Canon of Dort - godly parents ought not to doubt the salvation of their children
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'd start with the Scripture Proofs appended to Westminster:
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
[12] LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. JOH 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 1JO 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ROM 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
[13] JOH 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
[14] 1JO 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ACT 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
There is a brief article aimed at the lay person on III Mil. When an infant dies?[/B]
And some Boettner here, while we are waiting for the theologians. http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/boettner/infants_boettner.html
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
[12] LUK 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. JOH 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 1JO 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ROM 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
[13] JOH 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
[14] 1JO 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. ACT 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
There is a brief article aimed at the lay person on III Mil. When an infant dies?[/B]
And some Boettner here, while we are waiting for the theologians. http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/boettner/infants_boettner.html
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Here is what I believe to be a very fine article on Dort 1.17, by the President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Cornelis P. Venema:
http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/17/venema.pdf
Peace,
Alan
http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/17/venema.pdf
Peace,
Alan
I see lots of appeals to an "age of understanding." At what age would this be? How do you know when your children have crossed over beyond this age and must then believe for themselves to go to heaven?
The English group and those from the South Holland school seem most hesitant to assert that all (100%) of the children of believers are Elect. There doesn't seem to be a unanimous agreement. Also, the South Holland school seems to refer to an age of "early childhood, before the age of speech" (page 73). It is also curious to note that most of these groups seem to distinguish between "original sin" the infant is born with as well as "actual sin" - and if they hold that no infants possess actual sin but only original sin, why would they argue that any infant is damned?
The English group and those from the South Holland school seem most hesitant to assert that all (100%) of the children of believers are Elect. There doesn't seem to be a unanimous agreement. Also, the South Holland school seems to refer to an age of "early childhood, before the age of speech" (page 73). It is also curious to note that most of these groups seem to distinguish between "original sin" the infant is born with as well as "actual sin" - and if they hold that no infants possess actual sin but only original sin, why would they argue that any infant is damned?
It seems that many (like the Drenth delegates) make conclusions that go beyond Scripture:
I am struggling with this because many of the delegates seemed to express some doubts about the election of ALL the children of believers, yet the final form of this canon seemed to erase any doubt at all about the fate of infants of believing parents. If this were a compromise doctrine, it would seem that at least a measure of doubt would have made it into the final form of writing.
Also, just practically, here is a curious scenario: An infant of church-going parents dies. One parent is a heathen and one is considered a Christian. The baby is considered "holy" because of the supposed faith of the one parent. The baby is thus considered a "covenant child." The pastor preaches without a doubt that the infant is in heaven. Twenty years later, the "believing" parent apostasizes. Now it is revealed that the baby had no actual believing parents at all because the final end of both parents showed them not to be believers. Does his status as a "covenant child" get revoked after 20 years and should those who attended the baby's funeral now all of the sudden grew skeptical about the eternal fate of that infant whereas before they were "100% sure" that this child was in heaven?
I am struggling with this because many of the delegates seemed to express some doubts about the election of ALL the children of believers, yet the final form of this canon seemed to erase any doubt at all about the fate of infants of believing parents. If this were a compromise doctrine, it would seem that at least a measure of doubt would have made it into the final form of writing.
Also, just practically, here is a curious scenario: An infant of church-going parents dies. One parent is a heathen and one is considered a Christian. The baby is considered "holy" because of the supposed faith of the one parent. The baby is thus considered a "covenant child." The pastor preaches without a doubt that the infant is in heaven. Twenty years later, the "believing" parent apostasizes. Now it is revealed that the baby had no actual believing parents at all because the final end of both parents showed them not to be believers. Does his status as a "covenant child" get revoked after 20 years and should those who attended the baby's funeral now all of the sudden grew skeptical about the eternal fate of that infant whereas before they were "100% sure" that this child was in heaven?
One also needs to define "parents." Biological or foster/adoptive? I have a foster son, no biological parents, and I have no papers. He was in desperate shape, so I took him in 4 years ago. Is he a covenant child per my status as a believer, or is he in the covenant (or not) per the state of his deceased parents? His grandmother raised him for 8 years or so. Is that relevant?
Thanks so much! Fabulous article, it answered many of my questions.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
This is one of the more difficult questions in reformed, in any systematic biblical theology. But we do have biblical principles that form the parameter of the evaluation.
