Bringing Up Baby

What happens to someone that dies in infancy? Do they inherit heaven or are they damned to hell? Though the question has been a puzzle since the early days of Christendom (Gregory of Nyssa wrote a treatise on the topic in the 4th century), it seems to have become a question of great concern in the Church in recent decades. Partly because it (!SPOILER ALERT!) remains unanswered, but mostly because the theology behind many people's speculation results in an unnerving conclusion. Therefore, one's answer to the question of infant salvation is a scope into one's overall understanding of sin and salvation.

Before trying to provide an answer, we must first understand the reason why the question is asked in the first place. The common understanding goes something like: all men have sinned; as such, they are in need of a savior; Jesus Christ died for our sins and if we place our faith in him, we will achieve the salvation which we need. Infants, however, are unable to have faith, and therefore the difficulty arises. For how then can infants be saved from damnation?

Age of Accountability

The most common answer in the modern church is the doctrine of the age of accountability. The doctrine states that one is only culpable for his sins once he has reached a mental/spiritual age in which he is knowledgeable of his sins and understands the implications and effects of them and capable of an appropriate response. The child need not necessarily understand the Bible's exact teaching on sin (i.e., that his sins condemn him to hell), only that there is a moral right and a moral wrong, and understand that he is able to willfully choose one or the other.

In other words, the general teaching here is that God inherently has forgiven our sins before this age of accountability. The age, of course, does not correspond to an exact physical age, but is linked, as said above, to a mental age. This leads some of the doctrine's adherents to additionally claim that God does not hold the mentally retarded accountable to their sins either. Alternatively, some claim that the infants are actually without sin until the age of accountability, that what we would call sinful acts in adults are not sinful in infants.

The doctrine of the age of accountability is, of course, an attempt to provide a comfortable answer to the concern that infants are apparently unable to express faith. Likewise, they are apparently unable to repent of their sins. And if, the adherents say, there is no salvation without faith, then the infants cannot otherwise be saved. And since they are not comfortable with a God who would thusly damn those who seem innocent, they have concocted the doctrine.

I say concocted, since the doctrine has no basis in Scripture. It is entirely an attempt at providing comfort to those who do not fully understand the Bible's teaching on sin and salvation. Specifically, it stems from a denial of the doctrines of original sin and salvation by grace alone. It stems from the fact that the original 'common understanding' of the order of salvation, stated four paragraphs above, is flawed in those two doctrines.

Original Sin

The doctrine of original sin, though found throughout the Bible, finds its primary exposition in Romans 5. Here Paul lays out what is called by theologians federalism, not to be confused with political federalism (though I do find it ironic that I am federalist in both politics and theology; and anti-libertarian in both politics and theology). Paul describes man as being represented in history by two figures: Adam and Christ. By 'represented', I do not mean symbolically like an archetype; rather by 'represented', Paul talks of Adam and Christ as being proxies for mankind.

Adam was the first of these proxies and when Adam sinned, sin was brought upon all of mankind (Rom 5:12). Paul is not saying here that man was cursed with the possibility of sin. He is saying that God held the sin of Adam against all of mankind. We can rightly place the blame for the curse of sin on Adam. We are still individually responsible for the sin that we individually commit, for we do willingly commit it, but the initial sin of Adam is the reason we each have a will corrupted by sin. In theological terms, the sin of Adam was imputed upon all men.

This is a doctrine which is offensive to the ears of the modern church, a church which has eagerly adopted the individualism of our culture. For it says that before you committed a single sin, you were guilty (Rom 5:18). Furthermore, it was a man not of your own choosing who brought the curse of sin upon you. How undemocratic and unjust it sounds to our ears! We would much prefer to be our own Adam, determining for ourselves whether to take on the curse of sin. The reality is, however, that God did choose Adam as a proxy for mankind in his own wisdom and for his own glory. It is the clear teaching of Scripture.

The important aspect of this for the purposes of our present discussion is, that just as the adult has inherited sin from Adam, so has the infant: all are in sin and iniquity from the womb (Ps 51:5). It doesn't matter whether the infant has visibly committed sin or is even cognizant of the sin he may be committing. He has already been condemned with Adam. The condition for accountability for sin is not a mental state, but is existence itself.

So how then is an infant to be saved? For does not salvation require a confession of faith and repentance from one's sins? How can an infant repent from his sin, when he is presumably incapable of even recognizing it? This is where a correct understanding of salvation by grace alone is helpful.

Sola Gratia

Most Christians know and love Ephesians 2:8: 'For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.' The meaning is quite plain. Salvation comes by grace, a completely unmerited gift of favor. Further, what we have done is no precondition for salvation.

Yet the majority of the church misunderstands the verse. They instead read it as saying, 'For by faith you have been saved through grace.' For the church preaches that if one has faith, then one will receive salvation. This is the great Arminian Switcheroo (yes, that's the technical term for it). It trades the Catholic system of salvation by manifold works for a system of salvation by one great work, namely faith. In other words, we have merited grace by our faith.

What we thereby end up saying is, that what differentiates us from non-Christians is a work of faith. The reason why we Christians have salvation, we tell each other, is because we have faith: if those who do not have faith would gain faith, then God would grant to them, too, saving grace. But this is not the teaching of Scripture! The teaching of Ephesians 2:8 - and the teaching throughout Scripture - is that grace precedes faith; faith is the evidence and fruit of grace, of God's salvation working in us. There is nothing that we do - not even when we express faith - which is a condition of our salvation. Before the foundation of the world - before we had any chance at all to express our faith - God chose us in his grace to be saved (Eph 1:4). If we take the grace out of the picture, we have also taken God out of the picture.

We can sure of our salvation when we are witness to our own faith. Not because the faith has saved us, but because it is the fruit and evidence of our salvation. Our regeneration precedes our faith.

The Second Half of Federalism
(AKA The Gospel)

So what does this mean? To answer this, we must return to federalism and pick up where we left off, with Adam bringing condemnation upon all of humanity. That, fortunately for us, is not the end of the story. For God sent a second proxy in Christ. And in Christ were two more imputations which would mean the salvation of the world, for which we will consider 2 Corinthians 5:21, in addition to Romans 5.

Firstly, man's sin was imputed to Christ, so that Christ might die for our sins (2Cor 5:21). By '[dying] for our sins' we mean that he took upon the full penalty of death which was due to our sins, so that we ourselves might not be punished for them. For God is just, and sin requires punishment that he might remain just. In return, just as Adam was the proxy who brought on us sin, so Christ was the proxy who brought on us righteousness (Rom 5:18-9). Christ imputed his righteousness on us.

Thus, we understand that God did know what he was doing after all with all that federalism! Without the federal proxy of Adam, there would neither be the federal proxy of Christ. If we were each our own Adam, we would also need to be our own Christ. Is it not just like our sinful and selfish selves to shun the federal headship of Adam and the sin he imputes to us as unjust, but to embrace the federal headship of Christ and the righteousness he graciously imputes to us? Nevertheless, despite this further manifestation of our sin, all those who are in Christ will receive this righteousness on the merit of Christ alone.

Return to Infancy

So we must ask: what does this mean for infants? The ultimate answer is that Scripture is agnostic on the 'salvation status' of individual infants, or even on infants in general. However, the doctrines found in Scripture allow us to know that God does act justly, without having to fabricate a doctrine, such as the age of accountability.

Instead, we know that infants are treated like any other human. They are all born dead in the sin of Adam and will remain dead, unless the grace of God comes upon them. On the same hand, though, neither are they any less capable of receiving God's saving grace than an adult. For if there is nothing that man does which gains him salvation, then an inability to do works cannot preclude one from salvation. They are just as capable of receiving the imputation of Christ's righteousness as anyone else. They may be incapable of expressing this salvation in the ways we expect of adults (how can we know what an expression of faith looks like in an infant anyways?), but it does not mean that they have not been saved.

I would note that several Reformed theologians have speculated on the general and specific salvation of infants, but have quickly admitted that they are but speculations with little, if any, Scriptural basis. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, believed that death in infancy was actually a sign of election, that only those who had been saved were allowed to die in infancy. Peter Martyr adhered strictly to the agnostic view that probably at least some infants were saved, but without witnessing the fruits of salvation, we cannot be sure. Friedrich Spanheim, expanding upon Covenant Theology (perhaps too much), believed that the children of believers were likewise saved and those of unbelievers were likewise unsaved. John Owen believed that the children of believers were surely saved, but the status of those of unbelievers was unsure.

We have assurance, though, that those whom God has elected unto salvation will be saved. No one will 'lose out' on salvation simply because he died in infancy. If one of the elect is to die in infancy, we know that God will remain just and save them in their infancy. The justice of God - and his sovereign execution of that justice - in his work of salvation should always remain the ultimate comfort for all believers.