Paedo-Baptism Answers Canons of Dort 1.17 - Election of Infants Dying in Infancy

De Jager

De Jager

Puritan Board Junior
Good afternoon,

I post this in the Paedobaptist-Answers subforum because I am looking for answers from that perspective. I know there is not unanimity among Reformed folks on this article, even within the Dutch Reformed circles. Here is the article:

Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy.

In the original latin:

Quandoquidem de voluntate Dei ex verbo ipsius nobis est judicandum, quod testatur liberos fidelium esse sanctos, non quidem natura, sed beneficio fœderis gratuiti, in quo illi cum parentibus comprehenduntur, pii parentes de electione et salute suorum liberorum, quos Deus in infantia ex hac vita evocat, dubitare non debent.

Google translation to English:

Since it is for us to judge of the will of God from his word, which testifies that the children of the faithful are holy, not indeed by nature, but by the grace of a gratuitous covenant, in which they are included with their parents, pious parents concerning the election and salvation of their children, whom God, in infancy, from this life he calls out, they must not doubt.

I have spoken strongly about this article in the past, but am starting to have my own doubts about it. This is particularly pertinent to me because if I am to be an officebearer in our church, I must sign the Form of Subscription, saying I believe all points in the 3 forms of unity. I am looking for some help to better understand this article and the biblical understanding of this topic.

I affirm the following:

1. Our children are given real covenant promises, and they are promises made in good faith, by God.
2. The covenant promises are given to all our children, head for head, i.e. all those in the visible church.
3. Election is narrower than the covenant. I.e. the invisible church is within the visible church.
4. For the elect, the promises are realized through faith, and this faith is a gift of God.
5. Faith manifests itself in the life of a believer, in works of righteousness, devotion to God, etc.
6. For the reprobate, their reprobation results in never receiving this gift of faith, and thus never responding to God's promises in faith.
7. A lack of faith also manifests itself, in works of unrighteousness, indifference to God, etc.
8. Infants cannot show fruits of faith or of unbelief.

My hangup is this: since infants cannot show the fruits of faith or of unbelief, would it not be safer to simply say "we don't know" when it comes to them? You might say, that is not much of a comfort. That is true, but of course we are not entitled to every comfort. There are many things that we would like to know that God does not tell us.

Matthew Henry however, writes this, in his commentary on 2 Samuel 12, regarding the status of David's infant who died in infancy:

Godly parents have great reason to hope concerning their children that die in infancy that it is well with their souls in the other world; for the promise is to us and to our seed, which shall be performed to those that do not put a bar in their own door, as infants do not. Favores sunt ampliandi—Favours received should produce the hope of more. God calls those his children that are born unto him; and, if they be his, he will save them. This may comfort us when our children are removed from us by death, they are better provided for, both in work and wealth, than they could have been in this world. We shall be with them shortly, to part no more.

These are extremely beautiful words. And it is my conviction also, that David was convinced that his child was with the Lord, and that David would be there with him one day. The question then becomes, on what basis would David think such a thing? There is no evidence that he was given any kind of special revelation. That leaves us with relying on God's covenant promises. But my trouble with this is that we know that God's covenant promises are rejected in the lives of the reprobate. So, while all our children are given the promises, head for head, not all our children are saved, head for head. What is it about the case of infants dying in infancy that allows our forefathers to be so sure they are elect?

OR: is this article speaking only regarding the attitude of parents when they have a child who dies infancy? Something like this: God has only ever revealed his good will towards the little ones of believers - he has given his promises to them, he has provided for them in every biblical narrative, Jesus receives them when their parents bring them to Him - therefore on what basis could you possibly question their election and salvation? To question it would be to try and pry into God's secret decree?

But it seems as though the Canons say to believing parents who have lost children in infancy: "your children are heaven, and that's a 100% guarantee".
 
I’m struggling with this very thing as well. I’ll wait and give a detailed response after others have given their thoughts concerning this very deep subject.

thanks for posting this topic, Brother!
 
