Do Calvinists believe children go to Hell?

I don't think that it could go either way. I think Scripture has one interpretation, although many applications.

The 2 mentions of living in v.22 and the statement of him being dead, and not coming back to life again in v.23 shows a clear indication that David is speaking of the fact that the child will not come back to life. His whole point is that there is no use praying anymore...why not?...because the child is dead and we ought not to pray for the dead.

The "kingdom of heaven" is not simply a place in the clouds, but it is here on earth under the reign of Christ even now (yes, i am an amillenialist). And yes, the children of covenant parents are part of the kingdom of heaven here on earth.

 

What do you mean the children of covenant parents are part of the kingdom?

 

1. I'm not arguing for the child to return from death, but rather, David going to the child wherever the child is. It seems to me that David had his beliefs about where the child went in death.

2. But you have not answered my question about the "nature" of the Kingdom as illustrated by the children.

 

I think i pointed out that children are part of the kingdom by virture of their parents being believers. The disciples wanted to send the adults who were bringing their children way, but Christ did want to bless the children of beleivers because of such is the kingdom. In other words, it is not just for adult beleivers, but also for their children (I am Presbyterian). 1 Cor 7:14 also points to this kind of relationship between the believing parent and their child.

 

I thought Calvinists believed that God chooses those to be saved based on nothing. Now you're saying that God chooses some children to be saved based on their parents being the elect?
That would be election based on something, not nothing.

 

I never said that they are saved.
They are part of God's kingdom here on earth in as much as they are part of the covenant community of the church. The children of believers are certainly part of the visible Church, but that does not mean that they are absolutely part of the invisible Church.

Further, God's election is not based on nothing, it is based on His will...nothing based in man.

God does choose to elect through families as a normative practice. But particular election is always a part of His hidden will. There will always be some outside of Christian families who are elect, and some who are part of Christian families who are not elect.

Just like churches have baptized confessional believers who are really tares and are not elect.

 

1. According to Mark's account, Jesus says to the disciples, "Permit the children to come to Me; do no hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" (10:14).

2. It was not the adults but the children the disciples hindered from coming to Jesus as implied by Jesus' words.

3. V. 15 says, "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all." Notice several things here:

a. Jesus says "whoever," clearly pointing outside of the children of the elect to adults in general, for his ministry was to adults, calling them to repentance and faith.

b. V. 15 makes it abundantly clear that the children were used as an illustration, to illustrate the nature of those who will receive the kingdom.

c. So avoid the fallacy of analogy.

4. By the way, are you a Presbyterian Baptist?

In other words, it is not just for adult beleivers, but also for their children (I am Presbyterian). 1 Cor 7:14 also points to this kind of relationship between the believing parent and their child.[/QUOTE]

 

By the way, are you a moderator?

 

You have totally lost me on this one. I don't see anything scriptural here.

 

Who do you think the "they" were that were bringing the children to Jesus?

So you believe children were just used as an illustration. But i thought you originally brought this verse up to show that children go to Heaven?

My take on it is that the first part..."of such belongs the kingdom" is directed to the children. The "whoever does not receive...like a child" is directed to adults and that's why He says "like a child". He uses His teaching on children to teach something of adults as well.

Just Presbyterian (pca)...just check out my public profile.

 

Your theory has salvation found in DNA. Wow.

 

I don't see where in my quote i say that the children are saved.
Check out my clarification in an earlier post here...
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1090566&postcount=46

 

1. Yes, the adults were, but that proves little, for Jesus focus was on teaching a truth by using the children to get to the adults.

2. Yes, an illustration to show that children are safe in the arms of God, and that is why they became a further illustration for those who will receive the kingdom of heaven.

My take on it is that the first part..."of such belongs the kingdom" is directed to the children. The "whoever does not receive...like a child" is directed to adults and that's why He says "like a child". He uses His teaching on children to teach something of adults as well.[/QUOTE]

3. No part of that statement of Jesus is directed to the children. None. Reread all the parallels, and I guarantee it's not there. But it can be there, if the interpreter wants it to be there.

 

I grew up in a PCA church, and know what you are talking about. I do not think the idea is Scriptural, but it is referenced by some verse in the OT. It also ties in with infant sprinkling.

All we can do is trust God on this subject. One Bible study that I attended said Romans 6:8-10 was a picture of the age of accountability.

The main difference between reformed Presbyterians and Baptists is Baptism, quite a difference. Other than that, their doctrine seems sound to me.

 

And what a difference. At the Great White Throne God does not judge the wicked on the basis of their imputed sin and guilt, but on the basis of their actual works.

 

All of this is unsupported by scripture. Anyone can give their own opinion but it's dangerous to add to scripture.

 

larryjf,

If you are PCA, you are not allowed to post in Baptist only sections of the web. Those are the rules you agreed to when you joined..

 

So election is not supported by Scripture?...i beg to disagree.

Mat 24; Mk 13; Lk 18; Rom 8; Rom 11; 1 Tim 5; 2 Tim 2; Titus 1; 1 Pet 1; 2 Jn 1;

 

Sorry...i didn't realize it was a baptist-only thread as i have started to read them through the RSS feed.

Terribly sorry about that, i didn't intend to break the rules...i will cease and desist.

 

1. As theologically and philosophically brilliant Edwards was, he was nothing but a man, and therefore capable of error.

2. I believe he erred at this point. BTW, one Calvinist teaching such doesn't mean that all Calvinists teach the same. That is an obvious sweeping generalization.