Calvinists: Defend your idea that God burns babies in hell forever

[american.swan]

The burning forever is not Biblical. The word translated forever in references to hell is mistranslated in my view. For example, is sadam and gamorrah(sp?) still burning today? No. They were burned "completely", but not still burning today. Hell is therefore a complete "gone". A complete burning. There's not eternal flame.

Just as Jesus said Lazarus was sleeping, dead is just*a sleep. It's not painful.

Since we sleep everyday, it seems to me a blessing we wake up each day.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Please excuse me that I don’t address every single point you bring up, because I’m not trying to create an argument. I’ll answer specifically your questions.

Tell me this. You believe Jesus died for the "sins" of the babies that end up in heaven right? Well if a baby died prior to ever actually sinning, which sin did Jesus die for? What the sin of Adam applied to Jesus multiple times to cover the babies that didn't sin?

Former question, yes, Christ’s sacrifice atones for the sins of all men for all time. Second question, the baby inherits sin and already exercises sins (deception, selfishness) pretty much after birth. (Scientific studies have shown this as early as six months http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3298979/Babies-not-as-innocent-as-they-pretend.html) I don’t understand the third question.

How do the babies that you believe end up in heaven "walk in the spirit"? And how do the "believe" in Jesus?

I don’t have a cogent theology of baby salvation or damnation. I’d guess just like beheaded people get their heads back, and people with Alzheimer’s are cured, the babies have their minds matured so that they can sing praises and such in heaven. God then decides to save some by grace, theoretically. The Bible doesn’t give any details, it’s just the only way I can see babies going to heaven.

 

[loveableteddybear]

The idea that God would not punish someone in this life for what his parents did, but would instead burn him forever is just too blatantly fallacious to ignore. Actually in the Bible there is evidence of generational curses. For example Elisha's servant Gehazi was cursed white with leprosy and Elisha declared that the curse would last for his generations.

2 Kings 5:27 Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow.

So just because Jesus pointed out that in that instant that a man was born blind without there being any fault of his parents doesn't mean that everytime something bad happens to someone a parent is not at fault. Look up "fetal alcohol syndrome" if you doubt me.

I think you are contradicting yourself a little here, so let's interpret scripture with Scripture.

Explain to me Romans 5:12, 19: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned; For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous."

I want to tease something out, so if you care answering a simple question:

If babies do not go to hell because as best you know they have no sins to be judged by, how about a fully grown person in the countryside of Thailand where the gospel was never preached? By accident of birth, is he damned? How does God judge someone who was not taught the gospel and would not have the cultural and educational background to find the gospel even coherent if he were just to hear it in passing changing channels on the radio? How, in your mind, is an otherwise good man like this judged?

 

[loveableteddybear]

In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that “the house of the Lord” would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son’s soul would go to hell.

It's highly probably that David said they were both going to Sheol, which is neither heven or hell, ut some sort of resting place for the dead before the Final Judgment.

Remember what Jacob said when he though Joseph was killed?

“No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning.” Thus his father bewailed him. (Gen 37:35)

Jacob isn't saying that they're both going to hell together, or even heaven together. Just that his presumably dead son is in Sheol, and he will mourn before he dies and joins him there.

Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 18:3-5:

Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

My interpretation, including my Study Bibles' this has nothing to do with age, but rather the attitude of humility of the believer. To read into it that Jesus is saying "unless you are young enough not to sin bad enough to be judged, you're not going to heaven" is just an odd interpretation, up their with my interpretation of Psalm 8:2!

We already discussed Ezekiwl, and that quote from Exodus is woefully misapplied, so I'm not going to address it any more than saying if God will not blot out those who sin against Him, that is not to be universally applied to everyone, but to those who are in Christ Jesus, for that was God's plan all along. The Law was made so transgression may increase.

 

[jmdrake]

I think you are contradicting yourself a little here, so let's interpret scripture with Scripture.

Not at all. 2 Kings 5:27 is clear and needs no further interpretation. God struck Gehazi with a punishment that was passed onto his children. You claim I'm "contradicting myself" but in your response you have not even addressed 2 Kings 5:27. What are you afraid of? Admitting you are wrong? Because you are. It is laughable that you claim I'm ignoring scripture and say I'm "contradicting myself" without even asserting what the contradiction is, and yet totally ignore the text I brought up.

Just so you can be clear that there is no contradiction, my position, and the Biblical position, is that God does indeed sometime allow, or even in the case of Gehazi's children cause earthly punishment on people because of their parents' sinful acts. Where the disciples erred biblically is the same way that you err. The disciples erred when they asked "Did this man sin or did his parents sin to cause him to be born blind". It is impossible for a baby to commit some act in utero to bring down the wrath of God upon himself. It is quite possible for a parent to bring down punishment on himself or herself that affects the newborn or even the unborn child, though in the case of John 9 neither was responsible. Do you realize there were likely pregnant women in Sodom and Gomorrah? When God's wrath came down, they suffered the same earthly punishment as their parents. So your vain attempt to twist Ezekiel 18:20 away from its original meaning just doesn't fly. It's clear that children have died the first death (the physical death) due to the sins of their parents. So Ezekiel 18:20 can only be talking about the second death or the "spiritual" death. I don't believe the second death lasts forever anyway, but whether or not it does, it doesn't apply to children too young to have committed a sin themselves. As for what the "cut off age is" that is irrelevant. God is smart enough to figure that out on a case by case basis. The only duty of the parent is to "Train up a child in the way he should go" and not worry about things like age of accountability.

Explain to me Romans 5:12, 19: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned; For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous."

A sinner is someone prone to sin. And yes, by one man's disobedience we have all been made prone to sin. As soon as a sperm fertilizes an egg, that newly created being has the same genetic predispositions to sin as did his parents. That's being "born in sin". As he develops in his mothers womb if she smokes he smokes. If she drinks he drinks. If she is angry, he feels it. That's being shaped in iniquity. All of this happens before having a conscious thought and before transgressing any law.

But you also need to read the entire chapter of Romans 5.

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

And when is there no law?

Romans 7:7-9
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Note Paul said he was alive before he knew the law! God holds us accountable for what we know. Now it's true that God reveals aspects of His law through nature so people who didn't have the law given to Moses were and are still without excuse. (Romans 2:14) But even that doesn't apply to someone who hasn't even made it out of his mothers womb yet.

Now back to Romans 5:12 and 19. Again we were all made sinners. And again we were all made subject to the first death regardless of whether we live long enough to sin. (Clearly a stillborn baby was subject to the first death because by definition he's already experienced it.) The first death is the penalty we all must pay for Adam's sin unless we are translated. The question is, does the mere fact that this child is a descendant of Adam make him subject to the second death? The second death is when we pay for our own sin!

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Every mainstream Christian denomination on the planet understands that while grace is a gift, punishment is earned.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So in your theology, how much punishment in hell does a stillborn get? Is he burned for all of Adam's sins even though Adam gets off scot free? Why stop at Adam? Does his punishment include the sins for all of his ancestors on down the line? There is no way to square such a theology with the Bible. Everywhere in scripture it is clear that the punishment sinners receive in the final judgement is based on what they did.

I want to tease something out, so if you care answering a simple question:

Before I answer your question I must first demand that you address 2 Kings 5:27. I've seen this pattern before. Some people never truly answer the questions or Bible verses posed to them, then throw some other irrelevant question at the person they are debating with. If you think I have 2 Kings 5:27 wrong and that God didn't actually punish Gehazi and his descendants with leprosy, then please explain what you believe happened.

If babies do not go to hell because as best you know they have no sins to be judged by, how about a fully grown person in the countryside of Thailand where the gospel was never preached? By accident of birth, is he damned? How does God judge someone who was not taught the gospel and would not have cultural and educational background to find the gospel even coherent if he were just to hear it in passing changing channels on the radio? How, in your mind, is an otherwise good man like this judged?

How can you be a Calvinist and you haven't read Romans 2?

Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Someone in Thailand is judged according to the law God has revealed to that person. People in Thailand know that it's wrong to steal, kill etc. Their civil laws and even their religious laws reflect that. And even if external society is so corrupt that religious and civil law requires you to do evil, their is still the effect of the Holy Spirit revealing to someone through nature that "this is wrong" or "that is wrong". Here is how Paul explained this in Acts 17.

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

I don't know why the "What happens to people born in some country where their are not Christians" question is such a stumbling block to Calvinists when Paul makes it clear that God hasn't forgotten those people, that God provided a way for their salvation, and that God doesn't hold what they do in ignorance against them. Paul even went so far as to say that the Greeks were actually worshipping God without knowing it!

Again Acts 17:

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

So I hope this answers your question and you will no longer believe the falsehood that people who die in some land that had no opportunity to know about Christ must automatically be lost. Paul taught the opposite truth. They have an opportunity for salvation based on the revelation of God that God granted to them and God doesn't hold them accountable for what they didn't know and didn't have the opportunity to know. Since Paul was preaching to them they could no longer claim "ignorance" and were then being called to repent.

But that doesn't mean I'm letting you off the hook for not actually addressing 2 Kings 5:27. If God never gives earthly punishment that is passed down to someone's child, then how do you explain what the Bible says happened to Gehazi?

 

[loveableteddybear]

I don't know why the "What happens to people born in some country where their are not Christians" question is such a stumbling block to Calvinists when Paul makes it clear that God hasn't forgotten those people, that God provided a way for their salvation, and that God doesn't hold what they do in ignorance against them. Paul even went so far as to say that the Greeks were actually worshipping God without knowing it!

Okay, let me tease that question a little further, if you don't mind. And, out of respect, I will address at your point concerning 2 Kings.

So, you interpret that those without the Law, or knowledge of Christ, are a law onto themselves and are judged accordingly by their works and motivations. Okay.

Let me ask one more question. If a person by accident of birth is brought up a Muslim in a Christianized country like the United States, how will God judge him? He does not have the cultural background to understand Christianity in the way people of European descent do. Also, due to racism and prejudice, as a coping mechanism he naturally learns to invalidate much of what he learns from Americans of European descent, including their different religion. He is otherwise very devout, not a hypocrite, and all around good guy. The difference is that the circumstances of his life have prevented him from even wanting to understand Christianity. Is he going to hell without Christ?

 

[loveableteddybear]

The idea that God would not punish someone in this life for what his parents did, but would instead burn him forever is just too blatantly fallacious to ignore. Actually in the Bible there is evidence of generational curses. For example Elisha's servant Gehazi was cursed white with leprosy and Elisha declared that the curse would last for his generations.

2 Kings 5:27 Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow.

So just because Jesus pointed out that in that instant that a man was born blind without there being any fault of his parents doesn't mean that everytime something bad happens to someone a parent is not at fault. Look up "fetal alcohol syndrome" if you doubt me.

There was a time where God held children accountable for their parents' sin (exodus 34:7) but God promised in Ezekiel 18, as well as a parallel passage in Jeremiah, to judge each man for his own sins. So God, in His sovereignty, changed how he was going to conduct business roughly 2,500 years ago on this matter, though not in its entirety, as anyone can observe the sin of parents (divorce) easily affecting their children. But, the difference was that God is not going to go out of his way to punish children of peopler like Gehazi without the parent directly bringing it upon the next generation (i.e. crack babies, etcetera).

So, my interpretation of the Ezekiel and Jeremiah passages aren't that man is somehow not inborn with the sin from Adam, which Romans 5 makes explicit, but that children are not going to be individually accountable for a specific sin from a parent. It's explicit in Romans that before the law, people were dead in trespass like Adam even if they did not sin exactly as Adam did (Romans 5:14). So, we are not judged, because he sinned. Rather, we inherited his sinful nature. It's in our DNA to kill, steal, lie, disobey God. No man is born without that proclivity. The proclivity to sin is what Adam has passed to the whole human race, and apart from Christ, we cannot be rescued from it.

As a side note about Paul, him nor anyone in the history of all time is born without sin that leads to death (Romans 5:12). Paul rather observed, "Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law." (Romans 7:7). So, the Law rather increased the trespass so that grace may abound all the more. Law also brought the awareness of sin and the need for a savior, which is specifically why the Jews are first and the Greeks are second. However, lack of knowledge is no excuse:

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:20-21).

God's chosen people are actually given the advantage of having the Law made explicit to them and the promises of the prophets made known to them. However, both in the theology of Christianity would be justly subject to God's wrath because of their lack of righteousness.

 

[jmdrake]

There was a time where God held children accountable for their parents' sin (exodus 34:7) but God promised in Ezekiel 18, as well as a parallel passage in Jeremiah, to judge each man for his own sins.

Ezekiel is in the old testament. And even in Exodus the same principle, that God's generational judgement was limited, can be seen.

Exodus 20:5-6
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

The key to avoiding God's temporal judgement for generational curses is seen in the part I have in bold. (Something Calvinists can't deal with). You see the same thing repeated in Ezekiel 18.

19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

It's the same in Ezekiel as it was when God gave the 10 commandments in Exodus! There is no honest way to say this is some prophecy of what would happen under the new covenant. It's how God has always operated. Parental sins can and often do bring temporal consequences. I've already given you an example of that, which you ignored. (Fetal alcohol syndrome). There is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that parental sins bring eternal consequences beside the fact that parental sins can make it easier for the next generation to follow the same path to destruction. (The child of the alcoholic is more likely to become an alcoholic. The sex abused child is more likely to become an abuser). The answer to day is the same as it was in Exodus 20 and Ezekiel 18. Turn to God for guidance and follow His commands. Rahab did that and as a result her life was spared as well as that of her entire household. Recognizing you have a problem and doing something about it is the secret to the success of Alcoholics Anonymous and other addiction programs. And all habitual sin is basically some for of addiction. Those who say "Oh great! God loves me, I'm elect and I have a free ticket to heaven" are missing the point. But the good news is, with the power of God and the right support system any negative habit can be replaced with positive ones. That's the way the brain works. Yes the old wiring is still there, but it's not nearly as strong. And the "epigenome" is good news when it comes to inherited tendencies towards wrong. The choices you make today can affect what genes get turned own in your children. So the sooner you cooperate with God to break the cycle of habitual, generational sin the better off you will be and your future generations.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Do you mind I address what you just wrote after you answer my question here, please?

If a person by accident of birth is brought up a Muslim in a Christianized country like the United States, how will God judge him? He does not have the cultural background to understand Christianity in the way people of European descent do. Also, due to racism and prejudice, as a coping mechanism he naturally learns to invalidate much of what he learns from Americans of European descent, including their different religion. He is otherwise very devout, not a hypocrite, and all around good guy. The difference is that the circumstances of his life have prevented him from even wanting to understand Christianity. Is he going to hell without Christ?

I don't think this is a pie in the sky theoretical, it's rather relevant for me to understand your position.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

My heart goes out to you in your loss.

Thank you, jm, and all who wrote me. I get a catch in my heart every time I hold a baby. We have Hannah Rose and Robert James in heaven and our living children have a deep love for them. Praise God.

 

[jmdrake]

Do you mind I address what you just wrote after you answer my question here, please?

If a person by accident of birth is brought up a Muslim in a Christianized country like the United States, how will God judge him? He does not have the cultural background to understand Christianity in the way people of European descent do. Also, due to racism and prejudice, as a coping mechanism he naturally learns to invalidate much of what he learns from Americans of European descent, including their different religion. He is otherwise very devout, not a hypocrite, and all around good guy. The difference is that the circumstances of his life have prevented him from even wanting to understand Christianity. Is he going to hell without Christ?

I don't think this is a pie in the sky theoretical, it's rather relevant for me to understand your position.

I don't mean to be rude but...can you read? I answered your question even before you actually addressed mine. I will cut and paste my answer.

Before I answer your question I must first demand that you address 2 Kings 5:27. I've seen this pattern before. Some people never truly answer the questions or Bible verses posed to them, then throw some other irrelevant question at the person they are debating with. If you think I have 2 Kings 5:27 wrong and that God didn't actually punish Gehazi and his descendants with leprosy, then please explain what you believe happened.
.
.
.
How can you be a Calvinist and you haven't read Romans 2?

Romans 2:14-16
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Someone in Thailand is judged according to the law God has revealed to that person. People in Thailand know that it's wrong to steal, kill etc. Their civil laws and even their religious laws reflect that. And even if external society is so corrupt that religious and civil law requires you to do evil, their is still the effect of the Holy Spirit revealing to someone through nature that "this is wrong" or "that is wrong". Here is how Paul explained this in Acts 17.

29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. 31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

I don't know why the "What happens to people born in some country where their are not Christians" question is such a stumbling block to Calvinists when Paul makes it clear that God hasn't forgotten those people, that God provided a way for their salvation, and that God doesn't hold what they do in ignorance against them. Paul even went so far as to say that the Greeks were actually worshipping God without knowing it!

Again Acts 17:

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

So I hope this answers your question and you will no longer believe the falsehood that people who die in some land that had no opportunity to know about Christ must automatically be lost. Paul taught the opposite truth. They have an opportunity for salvation based on the revelation of God that God granted to them and God doesn't hold them accountable for what they didn't know and didn't have the opportunity to know. Since Paul was preaching to them they could no longer claim "ignorance" and were then being called to repent.

But that doesn't mean I'm letting you off the hook for not actually addressing 2 Kings 5:27. If God never gives earthly punishment that is passed down to someone's child, then how do you explain what the Bible says happened to Gehazi?

Now I'm glad you finally made an attempt to address 2 Kings 5:27 even though your answer is a clear misapplication of scripture. But I addressed your question fully the first time. The short answer is God as a righteous judge is smarter than you and He can figure out how to save people in pagan countries. Paul makes it clear that God doesn't hold people's ignorance against them but rather holds them to account for the revelation He has given them. It is ignorance to assume that people born in a Christian country are judged by God the same way as people born in a non Christian country. But for some odd reason Calvinists continually make this mistake.

 

[erowe1]

Well if the Calvinist god didn't chose them to be one of his elect, then they totally deserved it.

/Sola_Fide

"The Calvinist God"? Doesn't Catholicism teach that babies can only be saved if they're baptized?

 

[Confederate]

"The Calvinist God"? Doesn't Catholicism teach that babies can only be saved if they're baptized?

No.

“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261)]

The Church teaches that we don't have "sure knowledge" on the issue (like how we can say that if you die in mortal sin, you go to Hell). With this, its more like: if an unbaptized infant dies, we hope and have strong reasons to believe that God saves them, but we don't know for sure.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Okay, so right or wrong your viewpoints are:

-Babies are not judged, because they have no sin to be judged by and do not understand Christ, so God would not hold them liable for that.
-Non-Christians are not judged if life circumstances prevent them from knowing Christ (either by geographic or social isolation).

I think I understand now. Let me ask one more question then, just one, please bear with me. I think I'm being polite and I appreciate you taking your time to speak with me.

This situation is happening to my sister, so it is very personal to me.

My sister is brought up in a nominally Christian family. She is baptized a Lutheran. She is told that Jesus is a "special son of God," but the message is not very cogent to say the least. She is very intelligent. She prays and nothing ever happens. She grows up and decides superstition isn't for her, so she becomes an agnostic, lacking anything logical to prove whether God exists or does not. She is a good, though over-bearing sister and a loyal wife to her husband. She is honest with her business dealings, and she does care for people. She's very intelligent and as a MBA from Wharton. The Gospel was explained to her, but it just doesn't make sense being that she doesn't know if God is really out there and legitimately does not know what would prove the Bible is the word of God any more than the Quran, her husband's holy book.

I take no offense if your answer is yes, but is my sister going to hell?

 

[Confederate]

Babies are not judged, because they have no sin to be judged by and do not understand Christ, so God would not hold them liable for that.

All men from the moment of conception have sin: the original sin.

We don't know what happens to infants who die before baptism or aborted babies, but we Catholics trust in our Lord's infinite mercy and His desire that all men be saved.

The Bible does not say "unbaptized infants are saved/unsaved", nor is there anything in Sacred Tradition on the issue. Instead, the Vatican says that based on what we do know, there is grounds for prayerful hope that unbaptized infants are saved, though this is not a "sure knowledge".

 

[loveableteddybear]

All men from the moment of conception have sin: the original sin.

We don't know what happens to infants who die before baptism or aborted babies, but we Catholics trust in our Lord's infinite mercy and His desire that all men be saved.

The Bible does not say "unbaptized infants are saved/unsaved", nor is there anything in Sacred Tradition on the issue. Instead, the Vatican says that based on what we do know, there is grounds for prayerful hope that unbaptized infants are saved, though this is not a "sure knowledge".

That's JMdrakes position. As for me Romans 5:12 pretty much confirms original sin explicitly.

 

[Pericles]

Here is my question for you: Where does the Bible state that all babies are universally saved?

As we many things in the scriptures, we can not say with certainty. But a reasonable supposition from my point of view is that we are born in a state of grace, lose that grace by committing the sin, and then have the possibility of redeeming grace by salvation (Christian) or obedience to the law (Jewish).

Can't prove it, just saying that is where I am.

 

[Confederate]

As we many things in the scriptures, we can not say with certainty. But a reasonable supposition from my point of view is that we are born in a state of grace, lose that grace by committing the sin, and then have the possibility of redeeming grace by salvation (Christian) or obedience to the law (Jewish).

Can't prove it, just saying that is where I am.

So you reject original sin? You must if you believe we are born in a state of grace.

 

[erowe1]

With this, its more like: if an unbaptized infant dies, we hope and have strong reasons to believe that God saves them, but we don't know for sure.

That's pretty much where I am. Except I don't think baptism has anything to do with it, and I wouldn't go so far as to say "strong reasons." And I would emphasize that it really is merely a hope.

 

[jmdrake]

Okay. Sorry for my earlier angry response. And yes you have accurately represented my position. As for your sister, all I can say is that I truly believe God will do everything possible to save your sister. There is someone who used to post a lot here named "YumYum". He initially was an agnostic. He became a Christian. His testimony is this. He saw Christians actually having a positive discussion here at RPF. (Imagine that?) He thought to himself "I wish I had what they had". Sometime later he was afflicted with pain that was worse than he had ever felt. It was so bad that he wanted to die. He prayed for healing. Here's his testimony in his own words.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-went-away..&p=3725701&viewfull=1#post3725701
Ok..John, I read the entire thread, and I got uncomfortable when the argument began between the Calvinist Aqua Buddha, and Conza 88. What happened to me is that I was dying of cancer (the same cancer that Joe Frazier just died of), and I prayed out to Jesus to either end my life or save save it (I couldn't take the pain), and within five seconds, the pain ended. I went to the doctor and he was astounded. The cancer was gone. I am as fit as a fiddle, but I still deal with emotional problems. So, I am part of a prayer group, and our ministry is to help people who are suffering. I cannot tell you how happy I am with the results! The power of prayer is real!

As I read this again, I'm embarrassed. I need to stop engaging in hurtful debates with other Christians or anyone else for that matter. Who does that help? Who gets saved by arguments? Yes at times people say things that make me angry and that happens to everyone. But Jesus said "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad because great is your reward in heaven for so persecuted they the prophets who were before thee."

I'm sorry. I'm all over the place and I haven't answered your question regarding your sister. I'll get to that. But the more I think about it, the more I'm bothered by the fact that some of us (myself included) seem to act like the most important things for Christians to do are to make sure other people believe exactly like us instead of making sure other people know what God has done for us. People are hurting from emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, growing up in homes and seeing parents abuse each other, and instead of offering people real hope and help we spend our time arguing over this interpretation of that verse? If you have the right "belief" and God hasn't actually done anything for you in your life so you are just as dysfunctional as someone who is not a Christian, what good is that belief? Heaven begins here on earth according to Jesus. And for those who have not been delivered by God from the results of the dysfunction thrust on them often in childhood, they are still living in hell. God is helping me put my living hell behind me. I'm not at all worried about future hell.

As for your sister, I believe God wants more than anything to see her saved. And because of that, there is hope. If it consoles you to believe that either God wants her to be saved and he will save her later whether she wants to be saved or not, or that God doesn't want her to be saved and that is no hope, then that's fine. I'm not a universalist (someone who believes everyone will go to heaven) or a restorationist (someone who believes that everyone will eventually go to heaven though some will have to go through some kind of purgatory first), but I have nothing against those who are and I believe they are Christians as well. I hope that answers your question. And again, my apologies for my attitude. I plan to go into 2013 with a much more positive outlook especially with regards to how I spread the version of Christianity I believe.

Okay, so right or wrong your viewpoints are:

-Babies are not judged, because they have no sin to be judged by and do not understand Christ, so God would not hold them liable for that.
-Non-Christians are not judged if life circumstances prevent them from knowing Christ (either by geographic or social isolation).

I think I understand now. Let me ask one more question then, just one, please bear with me. I think I'm being polite and I appreciate you taking your time to speak with me.

This situation is happening to my sister, so it is very personal to me.

My sister is brought up in a nominally Christian family. She is baptized a Lutheran. She is told that Jesus is a "special son of God," but the message is not very cogent to say the least. She is very intelligent. She prays and nothing ever happens. She grows up and decides superstition isn't for her, so she becomes an agnostic, lacking anything logical to prove whether God exists or does not. She is a good, though over-bearing sister and a loyal wife to her husband. She is honest with her business dealings, and she does care for people. She's very intelligent and as a MBA from Wharton. The Gospel was explained to her, but it just doesn't make sense being that she doesn't know if God is really out there and legitimately does not know what would prove the Bible is the word of God any more than the Quran, her husband's holy book.

I take no offense if your answer is yes, but is my sister going to hell?