The Infant Hermeneutic

Elect infants dying in infancy are (John 3:3-6) regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how He pleaseth; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” (London Confession of Faith of 1689: Chapter 10, Article 3)

One of the arguments set forth by many of my former acquaintances who deny a "means" form of salvation is by speculating about the salvation of those who die in infancy. Even here, however, they demonstrate a novelty. Our Old Baptist forefathers looked at the "no-means" salvation of little ones as an exception to the rule. Not so with our moderns! Their minds have been conditioned to think that God has exactly one way of saving souls. Since infants, as far as our finite minds can tell, are saved without being exposed to the outward ministry of the Word then the same must be true of adults. To many, this infant extrapolation is enough to settle the matter that salvation can not be the means of salvation, and any scriptural passages which seem to suggest otherwise must be interpreted another way. Thus an avenue is created which may lead into the time salvation argument.

The salvation of the infant has evolved into somewhat of a hermeneutic employed by those who stand in opposition to gospel means. I know this is true because it used to be one of my own; that is until the Lord showed me my error. I started seeing that the framers of the confession were correct on this issue. The measuring stick for how salvation occurs should be the plain statements of the Bible. They should have the priority over an unwarranted extrapolation of the salvation of infants to that of cognitive agents.

A few years ago I attempted to write some on this problem facing many of those who are opposed to the means scheme. I thought I would post it in hopes that the Lord would use it to demonstrate that infant salvation is no cause for rejecting the position occupied by the Particular Baptists.

....

Let us begin with what is probably the strongest objection of all: the certain failure of the gospel to reach the dying fetus and/or infant. We ourselves think it very telling that we are forced to even treat of this issue. Our Baptist forefathers did not see the regeneration of infants as a major hindrance, but explicitly declared in their Confessions the use of means in effectual calling. It must be admitted that in our day and amongst our people this is no longer the case. It is not our present inquiry to ascertain what it is that has caused such a shift in thinking, but let it suffice for now to know that infant salvation plays a MAJOR role in shaping the beliefs of many of today’s Primitive Baptists, or so we ourselves have found. It is our belief that many of our moderns place too much emphasis on this subject, some even making it a personal hermeneutic around which they fashion their entire theological framework! The logic goes like this. Little ones can’t hear the gospel, can’t believe, and can’t repent. Therefore, subjective faith and holiness aren’t necessarily integrated with regeneration and the subsequent life of those thus regenerated. This is a tragic conclusion, as it is an utter repudiation of the New Testament description of eternal salvation. It sorrows us to bring an indictment upon many, but “to draw from speculation about the regeneration of infants a deduction which flies in the face of Scripture is thoroughly unjustifiable procedure” (Waldron, A MODERN EXPOSITION OF THE 1689 BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH). In other words, an honest unbiased approach to the scriptures will lead one to the conclusion that regeneration is accomplished through means. A no-means form of regeneration inferred from infant speculation clashes with what the scriptures explicitly declare about the subject. Several key passages exist within the Bible in which the Word of God and regeneration are clearly yoked together (e.g. Acts 26:15-18; Rom. 6:17; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 1 Peter 1:22-25) . To confront such texts with the preconception that infants are regenerated without means, deduce from it the notion that the same must therefore apply to the audience unto whom these texts were addressed (i.e. adults), is a dangerous rule of interpretation. A bible believer should not allow that which is shrouded in mystery such as the exact “how” of infant salvation influence and shape the development of his soteriology. The subject of infant salvation is something of which the scriptures say very little. To draw a conclusion from that which may very well be a “secret thing” which belongs to the Lord, and push it upon texts where the audience, unlike infants, are cognitive agents, is dangerous exegesis! The sad result of this would be (and we are seeing it happen) is that many passages which treat of gospel instrumentality are interpreted erroneously; the most popular of which being, of course, looking at it in a ‘timely’ framework. In addition, it results in an interpretation of the text which has absolutely no historical warrant. Our Baptist forefathers prior to the 19th century and other great men of God in the past did not view passages in this light, but let the plain teachings of “means” texts dictate their position on regeneration and viewed the case of little ones as an exception to this general rule. The pattern of thinking today is completely opposite to this, as many now treat little ones as the rule by which the whole mechanism of regeneration must be formulated. To writers of antiquity, the salvation of infants was the exception. To our moderns, it's the standard!

Our own experience in this controversy is what originally stirred our minds into viewing this infant logic as detrimental to a proper understanding of regeneration; yea, even biblical interpretation as a whole. The author cannot tell you how often he has sat amongst a circle of church-goers pondering a particular idea (not just our current topic), only to have it denied simply because it would not fit with the fetus that was only alive for ten seconds!!! Indeed, no sooner than it is even suggested that the Word of God might possibly play some role in regeneration it is promptly dismissed with ‘What about the fetus’? Reader, are you so bold as to renounce the whole New Testament teaching on regeneration based on something the Bible never really talks about. Our Baptist forefathers were not motivated with such an interpretative spirit as this, nor should we. It is terribly wrong to reject the use of means based solely on this infant deduction when it “flies in the face” of God’s word.

