an extended hyperbole. But that is not my position. Rather, I think the evidence supports that King David was a real person AND that the stories found about him in 1 Samuel were probably written in the style and manner common to the day.

I believe where I think the evidence leads. What would you suggest?

Craig said...

Dan,

" if you believe a one day old infant deserves death and eternal punishment, would you just state so clearly?"

I'v stated my position clearly. Will it really be helpful if I do so again?

"Referring, I suppose, to "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," is that right?"

Yep. It seems as though there is no reason to assume that all means "not all".

Yes, a newborn infant is part of all. Again, I have no reason to suspect that all means "not all".

"I suspect you ALL are reluctant to come right out and say it because it sounds so utterly immoral and logically preposterous on the face of it, but that's just my suspicion."

Actually, I'm more concerned that I'll be the topic of a blog post where my position has been misrepresented than anything else. The fact that you have chosen to attempt to limit this conversation to one small part of a larger whole leads me to wonder why.

""Do you believe that a newborn's merely being born means it deserves an eternity in hell?" Yes? No?"

Which is worse not "answering" a question or continuing to repeat the question after it has been answered?

""Or, do you believe that, ONCE A NEWBORN IS BORN, they have become a 'sinner,' and thus, having that 'sin nature' means that this newborn deserves an eternity in hell - whether or not they actually do anything in those first few hours of life?" Yes? No?"

Actually this is closer to where I would fall.

Speaking of questions that I don't believe have been answered, I asked you this elsewhere and don't think you ever answered it.

Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?

So you agree that we're born in sin (born sinful), yet you seem to be sayng that there is some sort of free pass system in play. Or are you saying that we are not born sinful or in sin?

I realize that you are quoting their words, I also realize that you have removed them from one context and placed them in another. Therefore it is difficult to determine exactly what was said initially as you have removed it from that context. For example, you say this is in relation to the Amelekites, yet I don't know anyone who would suggest that God's commands to the Hebrews in this context would ever be anything more than time and place specific. So to try to glean some bigger application from this story seems to be going beyond what anyone has suggested.

I do have to ask, do you understand the context and meaning of the term "deserve(d)"?

Edwin, if you're going to go down the "epic" road, why not go back a couple of posts. Please no more. ;)

Marshall Art said...

Being short of time, I had to skip recent comments for now. If I say what has been said, OOPS.

Where in the Bible do we get the notion that we deserve death? By virtue of Jesus having died in our place. That is the whole point of Him dying in the first place, because we deserve it, but are unable to do anything to prevent it. This is not just a conservative theology, it is kindergarten understanding, very basic and as I said, the whole point of Jesus dying.

And still you can't get around this idea of "deserve". It has nothing to do with what God WILL do or allow, but is simply the state of humanity. We are all deserving because we were descended from Adam who rebelled against God when he had the chance to totally obey. THAT is the Biblical explanation for why we all DESERVE to die the horrible death Christ died instead.

That this, together with my previous comments don't satisfy your questions in total is a problem that lies within you and your unwillingness to accept the reality of the faith.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

still you can't get around this idea of "deserve". It has nothing to do with what God WILL do or allow, but is simply the state of humanity. We are all deserving because we were descended from Adam who rebelled against God when he had the chance to totally obey.

Craig...

It seems as though there is no reason to assume that all means "not all".

Yes, a newborn infant is part of all. Again, I have no reason to suspect that all means "not all".


My question to you two (and Edwin or anyone else):

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A NEWBORN INFANT DESERVES TO SPEND AN ETERNITY IN HELL?

I'm NOT asking you if you think all people sin. I'm not asking you if you think infants sin. I'm asking you:

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A NEWBORN INFANT DESERVES TO SPEND AN ETERNITY IN HELL?

I can't really tell from your indirect answers. You keep SOUNDING like you want to say that, but you won't come out and say, "YES, that is what I think." Or "NO! That is NOT what I think!!" so it's hard to tell.

Craig...

I'm more concerned that I'll be the topic of a blog post where my position has been misrepresented than anything else.

You think that if you say, "I believe an infant deserves to spend an eternity in hell..." that I'll misrepresent you? What would I say that would be worse than that?? "He SAYS he thinks infants belong in hell, but does he REALLY???" It seems like any misrepresentation I do would only reflect better on your position.

If I misrepresent you, you can always correct it and say, "No, that is not what I think." It's fairly easy.

The purpose of getting you to stand by what you SEEM to be saying is at least two fold:

1. To be sure I'm NOT misrepresenting you. You SOUND like you're saying you think infants deserve to spend an eternity in hell and I'm just trying to confirm that you MEAN to say what it SOUNDS like you're saying. So, I ask a clarifying question because I WANT TO BE SURE I HAVE YOUR POSITION CORRECT, not as some sort of sneaky attempt to twist your words.

2. Also, I hope that if you will just STATE what it is you appear to be thinking, (Infants deserve to spend an eternity in hell), that you will see how wrongheaded and illogical and immoral that position is.

I AM trying to make a point, but I want to nail down your position ACCURATELY first, so that I can continue with my reasoning to explain why THAT statement is so wrong, biblically, logically and morally.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, just so it can't be said that I'm not answering questions...

Speaking of questions that I don't believe have been answered, I asked you this elsewhere and don't think you ever answered it.

Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?


Yes. My answer is an unequivocal Yes.

To the first part: We ARE sinners because we sin. That is a truth, a truism, a self-evident truth, a tautology. We ARE sinners because we sin. If we DIDN'T sin, we wouldn't be sinners, using normal English meanings attached to those terms. If we didn't swim, we wouldn't be swimmers. If we didn't walk, we wouldn't be walkers. And if we didn't sin, we wouldn't be sinners.

As to the second option, I think yes, we DO sin because we're sinners. Beyond just the normal English meanings of the words, there is a theological notion that we (sinners) have a sinful nature, we're born with it, it's part of what makes us human, of what it means to be human. We have a sinful nature.

THAT, to me, is the better, more logical and biblical way of looking at it:

Because we have a sinful nature, we sin.

Craig...

So you agree that we're born in sin (born sinful), yet you seem to be sayng that there is some sort of free pass system in play

Again, I think the better, more logical, more biblical, less vague way of putting it is that we are BORN WITH A SINFUL NATURE: a bent or tendency towards sin.

I have said nothing of a "free pass." Don't think it. Haven't said it.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Where in the Bible do we get the notion that we deserve death? By virtue of Jesus having died in our place.

And, where in the Bible do you find this suggestion (that Jesus died "in our place...")? I recognize this as Penal Substitution Atonement language, but not as biblical language.

Marshall...

That is the whole point of Him dying in the first place, because we deserve it, but are unable to do anything to prevent it. This is not just a conservative theology, it is kindergarten understanding...

On that point, we are agreed...

Marshall...

...very basic and as I said, the whole point of Jesus dying.

According to Jesus/the Bible...

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” ~John 18

The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 1 John 3

Jesus speaking... The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full... I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. ~John 10

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. ~Heb 2

Jesus... The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because God has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed. ~Luke 4

Jesus... For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. ~John 3

Jesus... I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent. ~Luke 4

Jesus... I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. ~John 12

Craig said...

Dan,

I've answered your question repeatedly. I can't imagine that you are unable to use your Reason to understand the answer. You may keep asking, you can even use ALL CAPS, but I see no value to continuing to give the same answer to the same question.

Re: Misrepresentation.

I am more concerned that you will take one comment on one facet of a larger more nuanced issue and attempt to paint my view based on one answer to one question.

"Again, I think the better, more logical, more biblical, less vague way of putting it is that we are BORN WITH A SINFUL NATURE: a bent or tendency towards sin."

So you seem to be suggesting that sin is a bent or tendency, not a certainty, interesting.

Are you perhaps aware of someone who has not sinned?

Honestly, if I had the time I'd go back through your archives and just copy/paste the first time around with this.

Craig said...

Some relevant sections of the Westminster Catechism.


Question 24: What is sin?

Answer: Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

Question 25: Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

Answer: The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

Question 26: How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?

Answer: Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.

Question 27: What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?

Answer: The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath, bond slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come.

Question 28: What are the punishments of sin in this world?

Answer: The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections; or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies,names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.

Question 29: What are the punishments of sin in the world to come?

Answer: The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell fire forever.

Question 41: Why was our Mediator called Jesus?

Answer: Our Mediator was called Jesus, because he saves his people from their sins.

John Barron said...

It really all depends on what is meant by "horribly" because that is what your series of questions hinge upon.

The Bible is clear that all are deserving of death. There is no distinction made for children or the mentally infirm. But there does seem to be suggestion (David's son) that there exists a mechanism for children who are too young to knowingly and intentionally sin against God. So while they deserve it, it looks like there may be a pardon for them, that is not extended to those after the so-called
"age of accountability
"

Craig said...

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”Matt 1:21

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
1 Timothy 1:14-16

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

"1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"

1 Corinthians 15:1–4

"God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Cor 5:21

"God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 1 John 3:5

"God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." John 1:29

"The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work." 1 John 3:8

Craig said...

John,

I agree with your point regarding David and that it opens the door to some means of salvation for those who too young. However, that seems to be a different point than Dan is trying to make. As you say we all deserve death and I agree that there are not distinctions made. If you limit the discussion to just "do tiny children deserve death", it leaves out a significant part of the bigger picture.

Well said.

Marshall Art said...

Indeed, even the passages you cite, Dan, point to the same thing, the Good News of Christ saving us from God's wrath, that He died so that we won't have to.

Craig lists points that support our position, and his point about belaboring the "infants deserving to die a horrible death" angle is completely valid.

As for me, regardless of how in tune Craig, John or anyone else might be, infants of only one day of age are deserving of the horrible death Christ died. I don't know what part of EVERYONE DESERVES THE DEATH THAT CHRIST DIED is hard for you to understand. You're big with using the dictionary. I don't know why EVERYONE is so hard to fathom.

And as it seems it can't be said enough, "DESERVE" has nothing to do with what will be. That God might spare every child who dies before the age of 104 has nothing to with whether or not each one is deserving of hell. You really need to meditate on this so as to avoid getting the vapors whenever the truth of what we all deserve comes up again. It's getting tiresome.

And BTW, I totally got that shot regarding on which point we are agreed. But the truth is you don't agree and you don't get that basic truth regarding what each of us deserves.

Dan Trabue said...

John...

It really all depends on what is meant by "horribly" because that is what your series of questions hinge upon.

Thanks for the thought, John, but no, my questions hinge upon the notion that we ALL DESERVE TO DIE claim. This other fella is the one who suggested "horribly," and that certainly makes it worse, but the big problem is the all deserve to die part...

John...

The Bible is clear that all are deserving of death. There is no distinction made for children or the mentally infirm.

Then, would YOU state that your belief is that a one day old infant deserves to die an eternity in the burning fires of hell? Is that YOUR position? A simple yes or no.

Again, the problem here is that you all are wanting to say "ALL, and that includes everyone..." but you won't come out and state what you are hinting at: Newborns deserve to spend an eternity suffering in hell.

I think the problem is that you all recognize how foolish it sounds so you won't come out and say it. Or perhaps, as Craig suggests, you don't want to state it clearly for fear that I'll quote you on it (but then, if it's your actual position, where's the harm?).

Regardless, that should be a red flag to you all, that if you aren't willing to answer THAT question directly with what you actually want to believe, then maybe there's a problem with that hunch?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, you offered a bunch of verses the point of which I'm unsure. They don't run counter to anything I've said. You also offered this...

Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

So my questions would be,

In what way has a newborn infant lacked conformity to, or transgressed any law of God, given as a rule to the "reasonable creature..."?

Do you think a one day old infant is a "reasonable creature," which I assume means a human capable of reason?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

I can't imagine that you are unable to use your Reason to understand the answer. You may keep asking, you can even use ALL CAPS, but I see no value to continuing to give the same answer to the same question.

I'm just seeking an answer to the question I actually asked. Is that so strange to you all? Nonetheless, I will use my reason and presume I DO know your answers, even though you haven't answered simple questions directly.

Dan Trabue said...

I'm presuming then, these are your actual positions (it would have been much easier if you'd just answered the questions directly, but here we go...)

1. Everyone deserves to die (by which you would include: A newborn infant deserves to die.)

2. By that, you mean that a newborn infant deserves to die and spend an eternity suffering in hell (along with "everyone".)

3. A newborn infant deserves to spend an eternity suffering in hell because that is the punishment either for....

a. Being born a human
b. Being born with a sinful nature

4. By this, you DON'T mean that a newborn baby actual tells lies or kills or otherwise COMMITS A SINFUL ACTION, just that they have the sinful nature and ONE DAY WILL sin, given the opportunity (or, perhaps, the opportunity and "reasoning" to do so, perhaps going by Westminster's).

I believe this is what you're saying, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Out of time, more to come...

Craig said...

"I'm just seeking an answer to the question I actually asked. Is that so strange to you all? Nonetheless, I will use my reason and presume I DO know your answers, even though you haven't answered simple questions directly."

Just because you continue to say this does not make it true (Or True, or a truism, or one of many truths). We have all clearly answered your question. I know you're not getting the pull quotes you want, but that's not because we haven't answered you. You are the one drawing a false distinction in order to paint those who don't agree with you as somehow evil or something. Why should we play this game. If you want to look at an unrealistically small slice of our beliefs in order to twist what we believe, that's your prerogative. But give up the tired "you don't answer questions" meme. Bubba asked you several direct questions a couple of threads ago (he even highlighted them in bold type), you answered them not at all. Maybe if you played by your own rules this might be more productive.

See Dan, all of your bleating about not answering your questions was pointless, you did actually have a relatively good understanding (if redundant, your #1 actually covers the entire thing nicely) of our position. BTW this is a common (perhaps prevailing view throughout Church history) view. Or you got close as far as you went, which I can't help but think is your point. I'm impressed that you were able to use your superior skills of Reason to tease out the hidden truths in our clear and relatively concise answers. I knew you could do it.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

You are the one drawing a false distinction in order to paint those who don't agree with you as somehow evil or something.

Brother man, that is a falsehood from Hell. I rebuke THAT in the name of Jesus, our Christ.

In the real world, I am striving to get your ACTUAL position by expecting an ACTUAL answer to the ACTUAL question asked so that I can make a point, NOT so that I can paint you as evil, but in order to point out why the position that you APPEAR to hold is a false position, generated using bad biblical exegesis and poor reasoning. I've SAID that now a few times, but instead, you are trying to make something diabolical of it.

I rebuke that sinful and cynical lack of grace.

Don't make judgments you can't support, little brother.

Dan Trabue said...

The problem with your apparent reasoning is as follows...

