Mark: I really appreciate your testimony. It relates closely to my own struggle and search for truth, except that, in my 78th year, it took considerably longer for me to question what I had believed as gospel for so long. I have noted, however, in an earlier post on this topic, that I had already started to question belief in ECT back in 2004.
I have researched quite extensively what ECT pastors and scholars have written about the future density of infants. There appears to be no consensus. Hyper-Calvinists state that all non-elect infants will suffer damnation in hell for eternity. Others, less strict adherents of Reformed doctrines and also from other belief systems, claim that children only become at risk of hellfire after they have attained âthe age of accountabilityâ, whenever that is. But none of them is able, or willing, to define what that age might be. Interestingly, I have heard reports of fathers snatching their newborns from the birthing bed and taking them to a minister (Reformed, of course) to be baptized. I would presume, without much hope, that they include the mentally-disabled within the same list of exclusions as infants.
Some might be interested in the following compilation of some of the views an this subject:
Limbo
Sometime in the 1200s, the concept of limbo slowly evolved. I read so many sources and found that this one did a good job of summarizing the complexities. Basically, limbo is a place which is described as a state (and place) of natural happiness which means less happiness than supernatural happiness. Note that baptism is the key to salvation in this line of thinking.
In the 12th century, Peter Abelard (1079â1142) said that these infants suffered no material torment or positive punishment, just the pain of loss at being denied the beatific vision. Others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. This theory was associated with but independent of the term âLimbo of Infantsâ, which was forged about the year 1300.
If heaven is a state of supernatural happiness and union with God, and hell is understood as a state of torture and separation from God then, in this view, the Limbo of Infants, although technically part of hell (the outermost part, âlimboâ meaning âouter edgeâ or âhemâ) is seen as a sort of intermediate state.
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) described the Limbo of Infants as an eternal state of natural joy, untempered by any sense of loss at how much greater their joy might have been had they been baptized. He argued that this was a reward of natural happiness for natural virtue; a reward of supernatural happiness for merely natural virtue would be inappropriate since, due to original sin, unbaptized children lack the necessary supernatural grace. In regards to baptism of desire, Aquinas stated that only adults were capable of this, and this view seemed to be accepted by the Council of Florence, which quotes Aquinas in its Eleventh Session concerning baptism of infants.
The natural happiness possessed in this place would consist in the perception of God mediated through creatures. As stated in the International Theological Commissionâs document on the question:
Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all or even that they enjoy a full, though only natural, happiness through their mediated union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus).
This belief in limbo was not an ex cathedra position. In other words, Catholics were not required to believe it. Many did not and, instead, believed that infants went straight to heaven.
The Post Reformation view
Neither the Eastern Orthodox church nor the Protestant church believes in the doctrine of Limbo. In an article by Al Mohler, we see that many theologians (Calvinist and not) believed in the salvation of infants.
John Newton, the great minister who wrote the hymn Amazing Grace was certain of this truth. He wrote to close friends who had lost a young child: âI hope you are both well reconciled to the death of your child. I cannot be sorry for the death of infants. How many storms do they escape! Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that they are included in the election of grace.
The great Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield held the same position.
One of the most eloquent and powerful expressions of this understanding of infant salvation came from the heart of Charles Spurgeon. Preaching to his own congregation, Spurgeon consoled grieving parents: âNow, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days.â(7) Spurgeon turned this conviction into an evangelistic call. âMany of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too? He continued: âMother, unconverted mother, from the battlements of heaven your child beckons you to Paradise.
In fact, it appears that Spurgeon got a bit bent out of shape when accused of believing that infants who die go to hell: It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not trueâŚ. I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect.
John Calvin believed that some infants who died would be saved and others would not. However, I want to make a caveat. There are some who claim he said he believed all infants are saved.
âBut how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their motherâs womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. (Inst. Book 4, Sec. 17)
Here is a general overview on other historical figures.
It is interesting to discover that the Church has not been of one mind on this issue. In fact, the early and medieval Church was anything but united. Some Church Fathers remained silent on the issue. Ambrose said unbaptized infants were not admitted to heaven but have immunity from the pains of hell. Augustine basically affirmed the damnation of all unbaptized infants but taught they would receive the mildest punishment of all. Gregory of Nyssa offered that infants who die immediately mature and are given the opportunity to trust Christ. Calvin affirmed the certain election of some infants to salvation and was open to the possibility that all infants who die are saved. He said, âChrist receives not only those who, moved by holy desire and faith, freely approach unto Him, but those who are not yet of age to know how much they need His grace.â Zwingli, B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge all taught that God saves all who die in infancy.
Martin Luther: Some are condemned?
Now this one I had to back into. My guess is that he believed that baptized infants would be saved and unbaptized infants might not.
Curiously, Warfield focuses his sights on Zwingli (who, by the way, held all infants who die in infancy are elect) and completely ignores John Calvin. In fact, Calvinâs view is buried in a footnote in another essay! Why? Luther all but questioned whether Zwingli was saved over the universalism he held on Infant Salvation.
Another source notes
In 1518, Warfield still held that the infant is regenerated and saved through the merit of the faith of its sponsors; in 1520 (De Captiv. Baby. Eccl.) he abandons this view and holds that in Baptism infants themselves believe.
Another source remarks that he gave infants a Christian burial so he probably believed they went to heaven.
John Wesley: Some are condemned?
He had to deal with the issue of original sin. In a letter he indicates that, âTherefore no infant ever was or ever will be âsent to hell for the guilt of Adamâs sin,â seeing it is canceled by the righteousness of Christ as soon as they are sent into the world.â (29W), 6:239-240.
Jonathan Edwards: They burn eternally.
This is by far the most troubling statement of belief; (Comment by Invernessian â you donât say?)
It is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments"
1619 Canons of Dort and 1649 Westminster Confession of Faith
The Reformed view, which has been strongly based on the Fallenness of mankind & the rejection of some neutral state has moderated over the years but originally held that the children of the Elect (Christians) automatically go to heaven.
Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy. (1619 Canons of Dort 1:17)
Or from later, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1646,
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So, also, are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (WCF 10:3)
The overall sentiment by the Reformers is that while the infants of non-believers MAY go to hell, the children believers do automatically go to heaven.
Part 3
What do Reformed leaders, some of whom are Baptists, believe today?
Al Mohler and Danny Akin, ,John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and John MacArthur, all believe that infants who die go to heaven. They each have their reasons why they believe this. (Some believe that all infants who die are elect, for example).
However, just because they believe it, does not mean that others in their camp also believe it. In fact, a fairly common view amongst some conservative Calvinists is the salvation of some infants is dependent on one of the following two reasons.
- Infants are divided into elect and not elect. The elect ones are saved.
- Infants born into elect families are saved.
A statement from the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) on the matter.
The Westminster Confession of Faith uses very precise and carefully chosen language on this matter: âElect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Wordâ (10.3).
The Confession entertains the idea that at least some infants who die in infancy and some others âwho are incapable of being outwardly calledâ are among the elect. Note our Lordâs words to His disciples in Luke 18:15,16 (the word for babies in v.15 indicates nursing babes, infants): He says that âsuch as these possess the kingdom of Godâ).
However, the Confession does not say that all such infants, etc., are saved. What it does say is that the Holy Spirit can regenerate such who are elect by means of His sovereign choosing. Surely John the Baptizer presents an instance of infant regeneration (in the womb), Luke 1:39-44.
Division in the SBC continues.
A post asserts that the salvation of all infants who die
has basically become the dominant view of the Church in the 20th century.
So, isnât the debate pretty much over?
From that same Between the Times article we read:
Yet, a popular evangelical theologian chided Billy Graham when at the Oklahoma City memorial service he said, âSomeday there will be a glorious reunion with those who have died and gone to heaven before us, and that includes all those innocent children that are lost. Theyâre not lost from God because any child that young is automatically in heaven and in Godâs arms.â The theologian scolded Dr. Graham for offering what he called â. . . a new gospel: justification by youth alone.â
I do not know which theologian made this remark, but one thing is certain. There is a divisive fight over Calvinism which is ongoing in the Southern Baptist Convention. There is a great deal of mistrust on both sides of the aisle. When there is controversy and mistrust, both sides must jump through hoops for the sake of peace and unity. That certainly does not appear to be the case in this instance.
Gerald Harris decided to write the committee members to ask who did not affirm that infants who die go to heaven. He did not receive responses from all of the members.
Some did not respond and one would have to conclude that they did not receive my emails, they simply chose not to respond, or they were hesitant to acknowledge personally that they affirm that certain infants who die are not among the elect and will suffer judgment in hell.
Furthermore, Peter Lumpkins reports that Harris cited committee member Eric Hankins, indicating Hankins suggested the wording of the section Harris cited and questioned had been crafted to âaccommodate some members of the advisory team who were not comfortable with the assertion that all who are morally incapable who die go to heaven.â Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary School of Theology dean and professor, David Allen, reportedly concurred with Hankinsâ statement.
At this point, Lumpkin queries whether Tom Ascol and Mark Dever may be two committee members who disagree with the salvation of all infants.
The Pulpit and Pen adds to the bonfire
Instead of saying âCome and let us learn to trust each otherâ,
" JD Hall starts name calling. When names start flowing, you know that the battle has moved outside of the Bible and we are now playing the old Pharisee âsons of dogsâ game. He accuses those who disagree of being âSemi-Pelagianâ which in Calvinistaville means you are going to hell in a handbasket. Somewhere, in the middle of the name calling, he rises to the defense of Ascol and Dever. Well, Dever, anyway. Ascol is still âforthcoming.â Why not call him and ask? Oh, thatâs right. Ascol doesnât need to answer such questions (how dare he!)
It appears that Lumpkins has again suffered from foot-in-mouth disease, as it was pointed out in the comments section following the post, Mark Dever has explicitly confessed belief that infants are heaven-bound. In the meantime, a search for an Ascol quotation declaring the damnation of babies is still forthcoming.
