The gospel, infants, imbeciles, and election

[Timotheos]

Someone pointed out to me an inconsistency in my reasoning that I would like some help with. Please oh PLEASE do not derail this thread into a debate over the what I'm about to mention I believe. I would like to see if someone with similar views to my own offer an explanation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe God elects infants and imbeciles to salvation with the same criteria he does with everyone else... the pleasure of his glory. Whether all children and mentally incompetent are saved is a matter left to God not myself. Do some go to hell? I don't know. Again, I believe the criteria for election is the same for all... unconditional.

I also believe that part of salvation involves a comprehension of the gospel. In other words, general revelation is not enough. There must be an acknowledgement of Jesus' cross-work and resurrection as well as his lordship. For example, the ancient native american might have believed some things that were similar to Christian doctrine. But if he/she did not know Jesus, then he/she was not saved.

But therein lies the inconsistency. How can I be stringent about the gospel when I am willing to concede that God will save some w/out the gospel?

How do you account for this, assuming you hold views similar to mine.

 

[Miss Marple]

Are you missing the covenant?

It seems to me infants, and imbeciles, are saved if they are included in the covenant by the fact that a parent is saved.

I don't know of a promise to infants (or imbeciles) apart from that.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

All those who have the WCF (or allied confessions) as their confession, believe both WCF 10.3 and 10.4.

With respect to 10.4, we all agree that those who are not elected, "although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."

At the same time, we believe that those who are elect but are incapable of being outwardly called are nonetheless saved: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

The common denominator here is that the elect are always saved, ordinarily by way of an outward call, but in some cases, are regenerated and saved though "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." We know that there are those incapable of being outwardly called: are we to assume that they all are not elect and all perish? On what basis would we come to that conclusion? The mercy and love of a covenant God would suggest otherwise and you may wish to check out the Scripture proofs, which highlight Jesus' receiving of the little children and that salvation is in and of the Lord.

It is the case, however, that the case for the view that there are elect among those incapable of being outwardly called is inferential and not direct. It is, I believe, a good and necessary consequence of a variety of Scriptures and certainly a concomitant of covenant theology.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Tim, you said, “I also believe that part of salvation involves a comprehension of the gospel . . . There must be an acknowledgement of Jesus' cross-work and resurrection as well as his lordship.”

Scripture shows some who were regenerated apart from that: such as John the Baptist in the womb.

The LORD gave a spiritual promise to Abraham concerning his children, “to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7), we also his seed (Galatians 3:29), and Moses gave insight into the nature of this promise:

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live (Deut 30:6).​

A crucial matter is when this heart circumcision of the children was effected, and what it consisted of. We know of John the Baptist that he was sanctified / set apart in his mother’s womb, regenerated – while yet unborn – by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15). Further examples: Did He not say to young Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jer 1:5)? Was not Jacob separated unto God from the womb? (Gen 25:23) Was not Samson “a Nazarite unto God from the womb”? (Judges 13:5) Was not Samuel devoted to the LORD from the womb? (1 Sam 1:11, 19) Was not David (as well as his greater Son)? (Psalm 22:9, 10; 139:13–16)

Another way to see it is, does an infant “receive” his or her mother? That is, receive her heart into his own? Then can an infant “receive” his God, even though they have not the capacity to cognitively “believe”? Cannot the Lord draw nigh to an infant and quicken her with His loving presence, or a mentally impaired person (perhaps through a family member’s presence, or prayer)?

Does this help?

 

[One Little Nail]

I take it that when you say imbeciles you are also taking into account, idiots, morons,vegetables as well as
those who have been mentally damaged through brain injury, drug abuse, poisoning etc.

For The Lord to save, it is only required that he seal a person with His Holy Spirit.

 

[Edward]

I would like to see if someone with similar views to my own offer an explanation.

So you want to see affirmation, not discussion?

 

[Timotheos]

So you want to see affirmation, not discussion?

Not remotely. I just don't want to derail my essential question with peripheral matters. I don't want to debate "where do babies go when they die?" and such. I want to hear some thoughts of people who reckon similarly as myself and present them with an issue I am facing and not totally sure how to answer... or answer well.

 

[timmopussycat]

I leave that question with the secret things belong to the Lord our God and trust that the Judge of the earth shall do what is right.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Where we find the elect of God we will find the Gospel. I think your issue comes from concluding the ordinary means of hearing of the Word being preached is the only means, thereby ignoring the extraordinary means that the Lord in His sovereign wisdom is pleased to make use of extraordinarily for conveying grace into the hearts of the elect.

 

[earl40]

Where we find the elect of God we will find the Gospel. I think your issue comes from concluding the ordinary means of hearing of the Word being preached is the only means, thereby ignoring the extraordinary means that the Lord in His sovereign wisdom is pleased to make use of extraordinarily for conveying grace into the hearts of the elect.

