Does anyone have any arguments to support either of the following propositions?
a) Based on what the Bible says, God could save all people who die as infants but has chosen not to.
b) God could not save all people who die as infants without contradicting certain biblical doctrines.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Unless I misunderstand proposition "A" I would suggest that no logical or biblical arguments could be derived to support such a position for the following reasons. 1) if it were true that there was biblical support for the belief that God could save all people who die as infants, then, a) on what basis wouldn't He do this (for if we mean by "could" that God had the ability to do such a thing while remaining just, than if he is a good God of necessity to maintain His own character He would be required to save all who die as infants; and b) if we mean by "could" that certain scriptures seem to make such a thing possible though ultimately it is not clear enough to be certain, then in this interpretation it would not be possible to argue on a scriptural basis and with definitely that God has indeed chosen not to do such a thing. And 2) there is no explicit biblical support for proposition that God could save all infants or that he has chosen not to.
As to proposition “B” do you mean to say by “God could not save all..” that no infants can be saved based on certain biblical doctrines, or that God can only save some infants based on certain biblical doctrines? Either direction I would again suggest that there is no explicit (or implicit for that matter) Biblical support to draw the conclusion of either proposition with absolute certainty that stays within the realms of safe and proper exegesis that can be said to not add to or take away from what is written.
Thus, I would conclude by offering a 3rd proposition (which I will eventually outline in full) for further consideration. Proposition “C” is this:
Based on the clear and consistently supportable teachings of scripture God can only save his elect children whom he has chosen from before the foundation of the world (by His grace for the reasons of His divine plan alone) through the specific and effectual atonement of Christ for this group alone (the number and names of what God alone knows); some of which also will be and are infants. Therefore, some infants who die before birth will be saved and some will not based upon his pre-electing choice alone--just as with adults.
“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?”
– Romans 9:19-21
When I used the word "could", I was not using it ambiguously. You are presuming that when I used the word I was assuming specific constraints I never communicated. I meant what I said, and used the word "could" in its generic and all-encompassing sense of "possibility".
So far I have encountered a wide variety of configurations of people disagreeing with universal infant salvation. I created this post to break down and organize the complexity of the offensive party. I do not believe most Christians in general would agree with either proposition. I raised the questions because many Christians I've spoke with had implied that they believe in one or the other proposition. I am reducing implication.
As long as no one reading this blog posts arguments in support of either of those propositions, I am going to assume that anyone posting comments in other areas of the blog did not agree with either of those propositions. The ability to assume such a conclusion is a necessary tool if any order is going to be brought to this matter.
Your Proposition "C" is a topic that may be worth a thread of its own, though there's a few more questions I'd like to clear up first.
First just to clarify, I mean no offense by any of my criticism or comments...considering this is a very controversial topic there is going to be disagreement, but I see no reason why that has to be taken personally, any criticism should be taken and given in the most academic form possible. Would you agree with this sentiment?
That said, I would ask you to consider that I am not as in left field as you would have me to be by pining you down on the words you use; I am surprised that you would speak so simplistically as to act as if anything is just as it is, for this is clearly not the case. When language is used we implying conclusions whether intentional, unintentional, agreed with or not. For me to expound on the implications of a statement or word that another has used I do not see as making any presumptions what so ever about what you did or not mean. My point is that we cannot just say that we meant something in the obvious and plan sense because as I was trying to point out using an ambiguous word could imply radically different assumptions behind the whole of what someone is saying which can reveal a lot about their presupposition as a whole. You cannot just take the word "could" in a plan sense because if you mean it (as often it is used in communication) in a half baked anything is in the realm of possibility kind of way this makes the meaning of your whole sentence entirely different then if you mean by "could" that something is logically, realistically and arguable possible in the context of the whole of your presuppositions (as this word is also used in the English language).
Do you follow what I am trying to say? I am sorry if this comes across wrongly but all I am trying to point out is that a little word can make a big difference in an argument depending on what is behind it. More often than not more is revealed not by what is said but by that which is left unsaid.
