Thread: (Paedos Only) Infants of Believers Dying in Infancy

Here's a short explanation/defense of Canons of Dort 1:17 by Pastor Wes White.

Johannes Weslianus: Infants of Believers Dying in Infancy

Originally Posted by blhowes

n the case of children dying in infancy, all we have is the judgment of charity. All we know are the promises of the covenant of grace, "I will be a God to you and to your seed." And this is the way we ought to proceed. We should go by the judgment of charity in the case of the child and have every confidence that this child who has died is in heaven.

This promise gives hope for believing parents who have children who die in infancy. Does the promise also apply to children of parents who died in infancy before the parents believed?

Honestly, I haven't considered that question yet. The ministers in the forums might be of help to your question.

-----Added 8/18/2009 at 01:05:41 EST-----

And thanks for asking.

Originally Posted by blhowes

n the case of children dying in infancy, all we have is the judgment of charity. All we know are the promises of the covenant of grace, "I will be a God to you and to your seed." And this is the way we ought to proceed. We should go by the judgment of charity in the case of the child and have every confidence that this child who has died is in heaven.

This promise gives hope for believing parents who have children who die in infancy. Does the promise also apply to children of parents who died in infancy before the parents believed?

It depends on whether the child is elect.

WCF X.III - Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

God is loving and just and merciful, and under no obligation whatsoever to defend or explain His loving kindness and justice and mercy to anyone. Gotta love the WCF on this subject. The authors were content to let the Deity be the Deity.

Originally Posted by blhowes

n the case of children dying in infancy, all we have is the judgment of charity. All we know are the promises of the covenant of grace, "I will be a God to you and to your seed." And this is the way we ought to proceed. We should go by the judgment of charity in the case of the child and have every confidence that this child who has died is in heaven.

This promise gives hope for believing parents who have children who die in infancy. Does the promise also apply to children of parents who died in infancy before the parents believed?

Very difficult area that needs great care.

There is more reason to have hope for the children of believers, more to have faith toward. But even a child of a nonbeliever can be elect.

Biblically, we do not have warrant to clearly say how many or how few elect infants there are.

This is where reformed theology is careful and consistent- salvation is 100% a sovereign work of God, it is not dependent on anything in man (or infant), but on the good pleasure of His will, agreed in eternity past.

Originally Posted by Edward

It depends on whether the child is elect.

WCF X.III - Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Yes, this is true. We all know examples from both Scripture and our own experience of believers who had children who were non-elect. If those children had died in infancy, they would not have gone to heaven.

What a difficult task to counsel on this subject. I have a couple in my parish who will be mourning the third anniversary of the loss of a child born with a genetic condition who died after 23 days of life. My wife and I mourn with them, grieve with them, love them as dear friends, I have offered thoughts, but let me tell you brothers and sisters, it is our genuine sorrow and love with them in the midst of their pain which ministers most effectively.

MODERATOR NOTE:

This forum is for paedo answers only. If you are a credo-baptist, please refrain from responding. If you find the topic of interest, start another thread.

Originally Posted by Herald

MODERATOR NOTE:

This forum is for paedo answers only. If you are a credo-baptist, please refrain from responding. If you find the topic of interest, start another thread.

I wondered about the placement. Certainly there should be no suggestion that baptism has anything to do with whether the infant is saved or not.

I've quoted from Westminster above, and Dort is along the same lines (although it seems to convey a bit more assurance than is warranted.)

"Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

Originally Posted by Herald

MODERATOR NOTE:

This forum is for paedo answers only. If you are a credo-baptist, please refrain from responding. If you find the topic of interest, start another thread.

My practice is primarily that of paedobaptism, though I affirm the validity of both based on the Scriptures and an argument from Church History and the emphasis of grace with regard to salvation.

The greatest trouble I have found is with regard to the practical matter of people having their infants baptized as though the efficacy for salvation was contained in the sacrament. I run into a lot of folks (many former Catholics) who are convinced, by no Scriptural grounds, purely on the basis of their own religious experience, that an infant must be baptized to ensure salvation.

I find it very difficult to accept the eternal loss of an infant, though almost completely on emotional and intuitive grounds. My heart wants to look for (at the very least) the salvation of all children of believers. A sort of "family covenant" view along the lines of what is mentioned above seems entirely valid, but I have not searched the Scriptures on this and am not certain that I can adequately argue this point at present.

For clarification's sake, please note that the Canons point us to God's promises concerning believer's children which would exclude those children who were not born into a covenant home.

Furthermore the purpose is to comfort parents not to give us an exhaustive knowledge of God's decree. What parents know of their children is what God has told them: they are holy to Him (1 Corinthians 7:14). We thus rest on what God has said not what we think He might or might not have decreed. A godly, believing parent therefore has no reason not to believe their child is with the Lord since there is no evidence of their rejection of God's promise.

And really is there a difference between our assurance concerning an adult who dies or an infant? Is it, in the final analysis, only their profession of faith and godly life that determines whether we know for sure that they are with the Lord? We make fallible judgments all time and may be wrong about this individual's or that individual's salvation. That doesn't matter; what matters is what God has said and trusting in what He has promised to do.

To understand the Canons of Dort 1.17, one ought to read:

Cornelis Venema, "The Election and Salvation of the Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy: A Study of Article I/17 of the Canons of Dort," Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 57–100.

W. Robert Godfrey, "Election and Covenant: The Synod of Dort and Children Dying in Infancy" (unpublished essay).

N. H. Gootjes, "Can Parents Be Sure?" Clarion 44:20 (October 6, 1995) and 44:21 (October 20, 1995).

Originally Posted by Poimen

A godly, believing parent therefore has no reason not to believe their child is with the Lord since there is no evidence of their rejection of God's promise.

Thank you for this helpful post. But, just to clarify, the Canons say, "godly parents ought not to doubt", but you say, "A godly, believing parent therefore has no reason not to believe." Is 'not doubting' the same thing as 'should believe'? And if so, is this the historical understanding of Canons 1:17?

Spurgeon said something to the effect that where Scripture is scant, it is for no one to speak dogmatically.

This is one of those cases.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Poimen

A godly, believing parent therefore has no reason not to believe their child is with the Lord since there is no evidence of their rejection of God's promise.

Thank you for this helpful post. But, just to clarify, the Canons say, "godly parents ought not to doubt", but you say, "A godly, believing parent therefore has no reason not to believe." Is 'not doubting' the same thing as 'should believe'? And if so, is this the historical understanding of Canons 1:17?

Yes I would say that they are the same: one is stating it in a positive way, the other in a negative way. I believe the pastoral nature of the statement accounts for the negative manner in which it was originally phrased. In grief it is 'natural' to doubt; parents need the comfort now to point them to what God has said.

There are some differences amongst those who adhere to the Canons in the manner in which they interpret it. I cannot speak to the issue of 'historical understanding' but I think the resources that Rev. Hyde listed above would aid you in answering the latter question.

Originally Posted by MMasztal

Spurgeon said something to the effect that where Scripture is scant, it is for no one to speak dogmatically.

This is one of those cases.

The thread is for paedos only! Leave Spurgeon out of this!!

Just kidding...

Originally Posted by Poimen

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Poimen

A godly, believing parent therefore has no reason not to believe their child is with the Lord since there is no evidence of their rejection of God's promise.

Thank you for this helpful post. But, just to clarify, the Canons say, "godly parents ought not to doubt", but you say, "A godly, believing parent therefore has no reason not to believe." Is 'not doubting' the same thing as 'should believe'? And if so, is this the historical understanding of Canons 1:17?

Yes I would say that they are the same: one is stating it in a positive way, the other in a negative way. I believe the pastoral nature of the statement accounts for the negative manner in which it was originally phrased. In grief it is 'natural' to doubt; parents need the comfort now to point them to what God has said.

There are some differences amongst those who adhere to the Canons in the manner in which they interpret it. I cannot speak to the issue of 'historical understanding' but I think the resources that Rev. Hyde listed above would aid you in answering the latter question.

This is very helpful, thanks.

Originally Posted by ChariotsofFire

I have also struggled with this issue. How can an infant come to faith, if the means provided by Scripture is by grace through faith. How can an infant exercise faith? Young infants or children in the womb can not repent and believe because their minds are not capable of doing so. So it seems logical at first look, to say that these children who die in infancy were never apart of God's almighty plan of salvation.

But, if we look to the Scriptures, we do see that God does have a love for his people, and his love is covenantal:

Psalm 103:17
17 But from everlasting to everlasting
the LORD's love is with those who fear him,
and his righteousness with their children's children

1 Corinthians 7:14
14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

The question that I first think of after reading these passages is this: Would God condemn covenant children to hell? We know that covenant children who reject their parent's faith are condemned to hell. We know that not all Israel is Israel. As far as infants go, we know that they are conceived and born into sin, but in God's providence infants who die in infancy do not have not the opportunity to confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. Does this mean that these covenant children are like the unbelieving pagan Native Americans (before the Europeans came) who never heard the gospel and lived in sin? I don't think so. Because God does call children of believers holy, I believe this means that God does elect infants who do not have the opportunity to confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. The means God uses is different, and not ordinary, but is still under the blood of Christ by means of the Covenant.

Your post might be better served in this thread which is going on at the same time: Infants of believers dying in infancy

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by ChariotsofFire

I have also struggled with this issue. How can an infant come to faith, if the means provided by Scripture is by grace through faith. How can an infant exercise faith? Young infants or children in the womb can not repent and believe because their minds are not capable of doing so. So it seems logical at first look, to say that these children who die in infancy were never apart of God's almighty plan of salvation.

But, if we look to the Scriptures, we do see that God does have a love for his people, and his love is covenantal:

Psalm 103:17
17 But from everlasting to everlasting
the LORD's love is with those who fear him,
and his righteousness with their children's children

1 Corinthians 7:14
14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

The question that I first think of after reading these passages is this: Would God condemn covenant children to hell? We know that covenant children who reject their parent's faith are condemned to hell. We know that not all Israel is Israel. As far as infants go, we know that they are conceived and born into sin, but in God's providence infants who die in infancy do not have not the opportunity to confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. Does this mean that these covenant children are like the unbelieving pagan Native Americans (before the Europeans came) who never heard the gospel and lived in sin? I don't think so. Because God does call children of believers holy, I believe this means that God does elect infants who do not have the opportunity to confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. The means God uses is different, and not ordinary, but is still under the blood of Christ by means of the Covenant.

Your post might be better served in this thread which is going on at the same time: Infants of believers dying in infancy

That was thread I intended on posting on. Thank you for pointing that out!

I take a slightly different approach from Cornel here:

The Bookstore at WSC: Baptism, Election, & the Covenant of Grace by Clark, R. Scott and here:

R. Scott Clark: Baptism and the Benefits of Christ (CPJ 2) | The Confessional Presbyterian

What does Canons 1:17 have to say to godly parents who, before being regenerated, had children who died in infancy?

Originally Posted by KMK

What does Canons 1:17 have to say to godly parents who, before being regenerated, had children who died in infancy?

Ken,

The Canons do not address every situation. They are silent as to children of unbelievers.

As well, since the Canons were a consensus document (see the Godfrey and Venema articles for the debates), every "camp" at Dort was able to agree, whether groups that said all children of godly parents are saved or that said not all children of godly parents were saved.