Just posted on the front page of The Christian Post yesterday (April 14th) A response I am sure to George Sarris’s post last week, “Hell: It Has It’s Problems!”
The sad conclusion, if he were true to his words and counted the salvation of others above his own, is that he should commit infanticide on as vast a scale as possible.
Logically, none of us has the resources to make a decision under TULIP. We are all so deeply depraved that we CANNOT choose God. He has to do it for us. So how is it the babes get off easy? If Piper wants to follow his theology, and he admits there’s no Bible reason to suppose that infants are excepted (and there isn’t), then he needs to follow it all the way, like Augustine did.
Of course, in light of the rest of scripture, Piper’s theology can’t stand anyway, so why worry about a little logical hiccup like infant salvation? Make it up as you go along – why not? Everybody’s doing it, so it must be okay, right?
Love, Cindy
It’s totally crazy, but you can’t fault the logic.
Why would a Calvinist have children, knowing there was a good chance some of them would be elected to damnation? Why would an Armenian have children, knowing there was a good chance some of them would (of their own free will end) up in everlasting torment?
I have friends who decided not to have children because of a nasty genetic condition which gave their children a 25% chance of developing a certain sort of cancer. How much more should Christians refuse to bring children into a world where ECT is the destiny for most. But we do. From this I conclude that Christians either have no compassion, no imagination, or don’t actually believe in ECT.
is John Piper softening his position?
he’s basically saying that everyone that has never heard of Christ gets saved…they lack the resources, so Jesus saves them.
so by hearing…we don’t actually get faith as the Bible says, we simply get our ignorance (which would force Jesus to save us) being turned into an awful choice…which interests me, because it’s determinism for most (and yay! they go to heaven!), but free will for others…
how does the reprobate thing work in this model??
it really sounds like he’s having some doubts?! and to be honest, that bit about infant salvation (in addition to the point that any that can’t construe salvation (Cindy makes an excellent point above that none of us REALLY could do this of ourselves) get saved too) requires a fair bit of Biblical and philosophical tapdancing to make it work.
fair dues to him though, it really sounds like he’s starting to notice some inconsistency with really pure 7 point calvinism…
He would refer you to Romans 1 …For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
The idea is that all men have received enough revelation from God to make them without excuse in their sinfulness. God does not ‘owe’ salvation to anyone, so it doesn’t matter if some people never hear the gospel or get a chance to be saved. Every one of us deserves eternal hell and without the special intervention of God, all of us would choose to reject Christ. Only those chosen for salvation will be saved, and God will ensure that the elect will hear and accept the gospel and remain faithful to the end.
I’m not sure what Piper’s exact stance is, but the usual thing I hear is that people are sinners by representative (as in Adam all die), by nature, and by choice. The logical outworking of this in their paradigm is that all people (regardless of age or choices) are guilty and destined for hell.
The position about infants is inconsistent with that, of course – to me it seems more reasonable within that framework to hold the position that all infants are destined for hell because God never gave them an opportunity to accept Christ.
I think in the Arminian paradigm they argue that infants (and/or children before the age of accountability) are under the umbrella of grace as they have not had the opportunity to reject Christ. Anyone know if that’s correct?
The thing I like about the inconsistency is that it shows these people still have something of a true sense of justice – they know it’s reprehensible to believe that God damns babies and little kids, so they’ll go with the more illogical and inconsistent view rather than say God is like that.
Sonia
exactly, Sonia…for him to make such statements blatantly softens the approach that Romans 1 seems to indicate.
and here’s the guy that if i remember correctly was saying that he’d happily accept God’s justice even if his own children were reprobate…or was that Mark Driscoll? i’m bad with names…
but still, i think this is a chink in the armour.
the Arminian side is more merciful (and thus more Godly), but it does take some liberties with Romans 1, as you say…
I don’t see how the Arminian position takes liberties with romans 1. For the adult, it would say even if they had never heard the gospel, they clearly see God enough in nature to seek Him. Therefore their damnation is their own fault. But since a baby cannot see or understand anything, they would not see how a scripture referring to unbelievers perceiving things could possibly apply to infants.
I find Piper bemusing at times. He’s obviously very sincere, but at times I wonder if he’s thought through the logical implications of some of what he believes.
i may’ve put that more harshly then i intended (was up til 4 for no good raeson last night and am pretty sure some of my brain is clinically dead still)…
what i mean, is that if Romans 1 gives us no excuse, then it takes a certain amount of exegetical acrobatics to (as Sonia says) say that we start off in a position of grace (as per Arminian views that she mentions), and THEN reject and become without excuse and destined for judgement. Romans 1 seems to preclude that, although i perhaps am doing the same acrobatics as i doubt Paul was literally saying each human regardless of circumstance has no excuse not to believe as he did. but then, my sympathies lie on the Arminina side to some degree.
Ahh. I see. That I understand better. I’m a bit of a free will Calvinist lol. I have a lot of sympathy with Arminianism, but feel they tend to value free will above all else. As if we as loving parents would let our intoxicated child drive a car in the name of free will- even though we would not normally stop them. On the flip side, I think calvinists rely to heavily on the ‘anything is acceptable for God’s glory’ argument, regardless if it even makes sense.
I reckon both sides are too simple. The manner in which God works is far more diverse and interesting than that
Great point Pilgrim, and well said Allan!
It hurts me to see such a respected church leader forced by the madness of Calvinism into such a ridiculous
position.
If he really believed this he should be support abortion to avoid as any people as possible becoming non-babies.
How he can believe that Romans 1:18-21 teaches babies can be saved post death but whole argument of Romans 5 doesn’t require post death salvation for all, who don’t believe before death, is really mind boggling.
What a blessing it is to be free from the chains of Calvinistic orthodoxy and be able to read the Bible for what it simply and clearly teaches <<but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more>>.
What would Piper say about the mentally challenged and the senile? Would they fit in the same category as infants? Or did the senile “have their chance” before they became that way? — just as many normal people “had their chance” prior to death. But the severely mentally challenged may have no more capability of understanding the gospel than an infant.
And is nature really sufficient to induce people to see God? It has happened in some cases. But millions profess to see no god in nature, that nature is just the consequence of evolution at work. What about the millions who are raised in the context of other religions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, traditional native religion, etc.? Are they to be held accountable for not believing in Christ when they have been raised from childhood to believe in their particular religion? Does such a person deserve everlasting conscious punishment?
well said!
Paidion and Scott,
You are right on. Not only that, but what about the mentally ill? And what about those who were abused as children by professing “Christians”? Do they really have a legitimate opportunity to receive the gospel? The list gets really long after this, and is one of the signposts that said to me . . . something is wrong here; I’m not sure we’re on track with this hell stuff, or annihilation, either. God is just, and this isn’t just. God is loving, and this isn’t love. There’s something I’m missing.
Love you guys – all of you,
Cindy