"In spiritual matters there really is no 'Third World.' It's all Third World."
- Dallas Willard
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.
-- Matthew 18:10
It is a common question, because it is unfortunately a common occurrence: losing a baby. I think we all tend to believe that God receives departed infants into heaven, but perhaps we're not sure why we believe (other than that the alternative seems unconscionable). Many times grieving families seek assurance. This post is my imperfect attempt at offering cause for hope.
The question "What happens to babies who die?" (and for this line of argument, I'm going to include the mentally handicapped) is fairly complex and has been debated for quite some time. One thing is Scripturally sure: all persons are sinful from conception and therefore deserving of hell. Nobody, no matter their state or age or experience, deserves heaven, and this includes babies, toddlers, the mentally handicapped, the comatose, etc.
Now, that everyone deserves hell is a matter of Scriptural clarity, BUT, whether God in his mercy extends grace to those unable to act out on their sinful nature is another matter entirely, and trust in God’s love certainly lends itself to the idea that God will not eternally punish those who are not able to express the sin that is in their hearts either physically or mentally. For this reason, then, there is good reason to believe that infants and the mentally handicapped who die are saved. This does not mean that all babies are saved. It means that all babies who die as babies will be saved.
Isn't This Just "Age of Accountability"?
I think there is good reason to believe that infants who die are elect. At this point someone usually asks if this isn't just warmed over "age of accountability" talk. But this view is somewhat different from the "age of accountability" idea for a couple of reasons:
a) Customary age of accountability belief appears to argue that we are somehow born with a blank slate, innocent spiritually, and our sinful nature kicks in at some point in time that is different for each person. The view I'm representing tracks with the Reformed view of election and argues that we are all born with sinful natures and deserving eternal separation from God.
b) Age of accountability belief tracks with a more free will decisional regeneration theology. The idea is that children are innocent until they're not, at which point they become responsible. This view is necessary because the adherents typically believe that salvation is contingent upon making a decision for Jesus (whether that is praying the sinner's prayer, walking the aisle, or what-have-you). This view of infant salvation insists instead that infants who die are elect, saved by God in his goodness and by Christ's effectual work applied to them by the Spirit. If salvation is contingent on a free will decision, then babies are out of luck. Which is why "age of accountability" was invented despite a lack of biblical evidence for that and a wealth of biblical complications (like original sin). This view, rather, says that if salvation is God's work and contingent upon a born again heart regenerated by the Spirit, we can continue affirming the doctrine of original sin and yet still believe God elects infants who die unto salvation.
What Does the Bible Say?
It is probably wise not to claim certainty on this matter, but it is not out of bounds to believe Scripture indicates this view is true. Some Scriptural reasoning for the election of deceased infants may be found in two primary places.
In 2 Samuel 12, David assumes he will go to where his departed baby has gone.
David noticed that his servants were whispering among themselves and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"
He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
(vv.19-23)
David takes for granted that he will be reunited with his child. Skeptics may point out that David could just mean "the grave," but this avoids the belief the Israelites had about the afterlife, in which faithful children of Israel entered a place of repose in paradise (sometimes called Abraham's Bosom).
Jesus’ teaching on children having a purer faith also indicates a special dispensation for those unable to exercise the natural inclinations of their sinful nature. "The kingdom of God is for such as these." This is not Jesus just telling the grown-ups to have a "childlike faith." This is Jesus declaring a connection with children (who were largely avoided/ignored by Jewish men) that says something particular about children.
Ronald Nash's Arguments
In his excellent book When a Baby Dies: Answers to Comfort Grieving Parents, Ronald Nash lays out the case for believing “that all children who die in infancy and all mentally handicapped persons whose intellectual and moral judgment cannot surpass that of children are saved” with the following points:
1. Infants are incapable of moral good and evil. (Deut. 1:39; Jer. 19:4). Nash affirms that all infants possess the stain of original sin that deserves eternal punishment, but argues that infants are innocent in the sense that their status as infants make it impossible for them to know or understand the things necessary for them to perform good or evil acts.
2. Divine judgment is administered on the basis of sins committed in the body. (2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Rev. 20:11-12). Nash’s point is that although our sinful nature deserves for us a place in eternal judgment, the final judgment “is based on sins committed during our earthly existence.”
3. Cases in Scripture of infant salvation. For example, God’s choosing Jeremiah in the womb (Jer. 1:5); John the Baptist being filled with the Spirit in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15); and David’s hope for his departed baby.
4. Jesus’ special treatment of the little children. Nash argues that Jesus’ saying that the kingdom is for “such as these” cannot be merely figurative about a “childlike faith” for adults, but rather that they are, because they are children, relying more fully on God (even if they do not realize it) than those who are more mentally aware. Nash cites John Calvin as a historical supporter of this view.
5. The work of God in salvation. This support may or may not appeal to all, but Nash is a Calvinist, and he argues that if a free will decision is necessary for salvation, infants and mentally handicapped can never be known for sure to be saved because they are incapable of making a decision. Rather, he says that because God does the work of saving, God predestines babies and the mentally handicapped to salvation. They are “elect,” in other words. Again, this doesn’t mean he’s saying all babies are elect. He’s saying all babies who die as babies are elect.
A Theologically Consistent Cause for Hope
To sum up this view:
1. All persons are sinful from conception, fallen as Adam and deserving of separation from God for all eternity.
2. The work of salvation is God's, applied by the Spirit in the regeneration of the hearts of the elect whom God has foreknown.
3. Infants and mentally handicapped persons who die before they are able to physically and mentally exercise the sinfulness of their hearts are elect, because they have not committed any sinful deeds or thoughts by which to be judged at the end of days.
---
Thoughts? Questions?
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5177.
Comments on "Assurance for Parents, On the Death of Infants":
3. Terry J
- 01/14/2009 10:18 am CST
To further bolster your argument, see Deuteronomy 1:39 -
"And as for your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it and they shall possess it."
(see also Numbers 14:29-31)
Those who were disobedient to God were denied entry into the land, but their children were not punished.
5. stroke
- 01/14/2009 10:28 am CST
so, under this line of thinking, infants are saved... but what about toddlers? i'm having trouble not drawing that line (age of accountability). when does a child "know or understand the things necessary for them to perform good or evil acts"?
would a post on the death of 3-year-olds be different? or 5-year-olds?
when do parents of ?-year-olds find assurance?
i think i get what you're saying, but how long does that inability to act on sin last? maybe i'm misunderstanding...
6. MzEllen
- 01/14/2009 11:04 am CST
I read this book a while ago, it was part of my process from Arminianism to Calvinism.
7. Jared
- 01/14/2009 11:04 am CST
Stroke, good question. I figured it'd be asked. Daniel asked a similar one at GDC, and as you know, he and I both have small children past the baby stage.
My answer tends to be the same. In God's economy, he knows which children will die before they are consciously, willfully sinning and which ones won't, and I believe there is Scriptural cause to trust the ones who do are saved.
I don't imagine all, if any, of the children Jesus received despite the disciples' grumbling were babies.
So I think this reasoning can apply to small children, as well.
This is similar to age of accountability, but not the same, b/c age of accountability (at least, the way I usually hear it argued) posits that children are all innocent until their sinful nature kicks in. This denies original sin.
This view is different because it places God's foreknowledge of who will die as children as the determining factor and maintains the doctrine of original sin.
I also think the wrong starting point is to expect children to have the same developed awareness of either sin or Jesus' atoning work as adults do. The grounds of salvation is not intellectual clarity, but trust. And I think one thing Jesus was pointing out is that nobody trusts more purely than children.
They are trusting Jesus based on the understanding available to them, same as babies.
In the end, we have to obviously trust God and submit to whatever his will is. But my point in this post is to say that our hope need not be purely emotional (as one of the commenters at the GDC cross-post seems to be saying it is). There is Scriptural grounds for our hope.
8. Jamie
- 01/14/2009 11:29 am CST
Great post. Thanks for laying it all out so clearly and in such a concise format.
Coming from a Presbyterian (Calvinist) background, I had heard all of this before, but I don't think I ever saw it presented so clearly.
9. nhe
- 01/14/2009 11:49 am CST
As a parent who lost an infant - this is a great reminder......my wife has had one "vision" from Heaven/God in her life - and it was our daughter Melissa (the one we have lost) standing at the edge of our bed (looking about 6 years old) saying "mommy, don't worry, I'm with Jesus".......knowing my wife is not prone to "visions", this is of great comfort to us........but the passages and hope mentioned here are even more assuring.
10. Shrode
- 01/14/2009 12:27 pm CST
This is great Jared! Thanks for posting this.
I agree btw. I read Nash's book years ago... and it helped a lot.
