Unevangelized, The

William G. T. Shedd:

     3. In the third place, the Scriptures and the Confession teach that the Divine Spirit exerts his regenerating grace, to some extent, within adult heathendom, making use of conscience, or “the law written on the heart,” as the means of convicting of sin preparatory to imparting the new divine life; and that in the last day a part of God’s elect “shall come from the east and from the west, and from the north and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:29). These are all regenerated in this life. And since regeneration in the instance of the adult immediately produces faith and repentance, a regenerate heathen is both a believer and a penitent. He feels sorrow for sin, and the need of mercy. This felt need of mercy and desire for it is potentially and virtually faith in the Redeemer. For although the Redeemer has not been presented to him historically and personally as the object of faith, yet the Divine Spirit by the new birth has wrought in him the sincere and longing disposition to believe in him. With the penitent and believing man in the Gospel, he says, “Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?” (John 9:36). Such a man is “regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit,” and belongs to that class of “elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word” (Conf. x. 3).

(William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure And Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893], p. 134.)

Note: See further: Infant Salvation.

William G. T. Shedd:

     We cannot, therefore, determine from the mere idea of election how many are elected, or from that of preterition how many are passed by. This question can be answered only by God himself, and this answer, so far as he has vouchsafed to give it, is contained in his word. That the Scriptures plainly teach that the total result of Christ’s redemption will be a triumphant victory over the kingdom of Satan, and that the number of the redeemed will be vastly greater than that of the lost, we shall assume. It is also plainly taught in Scripture, that God’s ordinary method is to gather his elect from the evangelized part of mankind. Does Scripture also furnish ground for the belief, that God also gathers some of his elect by an extraordinary method from among the unevangelized, and without the written word saves some adult heathen “by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost?” We contend that the Confession so understands the Scriptures, in its declaration that there are some “elect persons [other than infants] who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.” To refer the “incapacity” here spoken of to that of idiots and insane persons, is an example of the unnatural exegesis of the Standards to which we have alluded. The hypothesis that the Confession teaches that there are elect and non-elect idiots, and elect and non-elect maniacs, is remarkable. It is incredible for two reasons. First, idiots and maniacs are not moral agents, and therefore as such are neither damnable nor salvable. They would be required to be made rational and sane, before they could be classed with the rest of mankind. It is utterly improbable that the Assembly took into account this very small number of individuals respecting whose destiny so little is known. It would be like taking into account abortions and untimely births. Secondly, these “elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word,” are contrasted in the immediate context with “others not elected, who although they may be called by the ministry of the word never truly come to Christ;” that is to say, they are contrasted with rational and sane adults in evangelized regions. But idiots and maniacs could not be put into such a contrast. The “incapacity” therefore must be that of circumstances, not of mental faculty. A man in the heart of unevangelized Africa is incapable of hearing the written word, in the sense that a man in New York is incapable of hearing the roar of London.

     Consequently, the Confession, in this section, intends to teach that there are some unevangelized men who are “regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit” without “the ministry of the written word,” and who differ in this respect from evangelized men who are regenerated in connection with it. There are these two classes of regenerated persons among God’s elect. They are both alike in being born, “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” They are both alike in respect to faith and repentance, because these are the natural and necessary effects of regeneration. Both alike feel and confess sin; and both alike hope in the Divine mercy, though the regenerate heathen has not yet had Christ presented to him. As this is the extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit, little is said bearing upon it in Scripture. But something is said. God’s promise to Abraham was, that in him should “all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). St. Paul teaches that “they are not all Israel which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6); and that “they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Our Lord affirms that “many shall come from the east and west, the north and the south, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11). Christ saw both penitence and faith in the unevangelized centurion, respecting whom he said, “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matt. 8:5–10). The faith of the “woman of Canaan,” an alien and stranger to the Jewish people and covenant, was tested more severely than that of any person who came to him in the days of his flesh, and of it the gracious Redeemer exclaimed, “O woman, great is thy faith!” These two classes of the regenerate have their typical heads in Scripture. Says Kurtz, “Of those who are blessed in the seed of Abraham, Naomi represents the people of God who are to proceed from the ancient people of the covenant, and Ruth represents those proceeding from the heathen world.” That the Church is not to expect and rely upon this extraordinary work of the Spirit, it is needless to say. That this work is extensive, and the number of saved unevangelized adults is great, cannot be affirmed. But that all the adult heathen are lost is not the teaching of the Bible or of the Westminster Standards.

