Posted on 09/15/2010 11:28:22 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
well, if you answer CC’s point — what exactly DOES Wesley teach about infants dying before baptism?
I did answer what wesleyanism teaches: He just didn’t read it.
Yet, CC’s point is that in Calvinist thought, at least some of the infants who die before they are baptised are elect, so go to heaven anyway. This, he views, as being better than the idea that 100% go to heck
ok, you did! “In short, God accepts infants because, as Shadow Ace suggests, those infants are innocent, not in that they lack a sin nature, but in that they’ve not yet personally acted on their sin nature. They are “infants”; they are “blind.””
This is a philosophy discussion, not a Christian one.
There are no clear cut scriptures that REVEAL definitively what happens before someone can understand the Gospel. Why? Because if one can read or hear the Gospel with understanding, then one isn’t in that category. It is like asking if dogs go to heaven...there is nothing in scripture that provides a definitive answer, so it is all speculation. And why would God discuss his handling of dogs to humans?
What happens to an infant who dies? God hasn’t revealed it, so we don’t know. But we know God is just, and whatever he does will be just and fair and right.
However, UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide makes a good point - if an infant who dies is certain of salvation, then we ought to all kill our babies. Logically. And since that is repulsive, I think it best to leave to God what is God’s, and deal with what we must - how do WE respond to the offer of salvation?
First off, to hold me [and every other “free-willer”] accountable for everything John Wesley said is utterly ridiculous.
Second, I don not believe that Wesley was infallible; any flawed human is bound to make mistakes.
Third, your actions and attitudes convey, to me, that you are not concerned with Truth, Philosophy (love of wisdom), or even debating points: you are concerned only with “being right” and pounding on any who believes either a) differently from you, or b) differently from how you believe they should believe [as evidenced by that “theologically inconsistent” remark].
James had something to say about this [3:17-18 (KJV)]:
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
Your contentiousness is certainly not peaceable. Your manner of grouping people together into what you believe they ought to believe [and thusly holding them to account for beliefs not their own] is neither gentle nor easy to be entreated nor full of mercy. The accusation you hurl at “free-willers” about treating Wesley as a “god-pope” [posts 60 & 65] reeks of hypocrisy.
I think it safe to say that you, if you indeed are a Christian, are in need of some more of the Grace that only God can give.
John Calvin preached the Gracious Monergistic Salvation of those dying in Infancy -- which is unsurprising, because Calvin preached the Gospel of Christ.
Wesley preached Satan; Calvin preached Christ. That's really all there is to it -- and of course, we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism in such execrable Blasphemies as the Free-Will Doctrine of Universal Infant Damnation for infants who die unbaptized. Just one more Satanic belief in a whole Satanic belief-system."
I just wanted to repeat your post...it speaks volumes.
It so happens I have this bottle of cyber-elixir worth exactly 199.98...
This post of yours is OUTSTANDING!
God did, after all, provide more information on that in Exodus 20.
...if an infant who dies is certain of salvation, then we ought to all kill our babies. Logically.
Only if that is all the information you want to base your decision upon.
God did, after all, provide more information on that in Exodus 20.
3. Destroy - Both persons and goods, kill all that live, and consume all things without life, for I will have no name nor remnant of that people left, whom long since I have devoted to utter destruction. Spare not - Shew no compassion or favour to any of them. The same thing repeated to prevent mistake, and oblige Saul to the exact performance hereof. Slay, &c. - Which was not unjust, because God is the supreme Lord of life, and can require his own when he pleaseth; infants likewise are born in sin, and therefore liable to God's wrath. Their death also was rather a mercy than a curse, as being the occasion of preventing their sin and punishment.
The philosophical distinction between you and me is a tiny one:
You say that the Bible does not tell us whether any infants who die go to Heaven or Hell.
I say that the Bible does not tell us whether any particular infants who die go to Heaven or Hell but that there is a basis to believe that some go to each place depending on God’s knowing the soul of each.
You essentially say that either position of all or nothing may be true or false and therefore taking either position is pointless.
I say that both positions are demonstrably false and pointless.
The all babies go to heaven is a misguided attempt at comforting grieving parents and give people a warm and fuzzy feeling but that denies men’s sin nature.
The all babies go to hell unless they are baptized is a misguided attempt to increase church membership and giving people the wrong impression that they can physically do something that affects another’s chances of getting into heaven. This is also basically Catholic dogma.
You and I both repudiate these errors.
Hey, a philosophical discussion is better than cutting people’s heads off!
Of course it does.
It is quite revelatory, of the Satnism of Arminianism, that their god-pope John Wesley believed that all Infants who Die Unbaptized go directly to Hell.
What a Satanist he was.
Of course it does.
It is quite revelatory, of the Satanism of Arminianism, that their god-pope John Wesley believed that all Infants who Die Unbaptized go directly to Hell.
What a Satanist he was.
It's John Wesley's own position, fer-cryin-out-loud. I don't need to "take it to extremes", when I can just quote the man himself and his own church standards!
"they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism."
If Wesley said that then he was wrong. It certainly doesn't mean he was preaching Satan.
Further there is nothing in traditional Calvinist Theology which would indicate that just because some Child dies in infancy that they were numbered among the elect. Indeed God hated Esau before he was born. Now if that hate was based on foreknowledge, then you could argue for God's mercy on innocent children, but if you believe God's hatred for Esau had nothing to do with God's foreknowledge, then you cannot argue that God automatically has elected every infant that dies, and the conclusion to come to is that God must hate some of them, even before they were born, because he clearly hates a lot of them even before they grow up.
Look, I'm sorry if it offends -- but I find the preaching that ALL Infants who die Unbaptized, are automatically condemned to Hell, to be a vile, repugnant doctrine.
I mean, Wesley didn't even have the humility to say, "Gee, I'm not sure, there's only a few passages of Scripture which directly touch on the spiritual status of infants." No, he just says, "They're unbaptized, so off to Hell they go!"
I can only speak for Lutheranism as expressed in the Lutheran Confessions. It is not the lack of baptism that damns but the contempt for baptism. God works through baptism, but He is not limited to baptism. What God does with children or adults that die without the benefits of baptism is up to God.
No you're not. I think you would freely admit that it gives you great joy to know you are offending.
That being said, you didn't respond to my assertions about the similar Calvinistic conundrum, so I will have to assume that you must agree with my points.
If God hated Esau from before he was born, what is to stop him from hating other children who have not yet been born and who will die in infancy?
If you don't know, then how can you say Wesley was wrong? How do you know that God doesn't reserve his mercy only for those whom he has predestined to be baptized?
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.