CALVINISM'S TWO MONSTER'S

 

 

"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, Harmony of the Law, Vol 2, "Judicial Supplements", Comments on Deut ch 13.

Wait. a. minute. O, me. Can you wrap your mind around that statement? John Calvin is saying that when a baby dies, that's a sure and certain proof that he's one of the non-elect and therefore he wakes up in hell and will be there forever. That's what he is saying, and, as one author commented, "I don’t say this lightly, but that honestly is the most horrific and disgusting theological doctrine I’ve ever heard in my life" What a cold-as-stone-statement that is. Would you say that to grieving parents? Who would put that on a sympathy card? Would you say that to the mourning mother that her baby is in hell for the good pleasure of God and for His glory?"

One perceptive author writes, "Once we dismiss the pleasantries of Calvinism, the only reason some are in heaven and some are in hell [babies included, according to Jon Calvin]  is because it pleased God for them to be there. Notwithstanding the weak and misleading arguments to the contrary by many Calvinists, . . .Calvin refers to this cold, inescapable reality as the product of God’s wish, pleasure, and counsel."

The infant never had a chance, not one single opportunity to look up at the sky and think,"Who created this majestic precision of the universe? I'd like to know Him; I never had an opportunity to hear the gospel. This isn't fair. What kind of a God would do such a thing to me!"

Oh, wait a minute. There are Calvinists who would disagree and say, "No. God doesn't consign a baby to hell." As one wrote: "But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord."

But wait another minute. He said "willful decision" didn't he? According to his Calvinism, such a decision can't be "willful" because, in eternity past, God predetermined that he would reject Christ or accept Christ. 

But wait another minute.He wrote that the infant is incapable of trusting Christ (and rightly so). But that creates a monster problem for the Calvinist. According to Calvinism, in eternity past God unconditionally chose some to go to heaven and some (billions and billions and billions) for His good pleasure and glory to go to hell. 

Those billions in hell had no say, no choice in the matter. They are "dead" in trespasses and sin and are, all of their lives, incapable of trusting Christ and all of that was decided by God in eternity past, so says the Calvinist.

So the monster problem is, the infant had no choice; the adult who lives a full life has no choice either. One just lived longer with no choice than the other. Neither one had any control over the situation.So how could it be said that the infant goes to heaven and the adult does not since both never had a choice according to Calvin. Can anybody say, "Inconsistent?" Can anybody say, "Contradictory?"

Roger Olson, professor of Baylor's Truett Theological Seminary, writes, "In spite of their best efforts to avoid it, the 'good and necessary consequence' of their [the Calvinists'] soteriology—TULIP—is that God is morally ambiguous if not a moral monster."