Will Jesus Save All Infants?

In the online world of theological debate, everyone is talking about “infant damnation.” This is in response to the “#baalgate” controversy, in which Warren McGrew (aka “Idol Killer”) compared the mentality of those who hold this doctrine to that of ancient pagan worshipers of Baal who offered their babies as sacrifices in exchange for their own rewards. His comments were taken by many Calvinists as a slam against Calvinism in general, though he has clarified that he was speaking only of those who also affirm infant damnation. Regardless of whether or not his comparison is valid, the spotlight is shining on this important, yet highly unpleasant topic. While most contemporary Calvinists outright reject infant damnation, some, including one of McGrew’s most vocal critics, James White, affirm it to one degree or another. Why would anyone support such a troubling doctrine? Why is this even a question? 

Historical Background 

The doctrine of infant damnation is inseparably tied to the doctrine of original sin, which can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.). Prior to Augustine, all orthodox Christians agreed that each and every human being suffers the consequences of Adam’s sin, which are a natural bent towards sin and, ultimately, death. This view is commonly referred to as “ancestral sin.” What makes original sin distinct is the added imputation of guilt for all humanity thereafter. All of Adam and Eve’s children, and all children thereafter, were then conceived with his willful sin attributed to their account, and thus they are justly deserving of eternal punishment. This view is echoed by 18th century preacher and theologian, Jonathan Edwards: 

“It is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments.” 

For Augustine, water baptism was necessary to wash away original sin for each and every person, infants included. Without baptism, the soul would certainly be punished in hell for all eternity. This became the predominant view within the Roman Catholic Church, at least until limbo emerged as a more gracious alternative. “Limbo of the infants” can be defined as an eternal state for those who did not personally commit sin, but also did not receive baptism for the removal of original sin. Opinions have varied through the ages, with some proposing it as a mild form of punishment. Others, such as Thomas Aquinas, suggested that it is experienced by inhabitants as a place of everlasting joy, while they remain ignorant of the greater joy of heaven. In any case, limbo is a permanent state. Such a “middle place” was previously condemned by Augustine:

“…let no one promise for the case of unbaptized infants, between damnation and the kingdom of heaven, some middle place of rest and happiness…”

In the past few centuries, many Catholic theologians have expressed hope that even unbaptized infants could be saved. In 2007, the International Theological Commission, under Pope John Paul II, release the document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” It reads: 

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.”

While landing short of affirming the salvation of all infants, this represents considerable movement in that direction since Augustine. It is worth noting that no view regarding the eternal destiny of infants has ever been made official Catholic doctrine, which has allowed for this shift. However, the affirmation of the necessity of baptism into the Catholic Church has been consistent.

On the Protestant side, it has always been a question of Heaven or hell with no third option. While reformers such as Calvin and Luther echoed Augustine in regard to God’s justice in damning all humans souls to hell, they also maintained that God has the right to choose to save whoever He pleases. As such, the vast majority of Protestants have maintained that at least some infants who die are saved. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) states: 

“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ.” (10.3)

Many Calvinistic Protestants insist this doesn’t imply that there are reprobate infants who are cast into hell, but the wording leaves room for most adherents of infant damnation to affirm the statement.

Calvinists divide into at least four camps. Most believe God elect all infants to salvation by appealing to the goodness of God’s grace. Loraine Boettner says: 

“The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen.”

Some Calvinists believe that God elects some infants and not others irrespective of their parents, just as he elects and reprobates all people for no reason in and of themselves. Others believe that the children of believers are counted as elect, while those of unbelievers are not. A very small minority believe all infants are punished eternally in hell. (Yes, they do exist) What unites all Calvinists is that salvation is not granted on the basis of faith. 

Arminians and other non-Calvinistic Protestants have the challenge of showing how God can grant salvation to those who haven’t yet placed their faith in Christ. To justify universal infant salvation, most simply appeal to the goodness of God. The only way around this would be to allow for the possibility of postmortem salvation. If infants could be given a chance to mature and place their faith in Christ, then no exceptions would need to be made. A small minority of Protestants have presented postmortem opportunity for salvation as a way in which many could be saved. Among them are C.S. Lewis, and more recently, Jerry Walls. 

Weighing Our Options 

For all our differences, it is interesting how most Christians across denominations seem to be converging on this issue from a variety of angles. That being said, there remains no consensus. From what I’ve observed, there are seven ways Christians have answered the question, “What happens to babies when they die?” What are the pros and cons for each position? Allow me to present and critique each.

Universal Damnation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy, suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This view is consistent in that it upholds that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ alone. Since infants have not come to understand the Gospel and respond in faith, they have not obtained salvation. This also upholds the universal need for a Savior.

Cons: It is simply unfathomable that the same God revealed in Jesus Christ would condemn billions of children throughout history to eternal punishment without any ability to commit personal sin, or to trust Him to forgive them of such sins they have yet to commit. This view presents God as having the opposite posture towards children as that of Jesus in Scriptures such as Mark 10:14 and Matthew 18:2-6. Also, the Holy Spirit-led conscience of believers cries out against this. It would seem that for this to be true, the Trinity would be hopelessly divided.

Covenantal Election of Infants

Summary: Children of the elect are saved. The rest suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: Comfort can be given to Christian parents who grieve the loss of a child. King David can be cited as an example of one who would be reunited with his child in eternity. One might also point to the conversion of the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-40, most notably verse 31: “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Cons: In addition to those of #1, this view lacks consistency in a number of ways. First, it creates a class of “elect” who die without professing faith in Christ. Salvation cannot be through “faith alone” unless this is coupled with the belief in postmortem salvation. Once postmortem salvation becomes a possibility, why then should that be limited to those children with elect parents? Second, how do we suppose that salvation is transferred from parents to children? Can it be father or mother, or must both parents be saved? What if they aren’t believers when the child is conceived, but one or both become believers later in life, after the infant dies? Also, if salvation is transferred, how would it be lost if the child survives to an age that he or she rejects Christ? This distinctly Calvinistic version of infant damnation would have to either reject the Perseverance of the Saints or conclude that salvation was never transferred from the parents. The most glaring issue for the Calvinist is that election based upon the faith of the parents is conditional election.

Unconditional Election of Infants

Summary: Elect children are saved irrespective of their parents. All other children suffer eternal punishment in hell.

Pros: This seems to me to be the most consistently Calvinistic position. There is truly nothing in the child upon which God bases his decision to save. Election is unconditional. The remaining children are left to the eternal consequences of their sinful state.

Cons: Like #2, salvation cannot be said to be through “faith alone” unless there is postmortem opportunity for salvation. Also, this is not comforting for grieving Christian parents. If most adults are not saved believers, certainly most infants would also not be saved, since God saves infants in the same manner as adults. Moral objections to #1 also apply here.

Damnation of Unbaptized Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All others who die without baptism suffer eternal punishment.

Pros: This is a very clear method for knowing if your child is saved. If your child has been baptized, you are assured they are saved if they should die in infancy.

Cons: This does nothing to comfort those who have suffered miscarriages or whose child died before he or she could be baptized. While eternal punishment may be of a lighter form than for adults who added their own personal sin, the implications are still awful for the majority of infants who have died throughout history. From a Protestant perspective, it is easy to see how this can create a system rife for abuse. Since salvation can only be obtained through baptism into the Roman Catholic Church, believers can also have their salvation revoked by the same authority. 

Limbo of the Infants 

Summary: Children baptized into the Catholic Church are saved. All other infants who die remain in limbo for all eternity.

Pros: Children don’t suffer eternal punishment. This middle ground seems more just in that God is neither rewarding with Heaven nor punishing with hell those who have not done anything to deserve either.

Cons: While this offers some consolation, parents are still left grieving the loss of their unbaptized children for all eternity. They have no hope of being reunited. The default position of humans then is to remain lost, and that is a troubling conclusion when considering the salvific work of Jesus. Is He the Savior of all humanity from conception or just a portion? While God may show them mercy, it seems there is no salvific grace for those who die too young, through no fault of their own.

Universal Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are saved.

Pros: This is truly good news for all parents who grieve the loss of infants, and for the children themselves. The heart of Jesus for children we see in the Gospels is consistent with the gracious gift of salvation for those who have suffered the consequences of sin without personally committing sin.

Cons: As with the previous options, other than universal damnation, salvation is not through “faith alone” since infants are incapable of consciously placing faith in Christ. Thus, the standard for receiving the gift of eternal life is inconsistent across the human race. This may not be a dealbreaker in itself, but it is especially problematic for the Reformed. Central to Calvinism is Unconditional Election. If all who die as infants are saved, how is this not a condition for salvation? For God to say, “You died as an infant. Therefore, I will save you,” is a very clear example of God choosing to save an individual with respect to something about that individual. While most Calvinists today believe all infants who die are saved, they do so in a way that undermines Calvinism.

Postmortem Salvation of Infants

Summary: All children who die in infancy are given the postmortem opportunity to express faith in Christ and be saved.

Pros: In addition to upholding the goodness of God and Trinitarian unity in the welcoming of children, this position also has the advantage of a consistent standard of salvation through faith in Christ alone. There would be no theoretical case of a child being welcomed into Heaven while refusing to worship Christ as Lord. 

Cons: There is no guarantee that all infants would willingly place their faith in Christ. Here is where our views on the created state of human souls will make a huge difference. If souls are created in a fallen, totally depraved state, then it would seem that they would universally reject Christ postmortem, just as they would in this life. However, if souls are created innocent, and not in a hardened state of rebellion against God, it would seem quite likely that most, if not all, would willingly receive the offer of salvation in Christ. So our views on original sin will determine whether we think this will result in some infants being damned. Perhaps the greatest challenge for this view is the lack of clear biblical support. Hebrews 9:27 is often cited as evidence against postmortem opportunities, though it must be interpreted in an absolute, immediate, and final sense to rule them out.

Where I Stand 

As children often repeat in Sunday school, “God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good!” Do we as Christians sincerely believe this? Do we believe what Jesus said about children?

“Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’” (Matthew 19:13-14)

Considering the goodness of God and his love for children, the only good options are #6 and #7. In years past, I would have ruled out the possibility of postmortem salvation, but I lean towards that view now, especially as I consider how it can resolve all of these difficulties. The words of Jesus, counter to Augustinian anthropology, suggest that children are predisposed to believe. He cites them as possessing the kind of faith we should all desire to have. It is only as we grow older that we can become cynical and jaded. Thus, hearts become hardened. They don’t begin that way. For this reason, I am convinced that all infants, given the opportunity by Christ Himself to place their faith in Him, will do so. 

This could even make sense of the Catholic conviction concerning baptism. If infants have the opportunity to grow enough to place their faith in Christ, it’s no stretch to imagine that they might also have the opportunity to be baptized in a temporary dwelling place prior to entering the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. 

I am not convinced that Hebrews 9:27 rules out postmortem opportunities, and I do think that Scripture teaches of the “Harrowing of Hell” in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6. In these verses, it seems that Peter is teaching that Jesus preached the Gospel to lost souls in Hades while He was bodily in the grave prior to His resurrection. If I am interpreting 4:6 correctly, Jesus was giving these people the opportunity to receive Him as Savior or be judged for their sins in their rejection. There are alternate theories to explain these verses, but I believe this makes the most sense, and is consistent with the expressed desire of God to save each and every person (see 2 Peter 3:9). If God was willing to give wicked sinners another chance to believe and be saved, why wouldn’t He give innocent children that opportunity?

Logically, it would seem that some form of postmortem faith in Christ is necessary for any view where infants are saved. Faith can only be exercised by those who have developed the maturity to understand and believe, and it seems reasonable to assume that infants in the afterlife will not remain infants forever. So the question then is WHEN do they express faith in Christ: before or after they enter Heaven? Additionally, evidences from near death experiences suggest that individuals who have died as infants are present, and they mature in the afterlife. Of course, NDEs are controversial, and it’s debated whether they say anything about eternity. I believe they make a compelling case for postmortem opportunities, but that’s a topic for another day.

Some might object that if infants are not personally guilty of sin then they do not need a Savior. Infants have not sinned, but those who died suffered the consequences nonetheless. Is their suffering in vain? Will those who suffered the cruel injustice of abortion be vindicated, or will such evil remain eternally victorious? Everyone needs a Savior because everyone dies. Only Jesus has the power to raise us up out of our graves. 

