# Speaking of Exceptions...(or at least Questions) How About 10.3?



## kevin.carroll (Apr 5, 2005)

I really, really, REALLY want to agree with the Confessions here about elect infants, as a point of pastoral concern. But I have to tell you, the biblical proofs for this one are flimsy. Really, really, REALLY flimsy. Does anyone know if anything else has been written on this topic that has some better Scriptural proofs?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 5, 2005)

One important thing to always remember that can be easy to forget is that it only says _elect_ infants, and is silent with regard to the question of whether or not that describes all infants. Relating to the question of those who die "uncapable" of hearing the Gospel (including elect infants), that was discussed in this thread.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> One important thing to always remember that can be easy to forget is that it only says _elect_ infants, and is silent with regard to the question of whether or not that describes all infants. Relating to the question of those who die "uncapable" of hearing the Gospel (including elect infants), that was discussed in this thread.



I'll read the thread...but my question is essentially is there even such a thing at all? As I said, I find the Scriptural proofs on this one in the Standards to be inadequate.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> One important thing to always remember that can be easy to forget is that it only says _elect_ infants, and is silent with regard to the question of whether or not that describes all infants.





I ascribe to this part of the Westminster Confession reading this that there are SOME elect infants (however many God grants faith).


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 5, 2005)

It was left vague on purpose for that very reason. The Scriptures aren't clear. We know God sovereignly saves his elect. We know He is free to save whom He will. It's a decuction that only elect infants are saved since that is all we can deduce from everything else we know. Whether that means all infants or just the infants of believers, or elect ones we just don't know about, is never specified.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



The point is that the elect are elect and will always be saved. The Confession merely assumes, mostly from the examples of Jeremiah and John the Baptist, that some of the elect could be infants. 

So it makes sense that any elect infants are saved in that fashion. To say more is presumption; to say less is unbiblical.


----------



## kceaster (Apr 5, 2005)

I just taught this section last evening, and we saw the same thing. The Scriptures aren't clear on the issue of infants, but how clear is it that the elect who die have been regenerated and saved by His Spirit? Therefore, why should that not apply to infants?

What I found striking was that, as pastoral as the NT is, we find not one instance of an infant dying with any commentary. (not counting the many who died on account of Herod's decree.) Because of this, the silence speaks volumes. We know salvation is all of God, so if elect, infants have to be saved by God in whatever way He has planned it. Those infants not elect, according to God's good pleasure, are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.

A few of the men expressed that their wives miscarried, and the consensus about this was that, it is not that every one of them is saved, but that we have faith that God saved them if it was His desire to do so. Because of the fact it seems desirous that He save us and our wives, there is no reason to doubt that God will save our children who die. But whether He does or not, He is gracious and good and His judgments are right entirely.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this section seems to be speaking against two errant doctrines. The first is baptismal regeneration, and the second is that all children are saved by God because they are innocent. They are speaking to baptismal regeneration by correctly assuming that these infants are saved by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and not the operation of men or religious rites. They are speaking to innocence by correctly assuming that the infant must be elect in order to be saved and that the Spirit must regenerate them, because even though an infant, they are still guilty of original sin.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The other thing to keep in mind is that this section seems to be speaking against two errant doctrines. The first is baptismal regeneration, and the second is that all children are saved by God because they are innocent. They are speaking to baptismal regeneration by correctly assuming that these infants are saved by the operation of the Holy Spirit, and not the operation of men or religious rites. They are speaking to innocence by correctly assuming that the infant must be elect in order to be saved and that the Spirit must regenerate them, because even though an infant, they are still guilty of original sin.



Yes... that is an EXCELLENT point to keep in mind! Good observation!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



It's a pretty broad assumption...especially since neither John nor Jeremiah died in infancy.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



And it is somehow less narrow to presume that all children who die in infancy are not elect and go to hell?

I know that you would never apply that pastorally. But that is the logical consequence of your statement.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> And it is somehow less narrow to presume that all children who die in infancy are not elect and go to hell?
> 
> I know that you would never apply that pastorally. But that is the logical consequence of your statement.



No, I wouldn't, although God would be just in doing so. On the other hand, I posted that remark before we spoke today.


----------



## knight4christ8 (Apr 7, 2005)

We also have to remember that the confession was not originally written or intended to need Scripture proofs. The proofs are not particular verses sometimes. They are often supported by the character of God as seen in Scripture as a whole. The Scripture proofs for God's immutability in Ch. II are also flimsy - I think the scripture given is Elihu in Job. Not a good support considering He was later rebuked.

Much of the confession is arrived at through reasoning (good and necessary consequence) about the Bible as a whole. Considering verses in showing the character of God and then applying what should be known by His act.


----------

