Several weeks ago, I read a blog that contained an interview with a Calvinist and the plight of children who die. The owner of the blog did not allow comments so I left it alone but the blog entry kept creeping back to my mind. I cannot cite the blog but I will try and give a summary of the interview as I recall, in my own words.
The interviewer was asking what happens to young children who die. The interviewer was referring to a young child that had been murdered. The essence of the Calvinist’s position was that children, if they are not of the elect, will go to eternal damnation. A child could go straight from the womb to eternal damnation because they are not of the elect. Not only would children, infants or the unborn, if they are not of the elect, go to damnation, but that we are not to pity them according to the interview with that Cavinist. There was more to the interview but I wanted to only speak about that Calvinist’s view of children’s eternal damnation if they were not of the elect.
I am a Christian and I accept and embrace the clear teaching of predestination or the elect (Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11). Yet, what I read in the interview of the Calvinist horrified me and sent shivers down my spine. There was no pity, in fact, he stated (and I paraphrase as I do not recall his exact words), that we should take joy in the fact that those in hell deserve to be there including the little ones. I thought to myself, am I to take joy or have no pity as I pass by an abortion clinic as those that are torn from the womb go from the womb straight to eternal damnation because they deserve it? What a horrifying thought.
I have not spent a lot of time in the past looking at the eternity of the little ones but it did not sit right with me what I read. I am not sure I really wanted to know in case what I wanted to be truth was not supported by scripture. However for a number of reasons, I have chosen to look at this subject and would go wherever the scriptures led me, even if it did not sit right with me. Instead of reading a sermon by a Calvinist I thought my best approach was to look at the Word of God which is the final authority on all matters of faith.
Scripture teaches that all, and this includes young children, infants and the unborn have the stain of sin and are not innocent. There is only one atonement for sin and this is through Jesus. There are two destinies after death for all of humanity. The redeemed will be raised to eternal life while the rest will enter punishment for their sins.
Since the bible teaches that all mankind is born with the stain of original sin, we cannot claim that infants are born innocent. They are not. Scripture is really clear on that. It is from this state of the taint of original sin in either an unborn or a child that I start my search of the scriptures. In other words, is there a biblical basis that I can state that all infants are of the elect? My look at the scriptures is not because I want it to be true (though I really, really do) but more so, I want the word of God to lead me to what really is the truth of the state of these precious little ones.
The bible unequivocally teaches that every single person whether born or conceived is stained by original sin and that God is sovereign in salvation. There is no one deserving of salvation, it is unearned and it is all of grace. Salvation is established by God’s election.
The bible teaches that man will be judged on the basis of our deeds (2 Corinthians 5:10, Revelation 20:13). In other words, each will answer to God according to their deeds or what they have done. The imputation of Adam’s sin is not how one is judged. No one is judged for Adam’s sin but the stain of sin is what all humans inherit from Adam is the reason why we sin. Mankind will answer for his own committed sins and no man will have to answer for Adam’s sin. So what about those babies? What will they answer to? They have not yet had an opportunity to commit a single sin.
The first chapter of Deuteronomy sheds some light in understanding God’s view of the young. The setting of the story is that God is preventing a whole generation of people from entering the promised land because of their sin. They will wander the desert until that evil generation has passed away. In verse 39 of Chapter 1 the scriptures states: “And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.”
It is a very important piece of scripture for God has stated that the little ones have NO KNOWLEDGE of good or evil. Because they have no knowledge, they will enter the promised land. While they have the stain of sin and are therefore not innocent, they lack the knowledge or the capacity and are not judged for the sins of their fathers. It is clear that God is exempting them from His judgment despite having the stain of sin upon their soul.
In the New Testament, Jesus stated that the Kingdom of God belongs to such as the little children. “But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. (Mar 10:14 ESV)
When does a child get to the point of being a moral agent? Scripture does not give us that information. Whatever stage of development a particular person reaches that allows him to have knowledge of good versus evil; it is at that point there is no return. According to Deuteronomy, that stage appears to be older than the 6 year old stage that mankind has assumed was the ‘age of accountability.’ When an individual becomes morally aware is the point when God will judge a person based on committed sins. The very first sin committed after becoming morally conscious is enough to condemn and that person will be judged.
