# Infants, dying in infancy



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

Our recent discussion of Al Mohler's position on infants dying in infancy brought to mind this passage of Scripture:

Deuteronomy 1:39 
39'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day *have no knowledge of good or evil*, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it. 

Which led me to this:



John Calvin said:


> 39. Moreover, your little ones. I have already shown that God so tempered His judgment that, whilst none of the guilty should escape with impunity, still His faithfulness should remain sure and inviolable, and that the wickedness of men should not make void the covenant which He had made with Abraham. He, therefore, pronounces sentence upon them, that they should never enjoy the inheritance which they had despised: yet declares that He will nevertheless be true in the fulfillment of what He had promised, and will display His mercy towards their children, whom in their despair they had condemned to be a prey to their enemies.
> 
> When He limits this grace to their little ones, whose age did not yet allow them to discern between good and evil, He signifies that all who had already arrived at the years of reason, were, from the least to the greatest, accomplices in the crime, since the contagion had spread through the whole body. Surely it was an incredible prodigy, that so great a multitude should be so carried away by diabolical fury, as that nothing should remain unaffected by it, unless perhaps a timely death removed some of the old men rather on account of the vice of others than their own. But, if even a hundredth part of them had been guiltless of the crime, God would have left some survivors.
> 
> "To have no knowledge of good and evil," is equivalent to being unable "to discern between their right hand and their left hand;" by which expression in Jonah, (Jonah 4:11,) *God exempts from condemnation those little ones, who have as yet no power of forming a judgment.* From hence, however, some have foolishly attempted to prove that infant-children are not defiled by original sin; and that men are involved in no guilt, except such as they have severally contracted by their own voluntary act (arbitrio.) For the question here is not as to the nature of the human race; a distinction is simply made between children and those who have consciously and willfully provoked God's wrath; whereas the corruption, which is the root (of all evils) although it may not immediately produce its fruit in actual sins, is not therefore non-existent.



from here

Then, in Vol 3 of his Harmony of the Gospels on Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17:


John Calvin said:


> This narrative is highly useful; for it shows that Christ receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach to him, but *those who are not yet of age to know how much they need his grace*.



Taken with:

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 8:1
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

*Us* and *those* being the elect.

If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.

To differentiate this thread from the previous one, I have added a public poll.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 9, 2008)

Did you miss this part:



John Calvin said:


> ...From hence, however, some have foolishly attempted to prove that infant-children are not defiled by original sin; and that men are involved in no guilt, except such as they have severally contracted by their own voluntary act (arbitrio.) For the question here is not as to the nature of the human race; a distinction is simply made between children and those who have consciously and willfully provoked God's wrath; whereas the corruption, which is the root (of all evils) although it may not immediately produce its fruit in actual sins, is not therefore non-existent.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

How does that exempt infants *dying in infancy* from being elect, if Christ's substitutionary death covers the original corruption?


----------



## TimV (Jul 9, 2008)

> If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.



But the reasoning is faulty. You are positing a default state of grace for humans that they have to lose by bad behavior.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

TimV said:


> > If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.
> 
> 
> 
> But the reasoning is faulty. You are positing a default state of grace for humans that they have to lose by bad behavior.



The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.



> 2 Chronicles 25:4
> However, he did not put their children to death, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, which the LORD commanded, saying, " Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers, but each shall be put to death for his own sin."


----------



## TimV (Jul 9, 2008)

> The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.



That's the worst sort of circular logic, at least it seems such. But in case I'm mis-reading you, could you please clarify. Do you believe that every member of the human race is in Christ from the point of conception until they do something to fall out of that grace? What do you do about Perseverance?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

> In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)



I contend that all infants, dying in infancy, are unable to participate in 4, 6 or fully in 8, but receive the benefits of all the other elements and election precedes all.


----------



## TimV (Jul 9, 2008)

Thanks, but could you please answer?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

TimV said:


> > The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the worst sort of circular logic, at least it seems such. But in case I'm mis-reading you, could you please clarify. Do you believe that every member of the human race is in Christ from the point of conception until they do something to fall out of that grace?



no - only the elect are in Christ.



> What do you do about Perseverance?



Not sure what you are asking - an infant, dying in infancy, is incapable of participating in the process of sanctification that requires/indicates perseverance.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.
> ...



"Default" is unfortunate language, since all are conceived in original sin. Nobody has a "default" state of grace. The elect are elect "unto salvation", that is, _unto_ grace - they aren't _conceived_ in a state of grace.



> > 2 Chronicles 25:4
> > However, he did not put their children to death, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, which the LORD commanded, saying, " Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers, but each shall be put to death for his own sin."



So are you questioning original sin???


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.
> ...



An infant is just as capable as I am, since the capability is not my own, but due to the Spirit's sanctifying work in me.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > The elect do have a default state of grace, the non-elect do not.
> ...



Let me rephrase the question I think he's asking. He has taken you to say that all infants are elect - and therefore since some infants grow up to adulthood,
and many adults are obviously not elect, there must be some "loss of election". I think this is the source of confusion - but I assume you would argue that 
not all infants are elect - but only those infants that die.

So that on the day of birth of every child, you cannot know whether that child is elect. You're only speaking about those infants that die, correct? These (regardless of whether they are born into a Christian home or not, whether they have any connection whatsoever to God's covenant people or not) all are elect, you claim?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 9, 2008)

> If Christ's substitutionary death covers original sin as well as willful sin, it seems as if his disposition toward infants would lead one to conclude that infants, dying in infancy, are in Christ Jesus, not under condemnation for original sin and therefore elect.



In order to explain how those who die in infancy are saved, it appears you suggest that “the atonement of Christ nullified the effects of Adam’s sin.” This is to say that, by the blood of Christ, the guilt of Adam’s sin is removed at birth for _all men_. It is one thing to argue that all who die in infancy are saved by God’s grace based on Christ’s atonement, but it is another to assert that Christ’s atonement has removed the consequences of Adam’s sin for all men. The latter point is not biblical or Reformed.

If it were true that the effects of Adam’s sin have been nullified by the atonement, then men are born pardoned as far as their connection with Adam’s sin; and if pardoned, they are justified from that guilt (since Scripture indicates that all those pardoned are also justified). What we would have then is justification of all men at birth from the guilt of original sin. This view has been historically associated with Arminian theology, often as part of its doctrine of universal atonement. I mention this only because Dr. John Girardeau has effectively addressed this particular view in his _Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism._ A brief summary of his major points follows, which I believe are important for consideration:

(1) This view necessarily supposes two justifications, separated by an interval of time. Apart from those dying in infancy, those who reach maturity and who believe in Christ were first justified at birth from the guilt of original sin and afterwards, upon the exercise of faith, are justified from the guilt of conscious actual sins. Until the adult believes on Christ, he is a partially justified man. Should the adult die without believing in Christ, he dies justified in part and unjustified in part, partially pardoned and partially condemned. But as Girardeau put it, “since actual sin springs from the principle of original sin, he is condemned for a sin the guilt of which supposes a sin for which he has been pardoned.” If not, then the man must have fallen from innocence into sin, since he must have been innocent (free from guilt) in the interval between his birth and his first voluntary sin.

(2) If the atonement of Christ has removed the effects of Adam’s sin, then, since there is no other source of guilt, he is entirely innocent. This is to stand on Pelagian ground — that infants are altogether innocent — and denies the doctrines of total depravity and original sin. Scripture says, “I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me,” Psa. 51:5. However, if the doctrine of total depravity is not rejected, then we have a paradox: We have the totally innocent and the totally depraved at the same time. Furthermore, if it is suggested that total depravity is somehow the result of development and is consequently attributable only to an adult, then we must still have at the outset a partial depravity as the basis for the supposed development. How can this coexist with entire innocence?

(3) If it is contended that the infant is both innocent and undepraved, then we have a blatant contradiction of Scripture, for “we are children of wrath,” Eph. 2:3, and “the wicked are estranged from the womb. These . . . go astray from birth,” Psa. 58:3. Moreover we are led to conclude that each individual falls as Adam did. But surely this is denied. If so, then each individual must begin his existence depraved, and therefore cannot be innocent. But if he has guilt, it must be Adam’s guilt imputed since he cannot, as an infant, contract the guilt of personal conscious transgressions. Basically this view involves the coexistence of entire innocence and depravity.

