Do Babies Go To Heaven If They Die? A Critique of Calvinism's Answer
(Okay, so, I'm gonna try to contain my anger with Calvinism on this one, but I'm not going to do a good job of it.)
Let me start by saying that I believe that babies and mentally-handicapped people are not held accountable for being unable to trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior. I believe that in their innocent state, God covers them with His saving grace. As we age, though, we learn about right and wrong and become capable of making conscious decisions, and it is then that we become accountable for our decisions.
But Calvinism doesn't - can't - agree. [Many Calvinists believe that babies who die go to heaven, but they are being inconsistent with their theology. And I'll explain why later.]
I do not claim to know for sure what the Bible teaches about this issue or to be able to explain how everything works out. This is just the best I understand it, based on what I believe the Bible says. Also, please know that I've never lost a child, so this isn't coming from a place of emotional distress. It's coming from a place of anger - righteous anger - for what Calvinism does to God's character, the Word, and people's hope, faith, and their relationship with God.
A little backstory ...
Right before we left our church in 2019, my Calvi-pastor gave a sermon where he basically flat-out denied that there's an "age of accountability."
For those who don't know, an "age of accountability" (or maybe more accurately, a "condition of accountability") involves the idea that there's an age where we become mentally capable of making decisions, where we know right from wrong and that we need to reject the wrong and choose the right, and where we are now accountable for our choices, particularly our decision to accept or reject Jesus. And so children who die too young to be able to make conscious decisions are covered by God's grace and go to heaven because they haven't yet reached that age/condition. They are not held accountable for their sin or unbelief, for being unable to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. This would include mentally-handicapped people who are incapable of making decisions regarding faith.
But what my Calvinist pastor said (paraphrased, but not really) was:
"Christians love to believe there is an age of accountability. But nowhere in the Bible does it say there is an age of accountability for babies or children. No one gets a free pass! We are all wicked sinners from conception - sinners by birth, by choice (my note: Calvinists simply mean that we "choose" to do only what God predestined us to do), and by nature, being cut off completely from God. This is clear in Romans 3:23 which says 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' and in 1 John 1:8 which says that whoever claims to be without sin is a liar. All of us are sinners, from babies up to adults, and all sinners are required to repent in order to get into heaven. (My note: The obvious implication is that since babies died before they could repent then they aren't saved. They are in hell because those wicked little sinners were predestined by God to go there.)"
[And in other sermons, he's repeated the idea that all people are born as - and so even babies are - wicked, rebellious, God-haters who are born separated from God and have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, to repent, and to believe in Jesus, in order to be saved. And his shining moment was when, in a much earlier sermon, he said this (paraphrased): "God ordained everything that happened in your life, even all the tragedies, even childhood abuse. It was His 'Plan A' for your life. For His glory and His purposes, for your good, and because He knew what it would take to humble you. So you just have to trust Him." This is when I knew I was done with that man, with that church! And so even though we were still attending, I'd sit in the hall and read godly books in defiance, instead of listening to his sermons.]
This is a very definitive statement that there is no age of accountability, that if a baby dies, it dies as a wicked and rebellious sinner who is cut off from God, and therefore they go to hell.
(Umm, can babies "claim" anything about themselves? Can they consider their moral condition and make a declaration like "There's no sin in me!"? 1 John 1:8 simply would not apply to those who do not have the mental capabilities to evaluate their conditions or make declarations about themselves.)
And it's not just my ex-pastor. I have recently read of others who said that their Calvinist pastors said the same thing, that they'd look right at women who've lost children and tell them there is no age of accountability, no saving grace for those who die before being old enough to respond to the gospel, that babies and young children who die are in hell.
My goodness, this makes me want to cry! And as I said, I never even lost a child. But my heart breaks for those who did, for those who have to listen to pastors like these, who had to listen to my pastor essentially tell parents that their deceased baby was predestined for hell. Even if he seriously believes this crap, what the fudge (only I don't mean "fudge") is wrong with his head that he would say this ... to mothers ... on Mother's Day!?!
Yep, that's right ... this was his Mother's Day sermon!
He may as well have preached "Happy Mother's Day! I hope you know your departed baby is in hell. Now let's give God some glory!"
[And no, I am not sorry for my harsh words. When I say it like this, I really mean it. In fact, I'd say it even stronger, maybe adding in some of Jesus's words about "sons of hell" and "brood of vipers." And even Calvinists should bless this because "everything is ordained by Calvi-god for his glory." And Calvinist James White even says that "Jesus did not seem to believe that you should soften hard words" (😆, see the 38:45-minute-mark in this debate between Leighton Flowers and James White). And once again, awesome job, Leighton!]
A few weeks later, we officially resigned from that church. And for the first time in many months, I felt like I could breathe, like my faith finally stopped being strangled to death.
But then two months after his "your baby's in hell" sermon, he wrote a post on the church blog saying that since the Bible says basically nothing about an age of accountability, we cannot make any definitive statements about it. "But", he said, "I lean towards saying that babies do go to heaven."
Hogwash!
He just gave a Mother's Day sermon where he definitively said the opposite thing, that NO ONE gets a free pass, even babies. I can only assume that he got hit with a lot of angry comments after his sermon and had to backpedal and do some damage control.
But I wasn't going to let him off the hook that easily.
I was so angry at his attempt to mislead people about what he really said, to pretend he didn't say what he did, as if he was trying to pull some hypnotic brainwashing trick ("Ohhh, you didn't really hear me say what I said ... pay no attention to what I said earlier ... you must have misheard me ...") that I had to write a reply.
But then I erased it before sending it, thinking "Oh well, it's not my church or my problem anymore."
But then I read what he said again and I watched it online again, and I just got so angry again. How deceptive to now try to pull the wool over people's eyes, after clearly saying the opposite just a couple months ago!
I was afraid that those who didn't hear the sermon or who didn't listen closely enough would be left thinking that "babies probably go to heaven" is his official stance, and he'd feel like he succeeded in his deception.
Calvinists do this a lot, saying something unbiblical in one place but then saying the opposite in another, or right next to each other (or sandwiching the bad unbiblical stuff in between the good biblical stuff), expecting you not to notice the contradictory, double-messages they're teaching.
But I noticed. And I couldn't leave it alone. I knew the church wouldn't post comments on the church blog anymore (they stopped allowing comments because of me, no joke, particularly because of my reply to when they deleted my comment where I disagreed, biblically, with his view of predestination), but I at least wanted him to know that some of us are really listening to what he says, that we notice the contradictions, and that we can't all be manipulated into thinking he didn't say what he did. I wanted him to know that someone was willing to call him on his crap.
And so I emailed him directly in response to his "babies probably go to heaven" post:
"Interesting! Because you gave a sermon – on Mother’s Day! – where you basically said 'Christians love to believe that there is an age of accountability. But nowhere in the Bible does it say there is an age of accountability for babies or children. No one gets a free pass. We are all wicked sinners from conception - sinners by birth, by choice, and by nature, being cut off completely from God. This is clear in Romans 3:23 which says 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' and in 1 John 1:8 which says that whoever claims to be without sin is a liar. And we are all required to repent in order to be saved.'