I agree with your conviction, but I don't necessarily have a hangup with the original English translation you posted. I think that as a parent who believes that the promise of the covenant is for me and for my children, that I have good reason to believe that my children, dying in infancy, are elect. I "have no reason to doubt" that.

Do I know for certain they are elect? No, but I "have no reason to doubt" it.
 
At the end of the day, you shall not base your confidence in anyone's eternal destiny on observed or observable "fruit" or its absence. You base your confidence on God and his word. He has made promises, you are obliged to believe them. In the case of an infant, all you have is the promise of God to be your God and your child's God, i.e. his Redeemer. This is the revelation David was given, and we now possess.

So Christian, what is your duty? Dear Christian parent, in the face of your loss and uncertainty, what ought you hold onto? Are you left with nothing? Are you left in a vague cloudy place of nebulous possibility? Or has God made you a promise, and do you have reason to think anything less? Is the apostasy of some covenant children a valid reason to turn a robust confidence based on divine promise into a sentimental hope at best?
 
Logan said:
I agree with your conviction, but I don't necessarily have a hangup with the original English translation you posted. I think that as a parent who believes that the promise of the covenant is for me and for my children, that I have good reason to believe that my children, dying in infancy, are elect. I "have no reason to doubt" that.

Do I know for certain they are elect? No, but I "have no reason to doubt" it.
Click to expand...
If that's all I had to affirm, I think I could do it.

But it is my understanding that many in our circles interpret the article as saying "your child is 100%, most definitely, elect". That's different from allowing some uncertainty and saying "I have no reason to believe the contrary".
 
Contra_Mundum said:
At the end of the day, you shall not base your confidence in anyone's eternal destiny on observed or observable "fruit" or its absence. You base your confidence on God and his word. He has made promises, you are obliged to believe them. In the case of an infant, all you have is the promise of God to be your God and your child's God, i.e. his Redeemer. This is the revelation David was given, and we now possess.

So Christian, what is your duty? Dear Christian parent, in the face of your loss and uncertainty, what ought you hold onto? Are you left with nothing? Are you left in a vague cloudy place of nebulous possibility? Or has God made you a promise, and do you have reason to think anything less? Is the apostasy of some covenant children a valid reason to turn a robust confidence based on divine promise into a sentimental hope at best?
Click to expand...

1st Paragraph:

Isn't the book of 1st John essentially written as a way of Christians to make their own calling and election sure, through the investigation or real visible fruits? I would have a hard time accepting that we are not to make conclusions either way based on observable evidence. Yes, God has made promises, but the content of these promises are apprehended through faith. God promised Israel the land of Canaan, and yet a whole generation of them fell in the wilderness. The problem was not with God's promise, the problem was that the generation of people lacked faith to take God at his word. Even so, God makes good and sure promises to us and our children, but if they are not apprehended by a God-given, spirit-wrought faith, those promises will not be realized...right? Am I off base here?

I think perhaps I am not understanding the nature of God's promises.
 
Is the problem then not so much with the Canons as with other people's interpretation of it?

If I was in that situation I would merely say what I believe them to be saying and that I affirm it. Or if I think they are saying something else then explain my exception and my understanding (e.g., quoting Matthew Henry or the WCF).
 
@De Jager , is your tension:

1. the optimistic certainty of the language of Dort, as you perceive it?
2. the erring on the side of optimism in the death of a covenant child. i.e you prefer to be silent, or be pessimistic about it
 
In addition to what has been shared, if you search for the word "infancy" in the Acts document that David Jonescue provided in the following thread, it might shed some light:

Canons of Dort - Sources that Elucidate Original Intent

Is anyone aware of sources that help elucidate original intent on the phrasing of various articles in the Canons of Dort? I am thinking of early commentaries, letters, treatises involving the right understanding of the canons, etc. At this time, I am particularly desirous to look further into...
puritanboard.com puritanboard.com
 
Polanus1561 said:
@De Jager , is your tension:

1. the optimistic certainty of the language of Dort, as you perceive it?
2. the erring on the side of optimism in the death of a covenant child. i.e you prefer to be silent, or be pessimistic about it
Click to expand...

At the heart of it, I don't understand how we can be absolutely, 100% certain that God's promises of salvation and redemption have been fulfilled in the life of a person if there is no evidence either way. In the case of a person who grows up in the church, professes faith, lives a godly life, and dies, we believe the person to be in glory. Of course we could be wrong, but the evidence is that the person was truly elect. We can be confident, but of course we cannot know with 100% certainty.

In the case of an infant who dies or in certain disabled people who die, there is no evidence of acceptation or rejection of the covenant promises. There is no evidence of faith, there is no evidence of unbelief. So is such a person elect or reprobate? The WCF does not try to answer that question. Article 17 of head 1 of the canons, which is the section on election and reprobation, appears to say with absolute certainty that such persons are elect. If this is the case, then the Canons inadvertently say that we should more certain about the election of an infant who dies in infancy than about anyone else in the entire church. But are the Canons actually saying this? Or are mean simply interpreting the Canons to say this?

The Canons base the assurance of this on the fact that these persons are holy, and that God's promises are to them. I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that they are holy, at least in virtue of belonging to the covenant of grace, or the visible church. I also believe that as such, the promises are made to them. I also believe that God can easily regenerate such persons, saving them by the blood of Christ, and even grant them faith in a "seed" form, cf. David in Psalm 22. I don't deny that God can do any of this, I have doubts about whether he actually does, for every single person in the category of "infants of believers, dying in infancy".

At the same time, as mentioned earlier, I know that David, with confidence said "I will go to him". I don't believe David was speaking of some nebulous "sheol" or grave, but that he was speaking of being with his son, in glory. So the question is, how does David have such a confidence, on what basis is it, and can I have the same confidence.

As you can tell I am very confused.
 
De Jager said:
Isn't the book of 1st John essentially written as a way of Christians to make their own calling and election sure, through the investigation or real visible fruits? I would have a hard time accepting that we are not to make conclusions either way based on observable evidence. Yes, God has made promises, but the content of these promises are apprehended through faith. God promised Israel the land of Canaan, and yet a whole generation of them fell in the wilderness. The problem was not with God's promise, the problem was that the generation of people lacked faith to take God at his word. Even so, God makes good and sure promises to us and our children, but if they are not apprehended by a God-given, spirit-wrought faith, those promises will not be realized...right? Am I off base here?

I think perhaps I am not understanding the nature of God's promises.
Click to expand...
Why bring in an inquiry concerning fruits into a situation where these manifestly have no place? Neither is it the case that in 1Jn, or anywhere, do fruits of faith constitute a basis for security. The only and proper function of faith's fruits is to encourage us and others in supposing they do result from a real root. But there is also statement from God of fact, which in all cases (hope, doctrine, history, etc.) we accept as true regardless of whatever may stand apparently in opposition to his claim.

God declared to Israel, facing exile, casting off, disinheritance, and the extinction of the line of Messianic prophecy: there IS a root of Jesse, even if you don't see it. Roots may exist with no visible fruit. No real fruit exists that proceeds not from a real root; and there is false fruit, "fools gold" masquerading as faith's result. Give a root time, and it will show some evidence for itself. Meanwhile, the the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal: The Lord knows them that are his.

To whom is the promise, "I will be God to your child" made? Is it being made first to the child, or to the parent? "I will be your God," is the promise which every person, including a child, must embrace before it is effective unto faith. The parent is the person whose faith is tested by a hard providence that sees him bereaved of a child. He may say with Abraham, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" This is a statement of acceptance, being resigned to the will of God; but we don't have only that knowledge, but also knowledge of a particular promise that gives us as believing parents reason for better confidence still. We also have, for our comfort, the use (even for a short time!) of the means of grace. There is quite literally no reason for believing parents to doubt, and much reason to hope.
 
Scattered points on my end which I admit my weakness in this tender topic:

1. WCF formulation is safe but I cannot see any pastoral use for it. "If dear baby X was elect, he will be with Christ. Take heart."
2. I do not think silence in this situation is the answer.
3. I believe pastors ought to say something.
4. Has God in His Word at least provided an inclination to either hope or the absence of hope in the destiny of the death of a covenant child? Or there is no biblical evidence by which we can proceed and thus we are to be silent on this (for to not be silent is to presume something apart from God's word)
5. I believe we must proceed, and there are arguments by which we can be inclined to give the judgment of charity that a covenant infant who knows neither wrong nor right (Deut 1.39) is in the presence of God.
6. We admit God can save children in infancy. Is a parent to ignore this truth? No I do not think so. If a parent then considers this truth, it cannot be a 50-50 coinflip that God saves or did not save, and the general principle of judgment of charity has to prevail. A child that God says is His (Ezek. 16.21), a child that we have no reason is a different kind of child that Jesus would have gathered in His arms that one time.

When Cain was born, Eve believed him to be the Promised seed (a common interpretation). By the judgment of charity and in view of God's promise. There is something about the covenant and promise that leads us to again give the judgment of charity, to give us reason to hope.
 
Why bring in an inquiry concerning fruits into a situation where these manifestly have no place? Neither is it the case that in 1Jn, or anywhere, do fruits of faith constitute a basis for security. The only and proper function of faith's fruits is to encourage us and others in supposing they do result from a real root. But there is also statement from God of fact, which in all cases (hope, doctrine, history, etc.) we accept as true regardless of whatever may stand apparently in opposition to his claim.
Click to expand...

I agree that fruits do not constitute a basis for security, but they do provide us with assurance. And it is this assurance that is the reason why any minister would preach a different type of sermon and provide a different type of counsel in the case of the death of congregant, who, by all accounts was a faithful church member and loved Christ, as opposed to a person who rejects the church and walks away. Is it not the case that the fruit, or lack thereof, influences what we conclude about where a person goes?

In the situation of an infant, such observations of course are not possible. So in the absence of such fruit, where do we gain any assurance as to a person's election or reprobation? You and the Canons say, based on the promises of God. This is what I am trying to understand, how this is so.

God declared to Israel, facing exile, casting off, disinheritance, and the extinction of the line of Messianic prophecy: there IS a root of Jesse, even if you don't see it. Roots may exist with no visible fruit. No real fruit exists that proceeds not from a real root; and there is false fruit, "fools gold" masquerading as faith's result. Give a root time, and it will show some evidence for itself. Meanwhile, the the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal: The Lord knows them that are his.

To whom is the promise, "I will be God to your child" made? Is it being made first to the child, or to the parent? "I will be your God," is the promise which every person, including a child, must embrace before it is effective unto faith. The parent is the person whose faith is tested by a hard providence that sees him bereaved of a child. He may say with Abraham, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" This is a statement of acceptance, being resigned to the will of God; but we don't have only that knowledge, but also knowledge of a particular promise that gives us as believing parents reason for better confidence still. We also have, for our comfort, the use (even for a short time!) of the means of grace. There is quite literally no reason for believing parents to doubt, and much reason to hope.
Click to expand...

I see your point, that God has said "I will be the God of your child" to me, as a parent. And if I lose a child, I have to go back to that promise, made to me. In an outward sense, that is true of all covenant children, without exception. By virtue of the covenant of grace, God is "their God". But in an inward sense, the promise finds its fullest realization in the lives of the elect only. And we know that not all covenant children are elect. So how does the promise "I will be the God of your child", convince me that my child who dies is, without a single doubt, elect?
 
Polanus1561 said:
Scattered points on my end which I admit my weakness in this tender topic:

1. WCF formulation is safe but I cannot see any pastoral use for it. "If dear baby X was elect, he will be with Christ. Take heart."
2. I do not think silence in this situation is the answer.
3. I believe pastors ought to say something.
4. Has God in His Word at least provided an inclination to either hope or the absence of hope in the destiny of the death of a covenant child? Or there is no biblical evidence by which we can proceed and thus we are to be silent on this (for to not be silent is to presume something apart from God's word)
5. I believe we must proceed, and there are arguments by which we can be inclined to give the judgment of charity that a covenant infant who knows neither wrong nor right (Deut 1.39) is in the presence of God.
6. We admit God can save children in infancy. Is a parent to ignore this truth? No I do not think so. If a parent then considers this truth, it cannot be a 50-50 coinflip that God saves or did not save, and the general principle of judgment of charity has to prevail. A child that God says is His (Ezek. 16.21), a child that we have no reason is a different kind of child that Jesus would have gathered in His arms that one time.

When Cain was born, Eve believed him to be the Promised seed (a common interpretation). By the judgment of charity and in view of God's promise. There is something about the covenant and promise that leads us to again give the judgment of charity, to give us reason to hope.
Click to expand...
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed. But I struggle with the rock-solid certainty of the Canons, or its interpreters.
3. Agreed.
4. I believe he has given us good reasons to hope...the story of David and his son, the attitude of Jesus receiving the little children, the stories of God bringing ALL the little ones of believers along in his salvific acts (think: the ark, the passover, the crossing of the red sea). What I struggle with is the basis upon which the Canons conclude we "ought not doubt".
5. Thank you very much for this verse reference!! I had no idea this verse even existed.
6. Agreed.
 
De Jager said:
I agree that fruits do not constitute a basis for security, but they do provide us with assurance. And it is this assurance that is the reason why any minister would preach a different type of sermon and provide a different type of counsel in the case of the death of congregant, who, by all accounts was a faithful church member and loved Christ, as opposed to a person who rejects the church and walks away. Is it not the case that the fruit, or lack thereof, influences what we conclude about where a person goes?

In the situation of an infant, such observations of course are not possible. So in the absence of such fruit, where do we gain any assurance as to a person's election or reprobation? You and the Canons say, based on the promises of God. This is what I am trying to understand, how this is so.



I see your point, that God has said "I will be the God of your child" to me, as a parent. And if I lose a child, I have to go back to that promise, made to me. In an outward sense, that is true of all covenant children, without exception. By virtue of the covenant of grace, God is "their God". But in an inward sense, the promise finds its fullest realization in the lives of the elect only. And we know that not all covenant children are elect. So how does the promise "I will be the God of your child", convince me that my child who dies is, without a single doubt, elect?
Click to expand...
Assurance comes in various qualities, and assurance from fruit is both derivative, and potentially diversionary if it is raised beyond its true measure. I would not preach a sermon on the death of an aged parishioner that used the occasion to boast in the man's Christian "evidences," thereby to give comfort to his beloveds. He is not presently confident of his "filthy rags," so why should any of us left behind be? If I might say of him: that he stood faithfully in the means of grace until he had legs to stand no more, while doing and saying many fine Christian things; yet I would still not have the company rest their confidence even in the means of grace, but in the God of the means. I would proclaim the faithfulness of Christ, as the one in whom the departed long professed his hope, whose outward example all those present should imitate from the heart.

The basis for confidence (the word of God) is no different for any person, regardless of age; all that differs between members of the church, before or after their date of profession, is the opportunity for each to make a witness. If we care to compare the adult who walks away to the infant God publicly claimed at his baptism, we have reason to doubt of the former but no reason at hand for doubt of the latter. If we say, "I never saw any heartfelt faith in the babe," we are setting more store by the fact of fallen nature (not that we saw any heart-rejection of Christ) than the fact of that which God ordained we should declare by covenant sign over his own "offspring" (Ezk.16:20-21; Is.29:23; etc.).

