Posted on 06/16/2002 1:42:58 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
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 of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills . . .
And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation . . .
This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world.
If only a single infant dying in irresponsible infancy be saved, the whole Arminian principle is traversed.
If all infants dying such are saved, not only the majority of the saved, but doubtless the majority of the human race hitherto, have entered into life by a non-Arminian pathway.''1 [1. Two Studies in the History of Doctrine, p. 230.]
Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would prevent us from believing this; ---
... and until it is proven that God could not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call in infancy ----
--- we may be permitted to hold this view.
Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults.
Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their "salvation" is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults.
Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross.
Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are "saved" to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.
The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen.
It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system.
Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated.
In regard to this question Dr. S. G. Craig has written: "We take it that no doctrine of infant salvation is Christian that does not assume that infants are lost members of a lost race for whom there is no salvation apart from Christ.
It must be obvious to all, therefore, that the doctrine that all dying in infancy are saved will not fit into the Roman Catholic or Anglo-Catholic system of thought with their teaching of baptismal regeneration; as dearly most of those who have died in infancy have not been baptized.
It is obvious also that the Lutheran system of thought provides no place for the notion that all dying in infancy are saved because of the necessity it attaches to the means of grace, especially the Word and the Sacraments. If grace is only in the means of grace -- in the case of infants in baptism -- it seems clear that most of those who have died in infancy have not been the recipients of grace.
Equally dear is it that the Arminian has no right to believe in the salvation of all dying in infancy''1 [1 Christianity Today, Jan. 1931, p. 14.]
Though rejecting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and turning the baptism of the non-elect into an empty form --- Calvinism, on the other hand --- extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible Church.
*IF* IT IS TRUE ----- that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved ----- then more than half of the human race even up to the present time has been among the elect.
Furthermore, it may be said that since Calvinists hold that saving faith in Christ is the only requirement for salvation on the part of adults, they never make membership in the external Church to be either a requirement or a guarantee of salvation.
They believe that many adults who have no connection with the external Church are nevertheless saved.
Every consistent Christian will, of course, submit himself for baptism in accordance with the plain Scripture command and will become a member of the external Church; yet many others, either because of weakness of faith or because they lack the opportunity, do not carry out that command.
It has often been charged that the Westminster Confession in stating that "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ" (Chap. X, Sec. 3), implies that there are non-elect infants, who, dying in infancy, are lost, and that the Presbyterian Church has taught that some dying in infancy are lost.
Concerning this Dr. Craig says:"The history of the phrase 'Elect infants dying in infancy' makes clear that the contrast implied was not between 'elect infants dying in infancy' and 'non-elect infants dying in infancy,' but rather between 'elect infants dying in infancy' and 'elect infants living to grow up.'"
However, in order to guard against misunderstanding, furthered by unfriendly controversialists, the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. adopted in 1903 a Declaratory Statement which reads as follows: "With reference to Chapter X, Section 3, of the Confession of Faith, that it is not to be regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost.
Concerning this Declaratory Statement Dr. Craig says: "It is obvious that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the teaching of Chapter X, Section 3 of the Confession of Faith inasmuch as it states positively that all who die in infancy are saved.
Some hold that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the Scripture in teaching that all those dying in infancy are saved; but ----
---------- BE THAT AS IT MAY,----------
---- it makes it impossible for any person to even plausibly maintain that Presbyterians teach that there are non-elect infants who die in infancy.
No doubt there have been individual Presbyterians who held that some of those who die in infancy have been lost; but such was never the official teaching of the Presbyterian Church and as matters *now stand* such a position is contradicted by the Church's creed."1 [1 Christianity Today, Jan. 1931, p. 14.]
It is sometimes charged that Calvin taught the actual damnation of some of those who die in infancy. A careful examination of his writings, however, does not bear out that charge. He explicitly taught that some of the elect die in infancy and that they are saved as infants.
He also taught that there were reprobate infants; for he held that reprobation as well as election was eternal, and that the non-elect come into this life reprobate.
But nowhere did he teach that the reprobate die and are lost as infants.
He of course rejected the Pelagian view which denied original sin and grounded the salvation of those who die in infancy on their supposed innocence and sinlessness.
Calvin's views in this respect have been quite thoroughly investigated by Dr. R. A. Webb and his findings are summarized in the following paragraph:
"Calvin teaches that all the reprobate 'procure' -- (that is his own word) -- 'procure' their own destruction; and they procure their destruction by their own personal and conscious acts of such must live to the age of moral accountability, and translate original sin into actual sin.''1 [1 Calvin Memorial Address, p 112.]
In none of Calvin's writings does he say, either directly or by good and necessary inference, that any dying in infancy are lost.
Most of the passages which are brought forth by opponents to prove this point are merely assertions of his well known doctrine of original sin, in which he taught the universal guilt and depravity of the entire race.
Most of these are from highly controversial sections where he is discussing other doctrines and where he speaks unguardedly; but when taken in their context the meaning is not often in doubt. Calvin simply says of all infants what David specifically said of himself: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me," Ps. 51:5; or what Paul said, "In Adam all die," 1Cor. 15:22; or again. that all are "by nature, the children of wrath," Eph. 2:3.
[This is the summary of the entire chapter, not just subchapter 11.]
