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?

"Theosis is intimately connected to the high social value assigned to monasticism in Orthodoxy."

This is a point which cannot be stressed too much if one wants to explain or understand Orthodox theology and phronema. The connection between monastics and the laity in Orthodox countries is almost "synergistic" in the non-religious sense of the word. It is as if the one cannot really and fully exist without the other. Each is a daily fact of life for the other. In my family's village, as all over Greece, the people are continually visiting with the nuns at the two monasteries outside the town up on their mountains. These monastics are so holy that their holiness actually shines through, even in the way they walk. The presence of the monastics is a very real blessing to the lay communities and their example of "orthopraxis" as they move in their theosis sets the standard for those who live "in the world". My understanding is that this was also the case centuries ago in the West, but it seems that the Reformation and Counter Reformation and the influence of the rationalism of the Enlightenment broke that synergy.

To spend time in an Orthodox monastery is to experience "orthopraxis" up front and personal. It is a great spiritual gift. I remember many years ago when my oldest son was just 13 attending a vespers in the katholikon of the Monastery of Boura in southern Greece. The tiny 1000 year old chapel was lit only with candles held by about 12 of us, three men and 9 nuns. As the nuns chanted the service, my son turned to me and whispered "Dad, this must be what heaven is like."

For those of you who are Orthodox or Roman, (I don't know about Protestants) I suggest a visit to Mount Athos. Stay awhile at one of the monasteries, say three or four days. You can make the arrangements through your local Orthodox diocese.

You are correct that Col. 3:12 says plainly that we are the "elect of God." or "chosen" from the Bible version you cite. Both are the same word as you indicated in an earlier post. The question always begs, elect,or chosen for what? We know God does the electing, but He does it for a purpose. That leaves the why and how to be answered also.

It is abundantly clear from a study of election that God throughout the Bible has different elections for different purposes. All relate to His will being carried out by the elect for specific purposes. As indicated, Jesus Christ is God's elect to bring justice to the earth, and be a light to the Gentiles among others. At some future time, all the universe will be reconciled to God under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is God's ultimate purpose.

Israel is God's elect to be the agency by which He reconciles the earth back under the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ. They will occupy positions of authority during the Millennium and beyond. To do so, they must be made spiritually fit for their role of being "a kingdom of priests and an holy nation."

The elect angels are to fulfill the management of heavenlies, protect the Children of Israel, among other services for God.

The elect Body of Christ is to serve as ambassadors and preachers of righteousness on earth and to occupy positions of authority in the heavens after God has reconciled the heavens.

ALL of God's elections are for a purpose and conform to His plan and will. It is His plan and purpose that God has predetermined, not who, as individuals, will be saved and thus become part of the elect of God.

"Augustine taught that Pelegian which represents synergism was heresy. The Council of Orange condemned synergism as heresy. You've may feel that the Council of Orange was a “local council” and you don’t accept their ideas but the fact is the Council of Orange was made up of a goodly amount of the church fathers."

Your comment illustrates the importance of agreeing on terms. You are using "synergism" in a way both Rome and the East do not. I suspect that your use of the term "semi-pelagianism" is similarly different from the way Rome and the East would define it, though once defined, Rome and the East would apply that to an individual like Cassian and on the one hand "suspect" him of semi-pelagianism and on the other not. To the extent that +Augustine taught that man after the Fall was utterly bereft of grace and St. John Cassian taught, in accordance with the Eastern Fathers, that man after the Fall was "spiritually sick", but not spiritually completely dead because man still retained the image of God if not His likeness, then there is a difference which plays itself out in a whole range of theological issues, including first and foremost the concept of Original Sin versus Ancestral Sin. Western Protestantism's theology in this area developed out of its interpretation of +Augustine's position. The Orthodox view, which precedes Augustine,is different.

As for the Councils, as Kosta pointed out, Pelagianism and Pelagius were condemned by the Council of Ephesus, an Ecumenical Council, nearly 100 years before the 2 local Councils of Orange. The semi-pelagianism condemned by the Orange Councils held that man, utterly bereft of grace on account of the Fall, could by an exercise of his own free will and without the intervention of God in His grace, choose to open the door to God's grace and embark upon a process of theosis. If in fact this is what the Eastern Fathers had taught, then these local councils' condemnation would apply to, for example, St. John Chrysostomos, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Athanasius and St. John Cassian, among others. As I have said before, none of these men were condemned in the West by any council, local or otherwise, though they may have been "suspected" of semi-pelagianism. Now by your definition of semi-pelagianism, both Rome and the East must be condemned. Just as an aside, the whole "semi-pelagianism" business really doesn't have much meaning in the East.

"It doesn't surprise me if Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics and others are wishing to join with the Orthodox in some ecumenical fellowship. The whole church world has been moving to a synergistic concept since this heresy was introduced into the early church. The Renaissance with it humanistic views (man is good) just inflamed the philosophy. Forget the scriptures-we'll just work out the differences."

Orthodoxy does not approach "ecumenism" in the way you posit. These meetings are not exercises in "ecumenical fellowship" They are attempts to see where we agree and where we don't. We have found that in some instances Churches in the East and those in the West actually teach and believe th same thing, but the words we have used over the centuries to describe those beliefs, or use in teaching those beliefs are differently perceived. In other instances, the West has been very frank in allowing that owing to the way society and culture developed in the West, "legalism" in the sense of over defining mystery has lead to some unfortunate results, confusion and perhaps even innovation.

”It is abundantly clear from a study of election that God throughout the Bible has different elections for different purposes.”

To quote Yoda; “No, no different.” It only seems different from the synergistic perspective because it’s the only way to get the scriptures to fit. For years I puzzled over the Gospel of John (along with some other scriptures) because I couldn’t get the pieces to fit. I would end up saying, “Well, it a mystery to me. Guess I’ll have to wait till I get to Heaven.” People end up having a theology that have different methods of salvation, different methods of election, different methods of…pick a topic. God does not have different methods of salvation or election or anything else. God is consistent.

While you’re correct that it matters WHAT we were chosen for it’s equally important to understand we WERE chosen. Not in some collective group for those who would make the right decision but as individuals. And it wasn't by any "good" decision that we could make for we would never chose the right decision. (If Adam in his unfallen state couldn't make the right decision what makes us think that we in our fallen state will?)

Our Lord Jesus felt this was an important enough issue that He addressed it head on.

You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.” John 15:16

and again:

If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.” John 15:19

In John 15 our Lord Jesus 1) chose us, 2) appointed us to bear fruit, 3) our fruit would remain, 4) so that our prayers would be heard. There are few greater truths than this. He has chosen us, He has made sure we will bear fruit, He will make sure our fruit survives and all of this so that our prayers will be heard by the Father. He is indeed our Great Shepherd who is watching over His sheep and no one will snatch us out of His hands.

You propose a distinction without a difference, and from THAT you accuse me of "compounding falsehoods"?

That you now pretend to not know the difference between your personal attack against the beliefs and motivations of a fellow believer as opposed to a refutation of a school of doctrine to which that believer does not even claim adherence, is intellectually dishonest. But it is becoming all too apparent that is precisely what you intend, as refuting straw men and ad-hominem attacks underpin your unwillingness to address the substance of gracebelievers cites and arguments.

OP post #174: Real impressive how you accuse me of "not responding to and flat out rejecting any of (our) Scripture references" and of "maintaining that man does not have free will". Quite damning stuff, except that it's a flat-out Lie.
OP post #189: The reason that I haven't even bothered "his view that an unsaved man can hear and believe the gospel" is that it's utterly beside the point which I am raising.

So, gracebeliever correctly pointed out your failure to address his points, which you rejected as a lie but have now admitted you didn't bother to address his points. So gracebeliever did not lie, now did he? You OP, accused him of the very lie you yourself committed, now didn't you?

You repeatedly and blindly accuse gracebeliever of not addressing your "core" question:

No. Gracebeliever has not "addressed" the Scriptures I have offered; he simply *acknowledged that I posted them* and tried to evade the matter which I am raising by simply affirming (in sum) that "yeah, sure, Unregenerate Man is depraved and spiritually dead", but without addressing at all the core Question which this Fact of Man's Spiritual Death necessitates:
DOES "an unsaved man EVER hear and believe the gospel" while he yet remains Spiritually Dead, without the Prior Regeneration of the Holy Spirit?
The Scriptures say, NO.
Gracebeliever is unwilling to simply answer this core Question. Instead, he complains about the forcefulness of my presentation -- and thereby, evades the issue.

Your presentation is not forceful (though your ego would like to think so) as much as it is coarse and over-reaching.

Obviously, gracebeliever did agree with many/most of your points about man's depravity, you yourself see it, it just wasn't posted to you with sufficient genuflection to be an acceptable offering in your sight.

Further, your stubborn arrogance prevents you from seeing gracebeliever has addressed your core question (DOES "an unsaved man EVER hear and believe the gospel" while he yet remains Spiritually Dead, without the Prior Regeneration of the Holy Spirit?), first, and he has (as have I) been trying to get you to respond to his cites. gracebeliever cited Rom 10:17 and Eph 1:13 as supporting his view that The order seems to be that we hear the Word, trust the Word, believe the Word and then get sealed with the Holy Spirit Himself, to which your response was:

It is absolutely scurrilous, in that Gracebeliever is maintaining that "we hear the Word, trust the Word, believe the Word and then get sealed with the Holy Spirit Himself" without first being Regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to understand and believe and trust the Word.

So, the problem again is your blind refusal to accept his answer at face value and then debate that.

If you don't like it, fine. Refute it. Don't pretend he didn't cite supporting scripture. Lay out Rom 10:17 and Eph 1:13 and show us all how it does not bear on your question of DOES "an unsaved man EVER hear and believe the gospel" while he yet remains Spiritually Dead, without the Prior Regeneration of the Holy Spirit? You argue "the Scriptures say NO", so demonstrate how Rom 10:17 and Eph 1:13 don't apply at all, and to be complete, demonstrate to what they in fact do apply.

I'm simply not interested in a lot of irrelevant musings about Men having Free Will and the Gospel being freely offered to all or any other such issues which aren't even germane to the Core Question of the debate -- Does an Unsaved Man ever Believe on Jesus without the Prior Regeneration by the Holy Ghost of his fallen, dead spirit?

Until you can deign to answer questions and replies to you, perhaps you had best stick with vanty posts then and stop pretending to seek honest debate.

For you to erect your cyber soap box and demand only those exact answers which you have predetermined are worthy of your attention, while persisting in falsehoods about the questions and responses put to you and hiding behind ad-hominem attacks that fellow believers hate and despise the Bible, is nothing short of Pharisaical.

Perhaps your position in the GRPL should be upgraded to Chief Pharisee.

Don't have much time right now, but John 15:16 does not mean that only the "chosen" can be saved. You have to remember that Christ is addressing the Twelve here (this is the Upper Room Discourse) and is not referring to their salvation but to their calling to the apostleship and to the great authority they will have in the kingdom. These verses do not apply to the Body of Christ today, but refer to privileged positions of service for the Twelve.

If your logic is correct regarding this meaning of called to salvation, then how do you handle John 6:70, "Jesus answered them, Have I not CHOSEN you twelve, AND ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL?" Also what about John 13:17-18, "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them. I speak not of you all: I KNOW WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me?" Judas wasn't chosen to salvation was he? But he was chosen to "lift up his heel" against the Christ. Acts 1:15ff tells us that without question Judas was an apostle with full authority but it is also clear he was lost. Once more, it is clear that election does not mean "called to salvation" but "called to service." Jesus, being God, knew Judas' thoughts and motivations and He "chose" him for a specific purpose, "that the scripture may be fulfilled."

So I guess it does make a difference what one is "called" for. God does have different reasons for election as well as different ways of dealing with people. For example, the verses you cite in John 15 are surrounded with "if" phrases, or conditional terms that are clearly law, or performance based acceptance. Today we are under God's grace program and not under the law. Therefore, God expects different things from us and does not hold us to Israel's program of law.

2 Pet 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

So your contention is that the "any" and the "all" in this passage refer only to the Elect.

Rom 10:17
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Acts 18:8
8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

John 1:12
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 4:41
41 And many more believed because of his own word;

John 5:34
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

I agree that God prepares our heart through circumstances, plagues, disappointments... and that He is well aware of who will respond to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, but it has been my experience and that of all of the believers that I know, that the moment we let down our resistance to the Spirit of God by recognizing the enormity of our sin, He takes that opportunity to slip in the truth of the Gospel and we believe. The transformation begins at that instant in time. We are broken on the stone that was rejected. Eternal life.

If you want to call the self-recognized brokenness "regeneration", I prefer to call it repentance brought on by the love of God. Your cart seems to be before the horse. The active receiving of the gift of Salvation, through the active hearing of the word of God, brings a person to the transforming regeneration that separates Christians from the worldly.

People accept an invitation to come to church because of the preparation of God's love. They are not regenerated because they showed up with a friend at church. While they sit in the pew, the tilled soil of their heart receives the truth of the Gospel, believes, and then they are quickened by the Holy Spirit into eternal regenerate life.

The person didn't enter the church believing, rather only prepared by God to receive. Broken. Not regenerate yet. Wondering about their personal failures and a solution to their needs. Knowingly guilty, revealed by the love of God and the perfection of God's Law. Schooled by the schoolmaster and ready to hear the truth of their need for a pardon.

"...(this is the Upper Room Discourse) and is not referring to their salvation but to their calling to the apostleship..."

Yes, I've heard that argument before. Sorry, if Jesus is just talking to His disciples then rip John 14-15 out of your Bible because it doesn't pertain to us or it's a good history lesson. That's all it becomes and that's a slippery slope.

As far as Judas the text is:

Joh 6:68-70 "Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God. Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"

God the Father and our Lord Jesus chooses who He will to carry out whatever His will is. Our Lord Jesus knew they weren't all destined for Heaven. Peter did not. ("We have believed...")

Rom 9:21-22 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

If you don't like it, fine. Refute it. Don't pretend he didn't cite supporting scripture. Lay out Rom 10:17 and Eph 1:13 and show us all how it does not bear on your question of DOES "an unsaved man EVER hear and believe the gospel" while he yet remains Spiritually Dead, without the Prior Regeneration of the Holy Spirit? You argue "the Scriptures say NO", so demonstrate how Rom 10:17 and Eph 1:13 don't apply at all, and to be complete, demonstrate to what they in fact do apply.

Fine.

Romans 10:17 and Ephesians 1:13 simply state that when an unsaved man believes and trusts the Gospel he is Saved. Obviously, we see this all the time.

But this observation simply does not answer the question of whether or not the Prior Regeneration of the Holy Spirit is required to make this belief and trust possible for him in the first place -- considering that Scripture ALSO teaches that while a Man is Unregenerate, he will NEVER believe and trust the Gospel.

So:

We know that when an unsaved man believes and trusts the Gospel he is Saved. And...
We know that Scripture teaches that that while a Man is Unregenerate, he will NEVER believe and trust the Gospel.

Ergo: In order to believe and trust the Gospel, is it necessary that an unsaved man must first be Regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

Paul tells us that a man must first be Regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to believe, since he places the following Scriptures precedent to Romans 10:17 and Ephesians 1:13 -- you can't get there without going here first, in other words:

Romans 9: 15-18 -- For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Ephesians 1:4-6 -- According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Seeing as the Scriptures adamantly teach that while a man is unregenerate, he NEVER WILL believe and trust the Gospel, when understanding the Order of Salvation you can't simply say "when a man believes and trusts the Gospel he is Saved" without first addressing his Unregenerate State which the Bible says makes it impossible that he should believe and trust the Gospel. So: given that it is impossible that a man should believe and trust the Gospel while he is Unregenerate, then -- In order to believe and trust the Gospel, is it necessary that an unsaved man must first be Regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

Yes, or No?

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.