Reasonable Infanticide?
Although I find myself disagreeing with him more lately than I used to, I've long been a fan of Greg Boyd's thinking. Even when I do disagree with him, I still enjoy the way he gets where he's going, and he typically lays out his reasoning in a way that even I can understand.
In a recent blog post, he discusses what he calls "baby universalism", or the belief that babies automatically go to heaven when they die. It's fun to think that because God is abounding in mercy and grace, babies would get a free pass since they don't have the capacity to either accept or reject the gospel. That's been my own fervent hope for years, although I don't find anything in the bible that clearly and specifically supports it. That hope (in my mind) also extends to adults who don't have the mental capabilities to understand or believe what is clearly required in order to enter eternal bliss. But there are consequences to this belief, if you're willing to follow that logic where it leads. Enter Boyd's post.
In the same way that I admire the authenticity of people who in this day and age are willing to say (without hatred, mind you) the word "nigger" instead of childishly resorting to the phrase "the 'N'- word", I admire the fact that Boyd, while referencing another author, fearlessly wonders whether it wouldn't be "reasonable, and in fact loving and courageous" to kill babies if doing so would remove any chance of their damnation. (no.)
Now, I'd never have said it like that, but if you're going to hold that babies do automatically go to heaven while adults need to believe, then you have to be willing to accept the consequences of that belief. Hmmm. I need to give this some more thought.
posted by DErifter @ 2/24/2011 07:38:00 PM
9 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Your blog lives! How exciting!
I received your email about this post and then saw your blog entry about it.
While I certainly don't pretend to know Greg's entire theology behind his thinking, he finishes that article by stating:
"As I suggest in Satan and the Problem of Evil (380-85), if love must be chosen and our characters must be made fit for heaven, then when this doesn’t happen in this life (because of premature death or any other reason), we can assume it somehow happens in the next. This is of course a speculative conclusion, but so is baby universalism!"
Satan and the Problem of Evil is probably my favorite book of all time, simply because God used it to point out alternate ways of thinking through theodicy to me at a time when my faith was very much in jeopardy over my inability to understand God and the problem of evil. Though one book cannot possibly answer every question about that very complex and problematic issue, it helped me to create categories in which to consider the problem.
In that book Greg postulates a view called "future probation" or "probation after death." The basic line of reasoning is this: The conception of self-determining freedom as a precondition for love only explains the reality of evil in the world if it is a necessary precondition and is therefore applied universally to ALL persons - including infants and mentally incapacitated people. Therefore, free-will proponents should logically consider the possibility that those who were unable to choose for or against God's kingdom responsibly and decisively before death must somehow be given an opportunity to do so after death.
Scripture is silent on this matter, but it's also silent on the matter of babies or the mentally handicapped getting an automatic "go to heaven" pass. I feel that Boyd's concept of future probation is more intellectually satisfying and theologically congruent with a free-will theodicy than is the typical understanding of why we often call the "age of accountability."
Hey man, good to hear from you.
I can't believe you'd have a comment on Boyd. 8)
I've never read the book but I bet I've seen, heard and read enough of his stuff to almost recite it to you! (I should really read it if for no other reason than to get a fix.)
I've never really been too big on an "age of accountability", but it probably is implied by my unofficial acceptance of the "baby universalism" idea. Like you said, scripture is pretty quiet on the topic so all we can do is educate our guesses. This definitely warrants more consideration but these days about the time I start to consider something, I fall asleep! Thanks for your comment bro!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ouch! My links aren't active - can I try again?? ;) Thx!!
You're correct to infer that Baby Universalism would justify baby murder - if Baby Universalism were true! (Hint: good news - it is not!) But, as you're confused, I'll help you: Universalism is a Doctrine of Demons, and therefore "Baby Universalism" (a type of universalism) is also a false doctrine. Babies who die in infancy are in heaven FOR THE TIME BEING, but may OR MAY NOT end up in heaven, as Free Will FAITH is required. Some think this may occur in the millennium, but in any event, here is a complete treatment of infant soteriology--cross-posted to the following three (3) URL’s:
1)) http://GordonWatts.com/theology/open-line-live-Moody-radio-question-too-hard.html
2)) http://GordonWayneWatts.com/theology/open-line-live-Moody-radio-question-too-hard.html
3)) https://www.Facebook.com/notes/gordon-wayne-watts/the-scary-consequences-of-baby-universalismjustifiable-infanticide-justifiable-a/10153235037170248
Thx for allwonig comments. :)
Gordon Wayne Watts
Lakeland ('tween Tampa & Orlando), Fla.
Hi Gordon,
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your passion, but your statement that "Babies who die in infancy are in heaven FOR THE TIME BEING, but may OR MAY NOT end up in heaven, as Free Will FAITH is required." strikes me as something that you hope is true.
If free will faith is required to enter heaven, I have to wonder how babies who die in infancy are there now, even temporarily. I don't see that clause in the Bible. It would ease my mind if it were spelled out more clearly, but if it is I have yet to find it.
I do find peace in the fact that God's grace is supreme, and no one who should be in heaven by any means will be excluded. On the other hand, if there are those who should never enter heaven, then they never will and that too, will be absolutely just. How the Lord balances justice and mercy, judgement and grace is far beyond my capacity to understand, but I trust that He knows what He's doing and there's of course no one I'd rather have making those decisions.
Hello, DErifter: Good point - You said: "If free will faith is required to enter heaven, I have to wonder how babies who die in infancy are there now, even temporarily."
Well, Satan (who is NOT saved) was in heaven (off-and-on) even after his rebellion and fall (when he came to accuse Job - and when he accuses others as well: He's the accuser.)
Also, there is such a thing as 'Abraham's bosom' where some people have been (and may still be), tho I'm not sure of the details here.
Lastly, the original angels (all 100% were in heaven), but after one-third of them fell, they got kicked out (and, so their stay was temporary - and apparently only come back on a part-time basis to accuse the believers, like Satan does now). Thus, there is Biblical precedent for someone to be in heaven for a time being, but get kicked out.
You say "I don't see that clause in the Bible." (about where the babies are for the time being). That is correct: We don't know. But look at it in the reverse: When the angelic host look at *us* humans, they surely say: "These guys are on earth FOR THE TIME BEING - and some may - OR MAY NOT inherit the 'new earth' and thus remain. (I'm not sure of the relationship between the new earth and the heaven, and which time-period each refers to, but that's not the point.)
However, the fact we don't know is OK: It doesn't matter the physical location of the babies: They're obviously somewhere - either awake or asleep - or both:
** http://www.GordonWatts.com/theology/SoulSleep.html
** http://www.GordonWayneWatts.com/theology/SoulSleep.html
(Above, I admit that I don't know which - if either - view of Soul Sleep is correct, and argue both views to be fair.)
The only thing that does matter is this: does God treat the babies fairly, like he did when He gave angels and humans Free Will?
Yes we don't know all the details, but stripping free will from the babies would violate God's character of being just and fair: "...the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work..." I Peter 1:17, KJV: ~ "...there is no respect of persons." Colossians 3:25, KJV -- Note: "without respect of persons" does not mean that God is disrespectful; rather, it means that He is impartial and unbiased. See e.g., either the NASB, Amplified, or, more preferably, the Original Greek to verify.
It would also violate Biblical claims that faith is needed, something of which babies are not capable. (But even assuming arguendo they were capable of faith and all got saved, this would mean that all adults must be saved, since once saved, always saved, and as we know all adults don't end up saved, the premise obviously is not true.)
Yes, we don't know the details, but as we have Free Will (which the angels had - one-third of whom fell/rebelled), and the babies (I am sure) will have, I pray we do the best of it and follow God!
PS: Thanks once again for letting me comment.
Gordon
Hey, Gordon!
Well hmmmm, Satan (who is definitely not saved) in heaven, huh? It's funny you would mention that because there was a time when I wondered whether it would be appropriate to pray for him to be turned around. Not saved, probably, but maybe repentant and restored to his earlier glory. I came to the conclusion that since it's already written that the Lake of Fire is prepared for the dragon and the beast and the false prophet, their fate is sealed. There's no hope for him and we are mortal enemies.
My understanding of Abraham's bosom is that it was the "waiting room" for Jews and the first Christians who had died in faith, but could not yet enter Heaven because Jesus had not yet died to set them free. Once He had, it may be these who were the "host of captives" He led forth when He ascended (Ephesians 4:8). Alternately, that may be referring to all of us, who previously were held captive to sin and death.
But almost all of that is pieced together from various scriptures mixed with some guesswork, so I won't defend it too vigorously.
When you ask, "Does God treat the babies fairly?", I think we have to say "Absolutely". Or more accurately, He treats them justly with maximum grace, like us. Anything less, as you point out, would violate His character.
I still find myself hoping that there's a special measure of grace for babies and those not able to comprehend the gospel, I just don't see it clearly spelled out. Besides, there was a special measure of grace dished out for me, so I'm sure there's enough for them! Peace, brother.
Well, Satan is not in heaven all the time, as he was running 'to and fro' on the earth before he came to God's Heavenly Courts Job 1...
JOB 1:6-8a (NIV) Holy Bible:
6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? ...
Footnotes:
[a.] Job 1:6 Hebrew 'the sons of God'
[b.] Job 1:6 Hebrew 'satan' means 'adversary.'
My point? There are obviously different levels of heaven, and if Satan got booted from the plush tier-1 level, but still has access to the lower-realms, how is it not impossible to suppose the dead babies from abortion also have a 'different' section, wherein they are not in the 'eternally-saved' section yet? (People put God in a Box - and while we don't know if this *does* happen, we know that nothing in the Bible says that God would be precluded from doing this. Unknown, but Scripturally-possible, is what I'm saying.)
So, my suggestion that the parents will reunite with their children in the Millennium is not precluded. (see point 3 below)
SOLID BIBLE ARGUMENTS AGAINST BABY UNIVERSALISM:
1. BIBLE THEOLOGY: Universalism is a Doctrine of Demons, and therefore ANY variant of it is also false theology. Salvation must have both grace AND faith, and Baby Universalism (the false doctrine that all babies have automatic eternal salvation) violates the doctrines of faith. (This is not to say aborted babies go to hell: They don't, as I explain in my book, only to say thy are not puppets or robots deprived of Free Will.)
2. As an example of #1, above, ANGELS already WERE in heaven, so “Salvation by Location,” is known to be false: One-Third of all angels fell and rebelled.
3. While we don't know for sure what **does** happen, we know that the Millennium **can** be such a place for free will of said babies, as it is not ever Biblically prohibited: Scriptures show children in the Millennium (Is.11:6b,8), in physical bodies that live and die (Is. 65:20b), as well as a Rebellion that proves Free Will still exists (Rev.20:9). This is but one of many Biblically possible alternatives.
4. This would be God tempting a person to murder, and God neither temps nor is tempted, so we know this can't be true: James 1:13.
God treated the angels fairly, and us too, by giving us Free Will. While I admit I don't know the details, nonetheless, Free Will is Sine Qua Non required for faith, since we're not puppets or robots. (And my 'Millennium' hypothesis, like a similar 'Heaven' hypothesis, for the children to be given a free will choice in one of those locations, while neither is known to be 'the' answer, **neither** is precluded by the bible, so far as I can see.) -- God is fair, and this seems a reasonable - and Biblical - way for Him to be fair.
Thx again for the feedback, DErifter.
Gordon.
Post a Comment
<< Home