Piper’s position is the default Reformed position today? Really? That’s surprising. From Arminians or anyone else who is not a Calvinist, I could follow that I suppose. But that is surprising to me that would become the default Reformed position. That’s hard to reconcile with original sin. Furthermore, the implications from that would seem that we’ve also finished the Great Commission too. If all infants go to heaven, then I would imagine that every people group on planet earth has been “reached”. I don’t like it. I’m not exactly sure what happens to infants when they die, but I’m not going to role with an age of accountability argument. A bit of a stretch I think…

I will assert that it is the “default” Reformed position. Along with Piper, MacArthur teaches the same thing. Spurgeon did. Luther did. And even Calvin himself did. Calvin in fact, asserted that to say otherwise was blasphemy. So to take a position that not all infants who die may be saved is to part from a traditional Reformed understanding of the subject.

Melanie, I beg to differ with your comment about what the “default” Reformed position is. While Piper, MacArthur and Spurgeon might agree on this topic, I know that Calvin’s view was not the same. Here’s a link on the subject that is an excerpt from Loraine Boettner’s book “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination”:

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/boettn…

Thanks Nathan. I fail to see the contradiction in the book excerpt. Nowhere is it suggested deceased infants are damned. Here is a more specific look at Calvinism and infant salvation:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/postsMegan - If you can find assurance that your child has been saved on the same basis that you have, why is it treading on dangerous ground to extend the same grace to another deceased infant? To fail to do so is to claim that God has merited favour to your child on the basis of his or her relationship to you and not solely on Christ’s work of grace. Otherwise if you can’t extend the same saving grace to any and all other souls who have died in infancy as you have your own child you must accept that perhaps your own child will not be counted among the elect.As to the abortion suggestion - why not commit suicide as a means of fast tracking it the heaven? Abortion is grevious enough without suggesting that those babies who have been rejcted and condemned by their mothers from their very conception have also been rejected and condemned by their Maker. No one here could even begin to suggest that an abortionist is reflecting the character of God with his actions.

I was merely saying that as individuals we can find hope in the promises of God for individual infants, just as with individual adults, but I do not think the Bible clearly states all babies go to heaven. I do not think we should go further than the Bible.

As for my abortion comment, I am merely taking the logic through. I do not think that anyone here believes abortionists are doing God’s work. Believing that all infants are automatically saved simply leads into dangerous territory. God may in fact save every infant that dies, but to declare that He does in fact do it when the Bible has not revealed that to us, is never a good idea.

I went through a very difficult time of struggling with the possibility that God did not save my child, but like I said, I hold to the promises of the covenant just like I would with any living child.

Nathan- based on the link you posted, it seems that Calvin’s view is that the reprobate are reprobate from birth, but that they necessarily live to the point of accountability before dying. In other words, for a child to have died before reaching the age of accountability is evidence of his being among the elect.

The full quote is available here:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.iv.iii.xi.html

“While, therefore, Calvin teaches that there are reprobate infants, and that these will be finally lost, he nowhere teaches that they will be lost as infants, and while they are infants; but, on the contrary, he declares that all the reprobate ‘procure’ their own destruction by personal acts of impiety, wickedness and rebellion. Consequently, his own reasoning compels him to hold (to be consistent with himself), that no reprobate child can die in infancy; but all such must live to the age of moral accountability, and translate original sin into actual sin.”

If this accurately describes what Calvin believed, then it puts an interesting twist on his view concerning the necessity of salvation. It essentially adds a requirement of “actual sin” for someone to be damned, above and beyond his original sin.

Melanie and JPH, thank you so much for your thoughts — they were very helpful!

Piper, MacArthur and Spurgeon are not Reformed. Holding to the so called 5 points of Calvinism (more accurately of the Synod of Dort) does not make you Reformed. Piper, MacArthur and Spurgeon are all baptist and MacArthur is even a dispensationalist, neither of which position is true to the historic Reformed faith as expressed in the Confessions of the Reformed Churches.

Steven- which confession(s) do you consider to be a litmus test for Reformed-ness? And with which parts of that (those) confessions would Piper/MacArthur/Spurgeon disagree?

Heidelberg? Westminster? If so, the original, or a subsequent revision?

I don’t consider myself part of the reformed camp to begin with, but I’m curious as to the grounds on which you exclude Piper/MacArthur/Spurgeon.

Since Nathan earlier posted a link from reformed.org, let me post another referencing your quote:

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/boettn…

“It has often been charged that the Westminster Confession in stating that “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ” (Chap. X, Sec. 3), implies that there are non-elect infants, who, dying in infancy, are lost, and that the Presbyterian Church has taught that some dying in infancy are lost. Concerning this Dr. Craig says: “The history of the phrase ‘Elect infants dying in infancy’ makes clear that the contrast implied was not between ‘elect infants dying in infancy’ and ‘non-elect infants dying in infancy,’ but rather between ‘elect infants dying in infancy’ and ‘elect infants living to grow up.’” However, in order to guard against misunderstanding, furthered by unfriendly controversialists, the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. adopted in 1903 a Declaratory Statement which reads as follows: “With reference to Chapter X, Section 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost.

Concerning this Declaratory Statement Dr. Craig says: “It is obvious that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the teaching of Chapter X, Section 3 of the Confession of Faith inasmuch as it states positively that all who die in infancy are saved. Some hold that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the Scripture in teaching that all those dying in infancy are saved; but, be that as it may, it makes it impossible for any person to even plausibly maintain that Presbyterians teach that there are non-elect infants who die in infancy. No doubt there have been individual Presbyterians who held that some of those who die in infancy have been lost; but such was never the official teaching of the Presbyterian Church and as matters now stand such a position is contradicted by the Church’s creed.”

Of course you can level the charge that this 1903 declaration effectively rendered the PCUSA no longer a “reformed church”, but I think you’d find much objection to that claim.

I think perhaps this is a matter of language. The phrase “reformed” has become less strict than it once was, and doesn’t require (in the minds of most who use it) absolute adherence to the Westminster Confessions. When you say, “Spurgeon isn’t reformed,” you’re using the strictest possible definition, whereas people who say he is are using a much looser one. In an effort to be more exact, you might say, “Spurgeon, Piper, MacArthur, et. al. hold views that contradict the Westminster Confessions.”

(Though, in this case, I’m not entirely convinced that the view “no infants who die were reprobate” is in direct contradiction.)