# Infant Salvation



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 20, 2006)

How can Arminians account for infant salvation? In order to "accept" the gift (in the arminian sense) of eternal life, we must make a conscious decision using our "free" will. Yet, infants cannot make such a conscious decision. Arminians must take a Calvinistic approach or take the stance that if the infant would have lived he would have either accepted the free gift (in the arminian sense) or not. Obviously choice #2 is absurd, and they can't choose choice #1 because that would defeat their Arminianism. So how can they account for it?

[Edited on 8-20-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## jaybird0827 (Aug 20, 2006)

From what I understand they hold that all children who die before they reach "the age of accountability" go to be with the Lord. This would be consistent with their view of human depravity not being total.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> From what I understand they hold that all children who die before they reach "the age of accountability" go to be with the Lord. This would be consistent with their view of human depravity not being total.


Yes, but my question is how can they hold to such a viewpoint? Is it by God's grace that they are regenerated and saved by the working of the Holy Spirit without the baby making a conscious decision? Well then that is the Calvinist position (at least I think it is in terms of infants, please correct me if I am wrong), not an Arminian one. Most arminians I have spoke with are inconsistent, but the point is that under their idea of saving grace we must accept God's free gift. So, I still don't get what you are saying. Can you expound on what you were saying. I am new to all of this.

[Edited on 8-20-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## jaybird0827 (Aug 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> ...



I'm with you. I do not see how they can hold to such a viewpoint, in light of scripture. Here again, I'm going on what I remember hearing when I was more closely associated with Arminians, and that was like 30 years ago. 

It would go something like this. The baby has not reached the age of accountability, so no actual sin was committed. Their original sin is covered by the blood of Christ, that which is required unto salvation is done for them, and they go to heaven.

And who is to say when the age of accountability is reached?

They have to be inconsistent within their own system in order to attempt to deal with the implication that miscarriages, stillborns and those who die within hours of birth would be under condemnation and consigned to hell. They're not going to say that. Part of being Arminian is working around issues like that.

Here's another thing. What about the feeble? What about those that could be held responsible for some sin but they cannot read; they cannot mentally process the outward call to repentance by the Word of God. Arminianism could consign such people to hell. 

The Westminster Divines understood scripture otherwise.


> Westminster Confession of Faith, ch X, sect III:
> 
> Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worket when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.



As G I Williamson teaches, ironically it is this cold, harsh Calvinism that offers more hope for infants dying in infancy and those who are feeble and cannot read or otherwise process with understanding what they hear in that outward call.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Aug 20, 2006)

I did a Google search. This is the clearest explanation of what Arminians believe regarding infant salvation.


----------



## Peter (Aug 20, 2006)

The distinction between the power or capacity of faith and repentence and the actual exercise or habit of it is crucial. Regenerate babies have the new heart necessary for conversion even though they can't actually exercise it until they reach the age of discretion.



[Edited on 8-20-2006 by Peter]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by jaybird0827_
> I did a Google search. This is the clearest explanation of what Arminians believe regarding infant salvation.



Thanks. 



> _Originally posted by Peter_
> The distinction between the power or capacity of faith and repentence and the actual exercise or habit of it is crucial. Regenerate babies have the new heart necessary for conversion even though they can't actually exercise it until they reach the age of discretion.



Okay, well if they have the new heart then that must mean they have been regenerated (otherwise there is no difference between "new" and "old" heart). In that case It was only by God's grace for they could not be regnerated by any other way (the arminian must admit the infant cannot make such a conscious choice). That takes the Calvinist position. 

Most arminians would agree that we are born with our sin nature, so how come Jesus' blood saved the infants lives but not everybodies (the arminian would say Christ blood payed for everybodies sins but they are only saved if they accept the free gift, using our free will in the libertarian sense)? In that case, God was violating the infants free will, or do they not even have free will?!? btw, I appreciate all the replies.

[Edited on 8-21-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> How can Arminians account for infant salvation? In order to "accept" the gift (in the arminian sense) of eternal life, we must make a conscious decision using our "free" will. Yet, infants cannot make such a conscious decision. Arminians must take a Calvinistic approach or take the stance that if the infant would have lived he would have either accepted the free gift (in the arminian sense) or not. Obviously choice #2 is absurd, and they can't choose choice #1 because that would defeat their Arminianism. So how can they account for it?


Arminians wouldn't sense your dilemna. The reason is that you have a sense of original sin that makes men guilty of Adam's sin due to his federal representation in the Garden. Arminians reject this idea generally speaking.

I don't know if you saw that staircase that Scott posted recently (see here that showed the 5 steps of Calvinism climbing to a precipice that teetered over Hell but under the heading "Total Depravity" they had written "Total (Hereditary) Depravity". In other words, they were viewing as aberrant the idea that men bear a hereditary guilt in Adam. They believe that the Fall only gives men a bent toward sin but doesn't make them actually responsible for it.

In their view, a man is not actually guilty of condemnation until he has committed an actual sin. Youths, in their system, do not _really_ sin until they're old enough to cognitively understand that they have sinned. They believe that sin is inevitable once the person gets old enough to be accountable for it but they just don't believe that children can actually sin in a way that condemns them to Hell.

That all said, they're completely wrong but I just want to make sure you understand why your argument would not be compelling to them as they reject the Biblical teaching that all are guilty of Adam's sin which is the reason why children, younger than the "age of accountability", die.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 21, 2006)

Thanks SemperFideles; that helped clear up their viewpoint for me. I guess my argument really holds with arminians who do believe that all men are guilty of Adam's sin due to his federal representation. I realize that 'arminian' in the consistent term of holding to all 5 points would deny that, but I have never met an arminian who holds to all 5 points of arminianism. In fact, most of my friends that are not calvinist (so I guess by default arminian) hold my view of our sin nature (how we are born into it). I think most people who we would classify as 'arminian' are under my viewpoint of our sin nature, but a consistent arminian would not hold to such a viewpoint I now understand.


----------



## MW (Aug 21, 2006)

Owen provides two quotations in his Display of Arminianism. One from Venator: "Infants are simply in that estate in which Adam was before his fall." To which Owen quotes Ps. 51:5. Another from the Remonstrant Apology: "Neither is it considerable whether they be the children of believers or of heathens; for all infants have the same innocency." To which he quotes 1 Cor. 7:14; Job 14:4; John 3:3, 6. (Works 10:81, 82.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> Thanks SemperFideles; that helped clear up their viewpoint for me. I guess my argument really holds with arminians who do believe that all men are guilty of Adam's sin due to his federal representation. I realize that 'arminian' in the consistent term of holding to all 5 points would deny that, but I have never met an arminian who holds to all 5 points of arminianism. In fact, most of my friends that are not calvinist (so I guess by default arminian) hold my view of our sin nature (how we are born into it). I think most people who we would classify as 'arminian' are under my viewpoint of our sin nature, but a consistent arminian would not hold to such a viewpoint I now understand.


Interesting that most of your Arminian friends have a sense of federal guilt because it is generally not the case that they do.

Next time you talk to one make sure you're understanding them precisely. They will say they believe that man is fallen and, because of Adam's fall, we all sin. They don't disagree with the Bible in that sense. The disagreement is where guilt begins. They'll claim that Original Sin bends the person toward sin but, until the person actually sins and is old enough to be held accountable for it, there is nothing to condemn. They'll thus view an infant as somebody who will surely sin due his fallen nature but, until the child actually does, he is not under any condemnation because his sin is only theoretical and not acutal until he's old enough.

This is why it's very common for many Christians of that persuasion to speak of the innocence of children.

Always ensure that folks define terms. Terms like guilt, Fall, salvation, atonement, etc are all used by Roman Catholics, Calvary Chapel preachers, Jehova Witnesses, Mormons, and Reformed believers (among others) with very different meanings associated to them. Thus an Arminian will sound like he agrees with Adam's guilt being Federally inherited but it's very unlikely that's what they mean.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 21, 2006)

Interesting, i'll be sure to ask that question. So really they use the same argument as the RCC does?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 21, 2006)

Not precisely. I was only using the list of groups to show that all use the same terms but not necessarily that RCC and Arminianism are precisely aligned. The RCC actually teaches that even children are guilty of Adam's sin. They have other problems. Arminianism is not monolithic in this regard as I said but many believe that Adam's guilt was his and his alone.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 21, 2006)

I would think that most non-denominational Christians or regular baptist wouldn't think that way, although I could be wrong. For me anyways I was never taught the arminian viewpoint, and the puritanboard is my first introduction to calvinism. I've always been taught the federal headship position it seems...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 22, 2006)

You ought to listen to some of the recordings that _The White Horse Inn_ took at a recent Pastors' conference and you'd be very saddened by the responses.

Again, the group loosely called Arminian, is not monolithic but they largely reject (or today are ignorant of) Federal theology; personal experiences notwithstanding.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 22, 2006)

Can you provide a link Rich? I would definitely listen to it, although it won't be for a week because I am going out of town. ~Caleb


----------

