# Infants dying in infancy



## Cato (May 21, 2010)

OK so what happens to the child who dies in infancy without being baptized.. The bible reveals that we are born marked by original sin, so we cannot claim that infants are born in a state of innocence. Any biblical answer to the question of infant salvation must start from the understanding that infants are born with a sin nature.

As a Baptist I know that baptism (Credo or infant) does not save. As a Baptist, baptism is reserved for believers-not for infants. I also know that scripture does not teach a position which denies infants admission to heaven. Maybe there I am answering my own question.

Those who divide infants into the elect & non elect seek to affirm the clear and undeniable doctrine of divine election. The bible teaches that God elects persons to salvation from eternity & that our salvation is all of grace. So what if all who die in infancy are among the elect? Do we have a biblical basis for believing that all persons who die in infancy are among the elect?

We Baptists believe that Scripture does indeed teach that all persons who die in infancy are among the elect.


----------



## Herald (May 21, 2010)

Steve, I suggest you read the 1689 LBC on infants dying in infancy. The confessions says, "elect infants dying in infancy." the qualifier "elect" presupposes there are some infants who are not elect. But infants dying in infancy is not the topic of this thread. Carry that subject to another thread if you wish to discuss it.


----------



## Cato (May 21, 2010)

OK Bill but doesn't the bible teach that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed "in the body" That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of orig sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer "according to what he has done," and not for the sin of Adam..... We will answer for our own, but what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body. I think not.....as I have lost a child in infancy. OK Gone


----------



## Herald (May 21, 2010)

Steve,

Periodically this topic comes up for discussion. Perhaps this one of those times. My heart is sensitive to the pastoral side of this issue. What do we say to offer comfort to the parents of infants who have died in infancy and still be on solid theological ground?


----------



## Grimmson (May 21, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> OK Bill but doesn't the bible teach that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed "in the body" That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of orig sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer "according to what he has done," and not for the sin of Adam..... We will answer for our own, but what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body. I think not.....as I have lost a child in infancy. OK Gone


 
I would make the case that infants have committed sins against God on the basis of Matthew 22, because of the probability that they do not love God with all their heart, soul, and mind. And due to their selfish nature, love not their neighbor as themselves, as you can see when there a toy that both crawling infants like and want. So I think God does have the right to damn them, even though I want to make it clear that I do not think God does. And Steve I am sorry for your lost.


----------



## Kiffin (May 21, 2010)

Herald said:


> What do we say to offer comfort to the parents of infants who have died in infancy and still be on solid theological ground?


 We can tell them that since God is righteous, we can find comfort in the fact that God always does what is right. We can rest in His righteousness.


----------



## MW (May 21, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > What do we say to offer comfort to the parents of infants who have died in infancy and still be on solid theological ground?
> ...


 
The gospel is given from heaven to teach not only that God is just, but that He is the justifier. It is a message of sovereign grace. Righteousness without grace is terrifying to a sinner, not comforting.

To answer Bill's question, Psalm 48:14 shows the extent to which the covenant promise to Abraham is to be extended -- "For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death." The covenant child, raised in the consciousness not only of sin but of salvation freely offered in Christ, is saved by Christ, irrespective of his ability to provide cognitive definition. The comfort to be ministered to believing parents of a departed infant is not the watered down righteousness of God nor a vague wideness in God's mercy, but the righteous mercy of God in Christ.


----------



## Cato (May 21, 2010)

Thank you all.... I console my wife & myself through Charles Spurgeon " Now, let every mother & father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days." Spurgeon turned this conviction into an evangelistic call "Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you go there , too? 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, & the lips which 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? Doth not nature itself put a sort of longing in your soul that you may be bound in the bundle of life with your own children?

Also consolation comes from promises of the Scriptures and the assurance of the grace of our Lord. Genesis 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 

Also "Permit the children to come to Me, do not hinder them; for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these." 

I place my faith in Christ & trust Him to be faithful to his Word. I claim the promises of the grace of our Lord & I know that heaven will be filled with those who never grew to maturity on earth but in heaven will greet us completed in Christ. Praise God from whom all blessings flow!


----------



## Herald (May 23, 2010)

*bump* 

This thread was started by moving posts from another thread that were off topic.


----------



## Steve Curtis (May 23, 2010)

Another view is based upon an exposition of Romans 5, understanding that passage to teach that the grace of God through Christ is applied to all who are not otherwise specifically excluded in Scripture. Charles Hodge holds this position: “All who died in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ…” [he equates the expressions ‘_pantas_’ in 5:18 and ‘_hoi polloi’ _in 5:19] He continues, 
“All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendents of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved.” He then concludes with a rather sweeping statement: “It is, therefore, the general belief of Protestants, contrary to the doctrine of Romanists and Romanizers, that all who die in infancy are saved.” (Hodge, ST, 1:26-7).
While I agree with him in that only those of whom it is “expressly stated” cannot inherit the kingdom, I would include among that class all who were ever born (save Jesus) because it is expressly stated that there is none righteous, no not one. However, I do not believe that the confession’s qualifier of “elect” implies that there *must *be non-elect among the infants; that is not clear in Scripture. Rather, I take it to be a reaffirmation that only the elect are saved – whether infant or adult. I see no reason to necessarily conclude that all infants might not be numbered among the elect. But then they are saved – not because they are not stained with original sin or personally culpable – but because of the rich mercies of God through the cross of Christ.


----------



## Cato (May 23, 2010)

There is an OT precedent that speaks directly to the issue of /infant salvation. The children of Israel are sent to the wilderness to die (IE that generation) after 40 yrs of wandering. However God exempts young children & infants from the death sentence with "Moreover, your little ones who you say would be prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it." The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who "have no knowledge of good or evil" because of their age. These "little ones" would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers sins.


----------



## MW (May 23, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> There is an OT precedent that speaks directly to the issue of /infant salvation. The children of Israel are sent to the wilderness to die (IE that generation) after 40 yrs of wandering. However God exempts young children & infants from the death sentence with "Moreover, your little ones who you say would be prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it." The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who "have no knowledge of good or evil" because of their age. These "little ones" would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers sins.


 
This generation was required to cut off all Canaanites regardless of age; so if your argument is pertinent it would be restricted to the covenant people. Personally I cannot accept the argument as it fails to take into consideration the difference between the typological land of promise and the antitypical rest of God. Moses was forbidden from entering the land yet he appeared in glory on the mount of transfiguration.


----------



## Cato (May 23, 2010)

Then why would God have made that very exact stipulation then? He clearly sited that they are not moral agents so the punishment would not be rendered


----------



## MW (May 23, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Then why would God have made that very exact stipulation then? He clearly sited that they are not moral agents so the punishment would not be rendered


 
On a moral level, it shows individual accountability and personal responsibility are important. In terms of salvation history, it is a generation marker to indicate God's continued faithfulness to His promise. But in terms of personal salvation, Hebrews 4:8 makes it clear that Joshua did not give them rest; there is too great a difference between the type and antitype to draw conclusions as to the individual participants of eternal salvation.


----------



## Cato (May 23, 2010)

As for me, I will sit with Spurgeon, Hodge, Mohler, Newton, & Warfield on their own biblical judgment that Infants are included in the election of grace.


----------



## MW (May 23, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> As for me, I will sit with Spurgeon, Hodge, Mohler, Newton, & Warfield on their own biblical judgment that Infants are included in the election of grace.


 
Scripture and the Westminster Confession state as much. The issue does not pertain to "infants," but "all infants." One can sympthise with the desire to see a wideness in God's mercy, but where there is no covenantal promise a person really has no place to speak for God. It must remain an undecided issue for the simple reason that Scripture does not afford the materials for deciding it.


----------



## Wayne (May 23, 2010)

Steve:

You might also want, together with your wife, to look at Samuel Rutherford's _Letters_. The second of those letters presents Rutherford's tender pastoral counsel to a woman upon the death of her child. _Rutherford's Letters_ are freely available on the Internet. A selection is posted here:

Letters of Samuel Rutherford -* Excerpts

Warfield would have sided with Hodge, but historically the matter was muddied by the efforts of Charles A. Briggs, a modernist of that era who worked tirelessly to revise [i.e., to undo] the Westminster Standards. He found his greatest leverage in promoting the idea that the Confession teaches that some children are elect and that others are not. But Warfield was exemplary in his scholarship, pointing out that chapter 10 of the Confession deals not with the question of who is or is not saved, but rather, it deals solely with the question, in three parts, of what happens to the elect?

As the parent of a profoundly disabled child, I'm encouraged by the words in WCF 10.3, but I also find the great weight is on my own shoulders, to make my own calling and election sure, to press in to surety that I am trusting in Christ and in Him alone for my salvation.


