Posted on 09/15/2010 11:28:22 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
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!
Let's see if the Arminians want to defend THIS Arminian doctrine.
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.
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)?
Hm.. your thoughts on my post 4, please.
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.
I agree.
Personally, I uphold the Calvinist teaching of Infant Salvation, and reject the depraved Wesleyan/Arminian teaching of Infant Damnation.
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.
Romans 3:23
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...."
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.
Think so? What personal sins have infants committed?
How does anyone know that Infants are among the elect?
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'...
>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.
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.
we have all inherited sin from Adam and Eve...otherwise, we would still be in Eden
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.
heh. I was trying to be a little more subtle in post #8.
Ooookay.... So, um...
The bottom line is that some infants are saved and some are not
What's your Scripture for this contention? Thanks.
I should say--I disagree with that statement.
How about infants and those too mentally incompetent to know right from wrong going to Purgatory when they die?
.... 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.
..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.
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.
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.
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
The absolute free-will folks have to ignore other verses.
Deal with it.
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.
But if God decided that that event should take place, there is no sin being committed. The parent just fulfilled God's will.
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.
twisting.....
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.
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.
Sorry, but that is precisely the Biblical Doctrine of Free Will. Plenty of Scripture cited above. See #27.
Did David have a choice? Could he have NOT sinned at that time? Remember—he was a man after God’s own heart.
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.
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.
..and yet Jesus taught the opposite of that.
So—if David had the choice, don’t our hypothetical parents who murder their children also have that choice?
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)
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.
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.
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.
I was going to say the same thing. Predestination is subject to infinite regression.
"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.
Ahh, OK. I thought we were actually have a theological discussion, and not a game of "gotcha."
OK. I don't play games.
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.