Infant salvation

[Gladtobeelect]

According to Calvinism a man is predesignated before the foundation of the world to be saved or damned. Then God saves him, then he hears the gospel and then trust on Christ. But what happens if he never hears the gospel and trust Christ, does he still go to heaven? The question came up about a baby who died at 8 months old. If that baby was elected does he go to heaven or hell? Someone ask me this at church and I did not have an answer. I had never thought about it before.

 

[Daniel94]

Nobody goes to hell or heaven because they were NOT one of the elect, but they go to hell because they sinned. God is not the author of sin, and neither does He tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13). Man is responsible for his sins.

2 Samuel 12:23 says "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." - David was sure that he will one day see his child in heaven, he was sure that his child went there.

 

[Gladtobeelect]

Is the what a Calvinist teaches? I am trying to find out what a Calvinist believes. I know Calvinism teaches that by Gods eternal decree of election and reprobation, some are elect to go to heaven, and some are damned. If this baby was one of the elect, does he go to heaven even though he has not trusted on Christ? If he was not one of the elect, is he in hell?

 

[Daniel94]

Is the what a Calvinist teaches? I am trying to find out what a Calvinist believes. I know Calvinism teaches that by Gods eternal decree of election and reprobation, some are elect to go to heaven, and some are damned. If this baby was one of the elect, does he go to heaven even though he has not trusted on Christ? If he was not one of the elect, is he in hell?

I've heard Tim Conway say the things I've posted in my first paragraph, and I've heard John Piper and John MacArthur say the things I've posted in my second paragraph. All three of them consider themselves to be Calvinists.

 

[twin1954]

Is the what a Calvinist teaches? I am trying to find out what a Calvinist believes. I know Calvinism teaches that by Gods eternal decree of election and reprobation, some are elect to go to heaven, and some are damned. If this baby was one of the elect, does he go to heaven even though he has not trusted on Christ? If he was not one of the elect, is he in hell?

2 things you need to consider. First election isn't salvation it is unto salvation. God not only ordained who would be saved but also ordained that they should be saved through faith in Christ by the preaching of the Gospel. The elect are saved by, in and through the person and work of Christ alone.

Second is that the Scriptures are silent on the salvation of infants. It never definitely says that they are saved or that they aren't. I do know that whatever God does is right and good so I can honestly hope that infants who die in infancy are saved but we cannot say for sure either way. Where the Scriptures are silent we ought to be silent.

 

[hedrick]

Most Calvinists have taught that those dying in infancy are saved. (This doesn't mean that all infants are saved. Those who will end up damned are not of the elect and weren't even as infants. Thus the statement is that all those who die in infancy are saved, not that all infants are saved.)

In Calvinism the distinction between those who are saved and those who are not is entirely up to God. In an adult, the activity of the Holy Spirit will show itself in faith, but in an infant it may not.

I think it's clear that logically infants can be saved. The question is whether they actually are. This is somewhat speculative. It involves passages such as Mat 19:14 and 1 Cor 7:14. Many would probably concede that these passages aren't enough to prove that all those who die in infancy are saved, but most Calvinists would say that they make it probable.

 

[hedrick]

I have a question for any more traditional Calvinists who are reading this thread. I believe I've given the usual Calvinist answer in post 6. But it seems to me that there's an exegetical problem. If passages like Mat 19:14 and 1 Cor 7:14 actually support this idea, then it seems to me that they would support the idea that all infants are saved. Not just a few elect ones, but all. After all, the children in Mat 19:14 are alive, and there's no reason to expect that they will die in infancy.

But the idea that all infants are saved would present a problem. In Reformed theology, one can only be saved through regeneration. But as far as I know, Calvinism normally considers regeneration to happen only to the elect. I'm not aware of any concept that one can be regenerated and then fall away. That would seem to contradict perseverance of the saints.

That why I said in post 6 that the Calvinist position is not that all infants are saved, only that those who die in infancy are. There's no logical problem with this position, but I doubt that the Biblical passages brought forward to support it actually do. I think if anything they would support salvation of all infants. I don't have any specific alternative to suggest.

 

[twin1954]

I have a question for any more traditional Calvinists who are reading this thread. I believe I've given the usual Calvinist answer in post 6. But it seems to me that there's an exegetical problem. If passages like Mat 19:14 and 1 Cor 7:14 actually support this idea, then it seems to me that they would support the idea that all infants are saved. Not just a few elect ones, but all. After all, the children in Mat 19:14 are alive, and there's no reason to expect that they will die in infancy.

But the idea that all infants are saved would present a problem. In Reformed theology, one can only be saved through regeneration. But as far as I know, Calvinism normally considers regeneration to happen only to the elect. I'm not aware of any concept that one can be regenerated and then fall away. That would seem to contradict perseverance of the saints.

That why I said in post 6 that the Calvinist position is not that all infants are saved, only that those who die in infancy are. There's no logical problem with this position, but I doubt that the Biblical passages brought forward to support it actually do. I think if anything they would support salvation of all infants. I don't have any specific alternative to suggest. I do assume that those dying in infancy are saved.

As far as the 1Cor. 7 passage goes the Presbyterian, those who hold to Covenant Theology and baptism in the use of infant baptism, will use this as an argument for such a view. Since I do not, I understand it to mean that the unbelieving husband/wife and children are legitimate.

The Matt. passage is simply our Master teaching us that we are to be as children in faith.

I don't think either passage in its context has any application to whether infants are saved.

 

[stenerson]

i personally don't believe there's enough biblical confirmation to give an answer one way or another.
Is God obliged to save every infant that dies? Definitely not.
Can He saved every infant? Of course, salvation is by free grace, whether
infant or adult.
Is the abortion industry the greatest heaven filling scheme devised by man?

 

[abacabb3]

Personally, I'm on the side of saying that it is more likely than not infants are not saved:

For God has shut up all in disobedience (except babies)

Personally, I believe all who die without faith in Jesus Christ will go to hell. This includes those who did not hear the Gospel because they were born in the wrong time or place, and those who did not live long enough to hear the Gospel and believe.

Whether I am wrong about this, or the preponderance of Christians are wrong, it should give us humility that apart from God’s grace giving us wisdom, we know absolutely nothing. Our hearts are hard like stone and the most obvious of things is utterly incomprehensible apart from God’s grace.

As God asks us to pray for wisdom so that He may grant it, let’s all pray for wisdom for this matter.

For God has shut up all in disobedience except babies so that He may show mercy to all. (Rom 11:32)

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest, except babies. (Eph 2:3)

the intent of man’s heart, except babies, is evil from his youth (Gen 8:21)

There is none righteous, not even one, except babies; There is none who understands, except babies,There is none who seeks for God, except babies; All have turned aside, except babies, together they have become useless, except the babies; (Rom 3:10-12)

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth, except babies, may be closed and all the world, except babies, may become accountable to God (Rom 3:19)

for all, except babies, have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23)

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all, except babies, sinned (Rom 5:12)

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, except babies, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Rom 5:18)

for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord, except babies, will be saved.” How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? (Rom 10:13-14)

Two things stick out to me. First, unless we go out of our way to add “except babies” to each of those statements, it seems to me the statements sufficiently address all ages in the same way. Second, for those that say that supposedly elect babies have faith put in their hearts by God that no one can see, wouldn’t that contradict that faith comes from hearing a preacher, as it says in Romans 10:14? Obviously, infants cannot believe by being preached to.

I think Calvinists have a problem here. They have no problem with the doctrine of predestination, which essentially says that God deliberately saves some and not others. They base this doctrine upon the clear word of Scripture and rightly so. They also uphold the doctrines of original sin and total depravity, and rightly so, it puts all under condemnation so that God may have grace on all. Also, the more informed Calvinists will note that there will be fewer people in heaven than in hell, because the Scripture clearly says this as well.

So, if we can accept all these things, why are babies the stumbling point? Romans 9 specifically discusses how God created men (like Esau, whom He “hated&#8221 that He would not save and in fact destine for destruction, so that His grace would be magnified. Why not make a single argument from silence, instead of several, and just presume that babies would be like anyone else who did not accept the Gospel and are apparently not predestined to be saved?

In order to ignore this simple logic, preachers like John MacArthur make brash assumptions: “Because God is by nature a savior and desires that all men come to repentance, and since God would have all men to be saved (!), there’s every reason to believe just from that alone, that a caring God that created that life to begin with, who superintends and guards that life, who knows intimately everything about that life, should that life perish physically in its infancy there would be every reason from that Psalm [139] alone to trust the nature of God that is by nature a savior on behalf of that life.”

What MacArthur said amounts to two things: infant universalism and a radically misinterpreted view of Psalm 139. I speculate, if MacArthur’s reason is sound, why wouldn’t God save all men after they die, regardless of age? Why does Romans 10:14 become untrue for the sake of his speculations?

Now, let’s look at Psalm 139:2-4, 13-17

You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O Lord, You know it all. (&#8230

For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!

The message of the Psalm is simple. God knows everything we are going to say and do, for our whole lives, before we do them. David invokes his time in the womb to say that even then, God knew his future. To take this Psalm and say that this means infants are assured salvation takes several logical leaps and the ignoring of all the Scriptures I quoted above.

