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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last
To: Christian_Capitalist

Psalm 58 says no such thing.
You may try to reach that conclusion from other scripture but 58 says “the wicked”.
If all were wicked, then what would be the point of specifying “the wicked”?


51 posted on 09/15/2010 1:32:13 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
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.

Just 'cause you assume the inward ministrations of the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with the son's return to his father, does not men that He didn't.

Sorry, you can't just assume away the Holy Spirit to assume your own conclusion. Yet again, you're claiming that Fallen Men will freely choose to perform God-Pleasing choices while still yet Unregenerate, and of course Romans 8:7-8 clearly defines such Humanistic-Free-Will teaching as Satanic.

And, of course: we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism in such execrable Blasphemies as the Free-Will Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for infants who die unbaptized. Just one more Satanic belief in a whole Satanic belief-system.

52 posted on 09/15/2010 1:34:07 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
Psalm 58 says no such thing. You may try to reach that conclusion from other scripture but 58 says “the wicked”. If all were wicked, then what would be the point of specifying “the wicked”?

We all start life in a state of wickedness.

Those to whom God unilaterally and monergistically applies Christ's atonement, do not remain wicked in His sight.

53 posted on 09/15/2010 1:35:33 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Ahh, OK. I thought we were actually have a theological discussion, and not a game of "gotcha." OK. I don't play games.

Buh-Bye!!!

54 posted on 09/15/2010 1:36:50 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

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

Sure, and murdering their child would be Sin.

They can't do it without God Willing to permit it to happen (he could have them struck by lightning instead, if He so Willed), but it's still Sin if they do.

This is really basic, grade-school-level theology. It's disappointing to think that the Satanic doctrines of Arminianism have so infected Protestantism, as to have so eroded the level of even basic theological understanding in the Protestant Church.

55 posted on 09/15/2010 1:51:34 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
We all start life in a state of wickedness.

I buy that. But we all start life as a zygote. By the time of birth and infancy, we are already 9 months old. Numerous examples are cited of God making use of that time (Samson, David, John the Baptist etc.)
56 posted on 09/15/2010 1:51:36 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I buy that. But we all start life as a zygote. By the time of birth and infancy, we are already 9 months old. Numerous examples are cited of God making use of that time (Samson, David, John the Baptist etc.) I buy that. But we all start life as a zygote. By the time of birth and infancy, we are already 9 months old. Numerous examples are cited of God making use of that time (Samson, David, John the Baptist etc.)

Yes, I agree. I don't know if we agree 100%, but in regard to God operating gracefully upon the souls of infant children still yet unborn, I think that all your examples are well-chosen.

57 posted on 09/15/2010 1:54:37 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

We agree only if we can say both original propositions are wrong.


58 posted on 09/15/2010 1:58:56 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
We agree only if we can say both original propositions are wrong.

Mmm. Well, I disagree with that; I continue to hold with John Calvin's exposition of Scripture on the matter.

But, like I said -- on the particular matter of God operating gracefully upon the souls of infant children still yet unborn, I do think that your examples are well-chosen. So I'll just agree with you on that much.

59 posted on 09/15/2010 2:00:54 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
Interesting how none of FR's Arminians are willing to show up and defend the Free-Willers' god-pope John Wesley and his dogma of Universal Infant Damnation for unbaptized infants.

Funny, that.

60 posted on 09/15/2010 2:05:00 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

Your contention that God knows which infants will die and saves them leads to the conclusion that no wicked infant from Psalms 58 ever dies.

That either restricts the definition of infancy to an extremely short time (8 days?) or is absurd altogether.


