CALVINISM: ITS DOCTRINE OF INFANT SALVATION

Are persons who die in infancy saved? Holy Scriptures do not directly address this subject. But various indirect declarations give us every reason to rest assured that they are indeed saved.

The goodness of God suggests the salvation of those who die in infancy. We read in Job 38:41 that He provides food for newborn ravens when they cry unto Him. Surely He will not turn a deaf ear to the cries of infants and permit them to be cast from His presence! We read in Psalm 145:15f that He provides food for "every living thing," even the most loathsome of creatures. Surely He will provide salvation for those made in His own image who die in infancy!

In various passages, the number of the redeemed in glory is so large as to suggest the salvation of those persons who died in infancy. For example, they are described in Revelation 7:9 as "a great multitude which no man could number." It is thought by many theologians that the number of souls in glory will be greater than that of the souls in the regions of the damned on the grounds that Christ must have the preeminence. This certainly will be true if the number of the redeemed in glory will include all those who died in infancy and childhood, which was a vast part of humanity in former times when a great percentage of children did not live long enough to reach adulthood. This number would also include the untold millions who today are snatched from their mothers' wombs and sacrificed by abortionists.

In Ezekiel 16:21, God called the children sacrificed to heathen gods "My children": "you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire." God's children are received in glory, not consigned to hell.

In Jonah 4:11, we read that God had great pity on the citizens of Nineveh, especially upon its "more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left." Such pity suggests these infants would be received into glory if they died in infancy.

In Mark 10:14, Jesus Christ said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." He then admonished adults in the next verse, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

In 2 Samuel 12:23, David expressed his own assurance that his own departed infant was received into heaven, and that he himself would later be forever reunited with him there: "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

The great question before us not is not whether persons dying in infancy are saved and received into glory. Holy Scriptures would seem to assure us that they indeed are. Rather, the question before us should be whether the parents and loved ones of those who die in infancy will be reunited with them in glory.

Arminians err when they aver that persons dying in infancy are saved because of their supposed innocence. Arminians are driven to this view because of a fatal flaw in their scheme of salvation. Arminians believe that God has done all He can to save sinners, and that the success of His desire and endeavor rests solely upon those sinners exercising their supposed "free will" in making what they call a "decision for Christ." Arminians declare that if sinners do not make such a conscious and deliberate decision to let God save them, God cannot do so.

This Arminian heresy mercilessly shuts the door of salvation to infants who are in every way incapable of their own will to make a "decision for Christ." Arminians admit this fatal flaw to their scheme of salvation, but they are not willing to concede that persons dying in infancy are forever lost and damned. Arminians therefore must devise another scheme by which God saves infants, thereby averring that God saves adults in one way, and infants in another.

This Arminian dilemma is compounded for Campbellites, the disciples of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). Campbellites are not only Arminian, but also among the most strident proponents of the heresy of baptismal regeneration. They emphatically deny that anyone can be saved apart from baptism. This Campbellite heresy also mercilessly shuts the door of salvation to unbaptized infants — unless another scheme of salvation can be devised for them.

Arminians generally believe the scheme for the salvation for infants involves their innocence and/or the fact that they have not reached the age of accountability – whatever that is!

This Arminian scheme for the salvation of infants contradicts Holy Scriptures in at least two ways. First, it denies that God has but one plan for salvation, and posits instead that He saves adults in one way and infants in another.

Second, this Arminian scheme for the salvation of infants denies the Biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of the whole human race, including infants.

Romans 5:12-19 teaches us that we all, infants included, sinned and died in the fall of Adam, the first man.

Job (14:4) declared the sinfulness of infants when he said, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!"

The psalmist David declared the sinfulness of infants when he, speaking for us all, said in Psalm 51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

And he poignantly declared the sinfulness of infants when he said in Psalm 58:3, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."

Solomon includes infants when he teaches us in Ecclesiastes 7:20 that "there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin."

And Jesus Christ includes infants when He teaches us in John 3:1-7 that "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" and in need of being "born again" by the Holy Spirit if he or she is to see or enter God's kingdom.

Another flaw of the Arminian view is that it in reality denies infant salvation. There is no need of salvation for those who are innocent! "Infant salvation" is a misnomer for Arminians.

Roman Catholics err when they aver that persons dying in infancy are saved if they are baptized. One of the first great heresies to plague the church of Christ was the mistaken belief that salvation is obtained through baptism. Since those who embraced this heresy wished to prevent their children from dying unbaptized, and therefore unsaved, they baptized them as soon as they were born. Scriptures deny both the heresy of baptismal regeneration and of the baptism of infants.

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church emphatically declares that infants and young children dying unbaptized are forbidden to enter heaven. According to the article "Infants, Unbaptized" in A Catholic Dictionary, "The Church has always taught that unbaptized children are excluded from heaven .... Heaven is a reward in no way due to their human nature as such."

Calvinists rightly teach that persons dying in infancy are saved in the same manner as are saved adults. God has only one plan of salvation. It teaches that sinners are saved by God's free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, totally apart from any works of righteousness they perform or any supposed virtue in them. Everyone who is saved — including all persons dying in infancy — is saved through being elected to salvation by God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, and regenerated or born again by the Holy Spirit (as set forth in preceding messages).

Calvinists believe persons dying in infancy are saved in this manner. Contrary to the slanders of Arminians and Romanists, Calvinists do not believe any persons dying in infancy are damned.

One of the most glorious aspects of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation is that it magnifies the goodness and grace of God in salvation and in no way contradicts Holy Scriptures. To the contrary, Arminianism denies the need of God's grace for the salvation of infants. And Romanism exalts the work of parents in having their infants baptized, and bars from heaven the departed infants of those parents who did not do so.

We Calvinists alone can rightly assure the parents and friends of departed infants that they are saved and received into glory.

But we also exhort these same parents and friends to trust in Jesus Christ for their own salvation. None but such persons can say with assurance the words of David regarding his own departed infant, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

Most Calvinists whole-heartedly affirm that all persons dying in infancy are saved, even though they acknowledge the Bible has no definitive doctrine on this subject. Some Calvinists will go only so far as to acknowledge that the Bible definitely teaches that at least some persons dying in infancy are saved. But no representative Calvinist theologian declares that any person dying in infancy is damned. (See the preceding message, #171.)

Arminians nevertheless deliberately misrepresent Calvinists as believing persons dying in infancy are damned. Let the following quotations from some of the most renown Calvinists suffice to show that the Arminian accusation is false.

John Calvin, the sixteenth-century Reformer for whom Calvinism is named, asserted, "I do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Ghost." And "he speaks of the exemption of infants from the grace of salvation 'as an idea not free from execrable blasphemy'" (cited by Augustus Strong in Systematic Theology). He furthermore declared that "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" (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).

Charles Hodge was a 19th-century professor of theology at Princeton Seminary, which was in those days a foremost American bastion of Calvinism. He wrote: "All who die in infancy are saved. This is inferred from what the Bible teaches of the analogy between Adam and Christ. 'As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (Rom. v.18,19.) We have no right to put any limit on these general terms, except what the Bible itself places upon them. The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the redemption of Christ. All the descendants of Adam, except Christ, are under condemnation; all the descendants of Adam, except those of whom it is expressly revealed that they cannot inherit the kingdom of God, are saved. This appears to be the clear meaning of the Apostle, and therefore he does not hesitate to say that where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded, that the benefits of redemption far exceed the evils of the fall; that the number of the saved far exceeds the number of the lost" (Systematic Theology, vol.I, p.26)

John Newton, author of the favorite hymn "Amazing Grace," became a Calvinistic Anglican minister in 1764, serving the English parishes in Olney, Buckinghamshire, and London. In a letter to a friend he wrote, "Nor can I doubt, in my private judgment, that [infants] are included in the election of grace. Perhaps those who die in infancy, are the exceeding great multitude of all people, nations, and languages mentioned, Revelations, vii.9, in distinction from the visible body of professing believers, who were marked in the foreheads, and openly known to be the Lord's" (The Works of John Newton, vol.VI, p.182)

Alvah Hovey was a 19th-century American Baptist who served many years in Newton Theological Institution, and edited The American Commentary. He wrote in one of his books: "Though the sacred writers say nothing in respect to the future condition of those who die in infancy, one can scarcely err in deriving from this silence a favorable conclusion. That no prophet or apostle, that no devout father or mother, should have expressed any solicitude as to those who die before they are able to discern good from evil is surprising, unless such solicitude was prevented by the Spirit of God. There are no instances of prayer for children taken away in infancy. The Savior nowhere teaches that they are in danger of being lost. We therefore heartily and confidently believe that they are redeemed by the blood of Christ and sanctified by His Spirit, so that when they enter the unseen world they will be found with the saints" (Biblical Eschatology, pp.170f).

Lorraine Boettner was a 20th-Century Presbyterian who taught Bible for eight years in Pikeville College, Kentucky. In his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination he wrote at some length in defense of the Calvinist doctrine of infant salvation. We here quote from his remarks: "Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it. Their 'salvation' is real. It is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are 'saved' to be very small, and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also.

"... Calvinism ... extends saving grace far beyond the boundaries of the visible church. If it is true that all of those who die in infancy, in heathen as well as in Christian lands, are saved, then more than half of the human race up to the present time has been among the elect."

B.B. Warfield, born in Kentucky in 1851, was along with Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck one of the three most outstanding Reformed theologians in his day. He wrote concerning those who die in infancy: "Their destiny is determined irrespective of their choice, by an unconditional decree of God, suspended for its execution on no act of their own; and their salvation is wrought by an unconditional application of the grace of Christ to their souls, through the immediate and irresistible operation of the Holy Spirit prior to and apart from any action of their own proper wills... And if death in infancy does depend on God's providence, it is assuredly God in His providence who selects this vast multitude to be made participants of His unconditional salvation.... This is but to say that they are unconditionally predestinated to salvation from the foundation of the world" (quoted in Boettner's book).

Charles Haddon Spurgeon is perhaps the most-widely recognized name among Calvinists next to John Calvin. He served many years in the 19th-century as pastor in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England. He preached on September 29, 1861, a message entitled "Infant Salvation" (#411 in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit). In this message, Mr. Spurgeon not only convincingly proved from Holy Scriptures the belief of Calvinists that all persons dying in infancy are saved, but also soundly rebuked those Arminians and others who wrongly accuse us otherwise:

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

Whom will you believe: Calvinists speaking for themselves? or Arminians deliberately misrepresenting them?

OP: "...we Calvinists are more Augustinian than even Augustine himself. This is a difference between our Tradition and Eastern Orthodoxy. I do not deny these differences, nor do I apologize for them." Good for you! :) As you know, because you have participated in discussions on other threads which in passing have mentioned the doctrine of Original Sin, there are probably four or five different interpretations of the Sin of Adam ranging from Pelangianism at one end to Calvinism at the other. Your posted article gives us an opportunity to discuss these various positions and thus arrive at a better understanding of the varying theologies existing within Christianity. This issue is fundamental to understanding the several Christian positions on sotierology, theosis and its Western variant salvation, the Incarnation and Mariology.

Thank you for your post, Kolokotronis.

I continue to enjoy and appreciate my correspondences with the FR Eastern Orthodox contingent.

In my studies, it has been very educational to me to compare the Ecumenical Agreements between the Lutheranism and Orthodoxy on the one hand (admittedly, as a Calvinist, I am not a direct party to these discussions; Lutheranism is certainly closer to Orthodoxy than is Calvinism), and the Ecumenical Agreements between the Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism on the other hand.

An important difference which I have noticed (and here, I fully admit my own personal biases ), is that it appears to me that in the Lutheran/Orthodox discussions, there is a genuine desire to find mutual areas of agreement satisfactory to both groups. For example, in the Lutheran/Orthodox discussions, it is clear that the Orthodox are willing to entertain agreement with the Lutherans on such matters as Justification being "by Faith, Not of Works", albeit admitting of differences between traditions (while the Orthodox wholly reject Good Works as a "means of salvation", they are more apt to see "Salvation by Grace through Faith" as being a progressive matter of "Continuing in Faith" rather than a single, salvific Point of Salvation ala Martin Luther). This is in contrast, to my admittedly-biased observation, with the Lutheran/Roman-Catholic discussions -- where it seems to me that, from the Roman-Catholic side, "ecumenicism" is simply a Means towards the End of ultimately bringing all professing Christians into subservience to the Papal Claims of the Bishop of Rome.

In short, for the Lutherans and the Orthodox, ecumenical agreements -- where they can be reached, without doing injustice to either Tradition -- are a desirable End in themselves, towards the inculcation of greater fraternity between the Faiths. Whereas, to the Romans, ecumenical agreements are simply a Means to an End -- that ultimately every knee should bow, and every tongue confess, the absolute Papacy of the Bishop of Rome.

My prejudice is admitted up front, and should be taken as such -- but that's how I see it.

Thanks again for your Post.

Best, OP

Actually, as far as the filioque is concern I haven't made a decision but you may be happy to know that I tend to lean toward the Greek Orthodox's position on this. But let's not get into that here.

Same here (and I have been saying so for years).

Our reasoning is, of course, pure Calvinist-Protestant Sola Scriptura -- the Scriptures, if taken by themselves, speak of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and being sent by the Son (John 15:26).

Thus, if one is to speak of the Holy Spirit "proceeding from the Father and the Son", the only explicit affirmation which we are able to directly derive from Scripture (as regards this admittedly high and mysterious Trinitarian economy) would be the affirmation that the Spirit issues from the Son in a mediatorial procession from the Father, as affirmed by Saint Gregory of Nyssa.

So, I guess I'm not the only FR Calvinist who (based upon Sola Scriptura) "leans towards the Greek" in my understanding of the Filioque.

But, yeah, that's a subject for another Thread.

Obviously, you have no clue how the Christian Scripture came about. Read Heb 8:8 and 8:13. It was not an accident who was given the word of God by the Word of God, who received the faith, who divided the false from the true, who knew why false was false and true was true.

Kosta, I'm pleasantly in awe.

You're making an absolutely beautiful Providentialist argument for God's Election and Preservation of the True Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Eastern Orthodox Church. (And especially therein, as opposed to the corrupt Vulgate of the Latins, which is why the "textus receptus" Western Reformers tried to get back to the Byzantine Greek texts as best they were able).

Certainly, the "synergistic" participation of the blessed Saints was part of the equation; Athanasius contra mundum, and all the rest. But you do good justice to the Eastern Orthodox appreciation of "The Monarchy of the Father" in asserting the Father's divine superintendance overall in the Election and Preservation of the Scriptures generally, and in the Byzantine Greek textus receptus particularly.

I would only reserve, as a Calvinist -- that I believe that the Father does not exhibit any less particular Election and Preservation in regard to His Saints, than He does in regard to His Scriptures.

If Calvinists and Orthodox can ever get on the same page in that point of discussion, it will be a good time for Reformed and Presbyterian Christians to join the Lutherans and Orthodox in their ecumenical conversations!!

immerse their infants!

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the Post. :-)

best, OP

I can't say as I know much about atheists as I tend to avoid theological discussions with them. But I do not understand your post. Are you saying that the Church's original position in Free Will was that it didn't exist? Certainly Orthodox Christians from the beginning have believed in Free Will. Did I miss something?

Perhaps.

See -- contrary to generally-received Public Opinion on the matter -- Calvinists also believe in Free Will.

We simply affirm that, while a Man is yet Spiritually Dead, he will only and always employ his Free Will towards the Rejection of God.

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.

Faith being God-pleasing, and the Spiritually-Dead being incapable of that which is God-pleasing, we thence affirm that the Spiritually Dead cannot exhibit Faith. The Spiritually Dead will always employ their Free Will in Enmity against God, for that is their nature.

In order to exhibit Faith, then, a Spiritually-Dead Man must be born again into Spiritual Liveliness by the purely-monergistic Regeneration of the Holy Spirit:

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.... Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Which monergistic Regeneration by the Spirit proceeds only from the Father (and through the Son), AND NOT FROM THE MAN HIMSELF:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Best, OP

the Scriptures, if taken by themselves, speak of the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and being sent by the Son (John 15:26)...would be the affirmation that the Spirit issues from the Son in a mediatorial procession from the Father, as affirmed by Saint Gregory of Nyssa.

Orthodoxy tends to stay with the basics. The Divine Economy is eternal, thus the Word is eternally begotten by the Wisdom, and the Spirit eternally proceeds (wells) from the Wisdom. That never changes, always keeping in mind that God is transcendental.

Instead, you are thinking of the Pentecost -- a singluar point in time. Open up a little more; you are getting there. :-)

So while I agree that original sin is "acquired" by organic generation, I would see it more as the result of what we are organically generated into (i.e. the wrong family because it has no covenant with God) rather than a generationally-contracted contagion.

Father Deacon Tantumergo:

I agree with everything that you have said regarding the transmission of Original Sin as a matter of Family Covenant (i.e., "we are organically generated into the wrong family because it has no covenant with God"). However... just to mix things up a bit, perhaps you should know that I am in the Soul-Traducianist Reformed tradition (representing all Lutherans and perhaps one third of Calvinists) rather than the Soul-Creationist tradition (representing perhaps two-thirds of Calvinists, and most Roman Catholics).

Certainly, I share your discomfort with Augustine's language on the subject; without meaning to overly-abridge the good Doctor's views, let's suffice to say that the "spiritual germ" of each man's soul is not carnally-transmitted within the physical male spermatazoa or anything like that. Rather, as a Traducianist -- it is my belief that God's creation of each Man's individual Spirit (excepting that of the man Jesus, whom I'll address momentarily) is, like God's creation of each Man's individual Body, not a direct and immediate Creation (as is held by Soul-Creationist Calvinists and Roman Catholics) but rather an indirect and mediatorial Creation through the agency of Adam.

Let me develop the point a little further by explaining:

Just as on the "physical plane", Adam's Physical Constitution contained within him all the physical DNA which would be transmitted, with billions of individual derivations and variances "knit together by God in the womb" [Psalm 139:13], to all the individual Personal Bodies of his Descendants at their individual Point of Physical Conception...
So also I believe that, on the "spiritual plane", Adam's Spiritual Constitution contained within him all the "spiritual DNA" which would be transmitted, with billions of individual derivations and variances wrought "by the Father of our Spirits" [Hebrews 12:9], to all the individual Personal Spirits of his Descendants congruently within their individual Point of Physical Conception.

Given such a Traducianist understanding of the Human Spirit, Perhaps you can understand why it is easy for me to see Original Sin as both a matter of Federal-Representation and Organic-Generation; for when Adam Fell, I believe that his "Spiritual Constitution" fell also, and therein also Fell all the indivdual Personal Spirits of his Descendants which are -- to the Traducianist -- derivative offspring of Adam's Spiritual Constitution.

However, the individual Spirit of the Man Jesus Christ, being NOT a created, derivative offspring of Adam's Spirit but rather the eternal Word which was conceived within Mary's flesh via the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit rather than natural generation, is obviously exempt from Adam's spiritual Fall.

For this reason, incidentally, I just don't see the need for the Roman dogma of Mary's immaculate conception -- Jesus took His Body from Mary, and thus His Body (until His resurrection glorification) was subject to the same weaknesses and mortalities as are we: He felt pain and hunger and hardship, His skin cells died and were replaced, His hair fell out and was replaced, His entire Body actually died, for three days. But as to His Personal Spirit, He came neither from Mary nor Adam but is Eternal: "before Abraham was, I am".

Why, then, should there be any need that Mary should be "immaculately conceived"? It seems to me an invented "solution" for a non-existent "problem".

By this logic, OP, one could then say that the spirit "proceeds" from others in the "mediatorial" manner when you consider Matthew 10:20 "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." Orthodoxy tends to stay with the basics. The Divine Economy is eternal, thus the Word is eternally begotten by the Wisdom, and the Spirit eternally proceeds (wells) from the Wisdom. That never changes, always keeping in mind that God is transcendental. Instead, you are thinking of the Pentecost -- a singluar point in time. Open up a little more; you are getting there. :-)

I agree with your point; good citation on Matthew 10:20.

However, even granting a "mediatorial" procession of the Spirit through the Agency of the Saints, you still have to admit the Son as the "First Mediator" of the Procession of the Spirit at the very least -- A.) Temporally, because (being Eternal Himself) He obviously is the First Sender; "Before Abraham was, I am"; and B.) Causationally, because unless the Son first send the Spirit to the Saints, the Saints have not the Spirit to send out into the World.

As such, I still think it is Biblically-correct to say that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father, through the Son". I think that such a formula does the best possible justice to John 15:26, even admitting the secondary-mediation of the Saints described in Matthew 10:20.

However, I admire the Eastern Orthodox desire to stick with the Scriptural basics as regards the economy of the Trinity -- which is why I am uncomfortable with the Roman-Latin filioque since, its meaning simply being "and the Son", it does not in and of itself explicitly and carefully preserve the apparent economic distinction of Trinitarian Offices evidenced in John 15:26.

So, why would God, then, by design punish -- indeed kill -- such innocence? Is it because He is "psychotic" so much so that He would kill His own innocent children and then demand "revenge" for His wounded "pride" by assuming a human form, suffering and dying on the cross?

God did not Punish and Kill them for their Innocence, but rather for their Disobedience.

Naive or not, knowing the difference between Good and Evil or not, they did know this: "Thou shalt not eat of it". Thus said the Lord, their Creator and giver of all they enjoyed.

They Disobeyed. Fot that, they were Punished and suffered Spiritual Death.

It was, as you say, God's will that they should Disobey, and thenceafter be Redeemed. But I think you may err when you presume that it was because this was "necessary" in order that they should "spiritually grow up". I propose to you an alternate view -- what if it's not "all about" Man, at all? What if, in fact, it's "all about" the Glorification of the Son by the Father -- that the Father ordained that the Son would be Glorified as both Redemmer and Judge; and that the entire Race of Man, his Fall, and the redemption of the Elect Church (I'll avoid discussing the mechanics of that election) are simply the objects of that transaction? An End to a Means? In other words, simply the Clay?

I appreciate your thoughts, but I'd urge you to consider my counter-suggestion.

As to your suggestion, let me address it below:

Let me propose to you a different view and then you be the judge.... Salvation makes sense only if we understand that God had to let us fall and die in order that we can spiritually grow up.

Let's consider your theory, and let me ask you this:

The Elect Angels never Fell at all. Nor were the Reprobate Angels offered any possibility of Redemption.

Is it, then, your contention that the Archangels Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel are, well -- "not Spiritual Grown-Ups"?

I, too tend to avoid vain philosophies of man especially atheists. However, in researching the Virgin Birth I was lead to a number of these atheist sites which I found intriguing. While kosta50 may feel there is no connection, I happen to think otherwise. You will find many of the same arguments about original sin and free will being argued by Christians here are the same ones atheists argue. I especially like the argument against original sin because the natural conclusion to this is man is basically good which is what some churches and atheists preach. Sorry, this is out and out heresy bordering on apostasy.

From my readings of the Church’s original position, the concept of synergistic free will (man choosing God) did not exist. Historically this view was introduced by Pelegian. Free will in the form of synergists was deemed heresy by the early church and the Church’s position was formalized at the Council of Orange in 529. Yet it’s prevalent throughout the church today including the Eastern Orthodox. I have not been able to trace when, where, or why this doctrine occurred in the Eastern Orthodox but I do know the source.

As OP stated, man has free will but it NEVER moves towards God. God calls the shots.

Do I think there is heresy here? Well, let’s see-1) the early church fathers thought so; 2) Pelegian was outcast; and 3) atheists support the notion. While this all may seem innocent, it is clear that heresy has entered the church.

And please don’t tell me about how long your church has been here. The Catholics tell me the same thing. That is nothing more than the traditions of men.

"Arminianism must logically assert that every single infant, simpleton, and person who cannot "naturally" exercise faith be damned to hell." ~~ Not that I am an Arminian, but are you then suggesting that faith is not necessary for the salvation of such people?

No, the Calvinist simply maintains that the faith of infants is purely supernatural, purely monergistic.

John the Baptist was no more "naturally" capable of the exercise of faith than you would expect of any six-month-conceived (not even yet born) late-term fetus.

But, being monergistically and supernaturally filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb, he kicked for joy in the presence of his unborn Savior.

Not being capable of making a verbal profession of the Faith which was supernaturally implanted within him, he exhibited his rudimentary Faith the only way he could. :-)

As such, I still think it is Biblically-correct to say that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father, through the Son". I think that such a formula does the best possible justice to John 15:26, ...

Certainly the scripture speaks to this:

John 15
²⁶ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

In the passage, He speaks of the Spirit proceeding from the Father but, with regard to Himself, He mentions only that it shall testify of. Not that it in any way proceeds from Him.

It seems somewhat acrobatic to read this in any other than in its own simple testimony. I simply do not see how you derive "from the Father, through the Son" from the rather unambiguous verse 26.

I assume you were aware that this is one Calvinist/Baptist who does agree with the Orthodox on the matter of the filioque, a doctrine promulgated by Rome at the Synod of Toledo in Spain in 447, a rather late date in establishing the fundaments of faith. I've no doubt that some other FReepers will come unhinged at the idea that Calvinists actually have any differences of opinion but certainly we are not the minions of some spiritual dictator as they often accuse us, ironically so given the well-known practices of their own denomination.

I consider that the Bible speaks plainly enough on the matter. And beyond that, I need not inquire.

To many, this seems a rather abstract question. But it is quite relevant to central statements of scripture that “No Man cometh unto the Father, but by Me,” and “No Man cometh unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him.” From a Calvinist standpoint, I find the filioque to disturb the basic relationships of Father and Son and mankind and it certainly muddies many otherwise clear passages in scripture. Whereas, without the filioque, this is beautifully clear in its meaning, particularly so for Calvinists.

"is my belief that God's creation of each Man's individual Spirit (excepting that of the man Jesus, whom I'll address momentarily) is, like God's creation of each Man's individual Body, not a direct and immediate Creation (as is held by Soul-Creationist Calvinists and Roman Catholics) but rather an indirect and mediatorial Creation through the agency of Adam."

That's an interesting idea, but do you have any supporting citations from Scripture or the Fathers to justify this latter view?

One problem with this approach is found precisely when you come to deal with Jesus Christ. I know you attempt to deal with it when you say:

"However, the individual Spirit of the Man Jesus Christ, being NOT a created, derivative offspring of Adam's Spirit but rather the eternal Word which was conceived within Mary's flesh via the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit rather than natural generation, is obviously exempt from Adam's spiritual Fall."

However, this is not orthodox Catholic (and Orthodox) Christology in that Christ was both fully God and fully man. Consequently when the Word assumed humanity, He assumed it fully - BOTH BODY AND SOUL. Whatever was not assumed was not saved - He was made like us in all things except for sin.

It seems to me that you are saying that in the incarnation, the Divinity of the Word replaced the soul of man rather than assuming it. This would be Apollinarianism as condemned by Pope Damasus in the Council of Rome, 381:

"We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective soul of man."

It was a precursor of Monophysitism and Monothelitism, and was negated by Ephesus in 431:

"..the Word, uniting to Himself in His person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."

..and by Chalcedon on 451:

"Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. the distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis."

Consequently, in order to be fully human, Christ must have assumed a created soul, just as He assumed a created body.

Kolokotronis and kosta50, can you confirm that this is consistent with Orthodox belief as well?

OP, if I have not understood correctly what you were saying about Christ's incarnation in the Virgin's womb, then please explain. I'm sure you're not an Apollinarist really! ;)

OPie: Kosta, I'm pleasantly in awe.

Me too.

You're making an absolutely beautiful Providentialist argument for God's Election and Preservation of the True Canon of the Holy Scriptures in the Eastern Orthodox Church. (And especially therein, as opposed to the corrupt Vulgate of the Latins, which is why the "textus receptus" Western Reformers tried to get back to the Byzantine Greek texts as best they were able).

I couldn't say it better or at least in less than ten times as many words. The vital heritage of the Reformation was the embrace of the sound Greek texts from the East, namely the scriptures so faithfully preserved by the Orthodox. Let us simply say that other scriptural texts do not enjoy such a vast testimony or universal presence in the ancient church or uniformity of content.

This preservation of the textus receptus was the greatest gift of the Eastern churches to Christendom. It would be impossible to ennumerate the number of souls around the world who first heard the Word from Bibles translated directly from the ancient texts of the Orthodox. In this sense, we all owe them a debt for their faithful preservation of their texts.

"No, the Calvinist simply maintains that the faith of infants is purely supernatural, purely monergistic."

I see you getting sucked down very treacherous paths with this line of argument!

Are you then saying that every infant is born with supernatural faith? If so at what point do the great "lump of perdition" lose it?

"John the Baptist was no more "naturally" capable of the exercise of faith than you would expect of any six-month-conceived (not even yet born) late-term fetus."

Granted, but surely you are not suggesting that the Baptist represented the norm, are you?

"Not being capable of making a verbal profession of the Faith which was supernaturally implanted within him, he exhibited his rudimentary Faith the only way he could. :-)"

I wondered why those chaismatics did those things....! ;)

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.