Post 81 - Bad "Christianity": Part II

Last month we looked at a very sad and troubling quote from John Piper in which he lamented that God may not have chosen his children for salvation because, per his mistaken theology, God predetermined everyone's eternal state before they were even born. Piper justified such a cruel, capricious theology by stating, "the potter has absolute rights over the clay."

His unfortunate misunderstanding of the character of God was a denial of the clear biblical teaching that "the LORD is good to everyone. He showers compassion on all his creation" (Psalm145:9).

Today, I want to look at another unfortunate, unbiblical quote from another highly respected Christian pastor and teacher.

Voddie Baucham

Voddie Baucham is a well-educated pastor and a dynamic speaker with a doctorate (DMin) in theological studies from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Here's his quote, taken from a sermon attempting to justify the unbiblical, Reformed doctrine of original sin:

Here’s who you were before you came to Christ... you [were born] with desires that were evil. Somehow, we think that we’re innocent and our environment just made us go all wrong. People who believe this don’t have children. [A newborn baby} is not a little angel. That’s a viper in a diaper!

A Bleak View of God's Image-bearers

"A viper in a diaper!" For those of us who have raised children, that's pretty funny because babies can certainly be challenging. But the humor in Baucham's comment masks a dark and unbiblical doctrine--the Reformed doctrine of original sin.

Baucham believes that, as a result of the Fall in the Garden of Eden, (1) all humans are born "with desires that are evil", as rebels and haters of God, radically depraved, unable to do any spiritual good and (2) all are born "inherently guilty" of Adam's sin. This is the doctrine of original sin.

The Biblical Understanding

Let's examine these two contentions by Baucham and review what the Bible actually says regarding the nature of God's image-bearers.

(1) Are babies born with desires that are evil?

To support his stance that babies are "vipers in diapers", Dr. Baucham goes on to joke that "the reason God makes babies small is so they can't kill you, and the reason he makes them so cute, is so you don't kill them."

Again, that's pretty funny except for the sinister, unbiblical message behind the humor. Aside from the not-so-subtle comparison of babies to Satan--vipers with an inclination toward murder--here's part of what Baucham provides as evidence for his position that all babies are born with evil desires--"The angry cry happens early. The demanding cry happens early. The stiffening up of the body happens early."

Dr. Baucham seems to be implying that the wail of a hungry, helpless baby whose cry is an expression of suffering and a plea for basic needs in the only way he/she can, is evidence of innate sin and evil intentions.

While Christian scholars agree that humans are born with the ability to sin--perhaps, even with a bent toward sin—contrary to Baucham's understanding, various studies have shown that young children are naturally predisposed to be upset by others' pain and can exhibit compassion through simple acts of kindness, such as sharing or comforting others. Love and empathy are God-given divine attributes displayed at an early age.

Even some well-known theologians who subscribe to the doctrine of original sin, have refuted the notion that, since the Fall, man is devoid of any divine influence prior to regeneration.

 “Men of sound judgement will always be sure that a sense of divinity which can never be effaced, is engraved upon men’s minds … there is some God … naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as if it were the very marrow."

--John Calvin

From birth, God has placed some of himself in each of us (Gen 1:26) and nowhere does Scripture allude to any genetic change in humans caused by Adam's sin in the Garden, causing all to be born radically depraved and void of any divine influence.

(2) Are babies born guilty of Adam's sin?

The answer to this question is an emphatic, "No!" Here's why.

First, God refers to little children as "innocents".

Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by [burning their children in the fire offerings to Baal] ... they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, (Jer 19:4-5)

... don't be childish in your understanding of these things. Be innocent as babies when it comes to evil... (1Co 14:20 NLT)

Second, God holds each person responsible only for their own sin.

...The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Eze 18:20 ESV)

Third, Scripture consistently ties guilt to understanding.

So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. (Jas 4:17 ESV)

Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, 'We see,' your guilt remains. (Jhn 9:41 ESV)

And as for your little ones... who today have no knowledge of good or evil... (Deu 1:39 ESV)

Guilt involves understanding the difference between right and wrong. The Bible teaches that it’s not merely about violating a rule but being aware of it. God is just and babies--ignorant of right and wrong--are blameless.

Final Thought

If we take Voddie Baucham's theology regarding the human condition and the doctrine of original sin to its natural conclusion, we arrive at an untenable belief that all babies who die in infancy are lost--that is, they are doomed to Hell because of their "inherent guilt" and their from-the-womb rebellion against God. Such a horror and corruption of the justice, mercy and compassion of God should make us shudder.

By design, babies are reflectors of the God's image. Admittedly, referring to babies as "image-bearers in diapers" may not be as catchy as "vipers in diapers", but it is biblical, and that makes all the difference.

Next Post: Bad "Christianity" - Part III

An unfortunate, unbiblical quote from R.C. Sproul.

Here's a link: Post 82 - Bad "Christianity": Part III