     The declaration in Confession x. 4, and Larger Catechism, 60, does not refer at all to the heathen as such, but only to a certain class of persons to be found both in Christendom and heathendom, and probably more numerously in the former than in the latter. The “men not professing the Christian religion” are those who reject it, either in spirit, or formally and actually; that is to say, legalists of every age and nation, evangelized or unevangelized, who expect future happiness by following “the light of nature” and reason, and the ethical “religion they do profess,” instead of by confessing sin and hoping in the Divine mercy. The Jewish Pharisee, the Roman Julian and Antoninus, the self-satisfied Buddhist sage following the “light of Asia,” the Mohammedan saint despising Christianity, the English Hume and Mill, all of every race and clime who pride themselves on personal character and morality, and lack the humility and penitence that welcome the gospel, are the class spoken of in these declarations. They press no more, and probably less, upon the heathen than upon the Christian world; because the most hostile and intense rejection of the doctrines of grace is to be found in Christian countries, rather than in Pagan. They do not shut out of the kingdom of heaven any heathen who has the spirit of the publican, but do shut out every heathen and every nominal Christian who is destitute of it. The object of this section of the Confession, which is the same as the eighteenth of the Thirty-nine Articles, is to teach that no human creature, evangelized or unevangelized, can be saved on any but evangelical principles; namely, by unmerited grace, not by personal merit. It is only another way of proclaiming St. Paul’s doctrine, that “by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified.”

     That this is the correct understanding of the Westminster Standards is corroborated by the fact that the Calvinism of the time held that God has his elect among the heathen. The Second Helvetic Confession (i. 7), teaches it. Zanchius, whose treatise on Predestination is of the strictest type, asserts it. Witsius and others suggest that the grace of God in election is wide and far reaching. The elder Calvinists held with the strictest rigor that no man is saved outside of the circle of election and regeneration, but they did not make that circle to be the small, narrow, insignificant circumference which their opponents charge upon them. And there is no reason to believe that the Westminster Assembly differed from the Calvinism of the time.

(William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure And Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893], pp. 61-65.)

Cf. C. S. Lewis:

But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ’s body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them.

(C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, [London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2002], Book 2, Chapter 5, p. 64.)

R. C. Sproul:

There is the outer call, which is the proclamation of the gospel, and the inner call, which is the work of the Holy Spirit on our souls. Usually we think of the effectual call of God being the inward call that attends the outward call. But this section is about those who have never heard the outward call. What about those people who live in a distant corner of this world where the outward call never goes? What about babies who cannot possibly understand the gospel? Does every single baby who dies in infancy perish? Is every person who has never heard the gospel lost?

     The confession introduces this section about elect infants by affirming that God alone has the sovereign right and power to work when, where, and how he pleases, even on those who have never heard the gospel or who are too young to understand it. The first point is that God can save a baby while the baby is still a baby. The Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily withhold the grace of regeneration until a person reaches the age of accountability. The Holy Spirit can save an infant by changing his heart, giving grace, and applying the merit of Christ to him. The Westminster divines certainly believed that babies can be saved. They did not teach that all infants are necessarily saved, but only an undetermined number of elect infants. Obviously, an elect infant is going to be saved, and any saved infant is elect, but the divines did not speculate on which infants those would be.

     I believe, following the Reformed tradition, that the children of believers are numbered among the elect and are saved. Babies who die in infancy don’t go to heaven simply because they die in infancy. People assume that the reason they go to heaven is that they are innocent, but every baby is conceived in a state of original sin, alienated from God, by nature a child of wrath. Nonetheless, I am confident that the children of believers who die in infancy are elect. Our reason for this belief is the confidence that King David exhibited at the death of his baby (2 Sam. 12:23).

     My best friend in college and seminary, Don McClure, was the son of a pioneer missionary. His father ministered for almost fifty years in the interior of Africa, in Ethiopia and in the Sudan, and was a close acquaintance of Haile Selassie. Don told me a story about a man who came to the camp one night and asked Don’s father to tell him about the Savior. He lived in a remote village and had an overwhelming experience by which he knew that there was a Savior for his sins. The native man was guided through the jungle for several miles in order to come to this camp and find out about the Savior. That did not surprise me in light of the character of God. We see it manifested in the Old Testament, where God calls people out of paganism and directs them to the covenant community. Such things are extraordinary because they are so rare.

