The Salvation of Infants: a theological essay by C.W. Koller

Frequently, our Reformed-leaning Baptist brothers and sisters insist that the doctrine of imputed sin (i.e. “Original Sin”) as understood in the Augustinian-Calvinist theological trajectory is not only the biblical view, it is also the classic view among Southern Baptists. We’ve shown before that theologians of great stature among Southern Baptists have historically distanced themselves from Augustine on Original Sin. Nonetheless, many still accuse those of us who do not embrace Augustine’s theory of imputed Adamic guilt (based primarily upon Augustine’s skewed reading of Romans 5:12) of being “heretics” at worst and the “lessor” charge of “Semi-Pelagian” at best  >>>

The historical evidence demonstrates that many Southern Baptists vigorously rejected the idea of imputed sinful guilt from Adam; instead they interpreted Scripture as teaching we fallen human beings universally inherited a sinful nature from Adam but Adam's sinful guilt was not imputed to us. In other words, there seemed to exist a flat denial of Federal Theology. Not only do all three confessions Southern Baptists have produced lend themselves to this interpretation (1925, 1963, 2000), but writing theologians do as well.¹

Let’s add to our evidential repertoire the theological essay entitled “The Salvation of Infants” by C.W. Koller.²  Koller was Fellow in New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1926. His take on the salvation of infants as inferred from Romans 5:12-21 remains instructive for us as we consider just what Original Sin actually is.³ And, while I am certainly not proposing Koller’s view as “the” Southern Baptist view, Koller nonetheless remains indicative of a rich theological understanding in Southern Baptist history which denied imputed sinful guilt from Adam while embracing a robust understanding of universal sinful depravity expressed through an inherited sinful nature. 

===================================================================================================================================================

The Salvation of Infants

by

C.W. Koller

What about the eternal state of a child dying in infancy? Is he lost, or saved? "Lost", is the verdict of many. ”Saved", say others, "provided he is the child of Christian parents. "Still others would declare the infant saved" whether “Christian, heathen, or Hottentot." Scores of reasons are advanced for the varied positions taken, and many make answer by simply raising further questions. "How can he be saved who has never believed nor repented and in fact never knew that there is a God and a Savior?" "Why is he not saved?" is the counter-question. "What has this tiny infant done to bring him into condemnation?" "But, if saved-by the atoning blood of Christ -by what transaction, how, when, and where was this salvation made to become effective?" These and similar questions will be considered in the following paragraphs, in a careful effort to determine the actual teachings of Scripture. The discussion will proceed on the basis of three general questions summing up the issues involved.

I. Is the infant without sin?

Scriptural teaching compels us to reply in the negative. The fact of universal sin is clearly taught, both in the Old and in the New Testament. "There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not."--EccL 7:20. So it was even before the flood, as indicated in Gen. 6:12, "All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Paul, in Rom. 3:9-12:20, sets forth the condition of mankind as he found it to be several thousand years later and shows that Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, "For all have sinned and come short of- the glory of God." Even Christians are shown to be contaminated with sin, for "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;" etc.--I John 1:8-10. And those who have not the law are shown to be under like condemnation with those who have the law and "shall perish without the law," Rom. 2:12. But may not these Scriptures, characterizing Christian, Jew, and heathen, apply only to those who have reached the years of accountability, thus leaving the infant without condemnation? Such application might be made, were it not for a further doctrine which is taught with equal clearness. 

The doctrine of original sin embraces the child from the moment of its birth. Every conceivable sin is, in New Testament, associated with "the flesh"--that state of being which begins, with the natural birth of the infant and continues till the time of his spiritual re-birth. In Rom. 7:25, Paul traces all sin to "the flesh." In Gal. 5:16-25 he sets forth the hideous fruits which normally issue from the flesh, and the unceasing warfare between "the flesh" and "the Spirit.” In Rom. 8:8 he asserts that "they that are in the flesh can not please God," and in Rom. 8:6 he goes even a step further and pronounces the judgment of death upon those who have the mind of "flesh."

