Newspaper Page Text
28 T]
DR. WEBB'S THEOLOGY OF INFANT
SALVATION.
By E. C. Gordon.
II.
"Doctor WeLu divides the Scriptural
?lata upon which he infers the salvation
of all persons who are incapable of being
outwardly cal'ed Lv the ministry of the
word, into three croups:
1. Passages which teach, or seem to
teach, the actual salvation of infants,
-while yet they are incapable of being
outwardly called by the word.
2. Passages which set forth God's regard
for children.
3. Passages which set forth the tests
-of the final judgment; which, in the naifliro
of V? onnn 1 * * ' *
.v ui uic iaac, uu iipauifs cannoi auuie.
4. To the foregoing we may add the
-passages which assert that incapables as
such die; for he says. p. 293. "What is
the evidence, or proof, that the dead infant
was saved? * * * Our Calvinism
answers, that its death is the certificate
of its redemption."
The first set of passages authorize us
"to assume, argues Doctor Webb, that"
Abel, Seth, Isaac. John the Baptist and
others were regenerated in infancy.
Hence he infers that all incapables are
salvable and are saved. No Calvinist denies
that all incapables are salvable. But
it is a "far cry" from salvabillty to actual
salvation. All, the worst men, except
those who sin against the Holy Spirit,
are salvable. The inference as to the
salvation Of all inp?nahle? frnin tV>*?
cited, is based on an assumption. The
assumption may not be true. Is the inference
a good and necessary inference?
L?t us grant that the assumption is
true. Then we have this argument: Certain
children of believers, who lived to
adult age, were regenerated and saved
while as yet they were Incapable of being
outwardly called by the word. Therefore
we infer that all the incapable children
of all unbelievers are certainly saved. Is
this a good and necessary inference?
The only case of an incaDable who w??
may be certain from the record was
saved while incapable and who passed
from the earthly life incapable, was David's
child by Bathsheba. But surely David
was a child of God, in covenant with
<5od. Does the salvation of this infant
child of a man after God's own heart
warrant us in asserting dogmatically that
all the incapable children of all the enemies
of God are saved? Yet Doctor
Webb tells us with the emphasis of italics:
"This incident verges very nigh to
a dogmatic proof-text for the assertion
that all infants dying in infancy are
finally saved," p. 21. Surely proof-texts
on which to base his inference are sadlv
wanting.
No one can find in either Testament a
case of any blessing temporal or eternaf
bestowed by God upon the incapable
child of any unbeliever. In the New
Testament there are several cases of
blessing conferred by Christ on the young
children, presumably incapables, of Gentiles.
In every case our Ix>rd was solicited
to erant his henlinc nfiwop
by those in covenant with God, or by
those whose faith in him he extols. Are
we to infer from these cases that all the
incapable children of those who never
desire, and never ask for. any blessing
are saved?
s
HE PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SOU'
The second set cf passages upon which
Doctor Webb bases his inference as to
the salvation of ail incapables are the
scriptures which set forth God's regard
for children. It is impracticable in this
review to notion in ilntnil nil nf llipso
passages. It will be sufficient to discuss
the passage which Doctor Webb says
"comes nearest to being a dogmatic prooftext
on the subject of infant salvation,
p. 33. This is Jesus' word: "Suffer little
children, and forbid them net, to come
unto me; for of such is the kingdom of
heaven" (Matt. 19: 14. 15). See the parallels
in Luke 18:16. 17; Mark 10:13-16.
If this passage fails to sustain his inference.
a fortiori, the others also faiL
Doctor Webb correctly tells us that the
interpretation of this passage hinges on
the phrase, "of such is the kingdom of
heaven."
There are three possible interpretations:
1. Our Lord means to assert broadly,
universally, that little children, as such,
belong to his kingdom; or
2. That persons of childlike, as contrjdistinguished
from adult, character belong
to his kingdom; or
3. That children that are brought to
him and that believe on him belong to
his kingdom.
In nr<lpr tn cnstnin tho inf oronr?o thof
all incapables are saved, the first must
be the correct interpretation. If it be
the correct interpretation, the inference
is good that all incapables are saved;
and also, for all Calvinists. that everybody
is saved.
Let it be noticed that our Lord does
not say that little children dying in infancy
have, and belong to, his kingdom;
but that little children as such have this
privilege. Then they are all saved and
forever saved, for acocrling to God's
word, once in the kingdom of heaven,
they are in forever. This is stark universalism.
The second and third interpretations
are not mutually exclusive, for children
that come to him, that believe on him,
have the childlike character. Our Lord
himself has shown very clearly what he
means by the phrase "Of such is the
kingdom of heaven," or, "to such belongeth
the kingdom of heaven."
In Matt. 18:3, he says: "Except ye
turn, and become as little children, ye
shall in no wise enter into the kingdom
of heaven." Manifestly here he means,
become, not infants in age and in incapability,
but infants in humility, docility,
and other childlike characteristics, as contrasted
with the pride and self-sufficiency
of manhood. And to put this interpretation
beyond all peradventure, he adds in
verse sixth, "whoso shall cause one of
these little ones that believe on me to
stumble, it is profitable for him," etc.
This endorsement by our Lord of the second,
and inclusively of the third, inter
iJicumuu, as wen as me umversaiisni
wrapped up in the first, makes it imperative
that we must reject the first, and
with it the inference "that all incapables
are saved.
The third set of passages upon which
Doctor Webb bases his inference are
those which assert that works done in
the body are to form the test at the final
judgment. See Matt. 7:23; 25:34-46; 1
Cor. 6:9, 10; 2 Cor. 5:10;" Rev. 22:12; i
\
rH. February 10, 1909.
and so forth. Manifestly the incapables
can do no works in the sense intended;
therefore they will not be condemned at
the final judgment.
This is by far the most plausible of
all the arguments in favor of the salvation
of all incapaDles. It appeals to the
mind and heart of every person who has
seriously thought over the Scripture account
of the horrors of eternal punishment:
to their sense of justice as well as
to their sense of mercy. Certainly I have
no desire to remove, by tue breadth of a
hair, any hope or belief which this argument
brings to any devout mind. But
I am bound in truth and honor to say that
it is not sufficient as a basis for a dogmoHp
iittprnnpp hindincr the consciences
of men as the very word of God. The
reasons, very briefly stated, are:
1. Native depravity and guilt, as Doctor
Webb clearly shows, is a just ground
of condemnation. The Scriptures make
no distinction between initial and final
condemnation; between condemnation
and "actual condemnation." Once condemned,
always condemned, unless justified
through the blood of Christ. The
Scriptures have regard generally, if not
universally, as to all this, to adult sinners
and not to incapables, of which it
says nothing, either as to their continued
condemnation or salvation. Hence their
emphasis of ' works" as evidence of the
sinner's guilt and depravity.
2. Election is not based on the absence
of actual transgression. Before
Esau was born he was rejected; before
Isaac was born, he was elected. The
ultimate cause of the salvation of any
one is God's sovereign election. The
reasons controlling its exercise are absolutely
unrevealed.
3. There is no good reason to suppose
that incapables will remain incapable in
the middle state, or after the resumption
of their bodies at the resurrection. Who
is authorized to say that, after their
resurrection, none of these, left unregenerate,
will not manifest their hostility to
God, and their rejection of Jesus as their
Saviour? Certainly all will do so, who
have not been elected to salvation, and.
on this account, cleansed from all their
sins, original and actual. If there should
be any such, their actual transgressions
will as much vindicate the justice of God
in their continued condemnation, as if
they had been committed prior to their
death.
Hence this argument based on the
judgment test leaves us where God's
word leaves us: at most with liberty to
hope, to a belief born of eager desire,
rather than to a dogmatic utterance binding
men to faith as the word of God.
The fourth set of passages, if they may
so be called, are those which assert that
incapables, as such, die. In other words,
that they never cease on earth to be incapable.
The evidence to us here on earth
that men are elected to salvation is their
faith, repentance and holy life. These
confessedly are wanting in the case of
incapables. What, then, is the evidence
in their ease?
Doctor Webb gravely tells us that their
death is the ertlflcate of their salvation.
See p. 296, paragraphs 2, 3. No one will
deny that if we had sufficient evidence
that God had 'elected all incapables to