Geoff,
If I may interject here -- What is concerning people is not the assertion of the possibility of all infants going to paradise; but the assertion of its certainty, which should be admitted goes beyond scripture. We are not asserting certainly that children are damned; we are asserting that God would be perfectly just to do so.
We must leave the hidden things to the Lord, which Spurgeon has not done. The Canons of Dort speak well to the issue, when they (remaining within the bounds of scripture) testify that no believing parents should be distressed or in doubt at the death of their infants, but should have hope. This, however, is within the bounds of God's covenant, and says nothing of all infants indiscriminately.
I read the Spurgeon sermon, and I find it horribly inconsistent. His First section (I) was good, wherein he proclaimed the imputed guilt of all humanity, including infants, and thus God's just right to damn all. However, his second section (II), it seems he completely abandoned this and appealed to a human sentimentality in God (How could God not elect such a sweet thing as this?). This is contrary to what he established rightly in the first section.
Could you perhaps expound your agreement with Spurgeon more? I would be interested in seeing where you think his argument is strongest. Thanks.
Sure.
First, it is not Spurgeon's words to say "How could not not elect such a sweet thing as this?" That is your words, and does not run the argument Spurgeon made.
He preached,
If we had a God, whose name was Moloch, if God were an arbitrary tyrant, without benevolence or grace, we could suppose some infants being cast into hell; but our God, who heareth the young ravens when they cry, certainly will find no delight in the shrieks and cries of infants cast away from his presence.
He is making reference here to Psalm 147:9 "He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry."
It is a direct appeal to the merciful nature of God revealed in Scripture who shows tenderness and compassion to a bird. How much more to an infant?
We read of him that he is so tender, that he careth for oxen, that he would not have the mouth of the ox muzzled, that treadeth out the corn. Nay, he careth for the bird upon the nest, and would not have the mother bird killed while sitting upon its nest with its little ones.
Again, turning to the Word of God, he appeals to what is revealed concerning the nature of God and of His special interest and concern for the weak and helpless.
You remember when Jonah—petulant, quick-tempered Jonah—would have Nineveh perish God gave it as the reason why Nineveh should not be destroyed, that there were in it more than six score thousand infants,—persons, he said, who knew not their light hand tram their left. If he spared Nineveh that their mortal life might be spared, think you that their immortal souls shall be needlessly cast away! I only put it to your own reason. It is not a case where we need much argument. Would your God cast away an infant? If yours could, I am happy to say he is not the God that I adore.
Again,
Again, we think it would be inconsistent utterly with the known character of our Lord Jesus Christ. When his disciples put away the little children whom their anxious mothers brought to him, Jesus said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven,"
Was Jesus speaking of only those children brought to Him because He knew those were elect? Or does this statement reflect something less salvific and more of a loving nature that God has toward children?
I could not believe it of Jesus, that he would say to little children, "Depart, ye accursed, into everlasting fire in hell!" I cannot conceive it possible of him as the loving and tender one, that when he shall sit to judge all nations, he should put the little ones on the left hand, and should banish them for ever from his presence. Could he address them, and say to them, "I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink, sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not?
I agree with Spurgeon. The Scripture indeed does not say God will not condemn an infant...but that is the argument of a tricky lawyer in my opinion. What I HAVE seen of my Savior teaches me He so greatly adores, loves, and delights in children.
And so he concludes:
I have not made a distinction between the children of godly and ungodly parents. If they die in infancy, I do not mind who is father nor who their mother, they are saved; I do not even endorse the theory of a good Presbyterian minister who supposes that the children of godly parents will have a better place in heaven than those who happen to be sprung from ungodly ones. I do not believe in any such thing. I am not certain that there are any degrees in heaven at an; and even if there were, I am not clear that even that would prove our children to have any higher rights than others. All of them without exception, from whosoever loins they may have sprung, will, we believe, not by baptism, not by their parents' faith, but simply as we are all saved through the election of God, through the precious blood "Christ, through the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, attain to glory and Immortality, and wear the image of the heavenly as they have worn the image of the earthy.
To this sermon I say, Amen.
-----Added 4/14/2009 at 11:05:06 EST-----
One could just as easily charge you with ignorance of the character of God, for he is a just God just as much as he is a Merciful God.
I've read the Spurgeon sermon, by the way. I just don't agree with his conclusions.
Charge away. I see more modern reformed people content with untold millons of screaming babies suffering in an eternal torment than I have seen in the Reformers of old.
I never said I was content. The grievous nature of sin is something we all should, indeed must, lament. The fact that Adam cast the whole of his future seed into the guilt of sin is a grievous thing worthy of great cries of anguish.
What I am is content to let God be God and not dictate to Him what He is based on my own emotional desire that all infants be saved. Scripture doesn't argue this anywhere, but puts forth to us that God is both Just and Merciful, and that He is who He is, and not who we'd like to package Him up to be in order to satisfy our desires.
But your reply here, in all due respect brother, is erroneous and unjust to me. And carrying a few strawmen with it.
1. I have never decided to dictate to God. Your argument runs the gament that if one doesn't hold a view like your own, then they are dictating to God. This is a strawmen, or else some other faulty argumentations. lol perhpas non-sequitor.
2. You assume that the only reason someone concludeds other than you, it based on pure emotion. This is false, and I have given my Scripture reasons why I conclude otherwise. You also suppose, I assume since your replying to me, that I am after my own desires. How could you bring such an accusation against me?
The bottom line for me, is that everythign I presently know about God the Father, through Jesus Christ, and by His Holy Spirit screams and shouts against a notion that He would cast an infant in the fires of hell to glorify His justice. Those creatures, ruined by the sin of Adam as we, seem to me the most glorious objects of His mercy and grace.
This is my private judgment on the matter.
-----Added 4/14/2009 at 11:06:11 EST-----
Wow, Geoff, do you
really think that emotional appeals change the truth of Scripture?
Really? You're barking up the wrong tree here when you assert that you know more than what the Scriptures actually teach.
Using phrases like "ripping from the womb," etc. certainly does nothing but show that you're grasping at straws to biblically substantiate your point. If David is willing to say, "In sin did my mother conceive me," who are you to intimate that the Lord's Character would be somehow flawed if He saw to it that such an unborn baby be fitted to destruction?
Let's not appeal to silly futile emotions; instead, if you want to put some teeth into what you say, show us from Scripture that all unborn infants without exception are in fact numbered of the elect. Oh, wait . . . that's not something we finite men know, nor is it told us in Scripture. I suppose, then, it's better to remain silent asserting such a thing.
Actually Joshua, it wasn't my words as "ripping from the womb" I was responding to another poster.
And btw the Joshua, God created emotions as well as intellect.
