Will Infants Who Die Go to
Heaven?
An Overview of the Claims, Options, Possible
Solutions, Implications, and Concluding Biblically &
Theologically Coherent Support for the Doctrine of
Infant Salvation.
Material adapted from Robert P. Lightner’s, The Death Christ Died (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
1998); Norman L. Geisler’s Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1999) Earl Radmacher’s Salvation (Nashville: Word, 2000); W.H. Griffith Thomas,
Principles of Theology (London: Church Book Room, 1951).
Infant Salvation:
I.
Is infant salvation justified from
Scripture?
II.
10 Views on Infant Salvation.
III.
Possible Solutions and Implications.
IV.
Conclusion.
V.
Appendix: “Heathen Salvation”
I. Is Infant Salvation Justified from
Scripture?

Since there is no absolutely clear exegetical proof that
firmly presents “infant salvation,” is there warranted
theological proof from Scripture that correlates with
biblical, systematic theology, or is our justification, as
well-intentioned as it may be:



Psychological (e.g., comforting, feelings)?
Religious (e.g., tradition, erroneous interpretation,
pastor/priest, statements that minister, etc)?
Sociological (subculture, parents, or friends)?
A. Consider the following quotes:
“Undoubtedly, many infants get there [heaven] by death. The
high infant mortality in many countries of the world now and
in past centuries suggests that numerous young children are in
heaven. Jesus’ statement, however, should not be understood
as meaning that all children, regardless of their age, are
members of God’s kingdom. Other children, who live several
years beyond infancy and then receive Christ as their Savior
(receiving the kingdom as a child; Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17),
go to heaven when they die. Having been regenerated by their
faith in Christ, they obviously belong to the kingdom of God
(John 3:3). They are among those ‘little ones who believe in
me,’ as Jesus said (Matt. 18:6).”
~ Dr. Earl Radmacher, Salvation, 229.
John Newton, the hymn writer of Amazing Grace,
wrote that the number of infants in heaven :
“so greatly exceeds the aggregate of adult believers that,
comparatively speaking, the kingdom may be said to consists of little
children. The apostle speaks of them as not having, ‘sinned after the
similitude of ‘Adam’s transgression’ [Rom. 5:14], that is, with the
consent of their understanding and will. And when he says, ‘We must
all appear before the “judgment seat of Christ,” he adds, ‘that every
man may give an account of what he has done in the ‘body, whether it
be good or bad [2 Cor. 5:10].’ But children who die in their infancy
have not done anything in the body, either good or bad.
It is true they are by nature evil, and must if saved, be the subjects of a
supernatural change. And though we cannot conceive how this
change is to be wrought, yet I suppose few are so rash as to imagine it
impossible that any infants can be saved. The same power that
produces change in some, can produce it in all; and therefore I am
willing to believe, till the Scripture forbids me, that infants, of all
nations and kindreds, without exception, who die before they are
capable of sinning after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who
have done nothing in the body of which they can give an account, are
included in the election of grace.”
The Works of John Newton, 3 rd., 6 vols, 4:552-3.
Charles Spurgeon once wrote:
“I rejoice to know that the souls of all infants, as
soon as they die, speed their way to paradise. Think
what a multitude there is of them!”
~ Charles H. Spurgeon, Spurgeon at His Best, 95.
Dr. Norman Geisler writes:
“Many critics have impugned the justice of God because of the status
of the unborn. Belief is considered necessary condition for salvation
(John 3:18-19; Acts 16:31), and yet innocent young children have not
yet reached the age at which they can believe. But it seems eminently
unjust to condemn innocent infants who have not yet committed a sin
nor are even old enough to believe and be saved. Christians have
struggled with the issue of the eternal status of infants. Yet nowhere
does the Bible directly treat the issue. Hence, we are left to arguments
based on general principle and inference from Scripture.”
Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 360.
.