As I have pondered the use of "ordinary means", as mentioned in the WCF use of providence, I have come to the conclusion that so far as the salvation of the infirm and children I have no problem with God working outside of the "ordinary means".

The reason I write this is because I especially like Pastor Strange's post in that I rest any hope of those saved (infants and the infirm) outside the visible church to be based on the character of Our Lord and not on any parents faith or lack thereof. Of course our Pastors should encourage those in the church to rest in Our Lord for our departed children and infirm to be in heaven, and our Pastors should encourage those outside the faith that their children are in heaven based on the love and mercy of Our Lord to which we (in the church) have faith in.

 

[CraigTruglia]

Are you missing the covenant?

It seems to me infants, and imbeciles, are saved if they are included in the covenant by the fact that a parent is saved.

I don't know of a promise to infants (or imbeciles) apart from that.

Let me begin my reply by making the following clear:

He saved them for the sake of His name, that He might make His power known. (Psalm 106:8)

The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. (Psalm 19:9)


God does all things, including saving His elect, for His glory. Those whom He chooses to save in His judgment are saved by His grace and there is nothing unfair about His choice. If God wills every infant and imbecile to go to hell, He is right. If he wills every single one of them to be saved, He is right. If He wills for only those in the household of believers to be saved, He is right.

We do not have the capacity to question God's justice.

So, the question is not whether God is unfair in His decision, but what the Scripture actually says what His decision about the matter actually is.

Problem is, the Scripture does not specifically address the question. However, it does address issues that give us a pretty good idea, but not a certainty, over what kind of people make up His elect.

-Former children of wrath (Eph 2:3)
-Those who have believed in their heart and confessed with their mouth Jesus Christ (Rom 10:9)
-Those who have heard the Gospel preached to them (Rom 10:14)

While infants and imbeciles are certainly born as children of wrath, the former two points they appear to fall crucially short of salvation. Those who believe in the salvation of infants of believing parents presume that God supernaturally gives these infants an understanding of the Gospel and changes their hearts of stone so that they do believe. Granted, nothing is impossible with God, but we have no compelling reason to believe that God acts differently with people such as these than with unreached people groups.

In fact, the danger of presuming that infants, imbeciles, or unreached people can be saved in this way forces us to misinterpret certain passages of Scripture. For example, God's calling of Abraham in Gen 12:1 is not meant to be a normative way in which people come to know God as an exception of having Him being preached to them. Even in this case, Abraham was not saved until a time later. Or, as another example, Ps 8:2 states, "The mouth of infants and nursing babes You have established strength because of Your adversaries, to make the enemy and the revengeful cease." Some will say that this shows infants are saved. However, Jesus Himself took a much different interpretation in Mat 21:15-16, showing it to be a prophecy fulfillment.

So, while it is not impossible for God to save infants and imbeciles, I must ask, where does the Bible say this? If anything, the Bible's testimony that believers hear the Gospel preached and confess Christ's name after God performing a supernatural work in their hearts, appears to preclude this. So, while we do not have certainty because the Scripture does not definitively answer the question, we could say with confidence that it is only those who believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that Christ is Lord and has risen from the dead are saved. All those not in that category are not saved.

 

[JimmyH]

Let me begin my reply by making the following clear:

Welcome to PB. You make some interesting points. I look forward to seeing if anyone can bring more Scripture to the fore and reveal more to us.

PB has signature requirements, just a heads up in case you didn't know ;

vBulletin FAQ

All members of the Puritanboard must have a minimal "signature" in their User Control Panel that includes the following items:

First Name (or nickname)
Ministry Position (if you are a Church Office holder)
Denominational Affiliation
State of Residence

 

[CraigTruglia]

Let me begin my reply by making the following clear:

Welcome to PB. You make some interesting points. I look forward to seeing if anyone can bring more Scripture to the fore and reveal more to us.

PB has signature requirements, just a heads up in case you didn't know ;

vBulletin FAQ

All members of the Puritanboard must have a minimal "signature" in their User Control Panel that includes the following items:

First Name (or nickname)
Ministry Position (if you are a Church Office holder)
Denominational Affiliation
State of Residence

I think it is working now

The whole issue hinges on "Covenant Theology." If the believer is not compelled by the Scripture to believe Covenant Theology is a good representation of what Christ and the Apostles have taught in the New Testament, then we are pretty much left with statements that would appear to not include non-believers. It is those who adhere to Covenant Theology who argue that for the sake of believing relatives, God takes a particularly special interest in saving in extraordinary ways (not by preaching). It is worth noting that God was not even that liberal with the Israelites in the Old Testament and their extended households and clans (something like only 7,000 people from the Kingdom of Israel out of more than a million did not bow the knee to Baal), so I honestly just don't see it in the Scripture.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Warfield's survey on the Reformed views concerning infant salvation:

VI. THE REFORMED DOCTRINE

It was among the Reformed alone that the newly recovered Scriptural apprehension of the Church to which the promises were given, as essentially not an externally organized body but the people of God, membership in which is mediated not by the external act of baptism but by the internal regeneration of the Holy Spirit, bore its full fruit in rectifying the doctrine of the application of redemption. This great truth was taught alike by both branches of Protestantism, but it was limited in its application in the one line of teaching by a very high doctrine of the means of grace, while in the other it became itself constitutive of the doctrine of the means of grace. Not a few Reformed theologians, even outside the Church of England, no doubt also held a high doctrine of the means; of whom Peter Jurieu may be taken as a type.64 But this was not characteristic of the Reformed churches, the distinguishing doctrine of which rather by suspending salvation on membership in the invisible instead of in the visible Church, transformed baptism from a necessity into a duty, and left men dependent for salvation on nothing but the infinite love and free grace of God. In this view the absolutely free and loving election of God alone is determinative of the saved; so that how many and who they are is known absolutely to God alone, and to us only so far forth as it may be inferred from the marks and signs of election revealed to us in the Word. Faith and its fruits are the chief signs in the case of adults, and he that believes may know that he is of the elect. In the case of infants dying in infancy, birth within the bounds of the covenant is a sure sign, since the promise is “unto us and our children.” But present unbelief is not a sure sign of reprobation in the case of adults, for who knows but that unbelief may yet give place to faith? Nor in the case of infants, dying such, is birth outside the covenant a trustworthy sign of reprobation, for the election of God is free. Accordingly there are many—adults and infants—of whose salvation we may be sure, but of reprobation we cannot be sure; such a judgment is necessarily unsafe even as to adults apparently living in sin, while as to infants who “die and give no sign,” it is presumptuous and rash in the extreme.

The above is practically an outline of the teaching of Zwingli. He himself worked it out in its logical completeness, and taught: 1. That all believers are elect and hence are saved, though we cannot know infallibly who are true believers except in our own case. 2. All children of believers dying in infancy are elect and hence are saved, for this rests on God’s immutable promise. 3. It is probable, from the superabundance of the gift of grace over the offense, that all infants dying such are elect and saved; so that death in infancy is a sign of election; and although this must be left with God, it is certainly rash and even impious to affirm their damnation. 4. All who are saved, whether adult or infant, are saved only by the free grace of God’s election and through the redemption of Christ.65

The central principle of Zwingli’s teaching is not only the common possession of all Calvinists, but the essential postulate of their system. They can differ among themselves only in their determination of what the signs of election and reprobation are, and in their interpretation of these signs. On these grounds Calvinists early divided into five classes: 1. From the beginning a few held with Zwingli that death in infancy is a sign of election, and hence that all who die in infancy are the children of God and enter at once into glory. After Zwingli, Bishop Hooper was probably the first66 to embrace this view.67 It has more lately become the ruling view, and we may select Augustus Toplady68 and Robert S. Candlish as its types. The latter, for example, writes:69 “In many ways, I apprehend, it may be inferred from Scripture that all dying in infancy are elect, and are therefore saved.… The whole analogy of the plan of saving mercy seems to favour the same view. And now it may be seen, if I am not greatly mistaken, to be put beyond question by the bare fact that little children die.… The death of little children must be held to be one of the fruits of redemption.…” 2. At the opposite extreme a very few held that the only sure sign of election is faith with its fruits, and, therefore, we can have no real ground of knowledge concerning the fate of any infant; as, however, God certainly has His elect among them too, each man can cherish the hope that his children are of the elect. Peter Martyr approaches this sadly agnostic position (which was afterward condemned by the Synod of Dort), writing: “Neither am I to be thought to promise salvation to all the children of the faithful which depart without the sacrament, for if I should do so I might be counted rash; I leave them to be judged by the mercy of God, seeing I have no certainty concerning the secret election and predestination; but I only assert that those are truly saved to whom the divine election extends, although baptism does not intervene.… Just so, I hope well concerning infants of this kind, because I see them born from faithful parents; and this thing has promises that are uncommon; and although they may not be general, quoad omnes, … yet when I see nothing to the contrary it is right to hope well concerning the salvation of such infants.”70 The great body of Calvinists, however, previous to the present century, took their position between these extremes. 3. Many held that faith and the promise are sure signs of election, and accordingly all believers and their children are certainly saved; but that the lack of faith and the promise is an equally sure sign of reprobation, so that all the children of unbelievers, dying such, are equally certainly lost. The younger Spanheim, for example, writes: “Confessedly, therefore, original sin is a most just cause of positive reprobation. Hence no one fails to see what we should think concerning the children of pagans dying in their childhood; for unless we acknowledge salvation outside of God’s covenant and Church (like the Pelagians of old, and with them Tertullian, Epiphanius, Clement of Alexandria, of the ancients, and of the moderns, Andradius, Ludovicus Vives, Erasmus, and not a few others, against the whole Bible), and suppose that all the children of the heathen, dying in infancy, are saved, and that it would be a great blessing to them if they should be smothered by the midwives or strangled in the cradle, we should humbly believe that they are justly reprobated by God on account of the corruption (labes) and guilt (reatus) derived to them by natural propagation. Hence, too, Paul testifies (Rom. 5:14) that death has passed upon them which have not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, and distinguishes and separates (1 Cor. 7:14) the children of the covenanted as holy from the impure children of unbelievers.”71 4. More held that faith and the promise are certain signs of election, so that the salvation of believers” children is certain, while the lack of the promise only leaves us in ignorance of God’s purpose; nevertheless that there is good ground for asserting that both election and reprobation have place in this unknown sphere. Accordingly they held that all the infants of believers, dying such, are saved, but that some of the infants of unbelievers, dying such, are lost. Probably no higher expression of this general view can be found than John Owen’s. He argues that there are two ways in which God saves infants: “(1) by interesting them in the covenant, if their immediate or remote parents have been believers. He is a God of them and of their seed, extending his mercy unto a thousand generations of them that fear him;72 (2) by his grace of election, which is most free, and not tied to any conditions; by which I make no doubt but God taketh many unto him in Christ whose parents never knew, or had been despisers of, the gospel.”73 5. Most Calvinists of the past, however, have simply held that faith and the promise are marks by which we may know assuredly that all those who believe and their children, dying such, are elect and saved, while the absence of sure marks of either election or reprobation in infants, dying such outside the covenant, leaves us without ground for inference concerning them, and they must be left to the judgment of God, which, however hidden from us, is assuredly just and holy and good. This agnostic view of the fate of uncovenanted infants has been held, of course, in conjunction with every degree of hope or the lack of hope concerning them, and thus in the hands of the several theologians it approaches each of the other views, except, of course, the second, which separates itself from the general Calvinistic attitude by allowing a place for reprobation even among believers’ infants, dying such. Petrus de Witte may stand for one example. He says: “We must adore God’s judgments 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 unto the covenant. But because we have no promise of the children of unbelievers we leave them to the judgment of God.”74 Matthew Henry75 and our own Jonathan Dickinson76 may also stand as types. It is this cautious, agnostic view which has the best historical right to be called the general Calvinistic one. Van Mastricht correctly says that while the Reformed hold that infants are liable to reprobation, yet “concerning believers’ infants … they judge better things. But unbelievers’ infants, because the Scriptures determine nothing clearly on the subject, they judge should be left to the divine discretion.”77