1. You claim that newborn infants deserve to burn in hell forever.

2. On WHAT BASIS could they possibly deserve such a truly horrifying punishment?

3. You say (apparently) "because they have a sinful nature." At one hour old, it's NOT that they have COMMITTED A SIN, but it's merely that they have a sinful nature - a nature that will one day lead them to sin, given the chance.

4. Thus, you are saying the God of PERFECT LOVE and PERFECT JUSTICE will punish a newborn babe in the MOST HORRIFYING WAY for an eternity, NOT for something they've done, but for merely being human. In fact, they have not DONE anything or FAILED to do anything.

5. This is patently unjust. It is self-evidently unjust. It is patently and wholly irrational and crazy-sounding. If you were a parent who promised to punish your child for the rest of its life in the most torturous way possible IF it were born human and with a sinful nature, you would be locked up.

6. This is a horrible claim to make about the God of perfect love and perfect justice.

7. Further, it is a claim that you can't back up directly from the Bible. Rather, it is a human claim based upon supposedly logical (but not really so much) extensions from what the Bible does say.

8. That is, the Bible does not say anywhere that newborns deserve to die in torment for hell for an eternity. That suggestion is NOWHERE in the Bible.

9. Rather, you haven't taken some extrabiblical human traditions/teachings (Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory, for one) and made them equal to God's Word. For instance, you have taken "all have sinned," and demanded that it must be taken literally (even though obviously, a newborn has not committed an actual sin) contrary to basic self-evident logic. From that point, you have "reasoned" your way back out to the conclusion, "newborns deserve to spend an eternity in torment in hell..." which is a really illogical, really immoral, really unjust and really unbiblical hunch to reach.

THAT is what is wrong with your presumptions. THAT is why I was trying to get your exact position, because I suspected that this is what you were reaching for.

Aside from that little bible/logic lesson, just keep in mind: IF you can't state your position for the record to a straightforward question because your position is so damnably wrong, maybe it's time to reconsider your position.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I'm going to end my silence because I think it necessary to split the difference.

Dan, believe it or not, your question is not "biblical". It is modern, Romantic sentimentalism masking our contemporary unease with the very different moral and political world of the Bible. Why were the Amelikite children killed? Because that is what conquering armies did. The best way to prevent a conquered city from being pesky is to eliminate the population; that includes small children, who may well grow up to resent being enslaved or otherwise live under the thumb of foreign rule.

The best way to ensure an order such as this is carried out is to put it in the mouth of God. Making the distinction between orders from superiors and orders from God is a modern invention, anyway. We may not like what the Israelites did, but in their eyes, the population needed to die for good, solid reasons of national survival.

Trying to parse out a theological lesson from this story, absent an overarching set of doctrinal presuppositions, as well an understanding of the moral temporal distance between ourselves and the authors of the Bible, we can find ourselves at sea.

Finally, I am with those who insist that, in the abstract, even little tiny babies are sinners. Either you accept sin as a condition, rather than a description of moral turpitude, or you don't. If you do, then, yeah, little one-day old babies are sinners in need of God's grace. If not, if you think sin is something that accrues due to immoral action, then I'm not sure why there's a discussion.

Dan Trabue said...

Geoffrey, thanks for popping in. I know it appears we disagree on this and I'm interested in your input. You said...

believe it or not, your question is not "biblical".

Don't believe I said it was. These are, rather, reasonable questions to ask when someone asserts (IF someone asserts), "infants deserve to die in hell for an eternity of suffering..."

Geoffrey...

It is modern, Romantic sentimentalism masking our contemporary unease with the very different moral and political world of the Bible.

Of course it was a different world in many ways back then. I don't see what that has to do with the question.

Again, I think if someone appears to assert that infants deserve to burn in hell forever, a reasonable question to ask is, "Really? That is your position?" and followed up by, "On what basis?"

Geoffrey, do YOU think newborn babes deserve to die apart from God forever? That would be what I'm wondering.

Geoffrey...

Finally, I am with those who insist that, in the abstract, even little tiny babies are sinners.

I think we've gone through this before, but are you saying that newborns have a sinful nature, that they will sin, given a chance? Then I agree.

But if you are saying that newborns spread lies or otherwise COMMIT an actual offense against God, I would disagree.

Do you think that being born a human with a sinful nature (whether or not you ever get a chance to actually commit a sin) means you "deserve" to die apart from God?

If so, "deserve" why? On what basis? What has a newborn done to "deserve" that?

[NOTE: In case I'm not being clear: the word, "deserve" in standard English usage means "to be worthy of" and its synonyms include "earn" and "merit" and thus, suggest something DONE by the one in question, so saying, "despite a lack of doing anything to actually have merited such a consequence, this newborn deserves hell" seems rather illogical and immoral...]

Geoffrey...

Either you accept sin as a condition, rather than a description of moral turpitude, or you don't. If you do, then, yeah, little one-day old babies are sinners in need of God's grace.

No question that infants and we all are in need of God's grace. The problem I'm having here is the suggestion that newborns have "earned" or "deserved" an eternal punishment.

Craig said...

