The problem is that his exegetical basis for making the dogmatic statements
he does about the fate of dead infants is weak, if not appalling. Time and
again, Mac fails to account for the special covenantal status given ONLY to
Israel... this is most telling in the way he exegetes the Psalms. We cannot
simply transfer what is said about Israelites and their children in the Old
Covenant into the New Covenant without making account for the special status
they had as a covenantal, non-soteriological people.
I've read the book... and will go through the quotes point by point. But
his claim about the status of infants rises and falls on this statement: no
one has ever been sent to hell merely for having a sin nature. If that
doctrine is false (and I believe it is), his whole paradigm is without
merit.
It would have been better for him to say that he believes infants are in
heaven merely because of David's comment, rather than attempting to back up
David's claim with bad exegesis from passages having nothing to do with the
topic.
Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Newcomb" <nan_new39@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:47 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Are infants really "innocent?"
> Hi John,
>
> I do hope that you will read J. MacArthur's book because I don't think
this
> discussion is doing it justice. I know I am not. Mac neither denies
> original sin, and he does say that God is GRACIOUS in bringing all infants
> who die in infancy into heaven. Having said that, he does go to great
> lengths to show how God looks upon babies and children. There are a
number
> of scriptures he looks at in making these conclusions, and I don't see how
> he is mishandling any of them. JM only uses the term "innocent" because
> God's Word does. It has to do with how GOD sees them. He believes that
> babies and infants who die go to heaven because God is gracious.
>
> He also spends a good deal of time showing how every time the Bible speaks
> of those who will not inherit heaven, it is because of SINS they have
> committed. Are babies born in Adam? Yes. Do they have a sin nature? Of
> course. I don't think anyone is denying that. Further, I had hoped I
made
> it clear that John does not present an "age of accountability." In fact,
I
> said that he contrasts his position of a "condition of accountability"
with
> an "age of accountability" which he does not support.
>
> Blessings,
> Nancy
>
>
>
>
> >From: "John Reisinger" <jreisinger@...>
> >Reply-To: soundofgrace@...
> >To: <soundofgrace@...>
> >Subject: [soundofgrace] Are infants really "innocent?"
> >Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:10:18 -0500
> >
> >From: "Nancy Newcomb" <nan_new39@...>
> >Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] RE: pagan children called 'innocents'???
> >
> >
> > > Having read the book, I understood John MacArthur mostly to be saying
> >that
> > > babies, regardless of who they are born to, are referred to by God as
> > > "innocents."
> >
> >JGR: No child of Adam was every "innocent." A child does not become a
> >guilty sinner worthy of death when he supposedly commits his first sin at
> >the mythical "age of accountability." The infant is already, at the
moment
> >of his birth, a guilty sinner worthy of death OR ELSE HE COULD NOT
POSSIBLY
> >DIE! This is Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-19.
> > Not one single child of Adam was ever "inncoent" for a single
> >second. We simply must understand Romans 5:12-19 and start the
discussion
> >at that point. Paul is specifically dealing with the subject of "Why do
all
> >men, including infants die?" And he does not give one answer for an
adult's
> >death and another answer for the infant's death. An infant and and an
adult
> >both die for the same reason. They are both guilty sinners who DESERVE to
> >die or else they would not die! Job 4:7 "Remember now, who ever
perished
> >being innocent? Or where were the upright ever cut off?" (NKJ) Nobody,
> >inclding infants, dies who is not a guilty sinner that deserves to die!
> >That
> >is a Biblcal fact.
> > To attempt to get infants into heaven on the ground that they
are
> >inncoent is a clear denial of Romans 5:12-19 and the doctrine of the
> >imputation of both Adam's sin and guilt as well as denial of Adam's
> >universal, representative headship.
> > This does not mean that an infant cannot be saved but it does
mean
> >he a guilty sinner the day he is born and therefore must have the
benifits
> >of the atonement applied to him in order to be saved. If infants are in
> >heaven, and I believe they are even though I cannot positively without
> >question prove it, they are "saved and blood washed" infants and not
> >"innocent" infants who somehow escaped unscathed from their heritage in
> >Adam.
> >
> >JGR.
> >
> >--
> >Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> >http://www.soundofgrace.com
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
> >
> >To view our online archive go to our web page at
> >http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed
> experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>