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

[Confederate]

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?

St. John Cassian, the greater founder of western monasticism, wrote:

The knowledge of everything is attained by those who think well and with simplicity about all matters and who strive to imitate faithfully rather than to discuss everything that they see being taught or done by the elders. But whoever begins to learn by discussion will never enter into the reason for the truth, because the enemy will see him trusting in his own judgment rather than in that of the fathers and will easily drive him to the point where even things which are very beneficial and salutary will seem useless and harmful to him. The clever foe will so play upon his presumption that, stubbornly clinging to his own unreasonable understanding, he will persuade himself that only that is holy which he considers to be correct and righteous, guided by his erroneous obstinacy alone.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Well, JMdrake, thank you for the kind response and thank you for the apology. I caught myself in my first reply being inflammatory and I decided that I was doing the wrong thing and was conscious not to react to provocation.

I have stated before on this thread that predestination or any other doctrinal matters are not prerequisites for salvation, as only Christ's work on the cross is sufficient for salvation. As Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 3, that is the foundation, and everyone else builds on top of that foundation. God will subsequently test what's on the foundation, and if what it built is bad the individual is saved "as if through fire."

To me, whether or not babies go to hell is one of those disputable matters.

I might even say that whether or not every single person who didn't know Christ in this life will go to hell is somewhat a mystery, due to 1 Peter 4:6, but I'm not opposed to a different reading of that passage.

But, I can say with confidence that knowing Christ is the only way to heaven. Apart from that grace that enables us to confess His name, we are dead with sin. So, if it is preached there is any other way to heaven, including works for the non-believer, that is in my humble opinion apart from the gospel. The non-believer, like my sister, would have to be converted by God to be faithful in Christ Jesus. Apart from that, whenever this process occurs, she cannot be saved.

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.

Sadly, there are a lot of better non-Christians out there than "Christians." But Christ said people would know who we are by how we loved one another.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, JMdrake, thank you for the kind response and thank you for the apology. I caught myself in my first reply being inflammatory and I decided that I was doing the wrong thing and was conscious not to react to provocation.

You're welcome and thank you for toning things down as well.

I have stated before on this thread that predestination or any other doctrinal matters are not prerequisites for salvation, as only Christ's work on the cross is sufficient for salvation. As Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 3, that is the foundation, and everyone else builds on top of that foundation. God will subsequently test what's on the foundation, and if what it built is bad the individual is saved "as if through fire."

Cool. For some believing in predestination is essential to believing in Christ. I'm glad that at the very least we can agree it's not a point of salvation.

To me, whether or not babies go to hell is one of those disputable matters.

Fair enough.

I might even say that whether or not every single person who didn't know Christ in this life will go to hell is somewhat a mystery, due to 1 Peter 4:6, but I'm not opposed to a different reading of that passage.

Yeah. I saw TER bring that up. I'm not sure what to make of that one. There's also Romans 14:11.

It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'"

I've always assumed that this was a "forced confession" that would take place at the end but that would not result in salvation. But I will admit that I don't know.

But, I can say with confidence that knowing Christ is the only way to heaven. Apart from that grace that enables us to confess His name, we are dead with sin. So, if it is preached there is any other way to heaven, including works for the non-believer, that is in my humble opinion apart from the gospel. The non-believer, like my sister, would have to be converted by God to be faithful in Christ Jesus. Apart from that, whenever this process occurs, she cannot be saved.

I would not disagree. I just trust God to deal with situations like this in His own way.

Sadly, there are a lot of better non-Christians out there than "Christians." But Christ said people would know who we are by how we loved one another.

Yes. That is sad. I intend to be a party of 1 to change that. Feel free to remind me of that if/when I slip.

 

[Southron]

I'm a "calvinist" in that I believe everything is predetermined and predestined by God.

I won't say ALL babies go to hell, but I can't definitely say that ALL babies go to heaven either. It may be that some do and some do not. I don't know. The Bible isn't clear enough for me to say definitively either way. At least not that I've found anyway, I may change my mind on it.

I don't really take a dogmatic position either way.

I don't believe there's an official "calvinist" position on this topic anyway, I've heard Reformed people debate the topic from both sides, so...

I'm a Calvinist and don't take a definite position either.

At the same time, I'm am not convinced that babies do not sin. For those who think it abhorrent for babies to go to hell, you must believe them to be completely innocent and sinless.

 

[jj-]

Aren't babies born with sin? If not, what the hell is the concept of "original sin" all about? Babies are sinners whether they sin or not.

 

[Beorn]

I'm a Calvinist and don't take a definite position either.

At the same time, I'm am not convinced that babies do not sin. For those who think it abhorrent for babies to go to hell, you must believe them to be completely innocent and sinless.

I'm a Calvinist and take this position too. I think it's probably the majority amongst Calvinists. Probably because we're more into exegesis than eisegesis and the bible just doesn't talk about this. However, my Presbyterian view is that children of believers hold a special relationship with God and should be treated as if they are within a covenantal relationship with God despite not making a profession of faith. If I extend that view to this situation then I do think Christian Parents have every reason to hope and trust that God will take care of their covenant children. Baptists may see things differently since they view God's relationship with children entirely differently than Presbyterians.

 

[FreeHampshire]

Aren't babies born with sin? If not, what the hell is the concept of "original sin" all about? Babies are sinners whether they sin or not.

There is no original sin. This is an Augustinian invention. There is, however, an ancestral sin. Just like if one's parents lose their house prior to their child being born. The child may be born into poverty and suffer the consequence of their parents' poor financial choices, but they do not inherit the guilt. This is the understanding of Old Testament Jews, modern Jews, and eastern Christians such as the Orthodox. Thus, babies don't go to hell for they have no sin.

 

[loveableteddybear]

It is important to keep in mind Freehampshire, that whatever we call "it," man does inherit sin from Adam and exercises this sin. Please see Romans 5:12.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned."


OT: Suffice it to say, but adherence to the doctrine of original sin creates divergent forms of belief.

The lens in which a Protestant that adheres to the doctrine of original sin understands salvation is that Christ on the cross is a man's only hope. If he is too young, too far away, different religion, or etcetera the assumption that such a man outside of his own free will, by accident of birth, is born into sin makes him subject to wrath by default, apart from a savior to pay his price.

Now, the lens in which a Protestant does not adhere to the doctrine of original sin is that men are not culpable for not knowing Christ before they have sinned bad enough (because children sin, they just cannot reject Christ in a profound way nor are mentally capable of sinning in a profound away, aside from the home alone kid in that movie "The Good Child.") Without original sin, it appears that the only way man is subject to wrath is if he hears about Christ and then rejects him. Others will add that such a man who never heard of Christ but was for all intents and purposes "bad" will be judged accordingly. Thus, those who reject original sin appear to have a confusing Gospel. Christ saves some people, some people save themselves, some people reject Christ and go to hell, and some go to hell on their own accord.

To me, if you accept the doctrine of original sin or not is not what's important, it's if you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.

But, to me, original sin makes the gospel straight forward. Without it we get into a confusing "was it a strike or not" baseball situation for a ton of people and worse yet, it turns knowing about Christ into a curse. Why preach the Gospel if people can be saved without it? In fact, if people hear the Gospel and reject it, they are then subject to judgment. They were better off never hearing about it.

Probably the strongest motivation behind missions is Christ's clear command and Paul's example. The second biggest motivation has to be original sin. The belief need Christ for salvation no matter what is a far bigger motivator than the idea that telling people about Christ might actually be to their detriment.

 

[FreeHampshire]

It is important to keep in mind Freehampshire, that whatever we call "it," man does inherit sin from Adam and exercises this sin. Please see Romans 5:12.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned."

This verse is describing an ancestral 'sin' as we inherited the consequence, rather than the guilt. Your doctrine of original sin is contradicted in Ezekiel when the prophet says:

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.


If you have taken this verse to the utmost literal interpretation, the guilt of sin is passed down from the mother. But, of course, this would mean the Lord Jesus Christ was a sinner, since the Virgin Mary would carry such sin.


Like I said earlier, the idea of an "original sin" is not found in Jewish or earliest of Christian thought. It comes from Augustine and him alone.

 

[jj-]

I'm going to just do what the other posted suggested: give my lawyer the bible, so he can just tell me what the hell I need to do, if anything.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm going to just do what the other posted suggested: give my lawyer the bible, so he can just tell me what the hell I need to do, if anything.

lol +rep

You don't need a lawyer. The epistles are there for the would-be lawyers to amuse themselves with, trying to loophole their way to eternity. For everyone else, Jesus kindly told us what the bottom line is, and in the clearest terms imaginable:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

The simple fact is, heaven wouldn't be heaven if entry weren't limited to those who have made themselves fit for heaven. Make yourself fit for heaven, even if you're a devout Atheist, and not only will you hedge your bets but you'll have an easier time living with yourself in the meanwhile.

There's an added benefit, too: When you take Jesus at His word regarding the bottom line, you can just laugh at the Pharisees who tell you you're condemned for eternity because you don't jump through their hoops. That's awfully nice.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Freehampshire, we know from another thread that you are a gnostic or something, so we already know that you come from a heterodox belief.

But that aside, let me respectfully disagree with this:

This verse is describing an ancestral 'sin' as we inherited the consequence, rather than the guilt. Your doctrine of original sin is contradicted in Ezekiel when the prophet says:

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him

If you have taken this verse to the utmost literal interpretation, the guilt of sin is passed down from the mother. But, of course, this would mean the Lord Jesus Christ was a sinner, since the Virgin Mary would carry such sin.

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.

Those opposed to the doctrine of original sin have what is in my opinion a warped philosophy of man that stems from renaissance humanism, the delusion that men are essentially perfectible. I never meant anyone out there that was without sin, baby or adult. 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.

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

Hab 1:13 says "Thy eyes are too pure to behold evil, and thou canst not look on iniquity."

James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

So, God cannot accept any man which there is any sin at all.

I believe the Bible is clear all men have sinned, original sin or otherwise, it does not even matter:

"They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." (Psalm 14:3)

"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one.'" (Romans 3:9, 10)

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)

"Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

Show me a single human being of any age that has not sinned and then we can say that this man is not subject to His righteous wrath. That man is Christ, our very God.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm a Calvinist and don't take a definite position either.

At the same time, I'm am not convinced that babies do not sin. For those who think it abhorrent for babies to go to hell, you must believe them to be completely innocent and sinless.

I'm going by my understanding of the Bible. Sin is the transgression of the law. Paul said he didn't become dead in sin until he knew the law. He also told the Greeks that "God winked at your ignorance but now calls all men to repentance." It's not that babies are so "good", it's just that they haven't had a chance to do anything "bad" yet. And if you think "baby is thinking bad thoughts that he just doesn't remember latter", fine. Regress back to early enough in the pregnancy where there isn't any brain function. But hey, if you think "born in sin and shaped in iniquity means somehow a zygote has committed some sin, that's your belief.

 

[jmdrake]

Aren't babies born with sin? If not, what the hell is the concept of "original sin" all about? Babies are sinners whether they sin or not.

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.

 

[FreeHampshire]

The fact that all the Calvinists in this thread either believe babies go to hell or are unsure about it really disturbs me. If god turned out to be a Calvinist god, then he wouldn't be worthy of worship. Further proof calvinism is a man-made religion.

 

[Confederate]

The fact that all the Calvinists in this thread either believe babies go to hell or are unsure about it really disturbs me. If god turned out to be a Calvinist god, then he wouldn't be worthy of worship. Further proof calvinism is a man-made religion.

I'm a Catholic and I share that position. We simply do not know what happens, neither the Bible nor Oral Tradition give us a definitive answer. All we can do is pray, hope, and trust in God's infinite mercy that they shall be saved.

 

[acptulsa]

If god turned out to be a Calvinist god, then he wouldn't be worthy of worship.

Of course, Dante's hell is a man-made bit of fluff to have faith in as well. If you believe that hell is not eternal torment, but merely a lack of eternal life, you see that babies who die babies are neither tormented nor likely to ever know what they're missing. That might change things a bit. Never has such a house of cards been built on one passing reference to a lake of fire--a lake of fire which no verse ever claimed doesn't put you to sleep forever.

I don't worship anyone's misconception of God, myself. That would be idolatry. Faith is a handy thing--it saves you the trouble and bother of becoming omniscient.

 

[loveableteddybear]

The fact that all the Calvinists in this thread either believe babies go to hell or are unsure about it really disturbs me. If god turned out to be a Calvinist god, then he wouldn't be worthy of worship. Further proof calvinism is a man-made religion.

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.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Are you really accepting the true God, or are you accepting your interpretation of Him? Let me put it another way. What makes Christianity superior to you to say....Hinduism? If you say "Because Christianity is true" that's not a real answer. Someone raised Hindu will more likely believe Hinduism is true. And as for what is or is not "man made religion"...well God made man. And He gave us a moral compass. He did that for a reason IMO. That way when could grow up in darkness, but seek the truth when they hear something that "rights true". If I believed in Zeus I wouldn't serve him because his legend doesn't fit any semblance of a moral compass.

 

[loveableteddybear]

I'm going by my understanding of the Bible. Sin is the transgression of the law. Paul said he didn't become dead in sin until he knew the law. He also told the Greeks that "God winked at your ignorance but now calls all men to repentance." It's not that babies are so "good", it's just that they haven't had a chance to do anything "bad" yet. And if you think "baby is thinking bad thoughts that he just doesn't remember latter", fine. Regress back to early enough in the pregnancy where there isn't any brain function. But hey, if you think "born in sin and shaped in iniquity means somehow a zygote has committed some sin, that's your belief.

JMdrake, being that we are "at peace" in this thread, don't take the following as some sort of way of causing an argument.

What in your opinion is the point of age (roughly) when a human can sin? Do the sins have to be profound enough to be worthy of consideration?

I understand that Biblically youy draw your position from Acts 17:30. Is it possible that men from times previous to that had the opportunity to be saved as per 1 Peter 4:6?