Hi James, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the trouble you went to in posting this information. I was unaware of most of it, and I found it encouraging and informative. Thanks, Nancy >From: "James W. Allen" <jallen@...> >Reply-To: soundofgrace@... >To: <soundofgrace@...> >Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Are infants really "innocent?" >Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:57:52 -0500 > >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 > > > _________________________________________________________________ Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up — fast & reliable Internet access with prime features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1