Our readers will recall that in the last three issues of the News, we have been treating a number of texts sent in by a man who uses them to argue that absolutely all infants in all the world who die in infancy are saved.
I have pointed out that most, if not all, of the texts referred to have little or nothing to do with the point at issue. The reader who sent in the questions, in fact, did not even take the time to explain how a text to which reference was made actually supported his contention. I found it quite difficult to determine why a given text was quoted in support of the error that all infants who die in infancy are saved.
It is interesting that none of the Reformers, with the exception of Ulrich Zwingli, held to this position. Zwingli, while sound in most elements of his theology, was a friend of Erasmus and something of a humanist himself. The humanists were admirers of pagan Greek and Roman mythology and literature. It was difficult, and apparently impossible, for Zwingli to escape all the teachings of the humanists, and it was undoubtedly this influence on him that prompted him to take the position that he did. But this error is not taught in Scripture.
But on to the texts that the reader quotes. He asks, “How do you explain the contrast in David’s response to the deaths of his two sons? Compare II Samuel 12:15-23 with II Samuel 18:29-19:5.”
Once again, it is difficult to understand why a comparison of these two passages should prove that all infants who die in infancy are saved. The first passage includes David’s prayer that God would spare the child born of his adultery with Bathsheba. When the child died, David said, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (12:23).
As I mentioned in an earlier article, commentaries differ on the question whether David refers here to the grave or to heaven. It makes no real difference to the issue we are now addressing, although I prefer the latter interpretation. The child, though conceived in adultery, was a child of the covenant. Therefore, even if David referred to the grave or the intermediate state of the soul between death and the resurrection, David was confident that, as a covenant child, the infant went to heaven. Although he sinned grievously, David knew his sins were forgiven and that he too would go to heaven.
Canons of Dordt I:17 is very clear. Because of God’s covenant with believers and their seed, we have no reason to doubt the salvation of our children who die in infancy.
II Samuel 18:29-19:5 tells us of the great sorrow David experienced at the death of his son Absalom. The point of the text, as support for the reader’s contention, is unclear. Absalom was not an infant; he was a grown man. David’s sorrow, while surely in part the result of the death of one who was his own flesh and blood, was particularly due to his knowledge that Absalom died in wickedness. Absalom had defied David as Jehovah’s anointed king, had rebelled against God-given authority in the Old Testament church and had scorned the fact that David was in the line of the Christ. Absalom had sinned grievously, had died fighting against his father and had gone to hell.
Many parents through the ages have experienced the great sorrow that comes from seeing their children live in sin and die without repentance. But what has that to do with the salvation of all infants who die in infancy?
The last question in this long list reads: “When the Shunammite woman was asked, ‘Is it well with the child?’ she replied, ‘It is well,’ even though the child was dead (II Kings 4:26). Why did she respond so positively?”
The reasoning of the questioner, apparently, is something like this. The Shunammite woman answered the question of the servant of Elisha the way she did because she was convinced her child was in heaven and, therefore, knew all was well with the child.
Supposing that this interpretation were correct, this proves nothing at all about the question at issue, for the Shunammite was a covenant mother and covenant mothers have God’s promise (in spite of what Baptists teach) that God saves His people in the line of generations. Even if she meant that the child was “well” because he was in heaven, it proves nothing concerning the salvation of all infants who die in infancy.
We may also ask this question: If she was convinced that her child was in heaven, why was she so agitated, and why did she rush off to see Elisha? Further, the son of the Shunammite was grown when he died: “And when the child was grown ...” (18). The question is, therefore, totally beside the point for he was not an infant. The questioner ought to read his Bible more carefully.
However, it is my conviction that the Shunammite said that the child was well, because she did not want to tell Elisha’s servant, but wanted to speak with Elisha himself. After all, she had received the child because Elisha had asked her what he could do for her (11-18). She was perhaps troubled by the question: Why did Elisha pray to God to give her a son, if she was to lose him anyway? So she had to talk with Elisha himself. Perhaps we can say that she lied; but I think that I too would have brushed the servant aside and wanted to talk with Elisha himself.
I am aware that this is somewhat speculative. It is clear that the Shunammite needed to talk with Elisha and not with the servant. In any case, the whole matter has nothing to do with the question of the salvation of the infants of unbelievers who die in infancy.
I close with a word of warning. We do not deal with Scripture properly when we simply quote texts at random and in rapid succession when trying to prove a point. We must carefully consider a text and demonstrate precisely why it teaches the point we want to make. When we appeal to a text in support of a position, we must not only carefully explain the text, but we must do so in the context of the whole of God’s Word. We do well to heed Luther’s observation that if we merely quote texts at random and not take them in the light of Scripture, we can prove any heresy under the sun. My old high school Bible teacher said to our class that he could prove the need for immediate suicide by quoting the following texts: “And [Judas] went and hanged himself;” “Go, and do thou likewise;” “That thou doest, do quickly.”
- Volume: 13
- Issue: 21
Prof. Herman Hanko (Wife: Wilma)
Ordained: October 1955
Pastorates: Hope, Walker, MI - 1955; Doon, IA - 1963; Professor to the Protestant Reformed Seminary - 1965
Emeritus: 2001Website: www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Prof._Herman_Hanko
Address725 Baldwin Dr. B-25
State or ProvinceMI