# Brain injuries and the mind/soul



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

How would you respond to someone (behaviorist?) who argues that man has no soul, and that his mind is nothing other than the mechanical processes of the brain, since people with brain injuries do not function as normal humans?


----------



## Poimen (Mar 14, 2008)

Ask him if his statement that "man has no soul, and that his mind is nothing other than the mechanical processes of the brain" is a mechanical process of the brain.

Man was created with a mind, body and soul. I don't see how that is denied by brain injury affecting the person.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 14, 2008)

The brain and the physical body as a whole would seem to be the conduit through which the spiritual experiences the physical. The conduit can be damaged obviously, ergo the perceptions and abilities available can be limited, but this is in no way indicative that there is no soul, only that the physical container it is in can limit its perception of physical reality if it is damaged. 

What the behaviorist is saying would be akin to concluding there is no television program if your television is busted. The T.V. program is being fed without a problem, but it cannot be percieved, or percieved in the manner it normally is.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

The argument was basically:

If the capacity to perform a function is lost by injuring a part of the body, then that part of the body must be the cause of the function. In other words, one can't walk if one's legs are broken, therefore legs are a physical cause of walking. One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.

Thanks for your help so far!


----------



## tellville (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> The argument was basically:
> 
> If the capacity to perform a function is lost by injuring a part of the body, then that part of the body must be the cause of the function. In other words, one can't walk if one's legs are broken, therefore legs are a physical cause of walking. One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.
> 
> Thanks for your help so far!



Really good question.


----------



## A5pointer (Mar 14, 2008)

I am not very smart in these type of conversations so I would just say 

"that is an interesting idea but, What are you going to do about your sin?"


----------



## etexas (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius said:


> How would you respond to someone (behaviorist?) who argues that man has no soul, and that his mind is nothing other than the mechanical processes of the brain, since people with brain injuries do not function as normal humans?


Great question. I do not think Scripture teaches a Tricotomy of man body soul and spirit.: Rather I think it teaches body and spirit. (the mind can be part of soul and body) but a person has the body framed of God, and man is give life by the breath of God, this is our spirit. Actually David it is this view that I use in part to defend against abortion on demand (since proponents say "Well, a fetus cannot "think". From this position it renders their point moot. It could therefore apply to a brain damaged person as well. Just my  (By the bye, as far as Soul and Spirit, as far as one can see in Holy Writ, the seem to be somewhat "overlapping" terms. Grace and Peace.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 14, 2008)

Davidius;



> If the capacity to perform a function is lost by injuring a part of the body, then that part of the body must be the cause of the function.



Why must it be the cause of the function? 




> One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.



If the brain is severly damaged that a person can't walk, talk or whatever, yet their heart is still beating..they are still alive..so something other than the physical brain must be in control or all bodily organs would fail.

For example what causes the heart itself to pump? Is the brain telling the heart to pump? If the brain is damaged, how could it continue to do so? 

Example, Terry Shivo, her brain was damaged, yet she could breathe on her own, her heart was still pumping, her lungs still worked, they had to physically starve her to death in order for her to die, so it was something other than the brain function that was keeping her physically alive.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 14, 2008)

Just to clarify, I'm becoming the devil's advocate here...



BJClark said:


> Davidius;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is how empiricism works, right? If your car is running and then you take the engine out and it stops running, it is assumed that the engine has something to do with making the car run.



> > One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This doesn't prove that there is a soul. The behaviorist would probably say that your argument proves that varying degrees of damage to the brain cause the cessation of varying degrees of bodily function. If the brain were removed entirely, the heart would stop beating, no?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 15, 2008)

A man in an airplane guides the airplane. If the airplane breaks apart - even though the man inside is not hurt - that man insdie WILL die due to the wreckage of his outer container.

The mind can thus be differentiated from the brain, the brain being the airplane - the outer structure - and the mind being that operator inside. If our skulls get bashed our airplane breaks apart in mid-air and the pilot dies (sorry no parachutes yet).


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> A man in an airplane guides the airplane. If the airplane breaks apart - even though the man inside is not hurt - that man insdie WILL die due to the wreckage of his outer container.
> 
> The mind can thus be differentiated from the brain, the brain being the airplane - the outer structure - and the mind being that operator inside. If our skulls get bashed our airplane breaks apart in mid-air and the pilot dies (sorry no parachutes yet).



That's interesting. I'll have to think about that for a little while...


----------



## Davidius (Mar 15, 2008)




----------



## Pergamum (Mar 16, 2008)

is the pilot/airplane analogy a close enough fit?


----------



## Greg (Mar 16, 2008)

Davidius said:


> The argument was basically:
> 
> If the capacity to perform a function is lost by injuring a part of the body, then that part of the body must be the cause of the function. In other words, one can't walk if one's legs are broken, therefore legs are a physical cause of walking. One can't think correctly or speak (or walk, for that matter) if one has brain damage, therefore the brain (i.e. a material cause) is the cause of all rational faculties (and ultimately walking, too) and there is no immaterial cause.
> 
> Thanks for your help so far!



But isn't this person's argument really just begging the question? I mean, they're basically assuming and taking for granted that which they should prove, namely that "there is no immaterial cause" for a particular bodily function if that physical body part is in any way damaged (in this case the brain).


----------



## Jim Johnston (Mar 16, 2008)

Davidius said:


> How would you respond to someone (behaviorist?) who argues that man has no soul, and that his mind is nothing other than the mechanical processes of the brain, since people with brain injuries do not function as normal humans?



is correlation and causation being confused? how do we know the change in personality is caused by the brain injury rather than correlated with it?

it's not like Descartes and all the dualists throughout history never noticed that people's personalities changed if they (say) drank too much, got hit in the head real hard and forgot stuff, disease, development of age, etc.

an injury to my eye glasses (if I had them) would affect my seeing, do my glasses do the seeing?

a brain injury can affect the mind, this can be empirically observed. it is open to third person obsevation. (that's how we're able to discuss it!) but this still doesn't tell us how things like qualia are just parts of the brain. those things are first-person, subjective states. no physical thing is a first-person, subjective state. so, they still have the "hard problem" of consciousness to deal with. a doctor can cut open my head and see my c-fiber firing. he can't ever observe *my* pain. he can only observe how i *function* when I am in pain. i might say "ouch!" or something. but my pain still has a felt quality to it. a "what it is like" to be in pain, for me. the doctor can't observe that.

if i damage my t.v. cable cord just a bit, the picture will come in fuzzy or distorted. but this doesn't mean the actual *signal* has been affected. that's till coming strong from the street. likewise, damage to our brain could affect the way the signal (staying with the analogy) gets outputed while I am still embodied. if my brain was fixed, the same (jerky) Paul would come back in full (unless it was at the resurrection and I was glorified, then I'd be nice). 

and given that most dualists believe in some kind of unification when embodied, why wouldn't we expect to see these kinds of things. in fact, this is precisely what the interactive model suggests! thus, rather than being a critique of (all forms of) dualism, it's rather an empirical confirmation of what we would expect given the truth of the most sophisticated forms!

not only that, but physical things can affect my mind, and my mind can affect physical things. i think about it, and then raise my hand. or, i can convince you, via telephone, to go pick up my kids for me. i used my mind and affected your mind, and then caused your body to go out and do something for me.

seems to me the argument beggs a massive amount of questions against the dualist.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Mar 16, 2008)

Davidius said:


> How would you respond to someone (behaviorist?) who argues that man has no soul, and that his mind is nothing other than the mechanical processes of the brain, since people with brain injuries do not function as normal humans?


ask them why they prefer chocolate ice cream to butter pecan. ask them why they prefer motly crue to aerosmith. ask them why they like the cowboys to the bears.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

Thanks for the replies so far. Here's a follow-up question:

If the brain is the conduit of the mind, but not the mind itself, and if a brain injury can be illustrated using the analogy of a functioning television broadcast transmitting to a broken television set, then would it be reasonable to assume that a person who is not able to fully express thought due to a brain injury or menal handicap still has consciousness, can possess knowledge, and can think propositionally? These things can't be shared with the outside world, but perhaps they still exist behind the broken television set. I ask because someone mentioned in another thread that Reformed Christians believe that infants and handicapped persons can be saved without a knowledge of Christ. If, however, knowledge resides in the immaterial mind and not the brain, and the brain is only a conduit connecting the mind and body somehow, then people who are saved and unable to express their knowledge could still technically have knowledge of God as Redeemer. What do you think?

I'll quote Pergie here to further explain my point:



Pergamum said:


> Babies I believe are saved, but without EXPLICIT faith in Jesus. John leaping in his mother's womb proves little. The mentally handicapped may almost be totally braindead and may not know who they are even, much less our saviour.



What is "explicit faith"? Does being "braindead" equate to not being able to know things? I don't see how this can be the case if the physical material of the brain itself is _not_ the location of our knowledge, but only the way through which our immaterial mind is connected to the material body. If the brain is dead, the mind/spirit is still alive, and if this is where knowledge resides, then it does not follow that a braindead person does not know who he is. He merely can't express it to us.


----------



## Bygracealone (Mar 17, 2008)

Another interesting distinction between the brain and the mind:

When we think about things, those thoughts cannot be said to be "physical." How is it that I can close my eyes and think about the color red and yet there's no way to find that thought within my brain. Or I can think about an orange, yet there's no way to find the image of the orange in my brain. We can't open up a brain and "see" thoughts. 

J.P. Moreland has written some good stuff on this subject that I've found to be helpful. 

David, I think your conclusion in the last post is correct, For what it's worth...


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

Bygracealone said:


> Another interesting distinction between the brain and the mind:
> 
> When we think about things, those thoughts cannot be said to be "physical." How is it that I can close my eyes and think about the color red and yet there's no way to find that thought within my brain. Or I can think about an orange, yet there's no way to find the image of the orange in my brain. We can't open up a brain and "see" thoughts.
> 
> ...



Could you provide a source for Moreland's material?


----------



## Bygracealone (Mar 17, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Bygracealone said:
> 
> 
> > Another interesting distinction between the brain and the mind:
> ...



Sure. The book I found helpful is entitled: "Immortality" published by Nelson. The book was co-authored with Gary Habermas. While they approach the subject as Evidentialists, I still find what they've written to be helpful in understanding some things about the nature and relationship between body and soul... It also touches on the phenomena of "near-death experiences." I found it to be very interesting and thought provoking...


----------



## Bygracealone (Mar 17, 2008)

Bygracealone said:


> Another interesting distinction between the brain and the mind:
> 
> When we think about things, those thoughts cannot be said to be "physical." How is it that I can close my eyes and think about the color red and yet there's no way to find that thought within my brain. Or I can think about an orange, yet there's no way to find the image of the orange in my brain. We can't open up a brain and "see" thoughts.



I forgot to add an important point to this. I don't need my physical eyes to see things. I can close my eyes and I can see my room; I can even walk around my room in my mind; I can see the face of my wife, my children, etc. without my physical eyes. I can even listen to music and taste things or feel things without experiencing them physically at that moment. So, there's definitely a relationship between the body and soul, but they certainly are not one and the same with each other.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Davidius Mazimus:

Here is a problem with infants exercising "explicit faith" in Christ. 

It seems to bypass the Word of God. Or it hypothesizes that they can understand the Word of God enough for salvation.

If infants can hear and understand the Gospel and leap in their mothers womb due to understanding the Gospel than we would have infants not born in sin and also highly intelligent ones at that.


Also, before language is developed what language would this Word of God need to be in for the baby to leap in the womb out of understanding? Latin, Indonesian, Chinese? Instead of playing Mozart for Babies should we play a reading of the Bible in many languages to evangelize our babies then?



