Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Arminian/Wesleyan Dogma of Infant Damnation vs. the Calvinist Doctrine of Infant Salvation
Arminian inconsistencies and errors ^ | 1856 | Rev. Henry Brown

Posted on 09/15/2010 11:28:22 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist

The Arminian Doctrine of Infant Damnation

Having noticed one objection to the doctrine of predestination, we proceed to a second, viz. "It leads to the idea of infant damnation;" "brings with it the repulsive and shocking opinion of the eternal punishment of infants;" "causes not only children not a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fires of hell."

The above are samples of the manner in which this charge is reiterated by every controversial Arminian author that has come under our notice. The reader will be surprised to learn that the "shocking and re-pulsive doctrine" here objected to, is taught by Arminians, but not by Calvinists, and in the Methodist, but not in the Presbyterian Church.

In "the Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church," the prayer before administering the ordinance of infant baptism, closes as follows, viz. "Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation; sanctify this water for this holy sacrament, and grant that this child now to be baptized may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

" May ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children." We have already seen, that according to Arminians, converted persons, and they only, are "chosen to salvation." And that they are not "chosen" till after their conversion. The prayer then "that the child to be baptized may receive the fulness of grace and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children," supposes that by baptism it is brought into that number, or in other words, is regenerated. That this is its meaning, appears from the fact that such was the sentiment of Mr. Wesley, who composed the prayer.

In his sermon on "The Marks of the New Birth," addressing his hearers, he asks, "Who denies that ye were then (in baptism,) made children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven."

In his sermon on "The New Birth," he says, "It is certain our Church supposes that all who are baptized in their infancy, are at the same time born again."

In his "Treatise on Baptism," (which is now one of the "Doctrinal Tracts" of the Methodist Episcopal Church,) speaking of "the benefits we receive by baptism," he says, "The first of these is the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death," &c. 2. " By baptism we enter into covenant with God," &c. 3. " By baptism we are admitted into the Church, and consequently made members of Christ, its head," &c. 4. "By baptism, we who were ' by nature children of wrath,' are made the children of God. And this regeneration, which our Church, in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being grafted into the body of Christ's Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace. This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, 'Except a man be born again, of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' John iii. 5. By water then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated, or born again; whence it is called also by the apostle, 'the washing of regeneration.' Our Church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done; nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which added thereto makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long continued wickedness."

Again, he says, " In the ordinary way, there is no other means of entering into the Church or into heaven" (than by baptism.) "In all ages, the outward baptism is a means of the inward; as outward circumcision was of the circumcision of the heart."

The meaning of the prayer quoted, is thus placed beyond a doubt; and the doctrine of the Methodist Episcopal Church on this subject, according to their own standards, is, that those who are baptized in infancy are regenerated, elected to salvation, and dying in infancy are saved. Of course then, those who are not baptized, are not regenerated, or elected to salvation, and dying in infancy are lost; and so say the Doctrinal Tracts, page 251, " If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism."


The Calvinist Doctrine of Infant Salvation

Although the concept of "the age of accountability" had its beginnings early in the history of the Christian church, the Scriptures do not use this terminology. Neither does the Bible contain substantial allusions to the eternal state of babies or young children who die before they are old enough to make a conscious decision for or against Christ.

People have always been concerned about the salvation of children who die before they are old enough to clearly understand the gospel. Unfortunately, the conclusion reached by many in the early church was that infants who die without the sacrament of baptism are destined for hell — or limbo. This belief was based upon a mistaken view of baptism.

This view persisted into the Reformation. Catholics, Lutherans, and others continued to believe that infants who weren't baptized would be condemned to hell. This is a tragic distortion of biblical teaching. It is a credit to the clear thinking of John Calvin that he found such a doctrine reprehensible:

Although infants are not capable of conscious sin in the same way as someone older ( Isaiah 7:15-16; Matthew 18:3-4 ), they have inherited natures that are contaminated by sin and in need of transformation and salvation ( Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:3 ). Yet, because of their dependency, trust, and innocence, Jesus not only offers young children as models for the manner in which adult sinners need to be converted, He views them in a unique way:

Further, the Scriptures clearly indicate that God does not punish children for the offenses of their fathers ( Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20 ).

Therefore, we believe that those who die as infants or young children are given the gift of salvation. They aren't given this gift because they are without sin; they, too, have inherited Adam's curse. They are given salvation based solely on God's grace, through the sacrificial atonement of Christ on their behalf.

What happens to infants and children who die before they are old enough to respond to the gospel?