61 posted on 09/15/2010 3:00:58 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

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

I have serious doubt about this sort of reasoning, it is far too circular in nature.
It reminds me of a scene in an anime called Berserk wherein there are these ‘monster eggs’ [for lack of a better term] which protect their carriers from mortal harm (and to some extent bring ‘good-fortune’) yet, in return, cause their possessors to turn into [literal] monsters. The guy explaining this to the character who had one of these ‘eggs’ cited his merely being there alive and well as proof of his ‘good fortunes’ and his ‘desire’ to rise to greatness as proof of the evil within him. {Keep in mind that this has a large amount of basis in Eastern Philosophy wherein the Temporal Authorities had “The Mandate of Heaven” and *any* rebellion/usurpation/ambition could be viewed in the negative-light of going against heaven & therefore evil.}

So you see, the character was evil because he went against “the mandate of heaven” as evidenced by the fact that only the evil would go against ‘the mandate of heaven’. I bring this up partially because there is some similar modes-of-thought in Christendom: that “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” means [in effect] “anything that Caesar claims as his own is his own by virtue of his authority in saying that it is his own.” (Such ideology ignores and excludes the possibility that “the mandate of heaven” may change; that God may take from one He had established and instead establish another — Clearly refuted by the stories of Kings Saul and David.) In fact King Saul had his kingdom taken away precisely because he *DID* use his authority to claim [the right of] an authority not given him: sacrificing.

>>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.

If man has no free-will when he is unregenerate, then how can he have free-will when he is regenerate? Your theology completely excludes the possibility of man working with God in the world (while I agree that God has no need for man, and man has EVERY need for God), if so then why would God reserve “good works” for Christians to do if their involvement was not significant in some sense?

>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.
[...]
>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:
> * “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil” (Jer. 13:23).
> * “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Rom. 8:7-8)

Then please explain Genesis 5:21-24 (NIV) which says:
“When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.”

How could Enoch walk with God (who cannot abide unrighteousness) unless, as Amos 3:3 says, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”
Implicit there is the “with one another.” This was before Jesus, Moses, or even the Flood.

>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”.

Well then you are saying things in circles: a man cannot choose to follow God until he is regenerate... and a man be regenerate until he follows God. Which you then try to ‘solve’ by saying that God “predestined” him to be saved, and therefore regenerated him, so that he could be saved so that he could be regenerated.

Now, I agree that God is not bound by time/space, and I do believe that a lot of ‘destiny’/’chance’ depends on the point of view. Being a temporal being, I cannot really imagine what the timelessness God experiences is; if God were to take me to the end of time then everything would be history [by definition] and unchangeable [from that frame of reference] because it was the past... and if God placed me at the beginning of time then [from that frame of reference] nothing would have been written yet and so anything would be possible: like a author starting a book before the first line is written it could be a scifi story, a history, a romance, an adventure... anything at all, but as the author writes he constrains himself on what can possibly happen until he reached the end at which point it has all [literally] been written.

>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”.

To suggest that man cannot by his own free-will choose to follow God, even in the unregenerate state, is to preach the lie of Satan: you are not responsible for your actions. For if free-will is limited, then it is by definition not free.

Or would you say that the Chaldeans, brutal heathens brought upon Israel as punishment had no choice in the matter? And if they had no choice in the matter, how could a Just God punish them for it?


62 posted on 09/15/2010 3:22:47 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 27 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist; Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
Funny, that.

Many times my wife and I sit in the living room listening to the screams of outrage and mayhem coming from the back of the house. She'll look at me and say "are you going to go back there and deal with that mess?" and I'll say "if you want it dealt with you go do it" and she'll say "I'm off to the tub" and I'll say...

"I wonder if it's worse on the FR religion forum"

What I usually find out is that it's about the same. So if the choice is go deal with a bunch of elementary lunatics or go deal with a bunch of elementary lunatics I think I'm off to the tub... which is apparently where all the Arminian Wesleyans are already. I wonder if there's a line or if it's just a very big tub.

63 posted on 09/15/2010 3:49:16 PM PDT by Legatus (From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver me, Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist; ShadowAce; P-Marlowe

It is silly to ascribe any belief in baptismal regeneration to John Wesley. Wesley was a devout believer in “by grace are you saved through faith....” Anyone who has even the barest experience of reading John Wesley knows this.

Likewise, Arminius was a reformed theologian regarding salvation by grace through faith. His disagreement was whether God’s predetermination was impacted by foreknowledge or not. Arminius believed it was.

As with most in the Arminian tradition, both of these fine Christian men would have cited Jesus’ words: “let the infants come unto me and forbid them not.” Also, they would have cited Jesus’ words when he stated that those who are truly blind are not guilty, but since the Pharisees said that they did see, then their guilt remains.

In short, God accepts infants because, as Shadow Ace suggests, those infants are innocent, not in that they lack a sin nature, but in that they’ve not yet personally acted on their sin nature. They are “infants”; they are “blind.”

Pick some other ground to fight on. This is a very weak attempt that doesn’t encompass the full body of either man’s writings.


64 posted on 09/15/2010 3:55:44 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
I have serious doubt about this sort of reasoning, it is far too circular in nature. It reminds me of a scene in an anime called Berserk

Respectfully, I'm not going to debate Cartoon Theology. So I'm ignoring this section of your post.

As a reminder, I'll mention that the subject of this thread is not anime, but rather the Free-Willer doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for unbaptized infants. That's the subject of the posted articles, so that's what we should be discussing.

I find it unsurprising, however, that none of FR's Arminians are willing to show up and defend the Free-Willers' god-pope John Wesley and his dogma of Universal Infant Damnation for unbaptized infants.

Funny, that.

If man has no free-will when he is unregenerate, then how can he have free-will when he is regenerate?

I didn't deny man's free will in either case. Rather, I said that while yet Unregenerate, Men will freely choose only and always to Reject God, just as it says in Romans 8:7-8. Whereas once God regenerates a Man (of His sole choosing, unrelated to any will on the part of the man -- Romans 9:15-16), the indwelling of the Holy Spirit gives him new desires, and now he will freely choose to Follow God.

To claim that Fallen Men will sometimes freely choose to perform the God-Pleasing choice while they are still yet Unregenerate, is to directly contradict Romans 8:7-8 and repeat the Lie of Satan about the Spiritual Death of Man: "ye shall not surely die". But of course, we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism in such execrable Blasphemies as the Free-Will Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for infants who die unbaptized. Just one more Satanic belief in a whole Satanic belief-system.

How could Enoch walk with God (who cannot abide unrighteousness) unless, as Amos 3:3 says, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Enoch was Regenerate.

Well then you are saying things in circles: a man cannot choose to follow God until he is regenerate... and a man be regenerate until he follows God.

Nope. This is absolutely false.

I never said "a man cannot choose to follow God until he is regenerate... and a man be regenerate until he follows God".

I have stated simply what the Scripture has stated: that while yet Unregenerate, Men will freely choose only and always to Reject God, just as it says in Romans 8:7-8. Whereas once a man in Regenerate, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit gives him new desires, and now he will freely choose to Follow God.

To claim that Fallen Men will sometimes freely choose to perform the God-Pleasing choice while they are still yet Unregenerate, is to directly contradict Romans 8:7-8 and repeat the Lie of Satan about the Spiritual Death of Man: "ye shall not surely die". But of course, we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism in such execrable Blasphemies as the Free-Will Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for infants who die unbaptized. Just one more Satanic belief in a whole Satanic belief-system.

To suggest that man cannot by his own free-will choose to follow God, even in the unregenerate state, is to preach the lie of Satan: you are not responsible for your actions. For if free-will is limited, then it is by definition not free.

On the contrary -- Satan never lied and said, "Ye are not repsonsible for your actions". He lied and said, "Ye shall not surely die". Thus, he was preaching the Satanic Gospel of Arminianism, which denies the teaching of Romans 8:7-8 and teaches that Fallen Man will sometimes freely choose to perform the God-Pleasing choice while they are still yet Unregenerate. This is the Satanic Gospel from the very beginning; but of course, we should not be surprised to see such Satanism in the preaching of Free-Will Arminianism, for we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism in such execrable Blasphemies as the Free-Will Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for infants who die unbaptized. Just one more Satanic belief in a whole Satanic belief-system.

