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.

Responding to Humanist Yard Signs

In this house, we believe:

Black Lives Matter
Women’s Rights are Human Rights
No Human Is Illegal
Science Is Real
Love Is Love
Kindness Is Everything

In the past few years, these words have been displayed on yard signs and in the windows of homes on virtually every block of every neighborhood in my town and the areas where I work. Perhaps this is not the case in less “progressive” areas of the United States (I live near San Francisco), but I suspect we are all at least familiar with the statements held within the sign, as many of them are ubiquitous in American culture. 

For Christians, this sign reminds us of Joshua 24:15: “And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve… But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” It is also reminiscent of early statements of faith like the Apostle’s Creed, which says:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

Being fashioned as something resembling a creed, the message is clear: these are the values held dear in this household. Considering that the sign neglects to acknowledge any Creator God or supernatural authority, it is safe to assume that what is valued in the household within reflects those of humanism: a secular values driven philosophy. The American Humanist Association defines humanism as: “…a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.” The Humanist Magazine states: “Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.”

A common thread through all definitions of humanism is that morality is sourced within humanity, and is not to be given or discovered from anything or anyone (God) outside of ourselves. While humanism is often seen as the moral philosophy of atheism, there are many spiritually-minded people who also ascribe to it, whether or not they are familiar with the term. I thought I would take this opportunity to examine the 6 statements on this popular yard sign from a humanistic perspective, and provide a Christian response to each. 

Black Lives Matter

As with most of these statements, there is nothing controversial in the words themselves. There are very few Americans who would deny that the lives of black people matter. However, there are substantial differences in what we mean by these three words. For the humanist, “Black Lives Matter” could be an endorsement of a social justice movement with political aspirations for the restructuring of Western society, or it could simply be a statement of support for those who have suffered hardship and racial prejudice throughout American history up to the present. Leaving politics aside, when a humanist speaks of life as something that “matters,” they cannot mean that it matters in the same sense as the Christian. 

For Christians, any and every individual human life matters because it is created “in the image of God.” Therefore value is God-given, and no human or any institution of society can affect that value. By contrast, the humanist has ruled out God as the source of value, and must source any human’s value in other humans. The weakness becomes apparent. Human value is made contingent on whether it is valued by other humans, whose values are collectively in a constant state of evolution. Since “the greater good” is the greatest value to society at any given time, circumstances may change to make the lives of particular individuals not “matter” to those of society as a whole. Wherever human value is detached from the Creator, this inevitably follows, as the interests of the many outweigh those of the few. 

The clearest example in America today is abortion. Christians agree that God’s image resides in every human being, no matter how small or how little they contribute to society. Yet our secular world has decided that value is dependent on the mother (or whoever who has coercive power to make the choice for the mother) granting value to that life. Since the preborn child hasn’t contributed anything to society, its life does not yet “matter.”
Many Christians got themselves in hot water by countering “Black Lives Matter” with the saying, “All Lives Matter.” To avoid charges of being dismissive of the positive affirmation of value in the lives of black Americans, we would be wiser to reply, “All Black Lives Matter.” The humanist cannot genuinely affirm this and abortion, of which about 30% of its American victims are black. The Christian can boldly declare that we affirm the value and dignity of all black people, as each and every one is made in the image of God. 

Women’s Rights are Human Rights

This statement is formed as an equation. In other words, women’s rights equal the rights of humans in general. This is not controversial in most corners of the world, and Christians absolutely agree! The question I have is whether the equation works both ways. Do human rights equal women’s rights? If women’s rights are as good as any human’s rights, then we can affirm this so long as any human’s rights are as good as any woman’s rights. Problem is, the vast majority of humanists cannot affirm this. Once again, the abortion issue makes this clear. We know as scientific fact that children in the womb of their mothers are human beings from the moment of conception. Secularists can no longer hide behind the myth that the child is not alive or is a fish or some other creature going through the stages of evolution to reach humanity at the time of birth. DNA analysis shows that we have a unique human being at every stage. So, by the logic of humanism, this statement doesn’t say much for human rights, since we know that being a human does not grant someone any rights in our society. The humanists who have actually thought this through will appeal instead to the rights of a “person” instead of a human being. Arguing that preborn children are not persons is necessary to justify the brutal killing of the defenseless human. While such a claim is a statement of faith in itself (you cannot prove that a human being can lack personhood), the sign should say: “Women’s Rights are Person’s Rights” in order to be consistent. 