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: calvin; calvinism; infantsalvation; johncalvin; spurgeon; wesley
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last
Alright, here you have it -- the great Theologians' expressly declared beliefs, in their own words.

Who is correct? Is John Wesley, Protestantism's greatest advocate for unregenerate Human Free Will, correct when he argues of dying infants that "they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism"?

Or perhaps it is the great Predestinarian theologian John Calvin who is right -- when he declares that the Wesleyan/Arminian doctrine of Universal unbaptized-Infant Damnation is "a blasphemy to be universally detested"!

I think it's always important to let Theologians describe their own beliefs, rather than just accept whatever summations you may have heard "through the grapevine". So, here you have it -- the great dueling Protestant theologians, their own beliefs, in their own words. Who is right, and who is wrong? Read your Bibles and decide!

1 posted on 09/15/2010 11:28:23 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
Calvinist/Arminian infant salvation cage match.

Let's see if the Arminians want to defend THIS Arminian doctrine.


"It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false. I cannot even dare to hope, though I would wish to do so, that they ignorantly misrepresent us. They wickedly repeat what has been denied a thousand times, what they know is not true.... I know of no exception, but we all hope and believe that all persons dying in infancy are elect. Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, 'You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush.' We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God."
2 posted on 09/15/2010 11:31:38 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

This is an interesting discussion. Not being either a Calvinist or an Arminian, I have no dog in this fight. The question is whether or not you believe in original sin, and whether or not faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. If you do not believe that all human beings conceived in a natural way are born blind, dead, and enemies of God, I can see where someone could make the argument that children are not damned. If you believe that people can be saved without personal faith, I can see where someone could make the argument that children can be saved by some other means. Anyone that believes in original sin and the necessity of faith for salvation would come to the conclusion that all people, regardless of age, are subject to judgment.


3 posted on 09/15/2010 11:51:22 AM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

I’d like to point out that in Judaism there is the “age of accountability” where a child becomes an adult responsible for their own actions esp. in the legal sense. Does this apply to Christianity? If you say no, justify your answer with an explanation... after all, Christianity is a form of Judaism [that the gentile-Christians do not have the whole of the Mosaic-law obligations* laid upon them as the Jewish people do is irrelevant to the point]; further, Jesus said that He didn not come to Destroy the Law [but to fulfill it].
(* See Acts 15; esp. verses 5, 10&11, 19&20 and 28&29)

Furthermore, if there is some mirroring/foreshadowing in the story of the Passover [wherein only the firstborn of those houses covered with the blood of the lamb were passed over] to Jesus; then couldn’t the Blood of the Lamb of God be enough to cause God to ‘passover’ the inherited-sin of the according-to-the-law-not-accountable-for-their-own-actions children that had died before Jesus (like even the Egyptian firstborn), during Jesus’s life (like those Herod had put to death), and after Jesus’s death (i.e. all the plagues and wars and famine of modern-times)?


4 posted on 09/15/2010 11:53:04 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

Hm.. your thoughts on my post 4, please.


5 posted on 09/15/2010 11:54:19 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
I’d like to point out that in Judaism there is the “age of accountability” where a child becomes an adult responsible for their own actions esp. in the legal sense. Does this apply to Christianity? If you say no, justify your answer with an explanation... after all, Christianity is a form of Judaism [that the gentile-Christians do not have the whole of the Mosaic-law obligations* laid upon them as the Jewish people do is irrelevant to the point]; further, Jesus said that He didn not come to Destroy the Law [but to fulfill it]. (* See Acts 15; esp. verses 5, 10&11, 19&20 and 28&29)

Age of Legal Accountability for Court Trials really doesn't have anything to do with Adam's Original Sin and the Fall of Man.

So, I don't have any problem with Christians specifying an age at which children can be treated by the Courts as adults, but it really doesn't have a whole lot to do with the Theology of Original Sin -- whether Arminian/Free-Willers preaching their wicked and depraved doctrine of Infant Damnation, or Calvinists preaching our righteous doctrine of Infant Salvation.

6 posted on 09/15/2010 11:57:40 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex
Anyone that believes in original sin and the necessity of faith for salvation would come to the conclusion that all people, regardless of age, are subject to judgment.

I agree.

Personally, I uphold the Calvinist teaching of Infant Salvation, and reject the depraved Wesleyan/Arminian teaching of Infant Damnation.

