Infant salvation: a brief survey of the early Patristic period, and reflections on the Reformed tradition, via B. B. Warfield

This is the third installment of my series on Infant salvation. This post will focus on the Reformed tradition, but will also include a brief survey of the early Patristic period, as related by B. B. Warfield in his extended essay, The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation.

Two online PDF versions are available: one is the 1891 booklet - link; the second is from the 1897 book, Two Studies in the History of Doctrine (pp.141-239) - link. The 1897 edition is, "considerably enlarged and in some parts rewritten" (p. iii); all subsequent quotes will be from the latter edition. [Note: footnotes not provided in the following quotations; see PDF version for those references.]

Warfield's treatment begins with a survey of "The Patristic Doctrine" (pp. 144-151), wherein he writes:

The first Christians had no difficulty in understanding and confessing that Christ had come into a world lost in sin to establish a kingdom of righteousness, citizenship in which is the condition of salvation. That infants were admitted into this citizenship they did not question. When the Apologist Aristides, for example, would make known to the heathen how Christians looked upon death, he did not confine himself to saying that "if any righteous person of their number passes away from the world, they rejoice and give thanks to God and follow his body as if he were moving from one place to another," but adds of the infant, for whose birth they (unlike many of the heathen) praised God, "if, again, it chance to die in its infancy, they praise God mightily, as for one who has passed through the world without sins." Nor did those early Christians doubt that the sole gateway into this heavenly citizenship, for infants too, was not the natural birth of the flesh, but the new birth of the Spirit. Communion with God and the inheritance of life had been lost for all alike, and to infants too were restored only in Christ. (p. 144 - bold emphasis mine.)

This is followed with:

The kingdom which Jesus came to found was not of this world, and was not, in its primary idea, an external organization. But it was inevitable that it should soon be identified with the visible Church, and the regeneration which was its door with the baptism by which entrance into the Church was accomplished. Already in Justin and Irenaeus the word " regeneration" means " baptism ;" and the language of John iii. 5, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," was from a very early period uniformly understood to suspend salvation upon water-baptism. How early this doctrine of the necessity of baptism for salvation became the settled doctrine of the Church it is difficult to trace in the paucity of very early witnesses. Tertullian already defends it from objection. The reply of Cyprian and his fellow-bishops to Fidus on the duty of early baptism, and especially his whole argument to Jubianus against the validity of heretical baptism, plainly presuppose it. By this date clearly it was the accepted Church-doctrine ; and although its stringency was mitigated in the case of adults by the admission not only of the baptism of blood, but also of that of intention, the latter mitigation was not allowed in the case of infants. The watchword of the Church—first spoken in these exact words, perhaps, by Cyprian in his strenuous opposition to the validity of heretical baptism—Extra ecclesiam salus non est, hardened in this sense into an undisputed maxim. The whole Patristic Church thus came to agree that, martyrs excepted, no infant dying unbaptized could enter the kingdom of heaven. (pp. 147, 148 - bold emphasis mine)

Next up on Warfield's Patristic survey is Augustine, of whom he writes:

Augustine expressed the church-doctrine moderately, teaching, of course, that infants dying unbaptized would be found on Christ's left hand and be condemned to eternal punishment, but also not forgetting to add that their punishment would be the mildest of all, and indeed that they were to be beaten with so few stripes that he could not say that it would have been better for them not to be born. His zeal in the matter turned on his deepest convictions, and the essence of his argument may be exhibited by putting together two or three sentences from one of his polemic writings against the Pelagians. "We must by no means doubt," he says, "that all men are under sin, which came into the world by one man and has passed through unto all men, and from which nothing frees us but the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "For inasmuch as infants are only able to become His sheep by baptism, it must needs come to pass that they perish if they are not baptized, because they will not have that eternal life which He gives to His sheep." "Let then there be no eternal salvation promised to infants out of our own opinion, without Christ's baptism ; for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be preferred to all human authority and opinion.'' (pp. 148, 149 - bold emphasis mine)

And from the final paragraph of his Patristic survey we read:

