# Al Mohler: All Babies dying in infancy go to heaven



## panta dokimazete

Saw this and thought it worth posting:



> WHY WE BELIEVE CHILDREN WHO DIE GO TO HEAVEN
> 
> By R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Daniel L. Akin
> 
> Few things in life are more tragic and heartbreaking than the death of a baby or small child. For parents, the grief can be overwhelming. For the minister, to stand over a small, white casket and provide comfort and support seems to ask for more than he can deliver.
> 
> Many console themselves with the thought that at least the child is now in a better place. Some believe small children who die become angels. They are certain these precious little ones are in heaven with God.
> 
> However, it is important for us both to ask and answer some important questions if we can. Do those who die in infancy go to heaven? How do we know? What evidence is there to support such a conclusion? Sentimentalism and emotional hopes and wants are not sufficient for those who live under the authority of the Word of God. We must, if possible, find out what God has said.
> 
> It is interesting to discover that the Church has not been of one mind on this issue. In fact, the early and medieval Church was anything but united. Some Church Fathers remained silent on the issue. Ambrose said unbaptized infants were not admitted to heaven, but have immunity from the pains of hell. Augustine basically affirmed the damnation of all unbaptized infants, but taught they would receive the mildest punishment of all. Gregory of Nyssa offered that infants who die immediately mature and are given the opportunity to trust Christ. Calvin affirmed the certain election of some infants to salvation and was open to the possibility that all infants who die are saved. He said, “Christ receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach unto Him, but those who are not yet of age to know how much they need His grace.” Zwingli, B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge all taught that God saves all who die in infancy. This perspective has basically become the dominant view of the Church in the 20th century.
> 
> Yet, a popular evangelical theologian chided Billy Graham when at the Oklahoma City memorial service he said, “Someday there will be a glorious reunion with those who have died and gone to heaven before us, and that includes all those innocent children that are lost. They’re not lost from God because any child that young is automatically in heaven and in God’s arms.” The theologian scolded Dr. Graham for offering what he called “. . . a new gospel: justification by youth alone.”
> 
> It is our conviction that there are good reasons biblically and theologically for believing that God saves all who die who do not reach a stage of moral understanding and accountability. It is readily admitted that Scripture does not speak to this issue directly, yet there is evidence that can be gleaned that would lead us to affirm on biblical grounds that God receives into heaven all who have died in infancy. Some evidence is stronger than others, but cumulatively they marshall strong support for infant salvation. We will note six of them.
> 
> First, the grace, goodness and mercy of God would support the position that God saves all infants who die. This is the strongest argument and perhaps the decisive one. God is love (1 John 4:8) and desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). God is love and His concern for children is evident in Matthew 18:14 where Jesus says, “Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.” People go to hell because they choose in willful rebellion and unbelief to reject God and His grace. Children are incapable of this kind of conscious rejection of God. Where such rebellion and willful disobedience is absent, God is gracious to receive.
> 
> Second, when the baby boy who was born to David and Bathsheba died (2 Samuel 12:15-18), David did two significant things: 1) He confessed his confidence that he would see the child again and, 2) he comforted his wife Bathsheba (vs. 23-24). David could have done those two things only if he was confident that his little son was with God. Any other explanation does not do justice to the text.
> 
> Third, in James 4:17, the Bible says, “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” The Bible is clear that we are all born with a sin nature as a result of being in Adam (Roman 5:12). This is what is called the doctrine of original sin. However, the Scriptures make a distinction between original sin and actual sins. While all are guilty of original sin, moral responsibility and understanding is necessary for our being accountable for actual sins (Deuteronomy 1:30; Isaiah 7:16). It is to the one who knows to do right and does not do it that sin is reckoned. Infants are incapable of such decisions.
> 
> Fourth, Jesus affirmed that the kingdom of God belonged to little children (Luke 18:15-17). In the passage he is stating that saving faith is a childlike faith, but He also seems to be affirming the reality of children populating heaven.
> 
> Fifth, Scripture affirms that the number of saved souls is very great (Revelation 7:9). Since most of the world has been and is still non-Christian, might it be the untold multitude who have died prematurely or in infancy comprise a majority of those in heaven? Such a possibility ought not to be dismissed too quickly. In this context Charles Spurgeon said, “I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as soon as they die, speed their way to paradise. Think what a multitude there is of them.”
> 
> Sixth, some in Scripture are said to be chosen or sanctified from the womb (1 Samuel 1:8-2:21; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:15). This certainly affirms the salvation of some infants and repudiates the view that only baptized babies are assured of heaven. Neither Samuel, Jeremiah or John the Baptist was baptized.
> 
> After surveying these arguments, it is important for us to remember that anyone who is saved is saved because of the grace of God, the saving work of Jesus Christ and the undeserved and unmerited regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Like all who have ever lived, except for Jesus, infants need to be saved. Only Jesus can take away their sin, and if they are saved it is because of His sovereign grace and abounding mercy. Abraham said, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Genesis 18:25). We can confidently say, “Yes, He will.” When it comes to those incapable of volitional, willful acts of sin, we can rest assured God will, indeed, do right. Precious little ones are the objects of His saving mercy and grace.
> 
> CONCLUSION
> 
> On September 29, 1861, the great Baptist pastor, Charles Spurgeon, preached a message entitled “Infant Salvation.” In that message he chastened some critics who had “. . . wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists that we believe that some little children perish.” Similar rumblings have been heard in some Baptist circles of late. Spurgeon affirmed that God saved little ones without limitation and without exception. He, then, as was his manner, turned to conclude the message with an evangelistic appeal to parents who might be lost. Listen to his plea:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there too? And yet, have I not in these galleries and in this area some, perhaps many, who have no hope hereafter? . . . . Mother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise. Father, ungodly, impenitent father, the little eyes that once looked joyously on you, look down upon you now and the lips which had scarcely learned to call you “Father” ere they were sealed by the silence of death, may be heard as with a still, small voice, saying to you this morning, “Father, must we be forever divided by the great gulf which no man can pass?” If you wilt, think of these matters, perhaps the heart will begin to move, and the eyes may begin to flow and then may the Holy Spirit put before thine eyes the cross of the Savior . . . if thou wilt turn thine eye to Him, thou shalt live . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Little ones are precious in God’s sight. If they die, they go to heaven. Parents, who have trusted Jesus, who have lost a little one, if they have trusted Jesus, can be confident of a wonderful reunion someday. Are you hopeful of seeing again that little treasure God entrusted to you for such a short time? Jesus has made a way. Come to Him now and someday you will see them again.
Click to expand...


----------



## DMcFadden

Here are a few observations by Curt Daniel on the subject:



> D. Theoretically, there are several options open to the question:
> (1) We don’t know. Some writers say that Scripture does not reveal the answer.
> (2) All dying infants are lost. I know of no theologian, Calvinist or otherwise, who asserts
> this.
> (3) Baptized infants are saved, but unbaptized dying infants are lost and reprobate. As
> we shall see, there are several theologians who have made this claim. But extremely few
> Calvinists, if any, have aligned themselves with this view.
> (4) Some are definitely saved (such as baptized infants), but we do not know about the
> rest. This has been the position of some Calvinists, such as FrancisTurretin, Herman
> Hoeksema, and several of the older Reformed theologians.
> (5) All dying infants are saved and elect, whether baptized or not. This is by far the
> prevailing view among Calvinists, such as Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, C.H. Spurgeon,
> A.M. Toplady, Ulrich Zwingli (probably the first to say so in no uncertain terms), Lewis
> Sperry Chafer, W.G.T. Shedd, Loraine Boettner, etc.
> 
> E. The classic statement in Reformed confessions is that of the Westminster Confession (X: 3):
> “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.” Some non-Calvinist critics read this and feel that it insinuates that there are some non-elect infants, but the Confession does not say that. Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect. At the least, it is only an assertion that some are elect but we do not know about the rest (a few theologians take it this way). In 1903, 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.”


----------



## danmpem

The only ones of the six points that I feel explicitly support that very young babies are with, or are going to be with, God are #2 and #4. #1 shows God's love toward infants, but in the same way His love is demonstrated to the elect & non-elect. I wish he was more clear about how old he was talking about, because some of my paedo- brethren might disagree with #3, and understandably so. Young children are capable of trusting faith in Jesus Christ just as they are capable of sin (i.e. Mohler's point #6). #5 is just some rather abstract inductive reasoning. I'm not saying I disagree with it; I just think it's a little much to say that we know from Rev 7:9 that this is true.

JD, I don't think he said that "all babies are elect". If he did, then I don't see it. I think he was mainly talking about children who die in infancy.


----------



## VictorBravo

DMcFadden said:


> Here are a few observations by Curt Daniel on the subject:
> (1) We don’t know. Some writers say that Scripture does not reveal the answer.
> 
> . . . .
> 
> (5) All dying infants are saved and elect, whether baptized or not. This is by far the
> prevailing view among Calvinists, such as Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, C.H. Spurgeon, A.M. Toplady, Ulrich Zwingli (probably the first to say so in no uncertain terms), Lewis Sperry Chafer, W.G.T. Shedd, Loraine Boettner, etc.



I hate to go against such august persons as listed in point 5, but I have to stick to point 1. I just don't see it clearly taught. I get nervous about trying to read scripture as imputing blanket innocentness based upon age. 

That's why I think the confessions were wise to state it as they did: "elect infants. . . ."


----------



## bookslover

All babies that die are among the elect? So, if Adolf Hitler had died as an infant, he would have been among the elect? His life proves that he was not elected, which means he wasn't elected as an infant, either.

All babies are born sinners (Psalm 51:5). All babies, as they grow, need the gospel.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> (4) Some are definitely saved (such as baptized infants), but we do not know about the rest. This has been the position of some Calvinists, such as FrancisTurretin, Herman Hoeksema, and several of the older Reformed theologians.



I would suggest that this is the proper meaning of the confessional statement concerning "elect infants" as determined by the usus loquendi of the 17th century, and that Dr. Daniel's fifth option is in fact a 19th century sentimentalist view imposed on the Confession.


----------



## jogri17

bookslover said:


> All babies that die are among the elect? So, if Adolf Hitler had died as an infant, he would have been among the elect? His life proves that he was not elected, which means he wasn't elected as an infant, either.
> 
> All babies are born sinners (Psalm 51:5). All babies, as they grow, need the gospel.



ahh the flaw in your argument presupposes hitler was a reprobate. Now having great great grandparents killed in the death camps makes me inclined to say so but ultimately if he repented at the end I see no reason why he couldn't be saved and that perhaps the reports of suicide were faked. Its a statistical possibility. Second Hitler did not die as an infant. God sovereignly made sure to keep him alive. With infants God decrees they die before any external sin can be commited with a mental compacity of accountability. Not the same thing. And I would be of the persuasion that all human hearts have the same potential for evil as one another it is just by sovereign and common grace that someone is "better" than another. I believe the only acceptable posistions are that "all infants are elect" or "some are, some arn't and we don't know which but we can trust God". Any others "smack of sacramentalism" (thanks Dr. Piper for that awesome phrase), lacks compassion or justice or a denial of the sufficiency of scripture.