It is also interesting to note that Romans chapter 3 states that through the law comes knowledge of sin. Also, in Romans chapter 7, verse 7, scripture states man would not come to know sin except through the law. There has to be come capacity to know good from evil and it is through that capacity that God will judge based on committed deeds. Actually, that is exactly what happened in the Garden of Eden. They had knowledge for God had forbidden them to eat of the tree of good and evil. God did not punish them for doing something that they had no knowledge was wrong.
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” (Rom 7:7 NASB)
David was comforted over the death of his infant son, who died in infancy as a result of David’s sin. However, this does not make it a doctrine but it confirms what scripture stated earlier in that God judges a person on their committed sin and not the stain of their soul.
No one can enter His presence unless they have atonement and this includes the unborn, infants and children. But God is stating that He will judge not on Adam’s sin but on each person’s individual sin – ‘ACCORDING TO THEIR DEEDS.”
Lastly, there is not a single instance in scripture where there is reference to any presence of any children in hell. There is not a single one – it’s just not there.
I went into this with open eyes and was willing to accept wherever scripture led me, whether I liked what I found or not. Had I found that all people are damned including unborn, infants and children if they were not predestined, I was not going to post my study. My reason is not that I was fearful of the anger that may be directed my way but my thoughts were of what benefit such a post would be especially if a parent who lost a child were to read my blog. I am not only comfortable but confident that the youngsters that have no moral capacity to know good versus evil will go to heaven based on Christ’s atonement. They are of the elect.
but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (Mat 19:14 ESV)
No related posts.
18 comments
Brian Culliton
October 23, 2009 at 7:47 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Very nice article! You have demonstrated something that I always try to get across on my blog; reading the word of God with no presupposition other than that solid foundation you are built upon, namely, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
My wife was in a horrible car accident when she was five and lost her baby sister. Believe it or not, I was her next-door neighbor at the time. Both her family and mine were Catholic and she remembers how the church told her mother that because Lisa, that was her name, was not baptized, they could not say that she was with God. That devastated my wife’s mother. I wonder if that guy who was interviewed ever thought about what I would be like to loose a small child; would he say, “Let us rejoice, my child is getting his just due!” I doubt it!
Do you think Calvinists typically believe as the guy in the interview does, that babies who die are not destined for heaven? When I hear things like this it just affirms why I do not hold to anyone’s theology. I either understand doctrine from God’s word or I don’t hold to it. That doesn’t mean I don’t consider it, it just means I don’t attach it to myself. I have to be assured within myself that whatever someone is preaching squares with the word of God. Most theologies are so wrapped up in what they think is truth that the most important attribute of our God falls by the wayside, and that is love and compassion. The more I look around the more I realize how unique my position is.
Thank you for writing this!!
Tishrei
October 23, 2009 at 9:35 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks for taking the time to read something that you already blogged about.
What a horrible thing to say to your wife’s mom about her young child. Sometimes things are just better left unsaid even if we believe them to be true. I will admit that what that Calvinist said was probably the most chilling, callous thing I have ever heard in my life. He said we are to rejoice that they are getting what they are due. Also, to hold that view, they are taking an opposite view of what God said in that He said He does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. The Calvinist rejoices but God does not. (That is since they believe that infants are unsaved if they are not of the elect).
As a Calvinist, he would not have to worry that any child he lost would be lost because Calvinists hold to the belief that baptism saves a child via a covenant. They take the circumcision that the Israelites used and believe that baptism brings a child into the covenant of Christ. Later that child will have to make their own choice but in the meantime, there is no worry about where the child will end up should the child tragically die.
Emmette Middleton
November 2, 2009 at 10:28 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
All these ‘suppositions’ are just that! The Bible plainly states that no man has ascended to heaven except the one that came down from there. (John 3:13) Acts 2:29 also tells us that “David died and was buried and his tomb is still with us today” If David, who is to be King over the House of Israel during the Millenium, is dead and not in heaven, then why would we assume that any of us will “go to Heaven when we die”. The Holy Bible also states that we who are the “elect” will be kings and priest with him On This Earth. (Rev 5:10). Appropriate study of God’s Word will reveal His plan for mankind, and that is not a rulership in “heaven”.
