This thread grew out of my response to another thread: “Universalism and Abortion” at Universalism and Abortion :
I then reflected more on MacArthur’s book. As I finished this thread another one popped up that hits on much of the same subject matter (“Bible verses to show we confirm Adam’s sin by ours??” at Bible verses to show we confirm Adam’s sin by ours?? How timely.
Here goes:
MacArthur asserts:
In addition, every person is “born with corrupt motives, ambitions, attitudes, desires, and objectives latent” in their hearts (p. 72). In a sermon I heard on the radio he referred to infants as “little reprobates" (also see “God’s Pattern for Parents” by John MacArthur proverbs31woman.com/macarthur/1950.php) .
So far I agree. 
Consistent with this he affirms that children are only saved because God is “gracious”, not because children are “sinless” (p. 72). Now grace, by definition, must be a choice on the part of the giver. For grace to be grace it is not required or deserved or legally owed. So when MacArthur asserts that all infants will be given salvific grace, he is asserting that God does this by choice, not compulsion. If God chose not to be save infants, no injustice would have been done.
That infants do not deserve heaven and must be saved by grace is further supported with:
The idea of sovereignty is invoked to reinforce the idea that God made a free decision to give a gift, since a gift is not a gift if it is required.
He continues:
“Case made Mr. MacArthur!” 
Yet he seems to undermine all of this with:
Wait a minute; I thought we are condemned because we are sinful, not because of sins per se. While sinful acts always proceed from a sinful nature, isn’t having a sinful nature enough to warrant hell? It is true that Scripture often connects the grounds for damnation with acts of sin, but it has always been my understanding that such statements were only made in light of our knowledge of the real problem: our sin nature. This sinful nature is merely illustrated by acts of rebellion, but the acts of rebellion do not make us sinful. These acts, in and of themselves are not the real problem.
{If we were to accept MacArthur’s method of reading scripture above, we could just as easily say that the ground of our salvation is works since scripture often connects salvation and works (e.g. Matthew 5:20, Matthew 12:37, Matthew 19:16-22, Matthew 25:31-46, John 15:6-10, Romans 2:5-10, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Galations 6:7-8, Ephesians 5:3-7, Hebrews 12:14, James 2:14-26, 2Peter 1:5-11, I John 2:3-5, Revelation 20:11-13, Revelation 22:14, 25.)}
Continuing on: “The foremost work of the sinner is unbelief. “(p.80) and “Unbelief has been singled out as the primary damning sin.” (p. 81)
It is certainly true that unbelief leads to sin and belief in Christ is the one thing God uses to rescue a person from their sinfulness. But while belief saves, since when is unbelief “the” thing that damns? Were there not enough reasons to damn a person even before they had a chance to specifically reject Christ (or possess “unbelief” in Christ)? Well, maybe that is what MacArthur means so I’ll give him a pass on this point … for now. In fact he does go on to say “A person who doesn’t believe doesn’t obey. Unbelief always produces evil works. ” (p. 81)
But it really gets sticky as he proceeds:
Now I’m confused. 
I thought children were “little reprobates” (“God’s Pattern for Parents” by John MacArthur proverbs31woman.com/macarthur/1950.php) and “sinners from conception” (p. 71) undeserving of salvation (p. 76-77). How did they suddenly become innocent? Undeserving of an eternity apart from God? And if they are now innocent, why do they need to be “graciously and sovereignly saved by God as part of the atoning work of Christ Jesus”?
He backs this up with the following:
It appears MacArthur is now using scripture to contradict his earlier stance on the sinfulness of children. However, is this verse really talking about their sin nature and “knowledge of good and evil” in general or is it referring to their “knowledge of good and evil” in this particular case? I would opt for the latter. To say otherwise would be to claim that children have absolutely no knowledge of good and evil and do not in fact sin, which is to me absurd. I do not think God intended for us to use this verse to somehow exonerate our kids of all sin. This verse is about a particular instance of sin: the rebellion in the wilderness.
He then attempts to make the case that when God referred to the 120,000 in Nineveh “who cannot discern between their right hand and their left?" (Jonah 4:11) he was only referring to children. He proceeds from this exceedingly dubious claim to a possible explanation for why he earlier called children “innocents”:
Whoa. So these little ones "born with corrupt motives, ambitions, attitudes, desires” must now commit “willful” rebellion (whatever that is) against God to merit hell. Even though he refers to them as “little reprobates” and says they have a sinful nature, in order to get to hell they must have “had willful opportunity to exer¬cise that nature with full understanding or deliberate rebellion.” For the record, I am totally on board with the idea that because of our sinful nature we all deserve hell, but who of us has ever sinned with “full understanding”? Isn’t it enough that we sin with partial understanding in order to get to hell? And must it be “deliberate rebellion” against God? Isn’t “incidental rebellion” enough? I am not trying to get any adults off the hook here, but it seems that MacArthur IS trying to get children “off the hook” by making their sin seem less sinful. 
So much so that they have now become “innocent”.