----------



## danmpem

bookslover said:


> All babies that die are among the elect? So, if Adolf Hitler had died as an infant, he would have been among the elect? His life proves that he was not elected, which means he wasn't elected as an infant, either.
> 
> All babies are born sinners (Psalm 51:5). All babies, as they grow, need the gospel.



I understand what you are saying, but I think Mohler is getting more at the fact that babies that are chosen by God to die young are elect. I'm not trying to one-line the wisdom of God on this one, but I think that that could summarize his main point.


----------



## bookslover

danmpem said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> All babies that die are among the elect? So, if Adolf Hitler had died as an infant, he would have been among the elect? His life proves that he was not elected, which means he wasn't elected as an infant, either.
> 
> All babies are born sinners (Psalm 51:5). All babies, as they grow, need the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I think Mohler is getting more at the fact that babies that are chosen by God to die young are elect. I'm not trying to one-line the wisdom of God on this one, but I think that that could summarize his main point.
Click to expand...


I don't think Mohler proved his case, if that's what he's trying to say (babies chosen to die young are elect). Frankly, I think that people who want all babies dying in infancy to be elect are responding sentimentally or emotionally. But the Bible unequivocally says that *all* human beings are sinners _from conception_. So, the best we can say is that _some_ infants dying in infancy are elect, but not all.


----------



## bookslover

jogri17 said:


> ahh the flaw in your argument presupposes hitler was a reprobate. Now having great great grandparents killed in the death camps makes me inclined to say so but ultimately if he repented at the end I see no reason why he couldn't be saved and that perhaps the reports of suicide were faked. Its a statistical possibility. Second Hitler did not die as an infant. God sovereignly made sure to keep him alive. With infants God decrees they die before any external sin can be commited with a mental compacity of accountability. Not the same thing. And I would be of the persuasion that all human hearts have the same potential for evil as one another it is just by sovereign and common grace that someone is "better" than another. I believe the only acceptable posistions are that "all infants are elect" or "some are, some arn't and we don't know which but we can trust God". Any others "smack of sacramentalism" (thanks Dr. Piper for that awesome phrase), lacks compassion or justice or a denial of the sufficiency of scripture.



Ah, but Hitler _was_ reprobate, as demonstrated by his evil life as lived right up until his suicide. Yes, if he had repented, he could have been saved, thereby demonstrating that he had been a member of the elect after all, but such is not the case. It's just not a biblical fact that all babies are elect, dying in infancy or not.


----------



## danmpem

bookslover said:


> I don't think Mohler proved his case, if that's what he's trying to say (babies chosen to die young are elect). Frankly, I think that people who want all babies dying in infancy to be elect are responding sentimentally or emotionally. But the Bible unequivocally says that *all* human beings are sinners _from conception_. So, the best we can say is that _some_ infants dying in infancy are elect, but not all.



I'm not referring to whether he proved his case; I just mean that I think that was the case he was making.


----------



## tburus

jogri17 said:


> Now having great great grandparents killed in the death camps makes me inclined to say so but ultimately if he repented at the end I see no reason why he couldn't be saved and that perhaps the reports of suicide were faked.



Okay, this is my first post on this board so I thought I'd make it count: are we under the impression here that suicide is an unpardonable sin? Is that the interpretation which we want to ascribe to John when he talks about the "sin that leads to death", or is it elsewhere that this comes from?

Anyways, nice to meet you guys and I look forward to talking with you more.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Lorraine Boettner's _Reformed Doctrine of Predestination_ has a pretty good treatment below on the subject of infant salvation. I do think there is some sentimentalism involved above. Nevertheless, where God is silent in His Word, we are not at liberty to decree the election or reprobation of any man, woman, or child. It is always prudent to leave certainty to such things to God. I do find it a bit ironic that many Baptists teach the election of infants on the one hand while rigorously asserting that their own children are children of the devil until they profess on the other. I guess when the "theoretical" actual becomes real and you're looking at actual infants then sentimentalism over-rides the "children of the devil" argumentation for the Sacrament. I would hate to think of a Pastor actually counselling a grieving Baptist couple that their child is probably lost because, like all the other non-professing children in the congregation, they were children of the devil.

I also believe that the Scriptures give those in the Covenant of Grace a confidence on the salvation of their children that is not explicitly spelled out for those outside the visible Covenant. In other words, we have passages of Saints expressing confidence of the salvation of their infants as well as God's special Providence toward the children of believers so that the Canons of Dordt are correct in giving pastoral counsel that believing parents ought not to doubt the election of their children. We ought not assume it's just some cosmic roll of the dice but that the Covenant of Grace means more than just me and God and that grace has been extended to my family. Thus, I draw confidence from a view of the CoG that sees my baptized children as citizens of the Kingdom of God with no reason to doubt their rebellion nor to doubt that the grace signified by their baptism belongs to them.

Were I to be asked, however, to counsel a man or a woman who has not faith in the living God, I would not be able to speak confidently to give them counsel either way for the Scriptures give no reason, from the things revealed, to give those outside the CoG counsel in that regard. I would grieve with them certainly. I would not be dogmatic as to the certain reprobation of their children and I would, of course, point them to the Cross of Christ.



> 11. INFANT SALVATION
> Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God's "tender mercies are over all His works," and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.
> 
> Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills . . . And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation . . . This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world. If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed. If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway."72
> 
> Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would prevent us from believing this; and until it is proven that God could not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call in infancy we may be permitted to hold this view.
> 
> Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their "salvation" is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are "saved" to be very small and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.
> 
> The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith , repentance or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated.
> 
> In regard to this question Dr. S. G. Craig has written: "We take it that no doctrine of infant salvation is Christian that does not assume that infants are lost members of a lost race for whom there is no salvation apart from Christ. It must be obvious to all, therefore, that the doctrine that all dying in infancy are saved will not fit into the Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic system of thought with their teaching of baptismal regeneration; as clearly most of those who have died in infancy have not been baptized. It is obvious also that the Lutheran system of thought provides no place for the notion that all dying in infancy are saved because of the necessity it attaches to the means of grace, especially the Word and the Sacraments. If grace is only in the means of grace—in the case of infants in baptism—it seems clear that most of those who have died in infancy have not been the recipients of grace. Equally clear is it that the Arminian has no right to believe in the salvation of all dying in infancy; in fact, it is not so clear that he has any right to believe in the salvation of any dying in infancy. For according to the Arminians, even the evangelical Arminians, God in His grace has merely provided men with an opportunity for salvation. It does not appear, however, that a mere opportunity for salvation can be of any avail for those dying in infancy."73
> 
> Though rejecting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and turning the baptism of the non-elect into an empty form, Calvinism, on the other hand, extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible Church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half of the human race even up to the present time has been among the elect. Furthermore, it may be said that since Calvinists bold that saving faith in Christ is the only requirement for salvation on the part of adults, they never make membership in the external Church to be either a requirement or a guarantee of salvation. They believe that many adults who have no connection with the external Church are nevertheless saved. Every consistent Christian will, of course, submit himself for baptism in accordance with the plain Scripture command and will become a member of the external Church; yet many others, either because of weakness of faith or because they lack the opportunity, do not carry out that command.
> 
> 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."74
> 
> It is sometimes charged that Calvin taught the actual damnation of some of those who die in infancy. A careful examination of his writings, however, does not bear out that charge. He explicitly taught that some of the elect die in infancy and that they are saved as infants. He also taught that there were reprobate infants; for he held that reprobation as well as election was eternal, and that the non-elect come into this life reprobate. But nowhere did he teach that the reprobate die and are lost as infants. He of course rejected the Pelagian view which denied original sin and grounded the salvation of those who die in infancy on their supposed innocence and sinlessness. 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."75
> 
> In none of Calvin's writings does he say, either directly or by good and necessary inference, that any dying in infancy are lost. Most of the passages which are brought forth by opponents to prove this point are merely assertions of his well known doctrine of original sin, in which he taught the universal guilt and depravity of the entire race. Most of these are from highly controversial sections where he is discussing other doctrines and where he speaks unguardedly; but when taken in their context the meaning is not often in doubt. Calvin simply says of all infants what David specifically said of himself: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me," Psalm 51:5; or what Paul said, "In Adam all die," 1 Corinthians 15:22; or again, that all are "by nature, the children of wrath," Ephesians 2:3.
> 
> We believe that we have now shown that the doctrine of election is in every point Scriptural and a plain dictate of common sense. Those who oppose this doctrine do so because they neither understand nor consider the majesty and holiness of God, nor the corruption and guilt of their own nature. They forget that they stand before their Maker not as those who may justly claim His mercy, but as condemned criminals who deserve only punishment. Furthermore, they want to be independent to work out their own scheme of salvation rather than to accept God's plan which is by grace. This doctrine of election will not harmonize with any covenant of works, nor with a mongrel covenant of works and grace; but it is the only possible outcome of a covenant of pure grace.
> 
> 72 Two Studies in the History of Doctrine, p. 230.
> 73 Christianity Today, Jan. 1931, p. 14.
> 74 Christianity Today, Jan. 1931. p. 14.
> 75 Calvin Memorial Addresses, p. 112.


----------



## MW

Lorraine Boettner: "Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence."

Here he speaks soundly; but then he proceeds to allow for speculation beyond Scripture where the speculation cannot be proven false:

"Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would prevent us from believing this; and until it is proven that God could not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call in infancy we may be permitted to hold this view."

Which is our rule of faith and life? what the Scriptures teach, or what the Scriptures leave open for us to believe? I maintain that the reformed faith insists on the former.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Lorraine Boettner: "Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence."
> 
> Here he speaks soundly; but then he proceeds to allow for speculation beyond Scripture where the speculation cannot be proven false:
> 
> "Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would prevent us from believing this; and until it is proven that God could not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call in infancy we may be permitted to hold this view."
> 
> Which is our rule of faith and life? what the Scriptures teach, or what the Scriptures leave open for us to believe? I maintain that the reformed faith insists on the former.



I didn't intend to attach my view to his. I simply found the treatment interesting. If you see my own remarks above the quote, my view doesn't try to speculate in the same way.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> I didn't intend to attach my view to his. I simply found the treatment interesting. If you see my own remarks above the quote, my view doesn't try to speculate in the same way.



I'm thankful you posted Boettner's statement because it clearly acknowledges both what the historic position is and why it was maintained, and then adds to it by a methodology which is conspicuously different.


----------



## a mere housewife

A minister we know believes that Romans 5:13 applies to infants. I am not sure that this fits into the point Romans 5:13 is making. Also I don't see Scripture supporting this when David says 'I was _shapen _in iniquity'.

