Yes, thanks James for itemizing the options.
It's interesting that the only view that can really be 'proven' with
scripture is the agnostic view.
We can attempt to infer some of the other views using passages, and
reasonably believe we're right, but none are really 'air tight'.
The agnostic view is the one that seems to simply allow the scripture to be
as vague as it chooses.
Number 2, the so-called 'majority' view is interesting. It rests on the
assumption that God does not allow the non-elect to die in infancy. It's a
warm thought, but I can't think of any scripture that clarifies this.
David's comment would be the only one where we might try to infer this, but
it's not complete enough to say for sure. If Mac's OT passages were
actually referring to pagan babies, there would be more of an argument here,
but they aren't. They only speak of the sacrifice of babies from His chosen
people. So as proof texts, they lead us (at least me) toward options 3 or
4.
What's fascinating to me with options 3 and 4 is that there's an underlying
assumption we can know whether the parents really are elect or not.
The Jews believed that because the child was one of them, it was God's
elect. The NT clarifies that this was not necessarily true. That weakens
the idea that *all* children of believers (dieing in infancy) are
'guaranteed' salvation, which both 3 and 4 assert.
On the other end, regarding unbelievers, we cannot know if that parent is
chosen or not. We may see that they are yet to be regenerated, but we do
not know God's plan for their future. That's why we are commanded to preach
the word, and be gracious to all. We can't write anyone off because we just
don't know their future.
What if God is using the death of the unbeliever's child in the process of
drawing them to Himself? Would the death of the infant not be a gracious
honor the Lord created that little vessel for? Just because a parent isn't
yet confessing, doesn't mean they are predetermined to be lost forever. So
to say that the children of the lost are guaranteed lost, is presuming we
have all the facts at the point of the child's death.
We do not. We cannot.
There's also the case of the believing parents who unbeknownst to us (and to
themselves) are hypocrites.
Maybe that is exactly why God left the scripture ambiguous on this topic.
If he clearly told us His scheme (if He has a consistent scheme based on
whether the parents are chosen or not) we would go around applying it with
very limited knowledge, and creating a mess.
Is there scriptural reason to have hope for deceased infants? Sure,
especially the children of believers, and future believers. But does the
scripture tell us for certain?
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Newcomb [mailto:nan_new39@...]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:49 PM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Are infants really "innocent?"
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
--
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