Infants, dying in infancy

panta dokimazete · #1 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 09:52 AM

Our recent discussion of Al Mohler's position on infants dying in infancy brought to mind this passage of Scripture:

Deuteronomy 1:39
39'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.

Which led me to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Calvin

39. Moreover, your little ones. I have already shown that God so tempered His judgment that, whilst none of the guilty should escape with impunity, still His faithfulness should remain sure and inviolable, and that the wickedness of men should not make void the covenant which He had made with Abraham. He, therefore, pronounces sentence upon them, that they should never enjoy the inheritance which they had despised: yet declares that He will nevertheless be true in the fulfillment of what He had promised, and will display His mercy towards their children, whom in their despair they had condemned to be a prey to their enemies.

When He limits this grace to their little ones, whose age did not yet allow them to discern between good and evil, He signifies that all who had already arrived at the years of reason, were, from the least to the greatest, accomplices in the crime, since the contagion had spread through the whole body. Surely it was an incredible prodigy, that so great a multitude should be so carried away by diabolical fury, as that nothing should remain unaffected by it, unless perhaps a timely death removed some of the old men rather on account of the vice of others than their own. But, if even a hundredth part of them had been guiltless of the crime, God would have left some survivors.

"To have no knowledge of good and evil," is equivalent to being unable "to discern between their right hand and their left hand;" by which expression in Jonah, (Jonah 4:11,) God exempts from condemnation those little ones, who have as yet no power of forming a judgment. From hence, however, some have foolishly attempted to prove that infant-children are not defiled by original sin; and that men are involved in no guilt, except such as they have severally contracted by their own voluntary act (arbitrio.) For the question here is not as to the nature of the human race; a distinction is simply made between children and those who have consciously and willfully provoked God's wrath; whereas the corruption, which is the root (of all evils) although it may not immediately produce its fruit in actual sins, is not therefore non-existent.

from here

Then, in Vol 3 of his Harmony of the Gospels on Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Calvin

This narrative is highly useful; for it shows that Christ receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach to him, but those who are not yet of age to know how much they need his grace.

Taken with:

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 8:1
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Us and those being the elect.

If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.

To differentiate this thread from the previous one, I have added a public poll.

Semper Fidelis · #2 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 09:57 AM

Did you miss this part:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Calvin

...From hence, however, some have foolishly attempted to prove that infant-children are not defiled by original sin; and that men are involved in no guilt, except such as they have severally contracted by their own voluntary act (arbitrio.) For the question here is not as to the nature of the human race; a distinction is simply made between children and those who have consciously and willfully provoked God's wrath; whereas the corruption, which is the root (of all evils) although it may not immediately produce its fruit in actual sins, is not therefore non-existent.

panta dokimazete · #3 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 09:59 AM

How does that exempt infants dying in infancy from being elect, if Christ's substitutionary death covers the original corruption?

TimV · #4 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.

But the reasoning is faulty. You are positing a default state of grace for humans that they have to lose by bad behavior.

panta dokimazete · #5 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.

But the reasoning is faulty. You are positing a default state of grace for humans that they have to lose by bad behavior.

The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.

Quote:

2 Chronicles 25:4
However, he did not put their children to death, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, which the LORD commanded, saying, " Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers, but each shall be put to death for his own sin."

TimV · #6 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.

That's the worst sort of circular logic, at least it seems such. But in case I'm mis-reading you, could you please clarify. Do you believe that every member of the human race is in Christ from the point of conception until they do something to fall out of that grace? What do you do about Perseverance?

panta dokimazete · #7 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)

I contend that all infants, dying in infancy, are unable to participate in 4, 6 or fully in 8, but receive the benefits of all the other elements and election precedes all.

TimV · #8 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:15 AM

Thanks, but could you please answer?

panta dokimazete · #9 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.

That's the worst sort of circular logic, at least it seems such. But in case I'm mis-reading you, could you please clarify. Do you believe that every member of the human race is in Christ from the point of conception until they do something to fall out of that grace?

no - only the elect are in Christ.

Quote:

What do you do about Perseverance?

Not sure what you are asking - an infant, dying in infancy, is incapable of participating in the process of sanctification that requires/indicates perseverance.

toddpedlar · #10 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.

But the reasoning is faulty. You are positing a default state of grace for humans that they have to lose by bad behavior.

The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.

"Default" is unfortunate language, since all are conceived in original sin. Nobody has a "default" state of grace. The elect are elect "unto salvation", that is, unto grace - they aren't conceived in a state of grace.

Quote:

2 Chronicles 25:4
However, he did not put their children to death, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, which the LORD commanded, saying, " Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers, but each shall be put to death for his own sin."

So are you questioning original sin???

toddpedlar · #11 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.

That's the worst sort of circular logic, at least it seems such. But in case I'm mis-reading you, could you please clarify. Do you believe that every member of the human race is in Christ from the point of conception until they do something to fall out of that grace?

no - only the elect are in Christ.

Quote:

What do you do about Perseverance?

Not sure what you are asking - an infant, dying in infancy, is incapable of participating in the process of sanctification that requires/indicates perseverance.

An infant is just as capable as I am, since the capability is not my own, but due to the Spirit's sanctifying work in me.

toddpedlar · #12 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

Quote:

The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.

That's the worst sort of circular logic, at least it seems such. But in case I'm mis-reading you, could you please clarify. Do you believe that every member of the human race is in Christ from the point of conception until they do something to fall out of that grace?

no - only the elect are in Christ.

Quote:

What do you do about Perseverance?

Not sure what you are asking - an infant, dying in infancy, is incapable of participating in the process of sanctification that requires/indicates perseverance.

Let me rephrase the question I think he's asking. He has taken you to say that all infants are elect - and therefore since some infants grow up to adulthood,
and many adults are obviously not elect, there must be some "loss of election". I think this is the source of confusion - but I assume you would argue that
not all infants are elect - but only those infants that die.

So that on the day of birth of every child, you cannot know whether that child is elect. You're only speaking about those infants that die, correct? These (regardless of whether they are born into a Christian home or not, whether they have any connection whatsoever to God's covenant people or not) all are elect, you claim?

Gomarus · #13 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.

In order to explain how those who die in infancy are saved, it appears you suggest that “the atonement of Christ nullified the effects of Adam’s sin.” This is to say that, by the blood of Christ, the guilt of Adam’s sin is removed at birth for all men. It is one thing to argue that all who die in infancy are saved by God’s grace based on Christ’s atonement, but it is another to assert that Christ’s atonement has removed the consequences of Adam’s sin for all men. The latter point is not biblical or Reformed.

If it were true that the effects of Adam’s sin have been nullified by the atonement, then men are born pardoned as far as their connection with Adam’s sin; and if pardoned, they are justified from that guilt (since Scripture indicates that all those pardoned are also justified). What we would have then is justification of all men at birth from the guilt of original sin. This view has been historically associated with Arminian theology, often as part of its doctrine of universal atonement. I mention this only because Dr. John Girardeau has effectively addressed this particular view in his Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism. A brief summary of his major points follows, which I believe are important for consideration:

(1) This view necessarily supposes two justifications, separated by an interval of time. Apart from those dying in infancy, those who reach maturity and who believe in Christ were first justified at birth from the guilt of original sin and afterwards, upon the exercise of faith, are justified from the guilt of conscious actual sins. Until the adult believes on Christ, he is a partially justified man. Should the adult die without believing in Christ, he dies justified in part and unjustified in part, partially pardoned and partially condemned. But as Girardeau put it, “since actual sin springs from the principle of original sin, he is condemned for a sin the guilt of which supposes a sin for which he has been pardoned.” If not, then the man must have fallen from innocence into sin, since he must have been innocent (free from guilt) in the interval between his birth and his first voluntary sin.

(2) If the atonement of Christ has removed the effects of Adam’s sin, then, since there is no other source of guilt, he is entirely innocent. This is to stand on Pelagian ground — that infants are altogether innocent — and denies the doctrines of total depravity and original sin. Scripture says, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me,” Psa. 51:5. However, if the doctrine of total depravity is not rejected, then we have a paradox: We have the totally innocent and the totally depraved at the same time. Furthermore, if it is suggested that total depravity is somehow the result of development and is consequently attributable only to an adult, then we must still have at the outset a partial depravity as the basis for the supposed development. How can this coexist with entire innocence?

(3) If it is contended that the infant is both innocent and undepraved, then we have a blatant contradiction of Scripture, for “we are children of wrath,” Eph. 2:3, and “the wicked are estranged from the womb. These . . . go astray from birth,” Psa. 58:3. Moreover we are led to conclude that each individual falls as Adam did. But surely this is denied. If so, then each individual must begin his existence depraved, and therefore cannot be innocent. But if he has guilt, it must be Adam’s guilt imputed since he cannot, as an infant, contract the guilt of personal conscious transgressions. Basically this view involves the coexistence of entire innocence and depravity.

(4) Also, if Adam’s guilt is removed, how do we account for spiritual death remaining in a person? Spiritual death is a consequence of Adam’s guilt entailed upon his posterity. If the cause is removed, the effect must go with it. But the effect does not go, for Scripture makes it clear that “you were dead in your trespasses and sins,” Eph. 2:1. It must be concluded that the cause still operates to produce the effect. If all infants are in a condition of spiritual death, Adam’s guilt has not been removed from them.

Dr. Girardeau’s argument is significant and raises some serious theological questions that must be addressed if this view were to be seriously considered. Interestingly enough, I do not believe this suggested effect of the atonement is necessary in order to presume the salvation of those who die in infancy.

panta dokimazete · #14 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

So are you questioning original sin???

Absolutely not!

I contend that Christ's substitutionary death covers the debt of original sin for the elect.

I contend that Christ's actions/statements in Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17 reveals His disposition toward infants.

I contend that an infant, dying in infancy, is incapable of fully participating in the ordo salutis.

I contend that God is just and bases His judgment of Man on both the original sin of Adam and the willful sin of the individual - that is - Man is doubly condemned.

So, I contend that since an infant, dying in infancy, cannot be doubly condemned, and that Christ revealed God's character on His disposition toward infants ("for of such is the kingdom of heaven"), that all infants, predestined to die in infancy, are therefore elect and predestined for glory, being covered under Christ's substitutionary death for their innate corruption and free of any willful sin-debt.

panta dokimazete · #15 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

So that on the day of birth of every child, you cannot know whether that child is elect. You're only speaking about those infants that die, correct? These (regardless of whether they are born into a Christian home or not, whether they have any connection whatsoever to God's covenant people or not) all are elect, you claim?

Yes - although, I would say that the elect are God's covenant people, in which infants, dying in infancy, would be included.

panta dokimazete · #16 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 10:58 AM

Also, in the Arminian camp, since the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification, the reasonable conclusion is that all infants, dying in infancy, are condemned to Hell, since election does not precede the outward call and infants, dying in infancy, are incapable of responding and thus be healed of their "sin sickness". (semi-Pelagianism)

toddpedlar · #17 (**permalink**) 07-09-2008, 11:03 AM

The inability of an infant to fully participate in the ordo salutis, as it were, isn't relevant to your cause. Whether they were, or were not, they are stained with original sin, and as such deserving of eternal death.

Hence, the question is not whether infants deserve death, just as the rest of us do, simply by virtue of being in the sinful human line of Adam. The question, rather, must be this - whether Christ's statement "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" means that all infants dying in infancy are elect. I'm afraid in this regard your logic, and your theological inferences from the text, are lacking. First, there is no logical necessity linking the premise to the conclusion you've drawn. What Christ was pointing to in that illustration was not the child himself, but the free and easy trust of a childlike faith. Therefore, you can't draw your "all infants dying in infancy are elect" conclusion, logically, from that statement. It fails on the face of it.