Coma patients could hear and understand the Gospel in a saving way, but braindead people would not be able to process the Gospel enough to really "hear" would they? At some level of diminished capacity there is no understanding and if a person is thus saved under those conditions, then they are saved apart from explicit saving faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Here is a problem with infants exercising "explicit faith" in Christ.
> 
> It seems to bypass the Word of God. Or it hypothesizes that they can understand the Word of Godenough for salvation.
> 
> ...



Pergamum insularum,

Your questions assume that the mind and the body are the same, or at least that the soul "grows" or "matures" similarly to the body, but this need not be the case. Perhaps this is why John the Baptist leapt in his mother's womb, and why David could say that the LORD had been his God since the womb. If the mind/soul is able to understand truth then it's possible for it to do so even if the body is damaged or underdeveloped. 

Your question about language and its relation to the mind, the body, and truth, is well taken. What is a proposition? It must be something other than any statement in a given language, since the same proposition can be expressed in multiple languages. 

"The girl is pretty," "Das Maedchen ist schoen," "Puella est bella," and "Het meisje is mooi" are all the same proposition, yet represented in different languages. Now this is an area that I would love to research more, but I'm not sure I can give a definitive answer to your question at this point. It does seem, however, that the human baby and the mentally retarded person, although they cannot use the physical function of language, could still have the propositional truth of scripture transmitted to their minds directly by the Spirit of God.

An example of this would be the a priori knowledge which all human beings have which makes them subject to God's just wrath. Even a baby has knowledge of God in its soul, and consequently rejects God in the sinfulness of its soul, although it is unable to speak words against God. Therefore I assume that elect infants have saving faith similarly imputed to them as a result of "extra" a priori propositions which non-elect infants don't have, even though the child cannot speak for God (in the same way that the non-elect child cannot speak yet against God with its physical mouth).


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Davidius 

A baby understanding Scriptures is like......hmmmm....

Let's use a computer analogy: This would be like playing Call to Duty 4 on a Commodore 64. The baby's mental makeup is not yet ready to receive this info.

Thus, a baby cannot understand enough to exercise explicit knowledgeable faith and the leaping in the womb business becomes one of movement by the Holy Spirit out of emotional gladness perhaps, but not motivated out of an understanding and joy and knowledge of what was going on (babies cannot see through the womb anyhow..how did John the Baptist recognize Mary's voice or see her coming...).

The psalms about David praising God from his mother's breasts are poetic. The trees also clap in the psalms.

The language comment by me above was to the effect of baby's do not come born with a pre-programmed language. Thus, what language would a baby need to hear the Bible in to understand it? 

Babies go through language acquisition the same way we do when we learn a new language. I suppose the Holy Spirit could speak Baby-ese directly to John the Baptist, but this too would be a revelation of God outside of Scripture.


And as far as my epithet insularum goes....

"Me paenitet, amice"


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Davidius
> 
> A baby understanding Scriptures is like......hmmmm....
> 
> ...



So you're saying that one can have joy in the Holy Spirit without any understanding? Sounds like you should become Pentecostal! True knowledge always precedes true emotion. 



> The psalms about David praising God from his mother's breasts are poetic. The trees also clap in the psalms.



Well, I suppose you can assert this if you want, but if you want to convince me you'll need to prove why this must be poetic. Trees can't clap, therefore it must be poetic. To say that David's inner man can't truly praise God from the breast because children can't understand is to assert what you have to prove. 



> The language comment by me above was to the effect of baby's do not come born with a pre-programmed language. Thus, what language would a baby need to hear the Bible in to understand it?
> 
> Babies go through language acquisition the same way we do when we learn a new language. I suppose the Holy Spirit could speak Baby-ese directly to John the Baptist, but this too would be a revelation of God outside of Scripture.



This is the point I was trying to make by showing you that propositions are not tied to a language. We use language as symbols to express propositions, but the proposition is not the language. So a baby does not necessarily need to know a language to know a proposition. I gave you the a priori knowledge of God discussed by Paul in various passages as an example.



> And as far as my epithet insularum goes....
> 
> "Me paenitet, amice"



Why? It just means "of the islands" (genitive plural of insula). Don't you minister on some islands?


