Some thoughts on Infant Salvation
I wanted to clarify my thinking in this area and thought I’d do it here.
I want to take a look at two views on infant salvation. I do affirm infant salvation, but I want to show how that can play out Biblically. I think some people just assume it based on their intuitions of justice, but I want to show how God can allow an infant into Heaven and on what grounds. In doing so, I will attempt to show that the non-Calvinist view is inconsistent in this area while the Calvinist maintains a consistency in his soteriology.In my opinion, it seems that the Calvinist view of infant salvation is the only one that is consistent with the view of general salvation. I’ll attempt to show why, but I want to focus the argument a bit so I’ll discuss it in relation to the non-Calvinist who affirms Total Depravity. Arminians generally fall into this category. Arminius himself affirmed Total Depravity, but used prevenient grace to overcome it. I think many of the people I interact with fall into this position. I’m not going to spend my time on those that believe people are conceived innocent. If a person is conceived in innocence, why did they die? Why is it fair for someone to inherit the physical punishment for sin but not the spiritual?
So let’s look at the non-Calvinist who affirms Total Depravity. The doctrine of Total Depravity teaches us that man inherits Adam’s sin nature and has Adam’s sin imputed to them. This makes them completely against God from conception. To quote Piper, “In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment.” MacArthur has an excellent sermon on Total Depravity from the T4G conference. It’s not my intention to establish the doctrine of Total Depravity and its ramifications here. You can see some of these resources for that. Also, try Sproul’s What is Reformed Theology for a simple discussion of this doctrine.
Here’s the problem we run into with Total Depravity in regards to infant salvation. If a person is conceived in a state of sinfulness or with a sin nature, they are not worthy of heaven, but deserve hell instead. This is a sobering thought. It goes against our intuitions about justice and grace. Now, the Bible has the right to correct our intuitions if that is the case, but it must be the clear teaching of Scripture that does this.
Most non-Calvinists use the idea of an age of accountability to deal with infant salvation. In other words, God doesn’t hold someone accountable until they are old enough to understand right from wrong and be able to willfully choose to sin. This is the view that I held for a long time as a non-Calvinist. I think our culture of rugged individualism and unchecked Arminianism has led to this. We have made salvation decisional and an act of will rather than a sovereign act of God. Since an infant or fetus or mentally handicapped person is unable to freely will his salvation, God must make a special exception just for them.
But here we have a problem. We now have two different methods of salvation. One for infants, fetuses, and the handicapped, and one for the rest of us. So if you hold the view that salvation works this way: “By an act of will, by faith, I believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and am therefore regenerated and justified (my quick summary of the non-Calvinist’s ordo salutis)”; then you must have a different method of salvation for the infants, fetuses, and handicapped. Unfortunately the Bible doesn’t teach this. If regeneration comes by way of belief/faith, then the unborn and infant dead have no chance to get it. So in our idea of fairness we make up a doctrine called the age of accountability to make parents feel better about the death of a child. But to do this is to say that infants, fetuses and the handicapped deserve heaven, which, of course, is a total denial of Total Depravity. You can’t have it both ways. Infant salvation doesn’t work biblically with Total Depravity and Decisional Regeneration. Otherwise you have two ways to get saved.
The Calvinist has no problem here. Salvation is a sovereign act of God, not the product of the free will of man. God in His sovereignty is perfectly capable of regenerating an infant, fetus, or mentally handicapped person. In the Calvinist view of salvation, God elects, and regenerates, whereupon man responds in faith. The natural expression of regeneration is belief. Jesus in speaking to Nicodemus in John 3 tells him, “You must be born again.” This rebirth results and is expressed in belief. So God sovereignly regenerates and man responds in belief. This is a logical order rather than a chronological order.
So God, in His sovereignty is able to regenerate an infant and impute Christ’s righteousness to him without an act of will on the part of the infant. The natural response will be belief. But how can a fetus respond to God? Ask John the Baptist. Since we know that God is a gracious God and that God seems to have a special love for children, and that Scriptures allude to infant/fetus salvation (2 Sam. 12:23; Job 3:11-19), we conclude that God sovereignly elects infants/fetuses for His own purposes. We still have one method of salvation. We can still affirm Total Depravity while giving grieving parents hope.
