CHRISTIAN

My Photo
Name:
Location: Para, Brazil

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

When Are We Saved?

 

When Are We Saved?

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary writer Dr. Donnie DeBord (Th.M. and Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary). Dr. DeBord is an assistant professor of Systematic Theology and Bible at Freed-Hardeman University.]

When and how are sinners saved? Are sinners saved by faith or by works? Does God save without obedience? Faith and works are often put in contrast to one another when perhaps it would be better to understand belief and works as essential to faith. Abraham believed God’s promise in Genesis 12 and acted on faith. In Genesis 15, God reassured Abraham of the covenant. Abraham believed God and his faith was counted as righteousness (Genesis 15:6). Abraham’s faith was already proven to be an obedient faith. Paul later argued that Abraham was justified by faith without “works of the law” (Romans 4:1-12) to argue the superiority of “faith” over the Mosaic covenant, which was not given for centuries after Abraham. It seems that Paul wanted his readers in Rome to know they could be justified just like Abraham, who was justified by faith—obedient faith—without the law of Moses.1

Belief and works are two sides of the same coin. Those who are “just” or “righteous” are those who actively “live by faith” (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11). What “matters” is “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). Hebrews 11:6 reminds us that to be a person of faith is to actively “draw near to God” and then to be rewarded for seeking him. Abraham was justified by faith (Romans 4:1-3), but Abraham’s faith “was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works.” Therefore, “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:22-24, ESV). To believe is to obey.

Christians are “justified by faith” (Romans 5:1) and “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). This is no contradiction. Instead, belief and works are inseparable in the Christian life. Faith can be seen (Matthew 9:2). Christians are described as “faithful”—those who are actively living in the faith. The faithful servant is the one who is actively prepared for his Master’s return (Matthew 24:45; 25:23). Barnabas encouraged Christians to be “faithful to the Lord” (Acts 11:23).

Paul demonstrated the necessity of belief and action in Galatians 3:26-27 when he said: “you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Christians are “justified by faith,” and that justification by faith begins at baptism. The soon-to-be Christians in Acts 2 were “cut to the heart” and asked what they should do in Acts 2:37. It seems safe to say these individuals believed the truth about Jesus in verse 37. However, they were still “in sin” rather than “in Christ.” So, they were required to “repent and be baptized” to receive the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Their belief was incomplete without repentance and baptism.

Baptism is not a human work by which salvation is earned. Instead, baptism is a work of God in which salvation is bestowed. Colossians 2:11-14 shows that God is the primary worker in baptism. Christians are “buried with him in baptism,” “raised with him through faith,” “made alive together with him,” and “forgiven.” The individual is baptized, but God is the one who works to bring about salvation. The struggle between belief and works is better seen as the union of trust and submission.

This union of belief and action is also demonstrated by Martin Luther in his “Treatise on Baptism.” There Luther said, “there is on earth no greater comfort than baptism, for through it we come under the judgment of grace and mercy, which does not condemn our sins, but drives them out by many trials.” Luther went on to say, “There is a fine sentence of St. Augustine, which says, ‘Sin is altogether forgiven in baptism; not in such wise that it is no longer present, but in such wise that it is not taken into account.’”2 Luther said “a man becomes in baptism guiltless, pure, and sinless…. This faith is of all things the most necessary, for it is the ground of all comfort.”3 Following Luther, it seems John Calvin also saw no contradiction between belief and obedience. Calvin said, “[T]hey who regarded baptism as nothing but a token and mark by which we confess our religion before men, as soldiers bear the insignia of their commander as a mark of their profession, have not weighed what was the chief point of baptism. It is to receive baptism with this promise: ‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved’ [Mark 16:16].”4 The premodern consensus was that God worked when individuals were baptized.

In this discussion, it is helpful to remember that neither faith nor works are meritorious acts by which salvation is earned. God “purchased the church with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Paul said, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).5 Whoever desires may “take of the water of life without price” (Revelation 22:17). Salvation is received by those who believe (John 3:16) and obey (John 3:36).6 But salvation rests upon the promise and work of God. This great truth is summarized in Titus 3:4-7, as Paul taught that God “saved us” but “not because of works done by us in righteousness.” Rather, salvation is bestowed when belief is met with obedience in baptism, which is “the washing of regeneration.”