The Reformed Confessions with characteristic caution 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. The fundamental Reformed doctrine of the Church is nowhere more beautifully stated than in the sixteenth article of the Old Scotch Confession, while the polemical appendix of 1580, in its protest against the errors of “antichrist,” specifically mentions “his cruell judgment againis infants departing without the sacrament: his absolute necessitie of baptisme.” No synod probably ever met which labored under greater temptation to declare that some infants, dying in infancy, are reprobate, than the Synod of Dort. Possibly nearly every member of it held as his private opinion that there are such infants; and the certainly very shrewd but scarcely sincere methods of the Remonstrants in shifting the form in which this question came before the synod were very irritating. But the fathers of Dort, with truly Reformed loyalty to the positive declarations of Scripture, confined themselves to a clear testimony to the positive doctrine of infant salvation and a repudiation of the calumnies of the Remonstrants, without a word of negative inference. “Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word,” they say, “which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which they together with their parents are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy” (art. xvii.). Accordingly they repel in the Conclusion the calumny that the Reformed teach “that many children of the faithful are torn guiltless from their mothers’ breasts and tyrannically plunged into hell.”78 It is easy to say that nothing is here said of the children of any but the “godly” and of the “faithful”; this is true; and therefore it is not implied (as is so often thoughtlessly asserted) that the contrary of what is here asserted is true of the children of the ungodly; but nothing is taught of them at all. It is more to the purpose to observe that it is asserted that the children of believers, dying such, are saved; and that this assertion is an inestimable advance on that of the Council of Trent and that of the Augsburg Confession that baptism is necessary to salvation. It is the confessional doctrine of the Reformed churches and of the Reformed churches alone, that all believers’ infants, dying in infancy, are saved.

What has been said of the Synod of Dort may be repeated of the Westminster Assembly. The Westminster divines were generally at one in the matter of infant salvation with the doctors of Dort, but, like them, they refrained from any deliverance as to its negative side. That death in infancy does not prejudice the salvation of God’s elect they asserted in the chapter of their Confession which treats of the application of Christ’s redemption to His people: “All those whom God hath predestined unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, … so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.… Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.”79 With this declaration of their faith that such of God’s elect as die in infancy are saved by His own mysterious working in their hearts, although incapable of the response of faith, they were content. Whether these elect comprehend all infants, dying such, or some only—whether there is such a class as non-elect infants, dying in infancy, their words neither say nor suggest. No Reformed confession enters into this question; no word is said by any one of them which either asserts or implies either that some infants are reprobated or that all are saved. What has been held in common by the whole body of Reformed theologians on this subject is asserted in these confessions; of what has been disputed among them the confessions are silent. And silence is as favorable to one type as to another.

