 |
| Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com) |
Merry Christmas!
Blogging is not generally a forum for a long or exhaustive presentation and I can write on similar topics in posts over time. Sunday after church, a discussion arose concerning the salvation of children, in other words non-adults, or persons that do not have the mental competence of an adult.
Erickson
Millard Erickson, a Baptist and Calvinist theologian within the Reformed tradition, explains the doctrine of original sin, based on Romans 5:12-19. Paul is arguing that death in the human race is the consequence of the sin of Adam. Erickson (1994: 636). This is universal and for all humankind. Erickson (1994: 636). Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling describe original sin as the state in which all human beings are born. The first humans became unrighteous because of sin against God. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87). Erickson explains that infants begin life with a corrupted nature and guilt as a consequence of sin. Erickson (1994: 637). He cautiously reasons that they are not condemned to everlasting hell since they never reach a level of moral competence. Erickson (1994: 638). He writes that Jesus did not regard children as basically sinful and guilty as they were held out as examples of the type of people that would inherit the Kingdom of God, as in Matthew 18:3, 19:14. Erickson (1994: 638). Erickson deduces that children are not under God’s condemnation for sin until attaining an age of responsibility in moral and spiritual matters. Erickson (1994: 638). If the child dies he/she would be regenerated, as all believers need to be from his/her sinful state. The child will experience the same future existence as others that reached the age of moral responsibility and received salvation. Erickson (1994: 639).
For deceased children and those who are persons that are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably competent point of consciously rejecting God, and reasonable understanding of the punishment for this rebellion, they may be regenerated by God and included within the culminated Kingdom of God after death. I would view this as reasonable speculation. Biblically persons appear to be judged for sins, which result from a sinful nature, and not for the sinful nature itself. In Revelation 20:12, those persons who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged for their deeds, and therefore persons are judged for deeds and not nature. Mounce states here that no one is so important to be immune from judgment, and no one is so unimportant to make judgment inappropriate. Mounce (1990: 365). A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds.
Those within Reformed Covenant theology traditions, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others, often hold to concepts that children of believers are saved, if they die before the age of accountability. G.N.M. Collins writes that Reformed confessions believe in the possibility of infants being saved. Collins (1996: 560). There is the understanding that all elect children will be saved, despite the incapability of response. Collins (1996: 560). The children have no claim to salvation themselves, but receive the same sovereign grace as elected adults. Collins (1996: 560).
In contrast
I have previously presented this contrasting view within the comments of the Infant Baptism article. It could be stated within Reformed tradition, at least, that children and the mentally deficient outside of the New Covenant of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged according to deeds within their limited knowledge. Since children and all persons have corrupt natures, they do sin, and therefore could be everlastingly judged for these deeds and a nature which opposes God's, without having a competent understanding of God they are rejecting and the punishment they are receiving. It is possible that their punishment shall be at the level of limited understanding. I view this as a theological possibility that cannot be overlooked. But, the concept of everlasting separation in the New Testament appears to be one of God separating those from his presence that embraced their sinful nature and committed sinful deeds with a definite, competent and not largely deficient understanding. My personal deduction is that when persons with normal mental abilities reach adulthood, or the age of adult like mental competence, they are candidates for God’s judgment. This age of accountability could occur at an earlier age, but I reason that most persons are generally still rather childlike in the early teens.
COLLINS, G.N.M. (1996) ‘Infant Salvation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/12/blue-santa.html
Hi Russ, I think the WCF is pretty clear on this point. I wasn't sure what your POV is exactly, as I know you were quoting Erikson alot:
ReplyDeleteIII. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
(Chapter X)
FYI, I believe that was how I was called too, owing to the cognitive, affects of my illness.
Thanks, Deejay.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the information. I expect to see quite a bit of agreement on these issues with Christians, and within the Reformed camp, Baptists, Presbyterians and others.
Likewise....... Take care and keep-up the great blogging too!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteLater,
JME
Hi Russ.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a bit of a topic of discussion down under for some years. Some people I know take a very hard line but I'm pretty much agreed with what you wrote Russ. Blessings mate.
Russell.
Thanks, Russell.
ReplyDeleteA hard line is questionable to take on these secondary speculative issues. We need to prayerfully ponder.
Russ:)
I agree with prayerful pondering on this issue.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas. Praying that your time in Canada is wonderschon.
Blessings on your year.
Thank you. Greater Vancouver has been a fine home for me, and it is good to be near friends and family.
ReplyDeleteRuss,
ReplyDeleteHere's my view- God is good, his lovingkindness is everlasting.
There....that's it. The scripture is unclear about this topic, but I trust God's goodness to make me content with whatever answer he gives. Happy New Year!
Thanks, Mike.
ReplyDeleteThose are good points. Since there is no clear-cut Biblical teaching, reasonable various views presented are rather speculative and therefore there is no need to be dogmatic.
Happy New Year:)
Russ
God is Good and Creator of all people. When it comes to children being saved, God is Just and Merciful and His Grace in Christ is Amazing and Awesome. Ultimately God will know what to do and His Will will be done. At the end of the day, God knows what He's doing, it will all work out, because God is Omnipotent, Sovereign, and Good.