Endnotes

1 For a brief study of faith and obedience in Romans, see Dave Miller (2021), “The Obedience of Faith in Romans,” Reason & Revelation, March, 41[3]:34-35, apologeticspress.org/the-obedience-of-faith-in-romans-5955/.

2 Martin Luther, “A Treatise on the Holy Sacrament of Baptism 1519,” Works of Martin Luther, 1:62.

3 Ibid., 1:63.

4 John Calvin (1960), Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster), IV, xv, 2.

5 For a study on grace, faith, and works in Ephesians, see Eric Lyons (2020), “Ephesians 2:8-9: Contradictory, or Perfectly Consistent?,” Reason & Revelation, October, 40[10]:110-113,116-119, apologeticspress.org/ephesians-28-9-contradictory-or-perfectly-consistent-5870/.

6 For a study of faith and obedience in John 3, see Eric Lyons (2019), “‘Believing’ in John 3:16,” Reason & Revelation, September, 39[9]:98-101,104-107, apologeticspress.org/believing-in-john-316-5723/.



A copied sheet of paper

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Monday, March 18, 2024

AMPC-Session 06: The Founders & Deism Video 30 min and very, very good. Enjoy

 AMPC-Session 06: The Founders & Deism - Apologetics Press


Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Did God Create Other People? Video 3 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/did-god-create-other-people/ 


Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

6 Facts That Prove Jesus Rose From the Dead Video 9 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/6-facts-that-prove-jesus-rose-from-the-dead/ 


Please click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Saturday, March 16, 2024

“Can’t Order Come from Disorder Due to the Sun?

 

“Can’t Order Come from Disorder Due to the Sun?”

Many creationists argue that evolution requires order to come about from disorder—complexity to come about naturally from simplicity—in defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (cf. Miller, 2013). The evolutionist retorts that the Earth is not a closed system—localized pockets of order can come from disorder, as long as energy is added to those pockets (e.g., an orderly room can come from a disorderly room if work or energy is applied to the room). The evolutionist argues that the Earth is a system that is, in fact, receiving useful external energy (e.g., from the Sun). So, it is presumed that evolution could happen.

While it may be true that extra-terrestrial energy could cause pockets of order from disorder on the Earth, it does not follow that atheistic evolution could happen. As we have shown elsewhere, regardless of the extra-terrestrial energy reaching Earth, the evidence confirms that life does not come from non-life (Miller, 2012a), laws of science do not write themselves (Miller, 2012b), matter and energy do not last forever or spontaneously generate (Miller, 2013), and information is not added to the genome through mutations (cf. this issue of R&R). Without an explanation for how evolution can cross these barriers, evolution is tantamount to witchcraft.

Furthermore, while energy can sometimes bring about pockets of order from disorder, energy alone is not what is required. It must be the right kind of energy to do so. While the Sun can be an excellent source of useful energy, it can also be a dangerous source of serious damage—causing deaths, deserts, and damaged property. In order to explain how the order of the Earth’s species could come about from disorder through evolution, one would have to prove that extra-terrestrial energy sources would be capable of doing such a thing—a major task to say the least, especially when there is no observable evidence that macroevolution could even happen regardless.

Ultimately, the question is irrelevant, since regardless of the extra-terrestrial energy that is reaching Earth and its potential ability to create localized order, it is clear that it is not countering the entropy that is rapidly building in the genome (see the discussion of genetic entropy in the current issue). Deleterious mutations are leading to mutational meltdown, generation by generation, regardless of the Sun or any other external source of energy. Evolution requires genomic progress, not deterioration, and extra-terrestrial energy is not solving the problem for evolutionary theory.

No wonder Paul Davies lamented, “It seems that order has arisen out of chaos, in apparent defiance of the second law of thermodynamics…. Does this then suggest that some sort of gigantic cosmic miracle has occurred against all imaginable betting odds?” (1978, p. 507). Davies recognizes that evolution would require a miracle since it flies in the face of a natural law—the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that the Universe is moving irreversibly towards a state of higher disorder and chaos (Miller, 2013). But since he does not believe in a miracle Worker, it is irrational for him to contend that evolution could “miraculously” happen in spite of entropy. His conclusion should be, “Maybe naturalistic evolution is not true.” Instead, he concludes that magic—a spontaneous miracle—might have happened without a miracle Worker. Naturalistic evolution is a blind, irrational faith.

REFERENCES

Davies, Paul (1978), “Chance or Choice: Is the Universe an Accident?” New Scientist, 80[1129]:506-508, November.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, https://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4545.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article= 2786.


A copied sheet of paper

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Friday, March 15, 2024

Where Did the Exploding “Cosmic Egg” Come From? Video 38 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/where-did-the-exploding-cosmic-egg-come-from-5862/ 


Please click on the link above and follow the path provided

Thursday, March 14, 2024

Can Anyone Actually Do “Good”?

 

Can Anyone Actually Do “Good”?

Most people will read the title of this article and immediately think, “Of course a person can do good.” After all, Jesus said, “A good (agathos) man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things” (Matthew 12:35). Paul instructed Christians to (simply) “do good to all” (Galatians 6:10). He later reminded the disciples in Corinth that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or evil” (2 Corinthians 5:10). And John wrote: “Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God” (3 John 11).

So why such an elementary question? This question is occasionally asked by skeptics who want to know why the Bible repeatedly teaches that God’s people are to “do good,” if, as other biblical passages teach, “there is none who does good, no, not one” (Psalm 14:3; 53:3; Romans 3:12; cf. Mark 10:18). “For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin” (Ecclesiastes 7:20; cf. Isaiah 64:6). Thus, Bible critics ask, “How can the Bible teach that Christians are to do good, if no one can actually be good?”

The question is a fair question. Admittedly, the Bible’s different uses of the term “good” may be confusing to some initially. As with the solution to so many alleged Bible contradictions, however, the answer actually is very simple: words are used in different senses. The term “good” can be used in different ways and in varying degrees. We can talk of a good pizza, a good day, a good dog, a good boy, and our good God, and mean somewhat (or perhaps very) different things.

In the purest and highest meaning of the word, only God is “good.” Jesus referred to this supreme goodness when He said to the rich young ruler, “No one is good but One, that is, God” (Mark 10:18). In truth, as Caleb Colley concluded in his article “Why is Good Good?,” “God is good, but not in virtue of a standard of goodness that exists separate from Him.… Good is defined by God’s goodness, which is inseparable from His nature” (2010).

On the other hand, human beings can only know goodness and be good on a dependent and finite level. In the beginning, everything God made, including the first human beings, “was very good” (Genesis 1:31)—but not “good” in precisely the same way our perfectly good God is good. God is innately good. He cannot do evil (cf. Titus 1:2); He cannot even be tempted by evil (James 1:13). But a man can be tempted to sin, and he can choose to sin (James 1:14-15). In fact, every person of an accountable mind and age who has ever lived (save God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus) has chosen to do that which is not good (Romans 3:23). Such a decision on man’s part, even one such decision, makes him “no good” in the sense that, apart from God’s amazingly good, saving grace, he is a lawfully condemned, unholy sinner (Romans 3:24). What’s more, on our own, apart from God, we can do absolutely nothing about our sinfulness. There is nothing that we could do on our own to become “good.”

Sinful man can only become good and just by choosing to accept God’s perfectly good and gracious gift of salvation through Christ (Romans 5:8,15-21; see Lyons and Butt, 2004). Subsequently, God-saved, newly made good people (i.e., Christians) will “put to death” their rebelliously sinful selves (repenting of sins—Acts 2:38; 3:19) and “put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him” (Colossians 3:5,10; cf. Romans 12:1-2).

Indeed, Christians can be good and do good. We are not good in and of ourselves. Rather, by the grace of our innately and supremely good God, we can be justified and “become followers of what is good” (1 Peter 3:13). We can walk in the light of God, knowing that “the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). And, during moments of weakness, when we choose that which is not good, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). Thus, our good God even provided a way for Christians to remain “good” and to continue doing good works, in spite of our imperfections and struggles with sin.

