Elect infants

[ps139]

Good day all :wave:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[tigersnare]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Good day all :wave:

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]

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_]

Good day all :wave:

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Jon_]

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.
I'm with Roger. I think that when it comes to the salvation of others, we really can't know anything definitively. This is precisely why judgment is condemned so harshly. I am not opposed to the idea that elect infants who die are elect. I am opposed to the idea that all infants are elect by default.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[Imblessed]

II am not opposed to the idea that elect infants who die are elect. I am opposed to the idea that all infants are elect by default.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon I suppose in a round about way that makes sense......;)

But I agree, I really do. The problem is when is "infancy" over and "childhood" beginning? are they all elect before age 1? 2? 5? 12?

This reasoning assumes that all children born are "good" to a certain age, when we know by scripture that all children are born sinful (anyone who's got kids know they don't start out nice and get bad, but that you have to teach children to be "good".

that is why I would never say with authority that infants who die are elect by default.

But I can say that since God knows what infants are going to die, that it would be easy to see how He would choose those ones to come back to Him in heaven.

BTW, since the OP was asking the reformed view, and I'm not "technically" reformed(mainly because of my believe in credobaptism), if you all want me to stay out of the discussion, feel free to tell me---I'm joining in because this topic interests me quite a bit........

[Elderone]

The problem is when is "infancy" over and "childhood" beginning? are they all elect before age 1? 2? 5? 12?

The following may help with your question. These two paragraphs are from the "Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3"

3:5 Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory (Rom_8:30; Eph_1:4, Eph_1:9, Eph_1:11; 1Th_5:9; 2Ti_1:9), out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto (Rom_9:11, Rom_9:13, Rom_9:16; Eph_1:4, Eph_1:9): and all to the praise of His glorious grace (Eph_1:6, Eph_1:12).


3:7 The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice (Mat_11:25, Mat_11:26; Rom_9:17, Rom_9:18, Rom_9:21, Rom_9:22; 2Ti_2:19, 2Ti_2:20; 1Pe_2:8; Jud_1:4).

Thus, elect and non-elect are such before the beginning of time.


BTW, since the OP was asking the reformed view, and I'm not "technically" reformed(mainly because of my believe in credobaptism), if you all want me to stay out of the discussion, feel free to tell me---I'm joining in because this topic interests me quite a bit........

Hang around and be part of the discussion.

[Imblessed]

that's what I'm getting at Elderone, and that's the reason I believe that the best course of action is to admit that we don't know and leave it at that.

If you start assuming this and assuming that, you have to take into account everyone's different views of when infancy and childhood are, and then you have people who want to make exceptions, and those who believe one way until they are faced with the reality of a child dying, etc etc. It gets complicated fast.

We all know (here in the reformed room) that Predestination is biblical, and we must trust in God based on that knowledge.

I was very pleasantly suprised that my Pastor did not try to sugar coat it or try to make that one lady feel better by telling her what she wanted to hear. It certainly make me even more respectful of him and glad that I go to that church. How many pastors would have the nerve to say that in front of 800 some people? Not enough, unfortunately!

[Elderone]

the best course of action is to admit that we don't know and leave it at that.

Putting words in God's mouth isn't smart, a perfect example of "Fools rushing in where angels fear to tread."


I was very pleasantly suprised that my Pastor did not try to sugar coat it or try to make that one lady feel better by telling her what she wanted to hear. It certainly make me even more respectful of him and glad that I go to that church. How many pastors would have the nerve to say that in front of 800 some people? Not enough, unfortunately!

Sounds as though your Pastor has his head screwed on straight... wishing to teach God's word correctly rather than tickle the ears of the congregation. We need to ask God for more like him.

[ps139]

I'm with Roger. I think that when it comes to the salvation of others, we really can't know anything definitively. This is precisely why judgment is condemned so harshly.
Do you believe this principle applies to your own salvation as well?

BTW, thanks to all who have contributed, I haven't posted much in this thread but I have been reading it as it is interesting and I thank you all for your participation. :)

[tigersnare]

Do you believe this principle applies to your own salvation as well?

BTW, thanks to all who have contributed, I haven't posted much in this thread but I have been reading it as it is interesting and I thank you all for your participation. :)

If I could answer,

Personal salvation we can be assured of, "the Spirit testifies with your spirit", "make your call and election sure", "you cry out Abba, Father!". We can be sure of these things.

[Jon_]

Do you believe this principle applies to your own salvation as well?

BTW, thanks to all who have contributed, I haven't posted much in this thread but I have been reading it as it is interesting and I thank you all for your participation. :)
No, I am sure of my calling.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[rnmomof7]

Good day all :wave:

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. :)

Bill I do not know the eternity of infants when they die, and neither did Spurgeon and neither do you :)

Scripture is silent on the fate of infants that die in the womb or in early childhood.

Some men that wanted to make people feel good made up the age of "accountability " and declared that before that they are automatically saved. There is no scripture to confirm that belief.

Now here is a Protestant problem with that.

It would mean there are 2 kinds of people in heaven, those that are saved by the grace and mercy of God and those that deserve it based on their innocence.

But the bible tells us that we are born sinners, not innocent.

The fact is there is only one type of person in heaven, sinners saved by the grace and mercy of God.

I do not know where babies go if they die, but I do know this. I love and serve a mighty God that is both loving and just .

Justice would demand hell for everyone that dies, both adults and infants, but in His love God has made a way to save some with his mercy and grace.

I trust the God of my salvation to judge the infants correctly and justly

God asks us

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)


So I trust God to do what is right in His eyes. It is not necessary to conform Him to my image of what God should be

[~Heavens_Bride~]

That was well put,and not that hard to swallow at all.


Bill I do not know the eternity of infants when they die, and neither did Spurgeon and neither do you :)

Scripture is silent on the fate of infants that die in the womb or in early childhood.

Some men that wanted to make people feel good made up the age of "accountability " and declared that before that they are automatically saved. There is no scripture to confirm that belief.

Now here is a Protestant problem with that.

It would mean there are 2 kinds of people in heaven, those that are saved by the grace and mercy of God and those that deserve it based on their innocence.

But the bible tells us that we are born sinners, not innocent.

The fact is there is only one type of person in heaven, sinners saved by the grace and mercy of God.

I do not know where babies go if they die, but I do know this. I love and serve a mighty God that is both loving and just .

Justice would demand hell for everyone that dies, both adults and infants, but in His love God has made a way to save some with his mercy and grace.

I trust the God of my salvation to judge the infants correctly and justly

God asks us

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)


So I trust God to do what is right in His eyes. It is not necessary to conform Him to my image of what God should be

[theseed]

Good day all :wave:

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 had a thread on the topic a good while back.

http://www.christianforums.com/t100939-all-children-inherit-salvation-a-look-at-guardian-angels.html

[ps139]

I am opposed to the idea that all infants are elect by default.

I see how this would be problematic - because unless God can make one "unelect," then it would basically imply universalism, right?

If all babies are elect, and God does not "unchoose" people, then all people would have to be elect, correct? Or no?

[Jon_]

I see how this would be problematic - because unless God can make one "unelect," then it would basically imply universalism, right?

If all babies are elect, and God does not "unchoose" people, then all people would have to be elect, correct? Or no?
Yes, that is certainly one of the considerations on the subject. Another consideration is that no man merits salvation apart from faith in Christ Jesus. So that is, unless a person is foreordained to faith, he or she is reprobate from the very beginning of his or her existence.

Actually, the issue is even more troubling than first appears. We know that "faith comes by hearing," but for infants, this would seem impossible; therefore, if an infant being born into sin is yet deprived of the "opportunity" to believe and perishes before such conditions would lead to salvific faith (of course, as ordained by God), then it would seem that all infants could be said to be reprobate, anachronistically (that is, if we look at it within just that specific timeframe). Of course, those that God has eternally decreed elect are eternally elect--and there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.

It might seem we can conclude that infants who die before faith are eternally reprobate. That is, they were predestined to die in such a state. This is contrasted against the blessed assurance of the elect who are persevered according to God's purposes. More specifically, God ensures that his elect will live at least long enough to reach the appointed hour of their regeneration and subsequent reception of his Son and Holy Spirit.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[rnmomof7]

Yes, that is certainly one of the considerations on the subject. Another consideration is that no man merits salvation apart from faith in Christ Jesus. So that is, unless a person is foreordained to faith, he or she is reprobate from the very beginning of his or her existence.

Actually, the issue is even more troubling than first appears. We know that "faith comes by hearing," but for infants, this would seem impossible; therefore, if an infant being born into sin is yet deprived of the "opportunity" to believe and perishes before such conditions would lead to salvific faith (of course, as ordained by God), then it would seem that all infants could be said to be reprobate, anachronistically (that is, if we look at it within just that specific timeframe). Of course, those that God has eternally decreed elect are eternally elect--and there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ.

It might seem we can conclude that infants who die before faith are eternally reprobate. That is, they were predestined to die in such a state. This is contrasted against the blessed assurance of the elect who are persevered according to God's purposes. More specifically, God ensures that his elect will live at least long enough to reach the appointed hour of their regeneration and subsequent reception of his Son and Holy Spirit.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

I had a 17 month old grandson that drowned in his other grandparents pool.

My son and his wife and the babys siblings all profess Christ as Savior .

In retrospect we can see the hand of God preparing the family for that day.
We believe that was a result of Gods love for my wonderful Christian son and family.

I would find it hard to believe that God would so carefully prepare the family for this beginning a year earlier and not have whispered into Nathan's ear as he was drawing his last breath.

I see John the Baptist regenerate in the womb, as the model of how God works in the hearts and mind of infants..

I will not know Nathans eternal fate until I too am gathered into the arms of my Savior . But I believe that God is sovereign over the salvation of men , and children and infants, and I believe He can give his word to a child that will save .

In the end, as we stand before Christ we will be as He is and see as He does and all of His work will be manifest and right in our eyes.. There will be no more questions

[theseed]

I see how this would be problematic - because unless God can make one "unelect," then it would basically imply universalism, right?

If all babies are elect, and God does not "unchoose" people, then all people would have to be elect, correct? Or no?
Wow! 14000 posts!

[Elect]

One thing is for certain. If there are any infants that die that are not of the elect, then this would be an act of mercy on God's part. If a person that dies and goes to Hell then for him it would be better to die as an infant than as an old man that has spent a lifetime of filling up the cup of God's wrath.

[James1979]

Elect,

I disagree it would have been better of if the non-elect had never been born. Even if the infant die as a non-elect will very few small sins compared to someone who has live up to 99 with millions of sins. The very small sins is still horrible because you have to spend an eternity in the lake of fire for those very few sins or even just one sin.

[Jon_]

Elect,

I disagree it would have been better of if the non-elect had never been born. Even if the infant die as a non-elect will very few small sins compared to someone who has live up to 99 with millions of sins. The very small sins is still horrible because you have to spend an eternity in the lake of fire for those very few sins or even just one sin.
Hi James. I don't think our brother was comparing a reprobate infant dying compared with never being born. Instead, his comparison was between a reprobate dying as an infant versus a reprobate dying after an whole life of sin and misery. In this sense, I agree with our brother's assertion.

I hope that clarifies the point made for you.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[ps139]

I see John the Baptist regenerate in the womb, as the model of how God works in the hearts and mind of infants..This is a really good point! I had not thought of this example.

[James1979]

Jon,

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I just said that regardless if a infant is non-elect and the person who lives a very long time is a non-elect, both infant and the old age person is still are in a horrible situation when the infant sins are very small compared to the old age person.

[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 (http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=1co+7:14&version=kjv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) - 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."
http://www.spurgeon.org/images/indent.gif"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 (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. :thumbsup:

[DrWarfield]

Good day all :wave:

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. :thumbsup:


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
:amen:

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.

[Cajun Huguenot]

I'm sure knowing her unborn baby is being tormented in hell is very comforting to every woman who has suffered a miscarriage.
I don't think you read my post on this thread. Look again. I am a Reformed Christian and I do believe that ALL babies who have but one Christian Parent that die in the womb and infancy are elect. Paul deals with this in 1 Cor. 7 and it is in line with the basic covenantal teachings of the whole of Scripture.

This is a common Reformed view point.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

[Jon_]

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

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

[MerCYsMIraCLe]

Well....
I have lost a baby through miscarraige.
I am not exactly a Calvinist (I lean that way though). And the Bible is not offensive. The way I see it, Calvinist or not, should my baby have lived, that would not have guarunteed his/her salvation.

I tend to believe that all infants that die in infancy are elect - not from a biblical stance I admit - but because I feel better believing that way. It is one of my 'feel-good' beliefs lol. Having said that, should I find out that my baby is not where I desire him/her to be - I would be sad, but not angry. Who am I to call God unjust? I trust in His way and have seen nothing but goodness from Him...so I can only assume that He is good and just ALWAYS, and what he chose for my child followed that suit.


I will answer that God gave me peace about this as I was uncertain and upset when I first lost my child. I feel God granted me peace and assurance and that I will one day get to hold that baby for the first time in Heaven.