In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Let us pray. Almighty God, who hast given us thy only begotten Son, to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to be born of a pure virgin, grant that we, being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit. Through the same, our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee, and the same Spirit, ever one God, world without end. Amen. Welcome to all listening to this address. I'm preaching in four sermons today, as in the four sermons yesterday, on issues to do with diverse views on soul annihilation and eternal torment in hell. And this is in connection with the question, prepubescent children, for example, those dying before they commit actual sins, saved. And the associated issue of what happens to unsaved children dying before they are old enough to commit actual sin. The propriety for this question being asked today on the fifth day of Christmas and yesterday on the fourth day of Christmas is that on the calendar of the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer, yesterday was the Innocence Day when, as recorded in St. Matthew 2.16, Herod slew all the children that were in Bethlehem and in all the coasts thereof from two years old and under. Now this part 7 and the following part 8, like the previous part 6, are to some extent connected by the issue of baptism. As in the previous part 6, we considered the general rule I found in the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer with respect to children dying before they commit actual sin, that on the basis of God's word, prepubescent children which are baptized who die, for example those dying before they commit actual sin, are saved. And now in this part seven or seventh of eight sermons, we shall consider firstly, a brief selective historical backdrop sketch on this issue of children dying in infancy. And secondly, the issue of orthodoxy and distinguishing between heresy and error, which involves balancing out two different types of scriptures on heresy that go in the opposite directions. Then, in Part 8, we shall be considering the Baptist view on what happens to children dying in infancy, namely the erroneous claim of universal salvation of children dying in infancy. Now, we religiously conservative Protestant Christians distinguish between an infallible Bible and a fallible commentator on that infallible book. Thus, in volume 3 of my textual commentaries on Matthew 21 to 25, at appendix 6, I say, quote, the need for a Corrigenda appendix should remind the good Christian reader of my claim that I am as infallible as the Pope. That's a perfectly proper and humble statement of my frailty and capacity to err. For we Protestants entirely repudiate the absurd Romish claims of so-called papal infallibility." End quote. And so bearing in mind that my claim that I am as infallible as the Pope, and given that in considering the issue of children dying in infancy, we are in an area of secondary importance, and an area of historic disagreement amongst the Orthodox, by which I mean religiously conservative Protestant Christians, let me say with regard to all eight of the sermons of this series which poses the question, are prepubescent children, for example, those dying before they commit actual sin, saved? If anyone who comes under the sound of this message does not think that I have correctly put the scriptures together on this issue, Then let us remember that this is a secondary issue, not a primary issue for religiously conservative Protestant Christianity, that only the Holy Bible is infallible. And so, if someone thinks my interpretation of the scriptures on this matter is incorrect, Then, in Christian charity to each other, let us agree that we each follow what we understand the Bible to teach on this matter. For this issue reminds us that while we religiously conservative Protestant Christians are agreed on matters of primary importance, such as the Holy Trinity, a justification by faith alone, and an infallible Bible as the divine revelation of God to man, there are some secondary matters There are some matters of secondary importance where the fact that we do not have an infallible interpreter of the infallible Holy Bible means that we have diverse views. And such secondary views of relevance to this eightfold series of sermons includes, for instance, whether one is Reformed or a Wesleyan semi-Arminian. what one considers the full range of the degrees of punishment in hell are, whether one believes in infant baptism or baptism only for those of riper years, and if one believes in infant baptism, what one thinks of confirmation, and whether or not one considers there's value in having holy days other than Sunday. For example, the Innocence Day on 28 December. And with so many of these secondary issues impacting this series of eight sermons, let me urge any of the Orthodox, by which I mean religiously conservative Protestant Christians, let me urge, I say, any Orthodox Christians coming under the sound of this message to bear in mind the words of Romans 14, 12 and 13. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another anymore, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. Firstly then, A brief historical backdrop sketch on this issue of children dying in infancy. In ancient times, in the Eastern Church, the Greek writer Gregory of Nyssa, who died in 394, in his book entitled On Infants Having Been Prematurely Snatched Away, a title which in itself denies elements of God's sovereignty, says in general of children dying in infancy that they are worthy of neither heaven nor hell. claiming, quote, the one who does not deserve punishment is not thereby worthy of praise, and the one who does not deserve praise is not thereby deserving of punishment, unquote. But Gregory of Nyssa, who makes no distinction between such baptised and unbaptised children, doesn't say that he thinks doesn't say what he thinks happens to such infants in terms of where their souls go, but merely says in effect that they are worthy of neither heaven nor hell. By contrast, in the Western Church, the Latin writer St. Augustine of Hippo, who died in 430 AD, was involved in debates with Pelagians, And the Pelagian proper heretic Pelagius and his contemporary heretical disciple Colestius, both of whom died in the fifth century AD, claimed that, quote, newborn infants are in the same condition as Adam before the fall, unquote, and, quote, that infants, even if unbaptized, have eternal life, unquote. And St. Augustine, or Austen, says in his work On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants, quote, it may, therefore, be correctly affirmed that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person therefore greatly deceives both himself and others who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation." in support of which he refers to original sin and original guilt in Romans 5, 16 and 18, in connection with, quote, when Adam sinned, unquote. And St. Augustine's teaching was also followed by, for example, St. Jerome, who died in 420, and St. Gregory the Great, who died in 604. For example, Bishop Gregory the Great, who was the penultimate Bishop of Rome before the formation of the office of Roman Papacy in 607 AD, argued that due to original sin, such infants must go to hell on the basis of such scriptures as Job 14, 4 and 5. For example, verse 4, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. Although once again, like Augustine, Gregory says this means, quote, everlasting torments, unquote, for such unsaved children in hell. Now, on the one hand, in broad terms, like St. Jerome and St. Gregory the Great, I would agree with what St. Augustine says here. But on the other hand, I make the qualifications that, firstly, such baptism is a general, not absolute, rule in that it evidences the Acts 2, 38 and 39 and 1 Corinthians 7, 14 faith of the parents, so that their children are holy and clean. And since such baptism is a symbol only, if perchance believing parents have not had that child baptised before he dies, he would still be saved. And thus I support the Morning Star of the Reformation, John Wycliffe, who died in 1384, who was wrongly condemned by the Romanists so-called General Council of Constance of 1415 for saying, quote, those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this," unquote. And secondly, I make the qualification that unlike Augustine, who believed that eternal punishment was the only geroson in hell, as did Gregory, also, I consider that there is a range of punishments in hell, Matthew 10.15, from soul annihilation, Matthew 10.28, through to eternal punishment, Matthew 25.46, and so in agreeing with Austin that for original sin and original guilt, quote, it may therefore be correctly affirmed that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all." I therefore understand that in God's good time such unsaved children who generally are unbaptized receive soul annihilation in hell. Now, in the Middle Ages, The Romanist monk Peter Abelard, who died in 1142 at St. Marcel Monastery in Burgundy, France, denied the aforementioned teaching of St. Augustine, and claimed instead that such children dying in infancy were not punished in hell. but rather denied the supernatural excellence of heaven with the so-called vision of God. Two views then developed within the Roman Church, one following St Augustine and the other Abelard. For example, following Augustine, the Roman Catholic so-called General Council of Florence, from 1438 to 1445, claimed someone had to be baptized to be saved. And in connection with Romish ideas of baptismal regeneration, it said, quote, the souls of those who depart this life in original sin alone go straight down, go down straight away to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains, unquote. And following in this type of thinking, was the Roman Catholic Jesuit theologian of France, Denis Patavius, who died in 1652. By contrast, others within the Roman Church followed Abelard. For example, the French Romanist Bishop of Paris, Peter Lombard, who died in 1160. Then in the 12th to 13th centuries, those following Abelard's type of views coined the Latin term, a limbo of infants, Latin, limbus infantium, meaning the border or the edge of the infant's region. For example, the Romish-Italian Dominican monk, Tomo Akino, also more commonly known as Thomas Aquinas. who died in the Papal States in 1274, claimed that in the so-called limbo of infants there was no pain of torment, and indeed he claimed that in this limbo there was a positive happiness of the souls there who were united to God by a knowledge and love of Him. Those following this limbo of infants view then sought to read down the meaning of the Romish Council of Florence on this matter. Such views on unbaptised infants going to limbo included the idea that they wander as fireflies in limbo, and as previously mentioned, these ideas were opposed by the Morning Star of the Reformation, John Wycliffe, who died in 1384, and who said, quote, Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved are stupid and presumptuous in saying this. At the time of the Reformation, The Protestants rejected the unbiblical Romish idea of a limbo of infants, just as they rejected the unbiblical Romish idea of purgatory. For example, the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 35, Book 2, Homily 8, Part 3, in reference to the Romish doctrine of purgatory, makes a comment equally relevant to the Romish teaching of limbo of infants. Thus, this homily says of the St. Luke 16, quote, parable of Lazarus and the rich man, St. Augustine expounding them, saith, subquote, that which Abraham speaketh unto the rich man in Luke's gospel, namely, that the just cannot go unto those places where the wicked are tormented. What doth it signify? But that the just, by reason of God's judgment, which may not be revoked, can show no deed of mercy in helping them which, after this life, are cast into prison, until they pay the uttermost farthing." These words as they confound the opinion of helping the dead by prayer, so they do clean confute and take away the vain error of purgatory. St. Augustine doth only acknowledge two places after this life, heaven and hell. As for the third place, he doth deny that there is any such to be found in scripture." And so I repeat that while this homily of the Anglican Protestant 39 articles, which says that St. Augustine is biblically correct in his view that there are, quote, only two places after this life, heaven and hell, unquote, and so, quote, and so no, quote, third place is to be found in scripture, unquote, contextually is teaching against the Romish claim of an alleged third place of purgatory, and nevertheless, This homily's teaching is equally relevant to rejecting the Romish teaching of limbo of infants, which is known in the Latin as limbus infantium, but which I think might be better rendered as Latin limbus somni, meaning limbo of fantasy. And so, now let me say that as a good Protestant Christian, I maintain the biblical view that there are only two places in the next life, to wit, heaven or hell. However, within these parameters, Protestants have historically divided on the issue of what happens to children dying in infancy. For example, in a due course, In due course, I shall be defending the general rule of the Anglican Protestant 1662 Book of Common Prayer. that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved, against the views of Baptist Protestants who have generally claimed universal salvation of children dying in infancy in the following Part 8. Over time, inside the Roman Church, the Augustinian view that unbaptized children went to hell receded into a minority view, and limbo of infants became the majority view, in which this was said to be a border region between heaven and hell, where souls were not condemned to the punishments of hell, but nor were they permitted the joy of heaven with God. And as part of the Counter-Reformation, following the Romanists' so-called General Council of Trent from 1545 to 1563, Romanist theologians held some very diverse views on exactly what happens in this alleged limbo of infants, or limbus infantium. with some claiming that there would be some degrees of sadness and privation experienced by souls in limbo, but others claiming there would only be happiness for souls in limbo. For example, or an example, of the more positive Romish view of Limbo of Infants is found in Broderick's 1957 Concise Encyclopedia with a 1956 imprimata from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Francis Spellman, which under the heading of Limbo claims, quote, The limbo of children is that state wherein the souls of unbaptized children and adults, who die without committing grievous actual sin, enjoy perfect natural happiness. Here they are excluded from the supernatural excellence of heaven, namely the vision of God, but they do know God and love him with their perfected natural faculties." And then in 2004, under Pope John Paul II, who was Pope from 1978 to 2005, a Popish group under the Roman Curia of the Roman Catholic Church called the International Theological Commission was appointed under the direction of Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany to examine the issue of limbo of infants. When this Popish Commission reported three years later in 2007, Cardinal Ratzinger had become Pope Benedict XVI, who was Roman Pope from 2005 to 2013, and as Pope he then specifically approved this commission. This Romish Commission's 2007 document is entitled, quote, The Hope of Salvation, for infants who die without being baptized." And it says that for Romanists, quote, the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who therefore neither merit the beatitude This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, remains a possible theological hypothesis. However, The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism. The conclusion of this study is that there are reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation." And so, the present Roman Catholic position is that on the one hand, quote, limbo remains possible, unquote, but on the other hand, universal salvation of children dying in infancy is also possible. even though it is said not to be found in the divine revelation of the Bible as, quote, there are reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation, unquote. And as a religiously conservative Protestant Christian, I would hold that this Popish proposition that one would regard as possible the universal salvation of children dying in infancy, even though there is not an explicit teaching on this found in the divine revelation of the Holy Bible, is a totally out of the question. For we read in 2 Timothy 3.15 that the Holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. If one wants to know about salvation issues, then it's to be found in the Holy Bible. And I would likewise hold that the alternative, a popish proposition of limbo of infants, is likewise unbiblical and so totally out of the question. And so under a present Roman Curia teaching as found in this 2007 document, Roman Catholics can believe in either limbo of children for unbaptized children or universal salvation of children dying in infancy. And if a Romanist were to take a Broderick's aforementioned type of view of limbo of children, it's a kind of second-class heaven. in which they never see God, called, quote, the vision of God, unquote, but they, quote, enjoy perfect natural happiness. They do know God and love him, unquote. And these Romish ideas are far removed from the position that I maintain based on my understanding of Holy Scripture. For with the qualifications I make in modification of Austen's view to it, firstly, using infant baptism as an indicator is a general, not absolute, rule of the fact that any such children dying are saved, Acts 2.38 and 39 and 1 Corinthians 7.14. And secondly, that there's a range of punishments in hell, St. Matthew 11.22 and 24 up to eternal punishment, St. Matthew 25.46. But such unsaved and generally unbaptized children in hell receive the lower end punishment, ending in soul annihilation. This is in Matthew 10.15. With, I say, these qualifications, in the words of one of the Western Church's four ancient and early medieval church doctors, St. Augustine, who died in 430 AD, on the basis of the teaching of original sin and original guilt in Romans 5, 16 and 18, he said, quote, it may therefore be correctly affirmed that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person therefore greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation, unquote. And St. Augustine's view is also followed by another two of the Western Church's four ancient and early medieval church doctors, to with St. Jerome who died in 420 and St. Gregory the Great who died in 604. Yet this type of view, found with three of the four Western Church's four ancient and early medieval church doctors, St. Augustine, St. Jerome and St. Gregory the Great, is repudiated by the Roman Church in this 2007 document, which says the two options for those of the Roman obedience for unbaptised children dying in infancy are either limbo of