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:
… the Bible declares that we all are sinners from conception and from birth
because it is our nature as human beings to be sinners. Our sin nature is the result of the Fall in the Garden of Eden. We are inheritors of the sin nature acquired by our first ancestors, Adam and Eve.
Sinfulness is not a condition that comes upon people when they are old enough to make choices and decisions for themselves. It is a condition that is present in every human being from before birth. It is what produces our sinful choices. Every con¬ception brings into being a sinful life. Every person born since Adam and Eve arrives on this earth in a sinful state. The apostle Paul wrote, “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). (p. 71-72)
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:
Fallen sinful, guilty and depraved children who die with no spiritual merit - no personal, moral, or religious merit - are welcomed by God into glory. On what basis? Solely by God’s grace! …… None of us deserves salvation. … we can do nothing by any means to save ourselves. …… Salvation is all by grace. There is no clearer manifestation of this truth than the gift of eternal life given to a helpless, lost infant. The saving grace given to an infant … is always wrought sovereignly by God through grace. (p. 76-77)
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:
Infants have no merit by which anyone could claim they deserve heaven… In fact, because of their guilt and corruption, they are in need of redemption… in which He bore the wrath of God not only for all those who could believe, but also for those who could not believe. (p. 78)
“Case made Mr. MacArthur!”
Yet he seems to undermine all of this with:
Instead, whenever Scripture describes the inhabitants of hell, the stress is on their willful acts of sin and rebellion (1 Cor. 6:9- 10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:6; Rev. 21:8; 22:15). Scripture always connects eternal condem¬nation with works of unrighteousness—willful sin. (p. 80)
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:
It is this record of unbelief and subsequent evil works that is revealed in the Great White Throne judgment; this record becomes the basis for eternal condemnation. Little children have no such record. They have no basis on which to believe or not believe. They are incapable of discern¬ing right from wrong, sin from righteousness, evil from good¬ness. Scripture is very clear on this truth. Little children have no record of unbelief or evil works, and therefore, there is no basis for their deserving an eternity apart from God. As inno¬cents, they are graciously and sovereignly saved by God as part of the atoning work of Christ Jesus. (p. 81)
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:
As mentioned previously, after the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that entire gen¬eration to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. The Lord said, “Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see that good land of which I swore to give to your fathers” (Deut. 1:35). But God exempted young children and infants from this decree, and He explained why He did so: “Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it” (Deut. 1:39, emphasis added). (p. 81-82)
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”:
God had great compassion on those incapable of under¬standing truth. Little children are called innocent in Scripture for precisely this reason: They have no willful rebellion against God. They have no deeds of disbelief. While they may be conceived with a sinful nature, they have never had willful opportunity to exer¬cise that nature with full understanding or deliberate rebellion. And therefore, they are innocent of any deeds of unbelief against a holy God. When people say, these little ones aren’t saved because they didn’t believe, my response is this: They couldn’t believe. They are incapable of making a conscious, willful, rational, inten¬tional choice to believe. (p. 82-83)
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:
They may throw tantrums, cry in anger, steal cookies, bop their siblings on the head, or kick sand into the faces of their little friends on the playground. They may defy their parents, saying “No” when the appropri¬ate response is an obedient “Yes.” They may lie to cover their misdeeds. Certainly we are correct in assessing that all these actions are wrong—yes, even sinful. (p.85)
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 the child cannot assess in his own heart that his actions violate God or that there is any such concept as sin against God and His holy law. … He has no understanding that his rebellion, lying, stealing, and so forth are in violation of God’s law and that such actions have any form of eternal consequence. Young children are incapable of understanding God in this way (p. 85) They are, therefore, innocent of knowing the full impor¬tance, impact, or consequences of their actions. Infants who die do not have anything written in the record of heaven against them because they have never committed any conscious deeds of rebellion and iniquity against God. Young children are not yet responsible moral agents—in other words, they are not yet culpable for their actions because they simply do not fully know what they are doing and the consequences associated with their behavior. (p. 85-86)
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:
There is no place in Scripture in which a person suffers the judgment of damnation on the basis of anything other than sinful deeds, including the sinful deed of disbelief—a conscious, willful, intentional choice to disbelieve. Furthermore, God does not charge people with sins until sins are committed. (p. 89)
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:
“… counted as elect because they are innocent of willful sin, rebellion, and unbelief, by which works they would be justly condemned to eternal punishment.” (p. 89-90)
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:
The first and foremost thing we can conclude with certainty about a child is this: Every child conceived is a God-created and God-loved person with a God-given purpose and destiny. Let your comfort begin with that truth. God created your child. God loved your child and continues to love your child. God’s purpose and destiny for your child are fulfilled perfectly, even if the child dies. (p.32)
God considers all babies to be His…God loves all who are his “innocent little ones.” (p. 34)
All Babies Are Owned by God (p. 34)
Jesus had great regard for the status of the child. He saw in a child the model of dependency and trust, the mind of inno¬cence and humility. He saw a person eager to please and give thanks, quick to express love and quick to receive and obey what was commanded and taught. (p. 57)
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:
Every infant or child who dies before reaching a condition of moral culpabil¬ity goes instantly to heaven at death. A child who has not reached moral culpability is a child who has not reached sufficient mature understanding to comprehend convincingly the issues of law and grace, sin and salvation. Only God knows the time when a child becomes “accountable.” (p. 36-37)
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:
Later in this same teaching, Jesus said this: “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish” (Matt. 18:14). The analogy of this state-ment is unmistakable. Jesus was saying that God no more wants a spiritual child to perish eternally than God wants a natural child to perish eternally. The spiritual teaching is pos¬sible only because of the underlying truth of the “natural” teaching. The analogy works, and works perfectly, only because the underlying premise is that God protects and preserves the little ones who enter His presence. Therefore, we must be dili¬gent to protect and preserve those who spiritually enter the kingdom as little children. (p. 58)
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.”