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?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol.

But you do have to admit it is interesting that Wesley wrote the way he did. He must have believed this. How many of Wesley’s followers know this about him?

[P-Marlowe]

Now can I afford you?

NOW you don't need me.

[blue-duncan]

“Now can I afford you?”

“NOW you don’t need me.”

Take a retainer..what’s need got to do with it...he has money.

[annie laurie]

I buy that. But we all start life as a zygote. By the time of birth and infancy, we are already 9 months old. Numerous examples are cited of God making use of that time (Samson, David, John the Baptist etc.)

Great insight; thank you! :)

[Christian_Capitalist]

You completely missed my point: “baptism & salvation” is a distinct issue from “determinism vs. free-will” and the joining together of the two, on either side of the argument, is subject to questioning/explanation/elaboration.

It's relevant to John Wesley, since he believed in Baptismal Regeneration and therefore held that Baptized Infants were exempt from his theology of Universal Damnation for those who Die in Infancy.

Again, see above. where are you getting the idea that to embrace free-will means that one must *necessarily* embrace infant damnation? {BTW, as one of your despised “free-willers” I doubt the legitimacy of infant baptisms.}

Oh, I don't dount that there are some theologically-inconsistent Free-Willers who deny the Arminian/Free-Willer doctrine of Infant Damnation.

But the greatest theologian of Free-Willism, John Wesley, clearly understood that if all men have inherited Original Sin (and Wesley affirmed that they have), and that Regeneration is conditioned not upon Absolute Predestination of God but rather the conscious decision of Fallen Man (and this was his teaching), then all those who do not consciously choose Christ are condemned to Hell.

Wesley made an exception for Baptized Infants, since he believed in Baptismal Regeneration from Original Sin; but he consigned all who die Unbaptized as Infants to the fires of Hell -- which was entirely consistent with his Satanic Arminian/Free-Will theology.

And you have not shown how your excuse-from-accountability philosophy is any LESS Satanic.

That's because I hold to no "excuse-from-accountability philosophy".

As a Calvinist, I believe that the Reprobate are held to account for their Sins, and Condemned to Hell.

And that the Sins of the Elect, on the other hand, are fully accounted for by the Sacrificial Atonement of Christ, and therefore they are Justified unto Heaven.

In both cases, every Sin is held to account.

[kevao]

As a Calvinist, you believe in infant damnation too. One of the principle lynchpins of Calvinism is Romans 9:

“11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

So?

And how can anyone waste time debating whether baptism has any relevance at all for salvation? It does not — it can not: Thief on the cross, anyone?

Why do people try to make the simplest things so complex?

[xzins]

What I have to admit is that Wesley wrote far more on this and other subjects.

For example, what do Presbyterians believe is the purpose of baptism?

[ReformedBeckite]

Once I learned the main roots of reformed theology and a little about John Wesley I never liked him. I wonder if his writing are like the cultic leaders and leaders of sects within Christianity and that is many leaders write/speak in forked tongue one day they say one thing, a year or two later they write/speak something else that is contradicting.

[P-Marlowe]

It is threads like this that keep me from becoming more Calvinistic than I already am. The article and the person posting it are just too rabidly one sided in their approach to this subject, ignoring the implications of Calvinistic doctrine to the subject of infant damnation and mocking the ideas of those to whom they disagree even to the point of stating that Wesley "preached Satan."

The Calvinist position when taken to the same extreme that this author takes the Wesleyan position could argue that God very well may have damned every Child that dies before the age of 5 because like Esau, perhaps God hated them all. There is nothing in Calvinistic theology that suggests that God favors children that die young more than he favors the children who live. And if God does not need a reason to save one adult over another (as they are all natural born sinners) then God could just as surely choose one dying infant over another and send one to hell and one to be with him forever in Heaven.

So rather than accomplish the goal of turning this believer into a Calvinist, the author and poster have given me a reason to take another step back.

FWIW Sometimes Calvinists can be really insightful and sometimes they can be real jerks.

[ShadowAce]

...sometimes they can be real jerks.

In my experience, the only people to ever preach that (any) infants are damned to hell have been calvinists on this board. No one else I have met/interacted with has ever suggested anything remotely similar.

Once they lost that debate, they came up with the arguments found in this thread. Interesting how they continue to move the goalposts.

[xzins]

I agree that it’s this kind of stupidity that makes me wonder what they’re putting in the drinks at calvin conventions, ‘cause some of them come out crazy.

It’s this kind of crappola that makes me realize there’s a school of calvinists who preach calvin instead of Christ.

They could care less about Christ so long as they get to stick out their chests and bellow at non-calvinists. Disgusting stuff. It certainly raises a question about predestination: God needed idiots for some reason, and sure enough, they show up here every now and then.

[P-Marlowe]

God needed idiots for some reason, and sure enough, they show up here every now and then.

That's ignoramuses.

My invoice is in the mail. You've got 30 days to pay or I'll have to take you to court.

P. Marlowe Esq.

[Cronos]

actually, the article states “Catholics, Lutherans, and others continued to believe that infants who weren’t baptized would be condemned to hell.”

[Cronos]

“if Calvin was correct, then the doctrine of salvation by faith is seriously compromised, as is that of Sola Scriptura. “ —> why is that?

[Cronos]

but rather "Children of Satan" (John 8:44),

I'm sorry, but you read this wrong. The entire verse in context is

The Children of Abraham

 ³¹To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. ³²Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

 ³³They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants^[b] and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"

 ³⁴Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. ³⁵Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. ³⁶So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. ³⁷I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. ³⁸I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.^[c]"

 ³⁹"Abraham is our father," they answered.

   "If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would^[d] do the things Abraham did. ⁴⁰As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. ⁴¹You are doing the things your own father does."
      "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

The Children of the Devil

 ⁴²Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. ⁴³Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. ⁴⁴You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. ⁴⁵Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! ⁴⁶Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? ⁴⁷He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

He uses " You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire" as a rebuke, an insult not a judgement call.

Ezekiel 16 reads as

20 " 'And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them [e] to the idols. 22 In all your detestable practices and your prostitution you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare, kicking about in your blood.

--> This is God's response to ISRAEL, treating the nation as a wayward wife. And this states that God considers all of Israel as His children and yet this contradicts your interpretation of John 8:44

[wagglebee]

That's ignoramuses.

My invoice is in the mail. You've got 30 days to pay or I'll have to take you to court.

P. Marlowe Esq.

And don't forget that the word "ignoramus" comes from the title of an early 17th century English play (though written in Latin) and the title character (the Ignoramus) just happens to be a LAWYER.

[P-Marlowe]

And don't forget that the word "ignoramus" comes from the title of an early 17th century English play (though written in Latin) and the title character (the Ignoramus) just happens to be a LAWYER.

Call him whatever names you want, but the important question is this: In the end, does he collect his fee?

[xzins]

Ignoramus

Sorry, Counselor, I was beside myself. (Had a nice conversation with some nut sitting right next to me.)

I thought I'd already retained you....no....no....you said I no longer needed a lawyer.

Think I'll pay the retainer anyway. How much did you say? Are you one of the 2000 an hour lawyers?

[wagglebee]

Call him whatever names you want, but the important question is this: In the end, does he collect his fee?

Nope, he pays a bunch of money to marry the woman he loves, gets duped and gets labeled as crazy.

[P-Marlowe]

Are you one of the 2000 an hour lawyers?

If you think so.

I spent 6 minutes on your case, so you owe me about.... $200. With the Freeper discount (the usual and customary "2 cents") that brings it down to $199.98.