The fate of unbaptized infants

This is a continuation of a debate I had on the Amazon discussion board, occasioned by JD Hall’s book for kids:

Part 1 is here:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/05/wesley-was-bad-husband-therefore.html

Nelson Banuchi says:

Now the kid will have nightmaresnot being chosen and being so bad, not even God wanted him.

keystone says:

Actually, the fear that God won't choose someone because they are too bad dovetails with the classic Arminian doctrine of conditional election, whereas unconditional election isn't based on how good or bad the sinner is. So thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. Conditional election would give a kid nightmares.

keystone says:

Nelson Banuchi says:

"That's the point of 'unconditional election'. It has nothing to do with merit or demerit."

Which directly contradicts what you previously said: "Now the kid will have nightmaresnot being chosen and being so bad, not even God wanted him."

"Conditonal election would not give nightmares for the Arminian can truthfully tell the child God loves him..."

But according to Arminianism, God's love doesn't prevent anyone from going to hell.

"...and will save him; all he need do is trust Christ."

But according to Arminianism (especially Wesleyan Arminianism), you can trust in Christ, be saved, then lose your salvation.

"If the Calvinist were honest..."

You're very fond of that phrase. But you should start learning how to be an honest Arminian before you point fingers. Try to put a damper on your spiritual pride and take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror. You're just another Arminian partisan.

keystone says:

Nelson Banuchi says:

"1. Well, the contradiction is not due on my part but to theological double-think of Calvinism."

You said that according to reprobation, God might not choose to save someone because they were too bad to be saved. Demonstrate how that's an implication of (or even consistent with) reprobation.

"2. Arminian theology does not prevent anyone from damnation. Again, that comment shows you have no correct understanding of Arminian theology."

Quote where I said what you impute to me.

"On the other hand, God does prevents many from going to heaven and by creating them to choose them, without any reference to deserts, for hell."

Actually, the Arminian God does prevent many from going to heaven. If we have the libertarian freedom to do otherwise, then there's a possible world where I choose Christ and go to heaven as well as a possible world where I reject Christ and go to hell. That means if someone goes to hell in the actual world, God prevented him from going to heaven by creating the possible world where he is hellbound rather than the possible world where he is heavenbound.

"As far as losing salvation (a) some Arminians believe in 'eternal security';"

I specified Wesleyan Arminians. You're not paying attention.

"(b) Calvin (in his Institutes) taught that God gives some a temporary faith or grace in order to take it away and damn them in the end and there would be no outward difference between the counterfeit believer and the genuine believer (which seems to make it hard to figure out if you're one or the other)."

Your argument is fallacious. Figuring out which you are wouldn't depend on "outward" differences, but inward differences. The unregenerate don't have the same gracious experience as the regenerate.

keystone says:

Nelson Banuchi says:

"1. I didn't argue it was. I only mentioned that if there is a contradiction, it is on the Calvinist side as I made my comment based on Calvinist presuppositions. Calvinism teaches both that God elected to eternal damnation whomsoever he chose to damn without any consideration of their moral character; and, simultaneously, Calvinists assert that those whom God damned deserved it. Since I do not espouse Calvinism, I am not required to explain the contradiction."

You confuse unconditional election with reprobation. The fact that election is unconditional does not entail that reprobation is unconditional. Reprobation is unconditional in the qualified sense that if sin was a sufficient condition of reprobation, then everyone would be damned. However, sin is a necessary condition of damnation.

"God's love does not prevent the person who receives his love demonstrated on the Cross through faith from salvation; salvation is conditional. In Arminianism, if one goes to hell, it is by his own choice."

Which paraphrases what I said. Therefore, you've failed to demonstrate that I misrepresented Arminianism.

What makes you think conditional salvation is more loving than unconditional election?

"Not interested in philosophical speculations re: possible worlds so, respectfully, here you're talking to the wall. Show in the Bible where Arminian theology is flawed, and then we can discuss it. And, again, respectfully, you demonstrate a misunderstanding what Arminian theology is."

This is how Jerry Walls defines the Arminian concept of freewill:

"As he makes the choice, the agent has the power to choose A and the power to choose not-A."

That means there's a possible world (A) in which the individual accepts Jesus as well as another possible world (not-A) in which the individual rejects Christ.

Yet the Arminian God only creates one of those possible worlds. And in many cases, he creates the world in which the individual rejected Christ rather than the alternative world in which the individual accepted Christ.

Therefore, the Arminian God prevents countless individuals from ever being saved-or even saveable.

That's a logical consequence of your theological system.

"In any case, again, it is Calvinism that teaches God prevents many, many people from being saved because it was God's choice to eternally damn many, many people; and that is the ultimate reason for the damnation of men and not notions of demerit."

And the Arminian God prevents many, many people from being saved because it was his choice to create the timeline in which they reject Christ rather than the timeline in which they accept Christ.

You need to learn how to think through the ramifications of your own position, instead of adopting a purely reactionary stance.

"You did not `specify Wesleyans.'"

To the contrary, I did just that. I said "especially Wesleyan Arminians."

And if you're going to defend eternal security, you need to explain why we must have libertarian freedom to accept the faith, but not have libertarian freedom to stay in the faith. How is that not an artificial bifurcation?

"As I understand the reading, that there is practically no outward difference was Calvin's point (regardless of how it is doctrinally explained)."

You keep missing the point. Outward differences are irrelevant. The salient distinction involves internal differences (e.g. whether or not the individual is in a state of grace).

 

keystone says:

Nelson Banuchi says:

"No I am not confusing one with the other. However, it does seem to me that what you're affirming is double-think. The Calvinistic interpretation of Rom 9:11 as affirming unconditional election, necessarily and logically entails - if the Calvinist is to be faithful to and consistent with the text and the context and, at the same time, remain logically coherent in forming an explanation for others to understand - unconditional reprobation. Otherwise, from my perspective, the argument that the former does not necessitate the latter is double-think."

You're confused. To say that election implies reprobation does not require unconditional election to entail unconditional reprobation. If you think otherwise, you need to present an actual argument to demonstrate that the grounds for election and reprobation must be identical. Likewise, you need to present an actual argument to show how the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions is "double-think."

All you've done is to tendentiously assert that it's "double-think." Likewise, to merely assert that unconditional election "necessarily and logically entails unconditional reprobation" is not a logical argument with a necessary entailment.

"You misrepresent Arminianism by implying that such theology makes God's love ineffectual. God's love effectually prevents the one who believes from going to hell; but that is the condition: one must believe in Christ. And if one is damned, they are damned by their own choice."

By your own admission, God's love is impotent to save unbelievers. His love was unable to save unbelievers.

"In Calvinism God's love is ultimately, for all intents and purpose and contrary to claims made by Calvinists, irrelevant (if one is to think it out coherently)."

In Calvinism, God's love for the elect ensures their salvation.

"In Calvinism it is God's decree alone that (a) is the foundation of salvation, therefore, the Cross becomes ancillary, neither demonstrative, foundational, nor essential to the divine work of saving."

i) God's decree is not an empty decree, but includes all the means necessary to achieve the appointed end.

ii) BTW, many Arminians deny penal substitution. Therefore, the Cross is inessential to salvation.

"(b) God damns without any reference whatsoever to either one's moral character or deserts."

You're just reiterating your willful confusion. Repeating the same mistake doesn't make it any truer.

"As stated earlier, I am not interested in the philosophy of possible worlds."

I understand why you'd rather not talk about the fatal weaknesses in your system. Your refusal is a tacit admission of defeat.

The Arminian definition of freewill can't avoid "the philosophy of possible worlds." It's a package deal.

"Respectfully, it seems you are missing the point and not me, which point is that one cannot determine `whether or not the individual is in a state of grace' because (a) outwardly there is no difference, and (b) inwardly one may really believe they are in a state of grace while, in fact, they are not."

You're confusing an inward state of grace with belief about an inward state of grace. Try again.

keystone says:

Nelson Banuchi says:

"I have been researching your comment that Wesley taught infant damnation and have so far found that you have misunderstood his `Treatise' and that, in fact, he taught the opposite."

I quoted him verbatim to prove my point. You quote nothing to the contrary.

"His Treatise was mainly to point out the validity of practicing the baptizing of infants."

And what's the rationale?

"As it stands, thus far, it seems you are here erred in your undersatnding of what Wesley taught. You might do well to further investigate the issue. and re-examine your understanding of Wesley on this issue."

Wesley was an Anglican priest. What do you think is the rationale for infant baptism in traditional Anglican theology? Have you ever bothered to read the baptismal service in the BCP? To take a few examples:

DEARLY beloved, forasmuch as our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the Kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this Child (or Person) that which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy Church, and be made a living member of the same.

We call upon thee for this Child (or this thy Servant), that he, coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of sin, by spiritual regeneration. Receive him, O Lord, as thou hast promised by thy well-beloved Son, saying, Ask, arid ye shall have; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. So give now unto us who ask; let us `who seek, find; open the gate unto us who knock; that this Child (or this thy Servant) may enjoy the everlasting benediction of thy heavenly washing, and may come to the eternal kingdom which thou hast promised by Christ our Lord. Amen.

SEEING now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child (or this Person) is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child (or this Person) may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.

keystone says:

Nelson Banuchi says:

“It may even be that some Calvinists have similar opinions as Wesley re: infant baptism:”

Presbyterians don't think infant baptism is necessary for salvation. To the contrary, they think that because the child of believers already enjoys a special status, he is thereby entitled to the rite of baptism. Try consulting a standard exposition of the Presbyterian position, like John Murray's classic monograph.

"1. If God chooses one and not the other, he has made a conscious, deliberate choice of both choosing and not choosing. That is not double-think."

How does that disprove my contention?

"2. God's love cannot save them not because his love does not/cannot save but because of the unbelievers refusal to receive it."

Which proves my point. His love is ineffectual.

"3. In Calvinism, all the means are themselve, in every minute instance and detail, decreed. All the chess pieces are put in place."

So what?

"4. You're comments show that you really do not know what Arminians believe. Read Arminius' `Works.'"

It's in the self-interest of Arminians not to carry some of their beliefs to their logical conclusion.

"5. Give me Scripture to support you refutation of what I have stated instead of speculative philosophy."

This is your speculative philosophy. I'm arguing from Arminian assumptions. This follows from your own definition of libertarian freedom (e.g. Jerry Walls).

"Please note that I do not feel I am under obligation to prove my point; it is you who is challenging my view and, therefore, ought to come up with Biblical support to invalidate my position and validate yours."

When you commented on the book, you initiated an attack on Calvinism. The fact that you can't defend your position exposes the fact that your position is indefensible. I appreciate your tacit surrender.

keystone says:

Nelson Banuchi says:

"1. No need to repeat myself. I'll need to let you figure out how it invalidates your contention."

Meaning you have no counterargument. Just rhetorical bravado.

"2. Problem is, your point is coming from an incorrect understanding of Arminianism."

An assertion in search of an argument.

"3. I guess if you don't mind being nothing more than a chess piece, a `So what?' response is sensible."

I'm happy to play my little part on God's chessboard.

"4. Actually, the problem, from my experience, is Calvinist who do not follow the logic of what they believe; that is why they are double-thinkers. What you think are the Arminian's `logical conclusion' is only so because you base it on a misunderstanding of Arminianism."

Another assertion in search of an argument.

"5. And I am forced to repeat myself, your assumptions of Arminianism are flawed, therefore, you're coming to this discussion from the wrong corner. I can only suggest, again, you read, Arminius' "Works" or, at least, Dr. Roger Olson's, "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities." It seems whatever you know of Arminianism you may have received from Calvinist writers, which is not exactly the best place to get it."

Just off the top of my head, the Arminians I've read include Arminius, Brian Abasciano, William Abraham, Bill Arnold, Gareth Cockerill, Paul Copan, Jack Cottrell, Joseph Dongell, Norman Douty, Guy Duty, Roger Forster, David Garland, Norman Geisler, Joel Green, Kenneth Grider, Kenneth Keathley, Craig Keener, William Klein, William Lane, Robert Lightner, I. H. Marshall, Paul Marston, Thomas McCall, William McDonald, Scot McKnight, Terry Miethe, John Miley, Thomas Oden, Roger Olson, Grant Osborne, John Oswalt, Robert Picirilli, Randal Rauser, Vic Reasoner, Robert Shank, Jerry Walls, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, Ben Witherington, &c.

And that doesn't count all of the Arminian Molinists and open theists.

"Finally, it is difficult to have a sensible discussion with one who does not know correctly what the other side really believes and who argues on the basis of misinformed information and speculation."

Your confidence isn't matched by your competence, or lack thereof.

"Let me know if you want to put Walls aside and start from the Bible."

Arminians filter the Bible through philosophical categories like libertarian freewill.

"No hard feelings on my side, just so you know..."

You did a wonderful job of modeling another Arminian who suffers from overweening pride.

keystone says:

Nelson Banuchi says:

"I am predestined to be an Arminian."

And Pharaoh was predestined to be the fall guy.