Things My Calvinist Pastor Said #14: Babies Die As Unrepentant Sinners
(This "Things My Calvinist Pastor Said" series is a breakdown of this much longer post: "We Left Our Church Because of Calvinism," which was written last year but updated July 2020. They are almost exact quotes. All memes were created with imgflip.)
14. (And most recently, on Mother's Day, this is what he said, practically word for word ...) "Christians love to believe that there is an age of accountability. (My note: This is when someone becomes old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. And most Christians believe that children who die before this "age/condition of accountability" and mentally-handicapped people who can't understand the Gospel are covered by God's grace when they die, and so they go to heaven. They were mentally incapable of being able to make a choice about accepting or rejecting Jesus, so they are not held accountable for being unable to make a choice.) 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: It's deceptive for a Calvinist to use this word because they mean unregenerated people can only choose to sin!), and by nature, being cut off completely from God. This is clear in Romans 3:23 which says 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' and in 1 John 1:8 which says 'If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.' All of us are sinners, and all sinners are required to repent in order to get into heaven. (My note: Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that babies who died before they could repent are in hell. They were born predestined to go to hell.)"
Umm, first off, 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.
A friend of mine who heard this sermon told me to look it up online. (I wasn't there to hear it because I don't attend that church anymore.) She was wondering if he was really saying what she thought he was saying.
He was!
And I have recently read of others who said their Calvinist pastors said the same thing. That these men will look right at grieving mothers and say that 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 before they repent are predestined for hell, because God requires us to repent to get into heaven. And babies and young children didn't repent before they died.
"Happy Mother's Day. I hope you know your deceased baby is in hell. Now let's give God some glory!"
Did I mention that I feel like crying!?! And I never even lost a child. But my heart breaks for those who did, for those who had to listen to this pastor ... ON MOTHER'S DAY ... essentially tell them their baby is in hell. Even if he seriously believes it, what the #@$% is wrong with his head that he would say this to mothers on Mother's Day!?!
[And then very shortly after this sermon, he dared to write a post on the church blog saying that he's not sure what happens to babies when they die but that he leans towards thinking they go to heaven. I can only assume 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 get away with it.
Since they won't allow comments anymore on the church blog (because of me, I kid you not), I emailed him directly and pretty much said, "You just gave a sermon where you clearly said that there is no age of accountability, that babies die as unrepentant sinners, clearly implying that they go to hell. You said that NO ONE gets a free pass. And you gave this sermon on Mother's Day! But now you dare to say the opposite!?! (And I said more, but I can't remember what.)"
(Can you see why they don't allow comments anymore?)
I wanted him to know that we were listening, that we heard him clearly, that he couldn't pull the wool over our eyes now, trying to trick us into thinking that we misheard him and that he didn't say what he really did.
He also once did a blog post about how God commands - COMMANDS - spanking your children, and that it should hurt. The whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" thing. (You see, this is what his family does. And he likes to regularly tell us what his family does, as if we should all be doing things his way.)
That's funny, because I see that God commands "disciplining" our children, but I see nothing about commanding us to SPANK our children. And the whole "spare the rod" thing doesn't have to do with beating your children with it. It has to do with a shepherd using the rod to guide the sheep. It's about how if you don't discipline your kids, you don't really care about them and what kind of people they grow up to be. (And remember that Proverbs is good "life advice," not biblical commandments.)
(And I told him all this in the comments too, before they stopped allowing comments. I also told him that the picture they put with the post was creepy, that it looked like a scared child, huddled in a corner, curled up all alone, hiding the abuse that happens behind closed doors. It really was creepy. I have no idea what they were thinking picking that picture.)
And I wonder why he even bothers to spank his kids (and grandkids). Does he seriously think he can have some sort of influence over what kind of people they grow up to be ... when, according to Calvinism, Sovereign Calvi-god alone is the one who causes people to be what they are? Does he think he can help them be better people if Calvi-god determined they would be unregenerate monsters? And if they turn out to be well-behaved people, will he take some sort of credit for it, as though his parenting helped them be good people? So, according to Calvinism, people can't even decide what to think, do, or believe on their own because Calvi-god predetermines it all, but this pastor thinks he can somehow influence how his kids grow up. Interesting!]
For more on this issue, check out this "Age of Accountability" post from Soteriology 101, a blog by a former 5-point Calvinist who is speaking out against Calvinism. Also be sure to look down in the comments section, particularly for the comments from FROMOVERHERE, after my (Heather's) comment, starting with "Heather, Perhaps the kind words of Mr. Calvinist Vincent Cheung will help ..." This Cheung is a Calvinist who is being honest about his Calvinist views. And it's HORRBILE! You can also find it in my post: "Do Babies Go To Heaven If They Die: A Critique of Calvinism's Answer."
In that post, I share and defend my belief that babies and mentally-handicapped people go to heaven if they die, that God's grace covers them.
And, in short, this comes from the Bible verses that say that Jesus's death paid the price for all men's sins (surely, babies and mentally-handicapped people are part of "all men," so their sins were paid for too), that we are held accountable for our decision to reject Jesus (not for being incapable of making a decision), and that God has special provisions for children throughout the Bible.
All in all, I believe the Bible shows babies and mentally-handicapped people are not held accountable for being unable to accept or reject Jesus. Their sins are covered by God's grace, until and unless they get to the point that God can hold them accountable for their choices.
But Calvinists essentially deny that Jesus' death paid for all people's sin. They do not believe His death paid for the sins of the non-elect. They believe God predestined them to hell for His glory. So why wouldn't they say that Jesus' death did not cover babies or mentally-handicapped people either, that God also predestined them to hell for His glory?
Surely if it's okay for Calvi-god to predestine non-elect people to hell for his glory, even though they had no chance to accept Jesus, then it's okay for the him to predestine babies to hell for his glory, even though they had no chance to accept Jesus. What's the difference, if Calvinism is true? If a Calvinist allows one, they have to allow the other. After all, "God can do whatever He wants for His glory, right? Who are you, little Calvinist, to talk back to God and tell Him what He can and cannot do?"
And even if they won't admit that they believe babies go to hell, their theology does, because in Calvinism "all people are totally-depraved, rebellious, wicked sinners at birth who have to be regenerated in order to repent/believe so that they can go to heaven." And babies and mentally-handicapped people never got around to repenting. So how could a Calvinist who believes in total depravity and in regeneration by the Holy Spirit before belief now say that regeneration is not necessary in the case of babies? If they are going to allow "saved without regeneration" for babies who are unable to make their own decisions, why wouldn't they allow it for the non-elect who are also, according to Calvinism, unable to make their own decisions?
They can't pick and choose who Calvi-god is allowed to predestine to hell, based on their feelings of what's "fair."
If Calvi-god is so horrible as to predestine people to hell, never giving them a chance to choose, causing them to reject him but them punishing them for it, then he is indeed horrible enough to predestine babies to hell!
[As I said earlier, Calvinists say that God causes everything and that everything He causes is for His glory. Predestining people to hell, child abuse, divorce, addictions, idol worship. Everything. All for Calvi-god's glory. But if God is glorified by evil then evil is essentially good. So then, in Calvinism, there really is no difference between good and evil. They are the same things and both as valuable as each other because Calvi-god causes it all for his glory.
Wicked, wicked theology! Turning evil into good, darkness into light, sin into something that glorifies God!
I've said it before: Calvinist theology is like building a house of cards on a foundation of Jello. But instead of reexamining the foundation of misconceptions and faulty assumptions, they just keep trying to make the building on top more secure!]
But back to the Calvinist idea that there's no age of accountability ...
A Calvinist has to say this - that it is God's choice for that baby to die early and go to hell, for His glory - because if they acknowledge an "age of accountability," then they are acknowledging that there is an age where we are accountable for our choices, which would mean that we have the ability to make choices, which would mean that their view of "total inability" and of "God causes all things" is completely wrong.
According to Calvinist theology, we cannot make choices on our own. It is a core, foundational belief in Calvinism, supposedly to honor God's "sovereignty" (their erroneous view of God's sovereignty, that is). Man cannot make choices about God because man is "so dead" inside, and so God has to cause us to come to Him. This means that God had to pre-decide who would come to Him, which means that He predestines us to heaven or hell. All of this hinges on their view that we cannot make any choices on our own!
No wonder Calvinists have to deny an "age of accountability," because it implies that we can make choices and that we are accountable for them.
[However, there are many Calvinists who won't admit to this and won't believe it, but when you connect all the dots of Calvinism, it is an undeniable part of their theology. Anything less would contradict their Calvinist theology. So a Calvinist that says there is an age of accountability, that there is saving grace for a supposedly "wicked and rebellious from birth" baby who dies before they can repent is denying their own theology!
Oddly enough, in Calvinism it's okay to deny what the Bible plainly says and to replace it with their obscure views, but it's not okay to deny Calvinism's unclear, illogical, contradictory, rambling nonsense. Instead they excuse it with "But we can't really understand it anyway, so we just have to accept it."
But shouldn't they be doing that with the Bible instead? Shouldn't a Calvinist go, "Well, the Bible tells men to seek God, so even if I can't understand it then I'll just have to accept that we can seek Him." And "The Bible says God loved the world and Jesus died for all sins, so even if I can't understand it in light of my Calvinism, then I'll just have to accept it." And "The Bible says it's our job to believe in Jesus, so I guess I should accept it even if Calvinism says we can't choose to believe in Jesus."
How truly backwards they are! It's like being on the wrong side of a looking glass, always thinking that it's the other side that's backwards and not you.]
Incidentally, this is also why they don't believe in altar calls. Because calling people to ask Jesus into their hearts implies that we get a choice about it, that we can do something to "acquire" salvation, which would go against their beliefs that man can do nothing (not even accept God's gift of salvation, which they wrongly consider "working for salvation") and that God has to do it all.
14. (And most recently, on Mother's Day, this is what he said, practically word for word ...) "Christians love to believe that there is an age of accountability. (My note: This is when someone becomes old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. And most Christians believe that children who die before this "age/condition of accountability" and mentally-handicapped people who can't understand the Gospel are covered by God's grace when they die, and so they go to heaven. They were mentally incapable of being able to make a choice about accepting or rejecting Jesus, so they are not held accountable for being unable to make a choice.) 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: It's deceptive for a Calvinist to use this word because they mean unregenerated people can only choose to sin!), and by nature, being cut off completely from God. This is clear in Romans 3:23 which says 'for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,' and in 1 John 1:8 which says 'If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.' All of us are sinners, and all sinners are required to repent in order to get into heaven. (My note: Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that babies who died before they could repent are in hell. They were born predestined to go to hell.)"
Umm, first off, 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.
A friend of mine who heard this sermon told me to look it up online. (I wasn't there to hear it because I don't attend that church anymore.) She was wondering if he was really saying what she thought he was saying.
He was!
And I have recently read of others who said their Calvinist pastors said the same thing. That these men will look right at grieving mothers and say that 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 before they repent are predestined for hell, because God requires us to repent to get into heaven. And babies and young children didn't repent before they died.
"Happy Mother's Day. I hope you know your deceased baby is in hell. Now let's give God some glory!"
Did I mention that I feel like crying!?! And I never even lost a child. But my heart breaks for those who did, for those who had to listen to this pastor ... ON MOTHER'S DAY ... essentially tell them their baby is in hell. Even if he seriously believes it, what the #@$% is wrong with his head that he would say this to mothers on Mother's Day!?!
[And then very shortly after this sermon, he dared to write a post on the church blog saying that he's not sure what happens to babies when they die but that he leans towards thinking they go to heaven. I can only assume 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 get away with it.
Since they won't allow comments anymore on the church blog (because of me, I kid you not), I emailed him directly and pretty much said, "You just gave a sermon where you clearly said that there is no age of accountability, that babies die as unrepentant sinners, clearly implying that they go to hell. You said that NO ONE gets a free pass. And you gave this sermon on Mother's Day! But now you dare to say the opposite!?! (And I said more, but I can't remember what.)"
(Can you see why they don't allow comments anymore?)
I wanted him to know that we were listening, that we heard him clearly, that he couldn't pull the wool over our eyes now, trying to trick us into thinking that we misheard him and that he didn't say what he really did.
He also once did a blog post about how God commands - COMMANDS - spanking your children, and that it should hurt. The whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" thing. (You see, this is what his family does. And he likes to regularly tell us what his family does, as if we should all be doing things his way.)
That's funny, because I see that God commands "disciplining" our children, but I see nothing about commanding us to SPANK our children. And the whole "spare the rod" thing doesn't have to do with beating your children with it. It has to do with a shepherd using the rod to guide the sheep. It's about how if you don't discipline your kids, you don't really care about them and what kind of people they grow up to be. (And remember that Proverbs is good "life advice," not biblical commandments.)
(And I told him all this in the comments too, before they stopped allowing comments. I also told him that the picture they put with the post was creepy, that it looked like a scared child, huddled in a corner, curled up all alone, hiding the abuse that happens behind closed doors. It really was creepy. I have no idea what they were thinking picking that picture.)
And I wonder why he even bothers to spank his kids (and grandkids). Does he seriously think he can have some sort of influence over what kind of people they grow up to be ... when, according to Calvinism, Sovereign Calvi-god alone is the one who causes people to be what they are? Does he think he can help them be better people if Calvi-god determined they would be unregenerate monsters? And if they turn out to be well-behaved people, will he take some sort of credit for it, as though his parenting helped them be good people? So, according to Calvinism, people can't even decide what to think, do, or believe on their own because Calvi-god predetermines it all, but this pastor thinks he can somehow influence how his kids grow up. Interesting!]
For more on this issue, check out this "Age of Accountability" post from Soteriology 101, a blog by a former 5-point Calvinist who is speaking out against Calvinism. Also be sure to look down in the comments section, particularly for the comments from FROMOVERHERE, after my (Heather's) comment, starting with "Heather, Perhaps the kind words of Mr. Calvinist Vincent Cheung will help ..." This Cheung is a Calvinist who is being honest about his Calvinist views. And it's HORRBILE! You can also find it in my post: "Do Babies Go To Heaven If They Die: A Critique of Calvinism's Answer."
In that post, I share and defend my belief that babies and mentally-handicapped people go to heaven if they die, that God's grace covers them.
And, in short, this comes from the Bible verses that say that Jesus's death paid the price for all men's sins (surely, babies and mentally-handicapped people are part of "all men," so their sins were paid for too), that we are held accountable for our decision to reject Jesus (not for being incapable of making a decision), and that God has special provisions for children throughout the Bible.
All in all, I believe the Bible shows babies and mentally-handicapped people are not held accountable for being unable to accept or reject Jesus. Their sins are covered by God's grace, until and unless they get to the point that God can hold them accountable for their choices.
But Calvinists essentially deny that Jesus' death paid for all people's sin. They do not believe His death paid for the sins of the non-elect. They believe God predestined them to hell for His glory. So why wouldn't they say that Jesus' death did not cover babies or mentally-handicapped people either, that God also predestined them to hell for His glory?
Surely if it's okay for Calvi-god to predestine non-elect people to hell for his glory, even though they had no chance to accept Jesus, then it's okay for the him to predestine babies to hell for his glory, even though they had no chance to accept Jesus. What's the difference, if Calvinism is true? If a Calvinist allows one, they have to allow the other. After all, "God can do whatever He wants for His glory, right? Who are you, little Calvinist, to talk back to God and tell Him what He can and cannot do?"
And even if they won't admit that they believe babies go to hell, their theology does, because in Calvinism "all people are totally-depraved, rebellious, wicked sinners at birth who have to be regenerated in order to repent/believe so that they can go to heaven." And babies and mentally-handicapped people never got around to repenting. So how could a Calvinist who believes in total depravity and in regeneration by the Holy Spirit before belief now say that regeneration is not necessary in the case of babies? If they are going to allow "saved without regeneration" for babies who are unable to make their own decisions, why wouldn't they allow it for the non-elect who are also, according to Calvinism, unable to make their own decisions?
They can't pick and choose who Calvi-god is allowed to predestine to hell, based on their feelings of what's "fair."
If Calvi-god is so horrible as to predestine people to hell, never giving them a chance to choose, causing them to reject him but them punishing them for it, then he is indeed horrible enough to predestine babies to hell!
[As I said earlier, Calvinists say that God causes everything and that everything He causes is for His glory. Predestining people to hell, child abuse, divorce, addictions, idol worship. Everything. All for Calvi-god's glory. But if God is glorified by evil then evil is essentially good. So then, in Calvinism, there really is no difference between good and evil. They are the same things and both as valuable as each other because Calvi-god causes it all for his glory.
Wicked, wicked theology! Turning evil into good, darkness into light, sin into something that glorifies God!
I've said it before: Calvinist theology is like building a house of cards on a foundation of Jello. But instead of reexamining the foundation of misconceptions and faulty assumptions, they just keep trying to make the building on top more secure!]
But back to the Calvinist idea that there's no age of accountability ...
A Calvinist has to say this - that it is God's choice for that baby to die early and go to hell, for His glory - because if they acknowledge an "age of accountability," then they are acknowledging that there is an age where we are accountable for our choices, which would mean that we have the ability to make choices, which would mean that their view of "total inability" and of "God causes all things" is completely wrong.
According to Calvinist theology, we cannot make choices on our own. It is a core, foundational belief in Calvinism, supposedly to honor God's "sovereignty" (their erroneous view of God's sovereignty, that is). Man cannot make choices about God because man is "so dead" inside, and so God has to cause us to come to Him. This means that God had to pre-decide who would come to Him, which means that He predestines us to heaven or hell. All of this hinges on their view that we cannot make any choices on our own!
No wonder Calvinists have to deny an "age of accountability," because it implies that we can make choices and that we are accountable for them.
[However, there are many Calvinists who won't admit to this and won't believe it, but when you connect all the dots of Calvinism, it is an undeniable part of their theology. Anything less would contradict their Calvinist theology. So a Calvinist that says there is an age of accountability, that there is saving grace for a supposedly "wicked and rebellious from birth" baby who dies before they can repent is denying their own theology!
Oddly enough, in Calvinism it's okay to deny what the Bible plainly says and to replace it with their obscure views, but it's not okay to deny Calvinism's unclear, illogical, contradictory, rambling nonsense. Instead they excuse it with "But we can't really understand it anyway, so we just have to accept it."
But shouldn't they be doing that with the Bible instead? Shouldn't a Calvinist go, "Well, the Bible tells men to seek God, so even if I can't understand it then I'll just have to accept that we can seek Him." And "The Bible says God loved the world and Jesus died for all sins, so even if I can't understand it in light of my Calvinism, then I'll just have to accept it." And "The Bible says it's our job to believe in Jesus, so I guess I should accept it even if Calvinism says we can't choose to believe in Jesus."
How truly backwards they are! It's like being on the wrong side of a looking glass, always thinking that it's the other side that's backwards and not you.]
Incidentally, this is also why they don't believe in altar calls. Because calling people to ask Jesus into their hearts implies that we get a choice about it, that we can do something to "acquire" salvation, which would go against their beliefs that man can do nothing (not even accept God's gift of salvation, which they wrongly consider "working for salvation") and that God has to do it all.
My ex-pastor once wrote that he doesn't do altar calls because he doesn't want people to wrongly think they are saved simply because they "walked the aisle." (Umm, isn't it the pastor's job to tell those who came forward in an altar call that walking the aisle didn't save them, but that it's their belief in Jesus - the fact that they chose to put their faith in Him - that saves them?) But I don't believe for one second that that's his real reason for not doing altar calls. I think he just doesn't want people to think they have a choice about their beliefs, their salvation! (And yet they wonder why people don't agree them.)
With Calvinism in general, there are no altar calls, no "asking Jesus into your heart." Because they don't want people thinking they have a choice. Because that would contradict their whole idea that God chooses for us. 
(And there's almost no focus on having a genuine, two-way relationship with God, because that would imply that humans have some sort of value to Him, that He might actually care about us for more than the glory He can squeeze out of us for Himself. And they are all about reducing humans as low as they can in their sick, twisted attempt to elevate God's sovereignty and glory as much as they can. But they end up doing it in ways that alter the Bible and destroy God's truth, God's character, the Gospel, Jesus' sacrifice, and people's faith and hope and joy.)
