Infant Salvation (again...briefly)

[D. Paul]

Simply because it came up in a conversation this evening, I ask this:
I argued the Sovereignty of God in Salvation extending even to infants and that just because they are infants does not mean automatic Heaven for them. Otherwise, abortion is the greatest "heaven-populator" ever known. The counter was stated that only the one committing the murder could be judged; the infant would still go to heaven.

OK. All that said, which has been hashed out here in many other threads, .i.e http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/infant-salvation-native-jungle-24581/

the end conclusion as it was further discussed later in private was this:
"I'm not going to discuss this with someone. It has nothing helpful to offer to the Christian life. I have enough problems keeping myself straight so I won't go there."

Is this issue really important enough that Christians ought to discuss it or is it too obscure? That is all I really want to know.

 

[DMcFadden]

I have heard that the majority position in Reformed circles says that dying infants are saved and elect, whether baptized or not. This is by far the view among Calvinists, such as Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, C.H. Spurgeon, A.M. Toplady, Ulrich Zwingli, W.G.T. Shedd, Loraine Boettner, etc.

The WCF (X:3), dealing with effectual calling, says: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So are also other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”

At the beginning of the last century, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. approved a Declaratory Statement giving the official interpretation of this article: “It is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost. We believe that all dying in infancy are included in the election of grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases.”

That was over a hundred years ago. How this all shakes out today I don't know. By the way, it would be pernicious (in my opinion)to use this as an argument for abortion.

 

[Herald]

Simply because it came up in a conversation this evening, I ask this:
I argued the Sovereignty of God in Salvation extending even to infants and that just because they are infants does not mean automatic Heaven for them. Otherwise, abortion is the greatest "heaven-populator" ever known. The counter was stated that only the one committing the murder could be judged; the infant would still go to heaven.

OK. All that said, which has been hashed out here in many other threads, .i.e http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/infant-salvation-native-jungle-24581/

the end conclusion as it was further discussed later in private was this:
"I'm not going to discuss this with someone. It has nothing helpful to offer to the Christian life. I have enough problems keeping myself straight so I won't go there."

Is this issue really important enough that Christians ought to discuss it or is it too obscure? That is all I really want to know.

Donald, if you are a paedobaptist then yes, it is vitally important to your entire theology. In fact, WCF-Covenant Theology crumbles in the absence of paedobaptism. Notice I am not arguing for or against paedobaptism at this juncture (although everyone knows where I stand). I am stating that WCF-Covenant Theology ceases to be a systematic theology without paedobaptism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Donald,

One of the things I've appreciated as I've studied the issue of the historically Reformed understanding of election, covenant, and salvation is how much different it is than a speculative and impious approach to the hidden things of God.

Bullinger wrote the 2nd Helvetic Confession. I believe this section is a great illustration of viewing our election not as some bare, speculative issue where we try to go further in the decree than has been revealed but to focus upon the person and work of Christ and what has been revealed to us:

CHAPTER X
Of the Predestination of God
and the Election of the Saints
GOD HAS ELECTED US OUT OF GRACE. From eternity God has freely, and of his mere grace, without any respect to men, predestinated or elected the saints whom he wills to save in Christ, according to the saying of the apostle, "God chose us in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). And again: "Who saved us and called an with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago, and now has manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus" (II Tim. 1:9 f.).

WE ARE ELECTED OR PREDESTINATED IN Christ. Therefore, although not on account of any merit of ours, God has elected us, not directly, but in Christ, and on account of Christ, in order that those who are now engrafted into Christ by faith might also be elected. But those who were outside Christ were rejected, according to the word of the apostle, "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? -- unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" (II Cor. 13:5).

WE ARE ELECTED FOR A DEFINITE PURPOSE. Finally, the saints are chosen in Christ by God for a definite purpose, which the apostle himself explains when he says, "He chose us in him for adoption that we should be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption to be his sons through Jesus Christ that they should be to the praise of the glory of his grace" (Eph. 1:4 ff.).

WE ARE TO HAVE A GOOD HOPE FOR ALL. And although God knows who are his, and here and there mention is made of the small number of elect, yet we must hope well of all, and not rashly judge any man to be a reprobate. For Paul says to the Philippians, "I thank my God for you all" (now he speaks of the whole Church in Phillippi), "because of your fellowship in the Gospel, being persuaded that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. It is also right that I have this opinion of you all" (Phil. 1:3 ff.).