Yet now you say that you lean towards saying that babies go to heaven. Strange! Those who carefully listened to that sermon knew exactly what you were trying to say. And I was horrified that you would give that message … to mothers … on Mother’s Day!
It’s no wonder Calvinists can’t accept an age of accountability, because that would imply there is an age where we have to make a choice about Jesus. And Calvinists can’t have us running around thinking we can make choices about Jesus, because that contradicts their whole theology.
Do not respond to this email. I just want you to know of the contradictions you are teaching."
(Yeah, by that point I was done playing nice. It was time to take off the gloves and stop pulling punches.)
I wanted him to know that we were listening - really listening - that we heard him clearly when he said (in so many words) that babies go to hell (and he said it on Mother's Day - a real sore point for me, disgusting!). I wanted him to know that he couldn't smooth-talk us into thinking we misheard him, as if he didn't say what he really did. Shameful! We're not as stupid, gullible, and biblically-illiterate as he thinks we are.
It comes down to "sovereignty"
So how do Calvinists get such wrong views of infant salvation/damnation?
I think it all stems from their view of sovereignty. I don't disagree with them that God is fully sovereign. What I disagree with is their bad definition of sovereign. That's their problem from the very beginning (along with their bad idea of "total depravity/inability"):
They start with a bad definition of sovereign (an unbiblical view of God and how He works) and then they build other bad ideas on top of it. Each new bad idea creates a new contradiction, "mystery," or irrational conclusion... and so then they have to create a new bad idea to try to fix it, which leads to new bad contradictions... and on and on, until they get thousands of pages that fill a huge, complicated, convoluted Systematic Theology book that helps you understand the simple gospel message after many months of study with the help of Calvinist resources.
But if the foundation is wrong, the whole thing is wrong overall. (And even though Calvinists get many things right, the things they get wrong are so critical, fundamental, and monumental that it doesn't - can't - make up for the minor things they get right.)
But contrary to Calvinism, being sovereign isn't about how God must act or what He must do in order to be God. It's about the position He is in. God is the highest authority there is... and as such, He gets to decide how to use His power and when to use His control. And as evident all throughout the Bible - and even though He has all the power, control, and authority - He has chosen to voluntarily restrain Himself in order to allow His creation (people, angels) to have a certain level of freedom to make real decisions within boundaries.
[Question: If God alone controls every single movement that everyone and everything makes, as Calvinism teaches, then why does He put up boundaries, such as a limit on how far the sea can move (Job 38:11) and a hedge of protection around Job to restrict what Satan can do to him (Job 1)? Boundaries (limits, rules) are only needed if there's freedom to move within those boundaries. But if God controls everything that happens, then boundaries are unnecessary and nonsensical.]
So God has voluntarily decided to restrain His ability to control all things, giving us the right and responsibility to make real free-will decisions, particularly about Him (this is the only way our love of Him can mean anything: it has to be voluntary), and then He responds to the decisions we make. And whatever we choose, He can and does - in His sovereignty and wisdom - finds ways to work it into His plans. (Calvinism actually shrinks God's power and sovereignty by essentially teaching that He can only handle things if He preplans, causes, and controls everything. Calvi-god is not big enough or smart enough to handle anything outside of this.)
We decide whether to obey or disobey, and then He decides the consequences and results and how to incorporate it into His plans. And so even though He could cause and control everything if He wanted to, He has decided to give mankind free-will and to work with and through mankind in many ways. This is absolutely, unmistakably seen all throughout the Bible.
But Calvinists insist that an all-powerful, "in control" God must always use His power all the time to control everything... or else He's not all-powerful and in-control. They insist that a sovereign God must preplan, cause (but they disguise "cause" with other words), and control everything that happens, even our sin, wickedness, and unbelief, or else He's not God.
(Telling God how God has to act in order to be God is a foolish, dangerous thing!)
[Sidenote: Being "in control of everything" (the correct view) is far different than "controlling everything" (the incorrect Calvinist view). "In control" is about the position of authority (noun) that God has over all, like the proper definition of sovereign. And as the One in control, He gets to decide how and when to use His power and what to allow or not allow, even if it means allowing mankind to have free-will.
But Calvinists have decided that God must control everything (verb), even our decisions and sins, or else He's not in control of anything. They change it from being about who He is to what He does, about His position of authority to about how He must act in order to be God. Foolish and dangerous. And it's a big difference!
And furthermore, I wonder just how sovereign, all-powerful, big, and wise Calvi-god is if he can't give people free-will or figure out how to work people's self-determined decisions into his plans, if he can only make his plans work out as long as he alone preplans, causes, controls all factors, as if he can only handle the things he causes?
Because a god who could be dethroned by one rogue piece of dust is no god at all!]
Given their (terrible) understanding of sovereignty - that God must preplan, cause, control all things or else He's not God - they believe that God couldn't give us the ability to make real decisions on our own because that would mean that He's not controlling everything, which would mean (according to their bad definitions) that He's not sovereign.
So salvation, in Calvinism, is not related to or a result of our decisions. God Himself has predetermined where we will go and what we will decide about Jesus, and we will only make the decisions He ordained we would make, even if it means that we do things He commands us not to do (sin, disobey) and don't do things He commands us to do (repent, believe).
Whatever happens has all been preplanned and orchestrated by Him. Whatever happens is His Will, for His glory - even our sins and unbelief - and we couldn't have done anything differently. (Can you not see the damage this does to God's character, word, and trustworthiness?)
And so honest and consistent Calvinists would have to say that if a baby dies (even if it was through abortion or murder of the mother), it's because God planned it to happen and caused it to happen, for His glory and pleasure. And nothing different could have happened.
And since, in Calvinism, all people are born "totally-depraved, rebellious God-haters, completely cut off from God," then babies who die without hearing the gospel and repenting remain as "totally-depraved, rebellious God-haters, completely cut off from God." And so, clearly (in Calvinism), any baby who dies without repenting is naturally in hell, according to God's sovereign decree and for His pleasure and glory.
In fact, in Calvinism, God predestines people to be unbelievers precisely so that He can punish them for their unbelief, so that He can show off His justice and wrath against sin and unbelief, so that He gets more glory when the elect praise Him for it. That's why there's a hell (according to Calvinism): because God's greatest purpose for making people was to get more glory for Himself, especially by predestining people to hell.
And if God chose to get glory by predestining babies to hell, then "Who are you, O tiny stupid man, to question God's right to get glory however He wants to? You need to praise Him for being the holy, glorious, sovereign God He is, and stop questioning His decisions! After all, He is the Potter and we are the clay. And so if He wants to make a tiny baby - or someone of any age - simply so that He can let them burn eternally in hell for His glory, then that's His prerogative. You don't have to like it or understand it, you just have to accept it as truth, even if it makes Him look like a terrible monster. If you disagree with us, you're disagreeing with God. And so even if it sounds wrong to you now, just accept it in humble faith, trusting that it will make sense when you're dead. And praise Him! Praise Him! Praise Him for the glory He gets by damning the non-elect to hell! If it's for His glory, it's all good!"
This is what honest, consistent Calvinism looks like.
And it's bullcrap!
And I'll say it again ... It's bullcrap!
(Not sorry!)
[And contrary to Calvinism, I think that God's greatest purpose for making people was not about getting more glory for Himself... but about love. True, genuine love. Which also explains why there's a hell.]
Problems with the Calvinist View:
As I said, not all Calvinists say that babies go to hell. In fact, many say that babies go to heaven. But this, I believe, is in contradiction to their theology. Calvinists might say one thing, but their theology says something different. And if they want to be fully honest and consistent Calvinists, they should not - cannot - claim that babies go to heaven. And we'll see why.
But first, remember that Calvinism cannot allow for an age of accountability, for the idea that all babies are born innocent of wrongdoing (a contradiction of Calvinism's "total depravity") but then we grow up to make our own real decisions (sovereign Calvi-god makes all our decisions for us) and it affects our eternities (eternal destinies are based solely on Calvi-god's predetermined decree which had nothing to do with us or our decisions: unconditional election).
Additionally, Calvinists believe that election can't be lost. And so if they believe that all babies are automatically elect before an age of accountability, they would have to believe that all adults are still elect. But they know all adults are not elect - and so there can be no "age of accountability" in Calvinism, no point when babies go from automatically elect to potentially non-elect.
And so if an "age of accountability" is incompatible with Calvinism on many points (and it is), then what options are Calvinists left with?
From what I've read, Calvinist views on infant salvation or damnation boil down to three possibilities:
1. God kills only elected babies. All babies who die are elected and so they go the heaven.
[Problem: This contradicts their ideas that all people are born totally depraved, unregenerated God-haters from the moment of conception and that we must hear the gospel and repent in order to be saved.
Plus, what's the difference between a newborn totally-depraved, unregenerated God-hater who is unable to turn to God and an older totally-depraved, unregenerated God-hater who is unable to turn to God? Why would God spare one but not the other when both are in the exact same condition? Why is there a difference? What makes the difference?
The Calvinists whom I've read say that the difference is that older people sinned and that they're condemned because of their sin, but that babies aren't condemned because they didn't have a chance to sin yet.
But here's the big problem with that: That's a condition. And Calvinism teaches that God chooses who gets saved without any conditions, that it has nothing to do with what we do or don't do or with what we would do or wouldn't do in the future. And they support it with "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might stand" (Romans 9:11), saying that God determines who's elect and who's not before anyone does anything good or bad.
This is fundamental to Calvinism, the "U" - unconditional election - in TULIP!
And yet now they try to sneak in a condition to the reason babies are saved but older non-elect people aren't!
But Calvinists cannot have it both ways. They can't say both that God's election is based on no conditions but only on His sovereign decrees and desires that have nothing to do with us... and that the damnation of older non-elect people is based on their sin but that the salvation of infants is based on their not sinning. Those are conditions!
(Calvinists claim that we can't know why God chooses whom He does, that it's a "mystery," but then they claim that they know why God chooses to save babies. Once again, they are contradicting their own theology, and they can't have it both ways!)
Calvinist election comes before our decisions, behaviors, and sins. It determines our decisions, behaviors, and sins. It is not the result of or influenced by our decisions, behaviors, or sins.
And so for any Calvinist to claim that any baby is saved because it didn't sin yet is a clear, bold, shameless contradiction of (at the very least) Calvinism's doctrines of total depravity (total inability), God's sovereignty, and unconditional election.]
2. Some babies are elect and some aren't, and we can't know which is which.
[Problem: Once again, saying that any baby is saved in Calvinism is a contradiction to the same Calvinist doctrines listed above.]
3. God only kills non-elected babies. All babies who die are non-elect because they are still totally-depraved, spiritually-dead, unregenerated God-haters who weren't able to hear the gospel and repent, and so they cannot be saved. They were predetermined by God to go to hell for His pleasure and glory.
[This is the only view that is consistent with Calvinism's other doctrines.
And for the record, not only do Calvinists get sovereignty, total depravity, and election/predestination wrong (biblically, election and predestination are about what happens after someone becomes a believer, not about who becomes a believer or how) - but they get "spiritual death" wrong too, which plays into their bad understanding of total depravity/inability.
(And if they get one point of TULIP wrong, it's all wrong, as admitted even by Calvinists; see "Is Calvinism's TULIP biblical?" for more.)
Being spiritually dead just means that we are separated from God because of sin. [As Tony Evans says: In the Bible, death means separation. Physical death is separation of the spirit from the body, and spiritual death is separation from God.] And because we are separated from God by sin and unable to bridge that gap ourselves, we can't save ourselves - and so we needed God to make salvation possible for us. This is what spiritual death is.
But Calvinists wrongly think that spiritual death refers to our abilities (inabilities!): That being spiritually dead means being as dead as a dead body that can't do anything on its own but lay there all helplessly and lifelessly dead, incapable of doing anything (even thinking or believing or seeking/wanting God) until and unless God comes along and wakes us up spiritually (makes us born again) and injects us with faith to make us believe in Him. And of course, He only does this for the elect, leaving the non-elect dead and headed to hell, just like He predestined for His glory.
Not only is this a wrong view of what it means to be spiritually dead, but it's also a wrong view of the order of salvation. Calvinists say that we are saved and born again before we believe, that being born again leads to belief. As Calvinist Loraine Boettner says in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.”
But the Bible clearly and repeatedly says that believing leads to being born again, that first we believe (and anyone can) and then the Holy Spirit makes us born again.
"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit." (Ephesians 1:13)
"... Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38)
"... Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)
"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." (Mark 16:16)
"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12)
Does anyone have to tell you how to read these, or can you understand them easily for yourself? The plain, clear, commonsense teaching of the Bible is “believe first, then get the Holy Spirit who makes you born again,” not “first get the Holy Spirit who makes you born again and then this causes you to believe,” as Calvinism says.
Salvation does not lead to belief. Belief leads to salvation. God truly does love all people and want all people to be saved, Jesus died for all sins of all people, God offers salvation to all people, and God gave everyone the ability to think and the responsibility to make our own decisions... and so anyone can believe and be saved.
Sidenote: My ex-pastor recently preached a sermon where he rightly said that we can't make ourselves born-again, that the Holy Spirit has to do it (which is true) - but he used it in a way that made it sound like, likewise, we can't choose to believe in Jesus, that the Holy Spirit has to cause us to believe, to have faith. He said that because it's the Holy Spirit's job to make us born-again, we can't do anything to add to our spiritual birth (not even choose to believe, as he said in so many words). He said the Spirit makes us born again first and then we believe.
He totally reversed the order of cause-and-effect laid out in the Bible, of which leads to which. And he totally conflated belief and being born again, making it sound like if we can't make ourselves born again on our own, it means that we can't believe on our own.