ReplyDelete-Simple Trust-
Thanks, Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what God does, based on the Bible, it will be good and just.
Russ
An interesting view on this subject by Dr. John MacArthur (friend or R.C.
ReplyDeleteSproul) and others:
About the time of the Renaissance, Bible scholars began to look at the Bible
according to the trend of the day which was to be more scientific about
things. They began to use a grammatical, historical, literal hermeneutic.
They took the words of the text and analyzed them grammatically to determine
how grammatical structure would affect the meaning. They looked at the
passage in the literary context and the historical/cultural context and
tried to see if there was a straightforward literal meaning that made sense.
From this change in the hermeneutical method came the Protestant
Reformation. Luther, Calvin, and others recognized that authority did not
come from the Church. It came from scripture. They recognized errors in the
doctrines of the Roman Catholic church and so they protested its practices
and its doctrine. When the Catholic church refused to reform, they left the
church. As they began writing to defend and define Protestantism, doctrines
such as Covenant Theology were born. However, you must remember that they
had over 1,000 years of bad theology to overcome, and one doesn’t study the
Bible and form his theology in a vacuum. It is a gradual process and very
difficult to change one’s view. So, while they were busy changing their
doctrine of salvation, they didn’t see any problems with things like infant
baptism, or more applicable to our study, they didn’t see a need to change
the doctrine that the Church replaced Israel in God’s plan of salvation.
You will often hear people try to defend this view or that view by saying
that their view is older and therefore more orthodox, that it can be traced
back to the early church fathers, etc. But that doesn’t necessarily make it
correct. You have to understand church history and understand what
sociological and cultural issues existed that helped to shape that doctrine.
Sometimes, when you understand the history, it helps you look at the
doctrine more objectively. However, you must remember that even though we
may not be affected by the same cultural issues that were issues back then,
we have our own cultural issues which will keep us from being truly
objective. It is a complex task.
In the debate between Covenant and Dispensational theology, both claim to
use a literal hermeneutic. And both have developed a systematic theology
from the text that deals with most of the passages literally. The problem
comes when you run across a passage that doesn’t fit literally into your
theological grid. When this happens, the tendency is to fall back on your
theology and spiritualize the text in some way to make it fit.
************************************
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:
First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no
external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace
through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16;
Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.).
If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed
whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case,
however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts
2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts
3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin
to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin,
why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?
Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1
Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he
preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states
that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus
clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to
understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of
the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done
Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved.
Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in
no way efficacious for salvation.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary
for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record
of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their
sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed
them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2),
and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart
from baptism.
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being
baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted
through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is
evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the
Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had
received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize
them (cf. v. 47).
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia
scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare
Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense.
And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a
specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be
rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that
baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no
individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for
interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general
teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some
passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.
In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But
there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not
connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the
Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for."
It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also
possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from
that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is
singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that
interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you
be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins."
Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with
the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18;
Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).
Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for
salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for
condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the
failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse
because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief.
I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv.
9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the
textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the
passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William
Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21.
The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word
baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water
baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39;
Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2;
12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not
the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion
in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good
conscience," or repentance.
I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I
see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1
Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you
to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on
Galatians 3 and Romans 6.
In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his
experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your
sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your
sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the
Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's
sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.
Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the
New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm
********************************
Does the Bible teach baptism by emersion or by sprinkling?
Emersion is the act of submerging the body underwater. Sprinkling is the
act of just sprinkling water on the
head of an individual. Let us see what the bible promote...
Matt 3:6
"And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." John choose a
place were there was much water.
Matt 3:13-16
"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest
thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for
thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And
Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:"
Dear reader, the bible says that Jesus went up out of the water. It is
logical to conclude that he was under the water. This he did setting an
example for us to follow.
John 3:23
"And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much
water there: and they came, and were baptized."
Dear reader, here we see that John continued in the teaching of the holy
spirit where baptism by emersion is concerned. He choose Aenon because
there was much water there for the act of emersion.
Acts 8:36-39
"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the
eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into
the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they
were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,
that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."
Dear reader, the spirit of the Lord instructed Philip to baptize the eunuch
via emersion. They both went down into the water. Philip submerge the
eunuch's body under the water giving him a proper burial. We understand
that emersion is the bible way, but is there any other reason for this
method. Yes there is. Can you breath under water? No we cannot. Emersion
symbolizes death and the coming up from the water, our new birth.
Romans 6:3-11
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into
death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Dear reader, Christ died and went to the grave. Emersion is symbolic of
going into a watery grave. As Christ raised from the dead/grave, likewise
the coming up from the water symbolize our resurrection and new life
experience.
http://www.centurionministry.org/spirit/baptism.htm
********************************
Baptism in water was first practiced by John the Baptist at the beginning of
the New Testament period. Jesus and His disciples practiced it (Jn 4:1). The
early church in the book of Acts practiced it (Acts 2,8,9,10,16). Church
history shows that baptism has been the practice of Christians down through
the centuries. The next step after conversion is to be baptized in water to
show outwardly what has happened inwardly. No one can see what happens in
your heart when you receive Jesus Christ and become a Christian but they can
see it when you are baptized in water as a public profession of your faith.
THE MEANING OF BAPTISM
Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ
(Rom. 6:1-9). When we are baptized we identify with Him. It also shows our
death to the old life of sin and that we are burying it in a watery grave.
Coming up out of the water shows the new person coming up to live a new life
in Christ (Rom. 6:3-4).
Through Christ's death, burial and resurrection we are saved. This is the
way He paid for our sins. That is the heart of the Gospel message (I Cor.
15:1-4). When we are baptized it shows that we are trusting in this message
for our salvation.
Baptism shows your obedience to Christ. It shows you want to be like Him and
you are following His example. Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river by
John the Baptist. Of course, He was not baptized to be saved or to wash away
sin. He was baptized to set the example for us. When we are baptized it
shows we are following His example. We are not baptized to be saved or to
wash away sin but in obedience to our Lord and to show our faith in Him.
THE METHOD OR MODE OF BAPTISM
It takes water to be baptized Scripturally. John the Baptist said, "I indeed
baptize you with water" (Matt. 3:11). When the Ethiopian was saved, he said,
"Here is water. What hinders me from being baptized" (Acts 8:36).
It also takes much water. The Bible says, "John also was baptizing in Aenon
because there was much water there" (Jn 3:23). You must also go "down into
the water" as Philip and the Ethiopian did in Acts 8:38. The Bible tells us
we must be "buried" and "planted" in the water (Rom. 6:4-5). Of course, this
is speaking of emersion or being dipped under the water. The word "baptism"
means to dip or plunge beneath the water. After the baptism you come up out
of the water as Philip and the Ethiopian did (Acts 8:38). After the baptism
of Jesus, the Bible says He came up out of the water (Matt. 3:16).
So we see it takes water, much water, a going down into the water, a
planting or burial in water and a coming up out of the water. Then, and only
then, do we have a Bible baptism.
THE MUST OF BAPTISM
Baptism is not essential for salvation. It is not a part of salvation.
Rather it is for people who are already saved through faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ. Only those who were saved were baptized in the Bible. Then why
is it so important? Because we are commanded to be baptized by the Lord
Jesus (Matt. 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16). If we refuse baptism after we are
saved then we disobey Christ's command.
CONCLUSION
Baptism is mentioned many times in the New Testament. Jesus was baptized.
The New Testament preachers practiced baptism. The new Testament converts
were baptized. We are to do likewise. The Apostle Paul explained to the
churches what baptism was and how to do it. Certainly in all of this God is
telling us to be baptized. It is the right thing to do.
http://www.communitybaptistchurch.com/Library/baptism.html
********************************
"Is Biblical Baptism by Immersion or Sprinkling?"
Which is the biblical way to be baptized, full emersion or sprinkling? My
friend and I who have been discussing this would like to know your opinion.
We all follow the immersion tradition. The best arguments I have found, and
to which we would subscribe as well, come from the Bible.org website:
1.. Immersion is the primary meaning of the Greek word baptizo.
2.. The normal understanding of the prepositions “into” and “out of” (the
water) would indicate that immersion was practiced.
3.. The baptism practiced on a proselyte to Judaism was a total immersion
(though self-performed), and this would indicate that Christian baptism
followed the same customary mode (though performed by another).
4.. Immersion best pictures the significance of baptism which is death to
the old life and resurrection to the new life (cf. Romans 6:1-4).
5.. Immersion was the universal practice of the early church. Every
instance in the NT either demands or permits it.
6.. The Greek language has words for pour and sprinkle, but these are
never used of baptism.
http://www.probe.org/docs/e-baptism4.html
********************************
The Christian Church's Response
Infant Baptism
Historically, the church from at least the second century has baptised
children and babies. This approach is known as paedo (i.e. infant) baptism.
This is the position today in all Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant
churches, including the Anglican Church of England, Methodists and
Presbyterians. This position is supported by many evangelical members of
Protestant denominations (past and present), including such well-known
figures as Luther, Wesley, John Newton, John Stott and Michael Green.
Evangelical Anglicans and others would generally see baptism as the
equivalent to OT circumcision. This being instrumental in including the
child in the Kingdom of God, but requiring a later individual response from
the person. (This is recognised at confirmation, where the candidate
'confirms' promises previous made on their behalf by others). Consequently,
continuity between the Old and New Testaments 'sacraments' of circumcision
and baptism is stressed.
Believer's Baptism
Alternatively, since the Reformation, there have been some Protestant
churches, probably the best known being the Baptism denomination, who have
regarded NT baptism as being closely linked to an individual's faith. Most
new churches, including the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have
adopted the position of 'Believer's Baptism'. Among the best known
'baptists' are William Carey, Spurgeon, and Billy Graham.
