Ah, yes, praise God for hell-bound vipers!
In a recent Reddit Reformed post, a Calvinist celebrates the birth and dedication of another wretched, depraved, hell-bound viper-in-a-diaper wonderful little innocent baby!
Of course, I myself believe that babies are wonderful little innocent blessings from God, and so I celebrate the birth of all babies and congratulate parents on baby dedications.
But I can... because I'm not a Calvinist.
Calvinists, however, hmm? I know they truly love their children and praise God for them, feeling like they are (I hope) blessings and sweet little bundles of joy.
But I wonder if Calvinist parents have ever read these quotes of Calvinists' own views and teachings about babies and young children. (I've already shared many of these before, but a bunch are new. FYI: I'll also repost this in smaller individual posts soon, bite-sized pieces.)
Because if they did, then maybe they wouldn't be so quick to view them as sweet little bundles of joy, but more like evil little bundles of depravity. Maybe they wouldn't be so quick to praise the Lord for that "blessing," but instead they'd feel remorse that they brought more evil into the world, more wicked hell-bound God-haters.
Congratulations on the births of all your children, Calvinst parents. (But a word of caution: Watch your backs from now on, and sleep with one eye open.)
1. Voddie Baucham (from this sermon about total depravity): “People who don’t believe in original sin don’t have children. … That’s a viper in a diaper... One of the reasons God makes them so small is so that they won’t kill you. And one of the reasons he makes them so cute is so that you won’t kill them.” [For fun: Idol Killer's video on Voddie's "viper in a diaper" sermon: "Your Children are Evil".]
2. Paul Washer (from the video "All men are born evil"): "'Evil from his youth' (Genesis 8:21) can mean evil from childhood, evil from a babe... I submit to you that if that 18-month-old baby had the strength of an 18-year old man, he would slaughter you there where you stand, father, rip the watch off your arm and walk across your bloody body and out the door without feeling an ounce of remorse. You see, here's something you need to understand. Hitler was not an anomaly. Hitler was not a phenomenon. Hitler was what everyone in this room has the potential of being... [And] if it were not for the common grace of God restraining you in your unconverted state [the state Calvi-god ordained for you], you would make Hitler look like a choir boy [just as Calvi-god predestined]... Scriptures' testimony against you and all men is that we are born with evil and we are evil... all men are born hating God." [So Calvinists see babies as God-hating, cold-blooded, psychopathic killers?!? Is that the kind of pastor you want dedicating your baby to the Lord? (Note: "Youth" in the concordance, in the Hebrew, does not say anything about babies, but it's more about the pre-adult time period. And notice that the verse says man is evil "from" that time period, meaning starting then and going forward, not before that time period as it would be with very young children and infants.)]
3. John MacArthur (from The Distinctive Qualities of the True Christian, Part 1): "Nowhere, or at no point, is a man's depravity more manifest than in the procreative act... How do we know man is a sinner at the base of his character? How do we know man is a sinner at the root of his existence? The answer: by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked because man is wicked. So I say to you that nowhere then in the anatomy of man or in the activity of man is depravity more manifest than in the procreative act... because it is at precisely that point which he demonstrates the depth of his sinfulness because he produces a sinner." [Ugh. Maybe Calvinist pastors should quote this at baby births, baby dedications, and during sermons on God creating sex and reproduction.]
4. R.C. Sproul (found in Idol Killer's video Evil and Depraved - the Reformed View of Children): "Calvin was once talking about babies and said that babies are as depraved as rats. And I said that's the one time I really really oppose the teaching of John Calvin...because that's terribly insulting to the rat." [Is Calvinism like some sort of contest to see who can believe the worst things and be the biggest heretic and jerk? I mean, seriously. You might also like Idol Killer's "God's Fault - Who is Responsible for Evil?"]
5. R.C. Sproul Jr. in answer to the question "How would you advise a parent who concludes that one or more of their children are not among the elect?" (start at 1:12 in this video): "God has to, one at a time, give life to those who are His elect... I can tell you this, from the moment my wife and I find out we're pregnant, we pray that God would change their hearts then, knowing even in the womb our children are sinners and needed the grace of God."
6. Loraine Boettner (Infant Salvation, italic emphasis is mine): "Calvinists, of course, hold that the doctrine of original sin applies to infants as well as to adults. Like all other sons of Adam, infants are truly culpable because of race sin and might be justly punished for it... [Their 'salvation'] is possible only through the grace of Christ and is as truly unmerited as is that of adults. Instead of minimizing the demerit and punishment due to them for original sin, Calvinism magnifies the mercy of God in their salvation. Their salvation means something, for it is the deliverance of guilty souls from eternal woe. [So Calvinists first magnify how evil babies are... so that they can then magnify Calvi-god's mercy in saving those wretched, guilty, undeserving little beasts!😕] And it is costly, for it was paid for by the suffering of Christ on the cross. Those who take the other view of original sin, namely, that it is not properly sin and does not deserve eternal punishment, make the evil from which infants are 'saved' to be very small and consequently the love and gratitude which they owe to God to be small also." [So in order to make God's love and Jesus's sacrifice very great, Calvinists absolutely must consider the evil of babies to be very great, too.😖]
7. And not only do Calvi-babies deserve eternal damnation for their sins, but as a Calvinist says in response to an atheist's comment about God not feeding starving children, "Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious. We also recognize that those children don't deserve any food. They deserve much worse for their sins. They should repent and believe the gospel."
So now children are so depraved that they "deserve" hell and starvation.
But he's right in one thing: Calvi-god does give them much worse than that. According to R.C. Sproul Jr., Calvi-god ordained the kidnapping, torture, rape, and strangulation-to-death of a 10-year-old girl... and the little girl "received the judgment from God she had earned."
So now it's hell, starvation, kidnapping, torture, rape, and strangulation. Calvi-justice for their sins. Oh, the horribly-wicked hearts Calvi-rat-babies must have in order to deserve all this!
[Watch from 4:40 to 5:21 in the Idol Killer video "Why Calvinist Apologetics FAIL" to hear those two quotes. And also see the Sproul Jr. one in The Church Split's video "Calvinism's Most DISTURBING claim yet: This Is Monstrous Theology".]
8. From my ex-pastor's 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."
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." [Therefore, according to Calvinism, "How many sins does it take to go to hell? Zero, even for babies, because we're born guilty of Adam's sin."]
9. From John Calvin's Institutes, book 2, section 8: "Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect... their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt." [So are babies guilty of their own sin or of Adam's sin/original sin/inherited guilt? Which is it? Make up your mind, Calvinists. And do Calvinists ever stop to wonder if maybe their theology is screwed up from the very beginning, that they're wasting their time trying to justify the condemnation of infants when there is no condemnation of infants? And, hmm, I wonder what kind of freaky god Calvi-god must be if angels see his face (Matthew 18:10) when they look at "odious and abominable" children.]
10. From John Calvin's Harmony of the Law, Vol. 2, Deut. 13, paragraph 15: "If any should object that the little children 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' wombs... 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." (Phew, what a relief: Babies only die if they were non-Calv-elect!)
11. From Jonathan Edwards in "The Miscellanies", point n.: "... it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments... If you say, they [infants] have not deserved it so much, I answer: they certainly have deserved what they have deserved... Who shall determine just how much sin is sufficient to make damnation agreeable to the divine perfections? And how can they determine that infants have not so much sin? For we know they have enough to make their damnation very just."
12. From Jonathan Edwards' The Great Doctrine of Original Sin Defended: “... infants are not looked upon by God as sinless, but that they are by nature children of wrath..."
13. Tim Challies ("Original sin and the death of infants"): "... in an article I wrote last week...[I] expressed my belief that my children (ages 6, 3, and 3 months) are, at this time, likely unsaved and are thus spiritually dead..."
14. Pierre du Moulin (1568-1658, Anatomie of Arminianism): “Whom God hateth from the womb, to them he doth not give sufficient and saving grace... he doth not give them sufficient means to faith, or to salvation: for this cannot be made to agree with hatred”
[If your heart doesn't break over what Calvinism does to the Truth, to God's character, to Jesus's sacrifice, and to people's faith/eternities/relationship with God, then you either don't really understand Calvinism... or you don't really understand the Bible.]
15. James White (start at 4:33 in the Idol Killer video "Does Calvinism Teach Babies are Elected for hell?"): "... [God] is going to have elect infants, and there are others who will not be."
Note: White has come a long way since 1987 when he published this article and said: "Therefore, we have little to go on in discussing the condition of the infant or the mentally incompetent. Since they have made no conscious decisions against God, it is inconceivable that they undergo any kind of punishment. Rather, it is clear that they are ushered into the presence of the Lord. Huldreich Zwingli felt that all who died in infancy or who were mentally incompetent were of the elect of God, and I feel comfortable with that idea."
So which is it, Calvinists: Are babies who die elect or not elect?
And notice that instead of getting more charitable in his "little to go on" conclusions, White got worse, now claiming that some - if not most - babies are non-elect and going to hell. But it's okay because Calvi-god is Calvi-god and can do whatever he wants.
(Watch this Idol Killer video to see Warren address James' view of the damnation of babies: James White responds - Infant Salvation?)
[Sidenote: As we see, not all Calvinists believe all babies go to hell.
Some believe that some babies go to heaven and some go to hell, that there are elect and non-elect infants, but that we can't know which are which. And some believe that only the babies of Christians are elect because of covenantal promises, and so the babies of non-believers are non-elect.
Some believe that God only allows non-elect babies to die or that all babies go to hell because they are all depraved and guilty of Adam's sin (even if they never committed their own sins) and never had a chance to hear/respond to the gospel and so they cannot be saved. They are all non-elect.
Some believe that all babies who die go to heaven (that they are all elect), either just because they are babies, or because Calvi-god only allows elect infants to die, or because he "mysteriously" regenerates them before they die (and so they are still depraved sinners, but, in order to save them, Calvi-god somehow regenerates them before they can hear/respond to the gospel).
But I say that any Calvinist who claims that any baby goes to heaven is being totally inconsistent with their theology, with (at the very least) their doctrines of total depravity/total inability, inherited guilt, unconditional election, and perseverance of the saints.
Such as, Calvinists can't say that all babies are "elect" because that would mean that all adults are elect, too, because Calvinism's doctrine of "perseverance of the saints" says that election can't be lost. But obviously, all adults are not "elect" - and so then either babies would've lost their election as they grew (contradicting "perseverance of the saints") or not all babies are "elect." Plus, this would imply that there is an age where babies go from elect to non-elect, which makes "age" a condition, which contradicts Calvinism's unconditional election. Calvinism is a theological mess. See my post "In consistent Calvinism, babies cannot be saved."
But don't forget that Calvinists have an unbiblical definition of election from the very beginning. And so you argue from a faulty premise if you define election as being about who is chosen for heaven and who isn't. Election is about God choosing people for service, not salvation.
Dr. Tony Evans, in his Bible commentary (a book everyone should have), defines "election" not as "God predetermines who goes to heaven" (as Calvinists do), but in this way (page 15): "The sovereign prerogative of God to choose individuals, families, groups, and nations to serve his kingdom purposes as he so wills. Election is specifically related to service, usefulness, and blessings - not individual salvation. Jesus died for all human beings without exception and desires for all to be saved."
Election and predestination are biblical concepts, but not the way Calvinists understand them. And neither has to do with God predetermining who goes to heaven and who doesn't.
Biblically, "election" is about God deciding how to use people in His plans (about which roles, responsibilities, blessings to give people). Sometimes, God elects a nation for a job/role, such as when He elected Israel to be the people group that brought Jesus into the world. And sometimes He elects people for jobs/roles, such as when He chose Jacob over Esau to be the bloodline that Jesus came through.
Also from his commentary, in the section on Romans 9:10-13: "God's election is not for personal, eternal salvation, but for blessing, service, and usefulness. Abraham was called not so that God would save him, but because God would use him to bless all the families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3). That line of blessing skipped over Isaac's older son Esau, even though he had not been born yet, passing to the younger, Jacob. Why? Not because they had 'done anything good or bad, but that God's purpose according to election might stand' (9:11). By withholding the blessing from Esau, God effectively 'hated Esau' (9:13) - not out of preference or from an emotional motivation, but in order to display his sovereignty in going against the cultural norms so that 'the older [would] serve the younger' (9:12). Paul clearly states that this election was about service, not eternal salvation. Jacob - not Esau - was chosen to be the Messiah's ancestor even though both were Abraham's descendants.... The concepts of love and hate refer to God's decision to bestow inheritance, blessings, and kingdom responsibility on Jacob's descendants rather than Esau's... God has the sovereign right to choose whom he will use to accomplish his kingdom purposes."
Election, Jacob and Esau, and Romans 9 are not about individual salvation or damnation at all. They're about God's right to use different people for different purposes to further His kingdom plans. And predestination is about God determining what happens to believers after they believe, not about who believes or how they believe. If Calvinists got this correct, it would correct so many mistakes in their theology and make many other things much clearer.]
16. A Calvinist named Joe responded to the question "If you found out that God chose not to save one or more of your children, how would you feel about that?" with this answer: "It means He's God... I sure hope that God has chosen my children...but if God chooses not to save my children, that is His prerogative because He is God and I am not God. He decides who's in His heaven. He decides who's in His hell... Okay, we've got two ways to look at this. This is a glass half-full or half-empty. Either I can rejoice that God chose a wretched sinner for salvation, which is me, or I can worry about God's choices with other wretched sinners [essentially referring to his children]. When I realize that the human nature and the human position against God is that I've sinned against an almighty God and that everyone deserves His judgment, I should be mystified, shocked, and stunned whenever He chooses anyone, not surprised when someone doesn't get chosen."
[What kind of a god is Calvi-god that Calvinists are shocked that he'd love even one person enough to save them?😕 We'd be shocked that an evil, heartless, cannibalistic serial killer who tortures, kills, and eats a victim a day would or could love anyone at all. But God? Wouldn't we be shocked if a God as gracious, loving, and self-sacrificial as Him didn't love someone, didn't want to and try to save everyone!?! Watch the video of the conversation above at Soteriology 101's "Warning: This may be the CRINGIEST video you watch about Calvinism". And then enjoy this 2-minute video featuring Calvinist Tyler Vela and Beaker from the Muppets, called "Me, me, me." FYI: Sadly, Tyler recently left the faith. But is it any wonder when we understand what Calvinism really teaches!]
17. From my ex-pastor's January 2016 sermon on the wrath of God: "Truth-suppression begins very early in life. Children have no interest in truth…zero. Babies, toddlers, cute little kids, my cute grandkids, they have no interest in the truth. What is a child’s primary interest in life? ME! [As it should be at that age - because they're babies!] It’s the All-Great Universe of ME! They don’t want to know the truth [because they can’t even understand the concept of truth yet!]. Frankly, I think if they were big enough, sometimes they would vaporize us. If you look at the rage in a child, toddler, baby that is screaming because you’re imposing truth on them. [Oh, so that's why babies scream! Silly me, I thought it was because they were hungry or hurt or sitting in a filthy diaper or something. But it's really just because they're wicked and resist truth. Makes perfect sense.].… Why am I born such a good truth-suppressor? Because I’m born sinful. Not just a little bit, we are born incredibly depraved to our core… desperately wicked. We are slaves to sin… We are born rebellious, and we don’t want authority over us… the heart is desperately wicked… deceitful above all things.”
Ugh, babies: Awful, horrible, nasty little things!
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." [And so now even unborn babies are wicked, selfish, hell-bound God-haters, too!]
From February 3, 2019: "Do you understand that hell is your default destination from the moment of conception?"
From his March 19, 2017 sermon about why there's suffering and evil in the world (referring to Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs): "The secular assumption is that ‘normal’ people – whatever that means – don’t do things like that. They’re not cannibals and sadistic killers. Something went wrong with him. That’s a secular assumption… [because] from birth we’re born corrupt and evil. And so it’s a secular assumption to think that something has to happen to make us really evil. Any of us are capable of that kind of horrific evil. Hannibal Lector answers [the question 'What made you like this?'] very biblically...‘Nothing happened to me. I just am. I’m evil.' That’s the biblical worldview.
Let me go a little further. This is why infants, children, and toddlers disobey by nature. I have 2 [young grandchildren] living in my house… They are a delight. They are sinful. I am watching my older one – 2½ years old – and he is really pushing the envelope these days. He’s a precious little guy but, my goodness, his heart is already twisted and dark. [It's sad to think about children growing up being viewed this way by their parents and grandparents.😞]… This is why children, infants, toddlers, and kids need discipline. It’s why they need spankings. It’s why they need boundaries. And it’s why we need to enforce these things." [So we can beat the total depravity right out of them? Spanking them will somehow make them Calv-elect or change their hearts or affect what Calvi-god predestined for them?]
[Sidenote: In Calvinism, nothing can change what Calvi-god ordained for our children (or even for ourselves). Nothing can change their hearts or behavior until and unless he changes them.
But somehow spanking unregenerated children can help them!?! But if Calvi-god hasn't regenerated them yet, then isn't that really just spanking incapacitated people who are incapable of changing on their own anyway? May as well beat a wheelchair-bound person with a bat while yelling, “Stand up already!"
Our pastor even wrote a blog post about how God "commands" spanking, and that it has to hurt. The whole "spare the rod, spoil the child" thing. (And if I'm not mistaken, he spanks his grandkids too. So those kids get it not just from mom and dad, but also from the grandparents. Sad.)
I, however, sent in a comment about how I believe God commands disciplining our children, not necessarily spanking them. I believe the "rod" is a tool of correction, guidance, authority, not necessarily something to hit them with. (And I told them that they picked an awful picture for the blog post, that the picture of the young, scared, sad child huddled on the ground is disturbing because it looks like he's hiding a dark secret of abuse.) But the church never printed my comment. Go figure.
Voddie Baucham would agree with our pastor. Here's his solution about how to deal with depraved, rebellious vipers-in-diapers (from this sermon; here's the transcript): “That's a viper in a diaper and you better get it under control. It’s not cute. It’s not funny. But if we ignore [the viper's sin] at that age, it grows up. And then we’re mad at them for being what we’ve taught them to be. Amen, right? [Uh, no. Don't you mean "We're mad at them for being what Calvi-god created them to be"?]
... God says your children desperately, desperately need to be spanked. [Give me the Bible chapter and verse.] Amen, hallelujah, praise the Lord, and spank your kids. Okay? They desperately need to be spanked. And they need to be spanked often. They do. I meet people all the time, and they’re like ‘Yeah, you know, I can think of maybe four or five times I ever had to spank Junior.’ Really? That’s unfortunate. Because unless you raised Jesus the Second, there were days when Junior needed to be spanked five times before breakfast… You need to have an all-day session where you just wear them out.
... Discipline and training. That’s the other side of it... Let me give you an example — the prime example. The so-called shy kid, who doesn’t shake hands at church [after being told by their parent to shake someone's hand]... [who] hides and runs behind the leg... What’s supposed to happen is: I’m supposed to look at their child and say, 'Hey, that’s okay.'
But I can’t do that. Because if I do that, then what has happened is, Number One, the child has just sinned by not doing what they were told to do. It’s direct disobedience. Secondly, the parent is in sin for not correcting it. And thirdly, I am in sin because I just told a child that it’s okay for them to disobey and dishonor their parent in direct violation of Scripture.
I can’t do that. I won’t do that.
I’m gonna stand there until you make them do what you said.
'Well what am I supposed to do?' Train them... And you practice that five, six, seven, eight, nine times... [And] if they don’t [do it the way you trained them to do it], you take them to a private place and wear them out. Because they have just been directly defiant after you trained them and told them what to do.
I have a pastor friend of mine. One of his daughters was just really defiant in this one particular area. And they had one instance where they had drawn the line and they were like, 'This has to end today.'... [Her parents told her to] shake the deacon’s hand. She won’t do it. Pastor goes back in the office, goes through that whole process — spank the child, comes back out, child won’t do it again. Goes back again, asks the deacon, 'Will you please wait here?'
Thirteen times.
Thirteen times.
That deacon was like, 'Little girl, please…'
They never dealt with it again. Never dealt with it again.
Are you gonna reign in your home [so then not Calvi-god, but you?] or is sin gonna reign in your home? Which one?"
So after thirteen times of taking the child in the back (while the church watches it happen) and spanking the sin out of her, spanking her for being so wicked, rebellious, and defiant for being too shy to shake someone's hand, they finally break her.
Congratulations, Calvi-parents! She'll never again be too shy (because we all know, of course, that beatings and public embarrassment/shaming are effective cures for shyness), never again refuse to let anyone touch her when she's uncomfortable or scared, and never again resist doing what those in authority tell her to do. Parental victory! (😕😖😞)
(I can only hope she was refusing to shake hands in total defiance to her parents, instead of just being shy! I'd applaud her for that, for being willing to "just say no" to her parents in a case like that!)]
18. From Uselessteacher in a Reddit Reformed post, in answer to the question Why Doesn't God Protect Innocent Children?: "You would be right given your premise of children being innocent, especially babies. We [Calvinists/Reformed Christians] don't agree. We don't think the bible agrees. We believe that the bible teaches us that even the babies are sinful.... they are still sinners, and deserve judgment from God. It is fairly straight forward if we can define sin the same way: not loving God with all our heart, soul, strength, and might, and not loving other as ourselves. [Oh, so that's the basis for salvation or damnation! Silly me, I thought it was whether we chose belief in Jesus or unbelief.] Not to the best of individuals' ability, but simply yes or no. With a simple logic, children, even infants, are sinful, for they are born under the curse of Adam, and that they are all naturally selfish." [So because babies and young children cannot yet love Calvi-god with their whole selves or love others, they are in sin and deserve hell!?! It sounds to me like this commenter lives up to his name.]
Cybersaint2k added: "You [the person who asked the original question] are wanting to presuppose innocence... Here's my concern. My concern is [that] an argument for innocence is another argument inevitably leading to an argument for diminished capacity. [And my concern is that Cybersaint2k thinks it's wrong to consider the argument (because he thinks it's doesn't matter) that because babies don't have the capacity to sin or make conscientious decisions, they should be viewed as innocent of sin.]
More questions about their value, their image bearing, their worth. Same with free will. [Questions worth asking, I'd say.] If children lack both free will and the ability to commit evil, then you don't actually have human beings any longer. [And so let me get this straight: Babies/young children need to be able to commit evil acts or else they're not human?😕 So then do adults who fall into comas and are unable to commit evil acts somehow lose their humanness while in a coma? Are babies in the womb not human because they have no ability to commit evil in the womb? Or are they sinning in the womb all the time too?]
... Only Calvinism emphasizes both [free will and the capacity for evil] for children. [Remember that Calvinism's free-will is not truly free at all. It just means we're "free" to follow the irresistible and unchangeable Calvi-god-decreed desires - and only those desires - that were built into our Calvi-god-decreed wills, which cause us to do the things Calvi-god predestined us to do, even if it's sin and evil. No one but a Calvinist would call that "free".]
If you want a worldview/theological system that honors children, pick Calvinism every time. [Calvinism honors children? Vipers-in-diapers... murderous... sinful... worse than rats... incredibly depraved to our core… desperately wicked... truth-suppressors... God-haters... deceitful... hopelessly selfish... corrupt... as evil as Hannibal Lector and Hitler... dark... twisted... in utter rebellion against God... "deserving" of punishment. HONORS!?!]
Now, if you are POOF a Calvinists, now you have a mighty sovereign powerful and holy God who has, in his wisdom, allowed young people to be aborted. To be harmed. What do we say about this? Our answer is, through tears, 'For his own glory.' [Well, sure, if his glory is his highest goal, then he can use any means to get it, even evil ones. But is that really "glorious"? Is it righteous?]
I think you need to go back to square one as your question is rooted in presuppositions about children that are destructive to them." [So it's destructive to babies to consider them innocent? And Calvinism is so much better and more honoring to God and babies/children because it says that babies are evil? That it glorifies God when horrific things happen to them? What kind of bull-poopies is this!?! (Not sorry. I really mean it: Bull-poopies! And, hmm, I wonder who's behind the bull-poopy idea of making evil glorifying to God, making it praise-worthy? I'll give you a hint: 😈)]
From Time-For-Argy-Bargy: "My question to this is, if God protected innocent children then would the only innocent child in this entire world have come at all to die for us non innocent children? I personally praise and worship God for not protecting innocent children because there’s only been one and he is author and perfector of my faith." (😕😖 Why do Calvinists praise God for the destructive things Satan does - for sin and evil, including violence against children, reframing it all as good and God-glorifying - when those are the very things Jesus died to undo, to fix, to redeem?)
Putrid_Umpire2600: "But there is no innocent, not even one; we are the cause of evil to remove it is to remove us, our lives are a gift from God that none of us deserve. there is no one that is not evil, innocent, or deserves life."
Whole_Combination_63: "every last one of us is wicked from the perspective of God, even the infant"
Calvinists sure do like their "evil baby" doctrine, don't they!
Tankandbike: "First, your premise of anyone as 'innocent' is faulty. No one is innocent. Not even one... all humanity is sinful... "
[And yet in Jer. 19:4, God called the sacrificed children "innocent." And He called sacrificed children "My children" in Ez. 16:20-21. And so tell me again, Calvinists, about how no one is innocent in God's eyes and how all babies are hell-bound God-haters?]
However, there was one bright spot in this reddit post, when Donut_Diplomat said "This exact question has plagued my son for years. Mainly with regard to infants. The hardness (and swiftness) with which reformed believers believe a loving God would send babies to hell scares me. He was told nonchalantly by his classmates that it was just a fact. Unbelieving parents (unelect) will have their babies judged and sent to hell."
At least Donut and their son could tell that something is very wrong with Calvi-god and Calvinism/Reformed theology!
19. [On a different note, but from the same reddit post, I thought this Calvinist comment was "interesting," from: PotentialEgg3146: "The horrific acts against small innocent children God does not condone... Those who commit heinous acts against children are not followers of Christ..."
Hmm, so Calvi-god doesn't "condone" those heinous acts... but he does ordain them; preplan, orchestrate, cause, direct, control them.😕 (And yet Calvinists trust a schizophrenic god like that!?!)
And, sure, those evil people are "not followers of Christ"... but they are actually following Calvi-god down the exact path he preplanned/decreed for them, doing the heinous things exactly as he predetermined, orchestrated, caused them to do.
John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapters 16-17): "... the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.... the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly...[cannot do any evil or even move a finger] unless in so far as [God] permits - nay, unless in so far as he commands." (In non-Calvinist theology, God allows and uses the evil, free-will decisions people make, working them into His plans to bring good out of it. But in Calvinism, Calvi-god preplans, orchestrates, causes, controls, commands everyone's decisions - all evil thoughts, decisions, and actions - in order to bring about exactly what he foreordained. These are very different Gods. And One is holy, righteous, just, good, and trustworthy, but the other is most definitely not.)
John Calvin (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God): “Of all the things which happen, the first cause is to be understood to be His will, because He so governs the natures created by Him, as to determine all the counsels and the actions of men to the end decreed by Him..."
Edwin Palmer (The Five Points of Calvinism): “All things that happen in all the world at any time and in all history… come to pass because God ordained them. Even sin– the fall of the devil from heaven, the fall of Adam, and every evil thought, word, and deed in all of history… Foreordination means God’s sovereign plan, whereby He decides all that is to happen in the entire universe… He decides and causes all things to happen that do happen... He has foreordained everything… even sin...”
John Piper ("What is the will of God and how do we know it?"): "... God is sovereign over all things and yet disapproves of many things. Which means that God disapproves of some of what he ordains to happen. That is, he forbids some of the things he brings about. And he commands some of the things he hinders. Or to put it most paradoxically: God wills some events in one sense that he does not will in another sense.... That’s the first meaning of the will of God: It is God’s sovereign control of all things. We will call this his 'sovereign will' or his 'will of decree.' It cannot be broken. It always comes to pass.... For example, if you were badly abused as a child, and someone asks you, 'Do you think that was the will of God?' you now have a way to make some biblical sense out of this, and give an answer that doesn’t contradict the Bible. You may say, 'No it was not God’s will; because he commands that humans not be abusive, but love each other. The abuse broke his commandment and therefore moved his heart with anger and grief. But, in another sense, yes, it was God’s will (his sovereign will), because there are a hundred ways he could have stopped it. But for reasons I don’t yet fully understand, he didn’t.'... But in fact we should not approve of sin or do it, even though it is part of God’s sovereign will."
And so, yeah, evil people might be not following Calvi-god's spoken/revealed decrees - the things he tells us to do or not do - but they are definitely following his unspoken, "sovereign" decrees which contradict and violate his spoken decrees.
And so, really, when you think about it, they are followers of Calvi-god. In Calvinism, we all are, equally. And we all are equally glorifying to him, whether we do the good he predestined us to do or the evil he predestined us to do.
My ex-pastor, November 10, 2019: "Satan [and all evil people, according to his sermon] is a puny pawn in the hand of an almighty, holy God. And even though he thinks he's waging war, in the end he will find out he did exactly as God sovereignly decreed, under God's sovereign decree."
Gordon H. Clark (Religion, Reason, and Revelation): “I wish very frankly and pointedly to assert that if a man gets drunk and shoots his family, it was the will of God that he should do it… Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything…”
Theodore Zachariades (as seen in this clip from Soteriology 101): "God works all things after the counsel of His will, even keeping those kings who want to commit adultery from committing so... and when He wants to, He orders those to commit adultery when HE WANTS TO!"
Martin Luther (The Bondage of the Will, see this section): "... [God] thus works the evils by evil men... He uses evil instruments, which cannot escape the sway and motion of His Omnipotence... the evils are done as God Himself moves... All this is fixed certainty, if we believe that God is Omnipotent!... the wicked man cannot evade the motion and action of God... [but] he must continue of necessity to sin and err..." (Notice the error, the Calvinist assumption, that "omnipotent" is about how God must use His power, that He must always be using His power all the time to control/cause everything, even sin... or else He's not omnipotent. Telling God how God must act in order to be an omnipotent God is a very foolish thing to do!)
Mark Talbot/John Piper (editor) (from Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, pages 42-44): "It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Nadar and even the sexual abuse of a young child... God's foreordination is the ultimate reason why everything comes about, including the existence of all evil persons and things and the occurrence of any evil acts or events. And so it is not inappropriate to take God to be the creator, the sender, the permitter, and sometimes even the instigator of evil."
And yet Calvinists think they can trust a two-faced, self-fighting god like that who has two opposing wills, who decrees that people break his decrees, who commands things that are opposite what he predestined, who causes things that are opposite his commands, who prevents people from doing what he commanded, and who is just as glorified by evil and reprobating people to hell as he is by good and predestining people to heaven. Would you trust a god like that? Does a god like that deserve to be trusted? How is a god like this any different from Satan who is also deceptive and wants evil, instigates evil, and is glorified by evil?]
20. A Calvinist grandfather-to-be said this about his unborn grandchild (see "The total depravity of certain Calvinists", and see my post about it): "This is an ultrasound photo of our first grandbaby... And even though I love this baby, I know God may not and may [have] created it for damnation."
And apparently, he also said that God may have even decreed his unborn grandchild to be a mass murderer... and "God can do what He chooses to do with His creation" and "God is not ashamed of Himself so why should I be."
And he also said this gem about God decreeing rape: “God must then direct the rapist not just who to rape but how to perform the rape and how long… Amen, but I would go even farther than that, God originated every detail in His mind from all eternity and decreed it to be so.”
Once again, does that really sound like a god worth trusting, worth worshiping? Does it sound like the God of the Bible? (Can you imagine how it would feel to stand before God in the end and give an account for teaching these Calvinist ideas about Him?)
21. Uselessteacher strikes again in another Reddit Reformed post (the bold emphasis is his) on the Damnation of Infants: "Election trumps whatever limitation a person has, that’s also basic reformed dogma. [Translation: "The inability of infants and mentally-handicapped people to make conscious decisions about sin and about Jesus has no effect whatsoever on whether Calvi-god chooses them for heaven or hell. He can still choose to reprobate people to hell even if they lack the ability to make decisions.]
If God is more merciful than the most merciful person [sure, the God of the Bible is, but Calvi-god is not], he will surely not let one elect falls into damnation just because his or her brain is under developed. [All this means is that Calvi-god is so "merciful" that he won't let any Calv-elect person go to hell, not even Calv-elect babies, but it says nothing about Calvi-god's mercy in relation to the non-Calv-elect predestined to hell. And, when you think about it, the most merciful human people show kindness and forgiveness to even their worst enemies, whereas Calvi-god takes pleasure in predestining the damnation of his enemies to hell before they've ever even done anything wrong, withholding his mercy from them, never even giving them a chance. And so who really is more merciful: the most merciful humans or Calvi-god?]
Election is the free act of God’s eternal decree wherein he owes no one any explanation whatsoever. [But, biblically, election is about God choosing people for roles/tasks/service, not for salvation.] If he saves all infants, or dare I say, children and mentally challenged people, even adults, he remains just and merciful, just as if he saves none..." [So either one - salvation or damnation - is just as good as the other, huh?]
Epoche122 replied: "Its not the point. There is something that makes people hope for the universal salvation of infants, while reformed doctrine says they are guilty..."
Uselessteacher replied: "... those who would raise this question at all is because of the obvious lack of...actual sin in infants. [But] We can always say...that all from Adam have imputed guilt... even God knows full well that they too [infants] deserve eternal hell... That’s why just because it is good and proper to say nonbelieving infant has imputed guilt from Adam, it is just as important, good and proper, to say that God’s mercy will not forget any of his elects, even if the said elect is a nonbelieving infant." [This is just "Some babies are elect and some aren't, and the ones that aren't will be punished for Adam's sin, but it's okay because they deserve it."]
22. In Reddit Reformed's Do babies who die go to heaven, Historical-Young-464 says: "Am I the only one totally unbothered by the idea of God sending an infant to hell? [No, you're not. See Vincent Cheung's comment farther down.] I know that sounds callous and cold but I truly believe in God's perfect justice + I believe in original sin [and that right there is your problem, your Calvinist view of original sin/inherited guilt!] + I know God would not do it if it were unjust. If it is happening it is correct. [First off, you're presuming that it's happening because of your bad Calvinist beliefs. And secondly, just because you believe God does something doesn't mean it's what He does. Correct your unbiblical beliefs and you'll come to correct conclusions about what God does.]
I think we struggle to stomach the idea of an infant in hell because we think of them as innocent and undeserving [actually, we struggle with it because we instinctively know there's something very wrong with it, that it destroys God's character - and so we have to be trained/educated through Calvinist Systematic Theology to stomach it, to use cognitive dissonance to tolerate it] but no man is innocent or undeserving no matter what age. Yes they are a baby in the flesh and we see babies as innocent creatures to be protected but we know nothing about their soul. If original sin applies to infants, then they are just as deserving of hell as you and I.
... I honestly have never seen a convincing stance based on scripture that all infants automatically go to heaven. I also fully trust God to do what is just and right, so I lose no sleep over this at night personally."
[That is where Calvinist theology leads to!
Am I the only one utterly disgusted by Calvinism and the damage it does to God's character, God's Word, and people's hearts, minds, souls, and faith!?!
Not to mention what it does to even Calvinists' hearts, minds, souls, and faith and those raised Calvinist:
"My parents used to say 'even the cutest baby is a dirty rotten sinner.'... I’m turning 30 this year and I still have trouble turning down the volume on this narrative about myself. It has led to issues in my friendships, with my partner, and now, with my parents... I have deconstructed to the [point] of agnosticism... This has crippled my emotional growth as an adult in ways..." (foreverlanding)
"The [Calvinist] concept of total depravity is so completely toxic.... The system is designed to make you feel like a POS [piece of sh*t] just for being a human. I'm 37 now and am agnostic after trying really hard to believe until about 2ish years ago. I feel more hopeful and free without the church." (eab1728)
"Agreed. Total Depravity isn't the "Good News" espoused in Reformed circles... it robbed me of dignity and replaced it with constant, grating guilt. And it's utterly worthless in the face of real hardship... I am a universalist now, which couldn't be further from Reformed doctrine. And honestly, what a relief." (come_heroine)
"I'm so angry that I was taught that I was completely bad, simply by being human, and I deserved to be tortured by the Creator for all of eternity, AND I COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. All I could do was pray to God and hope that he had mercy on such a miserable, worthless, depraved wretch such as twelve-year-old me. I lived with a phobia of hell until the cage of my mind opened when I was 22, and I could finally think for the first time in my life..." (why-homo-sapien)
"A few years ago I was wondering why my self-esteem was so crap and then suddenly realised that the people who taught me to hate myself were my parents, through the medium of calvinism" (pktechboi)
From Reformedhabeshagirl in the Reddit Reformed post What happened to my conviction and love for God? : "I have always been a Christian and grew up fearing the Lord... I became Reformed around age 17 and I am 23 now. I have always been a repentant believer. My heart used to break when I sinned, and I love the Lord. I studied my Bible a lot, prayed often, and was very interested in theology, sermons, and everything related to faith.
The problem is that my heart has lost all desire for the things I used to love. I stopped listening to sermons and I don’t want to study my Bible anymore... Now my heart feels hard. I am not convicted about the things I used to mourn over. I distanced myself from my amazing best friend and mentor who helped me grow so much in my faith and in my understanding of sin. I broke up with my boyfriend, and now I don’t even feel anything about it. I know he would be the best husband in the world and that I’m missing out, but I’m still not sad about it. I’m not sad about not praying or studying the Bible anymore. I’m not interested in anything at all. I feel numb and emotionless.
I’m starting to think that maybe I was never saved, since I firmly believe that salvation cannot be lost. But if I was never saved, why did I feel all those convictions before? Now I don’t care about any of it. I want to care again. I want to miss the Lord like I used to, but I have no interest at all. Am I lost?"
From the Reddit Calvinism post called Election and Suicide: "I have recently discovered the doctrine of election and I believe that I am not elect. I don't have any spiritual fruit and I hate God with all my heart. My question is, at this point is it right to want to die? Might as well go to hell now instead of later. I do not want to kill myself (I never will hopefully) but I cant see a reason to live when my end destiny will be the same." (from "deleted")
So incredibly heartbreaking!
But when I talk to my daughter about what I love about her, is it wrong to say things like 'I love how sweet you are?' I just don’t know how to mesh the theological truth of total depravity with the lived reality of being a kind and loving parent. Help!"
This is what Calvinism's bad theology does to people, to parents, to children, to hearts, to faith!
And here are two Calvinist replies to Plastic's comment:
Nodeal_reddit: "... of course your kids are reprobate little sinners."
Cufflock: "You are absolutely right and biblical brother, you and I and every single human being including your children are evil only and continually, there is nothing good in us at any degree at all as God plainly said it, total depravity means what it states, there is nothing but evil in us."]
23. David Platt (What happens to people who never hear the gospel?): "All people everywhere are guilty of sin before a holy God. Here's why this point is important. So many times this question is asked: 'Pastor, what happens to the innocent man or woman or child in this remote part of the world who's never heard of the gospel when they die?'
If you were to ask me that question, I would say, 'Without question, based on the Bible, those people go to heaven even though they've never heard the gospel. [Wait for it...] Without question, an innocent man, woman, child would go to heaven without ever hearing the gospel, because they have no need to hear the gospel. [Keep waiting...] If they're innocent of sin, they don't need to hear that Jesus died to save them from sin. If they're innocent of sin, they'll go straight to heaven. Of course they'll go to heaven.' [Still waiting...]
The only problem is those people do not exist. [There it is!]... There are no innocent people in the world just waiting to hear the gospel. There are guilty people all over the world - that's why they need to hear the gospel.... people cannot go to heaven if they don't have faith in Jesus, but they cannot have faith in Jesus if they don't hear about Jesus." [Ergo, all those who do not hear the gospel or cannot respond to the gospel - including babies, young children, the mentally-handicapped, and remote tribesman - are non-Calv-elect, predestined to hell.]
24. From Reddit Reformed's Babies and election (Bavinckian): "... The idea that babies are innocent (free from sin) denies original sin, a doctrine affirmed by the church since at least Augustine. [BINGO... Augustine! Not Jesus or the disciples or Paul or the Bible.] Babies may not have acted on it yet, but there is no denying they will. All you have to do is watch one toddler whack another toddler over the head with something because they want what the other has. Even King David acknowledges this in Psalm 51, that he was conceived in sin. [Exactly! Conceived in sin, in his mother's sin. This is not saying he was sinful from birth, which is a bad translation Calvinists often use to try to prove total depravity from birth.] So the bottom line is that babies, like every other human being, have a corrupt and sinful human nature.
Salvation, according to Calvinism, is a work of God alone, with no effort on the part of humans. [And, therefore, Calvinists cannot believe in any kind of age of accountability because that would mean children are not guilty of sin until they reach an age where they know right from wrong and can choose between the two, which would mean their salvation is tied to human effort and conditions, contradicting Calvinism's doctrines of predestination, God's sovereignty, and unconditional election which teaches that Calvi-god chooses whom he saves apart from any conditions, even age or knowledge of good and evil or the capacity to choose. Plus Calvi-god chooses before anyone does anything good or bad - so reaching an age of accountability is meaningless, a moot point, because Calvi-god's mind was already made up.]
... in Calvinism, God can elect and save ALL babies if he chooses. [No, Calvi-god can't, because (as I said earlier) it would contradict Calvinism's doctrine of perseverance of the saints - because if all babies were elect then it means they lose their election at some point to grow into non-elect adults. However, don't forget (as I also said earlier) that Calvinists totally misunderstand the idea of election, making it about God choosing who gets saved, when it's not about that at all. (So be careful when discussing "election" with Calvinists because we're talking about two very different things, and you don't want to unknowingly get trapped into arguing from the basis of Calvinism's unbiblical definition of election.)]
... Lastly, the bible does not explicitly say what happens to babies when they die, so any speculation about it is just that: speculation. When speculation (with no warrant in scripture) turns into imposing your view on God, it becomes sin and rebellion in my opinion. [And Calvinists aren't guilty of this!?!] It is an attempt to see into the hidden will of God, of which we have no ability nor any right to attempt. I think Calvin said if it isn’t in scripture we go no further. [Calvin - who expounded upon Scripture all the time and read it through the eyes of Augustine and contradicted himself a lot - ha! So he doesn't live what he preaches then, but he's helped make a whole theology of going outside of what Scripture contextually says, of putting God's name on his own - and Augustine's - ideas. (And to be accurate, we who believe babies go to heaven don't have "no warrant in Scripture" for our beliefs. We get our idea from the overall picture Scripture gives us of God and His view of babies/children, such as from Ez. 16:21 where God calls sacrificed children "My children"; and Jer. 19:4 where He call sacrificed children "innocent"; and Deut. 1:39 and Is. 7:16 where He Himself makes a distinction between those old enough to know good from bad and choose right from wrong, and those not old enough to do this; and 2 Sam. 12:23 where David says he will be reunited in the end with his infant son who died; and Matthew 21:16 where God says He ordains praise from the lips of infants and children; and Matthew 18:10 which says angels see the face of God when they look at children; and Matthew 19:14 which says the kingdom of Heaven belongs to those like children; and Matthew 18:3-4 which says we must become like children to enter and be great in the kingdom of Heaven; etc. So what's that again about "no warrant in Scripture"!?! [For more on this, see my post "Do babies go to heaven or hell? A critique of Calvinism's answer".)]
Whatever God does with babies is God’s prerogative, they belong to him not us. One thing I guarantee is God will do what is just and right."
25. Long sidenote: Calvinists think they can excuse whatever unjust or evil thing Calvi-god does/causes by saying things like "he's just and right, so whatever he does must be just and right too".
John Calvin says it this way in Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God: "... God may be free of guilt in doing the very thing that He condemns in Satan and the reprobate and which is to be condemned by men... For what man wickedly perpetrates, incited by ambition or avarice or lust or some other depraved motive, since God does it by His hand with a righteous though perhaps hidden purpose - this cannot be equated with the term sin. Sin in man is made by perfidy, cruelty, pride, intemperance, envy, blind love of self, any kind of depraved lust. Nothing like this is to be found in God."
Translation: "Our natures and motives behind our actions determine if something is sin or not [instead of it being about going against God's commands]. And so what's sin for man and Satan because we have sin natures and bad motives is not sin for God because He doesn't have our sin nature and because the evils He ordains flow from His good, pure character and motives, which means that He is innocent even when He ordains sin, but we are guilty when we do the sin He ordained." (😖)
Jonathan Edwards ("Remarks on Important Theological Controversies, Chapter III"): "That we should say, that God has decreed every action of men, yea, every action that is sinful...and just so sinful as they are...but decrees them as good, is really consistent... God decrees that they shall be sinful, for the sake of the good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof; whereas man decrees them for the sake of the evil that is in them."
Translation: "God decreed all sin, but since He does it for good reasons, it's not sin for Him - but since we do it for bad reasons, it is sin for us."
A Calvinist, RadCentristThrowaway (on a Reddit post about what happens to children who die too young) said this in response to "God wouldn't be very just if he sent people to hell who weren't given the choice or a way to sanctify.": "God is the one who dictates what is just. Just because it doesn't seem just to me (or indeed, to ANY human) says nothing about whether it is just."
Translation: "Any apparent injustice God does is always 'just,' just because He's the one doing it. We humans just can't tell the difference between justice and injustice the way God can, and so what's injustice in our eyes is justice in God's eyes."
[So then, I ask, if we can't really tell the difference between justice and injustice, if they might actually be the same thing, then how in the world can we obey all those commands from God to seek/do justice?
Of course, we humans can definitely misunderstand things, and so we might call something unjust/bad/evil/unfair when it's really not, such as when something doesn't go our way or we face an unpleasant or difficult circumstance that's not morally wrong. But the issue here isn't about our inability to understand and accurately judge those kinds of vague, subjective, not-a-moral-issue things. The issue is that Calvinists say that Calvi-god can ordain, cause, force things that are clearly against his spoken commands and out of line with a good, righteous, just character, but then they claim that he's still good, righteous, and just but that it's simply we humans who can't understand or see the difference between justice and injustice, between good and evil. And so any evil thing Calvi-god does is okay, even things that go against what he's clearly commanded, and it's really just our perspective that's bad, not his actions or character. This is a Calvinist's way of trying to reconcile the times Calvi-god commands one thing but causes the opposite. And it just doesn't work. All it does is lead to more denial and cognitive dissonance, allowing Calvinists to close their eyes to the truth of their theology and the damage it does to God's character.
And so, once again, I ask: Since Calvi-god defines injustice as justice and evil as good, since he says one thing but means another, what does this mean for us when he commands us to seek justice and do good? How do we carry out his justice and do the good he wants when injustice is justice and evil is good? What a mess!
RadCT also says this in another thread on the same post "Further, sin is transgression against God's law. God has not given Himself any law that says He cannot do these things, therefore it is not sin for Him to do them."
And Johngalt1234 responds to him, accurately summing up Calvinism's view of God: "So God be as evil as he likes and it wouldn't be inconsistent with his character?" Exactly, Johngalt! What kind of a god is that!?!]
John MacArthur also says that whatever God does - even if it seems evil or unjust to us - is okay because He is God and can do whatever He wants, and so anything He does is good and just, just because He does it (Doctrine of Election, part 1): "... The pervasive notion of these skeptics and critics of this doctrine is that somehow election is unfair. Somehow it is unjust. But first of all, we want to make it very clear that God is not to be measured by our understanding of what is just... God has ways and thoughts that are to us incomprehensible, unresolvable, inscrutable... And so whatever he says is just is what justice is. [But the problem isn't about what God says is just, but it's about what Calvinists say God says is just. And that's very different! And what's more, here's something that shows the absolute backwardness and cult-ishness of Calvinism: To excuse/deflect from their idea that Calvi-god predestines to hell whomever he wants to - to make it seem like it's okay, that it's his prerogative and that he can do it but still be good, just, and righteous - Calvinists constantly use the verse about God's ways and thoughts being different/higher than ours (Isaiah 55:9), trying to get us to shut up and accept their theology without pushback, making us feel like questioning and opposing their theology is questioning and opposing God. But when you look up those verses in context, we see that it's about the exact opposite of what Calvinists use it for. They use it to excuse Calvi-god's right to predestine people (even babies) to hell and to ordain/cause sin and evil, but it's really about God's right to forgive wicked people, to pardon them when they turn to Him. Here are the verses immediately before Isaiah 55:9 (verses 7-8): "Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will freely pardon. 'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' declares the Lord." And the next verse is about God's thoughts and ways being different/higher than ours. This passage is about God's right to forgive any evil person who repents. It's comparing the wicked ways of thoughts of man to the abundant grace and mercy of God in forgiving such wicked people. It has absolutely nothing to do with God's right to predestine people to hell or to cause evil/sin, as Calvinists always use it. In fact, it's about the exact opposite: His right to save, to spare. What a demonic reversal Calvinism does to God's Word and character!]
... And whatever it is that he wills is by definition just because he is just. It is just because he wills it. It is not because he sees that it is just that he wills it, it is that he wills it and then it becomes just."
Translation: "And so nothing is intrinsically or consistently good and just from the beginning, but everything and anything becomes good and just simply by way of Calvi-god ordaining/doing/causing it. And so, therefore, whatever Calvi-god wills to happen (preplans, causes, orchestrates) automatically becomes good and just - even evil, sin, murder, abuse, unbelief, injustice, babies in hell, etc. - just because he willed it. It's not that he does what's good and just, but it's that whatever he does is good and just, just because he does it."
But I disagree. Saying that Calvi-god is "just and right" in everything he does - even in things like predestining and causing sin/evil/unbelief (but punishing us for it) - doesn't make him "just and right." Evil and injustice can't magically become "good, just, and right" based on who's doing it. (And if they could, then nothing is inherently evil or unjust, but it's all simply a flexible and shifting matter of perspective. Meaningless labels.)
There has to be an inherent, consistent, abiding standard that determines whether something is good, just, and right, a standard that even God follows. Things either are or are not good and right, and a good and righteous God can only command/cause what's good and right. (And just because He allows people to disobey His commands, make bad decisions, and resist His Will - and just because He works people's sin into His plans, putting it to good use - doesn't make what they do "good" or "God's Will". It just makes it freely-chosen sin and contrary to His Will.)
And so if a "good, just, righteous" Calvi-god does bad, unjust, unrighteous things, it doesn't make the bad things good. All it really does is prove that he's not really good, just, or righteous at all. It's like Matthew 12:34 which says that what we speak shows what's in our hearts. Well, what God does/commands/causes shows what's in His heart, what His true character is. And a truly good, just, righteous God can only do, command, cause good, just, righteous things. (But He can still be good even though He allows and uses our own sinful free-will decisions. He didn't want, preplan, or cause them, but He let us make our own sinful choices and then He incorporated them into His plans. And if we had chosen to obey and do good, He would have incorporated that instead. He doesn't want us to sin or need us to sin, as Calvi-god does, but He lets us decide and can use whatever we decide for good.)
But Calvi-god cannot still be good when he preplans, ordains, commands, causes our sinful decisions, and he cannot be just or trustworthy when says one thing but means another and punishes us for doing what he preplanned and caused. If a "good" leader were to order/command/cause all of his followers to go out and rape a bunch of men, women, and children, the rape wouldn't magically become "good" just because the "good" leader commanded it - but, instead, he would simply be revealed as truly evil. The morality of the act didn't change (rape is always evil) and the character of the leader didn't change (he was always evil inside, even if the followers called him "good" and had faith in him), but the label given to the leader - "good" - is what changed when he revealed his true character by ordering/causing evil things. The fact that the followers defined him incorrectly from the very beginning is what's wrong. And if they continue to firmly stick by their definition of him as "good" and to excuse all the evil he does by reframing it as "good," it will only compound their problem and their guilt in championing him as a "good" leader worth loving, worshiping, and obeying.
Do you know what I'm saying?
(Wake up, Calvinists! You're not worshiping the God of the Bible.)
C.S. Lewis (love him!) says it this way in The Problem of Pain, chapter 6: "It has sometimes been asked whether God commands certain things because they are right, or whether certain things are right because God commands them... I emphatically embrace the first alternative. The second might lead to the abominable conclusion...that charity is good only because God arbitrarily commanded it - that He might equally well have commanded us to hate Him and one another and that hatred would then have been right. I believe, on the contrary, that 'they err who think that of the will of God to do this or that there is no reason besides His will.' God's will is determined by His wisdom which always perceives, and His goodness which always embraces, the intrinsically good. But when we have said that God commands things only because they are good, we must add that one of the things intrinsically good is that rational creatures should freely surrender themselves to their Creator in obedience. The content of our obedience - the thing we are commanded to do - will always be something intrinsically good, something we ought to do even if (by an impossible supposition) God had not commanded it."
[Did you notice that Lewis said that having the freedom to choose to surrender to God is an intrinsically good thing too? An affirmation of free-will, a strike against Calvinism. And yet Calvinists regularly quote from him, as if he supports their theology.😕]
I believe that Lewis (love him, love him!) is totally taking swipes at Calvinism/Reformed theology. He is saying that he disagrees (with Calvinism's view) that God commands/causes/wills everything, even sin and evil, and that it then becomes "good" simply because He commands/causes/wills it.
As we just saw from John MacArthur: "And whatever it is that he wills is by definition just because he is just. It is just because he wills it."
And as John Calvin says in Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God: "Of all the things which happen, the first cause is to be understood to be His will..." and "Whatever things are done wrongly and unjustly by man, these very things are the right and just works of God." (See more Calvin quotes here.)
And as Mark Talbot/John Piper (editor) say in Suffering and the Sovereignty of God on pages 42-44, 70-77: "God brings about all things in accordance with his will... he himself brings about these evil aspects… God speaks and then brings his word to pass; he purposes and then does what he has planned. Nothing that exists falls outside of God's ordaining will. Nothing, including no evil person or thing or event or deed... In ordaining the evil works of others, he himself does no wrong, 'upright and just is he.'... [And in the end, when we see Jesus face-to-face] we will see that God has indeed done all that he pleased and has done it all perfectly, both for his glory and our good..."
And that's just three examples of the many.
But Lewis disagrees that God's Will is based only on God's Will, that God arbitrarily decides and causes what happens, good or evil, and that it all magically becomes "good" (even if it's evil) simply because it's supposedly "His Will," and that God could still be considered "good" if He did command/will sin and evil.
Instead, Lewis is saying that God operates according to His consistently good nature and that He commands what's intrinsically good, that God first knows/sees what's good (because it's in line with His character) and then He commands it because it's good and in line with His character. [Sin and evil are not something God commands; it's the absence of good and the failure to obey. It's what happens when people go against God's commands, when they fail to do what's good, what God commands, and what's in line with His character.]
Lewis is essentially saying that those kinds of (Calvinist/Reformed) teachings lead to a terrible theology (with no real, solid dividing line between good and evil) with a terrible god, and that having no god would be better than having a shifting, two-faced, self-opposing god like that.
You see, God has an abiding standard for all He does that He cannot violate (and that He doesn't want/cause/command us to violate) - and that standard is His character. He is good, just, and right - and so, therefore, He can only do and command good, just, and right things. If He were to do or command things contrary to His character, He wouldn't be who He is anymore. He wouldn't be a good, just, right, or trustworthy God anymore - but, instead, he would be duplicitous, arbitrary, schizophrenic, self-opposing god not worth trusting, loving, following, or obeying.
It cannot be okay for Calvi-god to preplan, orchestrate, cause evil and yet be wrong for us to do the evil he ordained. A shifting standard like that is no standard at all. Flexible, wishy-washy, reversible rules and double-standards - where good can be evil, and evil can be good, and justice can be injustice, and injustice can be justice - are meaningless (and a god like that is impossible to trust).
Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
2 Corinthians 11:13-15: "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
Amen and amen!
And the walls come tumblin' down!
If there is no real, clear dividing line between true good/justice and true evil/injustice - if (as Calvinism teaches) good can be evil and evil can be good, and whatever God does becomes good even if it's evil - then we cannot call anything good or evil, and we cannot even call God Himself good.
"Good" loses all meaning when it looks and acts just like evil or when it's used as an excuse for evil. The words "good and evil" and "justice and injustice" become meaningless when they can mean the same as their opposites.
Calvinism erases the line between good and evil, which essentially erases the line between God and Satan, lowering God to Satan's level and, consequently, elevating Satan to God's level. (And who do you think benefits from this? I'll give you a hint: 😈)
[Lewis is most definitely not a Calvinist, and he even often emphatically opposes Calvinism. And so why do Calvinists respect him and quote him so much?]
Proverbs 28:5 tells us "Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand it fully."
Proverbs 2:6,9 says "For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding... Then you will understand what is right and just and fair - every good path."
And Hebrews 5:14 tells us "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil."
But Calvinists say that we can't really tell the difference between good and evil, between justice and injustice, because there ultimately isn't one.
So then what do these verses reveal about Calvinists!?!]
Calvinists:
Non-Calvinists:
Okay, now that we got that out of the way, let's get back to guilty, depraved babies.
26. From a Truths To Die For article "Called Home Early: Reformed Perspectives on Infant Death: "...we must first acknowledge the Reformed doctrine of original sin. This teaches that all humans, from conception, inherit Adam’s sinful nature and are therefore subject to God’s judgment. This doctrine applies to infants as well, challenging the notion of their 'innocence' in a theological sense... Whatever God decides regarding infants who die is, by definition, just and right. We can trust in His character, even when we don’t fully understand His ways."
[Here again we have a Calvinist claiming that whatever Calvi-god does is just and right even if he does what seems unjust and wrong and that we can trust his character.
But if Calvi-god's character can shift like it does - if he can oppose himself, and say one thing but do another, and cause the opposite of what he tells us is right, just, and good - then can Calvinists really trust his character? Do Calvinists have any real solid ground to stand on when Calvi-god is this wishy-washy?
Would you trust a god who commands us to do things he prevents us from doing and who causes us to do things he commaned us to not do? Who commands people to believe while preventing most from believing and who commands people to not sin while predestining/causing our sins (and then he punishes us for it)?
A god who "ordains" (preplans, causes, orchestrates) all sin and evil for his glory, and who is just as glorified by sin and evil and having people in hell as he is by obedience and righteousness and having people in heaven? Who can just as easily predestine one person to hell as he predestines someone else to heaven?
Who preplans, orchestrates, causes, controls everything that wicked people, demons, and Satan do (and yet people, demons, and Satan are supposedly bad and guilty for doing it, while Calvi-god is good, righteous, and guilt-free in making us do it)?
Who causes some reprobated people to think they are elect when they're really not by giving them a fake temporary faith that makes them feel saved but that eventually fades proving they were always non-Calv-elect ("evanescent grace")?
Who deceptively says one thing but really means something entirely different, something totally contrary to the commonsense understanding of what he said? (Such as saying "Seek Me" but meaning "No one can seek Me unless and until I cause them to"... and saying "I love the world and Jesus died for sins of the world" but meaning "I love mankind in general and Calvi-Jesus died for mankind in general, but only specifically for the Calv-elect of the world, not for all individual people"... "Don't sin" but meaning "Do sin, as I predestined, so that I can get glory for punishing it"... and saying "I don't want anyone to perish but I want all people to be saved; I want the wicked to repent and turn from their wicked ways and be saved" but meaning "But what I really want more - and what I predestined and caused - is that most people be wicked and go to hell so that I can demonstrate my justice and wrath against sin so that I can get praise and glory for it"... and saying "Whoever believes will be saved" but meaning "Whoever I cause to believe will be saved, and I've already prechosen who those people are, and no one else will have the ability or option to believe"... and saying "If you follow my commands..." but meaning "You don't get a choice about if you do or not because I have already decided for you and will cause you to do what I pre-decided," etc.)
Would you trust the character of a god like that? Should a god like that be trusted? What part of Calvi-god's duplicitous, deceptive, two-faced, self-opposing character can Calvinists really trust and fall back on and take comfort in? (Would you seek comfort from him about the sinful acts done to you when he is the very one who preplanned, orchestrated, directed, caused those sinful acts?) I mean, seriously?]
27. A bit more about infant salvation/damnation from Truths To Die For's article Can a Believer’s Children Be Among the Non-Elect? (emphasis is his): "Yes, a believer's children can be among the non-elect... being born into a believing family doesn’t guarantee election.... We pray fervently while resting in God’s sovereignty. The doctrine of election doesn’t discourage prayer; it directs it. We pray because God works through means, and parental intercession is a powerful means [but only if you've been ordained to intercede, because Calvi-god ordains non-intercession just like he does intercession].
We pray knowing that if ["IF" - but it could just as easily be "if not"] our children are elect, God will certainly bring them to faith, and our prayers are part of how He accomplishes His purposes. [What kind of a promise is that when you have no way of knowing if they are elect and when there's nothing you can do to change it anyways if they weren't? It's meaningless, and it's fatalism. And not to mention that if we don't pray or intercede for our children then it's because that, too, was Calvi-god's Will, the means he ordained, caused, orchestrated to reach the end he planned, wanted, determined: their damnation.]
... Can a believer’s children be among the non-elect? Yes... The doctrine of election, rightly understood, should drive us as Reformed parents to our knees in prayer and to diligence in godly parenting, never to presumption or passivity. [It still doesn't change the fatalistic nature of Calvinism.] We entrust our children to the God who chose us, knowing He is faithful to His covenant. We raise them as believers, expecting God to confirm His promise in their lives, while acknowledging the final verdict belongs to Him alone. [And yet see below for more about this "covenant promise."]
In the end, this doctrine magnifies grace. If all covenant children were automatically elect, their salvation would depend partly on their birth. But salvation belongs to the Lord—for our children as for us. [This phrase - from Psalm 3:8 and Jonah 2:9 - is always used to teach that Calvi-god determines who gets saved and who doesn't. But according to the Hebrew in the concordance, the word "salvation" in the Old Testament is never about soul salvation, but about God saving people from the earthly troubles and enemies they face.] And that is precisely where our confidence rests: not in our faithfulness as parents, nor in our children’s covenant status, but in the God who is “faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made” (Psalm 145:13). He has given us His covenant word: “The promise is for you and your children.” That is enough.
... If my child apostatises, does that mean God’s covenant promise failed? No—it means your child was in the historical administration of the covenant but not among the elect. ["Blah, blah, blah, Calvi-god promises but it doesn't always happen, blah, blah, blah." And so again I ask: Then what kind of a promise is this when it's not guaranteed to happen? The parent did all the work required of them - kept their part of the covenant - and yet their child still was non-Calv-elect. So tell me again, Calvinist, about how faithful Calvi-god is to keep his promises, how you can trust him to keep his promises!?! Hogwash! If Calvi-god promises to save the children of the Calvi-elect but some children are not saved, then it's not a promise at all, just a hypothetical possibility, a roll of the dice.]
... Why does God allow elect parents to have non-elect children? Doesn’t this seem cruel? This question wrestles with God’s sovereignty, which applies to all election—why does God save anyone? [Deflection!] The more specific question assumes children of believers somehow deserve election more than others, but Scripture denies this. [No, the problem is Calvinism's unbiblical defintion of election.] Jacob and Esau were twins with identical covenant privileges, yet God chose differently before birth. [This is not at all about salvation, but about the roles He assigned to them. Jacob was chosen to be the bloodline that would bring Jesus and the gospel into the world.]
... We have more reason to rejoice that God includes covenant children in His redemptive administration than to complain that not all are elect. [Easy to say if you're (falsely) sure that you and your kids are Calv-elect.] The alternative—every child automatically saved by parental faith—would make salvation partly of human descent, contradicting grace’s very nature. [What a false dichotomy: "Either some covenant children are elect, or all children are saved by parental faith" - as if those are the only two possible ways it could be. Ridiculous!] This doctrine magnifies grace precisely because it shows salvation resting entirely in God’s sovereign mercy, not in our bloodlines. [How gracious that Calvi-god would reprobate some/most babies to hell, showing that he gets to decide as he wants to!]
28. From the Founder's Ministries article Infant Election: "The Scriptures plainly assume and declare that God righteously punishes all men, not only for what they do, but for what they are. A corrupt nature makes a condition as truly sinful, and guilty, and liable to punishment, as actual transgressions. Consequently, at the very moment of birth, the presence and possession of such a nature shows that even the infant sons of Adam are born under all the penalties which befell their ancestor in the day of his sin.
... Young age does not abrogate God’s righteous judgment upon human depravity nor does it immunize infants from the necrotizing effects of sin. Regardless of physical development, sinners are dead in their sin, and this includes both spiritual and physical death... Arguments against infant depravity face perhaps their toughest and most sobering rebuttal in the grave... Apart from the liberating grace of God in Christ, we are all children of wrath – including children themselves.
... John Dagg, who believed in both the election and non-election of infants, writes, 'An objection to the doctrine of natural depravity is founded on the fact, that Jesus referred to little children, as examples for his disciples. This fact, however, will not authorize the inference, that little children are not depraved.'... Charles Spurgeon...also vigorously defended the idea of infant depravity and the need for regenerating grace. He explains, 'Some ground the idea of eternal blessedness of the infant upon its innocence. We do no such thing; we believe that the infant fell in the first Adam.' Nevertheless, admitting the limits of divine revelation on the subject, he continues, 'No doubt, in some mysterious manner the Spirit of God regenerates the infant soul, and it enters into glory made meet to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light.' ["Some mysterious manner" means that "We Calvinists have no idea why or how this could be true - especially since it contradicts our doctrines of inherited guilt and total depravity, etc. - but we're claiming it anyways."]
... Benjamin Keach, who upheld the election and non-election of infants, appealed to the same mystery and the same text in order to defend the election of some infants, not all.
... Whereas Baptist theologians such as Keach, Dagg, and Boyce held that there were indeed non-elect infants, Baptist theologians like Spurgeon, Gill, and John Broadus believed that all infants were saved. The latter did so not according to the belief that all infants somehow escaped judgment, but that all infants, dying in infancy, were elected by the Father." [So Calvi-god only kills elected babies? (But if these are the children of unbelievers/wicked people, then it contradicts Calvinism's theory that God promises election to the children of believers, not unbelievers.) Or is it that all babies are elected simply because they died early? (But this makes the timing of death a condition, contradicting "unconditional election".)]
29. Tim Challies in "What happens to children when they die?" (he at least is trying to be thoughtful, thorough, and consistent with his theology, and I can appreciate that - an honest, consistent Calvinist): "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.
... 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 - plainly-clear Bible verses - for Calvinism's idea that babies are sent to hell? Or for their TULIP theology? (See these posts: "Is Calvinism's TULIP Biblical?" and "TULIP's Totally-Deprave Doctrine" and "Calvinism: False Gospel or True (but warped) Gospel?" and "Is 'Accept Jesus into your heart' Unbiblical and Dangerous?"]
And from 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... 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. [And I respect him for that, but he really should be questioning if Calvinism whole idea of original sin/inherited guilt is biblical.] 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..."
[So babies are not "innocent" but are held guilty of original sin, even if they never committed a sin of their own?
But once again, see Jeremiah 19:4, where God calls the sacrificed children "innocent." God is not saying that they don't have a sin nature which will lead them into sin when they get old enough to understand sin and to choose between right and wrong. He is saying that before they are old enough to do that, He considers them "innocent," not guilty for wrongdoing because they don't yet have the capacity to understand and choose.
Isaiah 59:2 says that it's sin that separates us from God, not birth. 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 laws, 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. Babies cannot know the law or make a choice, and until they can, they are not considered sinful, but innocent.
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! Thank you, Warren.
And as Tony Evans Bible Commentary says under Romans 5:18, about "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!]
And now my favorite two, saving the best for last:
30. Vincent Cheung (“Infant Salvation”): “We insist that if infants can be saved, then only chosen infants are saved… 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. Their salvation is only a possibility. It is also possible that all mentally retarded people are damned… [and] on the basis of the doctrine of reprobation, they would be created as damned individuals in the first place... The possibility [of salvation] does not apply to mentally aware infants, teenagers, and adults who never heard the gospel – they will all surely go to hell… If someone dies without hearing the gospel, it just means that God has decreed his damnation beforehand... 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. I have no problem with the idea that all who die as embryos, infants, and mentally retarded would burn in hell.
If this is what God has decided, then this is what happens... As for the embryos, if they perish, they will go where God decides – if they all burn in hell, they all burn in hell…”
[Yep, Calvinism is definitely a contest to see who can believe the worst things and be the biggest heretic and jerk.]
31. And finally, from 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, filled with Calvi-god-determined desires which you didn't choose and must irresistibly obey], 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.' [A very bad translation. See the KJV instead.] 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. [And Jeremiah 19:4 calls babies and children who perished "innocent."] 1 John 1:8: 'If we claim to be without sin, we have deceived ourselves and the truth is not in us.' [Are babies self-aware enough to claim anything about themselves, to deceive themselves?]
... 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. [Bad, bad fetuses and babies!]
... 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: "Your sinful, rebellious, God-hating baby who died is in hell. Happy 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. We resigned from that church a week later. Sadly, we got to see our wonderful church go from non-Calvinist to fully Calvinist in about 6 years after this new pastor was hired, right under all our noses. And only a few of us were concerned about it or opposed it.
(Here's our letter to the elders that we sent months before we left, 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 in the end: 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 creepy.)]
32. Thankfully though - take heart, all you Calvinist parents - there is a bright spot in all these Calvinist teachings about babies being wicked sinners who deserve damnation and go to hell.
According to Augustine (from whom John Calvin basically gets his whole theology), unbaptized/non-Calv-elect infants will only face a mild form of condemnation for being the reprobates Calvi-god predestined them to be:
"It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation..." (from "Unbaptized infants damned, but most lightly...")
Phew, it'll only be a gentle fire that burns babies eternally!
Well, that about does it for this post.
But how about a fun little kid's song to end with:
Amen?