Tishrei
November 2, 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I re-read my post and these ‘suppositions’ that you are taking exception to is my one-time use of the word “heaven.” I only used that once and my whole post was was about whether children are condemned to eternal damnation. Your comment was about ‘heaven’ and I only used that word once and that was use in the second to last sentence. Would it be more accurate if, instead of using the word ‘heaven’ in that second to last sentence, I said instead “I am not only comfortable but confident that the youngsters that have no moral capacity to know good versus evil will, when “away from the body” be “at home with the Lord” (2Co 5:8 ESV).
You did use “suppositions” in the plural but you only wrote about my use of the word “heaven” which in the scheme of the intent if the post, was off topic. I would be willing to change the word “heaven” and use 2 Co. 5:8 in its stead. I would also be willing to change the sentence to state “…that the youngsters that have no moral capacity to know good versus evil will go not go to eternal damnation based on Christ’s atonement.”
I suspect that there are other issues in my post that you are taking exception to that you did not address as I am not so certain that were I to change that one sentence to one of two suggestions would be something that you would agree with.
Thanks for your comment.
Brian Culliton
November 2, 2009 at 1:43 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You post is perfect the way it is Tishrei; don’t change a thing.
Emmette (a Sabbatarian) is looking for another debate. If you like, you can read my discussion with him at: http://onefold.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/history-of-the-sabbath-a-critical-response/
God bless!
Tishrei
November 2, 2009 at 4:07 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I just finished reading some of the responses on your thread as well as reading your very good post. I’m going to go give my “two cents” or should I say “two shekles.”
In any event, I am at a loss how this thread could be construed or made into a Sabbath type of thread. And honestly, I’m not going to allow this very sensitive issue be turned upside down by a Sabbath debate. It’s my blog and if I have a Sabbath thread, that will be the appropriate place for that type of debate. Not this post that discusses children and election. Very inappropriate to bring that debate to this thread.
Thanks for the heads up!
Roger Bell
November 17, 2009 at 1:40 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Tishrei,
Thank you for an excellent and beautifully written article. I found it most useful and enlightening!
Now, I would like to say this. Please, please do not think that the person you cited is a typical “Calvinist”. They most assuredly are not!
I fought against Reformed Theology (aka Calvinism) tooth and nail for over 30 years. When I first heard of it back in the mid 1970′s, I thought it was the most evil thing I had ever heard of. For all those years I read hundreds of articles on both sides of the Arminian/Calvinism debate, along with scripture, searching for ways to disprove it. I never could, but I could not accept it either. Finally, last November (2008) I got fed up with the never ending struggle and told God to either convince me, or leave me alone! Within two weeks, I was convinced, after God brought to mind all that I had read and studied and gently gave me understanding and acceptance of it.
For the first time in 30 years, when I read the Bible now, it is ALIVE! Just as I’d always heard it was but never experienced. So much that was unclear and confusing became crystal!
I used to think I became a Christian in 1972, but now I believe I became one in November!
I used to hear people speak of the “comfort” and “joy” of Calvinism, and I thought they were off their rockers! I could never conceive of those emotions coming from a believe in Calvinism. I do now! There is comfort, and joy, just like I heard there was, but refused to believe.
Your article is right on, and I don’t have any problems fitting it into my current beliefs! Thanks again for writing it.
A parting note to everyone: Please be aware that the word “Calvinism” is just a convenient handle to refer to Reformed Theology; and Reformed Theology is nothing more than the very Gospel itself as found in scripture. It was not invented by John Calvin, or Martin Luther or Augustine and many folks believe.
Okay, a second parting note , John Calvin never heard of TULIP. That acronym came into being after he had died.
Thanks for the opportunity to reply.
Cici
Tishrei
November 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thank you for your very nice response. I do agree with you that the person I cited was not a typical Calvinist. I also understand that Calvin did not invent Reformed theology. I do not like to refer to myself as following any one person and refer to myself as following a monergist theology. I would not fit in the Reformed theology camp as I have not been convinced that certain doctrines that Reformed folks hold to are true such as baptism brings a child into the Christian covenant. That being said, I do read a lot of literature and sermons from preachers of days gone by that are reformed of the reformed camp.
The Calvinist that I did cite was cold and his words were chilling. Even God said He does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked and this person was encouraging that we not only take pleasure but take pleasure that even children and infants were suffering in damnation.
