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

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

[Christian_Capitalist]

The Arminian Doctrine of Infant Damnation

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."

---

The Calvinist Doctrine of Infant Salvation

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 do not doubt that the infants whom the Lord gathers together from this life are regenerated by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit." (Amsterdam edition of Calvin's works, 8:522).

"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:

"Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven."( Matthew 18:10 ).

"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?

[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.