There were some outside Pelagian circles, like Gregory of Nazianzus, who sought for those who die in infancy unbaptized an intermediate place, neither salvation nor retribution. But probably, with the exception of Gregory of Nyssa, only such anonymous objectors as those whom Tertullian confutes, or such obscure and erratic individuals as Vincentius Victor whom Augustine convicts, in the whole patristic age, doubted that the kingdom of heaven was closed to all infants departing this life without the sacrament of baptism. (p. 151)

Warfield then explores the Catholic doctrine of infant salvation during the Middles Ages and Renaissance periods, up to the Reformation (pp. 151-165).  This is followed by sections on "The Lutheran Teaching" (pp. 165-174) and "The Anglican Position" (pp. 174-195). Next up is, "The Reformed Doctrine" (pp. 195-220); the rest of this post will concern this section.

Warfield begins his section on, "The Reformed Doctrine", with the following, unsubstantiated, assertions:

It was among the Reformed alone that the newly recovered scriptural apprehension of the Church to which the promises were given, as essentially not an external organization but the true Body of Christ, membership in which is mediated not by the external act of baptism but by the internal regeneration of the Holy Spirit, bore its full fruit in rectifying the doctrine of the application of redemption. This great truth was taught alike, to be sure, by both branches of Protestantism, Lutheran as well as Reformed. But it was limited in its application in the one line of teaching by a very high doctrine of the means of grace ; while in the other, wherever the purity of the Reformed doctrine was not corrupted by a large infusion of Romish inheritance, it became itself constitutive of the doctrine of the means of grace. (p. 195)

Interestingly enough, immediately following the above assessments, Warfield admits that some Reformed theologians held to the necessity of baptism for salvation. He summarizes the reflections of Hermann Witsius concerning the French Reformed theologian Peter Jurieu with the following:

This famous writer [Peter Jurieu], to whom Witsius somewhat rashly promised the grateful veneration of posterity, taught that even elect infants, children of covenanted parents, are children of wrath until they are baptized, and up to that time have not received their complete reconciliation, nor have been washed from the stains with which they are born, nor are the objects of God's love of complacency ; that baptism is as necessary to salvation as eating is to living or taking the remedy is to recovery from disease ; that therefore infants properly baptized and dying in infancy are certainly saved, and their baptism is an indubitable proof of their election, while of the salvation of those who die before baptism we can have no certainty, but only a judgment of charity; that God no doubt does save some infants without baptism, but this is done in an extraordinary, and, so to speak, miraculous way, and so that the death of the infant may be supposed to supply the defect of baptism, as martyrdom does for adults in the Romish teaching. (pp. 195, 196)

Warfield clearly believes that the above view is a minority position within the Reformed paradigm, for he then writes:

Such opinions, however, were not characteristic of the Reformed churches, the distinguishing doctrine of which, rather, by suspending salvation on membership in the invisible instead of in the visible Church, transformed baptism from a necessity into a duty, and left men dependent for salvation on nothing but the infinite love and free grace of God. (p. 196)

Warfield follows the above with a summary of his take on what constitutes the basic Reformed position on reprobation and infant salvation:

...the absolutely free and loving election of God alone is determinative of the saved. How many are saved, and who they are, can therefore be known absolutely to God alone; to us, only so far forth as may be inferred from the presence of the marks and signs of election revealed to us in the Word. Faith and its fruits are the chief signs in the case of adults ; and accordingly he that believes may know that he is of the elect and be certain of his salvation. In the case of infants dying in infancy, birth within the bounds of the covenant is a sure sign, since the promise is "unto us and our children." But present unbelief is not a sure sign of reprobation in the case of adults ; for who knows but that unbelief may yet give place to faith? Nor in the case of infants, dying such, is birth outside the covenant a trustworthy sign of reprobation ; for the election of God is free. Accordingly there are many—adults and infants—of whose salvation we may be sure: but Of reprobation we can never be sure; a judgment to that effect is necessarily unsafe even as to such adults as are apparently living in sin, while as to infants who "die and give no sign," it is presumptuous and rash in the extreme. (p. 196)

Warfield states that the above, "is practically an outline of the teaching of Zwingli" (p. 196), and that Zwingli takes this "outline" and "worked it out in its logical completeness", teaching the following:

1. All believers are elect and hence are saved; though we cannot know infallibly who are true believers, except each man in his own case. 2. All children of believers dying in infancy are elect, and hence are saved ; their inclusion in the covenant of salvation rests on God's immutable promise, and their death in infancy must be taken as a sign of election.3. It is probable, from the superabundance of the gift of grace over the offence, that all infants dying such are elect and saved; there is, indeed, no sure promise of their salvation, which must, therefore, be left with God, but it is certainly rash and even impious to affirm their damnation. 4. All who are saved, whether adult or infant, are saved only by the free grace of God's election and through the redemption of Christ. (pp. 196-198)

Though Zwingli's developed assessment most likely, "stood alone among the Reformers in his extension of salvation to all infants dying in infancy", it became one of "five distinguishable classes" (p. 202) within the early Reformed paradigm. The following are those "five distinguishable classes":

1. There were a few, from the very beginning, who held with Zwingli that death in infancy is one of the signs of election, and hence that all who die in infancy are the children of God and enter at once into glory. After Zwingli it is probable that Bishop Hooper was the first to embrace this view. (p. 203)

2. At the opposite extreme a very few Reformed theologians taught that the only sure sign of election is faith with its fruits, and, therefore, that we can have no real ground of conviction concerning the fate of any infant. (p. 205)

3. Many held that faith and the promise are sure signs of election, and accordingly that all believers and their children are certainly saved ; but that the lack of faith and the promise is an equally sure sign of reprobation, so that all the children of unbelievers dying such are equally certainly lost. (p. 209)

4. More held that faith and the promise are certain signs of election, so that the salvation of believers' children is certain, while the lack of the promise only leaves us in ignorance of God's purpose ; nevertheless that there is good ground for asserting that both election

and reprobation have place in this unknown sphere. Accordingly they held that all the infants of believers, dying such, are saved, but that some of the infants of unbelievers, dying such, are lost. (p. 210)

5. Most Calvinists of the past, however, have held that faith and the promise are marks by which we may know assuredly that all those who believe and their children, dying such, are elect and saved ; while the absence of sure marks of either election or reprobation in infants, dying such outside the covenant, leaves us without ground for inference concerning them, and they must therefore be left to the judgment of God, which, however hidden from us, is assuredly just and holy and good. (p. 211)

A few pages later, Warfield provides the following assessment:

Although, thus, the cautious agnostic position as to the fate of uncovenanted infants dying in infancy may fairly claim to be historically the Calvinistic view, it is perfectly obvious that it is not per se more Calvinistic than the others. The adherents of all the types enumerated above are clearly within the limits of the Reformed system, and hold with the same firmness to the fundamental Reformed position that salvation is absolutely suspended on no earthly condition, but ultimately rests on God's electing grace alone, while our knowledge of who are saved depends on our view of what are the signs of election and of the clearness with which they may be interpreted. (p. 217)

A bit later we read:

...to-day few English-speaking Calvinists can be found who do not hold with Toplady, and Thomas Scott, and John Newton, and J. H. A. Bomberger, and Nathan L. Rice, and Robert J. Breckinridge, and Robert S. Candlish, and Thomas Hamilton, and Charles Hodge, and William G. T. Shedd, and the whole body of those of recent years whom the Calvinistic churches delight to honor, that all who die in infancy are the children of God and enter at once into His glory—not because original sin alone is not deserving of eternal punishment (for all are born children of wrath), nor because those that die in infancy are less guilty than others (for relative innocence would merit only relatively light punishment, not freedom from all punishment), nor because they die in infancy (for that they die in infancy is not the cause but the effect of God's mercy toward them), but simply because God in His infinite love has chosen them in Christ, before the foundation of the world, by a loving foreordination of them unto adoption as sons in Jesus Christ. (pp. 219, 220 - bold emphasis mine)

Warfield concludes his treatment with the following:

If all infants dying in infancy are saved, it is certain that they are not saved by or through the ordinances of the visible Church; for they have not received them. It is equally certain that they are not saved through their own improvement of a grace common to all men; for, just because they die in infancy, they are incapable of personal activity. It is equally certain that they are not saved through the granting to them of a bare opportunity of salvation in the next world ; for a bare opportunity indubitably falls short of salvation. If all that die in infancy are saved, it can only be through the almighty operation of the Holy Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases, through whose ineffable grace the Father gathers these little ones to the home He has prepared for them. If, then, the salvation of all that die in infancy be held to be a certain or probable fact, this fact will powerfully react on the whole complex of our theological conceptions, and no system of theological thought can live in which it cannot find a natural and logical place. It can find such a place in the Reformed theology. It can find such a place in no other system of theological thought. (pp. 238, 239)

I shall reserve my own reflections on the Calvinistic doctrine of the salvation of infants for a future post that will compare and summarize all the various systems in this ongoing series; up next, the Lutheran tradition (the Lord willing).

Grace and peace,

David 

Infant salvation and the Catholic tradition

In  the previous post here at AF, the issue of infant salvation was explored, with an emphasis the relevant passages contained in the Scriptures.

This post will focus on the Catholic tradition; which, as we shall shortly come to discern, has advanced more than one view in the attempt to address the issue at hand. Unlike a number of other important doctrinal topics, the destiny of most who die in infancy remains somewhat 'open', and this due to the fact that an official, irreformable, doctrinal definition has yet to be promulgated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (neither conciliar, nor papal).

In the year 2007, an important document was created and published by the International Theological Commission (Eighth Term), under the title:

The Hope of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized

From the opening paragraph on the site, we read:

The International Theological Commission has studied the question of the fate of un-baptised infants, bearing in mind the principle of the “hierarchy of truths” and the other theological principles of the universal salvific will of God, the unicity and insuperability of the mediation of Christ, the sacramentality of the Church in the order of salvation, and the reality of Original Sin. In the contemporary context of cultural relativism and religious pluralism the number of non-baptized infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent. The Church is conscious that this salvation is attainable only in Christ through the Spirit. But the Church, as mother and teacher, cannot fail to reflect upon the fate of all men, created in the image of God, and in a more particular way on the fate of the weakest members of the human family and those who are not yet able to use their reason and freedom.

And from the second paragraph:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. (Bold emphasis mine.)

The site goes on to state that the teaching of limbo, "remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis", but then points out that it is not mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), which instead, "teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children".

The third paragraph is important, and quoted in its entirety below:

The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable—to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.

After an "Introduction", the document then goes on to explore the "Biblical Foundations", followed by a look into the "Greek Fathers", and then the "Latin Fathers". The next section sheds light on the "Medieval Scholastics", and then the "Modern/Post-Tridentine Era" and the period between "Vatican I to Vatican II".

Sections 32 and 33 touch on the issue of the development of doctrine, and points out that as related doctrines become clear (and more precisely defined), this clarity sheds important light on the doctrine of infant salvation.

From section 41, we read:

Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture: the creation of the human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal salvific will of God; the transmission and the consequences of original sin; the necessity of grace in order to enter into the Kingdom of God and attain the vision of God; the uniqueness and universality of the saving mediation of Christ Jesus; and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. These other ways are not achieved by modifying the principles of the faith, or by elaborating hypothetical theories; rather, they seek an integration and coherent reconciliation of the principles of the faith under the guidance of the ecclesial magisterium, by giving more weight to God's universal salvific will and to solidarity in Christ (cf. GS 22) in order to account for the hope that infants dying without Baptism could enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision.

My 'introduction' to this important document shall come to a close, with an admonition to AF readers—Catholic and non-Catholic—that they take the time to read the entire treatment for themselves. I am convinced that all who do so will gain some important insights into the issue of infant salvation.

Grace and peace,

David

Infant salvation: what is the ultimate destiny of those who die in infancy?

What happens to infants, and children, who die before they are capable of understanding and accepting the Gospel? And what about the infants and children who died before the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Heaven, hell, 'limbo', non-existence; what/where is their eternal destiny?

When one turns to the Bible for an answer to this important question, the paucity of definitive/explicit references becomes all too apparent. In fact, some Biblical scholars admit that there are no explicit references to the question at hand. With that said, there are a number of verses from the Bible which I (and others) believe are germane, and offer some insights into our question. By use of the inductive method, multiple categories of Scripture will be examined, and then combined to obtain a cohesive conclusion.

One category of verses pertains to the issue of accountability as it relates to the individual:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16)

But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (2 Kings 14:6)

But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin. (2 Chr. 25:3)

Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. (Ps. 28:4)

Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work. (Ps. 62:12)

If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Prov. 24:12)

Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. (Isaiah 3:10, 11)

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jer. 17:10)

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Jer. 18:4)

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: (Jer. 31:30a)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezek. 18:20)

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Matt. 16:27)

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. (Rom. 2:5-11)

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (1 Cor. 3:13)

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Cor. 5:10)

But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. (Col. 3:25)

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: (1 Peter 1:17)

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (1 Peter 4:16-18)

And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children* with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (Rev. 2: 18-23)

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev. 20:12)

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Rev. 22:12)

[*The term "children" (Gr. tekna/teknon) in this context pertains to affiliation and not chronological age; see John 8:39 for a parallel usage of tekna/teknon.]

The above verses clearly demonstrate the truism that the accountability of mankind is based on what the individual has done. Adam's sin, and Jesus Christ atoning death on the Cross, do not invalidate this truism.

Though the accountability of the individual before God is clearly established, the Bible seems to suggest that there exists a 'mitigating factor' as to the WHEN the individual becomes accountable. This 'mitigating factor' is whether or not one has the capacity to understand the contrast between "the knowledge of good and evil"; note the following:

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. (Deut. 1:39)

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7:14-16)

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; (Jer. 19:4)

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? (Jonah 4:11)

We also have those verses from the lips of Jesus Christ which strongly imply that children have a unique relationship/standing with him:

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 18:3, 4)

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt. 18:10)

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 19:13, 14)

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (Mark 10:14, 15)

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. (Luke 18:15-17)

An inductive assessment of the verses listed above strongly suggests to me that the ultimate destiny of infants—and children who have yet to obtain "knowledge between good and evil"—is with Jesus Christ in heaven.

Now, with that said, one cannot overlook those verses which seem to imply that all mankind—even infants and children—are in some sense accountable before God, and are not 'innocent':

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 14:2, 3)

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Psalm 53:2, 3)

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. (Psalm 58:3)

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Rom. 3:10-12)

Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Eph. 2:2, 3)

Quite a bleak contrast. It could be argued (and has been), that this last list of passages contradicts a number of those from the prior lists. But, I am a firm believer in the inerrancy of the Scriptures; as such, the apparent contrast for me does not entail an actual contradiction. Instead, what we have are a number of compatible concepts/truths that can be reconciled.

The following verses from Paul's epistle to the Romans lays the foundation for a cohesive understanding of concepts/truths that have emerged from extensive lists of quotations provided above:

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Rom. 5:6-18; see also 1 John 2:2)

I would like to suggest that there are universal aspects to "Adam's transgression"; and that there are universal aspects to Jesus Christ's "free gift". I am inclined to deduce that one of the universal aspects of Jesus Christ's "free gift"—his death on the cross—is that of atonement/propitiation; and that his atonement/propitiation removes any accountability/condemnation from those who have yet to acquire a "knowledge between good and evil." As such, my current doctrine of infant salvation is that of universalism—i.e. the destiny of all infants is that they shall be with Jesus Christ in heaven.

In upcoming posts, I hope to examine the teachings of some of the various soteriological systems on this issue of infant salvation, and whether or not they are internally consistent.

Grace and peace,

David