Infant salvation

[Skala]

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.

Calvinism teaches that God has not only ordained the ends, but also the means to those ends.

If "Bob" is one of God's chosen people, then God will make sure that sometime during Bob's life, he will hear the gospel, be brought to repentance, and put saving faith in Jesus Christ.

It's not as if Bob will live life an atheist, then suddenly God lets him into heaven on judgement day, because unbeknownst to Bob, he was one of the elect.

But rather, whatever happens in physical time, in our life on earth, actually matches up to God's eternal plan.

In other words, all of the elect, sometime during their lives, hear the gospel and place their faith in Jesus. All of the elect, sometime during their lives, per God's timing, become Christians.

 

[abacabb3]

Calvinism teaches that God has not only ordained the ends, but also the means to those ends.

If "Bob" is one of God's chosen people, then God will make sure that sometime during Bob's life, he will hear the gospel, be brought to repentance, and put saving faith in Jesus Christ.

It's not as if Bob will live life an atheist, then suddenly God lets him into heaven on judgement day, because unbeknownst to Bob, he was one of the elect.

But rather, whatever happens in physical time, in our life on earth, actually matches up to God's eternal plan.

In other words, all of the elect, sometime during their lives, hear the gospel and place their faith in Jesus. All of the elect, sometime during their lives, per God's timing, become Christians.

 

[hedrick]

Calvinism teaches that God has not only ordained the ends, but also the means to those ends.

If "Bob" is one of God's chosen people, then God will make sure that sometime during Bob's life, he will hear the gospel, be brought to repentance, and put saving faith in Jesus Christ.

It's not as if Bob will live life an atheist, then suddenly God lets him into heaven on judgement day, because unbeknownst to Bob, he was one of the elect.

But rather, whatever happens in physical time, in our life on earth, actually matches up to God's eternal plan.

In other words, all of the elect, sometime during their lives, hear the gospel and place their faith in Jesus. All of the elect, sometime during their lives, per God's timing, become Christians.

This is a fine summary of traditional Reformed theology. But it doesn't apply without some interpretation to infants, which is the topic of this discussion.

I've been reviewing Calvin, and a few typical Internet treatments of him. I think the best you can say for Calvin is that he never explicitly says that any infants are damned. However his discussion at times seems to assume it. He certainly has a concept of elect infants. He says that the Holy Spirit is active in them, and that they have the seed of faith and repentance, which will develop later. Given his general approach to soteriology, if such infants die in infancy, it makes sense to say that they are saved.

But I'm not convinced that he says this of all infants, or that it even makes sense in his scheme to say that.

The Bible doesn't seem to answer this question. You can try to read tea leaves, but in the end it's speculation. I think theology and exegesis are being driven by a feeling that babies are innocent and can't possibly be damned. I'm not so sure that Calvin or earlier theologians agreed with this.

It seems to me that the intuition that's driving this speculation is in some sense contrary to the whole Augustinian approach, which includes Calvin. The intuition is that people start out, maybe not innocent exactly, but at least not opposed to God, and willing to accept that they need his grace. After all, Jesus used children as models for adult faith. That use worked because it builds on the same intuition. But this intuition is opposed to the Augustinian concept of original sin, and I think fits into a traditional scheme such as Calvinism only with difficulty.

If you want to play out the implications of all infants being saved, I think impossible problems result unless you assume that most adults are saved as well, reserving damnation for people who develop into real enemies of God and abusers of other people -- at whatever age this development becomes a real part of their character.

If you assume that all infants are saved and most adults are damned, you end up with bizarre theological constructs, such as a magic age when suddenly you reverse the presumption from being saved to being damned, or the concept that God makes sure that any infant that isn't elect lives to adulthood, where he can be held responsible. (Hence careful discussions by traditional Calvinists make it clear that there's a difference between saying that everyone who dies in infancy is saved and saying that all infants are saved. The former is conceivable. The latter causes trouble in a system with perseverance of the saints.)

 

[abacabb3]

This is a fine summary of traditional Reformed theology. But it doesn't apply without some interpretation to infants, which is the topic of this discussion.

Hence the problem and my initial reply. In order for it not to apply for infants, a ton of the Scripture has to be abrogated to make it fit that infants don't somehow fall under universal condemnation for sin, which I find to be impossible to argue form the infant salvation viewpoint.

But I'm not convinced that he [Calvin] says this of all infants, or that it even makes sense in his scheme to say that.

The Bible doesn't seem to answer this question.

Obviously, it's the Bible and not Calvin which is key, though Calvin's interpretation of Scripture may inform us.

The Bible answers other questions, to the point where it seems to be a logical impossibility for infants to be saved. In fact, it requires reading in between lines (hence, reading things that are not there) to include infants in salvation, while all it takes to argue that infants are not saved is to quote Scripture that states specifically that "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" (Eph 2:3).

So if "all" were children of wrath, how aren't children under wrath?

Apart from the Scripture explicitly stating, "All babies go to hell," the Bible does explicitly state all that have not been born again are not saved, that being the born the first time is not sufficient for salvation.

If you assume that all infants are saved and most adults are damned, you end up with bizarre theological constructs, such as a magic age when suddenly you reverse the presumption from being saved to being damned, or the concept that God makes sure that any infant that isn't elect lives to adulthood, where he can be held responsible. (Hence careful discussions by traditional Calvinists make it clear that there's a difference between saying that everyone who dies in infancy is saved and saying that all infants are saved. The former is conceivable. The latter causes trouble in a system with perseverance of the saints.)

Good points.

 

[Skala]

This is a fine summary of traditional Reformed theology. But it doesn't apply without some interpretation to infants, which is the topic of this discussion.)

I am scared to declare one way or another on the topic of infants who die, because I'm not convinced the Bible says anything specific.

