ORIGINAL SIN: DO ALL INFANTS GO TO HEAVEN?

Harold Wayne Yeager, Jr. (ID# 24582631)
THEO 525 LUO (fall 2012)
Systematic Theology I
October 10, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Thesis Statement……..…………………………………………………………………………1

Introduction……...…...…………………………………………………………………………1

A Look Into The Past……...……………………………………………………………………2

Roman Catholic View………..…………………………………………………………………3

Lutheran View…….…………………………………………………………………………….4

Reformed View………………………………………………………………………………….5

Biblical Perspective……...……………………………………………………..……………….8

A Special Application of Atonement...………………………………………………………….9

A Modern Look………………………………………………………………………………..10

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….10

Thesis Statement It is the intent of this paper to show that children who die in infancy, regardless of the beliefs of their parents, are given salvation and therefore spend eternity in heaven. Original sin is still present, but God, being free and independent of us, freely chooses to save infants who are not capable of making a choice to commit their lives to Christ.
Introduction
Infant salvation is a complex issue, sometimes controversial and a topic of much debate within Christendom. The issue of infant salvation first arose with the institution of infant baptism, done so that infants who died would be baptized, and thus saved in case of death. Though that debate has subsided in recent years, it is not due to a consensus conclusion of the arguments among theologians and denominational leaders, but instead, it has subsided due to more pressing issues facing Christianity and theology. As infant salvation is explored, it must be done through a historical viewing of the topic as well as an emphasis on scripture. It is simply not enough to look at opinions of historical theologians. We must look at scripture, tradition, and theological opinion to form a cohesive conclusion to the question considered in this paper: Do infants go to heaven when they die regardless of the beliefs of the parents? This paper intends to show that, in fact, infants are saved in death. First, historical views on infant salvation will be explored. Then the Bible’s perspective will examined. Finally, modern understanding of the issue will be brought to the forefront as a definitive conclusion to the question is sought.

A Look Into The Past Benjamin B. Warfield, a Calvinist theologian, believed in infant baptism, even at the expense of his Calvinistic views. Warfield said, "No system of theological thought can live in which it [the doctrine of infant salvation] cannot find a natural and logical place."[1] To begin to unravel the theology behind infant baptism, we must first examine the history of thought on the issue. The argument for infant salvation stemmed from the practice of infant baptism performed by the early church. Early church historians accepted the practice of infant baptism, believing infants could be saved through baptism if they died at an early age. Scriptures, such as Acts 2:39, Acts 11:14, and Acts 16:31, indicate that entire households, including children, were saved and baptized into Christianity. It’s these scriptures that theologians and historians point to in justifying the tradition of infant baptism. These scriptures, however, are not the only evidence of infant baptism in the early church. Justin Martyr, in 148 A.D., made mention of older disciples who were baptized as infants. Irenaeus, an important early church historian, also wrote about infant baptisms in the young history of the church. Tertullian, a Latin Father, defended infant baptism in the second century. In the same time period, Origen writes: ". . . the church received a custom handed down from the Apostles, to give baptism even to infants.”[2] While the scope of this paper is not to examine the merits of infant baptism, it is important to establish that early church historians and theologians believed this to be the way of securing salvation for infants. For most of the first 400 years of Christianity, this was an accepted and understood practice. “Infant baptism, especially in the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran traditions, has been said to be necessary for the remission of the original guilt that newborn infants have as the descendants of Adam and Eve.”[3] It wasn’t until 430 A.D. that Augustine offered a dissenting opinion on infant baptism and infant salvation as a result. Augustine, writing to oppose Pelagius, believed that salvation came only from a decision to follow Christ. Augustine reasoned, using Acts 2:38, that all people must inherit sin, even infants. He dubbed this idea “original sin,” and it impacted what he believed about infant salvation. He believed infants inherited original sin and thus, without being baptized, were damned to hell.[4] “Augustine's position was eventually to lead to the teaching that such infants would not go to heaven but rather to a place of natural happiness called ‘limbo.’ Couple this with a high infant mortality rate and the stage was set for ignoring the general practice of waiting until the Easter season for initiation into the Christian community.”[5]
Roman Catholic View The Roman Catholic Church accepted Augustine’s view, emphasizing the need for baptism for salvation. By the close of the Middle Ages, the official doctrine of the church (from the Council of Florence in 1439 A.D.) was that infants who die go to hell.[6] The Catholic Church has continued to agree with Augustine that infants, although they seem to be the most innocent of God's creatures, are born alienated from God by a guilt they inherit from our first parents; infants can be freed from this guilt only through the redeeming grace of Christ, which they would receive in the sacrament of baptism. However, the Church has not continued to hold with Augustine that infants who die unbaptized are condemned to hell where they must suffer what he described as "the mildest punishment.”[7]

The Council of Trent reaffirmed this position, going against the Protestant view on infant baptism. The Catholic Church continued to view infants who died unbaptized as damned, “although it did not express a definite view as to the kind and degree of their punishment.”[8] In the following centuries, Catholic teaching shifted to the idea that infants who die don’t go to heaven, but don’t spend eternity in hell either. Instead, they go to limbo, where they never experience the beauty of heaven, but they also don’t experience the pain and sadness of hell. The Catholic Church continued to hold this view until comments made by Pope John Paul II in 1995 about abortion and unborn children in the womb. The idea that the mother can ask forgiveness from her aborted child would suggest that they share the communion of saints. The affirmation that her child "is now living in the Lord" would suggest that it is now living in the presence of God. One can hardly say this about a child in limbo, who would be forever excluded from the vision of God. Theologians who had been looking for signs of encouragement from the Church for their efforts to justify belief in the salvation of infants who die unbaptized have good reason to see in these words of John Paul II not only a confirmation of the progress made thus far but also a step further toward the official acceptance of this belief.[9]

The Catholic Church tried to correct its view to say there is hope for unbaptized infants, but does not expressly teach that they go to heaven. While the Catholic Church maintained the belief that infants did not go to heaven during the last few centuries, other theologians, particularly during the time of the Reformation, began to dissent from the Roman Catholic viewpoint on infant salvation.
Lutheran View While Lutherans branched off from the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation, their view of infant salvation and infant baptism did not entirely differ from the Catholic view. Particularly in the Augsburg Confession, Lutheran theologians taught that baptism is necessary for salvation.[10] Thus infants needed to be baptized to be saved and guaranteed entrance into heaven in the event of their death. This view was in contrast to Martin Luther’s own thoughts on the issue. He believed God would honor an intent by parents to baptize their children and thus bring salvation to infants whose parents intended to baptize their children before they died.[11] Later Lutheran theology adopted a more cautious approach to the issue of infant salvation. Lutherans softened their stance on the death of infants of unbelieving parents. As to the hosts of children dying outside the benefits of Christendom, the historical position of Lutheranism has been agnostic. Probably the statement of brightest hope that can be offered by that system is that of Krauth, as he writes: "As Lutherans, we have a clear faith resting on a specific covenant in the case of a baptized child, and a well-grounded hope resting on all-embracing mercy in the case of an unbaptized child."[12]

Reformed View The Reformed Church view first emerged during the time of the Reformation. Heavily influenced by John Calvin and the theology of election, early Reformed thoughts on infant salvation firmly put election at the forefront as the answer to the question of where infants who die spend eternity. Calvin, one of the early influences of the Reformed Church, asserted that infant salvation was not automatic, even if the parents were believers or if the infant was baptized at birth. Hamilton says “Calvinism has taken the entire matter out of the hands of a visible church and placed it where it rightly and safely belongs, in the hands of a loving and just God.”[13] Under Calvinism, an infant’s eternal destiny depended upon whether they were among those elected for salvation. Some infants were among the elect, and thus gained entrance to heaven. However, other infants were probate and didn’t get access to heaven. Calvin left the decision of infant salvation strictly up to God. That view wasn’t the only view in the Reformed movement. Warfield, whom Mark Noll called “the last of the great conservative theologians who defended Calvinistic orthodoxy,”[14] departed from classical Calvinism’s view of infant salvation. Warfield believed infants could be saved and adopted a gracious view. “The ‘gracious’ view asserts that humans cannot in any way contribute to their salvation. Therefore God, entirely by grace, chooses those who will be saved. Thus infants who are elected by God will be saved. Warfield commits himself to this obviously Reformed position.”[15] Warfield wasn’t the only Reformed theologian who leaned toward infant salvation. In the Canons of Dort, one of the issues Reformed theologians included in the document was the issue of infant salvation. Written to answer Arminian challenges, at the least it left open the idea of infant salvation to children of believers and may have outright stated that infants of believers would go to heaven if they died.[16] As such, Reform theologians, like Huldrych Zwingli, began to teach the election of infants of believers. John Murray, a contemporary of Warfield, chose to align himself more with the view of Calvin. He believed Warfield had gone too far in his conclusions and refused to adopt the idea of an all-inclusive infant salvation. He believed the issue was best left up to God under the idea of predestination and election. It appears that even among Reformed Church theologians and Calvinists, the idea of infant salvation caused dispute. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the disagreement between Warfield and Murray on this question of the salvation of persons dying in infancy is in fact a very Calvinist disagreement. Both sides saw themselves as jealously guarding a primary emphasis on divine sovereignty and human unworthiness. One group made their point by insisting—without any effort to soften the point—that God is free to choose whom he will save while consigning others, including guilty dying infants, to the eternal punishment that they fully deserve. The other group, in arguing for the salvation of all dying infants, saw themselves as being equally protective of the prerogatives of a sovereign God who, precisely because he is sovereign, can dispense his saving mercies, in the words of the Westminster Confession's brief comment on elect infants, "when and where, and how he pleaseth."[17]

It must be noted that this issue had particular interest for early church fathers as the infant mortality rate was higher than it is today. As Venema notes in his article on the Canons of Dort, “in the early seventeenth century, the infant mortality rate was much higher than is often the case today. It was a rare family that had not been touched by the death of an infant child. Many families of Reformed believers were likely to have witnessed the death of several of their children.”[18] Modern Reformed theology goes further, far surpassing the classical Calvinism view and morphing to a view that suggests all infants who die go to heaven, regardless of the faith of their parents. This view forms the idea of an “age of accountability” in which children must reach before being considered guilty, and thus damned, for their sins. As Hamilton put it: “Thus the doctrine of election, rather than involving infant damnation as some have alleged, has not necessarily required that conclusion at all, but has simply added Biblical consistency to the one theological system into which infant salvation fits logically.”[19]

Biblical Perspective In discussing infant salvation, tradition and theological opinions of the past have been considered. Views from Catholicism, Lutheranism and the Reformed Church have all been contemplated. Now it is time to examine scriptural evidence of the salvation of infants. Among Old Testament passages, 2 Samuel 12:23 is the most cited passage when discussing the issue of infant salvation. In the scripture, King David laments the death of his son with Bathsheba. His verbiage indicates an expectation of seeing his son again despite the child’s death. Wayne Grudem calls this particular Scripture a cause for hope for believers who have lost an infant to death. “This passage, together with the others mentioned above, should be of similar assurance to all believers who have lost children in their infancy, that they will one day see them again in the glory of the heavenly kingdom.”[20] Millard Erickson also points to 2 Samuel 12:23 as a key supporting scripture to the belief in infant salvation. "On the basis of such considerations, it is difficult to maintain that children are to be thought of as sinful, condemned, and lost."[21] Erickson also uses Deuteronomy 1:39 and Isaiah 7:15-16 as Old Testament passages which support the idea of an “age of accountability” that must be reached before a person can be condemned for sin. That is a key component for his belief in infant salvation. Among New Testament passages supporting infant salvation is Matthew 18:3, where Jesus says we should be like little children in order to inherit the kingdom of heaven. He was speaking of a child-like faith and innocence. Children in a stage of innocence are not yet held accountable or responsible for their sin, thus attaining salvation until they reach their age of accountability.
A Special Application of Atonement Gordon Lewis and Bruce Demarest understand this salvific view as a special application to Christ’s atonement for children.[22] They, along with Erickson, attest that infants still inherit the original sin of Adam, with a doctrine of depravity and the solidarity of guilt.[23] Lewis and Demarest, however, do not affirm a doctrine of imputed guilt. They argue that God grants them salvation under a “different mode of application” of grace. They cite Deuteronomy 1:39 as evidence of this idea. J. Mark Beach, in his article critiquing Baptist authors on the subject of infant salvation, has a problem with the idea of a “special application” of salvation for infants. He believes it creates two types of salvation: one for guilty sinners, who must commit their lives to Christ in order to be saved, and another type of salvation for not-guilty, infant sinners that requires only death for their salvation. This is a recurring and problematic feature of the scheme these authors present. What is the status of infants prior to death? Are we to regard all infants as "saved" until they transition (through personal sin) to guilt and condemnation? If so, it appears that death has become a superior remedy for the human condition than the cross. In fact, death becomes an instrument of salvation and curse becomes a blessing. In short, for infants, salvation becomes salvation "by death alone."[24]

