# Baptists, Infants and Hell



## tellville (Mar 24, 2007)

This is an issue that I have been pondering. BJ sums it up the best in the "Bad Credo Arguments" thread.



BJ said:


> What I find interesting about this Baptist argument, which is the one I hear most often, is it forces the Baptist to exclude infants from the New Covenant. In which case, if they died in infancy, they would be in hell.
> 
> Of course, most Baptist dont believe that. I fact I don't know one that does. My closest Baptist friends believe God elects all infants. While others, like me when I was Baptist, believe you can't really know whether or not the are saved. However, neither option is open for Baptist who maintain the above syllogism for their case. I must confess, it was exhuasting being a Baptist.



Now, it seems to me, a consistent Baptist would acknowledge that Babies dying in infancy go to Hell, including the children of believers. I (currently) don't see any Biblical evidence that seems to suggest otherwise (God does have the freedom to save some infants and not others, but where does the Bible even bring that up?) Personally, I have no problems with infants going to Hell as I believe the Biblical doctrine of Total Depravity and children are just as much under the wrath of God as I am, whether the children are mine or someone else's. 

Now I can imagine this sounds horrifyingly to a Padeobapitist. I don't really understand why because they would have no problems believing that an unbelieving family's child is going to Hell. Thus really, the only response I can imagine a Padeo giving to this post is either an emotional one (mainly at the horror that someone would suggest their dead child, or potentially dead child could be in Hell) or one that tries to prove the Padeo position, neither of which I am really interested in. Thus, if you're a Padeo, please only respond within the Baptist hermeneutic. 

I also know this sounds horrifying to many Baptists, especially those of the Arminian persuasion. 

Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?

And actually, now that I think about it, here is a question specifically aimed at Padeo's: Does your Padeo worldview state that all children of believers who die in infancy are guaranteed heaven? Or do you also subscribe to the usual Reform Baptist response that God is free to elect some and reprobate others?

I know this is probably a super touchy subject, so I apologize if the way I have stated the question (or maybe just asking the question period!) is offensive in any way.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 24, 2007)

tellville said:


> This is an issue that I have been pondering. BJ sums it up the best in the "Bad Credo Arguments" thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What Scripture has not revealed we cannot know, but God is both just and merciful. If children dying in infancy are saved then infanticide (or abortion) can be justified. Such reasoning would also lead to the conclusion that salvation can be lost. 
Children are born in sin and stand in need of redemption. A reverent agnosticism would not go amiss. We may rest assured that infants, too, are included amongst the elect for whom Christ died. 
From a pastoral position, Christian parents may draw comfort from the fact that God knows, even if we do not. He does no wrong. David drew comfort from God's dealing with him (see 2.Samuel 12:23). How much more may we as Christian parents - in humble faith.


----------



## satz (Mar 24, 2007)

> What I find interesting about this Baptist argument, which is the one I hear most often, is it forces the Baptist to exclude infants from the New Covenant. In which case, if they died in infancy, they would be in hell.



You know, I think it depends on what you mean by ‘new covenant’. There is only one covenant that matters with regards to getting into heaven, and people do not go in and out of that covenant. Its beneficiaries were already chosen from the foundation of the world, and the primary actions needed for its fulfillment are between God and Christ, not God and men (Heb 9:12,14). Entrance into this covenant is not gained by baptism in any way shape or form. There are external administrations of this covenant such as the nations of Israel in the OT or church membership today, and baptism can have a part of play in those things. 



> Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?



I do not think Baptist doctrine has anything to do with the salvation of infants honestly. I know some paedobaptists will think I am on thin ice here, but I think this dilemma regarding infant salvation and baptism is tied up with the idea that baptism somehow saves. I do not believe baptism saves any more than good works do . Baptism is something the Lord has given for us to show our obedience to him and answer him with a conscience made good by the gospel. I believe Mark 16:16 is a verse of evidence. 

_ Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned._

He who believes the gospel and submits to the foolish looking (to a natural man) ordinance of baptism is giving evidence that he is saved (elect and regenerate) and will be saved in the last day of judgment. The one who doesn’t believe the gospel gives evidence of being an unregenerate who will face the wrath of God on the last day. 

An infant who was not baptized in no more ‘unlikely’ to be saved than the thief on the cross. They never had the proper opportunity to be baptized and so God will not hold the fact that they were not against them any more than he will hold the fact that they never loved the brethen against them.


----------



## matt01 (Mar 24, 2007)

tellville said:


> Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?



I attended a evening chapel at The Master's College where Dr. MacArthur opened the floor to questions. One of my classmates stood and asked about the state of her daughter, who had died in infancy. Dr. M. assured her that all infants go to heaven.

As a Reformed baptist, I would disagree. We do not know, nor can we know what the Lord determines for those who die in infancy. While I would hope that these children spend eternity in the presence of the Lord, I know that they may just as easliy receive the same reward that the unreached people receive upon death...


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 24, 2007)

> Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?



Some baptists' doctrine does. Others do not.

The thread you reference shows baptists who say "Infants cannot have faith" or some such, and are not in the new covenant.

You are correct, those boptists have no way to account for the salvation of any infant, biblically.

Every 5-point baptist I've known acknowledges the possibility of infant regeneration/conversion....and they will either believe God saves all infants (rare) or that he saves some (more common, in my experience). I'm with the latter.


----------



## B.J. (Mar 24, 2007)

> Which finally leads me to my question: Does the Baptist doctrine of Baptism necessitate the idea that babies who die in infancy go to Hell?



Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.

Yes! It does. Unless you can reformulize the argument I was criticising.


However, you could try to argue that infants have faith (Believe) they just cant "profess yet." The problem is most Baptist I know say cognitive abilities are a precondition to _saving faith_, and until they can speak a language there is no evidence they can belief the Gospel. That said, assume God can regenerate them in the womb, or during their infancy. Seems reasonable, right? Wrong! This is an argument from silence. Baptist assume this. Which is ironic because of the criticism offered by Baptist against the so-called Paedo Baptist _argument from silence_.




> Does your Padeo worldview state that all children of believers who die in infancy are guaranteed heaven?




Well, mine is simple. No. God is just and I am fine with that. I lose no sleep at night with saying _I don't know_.



> Or do you also subscribe to the usual Reform Baptist response that God is free to elect some and reprobate others?



This is an arbitrary view given the above argument. I know some RB subscribe to this view; However, again, the Baptist view is to loaded with _conditions_ to conclude such a belief as acceptable, In my humble opinion.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 24, 2007)

> However, you could try to argue that infants have faith (Believe) they just cant "profess yet." The problem is most Baptist I know say cognitive abilities are a precondition to saving faith, and until they can speak a language there is no evidence they can belief the Gospel. That said, assume God can regenerate them in the womb, or during their infancy. Seems reasonable, right? Wrong! This is an argument from silence. Baptist assume this. Which is ironic because of the criticism offered by Baptist against the so-called Paedo Baptist argument from silence.



*I don't say cognitive abilities are a precondition to saving faith.

*My argument for the existence of regeneration among infants is not an argument from silence - it is logical deduction, and entirely valid. More on that later.

*I do not rebuke paedo's for an argument from silence on this issue, usually. Because most paedo's do not argue from silence. They argue deductively with, I believe, false deduction - but they do not usually argue from silence. 

So, I am consistent in my dealings with arguments from silence - I do not label paedo arguments such, nor do I argue that way myself on infant regeneration.

The deduction, which in my experience is the same for RB's and most reformed paedo's on infant salvation, goes like this:

P1: Only conversion secures salvation.
P2: At least some infants are saved.

C: Those infants who are saved were converted


----------



## elnwood (Mar 24, 2007)

tellville said:


> And actually, now that I think about it, here is a question specifically aimed at Padeo's: Does your Padeo worldview state that all children of believers who die in infancy are guaranteed heaven? Or do you also subscribe to the usual Reform Baptist response that God is free to elect some and reprobate others?



The Canons of Dort teaches that children of believers who die in infancy go to heaven.



> Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
> 
> 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 would love to hear someone defend this. It seems to draw a correlation between the members of the covenant and the elect as if covenant membership means that you are among the elect. It has all sorts of ramifications in the areas of presumptive election/regeneration and perseverance of the saints.


----------



## satz (Mar 24, 2007)

Another thought, is conversion necessary for an infant to go to heaven? Or is regeneration sufficient?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

*Where do infants (babies) go when they die?*

I did this awhile back, meaning to flesh it out some more - net effect: all infants are Elect.

Deuteronomy 1:39 (English Standard Version)

39And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and *your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil,* they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_X.html

Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.

One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 24, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> I did this awhile back, meaning to flesh it out some more - net effect: all infants are Elect.
> 
> Deuteronomy 1:39 (English Standard Version)
> 
> ...




This is what I believed as a reformed baptist.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 25, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.
> 
> One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.



Yet infants are also imputed with Adam's original sin just as must as any of us (Ps. 51:5, 58:3). That is one reason I would call myself essentially agnostic on the question of infant salvation - likewise, the WCF is silent on it as well. It speaks of "elect infants" dying in infancy as being regenerated and saved, but it makes no statement on whether or not all infants are elect, or even whether all _believers'_ children dying in infancy are elect or not.

Dort, however, does go further than Westminster, by implication at the very least. Even it, however, does not imply universal infant salvation, but only that of believers' children. So while some Reformed people may of course have a conviction or even an argument for universal infant salvation, they should at least be hesitant in pushing it on other believers with too much dogmatic insistence, since the confessions (and thus the Reformed churches as a whole) are silent on the matter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 25, 2007)

elnwood said:


> The Canons of Dort teaches that children of believers who die in infancy go to heaven.
> 
> 
> > Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
> ...



