Father of the fatherless

1. In this post I'm going to present my own arguments for infant salvation. I'm using "infant" as shorthand for children who die below the age of reason. That includes miscarriage. I think universal infant salvation is possible, but I'm skeptical about that. However, I think God saves many dying infants. 

2. If Scripture affirms something, then we have assurance on that point. If Scripture denies something, then that's out of bounds. 

If Scripture is doesn't answer certain questions one way or another, then that leaves the door open to consider the logical possibilities. That's in the realm of theological speculation. Some theological conjectures are more reasonable than others, but we can't be dogmatic. 

3. Both Calvinists and freewill theists usually think some or all dying infants are heavenbound, but for different reasons. 

i) Calvinists believe infants are liable to original sin, but elect infants are redeemed by the atonement of Christ.

ii) Modern-day freewill theists usually deny that infants are guilty of original sin.

iii) On the other hand, traditional freewill theists like John and Charles Wesley probably took a sterner view. They were Anglican clergymen. If you read the ordinance of baptism, it teaches baptismal regeneration, and implies that unbaptized infants are doomed:

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/Baptism.htm

4. Calvinists typically think some or all dying infants are elect. In my experience, many Calvinists think that dying infants of believers (or "covenant children") are presumptively elect. Depending on the Calvinist, they may not think there's the same presumption concerning dying infants of unbelievers. 

5. Is there any reason to suppose that God is more likely to save the dying infants of believers? The only reason I can think of is that Christian parents wish to be reunited with their children. End up in the same place. That's understandable, and God may honor that up to a point. Of course, some grown children of Christians are infidels, so God doesn't necessarily honor parental wishes in that regard.

6. What about the dying infants of unbelievers? There the comparison seems to be asymmetrical. Why should the fate of infants be chained to the fate of unbelieving parents? If God saves the dying infants of believers, that benefits both parties. But that doesn't work in reverse. To damn the infants of unbelieving parents doesn't benefit either party. Should infants suffer for the sake of their godless parents? 

I'm not saying that means God saves all the dying infants of unbelieving parents–any more than I'm saying he saves all the dying infants of believing parents. The question is why God should care whether their parents are believers or unbelievers. He might care if the parents are believers for the sake of the parents. But does that mean he shouldn't care for the sake of the infants? 

Suppose I'm a soldier who discovers a war orphan. His parents aren't necessarily dead. They may have been separated. One motivation for me to rescue the child is in hopes of finding his parents and reuniting him to his parents. That's good for the parents and child alike.

However, that shouldn't be my only incentive. I can't count on finding his parents. Maybe they're dead. Or maybe there's no possibility of locating them. That doesn't mean I should leave him behind. I should still rescue him for his own benefit.

So even if God has an additional reason to save some or all dying infants of believing parents, I don't see how that's a necessary reason in the sense that he wouldn't save the infants of unbelieving parents. There can be multiple motivations, any one of which might be sufficient. To suppose that God cares about the fate of kids by believing parents doesn't imply that he has no regard for the fate of the kids by unbelieving parents. Those are separate issues. Affirming one doesn't disaffirm the other. 

My point is not to take a position on percentages, but to reject the linkage, as if the fate of kids by believing parents is inversely linked to the fate of kids by unbelieving parents. Seems to me that the cases are independent of each other. 

7. In addition, God might save some dying infants of unbelieving parents to show that salvation is a matter of grace rather than parentage. We see the same pattern among adults. God saves some grown children of unbelieving parents while some grown children of believing parents are infidels. Election and reprobation cut across bloodlines in both directions. 

8. If you have parents, they can make a big difference. That has a tremendous conditioning influence on kids. Parents and children are psychologically linked in life. But dying infants no longer have their parents. So why would their eternal fate still be tied to their parents? That doesn't settle the question of their eternal fate. Rather, that must be settled on grounds other than parentage.

9. As I've said on multiple occasions, I don't see why election has an age cutoff. Take two brothers: Bobby and Billy. Bobby is 6 while Billy is 7. Suppose for argument's sake we say the age of reason is 7. Both die. Lucky for Bobby that he gets in just under the wire while his brother just misses the chronological boat. 

So my objection cuts both ways. Just as it's ad hoc to suppose that everyone who dies below a certain age is heavenbound, it's at least equally ac hoc if not more so to suppose that everyone who dies below a certain age is hellbound. Why would an age boundary be germane to God? How is that an intrinsic criterion? 

10. Those are some considerations from philosophical theology. What about exegetical theology? Here's one consideration: in Scripture, God is the God of orphans. He expresses a particular concern for the plight of orphans. 

Now there are different ways to become an orphan. You can be a lost child, permanently separated from your parents. Or your parents may die. Or you may die. 

If your parents die, you lose your parents in this life. You are still alive while they are dead. But if you die, you lose your parents in the afterlife. They are still alive while you are dead. Death separates parent and child in either direction–whether by his death or their death. Death orphans a child in one direction or the other. Either they pass out of your life or you pass out of theirs. 

According to Scripture, few things are worse than to be an orphan. You have no one to look out for you at a very vulnerable stage of life–physically and emotionally. 

But what about a dead child. He's orphaned on the other side of the grave. If there's no one waiting to adopt him in the afterlife, he's incomparably worse off than if he was orphaned on this side of the grave. But if God is the God of orphans in the lesser case of dead parents, is he not the God of orphans in the greater case of dying children–greater where the need is greater? If God has a merciful disposition towards living orphans, is he suddenly unmerciful towards dead orphans? Like what Jesus said: if God was Lord of the patriarchs while they were alive, will that not carry through into the afterlife? 

I'm not saying that's an argument for universal infant salvation, but I think it's a neglected consideration in the salvation of at least some dying infants. 

11. In addition, Scripture rages against child sacrifice. But what happens to the victims of child sacrifice? If all victims of child sacrifice go to hell, they suffer a fate even worse than their harrowing experience as sacrificial victims. But if Scripture treats child sacrifice as especially abominable, is God even harsher to them than their heathen executioners? 

I'm not saying that's an argument for universal infant salvation. The pagan priests used to be children, too–who grew up to be child-killers. But I think it's a neglected consideration in the salvation of at least some dying infants.