(4) Also, if Adam’s guilt is removed, how do we account for spiritual death remaining in a person? Spiritual death is a consequence of Adam’s guilt entailed upon his posterity. If the cause is removed, the effect must go with it. But the effect does not go, for Scripture makes it clear that “you were dead in your trespasses and sins,” Eph. 2:1. It must be concluded that the cause still operates to produce the effect. If all infants are in a condition of spiritual death, Adam’s guilt has not been removed from them.

Dr. Girardeau’s argument is significant and raises some serious theological questions that must be addressed if this view were to be seriously considered. Interestingly enough, I do not believe this suggested effect of the atonement is necessary in order to presume the salvation of those who die in infancy.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> So are you questioning original sin???



Absolutely not! 

I contend that Christ's substitutionary death covers the debt of original sin *for the elect*.

I contend that Christ's actions/statements in Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17 reveals His disposition toward infants.

I contend that an infant, dying in infancy, is *incapable* of fully participating in the _ordo salutis_.

I contend that God is just and bases His judgment of Man on both the original sin of Adam and the willful sin of the individual - that is - Man is doubly condemned.

So, I contend that since an infant, dying in infancy, *cannot* be doubly condemned, and that Christ revealed God's character on His disposition toward infants ("for of such is the kingdom of heaven"), that all infants, predestined to die in infancy, are therefore *elect* and predestined for glory, being covered under Christ's substitutionary death for their innate corruption and free of any willful sin-debt.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> So that on the day of birth of every child, you cannot know whether that child is elect. You're only speaking about those infants that die, correct? These (regardless of whether they are born into a Christian home or not, whether they have any connection whatsoever to God's covenant people or not) all are elect, you claim?



Yes - although, I would say that the elect *are* God's covenant people, in which infants, dying in infancy, would be included.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

Also, in the Arminian camp, since the _ordo salutis_ is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification, the reasonable conclusion is that all infants, dying in infancy, are condemned to Hell, since election does not precede the outward call and infants, dying in infancy, are incapable of responding and thus be healed of their "sin sickness". (semi-Pelagianism)


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 9, 2008)

The inability of an infant to fully participate in the ordo salutis, as it were, isn't relevant to your cause. Whether they were, or were not, they are stained with original sin, and as such deserving of eternal death. 

Hence, the question is not whether infants deserve death, just as the rest of us do, simply by virtue of being in the sinful human line of Adam. The question, rather, must be this - whether Christ's statement "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" means that all infants dying in infancy are elect. I'm afraid in this regard your logic, and your theological inferences from the text, are lacking. First, there is no logical necessity linking the premise to the conclusion you've drawn. What Christ was pointing to in that illustration was not the child himself, but the free and easy trust of a childlike faith. Therefore, you can't draw your "all infants dying in infancy are elect" conclusion, logically, from that statement. It fails on the face of it.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Also, in the Arminian camp, since the _ordo salutis_ is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification, the reasonable conclusion is that all infants, dying in infancy, are condemned to Hell, since election does not precede the outward call and infants, dying in infancy, are incapable of responding and thus be healed of their "sin sickness". (semi-Pelagianism)



The Arminian camp view of this is irrelevant, since none of us here are of that camp, and that camp's false perspective can't properly be used to draw conclusions about the truth.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 9, 2008)

The idea that the elect have a default state of grace seems close to the concept of eternal justification, which is a fountainhead for Hyper-Calvinism, antinomianism, etc.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> The Arminian camp view of this is irrelevant, since none of us here are of that camp, and that camp's false perspective can't properly be used to draw conclusions about the truth.



Tood, that was just for contrast.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> The inability of an infant to fully participate in the ordo salutis, as it were, isn't relevant to your cause. Whether they were, or were not, they are stained with original sin, and as such deserving of eternal death.



I dealt with this above. We are doubly condemned. Original sin and willful sin.



> Hence, the question is not whether infants deserve death, just as the rest of us do, simply by virtue of being in the sinful human line of Adam. The question, rather, must be this - whether Christ's statement "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" means that all infants dying in infancy are elect.


 I did not say that this statement absolutely stated that all infants, dying in infancy, are elect - I stated that this episode revealed Christ's disposition toward infants.



> I'm afraid in this regard your logic, and your theological inferences from the text, are lacking.


I am certain you would, if I were inferring what you assert.



> First, there is no logical necessity linking the premise to the conclusion you've drawn. What Christ was pointing to in that illustration was not the child himself, but the free and easy trust of a childlike faith.



From where does saving faith originate? How does it normatively follow in the _ordo salutis_? To whom is it given?



> Therefore, you can't draw your "all infants dying in infancy are elect" conclusion, logically, from that statement. It fails on the face of it.



I start with election and substantiate with Christ's own actions/statements to draw a reasonable conclusion.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 9, 2008)

Although Scripture is for the most part silent on this issue, many Reformed theologians have generally maintained the salvation of those who die in infancy; yet they have done so without compromising the doctrines of original sin, the atonement, and/or justification. B. B. Warfield confirms this in his essay on the doctrine of infant salvation. Therein he states,



> Today few Calvinists can be found who do not hold . . . that all who die in infancy are the children of God and enter at once into His glory — not because original sin alone is not deserving of eternal punishment, nor because they are less guilty than others, nor because they die in infancy, but simply because God in His infinite love has chosen them in Christ before the foundation of the world.” _Studies in Theology_, Banner of Truth, p. 438


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> The idea that the elect have a default state of grace seems close to the concept of eternal justification, which is a fountainhead for Hyper-Calvinism, antinomianism, etc.



The elect are the only people that fall under the eternal state of grace that Christ's death paid for - how others fall into error is based on their mis-understanding of the _ordo salutis_.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> Although Scripture is for the most part silent on this issue, many Reformed theologians have generally maintained the salvation of those who die in infancy; yet they have done so without compromising the doctrines of original sin, the atonement, and/or justification. B. B. Warfield confirms this in his essay on the doctrine of infant salvation. Therein he states,
> 
> 
> 
> > Today few Calvinists can be found who do not hold . . . that all who die in infancy are the children of God and enter at once into His glory — not because original sin alone is not deserving of eternal punishment, nor because they are less guilty than others, nor because they die in infancy, but simply because God in His infinite love has chosen them in Christ before the foundation of the world.” _Studies in Theology_, Banner of Truth, p. 438



I concur with this and am simply adding some substantiation why infants, *dying in infancy*, are chosen for glory and not for condemnation.

It is all about God's justice and His love for the elect.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 9, 2008)

The Poll should be corrected to read as follows;

- I believe that _all dying in infancy _are elect
- I believe that _not all dying in infancy _are elect
- I do not believe Scripture speaks clearly to this
- I am unsure

To say (as it currently does for no. 1) "I believe all infants are elect" is to say *all are elect* since we were all infants and election is eternal.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> . . .
> I concur with this and am simply adding some substantiation why infants, *dying in infancy*, are chosen for glory and not for condemnation.



That's fine. My point is that, in explaining _how_ or _why_, we must be careful not to undermine other doctrine, e.g. original sin or the atonement.

Peace.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

joshua said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> > Pilgrim said:
> ...





> Ephesians 2:3
> Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.



Again - "by nature children of wrath" refers to *original sin* which leads to *willful sin* - "lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" - which infants, dying in infancy, are not capable of and thus are under the grace of God through Christ, thus:



> 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love *(a love he demonstrated for infants in Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17)* with which He loved us, *(the elect)*
> 
> 5even when we were dead in our transgressions *(original sin and willful sin - infants can't willfully sin)*, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
> 
> ...


*
Bolded, Italics, my notes*


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> The Poll should be corrected to read as follows;
> 
> - I believe that _all dying in infancy _are elect
> - I believe that _not all dying in infancy _are elect
> ...



Well, I thought the poll title did that!


