Snowflake Adoption & Infant Salvation

My family is active in foster care and adoption as one of several means to fulfill the great commission by making disciples. We have four biological children, adopted three and continue to minister through foster care. We are somewhat new to the issue of snowflake adoption, but long appreciated the silence of scriptures and God's sovereignty regarding the salvation of the unborn and infants who die in that state. In light of this, we are carefully, and honestly wrestling with the desire to have children and make disciples through adoption of frozen embryos (aka: snowflake adoption).

I emphasize 'honestly', since parents tend to conceive and adopt children for very selfish reasons; to complete their family, save the marriage, etc.... I confess that I have wrestled with my own misguided motives as God continues to cleanse the depravity of my own heart.

I read several of the forums on Infant Salvation (there are so many, wow). I've enjoyed the the discussions and links provided within on Spurgeon's take and the dispelling of Piper's position. For an elevator pitch, a gruesome, but rhetorical trick of logic was offered up that Armenians should essentially abort babies so they can preserve their state of salvation. Conversely, perhaps a more meaningful and viscerally acceptable angle is if one adopts an embryo, then does one steal them away from guaranteed salvation?

As you can see from that last statement, I still struggle with a mental grasp of the sovereignty of God with man's responsibility. Regardless, I am compelled to act and wish to guide my family within the scope of an informed decision.

I also reviewed the forum on 'Snowflake Adoption'. I too remain baffled at how professing Christians keep their head in the sand and persist with in-vitro fertilization and/or other aggressive methods to conceive biological kids. I am thankful that God is good, gracious and patient with us as we sort through the weeds of our own theological shortfalls as he was and is for my own. God loves our bio children just as much as he loves our adopted and foster children. Knowing this should help curb the pang those have for having 'their own children'.

After all the intellectual fascination supplied in these posts, it spares us with no light challenge:

• What motive should we have when it comes to considering the adoption of embryos?
• How do we weigh or reconcile this motive with that of considering adoption and foster care?
• If some embryos are elect and some are not- for which we do not know, then should we ignore the living children who remain in need of adoption or a home to stay in?

I apologize for the length of the opening post, but wish to show appreciation for the troves of forums and efforts of others in the past. I also wish to trim any redundancy of a popular topic in the hopes of gaining fresher insights on a fresher angle of this common topic. Many thanks in advance for your contributions.

Election isn't your responsibility. Yours is the due use of ordinary means.

Adoption isn't a duty. In Israel, the redeemer (goel) was a social arrangement respected as a noble risk--but it was a risk, not a duty; and there were those who declined the honor for the sake of their first-order responsibilities, Rut.4:6 (while forfeiting the potential upside).

There's the story of the man walking on the shore after a storm, where there is a thousand starfish stranded high and drying out in the sun. The man is tossing one creature after another in his path, when he encounters another man who questions the worth of the first's effort: "Look at all this death, what do you think you're accomplishing? it doesn't matter." And the first answers, "It matters to this one."

If you are stirred up to add to your slate an embryonic adoption, in preference to an adoption from an orphanage/foster care--that's a decision. It's only as much of a dilemma as you make it; and I think stress only begins after one adopts the notion there is a duty to act; as if the sins of all mankind lay strong obligations on you above your normal freight.

Your prayerful decision, your hopeful contribution to the good of others, is a quotient of wisdom. And your moral commitment in this case does not increase that quotient on behalf of any other couple, any Christian, or the church generally. Providence will thrust particular opportunities for doing good on particular Christians; and they will answer to God for their stewardship. But this specific "social concern" (or any one, or all of them) does not summon every believer to the same level of interest and action.

Contra_Mundum said:

Election isn't your responsibility. Yours is the due use of ordinary means.

Adoption isn't a duty. In Israel, the redeemer (goel) was a social arrangement respected as a noble risk--but it was a risk, not a duty; and there were those who declined the honor for the sake of their first-order responsibilities, Rut.4:6 (while forfeiting the potential upside).

Click to expand...