7 posted on 09/15/2010 12:03:12 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Is there scriptural support for either position?
8 posted on 09/15/2010 12:06:14 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Getting the popcorn ready for this debate. I won't mention which side I'll side with but my freep name might give some one a hint.
9 posted on 09/15/2010 12:07:55 PM PDT by ReformedBeckite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

If you study this long enough, you’ll find that eventually, Jesus is going to save everyone. But don’t tell anybody, they get upset that Jesus will actually seek ALL of the lost sheep until he finds them. EVERY knee shall bow.


10 posted on 09/15/2010 12:12:35 PM PDT by badbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Romans 3:23


11 posted on 09/15/2010 12:12:58 PM PDT by stefanbatory (Insert witty tagline here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
The interesting thing about this discussion is that, if Calvin was correct, then the doctrine of salvation by faith is seriously compromised, as is that of Sola Scriptura.

Either way, you've got Weslayans or Calvinists breathing flames against each other ... both sides being in possession of logical and convincing arguments .... and they can't both be correct.

Of course, both sides can be incorrect, and that's probably more to the point. "For the wisdom of this world is folly with God...."

12 posted on 09/15/2010 12:14:25 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Is there scriptural support for either position?

There's some Scriptural support for John Calvin's position. Here's one I like off the top of my head:

Since we know that God does not consider the Reprobate to be "His Children" but rather "Children of Satan" (John 8:44), for God to claim these murdered infants as HIS Children is supportive of Calvin's belief that God has chosen to monergistically Regenerate and Save, including them amongst His Elect, those whom He has permitted to die in Infancy.

There's no Scriptural support at all for the wicked Arminian/Wesleyan doctrine of Infant Damnation; but then again, there's no Scriptural support for any of the Arminians' teachings. This is just one particularly detestable example of their many execrable blasphemies.

13 posted on 09/15/2010 12:15:57 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stefanbatory

Think so? What personal sins have infants committed?


14 posted on 09/15/2010 12:16:10 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

How does anyone know that Infants are among the elect?


15 posted on 09/15/2010 12:18:20 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; ShadowAce
The interesting thing about this discussion is that, if Calvin was correct, then the doctrine of salvation by faith is seriously compromised, as is that of Sola Scriptura.

Why? While we know that all Fallen Men are conceived in Spiritually-Dead Iniquity:

Cannot God, who designed the human spirit, create the Gift of Faith in the spirits of the young, as well as the old -- even those too young for other humans to be able to comprehend such a thing?

'Cause, um, the Bible says He can. Just sayin'...

16 posted on 09/15/2010 12:20:44 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

>Age of Legal Accountability for Court Trials really doesn’t have anything to do with Adam’s Original Sin and the Fall of Man.

So then the Law of Moses has nothing to do with original sin? That’s an incredibly laughable/ridiculous sentiment.

>whether Arminian/Free-Willers preaching their wicked and depraved doctrine of Infant Damnation,

I’m actually one of those “free-willers,” however I don’t agree with the doctrine of Infant Damnation... for the reasons listed in my previous post.

>or Calvinists preaching our righteous doctrine of Infant Salvation.

Really? and what right have you to say who is or is not justified in God’s sight? {This is exactly what you are doing, though dressing it up as an qualification on age.} I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation (though not too in-depth, as that could easily go into book-length works) as to how it is possible that free-will exits whilst infant-damnation does not.

Besides, if free-will does NOT exist then of what value is love? Certainly God, who has Sovereign [and therefore free] Will does not *need* humanity [or a particular individual] except by whatever measure He decides to; and He has shown us, already, that He has placed the Highest value upon us: His own Life. Of what use would such a valuation be if, as you suggest, an individual has no free-will with which to love God [or even to DO justly, as Micah 6:8 says] and/or respond to Him & His actions? Put in simplest terms, the very act of [voluntary] ‘worship’ which you yourself employ in giving thanks to God is an affirmation of free-will because it would be a useless & valueless act if you did not have [at least some manner of] control over it [by exercising] your own will.


17 posted on 09/15/2010 12:22:36 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

I won’t write a whole theological tract on the subject but both doctrines are unscriptural garbage.

The death, resurrection and victory of Christ has enabled God to choose anyone He will to salvation. Besides those who consciously accept Christ, He has chosen people who lived and died before Christ and people who have never heard of Christ, at any time after conception. The heavens declare His glory. God knows the heart from its first beat in the womb.

The fact is, those who hear the Word and choose Christ are guaranteed salvation. Those who reject Christ are guaranteed damnation. All else are chosen by God in His wisdom by the power of Christ, therefore it is true that the only way is through Christ.