Though I agree, there are two things about this view that are a little weird to me:
1- there is still some speculative application of some of those verses...though I agree.
2. If all babies who die in infancy are elect, this means that babies of pagan parents (muslim, african native religion, buddhists whatever) will be in heaven. This seems weird to me, that the babies of pagan families will go to heaven to be with Jesus while their parents pray to the god of trees or whatever.
But I still agree with the view. My favorite thing about it, is that it does not lead to the unbiblical conclusions that a lot of other views do. (Nash does a good job of demonstrating this in his book.)
Excellent post Jared. It needed to be done.
11. GinH
- 01/14/2009 12:59 pm CST
Just glad to see you post this, cuz the Calvinist I asked about this said he believed all infants that died just weren't elect and therefore went to hell.
Btw, he was doing a funeral for an infant later that week. Can you imagine how that child's parents responded to that funeral sermon? I've always felt so sorry that they had to be exposed to that.
Glad to see Calvinists that have thought past the oh well, they're just not elect position :)
And, as a non-Calvinist, agree with what you said (well, most). I've never believed children went to heaven because they were innocent and unaffected by original sin, though. I've always believed it was because they were incapable of deciding to act on their original sin, which is what you're saying - so look, a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist agree on something. What is this world coming to?
12. Eloquorius
- 01/15/2009 5:21 am CST
Quaid, please, you either don't know John Piper or you don't know what the term hyper-calvinism means. I'll assume it's one or the other. But in any event it's a gross misstatement against a very missions-minded evangelist and pastor to say that he's from a school of heretical theology that denies the necessity of evangelism.
Specifically, John Piper address his views on this issue in his post: What happens to infants who die?
13. Eloquorius
- 01/15/2009 5:30 am CST
Anyone have any thoughts on 1 Cor. 7:14, wherein Paul makes a distinction that children of believers (even if just one believing parent) are "holy" (lit. "set apart"), whereas with no believing parents the children would not be as such? I've seen this from some people to argue that the children of believing parent(s) are saved, but not the unbelieving families. Again, not discussing whether we like it (I don't) or whether that seems fair, but I'm asking because that Scripture makes is super clear distinction that's hard to ignore.
14. Quaid
- 01/15/2009 8:44 am CST
"Quaid, please, you either don't know John Piper or you don't know what the term hyper-calvinism means."
It's that I didn't know what the term meant. I just supposed that anyone who described themselves as a seven-point Calvinist would be considered VERY Calvinist.
At the very least, he may be hyper and Calvinist, but not hyper-Calvinist. Sorry for the confusion - I didn't mean to derail the discussion.
JP - if you're reading this - it's all good.
15. Roy
- 01/15/2009 9:33 am CST
Calvinists believe that elect infants are saved. Not merely a tautology, but all that one can deduce from scripture.
All other approaches rest upon a foundation that isn't. Only those who recognize the need for and reality of the Spirit's sovereign work and irresistable power have any reason to believe that anyone, including geniuses as well as unborn children, infants, and mentally limited, can trust the Gospel. (Nash's 5) No one can make themselves born the first time. No one can make themselves born again. The Spirit gives birth to whom he will, including people as stupid and ignorant and practiced as me besides which making alive an elect infant is easy.
One thread I see missing in this discussion (and in nearly all similar discussions and minimized if not denied by Nash's 1 and 2): the terrible ugliness of sin in contrast to the awesome holiness of God. That the sinner (not sin) deserves death has innate to it that message. Contra that truth, sin gets defined as act rather than nature. Yet unpacking the biblical message, the Gospel, puts a very different perpective on the question of who shall be saved. The marvel is not that anyone, including the unborn, might end up facing eternal wrath. The marvel, nay, the Wonder, is that any at all are redeemed.
16. Steve
- 01/15/2009 10:03 pm CST
Jared, I couldn't agree more. When faced with the prospect of our newborn not living due to physical complications, the knowledge that he would be with Jesus was the only thing that allowed me to have an overwhelming peace about it. It wasn't what I was taught that provided that level of peace, but rather what I've learned about the magnitude of Jesus' love for children.
Leave a Comment:
Excellent post, Jared. I think that this may be relegated to "things we'll never know for certain", but your post goes a long way to offer hope and is more than just a good line of thought.
I'm sure I could find this, but is this what a hyper-Calvinist, such as Piper, would believe as true also?