This is an expansion of the thread appearing in paedo answers. Edward made this statement:

First off, this topic has been discussed: Here and Here.

The question that all who believe in elect infants who die in infancy must wrestle with is how the infant is saved without exercising faith. How does one come to faith without hearing and believing in the means?

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

I don't think we should presume that an infant cannot hear and believe in the gospel. After all God is sovereign; He can do anything. (see Exodus 4:11) Examples such as Psalm 22:9-10 and Psalm 71:5-6 indicate that such faith is possible for one who is yet not born or of an age that is capable of making an profession of faith.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!"
John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

I am all for the age of accountability. And I think it is evident in that the children of Israel were not held accountable that were 20 and under for the sin of disbelief when they didn't listen to Joshua and Caleb. I am not sticking to a specific age. It was a general age that might have been placed upon them by God. I also think that this would be applicable for the mentally problematic situations.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

There's a section on this question here:
The Bookstore at WSC: Baptism, Election, & the Covenant of Grace by Clark, R. Scott

Cornel Venema takes a slightly different view and has published it in the Mid-America Journal I think.

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Westminster Seminary California
Associate Pastor, Oceanside URC
The Heidelcast Podcast
The Heidelblog
Office Hours Podcast

To be fair about it, I didn't make that statement - it's a quote from the Canons of Dort, and I expressed less than unqualified endorsement for that wording (I embrace the Westminster formulation without quibble).

And I STILL don't think the whole subject of the salvation of infants has anything to do with Baptism.

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

Randy,
I do not believe in an age of accountability as all died in Adam.Romans 5, Psalm 51:5 We know that anyone who is saved is saved by mercy. The language of the confessions is clear in that elect infants dying in infancy are saved. If God has purposed to save "all" "some" or "none" we know that the God of all the earth will do right, Gen 18:25.
Their sin would have been atoned for at the cross.
Those under 20 were preserved to continue the godly line. God always protected the godly line by bringing judgement to purge out the reprobates.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Edward, your clarification is noted. Thanks.

Daniel,

I'm not sure these are convincing passages for cognition which, I believe, is necessary for saving faith. However, I am not saying that there are not elect infants. Theologically I am left with the absence of a convincing scriptural argument for infant faith. I must throw my limited understanding on the mercy of Almighty God.

Genesis 18:25 "Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"

Why do you believe Eph 2:8,9 such a stretch for God in regards to Infants? Surely the God of miracles can give 'cognition' and the gift of faith to whomever he pleases at whatever time He pleases, i.e. infants, retarded.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Scott,

I don't doubt for one moment that our sovereign God can do as He pleases. I also don't doubt that there are elect infants. But as far as the gifting of saving faith to infants; there are three reasons why I struggle with this. 1. There is no clear example of it in scripture. 2. Even the prenatal effect of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:37) on John the Baptist cannot be equated with faith. 3. Cognition among infants is not normative.

Now, does this mean that an elect infant dying in infancy is not saved by the same blood of Christ that saves a person who believes and confesses (Romans 10:9, 10)? No. For there is no other way for a person to be saved except by the blood of Christ. My problem is how that is applied to the elect infant in the absence of saving faith. I'm not saying that it is not applied, just that I don't have an answer for it.

If hearing is necessary deaf people can't be saved. It's another example of how the main difference between Baptists and Reformed people look at the world, and that's the question of continuity between the OT and NT. Something like what happened to David

was taken for granted by those in the OT, and for those seeing an uninterrupted line of teaching it's no more strange to think that someone can be saved without hearing or understanding than it is to see ethnic Jews as no different than any other group of non-Christians, or that children should be baptised.

Philip is sleeping now in the other room. He'll never understand the Gospel, but whether I'll see him after he dies has never concerned me a bit, nor do I feel the least bit guilty that he was baptised as a baby.

It's not a question of someone having to do this, that and the other thing. It's a question of a sovereign, covenant God.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Tim,

My use of the word hearing is in the general sense of receiving the message. That doesn't mean a deaf person cannot receive the message through written means.

The 2 Samuel passage that everyone quotes; is David really saying he will see his child again, or that he will follow him to the grave? This passage is not the slam dunk that people think it is.

Regarding you son, Philip; brother, please understand that I am not saying that elect infants dying in infancy, or elect individuals who are incapable of understanding the gospel, are not capable of being saved. I joyously concur that our sovereign God gloriously saves all those whom He elects. My issue is that I don't see clear and convincing teaching from scripture on the matter. That is why I cast my lack of understanding in this area on the mercy of God. Because the issue is so personal for some, poor exegesis has been used to support their presuppositions.

There are literally millions of people who can't read/hear/comprehend. And it's not a question of exegesis as much as presuppositions. And believe me, it's not personal.

Tim,

Then I send you back to my other comment:

Brother, what I can't do is take this issue and remove it from the same care and scrutiny I would give any other doctrine. I must prove it from scripture, and scripture alone. Is God limited in saving those who die in infancy, or who otherwise cannot understand the gospel? Certainly not! How do we reconcile this, scripturally, in lieu of clear and convincing proof? That's my question. It's also the reason why I cast myself upon the mercy of God, because my understanding lacks in this area.

Bill,
Sounds like you have reconciled it.

Only by faith, not by scripture.

This is not an easy thing to understand or reconcile.

That's why many reformed say, "we know elect infants who die in infancy are saved- but we do not know how many or how few those are."

Also, "The believing parent of a child who dies in infancy has reason to hope, but not demand."

(These are both rough summaries of GI Williamson in his book, The Westminster Confession for Study Classes.

One thing that might be helpful also is look at the assumption- it is based on our perception that an infant is not, cannot express faith or that saving faith is based on cognitive ability of the infant.

For example, do we really know what a baby "knows" or believes or even is saying? There are many cases where a child in the womb demonstrates they "know" their mother's voice, respond to it, interact with it, etc.

One might well deduce by good and necessary consequence from Scripture that John the Baptist in the womb was saved and had saving faith, in addition to his being elect at that time (remember one might be called "elect" before the inner calling regenerates them- another topic, but one might deduce both from John the Baptist's case of response in his mother's womb).

In the end, the reformed position is consistent with the sovereignty of God- God is not dependent on anything to save anyone, anytime as it is completely an act of the (good pleasure of) His will)

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

Scott, I understand the good and necessary consequence argument, although I do not find it convincing in this case. Also, whether one is paedo or credo seems to be superfluous. Either a person is elect or they're not. The application of a covenant sign doesn't change that fact.

Does the "our perception" of an infant's cognitive ability make any sense?

Bill,
I don't intend to be argumentative nor derail this thread into an argument of exegesis. However, if you have come to this conclusion about Gods character and attributes, and that conclusion has driven you to the conclusion that God can and does save infants and the dumb, it sounds like you have your answer. I am sure you have not come to your conclusion about the above character of God by faith alone? Scripture supports it, no?

I think it's arrogance to assume that only those who are capable of understanding (in the way we perceive it) are capable of having saving faith. If we're all "born dead" then that capability to understand is something which is given to us all - whether we're an adult or whether we are infants. Whatever additional insight we gain, even if we live to be 100 years old. is also given to us.

__________________
Rich Brown
Deacon/Webmaster
Aisquith PCA
Parkville, MD

Scott,

Scripture supports God's goodness, grace and mercy. Those things are beyond arguing. My hope is based on those three things, in the absence of any positive command given in scripture. Scripture does give a positive command that cognition is very much involved in regeneration (Acts 16:31 & Romans 10:9,10). I believe you and I are agreed that elect infants, and elect individuals who are incapable of comprehending the gospel, are saved; it's being able to tie it to scripture that alludes me. So, I leave it to faith.

Rich, give me that argument from scripture; that's all I'm asking.

Brother Scott, our perception? I don't think our perception of what we cannot explain matters. Our perception of what we can explain? That certainly matters (Romans 10:8-17).

Cognition is not necessary for the new birth. The reflex action of a soul that has been born again is faith in Christ.

John the Baptist was regenerated from his mothers womb and exercised faith in Christ - as best he could - which was demonstrated when Mary visited Elisabeth.

The Spirit can work in extraordinary ways in certain circumstances, although ordinarily works alongside the saving message of the Gospel.

Parents who are expecting a baby should pray for regeneration from the womb, since this is clearly possible.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

Do you want to make you scriptural case for this? I am especially interested in your comments in light of Romans 10:8-17:

As you know, this is the only way to be regenerated and to learn the Gospel.

Let's ask ourselves, "Why did he leap?"

Here we see Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit thus knowing that the Gospel lay within Mary. Elizabeth had visited with Mary many other times and never had she asked why Mary honored her with her presence. That is because it wasn't Mary's presence which was the honor but the Savior's presence.

I suppose we have our answer as to why John leaped in his mother's womb. It wasn't to find a better position....it was because of joy that he leaped. People don't leap for joy out of knowing nothing. They leap for joy out of knowing great things! John knew what the Holy Spirit had revealed to Elizabeth before she even knew... spilt seconds in between maybe but he knew.

Unborn children must hear the Gospel just like born children and adults must hear it to receive it and be born again. John the Baptist knew and understood what the Holy Spirit told him about the Child in Mary's womb and He does the same for the elect unborn/infant/child/mentally delayed/deaf/blind etc person.

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

Here are a couple of articles:

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).

__________________
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church, Carlsbad/Oceanside, California
Th.M. candidate, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Of course it isn't normative. All who are of the elect and become adults with a good intellect have to learn outside of the womb and at an understanding age. But we are not talking about us we... are talking about that which isn't normative.... elect babies dying in infancy. It's not normal for babies to die (although many many do). It's normal for ppl to grow up and become adults. God gave us an example of how He saves the "not normative" ppl and I don't think we should throw it out as just a one time deal. Nothing in Scripture says that it was a one time deal. If we throw out the "hearing of the Gospel" in the salvific process for infants, then we can't scold those who want to do the same for the "jungle man who never got the chance to hear the Gospel".

I saw what you posted about Luke 1:41 not being normative - but how do you know this? God gave us a unique opportunity to see His Spirit working in someone who cannot hear - though the baby was part of Elizabeth's body, and it's evident from the verse that she could hear (speculation on my part). My understanding of this has to do with my belief in total depravity - demonstrated in Genesis 8:21 and many other verses. I don't see in the Bible that God is any less charitable to an adult believer than he is to an infant. If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me.

I too struggle with this idea.

I'm stuck on; if the way to eternal life is laid out:

All men are in total depravity
God must change the heart
The new heart puts faith in Christ

Then infants or those without capacity are excluded.

And i know that this is a hot button issue, but if we give infants a pass, and those without ability, then we have to give any other situation a pass...those who never heard, those who are misinformed, those who this and those who that.

I think it opens the door to problems...why stop at those two situations? how about someone who is a staunch RC who "never really "got" the gospel"...how about a pass there too?

I realize that the God of the earth will do right...but I don't know what that right is...

I'm stuck....

__________________
Robert
Lay Person
PCA
West Virginia
Go share your faith

I would say that John 1:12-13 is ample evidence to show the will of God in the salvation of anyone. Thus we can rest on the knowledge that God saves by His own will.

I think we would all agree that it is normative for cognitive belief. But aside from this, since it is God whose will cannot be thwarted by any circumstance, why can we not deduce that in His mysterious and unseen way, He enables the unborn or the dumb to understand His will for salvation. If we are not born with belief in Him, and He must enable us to believe in Him, then why can He not enable that belief even in those we would say could not believe?

If it were simply cognitive reasoning along with the power of the Holy Spirit, then God can only save those who understand and articulate that understanding. But then we are pointed back to how the Holy Spirit gives us understanding in the first place. How does the Holy Spirit change the heart of anyone? Is there chapter and verse for that? The truth is, if I cannot understand how the Holy Spirit changes the heart in a normative circumstance, then how could I understand a change of heart in the extraordinary?

Additionally, do we know how the soul is created? Does the Bible tell us how? If we cannot know how the soul of man is put in to him, then how do we know how the soul is saved? We know the means, and the actions, but we are not given to know how it is all accomplished in the innermost parts.

I think this falls under the category of those things which are too wonderful for us to know.

We should also realize that although God condescended to reveal Himself, He did not fully reveal Himself. There are things not written in the book, and things that we couldn't understand even if they were.

In Christ,

KC

__________________
Heb 13:20-21

Kevin C. Easterday
Member Covenant OPC, St. Augustine, FL
Husband to Tina (August 13, 1988), Father and Teacher to Kamden (17) and Kolton (15)
Federal Theology Website
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Aside from the fact that these verse don't seem to be addressing the scope of salvation...

I understand what you're saying, and I do agree; God is the one who must give repentance and belief, but since ANYTHING is possible then this argument works for ANYTHING...including the dumb Arminian arguments about how "maybe God sees what we will do and then gives us this free will and then reacts to it...anything's possible right?"

Well, that ASSUMES that he does. Why would we assume that babies who die early, and those without capability are saved?
that category is no different than any other category; God owes me nothing, my sisters nothing and my brother; who died in infancy nothing as well.


I"m not badgering you...just thinking out loud....

Though the scope of salvation is not laid out here, salvation definitely is. My point was, salvation is of the Lord who, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, or against them at His pleasure.

The argument only works so far as other places in Scripture that speak more clearly. We know that God did not look down the portals of time to see what will be done because of Romans 9:11-13. And I know you believe that all things are possible with God...

I'm not feeling badgered...

It is not so much assume as it is to hope. We hope in the Lord for our own salvation. Why would we not hope in the Lord for our unborn children? My wife was pregnant with twins and one aborted, the other is my second son. If I hope salvation for him, why would I not hope salvation for my other child?

All God's ways are just. If it is His perfect will to send my other child to destruction, He is just. But God wants us to hope. So I hope that one day I will be able to hug my other son or daughter for the first time.

In Christ,

KC

Did David speak in faith concerning his infant? I think an "assumption" based on his recorded faith is consistent with the other facts of salvation, and it was recorded for our benefit. We actually have greater witness to the reality based on the subsequent record of his faith.

Does a baby love his mommy? But he can't articulate his clinging devotion... hmmm, must not love her. No, but he does see her, and has the germinating seed of natural affection. So too, the baby can be given a spiritual apprehension of his Maker and Savior, and love him.

A stillborn child, "born" into God's dwelling (if he's an elect one), will only grow in grace and knowledge of his Lord and Savior--in heaven. He or she will never know actual sins, only the removal of his taint of Original Sin--federal guilt and a corrupt nature.

Salvation is never apart from cognition. But why can't that cognition develop from a one-day-old in heaven? Salvation ISN'T logical cognition of Christ, but a personal cognition of him. The former is a production of the latter. Jesus spoke of the "born again" person (infant-speech) "seeing" the kingdom of heaven, Jn.3:3. This whole manner of speaking intimates an order of knowledge that proceeds to depths of knowledge.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

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.

__________________
Josh
URC
Sioux Center, IA
www.christianhomeschoolstore.com

Why are those without mental capacity, or without the ability to express their mental capacity, excluded? As you rightly said, God must change someone's heart for them to be saved, and the natural response to a changed heart is faith in the heart. Faith is not the the result of a changed brain, nor does it reside in the brain. Those with mental capacity, or the ability to express mental capacity, will profess the faith that is in their heart, because of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. However, physical inability to express faith with the mind does not exclude the potential for faith in the heart, which is the result of regeneration.

-----Added 8/19/2009 at 02:05:53 EST-----

Faith is not exercise physically by the brain, but spiritually by the heart. The faith is naturally understood and professed by the cognitive mind, but it doesn't stem from the cognitive mind.

__________________
Dan Dorman
Member of Pilgrim OPC in my hometown-Bangor, Maine
Currently attending Christ the King OPC in Longview, Texas, where I am a college student

“The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which also God is magnified and exalted” -Jonathan Edwards
What is meant by "Christian Hedonism"?

I appreciated you creating this thread, as it did help me think through the issue in more depth.

if that is so then what do you do with 2 Samuel 12:22-24 ?


David was called, by God, a "man after My own heart" and we know that David, even here (see psalm 51) had every expectation to believe he himslef would be in heaven with God at his own death.
David believed without seeing the coming of the Lord.
he believe the promise of the messiah and believed in the salvation of the one to come.


So please consider this passage and other .. Job says it would have been better for him to die at birth.. he expected that he would have been in heav en as well.

The Bible doesn't refute that.

True, God is just.
True also God has set these things in His revealed word to us.
Bottom line: We trust Him based on his character and deeds.

Freshman,

Quote:
Isn't Job just saying that he's in so much pain that he wishes he'd have died at birth? Isn't it a stretch to say that he meant "he'd be in Heaven"?

my take on it.