I do hope that anyone who reads my post reads down far enough to read your response. Thank you for your response.
Glenn
November 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Tishrei,
I gotta make some points here. You don’t have to worry about Babies going to hell when they die. Here’s why:
1. God is love. Babies haven’t sinned (Rom 6:23) So they get the gift of God, which is eternal life given to us when Christ comes again.
2. There is no hell.
http://wp.me/pFkoL-2p
http://wp.me/pFkoL-1O
Those teachings of aborted babies going straight to hell contradicts the very character of God, and his Word.
Tishrei
November 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi Glen, I just went and took a look at one of your links. I am ready to head out the door so I did not have time to read it. I’ll comment over there on your blog
when I do read it later today (hopefully).
As to hell, sure there’s a hell. It’s all over the New Testament. It’s even a word in the New Testament. But to be honest, I don’t want this post to turn into a “is there a hell or not” debate. I really would like to keep this thread/post on what I posted. If other people are going to want to debate that on this thread, I’ll just start a new post so not to take away from this one or you can leave your blog address so people can debate that with you
I’ll head over to your blog later today and leave my comments
emmilglenn
November 17, 2009 at 7:07 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yeah, I didn’t mean to change it into a different topic, I just commented on your feelings of babies going to hell, I’ll write more on the topic as well. As you can see, I’ve only covered 2 verses that can be used. Maybe I’ll write a post explaining the correct biblical view on it. So look out for it
Tishrei
November 17, 2009 at 7:12 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I shall look forward to your post
emmilglenn
November 18, 2009 at 4:55 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Cool, I’ll send you a link when I’m done. Have you looked at my expositions on 2 ‘proof’ texts?
Jonas Liljestrom
December 7, 2009 at 5:45 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Your article is an excellent example of why I prefer to call myself Lutheran rather than Calvinist. When you devote too much thought to the issue of predestination and the elect/reprobate dichotomy, there is always a risk of plunging into misanthropy and becoming hardhearted and uncompassionate – characteristics which Christians are supposed to avoid, as far as my understanding goes.
From what I know of what Calvin himself taught, I infer that this was not his original intention – but it seems dangerously easy for some Calvinists to end up in that position.
Tishrei
December 7, 2009 at 9:49 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi Jonas, I refer to myself as a monergist and your reason is one of the reasons I do so. I would agree with you that Calvin would be horrified at what is taught under the banner of his name.
Jonas Liljestrom
May 24, 2010 at 7:34 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hello Tishrei! I apologize for commenting once more on an old blog entry, but I’ve had some more thoughts on the subject which I don’t rightly know where else to post.
It seems to me that the reason why Calvin was so persistent in pushing the doctrines of predestination and total depravity was that the Roman Catholic Church of that era had trivialized the problem of sin by turning forgiveness into a commodity which could be bought and sold, primarily through indulgence peddling. Calvin and the other Protestant reformers were rightfully upset with this state of affairs and I believe that he, through his teachings, wanted to put the issue of sin in its proper perspective by emphasizing in the strongest possible terms that sin is worthy of punishment, that forgiveness is not a right and that it comes only through God’s grace. To invest one’s hopes of salvation in such a corrupt and hypocritical organization as the late-medieval RCC was both futile and preposterous, and the reformers were extremely aware of this.
The mistake that many modern Calvinists make, in my opinion, is that they often fail to have this historical perspective in mind. That’s why they often over-emphasize the doom-and-gloom aspect of the relationship between God and man, and fail to give the love, forgiveness and hope entailed in Christ’s teachings the attention it deserves (and which human beings so often need to be reminded of).
I wonder if you could please direct me to any forums, Facebook groups etc devoted to this kind of subjects? I find it very interesting to discuss such matters.
Tishrei
September 23, 2010 at 10:38 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi Jonas,
First, please accept my apologies for such a late reply. I’ve barely been on my blog since May.
There are some in the Calvin camp that spend an inordinate amount of time discussing and pushing this very topic as opposed to God wishes that no one perish. Even so, and I fought this tooth and nail, God does elect whom He chooses to have mercy on.
I quit visiting forums about 5 years ago so I do not know of any forum that specifically targets this topic. However, the only forum that I have come across that I like to read is http://theologica.ning.com/.
Confused
November 26, 2010 at 5:33 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
so what happens to the six year olds?