The hardest thing for me to swallow when someone claims that all infants who die are elect is the Psalm where a blessing is supposed to be on the one who dashes the _little ones _of the ungodly against the stones. That's a hard part of Scripture for me to swallow anyway, but it's the word of God so I accept that my feelings are out of line. However I cannot imagine a blessing coming to any who does this to their helpless brother or sister in Christ.

I do think we have good enough reason with David's statements when his baby died and other teaching in Scripture cited already to have every hope that children of believers who die in infancy are with the Lord.


----------



## toddpedlar

bookslover said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh the flaw in your argument presupposes hitler was a reprobate. Now having great great grandparents killed in the death camps makes me inclined to say so but ultimately if he repented at the end I see no reason why he couldn't be saved and that perhaps the reports of suicide were faked. Its a statistical possibility. Second Hitler did not die as an infant. God sovereignly made sure to keep him alive. With infants God decrees they die before any external sin can be commited with a mental compacity of accountability. Not the same thing. And I would be of the persuasion that all human hearts have the same potential for evil as one another it is just by sovereign and common grace that someone is "better" than another. I believe the only acceptable posistions are that "all infants are elect" or "some are, some arn't and we don't know which but we can trust God". Any others "smack of sacramentalism" (thanks Dr. Piper for that awesome phrase), lacks compassion or justice or a denial of the sufficiency of scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but Hitler _was_ reprobate, as demonstrated by his evil life as lived right up until his suicide. Yes, if he had repented, he could have been saved, thereby demonstrating that he had been a member of the elect after all, but such is not the case. It's just not a biblical fact that all babies are elect, dying in infancy or not.
Click to expand...


While I agree that not all babies are elect, I don't think your illustration of Hitler helps the case. If Hitler had died when an infant, then he would not have been Hitler, but a dying infant - a different person. Had he died, he very well may have been elect. As the person he was, of course, he was not, and we can safely assume he was reprobate. 

To look at the life of a clearly reprobate person, and then claim that because they obviously are not elect all infants who die cannot be elect is illogical.


----------



## Scott1

Mr Curt Daniels is quoted as saying:



> E. The classic statement in Reformed confessions is that of the Westminster Confession (X: 3):
> “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.” Some non-Calvinist critics read this and feel that it insinuates that there are some non-elect infants, but the Confession does not say that. Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect.



Mr Daniels is not accurate in his assessment "Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect."

GI Williamson, _The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes_, p 92:



> We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16 cf...). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.


----------



## Davidius

In the Old Testament the imprecations of God's elect people against the heathen often call for their children's destruction as well as their parents', yet for the covenant people God has promised to be God to us and our children. Based on this I think that #4 is correct: Christian parents of deceased infants can have hope that God was the God of their children who were never able to grow up and reject that promise, and for the rest we don't know, but I'll add that the pattern of scripture doesn't give reason to think they are elect. David could say what he said about his son because of God's promise to him and his children, and isn't, in my opinion, an example that can be used to generalize for the whole world.


----------



## toddpedlar

Scott1 said:


> Mr Curt Daniels is quoted as saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E. The classic statement in Reformed confessions is that of the Westminster Confession (X: 3):
> “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.” Some non-Calvinist critics read this and feel that it insinuates that there are some non-elect infants, but the Confession does not say that. Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Daniels is not accurate in his assessment "Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect."
Click to expand...


I'm not sure he's wrong, or on what basis you say that. The fact (if true) that almost all Reformed theologians take that as such a pronouncement doesn't mean that they're correct in doing so. He's simply stating something about the large majority of theologians who claim the label of 'Reformed'. I don't know enough to criticize his claim. The vast majority of Presbyterians in the US are PCUSA, but I wouldn't any position that the PCUSA upholds as thereby having any weight when deciding what Presbyterian doctrine is.


----------



## DavidinKnoxville

So if all children that die are elect then I have no choice but to murder my own children before they grow up. Would it not be better to cut their life short here on earth so they do not spend an eternity in hell? That is the real question. 

Elect infants go to heaven non elect infants do not.


----------



## Quickened

If one truly believes that all babies are elect then you either:

1. Believe it is possible to lose your salvation
2. Believe that absolutely all peoples are always elect/saved

If babies are elect some where along the lines you would have to lose your salvation because as we know not all people are going to heaven. If you believe that you certainly cannot lose your salvation then by default all peoples would be saved/elect because they were deemed elect at birth.

This viewpoint seems problematic.

Some vessels are made for honor and some for dishonor. Just as Jacob he loved and Esau he hated. As they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad.

I guess the way i see it is we are either elect or we arent. If persay I was not elect there is no real difference if i died at 1, 5 or 50. Nothing changes the fact that i wasnt elect. There are both elect members and non elect members of the human race at all ages and this would include infants (i am led to believe)


----------



## Davidius

Quickened said:


> If one truly believes that all babies are elect then you either:
> 
> 1. Believe it is possible to lose your salvation
> 2. Believe that absolutely all peoples are always elect/saved
> 
> If babies are elect some where along the lines you would have to lose your salvation because as we know not all people are going to heaven. If you believe that you certainly cannot lose your salvation then by default all peoples would be saved/elect because they were deemed elect at birth.
> 
> This viewpoint seems problematic.
> 
> Some vessels are made for honor and some for dishonor. Just as Jacob he loved and Esau he hated. As they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad.
> 
> I guess the way i see it is we are either elect or we arent. If persay I was not elect there is no real difference if i died at 1, 5 or 50. Nothing changes the fact that i wasnt elect. There are both elect members and non elect members of the human race at all ages and this would include infants (i am led to believe)



No one said that God elects all babies. The question is whether God _also_ elects those infants which he predestines to die in infancy. Think of two classes: 1) all those infants which do not die in infancy and 2) all those infants which die in infancy.


----------



## TimV

The Confession is wise, and there's no need to go beyond it. And if you do, you get into all sorts of strangeness, such as defining the moment an embryo is animated, and the cut off date of what an infant is, and if it's related to understanding, and if retarded people at 30 qualify as an infant, and if a 4 year old after an accident with brain trouble can be qualified as an infant and if all the billions who have aborted either on purpose or naturally are elect and it goes on and on.

The big problem is whether or not the actual punishment of Hell is eternal, and if there is a degree of punishment. If you, say, believe that at the very moment of conception a person has a soul, and if you believe that soul is either going to Heaven for eternity or Hell for eternity then you are forced to make some awkward pronouncements.

If on the the other hand you decide not to dictate to God when a soul is given to an embryo, and while you believe that the elect achieve communion with the Christ for all eternity but that the duration and degree of punishment of others is God's business, it's much easier to just say what the Confession says.


----------



## Quickened

Davidius said:


> *No one said that God elects all babies.* The question is whether God _also_ elects those infants which he predestines to die in infancy. Think of two classes: 1) all those infants which do not die in infancy and 2) all those infants which die in infancy.



Just to address the bolded area for now...

The thread title was Al Mohler: All babies are elect. So to me that implies that God has elected them so.

In all honesty i was posting based on the thread title and didnt read all of the posts therein. I skimmed. Allow me to reread the original quote more indepth.


----------



## Davidius

Quickened said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No one said that God elects all babies.* The question is whether God _also_ elects those infants which he predestines to die in infancy. Think of two classes: 1) all those infants which do not die in infancy and 2) all those infants which die in infancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to address the bolded area for now...
> 
> The thread title was Al Mohler: All babies are elect. So to me that implies that God has elected them so.
> 
> In all honesty i was posting based on the thread title and didnt read all of the posts therein. I skimmed. Allow me to reread the original quote more indepth.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see. Well that is JD's misrepresentation of what Al Mohler's article said. If you look at the actual title of the article, you'll see what I'm saying.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I wouldn't call it a misrepresentation but simply a poor choice of titles. It should be entitled _Al Mohler: All that die in Infancy are Elect_


----------



## Davidius

Semper Fidelis said:


> I wouldn't call it a misrepresentation but simply a poor choice of titles. It should be entitled _Al Mohler: All that die in Infancy are Elect_



Sorry, I didn't mean misrepresentation in a bad way.


----------



## Quickened

Davidius said:


> Quickened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No one said that God elects all babies.* The question is whether God _also_ elects those infants which he predestines to die in infancy. Think of two classes: 1) all those infants which do not die in infancy and 2) all those infants which die in infancy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to address the bolded area for now...
> 
> The thread title was Al Mohler: All babies are elect. So to me that implies that God has elected them so.
> 
> In all honesty i was posting based on the thread title and didnt read all of the posts therein. I skimmed. Allow me to reread the original quote more indepth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Well that is JD's misrepresentation of what Al Mohler's article said. If you look at the actual title of the article, you'll see what I'm saying.
Click to expand...


Actually i am not sure i am clear on what you are saying. Could you go over that with me because i am not sure i see it?

Although Mohler doesnt flat out say it. I cant seem to see anything else. He seems to imply that all babies that die as such are saved and goes on to give an explanation as to why with his 6 points.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Quickened said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quickened said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to address the bolded area for now...
> 
> The thread title was Al Mohler: All babies are elect. So to me that implies that God has elected them so.
> 
> In all honesty i was posting based on the thread title and didnt read all of the posts therein. I skimmed. Allow me to reread the original quote more indepth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Well that is JD's misrepresentation of what Al Mohler's article said. If you look at the actual title of the article, you'll see what I'm saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually i am not sure i am clear on what you are saying. Could you go over that with me because i am not sure i see it?
> 
> Although Mohler doesnt flat out say it. I cant seem to see anything else. He seems to imply that all babies that die as such are saved and goes on to give an explanation as to why with his 6 points.
Click to expand...


Brother,

I pointed that out already. JD's title implies that Al Mohler believes all infants are elect. This is not true. This would mean that everybody is elect because, at some point, everyone is an infant. What Al Mohler argued for was that all who die in infacy are elect.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Davidius said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call it a misrepresentation but simply a poor choice of titles. It should be entitled _Al Mohler: All that die in Infancy are Elect_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean misrepresentation in a bad way.
Click to expand...


No problema. I just wanted to make sure J.D. didn't take it that way.


----------



## Davidius

Quickened said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quickened said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to address the bolded area for now...
> 
> The thread title was Al Mohler: All babies are elect. So to me that implies that God has elected them so.
> 
> In all honesty i was posting based on the thread title and didnt read all of the posts therein. I skimmed. Allow me to reread the original quote more indepth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. Well that is JD's misrepresentation of what Al Mohler's article said. If you look at the actual title of the article, you'll see what I'm saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually i am not sure i am clear on what you are saying. Could you go over that with me because i am not sure i see it?
> 
> Although Mohler doesnt flat out say it. I cant seem to see anything else. He seems to imply that all babies that die as such are saved and goes on to give an explanation as to why with his 6 points.
Click to expand...


