Bible Difficulties (87 page)

Condemnation results not from failure to hear the gospel but from an utter failure to keep even the first and great commandment: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy might" (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37).

In the light of the four objections just discussed, we must conclude that either the unevangelized heathen are hopelessly lost, or else the Bible is grievously mistaken and must be corrected by those who have better theological insights than those found in Holy Scripture. There are various passages that have been mistakenly interpreted to mean that there is hope for good pagans who have not heard the message of Scripture--despite what John 3:18; 8:24; 14:6 and Romans 2, 3, and Romans 10 seem to teach. One such verse is Micah 6:8: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" But in context this is clearly addressed to professing believers who stand in covenant relation to Yahweh (the LORD), the God of the Bible; and it serves to warn them that a credible profession of faith in God must be demonstrated by a godly life. This has no bearing whatever on the unevangelized heathen, who have no knowledge of Yahweh at all, and thereby are precluded from "walking humbly with" Him.

Or again, Malachi 1:11 promises: "`For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be great among the Gentiles;...for My name shall be great among the heathen,' saith the LORD of hosts." It goes without saying that such strong emphasis on knowing and honoring Yahweh by name necessarily implies hearing and believing the message of Scripture, without which there is no possibility of knowing that great and redemptive name.

396

Additionally, consider Peter's statement in the living room of Cornelius: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear Him and do what is right" (Acts 10:34-35). This declaration is not intended to teach that there are right-minded heathen who are saved by their good works or fine character.

It simply indicates Peter's awareness that God has accepted the heathen, equally with the Jews, as candidates for salvation, as they hear and respond to the gospel. Otherwise Peter could have terminated his remarks right at that point and walked out of the room, leaving them all to bask in their new understanding of the blessing of being already saved. On the contrary, Peter proceeded to preach to them about Jesus of Nazareth, His life of love and miracle-working power, and His atoning death and glorious resurrection (vv. 36-41).

Peter closed by giving an urgent missionary appeal to his heathen audience, that they should repent of their sins and put their trust in Jesus as their Savior. Here, then, we see Peter using once again the "keys of kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19) and opening the gateway of salvation to the lost, even as he had done at Pentecost in Acts 2. And by the grace of God, this is what we shall do, if we sincerely believe what the Bible so clearly teaches, that all men are lost without Christ and that no one has access to Christ except by hearing of Him and believing His words.

(As for children dying in infancy, see the discussion of Rom. 5:14: "those who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.")

In Romans 5:14 what is meant by "those who have not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression"?

Romans 5:12-14 reads: "Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law was given to Israel in the time of Moses] sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's offense, who is a type of Him who was to come [namely, Jesus]"....This passage clearly teaches that (1) in the case of man, created in the image of the immortal God, death was not a necessity of nature but a penalty for sin--that primal sin of disobedience committed by Adam and Eve at the very beginning of the human race; (2) the covenant was made with Adam, not only for himself but for all his descendants, and therefore his sin of partaking of the forbidden fruit involved not only himself but also all his posterity in a state of sin and death; (3) the penal consequences of that primal fall affect all mankind, even before the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, and before the first portion of Holy Scripture was revealed and committed to written form; and (4) because of that primal sin, death struck down all mankind, from the time of Adam down to the time of Moses--even those of Adam's descendants who had not consciously chosen to disobey God as Adam did.

This raises the question, Who of the human race have not like Adam consciously chosen to disobey God? Which of us have not personally repeated Adam's offense, on the basis of our own free will? The answer is, Not a mother's son of us--except for those who died in infancy, without becoming old enough to make a responsible moral decision. It may be 397

arguable how long this state of true innocence continues after a child has been born. All too soon parents come to realize the reality of the rebellious, Adamic nature in their infants; and they find themselves very early in the course of child-rearing speaking of their little ones as being "good" or "naughty" on that particular day. Nevertheless, whether a child may be regarded as culpably sinful when he throws his first tantrum, or whether later, when he enters the toddler stage, his Adamic ancestry is unmistakable. All too soon we recognize ourselves in him--or her!

Be that as it may, it is quite clear that at the very earliest stages of a child's life, he is fully innocent so far as his own moral manifestations are concerned. Nevertheless, as v.14 points out, death--which is for humans a penalty for sin-- "reigned" over the whole human race, even including those infants who, dying in infancy, had no opportunity to recapitulate Adam's fall. Yet they are clearly involved in Adam's guilt and in Adam's fall.

This raises the question Why should this be so? How can it be just to condemn a soul that has never personally, consciously sinned? The answer to this difficult question is to be found in the federal headship of Adam and in the foreseen potential of the infant who has been prematurely cut off. Romans 5 sets forth Adam and Christ as the two federal heads (or covenant representatives) of the human race. Adam was appointed the authorized representative of all mankind; Christ was appointed the authorized representative of redeemed mankind. The first representative responded to the covenant of works with an act of God-rejecting disobedience; the second representative responded to that covenant with a God-affirming act of obedience--His voluntary death on the cross as an atonement for the sin of fallen man--as a climax and seal of a perfectly sinless, law-keeping life.