Dan,

Rebuke away, I am entitled to my concerns about your motives. How about you prove me wrong, rather than rebuke?

Your list of problems with my reasoning is a problem.

1. I have not said that infants deserve any more than any other human being.

2. The same basis as everyone else who deserves the wages of sin.

3. " a nature that will one day lead them to sin, given the chance." If only you'd stopped after sin, you'd be in the ball park.

4. No, I've never said that. This is where my suspicious side takes over. You have intentionally limited the scope of the topic/questions to one facet of a multifacted issue. Now, based on what I said about your limited topic, you choose to draw inferences on a different topic.

5. Unless you have a perfect understanding and comprehension of God's justice, you have no standing to make this claim. As you have repeated often, "God is God and HE can do what He wants". Well, this determination is way above my pay grade, and I'm not going there. Feel free, but don't expect me to go along.

6. This is just repeating yourself. You may find it somehow gratifying, but it really doesn't move things forward.

7. Not so much. I've already provided more Biblical suport for my position than you. Feel free tobring the "hard evidence" any time, I'm open to being convinced.

8. Of ourse it doesn't say otherwise either. So once again a pursuasive argument from silence.

9. No, not so much, although you're welcome to think that if you please. Once again, you are trying to extrapolate from my position on one facet of a multifacted discussion in which you started by limiting. Maybe if you asked more questions and broadened out your inquirey you would be able to get a better picture.

"Aside from that little bible/logic lesson, just keep in mind: IF you can't state your position for the record to a straightforward question because your position is so damnably wrong, maybe it's time to reconsider your position."

I've clearly answered your question multiple times, maybe it's time to reconsider your tactics.

Craig said...

"In case I'm not being clear: the word, "deserve" in standard English usage means "to be worthy of" and its synonyms include "earn" and "merit"..."

Yes, and by focusing solely on the aspect of what humanity deserves, you totally leave out the other side of the coin, grace.

We keep saying things like "Just because someone deserves something, doesn't mean they will get it" and you keep coming back to "But, you won't answer my question about what babies deserve". There is a reason why it is your intentional limitations on the conversation is so frustrating. You are obsessed with only hearing positions on one side of the topic. If you are interested in broadening out your line of questioning, you might draw a different conclusion.

BTW, GKS's comment clearly answered most (if not all of your questions) before you asked them.



"Trying to parse out a theological lesson from this story, absent an overarching set of doctrinal presuppositions,..."

GKS,

I think I said something similar earlier (maybe not as well), good point.


"... that they will sin, given a chance?"

Dan,

This continues to sound like you believe that there is a chance that someone won't sin. I can't believe this is what you mean. Maybe you could re-phrase to make you're hunch more clear.

Dan Trabue said...

If a child is born at 1am and dies at 1:01am, I do not believe that that child committed a sin. I believe that child was born with the tendency towards sin, with a sinful nature, but NOT that she actually committed a sin in that minute.

Is it possible that we agree on that much?

Dan Trabue said...

Further, I would suggest that a child born with extremely severe mental problems (essentially non-functioning), that that person born with a sinful nature does not sin in any rationally significant way. That person does not choose to reject God, nor God's ways.

This perhaps would fit in with the Westminster point...

Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

A human being wholly lacking the ability to reason can not reasonably be said to sin. Seems to me.

(It's one reason I strive to be patient with my conservative brethren... ha!)

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

You wrote, Dan:

"Geoffrey, do YOU think newborn babes deserve to die apart from God forever? That would be what I'm wondering."

I thought I was clear, but apparently not.

I don't find the question meaningful or relevant.

I couldn't care less what happened to either the Amelikite children, or any others. I don't speculate on matters such as who is and is not, who deserves and does not deserve, what final resting place. It has nothing to do with my faith.

Some folks get their jollies sending Mother Teresa to a bench-side seat with Josef Stalin. Yippee for them. If I thought for a moment that being a Christian had anything to do with this, I would have left the Church long ago. I'm happy to say I don't think this way.

Dan Trabue said...

Okay, Geoffrey, so your answer is, "I don't know and therefore don't have an opinion..."? That works for me, as a reasonable response to the question asked.

Craig said...

RE your 11:27 comment.

I would put it that this child (as are we all) was born in sin. As far as it goes I'd essentially agree with your hunch regarding commission of sin.

RE your 11:30 comment.

I know this is your position, you've been down this raod before. I fail to see it's relevance to your narrowly drawn topic.


You've shifted (subtly) to a slightly different issue. Originally you were adamant that the issue was what we deserved.

Now, you seem to has shifted to what might actually happen to individual people.

If you want to go down this semi new road that's fine, why not ask questions about this.

Craig said...

GKS,

I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from with your "I don't care" stance. Could you eleborate?

It seems to me that a fairly strong theme of Jesus ministry and the subsequent Chruch was that believers care where folks spend eternity. It seems as though this is at least part of the good news we are to share.

Any elaboration would be apreciated.

Marshall Art said...

"Again, I think if someone appears to assert that infants deserve to burn in hell forever, a reasonable question to ask is, "Really? That is your position?" and followed up by, "On what basis?""

