Samuel Crooke on God’s dealings with reprobates

[Reformed Covenanter]

Q. How doth God deal with reprobates dying infants?

A. Being once conceived, they are in the state of death, by reason of the sin of Adam imputed, and of original corruption cleaving to their nature, wherein also dying, they perish; as (for instance) the children of Heathen parents; for touching the children of Christians, we are taught to account them holy.

Q. How doth God deal with those of riper years uncalled?

A. Being naturally possessed with ignorance and vanity, he giveth them up to their own lusts, to commit sin without remorse, with greediness, in a reprobate mind, until the measure of sin being fulfilled, they are cut off. ...

For more, see:

Samuel Crooke on God’s dealings with reprobates

Q. How doth God deal with reprobates dying infants? A. Being once conceived, they are in the state of death, by reason of the sin of Adam imputed, and of original corruption cleaving to their natur…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

 

[Deleted member 12865]

John Vant Stephens discusses the Westminster standards rejection of this view in Elect infants: or, infant salvation in the Westminster symbols:

Elect infants : or, infant salvation in the Westminster symbols : Stephens, John Vant, 1857-1946 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Bibliography : p. v-ix

archive.org

 

[JH]

John Vant Stephens discusses the Westminster standards rejection of this view in Elect infants: or, infant salvation in the Westminster symbols:

Elect infants : or, infant salvation in the Westminster symbols : Stephens, John Vant, 1857-1946 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Bibliography : p. v-ix

archive.org

I'm not sure the view Daniel shared above is at odds with the Westminster Standards, but I'm open to correction. What Crooke seems to be articulating, is not that all the seed of believers dying in infancy are elect, but rather "we are taught to account them holy" – which reference and argument seems to be in the same stream of thought with David Dickson, Moderator of that Assembly twice. I've shared the excerpt from his exposition of the Confession here. Take notice of points 3-6 especially. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts in case I have a blind spot.

 

[Deleted member 12865]

I'm not sure the view Daniel shared above is at odds with the Westminster Standards, but I'm open to correction. What Crooke seems to be articulating, is not that all the seed of believers dying in infancy are elect, but rather "we are taught to account them holy" – which reference and argument seems to be in the same stream of thought with David Dickson, Moderator of that Assembly twice. I've shared the excerpt from his exposition of the Confession here. Take notice of points 3-6 especially. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts in case I have a blind spot.

It's possible to argue that Crooke's view is not contrary to the Westminster Standards but it definitely does logically not follow from them, and if you read my cited source it states the his views were considered and rejected for the standard's language. This was a matter of longstanding controversy and Westminster took a more ambiguous/tolerant view than Crooke. If as a body they wanted to make his view the standard they would have said so as this was deliberated at length.

Crooke is saying that dying infants of the damned are damned, full-stop. WCF 10.3 says that "elect infants" dying in infancy are regenerated and saved. Even if you interpret, as with Dr. E. D. Morris, that "elect infants" should be read to mean "children of believers," it is a very strained reading to insist that necessarily means dying infants of nonbelievers never are.

In other words out of the controversy the Westminster standards foreclosed the rather horrible view (that Dickson attributes to Anabaptists) that no infants are regenerated. This allows for the presumption that infants dying within the church are regenerated and saved. It also very strongly implies the existence of non-elect infants dying at least outside the church. That much is settled and is the import of WCF 10.3. However it seems that the assembly intentionally left the door open to differing views on the question of whether dying infants of unbelievers can be regenerated and saved or (potentially) even whether all dying infants of believers are saved, or perhaps whether this is even knowable from our earthly perspective.

Likewise if I am misreading something I am happy to be corrected.

 

[JH]

Thanks for your response, at first I briefly read a bit of the source you cited, but I will have to look over it more thoroughly. Thanks again