----------



## Davidius (Jul 9, 2008)

There wasn't a choice which allowed me to specify this, but I wanted to add that it's the deceased infants of believers who are all elect.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

joshua said:


> So, Original Sin is not enough to condemn to hell? In other words, one must have _both_ Original Sin and personal sin in order to be justly condemned?



no - original sin is PLENTY - that's my point, though - Christ's death atoned for original sin and willful sin for the elect. If He atoned for original sin and infants have no willful sin, then is there any scriptural substantiation for Christ having a place in His mercy for infants, thus indicating that all infants, dying in infancy are elect, as opposed to infants that grow up to willfully sin and either continue in the _ordo salutis_ or not? 

I contend there is.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

Davidius said:


> There wasn't a choice which allowed me to specify this, but I wanted to add that it's the deceased infants of believers who are all elect.



As a fully consistent CT peado-baptist person, you are justified in saying *at least* that, which would put you into the second, third or fourth category - probably second.


----------



## KMK (Jul 9, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> The idea that the elect have a default state of grace seems close to the concept of eternal justification, which is a fountainhead for Hyper-Calvinism, antinomianism, etc.



...hyperpreterism...


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > The inability of an infant to fully participate in the ordo salutis, as it were, isn't relevant to your cause. Whether they were, or were not, they are stained with original sin, and as such deserving of eternal death.
> ...



Doubly, Singly, Triply, Quadruply, doesn't matter... condemned is condemned. 



> > Hence, the question is not whether infants deserve death, just as the rest of us do, simply by virtue of being in the sinful human line of Adam. The question, rather, must be this - whether Christ's statement "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" means that all infants dying in infancy are elect.
> 
> 
> I did not say that this statement absolutely stated that all infants, dying in infancy, are elect - I stated that this episode revealed Christ's disposition toward infants.



But you did use it to say that all infants are therefore elect. I never meant to argue that you took Christ's words (alone) as a sign that they were elect, except as you noted, that you did by inference.



> > First, there is no logical necessity linking the premise to the conclusion you've drawn. What Christ was pointing to in that illustration was not the child himself, but the free and easy trust of a childlike faith.
> 
> 
> 
> From where does saving faith originate? How does it normatively follow in the _ordo salutis_? To whom is it given?



You can pull up the text as well as I can - but as you've also noted, infants who die won't be following the ordo salutis in the way that adults would. So the place of saving faith in the ordo is irrelevant. My point was that Christ was discussing faith - his invitation to the children was to those who were expressing their desire to come to him, but the disciples held them back. Christ's statement is about the simplicity of a child's faith, and THAT is the characteristic that's important... not whether he has a favorable disposition toward children or not. 



> > Therefore, you can't draw your "all infants dying in infancy are elect" conclusion, logically, from that statement. It fails on the face of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I start with election and substantiate with Christ's own actions/statements to draw a reasonable conclusion.



But I think you've drawn from a misstatement of Christ's purposes in the illustration of the children coming to him. He wasn't talking about whether he likes kids or not - that misses the point. He was welcoming all those who willingly and trustingly came to him - the children illustrated that point beautifully. 

We're back, then, to the question of infants. 

May I ask you this? Is God just in condemning, say, all infants who die in infancy? 

If so, then why do you hesitate in allowing that God, in order to show his wrath against sin, might condemn some infants who die in infancy? 

As the poll question asks... I think you're rather dogmatically drawing a very firm conclusion where Scripture does not speak clearly at all. You are very possibly delving into things that are not conclusively answered - and should be careful in being as adamant as you are in your conclusion as a result.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > So, Original Sin is not enough to condemn to hell? In other words, one must have _both_ Original Sin and personal sin in order to be justly condemned?
> ...



But your substantiation is based on a single text, and, more than that, from a point that the text is not even primarily addressing. Doesn't that concern you?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 9, 2008)

Whether or not Scripture speaks clearly on this matter, as I believe it does, our Confessions speak very clearly on the matter.


> WCF CHAPTER X.
> Of Effectual Calling
> 
> III. 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. (Luke 18:15, John 3:8, 1 John 5:12


----------



## Confessor (Jul 9, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Whether or not Scripture speaks clearly on this matter, as I believe it does, our Confessions speak very clearly on the matter.
> 
> 
> > WCF CHAPTER X.
> ...