Your first comment is freeing.

You are correct, adoption isn't a duty nor is it my intent to "summon every believer to the same level of interest and action." As Christians, our duty however is to respond to the great commission and I see adoption as simply one of many means of accomplishing it. What you refer to as a noble risk, I see it as a good act that Providence has thrust on our family to be done. Consequently, for me not do it would be my sin of omission (Jas 4:17); I'm trying to sort out which avenue to choose. Thank you for clarifying this as it was not my intent.

My dilemma or stress, I think, is that I recently discovered how the issue of Infant Salvation has very real implications beyond coping with grief over the loss of a child in infancy or miscarriage. Further adding to it is my continued effort to disentangle myself from the cords of Armenian theology and its inherent attempt to fill in the blanks where scriptures remain silent. While God saves all elect children, we are all still compelled to share the Gospel.

Since I have strong misgivings against in-vitro fertilization, I'm also cautiously exploring any theological or moral pitfalls that may exist in adopting the embryos that exist in frozen state while plenty of living children exist as a valid and obvious option.

Thank you again Bruce for your thoughtful response; dripping with wisdom.

Jud said:

As Christians, our duty however is to respond to the great commission and I see adoption as simply one of many means of accomplishing it.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of specific biblical laws regarding having mercy on the fatherless that you don't need to bring the GC into the equation. You might say that adoption is one of many consequences of "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations," but the essence of the GC is the ministry of the Word, and the ministry of the Word doesn't necessarily involve adoption.

One thing I learned in my recent tribulation is that when you partner with the County in foster/adoption you yoke your other minor children with the DCFS. I don't know if you are working with the County, but be aware that they are among the dark places of the earth that are full of the habitations of cruelty. (Ps 74:20) Social Workers, by and large, are confounded and offended by large Christian families, and it will color their opinion of your motives and parenting skills. This puts the other minor children in your home in danger. Do what you must do, but be wise as serpents.

You can read about my story here: https://puritanboard.com/threads/in-a-desert.88513/

Forgive me, please, if I'm misreading you, bit it seems you are assuming infant salvation? The scriptures do not teach such a thing beyond the general covenant hope given to believers that God will be a God unto you and your household.

I've known a dear brother and sister who adopted two or three frozen embryos without bringing life into the world. Nonetheless, I believe there are serious ethical questions raised by the seventh commandment that need to be addressed.

Good thoughts KMK. I'm sorry to hear that this was a dark chapter for you.

We've had a little over 20 kids come through our home from DHR in the past three (3) years. God entered and continues to enter into many dark places to pull his sheep out out. This has come with many dangers and exposures to my biological children. You are correct, foster children are not the only ones who need Jesus, but their parents, government officials, and social workers as well who have been hardened by the system. My biological children have seen things that even I as an adult shudder at.

Even still, I continue to trust in God's goodness even when he does not guarantee my definition of safe. This path is fraught with waves of sorrow and ridiculous forms of frustration as we continue to engage broken systems and families. I still maintain that it is worth it. So long as my chief aim is not joy, peace, but God and God alone, He makes it all worth it to get a front row seat on His movement in the darkest of places.

I'd love to read your story, but the link doesn't work.

jwithnell said:

Forgive me, please, if I'm misreading you, bit it seems you are assuming infant salvation? The scriptures do not teach such a thing beyond the general covenant hope given to believers that God will be a God unto you and your household.

I've known a dear brother and sister who adopted two or three frozen embryos without bringing life into the world. Nonetheless, I believe there are serious ethical questions raised by the seventh commandment that need to be addressed.

Click to expand...

Good question Jean,

I believe that all elect infants saved; we just don't know which ones are elect. Beyond this, scriptures are silent while more than sufficiently pointing to God's sovereignty.

I do not agree with creating embryos for the purpose of conception. Yes, this is certainly a 7th commandment issue. My concern is what to do now about the thousands of conceived babies currently suspended in liquid nitrogen; 1) defer to God's providence and adopt born children/babies or 2) adopt embryos.

