It is silly to ascribe any belief in baptismal regeneration to John Wesley. Wesley was a devout believer in “by grace are you saved through faith....” Anyone who has even the barest experience of reading John Wesley knows this.
Likewise, Arminius was a reformed theologian regarding salvation by grace through faith. His disagreement was whether God’s predetermination was impacted by foreknowledge or not. Arminius believed it was.
As with most in the Arminian tradition, both of these fine Christian men would have cited Jesus’ words: “let the infants come unto me and forbid them not.” Also, they would have cited Jesus’ words when he stated that those who are truly blind are not guilty, but since the Pharisees said that they did see, then their guilt remains.
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.”
Pick some other ground to fight on. This is a very weak attempt that doesn’t encompass the full body of either man’s writings.
Nope, I directly quoted the man, the prayers he wrote, and his own church standards.
John Wesley preached Universal Infant Damnation for unbaptized infants -- which is unsurprising, because Wesley preached the Gospel of Satan.
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.
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?