Right. To say "All infants who die in infancy were elect" is not the same thing as to say "all babies are elect."


----------



## tburus

Davidius said:


> Based on this I think that #4 is correct: Christian parents of deceased infants can have hope that God was the God of their children who were never able to grow up and reject that promise, and for the rest we don't know, but I'll add that the pattern of scripture doesn't give reason to think they are elect.



What about parents who have an infant die before they are saved? Are you saying that if you had received your temporal salvation then any child born of yours who dies after that will be elect, or would you argue that if you are elect then any of your offspring who die in infancy will have been elect also, regradless of if you had come upon your temporal salvation yet? The second option is the only one I could see as feasible, though honestly I can't manage to pull myself from the conviction that God has elected all infants that he has preordained to die in infancy. I really can't help but see this belief that only the dead children of the elect were elect as being some sort of akward offshoot of paedobaptism, which is another view that I just don't think the Scriptural evidence is all there for. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Quickened

Semper Fidelis said:


> Brother,
> 
> I pointed that out already. JD's title implies that Al Mohler believes all infants are elect. This is not true. This would mean that everybody is elect because, at some point, everyone is an infant. What Al Mohler argued for was that all who die in infacy are elect.





Davidius said:


> Right. To say "All infants who die in infancy were elect" is not the same thing as to say "all babies are elect."



Thank you both for clarification! That's where i originally got tripped up. I think my mind got temporary stuck in my train of thought for a minute.


----------



## Herald

I changed the title of JD's post because it misrepresents the position of Mohler and Akin.


----------



## Davidius

North Jersey Baptist said:


> I changed the title of JD's post because it misrepresents the position of Mohler and Akin.



Sweet vindication!! 

(no offense, JD! I still didn't mean it in a bad way)


----------



## Scott1

Mr Curt Daniels is quoted as saying:

Quote:


> E. The classic statement in Reformed confessions is that of the Westminster Confession (X: 3):
> 
> “_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_.”
> 
> Some non-Calvinist critics read this and feel that it insinuates that there are some non-elect infants, but the Confession does not say that. Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect.



Mr Daniels is not accurate in his assessment "Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect."

GI Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, p 92:


> We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16 cf...). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.



In addition to Mr Williamson who has written one of the most widely used study guides on the Westminster Confession of Faith,

Dr. Twiss, prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, in his 'Vindicae' I., 48:-- 



> "'Many infants depart from this life in original sin, and consequently are condemned to eternal death on account of original sin alone. Therefore, from the sole transgression of Adam condemnation to eternal death has followed upon many infants.'



You may recall Dr Twiss, in addition to being one of the leaders of the Westminster Divines, also helped draft the Confession's summary of doctrine on this point.

Keep in mind, the above evidence goes only to Mr Curt Daniels assertion:
"Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect."


----------



## tcalbrecht

If all infants dying in infancy are elect, which did God decree first, election or dying in infancy?


----------



## toddpedlar

Scott1 said:


> Keep in mind, the above evidence goes only to Mr Curt Daniels assertion:
> "Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect."



Your evidence, though, is only a couple Reformed theologians of the past.

Do you know on what basis Mr. Daniels is making his claim? Note that he didn't say something ridiculous like "Most members of the Westminster Assembly believe..." but "Most Reformed theologians".

You should recognize that most reformed theologians are not at Westminster West and RTS Jackson. The majority of reformed theologians probably do NOT hold the confessional view. I really think this is all that Daniels is saying, and that you're inferring an incorrect meaning from his words. (this is all , though, so I stop.


----------



## DMcFadden

I didn't mean to start a firestorm over the accuracy of Dr. Daniel's statement, merely to indicate what one Reformed theologian with a pretty fair knowledge of historical theology thinks is the "lay of the land." His PhD at Edinburgh was on Gill's Calvinism (purportedly running something like 900 pages), so I presume he has a fair knowledge of the theologians of that period. However, note the names he actually identifies as falling into that camp: 



> All dying infants are saved and elect, whether baptized or not. This is by far the prevailing view among Calvinists, such as Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, C.H. Spurgeon, A.M. Toplady, Ulrich Zwingli (probably the first to say so in no uncertain terms), Lewis Sperry Chafer, W.G.T. Shedd, Loraine Boettner, etc.



Spurgeon was a preacher (not a professional theologian per se) and Chafer was a pretty low "low Calvinist" (if one at all). Still, the point is that there is a strong tradition within Reformed circles of believing -- sentimentally or biblically or whatever -- something akin to what Mohler said.

That was my *only* point.


----------



## DavidinKnoxville

Oh... so we should abort our babies to make sure they go to heaven? You still have the same problem.


----------



## Scott1

QUOTE]


> Mr Daniels is not accurate in his assessment "Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect."[/


QUOTE]

toddpedlar 
PB Evil Scientist...Boo


> Your evidence, though, is only a couple Reformed theologians of the past.




Perhaps we can clarify for those following this thread.

The Westminster Confession of Faith X 3. 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_.”

Mr Daniels says in comment on WCF X 3: 



> Some non-Calvinist critics *read this *and feel that it *insinuates that there are some non-elect infants*, but the *Confession does not say that*. *Almost all *Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants are elect.



Mr Daniels is explaining the Confession on this point says there are no non-elect (unsaved) infants and, besides "almost every Reformed theologian" believes that.

Mr Daniels is mistaken.


I pointed out:

1) The Westminster Confession of Faith X 3. *does not say *all dying infants are 
elect. It specifically does not say how many or how few are elect because the Westminster Divines were divided on this point.

2) Dr Twiss, a leading Westminster Divine, did not believe what Mr Daniels asserts (about what Dr Twiss helped write).

3) Not only does the Westminster Confession text not say what Mr Daniels asserts, not only does Dr Twiss who helped write it not believe what Mr Daniels asserts, but a significant body of Reformed opinion, reflected by the popularly used Westminster Confession Study Guide by Mr Williamson does not believe what Mr Daniels asserts either.

The Westminster Divines, very wisely, did not say that all dying infants are elect. They mainly agreed that while there is some basis to believe this, Scripture is not clear on this point so they worded the WCF in this way to reflect that.

Reformed Denominations and their theologians are divided on this to this day- but it has never been the case that "almost all Reformed theologians" believe all dying infants are elect and it is not what the Westminster Confession teaches, either.


----------



## a mere housewife

DavidinKnoxville said:


> Oh... so we should abort our babies to make sure they go to heaven? You still have the same problem.



Hi David in Knoxville, I was wondering if you could clarify how Dennis would have this problem when he isn't advocating the position himself, simply pointing out some of the people in the reformed tradition who have? (Or is your usage of 'you' more generic?)


----------



## toddpedlar

I guess you misunderstood me from the beginning.

I am not arguing that the Confession teaches anything but what you have said it teaches - namely that ELECT infants are saved.

I'm not arguing that Daniels understands the Confession properly. 

All I am saying is that his claim cannot be tested by pointing to two 
examples - and I'm cynic enough to believe that most reformed theologians are off-kilter, and do not believe the confession as it is written, but have inserted exactly what he says.

That's all... nothing more. We have no disagreement (except you might be less cynical than I about the bulk of "reformed theolgians").


----------



## DavidinKnoxville

a mere housewife said:


> DavidinKnoxville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... so we should abort our babies to make sure they go to heaven? You still have the same problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David in Knoxville, I was wondering if you could clarify how Dennis would have this problem when he isn't advocating the position himself, simply pointing out some of the people in the reformed tradition who have? (Or is your usage of 'you' more generic?)
Click to expand...



The you was more generic. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## a mere housewife

DavidinKnoxville said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidinKnoxville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh... so we should abort our babies to make sure they go to heaven? You still have the same problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi David in Knoxville, I was wondering if you could clarify how Dennis would have this problem when he isn't advocating the position himself, simply pointing out some of the people in the reformed tradition who have? (Or is your usage of 'you' more generic?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The you was more generic. Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...


I'm easily confused . Thank you.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Wow - I post a thread, show up late and I am besmirched! 

Thanks for changing the thread title, I posted it in haste to git'r done, not really thinking through the heading, my bad.


----------



## staythecourse

Dr. Mohler made a mistake. We can't know what happens to children. The Bible is not clear and only inferences can be made on the issue. We have to stay mute where the Scripture is mute. The confessions do a good job in handling the Word here.


> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )



Compared to Mr. Spurgeon's Revised 1689 Confession



> Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.



I cannot say God saves all children based on what I have read in Scripture, especially the children of the non-elect. God can dispose of creatures in His creation as He desires at whatever age.


----------



## bookslover

toddpedlar said:


> While I agree that not all babies are elect, I don't think your illustration of Hitler helps the case. If Hitler had died when an infant, then he would not have been Hitler, but a dying infant - a different person. Had he died, he very well may have been elect. As the person he was, of course, he was not, and we can safely assume he was reprobate.
> 
> To look at the life of a clearly reprobate person, and then claim that because they obviously are not elect all infants who die cannot be elect is illogical.



Are you saying that a person can be elect at one stage of life (infancy) and then non-elect - lose his election - at a later stage? 

I don't think you can give me a biblical example of this. Hitler's life clearly demonstrates that he was not elect - and that includes his infancy, too. He was not a "different person" when he was a baby as opposed to an adult. As an infant, he just had not yet lived long enough to demonstrate the true depths of his wickedness. A person's election or non-election is decided long before he was even conceived - even before God created anything. And God does not change His mind in the middle of someone's life. 

If Hitler had died as an infant, he would have gone to Hell, as he was non-elect. Again, if a person dies in a non-elect state at 80, he would have died in a non-elect state at 8 days, too. Conversely, an elect person dying at 80 and going to Heaven would have gone to Heaven had he died at 8 days, too.

_All_ babies are sinners; _some_ babies are elect.[/quote]


----------



## toddpedlar

bookslover said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree that not all babies are elect, I don't think your illustration of Hitler helps the case. If Hitler had died when an infant, then he would not have been Hitler, but a dying infant - a different person. Had he died, he very well may have been elect. As the person he was, of course, he was not, and we can safely assume he was reprobate.
> 
> To look at the life of a clearly reprobate person, and then claim that because they obviously are not elect all infants who die cannot be elect is illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that a person can be elect at one stage of life (infancy) and then non-elect - lose his election - at a later stage?
Click to expand...


You should know me better than that! Of course I would NEVER say such a thing!



> I don't think you can give me a biblical example of this. Hitler's life clearly demonstrates that he was not elect - and that includes his infancy, too. He was not a "different person" when he was a baby as opposed to an adult. As an infant, he just had not yet lived long enough to demonstrate the true depths of his wickedness. A person's election or non-election is decided long before he was even conceived - even before God created anything. And God does not change His mind in the middle of someone's life.



You're not telling me anything I don't know and haven't repeatedly affirmed here on the PB. 



