Bible Studies

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BY COMMENTING
LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE As A Member OR Visitor
Message Writer
Hire Writer
Report Article

Track Writer

Add to Favorites

by GLENN PEASE
03/13/18
Free to Share

Based on Jonah 4:11

     While visiting in the hospital I met a woman who was anxious to talk about the salvation of infants who die without baptism. She had good reason to be searching for information to give her hope. 18 years ago she lost a baby girl who had not been baptized. Her pastor came to call on
her, and she asked him about the state of her child. He told her the child was lost because she had failed to have it baptized. This pastor no doubt really believed it, but he was a victim of a perverted interpretation of Calvinism which Calvin himself repudiated. He was a Presbyterian but apparently was uninformed, for Presbyterians have a system that offers the greatest hope. His neglect of his theology led to this woman, and who knows how many others, to live in agony of soul and guilt for years. For 15 years this woman grieved because she failed to get water put on her babies head.

      Friends finally persuaded her to go hear a Baptist evangelist who spoke on this issue. He assured her that her baby was saved. She was happy when I was able to give her some Biblical illustrations of salvation without baptism such as David's baby by Bathsheba who died on the 7th day. David accepted it and said in II Sam. 12:23, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." The attitude of David indicates his hope of seeing that child again. Another illustration is the thief on the cross who was saved without baptism.

     But what has this got to do with Jonah? This last verse in Jonah has played an important role in the history of the doctrine of infant salvation. It is the only passage we have where God reveals His attitude of love toward heathen children.   These who could not tell their right from their left hand were innocent helpless children, but who would grow up to be bloody warriors. Yet God had compassion on them. Many have taken this to prove that God loves all who will die in infancy, and will save all such, even of the heathen. The big question has been how He will do it.

     Calvin and Servetus agreed that all infants would be saved just like those of Nineveh. Servetus said it was because God was just and would not damn an innocent baby. Calvin said this was heresy for it denied original sin. He said they can only be saved by God's grace. Servetus was prosecuted before the assembly where he was condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake. In theology it is not enough to be right, you must be right in the way you arrive at your conclusion, or you are still wrong.   It cost Servetus his life because he arrived by the wrong road. I agree with Calvin that grace alone is the basis for infant salvation, but it is a poor exhibition of grace on the part of men to kill their opponents who disagree on how to get to the same conclusion.

     On no issue has man proven his folly more than on this issue of infant salvation. On numerous occasions men have implied that it is up to them and not God to decide the matter. Some have decided to damn them, and others have decided to save them. At one council, after long debate, they voted that all who die in infancy will be saved. One man on the council, who saw the folly of voting on this as business, brought his point home by standing and moving that this be made retroactive to take in all those who died before the vote was cast.

     The intricate arguments of theologians on this matter are not without great value, however, for they can lay a solid foundation for our belief. In the hour of crisis one cannot quote Calvin or anyone else's theology, but can only assure the grieving of God's love and mercy. But unless that consolation has a sure foundation in Scripture and theology, it is nothing more than deception, and so it is worth the time to go deeper into this matter to prepare ourselves as messengers of comfort. We want to look at this matter from three points of view. The historical; the Biblical, and the practical. The historical is first, not because it is more important, but because we want to see the problem before we look at the answer.

I. HISTORICAL.

      The earliest reference to infant salvation goes back to the second century where the attitude is optimistic. Aristides speaking of death and the Christian reaction says of the child, "If it chance to die in infancy they praise God mightily, as for one who has passed through the world without sins." This began to be doubted, however, as the church took on more and more the concept of good works and merit. How can a baby merit anything was the question, and so Gregory Nazianzen said they could, "Neither be glorified nor punished." A middle state began to develop early between heaven and hell. Some spoke of annihilation, and others said infants were not yet human. By the fourth century Augustine was defending the Catholic position that all infants not baptized were lost, but would suffer only mild punishment.

     All who are baptized would certainly be saved, for baptism cleansed from original sin. We see then how baptism came to be such an important doctrine in the Catholic church. Not to have a child baptized was a sin and a crime since a child would go to hell if it died unbaptized. If we believed that, we would baptized infants as well. Catholic theologians did not like the conclusions their theology led to, but what could they do? All are sinful they said, and none can be saved except by Christ, and the grace of Christ must be applied to infants as well as others. Therefore, baptism is a means of grace whereby an infant is saved. This is where we disagree. All we need to see is how the grace of Christ applies to infants without baptism.

     Theologians back then tried to modify the results of their conclusions. They said martyrdom of a child was equal to baptism of blood, so if a child was not baptized but was martyred it would be saved. They said if parents wanted the child to be baptized, but could not do it for some good reason, it would be called the baptism of desire, and the child would be saved. For those who couldn't get in by these means but must be lost, the middle age scholars softened infant damnation by saying they would just lose the beatific vision of God, but suffer no positive pain. This gained Papal authority in 1200 A. D. Catholics have developed the idea since then that heathen infants, since they have no chance to be baptized, are saved anyway. It is only Christian parents who refuse to have a child baptized who will cause that child to be lost.

     The Lutheran doctrine was set down too soon to gain the full benefit of Protestant thought. They held on to the necessity of baptism for salvation. Luther had comfort to offer to Christian parents, however. He said, "The holy and merciful God will think kindly of them. What he will do with them He has revealed to no one, that baptism may not be despised." Luther argued that there was a basis for hope. Like all men who give thought to the matter, he could not tolerate the thought that infants would go to hell.

     If Jewish babies who died before circumcision on the 8th day were saved, why could not Christian babies be saved if they died before baptism? Lutheran's did not extend hope to heathen infants, however. Luther only said he expected only mild punishment. The Lutheran position was cautious and just left all to the mercy of God. They did not want to state that heathen infants would be saved, for this would destroy their doctrine of the necessity of their baptism for infants. If a heathen baby would be saved without it, certainly a baby from Christian parents would be saved. They wanted to believe that all infants would be saved, but their theology made them hesitate to declare it.

     The church of England said baptism was a necessity or the child would be lost. They offered no hope for the unbaptized. It was the only Protestant church that offered no hope at all. But some of the major individuals in the church, such as John Newton and Augustus Toplady wrote that they believed all infants would be saved, even heathen infants.

     Presbyterians like Zwingli and Calvin finally got around to challenging the idea of baptism as a means of regeneration. They said salvation was not by any external rights, but was by the internal work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit made John the Baptist leap in his mother's womb before he was born, and so we know the Holy Spirit can work in an infant. They escaped the problem all others had before them. They were able to say that an infant could be saved by grace alone, and not by any external needs. As in Adam all die so in Christ are all made alive. A child born with original sin from Adam is lost, but Christ died for the penalty of original sin, and so now by his grace none parish because of Adam's sin, but only those are lost due to their own sin.

     Zwingli was most outspoken and clear on this. Calvin was somewhat contradictory, and this lead to Calvinists following two different lines. Some took his hard doctrine of predestination and read into it that some infants are predestined to hell. Calvin did not believe that himself, but some took his doctrine to that conclusion. So we have Calvinists who say some infants are lost, and others who say they are definitely saved.

     All Methodist believe that infants will be saved by virtue of their Arminian theology. The Methodist Episcopal Church Discipline says, "We hold that all children, by virtue of the unconditional benefits of the atonement, are members of the kingdom of God, and therefore are entitled to baptism." There are two kinds of Arminians just as there are two kinds of Calvinists. Some say a child is innocent and is saved because God is just. John Wesley said they are guilty and lost because of original sin, but they are saved by God's grace, which is identical to the Calvinist position. We see then that Calvin was an Arminian in the sense that he believed the atonement of Christ was universal in that it covered all infants who die. Wesley was a Calvinist in the sense that he saw the Sovereign grace of God alone as the cause of their salvation.

