In consistent Calvinism, babies cannot be saved

[This is taken from my post "As evil as it gets: Calvinism on babies and the unreached."  I'm breaking that longer post up into shorter pieces, to focus on one topic per post.  I left the same lettering from the original post.  I'll intersperse this series with the Alana L series.]

Why Calvinism cannot say that babies go to heaven:

cc. Okay now, as I said, I think that any Calvinist who says babies go to heaven is being inconsistent with their Calvinism, with their doctrine of total depravity - that we are all born wicked, separated from God, and in rebellion against God (unless and until He injects us with faith, of course... according to Calvinism).  

As my ex-pastor says (like all Calvinists) in his December 1, 2017 sermon: "Isaiah is telling us in very strong language, very clear language here, that our sins have cut us off from God, from the moment of conception, of birth, and then once we start committing sins, it even adds to it.  They separate us from God... We are sinners by conception, then by birth."

 

From July 16, 2017: "From the moment of conception in the womb, we are desperately wicked, hopelessly selfish, in utter rebellion against God... The unsaved man, the unsaved woman, the unsaved child, the unsaved teen is cut off from God and under judgment... We are under a divine death sentence from the moment of conception, and unless something happens, we will face the living God [and] judgment and damnation."

From September 16, 2018: "... every human being spiritually is enslaved to sin, self, and Satan. ... We're born blind and dead in sin... How in the world can a dead-in-sin, blind heart ever seek God, know God, or enjoy God, if we're enslaved to sin and unable and unwilling to come to Him?"

From February 3, 2019: "Do you understand that hell is your default destination from the moment of conception?"

And yet after repeatedly teaching things like this, he once claimed in a church blog post that he's not sure, but maybe babies really do go to heaven.  Humbug!  How in the world can the idea that "we're totally depraved, cut off from God, and on our way to hell from the moment of conception" ever allow for "but babies who die (or "some babies who die," as other Calvinists say) go to heaven"!?!

It can't.  

But the flimsy answer that some Calvinists come up with to mesh the two is that babies didn't have a chance to willingly commit any sins yet.  And so they go to heaven because they don't have any personal sin to be guilty of.

For the record, I believe that babies who die go to heaven, but I don't think Calvinism can believe it because it contradicts two other doctrines of theirs:

1.  It contradicts their doctrine of Inherited Guilt, which says that babies don't have to be guilty of their own sin because they are automatically guilty of Adam's sin, deserving of hell.  

As my ex-pastor said in his June 28, 2015 sermon on hell: "The Bible says...we are born enemies of God and that we are in rebellion against God.  You are in rebellion against God from the moment of conception.  We inherit Adam and Eve's sin.  We inherit their depravity."

As from his August 2015 sermon on predestination: “How many sins does it take to be a sinner?  The answer is zero because we’re born steeped in sin, because we inherit it from Adam and Eve and their rebellion.  We call that the doctrine of internal depravity, inherited depravity."   

So in Calvinism, it's not just that we inherit a sin nature and the consequences of a sin nature, of sin, and of Adam and Eve's act of rebellion - which would be that now we're all born into a fallen world, born with sinful tendencies, born with the knowledge of good and evil (which Adam and Eve didn't have until they ate the fruit), born separated from God instead of living in Eden alongside Him, destined to die a physical death, and destined to die spiritually-separated from God (once we're passed the age of accountability) if we haven't chosen Jesus as Lord and Savior, etc.

No, that's not enough for Calvinism.  In Calvinism, babies must also be born guilty of Adam's sin.  In Calvinism, the guilt and culpability of Adam's sin (and not just its consequences) has been passed onto all babies, making all babies guilty of sin and rebellion against God... and, therefore, punishable for it, regardless of the fact that babies haven't committed - and are unable to commit - any conscious sins of their own yet.  In Calvinism, they don't need to commit any sins of their own because Adam did it for them, and now they have hell to pay for it, with their souls.

"Oh, but what about Romans 3:23," the Calvinist would say, 'which says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?  That means babies too."  

But if you look at that whole chapter and its emphasis on the need to believe in Jesus, clearly it's talking about those old enough to believe in Jesus, old enough to be able to choose between having faith in Jesus or rejecting Him.  

The point of it is not about babies at all.  It's not that babies have sinned too and are going to hell for it.  Paul is speaking to grown people, those old enough to make decisions and to reason through things.  And he's saying that all people, all Gentiles and Jews, are sinners who are accountable for our sins but that all of us sinners can be forgiven, justified by putting our faith in Jesus - which obviously assumes that it's talking about those old enough to choose to have faith in Jesus, old enough to make decisions and be accountable for them.  That's what this is saying.  

If you were speaking to a room full of families around presidential election time and said, "Okay, remember, everyone needs to go out and vote on election day," you're clearly talking about those old enough to vote, those able to vote.  You don't need to add "Well, I mean those who are old enough to vote and who have registered to vote, not little children or those who haven't registered to vote."  You don't need to clarify it because it's implied and understood in the very idea of voting and its rules and who you're talking to.  

Likewise, when Paul talks about needing to have faith in Jesus to have our sins forgiven, it's clearly talking about those old enough to do it.  It's not about the damnation of infants, about those unable to make decisions yet, unable to choose to obey God and make Jesus their Lord and Savior.

[And if Calvinists are going to stretch that verse to include babies and their idea that all babies are guilty sinners who deserve hell too, then they must also stretch the rest of the sentence too, verse 24: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."  In a stretched-translation, this would clearly mean that all people, including babies, are going to heaven because all people, including babies, are justified by God's grace, regardless of the fact that they're sinners.  I mean, after all, that's what it says, right?  "All have sinned... all are justified."  I'm just saying that if Calvinists wanna play the "let's stretch Scripture" game, then they should at least be consistent.]

 

2. And it contradicts their doctrine of Unconditional Election, which says that God chooses who gets saved (and who doesn't) 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 this 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 the beginning of time, 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 why babies are saved but older non-elect people aren't, saying that it's because babies didn't commit their own sins yet but older people did, and that this affects God decision to let them into heaven.  

But that's a condition!  

It bases our eternal destinies on what we do or don't do, which is exactly what "unconditional election" says is not possible! 

Calvinists cannot have it both ways.  They cannot say both that God elects people based on no conditions but only on His sovereign choice that has nothing to do with us... and then also say 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!

(It's ironic that Calvinists claim that we can't know why God chooses whom He does, that it's a "mystery" - but then they claim to 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.  Calvinist election 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 (or merely ignorant) contradiction of - at the very least - Calvinism's doctrines of total depravity (total inability), inherited guilt, unconditional election, and God's sovereignty.

And here's another conundrum: If Calvinists say that all babies go to heaven, it means all babies are "elect."  This would have to mean that all adults are elect because, in Calvinism, election cannot be lost.  But of course, Calvinists know that not all adults are elect.  So what happened?  How did they go from "elect baby" to "non-elect adult"?  When did they lose their election?  This contradicts Calvinism's "security of election," their "perseverance of the saints," the "P" in TULIP.

And if Calvinists try to say that babies are elect only up until they can choose between sinning and not sinning, between rejecting Jesus and accepting Jesus - an age of accountability - then they're admitting that our eternal destinies are based on our decisions, that we make free-will decisions which affect our eternities.  And this also would be a contradiction of their doctrine of God's sovereignty in election.  There can be no age of accountability in Calvinism because that implies free-will choice.

And so now we have at least five of their doctrines that they contradict: total depravity (total inability), inherited guilt, unconditional election, perseverance of the saints, and God's sovereignty.

Calvinism is a theological mess. 

dd.  A Calvinist - Tim Challies - shares a bit about his confusion over if babies go to heaven or hell, and he also shares why he thinks that Calvinists who claim babies go to heaven are being are inconsistent with Calvinism, which backs up what I said.

From his article "What happens to children when they die?": "... Another argument people make is that God could not possibly condemn a child to hell because that child has never had an opportunity to repent.  It would be unfair for God to condemn such a child.

The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it seems to presuppose that the child, however sweet and beautiful he may be, is somehow innocent in God’s eyes.  The reality, of course, is that from the moment of conception that beautiful child is a sinful child and one who deserves punishment as much as you or I.  It is a hard but unavoidable truth.... If God saves infants, he must do it on a basis other than justice.  Justice would usher them immediately into hell.  [So a baby who's committed no willful, deliberate sin is just as guilty as adults who have, who've willfully lied, stolen things, gossiped, abused people, cheated on spouses, killed others, etc.... and those wicked babies deserve hell for it!?!  And that's "justice"!?!  Question: Do we as a society really want any Calvinist being a judge in our courts if this is how they view justice?  I'm just asking.] 

... Many people speak of an age of accountability, a time before which children are not considered accountable for their sins simply because they are incapable of expressing faith necessary for salvation... I find this argument difficult to believe, primarily because it finds little Scriptural support.  [Oh, but there's tons of support for their idea that babies are sent to hell!?!  Hogwash!]  But also, it seems strange that a child could lose his salvation simply because his mental capacity increases to a certain extent.  Logically I just do not see how this argument remains consistent.

... The final argument I have heard is that God, in His grace, chooses to save children who die in infancy.  I remain uncertain as to what the criteria for this are. For example, at what point is a child considered too old to be covered by God’s special grace?"

And from his Part 2, about inconsistent Calvinists:  "... As mentioned earlier, this [that all children who die in infancy are saved] seems to be the predominant view in Christian circles, both Evangelical and Reformed.  Among those who hold to this view are R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper, B.B. Warfield and Charles Spurgeon.

This view teaches that God, out of His grace chooses to save all who die in infancy.... [R.C. Sproul believes that it's because] those who have not had opportunity to do works which explicitly and willfully reject God are not condemned to hell on that basis... [John MacArthur] believes God does not condemn infants because: they have no willful rebellion or unbelief; they have never suppressed the truth; they have no understanding of sin’s impact or consequences; they have no debased behavior; and they have no ability to choose salvation... [John Piper says that] ‘God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure.  Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God’s inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.’

We see, then, that the one thing this view fails to satisfactorily reconcile is original sin.  The teaching of Scripture is clear: even if I never committed a sin throughout my entire life, I would still be condemned to hell because of the original sin of Adam... 

... After doing much study and reflection on this topic, I find myself simply shaking my head and realizing I simply do not know.  While I would like to believe that all children are immediately ushered into heaven, I simply do not find Scripture to support the idea that God will simply categorically overlook original sin in all children.  Adherents of this view simply gloss-over or downplay original sin, and that is something I am not willing to do.  These children are as fully implicated in Adam’s sin as I am and are thus fully deserving of hell.  While that does not necessarily indicate that God will not or cannot save them, I do not find that He always will.  I also do not find strong support for the idea that only the children of believers will be saved.  This leaves me in the third camp, believing that God knows best.  In His wisdom He has chosen not to reveal what happens to children who die in infancy..."

ee. And finally, to clearly sum up Calvinism's teachings on infants - if you weren't sick enough already - I'd like to end this section with my ex-pastor's 2019 Mother's Day sermon:  

"Every single human being is a sinner by birth, by choice [which, in Calvinism, just means that you choose what God predestined you to choose], and by nature [your Calvi-god-given nature which you can't change and which determines your desires, which determines what you "choose" to do], and is cut off from God... Let me say that again...Every single human being is a sinner by birth and by practice and is cut off from God.  That is true of little children.  That is true of babies.  That is true of teenagers and adults.  

There's this concept in the evangelical world of an age of accountability, that somehow people before a certain age - sometimes it's two, sometimes it's six, sometimes it's twelve - aren't guilty before God.  Friends, that is not taught in the Bible anywhere, as much as it may be favorable in evangelical bantering.  For 35 years I've tried to find that in the Bible.  If it is true, it isn't taught in the Scriptures.  The teaching over and over and over again is that from the moment of conception, we are guilty before a holy God.  We are under the judgment of God.  There is no free pass.  The Bible never teaches some kind of age of accountability.  

