Theology Unplugged: Coffee with Scholars – Mike Licona – Part 1

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/16/geisler-meets-the-ghosts-of-christmas/

RIP OFF

Way to short

I want my money back

Pulling the plug of theologians? Probably the best recent idea.

New one coming next week!

A simple question (to begin with),

Do people need saving because they have a sinful nature or because they commit sins?

All people need to be redeemed because natural birth has not and will not produce a child of God. There are three factors stated in Jn. 1:13 that if any one of these is present the human being produced by them is excluded from having been born of God. All the naturally born are born by one or more of the factors of natural descent, a human decision which causes birth, or a husbands will.

Theodore,

Then what you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that children, even those that are infants will still be condemned to hell if they die prior to accepting Jesus as their savior…is that correct?

Your moniker “Bounded Reality” is not consistant with your question. “for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” Gen. 8:21. If you are bounded by the reality of what is written in the scripture you are lacking the proof of the tag by your question. As for infants and such what’s that to you? Your concerning Reality needs to be: “Have I had the faith to use the Way perfected by Jesus’ crucifixion which each individual of majority must use to be born again of God since I have been naturally born?” For it is certified you will pay hell for not using it since it will be a deliberate disobedience of a law if you don’t. That truth is also certified. In Reality your question should have been directed to God to put him to the test.

I see, so is it that you are unwilling or unable to have a rational discussion about points of theology?

As to my “moniker”, since you do know the reasons why I chose it, you shouldn’t be making assumptions about it’s significance.

Are the theological arguments you reffer to rational? No. They only add fuel to every inclination of a heart that is evil from childhood. Every theologian only scratches itching ears.

Theodore,

Not to worry, I was actually hoping to have a discussion with the blog owner, who seems to have a desire for intelligent discussion.

As to your moniker? No. I have no idea why you have chosen it, but it is self judgement that you have not arrived at. But who is it hidden behind the moniker Legion, perhaps?

Need your ears scratched aye? All theologions have been elected by God to preform that task and they are good at. But catching anyone of them obeying one of Jesus’ commands, hell will have to freeze first. I thought the Theodore your question was directed at was myself. Sorry for misunderstanding whom you desired to confer with. I do not scratch even one ear that itches as they do.

Has Michael R. Licona considered the raising of many saints story in Matthew in light of questions of Markan priority?

Bounded Reality,

Evangelical Christian theologians disagree on the question of the salvation of infants who die in infancy. Even Christians within particular denominations disagree with one another about the degree to which Scripture sheds light on the issue and supports one view or another. My personal view, from a Reformed perspective, is that God may regenerate the heart of an infant such that they are saved when they die, despite their lack of mature, conscious faith in the explicit propositions of the gospel. God may do this for only some infants, like the children of believers (consistent with the covenant formula of “you and your children”), or He may do this for all infants who die in infancy. I argue tentatively for the latter. This is conjecture based on several lines of thought found in the Bible:

1) The necessity of regeneration for anyone’s salvation (John 3, etc.); and the causal priority of regeneration over against the faith it produces (1st John 5:1; Acts 16:14). Infant faith could be a vague trust in God, and as it grows into maturity and learns the propositions of the gospel it would readily affirm all of those truths, glorifying Christ; just as a mature person who receives Christ may not instantly understand everything about penal substitutionary atonement, even though the benefits of such have already been applied to them.
2) The accountability and proper condemnation of sinners in Romans 1 seems to depend on the ability of persons to apprehend general revelation and its declaration of God’ existence and divine power–something infants cannot in any meaningful sense do. Other statements of Jesus in the gospels also seem to indicate a certain relationship between knowledge of God and accountability.
3) 2 Sam 12:23 MAY indicate David’s expectation to see his deceased child again.
4) A major theme of the whole Bible is the exaltation of the humble. Jesus tells His followers that unless they become like little children, they won’t inherit the kingdom (Matthew 18:3).

I see problems with both stances…

1. If children who die before reaching an age of accountability do not go to heaven, but rather are consigned to an eternity of suffering and separation from God…it would be injustice on an incredible scale, the likes of which cannot even be approached by the sum total of all deaths from all wars and famine on this planet.

2. If, on the other hand, they do go to heaven when they die, then it seems that either God is allowing some to enter heaven with their sinful nature intact and without forgiveness (if acceptance of Jesus is in fact the only way), or, if God is, out of pure mercy, conferring forgiveness on those incapable of choosing salvation for themselves…it forces another question…

if all children who die before, let’s arbitrarily say, 3 months of age, go to heaven and the percentage who get to heaven after that same group reaches adulthood is significantly less (let’s say…10%)…how can I, knowing this, not act on that information and preemptively murder all children 3 months or younger..

It may sound horrific, but it seems reasonable to cut short a life by 60 or 70 years if I know that I can ensure for them an eternal life of bliss in God’s presence. Even though I am commanded not to kill…can someone, even God, really order immoral behavior, for that’s what it would be….I, like Pilate, cannot wash away the guilt and lay it on someone else’s shoulder if I fail to act when I could save a life simply because I was ordered not to do so?

Bounded Reality,

1. This assumes that all people are not born with the guilt of original sin, as some think Romans 5 counters. It is possible, however, that eschatological condemnation depends on outward, overt sins against the Law, which would possibly rule out anything infants can do. But even if God were to condemn infants dying in infancy, it would be just, for everyone is born with a sinful *nature* and is offensive to a God who is holy, holy, holy. If God does, in fact, save all infants dying in infancy, it is by the grace of Christ, not by one-to-one just desert.

2. On the possibility of infant regeneration and redemption by Christ, I refer you to my previous comment.

As far as your idea of murdering all children under some age of accountability (which you rightly see as having to be arbitrary, and a horrible idea)…first of all, you’re right that God has commanded us not to murder. But you’re wrong that it would be immoral for God to not let us slaughter all infants in order to ensure their eternal life. God always commands what is right, and according to Him, murder is always wrong. Shall we judge or question God’s Word? Also, according to Him, the appropriate means of evangelism is the preaching of the gospel, not the slaughter of children. Moreover, it is not perfectly clear in His Word that all infants will be saved, even though it is a distinct possibility for which I argue. Therefore we ought not act so extremely on unclear doctrines. There is no guilt in remember that salvation belongs to the Lord, and in the end the Judge of all the earth shall do right, and be seen to have done right.

@ Tyler Cowden,
It is wise, I think, not to read ones self into the plural personal prouns used in the Bible especially when they are indicative of posessing the same faith that the apostles taught. The way of faith they taught is not taught in any contemporary church.