The bottom line is that some infants are saved and some are not and it is up to God, not any act of man, including infant baptism or preaching of the Word. However, many who would not be saved by the sovereign act of God alone are saved later in life by Grace in hearing and accepting the Word, so keep preaching the Truth.


18 posted on 09/15/2010 12:23:08 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

we have all inherited sin from Adam and Eve...otherwise, we would still be in Eden


19 posted on 09/15/2010 12:24:29 PM PDT by stefanbatory (Insert witty tagline here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
How does anyone know that Infants are among the elect?

I don't claim to "know".

What I said was, there is Scriptural support for John Calvin's belief that God chooses to monergistically Regenerate and apply the merits of Christ's Atonement to those whom He permits to die in infancy.

I didn't say I "knew" it, I said that I thought that there's some Scriptural support for Calvin's view.

But there is an alternate view, of course. The greatest Theologian of the Free-Will Protestants taught that all infants who die unbaptized are Universally Damned To Hell. So, you can believe that, if you prefer.

20 posted on 09/15/2010 12:24:34 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I won’t write a whole theological tract on the subject but both doctrines are unscriptural garbage.

heh. I was trying to be a little more subtle in post #8.

21 posted on 09/15/2010 12:26:27 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I won’t write a whole theological tract on the subject but both doctrines are unscriptural garbage.

Ooookay.... So, um...

The bottom line is that some infants are saved and some are not

What's your Scripture for this contention? Thanks.

22 posted on 09/15/2010 12:26:48 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stefanbatory
Incorrect.

I should say--I disagree with that statement.

23 posted on 09/15/2010 12:27:48 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

How about infants and those too mentally incompetent to know right from wrong going to Purgatory when they die?


24 posted on 09/15/2010 12:29:27 PM PDT by AceMineral (Clam down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Cannot God, who designed the human spirit, create the Gift of Faith in the spirits of the young, as well as the old -- even those too young for other humans to be able to comprehend such a thing?

.... the nature of faith, in that case, would be much different from what is usually presented in these sorts of forums and, indeed, by St. Paul.

25 posted on 09/15/2010 12:31:34 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
I don't claim to "know".

..and yet you characterize one as "righteous" and the other as "wicked."

What astounds me is the willingness of some to place their entire belief system and self identity on something John Calvin said.

Look at the Scriptures--not at Calvin. Call yourself a Christian--not a calvinist. If it's not in scripture, don't make such a big deal of it.

26 posted on 09/15/2010 12:34:22 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
So then the Law of Moses has nothing to do with original sin? That’s an incredibly laughable/ridiculous sentiment.

No, what's laughable is trying to shoe-horn the notion of Legal Accountability in the Courts, into the doctrine of Original Sin.

Sorry, but whether the Courts set the Age of Majority for Legal Purposes at 12, 16, 18, or 21 really has nothing to do with whether or not All Men have inherited Original Sin (we all have).

I’m actually one of those “free-willers,” however I don’t agree with the doctrine of Infant Damnation... for the reasons listed in my previous post.

Well, it's not surprising that you would reject this particular aspect of Wesley's free-will teachings. Free-Willer Theology certainly gets more repugnant to the Christian, the better one understands its inherently-Satanic nature.

Besides, if free-will does NOT exist then of what value is love?.... Put in simplest terms, the very act of [voluntary] ‘worship’ which you yourself employ in giving thanks to God is an affirmation of free-will because it would be a useless & valueless act if you did not have [at least some manner of] control over it [by exercising] your own will.

Your referencing the Regenerate nature of the Christian, whose Free Will now enjoys the indwelling of the Holy Spirit rectifying his sinful desires.

Not so the Free Will of the Unregenerate.

See, Calvinists do not deny the existence of Free Will. Rather, Calvinists state that since the Fall, Unregenerate Men (which is all of us, prior to God's regeneration of our dead spirits) freely choose to Reject God, because that is what Unregenerate, Spiritually-dead Men want to do.

What would be heretical would be the suggestion that any Unregenerate Man would ever freely choose to Follow God while yet in their Spiritually-Dead condition; because the Bible clearly states that while a man is yet Spiritually-Dead his desires are Totally Depraved:

And so, while yet in his Spiritually-Dead state, the Unregenerate Man will always freely choose to Reject God. This is the express teaching of the Bible:

To suggest, therefore, that Men will freely choose to Follow God while yet in their Unregenerate State, is to preach the lie of Satan: that Fallen Men are not really Spiritually Dead, and will still sometimes freely choose to perform God-Pleasing actions. "Ye shall not surely die".

