does act. This Is the Armenian power to the contrary and it is this that Edwards opposes.?

(e) Whedon, On the Will, 338-360, 388-395 ? ?Prior to free volition, man may be non-conformed to law yet not a subject of retribution. The law has two offices, one judicatory and critical, the other retributive and penal. Hereditary evil may not be visited with retribution, as Adam?s concreated purity was not meritorious. Passive, pre-volitional holiness is moral rectitude but not moral desert. Passive, pre-volitional impurity needs concurrence of active will to make it condemnable.?

D. It renders uncertain either the universality of sin or man?s responsibility for it. If man has full power to refuse consent to inborn depravity, then the universality of sin and the universal need of a Savior are merely hypothetical. If sin, however, be universal, there must have been an absence of free consent and the objective certainty of man?s sinning, according to the theory, destroys his responsibility.

Raymond, Systematic Theology, 2:86-89, holds it ?theoretically possible that a child may be so trained and educated in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, as that he will never knowingly and willingly transgress the law of God. In which case he will certainly grow up into regeneration and final salvation. But it is grace that preserves him from sin [common grace?]. We do not know, either from experience or Scripture, that none have been free from known and willful transgressions.? J. J. Murphy, Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom, 26-33 ? ?It is possible to walk from the cradle to the grave, not indeed altogether without sin, but without any period of alienation from God, and with it the heavenly life developing along with the earthly, as it did in Christ, from the first.? But, since grace merely restores ability without giving the disposition to use that ability aright, Armenianism does not logically provide for the certain salvation of any infant. Calvinism can provide for the salvation of all dying in infancy, for it knows of a divine power to renew the will, but Armenianism knows of no such power. and so is furthest from a solution of the problem of infant salvation. See Julius Muller, Doct. Sin, 2:320-326: Baird, Elohim Revealed, 479-494; Bibliotheca Sacra, 23:206; 28:279; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 3:56 sq.

3. The New School Theory, or Theory of non-condemnable Vitiosity.

This theory is called New School, because of its recession from the old Puritan anthropology of which Edwards and Bellamy in the last century were the expounders. The New School theory is a general scheme built up

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment