I would agree with RC Sproul who said that the majority view is not always correct.
 

Preserving grace before regeneration

(Joseph Philpot,(1802 - 1869)  "Daily Words for Zion's Wayfarers")

"To those who have been called,  who are loved by God the Father 
 and preserved in Jesus Christ."     Jude 1

What a mercy it is for God's people that before 
they have a 'vital union' with Christ, before they
are grafted into Him experimentally; they have an 
'eternal, immanent union' with Him before all worlds. 
It is by virtue of this eternal union that they come 
into the world . . .
   at such a time,
   at such a place,
   from such parents,
   under such circumstances, as God has appointed. 

It is by virtue of this eternal union that the circumstances 
of their lives are ordained. By virtue of this eternal union 
they are preserved in Christ before they are effectually 
called. 

They cannot die until God has brought about a vital 
union with Christ. 

Whatever sickness they may pass through, whatever 
injuries they may be exposed to, whatever perils assault 
them on sea or land; die they will not, die they cannot, 
until God's purposes are executed in bringing them into 
a vital union with the Son of His love. 

Thus, this eternal union watched over every circumstance 
of their birth, watched over their childhood, watched over 
their manhood, watched over them until the appointed 
time and spot, when "the God of all grace," according to 
His eternal purpose, was pleased to quicken their souls, 
and thus bring about an experimental union with the Lord 
of life and glory.


"James W. Allen" <jallen@...> wrote:
Hello, Chad. You and I have had this discussion elsewhere, I know. I am
sorry to find so little charity in you toward great men of God with whom you
disagree.

On the substance of the issue, I will be happy to address matters privately
with folks who are interested. The subject is easy to research, a simple
Google search for "infant salvation" will bring you to Spurgeon, Boettner,
John Piper, Warfield, Hodge, and a multitude of other sources holding and
supporting the majority view. Anyone who is interested in learning from
those who have gone before and considering their thoughts in grace may
easily do so, whether or not they ultimately adopt the views of those
brethren.

My reason for writing before is well illustrated in your post. I cannot
understand the spirit that drives you to insult and deride your brothers in
Christ, merely because of a disagreement over such a doctrine.

I would not, for any purpose, insult a Warfield, a Spurgeon, a Piper, a
Hodge, by asserting that their theology was the result of a "sentimental
cramp." I see no reason to assume the worst of someone merely because I
disagree with them. To say that David's reference is the "only reference" is
a mere conclusory thrust with which no one who has written on the matter
agrees. Many texts are relevant, although, as you know, I also do not see
any one text as determinative to any of the five views.

This tendency to deride those with whom we disagree is the great curse of
discussion lists in general and, unfortunately, a common indictment of
Christians of all ages. To disagree reasonably and charitably, and to deem
others worthy of more honor than ourselves, is of the warp and woof of our
faith and duty. The fact that someone lived long ago does not make our duty
less, the fact that they disagree with us does not make our duty void.


James W. Allen
jallen@...


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
--
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