I hope that my gentle reminders (in bold) will help you to keep your focus on the posted topic under discussion: The Satanic Arminian/Free-Will doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for unbaptized infants, as expressly taught by the greatest theologians and church standards of Free-Will Arminianism. That is the topic for discussion. Thanks!!

65 posted on 09/15/2010 4:03:45 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist; ShadowAce

Just saying that “the Father enabled him” to come to him doesn’t mean that the Father CHOSE [made] him to come... think of it as the big-boss/CEO of a company, if you get an appointment with him it’s because the CEO has enabled you to see him... usually through mediation-of-scheduling with his secretary.


66 posted on 09/15/2010 4:07:05 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 44 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
It is silly to ascribe any belief in baptismal regeneration to John Wesley. Wesley was a devout believer in “by grace are you saved through faith....” Anyone who has even the barest experience of reading John Wesley knows this.

Nope, I directly quoted the man, the prayers he wrote, and his own church standards.

John Wesley preached Universal Infant Damnation for unbaptized infants -- which is unsurprising, because Wesley preached the Gospel of Satan.

John Calvin preached the Gracious Monergistic Salvation of those dying in Infancy -- which is unsurprising, because Calvin preached the Gospel of Christ.

Wesley preached Satan; Calvin preached Christ. That's really all there is to it -- and of course, we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism in such execrable Blasphemies as the Free-Will Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for infants who die unbaptized. Just one more Satanic belief in a whole Satanic belief-system.

67 posted on 09/15/2010 4:08:04 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

>whereas the greatest Arminian/Free-Will theologians have preached that God has ordained to Damn To Hell ALL Infants who die unbaptized.

You know I seem to have misplaced the reference in my Bible where it says “For by Baptism ye have been saved...” could you give that to me?


68 posted on 09/15/2010 4:11:47 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 46 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
You know I seem to have misplaced the reference in my Bible where it says “For by Baptism ye have been saved...” could you give that to me?

Well, you won't find any Scriptural support for any Arminian/Free-Will dogmas. It's all Satanism, nothing Biblical about it.

And of course, we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism in such execrable Blasphemies as the Free-Will Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for infants who die unbaptized. Just one more Satanic belief in a whole Satanic belief-system.

69 posted on 09/15/2010 4:14:02 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
Gotta run for the evening. Hope you enjoy the thread!

Because personally, I think it's very important to reveal the Satanic teachings of John Wesley such as his Free-Will/Arminian Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for ALL infants who die unbaptized -- and I intend to point this out on EVERY SINGLE Calvinist-Arminian thread I see, from now on! It's THAT important.

70 posted on 09/15/2010 4:17:33 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

>>You know I seem to have misplaced the reference in my Bible where it says “For by Baptism ye have been saved...” could you give that to me?
>
>Well, you won’t find any Scriptural support for any Arminian/Free-Will dogmas. It’s all Satanism, nothing Biblical about it.

You completely missed my point: “baptism & salvation” is a distinct issue from “determinism vs. free-will” and the joining together of the two, on either side of the argument, is subject to questioning/explanation/elaboration.

>And of course, we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism in such execrable Blasphemies as the Free-Will Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for infants who die unbaptized.

Again, see above. where are you getting the idea that to embrace free-will means that one must *necessarily* embrace infant damnation? {BTW, as one of your despised “free-willers” I doubt the legitimacy of infant baptisms.}

>Just one more Satanic belief in a whole Satanic belief-system.

And you have not shown how your excuse-from-accountability philosophy is any LESS Satanic.


71 posted on 09/15/2010 4:21:50 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 69 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Wesley preached Satan; Calvin preached Christ

YOU are an idiot and unworthy of engagement.

72 posted on 09/15/2010 6:44:34 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Religion Moderator

I turning myself in for CallingChristianCapitalist an idiot.


73 posted on 09/15/2010 6:46:57 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Christian_Capitalist; Religion Moderator; blue-duncan
I'm turning myself in for Calling ChristianCapitalist an idiot.

I do believe that Truth is a defense.

But, I could be wrong.

74 posted on 09/15/2010 7:04:01 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
I'm turning myself in for Calling ChristianCapitalist an idiot. I do believe that Truth is a defense.

But, I could be wrong.

I have found this definition that could be part of my case. Counselor, will you represent me?

"An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. More humorous synonyms of the term include addlehead, blockhead, bonehead, deadhead, dimwit, dodo, dope, dummy, dunderhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbskull, stupidhead, thickhead, and twit, among many others. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The synonymous terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/ an ignorant), neither of which refer to someone with low intelligence.

75 posted on 09/15/2010 7:12:15 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; Religion Moderator; ShadowAce; Christian_Capitalist
I'm turning myself in for Calling ChristianCapitalist an idiot.

I do believe that Truth is a defense.

But, I could be wrong.

I have found this definition that could be part of my case. Counselor, will you represent me?

"An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. More humorous synonyms of the term include addlehead, blockhead, bonehead, deadhead, dimwit, dodo, dope, dummy, dunderhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbskull, stupidhead, thickhead, and twit, among many others. Archaically the word mome has also been used. The synonymous terms moron, imbecile, and cretin have all gained specialized meanings in modern times. An idiot is said to be idiotic, and to suffer from idiocy. A dunce is an idiot who is specifically incapable of learning. An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/ an ignorant), neither of which refer to someone with low intelligence.

76 posted on 09/15/2010 7:13:14 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Christian_Capitalist; blue-duncan; Religion Moderator
An idiot differs from a fool (who is unwise) and an ignoramus (who is uneducated/ an ignorant), neither of which refer to someone with low intelligence.

I don't know, judging from that post I think "Ignoramus" might have been more apropos.

Counselor, will you represent me?

You can't afford me.

Maybe BD is willing to do pro-bono work.

77 posted on 09/15/2010 7:16:35 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Christian_Capitalist; blue-duncan

I repent. Ignoramus is what I really meant....someone uneducated/and ignorant on the subject in question.

Now can I afford you?


78 posted on 09/15/2010 7:21:14 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist; ShadowAce; Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7
I wonder if the grace that is spoken of in Titus 2:11 is the common grace which some reformed theologians like to call common grace vs special grace. I do not know how many reform theologians hold to common grace vs. special. I do not know whether a majority of them do or a minority do., never the less I would say looking at the context I would have to say that Titus is referring to a common grace and not to a special grace considering the latter part of the verse and the following verses after it.
79 posted on 09/15/2010 7:23:07 PM PDT by ReformedBeckite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; Christian_Capitalist

If you were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world what the hel- difference does a little water make? Either the infants name is in the Book of Life before the world was created or it is not. Water doesn’t change the fact. The question is the severity of punishment not the fact of separation for infants not chosen.

(First 30 minutes of the initial consultation are free)


80 posted on 09/15/2010 7:36:48 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; Christian_Capitalist

lol.

But you do have to admit it is interesting that Wesley wrote the way he did. He must have believed this. How many of Wesley’s followers know this about him?


81 posted on 09/15/2010 7:42:20 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg (("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: xzins; blue-duncan
Now can I afford you?

NOW you don't need me.

82 posted on 09/15/2010 7:42:28 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins

“Now can I afford you?”

“NOW you don’t need me.”

Take a retainer..what’s need got to do with it...he has money.


83 posted on 09/15/2010 7:48:10 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I buy that. But we all start life as a zygote. By the time of birth and infancy, we are already 9 months old. Numerous examples are cited of God making use of that time (Samson, David, John the Baptist etc.)