A CNN article commends parents as altruistic who decide to donate their embryos to infertile parents - assigning virtue to this involves layers of issues...I cringe at the thought that one day I might engage believing parents who think they're doing me a favor by donating their embryos to me. The article's assigned virtue to parents for donating their babies to stem cell research ...off topic, but certainly worth a separate thread.

Should Christians "adopt" all the frozen embryos in the world (or as many as they can), on the proposition that this action might "increase their odds" of eternal life? It seems to me, such thinking goes in the direction of Mormom baptism-for-the-dead. I'm not saying this is the suggestion; but that all pious nonsense should be resisted from the outset.

Casual circumventing of the natural order, especially when moral considerations (e.g. 6th/7th command.) are minimized, ends up as nothing less than a 1st command. issue. Man playing god.

When man sins on a small scale, his believing neighbor may (no guarantee) be able to step in and provide help and encourage repentance. When the scale is exaggerated, the neighbor's capacity is not increased. The first scenario is likely to end tragically; the latter even more likely. When gross sin is the rule for a whole society, tragedy is also the rule.

First century Christians saved lots of foundlings. It was in their capacity to do so, and love compelled them. A sense of "ownership" over those children didn't motivate them. Nor did their investment in the fortunes of the Empire. Saving many abandoned children was an exhibit of love to God and of natural affection, and the fruit of mercy was (no doubt) an increase of a godly seed in the next generation.

But I don't think the 1C Christian rescuers weighted their consciences down by dwelling on the 1000s that the net did not enclose. Their deaths were tragic, they made their murderers culpable, and God promises to righteously prosecute all sin.

God DOES NOT say to those who did not consent to these deaths, but deplored them, and disassociated from such wicked and unrepentant, and lived differently before his face (and may have saved one child in a thousand): You still share in the guilt, you failed the 999.

Personally, I don't feel obligated generally to the life-potential (embryos) of the amoral experimentalists' activity, or to their enablers, or to casual cheerleaders not willing to come to grips with the deeper ethical questions in advance. That is too great an issue for me to handle; and I don't trust men of "vision" who call for "foot soldiers" in their culture war.

Jesus is fixing society and history, for just so long as he will, until the end of the age. And he is the only one who can.

I appreciate your heart for adoption. We had four boys and then adopted a girl from Romania.

A few thoughts just to add to the mix....

First, it is estimated that about 30% of conceptions end in miscarriage. So hundreds of millions of fertilized eggs, maybe billions, have never seen the light of day. To some extent you have to leave this fallen world and all the perished embryos to God who is just and merciful.

Second, and this is a confessional board so I must say that this is not confessional, but BB Warfield has lovely exegesis on why he thinks every infant goes to heaven. Personally I don't take exception to the Pope being antiChrist, but I do tend to think maybe Warfield is right about babies. So if you are open to the concept of confessional exceptions you might find comfort in reading Warfield. In every respect he is an exemplary Reformed theologian even if he departs from the WCF on this.

Third, I have to say that there are still countries open to adoption. The foreign orphanages are generally packed, with substandard food and care, and I can't for the life of me think why anybody would not want to rescue a living child from those hell holes before choosing to get pregnant with an embryo that might miscarry anyway. Maybe there are financial reasons? Foreign adoption is very costly and I know nothing about snowflake costs.

I have known people who wanted to adopt and waited a long time for an American baby, even mixed race. I don't know why they didn't try for an embryo...maybe the wife had problems? Maybe it is too costly? Maybe there is a higher risk of deformities with in vitro? Maybe they knew on some gut level that the entire subject is just so so so wrong, and they didn't want to be part of it, enabling it?

Also, I am just saying this because of experience, and it may not apply to you and your wife at all. But people who had abortions can tend to later get stuck with guilt and feeling responsible to either have a dozen kids or adopt extras, and under it there is unresolved guilt. If that is true, please know that you are fully forgiven and washed pure by the blood of Jesus, and do not need to atone for any sins of the past. If this is not applicable to you, please do not be offended but keep it in mind for others who you may meet to whom it applies.