Sin is further associated with the "natural" state, which is necessarily that state which begins with birth continues until superseded by the "spiritual" state. In I Cor. 2:14 the "natural" state is shown to be opposed to the things of God; and in Rom. 2:14 Paul shows that the "natural" state not only tends positively toward sin, but culminates in actual transgression. The doctrine of original sin seems to be set forth also in Ps. 51:5, "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." In Eph. 2:3 we learn that the "natural" state is such as to invoke only the wrath of God.

On every hand the teachings of Scripture with reference to original sin are borne out by human experience and observation. Just as soon as an infant attains to the age when it is at all possible for him to manifest a sinful nature he invariably does so. This is universal. It is observed also that his evil tendencies develop naturally and without necessity of the slightest encouragement from without. Just as a garden or field will grow weeds if left without attention, so the character of the infant will "grow weeds" if allowed to develop along its natural course. It is noted also that the influence of a bad example is far more potent in the development of the child than is the influence of a good example. A bad character develops naturally and without effort; a good character develops only as the result of strenuous and persistent effort. The observation of any individual from the time of birth to adolescence forces us to the conclusion that the fruitage of sin noted in adolescence must have been germinally present in the infant. A further conclusion, based on the uniformity of our observations with all children, is that the stream of' humanity must have been corrupted at its source; otherwise there would be exceptions to the rule. Both these conclusions coincide with the teachings of Scripture which have already been considered. 

The sinful state of the infant, already established, is emphasized in Scripture by the doctrine of total depravity. Every bodily function and every mental and spiritual faculty is impaired in a greater or lesser degree by the presence of sin in the human race. All the world's misery, physical, mental and spiritual, bears witness to this fact, as do the inspired utterances of both the Old and the New Testament. In Gen. 6:5 we are told of the condition of man, that "Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was evil." This verse, like the "doctrine of total depravity," does not teach that the imagination and thoughts of man were totally evil and without any admixture of good whatsoever; but that his every imagination and thought was somehow tinged with evil. The objection might be raised that this referred to the race that was destroyed in the flood; yet it can not be denied that we are descended from the group of eight people who were saved from the flood, and it is nowhere stated that Noah and his family were different from the rest of their generation either in kind or degree. It is simply related that "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." (v.8) In other words, Noah was saved by grace in like manner as we all are, and all his descendants are inheritors of both his sinful nature and his "total depravity." Both may be modified or heightened by the character of our more immediate ancestry, and thus changed in decree but not in kind.

Having established the facts of universal sin. original sin, and total depravity, we come to the next great question.

II. Is infant salvation a fact?

Scripture nowhere expressly states that a child dying in infancy is saved, nor is it taught that the infant is lost This necessitates a good deal of interpretation with reference to those passages that are thought to hear upon the question. While it is the prevailing view of evangelical Christianity that infants are "safe," there are many earnest Christians who do not accept ibis view, and other-, who find great difficulties in reconciling infant salvation with the facts of original and universal sin. Here we stumble immediately upon the problem presented by the infants of heathendom. If the infant is saved--in case of death, but loses this salvation in case he lives to maturity, and finally is lost, would it not be a mercy of God if all heathen could die in infancy? This question, though difficult, is no different for the question, why did God allow sin to come into the world in the first place?  These unsolvable questions we are compelled to leave to the justice and mercy of God, both of which have become richly manifest to us in our own Christian experience. Between the views of those who consider the infant lost and those who consider the infant saved are two mediating views. It has been urged that the children of believing parents are saved but that others are lost upon the basis of 1 Cor. 7:14, which passage states that where the father or mother is a believer the children "are holy." But such interpretation would--to be consistent--hold the child to be saved not only in infancy but also in maturity. This would be a clear contradiction of New Testament teaching, and can not be a proper interpretation. A more tenable position, or one more nearly approaching the spirit of the New Testament, is that which holds the infant to be lost by reason of a supposedly inherited guilt but leaves to him "the easiest place in hell." According to this view condemnation of the infant is real, but very slight because the inherited guilt has not been aggravated by personal transgression. Those who hold to this latter view rely on such passages as John 3:3-6, which teach the necessity of a re-birth conditioned upon the exercise of faith. Much is made of the Greek use of the indefinite pronoun "tis" and its English rendering "except anyone be born again he can not see the Kingdom of God." It is insisted that the conditions essential to salvation have not been complied with, namely, repentance (Acts 2-:38) and faith (Acts 16:31). But this view does not satisfy. The infant is not a subject of Gospel address, and hence can not be put in the same category with mature men and women. Manifestly the Scriptures here cited are misapplied.

