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

[erowe1]

It was never an orthodox view that infants go to Heaven by virtue of not reaching an "age of maturity" or "age of reason". That was only introduced when infant baptism was.

Actually, I think the "age of accountability" idea is more closely connected with the rejection of infant baptism than the acceptance of it.

Part of what went on in the debates between Augustinians and Pelagians revolved around infant baptism, which at that time was taken for granted, such that infants must be sinful, since it is necessary to baptize them.

 

[Smart3]

Actually, I think the "age of accountability" idea is more closely connected with the rejection of infant baptism than the acceptance of it.

Part of what went on in the debates between Augustinians and Pelagians revolved around infant baptism, which at that time was taken for granted, such that infants must be sinful, since it is necessary to baptize them.

That's one way to look at it, the other is to realize there is no infant baptism anywhere in early Christian writings, so clearly they're exempt from Hell.

(playing Devil's advocate here)

 

[erowe1]

That's one way to look at it, the other is to realize there is no infant baptism anywhere in early Christian writings, so clearly they're exempt from Hell.

(playing Devil's advocate here)

Isn't this the opposite of what you just said?

 

[Smart3]

Isn't this the opposite of what you just said?

Precisely.

 

[erowe1]

Precisely.

I don't think most ancients considered the damnation of infants a problem. I think that's more based on relatively modern sensibilities, with Baptists and other deniers of infant baptism being the main advocates of an age of accountability theory.

 

[FreeHampshire]

The fact you ignore my post in response to you and simply respond with, "If God turns out to be this, then I refuse to worship Him" reveals issues system of belief. Namely that, pardon me for being frank, that your religion is man made, that man being yourself. You have a preconception of God and if the real God does not fit with it, you will refuse to worship Him.

I ask that you take back that if God is not the way you want Him to be, that you refuse to worship Him. I, for example, never said if God doesn't send babies to hell, I refuse to worship Him. In fact, I wish a hell simply didn't exist. It is a matter of not making an idol that I accept the true God and what He reveals about Himself.

If you can address the Scripture from my post so I can intelligently understand your position, that'd help me understand a little more.

I looked at your post. It had little material and didn't really try to debunk my claims about original sin/ancestral sin. But I will reply

 

[FreeHampshire]

As I explained previously, is that we don't need our father's sins to be guilty, we have our own. Romans 5:12 doesn't say all men die because of one man's sin. It says all men have become sinners.

Yes, let me reiterate. The earliest of Christians and Jews believed the "original sin" was an ancestral sin. That is, we inherit the consequences of Adam's actions. Not the guilt. That's a historical fact and not disputed. It was Augustine who invented this insane "original sin" doctrine. So far you are agreeing with everything I said.

Those opposed to the doctrine of original sin have what is in my opinion a warped philosophy of man that stems from renaissance humanism,

See, this is what cults do. You can't defend what you asserted going by the scripture so you are now just making things up. I guess 11th century Eastern Orthodox Christians were 'warped by renaissance humanism' too. Or 2nd century Gnostics and Catholics who rejected original sin were also influenced by renaissance thought. Give me a break.

the delusion that men are essentially perfectible. I never meant anyone out there that was without sin,baby or adult.

The death of Christianity, everyone.. it's been taken over by the Manicheans.

To be honest, I don't know any two week year olds, so I can't speak about that from personal experience. But, the passage of Ezekiel can be true, but at the same time men can universally be sinners.

Ezekiel said a sin cannot be passed down from father to son. No exception. Why is it that you adherents to sola scriptura just start making things up when you can't find it in scripture? Or we can assume Ezekiel literally meant a mother can pass her sin to her offspring but a father cannot. Oh yeah, that would be a bit of a problem for Christians, for obvious reasons.

It is because men are universally sinners, born with it or learned 0.00001 microseconds after their birth, that they are subject to wrath.

Where is that in the bible




In the end, the Augustinian understanding of original sin is not found in Gnosticism, Orthodoxy, tradition, Mosaic Judaism, Rabbinical Judaism, or any kind of scripture. It's a man-made invention that is contradicted all throughout the bible. The adherents to such an absurd idea only have Romans 5:12 which 1) doesn't support their position 2) is mistranslated.

 

[jmdrake]

It was never an orthodox view that infants go to Heaven by virtue of not reaching an "age of maturity" or "age of reason". That was only introduced when infant baptism was.

Since the New Testament is quite clear that every single human being (save a handful like Job, Enoch, Asa and Jesus) was/is a sinner, the Christian god is free to eliminate them as he deems fit. It can be assumed that all of the children killed by Adam Lanza are now in Hell, as none of them were Calvinists. The Christian response to such massacres is to rejoice that God used Lanza to rid the world of those sinners.

This is not Westboro Baptist Church's unique belief, this is the traditional a-moral Christian belief, and it's a very compelling reason to hate Christianity.

Wrong. There is a difference between being a sinner and having committed a sin. Again:

Being born "sinners" and being "born with sin" are two entirely different things. Consider a fruit tree. You could buy one that already has fruit on it. Or you could buy one that eventually produces fruit. Both are fruit trees.

Think of the fruit a tree produces as "works". It is clear from the Bible that while we are saved by grace we are punished for our sinful works. The Bible also makes it clear in Acts 17 and other places that the works we are held accountable for are not those done in ignorance. I know you hate Christianity and want to paint it in the worst possible light. But your position isn't biblical.

 

[jmdrake]

loveableteddybear: Please answer this question. Why do you think your belief system comforts you regarding your sister? Why do you think it is bad that God would hold your sister, who had clear opportunity to know Jesus, to a different standard than someone who never had that opportunity? Jesus makes it clear that people who had the opportunity to know Him and instead rejected Him are held to a higher standard. Why does that truth bother you? You've brought this up several times so obviously it does.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think most ancients considered the damnation of infants a problem. I think that's more based on relatively modern sensibilities, with Baptists and other deniers of infant baptism being the main advocates of an age of accountability theory.

So you really believe that 2,000 years ago mothers and fathers didn't love their babies and didn't care if they went to heaven or not? And if your saying "ancients didn't consider damnation of infants that weren't their own a problem" that still doesn't make sense. You had Christian grandparents, uncles, friends ect of people who weren't Christian. I don't believe for a minute these people walked around thinking "Oh, if my grandchild, nephew etc dies before he has a chance to understand and accept Jesus he may likely go to hell and burn for eternity, but it's all good."

Any evidence for your argument? Ancient writings on how it's okay that infants burn forever in hell?

 

[erowe1]

So you really believe that 2,000 years ago mothers and fathers didn't love their babies and didn't care if they went to heaven or not? And if your saying "ancients didn't consider damnation of infants that weren't their own a problem" that still doesn't make sense. You had Christian grandparents, uncles, friends ect of people who weren't Christian. I don't believe for a minute these people walked around thinking "Oh, if my grandchild, nephew etc dies before he has a chance to understand and accept Jesus he may likely go to hell and burn for eternity, but it's all good."

Any evidence for your argument? Ancient writings on how it's okay that infants burn forever in hell?

Mothers didn't really count for much. I think fathers did generally care about their own children, and that's why infant baptism probably came about. But I wasn't really talking about how people dealt with the immediate problem of infant death when it affected them, but more the abstract problem as a theological issue, where it would be considered a mar on some religion if it held that the souls of babies went somewhere bad. For most nonchristians it seems to have been expected that everybody goes somewhere bad when they die (see the Iliad). And I also don't think they had this view of babies that is common today of them being adorable little darlings. It wasn't uncommon for them to look at their babies after they were born and decide then whether they were fit for life or should instead be left to the elements to die. If they did live, then throughout their childhood, whether boy or girl, they were a marginalized group who spent most of their time around women and slaves and were held to be of similar worth. I would have to look up primary sources to give the evidence for this.

 

[jmdrake]

Mothers didn't really count for much. I think fathers did generally care about their own children, and that's why infant baptism probably came about. But I wasn't really talking about how people dealt with the immediate problem of infant death when it affected them, but more the abstract problem as a theological issue, where it would be considered a mar on some religion if it held that the souls of babies went somewhere bad. For most nonchristians it seems to have been expected that everybody goes somewhere bad when they die (see the Iliad). And I also don't think they had this view of babies that is common today of them being adorable little darlings. It wasn't uncommon for them to look at their babies after they were born and decide then whether they were fit for life or should instead be left to the elements to die. If they did live, then throughout their childhood, whether boy or girl, they were a marginalized group who spent most of their time around women and slaves and were held to be of similar worth. I would have to look up primary sources to give the evidence for this.

I was talking about ancient judeo-Christians. I wasn't talking about ancient pagans. In some ancient religions child sacrifice was routine. As far as the Greeks, their concept of "Hades" was quite different from the Christian concept of hell. People in Hades' realm weren't going around being tortured for eternity. Yes there was Tarturus, but that was reserved for people who had actually done something bad.

And again, much of this is driven by the (false IMO) belief of inherent immortality which differs from the view of immortality as a gift. If immortality is inherent then God has no choice but to allow the suffering of unsaved souls to continue forever.

 

[shane77m]

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermon-series/269/what-happens-to-babies-who-die

 

[erowe1]

As far as the Greeks, their concept of "Hades" was quite different from the Christian concept of hell. People in Hades' realm weren't going around being tortured for eternity.

I don't think that's so easy to say. Sysiphus's time in Hades seems to have been torture. And IIRC, he was just one of many examples. And I wouldn't assume that most early Christians had a very uniform view of Hell. Revelation gives a vivid picture of torture. But it was never a very popular book, and questions about whether or not to take it literally go back to its earliest interpreters. I assume that there was a lot of overlap between Pagan and Christian views of Hades. Christians and Jews did, after all, adopt the use of that word for the place of the dead.

I don't think it's just a matter of believing in inherent immortality. Annihilation of the soul is one of the possibilities of how God deals with the souls of infants. I don't think that would mean that immortality is a gift, though, either, since at least some beings could still endure punishment forever.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think that's so easy to say. Sysiphus's time in Hades seems to have been torture.

Sysiphus wasn't in Hades. He was in Tarturus. Or to be more clear, there was a general realm that everybody went to. Not too bad, not too good. (Catholic equivalent would be limbo). Those who were particularly bad would go to Tarturus. Those who were particularly good would go to the Elysian fields. Still I fail to see the relevance of any of that to Christian theology. Again, some pagan religions routinely sacrificed children.

And IIRC, he was just one of many examples. And I wouldn't assume that most early Christians had a very uniform view of Hell. Revelation gives a vivid picture of torture. But it was never a very popular book, and questions about whether or not to take it literally go back to its earliest interpreters. I assume that there was a lot of overlap between Pagan and Christian views of Hades. Christians and Jews did, after all, adopt the use of that word for the place of the dead.

Again, non sequitur. I'm not saying that hell cannot involve torture. I'm saying that there is no concept in Christianity (or Greek mythology for that matter) of a place of torture for people who haven't done anything wrong other than being born.

I don't think it's just a matter of believing in inherent immortality. Annihilation of the soul is one of the possibilities of how God deals with the souls of infants. I don't think that would mean that immortality is a gift, though, either, since at least some beings could still endure punishment forever.

In that case immortality becomes a "curse". Still, if you think it's possible that babies could be tortured forever in hell, as opposed to soul annihilation just existing in limbo (the main realm of Hades) what purpose would that serve in your opinion? I saw in another thread that you believed those in hell had to burn forever because they kept sinning by hating the God who was torturing them. Why do you think that?

 

[erowe1]

In that case immortality becomes a "curse". Still, if you think it's possible that babies could be tortured forever in hell, as opposed to soul annihilation just existing in limbo (the main realm of Hades) what purpose would that serve in your opinion? I saw in another thread that you believed those in hell had to burn forever because they kept sinning by hating the God who was torturing them. Why do you think that?

I base that on Revelation 22:11

Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.

I don't feel a need to figure out the purpose. I'm just content that whatever God will do will be perfectly just. If it does turn out that infants end up eternally punished, and if I can't conceive of how that could be just now, then I trust that I'll have an understanding in eternity that will make clear to me that God will have done what is perfectly right. This may be for reasons I can't even conceive of now, or things I could merely imagine. I do believe that God will punish different people differently, and that he will never punish anyone beyond what they truly deserve. But I know nothing about what the soul of an infant will be like in the afterlife. Will they then have mature knowledge of God's law, and if so, will they hate God? I don't know.

As for the pagan views, I think there were a variety. In the Odyssey, which was essentially scripture for many pagans, the afterlife is supposed to be detestable for all mortals. So if Christianity offered any hope of eternal bliss to anyone at all, it was already more sanguine than that.

 

[jmdrake]

I base that on Revelation 22:11

That talks about the close of probation prior to judgement. That does not say that people cast into hell will be kept alive to burn some more because they are sinning while they are in hell.

I don't feel a need to figure out the purpose. I'm just content that whatever God will do will be perfectly just. If it does turn out that infants end up eternally punished, and if I can't conceive of how that could be just now, then I trust that I'll have an understanding in eternity that will make clear to me that God will have done what is perfectly right. This may be for reasons I can't even conceive of now, or things I could merely imagine. I do believe that God will punish different people differently, and that he will never punish anyone beyond what they truly deserve. But I know nothing about what the soul of an infant will be like in the afterlife. Will they then have mature knowledge of God's law, and if so, will they hate God? I don't know.

Well by that token someone may "trust" Shiva to perfect and just. As for the souls of infants, Jesus gave pretty clear teaching on that.

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

 

[erowe1]

That talks about the close of probation prior to judgement. That does not say that people cast into hell will be kept alive to burn some more because they are sinning while they are in hell.

It looks to me like it's talking about the New Heaven and New Earth, and that those inside vs. those outside are the same groups mentioned in 22:3 and 14-15.

Also, Revelation 20:10 says:

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Well by that token someone may "trust" Shiva to perfect and just. As for the souls of infants, Jesus gave pretty clear teaching on that.

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

The only way I could really know what God will do would be if he revealed that to us. I don't think he has. But I can still rely on what I do know, and that God is perfectly just is one of those things. Matthew 19:14 and some other verses give me some hope, but they don't come anywhere close to saying that when babies die their souls always go to Heaven.

 

[jmdrake]

It looks to me like it's talking about the New Heaven and New Earth, and that those inside vs. those outside are the same groups mentioned in 22:3 and 14-15.

Revelation 22:12 (the very next verse after the one you quoted) indicates quite the opposite.

12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.

Also, Revelation 20:10 says:

Young's literal translation is better IMO.

and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.

Regardless, the reasoning you gave in the other thread was made up.

The only way I could really know what God will do would be if he revealed that to us. I don't think he has. But I can still rely on what I do know, and that God is perfectly just is one of those things. Matthew 19:14 and some other verses give me some hope, but they don't come anywhere close to saying that when babies die their souls always go to Heaven.

Yes. God is perfectly just. He punishes people for what they've actually done. That's just. Punishing people in hell for what Adam did is not just. God says He doesn't punish people for their parents sins. That doesn't mean there are no earthly consequences for parental mistakes. Clearly there are. But eternal torture in hell isn't just. Saying "Well maybe God will do that and if He does then it must be just" is just circular reasoning.

 

[erowe1]

Revelation 22:12 (the very next verse after the one you quoted) indicates quite the opposite.

12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.

I don't see how that does indicate that. Verse 12 is talking to us as the audience of the book. Those other verses aren't. In v. 12, the punishments and rewards are announced for the future, in vv. 3 and 14-15 they are described from the vantage point of while they are happening. If you do take v. 11 to be talking about the same people addressed in v. 12, then wouldn't that be people alive on earth now, and not in a future pre-judgment probation, like you said?

Young's literal translation is better IMO.

and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.

Is that also how that phrase should be translated when it's talking about Heaven? Or is it just for bad things?

Regardless, the reasoning you gave in the other thread was made up.

Are you talking about the thing that I just told you I based on Revelation 22:11?

Yes. God is perfectly just. He punishes people for what they've actually done. That's just.

And if he does anything differently than that, then what he does is still just.

If I kill a mosquito because I judge it to be a blood-sucker before actually giving it a chance to suck my blood, does that make me unjust? Sin isn't just what we do, it's our natural condition.

God says He doesn't punish people for their parents sins.

He doesn't say that he never does, just that he sometimes does and sometimes doesn't.