You may have heard that phrase before or recently seen flags with this slogan.

On the one hand its meaning is ambiguous because normally a definition goes along the lines of “A cat is a small four legged house pet.” A definition by nature defines something.

Regardless of the ambiguity in this case the meaning is clear. ‘Love is love’ is put forward to mean that any emotional attachment we might feel toward someone (or something) regardless of who (or what) that is, is justified merely on the basis of the emotion being displayed. It doesn’t matter who or what you love because ‘love’ trumps all values.

Imprecision in definition is a practice open to abuse.

In 1971 Oxford defined love as “that disposition or state of feeling with regard to a person which manifests itself in solicitude for the welfre of the object, and usually also delight in his presence and desire for his approval; warm affection, attachment.” Aside from neglecting to note love as a verb and not a noun (an action and not a thing) at least 1971 Oxford has a meaty definition.

Today Mr. Oxford defines love as “a very strong feeling of liking and caring for somebody/something [sometimes romantic].”

The best definition I’ve ever encountered for love (Greek, agape) means to prefer, to prefer someone or something more than yourself, to prefer what God has said, and to show this through one’s actions. This is the definition we find in 1 Jn 5:3a:

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. 

By definition then, to love means to prefer what God has said (the truth) and do it. If we prefer anything and do anything other than what He has said it cannot be love but is sin; and we humans love to sin. Thankfully God preferred us so as to send His Son to rescue us from sin (Jn 3:16) so we might live a life of true love, love for God and others as defined by Him, the author of reality.
​
Because words have meaning and meaning conveys truth and truth never changes (Heb 13:8; 1 Pet 1:25) it actually does turn out that ‘love is love’ after all but not in the way many think.

The story of Moses is well known, even if you don’t know much about the Bible. For Christians it is a cherished story. Hidden within it, however, is a gem for those of us who experience suffering that teaches us about the higher purpose of seeing God’s glory.

In Exodus God’s people were suffering and God heard their cries and called Moses to tell Pharaoh to ‘let my people go!’ When Moses met the leaders this was heralded as good news (ch. 4). However, when Moses actually announced this to Pharaoh he made life worse for the Israelites by adding burdens to their work. The result was that the people complained (ch. 5).

So God’s will (to rescue His people from suffering) actually resulted in more suffering for His people! Now to be sure God is never the agent of sin (Jas 1:13) but that is not to say that everything is ultimately part of His will (Eph 1:11). God may be the first cause but His will is worked out through secondary causes (Acts 2:23, 4:27–8). This lesson is key to the storyline of Exodus.

Moses, recognizing something of this, puts the situation back into his God’s face who had begun this saga in the first place. Listen to what he said to the LORD (Ex 5:22–23):

22 Moses returned to the Lord and said, “Why, Lord, why have you brought trouble on this people? Is this why you sent me? 23 Ever since I went to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has brought trouble on this people, and you have not rescued your people at all.”

Why is a question we often ask when we suffer as Christians. Why Lord, why!? Yet God was still keeping His promises and teaching both Egypt and Israel of His glory, the glory of His justice and the glory of His grace. Listen to the LORD’s reply to Moses:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country.”

It was through suffering that the Lord would teach His people of His glory. If the hardships were not great the display of His glory would be trivialized. Think of what would have happened if God had simply allowed Pharaoh to ‘let His people go’ immediately. Israel would not have learned to depend upon Him, nor seen His might or His love. They would not have been as grateful or experience as great a salvation. It was through trusting the Lord in the suffering that they would see His glorious power.  
​
It is like that in our lives too. Why God will’s suffering remains a mystery; but that He works all things for good for His people is a promise we can depend upon (Ro 8:28). When we suffer we must in faith humbly trust the Lord’s will and know His will display His glory and accomplish what is for our greater good as we wait upon Him.

Have you ever met someone who is a Posivitist? What is a positivist? Someone who will only allow  positive thinking (c.f. mindfulness), affirmations, self-empowerment, promotes a “positive space,” displays or writes positive plagues or mantras, advocates acts of kindness, feels and uses ‘energies’ and never accepts critique or realism. This is a positivist and positivism is positively growing in our society!
​
When I first encountered a positivist I was—frankly—confused. Where is this coming from? What does this person believe? How widespread is this and what effect is this having on our culture? Without knowing more I was unequipped to deal with it as a Christian.

Where does such thinking come from?
There are a number of possible sources by which some might arrive at this way of thinking:

• New Age & Eastern Thought, or transcendentalism, that believes in spiritual forces that can be harnessed through higher consciousness. Karma.
• Word of Faith Movement, the name it and claim it heresy of Christianity, that faith is the key to unlocking God’s blessing and bringing about our wishes on earth.
• Neurological Programming or Conditioning (i.e. hypnosis), that how we think, what we say and how we behave can be forged together to achieve certain life goals.
• Cultural-Marxism (e.g. LGBT community), since oppressors are often negative, positivity is the route to liberation.

Generally, what does it believe?
Simply put Positivist believe that fostering “a positive mental attitude, supported by affirmations, will achieve success in anything.”[1] How one thinks is central to tapping into the spiritual universe to bend it to your will. Spirituality is impersonal and self-focused.  

What affect is it having on our culture?
In a culture that desires to appear spiritual and fix their problems themselves Positivism offers a lot of perceived benefits (chiefly feeling spiritual without God). If you look around it has worked its way into self-help workshops, schools, counselling, stress management, corporate practice, preaching, etc. You might say it is ‘everywhere’ and its way of thinking is so prevalent bits of it can be absorbed into our way of thinking often without even realizing it.

A Biblical Critique/Alternative
Now certainly the Bible would have much to say against ‘impossibility thinkers’ as it related to faith and hope in the God of the impossible; yet the Bible is also a realistic book (we call this truth) and often speaks in the negative concerning sin or lies (“thou shalt not”), while positively endorsing what is right and true (“Honour your father and mother”).

On key questions that religions and worldviews address, Christianity and Positivism are more often than not at complete odds:

• The Bible teaches God is sovereign, He cannot be manipulated.
• He is personal and not some ‘energy’ or ‘force.’
• We evaluate our lives, situations and the world at large through truth (both general and special) and not wishful thinking.
• Sin is to be acknowledged and dealt with not wished away.
• Hope is not found in what we’d like but what God has promised.
• Salvation is about freedom from sin to live for God and not to live as we please.
• God is the primary actor in salvation, we’re saved by faith, not by works.
• Spirituality is about being transformed into Christ’s likeness by His Spirit and not making our own image by our own hands.
• Good works are the fruit of faith and for the other and not something to simply better ourselves.
• The focus is God’s glory and not glorying in our own desires.

Christianity is God centred and not self-focused. It lives according to and for His reality.  

How can we share the Gospel with a Positivist we may know or love? Certainly there are inconsistencies, certainly upon what objective truth one basis their belief needs to be considered; yet ultimately we share the Gospel with gentleness, respect and conviction and let it reverberate against their worldview. They are looking for someone; it’s Jesus. Point them to him as the answer to their spiritual quest.


[1] http://www.salemctr.com/newage/center32.html

As many who know me will attest I love the local church because Jesus loves the local church. It is the primary vehicle through which the Lord works. It is the visible expression of membership in the universal church. Acts spends 16% of the time talking about the universal church and 84% speaking about the local church. Local churches are autonomous, or independent bodies; that is with Christ as the head over the Elders and congregation there is no organization or denomination that ultimately force a congregation to do or believe X,Y or Z, though many congregations choose to affiliate with other likeminded believers.

We may be independent but really we should exist independency with other Gospel churches. Independency is seeing independent churches working together for the cause of Christ. All too often local churches can exist as silos as if the rest of the church did not exist. This is surely to the detriment of Christianity.
​
We see the principle of independency well illustrated in Baptist history and the Bible:

• Bible: the example of the churches taking up an offering for the church in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1); the tight network as seen in Ro 16; missionaries and apostles from different churches intermingling (1 Cor 4:17).
• Baptist History: The earliest Baptists of our DNA were the Particular Baptists of London. Coming into being in the early 1640s in 1644 they published a joint statement of faith (in large part to show that they were orthodox). One belief was to be critical to the explosion of the Baptist cause as they worked together to further the Great Commission, XLVII (47)- “And although the particular congregation be distinct and several bodies, every one a compact and knit city in itself; yet are they all to walk by one and the same Rule, and by all means convenient to have the counsel and help one of another in all needful affairs of the church, as members of one body in the common faith under Christ their only Head. (1 Cor. 4:17; 14:33, 36; 16:1; Mat. 28:20; 1 Tim.3:15; 6:13–14; Rev. 22:18–19; Col. 2:6, 19; 4:16).”

This is why, for example, MBC is partnering with the Blue Water Association of Fellowship Baptist Churches to launch a discipleship ministry called Barnabas. While a larger church might be able to resource an initiative like this by itself for small and medium size churches it will allow us to share our pastoral and teaching resources to equip the saints in the region for the work of the ministry.

This is why we already partner in Association pastors’ gatherings and New Life Camp, why local pastors meet for Bible study and prayer, exchange pulpits and why MBC holds Christian events of interest for other churches.
Independent; yet independency. 

​This is not a question unique to today (though emotionalism and universalism perhaps make it more difficult to address). Infants died in Bible times, pioneer Ontario, and indeed still today. Although infant mortality has decreased, still children die, particularly the unborn (miscarriage, abortion[1], the disposal of embryos in fertility treatments, etc).[2] So long as there are children and so long as there is sin and death this question will be relevant.

Before I begin to give a basic and introductory response, I want to emphasise that I do not embark on seeking to answer this question as if from a distance. My wife and I lost numerous children through miscarriage and we have had close friends and family members suffer the loss of both unborn and newborn children. Something else that I must stress before I proceed is that this question is often approach through emotionalism. While our affections have a role to play we must submit ourselves to Scripture, conceding that our ways are not God’s ways (Isa 55:8–9). Generally when we are uncomfortable about something in the Bible God is correct and we are wrong. If you proceed in reading this blog please pause, pray and be open to reason [or reasoning] (James 3:17). Christianity is like a train and the order of that train is important. First must come the train, then the car and finally the caboose. Put another way, first must come fact (or the promises and truths of God), then faith (or belief in those) and then feeling. Get the order wrong and the train soon runs off the track to wherever we want it to go. Get the order right and it runs smoothly along.

The question centres around salvation and namely, if the Bible teaches original sin and the need of salvation (which it clearly does), what about children? It also touches upon our beliefs about what the character of God should be in relation to this question, either leaning toward His love (how could a loving God allow…) or His justice (God is soft on sin if...).

Numerous passages and verses in the Bible teach original sin, but three are perhaps most pertinent to this subject.[3]

The first is Psalm 51:5 where the Spirit says through David: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. This verse teaches that not only from birth but from conception we are sinners.

The second is Ro 5:12, which addresses why we are born sinners. Here the Spirit says through Paul: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. This means that because the head of the human race—Adam—sinned, all humans are born sinners (original sin). Not only are we born guilty sinners but we also co-opt into sin through sinful choices throughout our lives.

Thirdly, and perhaps the most challenging, come passages like Deut 20:16–18 and 1 Sam 15:2–3 where the Spirit says the following about the destruction of the Canaanites:

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

We must remember that these passages speak of judgement because of societal sin of a great magnitude (with simply a different means to address it being commanded than against say Sodom and Gomorrah). It does not spell genocide. Traditionally this total judgment has been understood by Christians as a real event backed up by archaeology, but also as a picture of hell.

If children had no sin, children wouldn’t die, because death—generally speaking—comes from sin (Ro 6:23b).

In light of these three passages, we return to the question.
​
There have been at least 8 ways that Christendom has sought to answer this question.

1. Eastern Orthodoxy and heresies like Pelagianism.
   1. Both have in common that humans have a predisposition to sin but are not actually born sinful, they are “an undefiled infant.” This clearly stands in opposition to the verses noted above.
2. All children go to heaven (liberal universalism: that God ultimately accepts everyone because He is “love”).
   1. This has been the death knell of ‘liberal Christianity.’ The basic teaching of the Bible is that sinners are saved through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ (John 3:16). Jesus’ death did not save everyone but only made that salvation possible. Jesus died to save those who would believe in Him, He died to save His own (Jn 10:14).
3. Christened children go to heaven (Roman Catholicism).
   1. Roman Catholics believe one is saved by faith+sacraments+works. One of the sacraments is to christen children. In a sacrament the church is seen as having the authority to dispense God’s grace on earth. As such those children who are baptised are saved (known as baptismal regeneration, see 1052 Catechism of the Catholic Church). Hence why Roman Catholics are so quick to want to baptise their children after birth. The clear teaching of the Bible that we are saved by faith and not by works (whether personal or ecclesial [by the church]) discounts this view.
4. No children go to heaven.
   1. Based on the above passages and that young infants cannot believe some do not think any young children who die go to heaven.
5. Children who die before the “age of accountability” go to heaven.
   1. Another popular view that seeks to balance accountability for sin and the need for faith in salvation is this one: that children are only subject to the penalty of hell if they reject Christ after some arbitrary or subjective “age of accountability.” If they haven’t reached that age they go to heaven. But what is this age? Is it 4, 6, 8, 12, 20, 40, 80? The Bible doesn’t say, because it doesn’t exist. Anyone who has worked with children knows that children wilfully choose sin from a very early age and should be held accountable much earlier than 18! Though verses such as 2 Sam 12:23 are often used in support of this view, such vague verses at best should not be used to overturn the clear (The verse more likely refers to death, David too will die. It is also unwise to build an entire theology on one verse).
6. In His mercy God applies the meritorious work of Christ to children because He is a God of grace.
   1. In this view children do not exercise normal faith in Christ that is needed by those who can choose, but rather He has mercy upon whom I have mercy (Ro 9:15). While it is true that God has mercy upon whomever He will (in this passage as it relates to election), the consistent teaching of Scripture associates receiving this mercy with faith. The strength of this view is it fights universalism by appealing to the need for the work of Christ. The downside is that nowhere in the Bible is this clearly stated.
7. Only elect children go to heaven (or children of the elect are saved).
   1. This is the view held by many early Puritans and Evangelicals. Article 10.3 of the Westminster Confession (similar to the Savoy and 1689 Baptist) says this: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (The Scriptural proofs for some of these show that even the most robust theologians of the past needed to bend Scripture to address this question). In this view infants who are elect are saved without faith shown on earth[4] according to the mercy of God. A similar view believes children of believing (elect) parents are saved on account of the faith of their parents. This view would account for why not all children (like those of the Amalekites) are saved and why some possibly are, but no one could know who an elect child was or was not, because the elect are only justified through faith on earth.
8. This is a mystery best left to the Lord (my personal view).
   1. I do not stay awake at night wondering about the eternal state of my unborn child. Why? Because I entrust its soul to an all wise, good and sovereign God and accept His will, whatever it may be. Because the Bible does not even remotely touch upon this subject clearly, it therefore must not be a subject God wants us to concern ourselves with, otherwise He would have told us.

There are two things, however, that the Bible does clearly teach: 1) personal comfort grounded in the promises of God (vs. speculation) for those who mourn the loss of a child, and 2) the personal need to respond to the Gospel.

1. For those who have suffered the loss of a child comfort is available in the face of such loss but it does not come from speculating about your child’s salvation but hoping in the promises of God such as, Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted (Matt 5:4).
2. The Lord commands all people everywhere to repent… (Acts 17:30).
3. Remembering that children our sinners, we need to soak them with the Gospel from an early age. We often fool ourselves into thinking that even older children are still not advanced enough to believe the Gospel. I believe they can and so we must minister the Gospel to them.

[1] In 2020 there were 1622 infant deaths under the age of one (or 4.2%), 74,155 abortions and untold deaths of embryos in fertility clinics.

[2] I believe it is possible to differentiate between the immorality of abortion for instance and issues of infant salvation. One is a moral issue and the other spiritual.

[3] Jesus saying, “let the little come to me” has as little to do with salvation as it does baptism, rather Jesus is breaking down barriers in the apostles hearts, because the Gospel was not meant for “us” (the disciples or the Jews) but for them (Jews and Gentiles and all who believe).

[4] This is very similar to forms of universalism where it is believed people will get a second chance before entering heaven to believe (but see Heb 9:27).