Dr. Robert P. Lightner writes:
“Not once in all the references to infants is there os much as a hint that
they will ever be damned to eternal perdition after death. In many
contexts where the words are used we would not expect a statement
about their eternal destiny. Yet there are instances, such as when God
ordered the destruction of all the Amalekites, including infants (1
Sam. 15:3), when it would have been appropriate to speak of their
damnation. But not once, even when reference is made to the death of
children, is there so much as a hint that any would suffer eternal
separation from God (see for example Ex. 12:29-30 and Matt. 2:16).”
Sin, Savior, and Salvation, 184.
.
“The idea of meeting his child in the
unconscious grave could not have
rationally comforted him; nor could the
thought of meeting him in hell have
cheered his spirit; but the thought of
meeting him in heaven had in itself the
power of turning his weeping into joy.”
~ R. A. Webb, The Theology of Infant Salvation, 20-21.
R.C. Sproul, who criticized Billy Graham for saying in the memorial
service of the more than one hundred people, including a number of
young children, who died in the bombing of the federal building in
Oklahoma City in 1995, that the innocent children who died in the
bombing are in God’s arms in heaven, by writing that all of those who
died without receiving Christ as Savior, whether adults or children:
“are experiencing…anguish and torment in hell.” However, he did
admit, though, that “we cannot say for sure what happens to young
children who die.”
~ R.C. Sproul, Jr., “Comfort Ye My People,” World, May 6, 1995, 26.
Pelagius, who reacted against Augustine’s view that
since children are born within the fall, infants inherit
real depravity, so that the wrath of God abides on
unbaptized babies, stated:
“Where they are not, I know; where they are, I know
not” ~ John Sanders, No Other Name, 292.
Pelagius later embraced “limbo” position.
B. Consider the following
passages:

When the newborn baby of David and Bathsheba
became ill, David prayed and fasted for his healing,
lying in anguish on the ground in each night. But a
week after the baby became sick, he died (2 Sam.
12:15-18). Then David told his servants, “I will go to
him, but he will not return to me (12:23).”

Was David referring only to his own death?
Was David referring to being in conscious fellowship
with his son after death?
Is there any comfort in David’s saying he would die
too?


B. Consider the following
passages:



“The kingdom of heaven [or ‘of God’] belongs to
such as these (Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke
18:16).” The context indicates that adults who are like
children in acknowledging their lowly and helpless
condition will enter God’s kingdom.
Does this Greek word, “toiaute” (“of such as these”)
indicate that children too are in God’s kingdom?
How does this compare to Luke 18:15-17? As Luke
wrote, does this passage include infants?
B. Consider the following
passages:
“Your Father in heaven is not willing that any
of these little ones should be lost” (Matt.
18:14).
 If contextually Christ sets before the disciples
as patterns for imitation, will these children
perish?
 What does the word “lost” or “perish” mean
and how does this word relate to the context?

II. By what means will
deceased infants go to heaven?
10 Views of Infant Salvation:
10 Views of Infant Salvation are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Universalism
Born without Sin
Second Chance View
All Infants are Elect View
Infants of Saved Parents are the Elect View
Infant Regeneration View
Redemptive Work of Christ View
Infant Water Baptism View
Catholic Limbo View
Foreknowledge View
# 1: Universalism
All children who die as infants are taken to heaven because of
the doctrine of universalism. That is, since everyone will
ultimately be saved and no one will be in hell, infants will
naturally be in heaven, even though they had no opportunity to
believe.
Critique: direct opposition to Scripture that affirms the eternal
damnation of the unsaved (e.g., Matt. 25:46; John 3:16, 18;
3:36; Rev. 20:15). And yet this is not to deny the heavenly
home of dead infants. It simply means that universalism is not
the basis of their salvation.
# 2: Born Without Sin
There is a heavenly destiny for infants because they are born without sin. As
Clifford Ingle, a Southern Baptist seminary professor writes.
a child “does not inherit lostness [from Adam]; he chooses it.” All persons,
Ingle writes:
“are born with a tendency toward sin; all are destined to sin. However, this
individual is not responsible for the sins of the [human] race or his inherited
nature. He becomes an actual sinner in the eyes of God when, as a morally
responsible person, he chooses sin and rebels against God. Thus there is a
time between birth and moral accountability when the child is not guilty for
sin.”
~ “Moving in the Right Direction,” in Children and Conversion, ed. Clifford
Ingle (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1970), 153-54.
# 2: Born Without Sin
John Inchley believes that children are not “in a state of being lost from
God,” and that until they deliberately refuse Christ, they belong to him.
~ John Inchly, Kids and the Kingdom (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1976), 14,
33.
Marlin Jeshke writes, “to place the human race into only two classes, the
saved and lost. We are required to recognize also a third class, the
innocent….”
~ Believers Baptism for Children of the Church (Scottsdale, Penn.: Herald
Press, 1983), 104.
# 2: Born Without Sin
Critique:
This view that children are born innocent and without an inherited sin nature is in
direct conflict with Scripture For both adults and infants, and all who can’t
believer, are still under the curse of Adam’s sin:
1.
“In Adam all die” (1 Cor 15:22).
2.
“God told Noah after the flood that he would bring about another flood of
that magnitude “event though every inclination of [man’s] heart is evil from
childhood” (Gen. 8:21).
3.
Solomon wrote, “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child” (Prov. 22:15).
4.
David said he was born “sinful at birth” (Ps. 51:5), and that “even birth the
wicked go astray” (Ps. 58:3).
5.
Paul affirmed, “There is no one righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10).
6.
All are “under sin” (3:9) and under God’s wrath (John 3:36) and that
includes children.
# 2: Born Without Sin
Everyone is born with a sin nature, from Adam,
because all humanity in Adam sinned as clearly
stated in Romans 5:12.
Adam sin plunged the entire human race into a
stance of guilt before God, because all sinned
“in Adam” (whether federal or seminal).
Therefore, people sin because they are sinners;
it is not that they become sinners by sinning.
# 2: Born Without Sin
Therefore, in light of passages like Rom. 3:23 and Rom.
5:12:
1.
all infants come with a sin nature, they
are all lost and condemned.
2.
To say infants are neutral or innocent
with respect to sin, and that they are not
sinners until they knowingly commit acts of sin,
overlooks the universal passages regarding the intrinsic
sinfulness of humanity in both O.T. and N.T.
“A theology of childhood salvation must be some reason with the
point that all people, including children are sinful and in need of
redemption.” ~ Perry G. Downs, “Child Evangelization,” Journal
of Christian Education 3 (1983): 10.
# 3: Second Chance View
When infants die they immediately mature and are then
provided an opportunity to receive the gift of salvation in
Christ:
1. First proposed by Gregory of Nyssa, 4th Century, builds this view
on the conviction that faith is necessary for salvation. It has also
found support among those in the Catholic Church. See George J.
Dyer, “The Unbaptized Infant in Eternity,” Chicago Studies 2
(1963): 147; John Sanders, No Other Name (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1992), 289.
2. Somewhat related, Oliver Buswell suggests that immediately
before death the intelligence of the infant is enlarged so that the
child can accept Christ as Savior [A Systematic Theology of the
Christian Religion, 2 vols (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963), 2:
162].
# 3: Second Chance View
When infants die they immediately mature and are then
provided an opportunity to receive the gift of salvation in
Christ:
Critique:
1. No biblical support.
2. If infants immediately before or after death are given the
opportunity to be saved, this implies that some will go to
heaven and others will not.
3. If this enablement to believe occurs after death, then where
is the child while he is confronted with the claims of Christ?
4. This view wrongly suggests a neutral state after death,
before one’s final destiny in heaven or hell.
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
All infants who die will be in heaven because
they are elected by God.
1. Ulrich Zwingli asserted that all children of
believing parents are among the elect, and
therefore, will be saved, and that probably
dying infants of non-Christian parents are also
among the elect.
2. Charles Hodge based the belief that “all who
die in Infancy are saved” on Romans 5:18-19:
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
B. B. Warfield:
1.
He defends this view by pointing out that for infants God’s electing grace
supersedes their inborn sin nature because God has chosen them. See “The
Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation,” in Studies in Theology
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), 438.
2.
Westminster Confession says, “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are
regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit” [Chap. 10, sec. 3].
This statement does not explicitly affirm that all dying infants are elect since
the words “elect infants” leave the question open. However, many
Presbyterians affirm that all infants who die are in fact included among the
elect. See Thomas Smyth, “Opinions on Infant Salvation,” in Children in `
Heaven, 34; Roger Nicole, cited by Ronald H. Nash, in What about Those
Who Have Never Heard? Ed. John Sanders (Downers Grove, Ill:
InterVarsity Press, 1995), 119-20.
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
Romans 5:18-19:
“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was
condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of
righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the
many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of
the one man the many will be made righteous.”
Hodge also cites Rom. 5:20, “But where sin increased,
grace increased all the more.”
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
Critique:
1. How does election reconcile original sin, freedom
from guilt, or personal rebellion? The election view
does not really solve the problems of sin, freedom
from guilt, and rebellion against God.
a.
b.
Infants come into this world with results of
Adam’s sin in them.
Infants are involved in the inherent sin of the
race whether in terms of federal or seminal.
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
Critique:
1. Debasing Effects of Sin (Rom. 1:21-32).
2. Judicial Effects of Sin (Rom. 5:12-21).
3. Corrupting Effects of Sin (Rom. 3:10-18; Eph. 2:1-3).
4. Deceiving Effects of Sin (Jer. 17:9).
5. Debilitating Effects of Sin (Jer. 17:9).
6. Blinding Effects of Sin (2 Cor. 4:4).
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
Critique:
3 . This view minimizes the necessity of faith because:
a. Claims that Christ’s salvation is not potential but
actual for infants.
b. Sin of infants are imputed to Christ.
As Lewis S. Chafer observes, “The word whosoever is
used at least 110 times in the New Testament, and
always with the unrestricted meaning” [Systematic
Theology, 2:78].
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
Critique:
4. The best foundation for reconciling total depravity, the
necessity of faith for salvation, an election is to believe in the
unlimited of Christ rather than the election view for infants:
A. It accounts for total depravity and election.
B. It allows the necessity of faith to be exempted on the basis
of unlimited atonement but not for those who are
consciously aware of their sin and need to receive Jesus
Christ as personal Savior.
C. It accounts for passages that explicitly declare unlimited
atonement:
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
Case for Unlimited Atonement is both negatively and
positively affirmed in Scripture:
Negatively, nowhere in Scripture does it ever say that
Christ did not die for all people:
Positively we passages that imply if not declare the extent
of the atonement such as:
John 1:29:
“…Behold the Lamb of God,
which takes away the sins of the world.”
John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world….”
John 3:17:
“For God sent not his Son into the world
to condemn the world, but that the world
through him might be saved.”
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
John 4:42: “…This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world:
2 Cor. 5:19: “…To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto himself….”
1 John 4:14: “….the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the
world.”
John 3:16: “…That whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.”
1 Tim. 2:6: “ Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in
due time.”
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
Acts 2:21: “…Whososever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be
saved.”
Acts 10:43: “…Through his name whosoever believes in Him shall
receive remission of sins.”
Romans 10:13: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved.”
Revelation 22:17: “…And whosoever will, let him take the water of
life freely.”
Romans 5:6: “...Christ died for the ungodly.”
# 4: All Infants are the Elect View
Critique:
As W.H. Griffith Thomas, co-founder of Dallas
Theological Seminary, writes:
“So that we can say of infants, ‘By the righteousness of One the free
gift came upon all men to justification by Him.’ We must not forget
that infants come into a world of grace as well of sin, and the two
parallel lines can never be overlooked. While there is, of course, no
definite declaration in regard to the salvation of infants dying in
infancy, all that we can infer from Scripture supports the view that
they are saved on the ground of the Atonement of Christ, and this
because although they were born in sin they were not actual
transgressors of the Divine Law” [Principles of Theology, 506].
# 5: Infants of Saved Parents are the Elect.
Related to the last view is that the infants of saved (or elect)
parents are saved.
Canon of Dort: godly parents ought not to doubt the election and
salvation of their children whom it pleased God to call out of this life in
their infancy” (art. 17).
Observations:
1. There is no biblical support.
2. Does not account for sin or guilt problem.
3. Offers no hope for parents who are unsaved.
4. Does not harmonize with passages that teach unlimited atonement.
4. Does not reconcile with passages such as 2 Peter 3:9 cf. 1 Tim. 2:4.
If God really desires all to be saved, and it is possible to save some infants from
their personal faith, then why does he not elect all of them to salvation?
5. Problem of God’s unmerciful and/or unjust in not choosing to save all.
# 5: Infants of Saved Parents are the Elect.
Observations:
1. There is no clear biblical support.
2. Does not account for sin or guilt problem.
3. Offers no hope for parents who are unsaved.
4. Does not harmonize with passages that teach unlimited
atonement.
4. Does not reconcile with passages such as 2 Peter 3:9 cf. 1Tim. 2:4.
If God really desires all to be saved, and it is possible to save some
infants from their personal faith, then why does he not elect all of
them to salvation?
5. Problem of God’s unmerciful and/or unjust in not choosing to save
all when He is able to do so. In other words, while there is nothing
in fallen humans that merit salvation, there is something in an allloving God that prompts Him to save all, namely, His infinite love
(John 3:16; Rom. 5:6-8; 1 Tim. 2:4).
# 5: Infants saved by the “Baptism of Desire” View
Infants can be saved by the “baptism of desire,” that is, if
they desired baptism but were unable to obtain it before
they died, they would go to heaven.
1. This view held in 9th Century by Hincmar of Rheims.
See Warfield, Studies in Theology, 415.
2. Martin Luther applied the idea of baptism of desire to
Christi parents, saving that their desire for their
children’s baptism, even if not carried out, guarantees
their offspring’s salvation.
# 5: Infants saved by the “Baptism of Desire” View
Critique:
1. It is not biblical.
2. How can an infant desire baptism?
3. How does a parent’s mere desire substitute for a
child’s salvation?
4. This view does not address the question of infants of
unsaved parents, who may not desire salvation for
their young or may know nothing of salvation and
baptism. This implies that salvation for those infants
are not available and that they are lost forever.
# 6: Infant Regeneration View
All infants who die will be regenerated because they have
not willfully rejected Jesus Christ:
1. Only those who consciously reject Christ are
condemned to hell.
2. Infants cannot knowingly turn from Christ.
3. Therefore, all dying infants will be in heaven, event
though they are born sinners and do not exercise faith.
See Neal Punt, What’s Good about the Good News?
(Chicago: Northland, 1988), chap. 11.
# 6: Infant Regeneration View
All infants who die will be regenerated because they have not
willfully rejected Jesus Christ:
Critique:
1. It makes eternal damnation dependent on a willful refusal to
believe in Jesus Christ.
a.
If that is the basis of divine judgment in
hell, how can those who never heard of
Christ be condemned.
2.
The basis of condemnation is not rejection of Christ, but one’s
inherited sin nature. “In Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Rom.
5:12).
3.
Paul reasoned in Rom. 1 that all are under guilt of sin and the
wrath of God because of their sin. Therefore, only God’s grace
can atone for the sin of infants.
# 6: Infant Regeneration View
As Dr. Robert Lightner states:
“Total depravity means that man possesses nothing nor can he do
anything to merit favor before God. Scripture is abundantly clear on
this point. According to the Word of God, this condition affects not
only every man but also every part of every man (Rom. 1-3). All
unsaved men are viewed by God as ‘lost’ (Luke 19:10),
‘condemned’(John 3:18), under the ‘wrath of God’ (John 3:36), ‘dead
in trespasses and sins’ (Eph. 2:1-2) and as possessing a heart that is
‘desperately wicked’ (Jer. 17:9)” [The Death Christ Died: A Biblical
Case for Unlimited Atonement (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 38.
3. Paul reasoned in Rom. 1 that all are under guilt of sin
and the wrath of God because of their sin. Therefore, only
God’s grace can atone for the sin of infants.
# 7: Redemptive Work of Christ View:
All infants enjoy heavenly bliss because of the redemptive work of
Christ on the cross:
1.
2.
Like everyone, infants need salvation and salvation is only
through Christ.
Therefore, even though infants [others who can’t believe, ie.,
severely mentally handicapped] cannot exercise faith in Him, He
can remove their depravity.
“The great atoning sacrifice of Calvary included unconscious childhood as well as
conscious manhood and womanhood in the wondrous efficacy and blessing;” “…all
children are included in the great atoning Sacrifice, and really belong to the Lord
Jesus Christ until they deliberately and consciously refuse to Have Him as their
personal Savior and King.”
~ W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Catholic Faith: A Manual of Instruction for Members
of the Church of England, rev. ed. (London: Church Book Room Press, 1952), 110;
263.
# 7: Redemptive Work of Christ View:
All infants enjoy heavenly bliss because of the redemptive
work of Christ on the cross:
“If they be saved, it must be entirely by the sovereign mercy and positive operation of
God….All redeemed sinners owe their salvation to sovereign grace…but the
salvation of infants is with peculiar circumstances of [God’s] favour.”
~ David McConoughy, “Are Infants Saved?” in Children in Heaven, 60.
Spurgeon writes that infants enter heaven,
“as a matter of free grace with no reference to anything that have done” [Come Ye
Children (reprint, Warrenton, MO.: Children Evangelization Fellowship, n.d.), 39.
See also Perry G. Downs, Child Evangelization,” Journal of Christian Education
3 (1983): 10; Lightner, Heaven for Those Who Can’t Believe, 14-15; Herbert
Lockyer, All the Children of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 97.
# 7: Redemptive Work of Christ View:
All infants enjoy heavenly bliss because of the redemptive
work of Christ on the cross:
3. The basis for judgment for the unsaved is that they did not receive Jesus Christ as
personal Savior. Thus, all unregenerate will be judged according to their works at
the “great white throne” judgment (Rev. 20:11). However, those who died without
ever being able to believe will not be there. They have no works: they have not
done either good or evil.
“As Dr. Lightner states:
Since those who died before they could believe have no works, we may be sure that
they will no works, we may sure that they will not appear before the Great White
Throne. And since all the unsaved will appear there, we may also be sure that those
who cannot believe are not unsaved. If they are not among the unregenerate and
will not appear before God at this time, we conclude happily that they are among the
redeemed.”
# 7: Redemptive Work of Christ View:
All infants enjoy heavenly bliss because of the redemptive
work of Christ on the cross:
Critique:
1. It is inconsistent to claim that God salvation is by faith alone yet claim that
there is an exception for infants who cannot exercise faith (See Sanders, No
Other Name, 304).
a. Responses: “Even though infants cannot hear the Word, and,
therefore, cannot exercise faith (Rom. 10:17), God need not be
limited, as
Calvin noted, because He works in ways we cannot always
perceive, and
He can still bestow His grace” [Radmacher, Salvation, 235]. See
also
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John T. McNeill, 2 vols.
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 4.16.17; 4.16.19.
b. In the case of infants and those who can’t believe, God by His
mercy applies the benefits of salvation in view of unlimited
atonement (John 3:16-17, 10:15; 2 Cor. 5:19; Eph. 5:25; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John
2:2, 4:14).
c. It harmonizes with the infant election view if this is a valid view.
d. It coheres with biblical passages we have considered already.
# 7: Redemptive Work of Christ View:
Critique:
2. This view will open up “Pandora’s Box” and exceptions could be
provided to other situations as well…those who never heard the
gospel of Jesus, trans-dispensationalism (though faith is always
the means of salvation, the content of salvation in any of God’s
economies or dispensations is sufficient for salvation [See Tony
Evans, Total Salvation, appendix article for support of this
view]), and some form of qualified universalism.
Response:
a. This is not necessary because we aren’t saying anything more
than what Scripture presents. We must accept the mysterious
relationship between passages that imply infant salvation and
salvation by faith alone. If someone goes beyond Scripture,
such as trans-dispensationalism or qualified universalism, they
are outside of biblical, theological coherence and must whole
heartily be rejected.
# 7: Redemptive Work of Christ View:
Critique:
3. This view is based upon unlimited view of the atonement which
is debatable among Christians.
Response:
a. There is a stronger cumulative biblical and theological case
for unlimited atonement that is reasonable to believe over and
against limited atonement.
b. Just because something is debatable, does not make it
biblically or theologically unjustifiable.
# 8: Infant Water Baptism View:
Infants qualify for entrance to heaven by virtue of their
having been water baptism.
1. Roman Catholicism asserts that infant baptism
removes the stain of original sin.
“Baptism…signifies that by the power of the Holy Ghost all
stain and defilement of sin is inwardly washed away, and that the
soul is enriched and adorned with the admirable gift of heavenly
justification….” ~ Catechism of the Council of Trent, 144, cited
by J.C. Macaulay, The Bible and the Roman Church
(Chicago:
Moody, 1949), 81. Also see Gunter Koch, “Baptism,” in Handbook
of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and Francis Schusler
Florenza (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 43.
# 8: Infant Water Baptism View:
Infants qualify for entrance to heaven by virtue of
their having been water baptism.
1. Roman Catholicism asserts that infant baptism
removes the stain of original sin.
“Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of
God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the
Church and made sharers in her mission: Baptism is the
sacrament of regeneration through water in the word” [Catechism
of the Catholic Church (New Hope, N.Y.: St. Martin de Porress
Community, 1994), 1213.
Since the sacrament of infant baptism is necessary for salvation,
infants must be baptized in order for them to qualify for heaven.
# 8: Infant Water Baptism View:
Infants qualify for entrance to heaven by virtue of
their having been water baptism.
Critique:
1. It is unsupported and contradictory to clear
exegesis of Scripture.
2. It is contrary to the biblical doctrines of
soteriology.
3. By implication of this view, unbaptized infants
do not enter heaven.
# 8: Infant Water Baptism View:
Infants qualify for entrance to heaven by virtue of
their having been water baptism.
Critique:
1. It is unsupported and contradictory to clear
exegesis of Scripture.
2. It is contrary to the biblical doctrines of
Soteriology.
3. By implication of this view, unbaptized infants
do not enter heaven.
# 8: Infant Water Baptism View:
Consider these quotes:
“The wrath of God abides on them,” they “remain in darkness,” and
they are eternally doomed, though their punishment is less severe than
that of others. St. Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins
and on the Baptism of Infants 1.21, 28, 33-35,in Philip Schaff, ed. A
Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1908), 5:22-23, 25, 2829.
According to the Roman Catholic Catechism of the Council of Trent,
“Infants, unless regenerated unto God through the grace of [water]
baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to
eternal misery and perdition” [Sanders, No Other Name, 292].
# 8: Infant Water Baptism View:
Notwithstanding:
Notwithstanding, a number of church leaders believed that unbaptized
infants do go to heaven including Victor, John Wycliffe, the Lollards,
and John Calvin.
For example, Calvin wrote, “infants are not excluded from the
kingdom of heaven, who happen to die before they had the privilege
of baptism” [Institutes, 4.15.22].
# 9: Catholic Limbus Infantum View:
To soften the Augustinian position, the Roman
Catholic Church developed the idea of Limbo
(limbus Infantum), a neutral place for infants who
die unbaptized. In this place between heaven and
hell, children experience neither bliss nor torment.
See Joseph Finkenzeller, “Limbo,” in Handbook of Catholic
Theology, 433-35; Zachary Hayes, “Limbo,” in The Modern Catholic
Encyclopedia (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1994), 511; P.J.
Hill, “Limbo,” in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 18 vols (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967), 8: 762-63, 765.
# 9: Catholic Limbus Infantum View:
Observations:
1.
It is not admitted or denied as official dogma by Catholic Church.
2.
If Water Baptism is essential for salvation, many infants will not
be in heaven.
3.
The Roman Catholic position limits salvation as being obtainable
not by faith but by a sacrament or a work.
4.
Condemning many infants to limbo obliterates the view that
Christ’s atonement work removes, by His grace, the guilt of
original sin for all infants and others who cannot believe.
3.
It is entirely extra-biblical which entirely justifies the dismissal of
this view.
# 10: The Foreknowledge View:
God, as an omniscient Being, foreknew which infants would
have believed if they had lived long enough. Thus, God
saved those infants. Thus, the rest are lost, since they would
not have believed if they had lived long enough to do.
Observations:
1. Ascribes the omniscience view of God (Rom. 8:29;
Psalm 139:1-6).
2. Avoids criticism of God being unmerciful or unjust.
3. Accounts for the need for faith as a condition for
salvation (John 3:16-19). In other words, it avoids the
criticism that God saves some apart from their
willingness to receive salvation.
4. Emphasizes the omni-benevolence of God’s love.
# 10: The Foreknowledge View:
Critique:
1.
It lacks biblical support.
2.
God’s foreknowledge is based on human free will rather than
in Himself as the Sovereign God. In other words, God saves
these infants because of foreseen faith. However, this is contrary
to the unmerited grace of God who acts solely “out of the good
pleasure of His will (Eph. 1:5) and not on anything we do (Eph.
2:8-9). In fact, God chose the elect before the foundation of the
world (Eph. 1:4; cf. Rom. 8:29; 9:16; Phil. 1:29).
3.
One can reject foreknowledge as based on anyone’s free
choice, but simply, as the Scripture’s say, in accord with
it (cf. 1 Peter 1:2). In other words, they are simply coeternal acts
of God with no dependence of God on anything we do.
III.
Possible Solutions & Implications:
1.
All views have difficulties.
2.
If faith is not absolutely essential, then a distinction needs to made
between innocence and conscious rejection by adults. If so, it is
more reasonable to speak of all infants being saved.
3.
If faith is an absolute essential for salvation, and numerous passages
affirm that it is, there is no heaven for those who can’t believe.
III.
Possible Solutions & Implications:
4. If # 3 is correct, then all must believe to enter. In this case, belief
that infants will mature in heaven and be given a chance to
believe may be more plausible. But this is not biblical.
5. If God does not offer a real opportunity to believe, then the views
that affirm only baptized or elect infants go to heaven may seem
more reasonable to believe. However, the sin problem still
remains.
6. But if the Bible says that God genuinely offers salvation to all
then it would follow logically that those would believe, if they
die before they can, will be given a chance after they die with the
reason being that God’s love and/or justice would seem to
demand that this be so. But this is not biblical either.
III. Possible Solutions & Implications:
7.
If innate radical depravity is inherited from the
womb, then it would seem that only baptized
infants or elect infants might go to be with God.
However, if one’s personal decision in rejecting
God’s message is needed before one goes to hell,
then they lose plausibility.
IV. CONCLUSION:
Therefore, of the options we have explored, the case for
the redemptive work of Christ view best biblically,
theologically coheres and accounts for the following
passages:
1. Inherent sin and guilt;
2. unlimited atonement of Christ;
3. divine election;
4. Love and justice of God;
5. Infant salvation.
Appendix 1: Heathen Salvation:
By implication this study helps in our understanding of “heathen
salvation”:
1. God is just, benevolent, and loving:
2. Since one cannot be saved without the Gospel, and many
heathen lands have not had the gospel, it is reasonable to infer
that God’s elect will be taken from every tribe, kindred, and
tongue in view of the infants who die.
3. Since it is estimated that in heathen countries one-half of the
babies born die before the age of accountability, then it follows
that there will be innumerable heathen [infants] in heaven, i.e., all
the infants who die before they could hear & understand the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.