Taking off of the Al Mohler Thread...

[LadyFlynt]

Has any one every heard this in the Reformed camps?

"all my babies that died before or at birth are in hell, because they weren't given the chance for spiritual redemption"

I had an arminianist friend of mine come to me about this. She has a few of Reformed friends. But these other two "reformed" friends keep coming up with things that are anything, but Reformed.

another example:

"I'm a Calvinist, I believe in election and predestination, but I believe that I've been elected to hell" (this coming from someone studying their bible, training their children, etc...but still insisting that they themselves are elected to hell)


Comments? I've given here the Reformed view on the first. The second I told her that is sounds like someone is confused.

[Quickened]

Isnt the idea of being elected to Hell, Hyper-Calvinist?

[Davidius]

Originally Posted by Quickened

Isnt the idea of being elected to Hell, Hyper-Calvinist?

I think double predestination (to heaven and hell) is the common view. Some say that God doesn't actively elect anyone to hell, but merely passes over them. I don't see the difference.

[victorbravo]

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Has any one every heard this in the Reformed camps?

"all my babies that died before or at birth are in hell, because they weren't given the chance for spiritual redemption"

I had an arminianist friend of mine come to me about this. She has a few of Reformed friends. But these other two "reformed" friends keep coming up with things that are anything, but Reformed.

another example:

"I'm a Calvinist, I believe in election and predestination, but I believe that I've been elected to hell" (this coming from someone studying their bible, training their children, etc...but still insisting that they themselves are elected to hell)


Comments? I've given here the Reformed view on the first. The second I told her that is sounds like someone is confused.

Both are examples of assuming that the created "pot" has superior knowledge to the potter. They should not dare to presume on the secret counsel of God.

[a mere housewife]

I agree with Vic wholeheartedly. This is to pry into the secret counsel of God, and is against one of the main tenets of reformed theology, that of Sola Scriptura. We are given the knowledge that those that come to Christ He will never cast out, and those that reject Him will be condemned. If the person in example two is rejecting Christ then they cannot put this off on God's election. It sounds though like they are despairing and are unable to take comfort in the truths that are revealed because of some superstition about the things that are not; in my own personal experience that is often what happens when we try to approach God via knowledge we are incapable of having rather than contenting ourselves with what is revealed. It's the same in the case with the baby.

[toddpedlar]

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

I agree with Vic wholeheartedly. This is to pry into the secret counsel of God, and is against one of the main tenets of reformed theology, that of Sola Scriptura. We are given the knowledge that those that come to Christ He will never cast out, and those that reject Him will be condemned. If the person in example two is rejecting Christ then they cannot put this off on God's election. It sounds though like they are despairing and are unable to take comfort in the truths that are revealed because of some superstition about the things that are not; in my own personal experience that is often what happens when we try to approach God via knowledge we are incapable of having rather than contenting ourselves with what is revealed. It's the same in the case with the baby.

Exactly.

You should get "A Pastor's Sketches", by Ichabod Spencer and the companion 2nd volume, put out by SGCB. These books are full of stories of troubled souls coming to Spencer, some of whom have this exact type of question on their hearts - having been preached soundly to, this is a common reaction for the struggling believer. There are many examples of the author's dealing very well with this question, and some of his solutions to his sheeps' struggles may help you in dealing with similar situations.

[danmpem]

Originally Posted by Davidius

I think double predestination (to heaven and hell) is the common view. Some say that God doesn't actively elect anyone to hell, but merely passes over them. I don't see the difference.

I guess you could say that everyone believes in double predestination in one way or another. Some put more emphasis on the active part of God in it than others.

And I wouldn't say that God elects someone to hell, but rather predestines them. If I am correct, election is a reference to the person - or group, depending on the context - who is chosen by God to come to saving faith in Jesus Christ.

[tburus]

Originally Posted by danmpem

I guess you could say that everyone believes in double predestination in one way or another. Some put more emphasis on the active part of God in it than others.

And I wouldn't say that God elects someone to hell, but rather predestines them. If I am correct, election is a reference to the person - or group, depending on the context - who is chosen by God to come to saving faith in Jesus Christ.

I don't like the phrase double predestination (DP) because it is becoming too synonymous with equal ultimacy (EU) (particularly among non-Calvinists who don't know what they talking about, not that I am accusing anyone here of that). What I believe is considered technically to be DP because both the elect and the non-elect have their ends predetermined, but it is not EU because I do not believe God's election is what equally puts some people in hell and other in heaven.

I think the disconnect here is this. People who criticize Calvinist predestination will argue that God has every one lined up neutrally in front of him and that he throws some people in the 'damned' basket and some in the 'saved'. However, I believe this is inaccurate. Instead, what I believe we have is God with everybody having already jumped into the 'damned' basket on their own and him picking some out and placing them in the 'saved' basket. By doing this for some but not all then yes, God is allowing those people to be condemned, but this is only occuring passively since he didn't put them there in the first place. Of course, all of this is moot if you deny Original Sin, which is why I think so many Arminians and non-Calvinists disagree have a problem with it.

This also gets into the lapsarian distinctions, and all I will say on that is that I am an infralapsarian, but no more because I have to make dinner right now. Have a nice night.

[Hippo]

Originally Posted by Quickened

Isnt the idea of being elected to Hell, Hyper-Calvinist?

Hyper Calvinism is at its heart a denial that the Gospel should be declared to those not showing signs of regeneration.

[Poimen]

Well I hate to sound so glib but pointing people to the confessions gives them the Reformed response, as opposed to people who live within the context of the Reformed faith and life who either misrepresent or misunderstand the doctrines of sovereign grace.

Here are some of the clearest words concerning reprobation (or 'election to hell' as your friend put it' - though I think that is a poor expression) from the Canons of Dordrecht, 1st Head, Article 15&16:

Article 15

What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but, permitting them in His just judgment to follow their own ways, at last, for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins.

Article 16

Those in whom a living faith in Christ, an assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavor after filial obedience, a glorying in God through Christ, is not as yet strongly felt, and who nevertheless make use of the means which God has appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires devoutly and humbly to wait for a season of richer grace. Much less cause to be terrified by the doctrine of reprobation have they who, though they seriously desire to be turned to God, to please Him only, and to be delivered from the body of death, cannot yet reach that measure of holiness and faith to which they aspire; since a merciful God has promised that He will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed. But this doctrine is justly terrible to those who, regardless of God and of the Savior Jesus Christ, have wholly given themselves up to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh, so long as they are not seriously converted to God.

[Poimen]

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

Has any one every heard this in the Reformed camps?

"all my babies that died before or at birth are in hell, because they weren't given the chance for spiritual redemption"

I have never heard this from anyone, let alone someone who is Reformed. God is no respecter of persons, so anyone who is saved must attribute it to mere grace which does not discriminate on the basis of age, sex or any other aspect of life. Spiritual redemption finds the elect at the time and place that God has decreed it. (John 3:8)

Canons of Dordrecht, I:7

This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit; to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy, and for the praise of the riches of His glorious grace

Examples such as David, Jeremiah & John the Baptist indicate that salvation at any age is certainly possible for a sovereign God! (see Psalm 22:9-10; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:44)

And then note these wonderful words in 1 Kings 14:12-13 "When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he is the only one of Jeroboam who shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something good toward the LORD God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam”

[cih1355]

How does someone know for certain that he has been elected, predestined, or ordained to go to hell? In the future, God could grant him saving repentance and faith. I don't see how a person can be 100% sure that God will not save him in the future.

[LadyFlynt]

Thank you all. I guess I did pretty well at giving an answer to the first and not too bad with the second. I just wanted to run it by here in case I was missing something or if there was something I should know about certain groups.

I don't know these people personally, just the one friend that is associated with them (one is her brother, one lives near her...both claim to be Reformed). She's knows I'm strongly Reformed and pops in once in awhile with a question that she wants a Reformed view on