I agree with your sentiment. I'm not taking things personally. I'm trying to get this thread back on track. You've focused on specific details and missed the forest for the trees. The point of this blog is to break things up into base components, but now this thread is unnecessarily complicated. This thread should be either empty or contain arguments in support of one of those two propositions. (And in turn possibly arguments against those arguments.) Now it is neither. If you don't like my questions you don't have to answer them. There's more than enough to question within the first threat of this blog.
My understanding of a open blog is that it is to be seen as an evolving dialog between various sides each humbling bringing different ideas to the table and revising those ideas as necessary for the sake of clarification and as their own views continue to develop and change. It was my understanding that you did not start this blog just for the sake of argument or to necessarily to prove anyone wrong, but instead to have a discussion where hopeful all sides can come away with a better understanding of other views and more conviction of their own view (wherever that falls in the end.)
I do not see my statements out of place seeing that you ask does any one have arguments for or against A or B and I answer very real vent that as a free and equal observer of this blog that if anyone where to have an argument for either I for one would like to hear because my answer to either of those arguments is that they begin on the wrong premise. I am sorry but challenging the premise (not of you) but of those questions where anyone to try and defend them is realvent answer to the question.
However, if you disagree with me and think that I have quite clearly violated how you think your questions should be answer where someone to answer them than we quite clearly have a different understanding of the rules of argumentation and of blogging. And however unreasonable I think this is, it is your blog so fair enough to your answer and I am sorry for messing up this thread!
I need to make a correction. I said in my last comment that this thread was asking for arguments for or against these two positions, but I see that this is not true. You only ask for arguments for. I am sorry for misrepresenting that.
However I would still suggest that questioning the premise of any arguments that could argued for either of those positions is a realvent proposition to offer in answer to those questions.
Okay. I think I understand where you're coming from. You were trying to anticipate answers to my two questions. That was not clear to me. I can't say that that is the most practical approach, but I have to agree that it is relevant. (Though personally I have found that it is a lot more efficient to respond to existing arguments than to try to guess what they might be.)
The only reason I did not ask for arguments against those propositions is because I think it is unlikely that anyone posting on this blog will hold either of them. I simply started this thread to make certain of that.
I also think I understand where you are coming from and I am sorry for the confusion. You might be right in your understanding of systematic approach. Perhaps I am not approaching things the most organized. Whatever the case, some ideas are out.
I think we have the same over-all vision for this blog (and blogging in general) and are simply working out the practical details of achieving that vision. I think we both have useful things to bring to the table.
Wow, crazy stuff guys, as I've said in person before, I think that the original questions, are the wrong questions to ask, I think that aaronemerging in on the right track with Prop. C, I will try to put down my take as soon as I can.
When we ask "God could", or "couln't God" type of questions, it reminds me of the evolutionists (or at least theistic evolutionists), when they ask "well couldn't God have done it this way...", their idea is that creation & evolution are somehow both true at the same time. So then I usually respond with something along these lines: "God could do anything that He wants to do, BUT He has already told us how He DID do it, so the question of 'couln't God...' really has zero relevance in light of the fact that He already told us how He did it, and it was not through any form of evolution, so case closed, don't keep trying to cram something into the Bible that just is not there, what IS there is sufficient" (I'm not meaning to sound harsh at all). I could use another analogy drawn from homosexuals who claim to be Christians, and argue in a similar fashion, but I will move on to the issues at hand instead.
Wait a minute, were these the questions you were referring to in our earlier conversations, chozen1z? I thought you had been referring to my first post. Like I said earlier in this thread, these questions weren't expected to be answered. The questions that most need to be addressed are what I raised in my first post on Inherited Guilt.
These are questions, not statements about my belief system. Like I said to Aaron, I am not using them to clarify my own beliefs, but the beliefs of others. So far it has worked, though messier than I had intended. Both you and Aaron have clarified where you stand on those matters.
Sorry about that, I misunderstood, I was under the impression that you wanted my views in print anyway! I'll look at the guilt issues now instead.
In retrospect, I realize that I am to blame for this confusion because in my conversations with people I have been referring to "my questions" on this blog, yet I was only thinking about the questions in my first post, and not really seeing these later posts as questions, because that is not their main usefulness lies.
Post a Comment