-----------------------
Interpreting doctrines through Calvinism creates many complicating factors that need to be explained, accounted for, worked around, and speculated upon.
Interpreting doctrines through Calvinism creates many complicating factors that need to be explained, accounted for, worked around, and speculated upon.
The author's below article is an example. He intends to explain his topic via the Calvinistic doctrine of Election. However, he doesn't even bother to quote Scripture. Nothing. He does mention the word "Bible" twice and the word "Scripture" once, but the Bible itself is completely absent.
Astonishing. How does one explain a doctrine without using the Bible?
Election is the idea that God has already chosen those who will be saved. The Elect are pre-selected, which means the lost and the saved are already determined and irrevocably destined for hell and heaven, respectively.
The author suggests that infants can be part of the Elect (using the truly cumbersome and unenlightening word "regeneration"), but Scripture is completely silent on the eternal fate of infants, as well as pets, aborted babies, and the mentally disabled. It is therefore improper to speculate based on the silence of the Bible. Yet the author does speculate, not from the Bible, but on how Spurgeon's Calvinism comes to bear on the problem.
After going around and around with Calvinistic doctrines like Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, and Total Depravity, he finally concludes that he can only rely on the fact that God always does the right thing. This is quite sensible, but it also means his entire presentation is moot.
When God does not speak to an issue in the Bible, we can only stand firm on His justice and mercy.
Somebody, yesterday, decided to point out - naturally to poke the Baptist bear - that Spurgeon believed in infant regeneration. Which, of course, he did. Indeed, so do I. It wasn't such a startling revelation.
Here is what Spurgeon said about it:
‘except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ No doubt, in some mysterious manner the Spirit of God regenerates the infant soul, so that it enters into glory made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light.You can read Spurgeon's full in context message, titled Infant Salvation, here if you like.
That such regeneration is possible is proved from Scripture. John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. We believe, therefore, that even before the intellect can work, God, by the mysterious agency of his Holy Spirit, may create the infant soul a new creature in Christ Jesus, enabling it to enter into the rest which remaineth for the people of God.
What Spurgeon categorically denies in that very sermon is that any infant is ever saved because of their inherent innocence nor because of any baptism. He insists throughout that any infant who is saved is included in the kingdom because they are elect, they were redeemed by Christ and they were regenerated by the Spirit just as any man is. Spurgeon goes further than me in insisting that all infants who die in infancy are elect and saved. It is a line taken by many modern Baptists today, particularly those in America. You can read the full text to see his reasoning, which is that of many modern Baptists too.
The point being here, there is nothing unbaptist about believing in the possibility of regenerate infants. I would agree with Spurgeon's grounds for such in infancy too; namely, saved infants are both redeemed by Christ and regenerated by the Spirit because they are elect. I fully - indeed, have quoted myself - the example of John the Baptist leaping for joy in the womb. It is clear evidence of a response to Christ even in utero.
Where I perhaps disagree with Spurgeon is in his certainty that all who die in infancy are necessarily elect. I think there is a case to be made for that, inasmuch as if we believe in a sovereign God who ordains all things, he similarly ordains the short lives of such little ones and therefore, in his sovereignty, elects them knowing they will serve his grand designs in through their short lives and determines such will always be saved. The argument is that he sovereignly elects those he has appointed to short-lived times on earth.
Whilst that is a view I would dearly love to believe, I don't find as much biblical evidence for it as he seem to do. I rather find it more honest to accept what is plainly biblical. It is without question possible for God to regenerate in the womb. It is evident that the elect are elect from before their conception. There is biblical example of a response to Christ in John the Baptist before birth. It is therefore, minimally, reasonable to believe that some are saved in the midst of infant mortality. But I don't presume all are. Which means, in the end, I commit myself to believing what the scripture says plainly: the judge of all the earth will do right.
Spurgeon reasons his position - that all infant deaths necessarily mean such children are elect - in the love of God. The Lord, he avers, would not cast away the infant soul. There are three problems I find with that reasoning.
First, it seem to me overly sentimental. Why, if we believe in Total Depravity, is the infant soul any more valuable to the Lord than the adult one? One might argue the same in relation to what Paul outlines in Romans 9 about objects of wrath. Some would insist at this point that this only applies to those who had no opportunity to do any good works or otherwise. The problem here is that God himself says not only that he loved Jacob from the womb concerning his election but that he also hated Esau from the womb in his rejection. We simply cannot have the one without the other and we end up with a form of Arminianism if we insist that God's choice was based on works (whether works done ex utero or lack of works done in utero).
Second, if we affirm this kind of reasoning, it is hard, on that same basis, to escape the drift toward universalism. If all infant children who die in infancy are necessarily saved, despite our belief in Total Depravity that affects all equally, then why is not everybody saved? What is it about deceased infants that uniquely makes them elect? If we say this is because they are infants who did not have opportunity to have faith, we end up with further problems. We are either thrown back onto Arminianism and/or Pelagianism. We must say they are either innocent in a way adults are not (Pelagianism) or that they have no ability to do good works or express faith and thus insist God does elect based on works (Arminianism). In a bid to avoid either sentimental drifts to universalism or works-righteousness, but attempting to maintain that all infant deaths are of elect children, we face the totally unbiblical creation of an "age of responsibility". Apart from simply having no biblical grounds for such an invention, it doesn't resolve the issue. It still maintains a group of people who, by virtue of who they are in themselves, are elect which is worryingly Pelagian.
Third, I think such reasoning creates an altogether worse issue (which is one of the reasons I presume the Bible doesn't say this). If all infants who die in infancy are necessarily elect, but all non-infants are not necessarily elect, we create the disturbing situation that the best thing we can do for our children is to immediately kill them lest they grow up to reject Christ! Of course, we know that murder is wrong and God has said he does not want us to do that, but it seems apparent that is the logical end of believing all adults, by nature, are outside of Christ and all infants who die in infancy are necessarily elect. I think that causes us something of a problem.
For those reasons, I prefer the position (by which I mean, find more cogent rather than think is the nicer view) that it is possible for infants to be elect and regenerate and that the Lord knows those who are his and will do right in the end. I do not think all will necessarily be saved (per Spurgeon) but I do think some, maybe even many (dare I say even most), who die in infancy will be saved. I think this stops us from thinking the best thing we could do for our children would be to stop them growing up and rather focuses our attention on bringing them up to know the gospel. It similarly avoids any suggestion that, simply by virtue of their person, either Total Depravity doesn't apply or God saves because of a particular inability they may have, whether to perform appropriate works nor to express faith. It is not a sentimental view that creates a series of biblical loopholes without textual warrant. It maintains that it is clearly possible for infants to be regenerate - even hopeful that many will be - but it stops us falling into special pleading or affirming far more than we ever intended to affirm.
Naturally, I hold such a view with an open hand. I wouldn't want to go to the stake for it. I think we can trust - accepting there are plenty of things the Bible doesn't spell out in intricate detail - that the Lord will do what is right and just and none of us will have any qualms about his divine judgements in glory. But we similarly must accept that our particular views of what is just and fair frequently do not tally with God's reckoning and we must be prepared to hear that just because we think a particular thing is just and right for the judge of all the earth to do doesn't mean that is what he determines is actually just and right. But we similarly must accept the Lord doesn't tell us all things, the secret things belong to him, and whenever we are pulling together limited biblical data like this we need a level of humility to admit what we do not know and wherever we land on this specific question admit that there is every reason to believe we might be wrong in glory. So I don't presume to say Spurgeon got this wrong. I don't presume to say I have definitely got it right. I simply say, based on the things that are clear and the limited data that is less clear, this is the position that seems most biblically consistent to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment