Elect infants

[JM]

This idea is only valid in a covenant setting...hummm...the implications for a dispensationalist fence sitter like myself is staggering.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think we may be defining "hearing" too narrowly if we limit it to what we know as everyday languages - speech that we learn in time. After all, we are talking about spiritual things which are spiritualy discerned, so when God gives "ears to hear", He certainly ain't hangin' another set of flesh & cartilage side-flaps on our heads.
I suspect He speaks to infants more in what we allude to when we say "the language of love", something we can sometimes only say with our eyes.
We don't HAVE to know if our still born or deceased toddlers are elect, we have to trust God's will.
Here's a scripture that should help relieve grief:

1Co 7:14 - For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

I hope I never have to suffer that kind of loss.
My parents lost a son, my brother, but he was 25. "Staggering" is exactly the right word to describe MY grief. I can't imagine how my parents handled it. I can believe the grief over loss of a life that had hardly lived to be as bad or worse.

 

[cygnusx1]

And now, having made these remarks upon terms used, we must observe that there is nothing upon which men need to be more instructed than upon the question of what Calvinism really is. The most infamous allegations have been brought against us, and sometime, I must fear, by men who knew them to be utterly untrue; and, to this day, there are many of our opponents, who, when they run short of matter, invent and make for themselves a man of straw, call that John Calvin, and then shoot all their arrows at it. We are not come here to defend your man of straw—shoot at it or burn it as you will, and, if it suit your convenience, still oppose doctrines which were never taught, and rail at fictions which, save in your own brain, were never in existence. We come here to state what our views really are, and we trust that any who do not agree with us will do us the justice of not misrepresenting us. If they can disprove our doctrines, let them state them fairly and then overthrow them, but why should they first caricature our opinions and then afterwards attempt to put them down? Among the gross falsehoods which have been uttered against the Calvinists proper, is the wicked calumny that we hold the damnation of little infants. A baser lie was never uttered. There may have existed somewhere, in some corner of the earth, a miscreant who would dare to say that there were infants in hell, but I have never met with him, nor have I met with a man who ever saw such a person. 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 are elect of God and are therefore saved, and 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. Whatever views our friends may hold upon the point, they are not necessarily connected with Calvinistic doctrine. I believe that the Lord Jesus, who said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," doth daily and constantly receive into his loving arms those tender ones who are only shown, and then snatched away to heaven. Our hymns are no ill witness to our faith on this point, and one of them runs thus:



"Millions of infant souls compose
The family above."

"Toplady, one of the keenest of Calvinists, was of this number. "In my remarks," says he, "on Dr. Nowell, I testified my firm belief that the souls of all departed infants are with God in glory; that in the decree of predestination to life, God hath included all whom he decreed to take away in infancy, and that the decree of reprobation hath nothing to do with them." Nay, he proceeds farther, and asks, with reason, how the anti-Calvinistic system of conditional salvation and election, or good works foreseen, will suit with the salvation of infants? It is plain that Arminians and Pelagians must introduce a new principle of election; and in so far as the salvation of infants is concerned, become Calvinists. Is it not an argument in behalf of Calvinism, that its principle is uniform throughout, and that no change is needed on the ground on which man is saved, whether young or old? John Newton, of London, the friend of Cowper, noted for his Calvinism, holds that the children in heaven exceed its adult inhabitants in all their multitudinous array. Gill, a very champion of Calvinism, held the doctrine, that all dying in infancy are saved. An intelligent modern writer, (Dr. Russell, of Dundee,) also a Calvinist, maintains the same views; and when it is considered that nearly one-half of the human race die in early years, it is easy to see what a vast accession must be daily and hourly making to the blessed population of heaven."

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0385.htm

 

[Pherious]

TOTAL DEPRAVITY. Babies are not exempt from being either elect or reprobate. The child is not innocent either way: Adam's sin pollutes us all and makes us guilty. Babies are as guilty as a serial killer is... in Hell, there will be babies. I know this is very hard to accept, and Satan wants us to question God's love on this issue, but it is a fact. Election is election; by saying that dead babies are always elect, is a wrong thing to say, because the Bible is silent on the issue: That means what applies to adults, APPLIES TO CHILDREN.

