De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Also: Jeremiah 1:5Romans 9:11-13
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Also: Jeremiah 1:5Romans 9:11-13
The promises do not cease to apply to our physical children, as re-iterated by Peter in Acts 2:39. Of course, they are promises, not necessarily fulfillment, for the fulfillment requires faith in the promises. This is why some of our children are lost - not because the promise is bad, but because they lack faith.
As to the matter of whether there be Judases or Absaloms among our children who die, the answer to that is a clear no. The difference of course being that children who die in infancy have not rejected the promises (the Christ) of the covenant like Absalom and Judas. That is a huge difference. Our children are comprehended in the covenant of grace by virtue of the faith of their parents until they walk away on their own accord. For that very reason Noah's children were saved in the ark, the little infants of Israel were carried across the red sea by their parents, and Joshua can say "as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord". God worked in that way before and he still does now.
In all this we are not claiming that our children don't deserve God's judgment or are free from original sin. We are not claiming that there is anything in them that deserves God's mercy. Rather, we are claiming that despite all this, God really and truly comprehends them in the covenant of grace. Notice also that I am not saying that I presume our children are regenerate. We don't presume on that, unless of course one of them happens to die in infancy, in which case we must make that conclusion in order to support our premise.
Well we can't know the secret things that belong to God - who is elect. You pointing out this fact in infants must also be stated for adults.Would you be so good as to elaborate?
Thanks for this. You’ve given me plenty to think about.The promises do not cease to apply to our physical children, as re-iterated by Peter in Acts 2:39. Of course, they are promises, not necessarily fulfillment, for the fulfillment requires faith in the promises. This is why some of our children are lost - not because the promise is bad, but because they lack faith.
As to the matter of whether there be Judases or Absaloms among our children who die, the answer to that is a clear no. The difference of course being that children who die in infancy have not rejected the promises (the Christ) of the covenant like Absalom and Judas. That is a huge difference. Our children are comprehended in the covenant of grace by virtue of the faith of their parents until they walk away on their own accord. For that very reason Noah's children were saved in the ark, the little infants of Israel were carried across the red sea by their parents, and Joshua can say "as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord". God worked in that way before and he still does now.
In all this we are not claiming that our children don't deserve God's judgment or are free from original sin. We are not claiming that there is anything in them that deserves God's mercy. Rather, we are claiming that despite all this, God really and truly comprehends them in the covenant of grace. Notice also that I am not saying that I presume our children are regenerate. We don't presume on that, unless of course one of them happens to die in infancy, in which case we must make that conclusion in order to support our premise.
I believe you are conflating promises given with promises fulfilled through faith. The promises are only realized through faith, and that faith itself is a gift of God. If I meet you at a sign that says "New York city ahead 20 miles" and tell you that if you walk 20 miles ahead, you will be in New York City, that promise is good whether you walk there or not - the key thing is whether you believe what I say (by faith) and walk to New York. In the same way, promises of salvation to our children will not profit them unless they appropriate them with a Spirit-wrought faith. God is not promising to save them without faith, and it has always been that way, in the old and new testament.I appreciate the reply, and have read through it and reflected on these things, but I do still struggle to see this as more than an academic “nuh uh.”
To interact with your post a bit, I see no issue with Acts 2:39 and my position, as it specifically states:
“even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
He does not call everyone. This distinction would be meaningless otherwise.
As would John 6:44 and other verses such as these if God the Father first drew everyone. Not to mention Luke 12:51-53.
This is key.
The promise is not to all who are afar off, nor is the promise to all children. Surely if you squint you can see how dangerously close to universalism or Arminianism that type of position is.
While I would very much like for your position to be the correct one between you and I (for mercy’s sake if nothing else), I’m bound by my conscience to hold the position I do.
This is because after careful study and much prayer I see zero scriptural support for the notion of universalism for kids. I’m not sure what your precise understanding of Hebrews 8:6 and other problem verses is, but I imagine it’s quite different from mine.
P.S.
Perhaps one of the fundamental differences between your position and mine, covenant theology aside, is where we think people go when they die by default. My understanding as a credo-Baptist is that they go to Hell and that the elect are a remnant predestined before time.
Esau needed no opportunity to do good or evil. He was known in the womb and I would submit to you that he was hated in the womb.
When a vessel is made, the Lord knows what He will do with it. What is it to us if he permit a vessel unto wrath to be dashed to pieces before it can be filled with a life of sin?
Al Mohler is a godly man whom I greatly respect; however, I believe he may be in error on his view here. To begin, Mohler denies universalism and affirms the doctrine of original sin.
I don't think the reformed are building their view on that text.I always thought 2 Samuel 12:23 a pretty vague text to build a doctrine from. David could merely be speaking of joining his child in the place of the dead.
I get nervous when unclear Scripture starts to take precedent over the clear teaching of Scripture in doctrinal formulation. Seems backwards.
I believe it comes out of our understanding of the covenant of grace and the place of our children within that.Thanks for this. You’ve given me plenty to think about.
If you don’t mind, what would you say are the places in Scripture that support this teaching that children of believers dying in infancy are saved?
Once again, thank you.I believe it comes out of our understanding of the covenant of grace and the place of our children within that.
It's not something that is going to be solved with a proof-text. But I would rather look at the various salvific acts that God has performed for his people throughout redemptive history, and then ask whether the little children or mentally disabled were included or no?
For example: the passover. It was up to the head of the household to place the blood on the doorposts. That covered the whole family. If a child was old enough to have his own household, then it would be his responsibility - but if they were small, the faith of the parent was sufficient to turn God's wrath away. There are others - like crossing the red sea. In all of these we don't have the Israelites leaving the little ones or mentally disabled to fend for themselves. They are included in the covenant blessings - not because they deserve it, or because they aren't by nature children of wrath but only because God's covenant mercies extended to even them.
Fully agree. Not outwardly called does not equal incapable of being outwardly called. The unreached are not in view in this section.As for the other part of my question, regarding the salvation of elect unreached people who have not heard the gospel, my understanding remains unchanged: That is not in view in WCF X.III.