Elect infants

ps139 · May 31, 2005

Good day all

I saw BBAS64 post this CH Spurgeon quote in another thread:

We say with regard to infants, Scripture saith but little, and therefore, where Scripture is confessedly scant, it is for no man to determine dogmatically, but I think I speak for the entire body or certainly with exceedingly few exceptions and those unknown to me when I say we hold that all infants who die are elect of God and are therefore saved! We look to this as being the means by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul to a great degree and we do sometimes hope that thus the multitude of the saved shall be made to exceed the multitude of the lost.

Is this representative of Calvinist thought as a whole?

I think the answer is yes, and if so, do you believe that if hypothetically these babies grew up, they would never fall from grace? No matter who they are?
Or is the answer more like, "The Lord willed to take them as infants, there is no other possible alternative."

Thanks in advance.

Antman_05 · Jun 1, 2005

Good question's, my person view point is that God didn't will the infant to die, and i do feel that they will go to heaven and if they were to grow up, i think that God would have saved them, as we don't know when God is going to save someone but all we know is that if God wants them saved them then they will be saved.

Antman_05 · Jun 1, 2005

But then again. .

Ecc 5:18 Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot.

so i'm not sure on part of one of your Q's

B®ent · Jun 1, 2005

Spurgeon gave an excellent sermon on this issue. Yes, it is well with the child. I believe this goes along with God's character.

Johannes

StAnselm · Jun 1, 2005

ps139 said:
Is this representative of Calvinist thought as a whole?

It's certainly not representative, but plenty of Calvinists believe this.

In my own denomination (the Presbyterian Church of Australia) ministers and elders are obliged to subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, read in the light of a Declaratory Statement whoch specifically allows belief in the salvation of all infants.

The WCF, for its part, merely says "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit."

HiredGoon · Jun 1, 2005

ps139 said:
Is this representative of Calvinist thought as a whole?

I believe it's representative of Baptist (which Mr. Spurgeon was) thought as a whole, but not Calvinist. It's part of their idea of a an "age of accountability," where people are innocent until their old enough to understand the gospel, and accept or reject it. Calvinist thought is different on this subject.

Canons of Dordt

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

Westminster Confession of Faith

CHAPTER X
Of Effectual Calling

III. 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.

ps139 · Jun 1, 2005

Was Jonathan Edwards a Calvinist? I read one of his sermons and he disagrees with Spurgeon.

tigersnare · Jun 1, 2005

ps139 said:
Was Jonathan Edwards a Calvinist? I read one of his sermons and he disagrees with Spurgeon.

Yes he was one of the great evangelists to be affiliated with Calvinism. Spurgeon was never formally educated in biblical theology or doctrine, he admits in some instances that his view on some things are controverisial. Though on other things, his sermons were water tight.

Could you show us where they disagreed, just for my reading pleasure?

ps139 · Jun 1, 2005

tigersnare said:
Yes he was one of the great evangelists to be affiliated with Calvinism. Spurgeon was never formally educated in biblical theology or doctrine, he admits in some instances that his view on some things are controverisial. Though on other things, his sermons were water tight.

Could you show us where they disagreed, just for my reading pleasure?

I remember reading a sermon by J. Edwards in high school, as part of our literature class, where the phrase "the road to hell is paved with the skull of unbaptized infants" stood out and is basically all I remember from that sermon. This would obviously contrast with Spurgeon's statement, "we hold that all infants who die are elect of God and are therefore saved!"

tigersnare · Jun 1, 2005

ps139 said:
I remember reading a sermon by J. Edwards in high school, as part of our literature class, where the phrase "the road to hell is paved with the skull of unbaptized infants" stood out and is basically all I remember from that sermon. This would obviously contrast with Spurgeon's statement, "we hold that all infants who die are elect of God and are therefore saved!"

Hmm, well Spurgeon was a baptist, I don't know much about Edwards denominational background, but this has never been a universally agreed upon point. Where scripture is silent....

HiredGoon · Jun 1, 2005

Jonathan Edwards was firmly within historic Reformed theology. Historically, Reformed theology, as demonstrated in my earlier post quoting the Canons of Dordt and the WCF, denied that all children dying in infancy are elect. Where the disagreement was, was in wether infant regeneration could be presumed of baptized infants of believers. Today however, within the Reformed/Calvinist camp you'll find that some hold to the view that all who die in infancy are elect.

rmwilliamsll · Jun 1, 2005

it would be nice to get the pieces of this argument together in one place.

with Calvin it was worded:
elect children dying in infancy are saved, which is a tautology.

it appears that:
at the time of WCF and Dordt that:

"We must judge concerning the will of God from His Word, which declares that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they are included with their parents. Therefore, God-fearing parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in their infancy.

from: http://spindleworks.com/library/gootjes/cd_17.htm

meaning that baptised children of believing parents were presumed to be regenerated. the problem is that this leads naturally to presumptive regeneration, something most theologians have been against.

as time progressed more people began to believe that it was the act of dying in infancy not the baptism that was more important so the belief became most if not all children dying in infancy were saved. this seems to be the common idea at the end of the 19thC.

That is to say, the Reformed pastor of the Scottish-Princetonian Reformed tradition tended to regard baptized children of his congregation as elect (and re*generate) unless there was evidence to the contrary while the English and American Puritan Reformed pastor tended to regard his baptized children as unregenerate until there was evidence to the contrary.

from: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/EdwardsJonathanInfantBaptismGerstner.htm

11. INFANT SALVATION

Most Calvinistic theologians have held that those who die in infancy are saved. The Scriptures seem to teach plainly enough that the children of believers are saved; but they are silent or practically so in regard to those of the heathens. The Westminster Confession does not pass judgment on the children of heathens who die before coming to years of accountability. Where the Scriptures are silent, the Confession, too, preserves silence. Our outstanding theologians, however, mindful of the fact that God's "tender mercies are over all His works," and depending on His mercy widened as broadly as possible, have entertained a charitable hope that since these infants have never committed any actual sin themselves, their inherited sin would be pardoned and they would be saved on wholly evangelical principles.

Such, for instance, was the position held by Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and B. B. Warfield. Concerning those who die in infancy, Dr. Warfield says: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act

from: http://www.crta.org/calvinism/boettner/infants_boettner.html

there is a lot of information on the topic, but precious little drawing the pieces together in a historical and theological way.

...

StAnselm · Jun 1, 2005

HiredGoon said:
Historically, Reformed theology, as demonstrated in my earlier post quoting the Canons of Dordt and the WCF, denied that all children dying in infancy are elect.

No! And your post certainly didn't demonstrate it. You see, I think both Dordt and Westminster are careful not to deny anything. They make a statement about the children of believers, and are silent concerning other children.

rmwilliamsll · Jun 1, 2005

StAnselm said:
No! And your post certainly didn't demonstrate it. You see, I think both Dordt and Westminster are careful not to deny anything. They make a statement about the children of believers, and are silent concerning other children.

i think you are right and it points out one of the big troubles with this discussion. the framework seems to change over the generations. one of the big forces that we need to take into account is the huge infant fatality levels that extended from the Reformation to the early 19thC. Calvin himself had probably 3 children only 1 of which was expected to live at birth and therefore baptized. he died in less than 6 months. This shapes theology, the early reformed apparently had comfort for family members in the church high on their priority lists.

but like i said, it is an area i would love to research carefully.

cygnusx1 · Jun 2, 2005

ps139 said:
Good day all

I saw BBAS64 post this CH Spurgeon quote in another thread:

Is this representative of Calvinist thought as a whole?

I think the answer is yes, and if so, do you believe that if hypothetically these babies grew up, they would never fall from grace? No matter who they are?
Or is the answer more like, "The Lord willed to take them as infants, there is no other possible alternative."

Thanks in advance.

I think that "Baptismal Regeneration" is based upon a similar foundation .......

would you say that Baptised babies are always regenerate Bill?

HiredGoon · Jun 2, 2005

StAnselm said:
No! And your post certainly didn't demonstrate it. You see, I think both Dordt and Westminster are careful not to deny anything. They make a statement about the children of believers, and are silent concerning other children.

The very fact that they make a statement about the children of believers suggests that they did not believe all who die in infancy are elect.

Jon_ · Jun 2, 2005

ps139 said:
Good day all

I saw BBAS64 post this CH Spurgeon quote in another thread:

Is this representative of Calvinist thought as a whole?

I think the answer is yes, and if so, do you believe that if hypothetically these babies grew up, they would never fall from grace? No matter who they are?
Or is the answer more like, "The Lord willed to take them as infants, there is no other possible alternative."

Thanks in advance.

I do not accept this view.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

rmwilliamsll · Jun 2, 2005

HiredGoon said:
The very fact that they make a statement about the children of believers suggests that they did not believe all who die in infancy are elect.

i think historically that is the problem. the early reformers were silent on the issue of children of unbelievers.

a little time on google yielded:

a good analysis of the situation from:
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99770.qna/category/pt/page/questions/site/iiim

On the first question, Reformed theologians have not been entirely unified.
Some, particularly the old Princeton theologians, have argued that while imputed sin from Adam is sufficient to make someone a sinner and to render him spiritually dead, it does not merit punishment. Because infants have not committed any sins (e.g. Rom. 5:14), there is nothing for which they can be punished. Because there is nothing for which they can be punished, they cannot go to hell. Finally, since there are only two options (heaven and hell), God regenerates infants who die so that they may enter heaven. A shortcoming of this position is that while infants gain heaven through God's mercy and grace, they seem to escape hell by virtue of some merit of their own.

Others have argued that imputed sin entails real imputed guilt, and that imputed guilt is real guilt (the infant is really guilty of having sinned, even though he has not actually sinned). Because the infant is really guilty of sin, he may be justly punished for this sin. If it were not just to punish someone for imputed sin, then Jesus could not justly have suffered for the sins of men. Thus, infants who die may justly be sent to hell.

Most who believe that infants may justly be sent to hell, however, do not believe that all infants who die actually go to hell. Rather, most believe in the existence of elect infants -- infants whom God sovereignly regenerates and saves, despite the fact that they deserve hell. That people can be elect from infancy, and even from the womb, appears to be demonstrated by John the Baptist in Luke 1:44. This does not necessarily imply that all infants who die are elect, though some Reformed theologians have also held this position.

A good argument can be made that God shows particular favor upon covenant children who die, so that believers may have more confidence than others that their children who die in infancy are among the elect. This idea is implied by the fact that God does not treat his covenant people with the same strictness with which he treats others. Rather, with his covenant people, he is slow to anger and quick to show mercy. He also has a special love for the children of believers (Ps. 103:17). Further, God's love for believers inclines him to be good to believers, and the Bible tells us that children are God's gift to believers (Ps. 127:3). This implies that one way that God blesses covenant members is by treating their children with mercy (compare Gen. 26:24; 1 Kings 11:12). Moreover, the ideal blessing which God describes for his people includes the lives and blessing of their children (Isa. 65:18-23), creating for us an expectation that God will be good to our children even when they die in infancy (i.e. that he will save them). This is my position.

note how the argument for unbeliever's children revolves around the notions associated with original sin and that the arguments for believer's children are associated with covenant.

look at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bbe9e655544.htm
then look at:
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismchapter09.htm

These, and all other such like circumstances, are irrelevant, and never can affect their relations with Christ. Consequently they can have no bearing upon their future destiny. Every child dying in infancy is saved. This is the doctrine of the Baptist denomination. Not of a few only, nor of our churches, and people, of the present day alone. It is the doctrine which has been invariably held by us in all countries, and in every age. It is the doctrine taught by the word of God. Having thus stated our position, I proceed at once, to the proofs of its truth.

Infant salvation is guarantied, in the first place, by the nature of the divine government.

God is infinitely good. His benevolence forbids the infliction of unnecessary suffering upon any of his creatures. Misery is never permitted, but when demanded by justice, as either the consequence, or the penalty of sin. The government of God is designed, not only to benefit his creatures, but also to manifest his glory. Through this medium, as well as through his works, and his word, he reveals his true character to all intelligent beings. Infants have no personal, or individual accountability. For the condemnation of the deliberate and impenitent rejecter of the gospel, and also of the wicked despisers of God, who violate the laws of nature, and of their own conscience, I can perceive ample reasons. In such a case I can readily comprehend how God, as the governor of the universe, will glorify his infinite righteousness. But I cannot see how this could occur in the case of infants. It is infinitely more in accordance with all our conceptions of God, to conclude that in them he will evince his special beneficence. It is, in truth, abhorrent to every feeling of kindness and love, to suppose that he will cast them off, or that he will not receive, and save them. There is no want of fullness in the redemption of Christ. The power of the Holy Spirit is not limited. God is infinitely gracious. What then is to hinder their salvation? Rather, does not every consideration connected with him, with his government, and his glory, seem imperatively to demand the salvation of infants?

the author is reformed baptist who because of his anti-paedobaptist principles coupled with the argument from the Goodness of God requires that all infants are saved. period.

i think it obvious why it is such a confusing issue to get straight. you have to solve the issues around infant baptism first.....*grin*

...

Imblessed · Jun 2, 2005

Our church is a community church--General Baptist Conference affiliation, and Calvinistic in it's teachings....

My pastor said that since the bible quiet on the issue, we just cannot know for sure, yet we can be confident that God will do the right thing. He was answering a question from a very "upset" lady who asked him about it in light of predestination. He just would not say yea or nay to the idea that ALL infants who die go to heaven.

I personally think that that is the correct route to go. I myself think perhaps that children of believers who die in infancy are more than likely 'elect', but I wouldn't assume the same for children of unbelievers. Yet, I have a real hard time thinking it's "fair" if an infant goes to hell. It just does not compute, you know? I cannot wrap my head around the thought of a child in hell, especially an infant.

I'm not 'reformed' per se, so my input is just an aside. I know the OP was asking about the reformed position...but I just had to put my .02 cents in!

Elderone · Jun 3, 2005

I believe it would be fair to say the reformed position would be silence, as is His word, knowing God's justice is true.

Ro 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Elect infants

Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine!

Antman_05

Guest

Antman_05

Guest

Contender for the Faith

Theologue

Old School Presbyterian

Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine!

Angry Young Calvinist

Ab omni malo, libera nos, Domine!

Angry Young Calvinist

Old School Presbyterian

avid reader

Theologue

avid reader

Jacob the twister.....

Old School Presbyterian

Senior Veteran

avid reader

Reformed Baptist with a Quaker heritage

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency