Alrighty! So, here's that long reply I promised ShadowAce (and I hope it clears some stuff up for P-Marlowe, though I think blue-duncan did a good job.)
Be advised, if some of the following reads disconnected in parts it's because it was originally part of a series of replies to a friend on a now defunct web-site.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From the
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.
So, what the Presbyters at the Synod of Dordt were referring to is from
1 Corinthians 1:12-16. Specifically to verse 14.[emphasis mine]
For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (ESV)
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (NASB)
So, I used two different English translations to make a point. Paul, here, is actually talking specifically about who should marry whom and who should remain married to whom in the church, when, after conversion there is an unequal yoking in the marriage resultant of getting married when both were unbelievers. Without getting too deep into the whole Greek of the verse, the word in question here is translated holy or sanctified in different English translations. Fact is, both are correct, it's more a matter of usage than of the actual word that is the issue (since neither sanctified nor holy are words with a single meaning and, in English, are words dependent upon their usage in Scriptural text anyhow. That is, the words only exist in English because they exist in Hebrew and Greek Scripture dependent upon where and how they are used). So:
For the unbelieving husband is made holy (ἡγίασται - set apart from others) because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy (ἡγίασται - set apart from others) because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy (ἅγιά - pure, purity that is revered).
Now, this is the only time that the holiness (in the sense of purity) of children is directly addressed in the Bible. A child of one believing parent and one unbelieving parent is set apart and pure because of the holiness of the one believing parent. It follows, then, that the same is true, and better understood as sure, that the children of two believers are holy (in the sense of purity). This does not advocate the holiness of the unbelieving spouse, only that they are set apart by God for the sake of the believing spouse and the children.
So,
this provides comfort, as the Presbyters of the Synod of Dordt assert, that a believer does not have to worry about the eternity of their infant child. Their holiness is assured and
God will do as He will (this is of no comfort to the unbeliever, though, as you can see if you read below and follow the link to Titus 1:15. But, an unbeliever has no comfort in eternity at all - however, through the death of a beloved infant the Gospel of free acceptance in Christ can, and should be, presented with power - as shown by C.H. Spurgeon in
this reply). For fuller explanation, a couple excerpts from
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: Because the relation or state is sanctified by the holiness of either party: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband (v. 14), or hath been sanctified. The relation itself, and the conjugal use of each other, are sanctified to the believer. "To the pure all things are pure," Tit. 1:15. Marriage is a divine institution; it is a compact for life, by God’s appointment. Had converse and congress with unbelievers in that relation defiled the believer, or rendered him or her offensive to God, the ends of marriage would have been defeated, and the comforts of it in a manner destroyed, in the circumstances in which Christians then were. But the apostle tells them that, though they were yoked with unbelievers, yet, if they themselves were holy, marriage was to them a holy state, and marriage comforts, even with an unbelieving relative, were sanctified enjoyments.
"Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy" (v. 14), that is, they would be heathen, out of the pale of the church and covenant of God. They would not be of the holy seed (as the Jews are called, Isa. 6:13), but common and unclean, in the same sense as heathens in general were styled in the apostle’s vision, Acts 10:28. This way of speaking is according to the dialect of the Jews, among whom a child begotten by parents yet heathens, was said to be begotten out of holiness; and a child begotten by parents made proselytes was said to be begotten intra sanctitatem—within the holy enclosure. Thus Christians are called commonly saints; such they are by profession, separated to be a peculiar people of God, and as such distinguished from the world; and therefore the children born to Christians, though married to unbelievers, are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of the church, a holy, not a common and unclean seed.
So, now to the question that logically follows: What about all infants that die in infancy (or children, or even the mentally disabled that do not have the cognitive ability to understand sin) [included are children that are aborted in infancy in the womb]?
**at this point, we need to make a quick aside - some of what is above, and some key points below, at the very least need to allow for a Reformed understanding of of the sovereignty of God and salvation. On top of that, it follows that one would likely need a Reformed understanding of the covenants to accept this also, though I don't think that that is necessarily true. There are, thus, aspects points that I make below that assume this Reformed understanding. What I won't do is take the time to defend all the background. If you need to understand better these points when they are made, I suggest a reading some John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, A.W. Pink, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Cornelis Venema, et al.**
The question isn't directly addressed in the Bible, so it takes a bit of study and understanding to reach a conclusion (similar to answering the question, "What if someone commits suicide?")
So, let's lay out a few background points:
1. We bear the stain of Original Sin. That is, from birth we are the spiritual progeny of Adam and face the problem of separation from God. (Psalm 51:5, Genesis 8:21, Romans 5:12)
2. God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. (this is where the necessarily Reformed understanding starts) We do not deserve salvation and there is nothing that we can do to earn salvation. We are completely hopeless to be saved apart from the work that God does to save us. We are dead in our sin. We are, by nature, children of wrath, who by our nature deserve only wrath. Our salvation is wholly a gift of grace. (Romans 8:7-8, Hebrews 11:6, Ephesians 2:3, Romans 9:14-16, John 6:44-45, and a lot more)
3. Further, salvation in dependent on God's elective decree. That is, through no work of our own and in no ways knowing the details of this hidden will (that is, we don't know men's hearts nor do we know the names of the elect) God saves who he will save. (Romans 8:28-33, Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:10-13, Matthew 22:1-14, Luke 12:27-32, John 15:13-19, Acts 13:48, and others)
4. Jesus is the only Savior. There is no salvation without Christ. (John 14:6)
5. The redeemed are justified and spend eternity in heaven and the unregenerate receive just punishment in hell. (John 6:39, Revelation 20:11-15)
OK, so that establishes the background, now to the point.
How does any of this address children that die in infancy? Directly, it doesn't, but here's how it does.
We are told that we will be judged according to what we have done not according to Adam's sin. The effect of Original Sin, in a very localized sense, is that we inherit the sinful nature of Adam, are corrupted by it and thus predisposed to evil (not good), and are unable to do anything pleasing to God. In a broader sense, Adam's sin condemns us to death, physically and eternally. In Eden man was created for eternal life. Sin brought death, decomposition, decay towards the grave, etc... The effect is not that we inherit Adam's actual sins. He will be judged according to his sins, we according to ours.
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." 2 Corinthians 5:10
"...and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done" Revelation 20:13b
But, what about infants? Do small children commit such sins in their body? Well, truth is, I don't know if we can be sure. But there is Biblical evidence that they do not and are thus not going to be judged according to what they have done in the body. One example is from Deuteronomy Chapter 1:34-39
"And the LORD heard your words and was angered, and he swore, 'Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh. He shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land on which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the LORD!' Even with me the LORD was angry on your account and said, 'You also shall not go in there. Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter. Encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.'
Now, the above passage is really important to us with a covenantal view of eschatology (amil, post-mil, and historic pre-mil). The reason is because we see all prophecy in the Old Testament as being
fulfilled in and through Christ, NOW. And that his millennial reign is NOW. All the promises of Scripture are answered "Yes" in Christ ("For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory." -
2 Cor. 1:20). That includes the land promise to Israel. In Christ we don't look for an earthly plot of land, but a heavenly one, found in Him for all that are in Him (Hebrews
11:13-16, 39-40).
So, I believe that when God promised the Promised Land, he was foretelling eternity through Christ. The Land was but a shadow. When He promised that "your little ones... who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there" He was foretelling that the innocent children would see eternity in Christ.
Another passage that reinforces that view is from Christs teaching at the Sermon on the Mount:
"And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them." - Mark 10:13-16
Now, I understand that this passage is explaining how someone must be if they are to be saved. But, in explaining this Jesus tells us
how he views children. In short, God sees the children as innocent - able to enter into the kingdom, nay, inheritors of the kingdom. That is what Paul calls us: adopted children - inheritors of the Kingdom of God. Also, refer to the Deuteronomy passage. Only the children (without blame) could enter the land - now only those like children (without blame) can enter the kingdom.
In the words of Dr. Albert Mohler
"We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."
And so, in conclusion, I believe in the electing grace of God and as such I believe that all children that die in infancy and all that die not knowing good nor evil (either by very young age or disability) are of the Elect of God.
Am I as sure of this as I am of my salvation? Yes, I believe that it is Scripturally consistent and consistent with the character of God as revealed in the Bible. I find the same hope and comfort in this understanding as I am sure in the hope of heaven to all who believe.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I was asked some follow-up questions (in italics). My answers are below the questions.
The "Elect of God" - is this ALL children?No, not all children. All children that die having no knowledge of good or evil (i.e. - those that die in infancy, incapable of understanding due to disability, etc...).
This does not apply to those that don't die without the knowledge of good and evil.
Let me explain a bit, so that there is a seperation made. God chooses according to his will and according to his purpose, not because of anything that we have done or may do to earn the merit of his choice. From before time began God made his choice. Some that he chose have and/or will grow up and come to Christ in faith, their sins being covered. Some will die in infancy and because they have no knowledge of good and evil they are saved by the same faith through the same grace. The technicalities of that, I don't understand and the Bible doesn't speak to it. God will do as he will. What I do believe is that those who die innocent of sin because they do not have the cognitive ability to know sin are of the elect. Of all those who will grow up, some are elect some aren't.
