Infants, dying in infancy

[panta dokimazete]

There wasn't a choice which allowed me to specify this, but I wanted to add that it's the deceased infants of believers who are all elect.

As a fully consistent CT peado-baptist person, you are justified in saying at least that, which would put you into the second, third or fourth category - probably second.

 

[KMK]

The idea that the elect have a default state of grace seems close to the concept of eternal justification, which is a fountainhead for Hyper-Calvinism, antinomianism, etc.

...hyperpreterism...

 

[toddpedlar]

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.

I dealt with this above. We are doubly condemned. Original sin and willful sin.

Doubly, Singly, Triply, Quadruply, doesn't matter... condemned is condemned.

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 did not say that this statement absolutely stated that all infants, dying in infancy, are elect - I stated that this episode revealed Christ's disposition toward infants.

But you did use it to say that all infants are therefore elect. I never meant to argue that you took Christ's words (alone) as a sign that they were elect, except as you noted, that you did by inference.

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.

From where does saving faith originate? How does it normatively follow in the ordo salutis? To whom is it given?

You can pull up the text as well as I can - but as you've also noted, infants who die won't be following the ordo salutis in the way that adults would. So the place of saving faith in the ordo is irrelevant. My point was that Christ was discussing faith - his invitation to the children was to those who were expressing their desire to come to him, but the disciples held them back. Christ's statement is about the simplicity of a child's faith, and THAT is the characteristic that's important... not whether he has a favorable disposition toward children or not.

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.

I start with election and substantiate with Christ's own actions/statements to draw a reasonable conclusion.

But I think you've drawn from a misstatement of Christ's purposes in the illustration of the children coming to him. He wasn't talking about whether he likes kids or not - that misses the point. He was welcoming all those who willingly and trustingly came to him - the children illustrated that point beautifully.

We're back, then, to the question of infants.

May I ask you this? Is God just in condemning, say, all infants who die in infancy?

If so, then why do you hesitate in allowing that God, in order to show his wrath against sin, might condemn some infants who die in infancy?

As the poll question asks... I think you're rather dogmatically drawing a very firm conclusion where Scripture does not speak clearly at all. You are very possibly delving into things that are not conclusively answered - and should be careful in being as adamant as you are in your conclusion as a result.

 

[toddpedlar]

So, Original Sin is not enough to condemn to hell? In other words, one must have both Original Sin and personal sin in order to be justly condemned?

no - original sin is PLENTY - that's my point, though - Christ's death atoned for original sin and willful sin for the elect. If He atoned for original sin and infants have no willful sin, then is there any scriptural substantiation for Christ having a place in His mercy for infants, thus indicating that all infants, dying in infancy are elect, as opposed to infants that grow up to willfully sin and either continue in the ordo salutis or not?

I contend there is.

But your substantiation is based on a single text, and, more than that, from a point that the text is not even primarily addressing. Doesn't that concern you?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Whether or not Scripture speaks clearly on this matter, as I believe it does, our Confessions speak very clearly on the matter.

WCF CHAPTER X.
Of Effectual Calling

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how he pleases. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (Luke 18:15, John 3:8, 1 John 5:12

 

[Confessor]

Whether or not Scripture speaks clearly on this matter, as I believe it does, our Confessions speak very clearly on the matter.

WCF CHAPTER X.
Of Effectual Calling

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how he pleases. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (Luke 18:15, John 3:8, 1 John 5:12

The only question is whether or not all infants dying in infancy are elect.

Without getting into the middle of this entire discussion, I'll give some quick reasoning for the existence of elect and reprobate infants.

--Original sin still makes us guilty of condemnation from conception (Psalm 51:5).
--God had infants of other nations killed in the OT, likely before they had committed conscious sin.
--It would make abortion a means to definitively send all infants to heaven, thus making it somewhat of a "good" action.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Whether or not Scripture speaks clearly on this matter, as I believe it does, our Confessions speak very clearly on the matter.

WCF CHAPTER X.
Of Effectual Calling

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how he pleases. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (Luke 18:15, John 3:8, 1 John 5:12

The only question is whether or not all infants dying in infancy are elect.

Without getting into the middle of this entire discussion, I'll give some quick reasoning for the existence of elect and reprobate infants.

--Original sin still makes us guilty of condemnation from conception (Psalm 51:5).
--God had infants of other nations killed in the OT, likely before they had committed conscious sin.
--It would make abortion a means to definitively send all infants to heaven, thus making it somewhat of a "good" action.