Few 'baptist' churches actually practise baptism immediately following
conversion, as we see in the NT. Instead they prefer a period of instruction
on Christian basics. Stress is also laid on the "witnessing" aspect of the
ceremony as opposed to initiation into the church.
Baptists do not see a link between OT male circumcision and NT universal
baptism, nor do they seek to separate grace and faith. From this viewpoint
baptism of young children is not possible. Generally, however, some form of
'thanksgiving' and welcoming children into the church is, however,
practised. (Nobody is suggesting that the parents of Baptists treat there
children any differently than non-Baptists!)
http://www.bjnewlife.org/english/bstudy/faq_23.php
************************************
Historical and Hermeneutical Issues
Historical Issues
I want to take a few minutes and discuss the history and hermeneutics of the
debate because at the heart of the debate between Covenant Theology and
Dispensationalism is the issue of hermeneutics.
The word hermeneutic is a seminary word which means “one’s method of
interpreting the bible.” In the first few centuries, the church fathers,
beginning with Origen (A.D. 185-254), used an allegorical method of
interpretation. The allegorical method did not interpret the scriptures
literally. It looked for a deeper, spiritual meaning. For example, Origen
wrote,
Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false
opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God,
appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture
according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably
to the mere letter.5
Actually, just the opposite is true. His system of interpretation allowed
him and others to make the scriptures mean anything they wanted within their
theological framework.
How does this affect our topic of study? When God makes a promise to Israel
in the Old Testament, the allegorical method allows the interpreter to
spiritualize it and say that it wasn’t a promise that would be literally
fulfilled. Instead it was fulfilled in a spiritual manner in the church.
Later, Constantine, the Roman emperor who established Christianity as the
universal religion, got involved in church matters. In his letter to the
churches over the Passover Controversy, he referred to the Jews as “polluted
wretches,” whose hands were “stained … with a nefarious crime,” “parricides
and murders of our Lord.”6 In a letter to the churches concerning the
correct time to observe Easter, he wrote, “it becomes us to have nothing in
common with the perfidious Jews.”7
This shows us that an anti-semitic spirit in the church existed and the
church no longer viewed salvation as being “to the Jew first” as Rom 1:16
says.8 The church viewed themselves as being the new Israel. This
anti-semitic spirit, along with the allegorical method of interpretation
caused and allowed theologians to view the Church as the replacement of
Israel. This doctrine was perpetuated for the next 1000 years.
http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/dispen/ct.htm
************************************
Note: This e-mail was not sent by anyone connected with the Baptist
denomination.
P.S. I'm an officer in a PCA
ReplyDeletechurch also:O)
The purpose of this in not to encourage one denomination over the other
ReplyDeletebut to encourage you to KNOW your Bible.
*****************************************************
Infant Baptism, Age of Accountability, Dedication of Children
What is your position concerning the baptism of children, their security
in the Kingdom, and the practice of dedicating them to the Lord?
According to the Bible, everyone (adult or child) who recognizes his or her
need of a Savior and then repents and believes in Christ should be baptized
(Acts 2:38,41; 8:36-38). But in the Scripture there is no record of infants
or very young children being baptized. This is because they are not yet able
to understand the need of a Savior.
Yet God places a high priority on children. When asked who is the greatest
in the kingdom of God, Jesus responded, "Unless you change and become like
children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3). God’s
love for children is also shown in the Old Testament. In Leviticus the Lord
specifically prohibited the people of Israel from offering their children as
a sacrifice to the pagan god, Molech (Leviticus 20:1-5). It seems fair to
conclude that if God forbade children from being sacrificed, He would not
order those same children to be placed in the eternal fire of hell. From
these Scriptures the Assemblies of God believes that children are loved by
God, and until they come to an age of understanding (some call it "the age
of accountability"), they have a place in the kingdom of God. This means
that should a child die before developing to a point where the knowledge of
Christ can be understood and applied through forgiveness, the child would
inherit eternal life in heaven as an heir of God’s kingdom .
In Luke 2 we see the parents of the baby Jesus taking Him to the temple "to
present Him to the Lord" (Luke 2:22). Later the Gospels tell us that little
children and infants were brought to Jesus for Him to touch them and bless
them (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17). In following this
practice, Assemblies of God churches encourage parents to publicly dedicate
their children to the Lord. This is usually done in a church service. In
dedicating their child the parents acknowledge the child as a gift from God
and vow before Him and the congregation to set a godly example for the child
and a commitment to lead the child to Christ at an early age.
CONCERNS:
Some who have accepted Christ as adults wonder if the baptism they received
as infants fulfills the New Testament mandate of water baptism (1 Peter
3:21). We believe baptism in water is to follow salvation (acceptance of
Christ and His forgiveness of our sins) as demonstrated in the New
Testament. For this reason we urge all new converts to follow the
biblical pattern of water baptism in obedience to Christ.
http://www.ag.org/top/beliefs/christian_doctrines/gendoct_11_accountability.cfm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age of Accountability:
http://www.biblebell.org/accountability.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Rapture Question:
The Rapture of the church involves all believers being caught up to
heaven -- those just resurrected, together with those alive at the time (1
Thes 4:13-18). If it occurs at the beginning of the tribulation period, then
clearly Christs Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation to rescue Israel
in the midst of Armageddon is a separate event. According to Zechariah
14:3-5, "all the saints" must accompany Christ back to earth. But if the
Rapture occurs at the end of the Tribulation, it must be simultaneous with
the Second Coming, making them one event. Which is it: two events separated
by seven years, or one event with two diverse purposes?
This question, though it has nothing to do with the gospel of salvation,
divides much of the evangelical church. Happily, it can be settled rather
easily. The descriptions in Scripture of the Rapture and Second Coming
respectively are so different in so many details that they could not
possibly be describing the same occurrence. We cant cover all of these
distinctions, but here are a few:
1) At the Rapture, Christ does not return to earth but catches believers up
to meet Him above the earth, taking them directly to heaven: "I will come
again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also"
(Jn 14:3); "caught up...to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be
with the Lord" (1 Thes 4:17).
In contrast, at the Second Coming Christ returns to this earth to rule
Israel and the world from Davids throne in Jerusalem: "his feet shall stand
in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem" (Zec 14:4);
"the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he
shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall
be no end" (Lk 1:32, 33); "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white
horse; and he that sat upon him....The armies which are in heaven followed
him....Out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite
the nations: and shall rule them with a rod of iron" (Rv 19:11-15).
2) At the Rapture there is a resurrection of all believers who have died up
to that time: "the dead shall be raised incorruptible" (1 Cor 15:52, 53);
"the dead in Christ shall rise first..." (1 Thes 4:16).
In contrast, at the Second Coming there is no resurrection until Antichrist
is defeated, he and the false prophet have been "cast alive into a lake of
fire" (Rv 19:20) and Satan has been bound in the "bottomless pit [for] a
thousand years" (20:1-3) -- none of which is even remotely related to the
rapture of believers to heaven. Then, to "the first resurrection" which
occurred at the Rapture are added a unique group: "them that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not
worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon
their foreheads, or in their hands...they lived and reigned with Christ a
thousand years" (4, 5).
3) At the Rapture, the bodies of living believers (like those who are
resurrected) will be changed to become immortal: "We shall not all sleep
[i.e., die], but we shall all be changed...the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we [who are living] shall be changed. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality" (1 Cor 15:51-53); "we which are alive...shall be caught up
together with them [the resurrected saints]...to meet the Lord in the air
[clearly requiring immortal bodies]" (1 Thes 4:17).
In contrast, at the Second Coming all of the saints return with Christ from
heaven and will therefore already have been changed into immortality: "the
Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee" (Zec 14:5); "I saw
heaven opened [and one] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood...and the
armies which were in heaven followed him [to] smite the nations" (Rv
19:11-15).
4) The Rapture occurs during relative peace and prosperity, when the world
does not expect judgment from God: "And as it was in the days of Noah [the
last thing they expected was Gods judgment]...they did eat, they
drank...married wives...were given in marriage [and as in] the days of
Lot...they bought, they sold...planted... builded....Even thus shall it be
in the day when the Son of man is revealed." (Lk 17:26-30).
Again in complete contrast, the Second Coming occurs in the midst of the
worst war the world has ever seen and following the greatest devastation
this planet has ever suffered or ever will: "then shall be great
tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world...nor ever
shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh
be saved" (Mt 24:21, 22); "behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him
was Death, and Hell followed...power was given unto them over the fourth
part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger....There was a great
earthquake...every mountain and island were moved out of their
places...[men] hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks...for the great
day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?" (Rv 6:8-17); "and
the four angels were loosed...to slay the third part of men" (9:15); "and
the...sea...became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in
the sea. And...the rivers and fountains of waters...became blood...the
fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and...men were scorched with
great heat...and...there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men
were upon the earth....And every island fled away and the mountains were not
found. And there fell upon men a great hail [of large stones]...every stone
about the weight of a talent" (16:3-21); "And I saw heaven opened, and
behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and
True....And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses,
clothed in fine linen....And I saw the beast [Antichrist], and the kings of
the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that
sat upon the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and...the
false prophet [and they] were cast alive into a lake of fire..." (19:11-21).
5) The Rapture occurs when conditions in the world seem to indicate that all
is well, when very few expect Christ to return and He catches even the
church by surprise: "of that day and hour knoweth no man...in such an hour
as ye think not the Son of man cometh" (Mt 24:36, 44).
In contrast, when the Second Coming occurs, not even Antichrist is caught by
surprise -- the many visible signs alert everyone that Christ is right at
the door: "when ye shall see all these things, know that it [Christs coming]
is near, even at the doors" (Mt 24:33); "the beast, and the kings of the
earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat
on the horse" (Rv 19:19).
6) The Rapture occurs when the church is sleeping, with little expectation
of the Lords return: "While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and
slept" (Mt 25:5); "Watch ye therefore...lest coming suddenly he find you
sleeping" (Mk 13:35, 36).
In contrast, the Second Coming occurs at the end of the Tribulation in the
midst of worldwide devastation and hopeless distress; the Antichrist and his
armies are attacking Israel, much of Jerusalem is already captured (Zec
14:1, 2), and Israel is on the verge of annihilation. It is inconceivable
that the church, if it were still here, would be slumbering in complacency
and under the delusion that "surely Christ wouldnt come now"!
7) Since the Rapture instantly takes us, without dying, out of this world of
sin, pain and sorrow to be forever with Christ and like Him, never more to
grieve Him, it is called the "blessed hope": "Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
(Ti 2:13); "every man that hath this hope" (1 Jn 3:3).
In contrast, the Second Coming (or a post-trib rapture at that time) could
hardly be called a "blessed hope," inasmuch as very few Christians (if the
church were still here) would survive to enjoy it. Having refused to receive
the 666 mark of the beast "in their right hand, or in their forehead" and
therefore being unable to "buy or sell," and refusing to "worship the image
of the beast [they would] be killed" (Rv 13:15-17). It makes no sense to
suggest that if you can secretly eat out of enough garbage pails to avoid
starvation and still keep one step ahead of Antichrists world police death
squads, "Blessed hope! Youll be raptured at Armageddon!"
8) As for the Rapture, unquestionably, the early church was taught to expect
it at any moment and to eagerly watch, wait and look for Christs return,
when He will catch all believers up into His Fathers house to be with Him
eternally: "Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; And ye
yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord..." (Lk 12:35, 36); "For
our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the
Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned
like unto his glorious body" (Phil 3:20); "...ye turned to God from idols to
serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven...even
Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come" (1 Thes 1:9, 10); "looking
for that blessed hope" (Ti 2:13); "unto them that look for him shall he
appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (Heb 9:28). One does not
watch, wait and look each day for something that cannot happen until
Antichrists advent or the end of a seven-year tribulation. Thus, there must
be a coming of Christ that could happen at any moment.
In contrast, the Second Coming, by very definition as described in
Scripture, cannot be expected momentarily. Therefore, none of the scriptures
just quoted concerning watching and waiting and looking for the Lord could
refer to the Second Coming or to a post-trib rapture of the church. These
scriptures could therefore refer only to a pre-trib rapture.
9) The pre-trib Rapture has a powerful, purifying effect upon those who have
this hope in Him. The fact that it is to be expected at any moment can only
mean that it must come before Antichrist is revealed and before the
Tribulation. If Christ could come at any moment, there is no time to waste,
no time to delay witnessing, no time to indulge in sin with the idea of
repenting and changing ones ways later: "And now, little children, abide in
him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed
before him at his coming" (1 Jn 2:28); "And every man that hath this hope in
him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" (3:3).
In contrast, anticipation of the Second Coming (or a post-trib rapture at
that time) could hardly have a purifying effect, because it cant take place
for at least seven years -- plenty of time to delay witnessing, getting
right with the Lord and holy living until later. In fact, the Lord said that
believing he couldnt come at any moment would have the opposite effect from
purifying believers: "If that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his
coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants...and to eat and drink and
to be drunken; the lord of that servant will come at an hour when he is not
aware (Mt 24:48, 49; Lk 12:45, 46).
10) The Rapture is not only an event that we are to expect momentarily and
to eagerly anticipate, but we are to ask our Lord to come immediately. Here
is how the Bible ends: "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come....Surely I
come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rv 22:17, 20).
In contrast, the Second Coming is not of such a nature and timing that we
could ask Christ to effect it right now. Since Christ obviously cannot
return to the earth in judgment to rescue Israel, stop the destruction at
Armageddon and destroy the Antichrist along with his kingdom and his armies
until the end of the Tribulation, for us to cry out to Christ, "Come, Lord
Jesus!" would be like demanding payment on a debt that isnt due for seven
years. Yet, "the Spirit and the bride" do cry out, "Come, Lord Jesus." We
can only conclude that there must be a coming of Christ that could occur at
any moment. It cannot be the Second Coming or a post-trib rapture. It can
only be a pre-trib rapture.
11) There are at least two events which occur in heaven for which the church
must be present and which, therefore, cannot take place until the Rapture
occurs: the judgment seat of Christ, and the marriage of the Lamb to His
bride: "for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" (Rom
14:10); "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that
every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath
done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor 5:10); "the marriage of the Lamb is
come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted [to] be
arrayed in fine linen, clean and white [as a result of her cleansing at the
judgment seat of Christ]" (Rv 19:7, 8). Both these events occur prior to
Christs return to earth and thus demand a prior rapture.
It is clear that the Second Coming cannot occur until these two vital
events, which demand the presence of the church in heaven, have taken place.
It is only after the Lamb has been married to His bride that she accompanies
Him back to earth to rescue Israel and to destroy Antichrist and his armies:
"And the armies which were in heaven followed him...clothed in fine linen,
white and clean" (Rv 19:14).
We know not why the Bridegroom tarries, but exactly as He foretold, the
church is asleep. In that context, our Lord added: "And at midnight there
was a cry made, Behold the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him" (Mt
25:6). May each of us be listening eagerly for that cry of the Holy Spirit
in our hearts. Indeed, we ought to be sounding it aloud, for the Lord could
come at any moment to take us to Himself. So let us watch and wait and look
for Him in eager anticipation -- and encourage others to do the same. It
will have a purifying and motivating effect in our lives.
http://www.thebereancall.org
**********************************************************
The Virus
This Monday started like most any day but would end anything but
typical. The Weather Channel forecasted mild atmospheric conditions
(even for November) but unfolding events would soon challenge and
startle mankind as never before.
In an elaborate government building somewhere in Rome, a multitude
of dedicated world renowned computer and technology experts studied
The Virus that had already secretly infected 98% of the planet's
computers in its first stage. Up to this point, none outside this edifice
had ascertained the existence of the silent menace.
In Jerusalem, heavy crowds were milling around The Dome of the Rock,
the third holiest site to Muslims worldwide. On the other side of the
Wall, a larger than expected crowd of Jewish worshipers prayed even
as portions of the wall continued to collapse.
In New York City, the Stock Market opened slightly higher while
down in Washington - Pentagon officials poured their second cup
of Maxwell House Decaf. Further south, the last edition of The
Atlanta Journal was being prepared while further west, parents
turned toward their offices after depositing their children at school.
Work halted temporarily in the government building as the new
dynamic and charismatic leader's entourage entered. He spoke
over the JBL sound system. "Good associates, The Virus is
scheduled to be released as planned in two stages. Stage one as
you know affects all the world's primary computers while the
second will decrease the excess occupiers that have so strained
our fragile environment. Both will begin to take effect within the
hour thanks to your hard work." He will later become Time Magazine's
"Man of the Year".
Unexpected to those in Rome, The Wall in Jerusalem collapses and
thousands of Muslims lose their lives along with hundreds of Jewish
worshipers. The Dome of the Rock along with all nearby buildings of the
Islamic Faith disappear into rubble. Within moments a very great riot com-
mences with each side blaming the other. Syria (with Iraq's lost WMD)
& Iran ready their hidden nuclear arsenal.
With a new surprising show of unity in Beijing, Hanoi, Jakarta, Tokyo,
Pyongyang, New Delhi along with other Far East capitals, 200 million
multi-asian troops are placed on alert. Moscow prepares its revived
army for an eventual march south....very far south.
Stage one hits Wall Street, the Pentagon, Main Street and homes across
America as well as the entire Western World. Business stops as all funds -
the complete wealth of the Industrialized World - is transferred by computer
virus via the web to Rome. All modern military weapons are now under the
new leader's absolute command as well as the world's media (Rule of Rome
once again).
As the second stage of The Virus is released, millions will become sick and
die with a highly infectious disease stronger that the SARS & Ebola viruses
combined. Fortunately for some, certain large groups of people have been
quietly immunized earlier. Millions of Christians disappear at 5 PM EST
(Midnight in Jerusalem) virtually unnoticed because of the pandemonium.
The controlled media is not allowed to print this story. The President is
declared lost because Air Force One is down over the Atlantic according
to managed reports but did his aircraft ever leave Andrews Air Force
Base? Is this a cover up from Rome to perhaps hide his evanescence
also? Other prominent members of the President's Party are missing
but from the other side? Exiguous.
This disappearance will go virtually unnoticed because of the manipulated
media and its potentate who controls also the world's assets &
armaments - the ultimate coup de tat - all without a shot being fired. He
will woo the planet, restore peace to the Middle East for a short time
with false promises of protection as well as rebuild a new Jewish
Temple on the destroyed site. The Islamic world will cheer
because their faith has expected this great new leader. With an appearance
before nearly all mankind live on all media (TV, radio, & even computers
on-line), men, women, and children are mesmerized. Stay tuned...
I liked your cartoons so much that
ReplyDeleteI borrowed them (with credit to
your great site)!!!
Thanks for the comments, Professor.
ReplyDeleteYou will often hear people try to defend this view or that view by saying that their view is older and therefore more orthodox, that it can be traced back to the early church fathers, etc. But that doesn’t necessarily make it correct.
I reason that the authority of Church Fathers does not equal the authority of Scripture.
And both have developed a systematic theology from the text that deals with most of the passages literally. The problem comes when you run across a passage that doesn’t fit literally into your theological grid. When this happens, the tendency is to fall back on your theology and spiritualize the text in some way to make it fit.
Yes, eisegesis is always a potential problem, which is reading theology into a Biblical text.
I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv.9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.
Good point.
Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Agreed.
Does the Bible teach baptism by emersion or by sprinkling?
This is a debatable subject, even if one accepts believer's baptism.
