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?

Step 1 - he was a devout man;

”Act 10:4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God. “

Starwind’s Interpretation - “And so in Acts 10:1-2 Cornelius was unsaved and unregenerate at the time he was giving alms, a good work perhaps even prepared by God, but nonetheless Cornelius was unregenerate when he did those good works, and Cornelius did it of his own free will and choosing.”

”Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. “

Rom 3:12 “ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." “

If Cornelius was just like everyone else he could not have pleased God because he was still in the flesh. Yet we see his alms ascended to heaven as a “memorial” before God. There is nothing “good” we can do to earn our salvation.

Step 2 - an angel appeared to him and told him to send for Peter;

Starwind’s Statement – “I didn't ignore these "steps" either. I've addressed their passages many times. I disagreed previously with your "terminology", which ill-defined terminology is still irrelevant to my argument, oft repeated lo these many posts, that believing follows hearing and preceeds regeneration or being sealed with the Holy Spirit.”

Not addressed. (Comment-You say this is addressed but I don’t see where. Please just cut and paste your answer to why God sent His angel to Cornelius instead of cutting and pasting statements telling me you’ve addressed this. Did God send His angel because of Cornelius good works? Did Cornelius have an opportunity to reject God’s angel? Please remember this encounter before answering:

Luk 1:19-20 The angel answered and said to him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time."

People don’t reject angels’ commands from God.)

Step 3 - Peter hesitated to bring the message but came after being persuaded by God and men;

Not addressed.

In the final analysis all you’ve done in your lengthy post is talk about Step 1. As noted above this puts you in the difficult position of relating Cornelius salvation to his “good works”. I can see from your statement, “a good work perhaps even prepared by God” you are hedging on whether these good works came from God or from Cornelius. Either God was the author of these good works or Cornelius was the author. If God was the author then Cornelius had to be regenerated for God to use him for no one can please God while in the flesh as Paul says in Romans. If Cornelius is the author you are contradicting Romans and saying people are saved by their merit.

So what is it? Was Cornelius saved by his good works or were these good works generated by God through Cornelius before he believed?

If Cornelius was just like everyone else he could not have pleased God because he was still in the flesh. Yet we see his alms ascended to heaven as a "memorial" before God. There is nothing "good" we can do to earn our salvation.

Yet another misapplication of scripture. Rom 8:6-8 is about the mind set on the flesh being hostile to God and cannot please God. Cornelius' mind was set on God. He feared God, was devout, and prayed. I didn't say his works pleased God or that he earned his salvation (that's your dishonest spin). I said his "work" was merely good (as did you), but not good enough to save him.

Not addressed. (Comment-You say this is addressed but I don't see where. Please just cut and paste your answer to why God sent His angel to Cornelius instead of cutting and pasting statements telling me you've addressed this.

You didn't want to see this the first time either, and I'm sure you'll overlook it again or say it wasn't addressed:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts?page=287#287

If Cornelius "believes" as you have asserted before Peter came, what was the point of the point of the angel's visit and the need to send for Peter?
Simply, for Peter to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius, his household, and others assembled there, so that Peter might then feed them the "milk" of the gospel (not the "solid food" for the spiritually mature of 1 Co 2:14), all as scripture plainly records.
It served God's purpose for Cornelius to request that Peter come and speak. God sent an angel to Cornelius to send for Peter, and Cornelius obeyed, as did Peter (upon God revealing to Peter the Gentiles were no longer to be consider unholy but now cleansed).
The angelic visit was not about Cornelius' salvation or regeneration, but about bringing the gospel to the Gentiles, by Peter and beginning with Cornelius.

[3) Peter hesitated to bring the message but came after being persuaded by God and men] Not addressed.

Harley, there is not enough bandwidth to address every jot & tittle you toss out. If you'd put half the thought into making them that you expect from others in addressing them, you'd see they were not worth making in the first place. You're just flailing away now.

Peter did not hestiate. In his vision he only said (Act 10:14) "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." and the vision perplexed him. He went to Cornelius house as instructed the next day and upon his arrival said (Act 10:29) "That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me."

As I said stated before (knowing you won't be able to find this yourself, I'll just repeat it here):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts?page=287#287

Simply, for Peter to bring the gospel to the Gentiles, beginning with Cornelius, his household, and others assembled there, so that Peter might then feed them the "milk" of the gospel (not the "solid food" for the spiritually mature of 1 Co 2:14), all as scripture plainly records.
It served God's purpose for Cornelius to request that Peter come and speak. God sent an angel to Cornelius to send for Peter, and Cornelius obeyed, as did Peter (upon God revealing to Peter the Gentiles were no longer to be consider unholy but now cleansed).
The angelic visit was not about Cornelius' salvation or regeneration, but about bringing the gospel to the Gentiles, by Peter and beginning with Cornelius.

Peter did not hesitate. Your so called "step 3" is (as I previously stated) mere front-loading of your trumped up processes all designed to get Cornelius regenerated before he believed anything so your doctrine won't look so foolish.

In the final analysis all you've done in your lengthy post is talk about Step 1.

lol - you clearly recognized I addressed a lot more than your step 1, you just didn't like the answer, and you are hiding from your really lame "logical redemption".

Your denial is most unbecoming, as well as time consuming, and now I am truly finished with this 'discussion'.

(continuing from my above post)

If Cornelius was just like everyone else he could not have pleased God because he was still in the flesh. Yet we see his alms ascended to heaven as a "memorial" before God. There is nothing "good" we can do to earn our salvation.
Yet another misapplication of scripture. Rom 8:6-8 is about the mind set on the flesh being hostile to God and cannot please God. Cornelius' mind was set on God. He feared God, was devout, and prayed. I didn't say his works pleased God or that he earned his salvation (that's your dishonest spin). I said his "work" was merely good (as did you), but not good enough to save him.

I was a bit rushed this morning and neglected to make another point I had in mind, that being in your post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1245734/posts?page=312#312

Step 1-We know Cornelius was devout doing good works but how is that possible since good works only come from God?

You first characterized Cornelius giving alms as a "good work", not I, and yet you now argue against your own characterization of it being a "good work", merely because I tried to address your statement as you made it.

Regardless, I then responded (accepting your characterization of Cornelius giving alms as a "good work") with how God uses many things for good and prepares works that bless the receiver of the work, not necessarily the "worker" who was merely God's instrument. Many times God uses the unregenerate to achive something good (such as Josephs' brothers, intending evil, selling him into slavery yet God using it for good.

Further, Acts 10 records that Cornelius previously knew of and feared God, and knew about Jesus ministry. Cornelius may have heard (Mat 5:42) "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." was taught be Jesus (of whom Cornelius had heard) whom was anointed by and with God (whom Cornelius feared) and so when God put a needy person in Cornelius' path, Cornelius obeyed what he'd possibly heard Jesus teach, and he gave.

The "good" was not in the worker in this case, but the work may have been for the good of the receiver and, regardless, giving when asked itself is clearly in accord with Christ's teaching and Cornelius was unregenerate when he gave, and works do not save.

If you think it was a "good work" in the context of Rom 8:8 & 3:12, then you prove that the work was "good" scripturally.

***The 1689 London Baptist Confession puts it thus;

Elect Infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons, who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the Ministry of the Word.

appears as though not ALL infants are Elect, and we have no way of knowing which infants ARE Elect.

Consider: do abortionists save more souls than mainline evangelical churches?***

I pointed out something of this privately to Diamond. I believe that the Bible teaches that infants are saved in the same way that we adults are saved: It is by grace are you saved, through faith. And, I believe that the Bible provides comfort and assurance to his children who have babies that die.

But, I see no reason that the Bible would provide any assurance of any kind to people who are not saved. It makes not sense. The only assurance that they should have is of certain destruction unless they repent and turn to the Lord. Why would God provide any assurance to them about the eternal state of their children who die?

This doesn't mean that the Lord doesn't save them. It only means that the Lord is silent. There is no assurance given to them concerning their children.

I also agree with you concerning the abortionists. If we presume that a person will be saved for no other reason than they died as infants, then we should declare the abortionists the greatest evangelists in the world.

In the service of the Lord,
Christian.

This doesn't mean that the Lord doesn't save them. It only means that the Lord is silent. There is no assurance given to them concerning their children.

The Puritan Thomas Taylor on that issue.

But it is objected, the child itself lacks faith.
[1] It indeed lacks actual faith [i.e., faith actualized in outward acts, such as repenting or believing upon the word of the Gospel], which presupposes hearing and understanding. Nor could it be that if they had actual faith at that time, they could ever utterly lose it, but in point of fact it must be developed in them by instruction.
[2] Yet they do not lack all faith. Christ himself reckons them among believers (Matt 18:6); and in this respect circumcision, which was administered to infants, was called a seal of faith.
[3] Some divines think this faith of the child is not other than the faith of its parents; but the truth is that the faith of the parents is so far theirs that it gives them right to the covenant. The covenant is made to Abraham and to his seed, and to the faithful and their seed; and the believing parent also lays hold on the covenant for himself and his seed, thereby entitling the child to the right of the covenant as well as himself; even as in temporal things he can purchase land for himself and his heirs. This truth confirms that apostle's saying, "If the root be holy, so are the branches"; and if the parent believes, the children are holy.
[4] But this may seem not to be a proper faith, first because some children saved are not of believing parents, and second because "the just shall live by his own faith" (Hab. 2:4); and therefore it is very probable that elected infants have a spirit of faith, that is, the Spirit of God working inwardly and secretly, but diversely in infants dying before the age of discretion and in those which survive. To the former God gives his Spirit which works either faith or something proportionate for their justification and salvation; and in the latter he works the seed or inclination of faith, which in due time shall bear fruit unto eternal life. And in this regard the Scriptures show how, after a marvelous and secret manner, the Lord can and has effectually wrought in infants, even in the womb, as Jacob, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and others.
Nor does it hinder that infants have no sense of any such thing, no more than it proves them not to live, because they do not know that they do so. But though we may not understand the manner of this secret working in infants, we know that Adam's corruption is not more effectual to pollute the infants of believing parents than Christ's blood and innocence is to sanctify them; and being so, his wisdom does not lack means to apply it unto them, even in their infancy, yea in the womb, to make it their own, although we cannot reach unto them. So much for the faith of infants.

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.