Great insight; thank you! :)

84 posted on 09/15/2010 8:48:41 PM PDT by annie laurie (All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
You completely missed my point: “baptism & salvation” is a distinct issue from “determinism vs. free-will” and the joining together of the two, on either side of the argument, is subject to questioning/explanation/elaboration.

It's relevant to John Wesley, since he believed in Baptismal Regeneration and therefore held that Baptized Infants were exempt from his theology of Universal Damnation for those who Die in Infancy.

Again, see above. where are you getting the idea that to embrace free-will means that one must *necessarily* embrace infant damnation? {BTW, as one of your despised “free-willers” I doubt the legitimacy of infant baptisms.}

Oh, I don't dount that there are some theologically-inconsistent Free-Willers who deny the Arminian/Free-Willer doctrine of Infant Damnation.

But the greatest theologian of Free-Willism, John Wesley, clearly understood that if all men have inherited Original Sin (and Wesley affirmed that they have), and that Regeneration is conditioned not upon Absolute Predestination of God but rather the conscious decision of Fallen Man (and this was his teaching), then all those who do not consciously choose Christ are condemned to Hell.

Wesley made an exception for Baptized Infants, since he believed in Baptismal Regeneration from Original Sin; but he consigned all who die Unbaptized as Infants to the fires of Hell -- which was entirely consistent with his Satanic Arminian/Free-Will theology.

And you have not shown how your excuse-from-accountability philosophy is any LESS Satanic.

That's because I hold to no "excuse-from-accountability philosophy".

As a Calvinist, I believe that the Reprobate are held to account for their Sins, and Condemned to Hell.

And that the Sins of the Elect, on the other hand, are fully accounted for by the Sacrificial Atonement of Christ, and therefore they are Justified unto Heaven.

In both cases, every Sin is held to account.

85 posted on 09/16/2010 2:13:16 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist (Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist

As a Calvinist, you believe in infant damnation too. One of the principle lynchpins of Calvinism is Romans 9:

“11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

So?

And how can anyone waste time debating whether baptism has any relevance at all for salvation? It does not — it can not: Thief on the cross, anyone?

Why do people try to make the simplest things so complex?


86 posted on 09/16/2010 2:45:48 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

What I have to admit is that Wesley wrote far more on this and other subjects.

For example, what do Presbyterians believe is the purpose of baptism?


87 posted on 09/16/2010 3:55:27 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
Once I learned the main roots of reformed theology and a little about John Wesley I never liked him. I wonder if his writing are like the cultic leaders and leaders of sects within Christianity and that is many leaders write/speak in forked tongue one day they say one thing, a year or two later they write/speak something else that is contradicting.
88 posted on 09/16/2010 4:40:26 AM PDT by ReformedBeckite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Christian_Capitalist; blue-duncan; Dr. Eckleburg
It is threads like this that keep me from becoming more Calvinistic than I already am. The article and the person posting it are just too rabidly one sided in their approach to this subject, ignoring the implications of Calvinistic doctrine to the subject of infant damnation and mocking the ideas of those to whom they disagree even to the point of stating that Wesley "preached Satan."

The Calvinist position when taken to the same extreme that this author takes the Wesleyan position could argue that God very well may have damned every Child that dies before the age of 5 because like Esau, perhaps God hated them all. There is nothing in Calvinistic theology that suggests that God favors children that die young more than he favors the children who live. And if God does not need a reason to save one adult over another (as they are all natural born sinners) then God could just as surely choose one dying infant over another and send one to hell and one to be with him forever in Heaven.

So rather than accomplish the goal of turning this believer into a Calvinist, the author and poster have given me a reason to take another step back.

FWIW Sometimes Calvinists can be really insightful and sometimes they can be real jerks.

89 posted on 09/16/2010 6:09:28 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
...sometimes they can be real jerks.

In my experience, the only people to ever preach that (any) infants are damned to hell have been calvinists on this board. No one else I have met/interacted with has ever suggested anything remotely similar.

Once they lost that debate, they came up with the arguments found in this thread. Interesting how they continue to move the goalposts.

90 posted on 09/16/2010 6:18:35 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; Christian_Capitalist; blue-duncan; Dr. Eckleburg; ShadowAce

I agree that it’s this kind of stupidity that makes me wonder what they’re putting in the drinks at calvin conventions, ‘cause some of them come out crazy.

It’s this kind of crappola that makes me realize there’s a school of calvinists who preach calvin instead of Christ.

They could care less about Christ so long as they get to stick out their chests and bellow at non-calvinists. Disgusting stuff. It certainly raises a question about predestination: God needed idiots for some reason, and sure enough, they show up here every now and then.


91 posted on 09/16/2010 6:27:15 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: xzins; blue-duncan; Christian_Capitalist; Dr. Eckleburg; ShadowAce
God needed idiots for some reason, and sure enough, they show up here every now and then.

That's ignoramuses.

My invoice is in the mail. You've got 30 days to pay or I'll have to take you to court.

P. Marlowe Esq.

92 posted on 09/16/2010 6:32:10 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

actually, the article states “Catholics, Lutherans, and others continued to believe that infants who weren’t baptized would be condemned to hell.”


93 posted on 09/16/2010 6:34:49 AM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

“if Calvin was correct, then the doctrine of salvation by faith is seriously compromised, as is that of Sola Scriptura. “ —> why is that?


94 posted on 09/16/2010 6:36:38 AM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Capitalist
but rather "Children of Satan" (John 8:44),

I'm sorry, but you read this wrong. The entire verse in context is
The Children of Abraham
 31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants[b] and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"

 34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.[c]"

 39"Abraham is our father," they answered.

   "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would[d] do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does."
      "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

The Children of the Devil
 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
He uses " You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire" as a rebuke, an insult not a judgement call.

Ezekiel 16 reads as
20 " 'And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them [e] to the idols. 22 In all your detestable practices and your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood.
--> This is God's response to ISRAEL, treating the nation as a wayward wife. And this states that God considers all of Israel as His children and yet this contradicts your interpretation of John 8:44
95 posted on 09/16/2010 6:43:58 AM PDT by Cronos (This Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church-St.Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
That's ignoramuses.

My invoice is in the mail. You've got 30 days to pay or I'll have to take you to court.

P. Marlowe Esq.

And don't forget that the word "ignoramus" comes from the title of an early 17th century English play (though written in Latin) and the title character (the Ignoramus) just happens to be a LAWYER.

96 posted on 09/16/2010 6:54:18 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; xzins; blue-duncan
And don't forget that the word "ignoramus" comes from the title of an early 17th century English play (though written in Latin) and the title character (the Ignoramus) just happens to be a LAWYER.

Call him whatever names you want, but the important question is this: In the end, does he collect his fee?

97 posted on 09/16/2010 7:07:40 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wagglebee; blue-duncan
Ignoramus

Sorry, Counselor, I was beside myself. (Had a nice conversation with some nut sitting right next to me.)

I thought I'd already retained you....no....no....you said I no longer needed a lawyer.

Think I'll pay the retainer anyway. How much did you say? Are you one of the 2000 an hour lawyers?

98 posted on 09/16/2010 7:15:13 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; blue-duncan
Call him whatever names you want, but the important question is this: In the end, does he collect his fee?

Nope, he pays a bunch of money to marry the woman he loves, gets duped and gets labeled as crazy.

99 posted on 09/16/2010 7:20:21 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: xzins; blue-duncan; wagglebee
Are you one of the 2000 an hour lawyers?

If you think so.

I spent 6 minutes on your case, so you owe me about.... $200. With the Freeper discount (the usual and customary "2 cents") that brings it down to $199.98.

100 posted on 09/16/2010 7:36:23 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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