The only question is whether or not all infants dying in infancy are elect.

Without getting into the middle of this entire discussion, I'll give some quick reasoning for the existence of elect and reprobate infants.

--Original sin still makes us guilty of condemnation from conception (Psalm 51:5).
--God had infants of other nations killed in the OT, likely before they had committed conscious sin.
--It would make abortion a means to definitively send all infants to heaven, thus making it somewhat of a "good" action.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 9, 2008)

packabacka said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Whether or not Scripture speaks clearly on this matter, as I believe it does, our Confessions speak very clearly on the matter.
> ...



You are correct definitely in your third point. If all infants are elect should we not, as a matter of charity, make sure they go to heaven then instead of allowing them to grow up and be damned?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 9, 2008)

Panta,
It is clear that you want to justify the belief that all dying in infancy are elect (and thus heaven bound). However, from the dialog so far In my humble opinion, your inference from Scripture is unsubstantiated and your logic seems to be fundamentally flawed since it appears to undermine other established doctrine.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> But your substantiation is based on a single text, and, more than that, from a point that the text is not even primarily addressing. Doesn't that concern you?



It is multiple texts in 3 gospels describing a notable event - did you read the substantiating texts? Do you not believe that Christ's love is demonstrated for infants themselves and not just their faith in these texts?



John Calvin said:


> This narrative is highly useful; for it shows that Christ receives *not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith,* freely approach to him, but *those who are not yet of age to know how much they need his grace*. Those little children have not yet any understanding to desire his blessing; but when they are presented to him, he gently and kindly receives them, and dedicates them to the Father 1 by a solemn act of blessing. We must observe the intention of those who present the children; for if there had not been a deep-rooted conviction in their minds, that the power of the Spirit was at his disposal, that he might pour it out on the people of God, it would have been unreasonable to present their children. There is no room, therefore, to doubt, that they ask for them a participation of his grace; and so, by way of amplification, Luke adds the particle also; as if he had said that, after they had experienced the various ways in which he assisted adults, they formed an expectation likewise in regard to children, that, if he laid hands on them, they would not leave him without having received some of the gifts of the Spirit. The laying on of hands (as we have said on a former occasion) was an ancient and well known sign of blessing; and so there is no reason to wonder, if they desire that Christ, while employing that solemn ceremony, should pray for the children. At the same time, as the inferior are blessed by the better, (Hebrews 7:7,) they ascribe to him the power and honor of the highest Prophet.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> Panta,
> It is clear that you want to justify the belief that all dying in infancy are elect (and thus heaven bound). However, from the dialog so far In my humble opinion, your inference from Scripture is unsubstantiated and your logic seems to be fundamentally flawed since it appears to undermine other established doctrine.



What fundamental doctrine have I undermined, my brother?


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> . . .
> What fundamental doctrine have I undermined, my brother?



Earlier you said:


> Again - "by nature children of wrath" refers to original sin which leads to willful sin - "lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" - which infants, dying in infancy, are not capable of and thus are under the grace of God through Christ:



The logic here clearly indicates that all infants (not merely elect infants) are "are under the grace of God through Christ" since no infant can willfully sin. I see this as undermining the doctrine of original sin and/or the atonement.

If you are saying that only elect infants are under Christ, then your whole argument reduces to circular reasoning -- that all elect dying in infancy are elect. Which does not indicate that *all* dying in infancy *are* elect.

I think I just have trouble following your thinking.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 9, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> The logic here clearly indicates that all infants (not merely elect infants) are "are under the grace of God through Christ" since no infant can willfully sin. I see this as undermining the doctrine of original sin and/or the atonement.



Why? I have asserted that all infants fall under original sin. Christ died for the sins of those He loves. He loved and blessed infants and did not tell them to believe, repent and sin no more, in fact He said of such is the kingdom of Heaven. Is that not a sign of His grace toward infants?



> If you are saying that only elect infants are under Christ, then your whole argument reduces to circular reasoning -- that all elect dying in infancy are elect. Which does not indicate that *all* dying in infancy *are* elect.
> 
> I think I just have trouble following your thinking.



God elects those He loves.

Jesus loves and does not rebuke infants/little children in infancy. ("of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" - see also: Matthew 11:25, Matthew 21:16, Luke 10:21)

God elects infants/little children that die in infancy.


----------



## MW (Jul 9, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> Our recent discussion of Al Mohler's position on infants dying in infancy brought to mind this passage of Scripture:
> 
> Deuteronomy 1:39
> 39'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day *have no knowledge of good or evil*, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.



This passage of Scripture specifically states the exemption was only applicable to covenant children. Further, the next chapter relates that the conquest included the destruction of little children: "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and *the little ones*, of every city, we left none to remain." If the temporal deliverance points to eternal deliverance in the first chapter, then consistency requires that the temporal destruction be indicative of eternal destruction in the second chapter. Not that I am endorsing this as an hermeneutical principle; I only mention that consistency would require this in both cases if it is adopted.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 10, 2008)

This thread is very troubling. The way you drag Calvin's name into the OP as supporting any of your premises was very bothersome. Speaking of infants as not being able to fully participate in the ordo salutis was equally troubling.

You mis-applied Calvin in the very first post. His only point is to note that they're not guilty of actual sin even though they are still under judgment for Sin. He certainly does not advocate that Christ pays the penalty for their original sin. Calvin himself repudiates you and calls your reasoning foolish:



Calvin said:


> however, some have foolishly attempted to prove that infant-children are not defiled by original sin;



To then try to jump to another passage that speaks of Christ blessing the children of believers and assume that Christ receives _all_ children is a false premise. Calvin does not state that Christ, in blessing _those_ children, receives _all_ children. Contextually you could do Calvin much more justice as it points to his Covenant theology and not some hypothetical election of all dying infants as you have placed in his mouth.

I frankly don't have the time or energy to point out all the obvious flaws. If you can't see how flawed those two premises are alone then it's really not worth pursuing because I don't really want to have to keep picking up the breadcrumbs that lead to dead ends. 

My larger concern, however, is your desire to continue to play fast and loose with Confessional theology. I'll let this run a little bit longer but if the respect for sound exegesis and use of historical sources doesn't improve in this thread then I'm going to close it down.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 10, 2008)

A person's election or non-election is decided by God before they were conceived - it was decided in eternity past, and the decision is irrevocable. Therefore, those who are not numbered among the elect and who die in infancy are lost.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 11, 2008)

Rich, at no point did I say or imply that Christ's death covered all infant's original sin. His death covered the original sin of infants dying in infancy. I'll not debate you on the assertions concerning John Calvin, since your premise for critique is incorrect.

Also - please point out how an elect infant, dying in infancy, can fully participate in the _ordo salutis_.

Finally:



> It has often been charged that the Westminster Confession in stating that
> "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ"
> (Chap. X. Sec. 3), implies that there are non-elect infants, who, dying in
> infancy, are lost, and that the Presbyterian Church has taught that some
> ...



and concerning John Calvin:



> Calvin's views in this respect have been quite thoroughly
> investigated by Dr. R. A. Webb and his findings are summarized in the
> following paragraph: "Calvin teaches that all the reprobate 'procure'—(that
> is his own word)—'procure' their own destruction; and they procure their
> ...



from: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination - Loraine Boettner D.D.

foolishness indeed...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 11, 2008)

I do not consider the PCUSA's modification of the WCF to be authoritative. That one would point to conclusions reached by the PCUSA in 1903 to support a definitive Presbyterian view that all infants dying in infancy are elect is most laughable. Why don't you simply quote large sections from the latest PCUSA General Assembly if this is the standard of Reformed scholarship.

The fact that Boettner was stepping outside of Reformed history and into speculation was established in the previous thread. I don't see where Calvin in the quote you provided (or any other) states that men are damned only by their own perpetration of acts of impiety. Defilement from original sin is enough to leave an infant in a state of damnation.

Now, it can be claimed that Calvin nowhere claims that infants dying in infancy are certainly doomed but this is different than Boettner's claim that "to be consistent with himself" he would have to grant that infants dying in infancy are necessarily elect.

So much for raising the bar. Out.


----------

