This is part 2 of my review of Adam Harwood’s The Spiritual Condition of Infants.
There are a few issues that keep recurring in The Spiritual Condition of Infants. These issues weren’t necessarily theological, but they degraded Harwood’s argument and effectiveness. In my next post I will address specific theological areas of appreciation and disagreement, but in this post I want to raise two of the recurring issues: he fails to build a positive case, and he makes frequent unsubstantiated appeals to authority.
Making the Case
In the introduction to the book, Harwood says that his goal is to “write a positive statement about what the Bible does teach about infants.”1 Thus we would be right to expect Harwood to build a case throughout Scripture, showing the biblical foundation for his premise that “infants are sin-stained, not guilty… all people who die in their infancy will be included in God’s restoration of fallen creation…”2 His goal is to give us a positive case for what the Bible teaches; we are right to expect him to focus his efforts on just that: laying a foundation, building on that foundation, presenting us his case from Scripture. What we actually find is a book designed to refute opposing views. Harwood devotes most of his attention to addressing the biblical arguments of his theological opponents. Instead of building a clear, systematic, comprehensive case, he focuses on several points raised by opposing views, tells us why he thinks those views are wrong, and at times tells us how this or that passage should instead be read to support his position. For instance, at the conclusion of his chapter Holy Children: Covenant or Blessing? Harwood summarizes his discussion in this way:
So, what does 1 Cor 7:14 imply about the spiritual condition of infants? This passage is cited by some people who teach a covenant view of salvation and infant baptism. Their argument is that the sanctification mentioned by Paul refers to the children of believers being protected by God due to the faith of their parents. In this chapter, I attempted to demonstrate some of the difficulties in affirming a covenantal view of salvation and infant baptism.3
In other places Harwood is left in a somewhat ambivalent position, having raised challenges against an opposing view while failing to draw firm conclusions of his own:
In Mark 10:13–16, Jesus blessed young children. Although it is not certain whether or not Jesus considered them guilty of sin, he neither called them to repentance nor attempted to baptize them with water. Rather, he blessed them and pointed to them as an example of how a person should receive the kingdom of God.4
Toward the beginning of the chapter on Mark 10:13-16, Harwood said he would address the passage in three ways: first, by considering the age of the children; second, by showing why this passage cannot be used to defend infant baptism; and third, by discussing “the meaning of the text and its application to the present research.”5 The large majority of the chapter is given to the second section: sections one and three each get one paragraph, the remaining pages focus on infant baptism. In section three, where Harwood intended to present the meaning and application of the passage, the best he can offer is “it is not possible to determine whether or not Jesus viewed the infants in the group as guilty of sin, but he did welcome them.”6 I appreciate his honest handling of the passage – he does not attempt to make it fit his conclusion – but it does not help him to “write a positive statement about what the Bible does teach about infants.” Such examples are not unique. His interactions with Scripture largely focus on refutation rather than construction.
Appeals to Authority
A second problem is Harwood’s willingness to reference scholars as though their word alone settles certain key questions. He grants them a great measure of trust and authority without letting us know why they should be trusted. Quite possibly those authors in their own writings have explained why they believe as they do about this or that passage, but all Harwood gives us is their conclusion. He expects to trust them – and him – that what they have said is correct while opposing views are incorrect. This comes across as elevating scholars who support his conclusions simply because they support his conclusions.
Harwood’s appeals to authority occur throughout the book. For instance, in his chapter on Romans 5:12-21 he notes that John Murray appeals to the passage to show that even infants are included in the sin of Adam since infants experience death. Harwood’s response is to quote C.E.B. Cranfield who said, “…those who die in infancy are a special and exceptional case, and Paul must surely be assumed to be thinking in terms of adults.”7 We are not told why Paul must surely be thinking about adults. No exegetical argument (or any other kind of argument) is made to show why infants “must surely be” excluded from Paul’s consideration. Harwood never tells us why Cranfield’s view is better than Murray’s or why we should agree with Cranfield’s declaration that infants are not in view.
A similar appeal to authority occurs again later in the chapter in the same context: “Fitzmyer also explains that including infants among the all who sinned of Rom 5:12 was not an idea that Paul had in mind.”8 We might assume that Cranfield and Fitzmyer both explain their assertions in their own writings, but despite the fact that their assertions are essential to Harwood’s position, he does not explain why they are correct. We are left with the claim and must choose whether or not to accept it without argument.
Later, Harwood makes an elementary mistake when he says, “None of these Old Testament scholars glean from the text that humans are guilty of sin from birth.”9 As I was reminded time and again in seminary, citing scholars who agree with me is not in itself an argument that I am right. Opposing scholars can always be found. It is not enough for Harwood to quote half a dozen people who say what he is saying. I need to know how they get their position from the text.
Appeals of this sort are common throughout Harwood’s book. This is not to say that he never presents arguments from the text, but his arguments are often built on simple assertion. At best all that he accomplishes is to demonstrate that there are differing viewpoints. His conclusions are built on an invisible foundation: he has told us of its outline but has left out the substance.
Tomorrow I will dive into some of the specific theological issues raised by Harwood.