----------



## Cato (May 25, 2010)

Wayne said:


> Steve:
> 
> You might also want, together with your wife, to look at Samuel Rutherford's _Letters_. The second of those letters presents Rutherford's tender pastoral counsel to a woman upon the death of her child. _Rutherford's Letters_ are freely available on the Internet. A selection is posted here:
> 
> ...


 
Gen 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?


----------



## Wayne (May 25, 2010)

> Gen 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?



Amen.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Gen 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?


 
What eventuated in the context? Sodom was destroyed. The Judge of the earth did right! The righteousness of God in Christ is the only hope for sinners.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 25, 2010)

I agree, Matthew. It seems that we need to keep in mind that God's righteousness is not a comfort to any apart from the satisfaction of that righteousness in Christ.

What we need to remember is that Romans 5 reveals that all men have the guilt and culpability of sin immediately imputed to them as they stand in federal relation to Adam. This is why infants die. We cannot leave aside the Gospel that grace abounds all the more for those who have Christ as their federal head and if any are to be saved it is because He is the Just and Justifier.


----------



## Cato (May 25, 2010)

Why is it that infants die Colonel.... I did not quite understand that justification.


----------



## yoyoceramic (May 25, 2010)

What about this passage from 1 Corinthians 7 as it applies to believing parents?

14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.(Q) Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Does this give believing parents an assurance their expired infant will have a glorified body?


----------



## Steve Curtis (May 25, 2010)

yoyoceramic said:


> What about this passage from 1 Corinthians 7 as it applies to believing parents?
> 
> 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.(Q) Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
> 
> Does this give believing parents an assurance their expired infant will have a glorified body?


 Your logic in this interpretation would require that the unbelieving husband/wife will also "have a glorified body." This verse alone cannot make the case for universal infant salvation.


----------



## MW (May 25, 2010)

yoyoceramic said:


> What about this passage from 1 Corinthians 7 as it applies to believing parents?



I think it combines with the overall testimony of Scripture to give hope to believing parents.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 25, 2010)

Cato The Elder said:


> Why is it that infants die Colonel.... I did not quite understand that justification.


 
All die even though they do not sin according to the likeness of Adam. Death is a result of the Curse of the Fall but Christ redeems even those under the Curse. I didn't mean to imply that infants were in any special category. The point of Paul in Romans 5 is that death reigned from Adam. All men are subject to it. The hope we have is that Christ's grace superabounds where sin abounds.


----------



## Cato (May 26, 2010)

Gentlemen, the place of the wound is the place of healing. So when Thomas sees the resurrected body of Christ, he sees something thats not supposed to be there & he can't deal with it (the wounds) just doesn't make sense. So what does Jesus do, he tells Thomas to put his finger in. Deal with the pain. Deal with the fact that I am still broken. (Recognize that Christ is still teaching us something here)

No, you're resurrected, your not supposed to have a hole in your side. 

" Thomas, put your finger in my hands. Put it in my side. Now, *Believe* " 

You cant begin to believe until you put your fingers in your own wounds, the wounds of one another & the wounds of Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 26, 2010)

Steve,

I won't claim to know the pain of losing a child and this medium does not communicate intentions or empathy well. There are respondents in this thread who have lost a child and I have lost loved ones that I have no comfort that they knew the Gospel.

Please keep in mind that the point that we're making is that true comfort is not found in assuming that infants go to heaven because they are not under sin but infants go to heaven, like all others, because of a Savior. The best the Roman Catholics could come up with is the idea that an unbaptized child is in limbo because they think the Church has to do something to a person in order to deal with the sin of Adam that rests upon his progeny. They reckon, as they do with adults, that an infant needs to be infused with righteousness through something the Church does to overcome the deprivation that sin has wrought upon the world.

This world is under a Curse. It's horrible that children die. It's horrible that people die. I just learned a few days ago that a dear friend of mine from a Church Sonya and I attended committed suicide. She used to hold my son and was dear to us.

I wept at that news. I wept because God has subjected the entire Creation to Curse as a result of the Fall. When Christ stood before Lazarus' tomb, the text states that He "snorted like a horse". He wept at sin in the world in anger but not as One who was going to let it reign any longer. He came to put the power of death to death. He became sin and bore the wrath and curse of God for sin.

That's the only hope I have for myself. That's the only hope I have for my friend that killed herself. It's the only hope I have for my children - that Christ has put the power and curse of sin to death on a Cross.

You speak of wounds, friend, and it is never my intention to add to your wounds. The false prophets were condemned by Jeremiah for healing the wounds of the people lightly by preaching peace where there is no peace. There is no peace with God apart from Christ. I only wanted to give you greater comfort and confidence to reflect that Christ is an all-perfect Savior and this is why we have confidence that infants are in heaven.


----------



## KMK (May 26, 2010)

Spoken like true Pastor, Rich.


----------



## Christopher88 (May 26, 2010)

Steve I'm going to speak from my heart. I with my whole heart know God is just, and one of love. While there is no clear stance of what happens to infant when they pass, my trust in in God's righteousness. I won't speak further as I have no biblical teaching to give, but trust that God is righteous in all that He does. May peace be with on this subject.


----------



## Cato (May 26, 2010)

KMK said:


> Spoken like true Pastor, Rich.


 
OK....So what if you run outa room? Adapt & Improvise and you Carpe Diem!

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

Meant that for the Derek Thomas comment......gotta learn to use this Forum properly.

---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 AM ----------

Rich .... My condolences. Was her Minister counseling her?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 26, 2010)

Yes. She was being counseled by the Session and a great many friends.


----------



## Cato (May 26, 2010)

Then may God grant her the peace only He can.


----------



## Cato (May 27, 2010)

Rich.....I heard this little word of advise from a pretty smart Baptist Pastor years ago & I try to use it with my family & on myself to keep from fateigue.

Called "*HALT*" 
Don't get too Hungry
Don't get too Angry
Don't get too Lonely
Don't get too Tired

By monitoring those 4 directives, your can assure a goodly amount of Balance in life.


----------



## the Internet (May 27, 2010)

There are two great ‘unfortunates’ under-girding what we know of universal salvation for infants.

It is philosophically and pragmatically difficult to support the notion that ‘all infants will be saved’. What is an infant? Under 2yo? 5yo? 10yo? A human being who has yet to achieve intellectual majority? Draw Venn diagrams and each subset that is used to describe a group has overlaps with all other proposed sets and subsets [except those defined by an arbitrary progressive boundary such as age].

There is very little visible evidence to use age or another arbitrary measure as the discriminant. What seems to be the best place from which to draw distinctions is either a) a secret decree, or b) areas loosely falling under the category of ‘intellect’ and ‘volition’.

The clear facts of the Bible include
1: all are born in sin;
2: none are righteous, no, not one;
3: the wages of sin is death; 
4: all who fail to respond to an effectual call with faith and repentance suffer that death.

Here is the first *unfortunate* … those statements condemn infants.

But there is another biblical truth: 5: salvation comes secretly to all.

This latter leads into the terrible confusion in respect of intellect and volition. Should God choose to effectually call a 2yo, but that infant has not the capacity to respond in faith and repentance [let alone undergo believer’s baptism or develop a meaty understanding of doctrine], does that infant stand as a saint with Christ in the heavenlies? Of course! Even though this 2yo [and all others] is selfish, sinful, plays parents off against each other, is almost wholly self-serving, has no concept of God, yet if God chooses to call them then they will be seated at the throne of grace with Christ.

However, all based on ‘if’, this does little to extend the case for universal infant salvation. And the Bible is rightly silent [well, almost] on this matter. Why?

*Unfortunately* [there is the second] if there was a clear statement to the desired effect then both believing and unbelieving parents would be grossly tempted to end their infant’s life prior to intellectual/volitional majority. Abortion clinics would be Fortune 500s and paediatrics units would fade into obscurity. We could even neglect the training up of infants in the ways of the Lord with impunity.

As it is believers are left to rely on nothing but faith in God. That faith must exercise in the belief that since God is loving, just, and merciful, then God will act according to His own perfect and righteous character, and this holds out the greatest of hope for those with losses. The imperative to bring God and Christ and the gospel to our infants is restored.

I believe that God has left us dependent on His good will, and that we may hold out great hope for those infants we and others have lost, but there is insufficient evidence in scriptures to support the claim that all will be saved.

Whatever the case we are compelled to believe that God in Christ will get it right, and that everything will be perfect.

To those with losses … “I will restore the years of the locust” and “There will be neither weeping or gnashing of teeth”


----------



## Cato (May 28, 2010)

Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I believe that our Lord graciously & freely received all who die in infancy -- not on the basis of their innocence or worthiness -- but by His grace, made through the atonement He purchased on the cross. I will say no more on this subject.


----------

