19th Century Baptist theologian J.M. Pendleton on infant salvation--'unaccountable infants saved without faith not by faith'

"It will be said by those who oppose the views of Baptists—for it has been said a thousand times—that if infants are not to be baptized because they cannot believe, they will not be saved because they cannot believe. If the salvation of infants depends on their faith, they cannot be saved. They are incapable of faith. They are doubtless saved through the mediation of Christ, but it is not by faith. Our opponents fail egregiously to accomplish their object in urging this objection to our views. They must intend to make us admit the propriety of infant baptism, or force us to a denial of infant salvation. But we make neither the admission nor the denial. As soon as we say that infants are saved, not by faith, but without faith, their objection is demolished"  (pp.84-85)

"The allusions to baptism in the apostolic epistles forbid the supposition that infants were baptized. Paul refers to the "baptized" as "dead to sin"—rising from the baptismal waters to "walk in newness of life"—as "putting on Christ,"—as "baptized for the dead," or in the belief of the resurrection. Peter defines baptism to be "the answer of a good conscience toward God." This is a general definition which precludes the idea that baptism was, in apostolic times, administered to any except accountable agents. What conscience has a speechless infant? There is no operation of conscience prior to accountability. Baptism, then, in its administration to infants, cannot be what Peter says it is.

Without enlarging on these topics, what is the conclusion of the whole matter? Clearly this: The commission of Christ, as understood and exemplified in the apostolic age, requires the baptism of believers, disciples; and the baptism of all others, whether adult unbelievers or unconscious infants, is utterly unwarranted” (p.88)

--J.M. Pendleton, Church Manual Designed for the Use of Baptist Churches, Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, [1867].

Related articles

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

R.B.C. Howell--'all children dying in infancy are saved with an everlasting salvation'

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

Augustine and Southern Baptists Part 4: The Upshot of Augustine's Assumptions: Divine Determinism by Dr. Jim Gifford

No Southern Baptist should be 'in limbo' over Infants dying and going to Hell! by Ron F. Hale

Saint Augustine--'first to teach infant damnation'

Comments

[Norm Miller]

Given our Lord's heart for and words about the children with whom he interacted, it becomes exceedingly difficult to believe that His opinion or heart would be any less of them in their infancy.
Thank you, Peter, for this series of historical Baptist reminders about the spiritual condition of infants.

[Mary]

Peter, heads up, Debbie Kaufman is over at Wartburg Watch declaring that you and SBC Today have declared the age of accountability is 12. (eye roll)

[gary]

Maybe the Infant Baptism debate has been approached from the wrong direction. Instead of starting with our disagreements, let's start with what Baptists/evangelicals and orthodox Christians AGREE upon: All persons who believe and have faith in Christ as their Savior should follow his command and be baptized as soon as possible. Agreed?

So the next question is: Can an infant believe and have faith?

Evangelical and Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ: If I can prove to you from Scripture that infants not only can but DO believe and have faith, would you accept infant baptism as Scriptural?

http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/09/the-bible-says-that-infants-can-have.html

[peter lumpkins]

Gary,

With all due respect, the texts in the link *do not prove* infants possess saving faith. They don't even necessarily "imply" it as the paper begins to argue.

Nor does your proposal that we begin where we agree assist. Sorry. If you desire to believe newborn babies *can* believe in the sense of saving belief, that's your business but I'm uninterested in such a fruitless discussion here.

Thanks...

[Scott Shaver]

"www.lutherwasnotbornagain" implies an axe to grind with evangelicism. Website confirms it.

Gary, my 6th great grandfather (father's side) was a German Lutheran immigrant who got off a ship in Pennsylvania in the early 1700's. He married another German immigrant (an Anabaptist). On the day they married, she joined the Lutheran Church but subsequent generations of our family who were Christians all gravitated toward the anabaptist understanding of "Believer's" baptism by immersion.

At least that's the way I like to bias the interpretation of our family history. It's in my DNA.

Consequently, I'm with Peter and see no point in entertaining a pre radical reformation rationale for going back to where Luther stopped.

Some of us literally have "skin in the game" on this one.