What would you like me to defend?

1. The notion that "...children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant which they together with their parents are included...."

OR

2. The notion that a Covenant member's election and salvation ought not to be doubted if they die?

The first part I assume you understand is what we regularly debate.

Is the second part really debatable once one admits that children are in the Covenant? Before you answer that question let me put it to you this way: do you know, for certain, that everyone in your Church is elect? Do you know that Pastor Gene is elect?

Now, suppose Gene dies. Let me say this to you:

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they are included, other believers ought not to doubt the election and salvation of Pastor Gene Cook whom God called out of this life in adulthood.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> 2. The notion that a Covenant member's election and salvation ought not to be doubted if they die?
> 
> The first part I assume you understand is what we regularly debate.
> 
> ...



That makes sense, Rich. In other words, would you understand the second part to simply be affirming presumptive election, rather than declaring the absolute, universal salvation of the children of believers dying in infancy?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 25, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> That makes sense, Rich. In other words, would you understand the second part to simply be affirming presumptive election, rather than declaring the absolute, universal salvation of the children of believers dying in infancy?



I'm not enough of a scholar of the Canons of Dordt to say that this was their full intent when writing this. I'm only pointing out the wisdom in what the Canons declare - they refuse to speculate beyond what the Word of God counsels us.

My main point is demonstrating a consistency here: we're not commanded to speculate on the things hidden. Who is/isn't elect belongs to God and Him alone. Nevertheless, we are commanded, in some ways to expect the best of all we are in Covenant with. To do otherwise would be to constantly look with suspicion upon _everyone_: old, young, wise, and simple. When a member of the Church dies and has done nothing to leave us to believe they are deniers of the faith ought we be somber and questioning: did this man truly believe? Was he truly elect? We simply do not live this way although we could if we were given to a sinful speculation all the time. 

I don't see a difference with my children. They are in the Covenant and have done nothing to demonstrate to me they are deniers of the Gospel. May it never be.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Mar 26, 2007)

*infant salvation*

Where Scripture is silent we ought to close our mouths. Let's be concerned about what has been revealed, not what has not been given for us to know, Deut.29:29.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 26, 2007)

Me Died Blue said:


> That makes sense, Rich. In other words, would you understand the second part to simply be affirming presumptive election, rather than declaring the absolute, universal salvation of the children of believers dying in infancy?



I doubt it. Read the title of the article again. "The Salvation of the Infants of Believers."


----------



## elnwood (Mar 26, 2007)

Rich,

Are you saying that the Canons of Dort teaches that we ought not doubt or question the salvation of people within our church? What, then, becomes of church discipline? What of the Scripture imploring us to test yourselves to see whether we're in the faith? Is there something fundamentally wrong with doubting the salvation of someone in the visible church that the Canons of Dort needs to teach against it? Is it a sin to doubt the salvation of someone in the church?

I think this is an inconsistent reading, and that the only proper way to interpret it is to affirm that it teaches what is stated in the title of the article: "The Salvation of the Infants of Believers." It doesn't say "The Eternal Status of the Infants of Believers."


----------



## MW (Mar 26, 2007)

I think the OP is treating a symptom. The real problem is that the antipaedobaptist view denies any "administration" of the covenant to anyone. Once this covenant is "internalised" there is no such thing as a preached covenant, or baptism as a sign and seal of covenant blessings. Refer to the LBC revision of WCF. The new covenant is made to be nothing more than the inward call which is effected by the Spirit of God in the elect. As such I imagine it takes in elect infants and adults; so the conclusions being drawn from the antipaedobaptist position are illegitimate, because they presuppose a category of thought which is only true of paedobaptist thought, namely, that baptism is a part of the administration of the covenant of grace. That is the specific point on which antipaedobaptists should be called into question, especially because it is a serious departure from the reformed faith and inevitably leads to a separation of the means of grace from God's eternal purpose of grace -- which is why Baptist history has struggled with the tendency to move in a hyper-Calvinistic direction.

On the Caons of Dort, The Voice of our Fathers by Homer Hoeksema has an excellent analysis on 1:17, quoting from the various commissioners and providing what I consider to be a biblically-balanced conclusion; my only criticism being the exception he takes to the conditional covenant language of orthodox reformed theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Rich,
> 
> Are you saying that the Canons of Dort teaches that we ought not doubt or question the salvation of people within our church? What, then, becomes of church discipline? What of the Scripture imploring us to test yourselves to see whether we're in the faith? Is there something fundamentally wrong with doubting the salvation of someone in the visible church that the Canons of Dort needs to teach against it? Is it a sin to doubt the salvation of someone in the church?


Are you saying that Gene Cook is under Church Discipline? This is quite a revelation to me. Does he know this because he hasn't mentioned it on the Narrow Mind? He's the example I asked you about after all.



> I think this is an inconsistent reading, and that the only proper way to interpret it is to affirm that it teaches what is stated in the title of the article: "The Salvation of the Infants of Believers." It doesn't say "The Eternal Status of the Infants of Believers."


What you think and what is actually the case are two different things. It is not an inconsistent reading unless you believe that we ought to doubt the election of those in the Church whose status we have no reason to question. It is a guard against sinful speculation.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Are you saying that Gene Cook is under Church Discipline? This is quite a revelation to me. Does he know this because he hasn't mentioned it on the Narrow Mind? He's the example I asked you about after all.



No, Gene is not under discipline, but Pastor Gene has implored us in his preaching to check our hearts and the fruits of our lives to make sure that we are in the Lord. He did so just a couple weeks ago, in fact. I am quite sure that Gene does the same thing. Are you saying that this is sinful speculation?

Your assertion assumes that we ought to assume that those who are in the visible covenant are elect and saved, and that it is sinful to doubt this. I don't know where you are getting this assertion. Do you have any scripture that says we ought to assume that people in the visible covenant are elect and saved, and that it is sinful to speculate otherwise? It isn't in any of the scripture proofs that the Canon of Dort uses.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> No, Gene is not under discipline, but Pastor Gene has implored us in his preaching to check our hearts and the fruits of our lives to make sure that we are in the Lord. He did so just a couple weeks ago, in fact. I am quite sure that Gene does the same thing. Are you saying that this is sinful speculation?
> 
> Your assertion assumes that we ought to assume that those who are in the visible covenant are elect and saved, and that it is sinful to doubt this. I don't know where you are getting this assertion. Do you have any scripture that says we ought to assume that people in the visible covenant are elect and saved, and that it is sinful to speculate otherwise? It isn't in any of the scripture proofs that the Canon of Dort uses.



{sigh} I really wish you were a more careful reader sometimes. Please be pay attention.

Fine. Gene asks you to search your heart to see if you're in the Covenant. Have you searched Gene's? Is he a Christian or not? Is he elect? Is he saved?

More fundamentally, should you _doubt_ Gene's election and salvation or not? _That_ is the question.

We are never commanded to doubt the election or salvation of anybody we are in or once were in covenant with. We are commanded to put some out of the Church and remove them from visible fellowship but never because _we know_ they are unsaved and non-elect.

Read the discipline passages again on how we are supposed to treat them and toward what end. Read them, _without speculation_, as to what _man knows_ as opposed to _what God knows_.

Finally, to make this much clearer for you:

Saying we ought not doubt the election and salvation of others is not the same as saying that we _know_ (with God's knowledge) they are elect and saved.


----------



## CDM (Mar 27, 2007)

Dieter Schneider said:


> What Scripture has not revealed we cannot know, but God is both just and merciful. *If children dying in infancy are saved then infanticide (or abortion) can be justified.* Such reasoning would also lead to the conclusion that salvation can be lost.



Murder can never, ever be justified. Never. 

(note: I know you don't believe this).



> ...*We may rest assured that infants, too, are included amongst the elect for whom Christ died.*
> From a pastoral position, Christian parents may draw comfort from the fact that God knows, even if we do not. He does no wrong. David drew comfort from God's dealing with him (see 2.Samuel 12:23). How much more may we as Christian parents - in humble faith.



 



jdlongmire said:


> ...
> 
> Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.
> 
> *One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.*



_All_ are accountable since Adam sinned. Adam's sin is their sin. 



armourbearer said:


> I think the OP is treating a symptom. The real problem is that the antipaedobaptist view denies any "administration" of the covenant to anyone. Once this covenant is "internalised" there is no such thing as a preached covenant, or baptism as a sign and seal of covenant blessings. Refer to the LBC revision of WCF. The new covenant is made to be nothing more than the inward call which is effected by the Spirit of God in the elect. As such I imagine it takes in elect infants and adults; so the conclusions being drawn from the antipaedobaptist position are illegitimate, because they presuppose a category of thought which is only true of paedobaptist thought, namely, that baptism is a part of the administration of the covenant of grace. That is the specific point on which antipaedobaptists should be called into question, especially because it is a serious departure from the reformed faith and inevitably leads to a separation of the means of grace from God's eternal purpose of grace -- which is why Baptist history has struggled with the tendency to move in a hyper-Calvinistic direction.
> 
> On the Caons of Dort, The Voice of our Fathers by Homer Hoeksema has an excellent analysis on 1:17, quoting from the various commissioners and providing what I consider to be a biblically-balanced conclusion; my only criticism being the exception he takes to the conditional covenant language of orthodox reformed theology.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 27, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Infants and others who do not have the capability/capacity to comprehend the knowledge of good and evil - that is, become self aware of moral truth and act to uphold it or break it - are elect.
> 
> One becomes accountable for their sin when they become self aware to good and evil.



It sounds like you're discounting the doctrine of original sin. Infants don't need to have the capacity to comprehend good and evil nor need they be aware of _their own_ sin to be accountable to God and justly condemned to hell. They are born into that state because of Adam's transgression. 

What you're saying and what the WCF says are two different things. Confessionally, we say that _elect infants_ are saved but this is not to say that all infants are elect. However, from a purely scriptural standpoint, your quotation of Deuteronomy 1:39 is an interesting addition to the discussion. I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions concerning it.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Mar 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I'm not enough of a scholar of the Canons of Dordt to say that this was their full intent when writing this. I'm only pointing out the wisdom in what the Canons declare - they refuse to speculate beyond what the Word of God counsels us.
> 
> My main point is demonstrating a consistency here: we're not commanded to speculate on the things hidden. Who is/isn't elect belongs to God and Him alone. Nevertheless, we are commanded, in some ways to expect the best of all we are in Covenant with. To do otherwise would be to constantly look with suspicion upon _everyone_: old, young, wise, and simple. When a member of the Church dies and has done nothing to leave us to believe they are deniers of the faith ought we be somber and questioning: did this man truly believe? Was he truly elect? We simply do not live this way although we could if we were given to a sinful speculation all the time.
> 
> I don't see a difference with my children. They are in the Covenant and have done nothing to demonstrate to me they are deniers of the Gospel. May it never be.



Well said. Your point demonstrates how Paul could _encourage _the church by telling them the recently deceased members were only sleeping for a time.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> {sigh} I really wish you were a more careful reader sometimes. Please be pay attention.
> 
> Fine. Gene asks you to search your heart to see if you're in the Covenant. Have you searched Gene's? Is he a Christian or not? Is he elect? Is he saved?



I don't know for sure if he is elect or saved. Would it be sin to doubt his salvation? Where does it say that in the Bible?



SemperFideles said:


> More fundamentally, should you _doubt_ Gene's election and salvation or not? _That_ is the question.



Is it sin to doubt his salvation? Where does it say that in the bible?



SemperFideles said:


> We are never commanded to doubt the election or salvation of anybody we are in or once were in covenant with. We are commanded to put some out of the Church and remove them from visible fellowship but never because _we know_ they are unsaved and non-elect.



And we are never commanded *not* to doubt the election or salvation of anybody we are in or once in covenant with. There is at least one person in my congregation whose salvation is doubtful in Gene's mind (as well as mine) who is not under discipline. Is it sin to doubt that person's salvation? If so, Gene is in sin. Where does it say that in the Bible?



SemperFideles said:


> Read the discipline passages again on how we are supposed to treat them and toward what end. Read them, _without speculation_, as to what _man knows_ as opposed to _what God knows_.
> 
> Finally, to make this much clearer for you:
> 
> Saying we ought not doubt the election and salvation of others is not the same as saying that we _know_ (with God's knowledge) they are elect and saved.



And you keep saying that it is sin to doubt someone's salvation in the visible covenant, and yet you have yet to support it with the Bible. And if it's not in the Bible, why is it in a confession of faith?

If the point the Canons of Dort was trying to make was that we ought not to doubt the salvation and election of people in covenant with us, it would have said so explicitly. But instead, it focuses on infants who die infancy. Why teach something about the sin of doubting people's salvation in a passage on infant salvation?

No, that article in the Canons of Dort is used to support infant salvation. Here is one example.

http://www.trinitycrc.org/CanonSermons/HeadIArticles17.html

Can anyone else find an exposition of this article of the Canons of Dort?


----------



## elnwood (Mar 27, 2007)

http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/boettner/infants_boettner.html

Loraine Boettner on infant salvation, teaching that infant salvation is/was the predominant view.



> 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.


----------



## staythecourse (Mar 27, 2007)

*"I was conceived in iniquity", "I will go to him"*

These two verses from David sum up my understanding of a babe's destinty thus far.

I believe we are all deserving of hell from the womb as David confesses before God in his lamenting Psalm regarding his sin with Bathsheba *[Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.]* 

Interestingly, the baby example I use for my argument for (at least) elect baby's salvation comes from the product of David and Bathsheba's illicit union [of all babies that deserve hell, David's the most, truly being conceived in iniquity and with David being so close to God and yet betraying Him so deeply]. 

The reason I think David completely expected to see his child in heaven and not simply the grave/Sheol was because he says, "I shall go to him" *[2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.]* David would have went to Abraham's bosom and the child would have went to the same place the rich man was sent in the parable Jesus spoke of who was evil to leprous Lazarus and David would not have gone to him (rather would have been eternally separated)

David's reaction was being sick to the point of death when Absolom revolted, rode a mule, hung on a tree "between heaven and earth" (cursed is everyone...) pierced in the heart, and died without child ("who can name his descendents?") I digressed into "anti-Christ" typology if anyone wants to take that up. Back to the point, where David's reaction is not peace as with the child but almost bottomless depression at his older son's outcome.

I agree that heathen babe's destinies are a question mark from Scripture, yet to the degree of their sin also the degree of their punishment. (I am not clear if there are different levels of agonies in hell but I would tend to think so based on rejected revelation a given person might have ["It will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than for you on the day of judgment for if the signs..."]). 

So, babe's of the elect enter the gates of heaven, heathen babe's destinies remain a mystery and Absalom was a prototypical anti-Christ (that was meant to spark discussion in general)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I don't know for sure if he is elect or saved. Would it be sin to doubt his salvation? Where does it say that in the Bible?


Don,

In all seriousness, is English your first language?

I have never stated that it is a sin to doubt a person's salvation and neither does Dordt. You miss the point completely in your haste. You really could learn some lessons from Elihu. 

Try re-reading precisely what has been stated and then ask some questions. You're confused and the answers are as obvious as the nose on your face if you would only carefully read.


> If the point the Canons of Dort was trying to make was that we ought not to doubt the salvation and election of people in covenant with us, it would have said so explicitly. But instead, it focuses on infants who die infancy. Why teach something about the sin of doubting people's salvation in a passage on infant salvation?


That is an assertion. Like WCF, Dordt does not go beyond the death of infants. You don't understand the other basic point I've been trying to make and you need to understand that before you can move on to understand a larger Pastoral issue. Again, this is not about sin in doubting other's salvation. It's about a form of hyper-Calvinism vs. real Reformed theology.



> No, that article in the Canons of Dort is used to support infant salvation. Here is one example.
> 
> http://www.trinitycrc.org/CanonSermons/HeadIArticles17.html
> 
> Can anyone else find an exposition of this article of the Canons of Dort?


You even seem to misread the sermon as well. You're a young man Don. You really need to place yourself in the position of the learner because you're proving to be quite unteachable even in trying to understand a position that you might disagree with. You're so hasty, however, you don't take the time to learn the position before you offer strawman critiques of it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 27, 2007)

elnwood said:


> http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=/calvinism/boettner/infants_boettner.html
> Loraine Boettner on infant salvation, teaching that infant salvation is/was the predominant view.
> 
> 
> ...


If you mean that the salvation of infants who die in infancy then your statement is factually correct. If you mean that this teaches a view of infants that "...all infants are elect and saved..." then you are, yet again, flat wrong.

He calls it "...a charitable hope..." above. That's a good way of putting it. I keep trying to point you to the obvious difference in a didactic statement. There is a difference between me telling you that you ought not doubt somebody's election and salvation as opposed to saying, dogmatically, all infants are elect and saved.

It _is_ sinful to speculate where God has not spoken and to doubt a dead infant's election and salvation is pure speculation.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I have never stated that it is a sin to doubt a person's salvation and neither does Dordt. You miss the point completely in your haste. You really could learn some lessons from Elihu.



Rich, then why did you post the following? You stated "sinful speculation" thrice.



> What you think and what is actually the case are two different things. It is not an inconsistent reading unless you believe that we ought to doubt the election of those in the Church whose status we have no reason to question. It is a guard against sinful speculation.





> My main point is demonstrating a consistency here: we're not commanded to speculate on the things hidden. Who is/isn't elect belongs to God and Him alone. Nevertheless, we are commanded, in some ways to expect the best of all we are in Covenant with. To do otherwise would be to constantly look with suspicion upon everyone: old, young, wise, and simple. When a member of the Church dies and has done nothing to leave us to believe they are deniers of the faith ought we be somber and questioning: did this man truly believe? Was he truly elect? We simply do not live this way although we could if we were given to a sinful speculation all the time.





> It is sinful to speculate where God has not spoken and to doubt a dead infant's election and salvation is pure speculation.



It seems pretty clear that you're saying that this speculation on salvation is sinful. And I still haven't seen a bible verse to back up this claim. You said "we are commanded, in some ways to expect the best of all we are in Covenant with." Where is this command?



SemperFideles said:


> You even seem to misread the sermon as well. You're a young man Don. You really need to place yourself in the position of the learner because you're proving to be quite unteachable even in trying to understand a position that you might disagree with. You're so hasty, however, you don't take the time to learn the position before you offer strawman critiques of it.



Alright Rich, I'll let you teach. What does the sermon mean when it says that the promise of eternal life through Christ belongs to the children of godly parents?

"Children of godly parents are in the covenant and the covenant promise of eternal life in and through Christ belongs to them. They are considered to be part of the kingdom of God. They are counted as holy – separate and set apart as part of the church. With all of this in mind, Article 17 says 'godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.'"


----------



## elnwood (Mar 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> It _is_ sinful to speculate where God has not spoken and to doubt a dead infant's election and salvation is pure speculation.



Surely you cannot mean this at face value. You've speculated that English is not my first language, and God has not spoken regarding this. Surely that is not sin? Perhaps you would like to clarify this.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 29, 2007)

Don,

This is key to remember (even Deiter alluded to this):

[bible]Deuteronomy 29:29[/bible]

Whether we're Baptists or Presbyterians this is true. It can be sinful to speculate on what God has not revealed to us.

Chapter III, Section 8 of the WCF and Chapter III, Section 7 of the LBCF state the exact same thing:


> 8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.


I believe there is a tendency to do precisely the opposite and use the doctrine of salvation and election with very little care. You keep missing the careful nuance here.

This is important for you to remember (or understand for the first time): God has NOT revealed to us who is actually elect and actually saved. Fix that first as a point of reference and let that sink in.

We act toward others in our Church on the basis of what He _has_ revealed.

You don't baptize men and women on the basis of election or knowledge of their salvation, you baptize men and women on the basis of their profession. You don't discipline men and women on the basis that you know they are reprobate or not saved, you discipline on the basis of their fruit. There could be a correspondence but you simply do not know.

I kept giving you as an example of your own Pastor, a man in good standing in your Church. It is speculation for you to doubt Gene's election and salvation. The Scriptures do not permit you to do so. Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOD. Beyond that, he's not in gross sin at all (which is why I used him as a specific example and not some hypothetical "backslider").

Now, what you keep hearing is this: "I'm never allowed to be concerned about the fruit or profession of my brother or sister no matter the circumstance." You can't seem to grasp that "not speculating" is not the same as a command to "not discern" - they're two different categories with one belonging to hidden decree and the other to things revealed. This is why I'm telling you that your understanding lacks nuance. You're making unwarranted leaps from one category to another. 

Consider what I'm saying again:

1. In one case, if a person in your Church has never done anything to lead you to believe they are denying the faith and are in good standing with the Church, then _who are you_ to cast a wary eye toward any brother and question the heart that you cannot see? You are not leaving the hidden things to God. If that brother or sister dies in good standing, you ought not doubt their election or salvation and express such speculation. Why? You're not leaving the hidden things to God. Probabilities and guesses are quite immaterial. You don't have any business speculating on the eternal decree of God by doubting the election and salvation of somebody who died in your Church.

2. Not that this is germane to the situation at hand but let me deal with the brother who is under Church discipline and dies. You might be concerned for such a person. You may even have reason to doubt the _profession_ of that brother based on circumstances. Do you have a right, however, to _speculate_ on the election and salvation of one under discipline? No, you do not. The hidden things _still_ belong to God.

3. You also seem to assume that the command not to doubt the election and salvation of another (because we're not God) equates to no responsibility or concern for them. Wrong. I don't know how many times I've upbraided Calvinists here for saying that people in Arminian churches are not Christians. Why? For the same reason I'm warning you - the secret thing belong to God. Now, do I think that I can rest easy based on what I know they're learning? Absolutely not but one only assumes that follows if they miss the nuance. I labor among brethren in my current Church who _might be unregenerate_ but I _don't_ play duck, duck, goose and say in my heart: "that man is not regenerate." Rather, I teach them and enjoin them according to the Word and let the Holy Spirit work through the Word. Once they're in the Church, and in good standing, it's not my right to treat them any differently.

Looking at this from another direction, we ought never dogmatically conclude that a person is elect and saved. You believe that being warned not to doubt a person's election and salvation is equivalent to being dogmatically told: all children are elect and saved. This understanding is simply incorrect and you need to reflect more on the difference in the statements here. There is a judgment of charity going on in this teaching that you don't seem to appreciate. You want to turn this into a logic gate and it's more complex than your representation.

Thus, what this really boils down to, as I said from the beginning, is that you don't believe that infant children are in Covenant with God on the basis of their solidarity with their parents. Because you reject that premise (which is obvious since you're a Baptist) you don't seem to understand that the teaching in dispute logically follows once one accepts the premises of their membership. Why? _Because it's true for all who are in good standing in the Church_. The Scriptures declare they are holy by birth to Christian parents and they haven't done a thing to be excommunicated. The same would be the case for any severely retarded person who grew up in the Church that lived, grew up in the Church, and died without capacity to ever express audible faith. To doubt their election and salvation is to speculate on things not revealed and Dordt is simply echoing the sentiment, throughout Scripture, that we believe on the basis of the things revealed. 

That's what faith is all about.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 29, 2007)

tellville said:


> Now I can imagine this sounds horrifyingly to a Padeobapitist. I don't really understand why because they would have no problems believing that an unbelieving family's child is going to Hell. Thus really, the only response I can imagine a Padeo giving to this post is either an emotional one (mainly at the horror that someone would suggest their dead child, or potentially dead child could be in Hell) or one that tries to prove the Padeo position, neither of which I am really interested in. Thus, if you're a Padeo, please only respond within the Baptist hermeneutic.



Actually, it doesn't sound horrifying at all. 

All elect infants go to heaven, all non-elect infants do not.

How does the baptist account for the infants of the Egyptians who died in Exodus, or the various nations that God had Israel to wipe out - women, men, cattle AND children ?


----------



## elnwood (Mar 29, 2007)

Rich continues to insist that speculating regarding someone's election or salvation is sinful because it is not revealed to us, citing Deuteronomy 29:29.

Frankly, I don't see anything in that verse that talks about any sort of speculating being sin, only that only God has full knowledge of the secret counsels, and we don't.

Further, Boettner, Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield have all written that infants who die in infancy who are children of believers DO go to heaven. If Rich is consistent, he would say that they are making sinful speculation, as well as the two expositors (Rev. Adrian Dieleman, Rev. C Bouwman) that I've found on Article 17:

http://www.trinitycrc.org/CanonSermons/HeadIArticles17.html
http://www.spindleworks.com/library/bouwman/canon/ch1art16-18.htm

It's ironic that Rich would say that, by speculating that those infants are saved, that Dieleman and Bouwman are violating the very article that they are expositing!

I'm surprised that the ministers in the United Reformed Church have been silent on this issue, given their emphasis on confessionalism and that the Canons of Dort are part of their confessions. Maybe someone from that perspective can give some input?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 29, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Rich continues to insist that speculating regarding someone's election or salvation is sinful because it is not revealed to us, citing Deuteronomy 29:29.
> 
> Frankly, I don't see anything in that verse that talks about any sort of speculating being sin, only that only God has full knowledge of the secret counsels, and we don't.
> 
> ...


I'm right here Don. Wisdom shouts from the streets. If you prefer to remain simple-minded on the subject then I can do no more on this subject for you. If a URC minister chimes in, you'll find another excuse to avoid the obvious conclusions.

Please do bookmark this thread so you can look back in 10 years and remind yourself how brash you were at a young age.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 31, 2007)

Speculating on election nakedly, by looking into the things that ‘are’ or within ourselves as if to see the eternal or read the eternal tea leaves by the things of creation, works, events, occurrences, experiences…etc…IS sin because it is outside of Christ. If you speculate upon election otherwise than viewing Christ’s cross and all that is contained there, which includes baptism, then you are outside of Christ entirely and spiritually speculating as a fallen man following the wisdom of the world. That is to say trying vainly and deceptively to view God nakedly and careening one’s spiritual neck as it where to look into the secret things of God. To look into His secrets as He has not revealed them is not only sin but the very crux of original sin. It is trying to be God to get the knowledge of God himself. It is the very principle of building a Tower of Babel. God is only revealed savingly at the Cross. Election is known ONLY to us here and now personally at the Cross of Christ for me/you, there and there alone do we only dare to look. For only despair or deception awaits otherwise. There and there alone my soul is fixed. There and there alone I know my election. Everywhere else is darkness.

John Calvin wisely counsels, “But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life.”

Speculating on election is how fallen man and fallen religion seeks God. That is that God can be known through all things and events. Man’s sin is so perverse that the God he seeks EVEN by some knowledge of the majestic attributes of God will always end up as an idol…even worse the devil himself, but man will think him to be God. However, the one HAD by the cross knows that God can be known only through the Cross of Christ and the witness to that of the Word. The Christian NEVER in this life leaves the Cross. And that is EXACTLY faith, to be had by the Cross and its Word of forgiveness for you…that is to be had and owned by the Cross of Christ, that IS faith. As Luther said, ‘faith is to see that which is not seeable but only promised and (simultaneously) to NOT see that which is seen.’ All fallen religion encourages inward focus which is the essence of sin. As opposed to the cross which turns us away from ourselves (repentance), forsaking our own good works and spiritual experiences and clinging to Christ’s blood and righteousness found at the Cross alone. And the later is THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE Christian life, not just at some moment of conversion then on to ‘bigger and better’ spiritual things.

How do Christian parents draw comfort from the loss of their dear infant children? Worthless speculation outside of Christ about election? Hardly, that is demonic. The EXACT same place YOU better be drawing forth ANY comfort the Cross alone for IN the Cross God has revealed Himself where we may know Him rightly and savingly, and not ignorantly speculate upon Him, even characterize Him like Baal and at length be worshipping the devil calling him God in our blindness. For Jesus said when asked to see the Father, “Phillip have you been with Me so long. He who has seen Me HAS seen the Father.” In fact at the beginning of that Gospel John tells us in clear and explicit words that the Son ALONE has beheld the Father and NO other. Which goes back to Calvin’s point about vainly speculating over election.

Blessings,

L


----------