But sadly, many people won't recognize what he did. They won't understand his errors or sense the deceptions. They will simply be tricked into accepting that since the Holy Spirit is responsible for our new birth, it must mean He's also responsible for if we believe or not, that we have no ability to believe on our own and so the Holy Spirit has to make us do it, which means that God predestines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell and there's nothing we can do about it.
Sad and deceptive and so biblically-wrong!
But contrary to Calvinism, "believing" and "being born again" are two different things. The first one is our responsibility, but the second one is the Holy Spirit's responsibility in response to our decision to believe (and anyone can).
Calvinism is a total denial of what Jesus said is our one responsibility, the one "work" we must do to be saved: "Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent [Jesus].'" (John 6:28-29).
Our work - the one job God gave us to do to be saved - is to believe in Him. But Calvinism denies that we can do that. They say that we are saved first and then we believe.
Question: If Calvinism says that we can't do the one work God says we must do to be saved, can anyone really be saved through Calvinism? If anyone is saved through Calvinism, it's in spite of their theology, not because of it. It's because they hid their unbiblical views under biblical ideas, instead of being forthright and honest about them.)]
There's no reason, in consistent Calvinism, to think that babies (or mentally-handicapped people) are saved.
Calvinism doesn't believe that God really loves all people, and so there's no reason for Calvinists to think God would love babies more than anyone else.
Calvinism doesn't believe that God wants all people saved, and so there's no reason for Calvinists to think God wants babies saved more than anyone else.
Calvinism doesn't believe that Jesus died for all people's sins, and so there's no reason for Calvinists to believe that the sins of babies (or mentally-handicapped people) are automatically covered by Jesus's sacrifice.
Calvinism doesn't believe that God truly offers real salvation to all, and so there's no reason for Calvinists to think that babies get offered salvation.
Calvinism believes that God gets glory by predestining people to hell, and so there's no reason why Calvinists shouldn't think God gets glory by predestining babies to hell.
Calvinism doesn't believe that salvation is based on our decisions or on anything about us (which would include our age and ability/inability to understand the gospel) but that it's based only on God's sovereign decree... and so there's no reason for Calvinists to think that God spares babies because of their age, lack of sin, inability to comprehend the gospel, and inability to make conscious decisions.
In Calvinism, it shouldn't matter in the least if someone died too young or if they lived longer. Because God has already - from before the beginning of the world and before anyone does anything good or bad - predestined where everyone will go, based on nothing but His own desires. And nothing can change it or influence it, not even our age or mental capabilities.
And so it is highly inconsistent for Calvinists to claim that the condition of babies - which is really no different than the condition of all non-elect people - has an effect on their salvation, that babies are automatically spared because of a special condition they are in.
Calvinists try to say "it's salvation by grace alone" (meaning that God alone determines who gets to be saved and who doesn't, with no input or influence from us) while also trying to say "but salvation is still affected by our age and by our ability to understand the gospel and to make decisions based on our understanding of the gospel."
But they can't have it both ways. They can't have unconditional election and conditional election.
Calvinists want to eat their cake and have it too. (Yes, that's how the phrase should go - because we can first have our cake and then eat it, but we can't eat it first and then still have it.) But it just ends up making a mess of God's Word, their own theology, God's character, and people's hearts and faith and relationship with God!
I believe that God loves all people, that Jesus died for all people, that God reveals Himself to all people to one degree or another (at the very least, through nature and our hearts), He expects everyone to seek Him and reach out for Him, and He has given everyone the ability to believe in Him... and He holds us accountable for whether or not we do.
But since babies and mentally-handicapped people are unable to make conscious decisions yet - unable to consciously choose between good and bad, between reaching for or resisting God, between accepting or rejecting Jesus - they are considered innocent and covered by God's grace if they die. God does not punish those who have no ability to choose Him for not choosing Him. (Calvi-god does, but the God of the Bible doesn't.)
This is what we would expect from a truly just God!
Verses against Calvinist views:
Okay, now let's look at why I think the Bible teaches that babies are considered innocent, that they go to heaven if they die, that God's grace covers them before they're old enough to make their own decisions and be held accountable for them. And since I'm not a Calvinist and don't believe in total depravity/inability and unconditional election, etc., then I can believe this without being contradictory.
I'm not going to try to convince you of how to interpret these verses, but I hope that by putting them all together, we can get a good idea of God's heart for the very young. His view of them. And I believe that, considered as a whole, these verses show us that our God is not the kind of God who would condemn children to hell when they've done nothing wrong. (Calvi-god would! But not the God of the Bible!)
[For the record, I've been reading the Bible for over 35 years, and I've read it straight through from beginning to end about 7 times, and I've never once read one verse that said anything about God hating babies or condemning babies to hell. If Calvinists can find one verse that clearly says something like "And God threw that rebellious, totally-depraved, God-hating baby into hell because He predestined to hate that child and send it to hell for His glory," then maybe I'll start to believe them.]
Ezekiel 16:20-21: "And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to idols.... You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them to the idols." God says that their children - the ones they sacrificed - were His children. Why would He call them His children if children are born as and die as wicked, depraved, rebellious sinners, wholly separated from Him, under His judgment, and on their way to hell?
Also regarding child sacrifices is Jeremiah 19:4-5: "For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods ... and have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as an offering to Baal - something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind." God calls the children who were sacrificed "innocent," but Calvinists call them "wicked, morally-depraved, God-haters, in rebellion against God, and completely cut off from Him." I'm not saying that babies aren't born with a sin nature that kicks in as they get older. I'm saying that before they can make conscious decisions, they are considered by God to be innocent of wrongdoing. And furthermore, if God predestined those children to die early, as Calvinists would say, why does God Himself say that He never even considered that child sacrifice should be done? How can God preplan or cause something He never even thought about?
In Deuteronomy 1:39, God talks about "your children who do not yet know good from bad." There is a distinction in God's mind between older people who know right from wrong ... and little children who don't. And in this case, the Lord treated the innocent children differently than the adults who rebelled against Him. He allowed the children to enter the Promised Land, but He caused the adults to die off in the desert as punishment for their rebellion. God did not hold the children accountable for the rebellion of the parents.
Likewise, Isaiah 7:16 refers to an age when a child is old enough to "reject the wrong and choose the right." This sounds like there's an age (or condition) when we become accountable for our choices, that even God recognizes a difference in those too young to know better, too young to make decisions.
[On a related note, I think it's important to note that God, in the Bible, constantly warns us about rejecting or denying Jesus. We are punished for rejecting or refusing Him, not for not hearing about Him or for being unable to comprehend Him.
“Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ.” (1 John 2:22)
“But he who disowns me [Jesus] before men will be disowned before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:9)
"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God." (1 John 4:2-3)
How can a baby or mentally-handicapped person deny, reject, refuse, or disown something they had no knowledge or understanding of? I believe there is a difference between those who never had a chance to hear/understand the Gospel and those who knew about it but rejected it.
The Word doesn’t say that we are condemned for being incapable of comprehending the Gospel (such as a baby or mentally-handicapped person), but it says we are condemned if we reject Christ, implying that it is referring to those of us who have heard of Him and are able to respond to Him, because you can’t reject someone you've never heard of or can't comprehend.
Consider Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that people are without excuse."
Calvinists would say that this verse just means that even though God "ordained" the non-elect to be unbelievers, He will still hold them accountable for it, that being "caused" to be an unbeliever is no excuse for not believing, in God's estimation. (Nonsense and hogwash!)
But this verse is actually saying something far different (and everyone who hasn't put on Calvinist glasses knows that this is the interpretation that makes sense and that upholds God's character best): That God reveals Himself to all in nature, that we all have the ability and chance to find God through His revelation of Himself in nature, and that we are all accountable for how we respond to that revelation, for whether we turn to Him or not. And because He is clearly seen in nature by all, there is no excuse for not turning to Him, not seeking Him, not believing in Him. We are accountable for our thoughts about Him and our response to the truth we see of Him in creation.
I don't think this is referring to those who are unable to see, unable to comprehend, and unable to make decisions. It's referring only to those who can comprehend the things around them and make decisions based on it. It says that we - those who can see and understand Him in His creation (which would be all of us with adequate mental capabilities) - have no excuse for not turning to Him. And I believe the innocent - those who can't comprehend yet - are excused, precisely because they can't comprehend. {This passage also implies that people who are in remote areas who never heard the gospel can still find God and reach out for Him through nature, even if it's in a more primitive way. *See the note on R.C. Sproul after this section.}
When a person becomes old enough, they reach an age where they know they need to reject the wrong and choose the right. And then they will be held accountable if they don't do it. But before that time, they have no knowledge of right and wrong, are incapable of making a choice, and so they are considered innocent. They didn't reject Jesus; they just didn't have the chance yet to comprehend Him and their need for Him. And so they're not held accountable for being unable to do it. This is what I believe the Bible teaches. Okay now, back to the verses...]
In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says that his deceased baby shall never return to him, but that David shall eventually go to his deceased baby. Sounds like David understood that his baby will be waiting for him in heaven.
Matthew 21:16: "From the lips of children and infants, you have ordained praise." How can wicked, depraved, rebellious vipers-in-diapers who would murder their parents if they could, who are born separated from God and under His judgment, be said to be "praising God"? If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that all wicked, depraved, rebellious, murderous people bring Him praise?
Matthew 18:10 talks about the angels seeing the face of the Father when they look at the little ones. But if babies are wicked, depraved, unrepentant, separated-from-God, on-their-way-to-hell sinners... and if that's what the Father looks like... then maybe He's not who we thought He was, and we should rethink the whole Christianity thing.
In Matthew 19:14, Jesus says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to "such as these," the children. How can this be if babies are depraved, wicked, unrepentant sinners? Will depraved, wicked, unrepentant sinners fill heaven? (And if Calvinists say babies do go to heaven, we're back to the problems with how it contradicts their doctrines.) And if babies are really depraved, wicked, rebellious sinners - not innocent at all - then why would Jesus encourage us to be like them, saying that being like them is how we get into heaven!?! Weird! And scary!
Matthew 18:6,14: "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea... So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish." Consistent Calvinists would have to say that babies who died never repented, and so dying as unrepentant sinners means they are in hell, that God willed them to go to hell. But this here says it's NOT God's Will for them to perish. And so if it's not God's Will for little ones to perish, then saying that God predestines babies to go to hell means that God causes the exact opposite of His Will. But that's the crazy thing: Calvinists have no problem saying that God wills one thing but causes the exact opposite. And they use "it's a mystery that we can't understand" and "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God" to shut down any opposition to their contradictions, as if the damage they do to God's character and truth can be so easily brushed aside.
[Sidenote: Calvinists have said that Matthew 18 refers only to elected babies. But if the children of wicked, idolatrous people (Jeremiah 19:4-5) are "innocent"... and if Matthew 18 teaches that only elected babies are innocent... then wouldn't that make all the children of wicked, idolatrous people "elected"? And if Matthew 18:6 is about elected babies only, what need is there to warn people about not causing them to sin or perish? If they're elect, they couldn't possible fall away and perish. And if someone did cause the little ones to sin and perish, wouldn't that be God's Will anyway, for His glory, according to Calvinism? So once again, why the warning against something that either can't happen or that was God's predestined plan all along? Nothing makes sense, if Calvinism is true.
And on a different note - along with everything else they misunderstand - Calvinists misunderstand the idea of "God's Will." They think it's about what He plans and causes, that everything that happens is because He planned it and caused it to happen that way, and so everything that happens is His Will, and nothing different could have happened.
But biblically and according to the concordance, His Will is about what He wants to have happen, what He wants us to do. It's about His preference, His desire for how things should go. He makes His Will known, but He lets us decide to obey or disobey. And whatever we choose, He is wise enough to work it into His plans somehow.]
Yes, we are all sinners. We all sin. But I believe the Bible also shows that there is an age - a time - when we become able to makes decisions, able to choose between seeking God and ignoring/resisting God, between sin and obedience, between accepting Jesus or rejecting Jesus. And it is then that we become accountable for our decisions about God/Jesus and our sins, for not doing what we know we are should do and for doing what we know we shouldn't do. But before that age, we are covered by Jesus's blood, who paid for all sins of all people, even babies and the mentally-handicapped and those in remote areas.
(And in response to the super stupid rebuttal of "Then why don't we just go around killing all the babies to ensure that they all go to heaven?", let me say this: "Did or did not God say 'Thou shall not murder'?" As the Giver of life, He alone has the right to determine when to take back life. So don't be stupid.)
[Sidenote: Calvinists quote verses like these to prove that babies are as wicked as everyone else: "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies" (Psalm 58:3) and "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5).
But Genesis 8:21 (KJV) says "... for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ..." God doesn't say that people are wicked at birth (which is what Calvinists would have to say if Calvinism is true: at birth), but from their "youth." And "youth" doesn't necessarily mean "infancy/childhood" because this word is also used in Psalm 127:4 which talks about "children of the youth," children from one's youth. Babies and small children cannot have children. Grown people have children. Therefore, "youth" in these verses is more about being older, grown, beyond adolescence.
My point is that God says not that we are wicked at birth, as Calvinists say, but from our youth. He doesn't hold sins against infants and children, those He calls "innocent." His grace covers them before they are old enough to know right from wrong and to consciously decide between right and wrong.
And additionally, the KJV - which I believe is the more reliable translation, see this post - translates Psalm 51:5 differently: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." It does not say that David was sinful from birth, but that he was conceived in sin. It is not a comment about the depravity of babies but about the sin-filled world babies are born into or about David's mother's sin which led to his conception (or at least his belief that she sinned). Big difference!
God Himself repeatedly contradicts Calvinism's idea of total depravity and wicked babies. I'm just sayin'.
A possibility: My husband read of an old belief people used to have back in the day, which was that people were born on the same day of the week that they were conceived. And so if a baby was born on the Sabbath, people thought it meant that the parents conceived the baby on a Sabbath, which meant they would have violated Sabbath rules about not having sex on the Sabbath. Who knows, but maybe David is referring to a "sin" along those lines. It's an interesting thought.]
Here are some more posts and videos about this from other people: "Total (Hereditary) Depravity" ... another by the same name "Total Hereditary Depravity" ... "Consistent Calvinism - Babies Go To Hell" (an 11-minute video - watch it!) ... "The Damnation of Infants" .... and Soteriology 101's videos "Doomed from the womb?" and "Consistent Calvinist views are inconceivable".
*Note: R.C. Sproul (in Chosen by God: God’s Sovereignty) says that a problem with believing in free-will (that God offers salvation to all, gives everyone the ability to believe, and lets them choose) is this: “However, there are millions and millions and millions of people who never hear the gospel and who, in fact, don’t have the opportunity… God has not made sure that everybody in the world hears the gospel. Could God make sure that everybody in the world hears the gospel? Could God print it in the clouds if He wanted to? Yes, but He doesn’t. So [in a strike against believing in free-will] we are left with the problem that God does not do everything He conceivably could do within the bounds of His own righteousness. He does not do everything conceivable to ensure the salvation of the world.”
Therefore, according to Sproul, Calvinism is better because, in Calvinism, God is more gracious for making certain that at least some will be saved, instead of just giving everyone the chance to potentially be saved.
However, Sproul forgets some critical verses (because Calvinists read everything wrong):
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse,” Romans 1:20.
God did indeed write His truth in the clouds. And in the trees and the mountains and the stars, etc.
Psalm 19:1-4: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
This is why all people have a chance, why all people can find Him. And this is why there is no excuse for not.
Not only that, but God wrote His truth on the hearts of men (Ecc. 3:11, Romans 2:14-15, John 16:8). He did all He could, at the most basic level, to point the way to Him, to show people that He’s real, “so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each of us," Acts 17:27.
Everyone can find Him in His creation and in the truth imprinted on their hearts. And God will hold us responsible for how we respond to whatever amount of revelation and knowledge He gave us. But even nature contains enough evidence of Him that they can turn to God and be saved.
No one is destined to hell. No one is beyond hope, beyond grace, beyond forgiveness, beyond God’s reach. We can all reach out and find Him, because He is near to us all, loves us all, and wants to be found by us all.
"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men..." (1 Tim. 2:3-5.)
"... 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live...'" (Ezekiel 33:11)
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
"This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:9-10)
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)
"For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11:32)
"... He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)
"Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you ...'" (Acts 2:38)
"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved... Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:9,13)
"For God so loved the world that he sent his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life..." (John 3:16)
I don't know how much clearer God could have been!
Example of Inconsistent Calvinism (just for fun):
Read these comments about mega-Calvinist John MacArthur's attempts to mesh an age of accountability with his Calvinism. These comments are from the comment section of the post "Age of Accountability" on the website Soteriology 101 (a blog by Leighton Flowers, a former 5-point Calvinist who now speaks out against Calvinism).
Phillip's comment (edited slightly for clearer understanding):
John MacArthur says this in “The Salvation of Infants Who Die”:
“... We’re talking about a condition of accountability, not an age.
Who qualifies then, in our discussion, as an infant or a child who, dying, is saved – who dying, instantly goes to heaven? Who are we talking about?
Answer: those who have not reached sufficient, mature understanding in order to comprehend convincingly the issues of law and grace, sin and salvation... This is certainly an infant in the womb, this is certainly an infant at birth, this is certainly a small child, and this is certainly a mentally impaired adult at any age! Anyone in the condition who cannot sufficiently understand and comprehend so as to be fully convinced of the issues of law and grace and sin and salvation.
It’s not an age; it is a condition. [My note: Exactly! And Calvinism's "unconditional election" does not allow for conditions influencing God's choice of who gets saved. MacArthur is contradicting his own Calvinism.] From child to child, it varies, and, as I said, you have to include in this those who grow up mentally disadvantaged, mentally disabled, mentally retarded so as never to be able to have a sufficient, mature understanding and a convincingly comprehensive grasp of law and grace and sin and salvation. This is not an age; this is a condition. That’s who we’re talking about: people in that condition where they cannot, in a mature way, understand and comprehend convincingly these issues. We’re talking about those people.”
Phillip's response to the MacArthur quote he just gave:
"Funny how all these disabilities are proof positive that you are among the elect. Mentally retarded/impaired/disabled? A sure sign of election. Babies who experience crib death? A sure sign of election. Babies aborted by the millions? Elect.
But here’s the kicker brothers (sisters)... Doesn’t MacArthur believe/teach total depravity/total inability? Is this not a 'condition' of the worst kind? According to their own teachings, the Lost are completely unable to understand or grasp or comprehend any spiritual truth. The Lost are in essence 'never to be able to have a sufficient, mature understanding and a convincingly comprehensive grasp of law and grace and sin and salvation'. They teach that lost man is 'spiritually dead like a corpse.'
Why would God (Calvi-god) be gracious regarding one condition (babies who aren't capable of understanding) while completely overlooking an even worse condition (the non-elect whom Calvi-god causes to be permanently unable to understand)? Especially considering that in divine determinism, Calvi-god is the cause/source of all these conditions. I mean, if you can’t comprehend, you can’t comprehend."
[My note: I would also point out that MacArthur keeps talking about an age of being able to comprehend the gospel. But as I said above, in Calvinism, it doesn't matter if someone can comprehend the gospel or not, because comprehending the gospel does not lead to their election. In Calvinism, election leads to their ability to comprehend the gospel. And the non-elect will never understand or respond to the gospel because they were not first regenerated/born again. And so being unable to comprehend the gospel is actually a sign that someone is non-elect.
Question: If the elect are saved before hearing/responding to the gospel and the non-elect can never hear/respond to the gospel, what good is the gospel really, in Calvinism? It is inconsequential. A footnote. Not the way to salvation, in Calvinism. Because the only way to salvation in Calvinism is election. Everything else is just secondary, a by-product of election.
MacArthur is being a very inconsistent Calvinist, trying to mesh a "condition of accountability" with a theology that doesn't allow for conditional election.
Also, I find it interesting that MacArthur claims that babies who die go to heaven, yet the "founder" of Calvinism itself said the opposite.
See John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 7: "I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed meet to God?"
Also see his Harmony of the Law, Volume 2, Deuteronomy 13, paragraph 15: "Thou shalt surely smite.... If any should object that the little children at least were innocent, I reply that, since all are condemned by the judgment of God from the least to the greatest, we contend against Him in vain, even though He should destroy the very infants as yet in their mothers’ womb. When Sodom and the neighboring cities were swallowed up, we doubt not but that in the mighty multitude many infants and pregnant women also perished; and whilst our reason struggles against this, it is better rather to look up reverently to the Divine tribunal, than to subject it to our own laws. The same may be said of the destruction of Babylon; for when the Prophet exclaims: “Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones,” he assuredly eulogizes the just vengeance of God. (Psalm 137:9.) So also in this passage, if it does not appear to us agreeable to reason that the whole race of evil-doers should be exterminated, let us understand that God is defrauded of His rights, whensoever we measure His infinite greatness, which the angels themselves admiringly adore, by our own feelings. Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death. But if we admit God’s right to deprive of the hope of salvation whomsoever He sees fit, why should the temporal punishment, which is much lighter, be found fault with? ..."