WHETHER FEW ARE ELECT. And when the Lord was asked whether there were few that should be saved, he does not answer and tell them that few or many should be saved or damned, but rather he exhorts every man to "strive to enter by the narrow door" (Luke 13:24): as if he should say, It is not for you curiously to inquire about these matters, but rather to endeavor that you may enter into heaven by the straight way.

WHAT IN THIS MATTER IS TO BE CONDEMNED. Therefore we do not approve of the impious speeches of some who say, "Few are chosen, and since I do not know whether I am among the number of the few, I will enjoy myself." Others say, "If I am predestinated and elected by God, nothing can hinder me from salvation, which is already certainly appointed for me, no matter what I do. But if I am in the number of the reprobate, no faith or repentance will help me, since the decree of God cannot be changed. Therefore all doctrines and admonitions are useless." Now the saying of the apostle contradicts these men: "The Lord's servant must be ready to teach, instructing those who oppose him, so that if God should grant that they repent to know the truth, they may recover from the snare of the devil, after being held captive by him to do his will" (II Tim. 2:23 ff.).

ADMONITIONS ARE NOT IN VAIN BECAUSE SALVATION PROCEEDS FROM ELECTION. Augustine also shows that both the grace of free election and the predestination, and also salutary admonitions and doctrines, are to be preached (Lib. de Dono Perseverantiae, cap. 14 ff.).

WHETHER WE ARE ELECTED. We therefore find fault with those who outside of Christ ask whether they are elected. [Ed. 1568 reads: "whether they are elected from eternity?"] And what has God decreed concerning them before all eternity? For the preaching of the Gospel is to be heard, and it is to be believed; and it is to be held as beyond doubt that if you believe and are in Christ, you are elected. For the Father has revealed unto us in Christ the eternal purpose of his predestination, as I have just now shown from the apostle in II Tim. 1:9-10. This is therefore above all to be taught and considered, what great love of the Father toward us is revealed to us in Christ. We must hear what the Lord himself daily preaches to us in the Gospel, how he calls and says: "Come to me all who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). "God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Also, "It is not the will of my Father that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14).

Let Christ, therefore be the looking glass, in whom we may contemplate our predestination. We shall have a sufficiently clear and sure testimony that we are inscribed in the Book of Life if we have fellowship with Christ, and he is ours and we are his in true faith.

TEMPTATION IN REGARD TO PREDESTINATION. In the temptation in regard to predestination, than which there is scarcely any other more dangerous, we are confronted by the fact that God's promises apply to all the faithful, for he says: "Ask, and everyone who seeks, shall receive" (Luke 11:9 f.) This finally we pray, with the whole Church of God, "Our Father who art in heaven" (Matt. 6:9), both because by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ, and we are often fed in his Church with his flesh and blood unto life eternal. Thereby, being strengthened, we are commanded to work out our salvation with fear trembling, according to the precept of Paul.

The Covenant of Redemption between the members of the Trinity is what guarantees the salvation of the elect but our "contact" with that plan is manifest to us in the work of Christ and sealed to us by the Holy Spirit. We're not supposed to look "outside" of the means of Grace to ascertain salvation but to consider our status within Christ and His appointed means in the Church to announce the Promise and seal that Promise to His people.

Hence, the problem is not so much that that question itself is a bad one but that people always want to focus, in the abstract, about how God might save men, women, and infants instead of focusing on the Covenant of Grace He has established and revealed to us in the person and work of Christ.

I believe, then, that we should have every confidence that members of the Covenant of Grace should not doubt the salvation of their infant children. What will they look to, except the revealed things, to ascertain the elect status? What will they appeal to in order to speculate that they are not saved. It is reasonable for them to believe that God has ordained the child to be born into a Covenant household, that salvation is not of Him who wills but of Him who shows mercy, and that same gracious God that saved us placed that child in our household and, by His dark Providence, called that child home early.

 

[danmpem]

Simply because it came up in a conversation this evening, I ask this:
I argued the Sovereignty of God in Salvation extending even to infants and that just because they are infants does not mean automatic Heaven for them. Otherwise, abortion is the greatest "heaven-populator" ever known. The counter was stated that only the one committing the murder could be judged; the infant would still go to heaven.