children or universal salvation of infants. And before bringing this brief historical backdrop sketch on this issue of dying in infancy to a close, I should also make some mention of both Judaism and Islam. Now, the stereotypical white Ashkenazi Jew with a hooked nose is a Caucasian Semite, is Caucasian Semite at mixed. Although many of the white or white Ashkenazi Jews don't fit that stereotype with regard to the Semitic nose. The Jewish ancestors identified in the name Ashkenaz are not Jewish Semitic from Noah's son Shem, but come down through Noah's son Japheth. the great progenitor of white Caucasian Caucasoids, and Ashkenazis mentioned as a son of Japheth in Genesis 10.3. This raises the question, where is the white Caucasian element coming from in the Ashkenazi Jews? Now let me say that on the origins of both Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews, I'm only as good as the data I can get. I formally subscribed to a Khazar theory for the chief origins of the Ashkenazi, coupled with some Sephardic mixing. However, as at 2020, progressively over the last 20 years in general, and especially in about the last 10 years, there's been more and more genetic research done on the Jews, and despite some dissenting opinion, which in my opinion is no longer sustainable, it doesn't support the Khazar origins theory, which I have therefore ceased to follow and I have now renounced. Now the term Sephardic comes from Obadiah 20 which says, "...and the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath. And the captivity of Jerusalem, which is Sepharath, shall possess the cities of the south." For historically, various Jews have claimed that in Obadiah 20, the Canaanites mean the Dutch, Zarephath means France, and Sephard means Spain. And so, since a large group of these Euro-Jews were in Spain, they became known as Sephardic Jews. The precise genetic details of the Jews are still subject to debate and further refinement. and one must add an interpretation to them. For example, it still remains uncertain as to how much intermarriage between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews occurred, but certainly some occurred. This is seen for instance in the fact that the Ottoman Empire extended from Asia Minor westward into Eastern Europe, into West Asia, north and east of the Black Sea, and then south and eastwards into Mesopotamia, and south-eastwards through the areas around Algeria, and a common name among the Sephardic Jews who settled in the area of the Mohammedan Ottoman Empire is Eskenazi, which is a form of the word Ashkenazi, indicating that quite a lot of Ashkenazi Jews joined the Sephardic Jewish communities in these areas and took the name Eskenazi as a memory of their Ashkenazi heritage. Furthermore, since the formation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, Those Sephardic Jews which remained in or near various areas in West Asia and North Africa they were in from biblical times have been called the Mizraic Sephardic Jews so as to distinguish them from European Sephardic Jews. The term Mizraic was coined from a Hebrew translation of a Jewish name known before this time in Europe. Interpretation of the genetic data also requires a model to filter it through, which from my religiously conservative Protestant Christian perspective, should be a biblical revelation regarding application of godly reason. Thus, with reference to Acts 2.10, which refers to Jews and proselytes, meaning those of the Hebrew-Semitic Jewish race, and Gentile converts to Judaism, coming from various locations of the Jewish dispersion of James 1 and 1 Peter 1.1, one should first start with a model in which, in the New Testament times of the first century AD, Some Jews were clearly in areas of West Asia, North Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Thus Acts 2.9-11 itemises locations firstly in West Asia, with Medes and Elamites just east of Mesopotamia, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in modern day southeast Turkey, East Syria and Iraq, Judea in modern-day Israel, and in Southwest Asia, Arabians. Secondly, in Asia Minor, with Cappadocia in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia being parts of modern-day Turkey. Thirdly, in North Africa, Egypt and Libya, about Cyrene, Fourthly, in the Mediterranean Sea, with Crete, from the island of Crete. And fifthly, in Western Europe, from Rome in Italy. And sixthly, in Eastern Europe, references made in Acts 17.1 to a synagogue of the Jews in Thessalonica in Greece, and in Acts 18.1 and 4 to a synagogue at Corinth in Greece, which had both Jews and Greeks, in which Greeks refers to certain God-fearers, who is touching upon religion, were what might be called half-Jews, in that they agreed with a lot of Judaism, but were not committed to all of it. And seventhly, in sub-Saharan black Africa, we also read of such a Gentile God-fearer who acts to imply evidence of possible Ethiopian Jews in Acts 8.27, with any such black, negro, Ethiopian Jews, descended from Ham and Cush in Genesis 10, 6 and 7. And so, from this sevenfold biblical model of the Jewish dispersion in the 1st century AD, one then has the starting point of a model through which one can interpret the genetic research on a model that is consistent with this and other biblical data. Now, using this biblical regarding model, that considers, for example, Genesis 9 and 11, Acts 2, 8, 17 and 18, James 1, 1 and 1 Peter 1, 1. The implication of the genetic research of about the last 20 years in general, and especially about the last 10 years, such as that of Bihar in 2010 and later, would be that some of these Misraic, Sephardic, Jewish communities Broadly speaking, remained at or near locations where they were in the 1st century AD, in Asia Minor, West Asia and North Africa, and there have been various possible mixtures from Gentile races who were proselytes in these areas, but there was some preservation of the Jewish race in an inner group inside this wider, Misraic, Sephardic group. By contrast, the two groups of European or Euro-Jews, both the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, are in general terms a mix of the Jewish race and various Gentile races who are proselytes to Judaism that then intermarried with those of a Gentile race mainly from Europe. However, The genetic data indicates the Ashkenazi, European Sephardic and Masraic Sephardic all have shared Middle East