G.W. Northrup on infants dying in infancy: The Western Recorder, Infant Salvation, and The Sovereignty of God: Part IV

In the final essay in his series critiquing strict Calvinism’s understanding of God’s Sovereignty in Predestination, Dr. G.W. Northrup proposes to “apply to the case of infants dying in infancy and of the congenitally idiotic the positions of the Calvinistic system already discussed.”¹ On the whole, and contrary to many today who seem to feel the subject of infant salvation remains insignificant, Northrup contends for its extreme importance: “The question of the fate of those dying in infancy is one of vast theologic as well as of practical interest. For a large proportion—probably a distinct majority—of the human race pass out of the world before reaching the age of moral accountability.”

Again, how stunningly strange that many today—both Reformed and non-Reformed—lobby to halt discussions on whether or not we may offer confident hope in the case of infants dying in infancy being immediately ushered into God’s merciful presence. Are not infants human beings made in God’s image? And, are there not but two actual destinies to which every human being’s eternal end awaits? To suggest then that exploring whether we may be confident or not that infants dying in infancy experience God’s grace remains an insignificant query seems particularly apathetic at best and expressly cold-hearted at worse. Not to mention it crosses the spirit of our Lord’s words when He so took a public defense of the little ones against those who seemed to suggest they did not matter—“Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mk. 10:13-14). Hence, we admit our own sympathies lie with Dr. Northrup so far as the weighty significance of this question is concerned.   

In the fifth and last essay, Northrup begins by suggesting that there exists “three and only three positions” which may be taken toward infants dying in infancy as well as the eternal fate of the mentally challenged: “1. Either all are lost. 2. Or all are saved. 3. Or some are lost and some are saved.” While few would hold to the first position, Dr. Northrup offers impressive evidence to show historically how strict Calvinism has had illustrious advocates of position number three, beginning with its domineering influencer, Saint Augustine. In fact, given the evidences Northrup marshals, it is not too much to suggest that many, if not most, of strict Calvinism's brightest burning theological lights have held some form of position number three.

Even so, a visible shift of belief had taken place in Northrup’s day pertaining to the Reformed understanding of the fate of infants dying in infancy, a shift so noticeable that Northrup could suggest “The universal Protestant church agrees with Dr. [A.A.] Hodge in the view above expressed, and [now] rejects with horror the dogma of infant damnation”² (p.128). Apparently, the shift of Reformed allegiance of the belief that some infants dying in infancy are eternally damned to hell to a belief that all infants dying in infancy are eternally rewarded in heaven came somewhere between The Westminster Confession of Faith and the rise of Princeton theology (pp.126-127).

Northrup contests this particular shift in belief not because he did not agree with the move away from the historically aberrant position which strict Calvinists routinely held concerning the eternal damnation of some infants dying in infancy. Rather the way Northrup apparently saw it, strict Calvinists dropped what was a necessary inference from their understanding of God’s Sovereignty in Predestination. Northrup states his contention like this:

The question of the future condition of infants, dying in infancy, according to the strict Calvinistic system, must be determined by the essential positions of that system, viz. :

• 1. Mankind are by nature burdened with guilt and depravity--exposed to the everlasting displeasure of God.
• 2. In dealing with infants as with those who reach the age of moral responsibility, God acts as a sovereign, determining the destiny of each and every one in the exercise of an optional power.
• 3. Regeneration is the exclusive work of God and is wrought in those and in those only who are embraced in the purpose of election.
• 4. In choosing men to eternal life God does not take into account as a reason or condition of his action any thing foreseen in them.
• 5. The decrees of election and preterition are eternal and immutable, and the number included in each is ''so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished" (pp.127-128, paragraph(s) here and below broken apart solely for better readability; all italics here and below original)

Consequently, Northrup turns to two questions as he challenges strict Calvinism’s view of predestination as applied to infants dying in infancy:

I. What proof, or even presumption, can the Scriptures afford, on the theory of strict Calvinism, that all infants dying in infancy are saved?
II. How can the assumption of universal infant salvation be reconciled with the Calvinistic theory of predestination? (p.128)