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Mar 17, 2008)

Davidius said:


> This is the point I was trying to make by showing you that propositions are not tied to a language. We use language as symbols to express propositions, but the proposition is not the language. So a baby does not necessarily need to know a language to know a proposition. I gave you the a priori knowledge of God discussed by Paul in various passages as an example.


David, although a proposition itself is the meaning of a declarative sentence, I think for us, they are tied to language. We do use language to express the content of propositions. So, without the use of language, I don't see how one could know a proposition, because they couldn't even understand its content without it.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Davidius
> ...





Sorry, my latin stinks mea culpa or whatever. I thought insular had the same root as insulting, Pergy the Insulting. 



Also, about the babes leaping in their wombs, I have heard Presbyterians say that John was leaping and this is evidence of his faith, even in the womb. Therefore, it WOULD mean, for a Presbyterian, that the Holy Spirit was bypassing the thoughts and moving one purely by emotion - if we posit that babies cannot think well enough to understand the content of the Gospel.

Yes, I guess you are right. We think even before we can speak. 

But babies do not merely learn to talk they also learn how to think. Not only their verbal ability is underdeveloped, their brains appear to not even have object permanancy. Therefore, it seems to me that a baby cannot exercise explicit faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, if babies are saved, it appears that at least one class of person can be saved without exercising explicit faith in Jesus Christ...which, obviously, is quite a troubling position. Do you see any way out of it?


Also, babies do learn language. Therefore, they do not come out of the womb with a pre-programmed koine greek or English program. We could read the Word of God to babies and they would not benefit. John in his mother's womb, seeing and then hearing Mary, does not cogitate that this must be the mother of the Saviour, I hear her voice...what's that she's saying. I guess the Holy Spirit spoke baby-ese to little John the Baptist so he could understand. All very puzzling. Any thoughts?


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Cheshire Cat said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > This is the point I was trying to make by showing you that propositions are not tied to a language. We use language as symbols to express propositions, but the proposition is not the language. So a baby does not necessarily need to know a language to know a proposition. I gave you the a priori knowledge of God discussed by Paul in various passages as an example.
> ...



Davidius is right. Language is arbitrary symbols used to express propositions. Each earthly language is perhaps a murky mirror by which we know reality and someday when we get to heaven we will see how impoversihed our individual languages actually are.

We can think, process and know without language. A baby need not know a language to know a proposition. Thinking precedes speaking.

....but any extra-biblical proposition must then be communicated in Baby-ese directly to the baby and the baby must be presupposed to have the cognitive ability to understand what that means. 


A possible way by which babies could have explicit faith, even without being able to think very deeply:

Babies can smell their mothers and discriminate them from other women after only a week post-partum, so maybe a baby can know the Saviour in an "unthinking knowledge" sort of reaction type of way (where we know something but cannot express why and do not even know why we know). 

Perhaps then a baby's faith is more like recognizing the smell of the Saviour, just like a baby's mother can be recognized.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 17, 2008)

Cheshire Cat said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> > This is the point I was trying to make by showing you that propositions are not tied to a language. We use language as symbols to express propositions, but the proposition is not the language. So a baby does not necessarily need to know a language to know a proposition. I gave you the a priori knowledge of God discussed by Paul in various passages as an example.
> ...



But what would you say about the a priori knowledge that all humans have of God? I don't want to get into the debate whether knowledge can be anything other than propositional, but would you say that this innate knowledge is not propositional?


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 17, 2008)

All I can say is that my not-so-towering intellect is far closer to that of a newborn than it is to God's, so I will not presume to be able to declare what level of knowledge is adequate for salvation. I'm just immensely grateful that God ordained to save such an idiot as myself.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 17, 2008)

I'll just contribute to this thread what I've said here someplace else:
No one is saved apart from faith in Christ. This is the Bible's declaration, and I see no good reason to postulate some other means of salvation for any "class" of persons who are said not to have by reason of _exercise_ such a capacity. "Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God." It seesm to me we need an understanding of FAITH that will accommodate those who are at some point in time in a diminished intellectual capacity. Faith cannot be simply an intellectual exercise.

When I am asleep, can I SEE anything? No, ... and Yes. My condition is such that I can't see--I'm asleep, and sleeping people don't see. But, I DO have the capacity to see. In fact, I have always had that capacity, even as an unborn child, which had never been in an environment where the eyeballs I had, and the neural connections, were ever put to use. And since I have to presume the DNA code was all present, I had the "future" capacity to see even when a zygote.

Faith needs to be understood in a fulsome, and not in a truncated sense. Use the full definition of "knowledge, assent, and trust," and recognize that all three develop. Saving faith is apprehending Christ for who he is; it is spiritual "sight," according to Scripture. Our natural condition is spiritual blindness, no capacity for such sight. God, by his Spirit, and the _ordinary means_ of the Word, grants that missing capacity to the regenerated in conversion. But he is not obligated to only effectually call by that means, but is FREE to work differently, as he wills.

So, we say he can convert, giving the capacity of faith--to apprehend Christ in all his saving glory--to any who are "incapable of being outwardly called" by the ministry of the Word. Thus, it is well within our Calvinistic understanding to grant that God can regenerate a babe, whether in the womb or upon the breast, and their conversion be something imperceptible, as the capacity to believe is brought from a germinal state to a place of exercise.

Babies that die in the womb, *if elect* are granted regeneration and (by necessary consequence) a seed of faith, and "open their eyes" not in this world but in the next, and look upon Christ their Savior. Realize, their full development in sanctification takes place entirely in the presence of God. While they must (and surely do) repent of original (imputed) sin and of natural corruption, they have no "conscious" sin to repent of--their seeds of corruption were amputated before they grew into capacities to be exercised.

By this understanding of an infant soul, we can see how God may grant saving faith even to such like. He gives them "eyes to see." They grow in grace, and in the KNOWLEDGE of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, entirely in the heavenly courts of God.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 17, 2008)

Davidius;



> If the brain is the conduit of the mind, but not the mind itself, and if a brain injury can be illustrated using the analogy of a functioning television broadcast transmitting to a broken television set, then would it be reasonable to assume that a person who is not able to fully express thought due to a brain injury or menal handicap still has consciousness, can possess knowledge, and can think propositionally? These things can't be shared with the outside world, but perhaps they still exist behind the broken television set. I ask because someone mentioned in another thread that Reformed Christians believe that infants and handicapped persons can be saved without a knowledge of Christ. If, however, knowledge resides in the immaterial mind and not the brain, and the brain is only a conduit connecting the mind and body somehow, then people who are saved and unable to express their knowledge could still technically have knowledge of God as Redeemer. What do you think?



I would agree, I used to tutor a man when I was in college, he was considered mentally handicapped, was in a wheelchair, couldn't form a verbal sentence, his mother had to feed, bathe and clothe him, and take him to the bathroom...but he learned to use a computer to share what he was thinking. 

He was slow in typing and trying to formulate words and sentences and many times got frustrated in trying to do so. There were things he liked and things he didn't like just like everyone else..he loved baseball, but didn't like hockey..

Many people thought I was crazy tutoring him in English, since I had to wait for him to type out his response which could take up to 15 minutes for something that would take most people a few seconds to respond to verbally. 

There were things he knew that others wouldn't think he could possibly know..many people would think he couldn't understand who Christ is, but yet, when people would use Christ's name in vain He would get very aggitated, moreso than most Christians do..his mom and I would talk and she told me people at her church would ask "why she bothers bringing him because he can't possibly understand". But yet, she and I both knew, he could understand, if he could understand how to form a sentence He could understand Salvation..so while he was physically and mentally handicapped in many areas, he understood many things..


I don't know what program they used, but it was great for him; I don't even remember the ladies name who was working with him in the use of the program, but she would come to the college about once a month to check on his progress and see what new words or pictures (for words) she needed to add to his computer to help build the verbal data base on his computer. I wish I did, because I thought what she was doing was awesome..


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Thanks Rev Bruce:

A follow up question: Can an infant "exercise" his faith or is he merely "given" a seed of faith? 




I guess this means the following:

That some babies are either not conceived in sin or else the Lord regenerates them while still a multi-called organism.

That this seed of faith will exhibit an exercise of faith at the first opportunity.



If faith and repentance go together, how is it that infants exercise repentnace and what do they repent from (forigve the sins of my zygote stage)...

... or maybe one can be regenerated without yet being converted, in which case why would we ned to say that an infant has faith when faith is part of conversion which is not yet needed?


This faith would be a faith without action (and faith without works is dead), and also faith comes by hearing (and its aweful hard to hear much clearly in the womb). 


However, to deny that infants can exercise faith is to create two classes of saved people - those who have as a requirement explicit faith in Jesus Christ and those who are saved without an explicit faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 17, 2008)

Another follow up question:

Do we need to think in order to have faith?
Can we have a faith without thinking?

And if so, do we not then create two classes of Christians anyway? Those that are required to think and those that merely have the seed of faith?


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 17, 2008)

> If faith and repentance go together, how is it that infants exercise repentnace and what do they repent from (forigve the sins of my zygote stage)...


I thought Rev Buchanan's post answered that very well:


> Babies that die in the womb, if elect are granted regeneration and (by necessary consequence) a seed of faith, and "open their eyes" not in this world but in the next, and look upon Christ their Savior. Realize, their full development in sanctification takes place entirely in the presence of God. While they must (and surely do) repent of original (imputed) sin and of natural corruption, they have no "conscious" sin to repent of--their seeds of corruption were amputated before they grew into capacities to be exercised.





> This faith would be a faith without action (and faith without works is dead),


Do you think that's so? If we said that what constitutes works are actions that glorify God, how do we know that an unborn infant doesn't do any? While their existence is far different from ours, can we say with any certainty that it offers no opportunity for glorifying God, even if we have no concept of it? And similarly...


> and also faith comes by hearing (and its aweful hard to hear much clearly in the womb).


Doesn't hearing equate with the receiving and comprehending of imparted information? I mean, this doesn't imply that a deaf person cannot have faith because they are incapable of hearing sound, right? 

The ability to recieve and comprehend the Gospel believingly is not a natural occurence. It is given by a supernatural act performed solely by God in the heart of a human being. How it is conveyed _and_ the means of it's belief are both determined by His decrees. Perhaps the determination of such things are a part of the "The secret things" that "belong unto the LORD our God".


----------



## Davidius (Mar 18, 2008)

BJClark said:


> Davidius;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for sharing this story, Mrs. Clark. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about!!



Pergamum said:


> Thanks Rev Bruce:
> 
> A follow up question: Can an infant "exercise" his faith or is he merely "given" a seed of faith?
> 
> ...



It is hard for me to read a post when the text is so disjointed. 

Confessionally, we recognize that faith is normally created through the preaching of the word. We say "normally" because of the examples of men such as John the Baptist and David, who appear to have been converted while in the womb. You may take exception to these examples if you like, but we will have to remain at an impasse, if you do, since I accept the confessional teaching that they did in fact have faith in the womb.

As far as exercising repentance is concerned, the unborn child hates God in its consciousness already. Furthermore, the child is guilty of the sin of its first parent, Adam. It would need to repent of these things.



Pergamum said:


> Another follow up question:
> 
> Do we need to think in order to have faith?
> Can we have a faith without thinking?
> ...



From what I understand, most Reformed people say that saving faith is comprised of knowledge/understanding, assent, and trust. Clark said that trust is bound up in assent and that there are only two components. Either way, the consensus is that at least knowledge and assent are required. Hence, not really understanding what a seed of faith is anyway, I would argue that there is only one class. This does not present any difficulty if one accepts the distinction between thought and the ability to physically express thought as it is represented in language.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 18, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Thanks Rev Bruce:
> 
> A follow up question: Can an infant "exercise" his faith or is he merely "given" a seed of faith?


I'll simply go back to the birth analogy (which is doubly nice, since Jesus gave it to us explicitly, John 3). Did your baby "see" on the day it was born? Probably, and also not so "perfectly". It had no "interpretive context" for everything. And yet there are hardwired effects of its sight. That kid "recognizes" the breast, if not instinctively. Their "focus range" is limited to about 12 inches--about the distance from breast to face. They "know" mom almost immediately too. If the child is not neglected, this trust in mom begins immediately and naturally to be built.

The analogy seems obvious to me. If I am an elect infant, and regenerated, and died in the body, I have been given the ability to "know" my Savior, and to rest/trust in him, in a way that certainly must be more perfect and ideal than an embodied infant knows its mother, and knows how to find the "bullseye". Like infants grow in knowledge of their mother, so the saved soul--even an infant soul--will grow in its intellectual apprehension of Christ, its assent to the truths, even as its trust deepens. And for the elect infant, dead in body, this development takes place exclusively in heaven.

EVERY child is conceived in sin--that is a product of natural generation. We all have *imputed guilt* and a *corrupt nature* immediately; and by natural development, the propensity to sin is actualized 100% of the time. So we always have actual sin to deal with too, once a self-conscious baby starts making decisions. But certainly, even that elect infant must *repent* of his imputed guilt, and his corrupt nature. He'd have to repent by the same basic seed of understanding by which his faith develops.

As for exercising faith at the first opportunity, _perhaps._ Where is the place of "ordinary means"? Does not a child coming into the world need the due application of Christian nurture? The hearing of the gospel? If these are faithfully applied (as God has foreordained in this or that case) why would it be beyond expectation that a child would never know a day when he did not know 1) the greatness of his sin and misery, and 2) the greatness of the Savior God provided?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know God brought me over from death to life... sometime. He regenerated me, then converted me, and I have no idea what that timetable was. My conscious religious awareness does not include a period of self-acknowledged enmity toward God. This is not a denial of the objective reality of that enmity--I know it existed in a natural condition that had to be undone if I was to be saved at all. I was taught the gospel from infancy, its no more complicated than that.


> ... or maybe one can be regenerated without yet being converted, in which case why would we ned to say that an infant has faith when faith is part of conversion which is not yet needed?


Regeneration always precedes faith (a part of conversion). And I know of no necessity of saying that a person's conversion must happen instantaneously with the regenerating work do the Spirit. Not even in adult converts (though this could be most common).

A man may be a long time laboring to understand a faith he is being taught. We do not concern ourselves with the moment of regeneration, for we do not know how the wind of the Spirit blows. His effectual call is acting on this man quickly, on this man slowly, but their respective conversions may come in reverse "order". Not that I could see that. The intellects are crucial in each our ordinary-means conversion.

As for this faith of an infant having no action, what do you mean? Are these children not serving God in heaven? Do they not exhibit fruit of the Spirit? Or perhaps you mean infants on earth, who may be awaiting the process of ordinary means. Now, I would argue that John the Baptist gave a powerful (and supernatural) "act" of devotion in the womb. But any others that might exist no doubt require the regular application of means--Christian nurture and the preaching of the gospel--to see ordinary development of whatever God has begun in them, from whenever he began it.

And I hope I have addressed the other question too somehow.


----------



## BJClark (Mar 18, 2008)

Brad;



> Do you think that's so? If we said that what constitutes works are actions that glorify God, how do we know that an unborn infant doesn't do any? While their existence is far different from ours, can we say with any certainty that it offers no opportunity for glorifying God, even if we have no concept of it?



An unborn infant does glorify God.

From conception and growth in the womb, to moving and kicking before they are born, all of those Glorify God, even that first breath and scream after they are born Glorifies God.

Even a child conceived in the most vile of ways Glorifies God, as the parents' sin is exposed by the conception of the child.

I know many people who have lost children and the parents turned to God, while I know others who have lost children and the parents ran from God..was God glorified? Yes, in both instances, either the parents turned to God for comfort or they blamed God for the loss..but yet, they knew God IS real, so through the unborn children...God was glorified..


----------