 

[frumanchu]

TOTAL DEPRAVITY. Babies are not exempt from being either elect or reprobate. The child is not innocent either way: Adam's sin pollutes us all and makes us guilty. Babies are as guilty as a serial killer is... in Hell, there will be babies. I know this is very hard to accept, and Satan wants us to question God's love on this issue, but it is a fact. Election is election; by saying that dead babies are always elect, is a wrong thing to say, because the Bible is silent on the issue: That means what applies to adults, APPLIES TO CHILDREN.

Actually, while Scripture is clear that ALL MEN are by nature children of wrath and that death came to ALL MEN through Adam, declaring that "there will be babies" in Hell is presumptuous precisely for the reason you stated: Scripture is silent on the issue.

Among Reformed Calvinists, the understanding has always been that God would be just in sending them to Hell and is under no obligation to save them. From the standpoint of the children of believers, the historic position has always been that elect parents ought to be reasonably assured that their children will be in Heaven (just as David was). Scripture makes no definitive statements regarding the fate of children of reprobate parents. This becomes a matter of speculation among the Reformed. It is wholly consistent with God's justice to send them to Hell, and wholly consistent with His grace to have elected from eternity those who die in infancy (and not in a reactive manner...He did not elect them because they died in infancy, for He is sovereign over when they die).

 

[B®ent]

I do not worship a god who sends infants to hell. I believe until one is capable of knowing good and evil, one cannot be held accountable for their sins. In other words, all who die in infancy or childhood are elect.

 

[DrWarfield]

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.

Mr Spurgeon was a brilliant Reformed man and such a quote proves his greatness all the more. Could you tell where that quote was sourced from, pretty please.

 

[DrWarfield]

TOTAL DEPRAVITY. Babies are not exempt from being either elect or reprobate. The child is not innocent either way: Adam's sin pollutes us all and makes us guilty. Babies are as guilty as a serial killer is... in Hell, there will be babies. I know this is very hard to accept, and Satan wants us to question God's love on this issue, but it is a fact. Election is election; by saying that dead babies are always elect, is a wrong thing to say, because the Bible is silent on the issue: That means what applies to adults, APPLIES TO CHILDREN.

... and saying that all babies are not elect is the wrong thing to say also, for the Bible is silent on the matter also. Hmmm, me thinks I will stick with Mr Spurgeon's thoughts on the matter. By the way all of the great Princetonians (that is before Princeton went Liberal) agreed with Mr Spurgeon, for eg have a read of A. A. Hodge.

Regards,
DrWarfield

 

[James1979]

Well its not really wised to stick to anyone's theology except the word of God.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

All mankind is guilty before God by nature as it clearly shows in Roman 3:10-12, Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 51:5, Psalms 58:3, Psalms 25:7, Proverbs 20:11

The only way a baby can go into the kingdom of God is that their sins had to been paid for by the Lord Jesus Christ then in God's own timetable the Holy Spirit had to apply the word of God to the baby's heart so that they can receive a new heart and a new spirit from God just as this same miracle was done to john the baptist in his mother's womb. A baby, a child, teenager, adult all have to hear the gospel if God is going to save them, without hearing the gospel no one can become saved. Its never been done before. For an example, if their is a family of a set of parents with a baby, a little toddler, and a teenager and the whole family has never heard the gospel and want nothing to do w/gospel God can't save them unless they are under hearing of the gospel Romans 10:17.

God always used his word to save an indiviual, that's the method that God has been using since the beginning of creation. God didn't come to earth for righteous people, he came for sinners.

Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance

Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Whenever someone's has become saved and begin to walk in good works. One of the good works is repentance as their is joy over one sinner who repents from heaven. Now we have to ask ourselves, before the baby enters into God's kingdom, was there rejoicing over that one baby? You bet it there was, because the baby beforehand had sins that needed to be cleanse so the Holy Spirit cleansed that baby with the word of God and gave the baby a new heart/new spirit so that now the baby can go in heaven.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

 

[Jon_]

I do not worship a god who sends infants to hell. I believe until one is capable of knowing good and evil, one cannot be held accountable for their sins. In other words, all who die in infancy or childhood are elect.

I would encourage you to rethink your opinion according to the Scriptures. All men have knowledge of good and evil, even from birth, since Adam ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam's sin is imputed to all men everywhere, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12 KJV) and "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Psalm 14:3 KJV). Eliphaz asks rhetorically, "What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" (Job 15:14 KJV). Though the question is rhetorical, he answers it all the same:

"Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?" (Job 15:15, 16 KJV)
​

David also testifies that man is sinful and guilty from the womb:

(Psalm 51:5 KJV) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(Psalm 58:3 KJVA) The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
​

And it is again written in Job:

(Job 25:4-6 KJV) How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?
​

Similarly, Solomon under inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes, "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (Ecc. 7:20 KJV). And again, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil" (Ecc. 8:11 KJV). Once more: "This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead" (Ecc. 9:3 KJV). And Moses writes in the book of Genesis, "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (6:5 KJV). Isaiah also tells of the inherent sin of men, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way" (Isaiah 53:6 KJV). And the prophet Jeremiah too—"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9 KJV).

Therefore, conform your understanding to the Scriptures. Man is sinful from birth. His heart is desperately wicked. Denying this amounts to a denial of the doctrine of original sin. To say infants do not know good from evil is to make an unbiblical assertion with no evidence, and to deny the Scriptures that explicitly teach men are sinful from birth.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[rnmomof7]

I do not worship a god who sends infants to hell. I believe until one is capable of knowing good and evil, one cannot be held accountable for their sins. In other words, all who die in infancy or childhood are elect.

So there are 2 kinds of people in heaven, those that deserve it and those saved by mercy and grace?

Could I have a scripture on that ?

 

[rnmomof7]

Actually, while Scripture is clear that ALL MEN are by nature children of wrath and that death came to ALL MEN through Adam, declaring that "there will be babies" in Hell is presumptuous precisely for the reason you stated: Scripture is silent on the issue.

Among Reformed Calvinists, the understanding has always been that God would be just in sending them to Hell and is under no obligation to save them. From the standpoint of the children of believers, the historic position has always been that elect parents ought to be reasonably assured that their children will be in Heaven (just as David was). Scripture makes no definitive statements regarding the fate of children of reprobate parents. This becomes a matter of speculation among the Reformed. It is wholly consistent with God's justice to send them to Hell, and wholly consistent with His grace to have elected from eternity those who die in infancy (and not in a reactive manner...He did not elect them because they died in infancy, for He is sovereign over when they die).

Brother I know that is a commonly held position by many of the reformed that the infants of the elect are elect, but the truth is that there is no scripture to support that belief. It is as much a 'feel good " belief as the "age of reason " is.

It is indeed wholly consistent with the justice of God to send them to hell.

So we must say this is a mystery of God and be content to trust Him in this as all things

 

[Jon_]

So we must say this is a mystery of God and be content to trust Him in this as all things

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[frumanchu]

Brother I know that is a commonly held position by many of the reformed that the infants of the elect are elect, but the truth is that there is no scripture to support that belief. It is as much a 'feel good " belief as the "age of reason " is.

It is indeed wholly consistent with the justice of God to send them to hell.

So we must say this is a mystery of God and be content to trust Him in this as all things

I agree that it is a speculative position, and I am not willing to state my position dogmatically by any stretch. Scripture does not give us a definitive answer either way on this. It is wholly consistent with His justice to send them, and wholly consistent with His grace to choose not to.

 

[DrWarfield]

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.

Very well put!!!

 

[DrWarfield]

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.

That is not necessarily the case! A simple study of formal logic shows that the inference you are drawing is not a valid one.

Regards,
DrWarfield

 

[Jon_]

That is not necessarily the case! A simple study of formal logic shows that the inference you are drawing is not a valid one.

Yes, that's quite right.

When we study the Confession, we have to understand that what the Divines said is really tautologically true (true by definition). They said that "elect infants" dying in infancy are saved; however, they say nothing on if there is such thing. Now, the Confession seems to infer the Divines believed there was such thing as an "elect infant," but nothing is elaborated on the subject. Their statement might as well have been, "All elect persons are saved." Because they did not leave the section on God's decree (Ch. III) to cover all people, but specifically singled out elect infants, I think we can conclude that they specifically mention elect infants (X.3) because they truly believed there is such a thing.

So, I think, if we survey the language used and the structure of the Confession, it is valid to conclude the Divines believed there are "elect infants." If they did not believe so, they would have omitted the section altogether. If the point was spurious, it would probably have been concluded that the section on God's decree also covers infants and that a separate mention was not necessary. This is, in fact, true. If infants are elect, then all that is said about election is applicable to infants.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Brother I know that is a commonly held position by many of the reformed that the infants of the elect are elect, but the truth is that there is no scripture to support that belief. It is as much a 'feel good " belief as the "age of reason " is.

It is indeed wholly consistent with the justice of God to send them to hell.

So we must say this is a mystery of God and be content to trust Him in this as all things

Dear rnmomof7,

I have to disagree with you on this one. I believe that there is solid Biblical reason to believe that the children of Believers, who die at a young age, are elect. I would add that this is another point of the covenantal disagreement between those of us who believe in paedobaptism and our credo Baptism (only) brethren who are also Calvinists.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 7:14 -- "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

The word translated holy is the same Greek word that is often translated "saints." If the Lord declares the children of believers to be holy, and distinguishes them from the children of unbelievers, who Paul proclaims to be "unclean."



I believe, as did the Reformers, that we are to think covenantally. Remember how Calvin worded the first question of his Strasburg catechism for children.

Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?Child: Yes, my father.Teacher: How is this known to you?
Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

​

Christian parents, who loose young children should have all the confidence in the World that their Children are with the Lord, because the Lord has declared in His word that such children are holy (i.e. set apart/saints).


We should be confident because the Lord our Saviour will keep his Word. I have total confidence that baptised children of believers, who die at a young age, are with Christ. I have a high degree of confidence that the children of credo-baptist also, though not baptised, are with the Lord (but I am not quite as confident). I like to believe that the children of unbelievers are with the Lord, but I have no biblical ground on which to stand, at this point.

Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Yes, that's quite right.

When we study the Confession, we have to understand that what the Divines said is really tautologically true (true by definition). They said that "elect infants" dying in infancy are saved; however, they say nothing on if there is such thing. Now, the Confession seems to infer the Divines believed there was such thing as an "elect infant," but nothing is elaborated on the subject. Their statement might as well have been, "All elect persons are saved." Because they did not leave the section on God's decree (Ch. III) to cover all people, but specifically singled out elect infants, I think we can conclude that they specifically mention elect infants (X.3) because they truly believed there is such a thing.

So, I think, if we survey the language used and the structure of the Confession, it is valid to conclude the Divines believed there are "elect infants." If they did not believe so, they would have omitted the section altogether. If the point was spurious, it would probably have been concluded that the section on God's decree also covers infants and that a separate mention was not necessary. This is, in fact, true. If infants are elect, then all that is said about election is applicable to infants.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Jon,

Try and find Cornelius Burges' (one of the more important Westminster Divines) book The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, Professed by the Church of England, according to the Scriptures, and Primitiue Church, the Present Reformed Churches and Many Particular Divines Apart (Long title). In that book he said, "There is no ordinance set up by Christ in his church, more useful and comfortable unto a Christian, throughout the whole course of his militant condition, than sacred baptism, the laver of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost . . . I deny not future actual efficacy of baptism after the act of administration, but I only plead for some efficacy when it is administered.”

Reformed Christian, on the whole, used to have higher view of baptism than many of us have today. But they did not view baptism as near "magic" as the Roman Catholics do and did.

Remember Cornelius Burges chaired the commitee that wrote the section in Westminster Confession on baptism.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[MooCar93]

Therefore, conform your understanding to the Scriptures. Man is sinful from birth. His heart is desperately wicked. Denying this amounts to a denial of the doctrine of original sin. To say infants do not know good from evil is to make an unbiblical assertion with no evidence, and to deny the Scriptures that explicitly teach men are sinful from birth.

I'm sure knowing her unborn baby is being tormented in hell is very comforting to every woman who has suffered a miscarriage.