Aug 7, 2009
On babies, hell, and fatherhood
Response to Challies’ article:
I’d rather my baby be in Heaven than have my sins forgiven.
I’d be a terrible father otherwise.
(link via @elizabethesther)
Subscribe to 22 Words
Recent Comments
Sponsors
Categories
- Arts in General (24)
- Bible (67)
- Blogging (158)
- Brevity (25)
- Constructive Criticism (271)
- Faith (217)
- Food & Drink (63)
- Language (226)
- Literature (112)
- Love (93)
- Miscellanea (308)
- Movies & TV (27)
- Music (171)
- parenting (158)
- Personal (191)
- Questions (258)
- Quotes (41)
- Recommendations (132)
- Sports (14)
- Technology (2)
- Uncategorized (9)
- Visual Art (36)
- Writing (57)
Archives
- September 2010 (9)
- August 2010 (88)
- July 2010 (116)
- June 2010 (79)
- May 2010 (89)
- April 2010 (62)
- March 2010 (21)
- February 2010 (25)
- January 2010 (32)
- December 2009 (47)
- November 2009 (63)
- October 2009 (45)
- September 2009 (40)
- August 2009 (40)
- July 2009 (40)
- June 2009 (37)
- May 2009 (47)
- April 2009 (51)
- March 2009 (40)
- February 2009 (31)
- January 2009 (44)
- December 2008 (47)
- November 2008 (54)
- October 2008 (50)
- September 2008 (41)
- August 2008 (45)
- July 2008 (51)
- June 2008 (51)
- May 2008 (66)
- April 2008 (74)
- March 2008 (71)
- February 2008 (19)
Reader Recommendations
Some of the books and music that you, the readers, have recommended here over time:
Twitter Recommendations
Theme based on Derek Punsalan's Grid Focus.
Thanks for posting this Abraham. I really feel for you guys.
I usually like Challies, but I thought his post was extremely insensitive. My parents lost a child after 1 day. I would be furious if the pastor responded the way Tim did here.
Granted, he was not responding as a pastor, but still…harsh.
Makes me thankful that the covenant promise is, “for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:39 ESV). With two of our children not even making it all the way through pregnancy, I am thankful God is a God who keeps covenant with his people.
I read Tim’s article and (most of) the comments. I was quite shocked by the harshness from the both articles and the comments in the name of “pretense” sound doctrine.
In this issue, I side with your father -but perhaps for different reasons – I’m not quite sure I understand Pastor John’s reasoning about this matter.
Amen.
I believe Jesus when he says, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Maybe that’s out of context, but it shows a heart of compassion and love for dependent children that reveals something about the character of God.
And your longing echoes Paul’s, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”
I can’t imagine feeling any other way about the salvation of my children, living and not.
You’re right about the verse from Matthew 19. Also, in chapter 18, Jesus says, “…unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”
It is very clear in scripture that young children are covered by his grace. You are not taking that out of context at all.
Your sentiment is Pauline:
Romans 9:3 “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”
If I thought a miscarriage or infant could end up in hell, I don’t think I could have any more children. It would be more loving if they’d never been born (Matthew 26:24).
If unborn babies or infants are all going to heaven (until they get old enough to not qualify?), wouldn’t it be an effective “evangelistic” strategy to encourage abortion and infanticide in Muslim countries?
This thought came up in a discussion I had. I know it is terrible. How would you respond to it?
1) ‘You shall not murder.’
2) Perhaps the Lord has more in mind for the elect in Muslim countries than to bypass life on this Earth altogether and go straight to heaven.
Re: #2 – There is a difference between saying that the *elect* who die as infants go to heaven, and saying that *all* infants who die go to heaven. I think Scott’s question was getting at the difference (i.e. his question is, If a baby who died was going to grow up to reject Christ as an adult, is it more merciful for it to die before it reaches adulthood?)
Personally I would say that those infants who are elect and chosen by God from before the foundations of the world to be His will go to heaven, absolutely. I don’t see Scriptural evidence for an age of accountability, however, or that all babies or children or disabled people who aren’t to a certain point of mental reckoning are automatically elect. I certainly hope and pray that they are (as I hope and pray for the salvation of all people), and I think that the Bible gives us many indications that as believers, we can have confidence that our infants are among the elect of His covenant, but I don’t see the case for universal salvation of babies across the board. I do agree that Challies’ response was rather brash and unloving in tone.
I think it’s futile to bring a scenario into the debate that simply doesn’t matter–a baby who died who might have otherwise grown up to reject Christ as an adult just doesn’t make sense. Because there are no what-ifs, only what is or what was.
I echo your sentiments
I can see both sides of this argument. I believe that babies go immediately to Heaven, but I can’t be dogmatic about it looking at the the words of Scripture.
But perhaps a good question to consider is, “Would you still love Jesus even if He did send some or all babies to hell?”
I believe that God will do what is right. The Bible does not give a clear answer, so I don’t think we are wrong to hope that God’s grace applies to babies.
This is tricky for me to wrap my mind around. If I desire for my child to know and love Jesus more than I desire that I know and love Jesus, am I therefore loving my child more than I am loving Jesus?
I’m with you Jamie. If it’s my life or my child’s, the child’s of course. If ULTIMATE things are involved, I don’t know if we can answer. I know I love my kids more than I love myself, but I don’t know what infinity does to that.
It’s also worth repeating that Challies’ position is not that babies go to hell, but that Scripture doesn’t definitively say what happens to all babies. You can’t blame a man for not wanting to go further than Scripture.
Jake: but you can blame a man for using a cold, sterile tone when addressing a deeply sensitive, painful issue.
By that measure, Challies’ post was one of the most unmerciful pieces I’ve ever read on a Christian blog.
Challies made clear in the comments (#25, I think) that the post was not his response, but merely a summary of his response, which was much more “pastoral” in its tone.
It’s comment #35. I’m glad this post wasn’t his actual response to the grieving woman. However, he has thousands of readers, perhaps many of whom have lost infant children. The fact remains that his tone was unnecessarily harsh.
Elizabeth: After rereading I think you’re right. He picked a lousy example to make his point, and has obviously ended up breaking a bunch of bruised reeds, whether his point is right or not.
I agree completely Elizabeth. His tone was cold and harsh. And in the end he wasn’t just harsh in his stand about what happens to babies, but also particularly harsh about this woman’s faith and where she was putting her hope.
It also strikes me as unkind to put this woman’s business out there for the vultures of the blogosphere to critique.
If all infant deaths end in heaven, why would John the Baptist need to be regenerated from the womb? The fact that he needed the Holy Spirit from the womb, before being born, shows he was already at odds with God and needed the saving work of Christ applied to him.
I am NO expert and this issue is a little confusing, but I think the role of the Holy Spirit was different pre-Pentecost. In the OT, we see the Holy Spirit operating differently. It seems hard to understand, but somehow I think, the Holy Spirit did not indwell OT believers, like He does NT believers post-Pentecost. Hopefull someone who knows more than me will clear this up. I am certain Pastor Piper has written/preached on this.
Yes, he did write about it. I think it was an Ask Pastor John column. If I’m remembering right, he said that infants are not covered by God’s grace because they are innocent, but because they are not yet developmentally capable of comprehending the concept of sin, rejecting Jesus, etc., and I believe he is right in saying that. There is more in the Bible to support that and nothing in the Bible to lead us to believe that unborn infants, young children, mentally impaired people will be condemned to hell.
It’s not about our feelings; it’s about God’s Word.
Believe me, I feel for those who have had miscarriages but we need not judge the Lord with feeble sense. Truth is more important than feelings. And if the Scriptures just dont take a side, so be it.
I sincerely hope I didn’t ruin your day by linking to that. Because I burst into tears just reading it myself. I couldn’t stop thinking of your Felicity and of my sister’s miscarried baby. Honestly, I was completely stunned.