     Where does that put Baptists? They have always been divided between Calvinism and Arminianism, but since both agree that all who die in infancy are saved, Baptists have always agreed on this point. Baptism is not necessary for salvation for Baptists. It is by grace alone, and so Baptists see no need or value in the baptism of infants. Our theology does compel us to say, however, there can be no inherent wrong in the baptism of a dying infant, since we agree it is saved. Calvin said to the ana-baptists of his day, "On what ground do you object to the baptism of an admittedly saved person? He has a point, but not of much weight since he agrees it is not necessary for salvation. Why add confusion by needless ceremony that gives people a misimpression?"

II. BIBLICAL

     The Biblical basis for the belief that all infants who die are
saved is the atonement of Christ which releases all from the penalty of original sin so that none parish for Adam's sin, but only for their own personal transgressions. This foundation is insufficient in itself, but some specific references to Christ's attitude add to the assurance.

     In Matt. 18:1-14 we see Jesus calling a little child and saying that child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and that we must be converted and be as the child to enter the kingdom of heaven. In verse 14 he says, "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." The reference is not to infants but small children who are old enough to believe in Jesus, but by inference we can say God is not willing that infant perish either. In Matt. 19:13-14 the disciples rebuked those who brought little children to Jesus, and He said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Jesus always put a high value on the child, and these references make it inconceivable to imagine Him condemning a child to hell, or even to some neutral limbo. There are other similar references, but these are sufficient for us to see the attitude of Christ.

     We must admit that there is no direct statement anywhere as to the fate of infants. That which is stated, however, so clearly reveals God's attitude that there is no reason to doubt His mercy, and there is not way to give meaning to Christ's dying for all if His atonement does not cover the original sin of all infants. If the evidence seems small for our belief, it ought to be noted that the evidence for any alternative does not exist at all. There is no reason to doubt, for how can we know that Christ prayed on the cross, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do," and still think He would condemn infants who know nothing of good or evil?

III. PRACTICAL

     This doctrine makes for real optimism about the final number of the saved. It will be far greater than those who are lost, for the number of infants who have died may even exceed all who have ever lived. John Newton who wrote Amazing Grace said, "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. Perhaps those who die in infancy are the exceeding great multitude of all people, nations, and languages mentioned in Rev. 7:9." This makes sense, for babies die in all nations and languages. This would also mean that the babies that Herod killed in trying to kill Jesus will one day be able to see the Savior who died for them, and for whom they died.

     This doctrine turns what is apparent tragedy into blessing since none are so assured of seeing their children in heaven as those who have lost a child in infancy. This modifies the whole picture of the mass slaughter of children in the Old Testament. The judgment and tragedy were for adults, but no injustice was done to the infants, for they will be saved. Adults would have corrupted them and they would have been lost, but they died in infancy and thereby escape the judgment of God.

     Baptists have been traducianists which means they believe the soul, like the body, is passed on to each infant from the parents. That is why all are depraved and born sinful. This means that even a miscarriage represents and eternal soul, and so all such will also be a part of the eternal kingdom. This means even the folly and evil of abortion does not destroy a soul, even though it takes a life. If all infants are saved, then all aborted fetuses will be a part of the multitude in heaven. This doctrine is a great comfort to all who have lost a child. It is our obligation to give this hope to all who have suffered such a loss.

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE AS A MEMBER OR VISITOR

Reader Count & Comments

Date

Read more articles by GLENN PEASE or search for other articles by topic below.

Search for articles on: (e.g. creation; holiness etc.)

Read more by clicking on a link:
Free Reprints
Main Site Articles
Most Read Articles
Highly Acclaimed Challenge Articles.
New Release Christian Books for Free for a Simple Review.
God is Not Against You - He Came on an All Out Rescue Mission to Save You

...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them... 2 Cor 5:19

Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Acts 13:38

LEARN & TRUST JESUS HERE

FaithWriters offers Christian reading material for Christian readers. We offer Christian articles, Christian fiction, Christian non-fiction, Christian Bible studies, Christian poems, Christian articles for sale, free use Christian articles, Christian living articles, New Covenant Christian Bible Studies, Christian magazine articles and new Christian articles. We write for Jesus about God, the Bible, salvation, prayer and the word of God.