Calvinism, Election, the Atonement, and Infant Damnation: Questions Answered

I had someone reply to the True/False Test on Calvinism article I post early last year. Great questions! Really good. I decided to post his questions and comments and my answers for all our general educations.


"Christ is the elect" So Paul is writing to Jesus in Titus? Peter is writing to Jesus as well in 1 Peter? Your use of "election" in 12 is interesting.

Please reread what I wrote:

“I believe that, first and foremost, Jesus Christ is THE ELECT, and that only those who are connected with HIM are ‘elected.”

If I had meant that Jesus was the only elect, I would not have used the words “first” and “foremost”; I would have used the word “only”.

In 1 Peter 1:6, Peter refers to himself as elect.

In 1 Peter 2:4 and 6, the “elect” to which Peter refers to is Christ.

In 1 Peter 2:9, the “elect” refers to believers.

But the point Peter is making here is that believers are elect because Christ is the elect first and foremost. Christ is the choice cornerstone on which God is building a temple of living stones (believers, the elect).

In Matthew 21:42, Jesus applies Psalm 118:22-23 to himself: “Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes”?’” (see also Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11).

Paul refers to believers as a “temple” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19).

Jesus was well-known in his time for saying that if the temple was destroyed, he could rebuild it in three days (Matthew 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; John 2:19). But as the Gospel of John notes, Jesus was referring to his own body (John 2:21).

Now, in verse 1 Peter 2:9, Peter quotes from Exodus 19:6: “And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Peter is making a connection here between Israel as God’s chosen people and all believers of the church as God’s chosen people. How can he do so?

The essential concept here is that Christ IS Israel in a very significant sense.

Note Exodus 4:22: “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn.”

Of course, we all know that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, his firstborn.

The idea here is that Christ is “first and foremost” the elect and all who have faith in him are elected because they associated with him whether they are believing Jews of racial “Israel” or Gentiles “grafted” into him.

In the Old Testament, Israel was often referred to as a vine (Isaiah 5:2; Jeremiah 2:21; 6:9; Hosea 10:1; 14:7). In John 15:1-2, Jesus refers to himself as the “true vine”. He notes that "every branch in me that does not bear fruit, He takes away”.

In Romans 11:17, Paul writes, “If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root.” Gentile believers have been “grafted” into Israel and unbelieving Jews have been broken off. This is how Paul can say in Romans 11:26 that “all Israel shall be saved.” Paul is not referring to specifically to Jewish people but to Israel as it is constituted in Christ. Any other interpretation of Romans 11:26 would mean that a Jewish atheist will die and “go to heaven” simply because he is Jewish. That’s obviously nonsense.

So as you can see, 1 Peter actually confirms what I wrote concerning #12:

“I believe that, first and foremost, Jesus Christ is THE ELECT, and that only those who are connected with HIM are ‘elected.”

13 If you don't believe in penal substitution then your answer about propitiation (35) in that it relates to the atonement needs expanded on. The rest of it is not in contrast to Calvinism, you just didn't define who is in him. His death is sufficient for any and all that are in him. One question in regards to 13 is "Christ atones for himself" what about himself needs atonement?

Here are a few of the blog posts I have written upon the subject of the Atonement. These should give you a good idea of my position upon the matter and the Scriptural evidence which supports it.

JESUS WAS NOT PUNISHED BY GOD FOR THE SINS OF HUMANITY

The Problem With Penal Substitionary Atonement

The "Suffering Servant" and the Atonement

What I Believe About the Atonement of Christ

A Discussion On The Atonement

In brief, I believe Jesus Christ by his life and death atoned for the sin of man to God. I believe that if Christ had not sacrificed himself and atoned for man’s sins, then every person would be damned. HOWEVER, I do NOT believe that this atoning sacrifice involved PUNISHING Christ for the sins of man. I do not believe that God was punishing Jesus in our place.

What occurred in the life and crucifixion of Christ was the perfect example of love and obedience from Man to God. It was certainly a sacrifice of propitiation in a sense that it was pleasing and acceptable to God and removed his wrath towards man, but that appeasement was not because Christ was punished but because Christ was obedient to God’s will. It was the self-sacrificing, self-denying love towards God and Man that pleased God the Father.

This ties into the subject of “the Elect”. Christ is the “Elect” and believers are “elected” IN him.

Christian believers have answered the call of God to follow Christ. Our choice to attach ourselves to Christ means that God looks at us through the lens of Christ and sees Jesus’ pleasing, perfect, self-sacrificing love in us.

And 1 Peter also speaks to this: “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God THROUGH Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

Ultimately, all our sacrifices are only acceptable because we offer them through Christ and God receives them through Christ.

Difficult stuff, to be sure, but the idea that God was punishing Christ for our sins is completely foreign to the Bible. It’s actually a horrid idea! In fact, as you will see in my blog articles on the subject, the Gospel writers go out of their way to establish that God was in no way punishing Jesus. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory was not developed until well into the second millennium of the church and is completely antithetical to what the Scriptures teach.


16 No, you need to research that. Total misunderstanding of Calvinist doctrine. Spurgeon for example believed that all babies went to Hell. Most (all that I've met) Calvinist believe that there are elect babies and reprobate babies just the same as grown ups. Particularly Presbyterians that believe in the covenant home.

Are you sure that you have done your research?

Charles Spurgeon (A sermon preached in London, Sept. 29, 1861)

“Now, let every mother and father here present know assuredly that it is well with the child, if God hath taken it away from you in its infant days . . .”

“Many of you are parents who have children in heaven. Is it not a desirable thing that you should go there, too?”

Granted, there are millions of Calvinists in this world and throughout Church history, but, in general, they’ve generally tended to believe that infants do not go to hell.

Now I do know Calvinists who are annihilationists (they believe that the eternal punishment of the “damned” is eternal death and not “eternal conscious torment”) and believe that the infants of unbelieving parents will remain dead and not participate in the resurrection of believers. However, if that parent subsequently becomes a believer, THEN the dead infant will then be able to be resurrected. I believe they get this concept partially from 1 Corinthians 7:14. This is the idea of the “covenant home” that you referenced. I’m incredulous to the idea and the exegesis myself. Yes, I believe in annihilationism but I think the use of 1 Corinthians 7:14 is dubious and unnecessary.

Now the question was whether or not Calvinists believe that babies go to “Hell”.
The author of the question could have meant “Hell” either as hades (the abode of the dead, or, specifically, the state of death in which all those who die – believer and unbeliever alike – until the resurrection) or as gehenna (the state of ultimate punishment for unbelievers, which is permanent death or hades).

Since most people (Christian or not) would assume he was referring to the gehenna-like hell, I myself assume the author was referring to the latter and still assume so.

I imagine that the author would have used a qualified if he was referring to “hell” as hades.