I was so mad about that post that I wrote a very hasty post of my own and thankfully didn’t immediately hit publish.
I read it yesterday and was worked up enough to comment there, but thankfully the comments were disabled. Save me from myself..
Gosh, this is a tough read- exactly what I’ve been working through this month. it makes my heart hurt
I don’t know where I come down on the theological question itself, but I think we approach VERY dangerous waters when we start to say/think that it MUST be that infants who are killed or miscarry or die early in life go to heaven.
Whether you hold to predestination as a doctrine or not, it puts one dangerously close to a position of judging God. God would be every bit as just in his judgement of the miscarried infant as the unrepentant middle aged sinner.
That said, I think it is probably right that our parental/human instinct is to long for these seemingly innocent ones to be saved.
I have been in the middle of this debate before. My Pastor believes babies go to heaven. He wrote a book about it, “Safe in the Arms of God.” I happen to agree with him, but do concede it is not crystal clear. Pastor MacArthur makes some good arguments and I happen to run into scripture that jibes with his view from time to time (see Deut. 1:39).
Those who hope this idea is true are often characterized as beeing irrational, overly emotional, not trusting God’s sovereignty, impugning God’s character, or even not trustng in Christ. Those who make these characterizations sometimes seem to me to cast a vaunted, hyper-spiritual pose. Let’s trust God AND have compassion for those who suffer this most painful of losses.
In the end, we know for sure – God is good no matter what. But I can’t help but agree with Abraham and wonder if it’s a sin to pray, “Lord, please. Save my children, even if it means I must suffer hell.”
i’ve been a big fan of challies for some time now but that post was awful. a perfect example of why some people hate doctrine… while he clarified that he his post was not his advice to the woman – i grieve for all the people who read what he wrote and were broken. frankly, i think he owes his readers an apology.
Agreed. An apology would be appropriate. But mostly to the woman he threw under the bus.
At first I was like… “What is Abraham talking about?” Then I read the article and go it. Goes to show that one should not make passing judgments before checking everything.
wow.
i personally don’t know whether infants go to heaven or not. regardless, this woman ought to be permitted to grieve and wrestle with the facts and mourn her children, without being called out like that. i believe in the power of the Holy Spirit; but we’re only human, too. life is hard and learning is slow. and i didn’t like the tacit accusation that not having original sin all figured out calls one’s salvation into question.
i think, and many (not all) would agree, that Challies is a good guy who has written some good stuff. but this was a mistake.
We recently considered this topic in our church, and our Pastor (Stephen Cook) provided his view over a couple of evening services. He agrees with MacArthur. His approach may not be scholarly enough for some, but I know that many of us benefited greatly and came away with a newfound appreciation for God’s sovereign grace and mercy, both for ourselves and for children. It is always refreshing to learn more about our own salvation and about the awesome God who provides it to us!
For those of you (like me) who find it hard to find time to read but have time to listen in the car or something, you should definitely have a listen. Download http://www.cbcnh.org/sermonarchive/1-18-2009-evening.mp3 and http://www.cbcnh.org/sermonarchive/1-25-2009-evening.mp3 — or go to http://www.cbcnh.org and browse through the audio archive of evening services for January 18th and 25th of this year.
Hope this helps somebody!
God knew our daughter would die at 5 months. He had the ability to change that outcome. He knew she would not have the opportunity to reject or accept Him. Yes…she was born, as a child of Adam, in sin. But I trust Him…for His patience, His grace, His mercy, His love…His knowledge and power and understand that supercedes all human reasoning & understanding….and I cling to David’s prayer that he will see his child in Heaven. I believe wholehearedly (and not just because I need it to be true) that Selah is with Jesus in Heaven, waiting for us to join her. I trust my God who I know is faithful and good and always just. I trust Him with our child.
Doctrinal issues aside, that was a low point for challies.com
I really hope that no unsaved or nonchurched person stumbles on to that one.
And I’m not sure that cutting off the comments was the way to go, either.
