“Mommy, how come when I keep asking Daddy if God has saved me or if I will suffer eternally in Hell, he answers by telling me to rephrase the question and ask “Daddy, does God WANT to save me?”
Also, Mommy, Does this mean his Calvinism fatally failed the Kiddie Test?”

This one is easy! Say WHATEVER you want about the status of their soul! The real beauty of Calvinism is that actions have zero important consequences!
#predestiNation

Truth by itself is not even subjected to Scripture. In fact, the Scripture is subjected to the Truth, because The One who inspirated the Scripture is trustful and truthful.

*The wrath of God being poured out on unrepentant sinners for all eternity is what the Bible teaches. .*

Irrelevant. After all, wrath is not a literal red fluid. And God doesn’t need to impose torture, because to live without God’s love for all eternity is the definitive punishment. It doesn’t and in fact can’t be made worse.

Also, you said something about interpretation. And your interpretation failed miserably here.

“Normally Calvinists think it is wrong to apply double jeopardy/punishment. SO, you will need to recognize that separating from the Source of Love is enough as punishment.”

*Might I gently suggest that you are confused in your categories here. What you are referring to is related to the atonement.*

Well, maybe. But the “double jeopardy principle” is used as “a general principle, applied to a particular case”. So, I can use the general principle against your “no love plus torture” interpretation.

*Historically, Calvinists have pointed out that the Arminian belief that the atonement is for every single person leads to double jeopardy with the unbeliever being punished for a sin that Christ already atoned for on the cross. Hence a double dose of God’s wrath for sin.*

A complete stupidity, in my opinion – even because it implies some strange type of Pelagianism. But it is another story.

*Being separated from God’s love and being punished by God’s wrath is not double jeopardy.*

Yes, it is. Or do you think it is not applying two essentially equivalent punishments to a single offense?

*Consequently, the child should not subject their understanding of the Bible to their conscience, but rather their conscience should be subject to what scripture teaches.*

Irrelevant. Even because the same Scripture can’t teach two completely opposite things. Then at least one of them, you, the child and your daddy are wrong (or even all!).

*I wasn’t quoting scripture. I was pointing out a concept that I believe is biblical.*

But only now you put it as “your belief”. Above it was just “something obvious”…

*Are you saying that it is untrue that there are those who God gives minor blessings to, who He also throws into the lake of fire in the final judgement?*

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that God desires to save even those who will be sent to hell.

[You can now insert all your jokes and false dilemmas, conflated with a stupid idea of 'frustrated omnipotence' here.]

*You and I would have different interpretations of what the term “world” means as used in this case and context. You would assume “world” means every single person which I would disagree with.*

I think “World” here specifically is about the evil people in the world, the world described as hating Jesus and the Apostles in John’s Gospel.
But I don’t think it is restricted to the elect ones.

You misunderstand here. I said that truth is NOT subject to man, but subject to scripture. We do have to interpret the scripture, but the point is that the final authority is not our fallible conscience, but rather the truth of scripture.

“No way, at least not directly. The separation of all Love IS IN ITSELF the punishment – and the most hard punishment ever seen or made! God doesn’t need to add insult to injury here.”

The wrath of God being poured out on unrepentant sinners for all eternity is what the Bible teaches. .

“Normally Calvinists think it is wrong to apply double jeopardy/punishment. SO, you will need to recognize that separating from the Source of Love is enough as punishment.”

Might I gently suggest that you are confused in your categories here. What you are referring to is related to the atonement. Historically, Calvinists have pointed out that the Arminian belief that the atonement is for every single person leads to double jeopardy with the unbeliever being punished for a sin that Christ already atoned for on the cross. Hence a double dose of God’s wrath for sin.

Being separated from God’s love and being punished by God’s wrath is not double jeopardy.

“In the same manner, the child above recognizes a truth from Scripture – ‘the Calvinistic limited love is false’.”

My grandfather who I love dearly and is a committed Christian is more Arminian in his understanding. I am more Calvinist. We both arrived at our positions through our understanding of scripture. The point is that, although we may interpret scripture differently, for both of us, the scripture is our ultimate authority. Consequently, the child should not subject their understanding of the Bible to their conscience, but rather their conscience should be subject to what scripture teaches.

“OBVIOULSY? Where is the “obviously” here? In your “Scripture”?”

I wasn’t quoting scripture. I was pointing out a concept that I believe is biblical.

“Also, Jo 3:16 says very plainly God gives His own Son because He loves the World. The text doesn’t say:
I love you, and I give to you rain and sun – and a bit of burning hell
I love you more, and I will give to you heaven – and a bit of sun and rain”

Are you saying that it is untrue that there are those who God gives minor blessings to, who He also throws into the lake of fire in the final judgement?

Is it untrue that God gives minor blessings to some, who he also grants eternal life in heaven?

You seem to be mocking these concepts.

The love described in John 3:16 is not describing God’s love expressed in common grace (sun, food, health etc), but rather his love expressed in sending his son to atone for sin for the world.

You and I would have different interpretations of what the term “world” means as used in this case and context. You would assume “world” means every single person which I would disagree with.