Although the cautious agnostic position as to the fate of uncovenanted infants dying in infancy may fairly claim to be the historical Calvinistic view, it is perfectly obvious that it is not per se any more Calvinistic than any of the others. The adherents of all types enumerated above are clearly within the limits of the system, and hold with the same firmness to the fundamental position that salvation is suspended on no earthly cause, but ultimately rests on God’s electing grace alone, while our knowledge of who are saved depends on our view of what are the signs of election and of the clearness with which they may be interpreted. As these several types differ only in the replies they offer to the subordinate question, there is no “revolution” involved in passing from one to the other; and as in the lapse of time the balance between them swings this way or that, it can only be truly said that there is advance or retrogression, not in fundamental conception, but in the clearness with which details are read and with which the outline of the doctrine is filled up. In the course of time the agnostic view of the fate of uncovenanted infants, dying such, has given place to an ever growing universality of conviction that these infants too are included in the election of grace; so that to-day few Calvinists can be found who do not hold with Toplady, and Doddridge, and Thomas Scott, and John Newton, and James P. Wilson, and Nathan L. Rice, and Robert J. Breckinridge, and Robert S. Candlish, and Charles Hodge, and the whole body of those of recent years whom the Calvinistic churches delight to honor, 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 (for all are born children of wrath), nor because they are less guilty than others (for relative innocence would merit only relatively light punishment, not freedom from all punishment), nor because they die in infancy (for that they die in infancy is not the cause but the effect of God’s mercy toward them), but simply because God in His infinite love has chosen them in Christ, before the foundation of the world, by a loving foreordination of them unto adoption as sons in Jesus Christ. Thus, as they hold, the Reformed theology has followed the light of the Word until its brightness has illuminated all its corners, and the darkness has fled away.


Warfield, B. B. (2008). The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Studies in Theology (Vol. 9, pp. 429–438). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rich, thanks for posting this edifying survey of views on the topic!

 

[KGP]

Yes, good information there, thanks.

As was said previously, all that is necessary for salvation is the sealing work of the Spirit; the washing of regeneration.

Mainstream evangelicalism continually mistakes the fruits of salvation as the requirements for salvation, in my experience anyway. And so the work of the spirit in conversion is rarely communicated, let alone understood by most. It is therefore helpful (I have found) to make a practice of always referring to the work of the Spirit before the work of "believing in the one whom He has sent" when discussing salvation

 

[Rom]

For our Baptist brothers, the 1689 London Baptist Confession (Chapter 10) says what the Westminster Confession of Faith does - which is that elect infants are saved, as are those who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (in the terminology used here in this thread, 'imbeciles').

>> Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The problem is that some people want to make more of a statement on which infants are saved, and which are not. I think both Confessions are wise to not go there, as the Scripture is silent on this.

But clearly, we see at least with David - an example of the fact that an infant is saved without understanding the gospel (2 Samuel 12:23). If we stress the onus on a cognitive understanding of the gospel, we have made faith a thing of works, and not of grace.

 

[JimmyH]

Speaking with my pastor on this issue, he brought up these verses, among others ;

Acts 2 :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.

Genesis 9: 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

Genesis 17: 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

 

[CraigTruglia]

I am willing to be convinced by the Scriptures that "elect infants" are saved, and obviously it is purely within the scope of God's power, but let me play "devil's advocate" here.

the work of the spirit in conversion is rarely communicated, let alone understood by most. It is therefore helpful (I have found) to make a practice of always referring to the work of the Spirit before the work of "believing in the one whom He has sent" when discussing salvation

It is also important to note that understanding the work of the Spirit is not perquisite for salvation, knowing Christ and Him alone is sufficient. Otherwise, no Arminian would ever be saved (though sometimes I think there are plenty that are not because they will emphasize free will above Christ, but that's another story).

For our Baptist brothers, the 1689 London Baptist Confession (Chapter 10) says what the Westminster Confession of Faith does

This is most useful in being careful with our claims, as disagreeing with the preponderance of Christians means that what one ascribes to can very likely be heresy. However, it does not settle the matter, only Scripture can.

But clearly, we see at least with David - an example of the fact that an infant is saved without understanding the gospel (2 Samuel 12:23). If we stress the onus on a cognitive understanding of the gospel, we have made faith a thing of works, and not of grace.

First, I don't think 2 Samuel 12:23 means that David's infant is saved. He said he would see the infant again in Sheol. Even the wicked rich man saw Lazarus on Abraham's lap in Sheol. So, the statement does not definitively prove the matter. Personally, I think it is more of a euphemism that means, "I'll see meet my son again in the grave (i.e. the common state of death)." I don't think it was a eschatological statement of any sort.

Granted, grace is the basis of salvation, but faith is it's means (Eph 2:8). So, God could choose to save people without them ever showing faith, God can do anything He pleases, but the consistent testimony of the Scripture is that God's grace is apparent in those who have faith. Hence, the assumption that someone who does not show faith has not been shown God's grace is actually quite logical.

Acts 2 :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.

This Scripture is fulfilled several times in Acts in the baptism of households, where it is made clear that those in the household declared faith in Christ.

What I cannot find in the Scripture is an example of someone who never showed faith in this life that is declared to be saved. This to me, pretty much settles the issue.

 

[JimmyH]

Acts 2 :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.

This Scripture is fulfilled several times in Acts in the baptism of households, where it is made clear that those in the household declared faith in Christ.

What I cannot find in the Scripture is an example of someone who never showed faith in this life that is declared to be saved. This to me, pretty much settles the issue.

Not putting words in my Pastor's mouth and then quoting him, but to the best of my recollection ...... Anticipating the argument, he pointed to Acts 16 ;

27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

I don't think the first statement presupposed more than the jailer's believing .

 

[Rom]

One would also struggle to see how John the Baptist, while in-utero can leap for joy at the approach of His Savior. God can indeed regenerate those who are infants. How their faith is expressed, I cannot say - but the Scriptures are not silent about this. If the Lord is pleased to take His Elect before they can open their mouths and confess His name, then He may do so. (Jeremiah 1:5 - "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you").

Luke 1:41-44
41*And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42*Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43*But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44*For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

John the Baptist, before he was born expressed His Faith in His Savior by leaping for joy. No unregenerate person ever leaps for joy at the approach of Jesus Christ.
No one can say how an infant or 'imbecile' expresses one's faith. I think we should be wise enough to leave it at that.

Otherwise, we are stating that no one who has cognitive difficulties could ever be saved, and that all of God's elect will be formed with a fully functional, healthy mind.

 

[CraigTruglia]

Acts 2 :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.

This Scripture is fulfilled several times in Acts in the baptism of households, where it is made clear that those in the household declared faith in Christ.

What I cannot find in the Scripture is an example of someone who never showed faith in this life that is declared to be saved. This to me, pretty much settles the issue.

Not putting words in my Pastor's mouth and then quoting him, but to the best of my recollection ...... Anticipating the argument, he pointed to Acts 16 ;

27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

I don't think the first statement presupposed more than the jailer's believing .

Fair enough. But, concerning the question of infants and imbeciles, their spoken confession (and perhaps inward) is lacking.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

First, I don't think 2 Samuel 12:23 means that David's infant is saved. He said he would see the infant again in Sheol. Even the wicked rich man saw Lazarus on Abraham's lap in Sheol. So, the statement does not definitively prove the matter. Personally, I think it is more of a euphemism that means, "I'll see meet my son again in the grave (i.e. the common state of death)." I don't think it was a eschatological statement of any sort.

What the text states most plainly is that David expects the two of them (he and his son) to be together. There is no comment about "seeing." And no mention of "Sheol." So, clearly from the beginning of your interpretation, there is a strong leaning upon inferences, and especially dependence upon one supposedly clearer passage (a parable of sorts from Jesus).

Now, is it merely "the grave" (Sheol) that David refers, a kind of catch-all place of the dead, that he expects to go in order to be with his son? In Jesus parable (Lk.16), are we taught that the two persons (rich man and Lazarus) are together in one place? Seems to me, a major point of theology functioning as is in the story, is that they are absolutely separated; which makes the awareness by the RM of the other side and the "conversation" between the RM and Abraham very much a "device" for telling that tale.

Granting David only a limited expectation for a moment (for the sake of the discussion), does such an interpretation imply the Hebrews had a functionally opaque view of the afterlife? Were they essentially more clueless than the polytheistic Egyptians? The fact that the Egyptians, even before the days when Israel inherited the land, had what amounts to a heaven-and-hell afterlife; together with the knowledge we have of Israel's centuries-long sojourn in Egypt; makes distinctly "flat" personal-eschatology interpretation of the OT implausible.

There is no reason why an understanding of a "common" grave (in earthly or even poetic terms) cannot coexist theologically with hope in a resurrection, which David certainly had, Ps.16:9-11. We employ similarly dual-designations today, even after thousands of years. And there are a fair number of other texts in the OT that imply the outlines at least, of a robust eschatology; though all OT theology waits in the dimness for the clarity of NT light to dawn.

David had a faithful expectation to be "go to be with [his] fathers," 1Chr.17:11. Ahab was also said to "sleep with his fathers," but that doesn't imply that his fathers and David's were the same! Ps.37:37-38; Is.57:1-2,13,21. We ought to give David's comment and his stated expectation its due, in a covenant-context; a context where God promises to be "God to you, and your descendants after you," Gen.17:7.

