# Infants of believers dying in infancy



## Herald (Aug 18, 2009)

This is an expansion of the thread appearing in paedo answers. Edward made this statement:



> 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.



First off, this topic has been discussed: Here and Here. 

The question that all who believe in elect infants who die in infancy must wrestle with is how the infant is saved without exercising faith. How does one come to faith without hearing and believing in the means?


----------



## Poimen (Aug 19, 2009)

I don't think we should presume that an infant cannot hear and believe in the gospel. After all God is sovereign; He can do anything. (see Exodus 4:11) Examples such as Psalm 22:9-10 and Psalm 71:5-6 indicate that such faith is possible for one who is yet not born or of an age that is capable of making an profession of faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 19, 2009)

I am all for the age of accountability. And I think it is evident in that the children of Israel were not held accountable that were 20 and under for the sin of disbelief when they didn't listen to Joshua and Caleb. I am not sticking to a specific age. It was a general age that might have been placed upon them by God. I also think that this would be applicable for the mentally problematic situations. 



> C - Infants and the Mentally Disabled - David said of his infant son who died, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." We must assume that God, whose ways are higher than our ways, and who teaches man justice and mercy, will be gracious to those who die in infancy, or are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> 2 Samuel 12:23	Isaiah 55:8-9	Psalm 103:8-14
> Romans 9:14-21	Job 36:22-23	Psalm 94:8-11
> Micah 6:8


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 19, 2009)

There's a section on this question here:
The Bookstore at WSC: Baptism, Election, & the Covenant of Grace by Clark, R. Scott

Cornel Venema takes a slightly different view and has published it in the Mid-America Journal I think.


----------



## Edward (Aug 19, 2009)

Herald said:


> This is an expansion of the thread appearing in paedo answers. Edward made this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To be fair about it, I didn't make that statement - it's a quote from the Canons of Dort, and I expressed less than unqualified endorsement for that wording (I embrace the Westminster formulation without quibble).

And I *STILL* don't think the whole subject of the salvation of infants has anything to do with Baptism.


----------



## Iconoclast (Aug 19, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am all for the age of accountability. And I think it is evident in that the children of Israel were not held accountable that were 20 and under for the sin of disbelief when they didn't listen to Joshua and Caleb. I am not sticking to a specific age. It was a general age that might have been placed upon them by God. I also think that this would be applicable for the mentally problematic situations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Randy,
I do not believe in an age of accountability as all died in Adam.Romans 5, Psalm 51:5 We know that anyone who is saved is saved by mercy. The language of the confessions is clear in that elect infants dying in infancy are saved. If God has purposed to save "all" "some" or "none" we know that the God of all the earth will do right, Gen 18:25.
Their sin would have been atoned for at the cross.
Those under 20 were preserved to continue the godly line. God always protected the godly line by bringing judgment to purge out the reprobates.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Edward said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expansion of the thread appearing in paedo answers. Edward made this statement:
> ...



Edward, your clarification is noted. Thanks.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Poimen said:


> I don't think we should presume that an infant cannot hear and believe in the gospel. After all God is sovereign; He can do anything. (see Exodus 4:11) Examples such as Psalm 22:9-10 and Psalm 71:5-6 indicate that such faith is possible for one who is yet not born or of an age that is capable of making an profession of faith.



Daniel,

I'm not sure these are convincing passages for cognition which, I believe, is necessary for saving faith. However, I am not saying that there are not elect infants. Theologically I am left with the absence of a convincing scriptural argument for infant faith. I must throw my limited understanding on the mercy of Almighty God. 

Genesis 18:25 "Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?"


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2009)

Why do you believe Eph 2:8,9 such a stretch for God in regards to Infants? Surely the God of miracles can give 'cognition' and the gift of faith to whomever he pleases at whatever time He pleases, i.e. infants, retarded.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Scott Bushey said:


> Why do you believe Eph 2:8,9 such a stretch for God in regards to Infants? Surely the God of miracles can give 'cognition' and the gift of faith to whomever he pleases at whatever time He pleases, i.e. infants, retarded.



