Why John MacArthur became a Calvinist.

Ransom said:
What claim? That infants "may or may not" (your words) go to hell? That's not a claim. It's noncommittal weaseling that can't even be pinned down to meaning something.
Click to expand...
I apologize, I thought you believed Calvinism teaches that infants and or unborn babies could potentially go to hell?
 
When I was in ‘Bible College’, I was adamantly anti-Calvinist mostly because of the smug, know it all attitude of the Calvinists in school with me….this was a long time ago. Wanting to offer counter arguments in the ongoing debate led me to an extensive study of Soteriology. And, like MacArthur, the Bible didn’t give me any choice but to believe in the ‘Doctrines of Grace’. The transition of beliefs took a long time but I have been a ‘Calvinist’ since then.

In preaching or fulfilling my ministry, I have never proclaimed myself as a Calvinist…I just preached and practiced what I believed. I have always had a zeal for evangelism, although my methods drastically changed over a period of time. I have come to believe that many staunch anti-Calvinists are like I was….they don’t really understand the doctrine….not that they are unintelligent but they allow emotion to cloud their rationale.
 
Ransom said:
I've said consistently that I'm agnostic on the topic. Can't know. Nice try.
Click to expand...
I think that is reasonable.
I, to the disdain of many of my brethren, believe that babies are protected under His covenant of Grace.
 
Last edited:
I really don’t have a theological conclusion on the matter, however, I’m going to hope that the idea of non-selected babies going to hell is a fallacy. To be honest, I don’t think I’d be willing to practice a religion that believes such an ideology.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
I,to the disdain of many of my brethren, believe that babies are protected under His covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...

There's a good indirect case to be made for universal infant salvation (John MacArthur, John Piper, Charles Spurgeon, and Ronald Nash all basically make the same one). I find it persuasive, just not conclusive.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
To be honest, I don’t think I’d be willing to practice a religion that believes such an ideology.
Click to expand...

It's strange to me that the people raising the question of infant salvation are almost always raising it as an objection to Calvinism. Since babies are ignorant of the Gospel, they are incapable of placing saving faith in Christ by an act of will. Doctrines such as Pelagianism or the semi-Pelagian "age of accountability" are clearly false: all are guilty of original sin and accountable for it. Baptismal regeneration is also a false doctrine. The only hope for any individual, infant or not, is God's unconditional election based on his own mercy and the objective atoning work of Christ. Calvinism doesn't militate against infant salvation; only it can promise it.
 
Ransom said:
It's strange to me that the people raising the question of infant salvation are almost always raising it as an objection to Calvinism. Since babies are ignorant of the Gospel, they are incapable of placing saving faith in Christ by an act of will. Doctrines such as Pelagianism or the semi-Pelagian "age of accountability" are clearly false: all are guilty of original sin and accountable for it. Baptismal regeneration is also a false doctrine. The only hope for any individual, infant or not, is God's unconditional election based on his own mercy and the objective atoning work of Christ. Calvinism doesn't militate against infant salvation; only it can promise it.
Click to expand...
The only place in scripture who the gospel is ever given are to adults and children.

No where in scripture does it refer to infants and or babies in the womb.

Unless you can refer me to a place that I missed??
 
Ransom said:
It's strange to me that the people raising the question of infant salvation are almost always raising it as an objection to Calvinism. Since babies are ignorant of the Gospel, they are incapable of placing saving faith in Christ by an act of will. Doctrines such as Pelagianism or the semi-Pelagian "age of accountability" are clearly false: all are guilty of original sin and accountable for it. Baptismal regeneration is also a false doctrine. The only hope for any individual, infant or not, is God's unconditional election based on his own mercy and the objective atoning work of Christ. Calvinism doesn't militate against infant salvation; only it can promise it.
Click to expand...
The only thing I’ve ever been taught is the age of accountability. I never was taught a different viewpoint in the Baptist or Catholic churches. It seems like one of those points that no one can ever definitively know one way or the other—something unknown until the afterlife. No disrespect intended, it just would make me reject Christianity if true, but I’m not too worried about it since no one can prove it is true.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
The only thing I’ve ever been taught is the age of accountability. I never was taught a different viewpoint in the Baptist or Catholic churches. It seems like one of those points that no one can ever definitively know one way or the other—something unknown until the afterlife. No disrespect intended, it just would make me reject Christianity if true, but I’m not too worried about it since no one can prove it is true.
Click to expand...
On this, all we have is scripture. Keep it on context and go from there.
 
Bruh said:
No where in scripture does it refer to infants and or babies in the womb.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

"How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?"

So if salvation is dependent upon hearing and believing the Gospel, and calling on Jesus, then on what basis in your theology is an infant--who has no capacity to hear, believe, or call--saved?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
The only thing I’ve ever been taught is the age of accountability. I never was taught a different viewpoint in the Baptist or Catholic churches. It seems like one of those points that no one can ever definitively know one way or the other—something unknown until the afterlife.
Click to expand...

Obviously, a doctrine that can't be defined poses its own problems.

The age of accountability is really only a problem for non-Reformed people. It's an assumption posited explain why young children, who are not able to receive Christ by their own unaided faith, are not condemned. Which itself is an assumption. None of this poses a problem for Reformed theology. All are accountable for Adam's sin. The age of accountability is when you begin existing.
 
Ransom said:
Obviously, a doctrine that can't be defined poses its own problems.

The age of accountability is really only a problem for non-Reformed people. It's an assumption posited explain why young children, who are not able to receive Christ by their own unaided faith, are not condemned. Which itself is an assumption. None of this poses a problem for Reformed theology. All are accountable for Adam's sin. The age of accountability is when you begin existing.
Click to expand...
You might be correct. Maybe Ekk is correct. Maybe the Church is correct about Limbo, though apparently they’ve shied away from that view in recent years. I’ve always been taught that all babies are born with sin—sinfulness inherited from the parents. No one is born a tabula rasa. Obviously there are verses that support multiple views, so which is correct, no one knows.
 
Ransom said:
They can--if God makes them willing. But infants don't have the capacity at all.
Click to expand...
Presuming faith is a cognitive function, and not a spiritual one.

Elisabeth attributed a high degree of discernment to the babe in her womb.

I wouldn't say John remembered it as he grew, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top