Contra_Mundum said:

Should Christians "adopt" all the frozen embryos in the world (or as many as they can), on the proposition that this action might "increase their odds" of eternal life?
...
But I don't think the 1C Christian rescuers weighted their consciences down by dwelling on the 1000s that the net did not enclose. Their deaths were tragic, they made their murderers culpable, and God promises to righteously prosecute all sin.

God DOES NOT say to those who did not consent to these deaths, but deplored them, and disassociated from such wicked and unrepentant, and lived differently before his face (and may have saved one child in a thousand): You still share in the guilt, you failed the 999.

Personally, I don't feel obligated generally to the life-potential (embryos) of the amoral experimentalists' activity, or to their enablers, or to casual cheerleaders not willing to come to grips with the deeper ethical questions in advance. That is too great an issue for me to handle; and I don't trust men of "vision" who call for "foot soldiers" in their culture war.

Jesus is fixing society and history, for just so long as he will, until the end of the age. And he is the only one who can.

Click to expand...

Thank you Bruce for these words; very carefully laid out. It is good to address the rhetorical question of should we adopt all and bring up the old starfish story. You are likely correct on the 1C rescuers, but I'm not aware of what their motives were or what was guiding them to do so ('The heart is deceitful above all else; Jer. 17:9- the desire to become a parent is not immune to misguided intentions). Because of their actions, and the spiritual fruits resulting from them, we make the assumption that they were pure. Regardless of motive, God used them and the church still spread. False motives or not; God masterfully and graciously uses them both and the church still spreads (Phil 1:18 and II Cor 13:8).

I know you know the answer of what should compel us. Yet, better support for this answer is found in the scriptures. I strive to make my answer of what compels me (not shame, guilt, large statistics, or the deceptively prideful 'I'm just giving back' as if we have anything good to give) and the answer of who does the real work to be the same as Paul's. Paul answers this in I Cor. 9:


(Yes, technically God does the saving- I'm not about to capriciously take this out of context; see Eph. 2:5) And just before Paul expands on his discussion about the ministry of reconciliation, he again answers the question of motive(s) in 2 Cor. 5:


Yes, you are absolutely correct on Jesus fixing society. People are not projects to be fixed, but people to be loved; Jesus does the fixing. I carefully attempted to spell this out in my earlier statement that by engaging in the lives of lost people, I simply get front row seats to watch God put on His show (the work) of rescuing people from death to life. This, my friend is an excellent form of worship and is what we were created for (Col. 1:16).

On the flip-side, I do not want to become so theologically inured to the idea of God's sovereignty in fixing society that I defer to Him to do the work and focus on the preservation and enjoyment of my own life and issues.

As for your obligation, or lack thereof, to the embryos and concern that I am recruiting soldiers to engage in another Christian fad or 'social justice culture war', I hope you will accept the angle I've initiated from the start of this thread. I do not feel that we should all engage this form of ministry to orphans or those temporarily removed from their families (foster children aren't orphans).

As to the issue of roles, I'm reminded of the example of the church in the first two verses of Acts 6. The church was ministering to the poor (giving food), widows, and foreigners (Hellenists) while those with the gift of teaching were prompted to create roles and delegate to increase the church's function. What a beautiful snapshot of the church carrying out gospel-driven sacrifice to the local community. I'm not trying to revive another Christian fad, but to better understand the question of the lawyer to Jesus in Luke 11:29, "Who is my neighbor?"

My family has the freedom to engage the lives of two (2) types of neighbors: embryonic conceived orphans and physically born orphans. My Armenian siblings contend that God saves all unborn and born infants...the logical continuance of this becomes that embryo's aren't necessarily the neighbors I need to reach out to. Because of that logic, I currently feel a certain duty of carefully weighing out the theological dangers that are at stake.

Lynnie,
Thank you for your gracious post. Unintentionally and indirectly, I believe that I may have responded to most of the points/thoughts you brought up as I responded to Bruce's post in my entry just prior to this one.

I'm not familiar with Warfield. Assuming Warfield's take on infants that all are saved, this conclusion has an inherent modern-day (in-vitro and frozen embryos is a modern-day advancement) danger. We may not all have an obligation to unborn embryos, but all Christians do have an obligation to our neighbors.

As for facing the issue you brought up of deciding over adopting mixed-race children, international, domestic, etc.; our family decided that these issues are best decided prayerfully since nearly all options are essentially good (I just can't think of any that are bad), but motives can be fraught with serious misguidance and deception.

Just a few examples of how deception can sink in:

• To think we do children a favor by bringing them from third-world countries can actually do more harm as we neglect the culture shock they experience. In a spiritual context, materially rich is not better than being materially poor.
• If one chooses a certain adoption because one is cheaper or fits in a budget, the question begs one's dependence on God's provision. God can print his own money if He wants to. Choosing a form of adoption because one is cheaper or one costs more can be a dangerous hindrance where our budgets become our god and push us away from the choice God wants us to make.
• On adopting children of a similar race- are we doing it because we are prejudiced?
• If we adopt of a different race, do we do it because we pridefully seek to don a hero's cape that tells others that 'we did it! we adopted!'?
• Do we elect to adopt Indian or Asian children because they are more socially acceptable in America than African children?
• Does one engage in foster care with the selfish reason of adding to their family while the goal should and is the child's reunification to their biological family? God's plan A is that a child stays with their their biological family; His plan A is that their parents (all men) are reconciled to the gospel.
• Do we avoid domestic adoption because we somehow think that international adoption helps us escape interpersonal entanglements?
• Are we wanting a single white baby, because of any assortment of fears to do any differently guide us there?
• Are our selected preferences for certain types of children to adopt dangerously close to a form of eugenics?
• Do we avoid disfigured or handicapped children because children without them are better?
• Does our adoption of children from a certain country create or contribute to an environment of for-profit orphan mills where wards of the state are incentivized to the capricious removal of children from their biological families. Recently, government officials were instrumental in closing down certain countries from sending orphans to America because of this type of practice.
• If a family is infertile, are they trying to get kids because they wish to make their family 'complete' or whole?
• Does a family adopt to get kids for their family or do they see their family as a family-giving mechanism?
• Are infertile families engaging in in-vitro because they feel they are financially blessed to have their own children and feel that they are better capable of loving their own biological children more than adopted children? Have these families considered the fact that they are committing a quasi-form of postponed abortion by freezing eggs or donating them to stem cell research? If this is the issue, they are disregarding the premise that only Christ can make us whole. To believe any different is a denouncement of God as supreme and a form of idolatry.

The last bullet isn't really a motive, but more of an ethical/moral issue. Perhaps I'm not as knowledgeable as I should be about in-vitro fertilization, but so far I can only see it as a sinful choice. Sadly, many Christian families are engaging in it while neglecting substantial, glaring needs that exist all around them as well as inside them. If a family is infertile, it is my prayer that this family would consider how God may be steering them to the opportunity to adopt or minister to broken families through foster care.

Adoption is a serious, intense, soul-searching issue that begs the use of intentional and continuous prayer. The more we grow as parents, the more my wife and I continue to ask God to search the dark corners of our hearts and cleanse them. To parse and refine our hearts towards the one true motive and that's to worship God as the only one who rescues. God help us develop the right posture; to delightfully engage in loving sacrifice because the Gospel compels us to do so.

At the moment, I'm beginning to see the issue of embryonic adoption vs. born child adoption may just simply issue of prayer. The idea that Bruce mentioned earlier. Is this a door closed and an open window issue? Perhaps God will speak the answer to this soon.

Your neighborly obligation is an "endless" series of concentric circles.

There can be no doubt (esp. given Scriptural statements) that you have an unquestioned duty to those closest to you. E.g., neglecting your own blood relations makes you "worse than an unbeliever," 1Tim.5:8. Your neighbor, as Jesus so eloquently put it in his parable of the Good Samaritan, is the one whom you encounter (as God would have it) and help in obedience to a well-formed conscience.

Your brothers and sisters in the faith are also too near to justify ever neglecting them. But still, your local congregation is one circle; your denomination is one still further out. And so on.

But most often you cannot assist all that you might like to, given your human limits. Jesus gave us another example, Lk.4:24-27,
God did not make Elijah the deliverer of all the widows in Israel, his own country; in fact he made him the deliverer of none of them, preventing him being the deliverer of any; but only of one poor Sidonian Gentile.

Clearly, we should accept there is some limit to personal, bodily and material assistance. Somewhere between the far circle where I will never be (barring some unforeseen Providence, as in Elijah's case) and the family by my side, is the line after which prayer alone can contribute to alleviate the need or suffering of another.

To plague one's conscience over determining: where exactly that line is found, is futile. It is needlessly harmful. It spends energy that is better put toward the neighbor right in front of you. Or to prayer for those too far.

If saving one or more unborn through "snowflake" adoption, or some other method, is an opportunity or an option that is within your power--not taxing to harm your energies needed to fulfill your current obligations--(moreover, there will be some trade-off; choice "A" means not-taking some alternate "B" neighborly action), then act according to your primary, godly impulse.

That was great scriptural extension of what exists as a neighbor in an "endless" series of concentric circles; nicely done! I haven't seen the Luke reference used to teach this point before. This reminds me of how my home church came up with its name, '3 Circle Church' to mirror our Christian obligation to spread the gospel to our local, regional, and global circles. They used the second part of Acts 1:8 to inspire its name:


and underscores the church's mission fulfill the Great Commission "to make disciples of all nations".

Contra_Mundum said:

To plague one's conscience over determining: where exactly that line is found, is futile. It is needlessly harmful. It spends energy that is better put toward the neighbor right in front of you. Or to prayer for those too far.

Click to expand...

Your cautionary, shrewd words against overextending oneself while existing needs lay right in front of us are also appreciated. I agree with your caution to not spend one's energy so much that obvious needs are ignored whether they exist near or far. Yet, determination phases like this one drive us into prayer, further examination, and fasting; so I can't agree that it's futile or needlessly harmful. It is good for a heart to endure pain, grieve, and break for the same things that God's heart grieves. Conversely, you will likely agree that God doesn't want us to wallow here too long.

In the essence of pursuing wisdom, Solomon aptly warns of the sorrow that comes with it (Ecc 1:18 & 7:3). Instead of God's sovereignty becoming a source of stifled outreach or a numb conscience, His sovereign justice and mercy become a refreshing salve of devotional comfort to those who do ache and strive to reach the lost. This remains so, regardless of how great His thoughts are or how ridiculously dense I am to comprehend them.

Gospel-driven sacrifice flies in the face of 'American Christian' leanings that seek self-preservation or economic protectionism. Gospel-driven sacrifice compels us into action through global missions or at home acceptance of immigrants who seek our borders for protection. Gospel-driven sacrifice discards the comforts of sensible middle and upper class amenities and wealth in an effort to reach the lost. It discards comfortable acceptance by others at work or people in a southern community steeped in racism, so that love is freely extended to those often rejected. On a more personal basis, the Gospel has us die to our own agendas and schedules to offer impromptu assistance to a victim stranded on the side of the road.

In all this we accept loss and harm as tools for ministry because we know that He is good even though our temporal definition of 'good' continues to be refined. In conclusion, being rightly compelled drives us to seek God for the sheer opportunity to worship Him- not for anything in exchange i.e. a better life here or to enter heaven. These are byproducts, not our objective or means. God is our end- not a means to an end and must remain this way regardless of what mental anguish or sacrifice we are brought to endure.

God, help me to see my own losses and harm as tools as opposed to either good or bad. I know I can't reach them all, but it is a joy to figure out how and a privilege to have a taste of seeing You redeem those you died for.