Posted on 09/15/2010 11:28:22 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
Having noticed one objection to the doctrine of predestination, we proceed to a second, viz. "It leads to the idea of infant damnation;" "brings with it the repulsive and shocking opinion of the eternal punishment of infants;" "causes not only children not a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fires of hell."
The above are samples of the manner in which this charge is reiterated by every controversial Arminian author that has come under our notice. The reader will be surprised to learn that the "shocking and re-pulsive doctrine" here objected to, is taught by Arminians, but not by Calvinists, and in the Methodist, but not in the Presbyterian Church.
In "the Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church," the prayer before administering the ordinance of infant baptism, closes as follows, viz. "Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation; sanctify this water for this holy sacrament, and grant that this child now to be baptized may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, through Jesus Christ our Lord."
" May ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children." We have already seen, that according to Arminians, converted persons, and they only, are "chosen to salvation." And that they are not "chosen" till after their conversion. The prayer then "that the child to be baptized may receive the fulness of grace and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children," supposes that by baptism it is brought into that number, or in other words, is regenerated. That this is its meaning, appears from the fact that such was the sentiment of Mr. Wesley, who composed the prayer.
In his sermon on "The Marks of the New Birth," addressing his hearers, he asks, "Who denies that ye were then (in baptism,) made children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven."
In his sermon on "The New Birth," he says, "It is certain our Church supposes that all who are baptized in their infancy, are at the same time born again."
In his "Treatise on Baptism," (which is now one of the "Doctrinal Tracts" of the Methodist Episcopal Church,) speaking of "the benefits we receive by baptism," he says, "The first of these is the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death," &c. 2. " By baptism we enter into covenant with God," &c. 3. " By baptism we are admitted into the Church, and consequently made members of Christ, its head," &c. 4. "By baptism, we who were ' by nature children of wrath,' are made the children of God. And this regeneration, which our Church, in so many places ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith; being grafted into the body of Christ's Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace. This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, 'Except a man be born again, of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' John iii. 5. By water then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated, or born again; whence it is called also by the apostle, 'the washing of regeneration.' Our Church, therefore, ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done; nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, which added thereto makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long continued wickedness."
Again, he says, " In the ordinary way, there is no other means of entering into the Church or into heaven" (than by baptism.) "In all ages, the outward baptism is a means of the inward; as outward circumcision was of the circumcision of the heart."
The meaning of the prayer quoted, is thus placed beyond a doubt; and the doctrine of the Methodist Episcopal Church on this subject, according to their own standards, is, that those who are baptized in infancy are regenerated, elected to salvation, and dying in infancy are saved. Of course then, those who are not baptized, are not regenerated, or elected to salvation, and dying in infancy are lost; and so say the Doctrinal Tracts, page 251, " If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism."
Although the concept of "the age of accountability" had its beginnings early in the history of the Christian church, the Scriptures do not use this terminology. Neither does the Bible contain substantial allusions to the eternal state of babies or young children who die before they are old enough to make a conscious decision for or against Christ.
People have always been concerned about the salvation of children who die before they are old enough to clearly understand the gospel. Unfortunately, the conclusion reached by many in the early church was that infants who die without the sacrament of baptism are destined for hell — or limbo. This belief was based upon a mistaken view of baptism.
This view persisted into the Reformation. Catholics, Lutherans, and others continued to believe that infants who weren't baptized would be condemned to hell. This is a tragic distortion of biblical teaching. It is a credit to the clear thinking of John Calvin that he found such a doctrine reprehensible:
"I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish except on account of actual sin; and 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."(Institutes, Book 4, p.335).
Although infants are not capable of conscious sin in the same way as someone older ( Isaiah 7:15-16; Matthew 18:3-4 ), they have inherited natures that are contaminated by sin and in need of transformation and salvation ( Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:3 ). Yet, because of their dependency, trust, and innocence, Jesus not only offers young children as models for the manner in which adult sinners need to be converted, He views them in a unique way:
"Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."( Matthew 18:14 ).
Further, the Scriptures clearly indicate that God does not punish children for the offenses of their fathers ( Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20 ).
Therefore, we believe that those who die as infants or young children are given the gift of salvation. They aren't given this gift because they are without sin; they, too, have inherited Adam's curse. They are given salvation based solely on God's grace, through the sacrificial atonement of Christ on their behalf.
What happens to infants and children who die before they are old enough to respond to the gospel?
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.