While the Bible leaves no doubt as to original sin, it nowhere teaches that original sin involves original guilt. Under the law of God, the infant appears to be in the position which he occupies under the law of man; not responsible for anything he might inherit but responsible for every use to which he might put his inheritance when his personal administration of that inheritance begins. Of course, his dealings will be largely adapted to the nature of his inheritance both material and spiritual; but it is at this point, and not before that his personal responsibility begins.While there is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that the infant has fulfilled the conditions of salvation there is also nothing to indicate that this was necessary. In fact the opposite seems to be clearly the intent of the New Testament. Coleridge, in an epitaph over the tomb of four infants in St. Andrew, England, seems to have given the correct interpretation:

“Bold infidelity turn pale and die;

Beneath this stone four infants lie.

Say, are they lost or saved?

If death’s by sin, they’ve sinned for they are here;

If heaven’s works, in heaven they can’t appear.

Reason, Oh how depraved!

Turn to the Bible’s sacred page; the knot’s untied,

They died, for Adam sinned; they live for Jesus died”

But--

III. How is the atoning blood of Christ made to become effective in the salvation of the infant?

Certainly this is not accomplished by faith; that is clear. Nor will the faith or virtues of the parent save the child; for each must stand before the judgment bar of God and render account in his own name. Nor is there any Scriptural ground for holding to a theory of "unconscious regeneration" for the infant. When Jesus speaks of the necessity of "becoming as little children" in order to enter into the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3) he is not referring to their innate purity as the basis of salvation. In fact, this passage (Like Matt. 19:13-15; Mk. 10:13-16; and Lk. 18:15-17) has no bearing whatever on the manner by which the infant himself is saved. Christ is setting forth the proper attitude for one to take toward Him if he is to be saved. This sinner must become like a child in his manner of "receiving the kingdom of God" (Mk. 10:15). In other words he must become trustful, teachable, and obedient.

The only satisfactory answer to the perplexing problem of infant salvation is found in Rom. 5:12-21, especially verses 12, 18, and 21. At first glance it may not be apparent that this chapter bears upon the salvation of infants; but upon careful study these verses will yield sufficient light to make the status of the infant quite clear. The idea that potential death and potential salvation were passed upon all mankind by Adam and Christ respectively involves no difficulties when applied to mature men and women. But when we consider side by side the fact of physical death without guilt and the idea of spiritual salvation without faith the problem becomes profoundly complex. The following difficult questions arise: (1) If God condemns potential sin, in the nature of evil thoughts, desires, and emotions in the mature man, even though they never find actual expression, why does He not in like manner condemn potential sin ("original" sin) in the infant? Both alike are sin in the germinal state. (2) If by Adam physical corruption and death came into the world, why did not the atonement of Christ remove this curse from mankind? How can we consistently hold that in Christ the infant was made alive spiritually, when the same is manifestly not true with reference to the child's physical state? (3) To what extent did the redemptive work of Christ undo the consequences of Adam’s fall? These three questions will be answered in the order given.

(1) While potential sin in the heart of a man and original sin in the infant are alike sin in the germinal state, the former is conscious and willful while the latter is unconscious and unpremeditated. The man can appropriate salvation by the exercise of faith; the infant being incapable of faith becomes a recipient of grace, in accordance with the general principle that grace begins at the point where human ability fails. “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound." (v.20) "As through one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous." (v.19) If Christ by His atonement could not confer righteousness and life upon unborn millions, neither could Adam by his fall involve them in sin and condemnation. In the light of Scripture there is no escape from the idea of the moral unity of the human race. Our access to the benefits of salvation is not due to our own individual personalities, but to our membership in the human race.