How many times must this be answered before you understand it, before you acknowledge that it has been answered? It IS my position because it IS the Biblical position. All deserve death because all have descended from Adam and are sinful creatures as a result. This is the Biblical position regardless of your poor understanding of basic Biblical teachings.

"The best way to ensure an order such as this is carried out is to put it in the mouth of God."

Thus making liars of the OT writers or the characters about whom the OT writers wrote. Yet, there is absolutely no indication by any NT writer or character that ANY of the OT stories are fabrications of any kind. Rather, the best way to resolve issues that do not sit well with our modern sensibilities and lefty/liberal attitudes is to insist that OT writers or characters lied about what God commanded.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

How many times must this be answered before you understand it, before you acknowledge that it has been answered?

Just once, directly, would have helped. And by directly, I mean when I ask, So, you believe a newborn infant deserves to spend an eternity in hell, you answer, YES, that is my position.

When you don't answer a fairly simple question fairly directly, I'm less sure of your position and, since it's such an astounding position, contrary to basic notions of logic and justice, I just want to confirm.

Marshall...

It IS my position because it IS the Biblical position.

Well, that IS the question, isn't it? IS this a biblical, logical or moral position? I say no, that it's not biblical, nor logical nor moral.

You disagree apparently.

But thanks for at least clearly stating your position, at last.

Dan Trabue said...

I must say I still wonder if you don't just answer directly because there's some part of you that recognizes how crazy it sounds...

Dan Trabue said...

I had stated...

If a child is born at 1am and dies at 1:01am, I do not believe that that child committed a sin. I believe that child was born with the tendency towards sin, with a sinful nature, but NOT that she actually committed a sin in that minute.

And Craig responded...

I would put it that this child (as are we all) was born in sin. As far as it goes I'd essentially agree with your hunch regarding commission of sin.

Good, we agree that a newborn has a sinful nature and yet that they have not chosen to lie, to kill or otherwise actively chosen to sin.

I would then ask you to consider, where is the justice in condemning a child to an eternity in hell because of their NATURE, rather than what they've actually done?

[And please, please, please, Craig, I fully understand that you think there's a loophole - that while "god's justice" does demand they spend an eternity in hell for having a sinful nature, God's grace prevents that (or "probably prevents that," which ever is your position), but I'm trying to get to the underlying problem with the position - that there is a fundamental lack of goodness and justice in your suggestion...]

Dan Trabue said...

And lest it's not clear why this is a problem of justice, it's similar to choosing to punish a person based upon their skin color, nation of origin, their dominant hand, their eye color or other traits that are part of them that they did not choose.

It's a choosing to punish the innocent for something they have not done, which is contrary to sound biblical reasoning and just plain logic.

Beyond that, it's a gross overkill, so to speak. A child is born with this tendency towards sin, therefore, they deserve to die horribly forever in torment?? Really?

No, that's a problem of justice.

And it's important to point out because it points to a problem with this rather wooden, literal approach to Bible study. To default to, "I'll take any given passage as literal until someone demonstrates to me why I ought not..." and THEN to hang on to that demand for literal (for no good reason that I can see; no biblical reason, anyway) even in the face of evidence such as what I'm pointing out here... well, it just seems rather random and uncalled for.

The snake handlers/poison swallowers hold to a literal reading of those passages, too, but for no good reason other than, that's just what it literally says. We CAN (and do) set aside passages as NOT needing to be taken literally all the time.

You all don't appear to take the "babies lie from birth" line literally (although this other fella appeared to, repeatedly), nor do you take the hyperbolic "gouge out your eyes" and the "you will handle snakes and not be killed" passages. And all for good reasons.

So, I would suggest we're not different in whether or not we rationally and prayerfully set aside some passages as non-literal - THAT is a given - we just differ on where we draw that line. That, and (at least in Marshall's case) the degree to which we say, "I'm speaking for God, this is NOT my hunch, but God's will!"

Craig said...

"I would then ask you to consider, where is the justice in condemning a child to an eternity in hell because of their NATURE, rather than what they've actually done?"

Why should I bother to answer, for that matter why should you bother to ask, since you already know what I am going to say.

For the record, I have NEVER suggested that a child be condemned to hell, that is your construct not mine. Now perhaps you understand my skepticism of your motives.

"I fully understand that you think there's a loophole..."

Once again, then why bother to ask.

Interesting that you would consider God's grace a loophole. I rather thought it was more important than that.

"...that there is a fundamental lack of goodness and justice in your suggestion...]"

I guess that depends on who defines goodness and justice, you or God.

"No, that's a problem of justice."

No, it's a problem of holiness. It's a problem of Sovereignty. It's a problem of who makes the rules. I fully trust that God's justice is perfect and holy yet tempered with mercy. I also understand that my understanding is limited by the fact that I am a sinful human. I am willing to let God deal with this kind of thing because I trust Him.

"...even in the face of evidence such as what I'm pointing out here..."