R.S. Rayburn (PhD Aberdeen) states:
Rayburn
Modes of Baptism
Advanced Information
There are, generally speaking, two opinions regarding the proper manner of administering baptism: that only immersion is lawful and that the mode is a matter of indifference. It would not be correct to identify the immersionist as the Baptist position, for some Baptists do not accept the necessity of immersion. The early Anabaptists as a rule baptized by pouring, and still today certain writers who strongly condemn infant baptism are indifferent as to mode (e.g., Karl Barth).
The immersionist position is founded on three arguments.
(1) It is argued that the word baptizein means "to immerse" and therefore the command to baptize is itself a command to immerse. Baptizein in classical usage generally meant "to dip." Immersionists maintain that this meaning continues unaltered in NT usage and that this is confirmed by the use of the prepositions "in" and "into" with baptizein and by certain circumstantial references to baptism being administered in places where large supplies of water could be found (Luke 3:3; John 3:23).
(2) Because baptism signifies union with Christ in his burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12), immersionists contend that only sinking under and coming up out of the water adequately express the symbolism of the sacrament.
(3) Immersionists lay claim to the testimony of the early church, for which immersion was the primary mode.
The second position is essentially a negative one.
It denies the immersionist insistence that baptism is rightly administered only by immersion; instead, it contends that in the NT baptism, in its external form, is simply a washing, a cleansing, which can as well be effected by pouring (affusion) or sprinkling (aspersion) as by immersion.
While there is widespread agreement that baptizein in classical Greek means "to immerse," because baptizein has become a technical theological term in the NT it is maintained that the classical and secular usage cannot by itself be normative. The term diatheke, for example, universally means "testament" in the Greek of the NT period, but it cannot be given that meaning in its NT usage. That in its biblical and theological use baptizein has come to mean simply "to wash" or "to purify with water" is indicated by certain occurrences of the term in the LXX and NT where baptizein cannot mean immerse (Sir. 34:25; Luke 11:38; Acts 1:5; 2:3-4, 17; 1 Cor. 10:1-2; Heb. 9:10-23). The last text in particular is a reminder that the purificatory water rites of the OT, the biblical antecedents of baptism, were never immersions. It is further maintained that it is at least implausible that certain baptisms recorded in the NT were immersions (Acts 2:41; 10:47-48; 16:33). Nor, it is contended, can appeal be made to the use of the prepositions "in" and "into" which are ambiguous and, if pressed, in Acts 8:38 would require the immersion of both subject and minister.
While baptism certainly signifies union with Christ in his death and resurrection, it is denied that this has relevance for the mode. In Rom. 6:6 union with Christ in his crucifixion and in Gal. 3:27 being clothed with Christ are included in the signification of baptism, but no mode illustrates these aspects of the symbolism of baptism. Further, water is a singularly unlikely symbol for the earth into which one is buried, as the immersionist contends. Actually, sprinkling is as well established in Ezek. 36:25 and Heb. 9:10, 13-14; 10:22.
It is conceded that immersion was the primary mode in the early church, but it is pointed out that other modes were permitted (cf. Didache 7; Cyprian, Epistle to Magnus 12), the earliest artistic representations depict baptism by pouring (affusion), and that some of the influences contributing to the popularity of immersion well may not have been healthy. In general, the nonimmersionist contends that rigor in matters of form is contrary to the spirit of NT worship, contrary to the universal indifference to the mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper, and subject to the scandal that, in principle, the immersionist depopulates the church of most of its membership and most of its finest sons and daughters.
R S Rayburn
Bibliography
A. Carson, Baptism, Its Mode and Its Subjects; T.J. Conant, The Meaning and Use of Baptizein; J. Warns, Baptism; J. Gill, Body of Divinity; A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology; A. Oepke, TDNT, I, 529, 46; B.B. Warfield, "How Shall We Baptize?" in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, II; W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology; R.L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology; R. Watson, Theological Institutes; R.G. Rayburn, What About Baptism? J. Murray, Christian Baptism.
That Rapture Question:
I am not an expert on eschatology, but I think that Mounce is an excellent scholar. He briefly argues against the pretribulation position. The trials in Revelation are directed against the non-Christian world, but the believer shall be spared, not by being raptured prior to the Second Coming, but will kept from God's trials for the world, although being persecuted by the beast. Mounce (1990: 119-120).
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Cheers, Professor Howdy.
Russ:)
Boy was I to wordy or what!!!!
ReplyDeleteYou're the man!!!
What I'm attempting to do with my
ReplyDeleteblogs is the same thing that you're
doing: Using new technology to
do my part in obeying the Great
Commission...
Thanks, and I am glad we can exchange links.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteExcellent post concerning a very difficult issue, and one which I have never seen any biblical evidence for. A couple of the points you made have helped me to better understand the issue.
Thanks, Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI just noted on your blog:
I cautiously lean towards salvation for children (or like) that cannot reject God in choice in an adultlike manner. They would have to be regenerated like all the elect. I personally doubt that when Revelation 20:12 mentions persons being judged for their deeds this includes a six week old India that dies. But, I cannot deny the possibility that the child could be punished relatively. I totally deny a notion that God will punish a person for deeds he/she would have done if he/she would have lived.
Russ:)