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.