The Westminster Confession wisely does not imply how many or how few elect infants there may be. There are some examples in Scripture of imply at least, that some are saved, e.g. David's son.
Part of the wonderful wisdom of the Westminster summary is that it states only that which is broadly clear in Scripture. Not go beyond that, tempting to the fallen and prideful minds of the creature though that is. That way, the consciences of men are not bound by doubtful, or disputable propositions. (side note, notice how applicability of the sabbath was not one of them....)
GI Williamson (OPC) in The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes,p. 121, says of Chapter X. 3.
The Westminster Confession wisely does not imply how many or how few elect infants there may be. There are some examples in Scripture of imply at least, that some are saved, e.g. David's son.
Part of the wonderful wisdom of the Westminster summary is that it states only that which is broadly clear in Scripture. Not go beyond that, tempting to the fallen and prideful minds of the creature though that is. That way, the consciences of men are not bound by doubtful, or disputable propositions. (side note, notice how applicability of the sabbath was not one of them....)
GI Williamson (OPC) in The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes,p. 121, says of Chapter X. 3.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Being a biblical, reformed Presbyterian who holds the Westminster Standards as a faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture on matters to which it speaks, I don't have to cross that bridge.
I do think the Three Forms of Unity (Canons of Dordt, Belgaic Confession and Heidleberg Catechism) are basically the same doctrine as the Westminster Standards. And appreciate the wonderful Pastoral tone to the doctrine, they add, as well.
Glory be to God for that.
BertMulder
Puritan Board Junior
Homer Hoeksema did a great commentary on it by 'Voice of our Fathers' (his position on article 17 is basically his father's position) The Voice of Our Fathers being A Review & Appreciation - Allen Baird
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
I think that this quote of GI is affirming, essentially, the same thing that Dort 1.17 affirms.
One interesting thought: we will think of our covenant children who die in infancy in one way or another--they went somewhere, either to heaven or hell. Would we ever think of them as having gone to hell? I cannot imagine, given, for instance, the Scriptures that GI cites here (as well as others), why we would think that they went anywhere but heaven. Just as we would think of those that have credible professions of faith. Is there an iron-clad guarantee? Or, to put it as GI does, may we demand it? We may demand it of no one. But just as we exercise the judgment of charity with respect to credible professions (and don't seek to ferret out "secret marks of regeneracy"), we believe that our children who die in infancy die in the Lord. Again, why would we think otherwise? The speculative position in this case is the one that would cast doubt on that which we ought not to doubt.
Much more could be said about this but hopefully it isn't necessary.
Peace,
Alan
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
I can't quite say Westminster X. 3 is telling us "we believe that our children who die in infancy die in the Lord," or that that is the context of Mr. Williamson's summary, but I certainly don't presume to speak for him.
But the Westminster Divines could quite easily have said that the summary of the doctrine of Scripture is that believers have every assurance their infant children dying in infancy are regenerate....
but they did not.
It seems they were comfortable not going beyond what was clear in Scripture. While that leaves us with some uncertainty, it also presumes some hope, and allows for some differences, sincerely held, with at least some biblical basis, among us.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Pergamum,
This may go beyond what you intended here and I don't wish to distract this fine thread.
The issue immediately becomes thorny because one might ask, after
what about infant children of nonbelievers dying in infancy?
That might be answered by covenant promises not applying, but it still get difficult. And then, what about a child just beyond infancy, do we have Scriptural warrant that they die in the Lord? Does a 1 year old have that belief? 2 years old? Why is it that a difference that does not apply to a 2.5 year old?
That's why Mr. Williamson's short description,
And why I think the Westminster summary does not say (wisely so) how many or how few elect infants dying in infancy there might be.
This may go beyond what you intended here and I don't wish to distract this fine thread.
The issue immediately becomes thorny because one might ask, after
what about infant children of nonbelievers dying in infancy?
That might be answered by covenant promises not applying, but it still get difficult. And then, what about a child just beyond infancy, do we have Scriptural warrant that they die in the Lord? Does a 1 year old have that belief? 2 years old? Why is it that a difference that does not apply to a 2.5 year old?
That's why Mr. Williamson's short description,
says it well, on its own terms.
And why I think the Westminster summary does not say (wisely so) how many or how few elect infants dying in infancy there might be.
I enjoyed the article as well. Seeing the various views expressed by the various judgments, I tend to lean toward the Hoeksema view. It seems obvious that it is intended to be 'subjective' more than 'objective'.
Let's say the Canons stated something like this: "Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are the seed of Adam by nature, in which they together with their parents are comprehended to be condemned by the covenant of works, godly parents ought not to doubt the eventual physical death of their children."
Wouldn't we all assume that 'ought not to doubt' in this case would mean 'most likely but not certainly'? After all, there are the exceptions of Enoch, Elijah, and all those who shall be alive at the return of the Lord. 'Ought not to doubt' is pointing to a general principle, not an outright promise.
Therefore, I think what the Canons are saying is that godly parents cannot be absolutely certain, but because of the general principles of the Bible, they ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their infants who die in infancy.
Calling the hope of the parents a "subjective" view might give the wrong impression. It is not grounded on a belief in the infant's election as if God chose all infants dying in infancy or God chose the infants of believers indiscriminately. It is objectively grounded on the revelation of grace in the Word and baptism. In the case of infants dying in infancy we do not have any "subjective" criteria by which to make a judgment. We are shut up to the divine promises and those promises lead us to hope in God's mercy. There is no reason, so far as divine revelation is concerned, to think otherwise.
Thank you for this succinct statement. I agree. 'Subjective' is not the right word. However, it does seem that Dort and Westminster are looking at the same elephant from two different sides. The latter speaks of what we may be certain, and the former of what we may not doubt.
Is he objecting to the article itself or the way most interpret the words 'ought not to doubt'? Where is this from?
Pergy,
Recall that an historic discussion is bound to address variation in interpretation of a common text. That's just being responsible.
Also, it bears remembering that Hoekesema represents a particular strain of the Dutch (American) tradition, one that is close in many ways to Venema's (URC), but has significant historical divergence, namely the PRC split in the original CRC going back to 1924. The continuing PRC (through at least one other split) has staked out some very definite positions, all which are usually tied into an overwhelming emphasis on the absolute nature of divine predestination, even to the point of denying the legitimacy of certain ways of speaking about particular topics (like the salvation of infants).
I think it is plain how such a powerful, overriding emphasis on election might result in an effort to make unmistakeable just how the PRC thinks Dordt's statement should be read; that is, in light of this or that statement as predominant, controlling, etc. I'm not so sure imposing that kind of doctrinal rigidity ex post facto is quite in keeping with what I see as an original effort (from 400 yrs ago) at pastoral balance and concern. But, Hoekesema's is one clear voice in the milieu of interpretation, one that while it may be minority, still represents a cousin-view.
Recall that an historic discussion is bound to address variation in interpretation of a common text. That's just being responsible.
Also, it bears remembering that Hoekesema represents a particular strain of the Dutch (American) tradition, one that is close in many ways to Venema's (URC), but has significant historical divergence, namely the PRC split in the original CRC going back to 1924. The continuing PRC (through at least one other split) has staked out some very definite positions, all which are usually tied into an overwhelming emphasis on the absolute nature of divine predestination, even to the point of denying the legitimacy of certain ways of speaking about particular topics (like the salvation of infants).
I think it is plain how such a powerful, overriding emphasis on election might result in an effort to make unmistakeable just how the PRC thinks Dordt's statement should be read; that is, in light of this or that statement as predominant, controlling, etc. I'm not so sure imposing that kind of doctrinal rigidity ex post facto is quite in keeping with what I see as an original effort (from 400 yrs ago) at pastoral balance and concern. But, Hoekesema's is one clear voice in the milieu of interpretation, one that while it may be minority, still represents a cousin-view.
Captain Picard
Puritan Board Freshman
Calvin's commentaries are always helpful. Although I'm not sure Calvin entirely unpacked whether or not baptismal efficacy entered into the equation. "Why not give covenant children the sign" he says, but if there is no baptismal regeneration, than we're left with hereditary salvation for some or all covenant children, which Calvin himelf describes in 1C 7:14 as contrary to federal death in Adam? A complex issue to be sure.
- Status