However, the "infant problem" is not on the monergist's side, but rather the synergist's.

When people discuss babies, they always ask if babies go to hell, or does God save them? My question is, if he saves them, how does he save them? I answer that question like this: He saves them by grace. The same free, undeserved grace that any fallen son of Adam needs, in order to be saved.

Non-Calvinists demand that God saves babies. Well, how does he save them in their view? Do the babies make a free will choice to be saved? (Something that non-Calvinists hold dear) Obviously not. Then, all that is left is to say that God saves them monergistically.

The irony here is that non-Calvinists expect God to save babies in a way that they abhor. They abhor the idea of monergistic salvation (the Calvinist view of salvation), yet they also demand that God saves babies in this way.

So, in many forms of non-Calvinism, God is free to save babies, but not adults. If God saves babies monergistically, He's a kind, merciful, loving God. But if God saves adults monergistically, he is a tyrant, a monster, and he is a destroyer of free will, and God's character is maligned.

Pretty funny

 

[stenerson]

I am scared to declare one way or another on the topic of infants who die, because I'm not convinced the Bible says anything specific.

However, the "infant problem" is not on the monergist's side, but rather the synergist's.

When people discuss babies, they always ask if babies go to hell, or does God save them? My question is, if he saves them, how does he save them? I answer that question like this: He saves them by grace. The same free, undeserved grace that any fallen son of Adam needs, in order to be saved.

Non-Calvinists demand that God saves babies. Well, how does he save them in their view? Do the babies make a free will choice to be saved? (Something that non-Calvinists hold dear) Obviously not. Then, all that is left is to say that God saves them monergistically.

The irony here is that non-Calvinists expect God to save babies in a way that they abhor. They abhor the idea of monergistic salvation (the Calvinist view of salvation), yet they also demand that God saves babies in this way.

So, in many forms of non-Calvinism, God is free to save babies, but not adults. If God saves babies monergistically, He's a kind, merciful, loving God. But if God saves adults monergistically, he is a tyrant, a monster, and he is a destroyer of free will, and God's character is maligned.

Pretty funny

Those are my thoughts exactly on the matter. Of course God can save babies. How? The same way he saves anyone, through His free sovereign grace. Salvation is not a matter of someone's intellectual ability or development.
And I don't dare insist that He (God) does or should save every baby. Many preachers, even in the reformed camp, preachers that I respect go beyond scripture insisting that anyone that dies as an infant is instantly saved.

 

[hedrick]

However, the "infant problem" is not on the monergist's side, but rather the synergist's.

Perhaps. I've seen two Arminian arguments.

One says that because Christ died for everyone, it must be possible for everyone to be saved, including infants. However we aren't told how it works with infants. This is not surprising, since the Bible is obviously directed at adults. One person speculated that God chose repentance as the way for adults to be saved because they had committed actual sins. While infants are affected by original sin, since they haven't committed actual sins yet, repentance isn't needed. It does sound to me like in effect infants are being saved monergistically. There is, of course, no reason that God has to use the same way to save everyone.

Of course many non-Calvinsts don't believe in original sin in quite the same way as Calvinists and classical Arminians. For them, babies may not have committed sins, and that alone may be enough to preserve them. As I noted above, I think a lot of this rests on a widespread intuitive feeling about infants and not upon abstract exegesis. I think the general intuitive attitude towards babies would be consistent with this approach.

 

[tulipbee]

I went to a southern baptist church and picked up a baptism booklet and was surprised they listed 2 or 3 people that believes in water immersions. one was John Calvin and the other was martian Luther. I confirmed that on Internet and believe they did believe that.

that was my surprise but thought it was fishy for the Baptist to list those two names as a source.

Whats up with that?

 

[hedrick]

I went to a southern baptist church and picked up a baptism booklet and was surprised they listed 2 or 3 people that believes in water immersions. one was John Calvin and the other was martian Luther. I confirmed that on Internet and believe they did believe that.

that was my surprise but thought it was fishy for the Baptist to list those two names as a source.

Whats up with that?

The citation from Calvin is incomplete. I found in a number of web pages. Here is what he says in the Institutes:

"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church."

What I found in the web pages cited only the part beginning "it is evident." This is close to lying, in my view. Note that I'm not accusing everyone involved of lying. They cite a web page. The web page cites a secondary source rather than giving the actual source in Calvin's writing. That secondary source is vaguely enough identified that it's nearly impossible to check. Unfortunately you have to be careful about using web pages as sources.

 

[sdowney717]

Jesus quotes from psalm 8, but he changes the word strength to praise.

Matthew 21

14 Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant 16 and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?”

And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,

‘Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have perfected praise’?”

17 Then He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and He lodged there.

Psalm 8 has to do with man's position in the heavens with Christ.

So the idea is in these babes (children crying out praises to Jesus in the temple, Jesus includes with the children the 'babes', nursing infants. who are performing perfected praises to God (Christ). So to me these little wee ones here are definitely saved.

In fact the verse Jesus quotes from says God perfects praise in infants to put to silence His enemies and adversarial critics about what He does and that to be shown to them on the Day of judgement.
Psalm 8

O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth,
Who have set Your glory above the heavens!

2 Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have ordained strength,

Because of Your enemies,
That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.

3 When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,

4 What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas.
9 O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth!

That verse 4 is quoted in Hebrews 2, here it is in context, with a warning to pay attention, (give heed to the things we have heard (been taught ) lest we drift away. Judgement day for some is going to be a tough experience I think.

2 Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?

The Son Made Lower than Angels
5 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. 6 But one testified in a certain place, saying:

“What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?
7 You have made him a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,[a]
And set him over the works of Your hands.
8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”
For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

You know that man will give account to God for every idle (worthless teaching word ) that he has spoken.