R.C. Sproul Jr. takes a more tempered view: “I don’t know [if babies are saved]. The Bible doesn’t say. It is certainly possible that they do. It is also possible that they don’t…Our emotions, however, should not lead us to add to the Bible, nor to muddy the precious saving waters of the work of Christ given to us by faith.”

My view? The Scripture teaches that God has shut up all in disobedience, including babies. Being that the Bible describes no means for non-believers to be saved, the presumption should always be that they are not. Anything else muddies the precious saving waters of the Work of Christ given to us by faith.

 

[abacabb3]

Tim COnway has a very good treatment on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0h6JhGM2z0

 

[abacabb3]

As far as the 1Cor. 7 passage goes the Presbyterian, those who hold to Covenant Theology and baptism in the use of infant baptism, will use this as an argument for such a view. Since I do not, I understand it to mean that the unbelieving husband/wife and children are legitimate.

The Matt. passage is simply our Master teaching us that we are to be as children in faith.

I don't think either passage in its context has any application to whether infants are saved.

1 COr 7:14, unless it allows unbelieving spouses to be saved (clue it doesn't) has nothing to do with infants being saved.

 

[JM]

A Reformed Baptist View of I Cor. 7:14 [Stan Reeves] | The Confessing Baptist

 

[abacabb3]

I'm too stupid, can someone explain what he views 1 cor 7:14 to mean then, I can't wrap my head around it.

 

[JM]

I believe you got it right in post #12. It's just a lot of traditional argumentative baggage attached to this passage and it takes time to unwrap it.

 

[abacabb3]

I believe you got it right in post #12. It's just a lot of traditional argumentative baggage attached to this passage and it takes time to unwrap it.

I understand, but then the link tries to offer an interpretation that is supposedly correct, but I honestly don't understand it. I take the passage to mean that the family is blessed by association with a Christian, but not "saved" by such an association.

 

[hedrick]

I understand, but then the link tries to offer an interpretation that is supposedly correct, but I honestly don't understand it. I take the passage to mean that the family is blessed by association with a Christian, but not "saved" by such an association.

The one critical commentary I have on 1 Cor (Thiselton) agrees with you, and so does Calvin. Thiselton's parting comment on the verse:

'Commonsense exegesis comes from Calvin: “The godliness of the one does more to ‘sanctify’ the marriage than the ungodliness of the other to make it unclean. Accordingly a believer can live with an unbeliever [‘not in the contracting of marriages but in maintaining those already entered into’] with a clear conscience.”'

Remember that the question is not salvation, but whether the Christian spouse can remain in the marriage. Paul's answer is yes. The marriage is still blessed. Thiselton says (after lots of complex linguistic analysis) that this is in part because Paul has confidence that the Christian spouse will set the tone more than the non-Christian one, as long as the non-Christian agrees to continue.

As to the child, I would argue that growing up in a Christian home is a very significant means of grace. But that certainly doesn't overrule the need for the child to meet normal criteria for salvation (whatever your soteriology says they are).

 

[abacabb3]

The one critical commentary I have on 1 Cor (Thiselton) agrees with you, and so does Calvin. Thiselton's parting comment on the verse:

'Commonsense exegesis comes from Calvin: “The godliness of the one does more to ‘sanctify’ the marriage than the ungodliness of the other to make it unclean. Accordingly a believer can live with an unbeliever [‘not in the contracting of marriages but in maintaining those already entered into’] with a clear conscience.”'

Remember that the question is not salvation, but whether the Christian spouse can remain in the marriage. Paul's answer is yes. The marriage is still blessed. Thiselton says (after lots of complex linguistic analysis) that this is in part because Paul has confidence that the Christian spouse will set the tone more than the non-Christian one, as long as the non-Christian agrees to continue.

As to the child, I would argue that growing up in a Christian home is a very significant means of grace. But that certainly doesn't overrule the need for the child to meet normal criteria for salvation (whatever your soteriology says they are).

Thanks a lot. I did not gather that this was the explanation from JM's link, did you read it and if so, understand it?

 

[hedrick]

Thanks a lot. I did not gather that this was the explanation from JM's link, did you read it and if so, understand it?

Unfortunately the web page is fairly complex, partly because it’s adding questions of infant baptism in. This posting is going to be even worse, because I’m going to juggle the web page, Calvin, and Thiselton’s commentary.

The primary argument that the web page focuses on seems to be that the holiness of the spouse (or the marriage?) is by analogy with that of the child. That is, it’s not that the child’s holiness depends upon the holiness of the marriage, but that they are analogous.

Thiselton agrees with this, seeing the argument as a fortiori. Calvin disagrees, paraphrasing the argument as “If your marriage were impure, then the children that are the fruit of it would be impure; but they are holy; hence the marriage also is holy. As, then, the ungodliness of one of the parents does not hinder the children that are born from being holy, so neither does it hinder the marriage from being pure.”

Both, however, see the holiness as basically relational, i.e. it’s the marriage that is holy, not that the person is automatically saved. However Calvin makes what I think is a fairly remarkable statement about the children. He believes that being within the covenant, the curse of original sin is by God’s grace removed from them, as it was from Abraham’s progeny. I find this interesting in light of previous discussions about regeneration. He seems to see what I would have called regeneration as a consequence of membership in the covenant, with no requirement of personal faith or individual election. You might want to look up Calvin’s commentary on 1 Cor (e.g. at ccel.org) and see if you agree with this.

Calvin then argues “if the children of believers are exempted from the common lot of mankind, so as to be set apart to the Lord, why should we keep them back from the sign?” Because he’s not using an argument by analogy, he isn’t forced into saying the same thing about the unbelieving spouse.

Thiselton doesn’t mention baptism, giving a kind of psychological explanation that I think amounts of saying that the children are part of a covenant of marriage, and this covenant marks them: ‘The aspects of dynamic action and “separateness” in ἅγια mean that even if only one parent is Christian the children will be marked by an element of shaping and “difference” from a wholly pagan environment.”

As to whether “your children” refers to children of all Christians or the specific marriages involving unbelievers (an issue on which the web page spends time), this isn’t really considered by either Calvin or Thiselton. Both certainly assume that children of Christians are holy whether both partners are Christian or only one is. I do agree with the link that Paul’s wording makes more sense if it’s referring to all children of Christians and not just those of the marriages in question.

I think I accept Thiselton’s exegesis. It’s close to Calvin’s with two exceptions:

* Calvin believes that the children’s holiness is a result of the marriage’s holiness. I think Paul is reasoning by analogy. But I’m not sure I agree with the link that this is a pressing issue. After all, even if it’s analogy, the children are holy because they’re children of Christians, meaning they come out of a Christian marriage, so there’s a lot of overlap between the two. (Perhaps the way you distinguish is to ask about children who are born into a single-parent household. I at least would argue that if their custodial parent is Christian the children are still holy, even though there’s no covenant of marriage involved, because the parent is part of the covenant community and the children are baptized into it. Calvin pretty clearly never thought about this case.)

* Calvin believes the children are holy in the sense of being exempted from original sin. Thiselton would say that they are marked by being born in a Christian household. I think that can reasonably be understood in covenantal terms. But saying that this exempts them from original sin is something I don’t find in Paul. Calvin argues by analogy with the covenant with Abraham, which he believes exempted Israel from original sin based on Rom 11:16. Rom 11:16 seems to be speaking of Israel, and certainly implies that they are all, even the unbelieving ones, holy in some sense. I would agree that they are set aside by God (which is what holy means) and part of the covenant. But that unbelieving ones are regenerate seems weird, and I don’t see it in Paul, unless Paul is actually claiming that every individual Jew will eventually be saved.

I agree with JM’s link up to the point near the end where he starts talking about infant baptism. I think my exegesis would be similar to Thiselton’s. And to JM’s link until that point.

The link seems to assume that the analogy between unbelieving spouse and child means that they get treated the same way in baptism. But I don’t believe that is the case. Both unbelieving spouse and child are part of a covenantal relationship that marks them as touched by the Gospel. But I would argue that they are different. Both are set aside, and thus Paul can call them holy. But young children of Christians should (if the parents are doing their job) grow up in the Church and participate in its worship. At some point in their lives they may stop, but at least for a while they are full members of the Christian community. That’s not the case for unbelieving adults. They're marked by God, but not in the same way. No analogy is perfect, and I think it’s pushing this one too far to say that if we baptize children of believers we would have to baptize unbelieving spouses.

 

[abacabb3]

“If your marriage were impure, then the children that are the fruit of it would be impure; but they are holy; hence the marriage also is holy. As, then, the ungodliness of one of the parents does not hinder the children that are born from being holy, so neither does it hinder the marriage from being pure.”

This is a good, succinct explanation.

However Calvin makes what I think is a fairly remarkable statement about the children. He believes that being within the covenant, the curse of original sin is by God’s grace removed from them, as it was from Abraham’s progeny. I find this interesting in light of previous discussions about regeneration. He seems to see what I would have called regeneration as a consequence of membership in the covenant, with no requirement of personal faith or individual election.

This is a very good, succinct description of how covenant theology works for infant baptism. Where does the Scripture say we are still under the Old Testament Law and that it is applicable in this sense? Seems like convoluted reasoning.