Romans 5 teaches that the moral response of each federal head inured to all those who were embraced within the covenant--by the principle of imputation. Adam's sin was imputed to all his descendants--including infants dying in infancy--just as Christ's sinless obedience was reckoned to all those who by faith belong to Him. All the human race fell into sin and guilt through Adam's fall; but all those who are in Christ are redeemed through His righteousness, which is reckoned to their account by the grace of God, extended to all those who sincerely and savingly believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, as their Lord and Savior. Failure to accept the principle of the federal headship of Adam implies also a rejection of the federal headship of Christ. He who rejects his involvement in original sin (for this is what the federal headship of Adam implies) by the same token rejects the principle of justification by faith in Christ. The same passage teaches both; therefore he who rejects the one by implication rejects the other as well.

But in its application to children dying in infancy, a very serious problem arises in regard to salvation. If the benefits of Calvary are available only to one who repents and believes, what hope is there for an infant who dies before he is capable of repenting and believing? This leads us to the foreseen potential of the dying infant. That is to say, any infant who is permitted to live to the age of accountability will surely repeat the sin of Adam and thus recapitulate his fall on the basis of his own free will and voluntary choice, a choice for which he is fully responsible. But if the child who died in infancy had been 398

permitted to live, he would also have made some kind of response to the gracious offer of the gospel, whether by way of acceptance or rejection. God knows what is in the heart of man even before he is born. God said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you" (Jer. 1:5, NASB). God did not have to wait and see how Jeremiah would respond before He chose him. The same was true of John the Baptist (Luke 1:13-15) and of the messianic Servant of the Lord (Isa.

49:1). If then God knows in advance what each child will do and how he will respond when he reaches the age of moral decision, there is every reason to believe that God knows how every child will respond to His call and whether or not he would embrace His offer of redeeming grace.

Therefore it may be considered a necessary inference (although there may be no explicit teaching in Scripture on this particular point) from God's foreknowledge of the future response of each child that He also knows what would be his response if he were permitted to live long enough to make that response. We therefore conclude that all infants dying in infancy are dealt with in accordance with this principle of the foreseen potential.

We close with an observation about the commonly entertained view that
all
children who die in infancy are automatically saved, since they have not committed any sin. This opinion, however kindly and well-intentioned it may be, suffers from two serious objections. First, it in effect amounts to a rejection of the doctrine of original sin as taught in Romans 5, for it presupposes that we come into the world as sinless and free from guilt as if Adam had never fallen--a clear contradiction of scriptural teaching on this matter.

Second, this doctrine of the universal salvation of all children dying in infancy leads to a rather horrifying moral dilemma for every parent. That is to say, if dying in infancy insures the safe passage of one's child to heaven--whereas he might well reject the Lord in later life and thus end up in hell--then it becomes almost obligatory for each parent to strangle his child as soon as it is born--and thus all abortionists are performing a good work! Even though a parent who practices infanticide may be technically guilty of murder, his motive for the deed greatly diminishes (even if it may not altogether eliminate) the guilt that would otherwise attach to that monstrous crime. Is it conceivable that God would so order His moral universe as to furnish a special motive of a most benevolent sort for each parent to slay his infant child before it attains the age of accountability? Yet this is the inescapable consequence of the doctrine of the universal salvation of infants dying in infancy.

In light of all these factors, a far better statement is that found in the Westminster Confession (x.3): "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word"--that is the mentally incompetent.

Was Pharaoh really responsible for his rebellion against God, according to Romans
9:17?

399

Romans 9 is largely devoted to a discussion of God's sovereign grace and how it operates in relation to both the elect (i.e., those who are chosen unto salvation) and the nonelect (those who are not thus chosen). This principle of free and sovereign grace is set in contrast to the other principle, that of earning salvation by good works. It first arises in connection with God's choice of Jacob and rejection of Esau even before those twins were born (v.13). Then it arises in connection with the Pharaoh of the Exodus, concerning whom God said, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth" (v.17, NASB; a quotation from Exod. 9:16).

At this point Paul raises the familiar objection that has been raised ever since: "You will say to me then, `Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?'" (Rom. 9:19, NASB). He then responds to it by adducing two considerations: (1) the finite creature, who has derived all his moral understanding from his infinite Creator, is utterly incompetent to sit in judgment on Him or question His administration of justice (v.20).

(2) God knows best how to display His glory in His dealings with both classes of men:

"the vessels of wrath" (v.22) and "the vessels of mercy" (v.23). Pharaoh in his arrogant defiance of the God of the Hebrews (Exod. 5:2) represents the vessels of wrath. God endured his defiance, blasphemy, and repeated violations of his promises toward Israel; and God granted him one opportunity after another to let the Hebrews leave Egypt without major loss of life. But finally when His patience was up, and Pharaoh had forfeited all right to expect Israel's return to Egypt (after holding a religious celebration away from the land), the Lord poured out His wrath on Pharaoh and the entire nation of the Egyptians. Every first-born child of every family (even the herds and flocks throughout the domain of Pharaoh)--including the crown prince himself--was taken by death on the night of the first Passover.

As for the "vessels of mercy," these did not comprise "good" people necessarily who earned God's favor by their exemplary lives and virtuous character. On the contrary, these vessels consisted of true believers, both Jew and Gentile, who came to terms with the call of God by their response of repentance and faith (Rom. 9:23-24). Paul finally concludes this topic with the following observation concerning the grace of God: "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel [by which he means that majority of the Jews, who refused the claims of Christ], pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works"