Thus, we as Calvinists understand that Men only freely choose to Follow God, after they have been Quickened unto Spiritual Life by the Efficacious Grace of God.

Calvinists do not deny Free Will.

Rather, we simply affirm that Fallen Man REALLY IS Spiritually Dead. And that while a Fallen Man remains Unregenerate, he will always freely choose to Reject God, because that is what he Naturally wants to do.

Thus, only those whom God chooses to Regenerate unto Spiritual Life, do thence freely choose to Follow Him.

27 posted on 09/15/2010 12:35:15 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

One more point of pure logic: If all infants are saved, then the most sure guarantee of sending souls to heaven is to murder your children as soon as they are born, an absurdity. And how can the act of thus saving souls be counted a sin? If all infants are saved, when do they become “unsaved” and have to be saved again before they die? Another absurdity. So Calvin bites the dust.

The Arminian position is adequately dispatched by all those saved before Christ lived who heard directly from God.


28 posted on 09/15/2010 12:37:19 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
..and yet you characterize one as "righteous" and the other as "wicked." What astounds me is the willingness of some to place their entire belief system and self identity on something John Calvin said. Look at the Scriptures--not at Calvin. Call yourself a Christian--not a calvinist. If it's not in scripture, don't make such a big deal of it.

The only folks who object to John Calvin's doctrine of Predestination, are those who object to the Bible's doctrine of Predestination. Because John Calvin simply taught the Bible's doctrine of Predestination.

Saying "Look at the Scriptures--not at Calvin. Call yourself a Christian--not a calvinist" is like saying, "Look at the Scriptures--not at Athanasius. Call yourself a Christian--not an Athanasian".

Um, sorry, but Athanasius DID correctly exposit the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity. And so I am pleased to call myself an Athanasian, Trinitarian Christian.

And in like manner, John Calvin DID correctly exposit the Biblical Doctrine of Predestination. And so I am pleased to call myself an Calvinist, Predestinarian Christian

29 posted on 09/15/2010 12:40:49 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
The bible actually teaches both Predestination and absolute free will. The predestination folks just have to twist the interpretation of some verses to suit their needs.

The absolute free-will folks have to ignore other verses.

Deal with it.

30 posted on 09/15/2010 12:44:42 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
One more point of pure logic: If all infants are saved, then the most sure guarantee of sending souls to heaven is to murder your children as soon as they are born,

On the contrary. Assuming that God has, from before Creation, Elected unto Salvation all those whom He foreknows that He will permit to die in infancy -- then you haven't changed your murdered child's spiritual destination at all, one way or the other. You've just murdered your own child, bringing a grievous Sin upon your own soul. Didn't affect the kid's eternal destination at all -- God already decided that before YOU were ever born, let alone the kid.

31 posted on 09/15/2010 12:44:42 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
You've just murdered your own child, bringing a grievous Sin upon your own soul.

But if God decided that that event should take place, there is no sin being committed. The parent just fulfilled God's will.

32 posted on 09/15/2010 12:46:34 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
The bible actually teaches both Predestination and absolute free will. The predestination folks just have to twist the interpretation of some verses to suit their needs. The absolute free-will folks have to ignore other verses. Deal with it.

Well, so long as you agree that all Fallen Men, without God's prior and purely-monergistic Regeneration of their Dead and God-hating Spirits, will Absolutely, always and only, Freely Choose to REJECT God -- then you correctly understand the Bible's doctrine of Absolute Free Will.

Which is the same as the Calvinist Doctrine of Free Will, since John Calvin's doctrine of Predestination and Free Will was simply that of the Bible.

33 posted on 09/15/2010 12:49:39 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
That's not really the definition of "free" choice, now is it?

twisting.....

34 posted on 09/15/2010 12:54:47 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
But if God decided that that event should take place, there is no sin being committed. The parent just fulfilled God's will.

Ridiculous. If God wills to permit someone to Sin, that does not mean that person is not Sinning.

God willed to permit David to sin with Bathsheba. God could have arranged events so that David would have inadvertantly fallen down a flight of stairs and been laid up in bed that day, instead of spying around for pretty ladies. But instead, He willed to permit David to commit that Sin.

David was still Sinning.

35 posted on 09/15/2010 12:56:48 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

No SANE person of any persuasion considers infant damnation even the remotest possibility.