> If Hitler had died as an infant, he would have gone to Hell, as he was non-elect. Again, if a person dies in a non-elect state at 80, he would have died in a non-elect state at 8 days, too. Conversely, an elect person dying at 80 and going to Heaven would have gone to Heaven had he died at 8 days, too.
> 
> _All_ babies are sinners; _some_ babies are elect.



Agreed - all babies are sinners and some are elect.

My only point was this - if Hitler had died in infancy, he would not have been Hitler, and we could not know 
whether that person would have been elect. We do know that Hitler was not elect, based on his life. 
If he had died as an infant, we would not have had this data - and do you not think it possible that if God's
will had been to take baby Adolph from his parents - with this enormous change in providential history, 
it might have been that God would have been taking him as an elect infant? 

My point is that we simply do not know - and cannot judge anything about infants based on the fact that
Hitler was not an elect man, and speculating about his elect status had he died in infancy. It's just improper,
logically speaking. 

If your example of an 80 year old man dying in Christ, and speculating about whether he'd have
gone to Heaven if he had died at 8 days - again, we don't know. We DO know that the 80 year old
faithful Christian who died was elect - and that he was elect when he was 8 days, 8 months, and 8 years
old - the whole of his life. BUT we cannot say that if it had been God's will to take him when he was an
infant what to say. 

Perhaps I'm making an arcane point - and an irrelevancy... but the point stands. While it is certainly true
that elect infants who die go to Heaven, we needn't try to judge that statement based on illogical constructions
like the situation you described.


----------



## Quickened

staythecourse said:


> Dr. Mohler made a mistake. We can't know what happens to children. The Bible is not clear and only inferences can be made on the issue. We have to stay mute where the Scripture is mute. The confessions do a good job in handling the Word here.
> 
> 
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to Mr. Spurgeon's Revised 1689 Confession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot say God saves all children based on what I have read in Scripture, especially the children of the non-elect. God can dispose of creatures in His creation as He desires at whatever age.
Click to expand...



I wanted to compare my hard copies. It turns out that i dont own the WCF. Unless my lady has the copy. Suppose i will have to make a purchase!

If what you posted is accurate (not doubting you) then i think the WCF is worded better then the 1689. This would be the first time i made that admission!


----------



## TimV

> I don't think you can give me a biblical example of this. Hitler's life clearly demonstrates that he was not elect - and that includes his infancy, too. He was not a "different person" when he was a baby as opposed to an adult. As an infant, he just had not yet lived long enough to demonstrate the true depths of his wickedness. A person's election or non-election is decided long before he was even conceived - even before God created anything. And God does not change His mind in the middle of someone's life.



And I thought this was a Reformed board!


----------



## panta dokimazete

DavidinKnoxville said:


> Oh... so we should abort our babies to make sure they go to heaven? You still have the same problem.



This is illogical for believers, since murder is prohibited. 

The doctrine of election of babies dying in infancy is more for the comfort of believers and the conviction of the called, though I suppose it could comfort baby killers, too, in their twisted souls.


----------



## Walkthecalling

Good thread so far. I have read a bunch on this subject because I lost an infant in February. Yes, my compassionate side screams it must be innocent and accepted into the glory of heaven. My theology must run it's course as well. I have read Mac Arthur's "Safe in the Arms of God," about lost infants. It had some good points. The way in which David reacted to losing an infant compared with how he lost Absalom, seems to point to a difference. I also think it is easy to try and refer to infants in the same election process as an adult. We can only guess and apply what we know. But in the same way we can't capture fully the Trinity, the full glory of Heaven, and the amazing cooperation of election and free will, we can possibly not fully understand the difference in election for infants. Scripture doesn't speak directly to it in a light where we can speak with authority on the subject. There are parts of processes where the Bible is silent. Can we justify anything but opinion on this subject? You start into a form of theological philosophy with gymnastics to reach the point. I think you cross a large gap of the free-will side when you say an infant has original sin, but not the opportunity to chose grace. If we are not held accountable for a decision to willfully chose against Christ, then we are crossing into hyper-Calvinism where my decision means nothing. Scripture proclaims both God's sovereign election and the judgment of our choices. To eliminate one is unbiblical, and therefore that conclusion would be an infant can't make that decision. You must apply your process for this debate to the whole world not an infant. If you say an infant who dies before a decision is made (for or against Christ) can be condemned to death, then in effect all of our decisions are pre-decided and missions are pointless. If you say all infants go to heaven then you must realize that you are creating a doctrine not supported fully by scripture, that says certain people are not under the same banner depending on their ability to make/choose/be called by Christ. In this discussion I must lean to the immutable attributes of God's justice. An adult (not going to argue for a certain age/mental ability) is condemned by God for his decision to not accept Christ, which they weren't effectually called, and this is completely just. An infant (once again no age/ability) is unable to make any decisions, and even though all who are called are chosen, they are still held accountable to their choice. While we can't understand fully this paradox, I would believe a just God must hold all to the same standard, that His call is effectual, but our will is damnable. Someone incapable of making a decision (both because of being dead in sin, and without the mental cognizance to understand) would be hard to justly condemn. 
I appreciate the great replies thus far. Look forward to the kind handling of my statements!


----------



## Herald

Dave,

May you know the comfort of the Lord in the loss of your child. Belated as they may be, my prayers go with you.


----------



## bravebee

I agree that the best position is that we just don't know. The scripture is silent on the issue. Some may be elect. All may be elect. None may be elect. Any of these are possible, but to claim any of them as absolute goes beyond our only rule of faith and practice. God does the electing and has not seen fit to reveal his will in this area to us. Almost all arguments for the election of infants is owing to sentimentalism, not good theology (regardless of how docrinally sound the person making the argument happens to be).

Two side points here:

1. I have never bought the argument that David's baby was necessarily elect. When he said, "I will go to the child," he could very well have meant he would also die, thus joining the child in the grave, not in heaven.

2. As for application: How then, since we don't know, do we comfort those who lose an infant to death? My only answer is that the eternity of the infant rests in the hands of our Sovereign God. We must trust Him to do all things to His greatest glory, and we must love His glory more than we love and miss the deceased baby.


----------



## jogri17

bookslover said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ahh the flaw in your argument presupposes hitler was a reprobate. Now having great great grandparents killed in the death camps makes me inclined to say so but ultimately if he repented at the end I see no reason why he couldn't be saved and that perhaps the reports of suicide were faked. Its a statistical possibility. Second Hitler did not die as an infant. God sovereignly made sure to keep him alive. With infants God decrees they die before any external sin can be commited with a mental compacity of accountability. Not the same thing. And I would be of the persuasion that all human hearts have the same potential for evil as one another it is just by sovereign and common grace that someone is "better" than another. I believe the only acceptable posistions are that "all infants are elect" or "some are, some arn't and we don't know which but we can trust God". Any others "smack of sacramentalism" (thanks Dr. Piper for that awesome phrase), lacks compassion or justice or a denial of the sufficiency of scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but Hitler _was_ reprobate, as demonstrated by his evil life as lived right up until his suicide. Yes, if he had repented, he could have been saved, thereby demonstrating that he had been a member of the elect after all, but such is not the case. It's just not a biblical fact that all babies are elect, dying in infancy or not.
Click to expand...

you can't say hitler was reprobate one hundred percent sure.


----------



## Pilgrim

staythecourse said:


> Dr. Mohler made a mistake. We can't know what happens to children. The Bible is not clear and only inferences can be made on the issue. We have to stay mute where the Scripture is mute. The confessions do a good job in handling the Word here.
> 
> 
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to Mr. Spurgeon's Revised 1689 Confession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot say God saves all children based on what I have read in Scripture, especially the children of the non-elect. God can dispose of creatures in His creation as He desires at whatever age.
Click to expand...


Is Spurgeon the one responsible for some copies of the 1689 having "infants" instead of "elect infants?"


----------



## Pilgrim

Quickened said:


> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Mohler made a mistake. We can't know what happens to children. The Bible is not clear and only inferences can be made on the issue. We have to stay mute where the Scripture is mute. The confessions do a good job in handling the Word here.
> 
> 
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to Mr. Spurgeon's Revised 1689 Confession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, Who works when, where, and how He pleases. So also are all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot say God saves all children based on what I have read in Scripture, especially the children of the non-elect. God can dispose of creatures in His creation as He desires at whatever age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to compare my hard copies. It turns out that i dont own the WCF. Unless my lady has the copy. Suppose i will have to make a purchase!
> 
> If what you posted is accurate (not doubting you) then i think the WCF is worded better then the 1689. This would be the first time i made that admission!
Click to expand...


What he compared there are two different versions of the 1689, not the WCF. The only difference between the original 1689 and the WCF here is that the WCF has "all other elect persons" in the second sentence instead of "all elect persons."


----------



## DMcFadden

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Dave,
> 
> May you know the comfort of the Lord in the loss of your child. Belated as they may be, my prayers go with you.



Amen. May the Lord give you his comfort in the midst of it.


----------



## staythecourse

Thanks Chris.


----------



## a mere housewife

DMcFadden said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dave,
> 
> May you know the comfort of the Lord in the loss of your child. Belated as they may be, my prayers go with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen. May the Lord give you his comfort in the midst of it.
Click to expand...


Just wanted to add my prayers to this as well. Thank you for your post, Mr. Bishop.


----------



## Quickened

Pilgrim said:


> Quickened said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> staythecourse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Mohler made a mistake. We can't know what happens to children. The Bible is not clear and only inferences can be made on the issue. We have to stay mute where the Scripture is mute. The confessions do a good job in handling the Word here.
> 
> 
> Compared to Mr. Spurgeon's Revised 1689 Confession
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot say God saves all children based on what I have read in Scripture, especially the children of the non-elect. God can dispose of creatures in His creation as He desires at whatever age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to compare my hard copies. It turns out that i dont own the WCF. Unless my lady has the copy. Suppose i will have to make a purchase!
> 
> If what you posted is accurate (not doubting you) then i think the WCF is worded better then the 1689. This would be the first time i made that admission!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What he compared there are two different versions of the 1689, not the WCF. The only difference between the original 1689 and the WCF here is that the WCF has "all other elect persons" in the second sentence instead of "all elect persons."
Click to expand...




Thank you for the correction brother!


----------



## bookslover

toddpedlar said:


> If he had died as an infant, we would not have had this data - and do you not think it possible that if God's will had been to take baby Adolph from his parents - with this enormous change in providential history, it might have been that God would have been taking him as an elect infant?



No, because we DO have the data on Adolf which shows him being non-elect. So, if God had taken him as an infant, he would have died as a non-elect person.

But I may be missing your point.

And I apologize if I seem to have accused you of holding points you don't actually hold; that was not my intent - and I know you don't hold to them. We may be talking past each other on some of these things.


----------



## bookslover

jogri17 said:


> you can't say hitler was reprobate one hundred percent sure.