     I have heard this comment: We can hope for the salvation of people who have never heard the gospel, but we dare not rest on it. If God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, chooses to search out some-body in a remote place in the world and change him, God can do it. No one would argue about that. But does he do it? If he does, he must not do it very often. But whether he does or not, our marching orders do not change. We are to take the gospel to every nation, every tribe, every tongue, and every living creature. Our job is to proclaim the outward call. Paul plants, Apollos waters, but God alone gives the increase. That does not release us from planting and watering. Our obligation, as the church, is to be actively engaged in missionary outreach.

(R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: Volume Two: Salvation and the Christian Life, [Phillipsburg: P&R 2007], pp. 26-27.)

Note: For the argument that the Confession teaches that all infants will be saved, see: William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure And Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893], pp. 65-71, 131-133. Cf. John Piper, Providence, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020], pp. 507-508.

Anthony N. S. Lane:

WHAT OF THOSE WHO NEVER HEAR?

     The most important criterion for salvation is response to Christ: ‘Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God’ (John 3:18). This immediately creates a problem. It is all very well to say that we are saved through faith in Christ, but what about those who never have the opportunity to respond to him? This is the great majority of the human race. It includes all who die in infancy (who for much of human history were the majority) and all who die without hearing about Christ (who for most if not all of human history have been the majority of adults). Is there a way that they can be saved? *Cyprian argued that there is no salvation outside the (Catholic) Church, but very few would take such a hard line today. So, for example, the *Second Vatican Council states:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Lumen Gentium 2:16)

     As we saw in Chapter 14, the work of Christ is the only basis for salvation. But is it necessary to know of that in order to benefit from it? There is some biblical evidence for answering ‘No’. The Old Testament believers did not know specifically about Jesus, but were saved by him through their faith in God’s promise. This is spelt out in Hebrews 11. Again, if one accepts that it is possible for those dying in infancy to be saved we have another example of salvation without hearing about Christ. Paul in his preaching to pagans seems to suggest that their ancestors could be saved: ‘In past generations [God] allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways’ (Acts 14:16). ‘The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent’ (Acts 17:30).

     A number of ways have been suggested in which those who have no opportunity can be saved.

OPPORTUNITY AFTER DEATH

     A few passages suggest it is possible to have an opportunity to respond to Christ after death:

• 1 Peter 3:18-20: Christ was ‘put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah.’

• 1 Peter 4:6: ‘This is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.’

     However, other passages suggest it is only what happens in this life that counts:

• Luke 16:26: ‘Between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not do so, and none may cross from there to us.’

• 2 Corinthians 5:10: ‘We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.’

• Hebrews 9:27: ‘It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement.’

‘ANONYMOUS CHRISTIANITY’

     This is the idea that those who have not heard can be anonymous or implicit Christians without knowing it. It was popularized by the Roman Catholic theologian *Karl Rahner and is widely accepted in the Roman Catholic Church. It is also held by many Protestants. We have hints of this idea in the New Testament. Jesus stated that ‘Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad’ (John 8:56). Hebrews states that Moses ‘considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward’ (11:26). This is tantamount to describing Moses as an ‘anonymous Christian’.

     The opposite of believing in Jesus is not ignorance of him but rejecting him: ‘Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life’ (John 3:36, TNIV).

JUDGEMENT ACCORDING TO THE LIGHT RECEIVED

     Another possibility for the salvation of those who have never had the opportunity to respond to Christ is that they will be judged according to the light that they have received. *John Wesley taught that all people receive prevenient grace and are judged by their response to this. Hebrews 11:6 could be seen as giving the logical minimum for faith: ‘Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.’

     This raises the question of whether God can be known through conscience, nature and the created world. A number of passages can be taken to suggest that he can:

• John 1:9: ‘The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.’

• Romans 10:14-21 starts with need for a preacher, but possibly suggests that creation can serve that role: ‘But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world”’ (10:18). Paul is quoting from Psalm 19:4, which follows on from 19:1: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.’ Is Paul saying that all have indeed heard, through nature? This ties in with Romans 1:20: ‘For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.’

     The expression ‘God only knows’ is used flippantly by many people, but on this topic it is strictly true! We need to leave this in God’s hands. As Abraham put it, ‘Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?’ (Gen. 18:25). We should approach those who have not responded to the gospel as lost, not as already anonymous Christians — but that does not entitle us to pronounce judgement upon them. It is God who reads people’s hearts and God who is able to work in the heart of whomever he will. If past precedent is anything to go by, the End will probably bring many surprises: ‘I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness’ (Matt. 8:11-12).

(Tony Lane, Exploring Christian Doctrine: A Guide to What Christians Believe, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014], pp. 289-291.)

Note: Lane correctly enumerates three possibilities, however there is a fourth.

Cf. William G. T. Shedd:

     And with this will be connected another fatal error: namely, that God is under obligation to elect and regenerate every man. If justice forbids him to “pass by” any sinners, and “ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin,” he is bound to elect all sinners and “predestinate them to everlasting life.” He has no liberty or sovereignty in the case. He cannot say, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and whom I will I harden [do not soften]” (Rom. 9:18). This transmutes mercy into justice. Pardon becomes a Divine duty. The offer of Christ’s sacrifice, nay even the providing of it, becomes a debt which God owes to every human creature. This is the assumption that lies under all the various modes of Universalism. Sinful men, loving sin, bent on sin, are told that they are entitled to the offer of mercy and regenerating grace; that they must have a “fair opportunity” of salvation, if not here, then hereafter. Sinful men, full of self-indulgence, confessing no sin and putting up no prayer for forgiveness, and who have all their lifetime suppressed the monitions of conscience and quenched the Holy Spirit’s strivings with them in his exercise of common grace, are taught that if God shall pass them by, and leave them to the sin that they prefer, he is an unmerciful despot.

(William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure And Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893], pp. 54-55.)

Cf. Idem, pp. 52-59.

Note: See further: Double Predestination is not Equal Ultimacy (The Nature of Non-Election).

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Infant Salvation

William G. T. Shedd:

     And this brings us to the subject of “elect infants.” There is no dispute that the Confession teaches that there are “elect dying infants.” Does it also teach that there are “non-elect dying infants?” In other words, does the phrase “elect infants” imply that there are “non-elect infants,” as the phrase “elect adults” does that there are “non-elect adults?” This depends upon whether the cases are alike in all particulars. The argument is from analogy, and analogical reasoning requires a resemblance and similarity upon which to rest. But the Confession directs attention to a great and marked diversity between infant and adult regeneration, which sets off the two classes from one another, making some things true of one that are not of the other. The Confession points at and signalizes the striking difference in the manner in which the Holy Ghost operates, in each instance. Infants are incapable of the outward call and common grace; adults are capable of both. Consequently an elect infant dying in infancy is “regenerated by Christ, through the Spirit,” without the outward call and common grace; but an elect adult is “regenerated by Christ through the Sprit,” in connection with the external call and common grace, and after both have been frustrated by him. Election and non-election in the case of adults is the selection of some and omission of others who are alike guilty of resisting the ordinary antecedents of regeneration. Election in the case of dying infants is wholly apart from this. There being this great dissimilarity between the two classes, it does not follow that every particular that is true of one must be of the other; that because election is individual in the instance of adults it must necessarily be so in that of infants; that because adults are not elected as a class infants cannot be. The state of things in which the regeneration of an adult occurs, namely after conviction of sin and more or less opposition to the truth, is entirely diverse from that in which the regeneration of a dying infant occurs; namely, in unconsciousness and without conviction of sin. The only form of grace that is possible to the dying infant is regenerating grace, and the only call possible is the effectual call. If therefore God manifests any grace at all to the dying infant, it must be special and saving; and if he call him at all, he must call him effectually. 

