What Happens to Children When They Die?

This is a hard topic on which to write. I anticipate some negative reaction. However, it is a question I have been asked repeatedly by anti-Calvinists.

First, let us look at the confessional standard: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (Westminster Confession of Faith X:3). The divines described what happens to elect infants who die. Of course, since they are elect, that would be God's plan for them. What about non-elect infants? On that the divines were silent. Charles Hodge and his son, A. A. Hodge, took that to mean that all infants who die are elect. I think that is presumptuous, taking an argument from silence where it does not lead.

For the Christian, there is extensive biblical justification to believe that his dead child is in Heaven. First, God claims the children of believers for Himself in Ezekiel 16:20-21: "You took your sons and daughters, whom you had borne to Me, and these you sacrificed to them [i. e., idols] to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter that you slaughtered My children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?" When the Israelites had become so given over to idolatry that they even practiced human sacrifice, God's anger was directed at the theft of what belonged to Him by covenant.

And second, what does God promise to these children who are His? "Your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Also in Acts 2:39: "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." So, in both Testaments, we have a promise from God to be covenantally faithful to the children of believers. Is this a promise that every child of believers will be saved? No, it isn't, as we know both from personal experience and from the biblical examples of Esau and Ishmael.

However, we also have a biblical example of the comfort that covenantal promise is to the believer. When David's first son with Bathsheba died (II Samuel 12:15-23), David took comfort in his assurance that his son would be waiting for him is Heaven: "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (verse 23).

I think that the most-important verse on this issue is I Corinthians 7:14: "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." Paul tells us that the children of at least one Christian parent are holy. He doesn't say saved. Rather, he speaks of the covenantal connection between the believing parent and the child, such that the child is federally holy on the basis of the parent's faith.

However, we should notice his exact words. Paul speaks negatively. He doesn't just say, "The child with a believing parent is holy." Instead, he adds, that the child would otherwise be "unclean." And this is logical because we know there is no neutral moral state. But what are the consequences to the unbelieving parents regarding their own children?

"Nothing unclean will ever enter it [i. e., the New Jerusalem, v. 10], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life" (Revelation 21:27). Here is where the unbeliever must consider his standing with God, because it affects not just himself but also his children. If he decides that the pleasures of this life outweigh the eternal consequences, can he also say that they outweigh the eternal consequences for his child? Of course, this doesn't mean that every child of an unbeliever will himself be an unbeliever. We know from experience that the Holy Spirit often breaks into the families of unbelievers to bring one to Himself. I myself was such a convert. But the generality can be predicted, just as above with the children of believers.

This is my personal interpretation. Though I consider it a rational conclusion from the relevant Scriptures, I am aware that it goes beyond the confession. Therefore, other Calvinists should not be blamed for my personal opinion. I am especially conscious that I am going against some theological giants when I disagree with the Hodges. All I can say is that the Scriptures compel me.

The Limited Atonement of Arminianism

Arminians often accuse Calvinists of denying the atonement to some people by our biblical claim that it was particular. That is, we Calvinists follow the words of Jesus that He would die for those whom  the Father had given Him, His friends, His sheep (John 6:37-39, etc.), or, in the words of Paul, for His Church (Ephesians 5:25). Yes, we believe that the Groom had the right and responsibility to love His Bride, not strange women (Proverbs 5:15).

However, in denying that biblical truth, the Arminian replaces it with an assertion that the atonement was universal, but only partial. That is, Jesus didn't necessarily die to save anyone. Rather, He died merely to make salvation possible.

So, for what purpose did Jesus die: "She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Or, "He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Peter 2:24-25, cp. Isaiah 52:13-53:12). There are two things evident in these verses. First, that the blood of Jesus was intended to cleanse its objects from sins. And notice the pronouns that Peter uses, "our," "you," and "your." Those are particular pronouns, referring his comment to the audience of his epistle. Who was that? "To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again" (I Peter 1:1-3). Peter was speaking to Christians, not to non-Christians. And second, notice that there is no conditionality in these verses. There is no hemming and hawing about what men must do to make the atonement effectual. In fact, the Apostle even says that it is God who causes us to be born again.

However, the Arminian reads those same verses and blanks out the parts that refute him

So, I will ask these questions of the Arminian. Jesus tells us of men who will "die in their sins" (John 8:21). Then He mentions those whose "sin remains" (John 9:41). If Jesus died for the sins of all men, then why do these men still have sin when they die? Then the Arminian is forced to answer, "because they don't respond in faith." Ah, there it is: the Arminian limited atonement! Jesus died somewhat for all men, but that atonement is insufficient, until the man adds his assent.

So, when the Arminian thinks that he is morally superior because the Calvinist says that Jesus fully and effectually redeemed particular people, he is really suppressing his tacit claim that the atonement of his version of Jesus is so limited that it cannot save anyone without a little help from sinful men.

I deny that the Arminian doctrine is moral at all, much less more so that is the doctrine of Calvinism.

Faith, the Gift of God to the Elect Alone

Every Bible-believing Christian is distinguished by one doctrine: our justification before God is through fail alone. That was the message of Jesus (see the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax-Collector, Luke 18:9-14), Paul (such as Romans 3:28), the Old Testament prophets (such as Habakkuk 2:4), and the Reformers.

But rare is the person who asks an important question: Who has such saving faith? As I demonstrate here, faith is given to us by God; it is not something that we add to the cross work of Jesus.

The Arminian claims that God gives faith equally to all men, so that all men are equally enable to respond to the Gospel. However, the Bible says otherwise: "Not all have faith" (II Thessalonians 3:2). So, contrary to the claim of the Arminian, not all have faith.

So, then, who does? "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness" (Titus 1:1). So the answer that Paul provides has three parts: faith, knowledge, and godliness. Thus, we aren't talking about a mere ability to believe, as is the basis of Arminianism. Paul restricts these gifts to God's elect. The elect are given faith by which to be justified, knowledge of the Gospel, and godly lives. Paul here gives an explanation of the content of the promise of Jesus in John 6:39: "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day."

Old Testament Usage Proves that "Baptizo" Cannot Necessarily Mean "Immerse"

One of the claims made by certain groups, such as Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists, regarding baptism is that immersion is the required mode. I am sure that you have seen the pictures of a person lowered back first - always back first - into a baptismal pool. Or just a swimming pool, pond, seaside, in a bath tub - I've seen them all. One of the reasons they give is that "baptizo," the Greek verb from which we get the word "baptism," supposedly means "to immerse."

It is that assertion that I wish to address here.

As I have said before, I agree with the Westminster Confession regarding the mode of baptism: "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person" (XXVIII:3). I do not claim, nor does the Confession state, that baptism by immersion invalidates the rite. In fact, I was personally baptized by immersion, and it was in a swimming pool! However, as I have grown in my knowledge of Scripture, I have come to conclude that sprinkling is the intended mode of baptism.

The problem with the claim about the word "baptizo" is that it is inconsistent with the usage of that word. In the New Testament, does anyone claim that the pharisees immersed their dining couches (Mark 7:4)? The word translated "wash" there is "baptizo" in the Greek. The problem is even greater in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. In that version, "baptizo" or "bapto" appear five times. Of those, two are used in situations in which sprinkling, not immersion, are logically or explicitly required.

The first is in Daniel 4:33 (verse 30 in the LXX), the description of Nebuchadnezzar's curse of madness. We are told that he was "bathed in the dew of Heaven." "Bathed" there is a translation of "ebapso," a tense of "bapto." Could any sensible person suggest that he was immersed in the dew?

The other is Ecclesiasticus 34:25 (not Ecclesiastes; also called Sirach): "He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?" The first use of "washing" is a translation of "baptizomenos," a tense of "baptizo." Some might object that this verse is from the Apocrypha, which is true. However, I cite it only as an example of usage. Compare it to the Mosaic laws regarding purification washings (e. g., Numbers 19:9; and Judith 12:7, in a fountain), and we see that the ceremonies described by Sirach were done by sprinkling, not by immersion.

The conclusion is unavoidable that the claim that "baptizo" refers only to "immersion" is not biblically sustainable. To insistence on it is to put a denominational prejudice ahead of the words in the text.

False Teachers and Their Pompous Claims of Authority

In our day, there are many "Christian" groups that claim grandiose titles for their organizational leaders. Mormons have their "Apostles and Prophets," various Pentecostal churches claim that their pastors are "Apostles," and, of course, the Pope has long claimed to occupy the "apostolic throne of Peter." I deny all such titles, and insist that all such claims mark false teachers. 

First, let me concede that the Bible does talk about Apostles and Prophets in the organization of the church: "He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the Head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love" (Ephesians 4:11-16). The Church is the Body of "Christ." He alone is the Head of the body, and has established how the members shall be organized (see also 1:22, 5:23,and Colossians 1:18). Among other things, this means that men are not left to ourselves to design the government of Christ's Church. 

"Shepherds" here is the equivalent of "elders" in the rest of Scripture, and "teachers' are what we call pastors (see I Timothy 5:17). Paul describes the selection of elders, with deacons as their assistants (Acts 6:1-7), in several places, especially in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. And where does that same Apostle describe selecting new apostles or prophets? Nowhere. In fact, except for the selection of Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:12-26), a special circumstance, there is never a mention of selecting any more such men.

Does that not require us to accept that those were temporary offices, while the others were to be continuing offices in the Church? I think that the rationale is unavoidable, and demonstrates
that presbyterianism is the only scriptural system of congregational government, precluding congregational democracy, episcopalianism, or any claims to the offices of the Apostles and Prophets.

Annihilationism, Eternity, and the Consequences of Truth

In our day, there is a growing movement to deny that the Bible teaches an eternal judgment in Hell. Rather, these people say, the spirit of the wicked is destroyed. This doctrine, annihilationism, was formerly limited to the cults, namely the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it is now becoming increasingly popular among professing evangelicals, at least in America.

In contrast, Scripture describes the suffering of the wicked in this way: "The fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. He opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings someone. And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them" (Revelation 9:1-6).

What John reveals here is that the wicked, in the face of their just suffering for that wickedness, will seek escape from their suffering through death, but death will be denied to them.

Annihilationists will often portray themselves as morally superior to those of us who hold the traditional view of Hell. In addition, they claim that unbelievers are more open to the "Gospel" if they remove the stumblingblock of eternal Hell. It is supposedly contrary to modern sentiments.

I have several problems with that perspective. For one thing, one doesn't tailor truth to suit the preferences of an enemy of that truth. Reformulating Christianity to suit unbelievers - the same problem I have with many megachurches - is to move it from suiting the preferences of God to suiting His enemies. How can that be considered  a good thing? Furthermore, by failing to give the unbeliever the biblical judgment on his unbelief, you deny that unbeliever the necessary information for weighing his situation. Many unbelievers are perfectly content to live as heathens now, just to puff into smoke at death. And that is exactly the pseudo-Gospel that the annihilationist gives him. If he never learns better, then that unbeliever will spend eternity in Hell, but his blood will be on the hands of the annihilationsit (Ezekiel 3:18).

Colossians 2:16: Did Paul Abolish the Fourth Commandment?

In my dealings with anti-sabbatarians, i. e., those who claim that there is no Christian Sabbath, they almost always bring up Colossians 2:16: "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." The claim is that Paul here says that there is no binding requirement for Christians to honor the Sabbath. In general, my response is twofold, first, that it is not at all Pauline to dismiss one of the Ten Commandments so flippantly, and second, that the reference to food, drink, festivals, and new moons, all indicate that Paul is addressing the Jewish ceremonies, not the Sabbath per se. Unless someone wants to claim that Paul also intends to tell us that we don't need to eat food or drink fluids. Anyone want to try that?

However, I also want to add a biblical argument to my logic.

Look at Ezekiel 45:17: "It shall be the prince’s duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel." That prophet uses exactly the same wording in regard to temple ceremonies as Paul uses to the Colossians. Paul's word choices are not random. Rather, by using specific Mosaic terminology, the Apostle expects his readers to understand the same Mosaic ceremonies.

Therefore, I cannot accept the use of Colossians by the anti-sabbatarian, because it is inconsistent with the word usage of Scripture.

Logic, Fairness, and the Anti-Calvinist

When I run into someone who wants to rail against the doctrine of election - something which happens frequently - he usually takes one of two approaches, one of which is to argue that  it is unfair to discriminate, and the other is to invent a caricature that it means that God refuses salvation to someone who wants it. The caricature is refuted simply by its supposition of an impossibility (John 6:44).

In response to the first, I don't believe that anyone holds such a blatantly humanistic attitude. After all, I don't know of any serious Christian who holds that "fairness" is a biblical value. Besides which, the Scriptures contain an explicit answer to that very argument: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy...  So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and he hardens whomever He wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:14-16, 18-21). Paul tells us that God acts according to His sovereign will. In response, he describes a hypothetical opponent who complains that God is unfair in then judging the sinner to whom God chooses not to extend mercy. Without even giving that argument credence, Paul answers that God, as Creator, has the right to treat His creatures as satisfies Him, not us.

 

I think the real problem is that the opponent of Calvinism doesn't really believe that men deserve judgment to Hell. He will say it under other circumstances, that the unbeliever will go to Hell if he fails to repent. But, at the same time, he secretly believes that the unbeliever deserves to be given repentance, whether he wants it or not.

The answer is not found just in Scripture, but also in reason.

"Out of this race of guilty and polluted sinners, thus justly condemned, God graciously and eternally elected some to life and happiness and glory, while He left the rest in their state of wretchedness and ruin, and determined to inflict upon them the punishment which they justly deserved. The reason why He elected some and passed by others, when all were equally undeserving, is to be referred wholly to Himself - to the counsel of His own will or to His mere good pleasure" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation," emphasis mine).

Thornwell gives the right answer here. It is true that election is not fair. But fairness would send all of the wicked, that is, every member of the human race, to Hell as his deserved judgment. That is really what the anti-Clavinist seeks with his argument. Not that he would admit it, of course. But logically, the conclusion is unavoidable.

Jesus and His Friends, a View of Particular Atonement

In John 15:13-14, that Apostle reports to us these words of Jesus: "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you." The Lord tells us that the highest love is to die for one's friends, a description of what yet lay ahead of Him when He spoke those words. Was He contradicting what we are told elsewhere in Scripture? For example, in Romans 5:8, the Apostle Paul tells us, "God shows His love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." No, there is no contradiction. Paul tells us what we were before the application of Christ's atonement, while Jesus describes what we became after that application. We were enemies, but His blood turned us into friends. 

But the part I want to discuss is what Jesus says, that He would soon die on the cross, not for men in general, but for those who would thereby be turned into His friends. That is, those who remain His enemies do so because He did not die for them. 

To my mind, this is one of the biggest differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism teaches - because Jesus taught - that the blood of Jesus is effectual. As He Himself also says, every man whom the Father gave Him to be redeemed would unfailingly be converted (John 6:39). In contrast, Arminianism claims that Jesus died equally for all men in general, so that salvation would be possible for everyone, but certain for no one. If that were so, then it would have been hypothetically possible for not a single person ever to have been saved. And even worse, it also means that the Arminian believes that Jesus died just as much for every person in Hell as He did for every person in Heaven. 

To my mind, that is a grotesque view of the atonement.

And I think these words of Jesus indicate that He never imagined such a thing either, but looked forward to all of the friends that He was gaining for each moment that He suffered on the cross, just as the Father promised Him in prehistory: "Out of the anguish of His soul He shall see and be satisfied; by His knowledge shall the righteous one, My servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and He shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11).