Posted on 09/15/2010 11:28:22 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
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."
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:
"I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish except on account of actual sin; and to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested."(Institutes, Book 4, p.335).
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:
"Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."( Matthew 18:14 ).
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?
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.
>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?
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
>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?
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.
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.
>>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.
YOU are an idiot and unworthy of engagement.
I turning myself in for CallingChristianCapitalist an idiot.
I do believe that Truth is a defense.
But, I could be wrong.
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.
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.
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.
I repent. Ignoramus is what I really meant....someone uneducated/and ignorant on the subject in question.
Now can I afford you?
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)
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.