So God lied when he said there were NONE RIGHTEOUS in Sodom? That in fact there were righteous children who God destroyed? Or were those children all under the same curse as the Adults?
*sigh* Imputed righteousness. Man, it would be a lot easier if you just read my reply. Your swatting flies aimlessly and missing every time.
You seem to be equivocating on the idea of Total Depravity if you claim that children who die are not sent to hell because they didn't live long enough to sin. Calvinism clearly teaches that people are Born into sin and that whether they commit their own sins is irrelevant, because they have sinned by nature of their birth.
Your misrepresentation of the Doctrine is amazing.
First: I
do not claim "that children who die are not sent to hell because they didn't live long enough to sin." In point of fact, I claim the EXACT OPPOSITE:
I believe that a child that dies in infancy, according to God's purpose is elect. Not because they have not sinned, but because they are elect. Nothing extra. They are not elect because they haven't sinned. They are not covered in grace because they are in infancy. They are in God's grace because they are. They are because that is God's sovereign choice. (Me, from reply 205. The long reply I assume you have yet to read.)
Second:
Calvinism Christianity
clearly teaches that people are Born into sin... There, fixed it. It's called Original Sin. However,
Calvinism clearly teaches... that whether they commit their own sins is irrelevant... is just wrong. Your fighting a strawman.
Quickly, Total Depravity teaches that the whole being of man is affected by sin. His heart, soul, mind, will, body, and even the world around is bent towards death because of sin. The effects of the flesh are total. Total Inability is a "subset" of the Total Depravity.
So apparently, since you insist that God does not judge children who have not sinned on their own and that if they die in some state of "innocence," that they will automatically be numbered among the elect. That seems to be totally inconsistent with your Calvinist pre-supposition of Total Depravity.
Strawman
You stated earlier on this thread that God hated Esau from before he was born and hated him while he was an infant. If that is true, then if he had died as an infant, he would have been a vessel of God's wrath.
Man! It's like banging my head against a wall. You keep saying this as if I said it, or I MUST believe what you think I ought to believe.
Here, you say, "...it was stated that..." Um, no it wasn't. And, you keep presenting a strawman and you continue to beg the question.
Look, I'll try to break it down kindergarten style:
1. God prepared Esau for his purpose from before time began.
2. In God's divine will, he hated Esau and loved Jacob.
3. Because of his purpose for Esau, Esau lived out his life according to God's sovereign plan - in Esau's case, as a reprobate.
4. There is NO "what if." If Esau would have died as an infant is not an option. He was foreknown and created as a vessel of wrath. Any "what if" in the life of Esau denies God's sovereign direction.
Q: What if David would have gotten mauled by a lion he faced while tending his flocks?
Q: What if Samson would have avoided Delilah?
A: Illogical. Assuming that what will not happen happens.
But somehow you seem to be of the opinion that men are not Totally Depraved and that somehow they are in a state of innocence at Birth and are corrupted by their own sins and not by their sinful nature.
Really, you should have read that long reply I made, because I argue the EXACT OPPOSITE:
We bear the stain of Original Sin. That is, from birth we are the spiritual progeny of Adam and face the problem of separation from God. (Psalm 51:5, Genesis 8:21, Romans 5:12)
You know, I think I figured out the communication problem we are having. Because you haven't read that long reply, in which I discuss all of this stuff you are saying, you seem to think that I am arguing that infants can get to heaven on their own merit. I'm not.
I think you are still missing the ultimate issue. God destroyed Sodom and all the little children dwelling ther and ordered Israel to kill ALL the Amelekites. You have not stated any reason why a Calvinist ought to believe that God could hate all the Sodomites and all the Amelikites and yet love all their children. How do you know he did not hate those children in the same way that he hated Esau?
Where in the Calvinist construct do you attach this loving sentiment to your sovereign God? If he could hate Esau even as Esau was an infant, why would he love every single infant that he kills or allows to be killed. Where is the consistency in your theological construct?
Or are you willing to admit that Calvinism simply does not have all the answers and that on this issue Calvinism might just paint a wrong picture of God?
I also do not agree with Calvin on this.. Lets look at some scripture on how God sees sin in unborn infants.
Look at Genesis 6...God repented he had made man because he was evil...God did not exempt unborn babies or children from His judgement ..nor did He exempt the children of the other nations when He told the the children of Israel to destroy them ... he did not remove the children in Sodom when judgement rained from the sky.
Scripture seems to indicate that God looks upon all as sinners , age is not an exemption..
God regenerated John the baptist in the womb of his mother.. I believe that indicates that the Holy Spirit can reveal Christ even to the unborn, or children or the mentally deficient.. God is not hampered by circumstances that we see as impossible..
God is silent on the issue.. so I do not think it wise to make doctrine out of silence .
" Genesis 18: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
I believe we can rest in His mercy and justice..