The “Age of Accountability”
June 4th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
The following article is adapted from John MacArthur’s response during a Q&A session at Grace Church. Much of what John says here has been expanded in his book, Safe in the Arms of God.
What is the Scriptural basis for an “age of accountability” regarding a child’s salvation?
I think the best way to answer that is to say this: There is no “age of accountability” identified in Scripture, as such. There is nothing in the Bible that says, “Here is the age and from here on you are responsible!” I think the reason for that is because children mature at different paces. That would be true from culture to culture, and from age to age in history.
So the Lord in His wisdom didn’t identify a specific moment. God knows when each soul is accountable. God knows when real rejection has taken place; when the love of sin exists in the heart. When enmity with God is conscious and willful. God alone knows when that occurs.
The Jews had identified about the age of twelve, and that was when Jesus was taken by His parents to Jerusalem for the Passover and the Feast, and there He was in the temple questioning the doctors. You have a good illustration there, and Jesus was asking profound questions at that point. This then seems to be the age when those kinds of questions begin to be personal in the heart of a child.
So I have always felt that somewhere around age twelve, the transition from childhood to adulthood takes place. It’s probably not totally disassociated from puberty, where there is a consciousness of one’s own impulses, feelings, drives, desires, and therefore sinful attitudes and passions, and whatever else starts to emerge.
With this in mind, I believe that it is absolutely essential, all along the way with children, that every time they desire to make a commitment to Jesus Christ, at whatever age, you (as someone giving spiritual oversight to them) encourage them to do that. Because you don’t know, we can’t know, when their desire is indicative of genuine saving faith. When a young child says, “I want to invite Christ into my life,” then you need to encourage them to do that. Every one of those, I see as a step towards God. At what point that becomes saving faith — only God knows for certain.
But, I also believe, that up until that point of real saving faith, God in His mercy, would save that child, should that child die. I have been doing some study on that very issue, because when I was at a conference recently, and that question was asked of a panel of very astute theologians — no one gave an adequate answer. And I thought, “How can we have theologians who don’t know the answer to that question? What about the children before the age of accountability, when they die, do they go to heaven?” I think the answer is “yes,” and I think it is a strong “YES,” based upon the confidence of David who said, when his little baby died: “He cannot come to me, but I shall go to him.” And David knew where he was going; David knew he was going to heaven — he knew that. There wasn’t any question in his mind about that.
So when he said, “I shall go to him,” in those words was the anticipation and the joyful hope of reunion. Now, some people have said, “Well, all he meant was, ‘I am going to be buried next to him.’” There wouldn’t be any reason to say, “He can’t come to me, but, oh I’m so glad I am going to be buried next to him!” There would be no joy in that; that wouldn’t satisfy anything. So I think at that point, he was expressing the confidence that he was going to heaven; he knew that was where he would find his son, who had died before the age of accountability.
Another interesting thing that occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, is that children (including those who die) are referred to as “innocent.” The Hebrew word that is used for “innocent” is used numerous times in the Old Testament to refer to “not being guilty” — literally, “being taken to court and found ‘not guilty.’” In fact, the OT refers to the babies that were passed through the fire to Moloch [false god] as the “innocents,” so I believe that God, prior to the “age of accountability” treats them as “innocent.” It doesn’t mean that they are not fallen; it doesn’t mean that they are not sinful — it does mean that God mercifully treats them as “innocent” in spite of that, and He has to exercise grace to do that, just as He exercises grace to save those who believe.
In summary, the “age of accountability” is not clearly identified in Scripture. I think it’s up to parents; every time a child wants to respond and open the heart to Christ — you need to encourage that, all the way along, until they come to that point where it is genuine, and the Lord knows that even if you don’t.
I’ve never heard the “innocent” point made in this discussion before. Can I get some Scripture references on that?
Yes there is no age of accountability mentioned in Scripture.
Man is BORN into sin not AGED into it.
Romans 9 is fairly clear that “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” This does not depend on Race, Age, Gender, Effort, Desire etc. Does not depend on man at all.
I too would like to believe that all children who die go to heaven. It is completely with the Lord’s power to do this. However there is NO place in scripture saying He does or is required to save every child. Mankind is cursed with sin, and without Grace none are saved. “There is no one righteous, not even one” ( Romans 3:10)
The “age of accountability” is not passed at a birthday or stage of maturity. Mankind entered that ‘age’ when Adam sinned around 6000 years ago. Ever since then, regardless of age, choice, maturity, regardless of anything a man or woman or child can want or do, without Grace none are saved. Without Grace there is no entry to Heaven.
There is but one condition. Being Born Again, gets you into Heaven, not dying young enough.
MDM
I have been looking all morning for any passages in the OT that refer to children as innocent…and I can’t find any. I too would appreciate some Scriptural references for this assertion.
The other thing that makes little sense to me is how one could say a child is fallen and sinful, yet at the same time say that God treats them as innocent in spite of that if they have not yet reached this “age of accountability”.
We are either born guilty and sinful, or we are not. Which is it?
Secondly, to use the same consistent line of thought regarding the use of the description “innocent” for children (I hope we see some examples of this)…adults in the OT are described with that term quite a bit. Does that mean they too are guiltless before God? If not, why not?
Thanks.
I found two references to the “innocents”…
Jer. 2:34 and 19:4…
neither of which lend any real support to an age of accountability and children being guiltless before God.
I was under the impression we were sinners at birth….even yet in the womb. I always saw it as God being completely justified by judging that person, though he be yet a baby, on the fact he is a born sinner.
Sort of the “we sin because we are sinners” line of reasoning.
I’ve been on the fence on this subject for some time now…and still have not come across a rock solid argumentaion.
This has always been a difficult subject, particularly when one takes into account the doctrine of original sin. Further complicating, or clarifying, the discussion is the testimony of Paul in the Scriptures, in particular the book of Romans, where the Apostle writes that through Adam sin entered into “the world.” “The world” seems to refer to the comprehensive taint of Adam’s sin:
Romans 5:12-17 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned– 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
I look forward to viewing an edifying discussion as this topic is unpacked, exegetically, from the Scriptures.
In His Grace,
Keith
Keith, the very section you cite demonstrates there is no longer any “original sin.” I know this is shocking to many, but study this section and understand that if you believe original sin still holds you have denigrated Jesus. What Adam did to the whole race Jesus was unable to undo at the cross? No. Paul argues the opposite. Any curse from Adam as federal head is undone by Christ, whose power is far greater than Adam’s (or Satan’s).
What this means in practice is that infants are not born “sinners.” They are actually innocent.
However, when they DO become morally aware, and do sin, they become guilty of personal sins. They need a Savior then, and that’s what the “age of accountability” is about — so I agree with MacArthur here.
BTW, Jesus declared that if a man is “blind” (in a moral sense) there IS NO GUILT for sin (John 9:41). Infants are thus not guilty, until they can “see.”
Many errors can be avoided if one revisits Romans 5 and gets at the truth therein.
Hey Guys,
What do you guys make of David’s reference to his dead child, before asking for other verses?
I’d like to hear your guys’ opinion on that b/c I think its pretty solid.
Brian,
Thanks for your comments. I only have a couple minutes this morning, but wanted to give a brief response. Obviously, today’s article was only a brief overview of the topic coming from a Q&A session during an evening service at our church. So this is not Dr. MacArthur’s most-developed treatment of the issue. For that, again, we would point you to his book, Safe in the Arms of God.
Regarding the innocence of young children, here are some of the verses that often arise in the discussion: Deuteronomy 1:39; 24:16; Numbers 14:29; 2 Samuel 12:23; 1 Kings 14:12-13; Psalm 106:38; Isaiah 7:16; Jeremiah 2:34, 19:4; Ezekiel 16:21; 18:20; Jonah 4:11; Matt 19:13-15 (and parallels); Rev. 20:12.
Regarding the orthodoxy of MacArthur’s view, I think it is helpful to understand that other great Christian leaders, such as Hodge, Strong, Spurgeon, Warfield, and even Zwingli have taught that all infants who die will be saved. The primary line of reasoning held by such men is that (1) all dying infants prove to be among the elect and thus will be saved, and (2) that no dying infant can be held culpable for original sin because (a) their lives are absent of willful deeds of rebellion (actual sin) and (b) they have not reached the condition of accountability.
Others throughout church history have taught that infants who are baptized, or elect, or part of the covenant community will be saved. In any case, the idea that at least some infants who die go to heaven has always been an orthodox position. I say this only because I believe it is important to demonstrate that MacArthur’s views are not unique to him.
Hope that helps. Gotta run…
- NB
jsb,
Thanks for your contribution.
I assume you are not advocating universalism, or that all people are saved because of the cross. If there is no longer sin waging war in our members, then why do people need to trust Christ in order to be saved? Why is there a great commission—why did Jesus command in Matthew 28:18-20 for believers to go forth and tell people about Him?
Paul, writing in Romans 1:18-32 makes is very clear that all are without excuse. That no one is without excuse. Later he asserts that man is, until salvation, in a condition of rebellion against God (Romans 3:10ff, echoing the pre-Cross era found in Psalms 14:1-3; Psalms 53:1-3).
Remember, brother, that people do not need to be taught to sin, or to be selfish, or to lie—it comes naturally (i.e. original sin). I think you might be reading into the text as opposed to reading from the text.
Also be aware that John MacArthur has taught and teaches the doctrine of original sin (see overview of theology from the MacArthur Study Bible):
MSB: We teach that because all men were in Adam, a nature corrupted by Adam’s sin has been transmitted to all men of all ages, Jesus Christ being the only exception. All men are thus sinners by nature, by choice, and by divine declaration (Ps. 14:1–3; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18,23; 5:10–12)—MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. Re 21:27…
Original sin taints all men (people) of all ages–that’s what the Bible says and that’s why Pastor MacArthur, himself teaches (as well as Grace Church and The Master’s Seminary) and I agree with the Bible, Pastor MacArthur, the elders of Grace Church, and the godly men who prepare men for ministry at the seminary–because they agree with the Bible.
Please clarify your position as I may have misunderstood you. I can’t promise a return post as I have a busy schedule. We can email off line if you like.
In His Grace,
Keith
Nate B.,
I hope to see the case made from Scripture, not from men, or tradition.
I think the approach taken by Dr. MacArthur in his debate with our brother in the Lord, RC Sproul on infant baptism using only Scripture will be very edifying, with all due respect to Zwingli and others.
This is an important topic. Personally speaking, my wife and I have lost two of our own through miscarriage and tubal pregnancies–before birth and we thank Him for letting us keep the two we have today. I look forward to this series.
In His Grace,
Keith Crosby
Hi jsb,
But wouldn’t that view of no original sin make sin subjective. The fact is children are rebellious still when they are young and, for example, may tell their parents a lie. They may not be at an age where they consciously acknowledge this as sin but the fact still stands that objectively it is still sin. It is hard for me to comprehend your argument because it seems the presence of sin is based upon when a child is made morally aware. Does this excuse unreached people groups because they don’t have the Bible? Thanks.
allen
Nate,
Thanks for your reply with the Scripture passages.
I believe Paul makes it very clear (especially since he repeats it about five times) in Romans chapter five. In that chapter, Paul says the following:
v.15 – the MANY died by the transgression of the ONE (no mention of this being AFTER a certain age)
v.16 – judgment arose from one transgression (no mention of an age)
v.17 – death reigned through the one, by the transgression of the one (again, no mention of an age)
And then these two really hit the point home:
v.18 – through ONE transgression there resulted condemnation to all men (I stood condemned before I was ever born, and this having nothing to do with my ow personal sin, and therefore having nothing to do with my ability to reason)
v.19 – through the ONE man’s disobedience the MANY were made sinners (I was made a sinner before I was ever born, again…this having nothing to do with my own sin or ability to reason).
So, how can someone say that a person is fallen and sinful, and at the same time say that same person is innocent if they have not yet reached some age where they can tell right from wrong? I just don’t see how MacArthur and others can have it both ways.
Also (and I know many don’t want to go here), IF it is true that all children automatically are elect if they die prior to reaching some age of accountability, then the most gracious thing we as adults can do is make sure as many of them never reach that age in order to insure they get to heaven. Why in the world would we want someone to reach an age at which they are no longer innocent if we can guarantee for them eternal life by never letting them reach that age? That, to me, would be the most loving thing I could do for someone…IF what MacArthur puts forth is really true.
Thanks.
This isn’t a topic I had previously considered too deeply. At first blush, I took Romans 7:7-11 as suggesting there wsa a time prior to the understanding of God’s command, and therefore, predating personal rebellion.
This, taken with David’s “I will go to him”, led me to accept the conventional thinking about infants and heaven.
Does this interpretation fit context without doing violence to other doctrinal claims?
(also, I find it telling that David’s kid died on the 7th day, but circumcision happens on the 8th; David is trusting to Grace, and not works.)
Keith, of course Ro. 5 does not teach universalism. Read my post again carefully again. I was clear about actual sins being what condemns.
Nate:
“The primary line of reasoning held by such men is that (1) all dying infants prove to be among the elect and thus will be saved, and (2) that no dying infant can be held culpable for original sin because (a) their lives are absent of willful deeds of rebellion (actual sin) and (b) they have not reached the condition of accountability.”
I am really glad to hear this! The meaning of “original sin” is that ALL are “culpable”, even infants, which is why Augustine and the Latin fathers taught that infants must be baptized or they go to Hell. Calvin and Luther both taught this, too.
What your write here — that infants are not held culpable because their lives are free from willful acts of rebellion — is absolutely the biblical teaching, and very much in the Arminian tradition.
I appreciate Dr. MacArthur being biblical on this point, even though it may separate him from some who are normally on his side of the theological fence.
See the excerpt below: Is John saying that a child at the age of accountability who doesn’t accept Christ at that time can’t be saved or at that is the age where our rebellion against God becomes more on the conscious level, thus we are personally responsible.
Many children grow up in church but sometimes really walk their own way until later in life when it hits home that they really missed the point. Thoughts, clarification?
The “Age of Accountability”
By John MacArthur
So the Lord in His wisdom didn’t identify a specific moment. God knows when each soul is accountable. God knows when real rejection has taken place; when the love of sin exists in the heart. When enmity with God is conscious and willful. God alone knows when that occurs.
I’ve heard that sinners go to Hell because of their inborn Adamic nature. They go there not because they never heard the gospel, but because of that nature. It’s a rebellious nature even in the womb, IMO, due to that “Adamic blood” coursing through that childs veins.
As I said before, it’s a tough nut to crack and there is fair argumentation on both sides, but neither are convincing. I am only trying to work this out in my own mind, keeping in full view Gods sovereignty over his creation.
Babies are cute and adorable, but in the light of Gods holiness and perfection, how does he see that child? I have 2 children of my own and have weighed this subject carefuly, but am still not sold on that “innocence” mentioned above…
Something else I thought was this,
God hated Esau – not because of any sin he would do or had done – but before he was even born or had done anything good or bad. Paul seems to stress the point that God hated him (and loved Jacob) PRIOR TO anything they did in the flesh.
That would also appear to refute the notion that someone is innocent before God prior to reaching some age of accountability. I think we can all agree that Esau surely had not reached that age when God already hated him before he was even born.
Just a thought, while I believe that all “infants” and unborn babies who die (or are aborted) are among the elect and therefore enter into heaven by God’s grace. A question still remains, where do you draw the line of moral responsibility? In other words, what happens to 5 year olds when they die? or how about pre-teens? or the mentally challenged? I think we have to look at their guilt in light of their knowledge and violation of God’s law rather than their natural depravity. God’s grace is what saves the adult and its the same saving grace that saves the child. Can we prove that “all” children (not babies) who die are among the elect? I’m not so sure.
God hated us ALL, not just Esau. Ephesians 2:1-3 says that we, the saved, were before salvation “by nature children of wrath just as the others.” So let us not misunderstand Scripture and think that God did not hate Jacob too!
Further, this article is a very short treatment of the topic and MacArthur’s book “Safe in the Arms of God” lays out a clear and Biblical defense of his position. Commentors should read the whole work before drawing conclusions on this brief post.
~pastorway
btw, can we take anything from the flood story in concluding the “age of accountability debate”? In other words, why did babies and children die in the flood if they were “innocent” before God and not accountable for being sinners? Couldn’t have God placed the babies and children on the ark also? this is not to suggest that they are in “hell” but God’s anger was displayed on children (possibly thousands) as well?
Well, I’m out of my meetings and the day is almost over.
So far, it appears that Dr. MacArthur’s position has been accused of (1) being biblically baseless, (2) teaching two ways of salvation (per Brian’s website [http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com]), and (3) aligning itself with Pelagianism.
Ah yes, and this is why I love blogging . . .
Regarding #1: I know some of you will think this a cop out, but if you are really serious about understanding the biblical basis for Dr. MacArthur’s thoughts on this issue – please get his book, Safe in the Arms of God. (Thanks to Pastor Way above for making this same request.) It is an easy read, and well-worth the investment (even if you don’t ultimately agree with the book’s conclusions). I just did a quick survey of the book and jotted down some of the Scripture passages that are found within. (There is no Scripture index in the back, so I’ve included page numbers here as well.)
(There are more, of course, but I got tired of typing them all out.)
Regarding #2: Dr. MacArthur is very clear in his book that infants who die are saved by the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on the cross. There are not “two ways” of salvation, one for children and another for adults. On page 77, he writes:
Regarding #3: MacArthur is certainly not promoting Pelagianism (the denial of original sin) or Arminian theology. He spends several pages (pp. 68ff) in Safe in the Arms of God defending the doctrine of original sin, but does not see this doctrine as contradictory to his overall premise.
This comment is already getting too long, but I’ll close with a quote from Phil Johnson which MacArthur uses on pp. 87–88. This is not intended as a slam against anyone, it’s just something to think about.
Anyway, thanks to everyone above for their part in the discussion. I’ll be offline again until tomorrow. Of course, I’m sure the conversation will continue just fine without me.
- NB
Because so many great men of God have disagreed over the issue, I do think it is of wisdom to be very humble when talking to parents about the death of their child.
I would not disabuse a mourning parents of their belief that their child is in heaven.
Wisdom says; if you have doubts, keep them to yourselves.
JSB,
Romans 5 doesn’t teach universalism, I think we are both clear on that. However, your reasoning appears to allude to it or make sort of a logical leap.
Can you address the quote I gave you from the overview of theology and the other passages I and others have given you?
Here’s the quote from the MacArthur Study Bible’s overview of theology that deals with original sin:
MSB: We teach that because all men were in Adam, a nature corrupted by Adam’s sin has been transmitted to all men of all ages, Jesus Christ being the only exception. All men are thus sinners by nature, by choice, and by divine declaration (Ps. 14:1–3; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18,23; 5:10–12)—MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. Re 21:27…
Note the last section, “All men are thus sinners by nature, by choice, and by divine declaration (Ps. 14:1–3; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 3:9–18,23; 5:10–12)—MacArthur, John Jr: The MacArthur Study Bible. electronic ed. Nashville : Word Pub., 1997, c1997, S. Re 21:27…” and address the verses Dr. MacArthur has included…
Thanks.
In His Grace,
Keith
Keith, just to be clear, there is no logic or leap from Ro. 5, in my view, to universalism. I can’t be any clearer than that. Please refer to what I actually said in my posts.
MacArthur says that God, in his grace, treats infants as “innocent.” This is correct, IMO. Thus “original sin” does not, in M’s view, do what Augustine and Calvin and Luther taught, consign (unbaptized) infants to hell. I agree completely with MacArthur on this point.
So, when he says, as you quote: “All men are thus sinners by nature, by choice, and by divine declaration,” yet also holds that infants are not treated as guilty if they die, I am fine with that. I would couch it differently, based on Ro. 5, but we come to the same conclusion. That’s a good thing.
Hope that helps.
This is a good post and I also have never heard of the innocence thing in the OT before and I’m glad this subject is being addressed but I do not believe that there is an “age of accountability”. I believe in election. Now your all probably saying, Oh man another one of them strict 5 pointers but here me out.
Look at Romans 9:11
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Now you could say that this is only for this particular situation with Esau and Jacob but is it not possible this could be universal, that this is not how God elects everyone, in the womb before we have done any good or evil? This makes much more sense than the age of accountability. How bout the indians in some remote jungle. The Gospel has NEVER been introduced to them, they were NEVER able to make a choice because it was never presented to them, so would they not also be under the “age of accountability”? Yes they would have to be. Its easy for us to say that age 12 could be it because we know that kids around here in America will most definitely here the Gospel but what about someone in remote China? He will never here, so he also must be under the age of accountability no matter how old he is because he has never heard the Gospel!
Also to believe in an “age of accountability” you would have to believe that abortion is the #1 thing putting people into heaven. Millions more children have been murdered in the womb than those in war but if we believe in an “age of accountability” why do we fight against it? Some say, “well its murder and thats against God!” Ok, but since you believe in total free will regarding salvation then you also have to admit that probably 99% of those children who were aborted would not have accepted Christ and gone to hell BUT because they were aborted then they will be in heaven? If our job is to further the kingdom than why are we so against it?
I truly have a very hard time believing that the #1 killing machine known to man is the very thing filling up the Kingdom of God.
JMAC — I expect I am in agreement with others when I say it is not for want of exposure to the gospel that some consider kids “innocent.”
Romans spells out that even those who have not had direct scriptural revelation of God, still have had moral law by way of conscience, (as well as instruction by others). Then their own conscience convicts them. The “Indians” are therefore a distraction from the real issue.
I think the question being posed here is whether there is a distinction in REAL guilt between being born with the Adamic APPETITES for SIN and rebellion (to manifest visibly as sin at a later date) , vs. being born with REAL GUILT.
In either instance, the need for the Redeemer remains, because the soul is tainted with the predisposition to sin and rebellion, whether or not it has had opportunity to know the choice and deliberately defy God.
Regarding your last point on abortion:
How God decides to weigh the souls of men are His perogative.
For our part, we are not merely commanded to “populate heaven”, we are called to make disciples and to play a role in extending His kingdom on Earth.
The question of where the soul of the aborted is bound does not deal with the present issue of what WE are doing about the violence being enacted against people stamped with the image of God.
“I truly have a very hard time believing that the #1 killing machine known to man is the very thing filling up the Kingdom of God.”
The most evil killing act ever perpitrated by men is that which God had ordained to fill up heaven.
I have John’s book and gave it to a friend who had just lost a child at birth.
How are all the tribes and tongues of the earth represented in Rev 7? Could it be that there are Canaanites there because of the abhorrent practise of sacrificing their children in their worship of false Gods?
However as a believer in Election and understanding Romans 9 to apply to general Salvation what is the difference between a non-elect baby and a non-elect adult? If election is unconditional then there is no difference.
But the characteristics of God as just and merciful are relevant here. And i would want to know how all the tribes of the earth are then represented in heaven – that’s clearly universal in nature. How were Philistines and Canaanites saved?
Not an easy one. Best to read’s John’s book before making final statements on such an important issue – as usual he is thorough and makes a compelling case using scripture as has been pointed out. And not all “calvinists” agree on this issue. David seems to have had assurance and we are sure that he “knew” His God.
Ultimately one must see the heart of God towards the child, the orphan the fatherless expressed most vividly in Christ himself in contrast to the culture of the time “for of such is the kingdom of heaven”.
Finally we must ultimately bow the knee to the sovereignty of God and trust Him alone on this.
“God hated us ALL, not just Esau.”
Pastorway…this is not true, for in the same breath where God said he hated Esau, He said, “Jacob I have loved”. How can you say God hated Jacob, when He Himself clearly says that He LOVED Jacob, even before he was born and had done anything good or bad (that was prior to personal sin or personal repentance and faith).
Do we not realize that Jesus Christ died for His sheep while they were still sinners, and yet, he died and was raised before I was even born. So, how could I be considered a sinner if I had not personally sinned yet? How could Christ have died for me as a sinner if I had yet to commit a sin? How could I be considered by nature a child wrath even as the rest if I hadn’t yet reached some age of accountability? Because I was already condemned as a result of my being represented by Adam. I was made a transgressor by Adam’s transgression. If that has no effect upon an infant…then what’s the point of being represented by Adam?
If babies and infants are not considered guilty (until they actually become self aware and can reason right and wrong) of sin through the one man’s transgression, then what was the point of Adam’s representation of mankind in the first place?
If man is only responsible and stands condemned for his own personal sin (after reaching this age where he becomes accountable)…then original sin has no meaning. If it does have purpose, what purpose does it serve if man is not really considered guilty until he sins himself and lives long enough to know right from wrong?
Nathan,
I have read MacArthur’s book. And yes, he says infants who die are saved by God’s grace, based on the work of Christ. But (from my recollection) he never says they are saved by grace, THROUGH faith. Even in the portion you quoted, he doesn’t attach faith to their salvation.
That is why I brought up that there is an appearance of a salvation exception in Mac’s position, because he basically says all infants automatically go to heaven, yet he doesn’t attach their regeneration to faith, based upon the atoning work of Christ, through the means of hearing the word, the gospel.
Does MacArthur believe that infants are saved by grace, THROUGH faith, and that their faith comes from hearing, and that hearing comes by the word of Christ? That is what I have not seen in his position on this issue. If he believes they are just automatically saved (even if it is because of Christ’s work on the cross) without faith through the the means of hearing the gospel, then isn’t that an exception to what God Himself has laid down as the Scripturally revealed means for salvation?
I have always maintained that God could indeed save every infant who dies, but if He does, it is by no other means than he saves any other person. Hopefully you and others would agree with that.
Thanks.
We would all agree that David was an OT Prophet. Everything that an OT Prophet said had to come to pass or he would be exposed as a fraud. When David says he cannot bring the child back, but one day would go to the child we have to believe that David was telling the truth.
Although it may be a mystery, it is true nonetheless. The Bible is teaching that their is a balance that I feel most have missed. Somewhere between David’s son dying and John 14:6 lies the median.
“If man is only responsible and stands condemned for his own personal sin (after reaching this age where he becomes accountable)…then original sin has no meaning.”
No, it simply means that “original sin” has no condemning power after the cross. Adam’s “original sin” brought death to all; but Christ’s sacrifice took that away for all. (This is the only way to properly read Ro. 5, otherwise you believe Christ isn’t as powerful as Adam!)
Anyway, all the consequences of Adam’s vicarious sin have been wiped away. Infants are not hell-bound until they commit personal sins. Until then, they are innocent, as MacArthur says.
Contra Nate B., MacArthur’s view of “original sin” is closer to Arminianism than Calvinism, in that the true Calvinist-Augustinian view is that “original sin” condemns all, even infants — which is why Augustine stressed infant baptism (another false idea that grew out of misunderstanding original sin).
JSB,
For clarification, do you believe that those who die without having heard the gospel, those who have never knowingly and deliberately rejected Christ are accountable?
For example, do you believe that the Bedouin who is unaware of Christ if he “follows what light he has” absent the knowlege of God’s word and Christ, is innocent and on the basis of doing the best with what knowledge he has goes to heaven based upon what Christ accomplished on the cross?
Some might argue that this person is not accountable and if as you say he has never deliberately rejected Christ, or God, or God’s word (having never heard it) is innocent. If as you say, original sin was taken away by the cross, then for what is this man condemned.
Now, as to the non-functionality of original sin—does the creation no longer groan under its weight (as Roman 8:22 indicates)? That is to say, since Christ removed the existence and efficacy of original sin, as you say, do we no longer live an a fallen world. For, if original sin was totally neutralized, as you interpret the Scriptures, then if, as you interpret, all the effects of original sin are gone… So, how do animals fall under the curse, how does our world remain fallen… as you have explained your view there can be two options:
1) The world is not in a fallen state…
2) As you interpret the Scriptures Christ’s cross-work against original sin as you seem to understand it was only partial in that it neutralized original sin’s effects only partial in so far as it pertains to man.
The third option is that you possibly have misunderstood and read into the Scriptures and that, as John MacArthur and others at Grace Church and The Master’s Seminary teach, original sin plagues all mankind as does personal sin and relief from its eternal consequences (that is to say salvation) is found only by faith in Christ, volitionally (humanly speaking) expressed in His person and work.
In charity and with all due respect, I’d like you to explain how Adam’s sin was cancelled for us prior to our salvation and not for everything else.
Thanks.
In His Grace,
Keith
Bro Keith…thanks for your inquiry. If you are truly interested in this topic, which is really beyond the scope of a comment section, may I recommend something to you? Read the Commentary on Romans, 2 Vols, by Jack Cottrell (College Press). See especially the section on ch. 5. You will find the full treatment there. This is longstanding theology from a non-Calvinist perspective.
Bottom line on this particular issue, however, is that I agree with what MacArthur has written here, and with Nate B’s commentary, as it relates to infants who die.
Thanks for the interchange.
jsb,
Original sin DOES condemn all…including infants. Show me in Paul’s teaching in Romans 5 (or anywhere else) where infants are excluded from condemnation resulting from Adam’s sin.
MacArthur himself says that infants are fallen and sinful, yet that has no meaning when he turns around and says God doesn’t hold that against them until they reach some particular age.
Secondly, people sure do read a lot into David’s words about his son not ever coming back to him but he going to be with his son. No where in that statement from David in 2 Sam. 12:23 is there any explicit teaching that David was saying he was going to be with his son in heaven. To assume that as a given is to read much too much into the text.
Here’s a thought:
IF original sin had no real functionality for infants (as seemingly put forth by jsb when he says the cross nullified original sin), then there would be NO cases of infants dying prematurely of natural causes.
How do you explain the death of an infant (dying from some natural abnormality, etc., and not at the hands of someone else) apart from original sin?
Secondly, I have seen no one in favor of Mac’s view address the lack of any mention on his part of regeneration by faith of these infants who are saved. Are they saved by grace, THROUGH faith? And is that faith brought about through the means for salvation ordained in Scripture…the hearing of the word (gospel)? If not, how then are they saved? I know it is by grace…but what is the means?
Thanks.
Brian, check out some scholarship on Romans from a non-Calvinist perspective, with your Bible open. The best text on this is the Cottrell work I’ve recommended. There is no more curse associated with original sin. Otherwise, you believe Adam is stronger than Christ. But the scope of the argument of ch. 5 goes well beyond comment sections.
For those serious about their theology, and not just debating brickbats, I commend this work to you. It’s always good to read some contrary views and be Berean about it!
jsb,
If there is no more curse associated with original sin, then how do you explain an infant dying of natural causes?
As a side note…no need to get close to the ad-hominem line with your insinuations of someone like me having a closed Bible, or not being serious about my theology, and instead just wanting to debate “brickbats”, or not being berean.
Just stick to the issues being discussed and everything will be fine, brother.
jsb needs alot of patience.
Romans 5 teaches that sin came into the world through Adam but it does not teach that sin is inherited.
Brian, I apologize for sounding disrespectful. That’s the way I always put it, reading theology with the Bible open and being Berean about it. No implication on you meant.
BTW, another passage hasn’t been fully discussed.
John 9:41
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”
Infants are “blind” in the same sense. Therefore?
JSB,
Re:
Read the Commentary on Romans, 2 Vols, by Jack Cottrell (College Press). See especially the section on ch. 5. You will find the full treatment there. This is longstanding theology from a non-Calvinist perspective.
When I am working through a text for a sermon I come to the commentaries after I have wrestled with the text (in context). I never rely on one commentary as it is better to check one’s conclusions against multiple commentators. I try to begin with at least 5 on a passage I might have wrestled with, more if I have them. Now my library is not as large as others but in all my commentaries on Romans I see no one who would argue from Romans 5 that there is no such thing as original sin being neutralized at the cross. The penalty for the believer’s sin was paid at the cross. Christ’s work at the cross is sufficient to save all but is effective for those who are saved.
With all due respect, if I look hard enough on the internet there is, out there somewhere, a commentator to be found who will say almost anything. That’s why we do not rely on an isolated commentary.
J… the commentary is a tool to check one’s conclusions as they learn from the text (not read into the text).
You might want to consult the MacArthur Commentary on Romans 5, pp. 269-309…nowhere does John MacArthur teach that original sin went away from mankind because of the cross… children born today as just as depraved in their little natures as children born before the cross and after the fall.
Well, I’m signing off from this discussion. Grace to you.
In His Grace,
Keith
jsb,
I did a google search on Jack Cottrell. He is from a church that identifies itself with the restoration movement,along with the church of christ, disciples of christ etc. These churches are pelagian and not even arminian in nature. they also view baptism as essential to their salvation, which cud explains views about original sin. arminians believe in total depravity and hence in original sin.
Just a final word from me, Keith. I consult multiple commentaries as well, and most are from a Calvinist perspective. But I study them.
I recommend Cottrell because he is a scholar. Got his Ph.D. from Princeton Th. Seminary, in fact. It’s his arguments that are compelling. So rather than dismiss this one, I urge you to go for it. He is one of the finest theologians working today, not just an “internet” voice.
I don’t see how we keep going back to commentary on Romans 5.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
The Bible is clear that all have sinned, even the babes are born sinners.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
David’s baby went to Heaven and it was only by the Grace of God. Since we know that God is just this cannot be an exception. There has to be balance for those who are not able to make the decision, but heathen men who have not heard of Jesus will go to Hell. They stand without excuse.
“There has to be balance for those who are not able to make the decision, but heathen men who have not heard of Jesus will go to Hell. They stand without excuse.”
Now that’s really consistent! (said with sarcasm and a smile)
How is a heathen who has never heard of Jesus able to make “the decision” any more than an infant who has not heard of Jesus? A person who has never heard the gospel is no more able to make “the decision”, as you put it, than an infant who has never heard the gospel.
I am going to re-post a question I asked around lunchtime yesterday, but have not seen any responses to. here is the question:
“I have seen no one in favor of Mac’s view address the lack of any mention on his part of regeneration by faith of these infants who are saved. Are they saved by grace, THROUGH faith? And is that faith brought about through the means for salvation ordained in Scripture…the hearing of the word (gospel)? If not, how then are they saved? I know it is by grace…but what is the means?
Thanks.”
ps. Steve Camp has done an excellent job of addressing this whole subject in a post from May, titled How Wide is the Narrow Road?
Dear Abe, you are using some sort of “guilt by association” argument here. Cottrell is considered one of the leading Arminian theologians, so named and respected by people like Wayne Grudem, etc. It would be better to interact with his actual arguments, as Grudem does, rather than resort to this tactic.
Chris, why did you stop quoting Ro. 5 at v. 14? Here’s 15:
“But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”
The “many” in the first part refers to all mankind, via Adam’s trespass. Why then, do people restrict the “many” to only a few when it comes to Christ? Is Christ less powerful than Adam?
Here is verse 18:
“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”
If the first “all men” applies as stated, why do you limit the second “all men”?
Both of these interpretive moves don’t make sense, do they?
This is not universalism, BTW. People are condemned for their personal sins when they become accountable.
That being said, the text of Ro. 5 clearly states that any effect of Adam over all mankind has been counteracted by Christ, for all mankind.
[...] I Will Go To Him = My Child Is In Heaven? Pulpit Magazine’s posting of a MacArthur answer to a question about what happens when a child dies has – not surprisingly – generated strong positions on both sides of the issue. One side (mine and others) says that God certainly can save infants and children who die, but that it is not an automatic given. The other side (Johnny Mac and others) says that, since these children never reached an age where they could tell right from wrong, God doesn’t hold their fallen state due to original sin against them, and they are automatically saved. In reality, there are at least two more positions on this issue. One – God doesn’t save any infants who die because they never heard and responded to the gospel (similar to the person in some remote part of the world who never hears the gospel). And, Two – God only saves the infants who die whose parents are believers. [...]
jsb,
Than how do you explain an infant who dies of natural causes? If there is no effect from Adam’s sin today, then there should be no death (of people who have not yet reached this age of accountability) from natural causes, right?
Brian, before asking me another question, I’d like to hear your answer to the question I posed on verses 15 and 18. Why do you limit the reach of Christ’s sacrifice when compared to Adam’s sin? Please be specific on those two verses. Thanks! I’ll be unable to check back here most of the day, but I’ll try to get to it tonight.
Where in Romans 5 is the word “inherited” used ?
jsb,
I don’t limit the reach of Christ’s sacrifice…the Father did that with the act of giving those individuals to the Son who would come to Him in faith. The Father did not give every person to Christ, therefore He is the one who limited the scope of Christ’s sacrifice. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him.
Additionally, Paul puts the whole of chapter five of Romans in proper context right there in verse one. The context is toward the elect, those who have been justified by faith. Verse 19 also gives additional explanation of who is being referred to as no longer being under condemnation…it is those who have been made righteous through Christ. Romans 8:1 also tells us that only those in Christ no longer have any condemnation…not every human being.
My question to you, jsb, was a simple one. IF there is no longer any condemnation from Adam’s sin for anyone because of Christ’s sacrifice, then why are there cases of infant death due to natural causes? IF they die not from their fallen condition due to Adam’s sin, then why do they die?
I am still interested to see someone reply to my question of whether or not Mac and others (who hold to the view that all children who die go to heaven) believe children and infants are saved through faith, and that that faith comes from hearing the gospel. IF that is not the means of their salvation, then what is?
Thanks.
jsb,
i was just trying to inform u as well as others the background of jack cottrell. i personally have a problem with those who dont believe in original sin and who believe that baptism is essential for salvation. yes, just like the mormons, jehovah witnesses, and lots of other sects and cults they have their way of interpretation using ‘just the bible’. those from the restoration movement hold to doctrines that r unorthodox, hence the reason for mentioning it in the first place. as for him being considered a leading arminian theologian, i dont even think u can classify him as arminian but more like pelagian.
[
http://faith.propadeutic.com/authors/bibleref.html
Jack Cottrell (b. 1938) - Arminian associated with the Christian church. A theology professor at Cincinnati Bible Seminary since 1967. Opposes Calvinism and feminism as threats to the church, but does so with more biblically-focused arguments than most. He is also highly insistent that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that original sin is a non-biblical doctrine
]
i wud like to know where u r coming from. wat is ur background? do u come from the christian church/church of christ/disciples of christ/restoration movement? everyone is biased towards his own way.
those from the restoration movement believe in the age of accountability. so they believe that those who die before they reach the age of accountability go to heaven.
this discussion is turning out more into an arminian,pelagian vs calvinism than addressing the question at hand.
jsb,
if Christ died to save everyone and only a few are truly saved because they choose to come to Christ, then that wud imply that God cudnt do wat he set out to do because he had to wait on men to choose him. Wat does that say for the sovereignity of God? Whom God decides to save, he will save. those in adam are condemned and those in Christ no longer.
another question wud be if infants dont bear the stain of original sin, then wats the need for christ? can a clean thing come out of an unclean thing? a bad tree produces only bad fruit. david says that his mother conceived him in sin. it shud be clear enuf that babies arent that innocent after all. jcryle calls them little devils.they have the seeds of sin but havent acted on them yet. but it still condemns them cauz God looks at the heart. but luke18 says that their angels always behold the face of the father, implying that they are purer than those who r older. mayb God in his infinite grace brings them to Christ after they have died? but i dont think that this is clearly addressed in the scriptures anywhere.
Hi Brian,
I was out yesterday due to another project I needed to finish, so I wasn’t able to respond to some of your questions and statements.
In your comments here, you have implied that infants cannot be saved because they do not exercise faith. Yet, at the same time, your position (from your website) is “that God certainly can save infants and children who die” (emphasis yours).
So, on the one hand you imply that it is impossible, but on the other hand you state that it is possible. On one hand you criticize those who allow for the salvation of infants (since they cannot respond in faith to the gospel), but on the other hand you allow for it yourself (since God can save whomever He pleases).
I guess I’m just a bit confused. Is your disagreement with MacArthur over the possibility that God can save infants and young children who die? Or is it simply over MacArthur’s dogmatism in stating that God will save infants who die?
Thanks,
NB
Hi Nate,
I believe that what I said was, IF infants are saved, it is by the same means that anyone else is saved…by grace, THROUGH faith, and that faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Would you (and MacArthur and others) agree that infants are saved through the same means as anyone else…or is it your position that they are saved by God’s grace, but apart from faith through the hearing of the gospel?
I think this is extremely important, because if your position is that infants are saved apart from faith in Christ, then you have set up an alternative path to salvation than what Scripture teaches. Would that be correct?
Brian,
Do you believe that it is possible for infants to exercise faith?
NB
correction:
previous post said: mayb God in his infinite grace brings them to Christ after they have died? cant be true, becauze it written it is appointed for man to live once and then the judgement. at judgement is God going to judge them by something that adam did or something that they did, yet at the same time they have in them the seeds of sin? God knows that they wud sin given the chance.
so my question wud be do babies have a conscience and does it accuse them? if it cant, then how can they be condemned? but then wat is the need for christ in these cases?
http://www.challies.com/archives/001977.php seems to deal with the same question.
Do you believe that it is possible for infants to exercise faith?
Ahhh…
Answering a question with a question.
Let me return the favor…
Do you believe it is NOT possible for God to save infants by Grace, THROUGH faith?
Now I will answer your question. I do not believe it is possible for even grown adults to exercise faith in and of themselves. Faith is a gift from God. So, I would say that IF any infants are saved, they are given the gift of faith, just as any other child of God is given the gift of faith.
To teach otherwise is to create an exception to the means of salvation as laid out in Scripture, isn’t it?
Thanks.
Brian,
I asked my question above, not in an attempt to dodge your questions, but because I am still trying to understand your position.
Again, you state that God “certainly can” save infants who die, indicating that you believe the salvation of infants is possible. But, at the same time, you state that infants who die can only be saved if they hear, understand, and believingly respond to the gospel. From this angle, it appears you believe the salvation of infants to be impossible. Perhaps you do not see the inconsistency of your position. In reality, it seems your position is closer to the third that you articluated on your website: “God doesn’t save any infants who die because they never heard and responded to the gospel.”
Almost everyone throughout church history has taught that at least some babies who die go to heaven. (I say this, not because church history is our authority, but rather to demonstrate that holding such a view is not contrary to orthodoxy.) They do so because they believe that God makes a gracious exception in the case of those who are incapable of belief.
This is a different case than the remote tribesman who has never heard. He is both capable of and guilty of willful rejection, having supressed both the truth of creation (Rom. 1) and the prick of his conscience (Rom. 2). Infants, on the other hand, are morally unaware.
In Safe in the Arms of God, MacArthur comments further on passages like Matthew 7:13-14 (the narrow gate). He writes, “I am well aware [of what] Jesus said. . . . I believe Jesus was referring, however, to those intellectually capable of seeking the narrow way and morally culpable for failing to do so. To be able to find a way, you need to be able to search for that way. The very young are not capable of doing this” (p. 88).
As far as the means of salvation … MacArthur and others teach that infants are saved through the means of God’s grace applied to them through the cross. There is only one way of salvation and it is Christ.
In the words of B.B. Warfield:
Finally, the idea that MacArthur’s view somehow legitmates abortion is a non sequitor. The end never justifies the means, especially when Scripture gives us so many explicit commands prohibiting murder and extolling the value of life.
Thanks,
NB
Brian,
You wrote: “I do not believe it is possible for even grown adults to exercise faith in and of themselves.”
My response: Agreed (though they are willful, conscious participants in the process)
You wrote: “Faith is a gift from God.”
My response: Agreed.
You wrote: “So, I would say that IF any infants are saved, they are given the gift of faith, just as any other child of God is given the gift of faith.”
My response: Do you believe it is possible for this to happen? Or maybe more to the point, do you believe this ever actually takes place?
If so, how is this any less of an exception than MacArthur’s (or Warfield’s) view (since infants are not conscious participants in the process)? If not, then why claim that God “certainly can” save infants?
Thanks,
NB
Nate,
I remarked about your question to my question jokingly (see the smiley?). I meant no offense or anything derogatory by it.
Secondly, you seem unwilling to directly assert that there is a class of individuals (infants) who, if they die, are saved apart from faith in Christ. Is that your position? Are infants saved by a means other than faith in the redemptive work of Christ?
There is only one way of salvation and it is Christ.
This only partially true. What Christ did has to be applied somehow, and Scripture is clear that it is applied on the basis of faith (we are saved by grace, through faith). You nor MacArthur, nor anyone else, can provide any implicit biblical teaching that there is another way to be saved other than through faith in the person and work of Christ.
Are you willing to state that infants who die are saved by another means other than through faith? You can’t just say they are saved by grace. There must be a means by which that grace is applied. The Bible says it is by the means of faith.
Finally, Scripture most definitely prohibits murder and extols the value of life. But, regardless of that, your view teaches that every aborted child automatically gets to go to heaven. So, does Scripture extol temporal life, or eternal life more? If your position is true – regardless of whether it is temporally wrong to kill an infant or child – you have no other position but to agree that those murders, in the end and eternally speaking, secure that person’s place in heaven.
But that’s not what I really want to focus on right now. What I want to know is, do you believe infants are saved by a means OTHER than what is laid down in the Bible, which is through faith?
Thanks.
Do you believe it is possible for this [infants to be given the gift of faith] to happen? Or maybe more to the point, do you believe this ever actually takes place?
Sorry, Nate. I posted my previous comments before I saw your last post. My answer to this question is, YES…I do believe this is possible. And, YES…I do believe it actually takes place. I will even go so far as to say that every single infant CAN be saved by God. My whole point from the beginning is that, IF they are saved…they are saved by the same means anyone else is saved. Nowhere does Scripture allow for an exception to salvation by grace, THROUGH faith.
I believe my position is the most consistent, as I am not the one putting forth an alternative means for salvation.
Thanks.
Brian,
Thanks for your response. I’m sorry if I sounded offended in my earlier comments. I wasn’t offended at all (I promise) – and appreciated the smiley face. I’ve enjoyed our interchange on Monday and today; I think it’s very helpful to think through these issues, especially since they have significant ramifications for how we shepherd hurting parents in our churches.
In this comment, I’ll let some of the well-known proponents of the “infant salvation” view speak for themselves. I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth.
The following quote from Charles Spurgeon is a bit harsh, but I think helpful to the overall discussion. (Please know that it’s not meant as a direct attack on you.) It does, however, help put the issue in some perspective.
Those who teach that infants who die go to heaven, do so because they believe the redemptive power of the Cross is applied to those infants by God through His electing grace. As I noted earlier, those who take this position “do so because they believe that God makes a gracious exception in the case of those who are incapable of belief.”
MacArthur says this:
To quote from Warfield again:
There are some, of course, who teach that God enables infants to exercise saving faith at the moment of death (Buswell) or even at the moment of seeing their Savior for the first time (A.H. Strong). Perhaps their views are closer to your own (which I must admit I still don’t fully understand). It seems you believe that infants are capable of hearing, understanding, and believing the gospel. Maybe you can clarify that for me.
Anyway, I’ll let you have the last word for today. My “To Do” list is calling. But I’ll check back in tomorrow.
Thanks,
NB
Nate,
Thanks for all the quotes from different sources except from Scripture itself (you also never answered my direct question about an alternative route to salvation). Spurgeon makes a very telling admission in the first quote you provided when he says, “We say with regard to infants, Scripture saith but very little, and therefore where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically.”
Yet, look how dogmatically and harshly he puts forth his own view of this topic, and how dogmatically MacArthur and others hold to their position on this matter.
Your inability to directly answer my direct question about how infants are saved is very telling. I know you and others believe it is by the grace of God (as do I). However, you (and others like Mac) seem to be putting forth a doctrine (rather dogmatically, I observe), that still has no foundation in Scripture other than supposition and assumption. It is a doctrine which does not adequately address the reality of original sin, no matter how much and how often you say it does.
You say you don’t understand my position that all people who are saved – adults, infants, whoever – are saved by grace, THROUGH faith. I don’t understand how someone can put forth an alternative route to salvation that is nowhere found in the Bible, regardless of whether their name is Spurgeon, MacArthur, Warfield, Calvin or Luther.
Lack of understanding is never a good reason not to believe something, anyway. I do not understand how God can come to earth in the flesh, and yet still be in heaven at the same time. I do not understand how one God can eternally exist in three separate yet co-eternal persons, and still be one God…but I do…because that is what Scripture teaches.
And Scripture teaches that salvation is by grace, THROUGH faith, and that faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. I can find NO exceptions to this means of salvation…and MacArthur nor anyone else has shown from Scripture where there exists such an exception.
What is amazing is that your view seems to put forth that all these infants are in heaven apart from faith in Christ. How can that be?
Well, I think we have exhausted this topic for the time being. I want to thank you for your gracious replies and willingness to engage. So many refuse to confront opposing views, and I applaud your willingness to do so.
Thank you, brother.
Brian…”Take it up with Him” is not an argument, it’s a conversation stopper. You haven’t addressed my questions about the limitation of the reach Christ’s sacrifice in the quoted texts. If you could deal with those verses specifically, that would be great. See my previous questions.
Oh, BTW, I actually have taken it up with Him, through His Word.
Re: Infant death? Jesus’s death DOES overcome and cancel out any physical death that comes from Adam’s sin, but it does so by guaranteeing a redemptive resurrection of the body at the second coming, not by preventing it from happening. That same manner of redemption applies also to adults who personally accept Christ as Savior. They are immediately forgiven and born again on a spiritual level, but they still have to die physically. However, they are guaranteed the redemptive resurrection (Rom. 8:23). If salvation cancelled physical death, all saved people would be in the unpleasant situation of having to continue living indefinitely in this fallen world.
Brian,
In Nate’s first comment he listed over 10 scriptures that support his/MacArthur’s view.
I think the challenge would be for anyone to find a single example of Scripture describing an infant who died and was sent to hell. Because Nate did certainly list a lot of verses (not even counting his long list from Safe in the Arms) that describe infants receiving this kind of mercy.
Thanks,
Jesse
Abe, you doubt Cottrell’s an Arminian, then he’s labeled an Arminian in the clip you posted! The clip is right; you are wrong. Unless you are prepared to deal with substance the way, say, a Wayne Grudem does (who respects Cottrell), and dispense with personal slanders on a brother in Christ, I really don’t see the point in continuing this line of discussion.
Did I miss it or did jsb ever answer why; infants die?
Death came into the world as part of the penalty for “origional sin.” Where does the Scripipture define another “origional sin” that the penalty for is death? And, we have a real problem, again. Since Christ died onces and for all, and that death satisfied the prophecy in Genesis 4, what propitiatory sacrifice remains that will take away “actual sin?”
Is that true that Cotrell is an instrumentalist, believing that sacrifices outside of Christ’s satifies the demands of Law?
By the way, MacArthur seems to have jumped in the shallow end of the pool on this one and struck his head harder than he did on premillenialism. Someone needs to dive in and rescue him!
Thomas, I did post an answer, but it says it’s “awaiting moderation.” Not sure why that is. Hopefully, it will pop up soon.
I think the challenge would be for anyone to find a single example of Scripture describing an infant who died and was sent to hell.
Jesse,
I think the challenge would be for anyone to find a single example of Scripture providing for an alternative way of salvation other than through faith in Christ. Do you know of any?
Thanks.
Hi Brian,
Well … I was planning on waiting until tomorrow to respond, but since I am being accused of dodging questions and avoiding Scripture, I thought an immediate response might be helpful. (I guess my “To Do” list will still be here tomorrow.)
You wrote: “Your inability to directly answer my direct question about how infants are saved is very telling.”
My response: It appears you are not satisfied with Dr. MacArthur’s answer to that question as articulated in his book on pp. 78, 88. I have cited those sections above, but will do so again here. On pages 77–78, MacArthur writes:
Earlier he notes, “They are saved by the only means that anyone is saved: God’s grace” (p. 73).
MacArthur teaches that infants are unable to believe. His assertion is that salvation, in their case, would be the gracious gift of God given to them in spite of the fact that they are not capable of belief. He writes:
You wrote: “I don’t understand how someone can put forth an alternative route to salvation that is nowhere found in the Bible, regardless of whether their name is Spurgeon, MacArthur, Warfield, Calvin or Luther.”
My response: As I noted in my previous comment, my reason for citing those men was to let them speak for themselves. But to claim that they have no biblical reasoning for the conclusions they draw is not accurate. Even within the passages I cited, verses such as Matt 18:1-7; 19:13-15 (and parallels Mk 10:13-16; Lk 18:15-17) are directly cited (by Spurgeon), with others like Romans 8:29–30 and Titus 3:4–7 are implied (by Warfield and MacArthur).
In Safe in the Arms of God, MacArthur develops some of the biblical principles for his position. I will summarize some of them here:
1. Throughout Scripture, God views the guilt of infants and young children differently than the guilt of adults (Num. 14:29; Deut. 1:39; 24:26; 1 Kings 14:12-13; Psalm 106:38; Isaiah 7:16; Jeremiah 2:34, 19:4; Ezekiel 16:21; 18:20; Jonah 4:11). Even the children sacrificed on pagan altars are called “innocent” (Psalm 106:38; Jeremiah 19:4) and “My children” by God (Ezekiel 16:21).
2. In Scripture, we are saved by grace but “damned” by works (Matt. 15:18–20; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:6; Titus 3:4–7; Rev. 20:11–15; 21:8; 22:15). The foremost of these evil works is willful unbelief (John 3:36; 8:21–24) and suppression of the truth (Rom. 1:18). Relating this to young children, MacArthur writes on pp. 84–85:
3. Throughout His ministry, Jesus held children in high regard even comparing them to the inhabitants of heaven (Matt. 18:3–5, 10, 14; 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16). Charles Hodge comments on the significance of Christ’s treatment of the children:
4. To this, we could add additional observations about Bathsheba’s firstborn son (2 Samuel 12:23), and God’s electing view of David (Psalm 22:10; 139:16), Jeremiah (Jer. 1:4-5), John the Baptist (Luke 1:15, 41–44), and Paul (Gal. 1:15–16). MacArthur comments on each of these passages in pp. 16–22 of Safe.
5. Finally, those who espouse the “infant salvation” view ultimately rest in the gracious character of God. Realizing that the Bible does not explicitly say that infants who die go to heaven or that they go to hell, proponents of this view contend that it is more consistent with God’s character to save those who are incapable of belief, than to condemn them. MacArthur writes:
And Robert Lightner adds:
Based on these (and perhaps several other) assertions, men like MacArthur believe the weight of the biblical evidence gives warrant to the view that God in His grace saves those who die in infancy and young childhood.
I apologize for the length of this comment, but I hope it’s helpful to the discussion. Thanks to you as well for the dialogue.
- NB
jsb,
if cottrell believes that something other than the finished works of christ saves him, viz; baptism in this case, i cant consider him a brother in christ. we are saved by grace alone thru faith alone in christ alone. once u add anything to it, it is no longer by faith alone but by faith and works, therefore it is no longer the gospel that he believes in.
it is not my intention to be contentious or to slander him, but once you know his background, you know the theology he holds and why he holds it without him explaining everything to you. this is because everyone has their own doctrinal lens thru which they view the scriptures. of course, this in no way sets aside what they are trying to prove but those who espouse major doctrinal errors are hard to take seriously, atleast by me. thats why i like to know who i am dealing with and where they are coming from, irrespective of what other people like Wayne Grudem (dont even know who this guy is)might think of them, before i get into any discussion or even consider their views.
those who do not believe in original sin are called pelagians not arminians. arminians believe in total depravity, pelagians dont. but both of them believe in ones ability to come to christ . as a result, both dont believe in eternal security. so the clip is wrong to state that cottrell is arminian. just because he says he is arminian doesnt make him one. he goes on to prove my case by refuting original sin. calling someone pelagian isnt slander. strictly speaking he is pelagian, though he may say otherwise, which is just the case with all those churches born out of the restoration movement.
just a clarification. my apologies for not dealing with the post in question.
Abe, you continue to mischaracterize, I’m afraid. I’ve read Cottrell’s Systematic Theology (you have not) and I have read Grudem’s (you have not). You should not post opinions on topics with which you are unfamiliar. You are simply wrong about these matters because you have, admittedly, not studied them. Unless you can prove your assertions with actual text, you are speaking in ignorance. That does not serve the cause of Christ. Arminian theology has a different take on original sin than Calvinism. Both recongize the concept (yes, explicitly so). You are indulging in a tactic that is not defensible morally or intellectually. I won’t be answering further posts if they are more of the same.
The comments area appears to be malfunctioning, so I don’t know if this will even make it through.
Based your admission, Nate, that MacArthur teaches infants are unable to believe, but yet are saved by the grace of God, we can conclude then that we (elect) are not ALL saved by grace, THROUGH faith. People who have reached some particular age of reasoning are saved by grace, through faith, and infants are just saved by grace. Is that a fair assessment? If so, then we now have an alternative way of salvation (an exception to the rule laid down in Scripture) other than through faith in Christ.
We could go round and round some more on this, but I think it is becoming unfruitful.
My conclusion is the same as that of Tim Challies from his post on this subject last year, which is that your view does not adequately address original sin. You give lip service to it, but your doctrine on infants nullifies any real significance of it. In your theology, we are not all born guilty and sinful, even though Mac says we are, but God doesn’t hold that against us until we know right from wrong, etc., etc.
I will maintain here what I put forth in the beginning. You can’t have it both ways. Either a person is fallen and under condemnation from BEFORE birth (as outlined by Paul in Romans 5)…or he is not. Either a person has been made a sinner by Adam’s sin, or he has not. Either a person stands guilty as a transgressor at the moment Adam sinned…or he does not. To say a person is fallen and a sinner (as Mac does), but then to turn around and say that God doesn’t hold that state of being against them because they haven’t reached some age of reason just makes no sense from a Scriptural standpoint. From an emotional and sentimental standpoint, yes…but not from Scripture.
To be truly consistent in your position, you need to deny original sin. To try to hold onto that doctrine and your doctrine of infants who die is to deny a clear teaching of Scripture in light of something even Spurgeon says Scripture is “scant” in addressing.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this issue.
I believe that both Nate B. and Brian are in error, the former for the reasons Brian suggests (that the Calvinist take on “original sin” puts MacArthur in an untenable Scriptural position) and Brian because the Calvinist take on original sin is itself an error. The Arminian view is that original sin came through Adam, but that Christ dealt with federal condemnation via his sacrifice. Here is where Calvinists mistreat Romans 5 (my challenge still unanswered here). They make Christ less powerful than Adam.
So let’s be clear Arminians do not deny original sin; but they see that its consequence of condemnation for infants has been atoned for. Here are some words on this very issue from John Fletcher, the great Arminian theologian:
From Rom. 5:18, I proved the justification of infants: “As by the offence of Adam, (says the apostle,) judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of Christ, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.” In support of this justification, which comes upon all men in their infancy, I now advance the following arguments:—
The Scripture tells us, that “Christ in all things hath the preeminence.” But if Adam is a more public person, a more general representative of mankind, than Jesus Christ, it is plain, that in this grand respect, Adam hath the pre-eminence over Christ. Now, as this cannot be, as Christ is at least equal to Adam, it follows, that as Adam brought a general condemnation, and a universal seed of death upon all infants, so Christ brings upon them a general justification, and a universal seed of life.
I never yet saw a Calvinist who denied that Christ died for Adam. Now, if the Redeemer died for our first parent, he undoubtedly expiated the original sin, the first transgression of Adam. And if Adam’s original sin was atoned for, and forgiven to him, as the Calvinists, I think, generally grant, does it not follow, that although all infants are by nature children of wrath, yet through the redemption of Christ they are in a state of favour or justification? For how could God damn to all eternity any of Adam’s children for a sin which Christ expiated? A sin which was forgiven almost six thousand years ago to Adam, who committed it in person? (Works, Vol. 1)
You guys are too much!
Ray,
Where in Romans 5 is the word “inherited” used?
That is a very miopic reading of Scripture. If it doesn’t have the exact word then you refuse to draw the clear implication of the verse.
Where in the entire Bible is the word “Trinity” used? But it is still taught.
Read the chapter without your preconceived traditions and just think about what it says.
It is impossible to know what takes place in the heart of an infant at the point of death. As Brian indicates, faith is essential to salvation, but it is given as a gift. We have no way of evaluating the faith of a dying infant. In a living adult, we see the fruit of regeneration in repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Certainly a dying infant cannot repent for the infant has no actual sins of which to repent. Is this a defect in the idea that infants are saved? I think not. Faith is described as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith is temporary for faith is not needed in the presence of Christ. Perhaps by grace and regeneration, dying infants embrace Christ in full view of Him. We have no way of knowing how it works, but I believe with Dr. MacArthur that dying infants are elect and are indeed saved by God’s grace.
All manner of sins and blasphemies will be forgiven, but the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost will never be forgiven. I don’t see how an infant or any morally unaware person (i..e. brain-damamged, retarded, whatever) could commit this one “unpardonable sin”.
Wait a minute. Doesn’t this line of thought of being “innocent” which if I am hearing correctly also leads to the though that then children are innocent from sin and this seems to play along with the beliefs of Open Theism (that man is sinless at birth but what decisions are made can take him into sin).
???????
I think a child is a perfect example of those who enter the kingdom of God, who are in total dependency of God through His sovereign grace.
Wow. Good stuff to think about here.
I think Nate and J-Mac’s point can be clearly seen in the Titus 3:4-7 passage they cited (emphasis mine): “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH WE HAVE DONE, BUT ACCORDING TO HIS MERCY HE SAVED US, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that HAVING BEEN JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Kevin ,
It is only a matter of what the text teaches. You have come to the text with preconceived traditions.
Since Romans 5 does not say we inherit sin then every infant is innocent. They have no sins for which they must repent. How can they understand rebellion to God and His law ? Since faith comes from hearing the word of God , Rom. 10 : 17 , then how can they believe to be saved ? Infants who die , die in a saved condition.
I am so excited to find this! Not just the post itself, but the discussion that has ensued. My neighbor and I were having this discussion very recently and plan to delve into scripture and come back and share again together. (((((HUGS))))) sandi
This has been interesting to read but what about the “Age of Accountability”? This covers not only infants who die but children under the age of 20. Here are my scriptures for reference for any of you to dig into and study…
Deuteronomy 1:39
Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Isaiah 7:16
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Numbers 14:29
Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,
Exodus 30:14
Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.
Numbers 1:3
From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
Numbers 26:2
Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, throughout their fathers’ house, all that are able to go to war in Israel.
Exodus 30:14-16 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.
Matt 19, Mk 10 and Lk 19 all have Jesus saying of children that the kingdom of God is made of such. Jeremiah 19:3, 4 speaks of the blood of the innocent, then the burning of sons to Baal. the passages mentioned by Donna also give evidence that God does not hold children and teens accountable for their actions the way adults are. This is not to say that children are not sinners but to say that God seems to understand that children do not have the same ability to make decisions as adults and thus God excuses them. Of course it is only by His grace and through the sacrifice of Christ that anyone is able to be saved.
On being saved by grace THROUGh FAITH issue raised above. Are children saved just by grace without faith? Is is possible that Jesus comes to the children at the moment of death and their spirits choose to trust the Savior? In the paralytics situation Jesus healed the man without any expression of faith on his part – just the faith of his friends who lowered him down on the mat. I don’t have the answer on this issue but would the God who is Love, the God who did not spare his own son, would this God condemn children who have not had the ability to trust in Chirst? This would mean all infants and miscarriages and any severely mentally disabled person would automatically go to hell. This doesn’t seem consistent with the God of the Bible.
My own thoughts on the subject of “The Age of Accountability” echo to a greta degree those of John MacArthur. (Note: We lost my nephew at teh age of 13 – before he was confirmed.)
I agree that there is no set age of accountability – if for no other reason than that there are people who are what is often called retarded (i.e., who remain under the care of their parents to what would normally be an advanced age).
Anyway, my take on this Biblically, is that as long as one dwells in their Father’s (or Mother’s hosue depending on circumstances), that person is under the protection of the head of the house – and is covered by their ultimate Faith.
As examples, I would put forth the Exodus story whereby the Angel of Death “Passed Over” everyone in the house who had put the blood of the lamb on their door lentels. There is also the story of Jericho where God spared everone in the house of Rahab.
In this way everyone in the world stands condemed – who is not a Beleiver – or under the authority of one who is, or at least will be before they die.
Thus, I beleive that the children of pagans – who die in infancy – are Biblically condemend, while those under the authority of Believers are saved.
In the case of my Nephew, his father was not a Beleiver when his son died, but has since given his life to Christ. In this way, I believe he was able to also save his son eternally.
If one say that all babies – even those of pagans – are saved if they die in infancy, then one could actually come to the conclusion that it would be an eternallly good thing for someone to murder them all when they are born. This, of course is totally un-biblical.
My observation of anyone still under the authority of there parents being covered by their belief allows for the saving of Christian infants – without a break down in logic.
It would also appear to be quite biblical, since the Angel of Death does pass over those in the houses of Exodus and Jericho who’s head was a Believer.
I would also point out the Angel of Death did not pass over the infants – of any age – of the Egyptian pagans.
TG