Due to space, it is the second question to which I will post excerpts from Northrup’s response. First, note Northrup’s summary of what strict Calvinism’s view of God’s Sovereignty in Predestination necessarily implies concerning infants dying in infancy:

II. If, now, strict Calvinism assumes, as it does assume in our day, — an assumption, however, let it be remembered, in support of which it cannot, consistently with its own principles, produce any Scriptural evidence — that all dying in infancy are saved, the question will arise, how can this assumption be reconciled with the view that God elects an exceedingly large class not one of the non-elect dying in infancy—and yet, excludes from among the reasons or conditions of His action the only circumstance which marks them as a special class—their early death? There is but one conceivable or supposable method of reconciliation, viz. : the death of those who die in infancy must be regarded, like regeneration and its immediate antecedents, as a divinely appointed result, or consequence, of their election.

According to this conception the purposes of election and non-election must be viewed as embracing the individuals of each class (the elect and the non- elect) from the beginning of their existence in the womb, —since some die the very hour in which they begin to live, —and must be viewed as determining all the acts of God by His providence and Spirit in relation to them. Of the elect it was determined:

• (1) That some—one half the human race—should die before or soon after birth.
• (2) That others, numbering many millions, should be born idiotic, and should live beyond the age at which responsibility begins in the case of those who are mentally competent at birth.
• (3) That the rest—few as compared with those who die in infancy—should live for a period, longer or shorter, after reaching the age of accountability. Of the non-elect, however, it was determined that all should be born in a condition of mental soundness, and should live beyond, or up to, the commencement of moral agency. In this conception we have a clear and adequate solution of the problem in hand—the reconciliation of the assumption that all who die before or soon after birth, are saved, with the position that in decreeing to save a part only of mankind God did not take into account as "conditions," or "moving causes" of his action, "any thing foreseen in them" —"any thing by which they were distinguished from other men." This idea renders the whole subject before us luminous.

Of the elect some die in infancy, and some are congenital imbeciles—their early death and congenital imbecility being due to their election, which is the determining principle of all God's acts in relation to them from the first moment of their existence; but of the non-elect none are appointed to die in infancy, or to be born idiotic—their exemption from early death and from congenital idiocy being rendered certain and necessary by the decree of preterition. (pp.135-137)

The chief logical conclusions of this doctrine have been indicated, but they may be stated more fully as follows:

• 1. All infants are regarded by God as elect or non-elect (reprobate) from the first moment of their existence.
• 2. The decree of election rendered all included in it liable to be appointed to an early death—a liability which becomes a fact in the case of one half of the human race.
• 3. The purpose of election also rendered all included in it liable to be appointed to be imbeciles—a liability which also becomes a fact in the case of many millions.
• 4. The decree of election also rendered those included in it liable to be appointed to live beyond, or up to, the beginning of moral agency— a liability which becomes a fact in the case of a number vast, indeed, but small as compared either with those who die in infancy, or with the non-elect.
• 5. The decree of preterition necessarily frees all embraced in it from liability to an early death, or necessarily involves their appointment to live to the age of moral action.
• 6. The decree of preterition also frees all embraced in it from liability to congenital imbecility. It is true that most of those included in the purpose of election are appointed to be born in a condition of mental soundness; but the difference between the two decrees, in this particular, is, that while the elect may, or may not be free, the non-elect must be free, from congenital imbecility, that is, if all infants are to be saved.
• 7. The decree of preterition renders it impossible for God Himself to do anything, at any period of their life, for the salvation of those who are included in that decree.
• 8. The decree of preterition, since it presupposes original sin, and has respect to, and is justified solely on the ground of, original sin, necessarily involves the decree to punish the non-elect for that sin, “which deserves eternal damnation." 

