John MacArthur's Infant Position -- Does it Contradict the Standard Calvinist Position of 'Limited Atonement'?

Do babies and others incapable of professing faith in Christ automatically go to heaven?

Click here to read John MacArthur's article in its entirety

An excerpt is provided here:

"While infants and children have neither sensed their personal sin and need for salvation nor placed their faith in Christ, Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God's revelation—whether general or specific—not simple ignorance of it (Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8). Can we definitely say that the unborn and young children have comprehended the truth displayed by God's general revelation that renders them "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20)? They will be judged according to the light they received. Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin—including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin. But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord."

TULIP Calvinist believe the following:

• Man is totally depraved which means he can not seek after God in his sinful state
• Jesus died only for the 'elect'
• God chose the 'elect' in eternity past, and there is nothing an 'elect' can do to change that
• Calvinist teach Jesus' death on the Cross was actually a limited atonement for the 'elect only' because if Jesus died for the world -- not just the 'elect', then all of the world would go to heaven (so goes their logic)

There are many other things they believe, but the ones listed above are critical to this study.

Let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with MacArthur's position that infants and mentally challenged individuals who are unable to make a willful rejection of Jesus Christ go to Heaven when they die. MacArthur is not alone in his understanding of the Scripture on this point. If you desire, you can read similar positions by men like Dr. James White, John Piper, Albert Mohler, C.H. Spurgeon and many other Calvinists. That said, these esteemed Calvinist often quote the London Baptist Confessional (LBC) as their authority on such matters as I outlined above. The only problem is they don't agree with Point 3 in the LBC.

The 1689 London Baptist Confessional can be read here

Please read Chapter 10 entitled "Effectual Calling". For ease of reading, I'm including point 3 below.

3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )

So what does this mean? Fundamentally, point 3 of chapter 10 of the LBC affirms a concept they call 'elect infants'. Therefore, if there is such a thing as an 'elect infant', by default there must also be 'non-elect infants'. However, the Bible does not declare any such notion -- that is an infant dying and going to Hell. You can't have it both ways: either all are 'elect infants' until such time as they make a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus, or all are 'totally depraved' and can only accept Jesus when they are effectually called.

Therefore, the Bible actually affirms that ALL infants and mentally challenged are covered by Jesus' death on the cross. So, the Calvinist who rightly divides the Word on this issue comes up with the right answer -- infants and mentally challenged individuals who die DO go to heaven. Notice MacArthur's final sentence: "... a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord." I agree MacArthur is Biblically correct when he makes this statement. However, by getting the Biblical answer the Calvinist must make a choice. Do they embrace the Bible or do they cling to their systematic theology known as Calvinism?

Here's what I mean. Calvinist believe man is incapable of accepting God's call to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ because of their state of 'total depravity'. Only the 'elect' can respond, not whosoever will because they believe Jesus died for the 'elect' only, etc. As a result of these beliefs, the Calvinist really knows nothing of a 'willful rejection'. The Calvinist does not believe man has a freewill and therefore he is unable to exercise his will to believe in Jesus. This is what gets me with regard to MacArthur's use of the words 'conscious, willful rejection'. In an attempt to reconcile the clear teaching of God's Word with the Calvinist system, one does run headlong into problems.

Here's another problem for (TULIP) Calvinist when Mac Arthur states this, "...could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes..." I agree with MacArthur when he answers yes, for this is what the Bible teaches. MacArthur affirms the atoning work of Jesus and it is inclusive of every person who comes into the world.

After all, who was not once an infant? We all were.

And those of us who are blessed by being alive did eventually reach that point in time MacArthur stated when we must individually choose: will it be a conscious, willful rejection or a conscious, willful acceptance of Jesus!

In Him,

Eye

Anyone Know This?

Have you ever taken the time with pen and paper to list out the Patriarchs and how long they lived on the earth during the period between the creation of the world and the flood? For example, Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years, so on and so forth. You have to be careful because each man's life overlaps his offspring's and you have to be careful to net out the overlaps when appropriate. If you do this you will come up with a specific number of years that span the time from creation to the flood. I have my number -- what do you get?

In Him,

Eye

Jonathan & David: Were they Close in Age?

A Biblical Look at Their Ages

The Scriptures say that Saul Reigned 40 years.

Act 13:21 And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.

Saul Reigned one year, and then in his second year he went to war with the Philistines. Jonathan was a commander over 1,000 men.

1Sa 13:1 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,1Sa 13:2 Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin: and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent. 1Sa 13:3 And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews hear.

Jonathan had to be at least 20 years old to command in the army per the law.

Num 1:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, Num 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls; Num 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.

Jonathan died with his father at the end of Saul’s reign.

2Sa 1:4 And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.

Therefore, Jonathan was at least 20 years old in the second year of Saul’s reign. Saul reigned for another 38 years, he’d previously reigned for two of the forty years.

2Sa 5:4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

Conclusion -- Jonathan was at least 58 years old when he died and David ascended to the throne at 30 years of age.

This Biblical truth was overwhelming to me when I first saw it. I assumed like most students of the Word that David and Jonathan were youths of similar age that grew close through their common adversity. However, Jonathan was a man old enough to be David's father, and he was the waiting prince to the throne. Yet Jonathan submitted himself to the future king of Israel because he believed God's way was best.

Jonathan, a true study in Biblical humility.

Proverbs 18:24 'A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.'

This is my new home on the internet for now...

Welcome!

Eye