Why a consistent biblical hermeneutic is incompatible with all but the Reformed understanding of infant mortality and covenant children
By Michael Pitts on June 15, 2023
The issue of infant mortality is one hotly debated among theologians, often with the emotional weight of personal experience or pastoral implications, which can create the temptation to compromise on the issue. While I certainly have compassion towards those who have sacrificed a slightly more consistent interpretation on this admittedly non-obvious issue for the sake of such considerations, if we are to preach that God's Word is given for our benefit, we ought not be afraid of what it might say on a given issue. Thankfully, the Reformed understanding of infant mortality, which, I will argue, is the only valid interpretation rising from a consistent biblical hermeneutic, has nothing but positive pastoral applications, excluding the one gray area (which I shall discuss). This article is written primarily for those in the Particular Baptist* and Reformed traditions, though the Dispensationalist perspective will be briefly posited and refuted as well. The complicated beliefs of the Lutherans regarding baptism and of the General Baptists regarding soteriology would serve only to complicate the matter and to confuse the reader. Finally, there may be other interpretations I have not yet encountered, which, of course, will not be discussed.
When approaching an issue of biblical interpretation, it is important to establish methodology. I will not approach the Bible as a collection of disconnected human writings, but as the revealed Word of God. As such, I expect it to be consistent throughout, because God is unchanging, actual (it has only one valid meaning), because God is not deceptive, and logical, because God is logical. Because God's Word is consistent and actual, I will use more clear texts to interpret less clear texts. Because God's Word is logical, I will construct a system of theology around what is revealed therein.
While there is much to be said regarding Dispensationalism, I will be brief. The logically consistent Dispensationalist** would adopt the hardcore perspective, but for different reasons than the proponent of covenant theology. The core tenet of Dispensationalism is that each of God's covenants in Scripture are to be taken alone. Specific to this discussion, that means that God had a different plan of salvation for the nation of Israel than He does have for the Church. That would mean that, while God's promises to regard family units (or perhaps even the whole nation, as some would argue) in the Old Testament would explain David's reaction to the death of his first son with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:21-23), since we have no such assurances*** in the New Testament, we must assume we have no equivalent hope available to us. Thus, the logically consistent Dispensationalist would conclude that, under the Dispensation of Grace, infants dying in their infancy go to hell.
While this interpretation is coherent in and of itself, it only works under the assumption of the Dispensationalist hermeneutic. However, since God is not duplicitous and, in fact, has clearly revealed the fundamental**** consistency between the Old and New Testaments (Hebrews 11, Colossians 2), the framework upon which the Dispensationalist perspective of infant mortality rests cannot stand.
I would argue that most professing Christians fall into the permissive perspective regarding infant mortality, either out of a desire not to contemplate such weighty topics or out of personal or pastoral convenience. There are also some who would hold dogmatically to the permissive perspective to avoid the implications of the sinfulness of original sin in their own lives. Regardless, the permissive position, which is that all infants dying in their infancy go to heaven, is, at best, biblically naive and, at worst, doctrinally destructive.
The permissive argument is generally made† by tossing aside the sinfulness of original sin, either completely†† or only for infants. However, it is neither confessional nor biblical to make such an argument. We are condemned, not only by our sinful thoughts, words, and actions, but also because we are, by our very nature, from conception, sinners. We sin because we are sinners, and we are condemned because we are sinners.
Both confessions attribute the guilt of original sin to all descendants of Adam, and both declare that original sin, in and of itself, is worthy of condemnation.
They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
WCF 6.3, 6.5-6
They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free. The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
2LBCF 6.3, 6.5
Sin was in the world before the law was given, and condemnation is attributed, not to individuals' sin, but to Adam's sin.
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.††† Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:12–21 ESV
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:21–22 ESV
Sin starts at conception.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51:5 ESV
What is man, that he can be pure? Or he who is born of a woman, that he can be righteous?
Job 15:14 ESV
Paul does not write here of himself sinning, but of sin "seizing an opportunity" in him. The sin preceded the sinful thought (covetousness).
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
Romans 7:7–8 ESV
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23 ESV
Heaven is not, as most would argue, almost entirely made up of the babies of pagans.
What shall we say then? Is there no hope for our loved ones who have died in their infancy? Shall we weep inconsolably for our babies suffering in hell for all eternity? Only if you are a Baptist.
The hardcore perspective, held primarily by the most hermeneutically dedicated and logically consistent Particular Baptists, states that all who die apart from faith in Jesus Christ, including even all infants dying in their infancy, will spend eternity in hell. While the vast majority of that statement is accurate, the inclusion of all dead infants in the fires of hell is unbiblical.
David makes the claim in 2 Samuel 12 that, though his son is dead, he will yet see him again. He even comforts his wife with that news. How can this be? Either there are some infants who die in their infancy and go to heaven, or David was simply mistaken. While it is certainly possible that David was mistaken, there is no biblical evidence to ground such an assertion. Making such a claim to save one's Baptist theology is similar to making the claim that all babies go to heaven to comfort a grieving parishioner (see † and ††); we ought to let the Word of God guide our theology, not our own pragmatism.
And the LORD afflicted the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and he became sick. David therefore sought God on behalf of the child. And David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground, but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us. How then can we say to him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm.” But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. And David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?” They said, “He is dead.” Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes. And he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. He then went to his own house. And when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate. Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba.
2 Samuel 12:15–24 ESV
So then, all infants dying in their infancy deserve hell, but not all of them will receive hell. What hope do we have for our dead babies?
By God's grace, His Word is sufficient to give an answer that is both pastorally helpful and doctrinally uncompromising, maintaining both His grace and His justice. The biblical answer to the question of infant mortality is the doctrine from the Reformed tradition of covenant children. This doctrine states that the children of believers who die in their infancy spend eternity in the presence of God, while the children of pagans who die in their infancy spend eternity in hell. However, there is no simple proof text for this doctrine; rather, it comes courtesy of a systematic interpretation of all the texts above, in addition to those found below.
"But what about apostasy? How can one be elect one minute and condemned the next?" What if God, in His sovereignty, elected those infants whom, by His exhaustive decree and definite foreknowledge, he knew would die in their infancy? There would be no switching from elect to reprobate, and the biblical paradigm of covenant children would be upheld. There is no contradiction between the doctrine of covenant children and the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.
"Are the children saved by the faithfulness of their parents?" By no means! On the contrary, not even their parents are saved by their own faithfulness. Rather, just like their parents, they are saved by God's grace alone, and are just as unworthy of His favor.
"What about the numerous passages that speak of a faith that works as being necessary for salvation?" This is the most challenging question, because it cuts right to the heart of the debate surrounding paedobaptism. To be succinct, Scripture deals with us as individuals, but also as family units. We hear often in the New Testament that we fell in Adam's federal headship, that the husband is the head of the wife, and that Christ is the head of His bride, the Church. Furthermore, we read that the unbelievers in a household are made holy by a believing spouse. In what way are they made holy? In the same way that baptism saves, "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience" (1 Peter 3:21 ESV). In the same way that a believer in the home is a means of grace unto, though not guaranteeing, salvation, which is signified in household baptism, so too are the infants whom, by God's exhaustive decree and definite foreknowledge, he knows will die in their infancy elected, in order that they may spend eternity in the presence of God.
"What about infants who die in their infancy before either of their parents are later saved?" To this, the Bible has no clear answer. This is not a contradiction of the points raised above, nor does it lend credence to the other points. There is room in biblical interpretation for mysteries:
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Deuteronomy 29:29 ESV
(The Canons of Dort established what is now known as the five points of Calvinism and are one of the three doctrinal standards traditionally used in the Dutch Reformed Church.)
Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.
Canons of Dort 1.17
Familial headship: (The purpose is to note how the Bible deals with family units, not who is and isn't baptized.)
And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
Genesis 17:7 ESV
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.
Acts 2:39 ESV
And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:15 ESV
And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.
Acts 16:33–34 ESV
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
Acts 18:8 ESV
(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
1 Corinthians 1:16 ESV
For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
1 Corinthians 7:14–16 ESV
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 ESV
Adamic headship:
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22 ESV
Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
1 Timothy 2:14 ESV
So then, it is abundantly clear that the Reformed doctrine of covenant children is the only biblical doctrine worth considering in this discussion. The Dispensationalist perspective lacks an understanding of an unchanging God, the permissive perspective lacks the decidedly biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of original sin, and the hardcore perspective lacks a consistent biblical hermeneutic and the proper understanding of how God deals with His people.
Let God be true though every one were a liar.
Romans 3:4 ESV
- To avoid confusion, I will refer to Baptists with a reformed soteriology as Particular Baptists, Baptists with an Arminian soteriology as General Baptists, and non-Lutheran paedobaptist protestants (including Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, and Puritans/Congregationalists) as members of the Reformed tradition.
** I have no doubt that there are many Dispensationalists who would hold to the permissive perspective, but they do so at the expense of their own logical consistency. See The Permissive Perspective for details.
*** The Reformed interpretation would regard the promises given "for you and for your offspring after you" as pointing towards the Reformed interpretation of baptism and infant mortality, though they do not evidence that perspective in and of themselves.
**** I here use the adjective fundamental to refer to the fact that the Old Testament contains types and shadows which Jesus fulfills in the New. However, the nature of salvation remains unchanged between the two (Hebrews 11, Romans 3:20).
† There are those that would dismiss a discussion of original sin simply because "God is merciful; surely He wouldn't send babies to hell!" and would argue for some unrevealed, secret election of all infants who, by God's exhaustive decree, He knows will die in their infancy. While it is theoretically possible that such a secret policy exists, and God would certainly be just in instituting it, there is no biblical evidence for such a position.
†† Proponents of the ReVoice movement deny whole-cloth the sinfulness of original sin. They do so in order to declare that a homosexual "orientation" is not sinful, although homosexual lusts and actions are. Such a position denies not only the sinfulness of original sin, but also the nature of progressive sanctification. Those who deny the sinfulness of original sin are also open to the heresy of Pelagianism, which declares that it is possible to live a perfect life apart from God and that some have successfully done it.
††† When Paul speaks of sin not being counted without the law, he cannot possibly mean that all those without the law die sinless, for he condemns the Gentiles by the law written on their hearts only three chapters before. Rather, he is speaking of counting in human terms.