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...


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!

[TaliOrlando]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by TaliOrlando

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.