Limbo no longer in limbo

Kenneth L. Woodward writes in yesterday’s Taste column in the Wall Street Journal:

When word went out from Rome recently that the pope's theological advisers were prepared to abandon the idea of "limbo," it was clear that the medieval notion of a place where unbaptized infants, among others, go was as good as dead. Two decades ago, when then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was new to his role as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he said that he personally thought the church should "let [limbo] drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis." Now, as Pope Benedict XVI, he can have his way.

So limbo itself is no longer in limbo; it has come to an end. This column reminds me of a Sunday school lesson that I taught last year, concerning effectual calling, from a section of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Protestants, like Roman Catholics, have to deal with the question of infants who die in their infancy, those who are mentally or otherwise incapable of hearing and understanding the Gospel, and those who have never heard of the Gospel because of time and space (they lived before Christ or the Gospel has not yet reached them). I thought I might post the manuscript for the lesson I taught, just for the occasion of relating it to the article—although being a manuscript it is not sufficiently refined. Also, I must make the following disclaimer: I do not speak for my church nor for my denomination. Any errors are my own responsibility, and I am subject to the correction of my church.

¤ ¤ ¤

X. Of Effectual Calling

We continue today with our study on chapter 10 of the Westminster Confession, “Of Effectual Calling.” By way of review, last week JL spoke about the way by which God gathers those whom he predestined to eternal life, and it is the Holy Spirit’s calling the elect to Christ’s saving grace (through the Word of God), enlightening their minds spiritually, renewing their wills, and drawing them to Jesus Christ. This is what is traditionally termed effectual calling. As is characteristic of the Westminster divines, they have taken great care to emphasize that effectual calling is of God’s free and special grace alone, and not based on anything in man. Like justification, which we shall study in the coming weeks, effectual calling is in no way dependent on man’s merit or even his faith, since faith itself is a gift of God that results from the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration. God’s eternal election logically precedes man’s faith, and it is not because God foresaw someone’s faith that he elected him. Rather, God enables the elect to exercise saving faith.

In our study today we will encounter some issues that have puzzled theologians for centuries, and even among orthodox theologians there is some degree of divergence of opinions in the finer points. Charles Hodge, for example, taught that all infants who die in their infancy are saved, writing,

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18-19). We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ. (Systematic Theology, i:26)

The universal salvation of infants is, however, not accepted by all Reformed theologians. Yet inasmuch as Hodge elsewhere made clear his view that all have sinned in Adam, that there is no salvation apart from the grace of Christ, and that general revelation renders man inexcusable before God, we need not say that Hodge is necessarily wrong, only that he speculated a little too far. I use this example as a way to prepare ourselves in humility, to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge so that we might not be tempted to speculate beyond what is written in Scripture. In addition, as the first chapter of the Confession tells us, not everything in Scripture is alike plain or clear to all, and in formulating our doctrines we must give much more weight to what is clear.

Now even though in terms of doctrine our present subject is something that Scripture says relatively little about, as a practical matter it concerns many people. Parents who lose a child in his infancy naturally ask, “Is our child saved?” On what basis is there hope for the salvation of the child? Although I have not been through this kind of distress, many years ago I was shaken up when I learned that a young daughter of my cousin and my cousin’s parents-in-law, were killed after being trapped in a fire that was set by an angry man who wanted to take vengeance, and the object of his vengeance happened to be the neighbor. I had known the young girl as a sweet child, obedient to her parents and very sensible for her age. Because her parents are unbelievers, as far as I know she had never heard the Gospel. What then happened to her? It is indeed dreadful to think that children who die in infancy or even at a young age should suffer eternal punishment. Within the context of the church, what comfort can we to offer those who lost a child?

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, [227] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[228] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[229]

[227] Luke 18:15-16. Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”. Acts 2:38-39. And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For 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.” John 3:3, 5. 1 John 5:12. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. Romans 8:9.

[228] John 3:8.

[229] 1 John 5:12. Acts 4:12. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

One of the traditional passages cited to support the existence of elect infants is 2 Samuel 12:15-23. When David was informed that the first son that Bethsheba bore for him had died, he said,

22 “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

This seems to be the only passage in Scripture that even vaguely speaks about the salvation of infants. And its validity as a basis for developing a doctrine of infant salvation has always been weak and doubtful. Some would say that in David’s time the idea of afterlife was rather primitive and David was simply speaking about the realm of the dead, the Sheol. However, this view is too simplistic. We must keep in mind that the overall context shows a change of heart on David’s part, from anguish to hope. It is reasonable to grant that David’s statement expresses a certain truth, even if it may not be as precise as we have wished.

Another passage that is often used to support the election of infants (some if not all) is Luke 18:15-17. The disciples rebuked those who brought infants to be touched by Jesus, but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” From these sayings we may deduce that there are certain qualities of children and infants which are required for entering into the kingdom of God. It is generally understood that those qualities refer to the children’s (relative) innocence. But is Jesus teaching an object lesson here, using the children as an illustration of the abstract quality of innocence? Or is Jesus actually saying also that these infants are actually in the kingdom? A further complication has to do with Jesus’ use of the term “children”, which may refer to children of a wide range of ages. Is he referring to the immediate preceding context of “infants” only, or to “children” in general?

Now, I bring up these discussions not to add confusion, but to show how difficult the question is concerning the salvation of infants because of the scarcity of biblical data. This question is one that touches on many dimensions of theology and Christian anthropology (that is, the Christian view of man). It lies, as it were, at the extreme boundaries of the concepts of God’s sovereign grace and election, human responsibility, the nature and extent of the original sin, imputation of Adam’s sin, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, effectual calling, the necessity of faith as an instrument of justification, and God’s just judgment and punishment of sin. We must also note that these doctrines (e.g., God’s sovereignty, imputation of sin, imputation of righteousness) are derived from Scriptures that speak very clearly to them, and therefore we must consider them normative and look at the difficult issues we have here as borderline cases that need to be treated specially. What are some of the salient points of this paragraph in the Confession? We note the affirmation that there are elect infants. Such as die in their infancy are regenerated by God, and that their salvation is in Christ, through the Holy Spirit’s work. This may appear to be a tautology at first sight, but there are several important implications here. First, infants, being descendents of Adam, share the natural inability of all mankind to attain saving faith; therefore they need the regenerative work of the God. Being of the covenant of Adam, the infant shares the guilt of Adam and needs God’s salvation. This is in sharp contrast with the Pelagian view of the innate goodness of man. Next, this is a special case where the requirement of profession of faith, which ordinarily would be necessary for receiving justification, is “waived.” Again this is consistent with the priority of God’s sovereign grace and election. We see how the Arminian view falls short here, as it gives priority to human faith over God’s foreordination. It has difficulties reconciling, on the one hand, the original sin (which it wants to affirm to some extent), and on the other hand, its view of the role of faith in one’s salvation. Either it must slide further to Pelagianism, or it must deny salvation to infants and those incapable of exercising faith.

This paragraph also makes another important point by what it does not say. Note that nothing is mentioned about how many infants are among the elect or who they are. Unlike Charles Hodge, the Confession does not claim one way or the other whether all infants are saved, just that elect infants are. But as we will see later, we have reasonable basis to think that infants of believing parents are in the grace of God.

Yet another affirmation of this paragraph is the sovereign freedom of the Holy Spirit. In the broader picture, the Holy Spirit’s is not constrained by human works. It is true that the ordinary means of salvation is by hearing the Gospel and believing in and professing faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 10:14, “But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” 17 Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. The preaching of the word is therefore the primary, ordinary means by which God brings about salvation and gathers his people. Yet in extraordinary circumstances the Holy Spirit may freely choose to effect regeneration in infants and effectually calling them. Another unusual case is that of people incapable of coming to faith, outwardly. God may freely extend his grace to such.

