Brethren,

This is an old issue and everyone should really do some considering before
expressing exaggerated responses. I know that some on this list have taken
part in a discussion with me on another list, so they will have seen
whatever I write here.

The argument is over the fate of infants dying in infancy. The position that
MacArthur takes is the majority Calvinist position throughout the history.
It has been asserted most boldly by Spurgeon, Boettner, and many others. It
is one of five possible responses to the problem. If anyone is going to
address the question, they should do so cautiously in light of the
importance of the issues and the great weight of wisdom that has come down
on various positions.

It is also important to note that one of the most common canards against
Reformed soteriology (to which we hold here, I think) is that it teaches
that all infants dying in infancy are damned. This is a lie, but one that I
have come across many times. As believers in God's sovereignty, we must be
prepared to respond thoughtfully to those who accuse us of holding positions
we do not hold.

The problem presented is this:  Are infants dying in infancy elect or
non-elect?

There are five views that have, at one time or another, been asserted in
Calvinist circles:

    1.    Peter Martyr held the view that all infants dying in infancy are
non-elect and therefore damned.  This view was rejected at Dort and has
never been accepted by any Reformed scholar to my knowledge. Reformed
theology does not require nor teach that all infants dying in infancy are
damned.

    2.    The majority view through history is that all infants dying in
infancy are elect, that is, that God (by his providence) does not permit the
non-elect to die in infancy. This view was held by the Westminster Divines,
by Spurgeon, etc., and is included in the Westminster Confession and the
1689 London Baptist Confession (although the language reads oddly to us
today). Boettner and Warfield both describe this as the majority view. This
is apparently MacArthur's view.

    3.    A common view in the early Reformation was that the children of
believers who die in infancy are elect, but that the children of unbelievers
who die in infancy are lost. There is one remark in Calvin that appears to
assert this position, but he never addressed the issue directly. This view
is common among paedobaptists, I believe, as it is consistent with their
reasoning on the covenant/family relationship.

    4.    A slightly different view is that the children of believers who
die in infancy are elect but that we cannot know regarding the children of
unbelievers. As I recall, this position was John Owen's position, but I am
not certain about that. I know that Owen held either to this or to the
"agnostic" position set out below.

    5.    The "agnostic" view is that we cannot know about the elect or
non-elect status of any infant dying in infancy.

In my experience on discussion lists, it appears that the agnostic view is
the most common among people I deal with on-line, although it has not been
very common among Calvinists through history.

I hold to the majority view. I believe that all infants dying in infancy are
elect, as are those who (by God's sovereign will) are prevented by mental
infirmity from the exercise of faith.

There is nothing "appalling" about this position. You may certainly disagree
with it, but do not disregard lightly the wisdom of those who have gone
before.

The best treatment of this matter that I have seen is Warfield's essay "The
Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation."

James W. Allen
jallen@...