Except you haven't actually provided any evidence (certainly any hard evidence) to back up your assertion. You actually haven't even made an assertion that can be backed up with evidence. I said it before, you provide evidence, I'll gladly consider it.

"...we just differ on where we draw that line."

Just figured that out did you.

"I'm speaking for God, this is NOT my hunch, but God's will!"

Since no one on this side is actually saying that I guess were just lucky. I'd ask if that's what you are saying, but you haven't actually presented a hunch beyond "I think you guys are wrong".

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

For the record, I have NEVER suggested that a child be condemned to hell, that is your construct not mine. Now perhaps you understand my skepticism of your motives.

Dangit, Craig. You can't have it both ways. You can't REFUSE to directly answer a direct question AND THEN say, "No, that's not my position!!" when I take a stab at what you might be thinking.

Perhaps NOW you'll understand why I ask you to answer a direct question directly.

Craig said...

Dan,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your original question was "Does a child deserve to go to hell?". I answered this question multiple times quite clearly. You have gone from that to asserting that I have a position on something that has not been a part of the conversation. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can't take the answer to one question and interpolate what you think the answer to a different question will be.

How about you keep "misunderstanding" my position and I keep correcting you.

Or, you could provide some (hard) evidence.

Dan Trabue said...

Ignoring your goofy refusal to answer direct questions directly and then your outrage at getting your position wrong...

Earlier I asked...

"I would then ask you to consider, where is the justice in condemning a child to an eternity in hell because of their NATURE, rather than what they've actually done?"

And Craig "answered"...

Why should I bother to answer

To make your position known?

To try to make sense of a position that, on the face of it, seems immoral and illogical and, at least to me, unbiblical?

To not be written off as a crank who can't/won't defend a rather scurrilous position?

There are some reasons to answer questions, especially if you're going to hold to a rather illogical position to begin with.

Marshall Art said...

"I must say I still wonder if you don't just answer directly because there's some part of you that recognizes how crazy it sounds..."

We DID answer directly, or at least I did. What part of "all" do you find hard to understand? Is there something about "all" that would naturally exclude anyone on the basis of age? Does Scripture say, "ALL have fallen short...except for one day old babies?" I don't think so.

And Craig's concerns are quite valid since you leap from "deserve" to "condemn". Who was talking about condemning anyone? Not even the blogger to whom you refer.

What's more, if what we're saying isn't Biblical, then the opposite must be and there must be some passage you can present that clears this all up. That God might desire that none should perish doesn't mean He'll lose any sleep over those who will perish. Though He may rejoice over the return of every prodigal son does not mean that he anguishes over those who do not. You continue to impose upon God traits that He might demand or expect of us, or that we might expect of each other. We trust that whatever He decides to do about babies who die without ever knowing about Him is totally up to Him and the absolute perfect, just and righteous thing to do regardless of whether or not I approve, understand or even know.

In the meantime, we all, including a babe taking its first breath, deserve death.

Dan Trabue said...

We DID answer directly, or at least I did.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Dan Trabue said...

In the meantime, we all, including a babe taking its first breath, deserve death.

In the meantime, what you're not addressing is the problem of injustice in such a conclusion. Of shedding innocent blood. Of each person being accountable for their own sin.

Biblical concepts, those.

Dan Trabue said...

That God might desire that none should perish doesn't mean He'll lose any sleep over those who will perish.

"Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." ~2 Peter 3

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Dan, no my answer is not "I don't know and therefore I don't have an opinion." I was quite clear and succinct. The question itself is meaningless and irrelevant (see? I even repeated the exact wording).

Without saying anything at all about our faith in Jesus Christ, and what he reveals about the God in whom we put our hope, our faith, our love, the whole matter of interpreting a relatively obscure Old Testament passage is bound to be bogged down. Without resting our hope in the God who raised Jesus from the dead, the question of who goes to heaven and hell becomes paramount, because that becomes the focal point of the Christian religious life - getting our reward at the end of the day.

Does original sin mean that even little babies "deserve" hell upon death? In some sense, yes. Last time I checked, however, there were these ideas like grace, and election, bound up in God's action in Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection, that changed the balance of the equation. Now, we can sit around and speculate about who is in and who is out, whether it's a newborn babe, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Chairman Mao, but our decisions are not going to be rooted in either grace or faith, because the discussion itself discards these central doctrines.

Off topic? Probably. The topic itself, however, is off as long as no one takes the time to as the same question St. Paul did: Where is your sting, o Death?

Craig said...

"I would then ask you to consider, where is the justice in condemning a child to an eternity in hell because of their NATURE, rather than what they've actually done?"

"Why should I bother to answer, for that matter why should you bother to ask, since you already know what I am going to say."

Dan,

If you're going to copy/paste what I say how about either using the entire thing or indicating that you edited my comment. As you may note my full answer actually addresses this new complaint of yours. My comment was a response to the fact that you "asked a question" then you proceeded to provide my answer. Yet you still wonder why I question your motives.



GKS,

Another excellent point that I wish I had made earlier. As folks under the new covenant why should we fear death? I know there is much we differ on, but it seems we have at least some common ground here. I'd still like to see you expand on your position a little more. I think I see where you are coming from, but am not sure.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Craig - thank you for you very nice comments.

Let me state, categorically, for the record, that I do not believe death, or Death, is the enemy. I do not fear death, for myself or anyone else. What happens once the heart stops, the lungs stop, the brain stops, is not a matter of concern for me.

Why? Because, like St. Paul, I believe there is nothing - no thing, zip, zilch, nada - that can separate us from the love we from God in Jesus Christ. For that very reason, I find musings over the state of eternal rest, for oneself or others, to be beside the point.

We have all encountered people on the internet who insist that this, that, or the other person, whose virtues in this life are a model to be upheld and copied, is now residing in hell. In the first place, I always wonder how it is the folks who say such things can possibly know this. In the second place, I wonder why they care enough to actually type such things out.

We get nowhere in understanding the Bible if we do not have our doctrinal house in order. We do not come to it as isolated individuals, fresh-faced and wide-eyed, without two thousand years of church teaching on what we believe. The interchange between the personal and communal, the present and the past, is a constant thing, what a philosopher called "the spiral of reflection".

That is why I get frustrated with discussions such as these. The question of who is in and who is out, who may go to hell or not, who deserves it or not, sucks so much oxygen that the very real commandment of God, to love God and love our neighbors by serving them, gets drowned out. This commandment is repeated in different words to St. Peter in Acts. "Do you love Me? Then feed My sheep."

That is what we are to be about.

If I go to hell, then I go to hell. If I rest in the bosom of Abraham, then I rest in the bosom of Abraham. My final repose, the final repose of any of us, is not what this is about. It isn't about me. It isn't about any of us. It's about God. It's about suffering humanity, needing not only the breath of the Spirit, but clean air to breathe. Not only the Bread of Life, but bread, and rice, and millet, and wheat. Not only about the freedom to serve, but freedom from fear from the violence, hatred, and stupidity that governs so much of our planet.

So, muse away about babies and perdition. It seems such a hobby makes folks feel better, or something. Since there are millions of babies who exist in a very real hell, right here, right now, seems lost in this discussion. These are the sheep we are to feed. These are the neighbors we are to love.

Marshall Art said...

Geoff. What nonsense. If we do not begin with our condition, then why do we need a Savior? The fact that we all deserve death because of our sin nature is the reason we need a Savior. Otherwise, we're looking at the works based theology Dan is pushing here. "What did the kid do to deserve death?"

You like to refer to some discussion of "who's in or who's out". No one is debating that here. Certainly not in any "I'm doing things right and you're not" kind of way. But Jesus came to save us. Why do we need Him for that? If all have fallen short, then we all need Him, especially since He claimed to be the Way the Truth and the Life, that there is no other way to the Father but through Him. So once again, your struggles with "The Point" continue.

But what's more, if you don't see any value in such a discussion defined by the title of this post, then why the hell do you offer a comment at all? To grace us with your presence? To impress us with your wisdom? Or to state that you're so above it all?

Marshall Art said...

"Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." ~2 Peter 3

Yeah. That's the passage to which I referred. Don't see any indication that He needs everyone to come to repentance. It is merely what He wants. As such, one must accept that not all will come to repentance, that not all will be saved, that not all will spend eternity with Him. Many of such people we might not regard as unworthy. Many of such people we might feel that beyond a doubt they are. But it isn't up to us and it isn't up to us to mandate what constitutes God's love and justice. I agree with you that it would be nice to assume that all who have yet to reach whatever age reason actually comes will not be left out. The question is only in regards to what each of us deserves. EACH OF US. Period. No exceptions.

Craig said...

GKS,

Thanks for the response. I find myself agreeing with you on the big picture aspect of your comment. It's not about us it's about God and what he does/did/can do. I also find this hypothetical "what about..." to be very reminiscent of my time doing Jr. High ministry. Having said that I agree with Art, that it is important to understand the nature of our need for a savior (I'm not suggesting that you don't, just that I didn't get that from your comment). It's fairly clear that there will be some surprises regarding who is in heaven and who's not. I guess the extent of my concern about who's in/who's out is that I'd like to see as many folks in as possible, and as few out as possible. Beyond that I'll leave it to God, whose love, justice and mercy are way beyond my/our ability to comprehend.

"We get nowhere in understanding the Bible if we do not have our doctrinal house in order. We do not come to it as isolated individuals, fresh-faced and wide-eyed, without two thousand years of church teaching on what we believe."

Excellent point, it seems that so many recently would like to dismiss this and think that they have come up with some novel approach to scripture or doctrine or whatever. Not to say that we should accept everything from the past uncritically, but there is a wealth of excellence to draw from.

Marshall Art said...

Having our doctrinal house in order. Hmmm. THAT seems to be the driving theme of almost all of these types of discussions, regardless of which visitors see the need.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Your responses are the reason I have stayed away. After venturing forth and putting in my two cents, I think that was the wiser course.

Carry on.

Craig said...

My responses?