Calvin's essentially saying that if (Calvinists believe that) God can destroy infants in hell - "those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death" - then surely it's okay for Him to destroy infants physically in things like wars and the destruction of Sodom, etc. Basically, if it's okay for God to predestine people to hell, then it's also okay for Him to decide that they die as babies. The fact that they die young and violently is the "temporal, lighter punishment" compared to their predestined eternal torment. And so if we accept the worse one (predestination to hell), then we should have no problem accepting the lighter one (their early, violent death). That's what Calvin the Sicko is saying here.
So despite contemporary Calvinists' denial that Calvinism teaches infant damnation, we see here the John Calvin himself believed that the babies who die are only the eternally-damned babies ("God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death.")
And may I point out something else Calvin believes? That if a mother can't provide enough milk for her baby, it's because God was pleased to make it so. So it's for Calvi-god's pleasure that babies basically starve to death. Well, only the non-elected babies, of course.
From Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 16, Section 3: "David exclaims (Ps. 8:3), that infants hanging at their mothers breasts are eloquent enough to celebrate the glory of God, because, from the very moment of their births they find an aliment prepared for them by heavenly care. Indeed, if we do not shut our eyes and senses to the fact, we must see that some mothers have full provision for their infants, and others almost none, according as it is the pleasure of God to nourish one child more liberally, and another more sparingly."
Anyone else want to throw up? And how sick it is to twist Psalm 8:3 (actually, he means Psalm 8:2: "From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise...") to mean that God even starves some infants for His pleasure, to demonstrate how glorious He is. Sick! Calvinism is a garbage theology!
You know what? There was a little boy, 5 years old, who was murdered by his parents a few months ago, deliberately beaten to death, about a block from my house. And as I think of that and of Calvin's teaching that all youngsters go to hell and of my pastor's teaching that there is no age of accountability, I want to cry and scream and throw up!
How dare anyone say that God is the kind of God who doesn't truly love all little children, who would deliberately create innocent little children to be born, to suffer under abuse all their lives, and to die a violent death, only so He could send them to hell for His glory, for His good pleasure!
What kind of frickin' sick and evil god would that have to be!?! (My eyes start to tear up every time I think of that little boy, every time I see the blue ribbons that are still up all over town in his honor.)
But Calvinists worship that kind of god! They love and defend that kind of god! They can't even see how frickin' sick and evil their own theology is! (Told you I'd do a bad job containing my anger. But I don't think this is an issue where anger should be contained. Be angry. Don't sin in your anger, but be very angry.)
As my son and I sat at a candlelight ceremony for that little boy, I overheard the woman next to me talking to two men. And she was saying something about "Oh, but He can do whatever He wants. Because He is the Potter and we are the clay!" I could tell that she was a Calvinist, defending her view that every bad thing that happens is because God causes it for His glory and that we just have to worship Him for it anyway. The two guys simply raised their eyebrows and exchanged looks in disgust, skepticism, and pity for her.
I pray to God that she wasn't trying to tell people - at this little boy's candlelight vigil - that God "ordained" the murder of this little boy by his own parents, that He created him for this tragedy and for hell. (But at least that would be consistent Calvinism.) I so wanted to jump in and say something, but it wasn't my conversation. And debating this didn't seem appropriate at a candlelight ceremony for a murdered little boy. Yet, it certainly wasn't appropriate for her to bring up what she did at a ceremony for a murdered little boy, either.
But this at least shows that this theology isn't just lofty mental garbage that they compartmentalize and keep to themselves. It affects real lives, real people, real hearts. These Calvinists are out there spreading this crap. And in some of the worst ways and at the worst times!
I once read of a Calvinist pastor who had no rebuttal for the adulterous husband he was counseling who defended his adultery with something like "But you taught us that God ordains everything that happens, even our sins. So I didn't have a choice about whether or not I had this affair. It was God's Will that it happened, for His glory."
Not to mention that my mother is in prison right now (and for life without parole, if she doesn't win her appeal for a new trial) for neglecting/mistreating a mentally-handicapped young women until she died (my mom claims innocence, but we all believe otherwise, even though I was living in a different city and wasn't there to see what was going on).
And so I will not sit by nicely and allow the spread of a theology which teaches that all this was ordained by God from the beginning: that God had no other desire or plan for the young woman than an early abusive death, that it was His Will that my mother mistreated her to death and that my mother had no ability to resist it or do otherwise, that abuse is glorifying to God, that He preplans and causes people to do the things He commands them not to do, that my mother will be punished by God for doing what God ordained/preplanned/caused her to do, and that the young mentally-handicapped woman may have been predestined to hell after a life of abuse.
I will not tolerate a theology which teaches that all of this is for God's pleasure and glory and that, by golly, we better just trust Him and praise Him anyway, for He is so good and gracious!
(Hogwash!)
Maybe some people can accept Calvinism easily because they it's all just lofty, theoretical ideas to them. But to me, it's real. It's personal. It's garbage.
I take their claims very seriously. And I will not casually brush off all the terrible teachings and implications of Calvinism - all the terrible damage it does to God and His truth and people's hearts, lives, faith, and eternities - with "Oh, I guess we can't understand these 'mysteries.' Who am I to question God anyway? I better just accept whatever my Calvinist pastor spoon-feeds me or else I'll be dishonoring God and resisting His truth. I guess I'll just go read some more Sproul and MacArthur and Piper to help me learn to be more accepting of such alarming and terrible-sounding things."
Hogwash!
Calvinism is God-dishonoring, truth-destroying, faith-strangling crap... and I'll fight it with all I've got. Because God's character is at stake. The gospel is at stake. Jesus's sacrifice. The Truth. The Church. People's hearts, faith, and eternities. And if all that's not worth fighting for, then nothing is. I will not go gently into that good-less night, into the slow and subtle death that Calvinism is unleashing on the Church. I'll fight it. And I'll fight hard.
And be warned, Calvinism is growing at an alarming rate. If you haven't come into contact with it yet, you will soon. Learn what the Bible says forward and backward, so you can be discerning and spot the errors when you hear them! Be a Berean! (Acts 17:11)]
Phillip goes on to talk about MacArthur's arrogance (from the same article):
MacArthur says “If you survey reformed Calvinistic literature over 450 years since Calvin, you’ll find that the vast majority of all the writers believe that all infants who die are taken to heaven….. Now, let me kind of expand on that for this is very, very important. You see, it’s only pure, true, reformed soteriology – salvation – only pure, true, reformed soteriology can account for the fact that fallen, sinful, guilty, depraved children who die with no spiritual merit, die with no religious merit, die with no moral merit of their own, can be welcomed by a holy God into eternal glory! Only pure, reformed theology can allow for that because only the purist theology believes that salvation is all by grace!”
[Heather's note: Gag me! MacArthur's saying that his theology - Calvinism - is the only "pure, true" theology that so graciously believes children go to heaven. Hogwash! How gracious is it, anyway, for Calvi-god to predestine most people to hell with no chance or ability to be saved, to hoard Jesus's blood for just a few lucky, randomly-chosen people when there's more than enough to go around? Calvinism isn't gracious. It's disgusting. And the more someone has to claim that their theology is "pure and true," the less so it probably is, like how it's the least honest and least trustworthy people who have to constantly say "Don't worry, you can trust me."]
Phillip quotes more from MacArthur (same article), where MacArthur tries to mesh his Calvinism with the biblical truth about God's grace covering babies who die, not holding them accountable for their "sins":
MacArthur says: “So here’s a final summary: all children who die before they reach the condition of accountability, by which they convincingly understand their sin and corruption and embrace the gospel by faith, are graciously saved eternally by God through the work of Jesus Christ, being elect by sovereign choice, innocent of willful sin, rebellion, and unbelief, by which works they would be justly condemned to eternal punishment. So, when an infant dies, he or she is elect to eternal salvation and eternal glory. So, dear one, if you have a little one that dies, rejoice! Count not your human loss; count your eternal gain. Count not that child as having lost, but having gained, having passed briefly through this life, untouched by the wicked world, only to enter into eternal glory and grace. The true sadness should be over those children of yours who live and reject the gospel. Don’t sorrow over your children in heaven; sorrow over your children on earth, that they should come to Christ. This is your great responsibility, your great opportunity.”
Phillip's response: "So, again, nothing says 'elect' like infant fatality. And when MacArthur writes 'The true sadness should be over those children of yours who live and reject the gospel,' does he mean the reprobate? Those whom it pleased God to pass over? Vessels of wrath created for destruction all for His glory? And what's this about 'responsibility'? 'Opportunity'? What opportunity do the lost have? Isn’t that number eternally fixed?"
(Heather's note: I appreciate that MacArthur would try to comfort grieving parents with the biblical truth that God's grace covers infants who die. But I don't appreciate that he contradicts his Calvinism to do it.)
Then another commenter, fromoverhere, replies to Phillip's comment:
"MacArthur is late to the party. He became a Calvinist when the wave hit So Cal in the late 70’s.
He, like so many, preaches and lives like a non-Calvinist while trying to associate with the Sproul gang ((did you see them go at it over infant baptism?)). He is not a true 'let’s just admit what we believe' Calvinist. Making all unborn the elect! How wonderfully gracious of him!! Just go the whole mile to Universalism, John!
According to the quote you gave, the best thing a parent could do is let his child die in infancy and insure election. Why 'risk' him getting older and 'deciding against Christ'?
You nailed it…. There is no responsibility or opportunity…… for them. That fixed number is all set. Double-minded speaking at work…. and he really has polished it!"
Phillip's response: "For some of our reformed brothers, Planned Parenthood is 'Election Headquarters'."
Now, if Calvinists were truly honest:
Okay, so now that was a dishonest, inconsistent Calvinist, trying to mesh biblical truths with his contradictory Calvinism. But what would an honest Calvinist sound like?
Wanna see?
Take a look...
In the same post at Soteriology 101 as above, commenter "fromoverhere" shares some quotes from Calvinist Vincent Cheung (regarding Infant Salvation):
Cheung says: “The popular position that all infants are saved is wishful thinking, and continues as a groundless religious tradition. Those who affirm the doctrine of election have never been able to establish that all those who die as infants are elect. Their arguments are forced and fallacious. And those who reject the biblical doctrine of election lacks even this to fabricate a doctrine of infant salvation. Thus the invention deceives the masses and offers them hope based on mere fantasy. The way to comfort bereaved parents is not to lie to them, but to instruct them to trust in God. Whatever God decides must be right and good. It may be difficult due to their grief and weakness at the time, but if the parents cannot finally accept this, that God is always right, then they are headed for hell themselves and need to become Christians.”
Fromoverhere responds: "The cold heart of a consistent Calvinist."
Cheung says, a little further down in that article: “But whether a fetus, infant, or adult, if you can read this and understand this, then I am telling you that you must believe in Jesus Christ to save your wretched soul. As for my critics, yes, even obnoxious morons like you can be saved. My concern is not so much about whether embryos can exercise faith, but that as annoying and unintelligent as you are, whether you can exercise faith….. As for the embryos, if they perish, they will go where God decides – if they all burn in hell, they all burn in hell; if they all ascend to heaven, then they ascend to heaven – but if they live, I will talk to them in a few years.”
But wait… there’s more…
Cheung says: “Perhaps the same applies to those who are mentally retarded, although there seems to be no biblical evidence to say that some mentally retarded people are saved, since there seems to be no equivalent examples in Scripture. Their salvation is only a possibility. It is also possible that all mentally retarded people are damned. If this is the case, it would be misleading to complain that they are punished for being mentally retarded; rather, on the basis of the doctrine of reprobation, they would be created as damned individuals in the first place. There is no theological problem either way.”
Fromoverhere replies: "There’s that Doctrine of Grace! They are not being impeded from salvation by being handicapped… they were created to be damned anyway!! Comforting! So… if you spend 40 years taking care of your mentally-challenged child who will never have the mental capacity to call on Christ, at least you can be comforted to know that it was not because he was mentally slow…. it just cuz he was damned all along. I am sure this will comfort all those parents."
[Heather's note: Seriously, if it doesn't anger you to see what Calvinism does to God's character and Jesus's sacrifice and people's hope of salvation, then you either don't really understand God's Word or you don't really understand Calvinism. Trust me, Calvinism is coming to a church near you. Know what they teach. Know their tricks and their double-speak. And know why it's so very wrong! See "The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult" and "How to tell if a church, pastor, or website is Calvinist" for more.]
Fromoverhere continues: "But just in case Cheung was not clear enough…
Cheung: In itself, I have no problem with the idea that for anyone to receive salvation, in the absolute sense and without exception, he must exhibit a conscious faith in the gospel. This would mean that those who are unable to exercise faith are all damned to hell, and this would include infants and the mentally retarded, if we assume that they cannot exercise faith. I have no misgivings about this.
Fromoverhere: Phew… I wouldn’t want him to have misgivings about that!"
I then gave my response to fromoverhere:
"The quotes from Cheung make me want to cry. Those kinds of teachings are when my blood starts boiling and when I pull out my stronger language and, yes, when I start calling Calvinism “heresy.’ (I try not to do that often, but when they start condemning people to hell that Jesus came to die for … when they start denying salvation for those whom God loves and whom Jesus came to save … when they deem anyone out of reach of God’s grace and forgiveness … well, then I WILL pull out the “heresy” card! Because it doesn’t get much more wretched and vile than that.)
And yet, it’s refreshing to hear a Calvinist be so honest with what they believe. If only all Calvinist preachers were this honest, there’d be a lot less people getting sucked into it, sitting in the pews tolerating the questionable teachings, unaware of what the Calvinist preacher really believes because they dress it up so well. If only all Calvinists were this honest, there’s be a lot less Calvinists out there!"