December 4, 2012 at 6:43 am
Chris,
Thanks for the review. I’m looking forward to each post.
Question: Have you read “When a Baby Dies” by Reformed Baptist Ronald Nash? I have not yet, but I’m thinking about getting a copy. Check it out on Amazon.
Les
December 4, 2012 at 7:39 am
I haven’t. So far this is the only book I’ve read on the subject, though I’ve read briefer discussions in various theology books. Thanks for reading!
December 4, 2012 at 7:07 am
Also, Chris, I assume he deals with relevant texts such as Psalm 51.5 and Eph. 2.3. Will you also be responding to his treatment of such texts?
Les
December 4, 2012 at 7:50 am
He does address those. Chapters in the biblical section are:
His discussion of sinful nature vs actions is one of the topics I’ll be addressing.
December 4, 2012 at 9:31 am
Seems to me that folks try to make some thing really complicated. The Mark 10:13-16 passage refers to children who are coming to Jesus, and people receiving Jesus as though they were little children. I hope the analysis goes somewhere else than that, as that certainly doesn’t speak to infants who do not “come to Jesus”.
Incidentally, I definitely believe in the salvation of infants, but I got to the Old Testament to get it.
December 4, 2012 at 10:00 am
Bob,
I agree about the Mark passage, as does Adam. I would agree with Adam that this passage cannot be used to argue one way or another about the spiritual condition of infants and children. My point above is not with Adam’s argument, per se, but with the fact that Adam focuses on opposing a position rather than building his own.
December 4, 2012 at 9:40 am
Chris, I’m glad you’re taking a look at this book. Dr Harwood seems to be the rising theological star in the “Traditionalist” segment of the SBC. I’ve interacted extensively with that segment at SBCtoday.com over this very issue, and they all point me to Dr Harwood’s book. The main thing that I can’t get passed is that Dr Harwood postulates a multitude in Heaven who have gotten there by their own sinlessness instead of Jesus’. By saying that people are born innocent, there will be a multitude in heaven who will be there because they earned it, or at least didn’t lose it by dying before they actually sinned. Very problematic!!!
December 4, 2012 at 9:52 am
Ben,
In fairness, Adam acknowledges that all who get to Heaven do so through Jesus, and he says that infants are not sinless. Nonetheless, he never explains just why infants need Jesus or in what way are they not sinless. He seems to say that their “sinfulness” is simply the fact that they have inherited a sinful nature which will eventually lead them to the guilt of sin once they reach a point of understanding (age of accountability). But he is also clear that a sinful nature is not itself a source of guilt and that God can welcome into Heaven people (infants) with sinful natures if they are not otherwise guilty of sin. I’ll talk about this a bit more in part 3.
December 6, 2012 at 8:20 am
Chris, I just found your post about the review of this book and I wanted to thank you. I’ve just finished reading the book and I agree with much of your review. What was most frustrating to me throughout the read was what you stated in the reply above. He never states that why infants who are “sin stained but not guilty” in his view are in need of the atonement of Jesus though he does state that they must go through Jesus. Yet at the same time he points to the inconsistency of those who hold to original guilt.
You may deal with this issue in your third post but are you aware of anyone who deals with the “sin stained but not guilty” view at length? It frustrates me that he kept referring to the view but never defended it but kept restating it.
Thanks, Bob
December 6, 2012 at 10:11 am
Bob,
Thanks for the comment. As to your question, I’m not familiar with anyone who deals with that view, but I’m also not all that familiar with other writings on the subject. Harwood frequently references the writings of Millard Erickson, so it’s possible that Erickson has written more on the subject.
December 4, 2012 at 11:02 am
Chris, thanks for giving me further insight to his position. Talk about wanting to eat his theological cake and save it too!! In what way is a sinful nature sinful? Potential sin? Do we convict potential murderers? Talk about an unjust God if that’s the case.
December 4, 2012 at 11:32 am
I’m sure you’ll get into this later, but how does Dr Harwood deal with babies who are not guilty being punished by death? Also, how does Dr Harwood deal with the fact that the imputation of Adam’s guilt to all who are in Him is the parallel to the imputation Jesus’ righteousness to all who are in Him? These are very strong arguments against his position!!
December 4, 2012 at 12:58 pm
You’re doing a good job of hitting the points I’ll address tomorrow. Briefly, here’s what he would say:
On infant death, infants do not die as a condemnation of sin but as a consequence of the general effects of the fall. In Romans 8 Paul mentions all creation being subject to decay; infants are included in this. I see some pretty nasty problems in this but I’ll hold off until tomorrow to raise them.
On the imputation of guilt, this whole review started because I want to respond to how Adam handles that. Briefly, he says (drawing from Erickson) that to be in Christ we must ratify the work of Christ. It requires choice and faith before we receive the life of Christ. Likewise, we must “ratify” the sin of Adam before we become participants in the penalty. We ratify it by committing sins for which we are guilty. Since he argues that infants are not guilty of sin, infants have not ratified the sin of Adam and do not die as a consequence of sin but as a general result of the fall. I think he makes a rather significant blunder here and I’ll be addressing it tomorrow.