Irenaeus Was Adamantly Against Calvinism
Irenaeus was a second century Christian who wrote 5 books called Against Heresies which detailed the heresies of gnosticism which was also spoken against in the Bible. He had a direct apostolic link. He was a disciple of Polycarp. And Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle.
Is he more closely linked to the truth or was Augustine and John Calvin? Augustus prayed to the Virgin Mary. Augustine wrote,
Blessed Virgin Mary, who can worthily repay you with praise, and thanks for rescuing a fallen world by your generous consent! Receive our gratitude, and by your prayers obtain the pardon of our sins. Take our prayers into the sanctuary of heaven and enable them to make our peace with God.
Holy Mary, help the miserable, strengthen the discouraged, comfort the sorrowful, pray for your people, plead for the clergy, intercede for all women consecrated to God. May all who venerate you feel now your help and protection. Be ready to help us when you pray, and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it your continual concern to pray for the people of God, for you were blessed by God and were made worthy to bear the Redeemer of the world, who lives and reigns forever. Amen.
Think about this. Augustine brings in the idea of a sinless Mary which was taken from some false teachers before him, but was not taught by Iranaeus. With the idea of a sinless Mary, like a sinless robot without free-will, the ideas of calvinism begin to grow through the centuries as a more refined version of gnosticism. Luther erred similarly,
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin, so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin...thus from the first moment she began to sin she was free from all sin. (On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God, 1527)
Irenaeus in Chapter 37 of Book 4 of Against Heresises, wrote, “Men are possessed of freewill and endowed with the faculty of making a choice. It is not true, therefore, that some by nature are good and others bad.” He also said,
For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore He gives good council to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, shall not be found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what is good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness.
After giving several verses, he writes,
All such passages demonstrate the independent will of man, and at the same time the counsel which God conveys to him, by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him, and seeks to turn us away from [the sin of unbelief] against Him, without, however, in any way coercing us.
This is a clear refutation of irresistible grace. In paragraph 4 he goes on to say,
No doubt, if anyone is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient” (1 Cor. 16.12); referring both to the liberty of man, in which respects “all things are lawful,” God exercising no compulsion in regard to to him; and [by the expression] “not expedient” pointing out that we “should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness,” for this is not expedient. And again he says, “Speak ye every man truth with His neighbor.” (Eph. 4.25)
And, “let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks.” (Eph. 4.29)
And, “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting or drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified in the name of our Lord.” (Eph. 5.8, Rom. 13.13, 1 Cor. 6.11)
If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of a
FREE WILL
from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by obedience of God.
And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee;” (Matt. 9.29) thus showing there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark 9.23) and “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed so be it done unto thee.” (Matt. 8.13)
Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “He that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain on him.” (John 3.36).
In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chicks under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.” (Matt. 23.37-38)
Man was given free will by God, free-choice to be morally responsible.
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2.16-17)
Calvinists go to the extreme when they say man is totally deprave. Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so he was capable of both, but as far as salvation is concerned he is dead in his trespasses, unable to come before God’s holy presence, so that is why Jesus died on the cross for all men and women.
Irenaeus, remember, was speaking against the gnostics who claimed God is the author of sin, because God hardened the Pharaoh's heart, not unlike what calvinists say God decrees sin and authored the Pharaoh's sin. Today's gnostics are calvinists who demand that we were created by an evil god.
Infant Baptism
John Calvin takes from Augustine the false teaching of infant baptism. Infant baptism is false because baptism does not take place until after new birth. Children are not born-again. Though they are not of the age of accountability so as not to be judged, baptizing them is in vain, for they have no awareness of what baptism is: to come out of the world's ways.
Augustine writes On Baptism, Against Donatisis 4:24:31 [A.D. 400],
What the universal church holds, not instituted [invented] by councils, but as something always held, is most accurately believed to be something handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so the celebration of sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond.
The custom of Mother Church baptizing children is certainly not to be scorned, nor is to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that the tradition is anything except apostolic. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408])
By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ's] body, infants who are certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of His Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. It is an excellent thing the Punic [North African] call baptism salvation and the sacraments of Christ's Body nothing else than the life. Whence doe this derive except from an ancient, and I suppose, an apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation and the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of the Scripture, to . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration. (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants [1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412])
John Calvin on infant baptism from, INSTITUTES OF CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 4:16,
Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that man trifles or rather is delirious who would stop short of the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of the Christians in the present day than to the children of the Jews in the Old Testament. Now if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external figure is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it; but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attain the greater value. Surely, when we see the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it an inferior place. Since then, the word of baptism is destined for infants, why should we deny them the signs, which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days, but when the Lord declares that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?
Where in the Bible does it say children are baptized? We only ever see baptism take place after one is born-again. Baptism is of the believer's own volition to come to after being born-again. Circumcision of Jewish children under the old covenant does not guarantee their future salvation. "For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9.6); they were outwardly, not inwardly Jews. Circumcision is of the heart. There were Jews in the Old Testament who were not looking to the true Messiah. We cannot say every Jewish person who ever lived just because he was circumcised as a young child was saved unconditionally, for there still exists free-will. Circumcision was for the nation of Israel; whereas baptism is for nation of believers who have chosen. Calvin accuses Christians further,
They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children when they allege, they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is their sealed viz., spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to early infancy. Hence, they infer, that children are to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of second the birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God. For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since in Adam, we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Christ bids them to be brought to him. Why so? Because this is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death. For if they pretend infants do not perish when they are accounted the sons of Adam, the error is more than sufficiently confuted by the testimony of Scripture (1 Cor. 15.22).
Christians don't think children are sons of Adam doomed for hell, for there remains the law of the age of accountability. It is only after one reaches the age of accountability that the sons of Adam law takes effect. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Cor. 15.22) This verse addresses that which takes place after the age of accountability.
Calvin goes on,
For, seeing that it declares in Adam all die, it follows, that no hope of life remains unless in Christ. Therefore that we may become heirs of life, we must communicate with him. Again, seeing that it is elsewhere written that we are the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and conceived in sin (Ps. 51.5) of which condemnation is the inseparable attendant, we must part with our own nature before have any access to the kingdom of God. And what can be clearer than the expression "Flesh and blood cannot inherent the kingdom of God?"
What does the Bible call this baptizing babies? "Another gospel". "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1.8,9). "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Gen. 1.21,24) Calvin is after his own kind. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt. 7.15-20) This false teaching was brought forth by the Roman Church (Rev. 17) and received by John Calvin, a disciple of the Roman Church, because he followed Augustine.
"And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8.34-37)
You may not if you do not believe in Jesus or cannot.
"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19.1-5)
Is there a second baptism? Not at all. There is only one baptism in the Holy Spirit. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4.5-6) Why do we get baptized? "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom 6.3-4) "The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3.21).
Those who insist on BABY BAPTISM believe precisely what Rome teaches on the subject! That Roman Catholics and calvinists walk hand in hand may be seen from others of the decree issued by the council of Trent. But osas arminians do not follow the council of trent, because we believe once-saved-always-saved, whereas the Roman Church does not. Free-will for Christ is a choice for life unlike the free-will that the Roman Church teaches; whereas the calvinists are derived from the Roman system.