Elect among the unreached
- Thread starter kvanlaan
- Start date
- Status
I think if Jim Bob was one of the elect he would be saved in exactly the same way as infants or toddlers who never heard (or gained the capacity to understand) the gospel.
Once you admit one category of persons who never hear the gospel (people dying in infancy) may be elect, I see no valid reason to exclude the other category (the unreached).
Once you admit one category of persons who never hear the gospel (people dying in infancy) may be elect, I see no valid reason to exclude the other category (the unreached).
charliejunfan
Puritan Board Senior
if He was a cognantly able person God would have, in his providence, someone go to him and speak the gospel to him. with infants it is the same, if God wanted them to grow up they would have heard the gospel and been converted outwardly as a result of the seed of faith that grew with them and someone coming to them since they were elect, cause remember it is for His glory that the word either indicts or illumines. I hope I explained that clearly. His providence has people reach those who are elect and cognant. Faith is, I believe part of our imputed righteousness based on his paying for unbelief on the cross and Him being our covenantal head. This is how I think it would all go down. I do not have a verse that specifically states this though.
Jim Bob perished in his sins. He was never part of the elect.
This is why there should be an urgency to preach and reach people with the gospel. If Jim Bob was part of the elect he would have heard the gospel some how.
Romans 10:14-17
Romans 2:12
Luke 13:5
Jim Bob is not in the same position as covenantal blessing as elect infants.
1 Corinthians 7:14
Acts 16:13-14
Acts 15:16-34
Acts 18:8
This is why there should be an urgency to preach and reach people with the gospel. If Jim Bob was part of the elect he would have heard the gospel some how.
Romans 10:14-17
Romans 2:12
Luke 13:5
Jim Bob is not in the same position as covenantal blessing as elect infants.
1 Corinthians 7:14
Acts 16:13-14
Acts 15:16-34
Acts 18:8
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
"Once you admit one category of persons who never hear the gospel (people dying in infancy) may be elect, I see no valid reason to exclude the other category (the unreached)."
HELLO! That is exactly right!
Election is a very important part of the salvific pie, but it is not the entire pie and the Gospel lays out exactly what is needed for the salvation of man's soul. None of the Scriptures that the WMC uses to support infant election stands under scrutiny? What??? I don't even have to scrutinize the Scriptures it uses...they just don't even support infant election in any fashion. Here is a short 
on the Scriptures they use:
The good writers of the WMC left out vv 17 of Luke 18: Now they were bringing
even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it,
they rebuked them. 16But 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. 17
Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child
shall not enter it."
“for to such belongs the kingdom of God” I believe is referring to that
verse which follows this statement. Indeed vv 17 is a definition of vv 16. So
the kingdom of God belongs to those who receive it as a child. How does a child
receive anything from a parent? They receive what they need without any
contributions from themselves but only from their parents. This reinforces
salvation by Christ alone through faith alone by grace alone. It doesn’t
support infant election.
John 3:3, 5 has to do with being born again. I’m unsure why they use this as a
supporting verse for infant election. It certainly doesn’t exclude the hearing
of the Gospel unto salvation.
Acts 2:38-39 does give them a promise of salvation to them, their children, and
those far off. But can you say that all of a believer’s children receive that
promise? Can you say that all who are far off receive that promise. No, nor
would you. In another way, wouldn’t you agree that this text isn’t
excluding their children from growing up? Nothing in this verse alludes to
dying infants. It just says that their children will receive the promise. Their
children will always remain their children no matter how old they get. Indeed,
salvation would have been exclusive to that generation only if we took this
verse to mean to them and their children who would never grow up and have
children of their own, who would have children of their own, etc on which the
promise would continue not because of earthly inheritance but by the mere fact
that generations were continuing on and thus salvation would be given to
certain members of each generation.
Rom 8:9, 1 John 5:12 are also not supportive texts for infant election. Nor
does it support the doctrine that there are those who are saved without hearing
the Gospel…something I find hard to believe is found in the WMC! I might as
well take the plunge and be a Universalist and be done with the matter.
John 3:8 only informs us that we do not have a hand in our salvation and that it
is by the Holy Spirit. This texts confirms Luke 18 the first text used.
How does Acts 4:12 or 1 John 5:12 support this doctrine? It only states that
there is only one Way, Jesus Christ, for salvation.
This is our supporting evidence for infant election? This is all we have? I’m
still unconverted to this doctrine.
HELLO! That is exactly right!