REFERENCES

Colley, Caleb (2010), “Why is Good Good?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/why-is-good-good-3601/.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2004), “Taking Possession of What God Gives: A Case Study in Salvation,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/taking-possession-of-what-god-gives-a-case-study-in-salvation-1381/.


A copied sheet of paper

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Psalm 22:9 and Infant Salvation

 

Psalm 22:9 and Infant Salvation

Some within Christendom believe that babies receive salvation while in their infant state. They believe that God saves them by causing them to have faith in Him—even from the womb. For example, official Lutheran Church doctrine maintains that God makes infants to trust: “Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant.”1 They further maintain: “Scripture clearly teaches that infants and children CAN have faith…. In Psalm 22:9 we see that David trusted in the Lord when he was a breast-feeding infant.”2 The average Christian cannot help but question such a claim, since it is self-evident that babies obviously lack the characteristics/capabilities and mental maturity that only come with growth and development. Such sentiments are tied to the Calvinistic notion that God directly interferes in a person’s life in order to save some and condemn others—through no fault of their own and absent the exercise of the individual’s own will.3 Since children obviously lack the mental aptitude and intellectual wherewithal to conceptualize God, coming to a knowledge and understanding of Him, let alone to “believe” in Him, the Calvinist must rely on verses of Scripture that seem on the surface to provide support for their claims.

Does Psalm 22:9 teach that God directly intervenes in a child’s heart and mind, miraculously instilling faith in that child’s mind, causing that child to possess self-aware comprehension of what it means to trust in Him? The verse reads in the New King James Version: “But You are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts.” The verse certainly appears—on the surface—to attribute trust being formed in David by God while David was but a nursing infant. However, Scripture often speaks figuratively of God’s involvement in the lives of human beings. In fact, in the same verse, God is depicted as removing David from his mother’s womb. Does Scripture intend for the reader to conclude that God momentarily took human form and participated in the delivery of David—perhaps the attending Physician on call? Or is David actually speaking figuratively—as indicated by the context—that God’s care had been extended to him throughout life? To state the matter emphatically and unequivocally: Though David said, “You are He who took me out of the womb,” David could not have meant that God personally, physically, and literally took David out of his mother’s womb.

A Messianic Psalm

However, there’s more to consider. Psalm 22 is very clearly a Messianic psalm. Messianic psalms often can have a dualistic application, i.e., they can refer in part to the immediate, contemporary circumstances that the psalmist is facing, while also pointing 1,000 years into the future to indicate what Jesus would endure. They can also include features, some of which apply exclusively to Jesus. Consider some of the phrases of Psalm 22:

  • Verse 1: “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”—quoted by Jesus on the cross, uniquely referring to His sole circumstances.
  • Verses 7-8: “All those who see Me ridicule Me; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, ‘He trusted in the LORD, let Him rescue Him; let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!’”—again, uniquely anticipating the actual words spoken by Jesus’ enemies while He was suspended on the cross:

Likewise, the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, “I am the Son of God” (Matthew 27:41-43).

  • Verses 14-15: “I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; it has melted within Me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death”—a graphic description of Jesus’ agony and depleted condition on the cross, including the stretching of the skeletal framework which caused the bones to separate and extend, the extreme thirst and resulting dehydration (cf. “I thirst”—John 19:28), and eventual death by asphyxiation with its fatal impact on the heart and chest cavity—which may well be described as the heart melting within.4
  • Verses 16-18: “For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots”—additional detail that characterizes a Roman crucifixion, including the piercing of hands and feet—which David surely never experienced since crucifixion was unfamiliar to the Jews of his day. Crucifixion was a public spectacle to which Jesus was subjected. And, again, all four Gospel writers pinpoint precisely the fact that the Roman soldiers cast lots for His clothing (Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:24)—a circumstance that David surely never faced.

Notice that verse 9 of the psalm is “sandwiched” in the midst of these Messianic anticipations. If the verse refers exclusively to Christ, it pertains to the divine mission that Jesus fulfilled by coming to Earth to provide atonement for mankind. This mission required Him to assume human form by being physically born as a baby via a human female. That infant body was specifically “prepared” (Hebrews 10:5) by God for Jesus—not David—to indwell. Consequently, verse 9 would refer to the submissive role that Jesus voluntarily assumed in order to accomplish the divine scheme of redemption. While in the midst of performing that role, Jesus repeatedly described Himself as being under the direct involvement of the Father, even to the point of stating: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38). Hence, verse 9 may well refer to nothing more than the submission that Jesus reflected when He left the eternal realm and assumed human form—all under the orchestration and guidance of the Godhead.5 Accordingly, it makes perfect scriptural sense to speak of God taking Jesus in bodily form out of Mary’s womb in a state of eternal trust/compliance with the divine will to save mankind.

“Faith/Trust” or Security?

However, let’s assume that verse 9 refers to David. Was David claiming that God instilled religious “faith” or “trust” within him while in a state of infancy? Apart from whether it is sensible to conclude that an infant is capable of having trust in God—even if instilled miraculously and directly by God—is verse 9 actually stating that God did so? Are there any linguistic indicators that aid the English reader in arriving at an accurate understanding of the verse? Yes, there are.

It is true that several English translations render the verse in such a way that God is represented as making or causing the psalmist to believe/trust Him while still in infancy. But, again, such language may be nothing more than a figurative way for David to indicate that God had been with him and cared for him throughout his entire life. However, the underlying Hebrew does not fully support this rendering. The premiere Hebrew lexicographers Koehler, et al., insist that the word means “to inspire confidence.”6 Brown, Driver, and Briggs have “cause to trust, make secure.”7 Parkhurst gives as the first meaning of the word “to hang close, cling” and gives Psalm 22:9 as a verse where that meaning is intended: “causing me to cling upon my mother’s breasts.”8 Davidson notes the exact same meaning in the Hiphil stem, citing the same verse: “to cause to cling to, or hang upon.”9 As a matter of fact, these Hebrew nuances are reflected in a number of English translations. For example, several render the phrase with the word “hope,” like the KJV: “thou didst make me hope” (also the AMPC, KJ21, BRG, GNV, WYC). Others have “made me feel secure” (NET, HCSB, CSB) while others have “made me feel safe” (ERV, CEB, EASY, GW, GNT, ISV, TLB, NOG, NRSV, RSV). Still others express a comparable meaning: “you protected me when I was a baby at my mother’s breast” (CEV). “You took care of me at my mother’s breasts” (EASY). “You made me trust [have confidence in] you” (EXB). “You cradled me” (MSG). Each of these renderings correctly capture the meaning being conveyed by the original language. Even the renderings “trust” or “faith” are not referring to religious faith—as if the psalmist was suggesting that David “accepted Jesus as his Savior” while in the womb or shortly thereafter. Rather, they are referring to the reliance on God that David realized he had enjoyed his entire life. As a baby learns to feel secure and trust his mother through the comfort of breast feeding, so David would have learned to trust God throughout his life, from beginning to end.

The classic historical treatments of the psalms given by prominent commentators over the years confirm these linguistic considerations. For example, in his popular treatise on the psalms, Princeton Theological Seminary Hebrew and Greek instructor Joseph Alexander alludes to God’s delight in David, “for it was he that brought him life, and through the perils of infancy.”10 Specifically, he insists that the phrase “made me trust” “does not refer to the literal exercise of confidence in God—which could not be asserted of a suckling, but means gave me cause to trust or feel secure, in other words, secured me, kept me safe.”11 In his acclaimed Exposition of the Psalms, H.C. Leupold, Professor of Old Testament Theology, translates the phrase, “Thou didst make me to feel safe at my mother’s breast” and notes:

In the process of birth, it was God who held a protecting hand over him and delivered him. In the tender years of extreme infancy it was He again who gave to the infant’s heart that assurance of safety that comes when the little one can nestle close to its mother’s breast…. Summing it up, it is as though he had said: “During every moment of my life till now thou hast been my God and hast sustained me.”12

Observe that Leupold is saying that it was David’s mother that made him feel safe as an infant—which David then attributed to the providential care of God—not the direct intervention of God.

Albert Barnes agreed with these observations on the verse. After noting the marginal alternate reading of “Keptest me in safety,” he observes: “the idea is, that from his earliest years he had been led to trust in God.”13 However, lest one get the idea that David was speaking literally of his infancy, he adds concerning the allusion to “my mother’s breast”: “This does not mean that he literally cherished hope then, but that he had done it in the earliest period of his life.”14 Again, the word “trust” refers to the reliance and reassurance that a person can experience due to the non-miraculous care that God extends—a care that He even extends to the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45).

Summary

There’s no doubt that a child can feel a sense of safety derived from a loving mother. But that infantile awareness does not mean that the child comprehends anything more than that the same person that the child can hear and smell is the one who, more than anyone else, holds and cares for the child. Actual trust can only come as the child’s mental faculties mature enough to grasp his/her surroundings. We come to trust our parents only as we grow, develop, and become sufficiently self-aware that we can conceptualize our nurturers.

The Bible makes abundantly clear that babies are not capable of sin, nor do they inherit alleged sin from Adam. To suggest such is to place the Bible into a state of hopeless self-contradiction. Human beings must reach an age of accountability in which they are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of grasping the gravity of the situation, realizing that they have reached a point in their development that they are accountable to God and personally responsible for their own behavior.15 Until that time, they are deemed by God as “safe” and not culpable for their infantile and childish condition—a condition that Jesus, Himself, spotlighted as a state of innocence (Matthew 18:3). Psalm 22:9 does not teach that babies have the capacity to believe in God or that God miraculously imparts faith into their hearts.16

Endnotes

1 The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (2023), “FAQs about Doctrine,” https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#faith.

2 Tom Eckstein (no date), “Why Should We Baptize Infants?” Concordia Lutheran Church, https://www.con35.cordiajt.org/sermons-resources/concordiajt.cfm. See also Just and Sinner (2012), “Infant Faith,” October 24, 2012, http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2012/10/infant-faith.html.

3 For more on Calvinism, see Kyle Butt (2004), “Do Children Inherit the Sin of Their Parents?” https://apologeticspress.org/do-children-inherit-the-sin-of-their-parents-1378/; Dave Miller (2017), “Flaws in Calvinism,” https://apologeticspress.org/flaws-in-calvinism-5387/; Robert Shank (1989), Elect in the Son (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House).

4 For the medical aspects of the crucifixion of Christ, see William Stroud (1847), Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ and Its Relation to the Principles and Practice of Christianity (London: Hamilton & Adams), p. 153. See also B. Thompson and B. Harrub (2002), An Examination of the Medical Evidence for the Physical Death of Christ (Montgomery AL: Apologetics Press); W.D. Edwards, W.J. Gabel, and F.E. Hosmer (1986), “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 255[11]:1455-1463, March 21.

5 The translators of the NKJV so understood the verse and thus capitalized both “He” and “Me” to convey to the English reader that Jesus—not David—is under consideration.

6 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, M.E.J. Richardson, & J.J. Stamm (1994-2000), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, electronic ed.), p. 120). Also Selig Newman (1834), A Hebrew and English Lexicon (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green), p. 58.

7 R. Whitaker, F. Brown, S.R. Driver, & C.A. Briggs (2004 reprint), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 105, emp. added.

8 John Parkhurst (1799), An Hebrew and English Lexicon (London: F. Davis), p. 61, italics in orig.

9 Benjamin Davidson (1848), The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1970 reprint), p. 78, italics in orig. See also T.K. Brown (1858), A Lexicon of the Hebrew Language (Southwick, England), p. 24.

10 Joseph Alexander (1975 reprint), The Psalms Translated and Explained (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 101.

11 Ibid., italics in orig., emp. added.

12 H.C. Leupold (1969 reprint), Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 199-200, emp. added.

13 Albert Barnes (2005 reprint), Notes on the Old Testament: Psalms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 197.

14 Ibid., italics in orig.

15 See, for example, Dave Miller (2002), “The Age of Accountability,” https://apologeticspress.org/the-age-of-accountability-1202/.

16 For additional analysis of Lutheran Church doctrine, see Kyle Butt (2005), What the Bible says about the Lutheran Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

A copied sheet of paper

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Reproduction Stipulations→