How Does the Lord save Infants/Babies then?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Are those who are born to saved parents automatically saved, are all of them chosen by God to get saved, and do they need to have a saving faith, or can God choose to them regardless if faith or not in Christ?
 
I do not believe they are all saved. Just like all the circumcised weren't saved. I also believe that they must have saving faith. I also believe that God will save all of His elect. So, if an Elect baby dies, God has regenerated that baby.
 
The faith of a child is like a seed that has sprouted. It is very rudimentary yet. It doesn't have branches or fruit yet. Only the most rudimentary root system can be visible, if at all. But if God regenerates an infant, then that infant has faith, even if it is only what Calvin would call a seed-faith. This does get at another significant difference between Presbyterians and most Baptists: Presbyterians believe that infants can have real faith, even if that faith is not something the infant could articulate. There is no lag in time between regeneration and faith.
 
The faith of a child is like a seed that has sprouted. It is very rudimentary yet. It doesn't have branches or fruit yet. Only the most rudimentary root system can be visible, if at all. But if God regenerates an infant, then that infant has faith, even if it is only what Calvin would call a seed-faith. This does get at another significant difference between Presbyterians and most Baptists: Presbyterians believe that infants can have real faith, even if that faith is not something the infant could articulate. There is no lag in time between regeneration and faith.

Lane,
I disagree that there cannot be a 'lag'. There are many orthodox, reformed men that hold to the idea. U may be interested in the thread I started yesterday on the order where I quote VanMastricht on the idea.
 
Presbyterians believe that infants can have real faith, even if that faith is not something the infant could articulate.
:up: Indeed, and this is gathered by deduction and necessary consequence: Men are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (his doing and dying). End of story. Ergo, whilst dying elect infants (and other categories of elect folk) may not be outwardly called by the ministry, there is some way that they are called, albeit unbeknownst to us. Faith is a gift and miracle in itself, regardless of age, and I cannot understand why folks have difficulty accepting that those who are not on our particular plain of cognizance are regenerated, exercise faith (in some degree), granted repentance, etc.
 
Last edited:
Are those who are born to saved parents automatically saved, are all of them chosen by God to get saved, and do they need to have a saving faith, or can God choose to them regardless if faith or not in Christ?
Are you familiar with the Confession that you affirmed? Please review Chapter 10, para 3 of the LBCF.

We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We don't know how many or how few. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16, II Sam. 12:23, Acts 2:38,39, Ezek. 16:20,21). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.

Outside of Reformed circles, there are Calvinists, especially those using the Spurgeon revision to the LBCF, that will say that all infants that die are on their way to heaven. Piper agrees with them, too.
 
Can you name some of these "many", Scott?

Turretin, Van Mastricht, Hodge seem to imply the same. I cite some of these men on the other thread on the ordo. When we speak of seed faith, there is automatically an indication of a gap-being that these seeds need water. Consider that the external call must come from the outside and that that outside call is effectual based upon data. If an infant has (f)aith and repentance, it must have a basis for that faith and must repent of that which needs repenting of; Christ does not repent for us. Consider a grown man. Can that man be regenerated and converted without assenting to biblical facts? Can he be saved , 'less he repent'?
Is his repentance, vicarious only and will that save? If the man cannot be repented for and he is regenerated, i.e. can now see, what is the point of sight if the characteristics he needs are vicarious?

I will also add, it is difficult to read between the lines when we speak of the ordo; many theologians use the terms interchangeably, and in my opinion, to their error. For example, here Hodge says:

While admitting that the truths of revelation are to be received upon the authority of God; that human reason can neither comprehend nor prove them; that a man must be converted and become as a little child before he can truly receive the doctrines of the Bible; and admitting, moreover, that these doctrines are irreconcilable with every system of philosophy, ever framed by those who refuse to be taught of God, or who were ignorant of his Word, yet it is ever to be maintained that those doctrines are unassailable; that no created intellect can prove them to be impossible or irrational.

in my opinion, here Hodge is intermingling 'regeneration' and conversion, being guilty of the exact thing I describe. So many authors do this because most are not talking deeply about the components of the order, but just the whole of it.
 
Last edited:
Lastly, seed faith says much; if an infant has seed faith, what waters it and germinates it? I would say, the word of God. How does that happen? In the life of the elect infant that perishes, it would be Christ himself-giving both the internal and external call. But in the life of an infant that is decreed to live a full life, the call comes from the outside, i.e. the Preacher at a later time. See rom 10:14-17. I don't see the struggle here, to be honest with you. VanMastricht even goes to the extent to say:

Wherefore the unregenerate are emphatically said to be unable either to see, as referring to the understanding, or to enter, referring to the will, into the kingdom of God (john 3:5). This power in conversion which succeeds regeneration, proper circumstances being supposed, is in due time brought into actual exercise. So that one truly regenerate may, as to both habit and act, be for a time an unbeliever, destitute of repentance and walking in sin.]\
 
Last edited:
Are you familiar with the Confession that you affirmed? Please review Chapter 10, para 3 of the LBCF.

We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We don't know how many or how few. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16, II Sam. 12:23, Acts 2:38,39, Ezek. 16:20,21). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.

Outside of Reformed circles, there are Calvinists, especially those using the Spurgeon revision to the LBCF, that will say that all infants that die are on their way to heaven. Piper agrees with them, too.

-Reformed View:
1. Zwingli, Hooper, Candlish, and Toplady by inference, held that death in infancy is a sign of election, therefore all children dying in infancy are elect and saved.
2. The opposite side is that the only sure sign of election is faith with its fruits, therefore there are no grounds of knowledge on their fate wether they are children of believers or not . But God has His elect among them.
3. The majority of Calvinists held to the middle ground in that children of believers are saved and children of unbelievers are damned. Children of those in the Covenant are holy.
4. Owen goes a step further and held that if their parents were believers, God extends mercy BUT there are some elect amongst unbelievers infants.
5. The majority view is held in this statement by Petrus de Witte “We must adore God’s judgements and not curiously inquire into them. Of the children of believers it is not to be doubted but that they shall be saved, inasmuch as they belong to the covenant. But because we have no promise of the children of unbelievers we leave them to the judgment of God.”
6. The confessions refrain from all definition of the negative side of the salvation of infants, dying such, and thus confine themselves to emphasizing the gracious doctrine common to the whole body of Reformed thought.
 
Are you familiar with the Confession that you affirmed? Please review Chapter 10, para 3 of the LBCF.

We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We don't know how many or how few. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16, II Sam. 12:23, Acts 2:38,39, Ezek. 16:20,21). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.

Outside of Reformed circles, there are Calvinists, especially those using the Spurgeon revision to the LBCF, that will say that all infants that die are on their way to heaven. Piper agrees with them, too.
I think that in the end, we can trust the Lord to do what is the right thing in this area, but also would see myself as agreeing with Spurgeon on this area.
 
Are those who are born to saved parents automatically saved, are all of them chosen by God to get saved, and do they need to have a saving faith, or can God choose to them regardless if faith or not in Christ?

Westminster speaks of elect infants and Dort of not doubting the salvation of a covenant child dying in infancy. Are all babies who die in infancy elect? Are all babies of believing parents who die in infancy elect? My answer of "yes" or "no" has no bearing on what God has determined to do. Though we may wish He revealed the answer, we are left with knowing that although by nature Adam's posterity is condemned in Adam, God is merciful. We should rest in what we know, not in speculation.

I do know that infants who know very little of anything, understand something of faith. They trust their parents, knowing their voices. They trust that when they cry out, they will be heard and their needs met. They are comforted but their mother's scent, her touch, her care. In many ways, they can teach us a whole lot about what our faith in God should look like in simple, undoubting trust.

Since babies have much to teach us about what it means to trust, it is certainly no stretch to believe (and scripture testifies to this) that infants have the faculty to exercise faith in God, though most of us would agree that the measure of faith is small. They obviously cannot articulate their faith.

Why speculate beyond what is revealed?
 
I think that in the end, we can trust the Lord to do what is the right thing in this area, but also would see myself as agreeing with Spurgeon on this area.
Genesis 18:25 is no real help for your appeal. The context is clear. Sodom was destroyed. The Lord of the earth did rightly. There is but one hope for sinners: the righteousness of Our Lord.
 
Also, consider Psalm 22:9:

"But You are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother's breasts."

If our Savior trusted while an infant, why not the infants He represents?
 
Tim,
I don't believe, even under the mindset I have of the doctrine, that one can believe that John is in anyway typical. John was regenerated and converted, i.e. the complete ordo fulfilled, in the womb. Doctrinally speaking, this is not the way God shows us he works, generally. The only time we acknowledge this scenario, outside of John, are w/ elect infants dying in infancy. Much can be inquired in regard to what john actually knew in regard to Christ at a young age and if he understood repentance-but, I digress. In this case, it is an isolated instance given the rest of scripture.
 
The same can be said of Jeremiah and David. These must be considered as theocratic anointings. Yes, they do exemplify the doctrine that children can be regenerated in the womb and even in these extraordinary cases, even converted, but they are not typical and shouldn't be used to support the doctrine in the same level as God uses the preacher to convert his sheep.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 10:13–14.
 
We have no idea what the unborn/infants can understand. I believe they understand more than we realize. To this day, the brain is the least understood organ of our body. We have so much to learn about it. I believe that the unborn/infants who hear the Gospel and are predestined are saved if they die at that age. There's only one way of salvation for all of mankind in all times.
 
Tim,
I don't believe, even under the mindset I have of the doctrine, that one can believe that John is in anyway typical.

Perhaps not, but it may be typical for elect infants who do die in infancy.

Much can be inquired in regard to what john actually knew in regard to Christ at a young age and if he understood repentance...

Scott, I think you place too much emphasis on knowledge of biblical facts. Infants know very few facts concerning what makes their parents their parents, but they know their parents all the same. It seems that your application of knowledge to this discussion would necessitate believing that infants cannot know their parents until they can be cognitively aware of the facts about their parents.

In this case, it is an isolated instance given the rest of scripture.

Or not... I think you may be confusing faith with quantity of knowledge and level of sanctification.

Could it be that the whole issue you are having with some of us is because in making infants the exception to the rule you in turn have to create another rule to solve your own problem?
 
When we speak of seed faith, there is automatically an indication of a gap-being that these seeds need water. Consider that the external call must come from the outside and that that outside call is effectual based upon data.

Scott, instead of arguing against "moving" the rest of the ordo back in "time" to the point of regeneration, why not consider "moving" the point of regeneration forward to the time of the effectual external/internal call? In other words, why does there have to be a "lag time"? It is only because you insist on the notion of people being regenerated prior to "conversion" in time. What is your biblical warrant for these early regenerations? Apart from the very few examples already cited, which you agree are atypical (i.e., not the ordinary means), why can we not say that the typical scenario is that all elements of the ordo, in essence, are taking place at the same time? Even if you want to press your "seed needing water" argument, why cannot the seed-faith come to life (regeneration) at the moment it is watered (external call of God's Word)? In other words, the unregenerate person hears the gospel, the Spirit gives him ears to hear (regenerates him), he is convicted of his sin, repents, and places saving faith in Christ. I just don't understand why you feel the need to have the first part happen one day and the rest on another day (or month or year).
 
Are those who are born to saved parents automatically saved, are all of them chosen by God to get saved, and do they need to have a saving faith, or can God choose to them regardless if faith or not in Christ?

1) no; 2) no; 3) a: yes; b: no
 
in essence, are taking place at the same time? Even if you want to press your "seed needing water" argument, why cannot the seed-faith come to life (regeneration) at the moment it is watered (external call of God's Word)?

This is precisely what I am saying. However, your next portion of your statement, reveals that you are not following....

In other words, the unregenerate person hears the gospel,

The infant (or adult for that matter) that has seed faith IS regenerated already.

the Spirit gives him ears to hear (regenerates him), he is convicted of his sin, repents, and places saving faith in Christ. I just don't understand why you feel the need to have the first part happen one day and the rest on another day (or month or year).

It is not a matter of 'feeling the need'. Let me clarify, I am not saying that the scenario we are discussing is typical. Many times, it does happen in an instance, but in the case of the infant regenerated in the womb or closely thereafter, there must be a biblical treatment.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps not, but it may be typical for elect infants who do die in infancy.

It is typical for the infants who die in infancy-I said that. Thats the point.


Scott, I think you place too much emphasis on knowledge of biblical facts.

I do? I will quote Hodge on the matter:

The Bible makes eternal life to consist in knowledge; sinfulness is blindness, or darkness; the transition from a state of sin to a state of holiness is a translation from darkness into light; men are said to be renewed unto knowledge, i.e., knowledge is the effect of regeneration; conversion is said to be effected by the revelation of Christ; the rejection of Him as the Son of God and Saviour of men is referred to the fact that the eyes of those who believe not are blinded by the god of this world. These Scriptural representations prove much. They prove that knowledge is essential to all holy exercises; that truth, as the object of knowledge, is of vital importance, and that error is always evil and often fatal; and that the effects of regeneration, so far as they reveal themselves in our consciousness, consist largely in the spiritual apprehension or discernment of divine things. These representations also prove that in the order of nature, knowledge, or spiritual discernment, is antecedent and causative relatively to all holy exercises of the feelings or affections. It is the spiritual apprehension of the truth that awakens love, faith, and delight; and not love that produces spiritual discernment. It was the vision Paul had of the divine glory of Christ that made him instantly and forever his worshipper and servant. The Scriptures, however, do not teach that regeneration consists exclusively in illumination, or that the cognitive faculties are exclusively the subject of the renewing power of the Spirit. It is the soul as such that is spiritually dead; and it is to the soul that a new principle of life controlling all its exercises, whether of the intellect, the sensibility, the conscience, or the will is imparted.

This new life, therefore, manifests itself in new views of God, of Christ, of sin, of holiness, of the world, of the gospel, and of the life to come; in short, of all those truths which God has revealed as necessary to salvation. This spiritual illumination is so important and so necessary and such an immediate effect of regeneration, that spiritual knowledge is not only represented in the Bible as the end of regeneration (Col. 3:10; 1 Tim. 2:4), but the whole of conversion (which is the effect of regeneration) is summed up in knowledge. Paul describes his conversion as consisting in Christ’s being revealed to Him (Gal. 1:16); and the Scriptures make all religion, and even eternal life, to be a form of knowledge. Paul renounced everything for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ (Phil. 3:8), and our Lord says that the knowledge of Himself and of the Father is eternal life.

While, therefore, the objects of faith as revealed in the Bible, are not truths of the reason, i.e., which the human reason can discover, or comprehend, or demonstrate, they are, nevertheless, perfectly consistent with reason.

Faith is not a blind, irrational conviction. In order to believe, we must know what we believe, and the grounds on which our faith rests

While admitting that the truths of revelation are to be received upon the authority of God; that human reason can neither comprehend nor prove them; that a man must be converted and become as a little child before he can truly receive the doctrines of the Bible; and admitting, moreover, that these doctrines are irreconcilable with every system of philosophy, ever framed by those who refuse to be taught of God, or who were ignorant of his Word, yet it is ever to be maintained that those doctrines are unassailable; that no created intellect can prove them to be impossible or irrational.

*In the above quote, I believe Hodge is using the term conversion here to refer to 'regeneration'.

A sixth question, included under the head of the relation of faith to knowledge is, whether knowledge is essential to faith? That is, whether a truth must be known in order to be believed? This Protestants affirm and Romanists deny.

therefore, knowledge, or the intelligent apprehension of the meaning of what is proposed, is essential to faith.

It follows from what has been said, or rather is included in it, that knowledge being essential to faith, it must be the measure of it.

1. From the very nature of faith. It includes the conviction of the truth of its object. It is an affirmation of the mind that a thing is true or trustworthy, but the mind can affirm nothing of that of which it knows nothing.

2. The Bible everywhere teaches that without knowledge there can be no faith.

3. Such is the intimate connection between faith and knowledge, that in the Scriptures the one term is often used for the other. To know Christ, is to believe upon Him. To know the truth, is intelligently and believingly to apprehend and appropriate it. Conversion is effected by knowledge.


Infants know very few facts concerning what makes their parents their parents, but they know their parents all the same.

Bruce made the same argument-how does that work if the mother that carried the baby for 9 mos gives her child to a surrogate on the day of delivery? Does the child suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome becasue it doesn't know the woman who now nurses her etc.?

It seems that your application of knowledge to this discussion would necessitate believing that infants cannot know their parents until they can be cognitively aware of the facts about their parents.

I believe your issue comes down to how you are defining 'know'. The infant does not have that type of cognition to process gender, name, mother, etc.

Or not... I think you may be confusing faith with quantity of knowledge and level of sanctification.

No. Sanctification would follow conversion and is not the same thing. I ask again, can a person have faith in nothing or repent of nothing? Accept nothing? Receive nothing and be saved? Is Christ vicariously doing these things for the saint or does the saint have to participate?

Could it be that the whole issue you are having with some of us is because in making infants the exception to the rule you in turn have to create another rule to solve your own problem?

First of all, Tim, Brother, I am not having any issue with anyone. I have not made the regenerated infant 'the exception to the rule'! Is it possible that you cannot see the trees for the forest as the 'rule' as you put it is not illogical, given the circumstances.
 
in the case of the infant regenerated in the womb or closely thereafter, there must be a biblical treatment.
Yet, why must that biblical treatment go beyond what we already confess? The Confession declares that "elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit..." simply acknowledging that - even if via atypical means - God will save the elect infant. You would agree that "saved" is equal to or at least encompasses "conversion," right? Else, they are saved but not converted, which is nonsense.

So, these elect infants are regenerated and saved atypically. Why must we posit what it might look like if they were to live beyond infancy? Is there any biblical warrant to suggest that they might? Why can we not say that elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved atypically in infancy, while elect persons surviving beyond infancy are regenerated and saved typically in a single, "spokes of the wheel," event? Why must the latter be supposed to have been regenerated prior (by whatever measure of time) to their conversion?

Someone earlier (or on another thread) mentioned Lazarus as a helpful example. Can we really fathom that he was lying there in the tomb alive (regenerated) just waiting for the external call, "Come forth?" Or is it better to think that the Master's cry was attended by the Spirit's vivification, and the dead came to life and responded in the same event (though logically in accord with the ordo salutis)?
 
Genesis 18:25 is no real help for your appeal. The context is clear. Sodom was destroyed. The Lord of the earth did rightly. There is but one hope for sinners: the righteousness of Our Lord.
Agreed, and the hope is rooted in the truth that God Himself, in the Person of Jesus at the Cross and in His resurrection, has provided in full the grounds by which He might choose to save all infants who have died.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top