     Now, since the authors of the Confession have themselves distinctly specified such a peculiar feature in the regeneration of the dying infant, it is plain that they regarded it as differing in some respects from that of adults, and intended to disconnect it from that of adults and consider it by itself. For why should they take pains, when speaking of elect infants, to call attention to the fact that the “Holy Ghost worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth,” if they did not mean to signalize the extraordinariness of the Divine action in infant regeneration? And if infant regeneration is extraordinary in not having been preceded by the usual antecedents of common grace and the outward call, why may it not be extraordinary in being universal and not particular? that of a class and not of individuals? Does not the singularity that distinguishes the infant in regard to regeneration without conviction of sin, suggest that of electing the whole class? But what is far more conclusive, does not the fact that the Assembly does not limit infant election by infant preterition, as it limits adult election by adult preterition, actually prove that there is this great diversity in the two cases? Does not the fact that the Assembly, while explicitly, and with a carefulness that is irritating to many persons, balancing and guarding the election of adults by preterition, does not do so with the election of infants, show beyond doubt that they believed their election to be unlimited, and that no dying infants are “passed by” in the bestowment of regenerating grace? We have already seen that the proposed omission of preterition, so as to leave only election in the case of adults, would make their election universal, and save the whole class without exception. The actual omission of it by the Assembly in the case of dying infants has the same effect. It is morally certain that if the Assembly had intended to discriminate between elect and non-elect infants, as they do between elect and non-elect adults, they would have taken pains to do so, and would have inserted a corresponding clause concerning infant preterition to indicate it. Whoever contends that they believed that preterition applies to infants, is bound to explain their silence upon this point. Had infant election been explicitly limited by infant preterition in the Confession, it would have been impossible for any candid expounder of it to hold that it permits subscribers to it to believe in the salvation of all dying infants. But Calvinistic divines for the last century or more have put this interpretation upon this section of the Confession, namely, that infant election is not individual but classical, and we think they are justified in so doing by the remarkable omission in this case.[fn. 1: Respecting the necessity of construing the Confession as teaching that there are non elect infants, Dr. Schaff remarks as follows: “The Confession nowhere speaks of reprobate infants, and the existence of such is not necessarily implied by way of distinction, although it probably was in the minds of the framers, as their private opinion, which they wisely withheld from the Confession” (Creeds of Christendom, i 795).]

     On the face of it, the thing looks probable. The case of the adult, in which there is both the outward call and the effectual, both common grace and regenerating, may be governed by the principle of individuality; while that of the infant, in which there is only the effectual call and regenerating grace, may be governed by the principle of community. Of those who have had the outward call and have rejected it, some may be taken and others left; while of those who have not had the outward call and have not rejected it, all may be taken. It is election in both instances; that is, the decision of God according to the counsel of his own will. In one case, God sovereignly decides to elect some; in the other, to elect all. And it is unmerited mercy, in both instances; because God is not bound and obliged by justice to pardon and eradicate the sin of an infant any more than that of an adult. And there is nothing in the fact that an infant has not resisted common grace, that entitles it to the exercise of special grace. In the transaction, God is moved wholly by his spontaneous and infinite mercy. He does an act to which he is not compelled by the sense of duty or of justice, either to himself or to sinners, but which he loves to do, and longs to do, because of his infinite pity and compassion.[fn. 1: The assumption that God is obliged by justice to offer salvation to all mankind, and to redeem them all, precludes all gratitude and praise for redemption, on their part. Why should they give thanks for a favor that is due to them, and which it is the duty of God to bestow? Christians adore “the riches of God’s grace” because it is utterly unclaim able on their part, and unobligated on his.]

     That many of the elder Calvinists believed that there are some non-elect infants is undeniable; and that in the long and heated discussions of the seventeenth century between Calvinists and Arminians, and between Calvinists themselves, many hard sayings were uttered by individual theologians which may be construed to prove that man is necessitated to sin, that God is the author of sin, and that the majority of mankind are lost, is equally undeniable. But the Westminster Confession must be held responsible for only what is declared on its pages. The question is not, whether few or many of the members of the Assembly held that some dying infants are lost, but whether the Confession so asserts; is not, whether any Calvinists of that day, in endeavoring to show how God decrees sin, may not have come perilously near representing him as doing it by direct efficiency, but whether the Reformed and Westminster creeds do this. 

     The rigor of the theology of the elder Calvinists has been exaggerated. They took a wide and large view of the possible extent of election. Owen is as strict as most of them. But in arguing against the Arminians, in support of the guilt and condemnability of original sin, he says: “Observe that in this inquiry of the desert of original sin, the question is not, What shall be the certain lot of those who depart this life under the guilt of this sin only? but what this hereditary and native corruption doth deserve, in all those in whom it is? For as St. Paul saith, ‘We judge not them that are without’ (especially infants), 1 Cor. 5:13. But for the demerit of it in the justice of God, our Saviour expressly affirmeth that ‘unless a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Again, we are assured that no unclean thing shall enter into heaven (Rev. 21). Children are polluted with hell-deserving uncleanness, and therefore unless it be purged with the blood of Christ, they have no interest in everlasting happiness. By this means sin is come upon all to condemnation, and yet we do not peremptorily censure to hell all infants departing out of this world without the laver of regeneration [i.e., baptism], the ordinary means of waiving the punishment due to this pollution. That is the question de facto, which we before rejected: yea, and two ways there are whereby God saveth such infants, snatching them like brands from the fire. First, by interesting them into the covenant, if their immediate or remote parents have been believers. He is a God of them, and of their seed, extending his mercy unto a thousand generations of them that fear him. Secondly, by his grace of election, which is most free and not tied to any conditions; by which I make no doubt but God taketh many unto him in Christ whose parents never knew, or had been despisers of the gospel. And this is the doctrine of our Church, agreeable to the Scriptures affirming the desert of original sin to be God’s wrath and damnation” (Owen: Arminianism, Ch. vii.). This is the salvation of infants by both covenanted and uncovenanted mercy, and Owen maintains that it is a tenet of Calvinism. That he does not assert the classical election of infants is true; but he asserts the individual election of some infants outside of the Church. 

     Such, then, is the Westminster doctrine of the Divine Decree. It is the common Augustino-Calvinistic doctrine. No part of it can be spared, and retain the integrity of the system. Whatever may have been the intention of the few first proposers of revision; or whatever may be the intention of the many various advocates of it who have joined them; the grave question before all parties now is, Whether the Presbyterian Church shall adhere to the historical Calvinism with which all its past usefulness and honor are inseparably associated, or whether it shall renounce it as an antiquated system which did good service in its day, but can do so no longer. The votes of the presbyteries within the coming six months will answer this question.

(William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure And Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893], pp. 65-71.)

William G. T. Shedd:

We proceed now to consider the second question, How wide and extensive is his agency during this period? How many of the human family, have we reason from Scripture to hope and believe, he will regenerate here upon earth? 

     Before proceeding to answer this question, a preliminary remark is to be made. It is utterly improbable that such a stupendous miracle as the incarnation, humiliation, passion, and crucifixion of one of the Persons of the Godhead, should yield a small and insignificant result; that this amazing mystery of mysteries, “which the angels desire to look into,” and which involves such an immense personal sacrifice on the part of the Supreme Being, should have a lame and impotent conclusion. On a priori grounds, therefore, we have reason to conclude that the Gospel of the Cross will be successful, and the Christian religion a triumph on the earth and among the race of creatures for whom it was intended. But this can hardly be the case, if only a small fraction of the human family are saved. The presumption, consequently, is that the great majority of mankind, not the small minority of it, will be the subjects of redeeming grace. What, then, is the teaching of Revelation upon this subject? 

     1. In the first place, we have ground for believing that all of mankind who die in infancy will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. The proof of this is not so abundant as for some other doctrines, but it is sufficient for faith. (a) Scripture certainly teaches that the children of the regenerate are “bound up in the bundle of life” with their parents. “The promise [of the Holy Spirit] is unto you and your children” (Acts 2:38, 39). “If the root be holy, so are the branches” (Rom. 11:16). “The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14). This is salvation by covenanted mercy, concerning which there is little dispute. (b) The salvation of infants outside of the covenant, is plainly supported by the language of Christ respecting “little children” as a special class. “They brought unto him infants that he would touch them. And he said, Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:15, 16). The reason here assigned why infants constitute a part of the kingdom of God is their infancy, not their moral character. They belong to it solely because they are “little children,” not because they are sinless. Our Lord teaches that they are sinful, in saying, “Suffer little children to come unto me;” for no sinless beings need to come to a Saviour. This phraseology respecting infants is as all-inclusive as that respecting the “poor in spirit,” and cannot be restricted to a part of them. When Christ says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” he means that this kingdom belongs to them as poor in spirit, and because they are poor in spirit, and consequently belongs to all the poor in spirit. And, similarly, when he says, “Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God,” he means that this kingdom is composed of such considered as little children, and because they are little children, and consequently is composed of all the little children. Had he intended to limit his statement to some infants, he would have said, ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων ἐστίν. Infancy is an age that is singled out by the Saviour by which to prove a membership in the kingdom of God from the very age itself, and is the only age. He does not say that youths or adults constitute a part of the kingdom of God solely because of their youth, or their manhood. Other Scripture proofs of the salvation of infants are, Matt. 18:10, 14, “Their angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven. It is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” In 2 Sam. 12:23, David is confident of the salvation of his infant child; but in 2 Sam. 18:33, he is not confident of the salvation of his adult son. In Jonah 4:11, God expresses a special interest in the infant population of Nineveh. 

     The Protestant Church understands the Bible to declare that all who die in infancy die regenerate. Probably all evangelical denominations, without committing themselves to the statements of the Westminster Confession concerning “election,” would be willing to say that all dying infants “are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth” (Conf. x. 3). But this is the regeneration and salvation of one-half of the human family. This of itself pours over human existence a mild and cheering light. “Whom the gods love, die young,” said the heathen, without any knowledge of God’s compassion for man in his “dear Son.” Much more, then, may the Christian under the irradiation of the gospel expect that the infinite mercy of God, by “the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” will bring all the “little children” into holiness and heaven. The gloom of Virgil’s description,

“Continuo anditæ voces, vagitus et ingens 

Infantumque animæ flentes in limine primo,”

is changed into the brightness of that of the prophet, “The streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof” (Zech. 8:10); and of the Redeemer’s citation from the Psalms, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise” (Matt. 21:16).

(William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure And Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893], pp. 131-133.)

John Piper:

Will Infants Who Die Inherit Eternal Joy?

How will the suffering and death of children be set right? When I consider the final display of God’s justice at the day of judgment, I see God exercising a standard of judgment that opens the door for infants who die in this world to be saved from condemnation. I do not deny the sinfulness of every human from the moment of conception. “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). I believe that all humans are “appointed sinners” by Adam’s disobedience (Rom. 5:19, my translation). I believe God does no wrong when he takes the life of any child (Job 1:21-22). He owns it (Ps. 100:3) and may take it when he pleases (Dan. 5:23).

     Nevertheless, there is a standard of judgment that Paul expresses that causes me to think that God has chosen, and will save, those who die in infancy. That standard is expressed in Romans 1:19-20:

What can be known about God is plain to them [all people], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

The words “so they are without excuse” show that God’s principle of judgment is that someone who does not have access to the knowledge Paul speaks of will indeed “have an excuse.” That access involves both the objective revelation in nature (which he says is fully adequate), and the natural ability in the observer to see and construe what God has revealed.[fn. 3: The term natural ability is used to distinguish this capacity from moral ability, which fallen people do not have, and which is not a prerequisite for moral accountability. Moral ability is the capacity to see the glory of God for the beauty that it is and be drawn to esteem it for what it is worth. But in our natural condition we are blind and thus lacking in this moral ability (2 Cor. 4:4). More on this distinction between natural and moral inability can found in Sam Storms’s article “The Will: Fettered Yet Free,” Desiring God, September 1, 2004, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the -will-fettered-yet-free. It is also clarifying to think of the term inability with the same contrasting modifiers, natural and moral. Here is how Jonathan Edwards distinguishes them: “We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we can’t do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature don’t allow of it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will; either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination; or the strength of a contrary inclination; or the want of sufficient motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary. Or both these may be resolved into one; and it may be said in one word, that moral inability consists in the opposition or want of inclination. For when a person is unable to will or choose such a thing, through a defect of motives, or prevalence of contrary motives, ‘tis the same thing as his being unable through the want of an inclination, or the prevalence of a contrary inclination, in such circumstances, and under the influence of such views.” Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, ed. Harry S. Stout and Paul Ramsey, vol. 1, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 159-60.] The words “have been clearly perceived” in verse 20 imply that this natural ability involves a perception through mental reflection (νοούμενα καθορᾶται).

     What I am arguing is that infants don’t have this perception through mental reflection, and therefore do not have access to the revelation of God, and therefore will be treated by God as having an excuse at the judgment day. Not in the sense of being guiltless (because of original sin), but in the sense that God has established a principle of judgment by which he will not condemn those who in this life lacked access to general revelation. How he will save these infants is a matter of speculation. But it will be in a way that glorifies Jesus’s blood and righteousness as the only ground of acceptance with God (Rom. 3:24-25), and in a way that honors faith as the only means of enjoying this provision (Rom. 3:28; 5:1).[fn. 4: For a fuller defense of this position of infant salvation, see Matt Perman, “What Happens to Infants Who Die?,” Desiring God, January 23, 2006, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what -happens-to-infants-who-die.]

(John Piper, Providence, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2020], pp. 507-508.)

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria