The doctrine of infant salvation may not be of practical significance to many Christians, but it very is worthwhile to consider with regards to theological systems. An examination of infant salvation forces one to examine difficult questions that may expose theological gaps and inconsistencies. Alan Hamilton writes, “The utter inability of an infant to do anything for himself derives the investigator to the core of theology to consider the attributes and decrees of God; to the core of anthropology to consider the nature and extent of sin and grace; to the core of soteriology to know the breadth of the salvation provided in Christ and the part, if any which the recipient must play in it; and to the core of ecclesiology to understand the character of the true church and to discover whether or not the visible church has any capability of dispensing grace by means of its ordinances.”[i] In other words, any theological system is fatally flawed unless it has a doctrine of infant salvation that is logical and consistent.
It is instructive to examine the history of infant salvation, which stems from the practice of infant baptism, the Anabaptist rejection of infant baptism, and the responding defenses of theologians. It seems that infant baptism was practiced very early in Christianity, even during the time of the original apostles. Edward Browne writes, “If we consult the records of antiquity, we shall find every reason to believe that the practice of infant baptism prevailed from the very first … during the lifetimes of the Apostle St. John and of other Apostolic men.”[ii] Furthermore, it appears that the motivation for infant baptism was to cleanse the infant of original sin. Origen writes, “Infants are baptized for the remission of sins.”[iii]
And so, the early church practiced infant baptism so that a person dying in infancy would not be condemned to hell. But this raises the question of the fate of infants who died before being baptized. This question led to a broadening of the understanding of baptism. In addition to baptism proper, one could also experience the benefits from a baptism of intention or from a baptism of blood. A baptism of intention occurs when it is the intention of the parents to baptize the infant but the infant dies before this occurs. A baptism of blood occurs when a Christian dies a martyr before baptism occurs.
Some Roman Catholic theologians, in defense of the efficacy of sacraments, developed the doctrine that the unbaptized do not go to heaven, but do not experience the save eternal fate as unregenerated adults. Rather, unregenerated adults experience poeni sensus, damnation involving pain of the senses. Unbaptized infants, in contrast, experience poeni damni,loss of the eternal beatific vision of God but not sensual suffering. The place of is typically called poeni damni (infant limbo) and is also the post-death destiny of the mentally impaired.
When the Anabaptists rejected the practice of infant baptism, all of the major denominations mounted a defense. The Lutheran position is stated in the Augsburg Confession. “Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.”[iv] This Lutheran position is clear that children cannot be saved without Baptism. But this is an uncomfortable position and many Lutheran theologians have proposed theories as to how infant salvation is not necessarily in conflict with the Augsburg Confession. The Missouri Synod is a bit more equivocal when answering the question of infant salvation. “There is some basis for the hope that God has a method, not revealed to us, by which He works faith in the children of Christians dying without Baptism (Mark 10:13-16). For children of unbelievers we do not venture to hold out such hope. We are here entering the field of the unsearchable judgments of God (Rom. 11:33).” [v]
The Reformed position is similarly tested. Recall that the Reformed position is that only the predestined elect are saved. Therefore, it is necessary for all who die in infancy to be part of the elect in order to avoid their eternal damnation. According to Reformed theology, infants that die that are not part of the elect have no possibility of salvation. It is worth quoting Charles Hodge at length on this topic.
“All who die in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ. “As by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom V 18-19). We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ … all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved.”[vi]
In all other areas of theology, Hodge cites Scripture as positive evidence. With regards to infant salvation he resorts to negative evidence–limits that the Bible places on salvation. But the Reformed position is that the limit placed on salvation is being one of the elect. Therefore, Hodge’s systematic theology can only be consistent if all who die in infancy are part of the elect. Therefore, one should hope that all infants should die as to assure eternity in heaven, rather that allowing them to live and therefore be exposed to the possibility of eternal damnation. This is why a Reformed theology that includes infant salvation tends to imply universal salvation for all. Many feel that this position is biblically supported by Paul who writes, “So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind” (Rom 5:18).
The Arminian/Wesleyan position is also that all who die in infancy go to heaven. But the theological reasoning is based on the role of free choice in salvation. Recall that the Arminian position is that Christ’s atonement was conditionally effective for all, but only takes effect when a person makes the free choice to have trust in this redemptive message. Since infants are not able to make informed free choices, they are guaranteed eternal salvation until they reach the “age of accountability,” which is the point in a person’s life when they are able to make informed moral choices and are therefore morally accountable for these choices. A corollary to this position is that the condition of original sin is not punished by God, only actual sins committed by a morally-aware person. But this position has the same troubling implications of the Reformed position. If the possibility of eternal damnation only occurs once one reaches the age of accountability, one should hope that all children die before this time so that eternity in heaven is assured.
The purpose of this section was not to argue for or against infant salvation. It is to recognize that the almost universal abhorrence of the thought of infant damnation often results in the proverbial theological cart being before the theological cart. That is, many start with a strong feeling that God would never condemn infants and then look to Scripture to support this view. This amounts to eisegesis and is bad theology, though not necessarily doctrinally wrong. Scripture does not directly address this issue, but those arguing for infant salvation typically cite Mt 18:14, “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven for one of these little ones to perish.” Also common is to cite David’s lament of his dead infant. “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Sm 12:23; see also 1 Cor 7:14; Lk 18:16).
[i] Alan Hamilton, “The Doctrine of Infant Salvation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Jul-Sep 1944: 342-343. This is the first part of a two-part submission. The second paper of the same author and title is in the 1945 Oct-Dec issue of Bibliotheca Sacra (pp. 99-109).
[ii] Edward Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: 674.
[iii] Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book 5.
[iv] Book of Concord, Article 9, Of Baptism. The Augsburg Confession is the fourth document in the Lutheran Book of Concord.
[v] From the Lutheran Missouri Synod FAQ about doctrine under the topic of Baptism. The specific question being responded to is, “What about infants who die before being baptized?”
[vi] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, 1871/2013: 26.
Leave a Reply