while i understand what he is trying to accomplish in not advocating sin or bad behavior in children, i think he lands on the wrong side of the fence in the argument. because of that i have multiple problems with this article.
the first thing to notice is all his scriptures references are from KJV, one of the worst english translations of the Bible. it is also important to note that he is coming from a calvinistic approach, talking about 'the elect' not being judged (which seems like a whole other article about a non-biblical subject to me).
in his first example he uses the 2 samuel story of david and explains how there is no mention of the baby being saved by jesus' blood. well that is pretty obvious, beings jesus had neither come nor spilled his blood here on earth.
the rest of his references seem to talk about the death of infants and God's relationship to them, but no mention of their eternal destination.
while discussing aborted babies he mentions luke 12:48 a passage that i believe shows we will be judged according to what we know, 'to one who has been given much, much will be demanded.' i believe this applies to both babies and those that struggle with mental handicaps or diseases (and everyone for that matter, as james 3:1 mentions that teachers are judged to be judged more harshly, it seems God again is judging upon what has been given to that person). God alone knows what they comprehend and will perfectly judge.
obviously doctrine should not be based upon emotions, but i am confident if this man was standing in front of a woman weeping over the loss of her infant or miscarriage that he would not so boldly proclaim that the baby would only be saved if elect. we must allow God to act in his infinite wisdom.
1 comments:
while i understand what he is trying to accomplish in not advocating sin or bad behavior in children, i think he lands on the wrong side of the fence in the argument. because of that i have multiple problems with this article.
the first thing to notice is all his scriptures references are from KJV, one of the worst english translations of the Bible. it is also important to note that he is coming from a calvinistic approach, talking about 'the elect' not being judged (which seems like a whole other article about a non-biblical subject to me).
in his first example he uses the 2 samuel story of david and explains how there is no mention of the baby being saved by jesus' blood. well that is pretty obvious, beings jesus had neither come nor spilled his blood here on earth.
the rest of his references seem to talk about the death of infants and God's relationship to them, but no mention of their eternal destination.
while discussing aborted babies he mentions luke 12:48 a passage that i believe shows we will be judged according to what we know, 'to one who has been given much, much will be demanded.' i believe this applies to both babies and those that struggle with mental handicaps or diseases (and everyone for that matter, as james 3:1 mentions that teachers are judged to be judged more harshly, it seems God again is judging upon what has been given to that person). God alone knows what they comprehend and will perfectly judge.
obviously doctrine should not be based upon emotions, but i am confident if this man was standing in front of a woman weeping over the loss of her infant or miscarriage that he would not so boldly proclaim that the baby would only be saved if elect. we must allow God to act in his infinite wisdom.
Post a Comment