Do Calvinists believe children go to Hell?

Cutter, it looks like you are bearing false witness by stating that RB worships Spurgeon. I beg you to repent of this outburst.

 

Now your true colors come shining through. :tonofbricks:

 

Calvinists are all over the board on this from "all" to "some" to "none." But there is a fundamental flaw in your argument when you say "my God would not do that." There is no "my God." There is God, as he has revealed himself. You don't get to make up your own God.

What happens many times today (and we see it here on the BB as often as anywhere else), is that people decide what they want to believe about God and then will not be persuaded from that no matter the Scripture brought to bear on the discussion.

Regardless of your personal beliefs about God, the only true and living God is the one who has revealed himself in Scripture and he has given no clear revelation on this matter. 2 Sam 12 is perhaps the clearest, but even that is not entirely clear.

It is clear that children are sinful at conception and wicked at birth. Both of these are clearly testified to in spite of the fact that some here deny it. These children, like all humanity, deserve hell. What God in his grace does is God's prerogative.

 

I certainly think comforting folks is important, but we must be careful not to go beyond the pale of Scripture simply to comfort people.

Well, he was old enough to go out with the reapers. The Hebrew is "gawdal" which means in the context means to be grown as in large in body and mind.

If you lost your son i would tell you that you have a hope. That as a covenant child you should expect him to be in Heaven waiting for you. I could not be as comforting to those outside of the covenant, but the truth is not always comforting.

The underlying thought of infants always going to Heaven is that somehow they are less deserving of Hell, and i think that demeans the doctrine of original sin.

 

Was i not calm?...i was even in begging mode...perhaps a smiley will help

 

Actually bro, it would not demean the doctrine of orginal guilt. But Spurgeon, nor I, make the argument from innocence. However, the child has imputed sin and guilt, and has of itself not sinned. I see a difference there.

 

I am calm too. Perfect peace... perhaps praying will help? raying:

 

That is not quite true. RB has a knack for bringing outbursts from otherwise rational people. I do not know how many responses to him I have either gone back and deleted or edited. Christians do not respond well to judgemental mindsets, arrogance, and a series of salvation type questions if one disagrees with a certain theological point. How long has he been here? One month?

 

I have been a member since Sept., 2005, not that it should make a difference.

And my post is true, i quoted what he said and he accused RB of Spurgeon worship. That is clearly bearing false witness.

And it shouldn't matter what others do, we are still called to obey God's moral law. We can't excuse breaking that moral law by saying "but i was provoked" or any such thing.

 

I was not talking about you. Reread the post. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, what you said is true. The provoking is multi thread and multi person.

 

God elected a people before the began...the seed of Jacob.

God also has "elected" in a sense those in Christ, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

 

As I stated in a previous thread, this topic goes hand in hand with augustinian original sin / original guilt. One cannot be discussed without the other. There are many theories amongst calvinists how infants / MRDD are "elect". I believe the Bible only gives 2 options: They need to have faith in Christ, or there is a point in time they become sinners, and before that they are not guilty.

 

I reread my own post and worded it wrong. Sorry again. It has been edited.

 

That makes more sense, thanks for clearing it up

 

Cutter, I had to hit the bed before I could answer you. Sorry about that.

1. Some of those Scriptures that teach the all infants who die in infancy are elect of God are: 2 Sam. 12:15-23 and Matt. 19:14.

2. Admittedly, there are no explicit texts that say when an infant dies it goes straight to heaven, but such conclusion is reached from biblical categories.

 

I think at the very best these verses only speak of covenant children.
I am unconvinced that they teach all infants who die are elect.

Contextually i think that the 2 Sam passage is simply David saying that he will die just as his son did, but that his son will not come back to life. It is a distinction between life and death, not between Heaven and Hell.

And the Mat 19:14 passage is referencing parents bringing their children to Christ for a blessing. I think the biggest problem with connecting this verse to the elect dying in infancy is that you would have to presume that Christ is only speaking to children who are going to die as children. I don't think that is the import of the text.

 

1. David statement that "I will go to him, but he will not return to me" can go either way, death or to be with the Lord.

2. I agree that there are explicit statements to that effect that children who die go to heaven.

3. I think what we can draw from Matt.19:14 is the implications of "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." What is Jesus saying except to point to the nature of the children as a type of kingdom citizens.

 

I think this quote, widely attributed to the famous Calvinist preacher Jonathan Edwards, really sums up the logical conclusion that a belief in Calvinism and Original Sin leads to:

Hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized children.

All this about how all infants are somehow elect, and then become unelect, or that God only lets the elect infants die, is just Calvinists not wanting to deal with their theology's own logic.

Frankly, I have more respect for Edwards' logical, if rather bloodthirsty, conclusion.

Les