Tagged as Calvinism, infant salvation, Total Depravity + Categorized as Theology, Calvinism, Theology
Amen. I also adhered to the the Age of Accountability view for quite a while and saw no problem with it, but it does create a different type of salvation from the one experienced by the “accountable” when they act in faith to receive salvation and the “unaccountable” are simply elect by God with no human action. So would you say that the unborn, infant, and handicapped respond in faith to God’s regeneration? Also, could God, in his sovereignty, perfectly elect infants for His own purpose, but that purpose be one of damnation? or would all infants be elect for salvation because of God’s “special love for children” (not a quote of facetiousness but of accuracy) ?
“So would you say that the unborn, infant, and handicapped respond in faith to God’s regeneration?”
I’m saying its possible for them to, just like John the Baptist. However, i think regeneration is enough.
“Also, could God, in his sovereignty, perfectly elect infants for His own purpose, but that purpose be one of damnation? or would all infants be elect for salvation because of God’s “special love for children” (not a quote of facetiousness but of accuracy) ?”
I’m not sure where I’m at with infra v. supralapsarianism. Its entirely possible God has elect infants and passes over the rest. It would be consistent with His sovereign grace over men in general. But, I think the Bible does teach God has a special love for children. MacArthur (http://biblebb.com/mac-a-g.htm)has some good thoughts to develop that idea, but I think he goes too far in calling them innocent. If they’re innocent, why did they inherit Adam’s physical penalty for sin. But because of God’s special love for them, I think He chooses to elect all of them. I have no problem telling a grieving parent, “I believe you will be reunited with your child in Heaven.” I would have trouble saying, “On the authority of the Word of God, you’re child will definitely be in Heaven.” Maybe just semantics, but like I said, this doctrine is not as clearly spelled out in Scripture as are others.
“Most non-Calvinists use the idea of an age of accountability to deal with infant salvation. In other words, God doesn’t hold someone accountable until they are old enough to understand right from wrong and be able to willfully choose to sin.”
Mark – Two things. First concerning the above, I think most of us would not agree with the above statement. It is not the knowledge of right and wrong which makes someone accountable nor the ability to willfully choose sin. A more accurate assessment would be to say that they have an “inability to comprehend the Gospel”. The focus now being on their relationship to the Gospel message rather than their inborn sin nature.
Second, are you saying, “But because of God’s special love for them, I think He chooses to elect all of them.” or is that something MacArthur said? In any case I would wonder then if only the elect may die in infancy or additionally, at what age do we cut off the class which die as elect prior to an outward response to their election in believing faith? Also, if God elects “all of them” does He then un-elect them if they don’t die in infancy or childhood?
Just some thoughts for now. We can talk more about this tomorrow.
“First concerning the above, I think most of us would not agree with the above statement. It is not the knowledge of right and wrong which makes someone accountable nor the ability to willfully choose sin. A more accurate assessment would be to say that they have an “inability to comprehend the Gospel”. The focus now being on their relationship to the Gospel message rather than their inborn sin nature.”
Those that I’ve heard from use the knowledge of right and wrong because they find God using that phrase (i.e. Jonah and the Ninevites). Even if you don’t affirm that, I don’t see how an “inability to comprehend the Gospel” gets them off the hook. Are you saying they are innocent because they can’t comprehend the gospel? Are they deserving of Heaven because of their mental ability? A person doesn’t get off for never hearing the gospel. They are still held accountable. I don’t see any evidence in the Bible for an exception being made for those who can not understand. And you still have two methods of salvation that way. Rephrasing the objection hasn’t solved the problem.