Election is a very important part of the salvific pie, but it is not the entire pie and the Gospel lays out exactly what is needed for the salvation of man's soul. None of the Scriptures that the WMC uses to support infant election stands under scrutiny? What??? I don't even have to scrutinize the Scriptures it uses...they just don't even support infant election in any fashion. Here is a short on the Scriptures they use:The good writers of the WMC left out vv 17 of Luke 18: Now they were bringing
even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it,
they rebuked them. 16But 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. 17
Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child
shall not enter it."
“for to such belongs the kingdom of God” I believe is referring to that
verse which follows this statement. Indeed vv 17 is a definition of vv 16. So
the kingdom of God belongs to those who receive it as a child. How does a child
receive anything from a parent? They receive what they need without any
contributions from themselves but only from their parents. This reinforces
salvation by Christ alone through faith alone by grace alone. It doesn’t
support infant election.
John 3:3, 5 has to do with being born again. I’m unsure why they use this as a
supporting verse for infant election. It certainly doesn’t exclude the hearing
of the Gospel unto salvation.
Acts 2:38-39 does give them a promise of salvation to them, their children, and
those far off. But can you say that all of a believer’s children receive that
promise? Can you say that all who are far off receive that promise. No, nor
would you. In another way, wouldn’t you agree that this text isn’t
excluding their children from growing up? Nothing in this verse alludes to
dying infants. It just says that their children will receive the promise. Their
children will always remain their children no matter how old they get. Indeed,
salvation would have been exclusive to that generation only if we took this
verse to mean to them and their children who would never grow up and have
children of their own, who would have children of their own, etc on which the
promise would continue not because of earthly inheritance but by the mere fact
that generations were continuing on and thus salvation would be given to
certain members of each generation.
Rom 8:9, 1 John 5:12 are also not supportive texts for infant election. Nor
does it support the doctrine that there are those who are saved without hearing
the Gospel…something I find hard to believe is found in the WMC! I might as
well take the plunge and be a Universalist and be done with the matter.
John 3:8 only informs us that we do not have a hand in our salvation and that it
is by the Holy Spirit. This texts confirms Luke 18 the first text used.
How does Acts 4:12 or 1 John 5:12 support this doctrine? It only states that
there is only one Way, Jesus Christ, for salvation.
This is our supporting evidence for infant election? This is all we have? I’m
still unconverted to this doctrine.
charliejunfan
Puritan Board Senior
right if someone is outside of the womb and is average in mind capabilities then God would in His providence have someone preach the Gospel to him. Maybe with infants He has the gospel/Word spoken around them lol, just to be like see you guys, I can do anything, its all me! not you!
charliejunfan
Puritan Board Senior
Federal Headship, we are in him, it is through Christ that all this is possible, even our grabbing on the Him by faith, it is a gift, he gives us faith, since He paid for our unbelief, there are some very good articles on apuritansmind chezeck it out.
Let me throw this into the discussion:
1689 LBC 10.3
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
1689 LBC 10.3
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )
Brother, no. Elect infants who die in infancy go to heaven.
1689 LBC 10.3a
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases;
Of course we don't know who is elect or not. Some teach that those infants born into Christian homes and die in infancy are elect. I have to trust that the God of universe will do right and rest on His mercy.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
None of the Scriptures that the WMC uses to support this doctrine actually support it. None.
I know that this part of the LBC and WCF is hotly debated by some. Personally I believe elect infants go to heaven, but I could be wrong.
charliejunfan
Puritan Board Senior
Amen!
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
.....WCF is Westminster Confession of Faith and I was referring to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Same but different...sorry for using an abbreviation with which you are not familiar...didn't mean to confuse anyone but I'm going to keep using that one because I'm not speaking of the WCF in its entirety.
...right, it's not difficult. What do you do with the rest of the requirements of the salvific pie?
...I'm not saying that He doesn't have the power to do this. I'm just saying that we have to accept Scriptural support on how salvation is accomplished.
...repectfully...just because you say something doesn't make it right. You in fact have to have Scriptural support. I could say that God is powerful enough to create a god just like Himself but that doesn't make it so. Even God isn't that powerful. The very fact that the god is created makes that god a created being and not God. So you just can't say, "God is powerful enough to do it!" You have to say, "Is this how God chose to do it?" and then back it up with Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's get something straight. You have the right to disagree with the confessions but not to teach against them. In other words, you've made your objection known, now let it be. I am NOT saying the confessions are infallible on this subject. The eternal destiny of infants that die in infancy is emotionally charged. I am not one to shut down debate on a topic randomly, but on this one it's best to make your view known and then move on.