It's a pitifully truncated read of David's language, to make it sound as bleak as possible, when David is held aloft as a spiritual man (not merely a national hero), a flawed man indeed, but a man of faith nonetheless, enforced by his notice in Heb.11:32 (cf. Rom.4:6ff). His words should be read with as full and spiritual an understanding as we could possibly draw from the Scriptures we know he possessed, and even be willing to err on the side of crediting him with "too much" rather than too little, since he was a prophet in his own right.

In any case, it is nonsense to say that the words are devoid of any eschatological freight. That's just "shutting the door to keep out the light."

"Without faith it is impossible to please God," Heb.11:6.

--God can give saving faith to anyone; in fact, if he doesn't give it to any designated soul, that soul will perish.
--God does give faith to some.
--God gives faith to some babies, Ps.22:9; Ps.71:6; Lk.1:44, Ps.8:2.​

Faith is explained, or dissected, in three parts (standard Reformed theology): Knowledge, Assent, Trust. Trust is the completion of faith; it can begin in the barest of knowledge, yes even non-propositional truth. The key to faith's effectiveness is not in the believer, but in the object of faith. My infant child has been trusting it's mother for quite a while now. Providentially, the object of that infant's elemental faith loves that child and would do just about anything to preserve its life and comfort. After about four months, this baby actually looks and listens for the mother, and cries specifically for her. These are cognitive baby-steps. Knowledge is being developed and reinforced.

Unless we say that God never saves, and has never saved, any who are incapable in this life of being "outwardly called" by the ministry of the Word, and therefore all such persons must be reprobate; then he must save some, by ministering Christ to them in a way that makes him apprehensible to them. Their "eyes of faith" (Act.26:18) are opened into eternity, and they but "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of [their] Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," 2Pet.3:18. This is a perfectly valid inference, established on absolutely solid biblical premises.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Craig,

The Reformed have always maintained that GNC is a sufficient basis from which to come to some conclusions. When challenged by the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, Christ did not "proof text" them but silenced them through the GNC of God being called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It silenced them.

Our Covenant theology is a combination of both exegesis and GNC from the same. As the survey above notes, the Reformed have limited themselves to positively confessing the conviction that believers and their children are set apart as holy. If you don't accept the Covenant Theology of the WCF then I don't expect you to accept the GNC concerning the salvation of infants and imbeciles. If you do, then it is not a huge leap to tell the parent of an infant or imbecile that they need not doubt the salvation of their dead children.

To further understand the salvation of those who have not made a positive Confession of faith one would also have to understand how the Covenant of Grace is related to the Covenant of Redemption and the relationship of God's work of justification in point of time to the decree to save the elect.

 

[CraigTruglia]

One would also struggle to see how John the Baptist, while in-utero can leap for joy at the approach of His Savior. God can indeed regenerate those who are infants. How their faith is expressed, I cannot say - but the Scriptures are not silent about this. If the Lord is pleased to take His Elect before they can open their mouths and confess His name, then He may do so. (Jeremiah 1:5 - "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you").

Luke 1:41-44
41*And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42*Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43*But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44*For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

John the Baptist, before he was born expressed His Faith in His Savior by leaping for joy. No unregenerate person ever leaps for joy at the approach of Jesus Christ.
No one can say how an infant or 'imbecile' expresses one's faith. I think we should be wise enough to leave it at that.

Otherwise, we are stating that no one who has cognitive difficulties could ever be saved, and that all of God's elect will be formed with a fully functional, healthy mind.

Honestly, I think you are conflating things here. Yes, all of God's elect have been set aside from their mother's womb (Gal 1:15). However, this does not mean every child in the womb of a believer is saved, these are separate issues.

You bring up the example of John the Baptist. The jumping of babies in the womb in reaction to something profound they are joyful over is an extraordinary event. God infused John the Baptist in the womb with an intellect that is not typical. Because the Scripture does not intend for this event to be normative, we cannot take this event and presume upon God to be making radical changes in the intellects of believer's children so that they have been bestowed saving grace in the womb.

 

[Rom]

Craig, I never asserted that the child of every believer is elect. I merely stated that elect infants dying in infancy are saved. That is what the Confession that you claim you subscribe to (without any exception listed on your profile) says. And once more, you are implying that intellect is a necessary condition to be saved. I think that is a dangerous error, to say the least. And says that all those who are mentally incapable of apprehending the gospel are reprobates. Is that the position you intend to take?

One would also struggle to see how John the Baptist, while in-utero can leap for joy at the approach of His Savior. God can indeed regenerate those who are infants. How their faith is expressed, I cannot say - but the Scriptures are not silent about this. If the Lord is pleased to take His Elect before they can open their mouths and confess His name, then He may do so. (Jeremiah 1:5 - "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you").

Luke 1:41-44
41*And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42*Then she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43*But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44*For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

John the Baptist, before he was born expressed His Faith in His Savior by leaping for joy. No unregenerate person ever leaps for joy at the approach of Jesus Christ.
No one can say how an infant or 'imbecile' expresses one's faith. I think we should be wise enough to leave it at that.

Otherwise, we are stating that no one who has cognitive difficulties could ever be saved, and that all of God's elect will be formed with a fully functional, healthy mind.

Honestly, I think you are conflating things here. Yes, all of God's elect have been set aside from their mother's womb (Gal 1:15). However, this does not mean every child in the womb of a believer is saved, these are separate issues.

You bring up the example of John the Baptist. The jumping of babies in the womb in reaction to something profound they are joyful over is an extraordinary event. God infused John the Baptist in the womb with an intellect that is not typical. Because the Scripture does not intend for this event to be normative, we cannot take this event and presume upon God to be making radical changes in the intellects of believer's children so that they have been bestowed saving grace in the womb.

 

[CraigTruglia]

Craig,

The Reformed have always maintained that GNC is a sufficient basis from which to come to some conclusions. When challenged by the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, Christ did not "proof text" them but silenced them through the GNC of God being called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It silenced them.

Our Covenant theology is a combination of both exegesis and GNC from the same. As the survey above notes, the Reformed have limited themselves to positively confessing the conviction that believers and their children are set apart as holy. If you don't accept the Covenant Theology of the WCF then I don't expect you to accept the GNC concerning the salvation of infants and imbeciles. If you do, then it is not a huge leap to tell the parent of an infant or imbecile that they need not doubt the salvation of their dead children.

To further understand the salvation of those who have not made a positive Confession of faith one would also have to understand how the Covenant of Grace is related to the Covenant of Redemption and the relationship of God's work of justification in point of time to the decree to save the elect.

I want to avoid coming onto too strong, because if the Scripture does not answer the question explicitly, Id on't want to go beyond the Scripture. That being said, I don't think you are addressing the actual points being made in the above. If the issue was simply settled by creeds we would have no need to simply ask the question. Being that the question was asked, and ideally even if a creed is correct it is substantiated by the Scripture, I think the question should be answered by the Scripture.

Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth, knowing that in Esdras also the truth conquers, as it is written: Truth endures and grows strong to eternity, and lives and prevails for ever and ever. (Cyprian, Epistle 73:9)

 

[CraigTruglia]

Craig, I never asserted that the child of every believer is elect. I merely stated that elect infants dying in infancy are saved. That is what the Confession that you claim you subscribe to (without any exception listed on your profile) says. And once more, you are implying that intellect is a necessary condition to be saved. I think that is a dangerous error, to say the least. And says that all those who are mentally incapable of apprehending the gospel are reprobates. Is that the position you intend to take?

Covenant Theology generally takes the position that the child of every beleiver is saved, using 1 Cor 7 as a proof text. If you do not agree, that's fine.

However, to address the issue of intellect, I don't want to go beyond the Scripture. The Scripture says that those who are saved are those who have confessed Christ. If someone is rendered incapable by life circumstance (wrong age in life, wrong place in the world, wrong time in history, or etcetera) then it is likely this person cannot confess Christ. Our circumstances are ordained by God.

So, I do not need to address the issue whether intellect is a perquisite. The issue is immaterial. Rather, the burden of proof is on those that say that a confession of faith is made by those who by all accounts have not made such a confession. And without faith, you are still dead in your sins.

I am open to proof from the Scripture how the groups in the OP may have faith. The whole issue hinges on this point.

 

[Rom]

We've already shown you that John the Baptist has faith in Christ, and expressed it non-verbally. I don't understand what other proof you want. This is all the Scriptural proof necessary that God can regenerate an infant. Therefore, infants can be saved. There was at least one infant, elect who was regenerated, which proves the Confession of Faith's teaching.

I also think you misconstrue what most would say 1 Corinthians 7 is stating. Not that all children of believers are elect, but that they are set-apart (holy), and are not to be considered pagans or heathens (part of the visible church, though not necessarily part of the invisible).

Also, this board is a Confessional Board. The two Confessions we have cited (regardless of what you perceive CT to be, or not to be) clearly state that elect infants are saved. No other qualifier but that they be elect. Who are they? I don't know. Neither do you.

I think you need to interact with Bruce on what faith is defined as. To you, it seems primarily an intellectual assent of fact. Historically, and Biblically speaking that is not the only component of saving faith, and perhaps why you don't seem to understand what we are saying. Re-read Bruce's post and interact with it.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It might be possible to say to a large degree 'the secret things belong to the Lord' and trust him on things we have no power to change and
maybe not as clear precise understanding on ... at what point is a child accountable on his own... every child is a bit different...

A large amount of this discussion doesn't absolve a parent or church from long prayer for children, bringing up a child in a gospel centered manner in hopes they come to faith regardless.