It’s important to note at this point that salvation, whether it’s an infant, a young child or a grown adult, comes only by the atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Infants are not saved by their own righteousness or by their lack of guilt, but by the power of Christ alone. Jesus’ words in John 14:6 still apply, even to the infant. “Here we must say that if such infants are saved, it cannot be on their own merits, or on the basis of their own righteousness or innocence, but it must be entirely on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work and regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit within them.”[25]
A Modern Look Modern theologians, such as Demarest, Erickson, and James Garrett all seem to agree in the salvific status of infants who die. They argue for the “age of accountability” idea where children must reach an age of being responsible for the guilt of their sin. Until such an age is reached, children, especially infants, who cannot chose to sin nor Christ, are provided special salvation by Jesus. In a slightly dissenting opinion, Grudem tends to align more with the classic Calvinistic view of infant baptism. He argues for the children of believers being given salvation, but stops short of endorsing universal salvation for infants, preferring not to imply truth from where scripture is vague. “Regarding the children of unbelievers who die at a very early age Scripture is silent. We simply must leave that matter in the hands of God and trust him to be both just and merciful.”[26]
Conclusion
The question of infant salvation still remains a complex issue. Scripture gives us some indication of infant salvation, but stops short of giving a definitive view of universal salvation for all infants, regardless of whether their parents were believers in Jesus or not. The early fathers of the church baptized infants, believing that was the way to insure salvation for those infants that died, particularly during a time of history of high infant mortality rates. However, subsequent theologians have been split on the issue of infant baptism and infant salvation. The Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions still support infant baptism as the only way to guarantee salvation for infants, though in more modern settings the Catholic viewpoint has softened on that issue. The Reformed view remains disputed amongst various theologians. Calvin believed infant salvation was completely decided by God due to his belief in election and predestination. Murray agreed with that position. Yet, Warfield, a stout Calvinist, differed from Calvinism’s view on infant salvation. He believed all infants are innocent and therefore are part of the elect for salvation. Modern theologians tend to support the idea of infant salvation based upon the idea of an age of accountability that children must reach before being considered responsible for the guilt of sin despite inheriting original sin. However, as Grudem asserts, not all are willing to embrace a universal salvation for infants. Scripture is surprisingly sparse, and in some ways, silent on the issue of infant salvation. A chief scripture passage on the issue is 2 Samuel 2:23. That scripture passage is the Bible’s strongest indication that infants who die are granted salvation. Matthew 18:3 also gives us a glimpse into Jesus’ views as he tells us to have the innocence of children in order to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Deuteronomy 1:39 also seems to reinforce the idea of an age of accountability for children. Relying heavily on those scriptures, as well as taking in the views of church historians and theologians, it leads to the conclusion that God elects for salvation all infants who die. Infants cannot choose to sin, nor can they choose to follow Christ. As a result, they are not responsible for the guilt of sin, even though they inherit original sin. That salvation does not come as a result of the innocence of the child, but it rests squarely in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ on the cross and his atoning death for all sin. In that respect, we must remember Grudem’s final thoughts on the issue of infant salvation. While he stopped short of recognizing salvation for all infants, he did point to Christ as the ultimate judge and redeemer. “Salvation is always because of his mercy, not because of our merits. Scripture does not allow us to say more than that.”[27]

Bibliography
Beach, J. Mark. “Original Sin, Infant Salvation, and the Baptism of Infants: A Critique of Some Contemporary Baptist Authors.” Mid-American Journal of Theology 12 (2001): 47-79

Clark, David K. “Warfield, Infant Salvation, and the Logic of Calvinism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 4 (December 1984): 459-464.

Collins, George. “Infant Salvation.” In Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. edited by Walter A. Elwell, 606-607. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Garrett, James. Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, Evangelical. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Hamilton, Alan H. “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation.” Bibliotheca sacra 101, no. 403 (July-September 1944): 342-356.

———. “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation.” Bibliotheca sacra 101, no. 404 (October-December 1944): 470-482

———. “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation.” Bibliotheca sacra 102, no. 405 (January-March 1945): 99-109.

McKenna, John H. “Infant Baptism: Theological Reflections.” Worship 70, no. 3 (May 1996): 194-210.

Mouw, Richard J. “Baptism and the Salvific Status of Children: An Examination of Some Intra-Reformed Debates.” Calvin Theological Journal 41, no. 2 (November 2006): 238-254.

Noll, Mark A. “Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge.” In Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1257-1258. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Sullivan, Francis A. “The Development of Doctrine About Infants Who Die Unbaptized.” Theological Studies 72, no. 1 (March 2011): 3-14.

Venema, Cornelis P. “The Election and Salvation of the Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy: a Study of Article I/17 of the Canons of Dort.” Mid-American Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 57-100.

Warfield, Benjamin B. Two Studies in the History of Doctrine: Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy; The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation. New York: Christian Literature Co., 1897.

----------------------- [1] Benjamin B. Warfield, Two Studies in the History of Doctrine: Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy; The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation (New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1897), 239. [2] Alan H. Hamilton, “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation.” Bibliotheca sacra 101, no. 403 (July-September 1944): 347. [3] James Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, Evangelical. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 524. [4] Hamilton, 348-349. [5] John H. McKenna, “Infant Baptism: Theological Reflections,” Worship 70, no. 3 (May 1996): 197. [6] Hamilton, 350 [7] Francis A. Sullivan, “The Development of Doctrine About Infants Who Die Unbaptized.” Theological Studies 72, no. 1 (March 2011): 3. [8] George Collins, “Infant Salvation.” In Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. edited by Walter A. Elwell,(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2001): 606. [9] Sullivan, 11-12 [10] Collins, 606. [11] Ibid, 606. [12] Hamilton, 355-356. [13] Alan H. Hamilton, “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation.” Bibliotheca sacra 101, no. 404 (October-December 1944): 479. [14] Mark A. Noll, “Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge,” Elwell’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2001): 1258. [15] David K. Clark, “Warfield, Infant Salvation, and the Logic of Calvinism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 4 (December 1984): 459. [16] Cornelis P. Venema, “The Election and Salvation of the Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy: a Study of Article I/17 of the Canons of Dort,” Mid-American Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 81 [17] Richard J. Mouw, “Baptism and the Salvific Status of Children: An Examination of Some Intra-Reformed Debates.” Calvin Theological Journal 41, no. 2 (November 2006): 241. [18] Venema, 64. [19] Alan H. Hamilton., “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation,” Bibliotheca sacra 102, no. 405 (January-March 1945): 108. [20] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 501. [21] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), e-book. [22] Mark J. Beach, “Original Sin, Infant Salvation, and the Baptism of Infants: A Critique of Some Contemporary Baptist Authors,” Mid-American Journal of Theology 12 (2001): 59. [23] Beach, 58. [24] Beach, 70. [25] Grudem, 500. [26] Grudem, 501.
[27] Grudem, 501.