Does Calvinism place babies in Hell?

[TaliOrlando]

"We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death." - John Calvin

Ok....

I am new to studying Calvinism, I didnt know much about it but now that I am trying to figure out my friends who are in this, I have many questions.

Why did John Calvin say that quote?

I mean, so calvinist believe that God created some for heaven and some for hell. In order words babies who are born which were not elect, would go to hell. Where is this in scripture?

I come here because in my other sources, each time I ask someone who is a calvinist this, they change the subject or start asking me questions without answering this one.

Where is the scripture which says that God made certain men to make it to heaven and others he created with the single purpose of sending them to hell without giving them a choice in the matter?


I am talking about plain scriptures, not interpretations or thoughts about it. I want scripture on this one... and I seem not to get it...

I love my brothers and sisters who are calvinists but I dont agree with this one... :jesus:


I do not believe man can come to God by himself, I believe it is only when God calls them.

(John 6:44) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.


I do believe that God is definitely calling all men up to him, and none are without excuse before the lord. Not one single atheist can say God didnt give me a chance.
(John 12:32)
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

(Romans 10:13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved


Sadly, not all accept this free gift God is offering of salvation. This is just my thoughts.... what do you think, do non-elect babies go to hell according to Calvinism?

 

[Darron Steele]

Hi TaliOrlando:

My immediate reaction: who cares what John Calvin thinks?

Why get upset about anything he said? When he was wrong -- and being human he had to have been somewhere along the way -- simply `write it off.'

My personal observation is that most people who identify as Calvinists are less familiar with John Calvin's actual teachings than the systemizing of "Calvinism" at the Council of Dort.

You will also find that Calvinists disagree with each other.

As for where I `sit' on this, I do not know. I try to go by just the Bible. I have not studied either Calvinism or Arminianism for the purpose of choosing a `side' -- nor am I comfortable doing so.

I see this as one of the "foolish questionings" that are irrelevant to "good deeds" (ASV) rebuked in advance at Titus 3:8-11. I urge you to reconsider your new interest in this dispute.

I think we ought to simply obey Matthew 28:19-20 and try to make disciples for Jesus Christ throughout the world. Regardless of speculation over people's potential to receive the Good News, we ought to just do as the Lord told us.

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't know of any scripture which places infants in hell under any circumstances.

When Bathsheba's son died, David rose from his mourning and cleaned up. He said he did so because the baby could not come back to him, but he could go where the baby is. I believe that is with God.

Now, there is a scripture that I'd like some exegesis on:

Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old, ordained to this condemnation. turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anybody wanna take a crack at this?

 

[TaliOrlando]

Great point! :thumbsup:

 

[TaliOrlando]

I don't know of any scripture which places infants in hell under any circumstances.

When Bathsheba's son died, David rose from his mourning and cleaned up. He said he did so because the baby could not come back to him, but he could go where the baby is. I believe that is with God.

Now, there is a scripture that I'd like some exegesis on:

Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old, ordained to this condemnation. turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anybody wanna take a crack at this?

Hey I found this on it.. You can read it more on the link

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/universe/jude.2.html

JUDE
The Infiltration of False Teachers: vs 4 - 7


(VS 4) For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jude begins to explain why the saints should carry on the fight by means of the Word of God. It is because false teachers have crept into the church. In verses 4-7 he gives us a warning concerning false teachers.

For there are certain men - This refers to false teachers.

Crept in unawares - The Greek word used to translate this phrase means, "to sneak in, to infiltrate with secrecy, dishonesty and deception."

Literally, "For certain men have begun to infiltrate in a dishonest manner."

Who were before of old ordained to this condemnation - The words "before ordained" comes from the Greek meaning "to write previously or to write before hand." Jude is referring to previous Bible writers, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who both taught about apostasy. The words "of old" actually means, "long ago, former, old days." The words "to this condemnation" comes from the Greek prepositional phrase meaning "concerning this judgment" or "concerning this condemnation."

Literally, "For certain men have begun to infiltrate in a dishonest manner and have been received with open arms, men who had been previously written about long ago concerning their judicial sentence."

Ungodly men - The Greek word is ASEBES, meaning, "wicked or sinful." This word is used five times in this epistle. Once in verse four, and four times in verse fifteen. This word refers to "refusing subjection to God, acting independently of and in opposition to God." This word is used technically for unbelievers. It was for the "ungodly" that Christ died (Romans 5:6).

Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness - The word "turning" is taken from the Greek word meaning, "to transfer, to pervert, to change over." It refers to "perverting" in a bad sense. Jude is saying here that "Every beautiful, wholesome, wonderful principle they teach is a "perversion" of the truth. The ones who are negative toward the truth will accept the "perverted" teaching of the "perverted teachers."

The word "lasciviousness" comes from the Greek word meaning, "intemperance, licentiousness, outrageous behavior." This word was used of a person who "acknowledges no restraints, or one who dares whatever his wants and desires may suggest." This word involves the spirit of anarchy. Those who advocate total freedom are anarchists. Total freedom not only means the absence of authority, but the absence of individual restraint.

Literally, "Perverting the grace of God into unrestrained behavior."

 

[sag38]

Darron, I like your post. I have some friends who want argue the five points with me. They tell me that I'm not a traditional Baptist. They tell me that I just don't get it. I guess I don't. This I do know. I have believed up on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, I believe that I am to preach the word in season and out of season. I am to do the work of an evangelist. That's good enough for me. So what if many former Southern Baptists were Calvinists. I don't care. And, so what if I don't "get it." I'm an obedient Christian and that's good enough for me. Too bad it can't be good enough for my calvinist leaning friends who are always pushing Founder friendly theology on me. Of course this is the realm of other denominations but I'm sure the sentiment is felt across the denominational spectrum as calvinism gain more momentum.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron, I like your post. I have some friends who want argue the five points with me. They tell me that I'm not a traditional Baptist. They tell me that I just don't get it. I guess I don't. This I do know. I have believed up on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, I believe that I am to preach the word in season and out of season. I am to do the work of an evangelist. That's good enough for me. So what if many former Southern Baptists were Calvinists. I don't care. And, so what if I don't "get it." I'm an obedient Christian and that's good enough for me. Too bad it can't be good enough for my calvinist leaning friends who are always pushing Founder friendly theology on me. Of course this is the realm of other denominations but I'm sure the sentiment is felt across the denominational spectrum as calvinism gain more momentum.

I appreciate this.

I do not get `it' for another reason: I do not see why so many people consider this worth arguing over. It has no relevance in what we are to do or not do. This dispute is precisely what Titus 3:8-11 and other passages tell us to stay away from.

As this society becomes more and more perverse, matching closely with what is described in 2 Timothy 3:1 and following, I just cannot imagine how this dispute has any importance to us. I think the `coming to life' of that monstrous society should make this look very unimportant.

We need to be arguing less and serving more. If we focus less on how `good' we are at arguments, and more on how we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in regular life, the world will notice a difference in us.

As that contrast increases, curiosity will facilitate opportunities to do Matthew 28:19-20 -- that is, if we are not too busy arguing over the potential of everyone to accept the Gospel. Maybe by then, proper perspective would have become more the norm, and we simply focus on DOING what we are explicitly told to DO.

 

[Pastor David]

Reformed (Calvinistic) scholars are divided on the issue of infant regeneration. The Reformed confessions simply state elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and the work of Christ is applied to them, thus saving them. Some say all infants are elect, some say some are and some aren't. I don't know of any who believe no infants are saved. The Bible is relatively silent on the matter which has led to various opinions, but not a lot of solid evidence to go on.

 

[Rippon]

"We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death." - John Calvin

Why did John Calvin say that quote?

He didn't. It's an urban myth. It's in the same category as the supposed "quote" of Calvin's that "The road to hell is paved with the bodies of dead babies" or words to that effect.

You need to actually cite the source if you are quoting something, or you will be known as a troll by tossing your flame-thrower regularly.

 

[Rippon]

I do believe that God is definitely calling all men up to him, and none are without excuse before the lord. Not one single atheist can say God didnt give me a chance.

You can "definitely" believe it but that doesn't make it a fact. Does the Lord call those all those who have never heard the Gospel -- never even heard of Jesus Christ? Of course not.

And there is no such thing as God giving anyone "a chance". God doesn't run a lottery. Even if you'd like to rephrase it to God giving everyone an opportunity -- that is simply not true.