QUESTIONS SUGGESTED

The consideration of this scheme suggests, among other questions, the following:

• 1. Does it not seem extraordinary, that, though more than half the human race are elected, all, or nearly all, the elect in heathen lands, and the vast majority of the elect in Christian lands, are appointed to an early death, and appointed to an early death because of their election; whereas if they had been appointed to live to the age of adults, by far the larger part of the world's population, from the beginning of history, would have consisted of regenerate persons?
• 2. Does it not seem most extraordinary that that which of all calamities is universally regarded as the most terrible—congenital imbecility—should be due to the blessing of election?
• 3. Does it not seem most extraordinary that all the non-elect should be appointed to live to the period of responsibility, considering the fact that their damnation is not only certain, but inevitable, do what they can to secure eternal life, even in the way appointed in the gospel, and the further fact, that their guilt cannot but increase with the increase of the years of their life, thus rendering their final doom infinitely more dreadful than it would have been if they had been sent to hell on the day of their birth?
• 4. Is the early death of infants—of one-half of the human race— due to their election, or may not this result be due to the fact, infallibly known to God, that He could not save them, under the wisest method of providential and gracious action, in case they were appointed to live to the years of responsibility?  According to this supposition their early death would be the indispensable condition of their participation in the mercy of God, and not an effect of His mercy already bestowed upon them in their election. 
• 5. Is there any Scriptural warrant for the application of the doctrines of election and nonelection to infants? Or are infants, as such, and consequently, all infants, being freed from condemnation through the atonement, embraced in the infinite love of God in the sense that had any of those who perished in the years of responsibility been appointed to die in infancy they would have been saved? (pp.140-143)

It seems to me Northrup has thoroughly examined and categorically challenged strict Calvinism’s understanding of God’s Sovereignty in Predestination as it particularly affects its most recent insistence upon viewing all infants dying in infancy as a special class of human beings in which, as a class, they universally are all apart of God’s eternal purpose to unconditionally predestine to eternal life.

Part I

Part II

Part III

 

¹p.122; while Dr. Northrup uses what in every linguistic case is presently a cold, harsh and even offensive term to speak of the mentally challenged among us (i.e. “congenitally idiotic,” et al), I chose to retain his language nonetheless. We cannot genuinely fault Northrup for those terms were acceptable in his era on a broad basis including the medical community itself

²Northrup’s exact phraseology is a “revolution which has taken place in the views of Calvinists, and especially of Presbyterians, in regard to the future condition of infants, dying such…” (p.127-128)

Comments

[Adam Harwood]

Peter,

Your work on this series is outstanding. You found and interacted with almost-forgotten but important resources which yielded rich content.

I hope to see this essay--along with some of your previous writings on inherited guilt and infant salvation--included in a future book on the topic. I would happily buy a copy.

In Him,
Adam

[William Marshall]

Bro. Peter or Dr. Harwood,
In what sense does Christ's atonement apply to infants who die? If they are not guilty (not under condemnation), then how does Christ's death apply to them? As someone who affirms inherited guilt, I think I know how I would answer this (Christ's death atones for the guilt inherited from Adam), but I am not sure how a person who denies inherited guilt from Adam would answer it. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for taking the time,

wm

[lydia]

Is anyone else seeing a major problem with definitions? Isn't Condemnation, death? The wages of sin is death. We are condemned to die because of Adam's sin. We are separated from God. The condemnation (death) is the consequence we all get for Adam's sin. That is the way I have always understood it. Infants are condemned because of the consequence of death. But they are not guilty of Adam's sin. How would they know if they have sinned?

I never put "guilty" OF Adams sin with the consequence of Adam's sin which is death.

We are all sinners, so please don't think I am saying that. I just think we need a glossery of terms when we communicate with the Reformed wing. :o)

[peter lumpkins]

William,

Thanks for the question. Sorry to not get back sooner. We had a Senior Adult fellowship meal at the church. No frozen dinners! I'm sure you know what I'm talkin bout!

I appreciate the query and Dr. Harwood devoted a special section in his book to answer the anticipated question. I'll be glad to give you my take a bit later. Before I do though, I'd like you to tease something out about which you mentioned your own view. You wrote, "As someone who affirms inherited guilt, I think I know how I would answer this (Christ's death atones for the guilt inherited from Adam)..."

So, are you suggesting Christ's atoning cross-work paid for the original sin (or "imputed Adamic guilt") of all infants as well as all severely mentally incompetent persons as a class? Is this your meaning? If so, upon what biblical grounding do you hold such a view? If not, then what do you mean by "Christ's death atones for the guilt inherited from Adam" as applied to infants and the mentally challenged?

[William Marshall]

Bro. Peter,
Good questions and I admit that there are no explicit passages that deal with the salvation of infants who die or mentally challenged. The best answer I think I can give is that there are passages that seem to indicate that infants who die will be in heaven (David's child, Luke 18:16). Those who are in heaven are called the 'ransomed' (Rev. 5:9). You could argue that this only refers to adults, but it seems awkward for me to say that there will be people in heaven who have not been ransomed. If that is the case, then in what sense have infants who die and the mentally challenged been 'ransomed.' One answer could be taken from Romans 5:18, which says that 'one trespass (that of Adam) led to the condemnation for all men.' Thus, infants who die and the mentally challenged are ransomed from such condemnation by Christ's death.

Again, this issue is difficult because no passage addresses it explicitly. Perhaps I am making too many leaps as I move from passage to passage in my logic, but I struggle with concluding that there will be people in heaven who have not been redeemed because they were not guilty. Also, it just seems clear to me from Romans 5:18 that all are condemned in Adam (although I do understand how others interpret that passage). Hope that helps. Thanks for the dialogue.

wm

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks so much William. I appreciate your humble spirit as you wrestle as do we with certain biblical texts. I only had time to scan, but will get back a bit later. It's Wednesday you know!!

Grace and peace, brother...

[peter lumpkins]

William,

You and Dr. Harwood are on the same methodical page in cautiously approaching definitive conclusions from Scripture since, as you say, “there are no explicit passages that deal with the salvation of infants who die or mentally challenged.” Dr. Harwood confessed as much when he averred toward the close of his meticulous examination of the issue in The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal:

“If I were pressed to speculate how God might deal with people who die in their infancy, I would offer this suggestion: All people who die in their infancy will be included in God’s restoration of his fallen creation through Christ’s work at the cross. perhaps this is the time Jesus mentioned as “the renewal of all things” (Matt 19:28). Paul said that creation would be set free from its bondage to decay (Rom 8:19–23). Although infants are not guilty of sin, they have been stained by it. even though they have not knowingly acted in ways that would incur God’s judgment, they may be in need of God’s redemptive and renewing work. And it is Jesus who promises, “Behold, I make all things new” (Rev 21:5)” (p.154, italics added)

I fully appreciate the caution you both express in pronouncing definitive theological conclusions based on few, if any, explicit biblical passages directly and/or specifically involving infant redemption; nonetheless, I am personally willing to be a bit less hesitant than either and actually state that though it may be true that few, if any, biblical texts deal with infant redemption in a straight-forward, direct sort of manner, it is not too much to conclude from what we do know about God and His redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture, and from there, through good and necessary inference, confidently ascertain that no infant dying in infancy nor any mentally challenged person dying at any age will eternally suffer God’s wrathful judgment as the imputed eternal consequence of his or her supposed guilty relationship--either seminal, federal, or otherwise--with Adam, the head of the fallen human race.

In addition, for me, pastorally speaking, I think a healthy confidence about infant redemption remains necessary when dealing with those who suffer the tragic loss of a baby, whether the loss is due to natural or unnatural causes, whether it’s a prenatal or postnatal loss. Similarly could be said about those who have mentally challenged children (Note: please know this is not a criticism of Dr. Harwood’s approach nor either is it a suggestion his work is cold-hearted or “unpastoral,” if you will. But we must recall Dr. Harwood’s excellent monograph is the rendition of an academic scholar written as a biblical-theological treatise not a pastoral counseling manual).

Not that we should “make up” theology to offer false hope to the emotionally troubled. Rather I am convinced, given what I know about God and His overall redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture, I possess virtually the same level of confidence to assure a grieving couple who just lost their firstborn in a tragic crib-death that their little one remains under the heavenly care of his or her Creator and Redeemer that I have to confidently assure a grieving widow at a memorial service that her husband, who was one of our finest deacon-servants of our church, has entered the gates of heaven and remains joyous and content in the forever-community of saints gathered around the throne of God.

Were someone to ask me, “Do you absolutely know the deacon is in heaven?” Says I in response, “Well, I’d have to confess, no, I don’t absolutely know he is in heaven, if you mean to imply by absolutely know a sort of mathematical type of certainty of it. After all, anyone can and sometimes they do “fake” a conversion. But, from everything I know about God, His redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture, along with everything I know about our deacon-servant, I remain unwaveringly confident he sits joyously in unsurpassed contentment in the forever-community of saints gathered around the throne of God.” Similarly, I think I may confidently infer from what I know about God, His redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture, and the nature of infancy (including the nature of the mentally challenged) to sufficiently, legitimately assure grieving families their little one (or mentally challenged one) remains safely and eternally under the merciful and loving care of his or her Creator and Redeemer.

I gave you more than you asked and perhaps didn’t even touch what you asked, William. Even so, it is where I stand on the particular issue before us.

Allow me, if I may, to express what I think is a difference not in conclusion concerning infant salvation you and I, along with Dr. Harwood, and every commenter on the thread thus far virtually agree upon in outcome; namely, together we believe (some perhaps more tentatively than others) babies go to heaven if they die in infancy. We're glad most of us may agree here.

On the other hand--and here's the difference--the Calvinist like yourself who insists on inherited Adamic guilt—original guilt in the classic Reformed sense that is positively and eternally damning to all people in itself--has the onus to demonstrate how Scripture teaches all infants are redeemed by the blood of Christ (assuming, of course, one embraces universal salvation of infants dying in infancy). This is particularly a mammoth task for those Calvinists who also embrace particular atonement not to mention the complications G.W. Northrup rehearsed for strict Calvinists who embrace a hardened form of unconditional election. Granted those like Dr. Harwood (and others including me!) are obligated to answer good and necessary questions against their position like “What does it mean to have a sinful nature but not also have what seems an obvious corollary—sinful guilt?” as well as some other good questions implied by your own words (e.g.”…but it seems awkward…that there will be people in heaven who have not been ransomed….in what sense have infants who die and the mentally challenged been 'ransomed.' ”).

Know we concede these questions among others are good questions but frankly, Harwood anticipated and offered lengthy answers in his book to every question thus far raised against his position--at least questions against his position about which I am aware, including the fair and honest questions you raise, William. 

In the end, for my part, the level of difficulty on infant salvation the strict Calvinist faces cannot be matched. I think this issue to be a genuine Achilles Heel and may prove fatal so far as system is concerned. It surely is not an accident that many, many Reformed today simply do not wish to engage this subject. I think a major reason is, they lose exegetically, theologically, morally, and/or pastorally. That’s me speaking, of course, and only me.

Grace to you, William.  May our Lord rescue us all from this body of death.              

[William Marshall]

Bro. Peter,
Thanks for the response and dialogue. I agree with your pastoral concerns and conclusions for this issue: we need to have a "healthy confidence" that infants who die and the mentally challenged will indeed be shown grace and granted to enter glory (your example was helpful in understanding what this practically looks like).

As for this issue being the Achilles Heel for the Calvinist, I am still not convinced that the Calvinist's explanation is all that different (in strength or weakness) from that of the non-Calvinist. Yes, they are different, but both are attempting to do the best they can to answer difficult, sensitive questions that are not explicitly dealt with in the text. Dr. Harwood sees infants as "stained" by the Fall and thus in need of Christ's redemption and renewal. I view them as "condemned" in Adam (Romans 5:18) and thus in need of Christ's redemption and atoning death. These views are not that different in my mind and neither seem to be an Achilles Heel for their different understandings of soteriology. Thanks again for the response and discussion. O for grace to better understand the weight and glory of God's redemption of a people from every tongue, tribe, and nation through the blood of His Son!

wm