Scott,

I don't doubt for one moment that our sovereign God can do as He pleases. I also don't doubt that there are elect infants. But as far as the gifting of saving faith to infants; there are three reasons why I struggle with this. 1. There is no clear example of it in scripture. 2. Even the prenatal effect of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:37) on John the Baptist cannot be equated with faith. 3. Cognition among infants is not normative.

Now, does this mean that an elect infant dying in infancy is not saved by the same blood of Christ that saves a person who believes and confesses (Romans 10:9, 10)? No. For there is no other way for a person to be saved except by the blood of Christ. My problem is how that is applied to the elect infant in the absence of saving faith. I'm not saying that it is not applied, just that I don't have an answer for it.


----------



## TimV (Aug 19, 2009)

> The question that all who believe in elect infants who die in infancy must wrestle with is how the infant is saved without exercising faith. How does one come to faith without hearing and believing in the means?



If hearing is necessary deaf people can't be saved. It's another example of how the main difference between Baptists and Reformed people look at the world, and that's the question of continuity between the OT and NT. Something like what happened to David



> 2Sa 12:22 He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, 'Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?'
> 2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."



was taken for granted by those in the OT, and for those seeing an uninterrupted line of teaching it's no more strange to think that someone can be saved without hearing or understanding than it is to see ethnic Jews as no different than any other group of non-Christians, or that children should be baptised.

Philip is sleeping now in the other room. He'll never understand the Gospel, but whether I'll see him after he dies has never concerned me a bit, nor do I feel the least bit guilty that he was baptised as a baby.

It's not a question of someone having to do this, that and the other thing. It's a question of a sovereign, covenant God.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

> If hearing is necessary deaf people can't be saved. It's another example of how the main difference between Baptists and Reformed people look at the world, and that's the question of continuity between the OT and NT. Something like what happened to David



Tim,

My use of the word _hearing _is in the general sense of receiving the message. That doesn't mean a deaf person cannot receive the message through written means.

The 2 Samuel passage that everyone quotes; is David really saying he will see his child again, or that he will follow him to the grave? This passage is not the slam dunk that people think it is.

Regarding you son, Philip; brother, please understand that I am not saying that elect infants dying in infancy, or elect individuals who are incapable of understanding the gospel, are not capable of being saved. I joyously concur that our sovereign God gloriously saves all those whom He elects. My issue is that I don't see clear and convincing teaching from scripture on the matter. That is why I cast my lack of understanding in this area on the mercy of God. Because the issue is so personal for some, poor exegesis has been used to support their presuppositions.


----------



## TimV (Aug 19, 2009)

> My use of the word hearing is in the general sense of receiving the message. That doesn't mean a deaf person cannot receive the message through written means.



There are literally millions of people who can't read/hear/comprehend. And it's not a question of exegesis as much as presuppositions. And believe me, it's not personal.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

TimV said:


> > My use of the word hearing is in the general sense of receiving the message. That doesn't mean a deaf person cannot receive the message through written means.
> 
> 
> There are literally millions of people who can't read/hear/comprehend. And it's not a question of exegesis as much as presuppositions. And believe me, it's not personal.



Tim,

Then I send you back to my other comment:



> I am not saying that elect infants dying in infancy, or elect individuals who are incapable of understanding the gospel, are not capable of being saved. I joyously concur that our sovereign God gloriously saves all those whom He elects. My issue is that I don't see clear and convincing teaching from scripture on the matter. That is why I cast my lack of understanding in this area on the mercy of God.



Brother, what I can't do is take this issue and remove it from the same care and scrutiny I would give any other doctrine. I must prove it from scripture, and scripture alone. Is God limited in saving those who die in infancy, or who otherwise cannot understand the gospel? Certainly not! How do we reconcile this, _scripturally_, in lieu of clear and convincing proof? That's my question. It's also the reason why I cast myself upon the mercy of God, because my understanding lacks in this area.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2009)

> Is God limited in saving those who die in infancy, or who otherwise cannot understand the gospel? I joyously concur that our sovereign God gloriously saves all those whom He elects.



Bill,
Sounds like you have reconciled it.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Scott Bushey said:


> > Is God limited in saving those who die in infancy, or who otherwise cannot understand the gospel? I joyously concur that our sovereign God gloriously saves all those whom He elects.
> 
> 
> Bill,
> Sounds like you have reconciled it.