ancestral elements, making them relatively close to one another, roughly equivalent to fourth or fifth cousins. While internally one may find Jews who vary from the averages, on average both groups of Euro-Jews appear to be admixed with Europeans. In the case of the Sephardic Jews, on average about 30% European. And internally Ashkenazi Jews show a variable admixture with Europeans between 30% and 60%. On the present data, Michael Hammer's work on male Ashkenazi white chromosomes indicates most of the white Caucasian element of the Ashkenazi comes from Italy, and if so, this is consistent with the known presence of Jews in Rome from Acts 2.10. By contrast, the Ethiopian Jews appear to have been Hermetic Cushite Negro-raised Gentile proselytes to Judaism. The implication for this on the model I now follow, and which I am prepared to revise and refine in the future inside a biblical regarding revised model, if new extra-biblical data warrants it, is that the Ethiopian God-fearer referred to in Acts 8 who had come to Jerusalem to worship before he converted to Christianity, came from a wider community of Ethiopian proselytes to Judaism who didn't intermarry with other Jews. By contrast, as part of the Jewish dispersion of Jews and proselytes recorded in the book of Acts, James 1.1 and 1 Peter 1.1, Jews moved out to different parts of, for instance, West Asia, North Africa and Europe, and some into marriages to different groups of Gentiles, resulting in discernible mixed-race genetic differences between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews, so that, for example, the Ashkenazi Jews show a variable white-Caucasian admixture. According to Costa's work of 2013, while on the male side the Ashkenazi Jews may have had a significant Near Eastern and possibly also Eastern European or Caucasian ancestry, the female mitochondrial DNA indicates between two-thirds and most likely more than four-fifths or about 81% of the Ashkenazi's ancestral women were European Caucasians, about 8% from the Near East, about 1% further to the East in Asia, and the remaining 10% are too ambiguous to classify. And so On my present model, Ashkenazi Jews and European Sephardic Jews and Mizrahi Sephardic Jews all have a shared Middle East Semitic Jewish ancestry, in which their shared elements make them fairly close relatives to one another, roughly equivalent to fourth or fifth cousins. And there was some preservation of the Jewish race in an inner group inside the wider Sephardic group, which are the ones that I understand shall experience the Romans 9 to 11 conversions to Christianity just before the Lord's return. Following the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948, over 850,000 Mizrahi Sephardic Jews were either expelled, evacuated or fled from Arab and Mohammedan countries. many of them going to Israel, where they are a subgroup of the Sephardic Jews, which internally divides between them and Sephardic Euro-Jews. The Ashkenazi Jews number about 11 million and represent about 80% or four-fifths of Jews. In the modern state of Israel, with a population of about 9.2 million, The about 6.8 million Jews are about 75%, or three quarters of the population. And about 45% of the Jews are Sephardic, and 45% of the Jews are Ashkenazi, with the remaining 10% of Jews being either mixed from these two groups, or some other type of Jew. For example, Indian Jews, which show a male Y chromosome DNA from Middle East Jews who intermarried with racially Indian women. At a religious level, diverse types of Jews include Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reform Jews. And, for example, all Reform Jewish synagogues and all Conservative Jewish synagogues are inside the Ashkenazi community, with the Ashkenazi Jews being mixed-race descendants of the Semitic Jewish race and other elements, mainly white Caucasian Japhethites. Now, there are clear differences of opinion among Jews. For example, On the one hand, when I was studying Hebrew at Sydney's Shalom College back in the 1980s, I came across Jews who were Zionist supporters of the modern state of Israel. But on the other hand, following the November 1917 British Balfour Declaration for, quote, the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, unquote, in 1918, A conservative Jew said, quote, we hold that the Jewish people ought to be at home in all lands. We are opposed to the idea that Palestine should be considered the homeland of the Jews. The ideal of the Jew is not the establishment of a Jewish state. not the reassertion of Jewish nationality, which has long been outgrown, and not the acceptance of Palestine as a homeland of the Jewish people." And so too, this type of diversity of views within Judaism is relevant to the religious issue of the afterlife. We are told in Acts 23.8 that the apostate Judaism of New Testament times had one group of Jews in the Pharisees who believed in the afterlife, and another group of Jews in the Sadducees who say there is no resurrection. As far as we know, the Sadducees ceased to exist following the destruction of the Jewish temple. at Jerusalem in 70 AD. And in terms of a broad overview, later post-New Testament apostate Judaism believes in an afterlife. But there's a general lack of clarity on the details of the afterlife, and what details there are have also varied both over time and between different types of Jews. For example, Moses Maimonides was a Sephardic Jew born in 1135 in Spain, who, due to Mohammedan persecution of Jews, moved to Morocco. Then, due to Islamic persecution of Jews, moved to Palestine, and then lived at Fostat near Cairo in Egypt, where the Mohammedans had religious toleration to Jews, and where he died in 1204. A Maimonides published a summary of Jewish beliefs in 13 articles, which various Jews have debated and revised, although it's of note that his article 13 states a belief in the afterlife with, quote, a revival of the dead at the time when it shall please the Creator, unquote. And so, with such qualifications of diverse views within Judaism, I note, for example, some Jews follow an esoteric Jewish mysticism called Kabbalah. And these Jews are known as Kabbalists. Some Jewish Kabbalists say that in the afterlife there's a contrast between two places, heaven and Sheol or Gehinnom. in which Gehinnom is with qualification their view of hell. But it's regarded as either a fairly mild purgatory or near purgatory. On the one hand, those Jewish Kabbalists who consider this hell is a near purgatory, say that the truly evil are either eternally damned to Gehinnom, or in some other way disposed of. But most are there for less than 12 months, and some souls don't go to it at all, but go straight to heaven. But on the other hand, those Jewish Kabbalists, who consider it simply a fairly mild purgatory, consider that even the most wicked of souls experience at most 12 months of Gehinnom, followed by an eternity of heaven. Given that such Kabbalist Jews regard hell as either a fairly mild purgatory or near purgatory, that one group says retains no one longer than 12 months, and the other group says retains only the most evil after 12 months, it follows on this type of thinking that children dying in infancy would spend little or no time in this purgatorial hell before going to heaven. And inside of contemporary Judaism there are what are known as orthodox Jews, for which both the written law of the Pentateuch and the oral law as codified in the Mishnah and interpreted in the Talmud are regarded as the unchangeable norm of their religious observance. And with regard to the Jewish Talmud, I shall in due course refer to a view of its possible influence on Muhammad's Koran at Surah 7. Now, the false religion of Mohammedanism also has some diverse views on the afterlife, although they exhibit greater clarity of thought on the afterlife than do the post-New Testament Jews. While those in Islam claim all Mohammedan children dying in infancy go to heaven, there are several views on what happens to non-Mohammedan children dying in infancy. A smaller minority views include, firstly, that of uncertainty, and leaving the uncertain matter to God, so that it said, quote, God knows best what they would have done, unquote. Secondly, claiming that they go to heaven as a servant class of Mohammedans in heaven. And thirdly, that they all go to hell. But the main views among Mohammedans are the majority view of limbo, or the larger minority view of some kind of religious test in a purgatory, in which those who pass the test will go to heaven, and those who fail the test will go to hell. These two main views both come from diverse interpretations of Muhammad's Surah 7 in the Qur'an, spelled K-O-R-A-N, entitled Al-Raaf. In Arabic, Al-Raaf means the height or high ground from which a clear view is possible. and hence a symbolic place between heaven and hell, a limbo for those who do not merit hell, but cannot enter heaven. Reading from the 1876 edition translation of the Quran by the Anglican clergyman John Rodwell, who died in 1900, Surah 739 refers to hell, Surah 742 to paradise, and then Surah 744 and 45 says, with Rodwell adding in italics the word yet as an emphasis in, but they shall not yet enter it, so as to emphasize his understanding of Muhammad's teaching as a purgatory rather than a limbo. In part it says, quote, And between them shall be a partition, and on the wall, Allah, Ra, shall be men who shall cry to the inmates of paradise. But they shall not yet enter it, though they long to do so. And when their eyes are turned towards the inmates of the fire, they shall say, O our Lord, place us not with the offending people." Now this Quranic Allah-Raf has been interpreted by Mohammedans variously as either a limbo or a purgatory, and if a purgatory, by some as ensuring universal salvation of children dying in infancy. The overall majority view of Mohammedan commendators regards the Quran's Surah 7 as limbo, A footnote in Rodwell's Koran says with regard to Allah Raf, as being what in Mohammedanism is said to be an intermediate place between heaven and hell, quote, on this wall will stand those whose good and evil works are equal and are not therefore deserving of either, unquote. And the Mohammedan majority view among Islamic commentators, which regards this Allah-Raf as limbo, considers that this is where non-Mohammedan children dying in infancy go. By contrast, a stronger minority Mohammedan view, among Islamic commentators, interprets this Allah-Raf of the Quran's Surah 7 to be a kind of purgatory, but a beneficent one, with privation, but without suffering. This is the view that Rodwell thinks is intended by Mohammed, and which, a footnote in his 1876 translation says, might have come to Mohammed with some reverence to the Jewish Talmud at Ecclesiastes 7.14. Ecclesiastes 7.14 says in the authorised version, In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider, God hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should nothing after him. And the key words, God hath set the one over against the other, are interpreted in the Jewish Talmud to mean heaven and hell. And so in addition to his adding in italics the word yet, as an emphasis at the Quran, Surah 7, verse 44, in, but they shall not yet enter it, A footnote on Allah Raf in Rodwell's translation of the Qur'an says, quote, the idea which is analogous to that of purgatory may be derived from the Talmud. Thus in the Midrash, in Ecclesiastes 7.4, how much space is there between the two? Unquote, meaning heaven and hell, quote, Rabbi Jokanan saith a wall, Rabbi Akka a space, Aspan, sorry, Rabbi Akka Aspan. Others hold them to be so close that a person may see from one to the other." Now, the Mohammedans have what's called Hadiths. which are alleged records of what the false prophet of Islam, Muhammad said, and which were written over three centuries following Muhammad's death in the 7th century AD. But there are disputes. between different Muslims, both as to which hadiths are more or less reliable, and also as to what a given hadith means. And there are a number of hadiths which in connection with the Qur'an, Surah 7, some Mohammedans have interpreted to mean that children who die before the age of reason are either saved, that is, universal salvation of infants, or have the possibility of salvation, that is, a purgatorial chance to choose right or wrong, and then go to heaven or hell respectively. And it is said in a Hadith that children are born into the world possessing an innate conformity with truth, called in Arabic, Fitrah. And from this Hadith, some following the purgatorial view of the Quran's Surah 7 on Allah, Raaf, conclude that children who die before the age of reason can be saved by this innate conformity. The practical effect of which is that from this purgatory there is universal salvation of children dying in infancy. And now Mohammedanism divides into different sects, of which the two main ones are the larger Sunnite sect and the smaller Shiite sect. And this type of stronger minority Mohammedan view of universal salvation of children dying in infancy is, for instance, found inside the Mohammedan Sunnite sect, based on what is said by Mohammed al-Bukhari, who wrote a Muslim hadith collection regarded by the Sunnite Mohammedans as the best one. And so, among Mohammedan commentators, they claim all Mohammedan children who die go to heaven. And concerning what happens to non-Mohammedan children, understood as diverse interpretations of the Quran, Surahs 7, 44 and 45 on Allah, The main views among Islamic commentators are the majority view of such children going to limbo, or the larger minority view of some kind of religious test in a purgatory in which those children who pass will go to heaven, and those who fail will go to hell. And inside this purgatorial view, some Mohammedans say that children dying in infancy have an innate capacity to do right, and so they will always pass this test. That is, universal salvation of children dying in infancy. Now, of some further interest in this matter is the fact that while Satan has many false religions, the devil's two main counterfeit religions are Romanism and Mohammedanism. And these two big and especially dangerous religions both falsely claim to in some way represent the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and both are based on false claims of works righteousness or earning one's salvation to heaven. And as a Protestant Christian historicist, I understand such scriptures as 2 Thessalonians 2.3 with St. John 13.27 and 17.12, as well as Revelation 13.1 and 2 and 12.3 and 9, to mean that Satan has personally, a devil possessed every Pope of Rome, since the formation of the office of Roman Papacy, which is simultaneously the office of Antichrist, which dates from what on an Anglican Annunciation Day, New Year's Day calendar is 606 AD, and what on a civil 1 January New Year's Day calendar is 607 AD. And I also understand Revelation 9-11 to mean that Satan is the king of Islam. And so, as a Protestant historicist, I consider that God has given us a special warning against the twin dangers of the Romanist delusion and the Mohammedan delusion, both of which are under the guidance of the devil, via his legions of unholy angels, and who generally is geographically at and organizes things from Papal Rome, Revelation 17.9 and 18.2. And with this Protestant, historicist, prophetic school of interpretation understanding, I note that the papist Louis Massignon took the view that the Roman Catholic concept of limbo may have come from the Mohammedan interpretation of it as limbo from Mohammed's claims in Surah 7 in the Quran on Allah Ra. Now Louis Massignon, who died in 1962, was a Popish writer who held the chair of Muslim Sociology at the College of France in Paris. Massignon was an important and influential figure in moulding 20th century relations. between Romanism and Mohammedanism, and a number of scholars recognized that his work was an important factor in underpinning the positive view of the interfaith relations between Romanism and Mohammedanism articulated in the Romanists' Vatican II Council of 1962 to 1965. And when one considers that the Romanists' views of limbo of children and purgatory don't come from the Holy Bible, it's significant to note that this Romish scholar, Louis Massignon, considered that the Popish concept of limbo may have come from the Mohammedan interpretation of it as limbo in the Qur'an, Surah 7, on Allah, Wrath. And with this background understanding, it's surely notable that since the 2007 papal approval proved a Roman Catholic document entitled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised, that those of the Romanist delusion are permitted to believe in either limbo of children or the universal salvation of children dying in infancy as their two options for non-baptised or non-Christian children. And we find that these two Romanist options find a near equivalent in the two main options for those in the Mohammedan delusion for non-Muslim children. in their understanding of the Quran's Surah 7, namely the majority Islamic view of such children going to limbo, or the larger minority view of some kind of religious test for such children in some kind of purgatory, inside of which Some Moabitans say that the children dying in infancy have an innate capacity to pass this test, that is, universal salvation of children dying in infancy. And so it looks like the devilish spiritual forces behind Romanism have gone to the common devilish roots of both the unbiblical Romish teachings on purgatory and limbo of children, and the unbiblical Mohammedan teachings and the associated Mohammedan interpretations of Surah 7, found in Mohammed's Quran, and sought in the wider context of the interfaith movement to bring the devil's two main counterfeit religions of Romanism and Mohammedanism closer together on this issue. And there's clearly a warning in this devilish unity under the architect of Satan himself to wit. The devil is now seeking to use the idea of the universal salvation of children dying in infancy as the thin edge of the wedge in promoting the wider interfaith compromise between all religions. The starting point is to say that all infants, whether Protestant Christian infants or apostate Christian infants, for example, Roman Roman Catholicism, those in Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, or infidel infants in, for example, Mohammedanism or Judaism, or heathen infants in, for example, Buddhism or Hinduism, all dying infants go to heaven. And then with this sentiment, the finishing point is to say, if they grow up, They all go to heaven too. Not all who fall for the error of the starting point and necessarily fall for the error of the finishing point. But they're part of an ecumenical compromise and interfaith compromise sentiment heading in that direction, whether or not they consciously realize what they're doing. And so, in bringing this brief selective historical backdrop sketch on this issue of children dying in infancy to a close, let me say that when in due course the claim of universal salvation of children dying in infancy will be considered in connection with the general historical view of Baptists, that others have also adhered to this error, such as some of those in the devil's two main counterfeit religions of Romanism and Mohammedanism, and that it's now clear that Satan is seeking to use this false claim of the universal salvation of children dying in infancy as the thin edge of the wedge to promote the wider interfaith compromise movement. And so this important matter will be given some further consideration when in due course we consider just where the Baptist claims of universal salvation of children dying in infancy are really going to. And this now brings us to the second matter in this sermon. The issue of orthodoxy and distinguishing between heresy and error, which involves balancing out two different types of scriptures on heresy, that go in opposite directions. Now, scriptures on heresy go in two opposite directions. On the one hand, in scriptures such as Galatians 1.8, 9, 3.11, 5.20, 21, 2.11, 17, 14, 17, where our Lord prays to God the Father, I have given them thy word, sanctify them through thy word, thy word is truth, condemning the type of thing we find with the ecumenical compromise, which embraces Trinitarian and other heretics. that deny the sort of thing we find in the Athanasian creed as found in the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer, such as the heretics of Oriental orthodoxy, or religious liberals. or cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses who are Aryan heretics denying the deity of Christ and personhood of the Holy Ghost, or Seventh-day Adventists who reverse Colossians 2.9.16-23 by saying that what matters is the keeping of ascetic food rules, Jewish food rules, Jewish Sabbath days, and intruding into those into things which hath not been seen, such as the so-called visions from God of their cult prophetess Ellen White, and that therefore in practice the words of Colossians 2, 8 and 9, that in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, are optional. so that Seventh-day Adventists are free, if they wish, to be semi-Aryan heretics who claim Christ is a created being, which is the view of two of that church's three founders, namely James White and Joseph Bates, and also their classic pseudo-historicist writer on Daniel and Revelation, Uriah Smith. And such heretics, condemned in scripture, also include those who denied the Galatians 3.11 and 5.4 gospel of grace, that just shall live by faith, such as Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. But on the other hand, in scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 11, 18, 19 and 29, and 12, 25 and 27, and St John 17, 20 and 21, where our Lord prays to God the Father, Pray I that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us. Scripture condemns the schismatic heretics that cause needless divisions, that deny the Ephesians 1, 22 and 23, 4, 4 and 5, and 5, 27, 31 and 32, one holy Catholic Church of the Apostles and Nicene creeds, as found in the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer, such as some, I do not say all, but some independent Baptist churches, which deny that there even is a universal or Catholic Church. Or various cults, such as the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which claims to be the Revelation 12.17 remnant church, and only church that a person should join. And so, we need to balance out these two types of scriptures on heresy, going in opposite directions. And in this, it's important to distinguish between heresy and error, in that heresy consists in the holding of a false opinion, repugnant to some point of doctrine essential to the Christian faith, as opposed to lesser errors that people may hold, which do not constitute heresy, even though they do constitute error. And so, for example, as one who is reformed, I consider the Wesleyan Arminians still have enough gospel planks in place to not be in heresy, even though they are in error. And it's also important to recognize that there are religiously conservative Protestant Christians who hold to the core orthodox beliefs of the faith in a manner inconsistent with their errors. For example, Lutheran semi-Romanist baptismal regeneration is logically a form of works righteousness in which the act of baptism is the good work. And likewise, Wesleyan Arminianism is logically a form of works righteousness in which a person's faith is their good work. But if one says to a Lutheran, do you believe this so-called baptismal regeneration is a good work meriting salvation, Or if one says to a Wesleyan Arminian, do you believe your faith is a good work meriting salvation? They would both say no, in perfect sincerity, and indeed horror at such a proposition. And so neither Lutherans nor Wesleyan Arminians consciously make any works righteousness connection in their heads, since they both hold these errors in a way that's inconsistent with their core orthodox belief that justification by faith is a gift. accepted by faith alone. And so, in the sometimes difficult process of balancing out these two types of biblically defined types of heresy which go in the opposite direction, I understand this to mean we should have a broad Protestant spirit towards religiously conservative Protestant Christians who hold the broad biblical teachings of the Orthodox faith of Christ, such as, for example, various evangelical Lutherans, low church evangelical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others. And so, bearing in mind that this Part 7, like the previous Part 6 and following Part 8, are to some extent connected by the issue of baptism, we have considered firstly both a brief selective historical backdrop sketch on this issue of children dying in infancy, and also the issue of orthodoxy and distinguishing between heresy and error, which involves balancing out two different types of scriptures on heresy that go in opposite directions. Let us pray. O God, our guide and help, thou hast declared thou dost want us to walk in truth, and be sanctified in the truth of thy word, and that we are to avoid them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine of thy holy word. But thou hast also declared that we are to love one another, that we may be one in the bond of Christian unity, Guide us, good Lord, in this bond of unity amongst all true believers in religiously conservative Protestant Christianity, to do that which is true and right, to thy honour and glory. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.