"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?
***Not that I am an Arminian, but are you then suggesting that faith is not necessary for the salvation of such people?***
No, I am not suggesting it; the Arminians on this thread have EXPLICITLY stated that faith is not neccessary for the salvation of some. Some people might actually call that "another gospel."
It is also implicit in such an Arminian belief that if faith is not needed, then neither is Christ. For why would you need an object of faith if you don't need faith? And this EXPLICITLY denies the infant Christ and his precious blood. I'm left wondering just which belief is suppose to be so horrible: the Calvinist, who asserts that Christ's Atonement, the Holy Spirit's Regeneration, & the Father's Election are all required for salvation or the Arminian who denies even the need for faith and implicitly even the need for Christ's gracious blood.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
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. :-)