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.