I'm sorry you feel my response was "exaggerated". It was not. Reading
MacArthur's exegesis in "Safe" reminded me again as to why I gave up using
his commentaries in teaching prep years ago.
The "Calvinist" historical position on infants dying in infancy is
inconsequential to the validity of MacArthur's argument. All it merely
proves is that reformed theologians tend to get a sentimental cramp in their
systematic and biblical theological exegesis when dealing with infants. Mac
claims to be beyond the sentimental, then proceeds to give sentimental
anecdote after sentimental anecdote; then, he provides a Calvin quote that
sentimentally invoke God's morality in the infants dying issue: "...Calvin
went on to say, 'It would be too cruel' to exclude that age from the grace
of redemption."
The only reference to this issue in scripture is David's comment. The rest
of the argument will live and die by inference. And in this case, like the
paedobaptist, MacArthur's case dies with consequence that is not good or
necessary.
Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH
----- Original Message -----
From: "James W. Allen" <jallen@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Are infants really "innocent?"
> 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@...
>
> --
> 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
>
>