Perhaps not literally 100%. But, at the end of his life, Hitler shot his dogs. Then he and Eva Braun took poison. Then, Hitler shot Eva, then shot himself. I don't detect a whole lot of biblical repenting going on right about then. In fact, he committed several sins just by having all this take place.

And, since there's no second chance after death, I'm pretty sure Hitler is not in Heaven.


----------



## bookslover

TimV said:


> I don't think you can give me a biblical example of this. Hitler's life clearly demonstrates that he was not elect - and that includes his infancy, too. He was not a "different person" when he was a baby as opposed to an adult. As an infant, he just had not yet lived long enough to demonstrate the true depths of his wickedness. A person's election or non-election is decided long before he was even conceived - even before God created anything. And God does not change His mind in the middle of someone's life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I thought this was a Reformed board!
Click to expand...


(1) God chose the elect before creation; (2) Hitler's life demonstrates that he was not elect - from conception until his death. What's not Reformed about this?


----------



## TimV

> (1) God chose the elect before creation; (2) Hitler's life demonstrates that he was not elect - from conception until his death. What's not Reformed about this?



You said something about "in the middle of his life" so I got to thinking about Paul and Hitler in the middle of their lives. Hitler was a decorated war hero, having won the iron cross. His main sin at that time was an affair with the daughter of his half sister, which has a less severe Biblical penalty than Paul's most serious sin, which was murdering Christians.



> Perhaps not literally 100%. But, at the end of his life, Hitler shot his dogs. Then he and Eva Braun took poison. Then, Hitler shot Eva, then shot himself. I don't detect a whole lot of biblical repenting going on right about then. In fact, he committed several sins just by having all this take place.



He poisoned one dog to test a way to kill his wife, who was not Eva Braun, but a legally married Eva Hitler, who was certain to have been raped and murdered by the Red Army. Eva took the same poison she saw demonstrated on the dog of her own free will and wasn't shot by anyone. 3 thousand German women committed suicide the week Berlin fell because of mass rapes, and everyone knew what was in store. 

Not to justify things, and I agree he showed no signs of repentance, but I think you will admit you could have worded your post much better.

Regards


----------



## CharlieJ

Walkthecalling said:


> I think you cross a large gap of the free-will side when you say an infant has original sin, but not the opportunity to chose grace. If we are not held accountable for a decision to willfully chose against Christ, then we are crossing into hyper-Calvinism where my decision means nothing.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you say an infant who dies before a decision is made (for or against Christ) can be condemned to death, then in effect all of our decisions are pre-decided and missions are pointless.
> 
> ...
> 
> An infant (once again no age/ability) is unable to make any decisions, and even though all who are called are chosen, they are still held accountable to their choice. While we can't understand fully this paradox, I would believe a just God must hold all to the same standard, that His call is effectual, but our will is damnable. Someone incapable of making a decision (both because of being dead in sin, and without the mental cognizance to understand) would be hard to justly condemn.



When I was in the Arminian/Keswick church, I often heard that people went to hell for rejecting Christ. However, biblically I find that people go to hell for sin. If you think that God can only justly punish those who make a decision to reject Christ, you must also bow to the inclusivism that says those who never hear the gospel are saved, or at least may be saved or given a second chance, or whatever.

Now, if you are making a difference between the original sin of an infant and the actual sin of a cognizant person, there may be something to that.


----------



## Neogillist

*What Calvinists have thought on Infant election*

First of all, before taking a side, I will mention that I have read Lorraine Boettner's book, as well as listened to Dr. Curt Daniel's tapes on the issue.

I also know that virtually all modern Reformed theologians believe that all dying infants are saved, including R. C. Sproul, probably John Piper, all Arminians (by the way), Al Mohler as mentioned, B.B. Warfield, Hodge, and many others.

The question is: What has been the major concensus on infant salvation among Reformed theologians? There are five perspectives:

1) Most if not all Reformed theologians have agreed that the infants of believers dying in infancy are saved because they are part of the covenant.

2) Most of the puritan theologians, including John Owen and especially the New England puritans have taught that all the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are damned.

3) Many theologians have agreed with point 1, but have decided to remain agnostic regarding to point 2. 

4) Few theologians have remained agnostic concerning both point 1 and 2.

5) Very few if not none of the theologians have taught that all dying infants are damned, whether they be children of believers or unbelievers, but there are less educated calvinists who have held this position.

Personally, I take position 3, that all dying infants of believers are saved, but as for unbelievers, we don't know.


----------



## staythecourse

Jean-David,

I think you missed the obvious option which the formers of the 2 confessions (Westminster and 1689) clearly say: We don't know but the elect babies are saved. This leaves room for the salvation for the offspring of both the regenerate and unregenerate. Scripture does not shut the door on the salvation of the babies of the elect but gives no indication either way on the eternal fate of the babies of the unregenerate. The latter category is not very hopeful based on God's command to destroy the offspring of the enemies of God when Israel went to war.


----------



## Scott1

> Personally, I take position 3, that all dying infants of believers are saved, but as for unbelievers, we don't know.



An issue that comes to mind with this is the arbitrary nature of the classification of "infant." Does that mean pre-born to shortly after birth? to one year? two years? until rational faculties are "developed"? age seven? Is it different from one "infant" to another?

On one level, we all image we know how old an "infant" is, on another, we imagine different things about exactly how old an "infant" can be. How is it consistent that God will automatically regenerate until age 2 but not age 2, 1 day?

I read somewhere Dr MacArthur takes this to mean up to age 20, in some cases.


----------



## bookslover

TimV said:


> (1) God chose the elect before creation; (2) Hitler's life demonstrates that he was not elect - from conception until his death. What's not Reformed about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said something about "in the middle of his life" so I got to thinking about Paul and Hitler in the middle of their lives. Hitler was a decorated war hero, having won the iron cross. His main sin at that time was an affair with the daughter of his half sister, which has a less severe Biblical penalty than Paul's most serious sin, which was murdering Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not literally 100%. But, at the end of his life, Hitler shot his dogs. Then he and Eva Braun took poison. Then, Hitler shot Eva, then shot himself. I don't detect a whole lot of biblical repenting going on right about then. In fact, he committed several sins just by having all this take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He poisoned one dog to test a way to kill his wife, who was not Eva Braun, but a legally married Eva Hitler, who was certain to have been raped and murdered by the Red Army. Eva took the same poison she saw demonstrated on the dog of her own free will and wasn't shot by anyone. 3 thousand German women committed suicide the week Berlin fell because of mass rapes, and everyone knew what was in store.
> 
> Not to justify things, and I agree he showed no signs of repentance, but I think you will admit you could have worded your post much better.
> 
> Regards
Click to expand...


Yes, I could be wrong on the details. I was writing from memory of something I'd read a long time ago. If your information is better, I accept it. I think my main point still stands, though.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

DMcFadden said:


> Here are a few observations by Curt Daniel on the subject:
> 
> (2) All dying infants are lost. I know of no theologian, Calvinist or otherwise, who asserts this.



The only person I know who teaches this is Harold Camping, Calvinist-turned-heretic. His reasoning being that salvation comes through faith alone, and infants can't believe or understand the gospel, therefore can't be saved.

I think Turretin and Hoeksema are on the money with this one.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

bookslover said:


> Yes, I could be wrong on the details. I was writing from memory of something I'd read a long time ago. If your information is better, I accept it. I think my main point still stands, though.



But God ordained that Hitler would not die in his infancy. You could speculate about whether Hitler would have been elect if someone had killed him in his infancy, but God specifically ordained that this would not happen -- it isn't the case that we can "trick" God into having elected someone by ending that person's life. It seems illogical to me to speculate about whether someone _would have been_ elect if events entirely contrary to God's will had occurred. Such events could not have occurred, so we can't draw valid conclusions from what would have happened if they had occurred.

On a different point, to those who believe in the election of all dying infants, do you think that this is because they haven't _actually_ sinned yet? Some of the prior posts seem to indicate this with the distinction between original and actual sin. If so, does the child still need the work of Christ to be saved? It seems clear to me that if the child is saved, it is through Christ. The Scriptures do not seem to allow for a class of persons who do not need salvation, or who can attain salvation through their own lack of "actual" sin rather than through Christ. And, though less obvious, it also seems to me that even an infant who isn't intellectually aware of sin still rebels against God with all her being -- if she is not regenerate.


----------



## Herald

Evie,

No one, infant or adult, can be saved outside of Christ. The papist would claim, "_extra ecclesiam nulla salus" _as the method whereby children who die in infancy would go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why they rush to baptize infants in the Roman manner. But while we would reject Cyprian's dictum from a Roman perspective, we would say that outside of Christ there is no salvation. How the redemptive work of Christ is imputed to infants apart from faith is a matter no one can truly answer.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Evie,
> 
> *No one, infant or adult, can be saved outside of Christ.* The papist would claim, "_extra ecclesiam nulla salus" _as the method whereby children who die in infancy would go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why they rush to baptize infants in the Roman manner. But while we would reject Cyprian's dictum from a Roman perspective, we would say that outside of Christ there is no salvation. How the redemptive work of Christ is imputed to infants apart from faith is a matter no one can truly answer.



I absolutely agree, which is why it seems inconsistent to me, when discussing the salvation of dying infants, to say that they are all saved because they cannot be aware of sin. This suggests that these infants are righteous, and the Bible is clear that they are not -- apart from Christ. If we are to come to the conclusion that infants are saved, it can't be because they are not sinners.


----------



## bookslover

Ex Nihilo said:


> But God ordained that Hitler would not die in his infancy. You could speculate about whether Hitler would have been elect if someone had killed him in his infancy, but God specifically ordained that this would not happen -- it isn't the case that we can "trick" God into having elected someone by ending that person's life. It seems illogical to me to speculate about whether someone _would have been_ elect if events entirely contrary to God's will had occurred. Such events could not have occurred, so we can't draw valid conclusions from what would have happened if they had occurred.
> 
> On a different point, to those who believe in the election of all dying infants, do you think that this is because they haven't _actually_ sinned yet? Some of the prior posts seem to indicate this with the distinction between original and actual sin. If so, does the child still need the work of Christ to be saved? It seems clear to me that if the child is saved, it is through Christ. The Scriptures do not seem to allow for a class of persons who do not need salvation, or who can attain salvation through their own lack of "actual" sin rather than through Christ. And, though less obvious, it also seems to me that even an infant who isn't intellectually aware of sin still rebels against God with all her being -- if she is not regenerate.



It's important to remember that election occurs not only before a person is born, not only before a person is conceived, but even before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). So, when that infant is born within the stream of history, his or her election is already set, has already been decided by God. If the infant is elect, then, if it dies in infancy, it goes to be with God. If the dying infant is not elect, then it goes to Hell. And this is just as true with infants born into Christian homes (on the "God has no grandchildren" principle) as it is with those born into pagan homes. 

So, Hitler's life demonstrates that he was not elect; which means that he was not elect as an infant, either. The fact that he hadn't sinned yet as an infant means nothing - his non-election _had already been decided by God in eternity past_. If Adolf Hitler had died as an infant, he would have gone to Hell.


----------



## TimV

> So, Hitler's life demonstrates that he was not elect; which means that he was not elect as an infant, either. The fact that he hadn't sinned yet as an infant means nothing - his non-election had already been decided by God in eternity past. If Adolf Hitler had died as an infant, he would have gone to Hell.



Again, assuming that Eternal Life in Christ has some sort of dialectic equivalent in Eternal Life in Hell forces all sorts of extra Biblical theology to make it seem more palatable. If some fetuses aborted a few weeks after conception are going to live forever being tortured then you pretty much have to posit that they all have Eternal Life in Christ. The next step it to invent some artificial Age of Accountability, then you quibble within that sub group to account for retarded persons, and it doesn't stop.

Besides, you don't know what went inside Hitler's heart in the last hours, and it's not your business to judge. That sort of thing is God's business.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

bookslover said:


> So, Hitler's life demonstrates that he was not elect; which means that he was not elect as an infant, either. The fact that he hadn't sinned yet as an infant means nothing - his non-election _had already been decided by God in eternity past_. If Adolf Hitler had died as an infant, he would have gone to Hell.



But no one is arguing that all infants are elect, only those who God ordains will die as infants. I totally agree with the first paragraph, but my point is simply that Hitler _could not have_ died as an infant, because God did not ordain that he would. God had already decided in eternity past that Hitler would not die as an infant. Your hypo assumes that Hitler was not elect (and I agree) but that he could just as easily have died as an infant as not. But that isn't true -- both his non-election and non-death were foreordained. I don't necessarily agree with the view that all dying infants are elect, but it isn't inconsistent on the basis of the Hitler hypo -- the hypo is contrary to reality. It's kind of like speculating about what would have happened if Pilate had decided to spare Jesus' life -- that isn't what God ordained, so it could not have happened that way, even if such an event would not have violated the laws of physics.


----------



## Herald

> It's important to remember that election occurs not only before a person is born, not only before a person is conceived, but even before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). So, when that infant is born within the stream of history, his or her election is already set, has already been decided by God. If the infant is elect, then, if it dies in infancy, it goes to be with God._* If the dying infant is not elect, then it goes to Hell.*_


Richard, we don't even know this. How can we say with certainty that God, in His infinite mercy, has not elected all children who die in infancy? I think we err when we take the doctrine of election and try to cross every "T" and dot every "I". None of us know what has entered into the mind of God on this matter. We hope that he is merciful towards infants who die. In the absence of any definitive command we have no choice but to rest in His mercy.


----------



## toddpedlar

North Jersey Baptist said:


> It's important to remember that election occurs not only before a person is born, not only before a person is conceived, but even before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). So, when that infant is born within the stream of history, his or her election is already set, has already been decided by God. If the infant is elect, then, if it dies in infancy, it goes to be with God._* If the dying infant is not elect, then it goes to Hell.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, we don't even know this. How can we say with certainty that God, in His infinite mercy, has not elected all children who die in infancy? I think we err when we take the doctrine of election and try to cross every "T" and dot every "I". None of us know what has entered into the mind of God on this matter. We hope that he is merciful towards infants who die. In the absence of any definitive command we have no choice but to rest in His mercy.
Click to expand...


We do NOT know that God has or has not elected every infant who dies. Hence the confessional authors rightly left us with what Scripture does tell us - that all elect infants who die, die in the Lord. That is, in my estimation, a much easier thing to rest in than some hope (that is not as well founded) that a given infant who dies must have been elect because God is gracious. God's ways are not our ways, and despite the fact that we'd want every infant who dies to go to Heaven, it ain't necessarily so - for God is just as well as merciful, and if He chose to send any given infant, upon dying, to Hell, then that would be right.


----------



## Herald

toddpedlar said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's important to remember that election occurs not only before a person is born, not only before a person is conceived, but even before the creation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). So, when that infant is born within the stream of history, his or her election is already set, has already been decided by God. If the infant is elect, then, if it dies in infancy, it goes to be with God._* If the dying infant is not elect, then it goes to Hell.*_
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, we don't even know this. How can we say with certainty that God, in His infinite mercy, has not elected all children who die in infancy? I think we err when we take the doctrine of election and try to cross every "T" and dot every "I". None of us know what has entered into the mind of God on this matter. We hope that he is merciful towards infants who die. In the absence of any definitive command we have no choice but to rest in His mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do NOT know that God has or has not elected every infant who dies. Hence the confessional authors rightly left us with what Scripture does tell us - that all elect infants who die, die in the Lord. That is, in my estimation, a much easier thing to rest in than some hope (that is not as well founded) that a given infant who dies must have been elect because God is gracious. God's ways are not our ways, and despite the fact that we'd want every infant who dies to go to Heaven, it ain't necessarily so - for God is just as well as merciful, and if He chose to send any given infant, upon dying, to Hell, then that would be right.
Click to expand...


Todd, I do not dispute the confessions. The LBCF says that elect infants dying in infancy are saved and I believe that. My reply to Richard was about all infants. Do _all _infants that die in infancy go to heaven? The confessions say, "No". Perhaps God has elected all infants that die in infancy. We'll never know on this side of eternity. But if only elect infants are saved who die in infancy, how can we comfort greiving parents with certainty? Is there any ironclad guarantee that believing families who experience this tragedy have regenerate infants? I _want _to believe that. Trust me. I do.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I think we can bank on God's ultimate mercy and Christ's death is certainly sufficient to cover the inherited sin.

Does Christ's character in any way point to less than a merciful attitude toward infants?


----------



## staythecourse

panta dokimazete said:


> I think we can bank on God's ultimate mercy and Christ's death is certainly sufficient to cover the inherited sin.
> 
> Does Christ's character in any way point to less than a merciful attitude toward infants?



JD,

Christ's character and the Fathers character are one. They are one God "Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'? 

So if God was merciless to non-elect infants or infants of the non-elect in the OT He, to be consistent, he, who never changes, would be so in the New.


----------



## toddpedlar

North Jersey Baptist said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, we don't even know this. How can we say with certainty that God, in His infinite mercy, has not elected all children who die in infancy? I think we err when we take the doctrine of election and try to cross every "T" and dot every "I". None of us know what has entered into the mind of God on this matter. We hope that he is merciful towards infants who die. In the absence of any definitive command we have no choice but to rest in His mercy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do NOT know that God has or has not elected every infant who dies. Hence the confessional authors rightly left us with what Scripture does tell us - that all elect infants who die, die in the Lord. That is, in my estimation, a much easier thing to rest in than some hope (that is not as well founded) that a given infant who dies must have been elect because God is gracious. God's ways are not our ways, and despite the fact that we'd want every infant who dies to go to Heaven, it ain't necessarily so - for God is just as well as merciful, and if He chose to send any given infant, upon dying, to Hell, then that would be right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Todd, I do not dispute the confessions. The LBCF says that elect infants dying in infancy are saved and I believe that. My reply to Richard was about all infants. Do _all _infants that die in infancy go to heaven? The confessions say, "No". Perhaps God has elected all infants that die in infancy. We'll never know on this side of eternity. But if only elect infants are saved who die in infancy, how can we comfort greiving parents with certainty? Is there any ironclad guarantee that believing families who experience this tragedy have regenerate infants? I _want _to believe that. Trust me. I do.
Click to expand...


Well, the confessions don't actually say that NOT all infants that die in infancy go to heaven. All they do is give what Scripture affirms - that all elect infants dying in infancy go to heaven. The authors of the confessions sought to give voice only to what Scripture actually does teach - see Waldron's commentary for his discussion.

To give grieving parents more than Scripture says isn't comfort - it's a false comfort at best. Do we have good reason to expect that their child is in heaven? I think so. Do we know that God is just and will do according to what is right? This we DO know, and CAN affirm without any hesitancy, because the Word tells us as much. I do not believe the Word tells us that every infant dying in infancy goes to heaven - and as such, I can't advocate telling grieving parents this.


----------



## panta dokimazete

staythecourse said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can bank on God's ultimate mercy and Christ's death is certainly sufficient to cover the inherited sin.
> 
> Does Christ's character in any way point to less than a merciful attitude toward infants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JD,
> 
> Christ's character and the Fathers character are one. They are one God "Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
> 
> So if God was merciless to non-elect infants or infants of the non-elect in the OT He, to be consistent, he, who never changes, would be so in the New.
Click to expand...


But if Christ's character revealed a special mercy toward children/infants, that would help interpret the Father's disposition of children/infants in the OT. Is it merciless to have children/infants temporally slaughtered if their ultimate destination is eternal communion?

Luke 18:16
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.


----------



## staythecourse

> Is it merciless to have children/infants temporally slaughtered if their ultimate destination is eternal communion?



No. Is there any Scriptural evidence of slaughter of the elect in the OT (either infant or adult) to gain them entrance into the presence of God. I can't think of any off the top unless King Saul counts. There was the prophet that got lied to by the other prophet and got et by a lion, but that was discipline by God....


----------



## Herald

> Well, the confessions don't actually say that NOT all infants that die in infancy go to heaven.



Todd, going on the assumption that words mean things...




> *1689 LBC 10.3:*
> 
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases



If the framers of the confession meant all infants dying in infancy they would have said so. Unless they are implying that all infants dying in infancy are elect. Somehow I doubt that is what they meant. 



> I do not believe the Word tells us that every infant dying in infancy goes to heaven - and as such, I can't advocate telling grieving parents this.



We're in agreement. That is what I was trying to articulate. It's about this time that certain people would accuse us of a heinous view of God's grace. "God would send a baby to hell because he/she is not elect?"


----------



## nicnap

...and that is only after reading half of the first page of the thread....


----------



## panta dokimazete

staythecourse said:


> Is it merciless to have children/infants temporally slaughtered if their ultimate destination is eternal communion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Is there any Scriptural evidence of slaughter of the elect in the OT (either infant or adult). I can't think of any off the top unless King Saul counts.
Click to expand...


There is if children/infants are elect based on the character of God revealed in Christ.


----------



## bookslover

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Todd, I do not dispute the confessions. The LBCF says that elect infants dying in infancy are saved and I believe that. My reply to Richard was about all infants. Do _all _infants that die in infancy go to heaven? The confessions say, "No". Perhaps God has elected all infants that die in infancy. We'll never know on this side of eternity. But if only elect infants are saved who die in infancy, how can we comfort greiving parents with certainty? Is there any ironclad guarantee that believing families who experience this tragedy have regenerate infants? I _want _to believe that. Trust me. I do.



Bill, I think you've answered your own question. The Confession says, rightly, that all elect infants dying in infancy go to Heaven. So, since not all infants are elect, that inevitably means that there are some infants, dying in infancy, that do not go to Heaven.