At this point we must pause and reflect on the implications of the foregoing discussion. One of the questions that we often encounter during evangelism is, “What happens to those who have never heard the Gospel? It’s unfair that they should be punished for not believing since they never had the opportunity.” Now since the Holy Spirit can work where, when, and how he pleases, does this mean that it is possible that he may work in extraordinary ways among the heathen whom the Gospel has not reached by ordinary means, that is, through missionary work? Before answering this question, we first note the dangers of some modern philosophy of missions. In late 19^th century and early 20^th century, the mainline Protestant churches have begun to accept theological modernism, and one of the consequences was the gradual abandoning of the traditional Christian view of non-Christian religions’ being essentially idolatrous. Some even went so far as saying that the Holy Spirit could work through these non-Christian religions and bring about salvation. This resulted in a fundamental shift of missions from bringing the Good News of Jesus Christ to merely works of relief and mercy, since it was now believed among the modernists that world religions were different ways of coming to God. Now we do not dispute the goodness of works of mercy; Paul in his missionary efforts was also genuinely concerned with the needs of the poor and the weak (Acts 20:35; Gal. 2:10). However, to think that a non-Christian religion can be a way of salvation is to deny the clearest teaching of Scripture concerning the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ. And the next paragraph in this chapter sternly warns against this line of thinking.

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[230] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[231] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[232] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[233] And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[234]

[230] Matthew 22:14. For many are called, but few are chosen.

[231] Matthew 7:21-23. “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” Matthew 13:20-21. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. Hebrews 6:4-6. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

[232] John 6:64-66. But there are some of you who do not believe. (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. John 8:24. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.

[233] Acts 4:12. John 14:6. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Ephesians 2:12. Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. John 4:22. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. John 17:3. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

[234] 2 John 9-11. 1 Corinthians 16:22. Galatians 1:6-8. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Here the Confession first distinguishes between effectual calling and apparent calling, noting that there are some who may appear to be called by the ministry, and may even exhibit evidence of conversion. Yet not all who are outwardly called are true Christians. Jesus’ parable of the sower illustrates the fact that some may hear the Word and appear to receive it with joy, but would eventually fail to persevere because of trials. In a similar vein, Hebrews 6:4-6 speaks of those who have tasted the heavenly gift yet later would fall away. In an even more dramatic case, there are those who may remain outwardly in the fellowship of the saints, but would be declared to be workers of lawlessness before the judgment seat of Christ. Does this mean that God’s calling in some way failed? By no means! Those whom God has elected he ensures that they will be truly effectually called and he will preserve them—and they will persevere—to the end. The external means of calling are one and the same, namely, the proclamation of the Word. But the internal testimony and enlightenment of the Spirit do not always correspond to the outward phenomena. Some may abandon the communion of the saints, and of such the Apostle John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). And we must understand passages like Hebrews 6:4-6 or Romans 11:22, which warn against apostasy, as the means by which God preserves us and compels us to persevere, just as the proclamation of the Gospel was the means by which God first called us. Likewise, Peter exhorts us to make our calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10).

Furthermore, the effectual calling of the Spirit, whether in ordinary or extraordinary ways, is never apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The claims of Scripture are too clear to allow any other way. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). In Acts 4:12, Peter proclaimed, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

So, what can we say about infants and those who have not heard the Gospel? First, we must distinguish between our knowledge and God’s knowledge. Van Til spoke of our knowledge as analogical to God’s knowledge, and this means that the differences between God’s knowledge and ours are not only quantitative, but also qualitative. God’s knowledge is perfect, comprehensive, absolute, and certain, in all respects. Our knowledge, on the other hand, is limited and perspectival. Especially concerning the heart, a person’s true condition is known only to himself and to God. To be sure, in God’s Word there is infallible knowledge of his revealed will for our salvation. Yet in many cases we can speak only of presumptive knowledge rather than absolute certainty. This applies even to the institution of the visible church. For example, confession of faith and repentance unto life are the requirements for membership in the visible church, and even though there may be hypocrites (may it never be in our church!) who meet those requirements, we still must presume all members of the visible church to be members also of the invisible, and treat them as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ with all sincerity. Furthermore, we must recognize the boundaries of proper human knowledge. There are certain questions that we are capable of asking with our language, yet we cannot answer definitely, if at all. Theologians (aren’t we all?) in their attempt to formulate doctrines are sometimes prone to overstate their case. We must guard against overzealous speculation, which may lead us into a false sense of hope or assurance.

For infants dying in their infancy, I believe the presumption should take the following forms. In the case of infants of believing parents (or even one believing parent), the presumption is that they are saved. This can be argued on the basis not only of David’s words in 2 Samuels 12, but even more strongly, of covenant continuity, namely, God’s promise is to us and to our children (Acts 2:39). This presumption is also in harmony with our children’s being granted covenant status until such time as they should publicly profess faith. On the other hand, in my opinion, we should not presume anything about infants of heathen and unbelieving parents. Charles Hodge may after all turn out to be right—I certainly wish he is right—but I still find his statement too far-reaching and too speculative. A related, and in many ways more difficult, problem is that of somewhat older children. The notions of “age of accountability” or “age of discernment” are not well defined, may vary among individuals, and in any case impossible to pinpoint.

For those who are considered to be incapable of being outwardly called, we can presume only to the extent of their proximity to the visible church. Disabled covenant children may reasonably be assumed to be continually preserved by God’s grace. Conversely, as with the case of infants of unbelieving parents, for others we cannot presume one way or another.

Let us now return to the question concerning those who have never heard the Gospel, either because temporal necessity (they lived before Christ came) or because the Gospel has not reached them. Instead of answering the question in absolute definitiveness, I would approach it this way. First, the overwhelming witness of Scripture is that they are presumed to be lost, and I would add that this presumption is very strong. [Eph. 2:12, Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.] [Romans 1:18-21, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.] Whereas the Confession affirms the possibility of salvation for infants and those incapable of outward calling, without requiring their explicit confession of faith, we should note that the inability of these groups is of a different kind from that inability of those who are morally responsible even though they have not heard the Gospel. To be sure, Scripture gives hints of certain people who may almost be considered exceptional cases. Cornelius, even before he was visited by Peter, was called a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God (Acts 10:2). Since there could be no true fear of God apart from Christ, and since Luke’s description of his state of being before he attained knowledge of Christ is genuine, we can infer that God had probably graciously granted him some kind of pre-evangelical knowledge. Scripture is silent about the means by which he may have learned about the one, true, living God; it may have been through some kind of proto-evangelism like the message of repentance that Jonah preached to Nineveh, or have been through extraordinary means. The point is that God’s special revelation is needed to bring saving grace to man and to effect saving faith in man. Even so, God still saw to it that Peter should bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Cornelius, so that he may be assured of his salvation. We might also consider certain other biblical figures, such as Job, Melchizedek, and Lemuel (who wrote Proverbs 31), whom we cannot properly trace to the various administrations of the covenant of grace (e.g., Noachic, Abrahamic, or the Davidic), as cases in which God worked in extraordinary gracious ways. Yet we know this only because Scripture tells us so, and we must again be mindful that, exceptional cases are, by definition, exceptional. We have no right to expect or demand that God should dispense his grace in extraordinary ways. It should be noted that the Larger Catechism, Q. 63, speaks about “ordinary” means of salvation in connection with the visible church. It does not deny God’s extraordinary means, but at the same time it makes no specific claims to them. The possibility of God’s extraordinary works is not denied, and this, I think, is in accordance with God’s sovereign freedom, for God will have mercy on whom he has mercy. Nevertheless we must not speculate about whether or how many there may be so called “righteous heathens” or who they are. It is tempting to think that supposedly wise teachers like Confucius or Socrates may somehow be in touch with God’s saving grace, even though there was no evidence that they ever came in contact with the Christian message or the Old Testament, its shadow. Zwingli, for example, went too far in citing Socrates as a candidate for “righteous heathen”.

Thus we must carefully guard the doctrine of salvation in Christ alone. This is especially important in our evangelistic and missionary endeavors. Cultural and anthropological studies may uncover interesting phenomena, such as the monotheism of the ancient Chinese and their concept of sacrifice, or the Karen people of Southeast Asia who apparently also believed in one God and were expecting a savior. By God’s grace, many of the Karen people came to faith in Christ when they heard the Gospel, and we rejoice with the heavenly host at their salvation. But even in these instances I think we cannot find biblical warrant for drawing equivalence between the revealed religion of the Old Testament and the former religions of the ancient Chinese or the Karen people.

Finally, for those who ask the question about salvation of unreached people, especially those who inquire about the faith, we should not doubt their sincerity and we should acknowledge that we do not know everything that God knows. What we do know, is that God is sovereign, just, and merciful. And to such a one we may say, “God calls you to repent and to believe in Christ. He has made the way of salvation clearly known, and today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart. Do not refuse him who calls you.” At the same time, let these same words sink in our ears, and let us make our calling and election sure, and work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. May glory and praise be to God alone.

Schrödinger’s Cat

The most famous feline in science-lore is, beyond controversy, Schrödinger’s cat. In a recent article (subscription required) in the Wall Street Journal, science writer Sharon Begley wrote about the implications of the gedanken experiment, how the weird quantum behavior of subatomic particles can actually affect the “real world,” i.e., the world as we normally perceive it, with deterministic laws, etc. (I believe Ms. Begley was somewhat mistaken about the experimental setup: it is not the particles that smashes the vial, but an apparatus such as a Geiger counter which, depending on its count, triggers something that in turn smashes the vial. But those are just details.) There are philosophical implications on epistemology as well: what is the state of a system before anyone has observed it?

But this article reminded me of a friend, whose application of the gedanken experiment was perhaps the boldest and most comic. He made quantum analogy of the state of a lady’s heart, and proceeded to observe that state. Being somewhat of a nerd, he preambled his overture to the lady with a description of Schrödinger’s cat, how it is necessary that he should disturb (perturb) the system in order to observe it, to learn its state. Of course, the setup of Schrödinger’s cat is somewhat macabre, so he had to modify it: instead of a cyanide vial, he used paints. And thus he presented his overture to the lady with whom he was infatuated, and he was, not surprisingly, turned down. I laughed at his approach: probably only a physicist would have appreciated his analogy. But he retorted that the lady at the end was gracious to soften the blow by saying that this analogy was a good opening. At least he now knows the state of the lady’s heart.

The moral of the story: even though a woman’s heart is as mysterious as a quantum system, one should avoid Schrödinger’s cat in one’s romantic pursuit.

Ted Kennedy's concern for young girls

One of the mysteries—for me anyway—of Massachusetts politics is, why would seemingly intelligent Massachusettsans keep on electing Ted Kennedy to the Senate, and, for that matter, a certain haughty, French-looking Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam.

This article from National Review Online shows how low Sen. Kennedy is willing to go to exploit a case involving a search on a 10-year-old girl in order to bring down Judge Alito. All that mattered to him was the “scar” that would be with the girl for life, the facts (warranted search involving a drug dealer) behind the case mattering little or not at all.

Sen. Kennedy has become quite compassionate lately. I didn’t remember him raising his concerns when Elian was forcibly taken by FBI agents under the order of Janet Reno. And, as James Taranto would say, Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

Luther’s theology of the cross

Professor Carl R. Trueman has a wonderful short article on Luther’s theology of the cross that I think prescribes some required medicine for the (typical) Reformed mind.

And so does Professor John Frame, who wrote about the “pathos game”.

Returning from Taiwan

I just returned from a three-week trip to Taiwan, and am now busy getting caught up with work, reading, etc. One thing I enjoyed the most while on my trip was rehearsing the Sonata No. 2 (op. 94a) by Sergei Prokofiev (after whom a cake was named), with a pianist friend. I had thought Prokofiev to be weird, but over time I came to appreciate this particular composition, both its techniques and music.

My German also improved, as I had more opportunity to practice with the same friend, who had studied piano at Berlin’s Hochschule für Musik Hanns Eisler and who describes herself as halbdeutsch. She taught me quite a few new words and phrases.