fralo4truth
Puritan Board Freshman
Dear brethren, I'm attempting the great task of writing a book. The subject matter is a personal one; one which I've been exposed to for several years now. If you've followed any of my previous posts you will see that I'm part of the Primitive Baptists. Sadly, Hyper-Calvinism has slowly permeated much of their teaching. I myself have come to reject much of what this sytem teaches. As a result, I'm currently at a critical juncture in my ministry as I'm unsure of what my future holds with this people.
One thing denied is the idea that the gospel plays a role in the regeneration of souls. The foremost objection presented is that infants and/or fetuses can't be regenerated by the gospel as they never hear it, so the doctrine can't be true. We must stand for an absolute uniform system of regeneration for all. No exceptions allowed!
Below is a excerpt of my rough draft surrounding this matter: The Case of Infants. Please look at this and tell me if you agree or not. Can you recommend any changes or additions? Could you recommend any availalble sources which treat of this matter that I might could study?
And feel free to criticize if you feel the need. I want to set forth the truth to God's glory. Thank you.
"Let us begin with what is probably the strongest objection of all: the certain failure of the gospel to reach the dying fetus and/or infant. We admit that this is a crucial question, and one which must be addressed by anyone who sets forth a system of thought surrounding the relationship between regeneration and the Word of God. Yet we are not by ourselves in its contemplation. Explicitly stated in most confessions of faith is a designated point to specifically handle this case. We cite, for example, the 1689 London Confession of Faith:
'Elect infants dying in infancy are (John 3:3-6) regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how He pleaseth; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.'
As far as the authors of these confessions were concerned, it is quite clear that it was no major concern that infants were an exception to the rule of regeneration by means of the Word. Yet the author has not found such a tolerance amongst his acquaintances. He cannot tell you how often he has sat amongst a circle of church-goers pondering a particular idea (not just our current topic), only to have it denied simply because it would not fit with the fetus that was only alive for ten seconds!!! Such an objection is launched with much sincerity as a desire for a uniform method of salvation is contended for by practically all. If it cannot be made to square with every child of God without exception then it must be cast away as untenable! After much contemplation on this position, however, we have begun to wonder if it is right to reject ANY biblical proposition due to some anomaly as this. And so the question which concerns us is this: Does the Bible allow room for exceptions, or must we pursue a single method of regeneration which is made to square with all the elect without exception, including the fetus, the infant, the mentally disabled, and any other extraordinary cases? If the latter, then we must reject the confessional point above, ever maintaining that infants are regenerated in the exact same way as adults. If the former, then it becomes our job to ascertain by what authority we can declare infants an exception to the rule in the way of regeneration. We must locate how and where the Bible sanctions such a position which would allow infants to become an exception to the rule.
The Bible reveals the children of God. It tells us who they are, what they do, and what happens to them. The scriptures are literally full of texts which describe the elect family of God in some way or another. Yet let us pause here for one moment and ponder a very important question. When the bible makes such references, are the descriptions given always inclusive of infants, or are they declarations for the elect in general? Consider this question deeply, dear reader, for it is a crucial one. Let us take a simple example from scripture, shall we? In the book of Malachi a very touching description of the people of God is given:
“Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him” (3:16-17).
Here we are given a lovely description of the elect family of God whose names were written in the Lamb’s book of life. They are said to be those which “feared the Lord” and “thought upon his name”. None others are to be written in this book. Yet if we apply the IT-MUST-APPLY-TO-EVERY-CHILD-OF-GOD rule in order to be an acceptable assertion, then we run into a major problem. The infant does not “fear the Lord” and he does not think upon the Lord’s name, as he has not the current mental capacity to do so. Yet if I or any other minister were to ascend into the pulpit and trumpet forth the truth that the people of God fear the Lord and think on His name, what man would stand up in objection, claim it heresy, because it can not be made to square with little ones????
You probably see now, dear reader, what we are asserting. If biblical declarations which reference the family of God must always be inclusive of fetuses and/or infants before it is true, then we will find ourselves denying tons of other biblical assertions as well.
In order to affirm how important this revelation is let us consider more statements from the word of God. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (12:6), and those without such chastisement are “bastards, and not sons” (12:8). But can we adhere to this, knowing full well that the dying fetus never lives long enough to be chastened by God? And God forbid that we should go further and claim that they are not sons of God and the objects of His love! Obviously, there are some which the Lord loves whom he does not chasten! What of Paul’s statement to the Galatians where we are informed that they which belong to Christ “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (5:24)? Surely Paul is misinformed here, for the dying fetus never has an opportunity to do such a thing, or do they mortify their carnal appetites in the fleeting moments before they pass from this life? Again, we are informed that eternal life shall be given to those who “seek for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:7). But what of the fate of the dying fetus which never seeks for anything, much less, for immortality? Shall God not give him immortality? Lastly, Jesus tells us that every branch in Him that bears no fruit shall be taken away (John 15:1). Will the fetus be included in this judgment because they die before they can ever become fruit-bearers? Certainly not!
Dearest friends, in not one of these examples can the case of little ones who perish be made to fit with the objects in view. None of them are chastened by God! None of them crucify their affections! And none of them seek for immortality! Yet not one of us stands up in objection to these doctrines, but we all in unison proclaim them as truth! So why then would we DENY the proposal that God regenerates His people via the gospel because it cannot meet with the case of little ones, and yet RECEIVE the above assertions when they obviously exclude the same company!!!!!?
It is here, dearest brethren, that we uncover an important fundamental characteristic of the inspired word of God. It is the design of the scriptures to make general declarations for the whole of the body. Is it not understood that the above examples make reference to the elect in a general manner? Does the failure of little ones meeting such descriptions hinder us in any way of proclaiming those statements as solid truth!? God forbid! Paul did not hesitate or refrain from asserting a truth simply because he knew it would not apply to the infant/fetus! He knew that his audience would be those who had come to some age of maturity, and it was unto them he catered his teachings. When the bible describes the family of God, it goes without saying that it is appealing to them as having come to some measure of adulthood with a rational conscious! It is in that light in which we ourselves ought to read the scriptures. We should not pause at every instance in reading God’s word and ascertain as to whether it applies to fetuses and infants before we acknowledge it as truth! Were it our practice to do so, we would doubtless reject many other biblical assertions as well, including those mentioned above. Thus, while one may disagree with our proposal, we do not think that the case of the dying fetus and infant are sufficient reasons presented to refute it. What we are saying amounts to this. Dying fetuses and infants are, in many points, an exception to the rule. But the exception to the rule should not compel us to change the rule, or hinder us from proclaiming it! We still contend for a uniform method of salvation, not letting special cases which meet not the criteria alter our opinion.
From the small time that we have spent studying the works of past servants, it is somewhat consoling to know that some have reached similar conclusions. We agree with the notable Puritan preacher John Owen in his seeming persuasion that the exception of little ones should not hinder the establishment of church doctrine. Yet in order to be specific, he was noted as claiming “The Holy Spirit doth make use of it [the Word] in the regeneration or conversion of all that are adult, and that either immediately in and by the preaching of it, or by some other application of light and truth unto the mind derived from the Word.”
The omission of little ones as an objection to asserting doctrinal proposals removes a great barrier. It becomes much easier to consider a method of regeneration involving the word of God when they are no longer part of the equation. Their presence has, for far too long, hindered proponents of hyper-calvinism from considering the idea that the word is the ‘ordinary means’ whereby his people are regenerated. We should no longer let this be the case."
One thing denied is the idea that the gospel plays a role in the regeneration of souls. The foremost objection presented is that infants and/or fetuses can't be regenerated by the gospel as they never hear it, so the doctrine can't be true. We must stand for an absolute uniform system of regeneration for all. No exceptions allowed!
Below is a excerpt of my rough draft surrounding this matter: The Case of Infants. Please look at this and tell me if you agree or not. Can you recommend any changes or additions? Could you recommend any availalble sources which treat of this matter that I might could study?
And feel free to criticize if you feel the need. I want to set forth the truth to God's glory. Thank you.
"Let us begin with what is probably the strongest objection of all: the certain failure of the gospel to reach the dying fetus and/or infant. We admit that this is a crucial question, and one which must be addressed by anyone who sets forth a system of thought surrounding the relationship between regeneration and the Word of God. Yet we are not by ourselves in its contemplation. Explicitly stated in most confessions of faith is a designated point to specifically handle this case. We cite, for example, the 1689 London Confession of Faith:
'Elect infants dying in infancy are (John 3:3-6) regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how He pleaseth; so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.'
As far as the authors of these confessions were concerned, it is quite clear that it was no major concern that infants were an exception to the rule of regeneration by means of the Word. Yet the author has not found such a tolerance amongst his acquaintances. He cannot tell you how often he has sat amongst a circle of church-goers pondering a particular idea (not just our current topic), only to have it denied simply because it would not fit with the fetus that was only alive for ten seconds!!! Such an objection is launched with much sincerity as a desire for a uniform method of salvation is contended for by practically all. If it cannot be made to square with every child of God without exception then it must be cast away as untenable! After much contemplation on this position, however, we have begun to wonder if it is right to reject ANY biblical proposition due to some anomaly as this. And so the question which concerns us is this: Does the Bible allow room for exceptions, or must we pursue a single method of regeneration which is made to square with all the elect without exception, including the fetus, the infant, the mentally disabled, and any other extraordinary cases? If the latter, then we must reject the confessional point above, ever maintaining that infants are regenerated in the exact same way as adults. If the former, then it becomes our job to ascertain by what authority we can declare infants an exception to the rule in the way of regeneration. We must locate how and where the Bible sanctions such a position which would allow infants to become an exception to the rule.
The Bible reveals the children of God. It tells us who they are, what they do, and what happens to them. The scriptures are literally full of texts which describe the elect family of God in some way or another. Yet let us pause here for one moment and ponder a very important question. When the bible makes such references, are the descriptions given always inclusive of infants, or are they declarations for the elect in general? Consider this question deeply, dear reader, for it is a crucial one. Let us take a simple example from scripture, shall we? In the book of Malachi a very touching description of the people of God is given:
“Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him” (3:16-17).
Here we are given a lovely description of the elect family of God whose names were written in the Lamb’s book of life. They are said to be those which “feared the Lord” and “thought upon his name”. None others are to be written in this book. Yet if we apply the IT-MUST-APPLY-TO-EVERY-CHILD-OF-GOD rule in order to be an acceptable assertion, then we run into a major problem. The infant does not “fear the Lord” and he does not think upon the Lord’s name, as he has not the current mental capacity to do so. Yet if I or any other minister were to ascend into the pulpit and trumpet forth the truth that the people of God fear the Lord and think on His name, what man would stand up in objection, claim it heresy, because it can not be made to square with little ones????
You probably see now, dear reader, what we are asserting. If biblical declarations which reference the family of God must always be inclusive of fetuses and/or infants before it is true, then we will find ourselves denying tons of other biblical assertions as well.
In order to affirm how important this revelation is let us consider more statements from the word of God. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (12:6), and those without such chastisement are “bastards, and not sons” (12:8). But can we adhere to this, knowing full well that the dying fetus never lives long enough to be chastened by God? And God forbid that we should go further and claim that they are not sons of God and the objects of His love! Obviously, there are some which the Lord loves whom he does not chasten! What of Paul’s statement to the Galatians where we are informed that they which belong to Christ “have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (5:24)? Surely Paul is misinformed here, for the dying fetus never has an opportunity to do such a thing, or do they mortify their carnal appetites in the fleeting moments before they pass from this life? Again, we are informed that eternal life shall be given to those who “seek for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:7). But what of the fate of the dying fetus which never seeks for anything, much less, for immortality? Shall God not give him immortality? Lastly, Jesus tells us that every branch in Him that bears no fruit shall be taken away (John 15:1). Will the fetus be included in this judgment because they die before they can ever become fruit-bearers? Certainly not!
Dearest friends, in not one of these examples can the case of little ones who perish be made to fit with the objects in view. None of them are chastened by God! None of them crucify their affections! And none of them seek for immortality! Yet not one of us stands up in objection to these doctrines, but we all in unison proclaim them as truth! So why then would we DENY the proposal that God regenerates His people via the gospel because it cannot meet with the case of little ones, and yet RECEIVE the above assertions when they obviously exclude the same company!!!!!?
It is here, dearest brethren, that we uncover an important fundamental characteristic of the inspired word of God. It is the design of the scriptures to make general declarations for the whole of the body. Is it not understood that the above examples make reference to the elect in a general manner? Does the failure of little ones meeting such descriptions hinder us in any way of proclaiming those statements as solid truth!? God forbid! Paul did not hesitate or refrain from asserting a truth simply because he knew it would not apply to the infant/fetus! He knew that his audience would be those who had come to some age of maturity, and it was unto them he catered his teachings. When the bible describes the family of God, it goes without saying that it is appealing to them as having come to some measure of adulthood with a rational conscious! It is in that light in which we ourselves ought to read the scriptures. We should not pause at every instance in reading God’s word and ascertain as to whether it applies to fetuses and infants before we acknowledge it as truth! Were it our practice to do so, we would doubtless reject many other biblical assertions as well, including those mentioned above. Thus, while one may disagree with our proposal, we do not think that the case of the dying fetus and infant are sufficient reasons presented to refute it. What we are saying amounts to this. Dying fetuses and infants are, in many points, an exception to the rule. But the exception to the rule should not compel us to change the rule, or hinder us from proclaiming it! We still contend for a uniform method of salvation, not letting special cases which meet not the criteria alter our opinion.
From the small time that we have spent studying the works of past servants, it is somewhat consoling to know that some have reached similar conclusions. We agree with the notable Puritan preacher John Owen in his seeming persuasion that the exception of little ones should not hinder the establishment of church doctrine. Yet in order to be specific, he was noted as claiming “The Holy Spirit doth make use of it [the Word] in the regeneration or conversion of all that are adult, and that either immediately in and by the preaching of it, or by some other application of light and truth unto the mind derived from the Word.”
The omission of little ones as an objection to asserting doctrinal proposals removes a great barrier. It becomes much easier to consider a method of regeneration involving the word of God when they are no longer part of the equation. Their presence has, for far too long, hindered proponents of hyper-calvinism from considering the idea that the word is the ‘ordinary means’ whereby his people are regenerated. We should no longer let this be the case."