I am not dogmatic about this; though the more I think about it I am leaning to dogmatism; but I believe John 9.35-41 applies to miscarriages, abortions, those born so severely impaired they can not comprehend the gospel; indeed, though Roman 1.20 must be balanced; I believe the principle Jesus voiced in John 9 applies to all who have not made up or succumbed to “seeing” on their own; as opposed to seeing the truth.
I’m sure I don’t know which is true (God’s ways are not my ways), but regardless of which is true we can still have faith that God is just and merciful. Whatever his verdict, I know it flows from His character and I will worship Him for it.
As for giving up Christ for my children, I can’t imagine such an agonizing thing. While my heart is utterly for my children’s well-being, I know that Christ is more valuable, though I can barely grasp such a thing.
I just couldn’t help wondering how Challies’ article honored anyone? glorified God? helped someone? The tone was horrible while his conclusion highly arguable.
I’ve lost two babies in miscarriage and have thought about this issue in the years since those losses. Two of my children have died and I now have 7 living children. I love them all, but none of their souls are mine to evaluate for eternity. I long to see each one in heaven, but it is God’s call regarding who He will rescue… or not. That’s not a cavalier comment, but one that comes from a place that says that God’s purposes are higher than mine. My children’s age at death doesn’t guarantee their eternal destination. God’s will does. And He is faithful. He is trustworthy. He is loving. He knows what is best in regards to my two that have died and, over time, I have come to trust that. To fret over their eternity and to question God’s goodness or fairness regarding their souls only compounds my suffering.
(I do wish Tim had framed his comments more gently. To have heard that tone in the recent months after my babies died would have been salt in the wound.)
You say “I’d rather my baby be in Heaven than have my sins forgiven.”
I’m thinking “I’d rather go as far as God’s word does and not farther”.
It is not easy to face the possibility of God judging a sinful infant (if that is what he does), and I’m not saying I like it or am comfortable with it, but how is it different from God judging a sinful 20 year old? Would God be more just in that circumstance?
That comment about preferring your baby in heaven over forgiveness – would that change when the child is 20? On what basis?
Christian Hedonism says the value, beauty, worth of Christ dwarfs all other loves – when Jesus’ enemies are placed under His feet the redeemed worship him, even if their sons/daughters/parents/etc… are counted amongst His enemies.
I’m not preaching here – I’m just asking for consistency. Is Christian Hedonism really possible?
I’m amazed that when Challies says something that people disagree with, they play the hurt/insensitive/”not pastoral” card and diminish the importance of the question/issue at hand.
Carl Trueman nails this phenomenon in the following post – here are a few quotes and then a link:
“…the use of the language of hurt and pain as primary involved both a trivialization of those concepts in themselves and a sidestepping of the real issue, i.e., was the argument I proposed right or wrong?”
“By using the categories of hurt and pain with reference to arguments, one plays the ace in the postmodern hole and effectively focuses attention not on the substance of a position but on the style; or, perhaps more accurately, one transubstantiates the style into the substance.”
http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/wages-of-spin/is-hurt-mail-the-new-hate-mail.php
i understand and agree that people can easily use their offended sensibilities as a shield against hearing truth; but i don’t think that’s what everyone who takes issue with the Challies post is trying to do. rather, it’s acknowledging that HOW truth is spoken really matters. a detached, pedantic tone was inappropriate here, not because it wasn’t true but because it didn’t acknowledge the complexity of the situation when it comes to people actually dealing with it in real life. that’s serious in communication.
How the truth is spoken… I’ve read the post, and I wonder how he could have raised this issue in a way that would have been so warm & loving & caring that no one would have complained. I’m really skeptical that such a way exists – except not to blog about it at all. The problem is that people who believe all infants go to heaven are welcome in the reformed blogosphere, but the counter position is taboo. The negative reaction to Challies looks like emotional bullying to me. Sounds like “I’ve been hurt by this so you can’t raise the issue unless it’s in such sterile terms that it couldn’t barely evoke a reaction anyways”. His post was thoughtful, provoking, full of valid content for the arena in question, and I believe done tastefully.
The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world also takes away the original sin of his precious babies.
From the cross to God’s right hand, Jesus continues the intercessory prayer: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
I don’t think we can ever be certain where anyone else will end up – not for sure – not even professing Christians – only God sees their hearts, so for that reason, even with babies, in a way it is futile to debate where we think they will end up. Surely we should do all we can to comfort those who are grieving, with the love of God, and do all we can to protect and save the lifes of children – in accordance with His word and do all we can to lead people into a loving relationship with Jesus, so they are saved. But ultimately we have to leave their destiny in His hands and we can’t gain ultimate peace by considering where they will be, but in trusting Jesus’ sovereignty and wisdom. If you know anyone who dies who is an atheist, then you’re gonna have to wrestle with the reality that they might be in hell – it’s a devastating reality that we have to deal with, and you can’t get your peace in life by hoping someone is in heaven – i think that’s what that guy was getting at.
I’m not completely sure how you can say that you would rather your own baby was in heaven than your own sins are forgiven? I understand you have lost a child and that must be devasting – i am sorry for your loss – and of course you want them to be with Jesus now (and my gut feeling is that they will be) but surely your own forgiveness of sins is essential too – unless you haven’t grasped the magnitude of what hell will be like and what it will be like to be cut off from Jesus forever (although i guess that’s your basis for what you say about your child too though). Surely you can want both your child to be in heaven and your own sins to be forgiven? … you don’t have to make a choice.
I saw the comments were cut off over there … I just can’t help it … regardless of the actual answer to that question, how in the world could he have been so cold and calculating? How in the world could he say he was nicer in his response to her and yet not imagine that others reading his blog might appreciate a little compassion and love. And why in the world would he assume she was basing her salvation in believing her babies were in heaven? That is just so sad.
I saw someone say that claiming “hurt” takes away from the argument. The truth is, he can’t make his argument solidly. And his method of attacking her beliefs about salvation, rather than taking loving truth to her heart was dead wrong.
To have pain in your heart over not knowing what God has done with your precious child is a valid feeling. We can and should cling to God in it, but the feelings are real and valid.
Why wouldn’t all babies be in heaven with Jesus? They have not rejected him.
Predestination means that God has intervened in the lives of certain people in a way that draws them to himself.
It is evident that he has intervened in the lives of these little children who have died so young and brought them to himself.
There is nothing unscriptural about that.
Praying for all who have lost little ones to be comforted about this…
If I had a belief system which could reasonably be interpreted to say that the soul of a dead infant might spend eternity (or any length of time, really) being punished, I would definitely question that belief system.
That being said, the idea of an infant that never had a chance to consider morality being rewarded for eternity also strikes me as odd (if certainly preferable to the prior alternative).
While the Bible does talk about rewards, they are not like the rewards we get from our employer–extra money for selling more cars, a gift basket from the cosmetics department for referring people there, and things like that. Those are things we earn.
The rewards we get from God are gifts.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8) Eternal life is a gift, not a payment to us for good moral decisions.
Even the good things we do are gifts, “for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)
So the good things I do are not things that originate with me, they are things that God prepared for me and gave me as a gift.
It really is simple, any deity that would send a baby to hell, cant exist, if it did we should defy it with all our strength. Defy it to its face. That would be the righteous thing, even Christian thing to do.
I’m happy with the thought that God is not only just, but full of mercy, patient, and infinitely loving. I also know that he gives peace beyond comprehension. This is enough, and more than enough.
Why even bring a subject like this into debate? If the law of God is written on our hearts, then I fully do not believe the God I have come to know and love would banish innocent babies and children, and mentally retarded, etc. to hell. Give me a break.
Absolutely appalling article. I had no idea there were “Christians” who actually thought this way. Challies’ ideas are utter nonsense, and I am feeling rather livid about the whole thing. Please, people, don’t be absurd. Matthew 18:3 comes to mind. “And He said ‘I tell you the truth. Unless you change and become like little chldren, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven.’” (I haven’t read all the responses – perhaps this has already been quoted.) Wow. Some people.
I hope that the comments on Tim Challies’ post and this one help people see the numerous passages of scripture that support God’s grace covering unborn children, infants, and young children.
The passages from Lamentations, Matthew 18 and 19, the account of King David’s son, and others show us how God sovereignly chooses to deal with little ones.
John MacArthur’s position that they are not innocent but also not accountable certainly does not deny original sin. We all come into the world condemned, yet God’s grace covers these young children before they are capable of understanding it, and it covers older believers after they gain this understanding.
I’m sorry–I meant to say Jeremiah 31, rather than Lamentations.
What people have been wrestling with here seems to be similar to other issues related to God’s sovereignty.
Some say that we cannot be accountable or “responsible” for our sins if we are incapable of choosing Jesus without his intervention–his irresistible grace.
Yet it is not that we are forcibly and physically restrained from believing him, we are morally incapable of it–too in love with our sins to choose him.
Some ask what difference does it make to pray or preach the Gospel if those who are elect are ordained to be saved? It matters because God has set up the world so that God works in answer to prayer and that people are saved by hearing the Word of God.
Now when it comes to the unborn, young children, and those who are mentally impaired who die, they have not rejected Jesus, and God has set up the world so that those who reject Jesus receive eternal suffering and those who accept him receive eternal life and joy with him.
So for those who die very young or with certain mental deficiencies, God has intervened in their lives in a way that he brings them to himself since they have not rejected him. They are not “innocent” because they do not have original sin, they are “innocent” because they are unaware of their sinful condition and incapable of comprehending it.
We must deal with this issue of God’s sovereignty in the same way we deal with other issues that people raise about Calvinism; otherwise we will seem to be as one friend of mine describes Calvinists: “the frozen chosen”–cold and distant subjects of a cold and distant deity.
Yes.
so when i read challies post, i had exactly the opposite reaction. of course, in this light (specifically, the light of your own experience) it brings more questions on the issue. but what i read in his post was not as much concern for the destination of the baby, but rather a concern for the heart condition of the woman with professing faith. his post was not about whether or not babies go to heaven; his post was about our understanding of sin and the wholeness of forgiveness.
in fact, my understanding of the truth of the gospel was deepened through that story, because i realized that we often look at the work of Christ and think that he is making our sin “less bad,” or making the effects of our sin “less bad.” but sin is devastating to God and to us, and the effects of sin are devastating to God and to us. for that woman, in her mind, the worst part of her sin was her offense against her baby, NOT her offense against God. and so her forgiveness was determined by whether or not her baby was saved … NOT determined by the work of Christ on the cross.
that’s why i was very glad that challies didn’t say clearly one way or the other about the destination of her child … because ultimately, when it comes to her own standing with God, it doesn’t matter what happened to her baby. of course it matters to God what happens to the baby, and of course if she has any heart at all, it will matter profoundly to her, that is natural and appropriate. but it has no bearing whatsoever on her being forgiven.
no matter what other terrible things happen as a result of our sin, we are still, always, forever forgiven. that’s a lesson worth learning, even if it rubs a bit.
You are right about the destination of her child not mattering when it comes to her standing with God.
Yet it does matter when it comes to what the Gospel is and isn’t. The Gospel is about eternal life with Jesus for those who believe and eternal suffering for those who reject him. Those who are predestined for eternal life are also predestined to receive his irresistible grace so that they will believe. Those that are not do not receive that grace and continue in unbelief.
Then what about people who are unable to comprehend that? Certainly not something that people made up to deal with their inability to comprehend, like Limbo. From the way the Bible describes young children (and those who have the mind of a young child), we can see that Jesus does not count them among the wicked.
Hey Abraham,
I bet your father hopes you don’t mean that.
- Christopher
[...] garnered responses from Patrick Kyle, Abraham Piper and Michael Spencer, none of whom were in, shall we say, full agreement with Challies (note: in the [...]