Based upon Romans 1:18-21 he then makes the case that only those who “suppress the truth”, fail to “glorify Him as God” and be “thankful”, are “futile in their thoughts” with “darkened hearts”, and have become “haters of God” who are “deserving of death”. (p. 84) He considers it a given that children cannot do this
Rather than seeing these sinful acts and attitudes as manifestations of a sinful nature, which does damn people, MacArthur considers these acts and attitudes the primary cause of damnation. MacArthur then embraces these ideas as a means of rescuing children from hell, so to speak, because supposedly they are incapable of doing these things “willfully”. Nevermind the fact that they are born with a sinful nature bent towards evil. (p. 69) Nevermind the fact that their sin nature is on display in all kinds of ways they DO understand. As MacArthur states:
So MacArthur, agrees that not only do children a have a sinful nature, they even commit sinful acts. So what’s the problem here? Why can’t God send them to hell? Apparently these acts are not “willful” enough. Or as he goes on to state:
But who can “assess his own heart”, know “the full impor¬tance, impact, or consequences of their actions”, or truly understanding how their deeds are of “rebellion and iniquity against God” ? I have been a Christian for decades and I still do not really “get it”. How much less would someone who is denying Christ or someone who has never heard of Christ. Yet MacArthur is willing to declare children as “not yet culpable for their actions” on the same grounds.
By the way, I am NOT asserting that I or anyone else should get a “pass” for not knowing “the full importance” (see above), because as I understand it, regardless of our level of understanding, we have a sin nature that makes us deserve hell. Yet amazingly MacArthur denies that this is the primary reason we should be sent to hell:
And this is what gets children “off the hook” since supposedly they have not committed “sin deeds” “willfully” with full knowledge. He then makes the astonishing claim that they are:
So apparently, they are elect because they are “innocent” of “willful” sin deeds, rather than being declared innocent because they are elect. In his scheme, if election (or God’s decision to show grace) plays a part, it is just to have these children die before they blow their supposedly “just” claim to eternal life. Even though God caused/permitted their death, once dead, God is essentially required to be their Savoir, since according to MacArthur’s logic, it would be unjust to send them to hell. So now, where else can they go but heaven? At this point the Savior is legally bound to step in and save (although one wonders why a Savior is even necessary since they are not “culpable” for anything. 
) But if justice requires that God step in, it is no longer grace but duty.
Does anybody else see the problem here? Even if we allow that all are elect, election must still be a choice on God’s part and not a requirement. By shifting the point of election to the point of when the child dies, God has essentially allowed His hands to be tied. There is nothing else He can do but save at this point.
So unwittingly, MacArthur has set up a new category of the redeemed. They are not saved by works, but they are also not saved by grace. They are saved by default. One wonders why the default position for these “little reprobates” must be heaven, but nevertheless it is.
Theoretically, this would also have to be applied to non-elect people, were they hypothetically allowed to die as kids. Doesn’t this mean God would love these hypothetical people as well? I see no other way. But now we have a God who is loving the nonelect?! What has happened?
How is it that MacArthur, who is known as a staunch Calvinist, has strayed so far from his faith? 
Lest you think my assessment of MacArthur’s theology and its implications is a stretch, we see that it is actually explicit in his initial assumptions:
While MacArthur would not dare deny they are born “sinful”, lest his Calvinistic cronies throw him out on the street 
, is he suggesting there is something “meritorious” about these kids? “No, of course not! Let the word not be uttered!”
Then what is the basis for the above statements. If not personal merit, then what is it that somehow draws God’s heart mysteriously and necessarily towards them? Could it be … the love of God alone?!
It has to be. Apparently God just can’t help himself; He is so full of love. But if God’s love is allowed to be the primary cause of redemption for ALL children, what’s to stop it from being the primary cause of the redemption of ALL adults? Read on …
What a difference “accountability” makes:
First of all, this raises the following thorny question: “Of whom can it truly be said we “have sufficient mature understanding to comprehend convincingly the issues of law and grace, sin and salvation?” (Again I feel like I still do not possess this, much less someone who has not yet heard or accepted Christ.)
Second we are left wondering what happens when people reach this age and they choose to rebel with “sufficient mature understanding” (which all will)? Does the love of God just end? Apparently, for the non-elect it does? Now how do you explain God changing his mind about people while they still walk the earth? Do they suddenly become more sinful? “No, just culpable.” But so what. Since when does the level of sinfulness or culpability have any impact on God’s love? (e.g. Romans 5:8, Romans 9:10-13, 1 Timothy 1:15-16, 1 Peter 3:18, 1 John 4:10 & the wayward example of O.T. Israel). It would seem that the onus is now on MacArthur to explain how God’s love just vanished. (Lest it be asserted that some will simply choose to resist, we must be reminded that MacArthur operates under a Calvinistic framework where human will can always be overcome, if God chooses.)
MacArthur digs himself in deeper by discussing God’s will concerning the salvation of children:
In response to this another question is raised: If God has so much love for “these little ones” and such a desire to protect them, why is he not guarding the non-elect, who as children share in His loving favor with the elect, by insuring they all die before reaching the age of accountability? An absurd concept I realize, but one that arises from his theology. (Note how such a conclusion is consistent with MacArthur’s comment earlier [see top of this thread] justifying the happiness surrounding the slaughter of Babylonian infants in Psalm 137:9. Apparently Israel is really excited about seeing all these kids bloodied and redeemed 
… while simultaneously rejoicing at the destruction of their parents who are not redeemed. 
)
Why is MacArthur willing to assert theology with such absurd implications? Maybe, along with Calvin, the damnation of children seems “just too cruel” to be true (p. 60). Is it just me, or does it not seem that in MacArthur’s zeal to rescue children from the hands of a horrifying God, He has inadvertently rescued adults as well? From a “Child Universalist” to an “Evangelical Universalist.” 