Unfortunatly, neither the Arminians nor the Calvinists have cornered the market on sanity. Each side has its share of nitwits.


36 posted on 09/15/2010 12:57:25 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
That's not really the definition of "free" choice, now is it? twisting.....

Sorry, but that is precisely the Biblical Doctrine of Free Will. Plenty of Scripture cited above. See #27.

37 posted on 09/15/2010 12:58:28 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

Did David have a choice? Could he have NOT sinned at that time? Remember—he was a man after God’s own heart.


38 posted on 09/15/2010 12:58:52 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
No SANE person of any persuasion considers infant damnation even the remotest possibility. Unfortunatly, neither the Arminians nor the Calvinists have cornered the market on sanity. Each side has its share of nitwits.

Right -- but in the case of the Free-Willers, it is their greatest and chiefest theologians who preach Infant Damnation; whereas amongst the Calvinists, it is our great theologians who preach against this execrable Free-Willer blasphemy.

39 posted on 09/15/2010 1:00:30 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Did David have a choice?

Yes.

Could he have NOT sinned at that time? Remember—he was a man after God’s own heart.

He had the ability to Not Sin. He chose to Sin.

God foreknew that David would sin, so there was certainly 0% statistical chance that David would not (God cannot be wrong in His foreknowledge, of course); but David did have the choice.

40 posted on 09/15/2010 1:04:02 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
What would be heretical would be the suggestion that any Unregenerate Man would ever freely choose to Follow God while yet in their Spiritually-Dead condition;

..and yet Jesus taught the opposite of that.

41 posted on 09/15/2010 1:04:48 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

So—if David had the choice, don’t our hypothetical parents who murder their children also have that choice?


42 posted on 09/15/2010 1:06:08 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
The Holy Ghost reveals Christ, irrespective of hearing the Word, many times in the Bible, even in the womb in the case of John the Baptist:

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

"The bottom line is that some infants are saved and some are not"

What's your Scripture for this contention?


Why are you asking me? You gave very good examples yourself of infants saved (Ps.22:9-10) and damned (Ps.58:3). Inductive reasoning follows.
43 posted on 09/15/2010 1:19:27 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
..and yet Jesus taught the opposite of that.

Nope, He didn't. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)

44 posted on 09/15/2010 1:20:05 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
"This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)

Yup. Titus also says that grace which brings salvation has appeared to all men.

The Father has enabled all men to come to Him. It's now our free will to make that choice. It's His omniscience that knows what that choice will be.

45 posted on 09/15/2010 1:23:00 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Why are you asking me? You gave very good examples yourself of infants saved (Ps.22:9-10) and damned (Ps.58:3). Inductive reasoning follows.

Psalm 58 simply afforms that all men are conceived in a state of wickedness. It does not say that all men remain there. Some are Saved.

This "Some" may include all those whom God permits to die in infancy -- at least, the greatest Calvinist theologians have preached that God has Elected to Save all those whom He has permitted to die in infancy, whereas the greatest Arminian/Free-Will theologians have preached that God has ordained to Damn To Hell ALL Infants who die unbaptized.

46 posted on 09/15/2010 1:23:39 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Nope, He didn't.

I meant to respond to this one also. Sorry.

Yes, He did. "This is my son, who was dead, and is now alive. And the son made his own decision to go to the Father. The Father didn't send anyone after him.

47 posted on 09/15/2010 1:25:00 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; Christian_Capitalist

I was going to say the same thing. Predestination is subject to infinite regression.


48 posted on 09/15/2010 1:26:01 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Yup. Titus also says that grace which brings salvation has appeared to all men. The Father has enabled all men to come to Him. It's now our free will to make that choice. It's His omniscience that knows what that choice will be.

"Appearance" does not equal Regeneration. Titus merely declares that Grace has appeared to all men, not that it has been quickened into all men. In fact, the New Testament specifically states that God does not quicken or regenerate all men, but only His Elect whom He has Chosen based upon no will of their own. The Reprobate have seen the coming of Christ and His grace, its appearance; but, being yet Unregenerate, they always freely choose to Reject Christ, just as the Scriptures declare.

Since "Appearance" in no way equals or even implies Regeneration, you therefore have no case whatsoever. Game, Set, Match, and thanks for playing.

49 posted on 09/15/2010 1:29:20 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Game, Set, Match, and thanks for playing.

Ahh, OK. I thought we were actually have a theological discussion, and not a game of "gotcha."

OK. I don't play games.

50 posted on 09/15/2010 1:31:30 PM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson