[Tantumergo]

"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....! ;)

[HarleyD]

OP is far more eloquent than I am but you make a simple error. God has the wisdom, knowledge, mercy and love to decide who to fill with the Holy Spirit. It is His decision. It was God's will to fill John the Baptist and Jeremiah with His Spirit before they were born.

It is also God's privilege to know that if a 6-month fetus is going to be aborted to complete that child through the Holy Spirit to take him/her home to Him if that is what God desires. If it is not God's will to take that child home do you think that child would be redeemed by merit that he/she is a child?

The Calvinists believe this is consistent with God's working for all His creatures. God does not have one process for those who are below 5 years old and another who are over 12 and a somewhat process for those in between. John the Baptist does represents the "norm" because it is God who gives us our faith and his experience is consistent with all our experience. This is why Paul could say he was "set ... apart even from my mother's womb" (Gal 1:15) although he wasn't filled with God's Holy Spirit until many years later. John the Baptist conversion is JUST the same as Paul's. God does this for each of us who are chosen.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

"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?

No. The Calvinist maintains that infants are, by nature after the Fall, part of the same Massa Damnata "lump of perdition" as the rest of us.

John Calvin and other great Calvinists simply maintained, and we believe that they had Scriptures to warrant it, that God has ordained to regenerate unto Salvation those Infants whom He ordained would Die in Infancy.

"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?

No... but if God *can* do as much with John the Baptist, the case does illustrate God's power to monergistically and unilaterally regenerate unto Salvation those Infants whom He ordained would Die in Infancy.

"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....! ;)

No, they make a verbal profession of Faith also... it's just usually offered in Drivgibberlish.

("Drivgibberlish (noun): a dialect combining elements of Drivel, Gibberish, and English, predominantly spoken by epileptic snake-handlers prone to holy laughter after drinking poison")

Best, OP