We believe that we have now shown that the doctrine of election is in every point Scriptural and a plain dictate of common sense. Those who oppose this doctrine do so because they neither understand nor consider the majesty and holiness of God, nor the corruption and guilt of their own nature.
They forget that they stand before their Maker not as those who may justly claim His mercy, but as condemned criminals who deserve only punishment.
Furthermore, they want to be independent to work out their own scheme of salvation rather than to accept God's plan which is by grace. This doctrine of election will not harmonize with any covenant of works, nor with a mongrel covenant of works and grace; but it is the only possible outcome of a covenant of pure grace.~~
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.
Certainly there is nothing in the Calvinistic system which would prevent us from believing this; ---
... and until it is proven that God could not predestinate to eternal life all those whom He is pleased to call in infancy ----
--- we may be permitted to hold this view.
Some hold that the in teaching that all those dying in infancy are saved; but ----
---------- BE THAT AS IT MAY...----------
.... No doubt there have been individual Presbyterians who held that some of those who die in infancy have been lost; but such was never the official teaching of the Presbyterian Church and as matters *now stand* such a position is contradicted by the Church's creed." [snip]
### I happen to be one of those "individual Presbyterians" who thinks that its "Declaratory Statement" goes beyond the Scripture. And based upon the wording in the above commentary (which I took great pains to highlight), I think they know it does, too. :D
Some hold that the Declaratory Statement goes beyond the Scripture in teaching that all those dying in infancy are saved; but ----
---------- BE THAT AS IT MAY... ----------
To which I responded: "### I happen to be one of those "individual Presbyterians" who thinks that its "Declaratory Statement" goes beyond the Scripture. And based upon the wording in the above commentary (which I took great pains to highlight), I think they know it does, too."
Bump
Under Arminian thought one day a child is saved by virtue of his age and the next day lost because he failed to choose in time..Eithor God is God or he is not!
That's right. There are two schools of thought:
[1] God is the only One who decides who will be saved.
[2] Man is the only one who decides who will be saved.
If God does not wait upon Man's Choice, God does not wait upon Man's Choice.
Now... let us consider:
God will show mercy and compassion to whoever He chooses to. (Rom 9:15) He could choose to show mercy to infants, and since He knows all, he knows if they would become saved if they lived longer lives. This issue definately does not prove the Calvinist point of view, because there are non-calvinist thoughts on this.
One question. Simple enough:
True, or False?
So... do you UNDERSTAND Matthew 11, or do you NOT UNDERSTAND Matthew 11?
Answer the question which I have posed...
1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Hosea 1:15 Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels.
16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
And if He did wait upon man's choice (or forsee it), it is still man's choice --- not God's.
Which means God is not in control --- man is.
[1] The Potter is the only One who decides what He will do with the clay.
[2] The Clay is the only one who decides what the Potter must do with the clay, the Potter says -- have it your way.
The fact that classical Amyrauldians fall within the first camp is why I consider them (as opposed to duplicitious "calminians") to be genuine Allies of the Biblical Doctrine of Predestination.
As a far-too-simplistic analysis, one could claim that Amyrauldians and Calvinists essentially argue over whether God has simply "passed over" the un-purified clay in respect of their own Depraved Choices, or has "actively fashioned" the impure clay into Vessels of Destruction to the praise of his Justice. (In fact, I think it's a little of both)
It's an argument among Sola Scriptura theological "friends", IMHO.
Both positions really do see God as the Potter... a cosmological view which is antithetical to the Arminian/Pelagian view.
The doctines of (T)otal depravity, (U)nconditional election and (I)rresistable grace are inseparable.
The doctrine of (P)erseverance flows out of these three. The extent of the atonement (L) is a legitimate but lesser point for biblical and logical debate -- a debate that is entirely within a framework that maintains Divine Sovereignty.
It's either T-U-I or Arminianism.
Of course those who embrace that school of thought will have to answer God's question (through Paul) here: "Does not the potter *have the right* to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? ...who are you, O man to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'why did you make me like this?" [Romans 9: 11-24]
No, there is a third choice, God has decided to let man decide if man will be saved.
Amen, and amen!!
I can trust that He is wiser than any part of His creation, and that He does all things well. There will be no tears in heaven, for we will fully recognize that He has done all things well. I praise Him daily that He holds me safe in His loving hands, and that I am not subject to the fickleness of my pathetic will.
You responded: "No, there is a third choice, God has decided to let man decide if man will be saved."
Sorry, ftD, school of thought #2 presupposes that God decided to let man decide. There are only two schools of thought.
drstevej, in post #12, put it the way you did (where God tells man): "Okay, have it your way -- you decide if you will allow me to save you."
Notice:
drstevej wrote: "[2] The Clay is the only one who decides what the Potter must do with the clay, the Potter says -- have it your way."
I responded: "Of course those who embrace that school of thought will have to answer God's question (through Paul) here: "Does not the potter *have the right* to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? ...who are you, O man to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'why did you make me like this?" [Romans 9: 11-24]
So you have two choices, ftD:
[1] God elected (made) some in man's race for a noble purpose and elected (made) others for a common purpose.
[2] God allowed each man to say whether he would allow God to make him for a noble purpose or for a common purpose.
Then you must also consider the ones who, through no fault of their own, have no say, ie: the unborn who died in the womb, and various incompetents.
Are all who "have no say" (unable to "make a choice") consigned to hell?
Or, will some of them be in heaven?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.