I am convinced that the Good News of the Gospel is for all of the human race. Jesus has redeemed the totality of mankind. It is only those who willfully reject Him that will not receive His salvation. It is never a matter of Him first rejecting us. Whether it’s through an act of instantaneous transformation, or the grace to simply allow these souls to choose life with Jesus, I cannot know for certain, but I can be sure that our God loves these infants. He sympathizes with their suffering, and will call them to Himself with His arms stretched out to receive them.

And what a glorious reunion that will be for those of us who have lost a child so young! Many of us have experienced the sorrow of miscarriage, and never had the joy of meeting our child face-to-face. Yet something within our souls knows that this isn’t the end. We will meet them someday, and we will never again have to say goodbye.

Concluding Thoughts 

Looking back on the history of infant damnation within Christendom has left me with conflicted emotions. On one hand, I am saddened to see how pervasive this doctrine has been throughout the centuries. On the other hand, I am greatly encouraged that the Holy Spirit is at work, pricking the conscience of believers to a place where we can all hope for the salvation of “the little ones.” We are, slowly but surely, being brought into conformity with Christ.

Reformed Theology Roundtable: Does the Author Analogy Succeed?

Last week, while multitudes of theology nerds were still digesting the Molinism vs Calvinism debate between William Lane Craig and James White, our friends at the Complete Sinner’s Guide brought us a fascinating deep-dive on the intricacies of Reformed Theology. Co-hosts Tyler Fowler and Joshua Davidson were joined by frequent guest Joshua Sherman and, to represent the Reformed position, Chris Date, Andrew Elliott, and Jeremiah Short. The purpose of this panel discussion was to clearly articulate the relationship between the Reformed/Calvinistic concepts of God’s eternal decree and man’s free will, as described by the philosophy of compatibilism. While all three affirm God’s meticulous determination of all history, each reject hard determinism and the idea that God is the author of sin. This was a central sticking point in the discussion, especially as Date proposed that their position is best compared to the relationship between an author and his story. I would like to do my best here to represent this view, and to show how I believe this analogy fails to remove God as the author of sin in the Calvinistic system. (Much of the discussion was led by Date, with Davidson doing most of the pressing for clarity. For this reason, I will primarily be addressing their interactions.)

Compatibilism Defined

The heart of the discussion begins about 15 minutes in as Date gives a succinct definition: “Compatibilism… is just the idea that… determinism is compatible with moral responsibility. The whole point of compatibilism is to affirm determinism.” Determinism, from a theological standpoint, is the idea that everything which happens, to the most minute detail, is by God’s determined will. This, of course, raises the question of how we factor in the idea that humans have free will. Date explains that “they have a sufficient degree of freedom as to be held morally responsible.” Elliott adds, “God determines all things, but He does it in such a manner that you will freely choose to do so.” 

This determination is made effective by God’s decree prior to creation. Biblical evidence is cited from Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27-28, which show God’s will being accomplished through the sinful acts of men. However, Molinists equally appeal to such passages for support. Like Calvinists, they affirm God’s decree of all things prior to creation. The key difference is that in Molinism, God’s decree is based in part on His foreknowledge of what human beings would do (allowing for libertarian free will), as opposed to His foreknowledge simply being what He has determined them to do in compatibilistic Calvinism.

The Author Analogy

From here, Date goes on to give his author analogy, as he explains how God’s decree plays out in space-time events in a comparable way to those of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.” The world imagined by Tolkien is actualized within those stories, but the characters experience them in their own sense of time with their own sense of agency. Date gives a good summary of his mission in this discussion when he says: “I want to encourage my fellow Calvinists to think of… the relationship between God and time as something analogous to the relationship between an author and a story, because I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” He hopes to solidify the discussion around this analogy, as opposed to robot or puppet analogies (which he rejects), adding, “Let the battle happen on that ground.”

What then is the advantage of the author analogy? For Date, the difference is what he calls a “transcendence gap.” In other words, because God exists in the eternal realm and we live out His decree in space-time by our own thoughts and actions, God is not responsible for what we do. This transcendence gap is, in his words, “critical for maintaining moral culpability for humans.” The blame for sin then resides in humans, even though God has determined prior to our existence that we would sin. Since Date has admitted that non-Calvinists have good reason to object to the idea that God causes people to sin, the point of debate becomes clear. Does the eternal decree “cause” people to sin? If it does, compatibilism fails to defend the holiness of God. All three Reformed participants agree that the decree does not equate to “cause.” And this is where I am left genuinely perplexed.