As far as assurance of the infants (et al.) we (Reformed) are convinced of their assured salvation from what God describes as the elect in the Bible. We are justified, found not guilty, innocent of sin.
God's sovereign choice is what makes the infants (et al.) innocent. That is to say, they are not saved because they die innocent. Instead, they die innocent because God elects them to salvation and according to his purpose they die as infants (or without knowledge of good and evil). His Sovereignty allows us to understand they are all in his hands according to his will.
OK, let me get this straight - you are saying that ALL children are born with a time limit that God will let them into Heaven. The time limit expires when they can comprehend good & evil - unless they have a condition that prohibits comprehension.No, that is not what I'm saying. What you are missing is God's sovereignty, I think. Or, at least, you have a different view of sovereignty and omnipotence than I do.
Up until a child sins, knows of sin, good or evil, they are covered by grace because they are sinless, there is nothing they can do to gain God's favor, He applies a blanket of saving grace. This applies to ALL children.No. God saves according to his will. This has nothing to do with whether or not the child has sinned or knows of sin. It has everything to do with his will and his purpose. That they do not sin or never knew of sin is because it is according to God's will and purpose that they die without that knowledge.
So, at some point, they are out from under this "protection", and then normal rules of salvation apply.No. The normal rules of salvation always apply. Salvation, that is, being found justified is wholly dependent upon God. Whether this "formula" is applied to an unborn child or a 56 year old man doesn't matter. God predestines to salvation, God calls, God justifies, God glorifies by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. This he always does for the good of those who love him, those who love him are those he calls. (Romans 8:28-33)
Is God turning his back, then, on some of the children after reaching the point of knowing good and evil? Because everyone is not elected, everyone will not be saved. Or am I confusing something? getting some other points crossed up?I believe the issue is that you are unclear on the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign, perfectly sovereign. Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens except that he allows it and accomplishes it according to his purpose. A bird can't expire except that it does so according to God's good will and purpose. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows. (Luke 12:6-7)
A child does not die in infancy except that he dies according to God's good will and purpose.
Now, I believe that a child that dies in infancy, according to God's purpose is elect. Not because they have not sinned, but because they are elect. Nothing extra. They are not elect because they haven't sinned. They are not covered in grace because they are in infancy. They are in God's grace because they are. They are because that is God's sovereign choice.
As for evidence of their election and all the proofs I gave for it... that evidence is for us and for our comfort. This is not assurance and comfort that they need, for they are already in the eternal comfort of Christ. I don't believe that they are elect because they know no sin. I believe that they never knew sin before dying because they were always elect and they died according to God's choice and purpose.
There is no age when they are no longer elect. I believe that if they aren't elect they won't die in infancy, ever. If they die in infancy it's because they are elect and it is according to God's will that they never know sin.
Now, what about the young little humans that have achieved an age appropriate to them where by they do have a childlike understanding of right and wrong? What happens to them?To be completely honest, I don't know. At first I would say they stand condemned for the sins they have committed in the flesh, and I think that that is a perfectly accurate Biblical statement. "And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. (Genesis 21:8 - post flood promise)
And I think that this understanding rightly gives us the sense of urgency to "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverb 22:6) But, here's the thing... I can't speak to that with full confidence. I can't know a child's heart just as I can't know any man's except for by the fruits produced. If I see, still in a child, a sense of innocence even in their elementary understanding of good and evil then I am forced to conclude (by my heart, not by Scripture) that they are innocent. Should they die with this innocence then all I said about infants that die in infancy may apply.
But, I don't think that that is completely accurate. I lean more towards the former than the latter, and very heavily towards the former because I know that there is Scriptural basis for it. Some children at the age of 5, 6, 7, or whatever will die condemned, I think.
My limited sense of justice is not God's. To me it may seem unjust, but if it is just (and I believe it more likely is than not) I have to understand that it is my sinful nature that understands justice different than what justice truly is. In my sinful nature I may see innocence where there is none. But, at the same time, in my limited, but guided understanding, I may be seeing innocence where there actually is innocence. I don't know.
In the end, I trust God's electing Grace and I understand that no-one, no-one, deserves the free gift of salvation (not even my beautiful little son). I know that I am used as a vessel to bring people to God in Christ and my first priority, above all others, is my family. I do have a sense of urgency to see my son saved. But, when I pray I pray that my son is saved and that it is done according to the will of God.