Baptist theologian E. H. Johnson--'Scripture does not state dying infants are saved but justifies such an inference'

E. H. Johnson was a well-known Baptist pastor and theologian in the latter quarter of the 19th century. According to one archived newspaper report, Johnson pastored churches in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. He also served successfully as interim pastor, once following his friend and colleague, James M. Pendleton at the historic Upland Baptist Church in Upland, Pa.

In 1882, Johnson became professor of systematic theology at Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa. While teaching at Crozer, he wrote his An Outline of Systematic Theology which went through five editions (1895). In a short section entitled “Salvation of Infants” Professor Johnson offers a brief but convincing biblical defense as to why we may rightly conclude all infants dying in infancy are saved. He begins his biblical rationale with a question:

“If infants share a depravity which necessarily leads to acts of sin, are dying infants saved? The Scripture does not state that they are saved, but it justifies such an inference” (p.156)

--E.H. Johnson, An Outline of Systematic Theology by E. H. Johnson and of Ecclesiology by Henry G. Weston, American Baptist Publication Society, 1895  

Related articles

The Western Recorder, Infant Salvation, and The Sovereignty of God: Part I

B.B. Warfield--'question of infant salvation non-negotiable for sustaining systematic theology'

James Petigru Boyceinfants dying in infancy are regenerate

Millard Erickson on infants dying in infancy--'difficult to maintain them as sinful, condemned, and lost'

Baptist Confession of 1679--'all little children dying in infancy saved by the grace of God'

E.Y. Mullins--'denominations generally--except Baptists--much perplexed over salvation of infants dying in infancy until recent years'

Comments

[Louis]

Here is another good statement on this subject.

[Charles Page]

Yes, and men live on the moon!

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Louis..

Charles,

I find your constant little barbs logged both here and on Twitter about this series on infants dying in infancy I'm posting curious and perhaps perplexing. When I first started responding to you on Twitter I assumed you were a fairly informed Pentecostal Christian. I now sadly think you're more of roadside windsock that can't quite keep propped up by yourself. You've proven--at least to me--you apparently have no appreciation for history; in this case church history--and even more specific Baptist church history-- and what those believers before us had to say about certain issues of our day. While we've no obligation to accept their views since we stand on Scripture alone, I think we've an obligation to consider their views since God worked through them as He does us.

More sadly still, you cannot seem to separate what I post as results of historical inquiry--i.e. all the quotes from various church leaders in this series on infants dying in infancy for example--from what I personally believe to be what the Bible teaches on this or that. How fundamentally skewed to assume that just because I log what someone from history wrote, it represents all, or even part for that matter, of my personal position. Can you not perceive the difference between the two? The fact is, I *don't* embrace every position I've quoted concerning infants dying in infancy.

For example, while I firmly agree with both James P. Boyce and John Broadus' conclusion that all infants dying in infancy are recipients of saving grace, I outright reject the basis upon which they came to their conclusion; namely, all infants dying in infancy are a part of the eternal elect people of God. I think that position is so riddled with theological objections from their own Calvinistic premises, that's it's hopelessly contradictory to state such. Nonetheless they did. I'm glad they proposed the right conclusion--from my perspective--though I reject the route they used to arrive at it. Not to mention the outright horrifying statement of Jonathan Edwards about God's justice in the damnation of infants I logged, a statement with which I also obviously disagree.

So, since you appear to be hopelessly zigzagging here and there as the wind blows, know I wish you the best. However, I don't think I'll be responding to your perpetually confusing little logs you post here and on Twitter any more.

[Tim Rogers]

Peter,

Do what I did with Charles. I blocked him on Twitter and do not allow him to respond to me on any other public venue.

Tim

[peter lumpkins]

My block list is full. I'd have to take somebody off to make room for him. Would you volunteer?