The secret things belong to the Lord, the revealed things to us. Reformed people, unlike too many other types of professing believers, make precious use of the doctrine of election, and refuse to be afraid of it or shut it up in a cupboard where it may be forgotten. However, when we make the wrong use of it, the disparagers of election feel vindicated. Given we are not privy to the counsels of election, only the fact thereof, we do not base our judgment of any person's saved state on prior, divine knowledge of his status. We always make assessment of destination provisionally and cautiously, because we do not judge infallibly, and only where and when authorized; we hope even the acknowledged prodigal may prove his return to God.

We don't regard the returning prodigal as someone who must do more to establish his profession than ever before, and to make up for lost time, before he will be accepted. If he dies with only a bare profession of contrition and trust in Christ, compared to a host of sins, do we call the weight of evidence to bear against our hope? If so, I suppose we would never offer the thief on the cross that which Christ gave him. A helpless infant has less weight against him (compared to the prodigal); and if the child of believers, he has in his favor the declaration of God's claim--a claim just as strong as when God declares a notorious sinner ransomed for nothing else but faith in the righteousness of Christ.

"Stop doubting, and believe," Jn.20:27.
 
Hello Izaac @De Jager ,

As my library is on a ship in a container, possibly in port awaiting unloading and going into storage till I have a home to receive it, I will have to do what I can to address this pertinent topic. The best answer I have found is in the work, Believers and Their Seed: Children in the Covenant, by Herman Hoeksema, in Chapter 4, The Theory of Presupposed Regeneration Evaluated, p. 46. It may be accessed online here, at archive.org.

You may have to join (without cost) to read it for an hour, which can be repeated. I have met no finer understanding of baptism than in Hoeksema and his colleagues in the PRCA.

Sorry I cannot do more to help at this moment, but I see how important this is to you, so I do what I can.
 
Having been forced to consider this many years ago, I found the most clarity and comfort personally came from I Cor. 7.14. The same passage that convinced me that my children should be baptized because they are set apart, is also the same passage that comforted me when some of them passed away before they could be baptized. I particularly like the succinctness of the Geneva notes on this verse: "This place destroyeth the opinion of them that would not have children to be baptized, and their opinion also, that make baptism the very cause of salvation. For the children of the faithful are holy, by virtue of the covenant, even before Baptism, and baptism is added as the seal of that holiness." Logan pretty accurately summed up my thoughts when he said above:
Logan said:
I think that as a parent who believes that the promise of the covenant is for me and for my children, that I have good reason to believe that my children, dying in infancy, are elect. I "have no reason to doubt" that. Do I know for certain they are elect? No, but I "have no reason to doubt" it.
Click to expand...
I also think the WCF (10.3) is helpful when it states "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works
when, and where, and how He pleases..." It's not the first part I find helpful but the second. Ordinarily, "Faith manifests itself in the life of a believer, in works of righteousness, devotion to God, etc." But not always. Consider the thief on the cross. Not everyone (the dying criminal, the infant, the mentally incapacitated - or "all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" - rest of 10.3) has the opportunity for faith to manifest itself. Faith is ultimately unseen which is why the WCF goes to discuss how "Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved." (10.4).

Our interpretation of God's Word and our confessional statements should be viewed as graciously in this area as we view God as gracious. But I don't believe anyone can say you "your children are heaven, and that's a 100% guarantee." All of our confessional statements base the confidence that the children of believers are holy and thus elect if dying in infancy on the fact that the parents are believers. Since no one can know that (if the person they are speaking to is truly a believer) for sure of another person, no one can assure someone else 100%. But I believe each believer can be assured internally, and should be encouraged by these confessional statements.
 
Hello Izaak, I've just finished (re)reading the Hoeksema book I referenced above, from chapter 4 till the end (via the online version I gave a link to), and Hoeksema deals with the exact things that trouble you. He has the courage to be Scriptural and not sentimental. In the last chapter, Covenant Children Who Die In Infancy, he dwells on Dort 1.17.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top