Competing Views of Freedom

Representing the non-Calvinists in the audience, Davidson challenges this notion: “I think the disconnect is that if there is a first cause, and it is not the individual agent, that the freedom is then compromised.” To this Short responds, “You are presupposing incompatibilism.” This phrase will be repeated multiple times throughout the remainder of the discussion, as the Reformed participants take the position that the libertarian concept of free will makes false assumptions about freedom that the compatibilist successfully avoids. 

Date explains: “I come to the issue of freedom, and I try to make no assumptions about what that requires. And one of the assumptions I refuse to make is that in order for an agent’s choice to be free, their choice has to ultimately, full stop, originate with them.” At one point, Davidson seeks clarification: “It just needs to SEEM as though there could be the alternate possibility.” Date gladly affirms: “That’s great! I like that!” 

This exchange reveals that in compatibilism, the choice between competing options is an illusion. You may think you are making the choice, but it has been chosen for you. Yet you take responsibility for that choice because you are the one who performs it, believing you are making it. Date summarizes: “Their will is influenced by all sorts of factors including their genetics, their prenatal development, their upbringing, their life experiences, their addictions, everything. Their friends, their relationships, all of that influence the will, including their own desire, and the result of all that influence is that the will makes a choice. But… that choice has been pre-determined by God.” Wouldn’t all those factors be included in the eternal decree? 

Force vs. Decree?

Date further explains: “Ultimately, they make a choice, and God has decreed that, but nothing is forcing their hand.” He goes on: “…there is no programming that is firing, in the world God has created, that brings about the action that God has decreed. So that’s what I mean by free. There is literally nothing forcing the agent’s hand to do what they nevertheless do, exactly as God has decreed.” 

In response, Davidson makes what I believe to be a fairly obvious point: technically, they are “forced.” Date asks what is forcing them, to which he responds, “the authorship.” And I have to ask, if the eternal decree of God is not powerful to “force” what happens in space-time, what is it good for? It seems to be simultaneously all-powerful and powerless. Anyone noticing a problem here? 

Date resorts to his escape hatch of the transcendence gap by insisting that the “authorship” doesn’t exist in time, therefore it doesn’t force individuals to act out the parts that have been written for them from eternity past. All that matters is that we “seem” to have a choice. That illusion of choice is sufficient to make each of us morally responsible, and it lets the God of Reformed theology off the hook. How convenient!

How the Analogy Fails

What the author analogy ultimately presents is an illusion of reality. Just as the choices of characters in a novel do not originate in themselves, but in the mind of the author, so too do the sinful thoughts, desires, and actions of human beings originate in the mind and will of God, according to compatibilism. Fictional characters are incapable of producing anything that doesn’t reside in their source. Just the same, human beings could not produce sinful thoughts and behaviors that did not originate in God. Fictional characters possess no actual agency, but we willfully adopt the illusion for the sake of the enjoyment of the story. In compatibilism, human agency is likewise a useful illusion. We are left to deceive ourselves into believing that we are actually making choices, and that we were able to have chosen differently than we did. Since all things that happen in space-time are included in God's decree, this illusion of free choice is also decreed from eternity past. 

The transcendence gap, as described by Date, only succeeds in separating reality from fiction. It effectively does the opposite of what he hopes by diminishing the sinfulness of sin. An author can write stories full of violence, death, and all sorts of sinful behaviors, yet himself retain innocence of those sins because those fictional characters are not actually sinning in real life. Their world carries no actual consequences for real individuals. They do not actually suffer pain or misery or death, so we do not hold the author accountable for any crimes or acts of cruelty committed within the story. Yet we know that what we experience is real. All the evils of this world are real. Our suffering is real, and we cannot be convinced otherwise. Likewise, our sin is real, and because it is, our guilt is real and deserving of judgment. And because all the evils of this world are real, the grace of God is every bit as real, possessing incomparable value.

Conclusion

If God has "authored" all history, He has inevitably written every aspect, including all the suffering and death that results from the sin that is within that story. To argue that God has meticulously authored every detail of the story and deny that He has authored sin is an irreconcilable contradiction. This analogy leaves us to conclude that either the “reality” we experience is pure fiction, or God is the author of real sin. The former does damage to God's power to create real beings made in His image. The latter is fatal to His holiness (Jeremiah 32:35). Neither option is acceptable, therefore we should reject the author analogy. If it is the best representation of compatibilism, we should reject compatibilism. If compatibilism is the best Reformed theology has to offer, we should reject Reformed theology. As Date said, “I think that non-Calvinists are right to object if there is a meaningful sense in which God is causing people to sin.” The author analogy cannot remove that meaningful sense, therefore we are right to maintain our objections.

Making Sense of Christianity 8 - Grace Through Faith

What I have presented in this series can be summed up in one simple phrase: “God is good!” This is the foundational truth of orthodox Christian theology, though we must be careful to ground our understanding of goodness in what God has revealed to us through the created world, Scripture, and most of all through Jesus Christ Himself. He has demonstrated what it means to do the will of the Father, loving God and others self-sacrificially. He has shown us what is good, and it is our responsibility to abide by His will. That being said, none of us have been able to do so perfectly. Our failure to live up to His perfect standard has left us in a seemingly hopeless state. Yet God has graciously provided a way for us to be righteous. If we are “in Christ,” we become like Him, just as He became like us (2 Corinthians 5:21). He graces us with His goodness when we place our faith in Him. This is the Good News. This is the Gospel of salvation.

The Paradox of Salvation

Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” These words from Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus sum up the basics of salvation. By expressing our faith in Christ, we are given the free gift of eternal life. We do not obtain it through our efforts to live perfect lives because none of us are capable of doing so. The paradox at the heart of Christianity is that God’s goodness is so great that none of us are worthy to be in its presence. Yet because He is so good, His compassion towards us compels Him to graciously offer a way that is obtainable for us to become worthy. This way is by simply laying aside our own delusions of self-righteousness to place our trust in Jesus Christ as the one who is good, and who is able to save us from sin and death.

Pride vs. Humility

Saving faith is not mere intellectual belief in the facts of who Jesus is and that He rose from the dead (James 2:19). True faith requires humility. The opposite of humility is pride, which is the fundamental sin of self-righteousness that lies at the heart of rebellion. Satan and his demons were prideful, and those who have joined the rebellion, refusing to bow their knees to God, are likewise defined by their self-righteousness.

In Luke 18:10-14, Jesus gives us a parable to illustrate the importance of humility before God: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

James 4:6-10 confirms this: “But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.” 

God’s grace is received through humility, which is an essential aspect of faith. When we recognize that we have sinned and need the mercy of God, He lifts us up with His grace. 

Faith that Pleases God

Hebrews 11:6 says, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” A purely intellectual “faith” is no faith at all. We must seek after God, which requires the humility to admit that He is Lord of all, including our lives. Seeking Him necessarily involves the desire to please Him, which brings us to another paradox: Those of us who are Christians want to please God. We continually fail to do so in our thoughts and actions. Yet we do please Him through faith in Christ. God is gracious and compassionate toward us. Remember, because He became one of us, He can sympathize with us in our weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15). His perfect love compels Him to provide a way for us to be with Him. 

This is the depths of His goodness, that He would self-sacrificially love those who are suffering in sin, but wanting to be healed. He does not leave us without hope. He became our salvation by taking on our flesh, bearing the curse on the cross, and conquering death in His resurrection. Through faith in Him, we identify with His victory. We want that for ourselves, and He has promised to do it. John 6:40 says, “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Seeking Him

Some Christians have argued on the basis of Romans 3:10-18 that “there is none who seeks after God,” implying that those who believe in Him only do so through a supernatural act of God overcoming the will of the sinner. In this view, those who reject salvation are not genuinely offered it to begin with. God has never intended to save them. While this is a stumbling block for many, I have found that other passages show that God has not left helpless any individual created in His image. 

Acts 17:26-27 says, “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” I like to refer to this as the “meaning of life” passage, as Paul is explaining to the people of Athens why God has created us, and what He is calling us to do in response. What we learn here is that God hopes for each and every individual He has ever created to seek Him and find Him. The fact that “He is not far from each one of us” tells us that He can be sought and found by any and every human being. God has placed us where we are in time and space for this very reason. He wants us to be reconciled to Him, and through the atonement of Christ, has provided that gift for all who will receive it. 

What Scripture teaches is not that we can’t seek Him, but that He has sought us first. God has extended His hand of grace, but we must reach out and take hold of it. Titus 2:11-14 says: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.” This is God’s teleological purpose for the human race, and His Church will ultimately fulfill it.

A Better End

In an earlier post, I introduced the idea that a world that includes the incarnation and atonement is better than a world that didn’t have those goods (“Felix Culpa”). The end will be far greater than the beginning. While we have experienced a great deal of physical and emotional suffering as the consequence of sin, God has taught us what it means to forgive. He has taught us what it means to show compassion to the hurting. He has demonstrated the greatest kind of love through His sacrificial death on the cross. He has taught us what it means to be restored. He has shown us grace. In so doing, we can likewise learn to forgive those who have wronged us. We can show compassion to those who suffer. We can lay aside our own interests to love others. We can lead others to reconciliation with God. We can show grace to those who, like us, do not deserve it. 

Because of what Christ has done for us, we, as His ambassadors, can demonstrate the love of Christ to a world that needs Him. As 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 says: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.”

Grace and Love

The Good News is that the Creator of the universe loves each and every one of us, and through the atonement and resurrection of Jesus, He has provided a way for us to be restored to relationship with Him. As we receive Him, we become like Him. God is love, and those in Him will learn to truly love as He loves, as we become one with Christ as He is one with the Father (John 17:20-23). This love will pour out of us as we receive the grace of God through faith in Him. 

I would like to close with this passage from Luke 7:36-50, as it really captures the heart of the Christian message:

“Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, ‘This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.’

And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’

So he said, ‘Teacher, say it.’

‘There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?’

Simon answered and said, ‘I suppose the one whom he forgave more.’

And He said to him, ‘You have rightly judged.’ Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.’ Then He said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’

And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, ‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’

Then He said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.’”

Review 

Thank you for reading!

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith

Making Sense of Christianity 6: Atonement Through Sacrifice

Last time, I proposed the idea that the atonement of Christ is best seen through the lens of healing. What was accomplished through His death is not about taking away eternal punishment, but was a way in which Christ, though He Himself was not guilty of sin, shared in its consequences as a human being. Through His sharing of our experience, He can sympathetically minister as our eternal High Priest. 

Many proponents of views similar to mine, Christus Victor, or moral influence theory will accompany their view with a disdain for the idea that the cross was a demonstration of the wrath of God towards sin. I believe this is a significant error. While the understanding of the transaction of penal substitution is incorrect, it remains true that what Christ endured was purposefully intended to display the severity of sin and God’s hatred of it. This is a needed component of the atonement, and the reason why it would not have been satisfactory for Jesus to have simply died of old age or in secrecy. No, Jesus did not simply happen to die by crucifixion, but He willfully went to the cross as the spotless “Lamb of God.”

The Perfect Sacrifice

“Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29) This introduction from John the Baptist, the prophet who prepared the Jews to receive their Messiah, was a declaration of the significance of Jesus Christ as a sacrificial atonement for sin. The Jewish people had been living under a system of animal sacrifices to God as a covering for their sins. John’s announcement foretold that Jesus would not only be a sacrifice for sins, but He would be THE sacrifice to end all sacrifices. 

Once again, the book of Hebrews helps us to understand the sacrificial aspect of the atonement, as it focuses on Jesus’ role as our High Priest. “Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.” (Hebrews‬ ‭7:23-28‬) We see that, as our eternal High Priest, Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. He is the only sacrifice that is sufficient to cover any and all sins for all time. There is no need to offer any other. 

This point is clarified and reiterated in 9:25-28: “not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.” 

Common Errors

Because Christ lives eternally, His sacrifice on our behalf is sufficient to save any sinner. But note that His sacrifice is not itself to be equated with salvation. This is a common error among Christians. The atonement makes salvation available to anyone, but it is only applied to “those who eagerly wait for Him.” Remember the analogy of the serpent on the pole. It was only effective to heal those who fixed their gaze upon it. So we can say that the atonement of Christ is “sufficient for all, but efficient for the believer.” People are often confused by the concept of the blood atonement, thinking that Christ shed x number of drops of blood to cover y number of people. This is not the case. Neither the amount of blood shed nor the duration of Christ’s suffering are the issue. What is important is that He offered Himself as a blood sacrifice on our behalf. Because He is the spotless (sinless) Lamb of God who has been perfected forever, there is no need of any further sacrifice.

The Purpose of Blood Sacrifices

But why were blood sacrifices needed? As we discussed last time, the punishment for sin is death, so it doesn’t make sense to say that the Old Testament blood sacrifices of animals were a punishment for the one who sinned. Hebrews 9:13-14 offers an explanation: “For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” 

There is a connection between the blood of the innocent and the purifying and cleansing of the guilty sinner. The conscience is provoked to forsake sin and serve God. How does this work? The blood illustrates the severity of our sin by shattering the illusion that it only affects ourselves. When we choose to sin, we inevitably bring harm to others. Blood sacrifices illustrate how our sin contributes in bringing suffering and death into the world, which brings conviction that leads to repentance. We may be ok with taking the consequences of sin upon ourselves, but when we see the collateral damage, we are made to face its ugliness. At the cross we see how the blood of God Himself is shed and His life is taken because our sin’s effects are felt even at the source of all creation.

Counterfeit Blood Sacrifices

If anyone doubts this, consider the number one objection to the blood atonement of Christ: “It’s unjust for an innocent man to die for someone else’s sins.” We all know this, but the Christian recognizes that his or her sins do not exist in a vacuum. God has given us free agency, but our actions profoundly impact the world around us. Our sins stain the world. 

Those who reject the atonement of Christ fail to see the hypocrisy of their own beliefs. Nothing makes this clearer than the abortion of over 60 million children in America. If ever there was a case of innocent life being taken as a covering for sin, it is this. In the name of autonomy and human progress, we have sacrificed our children on an altar to ourselves. And this is the inevitable result of any false system of belief: the innocent will die for the sins of the guilty. Human history is a testament to this fact as hundreds of millions have died for the sake of empires and ideologies that war against the will of the one true God. 

Human Sacrifices Rejected

Some may object: “But what about God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?” (Genesis 22:1-18) Many see this as evidence that the God of Scripture is cruel, bloodthirsty, and unworthy of worship. Yet the whole point of the story was to show quite the opposite. Unlike the false gods of pagan cultures throughout the Old Testament and the entirety of human history, the true God does not require the taking of innocent human life to appease Him. He provided a substitute to Abraham. At the cross He volunteered Himself.

Self-Sacrificial Love

This brings us back to the very identity of God. He is love, and that love is self-sacrificial. As Jesus said to His disciples, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” ‭‭(John‬ ‭15:13‬) Where the world says “let nothing stand in the way of your happiness,” Christ offers His own life for our benefit. To love as He loved is to nail our own lives to the cross and submit to His will. “Then Jesus said to His disciples, ‘If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.’” ‭‭(Matthew‬ ‭16:24-25‬) Real love always comes at a cost to the one who gives. Jesus exemplified this at the cross, and He calls us to model that love to others. 

Through the Lens of Healing

It can then be said that the death of Christ serves as a moral example which can be understood through the lens of sacrifice. Yet that sacrifice is best seen through the lens of healing. Often cited in support of penal substitution is the prophecy of Isaiah 53, but there we see further support for healing as the principle that governs the atonement: “But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.” ‭‭(Isaiah‬ ‭53:5‬) Yes, Jesus suffered by the will of the Father. Yet that will was His own, as He is one with the Father. He went willingly, “as a lamb to the slaughter,” (53:7) with the intention of restoring us to His will. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” (John 12:32) This is the healing of the human condition. 

Looking Forward

But one glaring question remains: How can the death of Christ effectually save the human race? That will be the subject of the next installment, as we discuss “Resurrection.” 

1. The Creator God
2. Personhood & the Image of God

3. Sin & Death

4. The Spiritual War

5. Atonement Through Incarnation

6. Atonement Through Sacrifice

7. Resurrection

8. Grace Through Faith