If you have any doubts, Psalm 51:5, David says 'I was born a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me.'  Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned, not only those over nine years old, or twelve years old, or over four years old.  All have sinned and fall short of God's standard.  1 John 1:8: 'If we claim to be without sin, we have deceived ourselves and the truth is not in us.'

... We are born at war with God...in rebellion against Him and His laws.  We bristle at authority.  Everybody bristles at authority.  We break His laws every day.  We deserve judgment and hell.  And the Bible says that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked and beyond cure.  And it started at conception.

... The only way to be saved, justified, reconciled to God, is to repent and have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ...  Every single human being is cut off from God... The only way to be saved, made right, justified before a holy God, is to repent of our sins, turn around and go the other way, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."  

Translation: "Babies who die before they can repent are in hell, permanently cut off from God.  Remember, no one gets a free pass."

Once again, this was his Mother's Day sermon.  Mother's Day!  Talk about heartless and tone-deaf, completely insensitive and uncompassionate.  I was livid!  Fuming!  And I've never even lost a child.  But my heart broke for those who did and who had to hear that garbage.  He may as well have just gotten up there and said, "Hey, all you grieving mothers, I hope you know that your dead baby is in hell.  Happy Mother's Day!"  

It was after this sermon - and probably because of backlash to this sermon - that he posted the blog post about how he's not sure but maybe, just maybe, babies do go to heaven when they die.  DOES HE THINK WE'RE STUPID, that we didn't understand what he was REALLY preaching in his sermon quite clearly and emphatically!?!  Does he think he can now pull the wool over our eyes and we won't notice!?!  Humbug!  And I wrote him an email to tell him so, that we knew exactly what he was preaching to mothers on Mother's Day and how dare he now try to backpedal and trick us into thinking he didn't preach what he did!  Oh, he makes me so mad!    

This man should not be a pastor, in my opinion.  And we (my own little family) certainly didn't want him as our pastor anymore, and so we resigned from that church a week later.  We had sent a letter to the elders months before, hoping we could make a difference so that we didn't have to leave (after all, we'd been there 20 years, raising our kids there), but the elders did nothing about it because they sided with him.  And so we did the only thing we could do: we left.  (And yet sadly, most people welcome him with open arms, praise him for being such a great pastor, and even walk around quoting him or wearing church merch t-shirts with his name and quotes on it, even to this day.  It's kinda creepy to me.)

A rebuttal to my ex-pastor (The biblical view of babies):

First, off, 1 John 1:8 wouldn't apply to babies because babies can't claim anything about themselves since they have little to no self-awareness yet.  

And yes, Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned, but I believe there are verses that show that God doesn't hold our sins against us until and unless we are old enough to know what we're doing, to choose between accepting or rejecting Jesus, such as Deuteronomy 1:39 which refers to a time when children become old enough to tell the good from the bad, and Isaiah 7:16 which talks about an age when people are old enough to choose the right and reject the wrong, and Ezekiel 16:20-21 when God calls the sacrificed children "My children," and Jeremiah 19:4-5 when He calls the sacrificed children "innocent."  And then there's also 2 Samuel 12:23, Matthew 21:16, Matthew 18:6-14, and Matthew 19:14.  

I think the Bible shows an overall picture of God loving children and covering their sins with His grace before they are old enough to repent and decide for themselves to believe in Jesus.  So yes, we are all sinners, but God can cover our sins - with Jesus's blood for those old enough to repent and accept the gift of eternal life, and with His grace for those not old enough or conscious enough (mentally-handicapped people) to accept it.

The difference between babies and older people (those passed the age of accountability) is that babies are not rejecting Jesus by not believing in Him.  The New Testament has a bunch of verses about how we bring condemnation on ourselves when we reject/resist Jesus and the truth.  But babies are doing neither by not believing in Jesus - because they're not able to yet.  This is why babies are considered "innocent," but older people aren't.  

If Calvinists can find one verse - just one - that says babies are condemned to hell for being unable to believe the truth or for rejecting the truth or just because, then I'll start to listen to them a little more.  But as far as I can tell, there's not one verse that clearly supports the idea that babies are in hell or that those who die are wicked and are punished for Adam's sin.  

But there are the whole bunch of verses (that I already showed above) that support the opposite idea, that God's grace covers infants who die, that He has a special place in His heart for them, and that He considers them "innocent."  And so at least my views are based on things the Bible actually says, whereas Calvinist views are based on things the Bible doesn't say, growing out of their own wrong ideas of other things.

Babies are considered innocent because they haven't been able to willfully sin yet.  It's sin that separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2).  And babies can't sin if they can't make choices, can't comprehend what they are supposed to do or not do.  Even Romans 5:13 says that "sin is not taken into account when there is no law."  And Romans 4:24 says "... And where there is no law there is no transgression."  And James 4:17 says "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."

When we don't have or know the law, it's not considered sin.  It's not sin until you have the law and know that you're breaking it, until you know what you're supposed to do and not do, and you make a willful choice about it.  

Therefore, babies and mentally-handicapped people who cannot understand or choose to obey or disobey the law are considered innocent of wrongdoing - until they become old enough to know good from bad (Deut. 1:39) and to tell right from the wrong (Isaiah 7:16).  (What point is there in highlighting the different and innocent condition of children in these verses if it makes no difference?  If there is no difference between children and adults, according to Calvinism?)  

Just like we wouldn't hold a severely mentally-handicapped person guilty for a "crime" they did, God does not hold babies guilty for "sins" they do, because it's not willful yet, not a choice.  They didn't know what they were doing.  

And so if they die, He considers them innocent (Jer. 19:4-5) and His children (Ez. 16:20-21).  And this is why heaven is filled with them (Matt. 19:14), and why the angels see the face of God when they look at children (Matt. 18:10), and why it's said that God ordains praise from the lips of infants (Matt. 21:16), and how King David knew he'd see his dead son again (2 Sam. 12:23).   

(I like the point that Warren McGrew of Idol Killer made in his video "Does Calvinism Teach Babies are Elected for hell?", which is, basically, that the reason it's called "new birth/being born again" is because it's wiping our slate clean and taking us back to the original "innocent" condition we were born in the first time around, as innocent and pure as newborn infants.  I had never thought of it that way before, but I like it!)

But as I said, Calvinists can't believe in an age of accountability because that would affirm the idea of human choice, of people making decisions about Jesus.  And in Calvinism, salvation is not based on our choice, but on God's choice for us.  

And regarding Psalm 51:5 (the other verse my ex-pastor used to support the idea of babies in hell): In the KJV, the more accurate translation, it does not say that David was sinful from birth, but it says that his mother conceived him in sin, which could mean that his parents were doing something considered sinful when he was conceived (such as maybe the way they were having sex or the time/day they had sex, maybe on a forbidden day) or maybe he's talking about being born into a sinful world.  Either way, there is no hint in the KJV that David is calling himself sinful from birth.  

In fact, Genesis 8:21 in the KJV notes that "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth," not "at birth," as it would be in Calvinism.  Man starts going wrong - sinning, becoming guilty of sin - from youth, not at birth.  

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" is not even necessarily about very young people, but about those young people who are old enough to have their first kids.  

The point is, babies are not born guilty of sin and on their way to hell.  They are considered innocent of wrongdoing until they get old enough to make willful sinful decisions.  

None of my ex-pastor's "infant damnation" verses support infant damnation.  But many verses support the opposite.  (Also see my post "Do babies go to heaven or hell? A critique of Calvinism's answer.")

(I just found this note in the Tony Evans Bible Commentary, about the part in Romans 5:18 that says "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men": "... By 'everyone,' Paul means everyone.  Thus, even though we are all born sinners, Christ's blood covers us until we reach an age of accountability, that time when a person is capable of choosing to transgress and reject his salvation.... there is divine covering through Christ for those who have not yet chosen to rebel against God's law.  This explains how babies or people born with mental handicaps are saved by Christ's death, since original sin is no longer the issue in those cases."  Amen!)