Only by faith, not by scripture.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 19, 2009)

Herald said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > > Is God limited in saving those who die in infancy, or who otherwise cannot understand the gospel? I joyously concur that our sovereign God gloriously saves all those whom He elects.
> ...



This is not an easy thing to understand or reconcile.

That's why many reformed say, "we know elect infants who die in infancy are saved- but we do not know how many or how few those are."

Also, "The believing parent of a child who dies in infancy has reason to hope, but not demand."

(These are both rough summaries of GI Williamson in his book, T_he Westminster Confession for Study Classes._

One thing that might be helpful also is look at the assumption- it is based on our _perception_ that an infant is not, cannot express faith or that saving faith is based on _cognitive_ ability of the infant.

For example, do we really know what a baby "knows" or believes or even is saying? There are many cases where a child in the womb demonstrates they "know" their mother's voice, respond to it, interact with it, etc.

One might well deduce by good and necessary consequence from Scripture that John the Baptist in the womb was saved and had saving faith, in addition to his being elect at that time (remember one might be called "elect" before the inner calling regenerates them- another topic, but one might deduce both from John the Baptist's case of response in his mother's womb).

In the end, the reformed position is consistent with the sovereignty of God- God is not dependent on anything to save anyone, anytime as it is completely an act of the (good pleasure of) His will)


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Bushey said:
> ...



Scott, I understand the good and necessary consequence argument, although I do not find it convincing in this case. Also, whether one is paedo or credo seems to be superfluous. Either a person is elect or they're not. The application of a covenant sign doesn't change that fact.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 19, 2009)

Does the "our perception" of an infant's cognitive ability make any sense?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 19, 2009)

Herald said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > > Is God limited in saving those who die in infancy, or who otherwise cannot understand the gospel? I joyously concur that our sovereign God gloriously saves all those whom He elects.
> ...



Bill,
I don't intend to be argumentative nor derail this thread into an argument of exegesis. However, if you have come to this conclusion about Gods character and attributes, and that conclusion has driven you to the conclusion that God can and does save infants and the dumb, it sounds like you have your answer. I am sure you have not come to your conclusion about the above character of God by faith alone? Scripture supports it, no?


----------



## Webservant (Aug 19, 2009)

I think it's arrogance to assume that only those who are capable of understanding (in the way we perceive it) are capable of having saving faith. If we're all "born dead" then that capability to understand is something which is given to us all - whether we're an adult or whether we are infants. Whatever additional insight we gain, even if we live to be 100 years old. is also given to us.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Scott Bushey said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > Scott Bushey said:
> ...



Scott,

Scripture supports God's goodness, grace and mercy. Those things are beyond arguing. My hope is based on those three things, in the _absence_ of any positive command given in scripture. Scripture _does _give a positive command that cognition is very much involved in regeneration (Acts 16:31 & Romans 10:9,10). I believe you and I are agreed that elect infants, and elect individuals who are incapable of comprehending the gospel, are saved; it's being able to tie it to scripture that alludes me. So, I leave it to faith.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Webservant said:


> I think it's arrogance to assume that only those who are capable of understanding (in the way we perceive it) are capable of having saving faith. If we're all "born dead" then that capability to understand is something which is given to us all - whether we're an adult or whether we are infants. Whatever additional insight we gain, even if we live to be 100 years old. is also given to us.



Rich, give me that argument from scripture; that's all I'm asking. 



> Romans 10:8-17 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart "-- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; 13 for "Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved." 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!" 16 However, they did not all heed the glad tidings; for Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Does the "our perception" of an infant's cognitive ability make any sense?



Brother Scott, our perception? I don't think our perception of what we cannot explain matters. Our perception of what we can explain? That certainly matters (Romans 10:8-17).


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 19, 2009)

Cognition is not necessary for the new birth. The reflex action of a soul that has been born again is faith in Christ.

John the Baptist was regenerated from his mothers womb and exercised faith in Christ - as best he could - which was demonstrated when Mary visited Elisabeth.

The Spirit can work in extraordinary ways in certain circumstances, although ordinarily works alongside the saving message of the Gospel.

Parents who are expecting a baby should pray for regeneration from the womb, since this is clearly possible.


----------



## Herald (Aug 19, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Cognition is not necessary for the new birth. The reflex action of a soul that has been born again is faith in Christ.
> 
> John the Baptist was regenerated from his mothers womb and exercised faith in Christ - as best he could - which was demonstrated when Mary visited Elisabeth.
> 
> ...



Do you want to make you scriptural case for this? I am especially interested in your comments in light of Romans 10:8-17:



> The Spirit can work in extraordinary ways in certain circumstances, although ordinarily works alongside the saving message of the Gospel.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 19, 2009)

Herald said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe Eph 2:8,9 such a stretch for God in regards to Infants? Surely the God of miracles can give 'cognition' and the gift of faith to whomever he pleases at whatever time He pleases, i.e. infants, retarded.
> ...






> Luke 1:15for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, *and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.*


 As you know, this is the only way to be regenerated and to learn the Gospel. 



> Luke 1:41*And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb.*


 Let's ask ourselves, "Why did he leap?"



> And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


 Here we see Elizabeth being filled with the Holy Spirit thus knowing that the Gospel lay within Mary. Elizabeth had visited with Mary many other times and never had she asked why Mary honored her with her presence. That is because it wasn't Mary's presence which was the honor but the Savior's presence.



> 44For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.


 I suppose we have our answer as to why John leaped in his mother's womb. It wasn't to find a better position....it was because of joy that he leaped. People don't leap for joy out of knowing nothing. They leap for joy out of knowing great things! John knew what the Holy Spirit had revealed to Elizabeth *before * she even knew... spilt seconds in between maybe but he *knew.*

Unborn children must hear the Gospel just like born children and adults must hear it to receive it and be born again. John the Baptist knew and understood what the Holy Spirit told him about the Child in Mary's womb and He does the same for the elect unborn/infant/child/mentally delayed/deaf/blind etc person.


----------



## dannyhyde (Aug 19, 2009)

R. Scott Clark said:


> There's a section on this question here:
> The Bookstore at WSC: Baptism, Election, & the Covenant of Grace by Clark, R. Scott
> 
> Cornel Venema takes a slightly different view and has published it in the Mid-America Journal I think.



Here are a couple of articles:

To understand the Canons of Dort 1.17, one ought to read:

Cornelis Venema, "The Election and Salvation of the Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy: A Study of Article I/17 of the Canons of Dort," _Mid-America Journal of Theology_ 17 (2006): 57–100.

W. Robert Godfrey, "Election and Covenant: The Synod of Dort and Children Dying in Infancy" (unpublished essay).

N. H. Gootjes, "Can Parents Be Sure?" _Clarion_ 44:20 (October 6, 1995) and 44:21 (October 20, 1995).


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 19, 2009)

Herald said:


> Sarah,
> 
> Earlier in this thread I posted that the event in Luke 2 was not normative. We read of a divinely ordered circumstance that does translate into widespread practice; the same way that Lazarus being raised from the dead does not translate into a common practice.



Of course it isn't normative. All who are of the elect and become adults with a good intellect have to learn outside of the womb and at an understanding age. But we are not talking about us we... are talking about that which isn't normative.... elect babies dying in infancy. It's not normal for babies to die (although many many do). It's normal for ppl to grow up and become adults. God gave us an example of how He saves the "not normative" ppl and I don't think we should throw it out as just a one time deal. Nothing in Scripture says that it was a one time deal. If we throw out the "hearing of the Gospel" in the salvific process for infants, then we can't scold those who want to do the same for the "jungle man who never got the chance to hear the Gospel".


----------



## Webservant (Aug 19, 2009)

Herald said:


> Webservant said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's arrogance to assume that only those who are capable of understanding (in the way we perceive it) are capable of having saving faith. If we're all "born dead" then that capability to understand is something which is given to us all - whether we're an adult or whether we are infants. Whatever additional insight we gain, even if we live to be 100 years old. is also given to us.
> ...


I saw what you posted about Luke 1:41 not being normative - but how do you know this? God gave us a unique opportunity to see His Spirit working in someone who cannot hear - though the baby was part of Elizabeth's body, and it's evident from the verse that she could hear (speculation on my part). My understanding of this has to do with my belief in total depravity - demonstrated in Genesis 8:21 and many other verses. I don't see in the Bible that God is any less charitable to an adult believer than he is to an infant. If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me.


----------



## rpavich (Aug 19, 2009)

I too struggle with this idea.

I'm stuck on; if the way to eternal life is laid out:

All men are in total depravity
God must change the heart
The new heart puts faith in Christ

Then infants or those without capacity are excluded.

And i know that this is a hot button issue, but if we give infants a pass, and those without ability, then we have to give any other situation a pass...those who never heard, those who are misinformed, those who this and those who that.

I think it opens the door to problems...why stop at those two situations? how about someone who is a staunch RC who "never really "got" the gospel"...how about a pass there too?

I realize that the God of the earth will do right...but I don't know what that right is...

I'm stuck....


----------



## kceaster (Aug 19, 2009)

I would say that John 1:12-13 is ample evidence to show the will of God in the salvation of anyone. Thus we can rest on the knowledge that God saves by His own will.

I think we would all agree that it is normative for cognitive belief. But aside from this, since it is God whose will cannot be thwarted by any circumstance, why can we not deduce that in His mysterious and unseen way, He enables the unborn or the dumb to understand His will for salvation. If we are not born with belief in Him, and He must enable us to believe in Him, then why can He not enable that belief even in those we would say could not believe? 

If it were simply cognitive reasoning along with the power of the Holy Spirit, then God can only save those who understand and articulate that understanding. But then we are pointed back to how the Holy Spirit gives us understanding in the first place. How does the Holy Spirit change the heart of anyone? Is there chapter and verse for that? The truth is, if I cannot understand how the Holy Spirit changes the heart in a normative circumstance, then how could I understand a change of heart in the extraordinary?

Additionally, do we know how the soul is created? Does the Bible tell us how? If we cannot know how the soul of man is put in to him, then how do we know how the soul is saved? We know the means, and the actions, but we are not given to know how it is all accomplished in the innermost parts.

I think this falls under the category of those things which are too wonderful for us to know.

We should also realize that although God condescended to reveal Himself, He did not fully reveal Himself. There are things not written in the book, and things that we couldn't understand even if they were.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## rpavich (Aug 19, 2009)

kceaster said:


> I would say that John 1:12-13 is ample evidence to show the will of God in the salvation of anyone. Thus we can rest on the knowledge that God saves by His own will.KC



Aside from the fact that these verse don't seem to be addressing the scope of salvation...



kceaster said:


> I think we would all agree that it is normative for cognitive belief. But aside from this, since it is God whose will cannot be thwarted by any circumstance, why can we not deduce that in His mysterious and unseen way, He enables the unborn or the dumb to understand His will for salvation. If we are not born with belief in Him, and He must enable us to believe in Him, then why can He not enable that belief even in those we would say could not believe? KC



I understand what you're saying, and I do agree; God is the one who must give repentance and belief, but since ANYTHING is possible then this argument works for ANYTHING...including the dumb Arminian arguments about how "maybe God sees what we will do and then gives us this free will and then reacts to it...anything's possible right?"



kceaster said:


> If it were simply cognitive reasoning along with the power of the Holy Spirit, then God can only save those who understand and articulate that understanding. But then we are pointed back to how the Holy Spirit gives us understanding in the first place. How does the Holy Spirit change the heart of anyone? Is there chapter and verse for that?
> 
> The truth is, if I cannot understand how the Holy Spirit changes the heart in a normative circumstance, then how could I understand a change of heart in the extraordinary?KC



Well, that ASSUMES that he does. Why would we assume that babies who die early, and those without capability are saved?
that category is no different than any other category; God owes me nothing, my sisters nothing and my brother; who died in infancy nothing as well.


I"m not badgering you...just thinking out loud....


----------



## kceaster (Aug 19, 2009)

*Robert...*



rpavich said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> > I would say that John 1:12-13 is ample evidence to show the will of God in the salvation of anyone. Thus we can rest on the knowledge that God saves by His own will.KC
> ...



Though the scope of salvation is not laid out here, salvation definitely is. My point was, salvation is of the Lord who, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, or against them at His pleasure.



> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> > I think we would all agree that it is normative for cognitive belief. But aside from this, since it is God whose will cannot be thwarted by any circumstance, why can we not deduce that in His mysterious and unseen way, He enables the unborn or the dumb to understand His will for salvation. If we are not born with belief in Him, and He must enable us to believe in Him, then why can He not enable that belief even in those we would say could not believe? KC
> ...



The argument only works so far as other places in Scripture that speak more clearly. We know that God did not look down the portals of time to see what will be done because of Romans 9:11-13. And I know you believe that all things are possible with God... 



> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> > If it were simply cognitive reasoning along with the power of the Holy Spirit, then God can only save those who understand and articulate that understanding. But then we are pointed back to how the Holy Spirit gives us understanding in the first place. How does the Holy Spirit change the heart of anyone? Is there chapter and verse for that?
> ...



I'm not feeling badgered...

It is not so much assume as it is to hope. We hope in the Lord for our own salvation. Why would we not hope in the Lord for our unborn children? My wife was pregnant with twins and one aborted, the other is my second son. If I hope salvation for him, why would I not hope salvation for my other child?

All God's ways are just. If it is His perfect will to send my other child to destruction, He is just. But God wants us to hope. So I hope that one day I will be able to hug my other son or daughter for the first time.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 19, 2009)

Did David speak in faith concerning his infant? I think an "assumption" based on his recorded faith is consistent with the other facts of salvation, and it was recorded for our benefit. We actually have greater witness to the reality based on the subsequent record of his faith.

Does a baby love his mommy? But he can't articulate his clinging devotion... hmmm, must not love her. No, but he does see her, and has the germinating seed of natural affection. So too, the baby can be given a spiritual apprehension of his Maker and Savior, and love him.

A stillborn child, "born" into God's dwelling (if he's an elect one), will only grow in grace and knowledge of his Lord and Savior--in heaven. He or she will never know _actual _sins, only the removal of his taint of Original Sin--federal guilt and a corrupt nature.

Salvation is never apart from cognition. But why can't that cognition develop from a one-day-old in heaven? Salvation ISN'T logical cognition of Christ, but a personal cognition of him. The former is a production of the latter. Jesus spoke of the "born again" person (infant-speech) "*seeing*" the kingdom of heaven, Jn.3:3. This whole manner of speaking intimates an order of knowledge that proceeds to depths of knowledge.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Aug 19, 2009)

I have also struggled with this issue. How can an infant come to faith, if the means provided by Scripture is by grace through faith. How can an infant exercise faith? Young infants or children in the womb can not repent and believe because their minds are not capable of doing so. So it seems logical at first look, to say that these children who die in infancy were never apart of God's almighty plan of salvation.

But, if we look to the Scriptures, we do see that God does have a love for his people, and his love is covenantal:

Psalm 103:17
17 But from everlasting to everlasting
the LORD's love is with those who fear him,
and his righteousness with their children's children

1 Corinthians 7:14
14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

The question that I first think of after reading these passages is this: Would God condemn covenant children to hell? We know that covenant children who reject their parent's faith are condemned to hell. We know that not all Israel is Israel. As far as infants go, we know that they are conceived and born into sin, but in God's providence infants who die in infancy do not have not the opportunity to confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. Does this mean that these covenant children are like the unbelieving pagan Native Americans (before the Europeans came) who never heard the gospel and lived in sin? I don't think so. Because God does call children of believers holy, I believe this means that God does elect infants who do not have the opportunity to confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. The means God uses is different, and not ordinary, but is still under the blood of Christ by means of the Covenant.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (Aug 19, 2009)

rpavich said:


> I too struggle with this idea.
> 
> I'm stuck on; if the way to eternal life is laid out:
> 
> ...



Why are those without _mental_ capacity, or without the ability to express their _mental_ capacity, excluded? As you rightly said, God must change someone's heart for them to be saved, and the natural response to a changed heart is faith in the _heart_. Faith is not the the result of a changed _brain_, nor does it reside in the brain. Those with mental capacity, or the ability to express mental capacity, will profess the faith that is in their _heart_, because of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. However, physical inability to express faith with the mind does not exclude the potential for faith in the heart, which is the result of regeneration.

-----Added 8/19/2009 at 02:05:53 EST-----



ChariotsofFire said:


> How can an infant exercise faith?



Faith is not exercise physically by the brain, but spiritually by the heart. The faith is naturally understood and professed by the cognitive mind, but it doesn't stem from the cognitive mind.


----------



## ChariotsofFire (Aug 20, 2009)

Herald said:


> I believe my point as been proven more than a few times in this thread. The salvation of elect infants dying in infancy is based on our overall understanding of God, because the teaching is not clearly defined in scripture. The attempts in this thread to establish a direct scriptural link can, at best, only infer. I happen to believe that elect infants, as well as those who are elect but cannot believe the gospel through ordinary means, are saved by the same Lord and Christ that has saved us. I still do not have a clear picture of how that works, and nothing in this thread has helped in that regard. Because I am not convinced, and to cut short needless back and forth, I am going to pull out of this thread.



I appreciated you creating this thread, as it did help me think through the issue in more depth.


----------



## ByGraceSaved (Aug 20, 2009)

Poimen said:


> I don't think we should presume that an infant cannot hear and believe in the gospel. After all God is sovereign; He can do anything. (see Exodus 4:11) Examples such as Psalm 22:9-10 and Psalm 71:5-6 indicate that such faith is possible for one who is yet not born or of an age that is capable of making an profession of faith.




if that is so then what do you do with 2 Samuel 12:22-24 ?


David was called, by God, a "man after My own heart" and we know that David, even here (see psalm 51) had every expectation to believe he himslef would be in heaven with God at his own death. 
David believed without seeing the coming of the Lord. 
he believe the promise of the messiah and believed in the salvation of the one to come. 


So please consider this passage and other .. Job says it would have been better for him to die at birth.. he expected that he would have been in heav en as well. 

The Bible doesn't refute that. 

True, God is just. 
True also God has set these things in His revealed word to us. 
Bottom line: We trust Him based on his character and deeds.


----------



## rpavich (Aug 20, 2009)

Freshman,

Quote:


> So please consider this passage and other .. Job says it would have been better for him to die at birth.. he expected that he would have been in heav en as well.



Isn't Job just saying that he's in so much pain that he wishes he'd have died at birth? Isn't it a stretch to say that he meant "he'd be in Heaven"?

my take on it.


----------



## Laudante (Aug 25, 2009)

Bill, you said:



Herald said:


> Sarah,
> 
> Earlier in this thread I posted that the event in Luke 2 was not normative. We read of a divinely ordered circumstance that does not translate into widespread practice; the same way that Lazarus being raised from the dead does not translate into a common practice.



It may not be normative, but it shows that it is not impossible for God to cause regeneration from the womb. Maybe he usually doesn´t do it, but He can. 

Beisdes, we have the example of our very Lord Jesus Christ. He was more than "regerate" since his conception, because he was even without original sin, nor any other sort of corruption. And still we are told in Isaiah 7:15 that he, like any other human, had no discernment of good and evil, or faith, when he was a baby. 



> "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good."





> And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (Luke 2:52)



So it is possible to be regenerated and still be unable to have faith, in special cases. I´m not quite sure if the argument should intend, as some had, to demonstrate that infants are capable of faith, but rather that they can be completely regenerate and still without faith, for their special condition. Of course that this regeneration means that if they arrive at the age of discernment (and who knows exactly when this age is), they would have real saving faith. 

Both the Westminster and the LB confessions say:

"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." 

So no one is saying that they are "innocent" and are not born in sin, nor that they don´t need Christ and the regeneration of the Spirit to be saved, but only that the Spitit can regenerate them even if they are unable to exercise actual faith. 

Shedd makes an excelent point for this in the chapter Hell of his Dogmatic Theology. I´ll try to post some quotes later. 

And regarding the argument from Job, I think it´s a good one. The point is that he sincerely believed that he would have been better had he died in infancy. From here it is easy to understand that he is implicitly believing that all or some dead infants go to heaven (or at least to some better place than earth), because if his understanding was that children go to hell, he certainly would not have wished to die in childhood, no matter how many hardships he was enduring in the moment he spoke. Now, Job could be expressing his own opinion, and not God´s, that´s true, but at least this passage shows that Shedd was right when he wrote that "this has always been the hope of the church".


----------