“Second, are you saying, “But because of God’s special love for them, I think He chooses to elect all of them.” or is that something MacArthur said? In any case I would wonder then if only the elect may die in infancy or additionally, at what age do we cut off the class which die as elect prior to an outward response to their election in believing faith? Also, if God elects “all of them” does He then un-elect them if they don’t die in infancy or childhood? ”
I am saying that, but MacArthur also says that. I think this is the standard Calvinist response. I can not answer the cut-off question, but neither can your position. God knows which ones will die in infancy because He has sovereignly ordained it to happen so we don’t have a problem with all infants being elect and then losing their election when they reach a certain age. I probably phrased it poorly when I said “God elects all of them.” By all of them, I mean those who will die in infancy. He is able to only elect those who will die because He knows they will die because He ordained it to happen.
Hey Mark,
This is very well written. Thank you for posting it. I grew up hearing about the “age of accountability”, but it wasn’t until later in life that I saw that as contradictory to total depravity. John Piper really helped me with this. He made the following statement, and it really helped me: “As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy. God’s justice in condemnation will be most clearly seen by allowing those who will not be saved to demonstrate their inherent sinfulness through willful, knowing transgression.”
Thanks Mark! Great post!
Josh
Thanks Josh. As always, Spurgeon has something good to say on the topic. I read some other material of his on this subject and if I get the chance I’ll post more of it here.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm
First, thank you for your passion for doctrine and articulating it in practical issues.
Second, I believe probably 99% of what you are saying. I appreciate that you began with the discussion of Total Depravity. You are right on as it relates to the necessity that Christians must see the world as depraved. Man is born with Original sin, which does not mean that he is as corrupt as could be (Rom 2:14-15), but that the corruption of man’s nature is totally unable to be spiritually good before God (Rom 5:8).
What depravity teaches us is that there is a need for grace. And you are correct, in that God’s grace is demonstrated through the process of salvation (ordo salutis). Grace begins at election. Grudem says, “Election is a sovereign act of God whereby He chooses certain men before the foundation of the world to be recipients of His saving grace (Eph 1:4).” What is important to note is that election is not universal, but only those who are elect in Christ can and will be regenerated. I believe that Shawn’s comments on election were confusing, in that no one is elect that won’t come to Christ. We call this irresistible grace. When God works his miracle of giving the dead life (Eph 2:1-4), the dead don’t turn their back on him, but always respond in faith (Eph 2:8-9).
Third, here comes the 1% where I disagree. I can not with confidence tell anyone that they will be united with their loved ones, whether child or adult in heaven. Election is a forensic element of salvation. This is why it is ridiculous for any “Calvinist” not to evangelize, because we do not know who the elect are. There are many adults who claim the name Christ, but are not truly regenerated. Why? Because salvation is a ticket out of hell for them and not a right relationship with God. The true elect in Christ will persevere in their walk with Christ until the end (perseverance of the saints).
But as for infants and the uncomprehendables, well I can not say from the Scripture that they are all elect. I believe that it is possible for some or all of them to be, but our hope should ultimately be in the Sovereignty of God and not the election of our loved ones. When dealing with people, I like you, will take them to election and not to age of accountability. I agree with you that we are elect in Christ, not at salvation, but before the foundation of the world. Therefore, Paul is able to say, “I am crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20). Our union with Christ is amazing! Beginning at election, we were united with Christ and find our forgiveness, our propitiation, our power in the very life of Christ. Yes, I believe it is possible for a baby that is elect to find redemption in Christ.
What is most important to this discussion is that our theology is not assumed by our current situations, but like you have done, we must interpret our current situations by our theological understandings from the Scriptures.
Chad,
Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this. I really appreciate your perspective and totally agree with your assessment of election. I agree that the evidence is weak for universal infant election. The one shard of evidence I would hold to would be David’s assumption that his child was elect. The fact that David assumes it, gives an indication that he assumes his child will be in Heaven. This could however be just a common human response. I think a lot of people have trouble conceiving of a God who would send an infant to Hell (Spurgeon did). This could however be, as my friend Mike Abendroth says, a dismissal of “Creator/creature bifurcation”.
I am almost in full agreement with this view. This is pretty much how I have argued on this subject with one major exception. You conclude that God sovereignly elects infants/fetuses for His own purposes. I concur with this statement on its face value but I have reason to believe that you take this farther than I do. You seem to go along with Spurgeon that it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy. This is where I part company because this is nowhere in the bible. Surgeon himself did not offer any biblical support for this. I would modify the conclusion to read that God sovereignly elects some infants/fetuses for His own purposes and passes by others. I would agree that this will not make sense to us, this does not fit our perception of justice. But we dare not make God fit into our box, he is not limited to what we think justice is.
But there is scripture that would seem to support God elects some and not others. There is no reason to believe that infants and such are excluded.
Rom 9:15
15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Rom 9:21-23
21 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?
22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath– prepared for destruction?
23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
Could God work in the way Surgeon suggests? Absolutely, it definitely is not beyond his capability. It is just not stated in the bible, whether directly or indirectly.
Tom Bonnema
Thanks for stopping by and contributing Tom. After re-reading Spurgeon and reading a couple different sources, it seems that Spurgeon is doing the same thing that others are doing. The whole, “I can’t conceive of a God that would send an infant/fetus to hell.” You’re absolutely right. The Biblical evidence for this is weak and most people hold universal infant election on emotional grounds.
One thing that made me rethink this was someone pointing out the difference between how I view a soul and how God views a soul. It seems that we rarely think of souls separately from their human container. As C.S. Lewis says, “You don’t have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.” So when I see an infant, all I see is innocence and cuteness. God however sees a soul that is separated from Him by Adam’s sin which is in need of Christ’s propitiation and imputed righteousness.
So, I think I agree with you here. I’d like to believe that Spurgeon is correct in His view, but Scripture isn’t clear enough to give me certainty. I retreat to Scripture’s view of a Sovereign God who is always just.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I think there is one scripture that should stop this argument in its tracks. This scripture passage has tons of support throughout the bible and is about as point blank as the bible gets on this subject. Eph 1:4-7 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will– to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace (NIV). God decided whom he was going to save before the foundation of the world. When God was creating the world he said, for example, let there be light, and such statements were always followed by the phrase and it was so. Was there ever a chance that it would not be so? When God said before he created the world, Let Mark be saved, was there ever a chance for Mark not to be saved. Conversely, if God never said let Mark be saved, would Mark’s salvation ever be so.
Does this not scream that our salvation is God’s decision? Does this not at least imply the infant’s inability to reason and make a decision inconsequential? This goes a long way in saying that our salvation is purely a sovereign act of God and absolutely none of it is our doing. I would love to hear someone who believes that all babies are saved explain this passage.
This still could leave room for Spurgeon’s idea that God has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy. Could God work in the way Surgeon suggests? Absolutely, it definitely is not beyond his capability. It is just not stated in the bible, whether directly or indirectly. I think there may be evidences that this is not the case.
For we read in 1 Sam 15:2-3 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (NIV) Is it reasonable to assume that the children and infants here are to be saved when this is clearly a judgement on the Amalekites? What did these infants ever do to Israel? Furthermore did God save the infants that died in the judgement of Sodom and Gomorrah or that parished in the great flood? Or maybe Spurgeon was referring to the new testament era only.
Mark,
What do you think of MacArthur’s claim that the Scriptures teaches “Saved by grace, condemned by works”?
A couple things come into play here, I think. First, part of the condemnation for sin is physical death. The very fact that we die is part of the judgment for sin. So to say that a person is only condemned for their works (which, in the case of a fetus/infant, there are none), makes you wonder why they died in the first place if physical death is part of the punishment for sin. Why is it okay for them to inherit the physical punishment for sin but not the spiritual.
Secondly, I think the doctrine of imputation, as difficult as it is to understand, teaches that we all sinned in Adam. I don’t know how to explain that. But the takeaway of that doctrine is that God has cause to condemn us all. If an infant/fetus dies and stands before God, God has the right to judge them for Adam’s sin, based on that sin being imputed to all of us.
So I think that concept of “Saved by grace, condemned by works” is not much better than the age of accountability. Up until a certain age, everyone gets a pass. But they’re not innocent. God doesn’t view them as a cute, innocent little baby. God views them as a soul that is separated from and in rebellion to Him. It’s like C.S Lewis says, “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” The physical form is incidental to the spiritual person. And the spiritual person is fallen and depraved.