# Inclusivism in WCF X.3???



## Me Died Blue (Mar 29, 2004)

I wanted to post this earlier, but I've been gone all weekend. I'm reading the WCF in a very rigorous, critical, detailed way for the first time. In the past I had only read for a general understanding of what it said. But now that I'm reading with a more specific eye for things, I noticed what seems to be Inclusivism set forth in section X.3, which reads (emphasis mine): &quot;Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: [i:5a628fa662]so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[/i:5a628fa662]&quot; This seems to flatly contradict Romans 10:12-15, 17. Furthermore, the Scripture proofs given with that section of the WCF don't once mention those who don't hear the preached Word--they simply say that all who have Christ have life, and that no life can come apart from Christ.

Any help on understanding what the divines meant by this portion would be much appreciated.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## BrianLanier (Mar 30, 2004)

Infants and the mentally deficient are both incapable of being outwardly called. Even though they are regenerated they are unable to understand the gospel, not spiritually but physically. It is important to note that the confession say &quot;Elect infants, etc...&quot; Since there is little scriptural support for which infants and other incapable people might be saved (infants of believers or all infants), the confession just says the &quot;elect&quot; ones.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 30, 2004)

I realize that, and I'm glad that it specifies that [i:a0159473c2]elect[/i:a0159473c2] infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ, rather than generalizing it. The part that doesn't seem right to me is the part I emphasized in my quotation: &quot;...so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.&quot; While, as you point out, this could refer strictly to people such as mentally handicapped people, who could not [i:a0159473c2]physically[/i:a0159473c2] understand the Gospel even if it was presented to them directly. But the Confession doesn't say that; it simply says that &quot;all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word&quot; are saved--and this language seems to really imply an Inclusivist worldview, wherein the person in Asia who dies without ever hearing the Gospel directly preached can be saved. Furthermore, even if that isn't what the divines had in mind, many people today, when they read that part of the Confession, would think that's what it means, especially believers unfamiliar with the Reformed faith. I guess my problem with it is that, while it does not inevitably support Inclusivism, it doesn't rightly [i:a0159473c2]deny[/i:a0159473c2] it either, and assert that people can only be saved through the explicit preaching fo the Gospel, which it should.

Chris


----------



## BrianLanier (Mar 30, 2004)

I see your point Chris. However, Ch. X i says that ALL those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call.

So this would seem to prevent someone from reading section iii and come away with an inclusivistic understanding since ALL that those he elected he would call, with the exception of those that are physically incapable of heeding that call. That being said, I still see the apparant loophole.

Brian


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Mar 30, 2004)

Can an infant that dies in infancy in another country to pagan parents be elect?

Why or why not?
:soul:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 30, 2004)

Matt, I honestly don't know what I think about that. But the wording of the Confession in X.3 still troubles me, because even though it doesn't inevitably assert Inclusivism, its language implies it, and even more, they don't interpret their own statement to make it clear that they [i:26bcbaf7ca]deny[/i:26bcbaf7ca] Inclusivism.

Chris


----------



## py3ak (Mar 30, 2004)

Chris,

WCF X.3 does not teach inclusivism. Notice that it says that those who are &quot;incapable&quot; of being outwardly called. That incapacity is something that is in them. Your average heathen is capable of being called, that is, he has a brain that can process intelligible sounds. To put it another way, he is &quot;susceptible&quot; to be called, he is &quot;capable&quot; of it. The choice of the term &quot;incapacity&quot; demonstrates that the Assembly did not mean those who were not [i:aee60e7c0f]exposed[/i:aee60e7c0f] to the outward call, but those who, whether exposed or not were [i:aee60e7c0f]incapable[/i:aee60e7c0f] of being called by that means. As already mentioned, it then limits that to the elect.


----------



## wsw201 (Mar 30, 2004)

[quote:158c8658fc][i:158c8658fc]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:158c8658fc]
Can an infant that dies in infancy in another country to pagan parents be elect?

Why or why not?
:soul: [/quote:158c8658fc]

Yes. Election is not dependent upon location or parentage but the decree of God.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 30, 2004)

Thanks, Ruben. That definitely clarifies what they likely meant by it, and helps me square with the paragraph.

In Christ,

Chris


----------



## py3ak (Mar 31, 2004)

Glad it helped! It's always disconcerting when it suddenly seems like the WCF is wrong. It rattles your world a little (at least for me).


----------