 

[billwald]

Babies who die are "elect." Especially baptized babies. <G>

 

[RAdam]

Notice that a lot of statements about condemnation typically are in close proximity to statements about personal sin. For instance, in Colossians 3 Paul is discussing sins we should abstain from and then makes this statement: for which cause the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience. While the infant is a sinner by nature, that infant has not committed a personal sin against God. While God would be just in leaving the infant in condemnation based upon the fact that they are sinners by nature, yet I see evidence based upon the above point that He does not. I personally believe He everlastingly saves the infants who die by grace through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Jerome]

Sigh.
The quote from Calvin in the OP is no "urban myth".
see Calvin's Harmony of the Law, Vol. 2, "Judicial Supplements"

 

[Allan]

Sigh.
The quote from Calvin in the OP is no "urban myth".
see Calvin's Harmony of the Law, Vol. 2, "Judicial Supplements"

Here is quote that Jerome posted the link to:

Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which He had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death. But if we admit God’s right to deprive of the hope of salvation whomsoever He sees fit, why should the temporal punishment, which is much lighter, be found fault with?

The rest can be understood in the context of what J.Calvin was speaking with regard to God's justice and killing/destruction. But I must admit the passage in question "seems" to state that children who die only do so because they are appointed/reprobated and condemned to eternal death. I state this because he says God would never have permitted any infants to be destroyed, except those.. He already reprobated.

I'm not saying this was specifically his view but from this one is hard pressed to state he believed otherwise if we just went by this.
However, this can not be ignored either.

 

[Rippon]

"We may rest assured that God would never have suffered any infants to be slain except those who were already damned and predestined for eternal death." - John Calvin

I stand corrected to a degree Tali. You didn't cite a source and I tried to google your "quote" and came up empty for documentation.Jerome and Allan found Calvin's words in his commentary on Deut. 13:15.

"Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which the Lord had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death."

The real quote above differs from your "quote". Perhaps it's a different translator. But the substance is still the same. My apologies.

 

[Rippon]

Reformed (Calvinistic) scholars are divided on the issue of infant regeneration. Some say all infants are elect, some say some are and some aren't. I don't know of any who believe no infants are saved. The Bible is relatively silent on the matter which has led to various opinions, but not a lot of solid evidence to go on.

I agree with you here. This particular subject dwells more on speculation -- not a solid scriptural foundation.

 

[Allan]

I stand corrected to a degree Tali. You didn't cite a source and I tried to google your "quote" and came up empty for documentation.Jerome and Allan found Calvin's words in his commentary on Deut. 13:15.

"Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed, except those which the Lord had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death."

The real quote above differs from your "quote". Perhaps it's a different translator. But the substance is still the same. My apologies.

I have never really delved much into Calvins view of infants, with the exception of excerts here and there as well as misquotes (or made up quotes).

Do you happen to know, more specifically, what his position was Rip?
I know that here it seems apparent in his view when God chose to judge a place and or it's people and infants died, he apparently held they were reprobates. HOWEVER, did he hold the same for all infants or (I have heard - never really looked) he held also to an infant of unsaved parents was also reprobate as well?

 

[Tom Butler]

Do we not all agree here that it is sin which condemns one to hell? Do not even Calvinists agree that the basis for condemnation is not one's election or non-election, but sin?

How then, can infants be condemned to hell? Are they not part of that group of children Jesus described as "of such is the kingdom of heaven?"

Did not Jesus say that to enter the kingdom of heaven one must become as a little child?

Was he not declaring them innocent?

Just askin'.

 

[annsni]

Do we not all agree here that it is sin which condemns one to hell? Do not even Calvinists agree that the basis for condemnation is not one's election or non-election, but sin?

How then, can infants be condemned to hell? Are they not part of that group of children Jesus described as "of such is the kingdom of heaven?"

Did not Jesus say that to enter the kingdom of heaven one must become as a little child?

Was he not declaring them innocent?

Just askin'.

DID Jesus say that children went to heaven? I don't think the passage supports that. IF the Bible said "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and that doesn't mean babies, wouldn't there have been the exception put into that verse?

 

[Marcia]

Do we not all agree here that it is sin which condemns one to hell? Do not even Calvinists agree that the basis for condemnation is not one's election or non-election, but sin?

How then, can infants be condemned to hell? Are they not part of that group of children Jesus described as "of such is the kingdom of heaven?"

Did not Jesus say that to enter the kingdom of heaven one must become as a little child?

Was he not declaring them innocent?

Just askin'.

We are destined for hell due to our sin nature from Adam. We are not born righteous so I disagree that children are "innocent."

Also, I don't think what Jesus said means that children go to heaven, but rather that having childlike faith is what one must have.

Having said all that, I do think those too young or otherwise unable (mentally impaired) to repent from sin and/or have faith are saved by God's grace.

Btw, a very strong Calvinist theologian, Ronald Nash (now deceased), wrote a book on why he thinks all babies and young children go to heaven. I read it but don't have it anymore and can't recall the title.