You are correct definitely in your third point. If all infants are elect should we not, as a matter of charity, make sure they go to heaven then instead of allowing them to grow up and be damned?

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Panta,
It is clear that you want to justify the belief that all dying in infancy are elect (and thus heaven bound). However, from the dialog so far In my humble opinion, your inference from Scripture is unsubstantiated and your logic seems to be fundamentally flawed since it appears to undermine other established doctrine.

 

[panta dokimazete]

But your substantiation is based on a single text, and, more than that, from a point that the text is not even primarily addressing. Doesn't that concern you?

It is multiple texts in 3 gospels describing a notable event - did you read the substantiating texts? Do you not believe that Christ's love is demonstrated for infants themselves and not just their faith in these texts?

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. Those little children have not yet any understanding to desire his blessing; but when they are presented to him, he gently and kindly receives them, and dedicates them to the Father 1 by a solemn act of blessing. We must observe the intention of those who present the children; for if there had not been a deep-rooted conviction in their minds, that the power of the Spirit was at his disposal, that he might pour it out on the people of God, it would have been unreasonable to present their children. There is no room, therefore, to doubt, that they ask for them a participation of his grace; and so, by way of amplification, Luke adds the particle also; as if he had said that, after they had experienced the various ways in which he assisted adults, they formed an expectation likewise in regard to children, that, if he laid hands on them, they would not leave him without having received some of the gifts of the Spirit. The laying on of hands (as we have said on a former occasion) was an ancient and well known sign of blessing; and so there is no reason to wonder, if they desire that Christ, while employing that solemn ceremony, should pray for the children. At the same time, as the inferior are blessed by the better, (Hebrews 7:7,) they ascribe to him the power and honor of the highest Prophet.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Panta,
It is clear that you want to justify the belief that all dying in infancy are elect (and thus heaven bound). However, from the dialog so far In my humble opinion, your inference from Scripture is unsubstantiated and your logic seems to be fundamentally flawed since it appears to undermine other established doctrine.

What fundamental doctrine have I undermined, my brother?

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

. . .
What fundamental doctrine have I undermined, my brother?

Earlier you said:

Again - "by nature children of wrath" refers to original sin which leads to willful sin - "lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" - which infants, dying in infancy, are not capable of and thus are under the grace of God through Christ:

The logic here clearly indicates that all infants (not merely elect infants) are "are under the grace of God through Christ" since no infant can willfully sin. I see this as undermining the doctrine of original sin and/or the atonement.

If you are saying that only elect infants are under Christ, then your whole argument reduces to circular reasoning -- that all elect dying in infancy are elect. Which does not indicate that all dying in infancy are elect.

I think I just have trouble following your thinking.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The logic here clearly indicates that all infants (not merely elect infants) are "are under the grace of God through Christ" since no infant can willfully sin. I see this as undermining the doctrine of original sin and/or the atonement.

Why? I have asserted that all infants fall under original sin. Christ died for the sins of those He loves. He loved and blessed infants and did not tell them to believe, repent and sin no more, in fact He said of such is the kingdom of Heaven. Is that not a sign of His grace toward infants?

If you are saying that only elect infants are under Christ, then your whole argument reduces to circular reasoning -- that all elect dying in infancy are elect. Which does not indicate that all dying in infancy are elect.

I think I just have trouble following your thinking.

God elects those He loves.

Jesus loves and does not rebuke infants/little children in infancy. ("of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" - see also: Matthew 11:25, Matthew 21:16, Luke 10:21)

God elects infants/little children that die in infancy.

 

[MW]

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.

This passage of Scripture specifically states the exemption was only applicable to covenant children. Further, the next chapter relates that the conquest included the destruction of little children: "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." If the temporal deliverance points to eternal deliverance in the first chapter, then consistency requires that the temporal destruction be indicative of eternal destruction in the second chapter. Not that I am endorsing this as an hermeneutical principle; I only mention that consistency would require this in both cases if it is adopted.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This thread is very troubling. The way you drag Calvin's name into the OP as supporting any of your premises was very bothersome. Speaking of infants as not being able to fully participate in the ordo salutis was equally troubling.

You mis-applied Calvin in the very first post. His only point is to note that they're not guilty of actual sin even though they are still under judgment for Sin. He certainly does not advocate that Christ pays the penalty for their original sin. Calvin himself repudiates you and calls your reasoning foolish:

however, some have foolishly attempted to prove that infant-children are not defiled by original sin;

To then try to jump to another passage that speaks of Christ blessing the children of believers and assume that Christ receives all children is a false premise. Calvin does not state that Christ, in blessing those children, receives all children. Contextually you could do Calvin much more justice as it points to his Covenant theology and not some hypothetical election of all dying infants as you have placed in his mouth.

I frankly don't have the time or energy to point out all the obvious flaws. If you can't see how flawed those two premises are alone then it's really not worth pursuing because I don't really want to have to keep picking up the breadcrumbs that lead to dead ends.

My larger concern, however, is your desire to continue to play fast and loose with Confessional theology. I'll let this run a little bit longer but if the respect for sound exegesis and use of historical sources doesn't improve in this thread then I'm going to close it down.

 

[bookslover]

A person's election or non-election is decided by God before they were conceived - it was decided in eternity past, and the decision is irrevocable. Therefore, those who are not numbered among the elect and who die in infancy are lost.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Rich, at no point did I say or imply that Christ's death covered all infant's original sin. His death covered the original sin of infants dying in infancy. I'll not debate you on the assertions concerning John Calvin, since your premise for critique is incorrect.

Also - please point out how an elect infant, dying in infancy, can fully participate in the ordo salutis.

Finally:

It has often been charged that the Westminster Confession in stating that
"Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ"
(Chap. X. Sec. 3), implies that there are non-elect infants, who, dying in
infancy, are lost, and that the Presbyterian Church has taught that some
dying in infancy are lost. Concerning this Dr. Craig says: "The history of
the phrase 'Elect infants dying in infancy' makes clear that the contrast
implied was not between 'elect infants dying in infancy' and 'non-elect
infants dying in infancy,' but rather between 'elect infants dying in
infancy' and 'elect infants living to grow up.' " However, in order to guard
against misunderstanding, furthered by unfriendly controversialists, the
Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. adopted in 1903 a Declaratory Statement
which reads as follows: "With reference to Chapter X, Section 3, of the
Confession of Faith, that 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."

Concerning this Declaratory Statement Dr. Craig says: "It is obvious that
the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the teaching of Chapter X, Section 3
of the Confession of Faith inasmuch as it states positively that all who die
in infancy are saved. Some hold that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond
the Scripture in teaching that all those dying in infancy are saved; but, be
that as it may, it makes it impossible for any person to even plausibly
maintain that Presbyterians teach that there are non-elect infants who die
in infancy. No doubt there have been individual Presbyterians who held that
some of those who die in infancy have been lost; but such was never the
official teaching of the Presbyterian Church and as matters now stand such a
position is contradicted by the Church's creed."

and concerning John Calvin:

Calvin's views in this respect have been quite thoroughly
investigated by Dr. R. A. Webb and his findings are summarized in the
following paragraph: "Calvin teaches that all the reprobate 'procure'—(that
is his own word)—'procure' their own destruction; and they procure their
destruction by their own personal and conscious acts of 'impiety,'
'wickedness,' and 'rebellion.' Now reprobate infants, though guilty of
original sin and under condemnation, cannot, while they are infants, thus
'procure' their own destruction by their personal acts of impiety,
wickedness, and rebellion. They must, therefore, live to the years of moral
responsibility in order to perpetrate the acts of impiety, wickedness and
rebellion, which Calvin defines as the mode through which they procure their
destruction. While, therefore, Calvin teaches that there are reprobate
infants, and that these will be finally lost, he nowhere teaches that they
will be lost as infants, and while they are infants; but, on the contrary,
he declares that all the reprobate 'procure' their own destruction by
personal acts of impiety, wickedness and rebellion. Consequently, his own
reasoning compels him to hold (to be consistent with himself), that no
reprobate child can die in infancy; but all such must live to the age of
moral accountability, and translate original sin into actual sin."

from: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination - Loraine Boettner D.D.

foolishness indeed...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I do not consider the PCUSA's modification of the WCF to be authoritative. That one would point to conclusions reached by the PCUSA in 1903 to support a definitive Presbyterian view that all infants dying in infancy are elect is most laughable. Why don't you simply quote large sections from the latest PCUSA General Assembly if this is the standard of Reformed scholarship.

The fact that Boettner was stepping outside of Reformed history and into speculation was established in the previous thread. I don't see where Calvin in the quote you provided (or any other) states that men are damned only by their own perpetration of acts of impiety. Defilement from original sin is enough to leave an infant in a state of damnation.

Now, it can be claimed that Calvin nowhere claims that infants dying in infancy are certainly doomed but this is different than Boettner's claim that "to be consistent with himself" he would have to grant that infants dying in infancy are necessarily elect.

So much for raising the bar. Out.