No Human Is Illegal

Here we have another statement whose very existence implies a controversy where none is to be found. Certainly this is in reference to the term “illegal immigrant.” However, nobody who uses that term believes that the human who illegally crosses a border is a human illegally. To imply such is to either completely misunderstand the term, or to intentionally mislead so as to demonize those who believe that national borders should be legally enforced. The irony of calling a preborn child a “parasite” is not lost here.

Science Is Real

Who denies that science is real? I have yet to find such a person. What I suspect they are trying to say is that man-caused climate change is real, or possibly that Darwinian evolution is real. These positions remain controversial with the public, though they reflect the general consensus of scientists. However, there are dissenters in the relevant fields, and science itself deals in the realm of fact, not opinion. If the humanist wants to lend their support to the majority of scientists, they could perhaps rephrase this as “scientific consensus is fact.” This would avoid creating a strawman of opponents of the strong majority views. The downside though, is that this might undermine other values they want to affirm. Scientific consensus supports that human life begins at conception. Science itself (apart from opinion) confirms that male and female are biological realities, and that both are necessary for human reproduction. To affirm that “science is real,” the humanist who wants to deny these facts must then appeal to a yet unknown “science” that will overrule them someday, thus making today’s science in these areas unreal. Perhaps they should reconsider the broadness of this statement and simply state an affirmation of climate change and/or Darwinism. 

Love Is Love

Finally we have a statement that can be disagreed with on its face. What we are talking about here are different kinds of love being of equal value; specifically different kinds of romantic love. We’re not concerned with equating the love of a mother for her child with the love of a soldier for his fellow countrymen, or the love of Christ for His Church and vice versa. Those different kinds of love possess unique qualities that are certainly not equal in value. For example, an American soldier may be willing to die for the freedom of other Americans, but if given the choice to save the life of his daughter or the lives of two strangers, we wouldn’t fault him for choosing his daughter’s life because we understand that his love for her is of greater value than for the average American. The humanist would probably agree. The loves they are comparing then are specifically those of heterosexual couples and those of individuals in the LGBTQ+ community. 
For the humanist, no combination of consensual individuals is better than another… well, with the exceptions of incest and pedophilia (at least for now). These exceptions are dismissed as irrelevant by the affirming, but they are worth exploring because they reveal how this statement is ultimately self-defeating. You cannot say, “love is love, except those kinds of love.” These three words must be all-encompassing if they are to mean anything at all. If there are exceptions, then some kinds of love are better than others. If this is so, on what basis can we conclude that there is no value differentiation between those kinds of love our society has decided are acceptable? Why not say that some kinds of love are good and others are a little better? Why is it only some are good and those others are not good at all? We have no basis to judge the value of one against the other if we are simply appealing to things like personal happiness and the consent of those involved. There is nothing about incest or pedophilia that requires a lack of consent (not discounting that this will often be the case). It is certainly possible that individuals who are in those kinds of relationships are there by their own choice. They might be quite happy and feel that they are being unfairly maligned by society. Shouldn’t we affirm and fight for their free expressions of love?

For the Christian, we have a different standard to measure what is good. We have God’s design for human sexuality (teleology). We can objectively see that the human body was designed for the unity of man and woman. We can see that only this physical union is capable of creating a new human being. From a purely scientific view, we can see that only heterosexual unions can propagate the species. Heterosexual unions on the whole are good for procreation, while others are not. In addition, we have the written commands for a man and a woman to join together in marriage, therefore defining sexual unions outside of marriage as less than good. Scripture specifically calls them out as sins of “fornication” and “adultery.” Scripture also calls us to “submit to one another” and to “love your neighbor as you love yourself,” which leaves no room for violations of consent. 

Kindness Is Everything

Kindness is important, that’s for sure. What does it mean for kindness to be everything? Well, it could be a reference to how we handle conflicts or debates with those who disagree with our views. It could also be a call to be an “ally,” someone who lends support to those who belong to minority or marginalized groups. In general, it seems to be a call to be friendly and welcoming of others. That is, for the most part, a good thing. However, it becomes meaningless and contradictory to the 5 statements before it when it is said to be “everything.” Certainly truth matters. These “belief statements” must themselves matter or we could scrap them all and simply display a “Kindness is Everything” sign. No need for anything else because “everything” is already covered. Perhaps a simple change to “kindness is essential” would do. 

For Christians, kindness is an outworking of love. 1 Corinthians 13:4 tells us that “love is kind.” This heavily quoted chapter is centered on love, which is the quality from which kindness flows. Verse 13 says, “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” It is important then to distinguish kindness from love itself, as kindness is merely one aspect of love. Verses 4-7 give a definition: “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Taking the whole of what love entails, it must take a stand for right and wrong, and sometimes that looks unkind to the world. It may be withholding support from those who are practicing sin. It may be challenging the lies of the culture. To be loving is to be in alignment with what is good and what is true. Scripture tells us that God is love. Jesus says that He is the truth. Love and truth converge in God, who is the source of all that exists. To truly love is to be in alignment with Him. 

Conclusion

What is noticeably missing from the humanist’s yard sign is an acknowledgement of the source of all that gives us value. There is no love apart from God. Consequently, there can be no genuine kindness in a godless world, and there is no grounding for the value of human life. The “real” world and everything in it ultimately doesn’t matter. That house is built on sand. As Christians, we must stand in stark contrast by building our homes on the solid rock of Jesus Christ.

“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.” (Matthew‬ ‭7:24-27‬)

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 

What We Endorse

Something that's been on my mind of late is how I represent Christ in the things in which I show respect, admiration, or approval. As someone who has grown up watching a lot of TV and movies and listening to a lot of secular music, I often want to share my appreciation for such things. However, sometimes those things aren't entirely endorsement-worthy in content, and could send the wrong message to my friends or other observers. I Corinthians 8:9-10 says, "But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols?" In other words, as Christians we are responsible to promote the right things to encourage others to walk in righteousness, whether they are fellow believers or not. Likewise, we should stand in opposition to sin, and be careful not to be perceived as endorsing sin. But where do we draw the line in a secular world?

One of the best summaries of the fallen world we live in is found in Romans 1:18-32. The Apostle Paul describes a world where the truth of God is rejected, and men and women are given over to the whole range of evil pursuits. As a believer, the final verse can be quite convicting. Verse 32 reads, "who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them." I have to ask myself, am I lending my approval to sin? The truth is, if we live in this fallen world, it is practically impossible to not contribute in some way to the work of evil. I'll admit, I like to get myself a frappuccino at Starbucks. Now it's a well-known fact that Starbucks gives money to gay-rights causes. Am I approving of their choices when I give them my money? I don't see it that way. I'm giving my approval to their product. If we were to apply that standard to boycott any business that promotes sin in some way not related to their actual product, we'd be left with Chick-fil-A and not a whole lot else. That being said, there may be extreme situations when a boycott is appropriate. If Starbucks were to announce that they will be donating $1 of each purchase to Al Qaeda, I'd guess that most of us would probably take our business elsewhere, regardless of how tasty their drinks may be. The same standard could be applied to movies. Do we avoid a movie that may be perfectly acceptable on its own merit, but one of the actors lives and promotes a sinful lifestyle? Or what if that movie has an overall positive message, but contains a few profanities sprinkled here and there? If I know this ahead of time and still see the movie, am I lending approval to sin? Some of these things are blurry, others are clear. I imagine we all have slightly differing standards. Sometimes I find myself disappointed by fellow Christians who don't have the same standards I do. But then again, others may be disappointed by me. My dad often says, "someday everyone will give an account..." That begs the question: when you stand before the Lord on the day of judgment, will you be able to defend your standards?

Sometimes we give direct approval or disapproval with our actions. As November 6 approaches, most of us are probably thinking a lot about politics. If ever there were a case of us giving a clear endorsement, how we vote is it. I would like to remind my fellow Christians of the Romans 1:32 standard. As I look back on history, I often wonder how people in certain situations of great injustice were complacent. The most obvious example is Nazi Germany. How did the people of Germany vote the Nazis into power when they clearly held such hatred for the Jews, and desired to rid them from their society? Or how did so many Americans support and even die for the cause of slavery in the Civil War days? Couldn't they clearly see how they were giving approval to evil? The truth is, it's easy to judge from a distance, but in the moment, people are easily confused. The German people were prospering under the Nazis after having gone through enormous economic hardship following the first World War. The American South was also benefiting greatly from the system of slavery that was the cultural norm at the time. Long story short, in both cases, people were taking the easy path and looking out for their own self interests at the cost of others.

Forgive me if I come across as preachy, but I feel that our culture is just as guilty today. There are many ways we have given approval to sin, but none more egregious than the legalization and acceptance of abortion. To date, the lives of over 50 million children have been taken. That's roughly five times as many lives as the Holocaust. I believe, just as in the cases above, morality has been blinded by self-interest. In his hit song, "What it's Like," the rapper/singer Everlast describes a woman facing abusive (straw man) protesters at an abortion clinic: "God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes, 'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose." Abortion thrives on fear, and fear is an emotion that blurs clear thinking on issues of morality. I wonder how Americans at the time of slavery would view us and our cultural acceptance of abortion if they could see into the future? They, being distanced from the emotions of it, would no doubt recognize it for the evil it is, just as we easily recognize the evil of slavery. It sickens me to see opposition to abortion painted as evil by the other side, as if it is hatred of women. Statistically, at least half of the victims of abortion are female. Those women born since 1973 should consider themselves fortunate.

As Christians in a secular society, we may feel powerless to do anything about abortion. Not being personally threatened, survivors that we are, we may silently condemn it, but still become complacent about it, accepting it as a matter of fact and here to stay. But that doesn't have to be the case. We, like all other American citizens 18 years and older, have the right to vote. Every time we vote, we give approval or disapproval to someone or something, depending on the issues at stake. What standard are we using to make our decisions? Do we vote what is best for our pocketbooks, our employer, our culture, our race, our friends, or those in our immediate surroundings? As followers of Christ, we are to identify ourselves first and foremost with Him. What this means in application is that we do not look for any interest but for what is beneficial to the growth of the knowledge and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord, which re-directs us away from the characteristics of the fallen world. We should love what He loves, and hate what He hates. We know He hates sin, and we should never give our approval of it. While there may not be any perfect candidates, we are morally responsible to vote for the ones who will do more to promote good and less to promote evil. I happen to think that one political party is routinely on the side of approving and enabling the sinful and destructive behaviors described in Romans 1. Others may disagree, and if they can stand confidently before the Lord and defend their choices in good conscience, then who am I to tell them otherwise.

(Recommended link: "180" movie)

We are representatives of Christ. The secular world will put us under the spotlight to expose any hypocrisy. While we won't always demonstrate love the way we should, and we will continue to struggle with sin, we can make choices to promote good and oppose evil. Let us not compromise, as many have. Remember Romans 1:32. My name is Steve, and I approve this message.