(2) While a complete physical redemption has not accompanied the spiritual redemption wrought by Christ, we find that the same is true in our individual Christian experience. Yet the spiritual restoration of every Christian is so conclusively manifest to him that he could not doubt it even though his physical ills continue. At the same time it is observable that the physical ills of the world decrease in direct ratio with the world's appropriation of the spiritual redemption provided by Christ. Furthermore, we have the promise of an ultimate regeneration of the physical universe corresponding to the ultimate spiritual deliverance of all the redeemed of. mankind. The problems of the fifth chapter of Romans are greatly simplified when we remember that physical misery and death were only an incident to the big issue resulting from Adam's fall, namely, spiritual death or separation from God. The physical life granted to Adam and Eve after the fall was only a gracious prolongation of the measurable enjoyment of the goodness and mercy of God.

(3) In the sight of God the redemptive work of Christ seems to have left the infant in a position comparable in some respects to that of the unfallen Adam. Before the commission of conscious, actual, willful sin he does not need to be saved by an act of faith, but is safe. Forensically, the righteousness received through Christ has undone the condemnation, imposed, through Adam by means of original sin.

In conclusion it might be added that from the human point of view the child normally passes through three stages--that of innocence, that of "twilight" between innocence and guilt, and that of guilt--there are before God only two stages. The child is either "safe," under the age of accountability; or guilty as an actual transgressor, having passed out from under the benefits of his inherited righteousness through Christ. Scripture provides for no "twilight zone." While we can not pass the finger along the line of demarcation, it is nevertheless real. The infant is safe by inheritance, and those who have crossed the line must consciously appropriate Christ through faith.⁴

 

¹for a solid contemporary exposition of this view, consider Dr. Adam Harwood’s helpful volume, The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal

²The Southwestern Evangel, January 1926, pp.29-31

³I’m indebted to SWBTS students for assisting me in locating this article

⁴all emphasis by italics are original with the author

Comments

[Chappy]

Peter,

The imputed sin but not imputed guilt argument made here is still and argument from silence. Its just speculating. It still does not address the federal headship of Adam. Answer me this, is the typical traditionalist denying total depravity and the plain teaching of Romans 5 just because they want to tell a grieving mother their dead baby is in heaven? Can we just trust the infants to God without having to do Biblical gymnastics as demonstrated above?

[Steve Martin]

The Bible clearly states that "none are righteous, no not one", and that "in my mother's womb I was conceived in sin".

John the Baptist seemed to have some measure of trust in the Savior, while he was still in the womb.

The Holy Spirit is able to speak to us "in sighs too deep for words". So while we may not understand how, we have to say that little ones, babies, are can receive a measure of faith.

The Lord even told us that "we must become as these little ones...". If little ones were not capable of faith, then Jesus gave us a misleading picture of what faith is all about.

And finally, what kind of a God do we have? A gracious one.

I would hope and pray that He would, out of his kindly heart, take the little ones unto Himself. But no one can say for sure...about anyone...but the Lord Himself.

[Randall Cofield]

In the sight of God the redemptive work of Christ seems to have left the infant in a position comparable in some respects to that of the unfallen Adam. Before the commission of conscious, actual, willful sin he does not need to be saved by an act of faith, but is safe.

An infant can (and does) commit unconscious sin, rendering them, in fact, sinners. Yet by this reasoning infants--being, in fact, sinners--are granted entrance into the holy presence of God sans actual redemption through Jesus Christ.

This violates two cardinal truths of Scripture: The impenetrable holiness of God and the alone-sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work to bring us to God.

In other words, this "safe" paradigm creates "another" way to God than salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

This stretch is only necessary when faith is presumed to be entirely an act of libertarian free will. If, however, faith is a gift and creation of Almighty God, the salvation of infants is no difficulty at all.

[Ron Hale]

Peter,
Thanks for your research and writing on this subject and thanks for introducing us to the work of C.W. Koller!

Blessings my Brother!

[Jeremy Crowder]

I will definitly be sharing this post. I find it very helpful as an advocate myself of an age of accountability.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I’ll try to address most of the questions logged. If I fail to address yours, please remind me.

