The Arminian/Wesleyan Dogma of Infant Damnation vs. the Calvinist Doctrine of Infant Salvation

Arminian inconsistencies and errors ^ | 1856 | Rev. Henry Brown

[Christian_Capitalist]

Alright, here you have it -- the great Theologians' expressly declared beliefs, in their own words.

• Here in the Right corner, we have John Calvin! History's greatest champion of the Biblical Doctrine of Predestination, arguing for God's gracious Monergistic Salvation of all those who die in infancy!

• And here in the Left corner, we have John Wesley! Protestantism's chief advocate of the Humanist dogma of Free-Will Salvation, arguing for the Universal Damnation to Hell of all infants who die unbaptized!

Who is correct? Is John Wesley, Protestantism's greatest advocate for unregenerate Human Free Will, correct when he argues of dying infants that "they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism"?

Or perhaps it is the great Predestinarian theologian John Calvin who is right -- when he declares that the Wesleyan/Arminian doctrine of Universal unbaptized-Infant Damnation is "a blasphemy to be universally detested"!

I think it's always important to let Theologians describe their own beliefs, rather than just accept whatever summations you may have heard "through the grapevine". So, here you have it -- the great dueling Protestant theologians, their own beliefs, in their own words. Who is right, and who is wrong? Read your Bibles and decide!

[Christian_Capitalist]

Calvinist/Arminian infant salvation cage match.

Let's see if the Arminians want to defend THIS Arminian doctrine.

---

INFANT SALVATION
by Charles Spurgeon

"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."

[Nosterrex]

This is an interesting discussion. Not being either a Calvinist or an Arminian, I have no dog in this fight. The question is whether or not you believe in original sin, and whether or not faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. If you do not believe that all human beings conceived in a natural way are born blind, dead, and enemies of God, I can see where someone could make the argument that children are not damned. If you believe that people can be saved without personal faith, I can see where someone could make the argument that children can be saved by some other means. Anyone that believes in original sin and the necessity of faith for salvation would come to the conclusion that all people, regardless of age, are subject to judgment.

[OneWingedShark]

I’d like to point out that in Judaism there is the “age of accountability” where a child becomes an adult responsible for their own actions esp. in the legal sense. Does this apply to Christianity? If you say no, justify your answer with an explanation... after all, Christianity is a form of Judaism [that the gentile-Christians do not have the whole of the Mosaic-law obligations* laid upon them as the Jewish people do is irrelevant to the point]; further, Jesus said that He didn not come to Destroy the Law [but to fulfill it].
(* See Acts 15; esp. verses 5, 10&11, 19&20 and 28&29)

Furthermore, if there is some mirroring/foreshadowing in the story of the Passover [wherein only the firstborn of those houses covered with the blood of the lamb were passed over] to Jesus; then couldn’t the Blood of the Lamb of God be enough to cause God to ‘passover’ the inherited-sin of the according-to-the-law-not-accountable-for-their-own-actions children that had died before Jesus (like even the Egyptian firstborn), during Jesus’s life (like those Herod had put to death), and after Jesus’s death (i.e. all the plagues and wars and famine of modern-times)?

[OneWingedShark]

Hm.. your thoughts on my post 4, please.

[Christian_Capitalist]

I’d like to point out that in Judaism there is the “age of accountability” where a child becomes an adult responsible for their own actions esp. in the legal sense. Does this apply to Christianity? If you say no, justify your answer with an explanation... after all, Christianity is a form of Judaism [that the gentile-Christians do not have the whole of the Mosaic-law obligations* laid upon them as the Jewish people do is irrelevant to the point]; further, Jesus said that He didn not come to Destroy the Law [but to fulfill it]. (* See Acts 15; esp. verses 5, 10&11, 19&20 and 28&29)

Age of Legal Accountability for Court Trials really doesn't have anything to do with Adam's Original Sin and the Fall of Man.

So, I don't have any problem with Christians specifying an age at which children can be treated by the Courts as adults, but it really doesn't have a whole lot to do with the Theology of Original Sin -- whether Arminian/Free-Willers preaching their wicked and depraved doctrine of Infant Damnation, or Calvinists preaching our righteous doctrine of Infant Salvation.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Anyone that believes in original sin and the necessity of faith for salvation would come to the conclusion that all people, regardless of age, are subject to judgment.

I agree.

• John Calvin, arguing for the Predestinarians, believed that God Elects to unilaterally and monergistically apply the Grace of Regeneration and the Merits of Christ's atonement to those whom He calls away from life in infancy.

• John Wesley, arguing for the Free-Willers, declared that all infants who die unbaptized are universally Damned To Hell.

Personally, I uphold the Calvinist teaching of Infant Salvation, and reject the depraved Wesleyan/Arminian teaching of Infant Damnation.

[ShadowAce]

Is there scriptural support for either position?

[ReformedBeckite]

Getting the popcorn ready for this debate. I won't mention which side I'll side with but my freep name might give some one a hint.

[badbass]

If you study this long enough, you’ll find that eventually, Jesus is going to save everyone. But don’t tell anybody, they get upset that Jesus will actually seek ALL of the lost sheep until he finds them. EVERY knee shall bow.

[stefanbatory]

Romans 3:23

[r9etb]

The interesting thing about this discussion is that, if Calvin was correct, then the doctrine of salvation by faith is seriously compromised, as is that of Sola Scriptura.

Either way, you've got Weslayans or Calvinists breathing flames against each other ... both sides being in possession of logical and convincing arguments .... and they can't both be correct.

Of course, both sides can be incorrect, and that's probably more to the point. "For the wisdom of this world is folly with God...."

[Christian_Capitalist]

Is there scriptural support for either position?

There's some Scriptural support for John Calvin's position. Here's one I like off the top of my head:

Ezekiel 16:21 -- "You slaughtered My children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire."

Since we know that God does not consider the Reprobate to be "His Children" but rather "Children of Satan" (John 8:44), for God to claim these murdered infants as HIS Children is supportive of Calvin's belief that God has chosen to monergistically Regenerate and Save, including them amongst His Elect, those whom He has permitted to die in Infancy.

There's no Scriptural support at all for the wicked Arminian/Wesleyan doctrine of Infant Damnation; but then again, there's no Scriptural support for any of the Arminians' teachings. This is just one particularly detestable example of their many execrable blasphemies.

[ShadowAce]

Think so? What personal sins have infants committed?

[ShadowAce]

How does anyone know that Infants are among the elect?

[Christian_Capitalist]

The interesting thing about this discussion is that, if Calvin was correct, then the doctrine of salvation by faith is seriously compromised, as is that of Sola Scriptura.

Why? While we know that all Fallen Men are conceived in Spiritually-Dead Iniquity:

Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. (Psalm 58:3)

Cannot God, who designed the human spirit, create the Gift of Faith in the spirits of the young, as well as the old -- even those too young for other humans to be able to comprehend such a thing?

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God. (Psalm 22:9-10)

'Cause, um, the Bible says He can. Just sayin'...

[OneWingedShark]

>Age of Legal Accountability for Court Trials really doesn’t have anything to do with Adam’s Original Sin and the Fall of Man.

So then the Law of Moses has nothing to do with original sin? That’s an incredibly laughable/ridiculous sentiment.

>whether Arminian/Free-Willers preaching their wicked and depraved doctrine of Infant Damnation,

I’m actually one of those “free-willers,” however I don’t agree with the doctrine of Infant Damnation... for the reasons listed in my previous post.

>or Calvinists preaching our righteous doctrine of Infant Salvation.

Really? and what right have you to say who is or is not justified in God’s sight? {This is exactly what you are doing, though dressing it up as an qualification on age.} I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation (though not too in-depth, as that could easily go into book-length works) as to how it is possible that free-will exits whilst infant-damnation does not.

Besides, if free-will does NOT exist then of what value is love? Certainly God, who has Sovereign [and therefore free] Will does not *need* humanity [or a particular individual] except by whatever measure He decides to; and He has shown us, already, that He has placed the Highest value upon us: His own Life. Of what use would such a valuation be if, as you suggest, an individual has no free-will with which to love God [or even to DO justly, as Micah 6:8 says] and/or respond to Him & His actions? Put in simplest terms, the very act of [voluntary] ‘worship’ which you yourself employ in giving thanks to God is an affirmation of free-will because it would be a useless & valueless act if you did not have [at least some manner of] control over it [by exercising] your own will.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I won’t write a whole theological tract on the subject but both doctrines are unscriptural garbage.

The death, resurrection and victory of Christ has enabled God to choose anyone He will to salvation. Besides those who consciously accept Christ, He has chosen people who lived and died before Christ and people who have never heard of Christ, at any time after conception. The heavens declare His glory. God knows the heart from its first beat in the womb.

The fact is, those who hear the Word and choose Christ are guaranteed salvation. Those who reject Christ are guaranteed damnation. All else are chosen by God in His wisdom by the power of Christ, therefore it is true that the only way is through Christ.

The bottom line is that some infants are saved and some are not and it is up to God, not any act of man, including infant baptism or preaching of the Word. However, many who would not be saved by the sovereign act of God alone are saved later in life by Grace in hearing and accepting the Word, so keep preaching the Truth.

[stefanbatory]

we have all inherited sin from Adam and Eve...otherwise, we would still be in Eden

[Christian_Capitalist]

How does anyone know that Infants are among the elect?

I don't claim to "know".

What I said was, there is Scriptural support for John Calvin's belief that God chooses to monergistically Regenerate and apply the merits of Christ's Atonement to those whom He permits to die in infancy.

I didn't say I "knew" it, I said that I thought that there's some Scriptural support for Calvin's view.

But there is an alternate view, of course. The greatest Theologian of the Free-Will Protestants taught that all infants who die unbaptized are Universally Damned To Hell. So, you can believe that, if you prefer.