A person (not you, I know) who would try to get around this by saying that all infants are elect would be saying that all people everywhere are elect, and we know, both from Scripture and from experience, that that's not true. If _everyone_ is elect, then election means nothing.

Back to Hitler; let me simplify: all non-elect adults were once non-elect infants. So, if Hitler had died as an infant, he would have gone to Hell.

It finally occurred to me that what we've really been talking about all this time is the doctrine of double predestination: God elects some; by not electing others, He consigns them to where they were going anyway due to their sin.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Suggesting that "all who die in infancy" are elect is not the same as saying "all infants" are elect. That's why trying to relate this issue to one who does _not_ die in infancy (a la Hitler) is hypothetical nonsense.


----------



## Davidius

God says that He is the God of believers' children. If our children die in infancy, shouldn't we therefore have no doubt that our children are with their God?


----------



## Herald

Davidius said:


> God says that He is the God of believers' children. If our children die in infancy, shouldn't we therefore have no doubt that our children are with their God?



Where does it say that the children of believers are saved? The confessions use the term "elect infants" which presupposes there are infants who are not elect. And if children of believers are saved, how did they become saved? Is it normative for God to save in the womb without faith? And yes, I reject as normative saving faith by infants, pre-natal or post-natal. John the Baptist was not a normative situation.


----------



## Davidius

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> God says that He is the God of believers' children. If our children die in infancy, shouldn't we therefore have no doubt that our children are with their God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the children of believers are saved? The confessions use the term "elect infants" which presupposes there are infants who are not elect. And if children of believers are saved, how did they become saved? Is it normative for God to save in the womb without faith? And yes, I reject as normative saving faith by infants, pre-natal or post-natal. John the Baptist was not a normative situation.
Click to expand...


You are incorrect when you say "the confessions." Not all of the Reformed confessions speak of deceased children of believers in that way. The Three Forms, if I remember correctly, do indeed teach that parents have every reason to believe that God has saved their deceased children.


----------



## Herald

Davidius said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> God says that He is the God of believers' children. If our children die in infancy, shouldn't we therefore have no doubt that our children are with their God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the children of believers are saved? The confessions use the term "elect infants" which presupposes there are infants who are not elect. And if children of believers are saved, how did they become saved? Is it normative for God to save in the womb without faith? And yes, I reject as normative saving faith by infants, pre-natal or post-natal. John the Baptist was not a normative situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are incorrect when you say "the confessions." Not all of the Reformed confessions speak of deceased children of believers in that way. The Three Forms, if I remember correctly, do indeed teach that parents have every reason to believe that God has saved their deceased children.
Click to expand...


David,

The two most widely subscribed to confessions on the board (1689 LBCF and the WCF) are word-for-word identical on this matter.



> *WCF*
> 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.
> 
> *1689 LBCF*
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.



Not to sound redundant, but if there are elect infants it stands to reason that there are non-elect infants. Are infants of believers somehow treated differently than children of unbelievers? If so, what does that say about the nature of grace?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gomarus said:


> Suggesting that "all who die in infancy" are elect is not the same as saying "all infants" are elect. That's why trying to relate this issue to one who does _not_ die in infancy (a la Hitler) is hypothetical nonsense.



Right. I don't understand how this particular stream of debate has gone on for so long.

Let me state, up front, that I don't agree that you can establish Biblical warrant for the notion that all people who die in infancy are elect.

That said, let me try to explain this to those that keep getting tripped up by this (again, I don't buy the argument but here is the argument):

1. All People = People who die as infants + People who don't die as infants
2. God has elected all people who die as infants.
3. People who die as infants are different people than the people who don't die as infants.
4. God knows, from all eternity, who will die as an infant (and has elected all of these) and who will not die as an infant (and has elected some of these).
5. Hitler did not die as an infant - he was not elect as an infant because he was a person who did not die in infancy.

Thus, if you buy that all people that die in infancy are elect this does not mean that everybody is elect until they grow older and then you're unsure.

As I stated before, I find this view sentimental but, if it could be established that all people who die in infancy are elect is true then there is nothing unsound in the logic that follows.


----------



## Davidius

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the children of believers are saved? The confessions use the term "elect infants" which presupposes there are infants who are not elect. And if children of believers are saved, how did they become saved? Is it normative for God to save in the womb without faith? And yes, I reject as normative saving faith by infants, pre-natal or post-natal. John the Baptist was not a normative situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect when you say "the confessions." Not all of the Reformed confessions speak of deceased children of believers in that way. The Three Forms, if I remember correctly, do indeed teach that parents have every reason to believe that God has saved their deceased children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> The two most widely subscribed to confessions on the board (1689 LBCF and the WCF) are word-for-word identical on this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WCF*
> 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.
> 
> *1689 LBCF*
> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to sound redundant, but if there are elect infants it stands to reason that there are non-elect infants. Are infants of believers somehow treated differently than children of unbelievers? If so, what does that say about the nature of grace?
Click to expand...


I understand that the WCF and LBCF agree here. It should be no surprise to anyone, considering that the LBCF is based on the WCF. We do, however, recognize the 3 Forms on this board as well, don't we? I don't see how any appeals to the most widely subscribed confessions on this board can validly disprove my argument from historical Reformed belief. Article 17 of the Canons of Dordt clearly states...



> Since we must make judgments about God’s will
> from his Word, which testifies that the children of
> believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the
> gracious covenant in which they together with their
> parents are included, godly parents ought not to
> doubt the election and salvation of their children
> whom God calls out of this life in infancy.



I presume that we accept the Canons of Dordt as a legitimate confession on this board, and I therefore maintain my right to believe and argue the position here, and not to be thought silly for it. To answer your question, of course God treats the infants of believers differently than the infants of unbelievers. According to Paul, they're holy. Debate the meaning of that all you want, but there's something different about them.


----------



## Herald

David, believe what you want. No one is squelching your right to believe. I have yet to see a compelling biblical argument that infants of believing families that die in infancy go to be with the Lord.


----------



## bookslover

A simple form:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are saved. 
Since universalism is unbiblical and untrue, there are some infants who are not elect.
Non-elect infants, dying in infancy, are not saved.

I don't think it can be boiled down any simpler than that.

My only point in using the Hitler analogy, by the way, was to try to demonstrate that a person's election or non-election is already set by the time they are born (since God has already determined who is elect before He created anything) _and doesn't change_. Thus, Hitler, dying unsaved at 56, was non-elect, and, being non-elect, would have gone to Hell had he died as an infant, also.

It's the consistency of a person's election or non-election throughout their earthly life (based on God's eternal decision) that I was trying to highlight.


----------



## bookslover

Going back to the OP, I think we've all pretty much decided that Mohler is wrong on this subject, haven't we?


----------



## Scott1

> A simple form:
> 
> Elect infants, dying in infancy, are saved.
> Since universalism is unbiblical and untrue, there are some infants who are not elect.
> Non-elect infants, dying in infancy, are not saved.
> 
> I don't think it can be boiled down any simpler than that.



Maybe we can say,

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are saved. God knows, but we do not know, how many nor how few that is.


And approach this biblically with hope that is warranted and care that is needed:



> GI Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, p 92:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16 cf...). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

> GI Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, p 92:
> 
> Quote:
> We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16 cf...). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.



To me, this says all that can really be said. Thanks


----------



## panta dokimazete

I don't believe a consistent credo-baptist can affirm the "elect infants" part without keeping the door open for all infants dying in infancy being elect.

I also believe Christ's character reveals God's disposition toward infants.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

panta dokimazete said:


> I don't believe a consistent credo-baptist can affirm the "elect infants" part without keeping the door open for all infants being elect.



Are you calling me inconsistent?? 

Actually, you are right!  I remain that way in several areas. 

I can't convince myself, however, that Scripture "teaches" all who die in infancy are saved. Let's say I am hopefully agnostic.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

How would I console the unbelieving parent of one who dies in infancy? With the gospel: "If you place your hope in God through faith in Christ, you may be assured that He doth all things well. In the last day, you will not be disappointed, but rather completely satisfied with everything He has done or will do." . . . or something to that effect.


----------



## Walkthecalling

This has been a good thread. I respect all of the opinions I've read. It just comes down to the fact that scripture doesn't matter of fact say it. What all have done here is take the issue of the elect/non elect of an infant and tried to translate those ramifications to adults. Since scripture doesn't clearly say the answer, thus the lack of scripture for arguments, we are only left arguing about opinion. God could look at all infants who die in a different light than adults. He knew before He ever made them they would die in infancy. Could He not judge them differently than someone He knew would die at 30? This would not be against any of His attributes. Yes elect/non-elect is a decision He makes before the womb, but for everyone? The best thing about this question is we will never know until we are in glory and once there we will be all-knowing and will understand either way. But Gomarus, nailed it, we can only have hope through Jesus Christ that the Lord's ways are above ours and His every sovereign decision is so incredibly perfect that we can't fathom it. Praise the Lord for His grace.


----------



## bookslover

Scott1 said:


> GI Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, p 92:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16 cf...). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.
Click to expand...


Well, believers may hope, but I'm not sure about that "special warrant."


----------



## queenknitter

First of all, David, I'm so sorry. My husband and I have four children in Heaven, and I know how tough it is. You'll always miss your child. God is good though! Always good and I'll be praying that you feel His tender care throughout this season of sadness.

(BTW, I always have chosen to say that I have "four children in Heaven" because it *is* a less obnoxious way of saying "four children of mine are dead." Or whatever. But I also say it as a reminder to me of my hope in Christ.)

I read this thread with great interest. Because we have lost so many children (three to miscarriage and one to full term stillbirth), I have had the blessing of bearing my burden with many other Christian sisters in similar grief. One believing friend, who buried her son shortly after he was born, was recently told by a very confident Christian brother that her baby was clearly in Hell. My friend was floored. And devastated. 

So she asked me for references, for theological arguments, etc. Interestingly enough, the confident man who started this whirlwind, after seeing her reaction and then reading Piper's article on the subject, was convinced that he was initially wrong.

I think you all have aptly teased out the points of clash, and that's been very helpful.

C


----------



## queenknitter

One more question -- Harold Camping. Do you have any reference/citation where he teaches that all dead babies go to Hell? I'm finding this idea popping up more and more. . . . John MacArthur/Phil Johnson reference it as well, but they don't give names.

Thanks.

C


----------



## queenknitter

Me again. I've got another question related to this. . . .

I'm reading _Huck's Raft_ by Steve Mintz where he surveys the history of the child in America. He begins his study with the Puritans in the New World and states quite plainly that they believed all babies who die go to Hell.

They did? It's not in the Confessions. Anne Bradstreet didn't believe that. Is that _anywhere_? I'm wondering if Mintz is misunderstanding.

Thanks.

C


----------

