Necessity of conscious faith/outward calling & Acts 17:30

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andrew Hall

Puritan Board Freshman
The following statements in the 1689 LBCF (& WCF) struck me as contradictory, and along with the further questions I had about Acts 17:30, I'm hoping for some help.

10:3 (WCF 10:3) - "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." This appears to contradict the following:

10:4 (WCF 10:4) - "... Much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the religion they do profess." This goes along with 20:2 (no parallel in WCF): "This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of that revelation of him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance."

While generally I think most Reformed folk would say that "elect infants" are those who belong to believers (cf. Canons of Dort 1:17), these elect infants and others are incapable of being outwardly called by the gospel. (Note it does not say they cannot make a profession because they're mute, or that they cannot comprehend the gospel. It says they cannot be called outwardly.) So what makes unreached peoples--past, present, or future--any different? Why do we conclude God has elected some to life apart from hearing and responding to the gospel, but that this doesn't apply in regards to unreached people groups "who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

Acts 17:30-31 says (Paul speaking to the Athenians), "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." (1) In what way did God "overlook" the Gentiles' godlessness in the past? Romans 1-2 says the wayward Gentiles have been storing up wrath for themselves and are without excuse. (2) Does this verse teach that if people had no saving revelation of Christ or of the covenant of grace, that their sins would be overlooked by God? (3) If the "now" was the resurrection of Christ, it would still take time to spread the gospel to all peoples. Are people now suddenly damned because they lived after the resurrection but before the gospel reached them? [Please know that I believe everyone in history is sinful in Adam and so justly - to God, not my own comprehension - deserves death.]
 
(1) In what way did God "overlook" the Gentiles' godlessness in the past?

He did not give them the law nor any hope or standing with the Jews to be called as His people.

(2) Does this verse teach that if people had no saving revelation of Christ or of the covenant of grace, that their sins would be overlooked by God?

Everyone is condemned so I don't think "overlooked" means what you think it means. I explained above.

(3) If the "now" was the resurrection of Christ, it would still take time to spread the gospel to all peoples. Are people now suddenly damned because they lived after the resurrection but before the gospel reached them?

"Now" refers to the time when the Gospel is revealed to not only belong to the Jews but also the Gentiles.

10:3 (WCF 10:3) - "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." This appears to contradict the following:

10:4 (WCF 10:4) - "... Much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the religion they do profess."


WCF 10:3 and 10:4 don't seem to contradict to me. 10:3 discusses how elect persons are saved apart from the outward call by the power of the Spirit. 10:4 talks about how those who are not elect are condemned even after having been outwardly called.
 
Last edited:
The following statements in the 1689 LBCF (& WCF) struck me as contradictory, and along with the further questions I had about Acts 17:30, I'm hoping for some help.

10:3 (WCF 10:3) - "Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." This appears to contradict the following:

10:4 (WCF 10:4) - "... Much less can men that do not receive the Christian religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the religion they do profess." This goes along with 20:2 (no parallel in WCF): "This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; much less that men destitute of that revelation of him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance."
1) The contradiction is probably only apparent, not real.
2) LBC's insertion of ch20 is tied to the rewrite of WCF ch7. (cf. LBC 20.1 to LBC 7:2 & WCF 7.3)
3) LBC 20.2 must not be abstracted from 20.4, which emphasizes the Spirit's internal work in conjunction with the gospel. One reads there of the gospel being "the only outward means" leading to saving faith.
4) The point of including mention of salvation for those infants or others "incapable of being outwardly called," is to affirm that God may extraordinarily reveal Christ to such persons and give them faith in him, whose reason is not such that allows them the ordinary avenue of grace. He is not bound to abandon them, due to the concurrent fact he has not equipped them mentally or physically (in this life).


While generally I think most Reformed folk would say that "elect infants" are those who belong to believers (cf. Canons of Dort 1:17), these elect infants and others are incapable of being outwardly called by the gospel. (Note it does not say they cannot make a profession because they're mute, or that they cannot comprehend the gospel. It says they cannot be called outwardly.) So what makes unreached peoples--past, present, or future--any different? Why do we conclude God has elected some to life apart from hearing and responding to the gospel, but that this doesn't apply in regards to unreached people groups "who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."
The elect infants referred to are simply those infants God has chosen. Believing parents have a duty to hold on the promises of God; the unbelieving have no reason to hope, since the promises (which are all in Christ) are rejected by them, or certainly cannot be selectively appropriated by them. But, if God were to elect a few or many of their dying infants, unbeknownst to them or anyone (and ordain extraordinary means for savingly revealing Christ to them)--that is his business. The Scripture is silent, and the death of children (Rom.5:14) proves they are under the curse immediately, and not only after an "age of accountability."

The "unreached peoples" are not incapable as the writers mean it. They are cut off for a time from the gospel, but their hearing and reason work fine. That they are cut off is a factor of divine judgment. We may conclude that when the gospel arrives, and if it is believed, the judgment of God has been relieved, and the day of grace has come to find those elect among them.

We have no reason to hope or think that God has planned access to mercy (by other routes than gospel-hope) for any who persist in unbelief. Some die in sin who did never hear the gospel, whose not-hearing was a form of preliminary judgment. They were not permitted to hear. This in no way shortens the duty of the church to reach out continually to more and more with the gospel, because we are assured there are some elect to be found among all the "unreached" tribes. It is the church's duty and privilege to expand the scope of the gospel call unto the ends of the earth.


Acts 17:30-31 says (Paul speaking to the Athenians), "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." (1) In what way did God "overlook" the Gentiles' godlessness in the past? Romans 1-2 says the wayward Gentiles have been storing up wrath for themselves and are without excuse. (2) Does this verse teach that if people had no saving revelation of Christ or of the covenant of grace, that their sins would be overlooked by God? (3) If the "now" was the resurrection of Christ, it would still take time to spread the gospel to all peoples. Are people now suddenly damned because they lived after the resurrection but before the gospel reached them? [Please know that I believe everyone in history is sinful in Adam and so justly - to God, not my own comprehension - deserves death.]
1) The "overlooking" referred to is the manifest abeyance of the judgment of God. Rather than answering the gross sins of the Gentiles with suitable and swift punishments; God let men alone (as it were) for a long time, and put off the day of wrath almost without any sign that it should someday be enforced. It is by and because of the gospel that now both a definite Day of Judgment is announced; and that for a while there is a day for repentance.

2) The "storing up of wrath" is actually what men do, all their lives apart from God. They don't live "balanced" lives of doing some good and some evil, as if there was a neutral life that was neither good nor bad. Their is a duty to do good, every moment, and so any evil done is law-breaking. There are no works of "supererogation," things done for "extra credit" that will make-up for the failures. And there is no sub-optimal passing grade, say you need at least a 70% effort. There's an illustration out there of the man pulled over for ignoring a red light; who complains to the patrolman writing his ticket, "I stopped at EVERY LIGHT in your podunk town--six of them, stalling me for two minutes each, took me 20 minutes to get through two miles--shouldn't that count here?" No, the law's wrath came upon him at the uttermost. Blowing through the last light, not only that violation but all the other times he rolled through a stop-sign, sped over the limit, etc.; everything he's got away with justifies his fine.

There's no actual relief for the wicked. Sins are only forgotten by God utterly if they are answered for: either by ourselves (not possible), or by a substitute. Passing them by for a time is not the same as never dealing with them. There is a day of reckoning for everyone. As Rom.2 makes clear, men do not live up to their own standards of righteousness, let alone God's. Where a man's own conscience convicts him of the same violation as an actual divine mandate, there the law-unto-himself will condemn himself in the Tribunal.

3) The resurrection is the event that testifies to the fact that God has no more reason to put off the Day of Judgment. Before Christ's death and resurrection, there was some memory that there is a God and he is a righteous Judge; but there was no announcement that such a Day was imminent. If you recall, God announced the imminence of the flood by way of Noah. For 120yrs, or at least for the 100yrs he built the ark, he was also a "preacher of righteousness," 2Pet.2:5, proclaiming the doom for sin was nigh. So, an example was given of how God left men alone for a time to know the fruit of their rebellion; and then announced his judgment, before bringing it.

Once again, God has left men alone for a time; but since the Lord's resurrection, his final Judgment has been announced prior to bringing it in. The timing in which men live is a factor of Providence. Men are condemned, no matter when they are alive, until they have faith in Christ--either a Christ who has yet to come the first time, or who has once come and is coming again. "Now" is the day of salvation, because there is no more reason (other than bringing in the elect) for the delay.

I hope this is helpful.
 
I was shocked recently when a man who I’ve been acquainted with online for many years said that all infants who die in infancy go to hell. This man is a Calvinistic Baptist who rejects covenant theology, (and so rejects parts of the LBCF) but I had known him to be basically sound otherwise. He said that affirming that even some infants can be saved without a conscious decision is taking a page out of the Presbyterian playbook.

I’ve heard of these types before, but I had tended to equate it with hyper-Calvinists who have no theological education, which doesn’t describe him. So maybe this belief is a little more common than I’ve thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top