Are Babies Saints, Or Sinners, Or....?
The following questions were recently asked me and I will assume that my interrogator had no motive in mind except to elicit truth, therefore this short study which may help all of us to a better understanding of the subject. Here are the questions:
...do you class the babies as 'alien sinners' or not? If so, how did they become such? Of what 'sins' are they guilty? did they inherit the sins of their fathers? And if this orphaned baby should die would he go to heaven or to hell? And if the baby is NOT a sinner (and I suppose you would say he is not) then would he be a 'saint'? Or is there a middle class? And if he is a 'saint' and is destitute would he be eligible for the help which was collected 'for the poor saints'? I'd like your thinking on this."
I suppose the best thing to do would be to answer all his questions one by one, although he immediately assumes that I am not guilty of believing the very things that a wrong answer to his first five questions would cause me to be. In fact, he knows my answer to those things and I cannot help but wonder why they were asked. Now to the questions:
I do not class the babies as "alien sinners." Therefore, they did not become such and they are guilty of no "sins" and did not inherit the sins of their fathers. "The son shall not bear the iniquities of the father." If the baby, whether orphaned or not, died, I believe that his eternal home would be heaven. And now we come to the questions that may need answers.
As already stated, the baby is not a sinner and as stated in a former article, he is not a "saint." And since he is not a saint he would not be "eligible for the help which was collected 'for the poor saints'." As to the inquisitor's question about a "middle class," just call it what you will I know of no Bible name for that group, but anyone who has studied his Bible at all knows that the little baby is neither "saint" nor "sinner."
For the benefit of those who may be a little confused, let's use some different words. Let's talk about the "saved," the "lost," and any other class not included in those words. Now no one except one who believes in the doctrine of infant damnation believes that little babies fall in the class of the "lost." Since I am not among that number, I do not believe him to be "lost." Many of my brethren, those who are set on modifying God's law on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, may soon be taking that position, because that's the only ground left for them to occupy, but I am not of that school. I ask my querist, "Do you believe the little baby is born lost?"
All right, those who believe the Bible, know that the little baby is not "lost." But, is he "saved"? If so, what has he been saved from? He has to be lost before he can be saved. You cannot save that which has never been lost. So, if someone wants to take the position that the little baby is in the "saved" class, he must take the consequences of the doctrine, and accept infant damnation. So, call it what you will, it just looks like there may be a "middle class." Shall we call it what we have called It just as long as most of us can remember? These little babies who are born in a state of innocence are S-A-F-E, safe. The infant hasn't fallen, hasn't been lost, he is still "safe," but not saved.
In my study of the word "saint," in particular as It is used to designate God's people, the word always means, with some little deviation, "set apart" or "separated." It does not indicate a state of complete and perfect innocence, such as that possessed by the baby, except in the case of things heavenly. Vines says: ....sainthood is not an attainment, it is a state into which God in grace calls men." As in 1 Cor. 1:2, "....to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called.... saints." Getting right down to the meat of the coconut, the word "saved" and "saint" refers to exactly the same group of people, and to nobody else. Now (see foregoing paragraph) if someone wants to take the position that the little baby is a "saint" then he, too, must take the consequence. And the consequence is, as in the case of "saved" — infant damnation. For a baby to be a saint (set apart for God's service — saved, if you please) he must of necessity have been separated from God at some previous time. The only time this could have happened with the little baby would have been at birth. Of course, I have no idea what process one would suggest to bring about this separation or setting apart. Would it be "infant baptism"? But, remember, saved and saint are equivalent to the same thing.
Now, what about the care of the destitute infant? He is the obligation of you and me, individually. (James 1:27) When we learn this lesson and make the application in our lives God will be glorified, the orphans will be adequately cared for, and a whole lot of useless controversy among God's people over the "orphan home question" will come to an end.
My querist wanted my "thinking on this:" so — "Think on these things."
— Lometa, Texas