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.
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?
First off, to hold me [and every other “free-willer”] accountable for everything John Wesley said is utterly ridiculous.
Second, I don not believe that Wesley was infallible; any flawed human is bound to make mistakes.
Third, your actions and attitudes convey, to me, that you are not concerned with Truth, Philosophy (love of wisdom), or even debating points: you are concerned only with “being right” and pounding on any who believes either a) differently from you, or b) differently from how you believe they should believe [as evidenced by that “theologically inconsistent” remark].
James had something to say about this [3:17-18 (KJV)]:
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
Your contentiousness is certainly not peaceable. Your manner of grouping people together into what you believe they ought to believe [and thusly holding them to account for beliefs not their own] is neither gentle nor easy to be entreated nor full of mercy. The accusation you hurl at “free-willers” about treating Wesley as a “god-pope” [posts 60 & 65] reeks of hypocrisy.
I think it safe to say that you, if you indeed are a Christian, are in need of some more of the Grace that only God can give.