CALVINISM: ITS DOCTRINE OF INFANT SALVATION

Good News from the Redeemer ^ | June 28-July5, 1997 | Daniel Parks, Redeemer Baptist Church of Louisville KY

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You also.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Until I see a talking newborn, I'll have to agree to disagree about Psalms 58:3. I can't see a process where sometime between conception and birth, a baby who does not know to choose right or wrong is led away of his own lusts (James 1:14-15) transgresses the law (I John 3:4) and thus separates himself from God. (Isaiah 59:1-2)

Psalm 58:3 teaches that Infants do transgress the law.

Even if it's a "metaphor", it's still a metaphor for the teaching "Infants are Sinners" -- certainly not the teaching "Infants are not Sinners". A "metaphor" isn't something that means the OPPOSITE of what it says.

Pray tell, Kangaroo -- if Psalm 58:3 is not teaching that Infants are Sinners, then what IS it teaching? Is Psalm 58:3 teaching that Infants ARE NOT Sinners?

And it's not just Psalm 58:3. From the Article:

Romans 5:12-19 teaches us that we all, infants included, sinned and died in the fall of Adam, the first man. Job (14:4) declared the sinfulness of infants when he said, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!" The psalmist David declared the sinfulness of infants when he, speaking for us all, said in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." And he poignantly declared the sinfulness of infants when he said in Psalm 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Solomon includes infants when he teaches us in Ecclesiastes 7:20 that "there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin." And Jesus Christ includes infants when He teaches us in John 3:1-7 that "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" and in need of being "born again" by the Holy Spirit if he or she is to see or enter God's kingdom.

As is demonstrated by these Scriptures, any creature which is included in the Set of "Human Beings born of Adam" are, without any exceptions whatsoever, naturally Sinners and Separate from God.

Are Infants members of the Set "Human Beings born of Adam"? Indeed they are. Therefore, they fall under the teachings of these Scriptures. Since Infants are included in that Set, Infants are therefore naturally Sinners and Separate from God.

[P-Marlowe]

It would be nice if we could emphasize our points of agreement.

1) Sinners are saved by God's free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, totally apart from any works of righteousness they perform or any supposed virtue in them.

2) Everyone who is saved — including all persons dying in infancy — is saved through being elected to salvation by God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and regenerated or born again by the Holy Spirit.

I think we are in agreement there.

You added later that "regeneration precedes faith." Is regeneration and being born again the same thing. I have seen Calvinists argue both sides. From my recollection most seem to believe that regeneration precedes being born again and others argue that there is no difference.

Apparently the author of this article is of the opinion that regeneration and being born again are synonymous and that the order is: election, redemption and then regeneration.

In the case of an infant who dies in infancy, there does not appear to be any need for "regeneration" before redemption since there is no need to change the heart of the infant who dies to make it willing to exercise faith in order to be saved. The exercise of faith is irrelevant to an infant. It is not saved through the exercise of faith, it is saved because solely because of God's grace apart from anything the infant did or did not do.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You added later that "regeneration precedes faith." Is regeneration and being born again the same thing. I have seen Calvinists argue both sides. From my recollection most seem to believe that regeneration precedes being born again and others argue that there is no difference. Apparently the author of this article is of the opinion that regeneration and being born again are synonymous and that the order is: election, redemption and then regeneration.

Regeneration is synonymous with "Born Again" (Re-Generate -- "Again Born"). Further, I don't know why you divided Redemption and Regeneration in the Calvinist ordo salutis -- God Redeems dead sinners by Regenerating them.

In the case of an infant who dies in infancy, there does not appear to be any need for "regeneration" before redemption since there is no need to change the heart of the infant who dies to make it willing to exercise faith in order to be saved.

Of course there is a need for Regeneration, to change the "heart" (i.e., the spiritual constitution) of an Unregenerate Infant. All humans born of Adam are conceived Spiritually Dead. In order to enter Heaven, they must be made Spiritually Alive -- Regenerated.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

The exercise of faith is irrelevant to an infant. It is not saved through the exercise of faith, it is saved because solely because of God's grace apart from anything the infant did or did not do.

True enough; but the issue which I am getting at is the continued false Arminian belief that Faith precedes Regeneration in Adults. According to the Bible, that's simply a Lie -- for Faith is God-pleasing, and the Bible teaches that while he is yet Unregenerate a Man absolutely never chooses that which is God-pleasing.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Thank you for your comprehensive reply. I'll give it thought and answer further later when I have the time to give it the attention it deserves. But I must say that Psalms 51:5 does not teach sinfulness from conception. Sin and inquity is the locus of conception. A world ruled by sin. Most of us were also concieved in a house, but that does not mean we inherit the nature or guilt of a house either. We are judged on what we do, not what we inherit.(Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 2:6)

[P-Marlowe]

I've seen it argued by Calvinists that the regeneration which preceeds faith is different from being born again which is the result not the cause of salvation. You seem to take the position that one is made a new creation in Christ apart from and prior to the exercise of faith. But since faith is a necessary element of salvation, this would mean that one is actually saved before the exercise of faith which would appear to contradict the scriptures which state clearly that we are saved "by Grace through faith."

[Corin Stormhands]

I've seen it argued by Calvinists that the regeneration which preceeds faith is different from being born again which is the result not the cause of salvation.

I've seen the same *ahem* discussions.

[HarleyD]

Here's an interesting thought from Dr. Piper:

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners. It could be objected that Christ was sinless, and yet He died. But He willingly gave up His life, and He did it to conquer the curse of death that we were under. In fact, God imputed to Christ our sins on the cross, and Christ died in punishment of those sins.

What is the biblical evidence for original sin?

Now, if the reason we die is because of our sin nature, why do babies who are innocent die?

[P-Marlowe]

Infants die, therefore they are not innocent Death--both physical and spiritual--is a result of sin (Romans 5:12; 6:23). Thus, death only comes upon those who have sinned. Since infants die, they therefore must be sinners.

Dogs die too. Are dogs sinners? Fish die. Amoebas die. Viruses die.

Death is the result of ADAM's sin, not the result of an unborn child's sin.

[HarleyD]

But to carry out the argument, if an "innocent" baby dies why does he/she needs our Lord Jesus intercession at all? They're completely innocent and would be viewed as "sinless" like the Christ.

[SoothingDave]

Now, if the reason we die is because of our sin nature, why do babies who are innocent die?

Death entered the world through Adam's sin. All manner of evil things ebtered the world because of this. They are nto in our control, nor do they obey any rules of which we are aware. These powers, once unleashed, wreak where they will.

Bad things happen to good people.

SD

[HarleyD]

The issue isn't whether babies die or not. Tragically they do. But if a baby dies who, under this doctrine, is consider "innocent" are you saying they:

1) Need a Redeemer? (Which begs the question why since they're innocent?)

or

2) Don't need a Redeemer? (Christ didn't die for all)

[Gamecock]

Saved from what? Why would God condemn an infant, when He knows beforehand, everything that that infant will do for his entire life?

The topic is the infant who dies seconds/minutes/hours/weeks/months after being born.

In the context of this thread, the omniscience of God is not required. Infants stay where you put them, frequently throwing up and soiling themselves with each feeding.

If they die in this state they are in Paradise.

[SoothingDave]

But if a baby dies who, under this doctrine, is consider "innocent" are you saying they:

1) Need a Redeemer? (Which begs the question why since they're innocent?)

or

2) Don't need a Redeemer? (Christ didn't die for all)

If I understand correctly, the idea is that they are redeemed in the womb or sometime prior to their unfortunate early demise. They are not "innocent" on their own merits, but are made that way through a special grace of God.

SD

[SoothingDave]

But if a baby dies who, under this doctrine, is consider "innocent" are you saying they:

1) Need a Redeemer? (Which begs the question why since they're innocent?)

or

2) Don't need a Redeemer? (Christ didn't die for all)

If I understand correctly, the idea is that they are redeemed in the womb or sometime prior to their unfortunate early demise. They are not "innocent" on their own merits, but are made that way through a special grace of God.

SD

[HarleyD]

Then one would have to conclude with OP that if they are not innocent on their own merit they must be sinners from birth.

[SoothingDave]

Then one would have to conclude with OP that if they are not innocent on their own merit they must be sinners from birth.

I believe that I am accurately reflecting OP's position. All are conceived in sin, but God regenerates some before death.

Since election is unconditional, it does not depend on us doing something first. So there is no reason why God can not regenerate the unborn, if He wills it.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Then one would have to conclude with OP that if they are not innocent on their own merit they must be sinners from birth.

I believe that I am accurately reflecting OP's position. All are conceived in sin, but God regenerates some before death.

Since election is unconditional, it does not depend on us doing something first. So there is no reason why God can not regenerate the unborn, if He wills it.

SD

[HarleyD]

Yes, I believe OP's position is the only logical conclusion one can draw and is supported by scripture. Whether God regenerates all babies who dies is a mystery but whatever He does is perfect, just and holy.