Chappy,

No, Koller is not arguing from silence. Nor is he offering mere speculation. It’s true there is a measure of speculation on the subject of infant salvation because the Bible doesn’t seem to explicitly address it per se; yet most of us grant the legitimacy of proper inference from biblical texts. And, the question you ask only begs the question—“is the typical traditionalist denying total depravity and the plain teaching of Romans 5…?”—not to mention simplistically dismisses the argument of men like Koller as catering to sentimentalism rather than what they understand the Bible to teach. In short, no, it’s not just about answering a grieving mother. Finally, you ask why we just can’t “trust the infants to God without having to do Biblical gymnastics as demonstrated above?” First, you assume Koller’s interpretation to be “Biblical gymnastics” but offer no real reasons why.

Second, the same could be asked about people who’ve never heard the gospel—why not entrust them to God? Third, to ignore the eternal destiny of such a gargantuan demographic of the human race seems intuitively suspect. Infants who die in infancy—40 million+ alone since 1973’s right to abortion legislation, not to mention all the other deaths of children by accident, disease, and crime—cannot be ignored. Infants—including the unborn fetus—are people too; and all people are made in the image of God. And, since all people spend eternity in either one of two places—heaven or hell—infants spend eternity in either heaven or hell. Thus, the question possesses enormous significance

Steve,

First, Koller did not deny the universality of sin. He explicitly affirms it.Second, you infer entirely too much from the passages you cite. Nothing indicates in Luke’s narrative about John “leap[ing] in her womb” to demonstrate he possessed “some measure of trust in Jesus as Savior” (1:42). The same goes for Jesus’ appeal to “become as these little ones.” You’re stretching beyond what may legitimately be inferred from the text. And, yes we do have a gracious God, something Koller presumes throughout his essay. Finally, I’m afraid I do not share the skepticism you apparently do that we cannot have confidence in personal relationship with God.

Randall,

First, Koller does not argue infants are not sinners per se. “The sinful state of the infant, already established, is emphasized in Scripture by the doctrine of total depravity.” He clearly affirms infants are born in sinful flesh—original sin. What Koller denies is, infants are condemned for being guilty of original sin, a teaching having roots in Augustine. In fact, Augustine appears to have created the doctrine of imputed guilt during his debates with the Pelagians. And, it’s fairly established among a broad range of scholars that Augustine completely misread Romans 5:12 basing his interpretation upon the Latin rather than the Greek text, thereby insisting “all have sinned” to mean “all have sinned in Adam.”

Second, you assert “An infant can (and does) commit unconscious sin, rendering them, in fact, sinners.” First, whatever an “unconscious sin” is you’ll need to explain. Second, not even Augustine believed infants actually committed sin. You’ve out-Augustined Augustine! Rather, for Augustine, infants were guilty of original sin [i.e. because they were seminally in Adam as all human beings were and are] and therefore destined for eternal wrath unless they were baptized to wash away original sin [which, incidentally, given Augustine’s premises, apparently all aborted babies, still births, etc. would automatically be destined to hell since they could not have been baptized). However, infants dying in infancy would a) be granted a lessor portion of hell than mature adults who refused baptism would be; b) since infants had not reached an age of actually sinning, they would receive the lessor torment. Koller presumably is referring to Augustine when he speaks of the view--a view Koller rejects--which leaves unbaptized infants with "the easiest place in hell."

Third, the two cardinal truths you cite (God’s holiness & sufficiency of Christ’s cross-work) as being contradicted by Koller’s view are not well-taken. Koller’s position seems to argue that babies are safe because of Christ's cross-work not contrary to it. They are saved by sheer grace just like we are. As for there being “another” way to salvation I fear you do not understand. In other words, it’s no more “another” way to salvation than Classic Calvinism which insists a genuine faith is a working faith or a faith which must bear fruit and/or a repentant faith. When you can intelligently explain how an infant or unborn fetus displays a “working faith” and/or a “repentant faith” I’ll be glad to consider your assertion about “another” way to be saved.

Fourth, so-called “libertarian free will” is not the issue, Randall. Nor do I believe you can intelligently explain how faith is given to a newborn or pre-born infant. Nor is there the slightest biblical evidence that new borns, et all require faith unless you already presume the imputation of adamic guilt. But if you are presuming adamic guilt, you’re doing nothing but begging the question.

Finally, as for infant salvation being no difficulty at all, I think it happens to be one of the Achilles heels—perhaps the chief one at that—for mainstream historic Calvinism. For given their undue preoccupation with unconditional election, it seems to dictate the two-fold conclusion that a) elect babies who die in infancy go to heaven; b) non-elect babies who die in infancy burn in hell. Few Calvinists today embrace that view, however. Rather they insist all babies dying in infancy go to heaven.

Ron & Jeremy

Thank you brothers. I’m glad the essay was helpful. Peace…

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

To all,

Actually, the point of his post was not to necessarily to make a biblical case for inherited sinful nature in contrast to imputed sinful guilt. Rather my point was to show, historically, that Southern Baptists have not been monolithic on this subject. Koller is an example as is Conner, Dargan, and Mullins for a version of the inherited sinful nature view. That is, infants possess original sin in the form of a sinful nature but Adam’s guilt does not transfer to them. On the other hand, earlier SBC theologians were more apt to embrace the idea of imputed guilt. Boyce would be representative of the latter. He wrote:

“The conscience of mankind has universally taught that this condition of their natures is sinful, and is as fully worthy of punishment as the personal transgressions which proceed from it.

The Scriptures plainly assume and declare that God righteously punishes all men, not only for what they do, but for what they are… It follows from the facts in these last two statements, that a corrupt nature makes a condition as truly sinful, and guilty, and liable to punishment, as actual transgressions. Consequently, at the very moment of birth, the presence and possession of such a nature shows that even the infant sons of Adam are born under all the penalties which befell their ancestor in the day of his sin. Actual transgression subsequently adds new guilt to guilt already existing, but does not substitute a state of guilt for one of innocence” (James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, 249-50, emphasis mine).

Clearly, Boyce followed the Princeton theologians on this point. Nonetheless, as Calvinism waned more steadily as the 19th ended, Boyce’s federalism waned right along with it.

With that, I am…

Peter 

[Bennie Conkright]

"Scripture nowhere expressly states that a child dying in infancy is saved, nor is it taught that the infant is lost." And, "While there is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that the infant has fulfilled the conditions of salvation there is also nothing to indicate that this was necessary." I appreciate the context of this post in the fact that I have mourned the death of a son at 12 hours of age. Each year on his birthday I rejoice in the fact that I believe I will see him again one day in heaven's glory. A verse that I have held on to is 2 Samuel 12:23. At the loss of his son, David found these words, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." I must hold on to a merciful God being merciful to my 12 hour old son so that the works of God might be displayed in Him.
Hello, my brother. Blessings to you. Our date with a cup of coffee still holds.

[Lydia]

Amen Bennie!

[peter lumpkins]

Bennie,

Brother, it's been too, too long. I trust you and K are well. Know I appreciate your sharing your heartfelt contribution. Much more frequently than we realize we realize, we roll our theological assertions in steel wrappers of theory and raw, lifeless propositions over which we tug back-n-forth, pulling, flinging, and socking each other with "points" as if theology is nothing more than a fun day picnic. And, it's living experience like you've just logged which makes our jousts appear futile. For you and K, Koller's 90 year old essay speaks hope not proposition. With Job, we place our hands over our mouths and remain silent--

"Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee?
I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
Once have I spoken; but I will not answer:
Yea, twice; but I will proceed no further"(Job 40.3-5)

Grace, my brother. Yes, we need coffee. Soon...very soon.

[Louis]

I like the part of this essay in some respects, but not in others.

I cannot come to the conclusion that the infant is like Adam before the fall.

How about we simply affirm the good points in this article - that all humans have a sin nature that they cannot escape and that all humans will sin when the get the chance and that the infant is incapable of faith.

From there, why don't we leave this to God? God is loving and just. What He does is right.

This is a mystery.

We have the knowledge that God is just and will be just in his dealings with infants who die. That is a great comfort to give people.

We do not need to resort to guess work on this.