This brings us then to the ever-important question: Does the Bible allow room for exceptions, or must we pursue a single method of regeneration characteristic of all the elect without exception, including the fetus, the infant, the mentally disabled, and any other extraordinary cases? If the latter, then we must reject the confessional point above and charge the Baptist forefathers with error, ever claiming that infants are regenerated in the exact same way as adults. If the former, then it becomes our duty to determine by what authority we can declare infants an exception to the rule of regeneration through means. We must locate how and where the Bible sanctions such a position which would allow infants to become such. We ourselves know of no explicit text(s) which treat of the mode of infant regeneration, so either one of two things must be true. Either the scriptures are absolutely silent on the matter, or it is implicitly revealed within the same. As for our part, we hold to the latter, and now adventure to set forth our case, bearing one very important point in mind. It is unsafe for anyone to dogmatically proclaim anything in regards to infant salvation as the full disclosure of it exists only within the mind of God. Nevertheless, we now make an attempt to provide an answer to this foreseen objection by our critics. We will do so by appealing to a general lesson found within God’s word.

The Bible reveals the children of God. It tells us who they are and what they do. The scriptures are literally full of texts which describe the elect family of God in some way or another. Yet let us pause here for one moment and ponder a very important question. When the bible makes such references, are the descriptions given always inclusive of infants, or are they declarations for the elect in general? Consider this question deeply, dear reader, for it is a crucial one. Let us take a simple description from scripture, shall we? In the book of Malachi a very touching description of the people of God is given:

“Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him” (3:16-17).

Here we are given a wonderful description of the holiness of the elect family of God and are told that a book was written on their behalf. They are said to be those which “feared the Lord” and “thought upon his name”. On behalf of no one else is this book to be written. Yet if we apply the IT-MUST-APPLY-TO-EVERY-CHILD-OF-GOD rule in order to be an acceptable assertion, then we run into a big problem. The infant does not “fear the Lord” and he does not think upon the Lord’s name, as he has not the current mental capacity to do so. But if I or any other minister were to ascend into the pulpit and trumpet forth the truth that the people of God fear the Lord and think on His name, what man would stand up in objection, claim it heresy, because it cannot be made to square with little ones???? Ah, there would be no alarm, for it is obvious that they are an exception!

You probably see now, dear reader, what we are asserting. If biblical declarations which reference the family of God must always be inclusive of fetuses and/or infants before it is true, then we will find ourselves denying many other biblical assertions as well.

In order to affirm how important this revelation is let us consider more statements from the word of God. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (12:6), and those without such chastisement are “bastards, and not sons” (12:8). But can we adhere to this, knowing full well that the dying fetus never lives long enough to be chastened by God? And God forbid that we should go further and claim that they are not sons of God and the objects of His love! Obviously, there is an implicit exception contained in this passage. There are some which the Lord does love whom he does not chasten! What of Paul’s statement to the Galatians where we are informed that they which belong to Christ “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (5:24)? Is Paul misinformed here, for the dying fetus never has an opportunity to do such a thing, or do they mortify their carnal appetites in the fleeting moments before they pass from this life? Again, we are informed that eternal life shall be given to those who “seek for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:7). But what of the fate of the dying fetus which never seeks for anything, much less, for immortality? Shall God not give him immortality? Lastly, Jesus tells us that every branch in Him that bears no fruit shall be taken away (John 15:1). Will the fetus be included in this judgment because they die before they can ever become fruit-bearers? Certainly not!

In not one of these examples can the case of little ones who perish be made to fit with the persons in view. None of them are chastened by God! None of them crucify their affections! And none of them seek for immortality! Yet not one of us stands up in objection to these doctrines, but we all in unison proclaim them as truth! So why then would we deny the proposal that God regenerates His people via the gospel because it cannot meet with the case of little ones, and yet receive the above assertions when they obviously exclude the same company!!!!!? Shocking inconsistency!

It is here that we uncover an important fundamental characteristic of the inspired word of God. It is the design of the scriptures to make general declarations for the whole of the body. Is it not understood that the above examples make reference to the elect in a general manner? Does the failure of little ones meeting such descriptions hinder us in any way of proclaiming those statements as solid truth!? God forbid! The Holy Spirit did not hesitate or refrain from asserting a truth through the apostles’ pen simply because He knew it would not apply to the infant/fetus! He knew that his audience would be those who had come to some age of maturity, and it was unto them He catered his teachings. When the bible describes the family of God, it goes without saying that it is appealing to them as having come to some measure of adulthood with a rational conscious! In other words, cognitive agents! It is in that light in which we ourselves ought to read the scriptures. We should not pause at every instance in reading God’s word and ascertain as to whether it applies to fetuses and infants before we acknowledge it as truth! Were it our practice to do so, we would reject every elect-focused text in the Bible in which they are described as having a cognitive disposition.

Thus, while one may disagree with our proposal, we do not think that the case of the dying fetus and infant are sufficient reasons presented to refute it. What we are saying amounts to this. Dying fetuses and infants are an exception to the rule of regeneration by means of the Word, as far as our finite minds can tell. But the exception to the rule should not compel us to change the rule, or hinder us from proclaiming it! We still contend for a uniform method of salvation, not letting special cases which meet not the criteria alter our opinion.

“The Holy Spirit doth make use of it [the Word] in the regeneration or conversion of all that are adult, and that either immediately in and by the preaching of it, or by some other application of light and truth unto the mind derived from the Word” (John Owen).