OK. All that said, which has been hashed out here in many other threads, .i.e http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/infant-salvation-native-jungle-24581/

the end conclusion as it was further discussed later in private was this:
"I'm not going to discuss this with someone. It has nothing helpful to offer to the Christian life. I have enough problems keeping myself straight so I won't go there."

Is this issue really important enough that Christians ought to discuss it or is it too obscure? That is all I really want to know.

Donald, if you are a paedobaptist then yes, it is vitally important to your entire theology. In fact, WCF-Covenant Theology crumbles in the absence of paedobaptism. Notice I am not arguing for or against paedobaptism at this juncture (although everyone knows where I stand). I am stating that WCF-Covenant Theology ceases to be a systematic theology without paedobaptism.

I'm curious how WCF-Covenant Theology ceases to be a systematic theology without paedobaptism. While I am between views on baptism right now (like one is "between jobs"), if I became a credo-baptist I would still return to the WCF and catechisms for guidance in various matters. Or did I miss what you were saying?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Simply because it came up in a conversation this evening, I ask this:
I argued the Sovereignty of God in Salvation extending even to infants and that just because they are infants does not mean automatic Heaven for them. Otherwise, abortion is the greatest "heaven-populator" ever known. The counter was stated that only the one committing the murder could be judged; the infant would still go to heaven.

OK. All that said, which has been hashed out here in many other threads, .i.e http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/infant-salvation-native-jungle-24581/

the end conclusion as it was further discussed later in private was this:
"I'm not going to discuss this with someone. It has nothing helpful to offer to the Christian life. I have enough problems keeping myself straight so I won't go there."

Is this issue really important enough that Christians ought to discuss it or is it too obscure? That is all I really want to know.

Donald, if you are a paedobaptist then yes, it is vitally important to your entire theology. In fact, WCF-Covenant Theology crumbles in the absence of paedobaptism. Notice I am not arguing for or against paedobaptism at this juncture (although everyone knows where I stand). I am stating that WCF-Covenant Theology ceases to be a systematic theology without paedobaptism.

I'm curious how WCF-Covenant Theology ceases to be a systematic theology without paedobaptism. While I am between views on baptism right now (like one is "between jobs"), if I became a credo-baptist I would still return to the WCF and catechisms for guidance in various matters. Or did I miss what you were saying?

It's not accurate to say that paedobaptism is the "linchpin" for Covenant theology in the Reformed construct. It's more accurate to say that it's the natural consequence of it. It begins by identifying the nature of the Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace and then seeing who the members of the Covenant of Grace are.

Thus, paedobaptism is incorrect only insofar as you "back up" into how the Covenant of Grace has been manifest to us as the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption. If that formulation is incorrect then you work forward to the idea of who are the visible members of the Covenant of Grace.

 

[D. Paul]

I thank you for the responses. The consistent statement has been regarding Covenant children. But, as we read the OT and take note of God demanding the annihilation of certain tribes or nations at the hands of the Israelites, e.g. 1Sam 15:3 are we to say that the infants being destroyed here will not see hell? This was the type example I raised in the conversation. Also, take Sodom, for example. Were there not children there? Are we to say God "gave them a pass"?

 

[greenbaggins]

Of the children of the covenant (within the church) I am confident that they are saved if they die in infancy. Of the children of non-believers, I am happy to say this: there will be no mistakes on judgment day, because God is merciful and God is just. I do not think that the Bible is clear on this issue. So that is as far as I am willing to go.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I thank you for the responses. The consistent statement has been regarding Covenant children. But, as we read the OT and take note of God demanding the annihilation of certain tribes or nations at the hands of the Israelites, e.g. 1Sam 15:3 are we to say that the infants being destroyed here will not see hell? This was the type example I raised in the conversation. Also, take Sodom, for example. Were there not children there? Are we to say God "gave them a pass"?

Again, Donald, how are we supposed to answer that question apart from the things revealed? An answer given would be a matter of speculation and we would be engaged in exactly the kind of error that I was trying to present is not the proper way to view election. It is not meant to be a naked doctrine that we divorce from the revelation of God's decree in the Covenant of Grace. The reason we can say something of Covenant children is because, historically, God's election is "visible" to us in the means of grace.

 

[D. Paul]

I thank you for the responses. The consistent statement has been regarding Covenant children. But, as we read the OT and take note of God demanding the annihilation of certain tribes or nations at the hands of the Israelites, e.g. 1Sam 15:3 are we to say that the infants being destroyed here will not see hell? This was the type example I raised in the conversation. Also, take Sodom, for example. Were there not children there? Are we to say God "gave them a pass"?

Again, Donald, how are we supposed to answer that question apart from the things revealed? An answer given would be a matter of speculation and we would be engaged in exactly the kind of error that I was trying to present is not the proper way to view election. It is not meant to be a naked doctrine that we divorce from the revelation of God's decree in the Covenant of Grace. The reason we can say something of Covenant children is because, historically, God's election is "visible" to us in the means of grace.

Are you then also saying it is speculation to answer that all infants will indeed be redeemed? In other words, there is no absolute evidence either way?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, I believe to make that announcement would be to peer into the things hidden apart from the things revealed. I know there's a desire for men to be able to peer into such things but the best we can say with respect to the election of infants is in the context of the Covenant of Grace. That is why we can tell believing parents not to doubt the salvation of their children. It doesn't really make sense, outside the context of someone who even knows Christ to speak to them about the salvation of their children. There's no basis of dialogue in that regard since they deny the need for Christ to begin with.

 

[D. Paul]

Yes, I believe to make that announcement would be to peer into the things hidden apart from the things revealed. I know there's a desire for men to be able to peer into such things but the best we can say with respect to the election of infants is in the context of the Covenant of Grace. That is why we can tell believing parents not to doubt the salvation of their children. It doesn't really make sense, outside the context of someone who even knows Christ to speak to them about the salvation of their children. There's no basis of dialogue in that regard since they deny the need for Christ to begin with.

Can nothing be drawn from a passage like 1Sam 15:3?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I wouldn't say nothing can be drawn regarding the fact that all are in Adam and that it certianly matters what household you're in with respect to God's discriminating favor. Animals were killed too but it doesn't mean they are reprobated. I'm not willing to say that the necessary inference from such passages is that all infants are reprobated. Again, our confidence in the salvation of infants in the CoG is because we have a historical contact with the Covenant of Redemption that makes salvation sure. Outside of that contact the best we can do is speculate and we're not supposed to focus on the things hidden.

 

[KMK]

Of the children of the covenant (within the church) I am confident that they are saved if they die in infancy. Of the children of non-believers, I am happy to say this: there will be no mistakes on judgment day, because God is merciful and God is just. I do not think that the Bible is clear on this issue. So that is as far as I am willing to go.

Rev Keister, could clarify what you mean by "children of the covenant (within the church)?"

 

[Herald]

Donald, if you are a paedobaptist then yes, it is vitally important to your entire theology. In fact, WCF-Covenant Theology crumbles in the absence of paedobaptism. Notice I am not arguing for or against paedobaptism at this juncture (although everyone knows where I stand). I am stating that WCF-Covenant Theology ceases to be a systematic theology without paedobaptism.

I'm curious how WCF-Covenant Theology ceases to be a systematic theology without paedobaptism. While I am between views on baptism right now (like one is "between jobs"), if I became a credo-baptist I would still return to the WCF and catechisms for guidance in various matters. Or did I miss what you were saying?

It's not accurate to say that paedobaptism is the "linchpin" for Covenant theology in the Reformed construct. It's more accurate to say that it's the natural consequence of it. It begins by identifying the nature of the Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace and then seeing who the members of the Covenant of Grace are.

Thus, paedobaptism is incorrect only insofar as you "back up" into how the Covenant of Grace has been manifest to us as the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption. If that formulation is incorrect then you work forward to the idea of who are the visible members of the Covenant of Grace.

Rich, regardless of how the WCF-CT'er arrives at his acceptance of paedobaptism, the system cannot operate without it. Whether it is a required condition or a natural consequence, the result is the same. I'm not attacking the paedo position. I'm simply acknowledging that paedobaptism is an inherent part of the WCF-CT systematic theology and that the construct fails if paedobaptism is not included.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bill,

It might be a matter of semantics but to say that Covenant Theology "fails" if the outworkings of a thing are not included is like saying that a tree is dependent upon its fruit. Yes, paedobaptism is inherent in the Covenant because it is the natural outworking of it but the reason the Covenant "operates" is not because men, women, or infants are being baptized but because of the Covenant of Redemption. Baptism or non-Baptism is nothing without this.

 

[Herald]

Rich, I understand where you're coming from and if I were a paedo I would agree with you. I was simply responding to the OP on whether this issue was worthy of study. My position is that the subject is worthwhile because paedobaptism and WCF-CT are symbiotic. I didn't use exactly those words but that's what I meant. Perhaps it is semantics.

 

[MW]

I find the covenant theology of the Confession to be perfectly suited to instruction amongst the aged, where infant baptism is irrelevant. Especially Pss. 71 and 92, where aged care is grounded in the covenant of grace.

 

[D. Paul]

I'm not wishing to get in the last word, but I think I realize that when the topic "Infant Salvation" comes up there are certain assumptions that accompany the conversation.

In my initial post regarding my conversation, I was intending to state that in view of God's Sovereignty, we are not at liberty to say that each and every single infant that dies or is killed is automatically to be considered one of God's own and will therefore be in heaven. My friend disagreed, saying that every baby goes to heaven regardless.

It seems that for most who responded, "infant salvation" is confined to children of the Covenant. That is perfectly fine, and I see why certain statements were made.

Still, if I make the simple claim that God is not obligated to save a child of the Amelekites of yesterday or today, that is all I am willing to say. I would not put doubt into the minds of Christian parents, however, by saying we cannot be certain.

Does this clarify anything?
Thanks again for your replies.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not wishing to get in the last word, but I think I realize that when the topic "Infant Salvation" comes up there are certain assumptions that accompany the conversation.

In my initial post regarding my conversation, I was intending to state that in view of God's Sovereignty, we are not at liberty to say that each and every single infant that dies or is killed is automatically to be considered one of God's own and will therefore be in heaven. My friend disagreed, saying that every baby goes to heaven regardless.

It seems that for most who responded, "infant salvation" is confined to children of the Covenant. That is perfectly fine, and I see why certain statements were made.

Still, if I make the simple claim that God is not obligated to save a child of the Amelekites of yesterday or today, that is all I am willing to say. I would not put doubt into the minds of Christian parents, however, by saying we cannot be certain.

Does this clarify anything?
Thanks again for your replies.

Well, sure, that's perfectly acceptable to state that God is not obligated to save all infants. Those that dogmatically assert that all infants go to heaven are treating election the same way that I argued we should not be. You can simply challenge your friend with the same idea: the hidden things belong to God, the revealed things belong to us. Simply because a man cannot stomach the idea that God might not save an infant does not give him warrant to give extra-Biblical speculation that He surely does.

 

[D. Paul]

I'm not wishing to get in the last word, but I think I realize that when the topic "Infant Salvation" comes up there are certain assumptions that accompany the conversation.

In my initial post regarding my conversation, I was intending to state that in view of God's Sovereignty, we are not at liberty to say that each and every single infant that dies or is killed is automatically to be considered one of God's own and will therefore be in heaven. My friend disagreed, saying that every baby goes to heaven regardless.

It seems that for most who responded, "infant salvation" is confined to children of the Covenant. That is perfectly fine, and I see why certain statements were made.

Still, if I make the simple claim that God is not obligated to save a child of the Amelekites of yesterday or today, that is all I am willing to say. I would not put doubt into the minds of Christian parents, however, by saying we cannot be certain.

Does this clarify anything?
Thanks again for your replies.

Well, sure, that's perfectly acceptable to state that God is not obligated to save all infants. Those that dogmatically assert that all infants go to heaven are treating election the same way that I argued we should not be. You can simply challenge your friend with the same idea: the hidden things belong to God, the revealed things belong to us. Simply because a man cannot stomach the idea that God might not save an infant does not give him warrant to give extra-Biblical speculation that He surely does.

Yes! Thanks, Rich.
Sometimes I wonder just how dense I may be.
All your insight deserves

 

[Civbert]

The WCF (X:3), dealing with effectual calling, says: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So are also other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”

This seems sufficient. The elect will be saved - regardless of when they die. To say that any elect will not be saved is to say God would elect those who He did not elect. But the non-elect will not be saved, infant or adult.


As for infants in particular - they are born into sin - so they need to be saved. If they are elect, then before they die, they will have been regenerated, and be given the saving knowledge required by God.

John was born again even in his mother womb. I think many Christians are regenerate long before that can articulate the knowledge that God has given them.