Go to "User CP" --> "Setting and Options" --> "Signature"
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Absolutely! And I too mean "respectfully". I have no reason to not respect you. As for this discussion, no one has convinced me that it is true. The writers of the WMC's use of Scripture in their support of this doctrine didn't use Scripture which support this doctrine. I truly hope that I'm wrong and that you are right. I just cannot put my mind to giving one group of people (those who cannot cognitively understand the Gospel) special treatment while the rest of mankind has to live by how the salvific process is done. In my mind, there truly is only One Way and by only one means. I promised myself that I wouldn't have this conversation with people who have children though. So even though I usually don't back off a debate, I certainly will this one if that is what you want. I don't have any children, and although I want all children to go to heaven, I'm not as effected by this discussion as most people are and so I want to be sensitive. So, it's up to you. 
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
I agree with election completely. I just believe that Scripture states there is more to salvation than just election. I think many people put all their eggs into the one basket of election at times. But there's more:
Romans 10:14 How then will they 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? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
I understand that many people believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect infant and preaches the Gospel to them and that is how they receive salvation, but that is not indicated in Scripture. Scripture is clear about how the salvific process would happen. God decided that He would use the foolishness of mankind's preaching to spread His Gospel. He even decided that not all who heard His Gospel would receive it. He even decided that there would be those who would never hear it. Never have I read that anyone was saved who didn't hear the Gospel, or that there were some who heard the Gospel by a different means than that of mankind preaching it to them. The reason I hold onto this so fervently is not because I don't want babies to go to heaven, but because Scripture tells us not only of election but also of having to hear the Gospel from mankind, etc. I realize that the Holy Spirit could preach the Gospel since it was He that gave the apostles this revelation in the first place, but His ability isn't in question, the question is how He said the Gospel would be preached and that it had to be preached by mankind. These are just as important parts of the salvific process as election. Parts that cannot be discarded for one segment of mankind.
"
Romans 10:14 How then will they 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? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
I understand that many people believe that the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect infant and preaches the Gospel to them and that is how they receive salvation, but that is not indicated in Scripture. Scripture is clear about how the salvific process would happen. God decided that He would use the foolishness of mankind's preaching to spread His Gospel. He even decided that not all who heard His Gospel would receive it. He even decided that there would be those who would never hear it. Never have I read that anyone was saved who didn't hear the Gospel, or that there were some who heard the Gospel by a different means than that of mankind preaching it to them. The reason I hold onto this so fervently is not because I don't want babies to go to heaven, but because Scripture tells us not only of election but also of having to hear the Gospel from mankind, etc. I realize that the Holy Spirit could preach the Gospel since it was He that gave the apostles this revelation in the first place, but His ability isn't in question, the question is how He said the Gospel would be preached and that it had to be preached by mankind. These are just as important parts of the salvific process as election. Parts that cannot be discarded for one segment of mankind.
"
Read the next articel:
The Man on the Island: Facing the Truth About those who Never Hear the Gospel by Russell D. Moore
http://www.henryinstitute.org/documents/The_Man_on_the_Island.pdf
Is Jimbob an infant or is he mostly braindead? That seems like it might make a difference.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Sarah, it would be more expedient if you would say, "Can somebody show me that this is true, from scripture?" You are claiming the authority of scripture in your response before you have considered all of scripture.
There are implicit and explicit arguments to be made from scripture and you have not considered them all yet.
There are implicit and explicit arguments to be made from scripture and you have not considered them all yet.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Sorry, Bob. That was me trying to lighten things up. Kind of like the joke about when a Baptist who was at a paedo/credo debate came up to a man sitting at a table with books on it and told the man he hoped there were no books on the table about paedobaptism. The man looked around at his table and said, "No, I don't see the Bible here"
IAC, I did ask that question in a round about way. I gave the Scriptures that are used to support this doctrine with the hopes that someone would retort what I said about them specifically. You may if you have the time. I've said before that I hope I'm wrong....
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Sorry Sarah, I don't have much of a sense of humor, having dedicated my life to seriousness. I don't believe there is any place for humor on a board of this type.
Furthermore, if I give away all the answers then it will leave little room for discussion. When I settle a deep theological puzzle such as this then every one else clams up because my intellect is somewhat intimidating when I let it off the leash.
So, I am destined to keep my intellect curbed but well cared for, to take it on daily walks, brush it when it's coat gets matted, feed it a low fat high protein diet and and just love it and pray it doesn't bite anyone until it's necessary to bring it to the vet and have it put to sleep.
Blessings
Furthermore, if I give away all the answers then it will leave little room for discussion. When I settle a deep theological puzzle such as this then every one else clams up because my intellect is somewhat intimidating when I let it off the leash.
So, I am destined to keep my intellect curbed but well cared for, to take it on daily walks, brush it when it's coat gets matted, feed it a low fat high protein diet and and just love it and pray it doesn't bite anyone until it's necessary to bring it to the vet and have it put to sleep.
Blessings
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
