Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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