On the Election of Infants

What happens when a baby dies?

For centuries, both Christian and non-Christian philosophers have argued whether babies that die in infancy go to Heaven. Since the Bible doesn't have a verse speaking directly to this idea, it is difficult to say definitively.

But avoiding the topic entirely isn't an option in a cursed world where grieving parents are looking for hope after losing their child. The goal of this booklet is to summarize the rational positions one can take and eliminate the absurd ones, while explaining the implications of the views that are “in play.” For the sake of this booklet, I will use the term “infants” to describe those “who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith 10.3).

I aim to present biblical ways of thinking about an emotionally-charged topic. For some who hold to “infant salvation” the mere suggestion that it is not the case evokes strong feelings. And then, those strong feelings are seen as weaknesses in the argument for infant salvation. Keep in mind, just because discussion of a doctrine elicits emotion, that does not invalidate the argument of the emotional person.

Secondly, I am discussing this within a Reformed/Calvinist viewpoint. I assume foundational principles are agreed upon regarding concepts such as the doctrine of election and the sovereignty of God. If you fall outside this camp, then when pondering the arguments herein, remember that there are doctrines we are building up which are not proved here.

Regarding the potential election of infants, I am not ascribing to them a righteousness of their own by which they find favor with God. In every case, the only way an infant is justified before a holy God is to have the stain of Adam’s (and any of their own) sin washed by the blood of Jesus Christ as a gift of grace. Arguments for the election of infants based on their innocence deny essential Christian doctrine like Original Sin, and Arminian theologians cannot account for the necessity of the infant making a choice when they deal with infant salvation.

When we have this in-house discussion, we are ultimately arguing over the means by which God reaches His elect, and whether the preaching of the Word—and subsequent hearing—is God’s only means of saving His elect. We will dig into this further as we explore the different logical options.

Here are the positions:

We know that ALL infants go to Hell when they die.
We know that some infants go to one place when they die, but some may go to the other place:
- We know that some infants go to Hell when they die, but some may go to Heaven.
- We know that some infants go to Heaven when they die, but some may go to Hell.
We don’t know where infants go when they die, and we can’t even guess. The Bible doesn’t say so we should be silent.
We don’t know whether all infants go to Hell or Heaven, but we accept both are possible.
We know that ALL infants go to Heaven when they die.

Position 1: We know that ALL infants go to Hell when they die.

This position takes the hard stance on the gospel call. If faith comes by hearing—and hearing by the Word of Christ (Rom 10:17)—then logically, anyone who cannot understand the preached Word or does not hear the preached Word is condemned by the original sin of Adam and justly inherits the Lake of Fire.

Proponents of this position see those who deny it as creating a new way of salvation (apart from the Word, understood and believed). The follow-up argument is, “If infants can achieve eternal life through means other than the preached gospel, why couldn’t a remote tribal villager who is unreached by the gospel, or my aunt, or anyone at all?”

Of course, any proponent that those dying in infancy may be elect and ultimately saved must account for the fact that under normal circumstances, men are condemned apart from hearing and believing the gospel.

Although I respect those who take this hard stance, Romans 1:20 condemns all those who are without excuse because of the revealed glory of God through creation. In opposition to the hard stance, there is no way to say that an unborn baby has the same accountability as someone who has seen even a single sunrise. To conclude that all infants are hellbound in death contradicts many of our church fathers, and invalidates Scriptures which offer hope to the hurting (2 Sam 12:23). David was no slouch as a theologian; he would not make such an obviously wrong statement if no babies went to Heaven. And it is insensible to think that David was at all comforted by the fact that he would simply “also die.”

Yet the Bible offers no hope for those who have understood God’s revelation (Rom 1:20) yet have not embraced the gospel. The unreached tribal villager and the dying infant are two different types of people reached by two different means, but saved by the same blood of Christ. See John the Baptist, who was saved prior to having any cognitive ability to understand God’s Word (Luke 1:15, 44).

Position 2: We know that some infants go to one place when they die, but some may go to the other place.

This position takes two forms, and I will write a single response to both.

No one can really hold either form of this position. In each case, it requires special knowledge of one type of infant who is either known to be reprobate or known to be elect, yet without knowing about all of them. How can you say that you have that type of specific knowledge if not granted by God?

I concede that Presbyterian-esque brothers could make arguments based on the same reasoning they use to ~~baptize~~ sprinkle babies that their “children of the covenant” are elect if they die in infancy. But I am not Presbyterian. But any honest Presbyterian knows that ~~baptizing~~ sprinkling their baby doesn’t save the child nor leave them in any other state than “still in need of salvation.” Entering the earthly covenant family of God (in covenant theology) is not equated with final salvation.

And to assume to know that there are only some infants who go to hell, but you know which ones for certain? One would have to argue based on a person’s parents or family line. This contradicts verses like John 1:12–13. If infants end up in both Heaven and Hell, we have no clear biblical way of knowing which ones actually go to which ultimate destination.

Position 3: We don’t know where infants go when they die, and we can’t even guess. The Bible doesn’t say so we should be silent.

This is an attempt to be cheeky & clever. I understand the concern that we don’t go beyond what has been written (1 Cor 4:6)—and that we should avoid arguing too much about things the Bible doesn’t make crystal clear—but this is a real question that people ask from honest hearts. Why avoid that?

I’ve heard it said that the Bible wasn’t written for infants. This is true, but the Bible was written for believers who seek after God and lose infants to death, and those people want to know if they have a reasonable hope from Scripture about the state of their offspring. Our concerns are real circumstance God cares about (1 Pet 5:7). It isn’t dishonest to make a case from Scripture to answer a question on people’s minds. If your response to the question of the election of infants is that “the Bible is silent about the issue,” then you are assuming what you need to prove. Too many Christians have believed the Bible at least gives us a reason to consider this topic for anyone to rationally say the Bible says nothing about it.

Position 4: We don’t know whether all infants go to Hell or Heaven, but we accept both are possible.

This position accepts the idea that the Bible is not crystal clear on the topic. At least in the sense that there is no verse that says “All infants are elect of God,” while still being honest about the evidence given by those who think there are implications in Scripture about the election of infants. There are doctrinal truths which are clear and undeniable, lest you put yourself outside orthodox Christianity. In the case of infant election, there is room to say, “Wow, I can see both sides of that argument,” and still be a faithful Christian.

I will add this: if you fall into the belief that “we don’t know for sure, but it’s possible infants are elect,” you have a choice when someone you know faces a miscarriage, a child’s death, or the death of their loved one who never had the brain capacity above a toddler. Your options are:

offer them a hope that their child was saved by the blood of the Lamb and the mercy of God,
throw your hands up and say, “I don’t know,”
or try to convince them their loved one is now in hell. That is, their loved one they knew couldn’t understand the gospel, nor their own sin.

Which one of those options is most comforting? Which one glorifies God in His goodness and mercy? Which one follows the pattern of God taking evil and using it for good? Look, if you fall in this “any infant has a chance at Heaven” category, then that means every infant has that hope. Why would you live any other way? We trust that the Lord will do right, and we can thus hope that we will see loved ones in Heaven who were not able to be outwardly called. So encourage one another this way.

My point is not that this makes universal infant salvation doctrinally true. What I am saying is that if you believe any infant may go to Heaven, you have no reason to not hope that for each infant. This is no different from looking at all nonbelievers around you as people who could possibly be adopted into the family of God, even though you are sure many will not be. Real love offers hurting people rational hope. Assuming you think some infants go to Heaven, rational hope is to tell any grieving parent to hope to see their child again, and to trust the Judge of all the earth shall do right (Gen 18:25).

Position 5: We know that ALL infants go to Heaven when they die.

Here is the category of believers that is often under attack. Yet I showed earlier that if you believe ANY infant goes to Heaven when he or she dies, then you might as well behave as if they all do. What reason would you ever have in this world to say to a hurting mother, “Sorry, not your kid!”? People in this group are accused of simply being emotional about it, but why is it considered so illogical to think that our God has a special love for children? Did He not have compassion for the children in Nineveh (Jonah 4)? Were not children a special part of Christ’s ministry prior to His death, burial, and resurrection (Matt 19:13–15)?

Opponents of this view rightly point out that this is not crystal clear in Scripture. That is a good argument. If, indeed, all infants go to Heaven, then God has hidden that from us, maybe to prevent us from concocting atrocities in the name of sending souls to glory.

Another counterargument to this viewpoint is the one that says, “If all babies go to Heaven, then abortion is a good thing.” Let it not be so that anyone says this from a regenerate mind. If it is so that God saves an aborted baby, that doesn’t make that ~~abortion~~ murder any more morally good than the crucifixion of Christ can be considered good or moral because it was used to save our souls! The fact that God does something wonderful with a wicked act neither affirms that act as moral nor does it make the agents of the act morally good!

I have seen someone say, if that is true, then people will kill their small children rather than risk them growing up and rejecting Christ. Again, if an evildoer would do this (which they do), then you are blaming God for their evil. What you are saying is infant election cannot be universally true because it gives people authorization to do evil that good may come. God forbid! Knowing or believing God will do something good is never justification for evil.

Secondly, if you believe in God’s sovereignty, then you know your child is either elect or not, and that that decision was made before your child was conceived. You can no more ensure your child’s election by murdering them than you can by reading the Bible to them daily. So it isn’t logical to say a reasonable parent would do that, and we are not responsible for how unreasoning beasts (Jude 10) manage God’s good truths. If infant election is true, the death of your infant does not secure their salvation; it is just an indicator of God’s grace, like a profession of faith in an older person.

What I find insulting is how opponents of this view characterize it as simply an emotional plea, when so many arguments from Scripture and logic have been put forth. Again, it may be emotional for many, but that doesn’t invalidate the argument. God created us to be emotional creatures: a people whose emotions are governed by the mind of Christ, taking every thought captive. Good doctrine can and should elicit emotions. Do not discount a brother’s argument about doctrine because he not only believes but feels strongly about it. Neither should sincere belief in a doctrine add weight to it from a debate perspective, evaluate the arguments!

In Conclusion

There needs to be much charity on all sides of this debate, and folks need to seriously consider what are good and bad arguments concerning each of the positions above. Christians can glorify God through our love for one another as we hash out hard things together from His Word, and infant election is a historical doctrine which has provided hope to many hurting Christians without practically harming evangelism or causing Christians to suddenly abort babies for the sake of their salvation.