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

[loveableteddybear]

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.

Sadly, Smart-3 is spot on and his feelings about Christianity, in that sense, are justified.

 

[loveableteddybear]

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.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the term "total depravity." Original sin I can bend with, but I cannot bend with "total depravity." It's that singular doctrine that intellectually forces me to accept that grace is totally unmerited and gives us all reason to rejoice, simply because no one at all should have it.

I think a better thread would be over the soundness of the "total depravity" doctrine, which I think might be less offensive to people as it does not primarily concern babies per se.

 

[jmdrake]

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?

The same phrase "Lo I come quickly" in verse 12 is also used in verse 7.

7 Lo, I come quickly; happy [is] he who is keeping the words of the prophecy of this scroll.'

It's not logical to assume that Revelation 22 is supposed to flow temporally all the way through to verse 11. You can't draw the conclusion you are trying to draw when verse 7 messes up the flow and verse 12 affirms that.

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

Are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning?

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

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

I was talking about the claim you made in another thread that punishment of the wicked had to continue forever because they would keep sinning and keep requiring new punishment. While you may be able to derive that from Revelation 22:11, that's not what the verse says.

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

Not according to what God says about justice.

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.

And the point of torturing said mosquito forever would be.......? Sorry but that's not an accurate analogy of what we are talking about. Besides, I don't care about justice for a mosquito. If you killed an insect just because you found it irritating, what is that to me? You can go out and shoot a deer just to hang it's head up on the wall. And the deer has a right to think that's unjust....if a deer has the ability to think at that level.

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

Ezekiel doesn't say "I sometimes do and I sometimes don't." There are temporal consequences to sin that sometimes get passed to children and sometimes don't. But everyplace in the Bible when it talks about the final judgement the Bible is clear that people pay for the sins they committed. They don't pay for the sins they didn't commit or that they are going to commit in hell. That's just not biblical.

 

[erowe1]

The same phrase "Lo I come quickly" in verse 12 is also used in verse 7.

7 Lo, I come quickly; happy [is] he who is keeping the words of the prophecy of this scroll.'

It's not logical to assume that Revelation 22 is supposed to flow temporally all the way through to verse 11. You can't draw the conclusion you are trying to draw when verse 7 messes up the flow and verse 12 affirms that.

I don't think Revelation 22 flows temporally all the way through. I just think that v. 11 is talking about the same time as vv. 3 and 13-14. I don't see a better alternative. How does a time of probation before the judgment get into this context?

And let's say Revelation 22:11 isn't saying that. I can accept that it might not be. But then we're left with the Bible not addressing whether sinners will continue to be sinners while they're being punished. So maybe they will, and maybe they won't. And if that's the case, then the possibility still remains that their continued wickedness could factor into how God could be just in continuing to punish them.

Are Sodom and Gomorrah still burning?

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I don't know what exactly the function of the word "eternal" is in that verse. But notice that it says they are set forth as an example, or a proof (Gk. deigma) of the judgment of eternal fire, which doesn't necessarily mean that the fire that fell on them was eternal fire, since there's a difference between a sign or proof of a thing and the thing itself. But if you mean to say that the word aionios (eternal) doesn't always mean "eternal," then I agree, it doesn't always mean that. On the other hand, if you're saying that it never means that, then I disagree, it clearly sometimes does. It seems like special pleading to me to say that any time it's talking about eternal life it really means eternal, but any time it's talking about eternal punishment, it doesn't.

Not according to what God says about justice.

Where does God say that?

And the point of torturing said mosquito forever would be.......?

I didn't mention torturing it. Nor did I say that God tortures babies. I didn't even bring the term "torture" into the discussion. You did. The Bible does use the word "torture" and similar words for the fate of the wicked. How exactly we are to take that I don't know. I assume that it's analogical language. And how it would relate to the differing punishments of different people, I also don't know. All I meant was that I would not be unjust in treating a mosquito to the fate that is right for mosquitoes, whether the mosquito had actually sucked my blood or not. Similarly, God would not be unjust to treat murderers, fornicators, idolaters, and so on, to the fate that is right for them even if he didn't let them live long enough to commit the acts that such people commit. We have no right to think that there is anything about us to endear us to God any more than a mosquito.

Ezekiel doesn't say "I sometimes do and I sometimes don't."

Yes it does.
Ezekiel 18:2 talks about when God does do that, saying:

What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge"?

And then v. 3 talks about a coming situation in which that will no longer obtain:

As I live, says the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel.

And the following verses of the chapter are all talking about that situation in which God will no longer punish children for parents' sins.

The same thing goes for Jeremiah 31:29-30:

In those days they shall no longer say: "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge.

These promises for some future estate for Israel are in contrast to the situation they were in under the Mosaic covenant, where God said:

Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

Exodus 34:7 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."

Numbers 14:18 'The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children to the third and the fourth generation.'

Deuteronomy 5:9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me,

I understand Ezekiel 18 and Jeremiah 31 to be talking about the millennial kingdom. But, whether I'm right about that or not, it's still the case that they are contrasting a situation in which God will not judge children for parents' sins with previous situations in which he has.

But everyplace in the Bible when it talks about the final judgement the Bible is clear that people pay for the sins they committed. They don't pay for the sins they didn't commit or that they are going to commit in hell. That's just not biblical.

The Bible does talk about people being punished for sins they committed in this life. But I don't know of any places in the Bible that say that they will not sin any more in the afterlife. If you know for sure that they won't, then you know more about that than I do.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think Revelation 22 flows temporally all the way through. I just think that v. 11 is talking about the same time as vv. 3 and 13-14. I don't see a better alternative. How does a time of probation before the judgment get into this context?

Verse 7 breaks up the flow from verse 3 to verse 11. So your assumption just doesn't make sense. But hey, you can hold on to it if that what fits you. It's clear from Revelation 14 that people receive the mark of the beast before the end of the world (at least to me). That's when probation closes.

And let's say Revelation 22:11 isn't saying that. I can accept that it might not be. But then we're left with the Bible not addressing whether sinners will continue to be sinners while they're being punished. So maybe they will, and maybe they won't. And if that's the case, then the possibility still remains that their continued wickedness could factor into how God could be just in continuing to punish them.

Could be. Cause for speculation. If you're saying that's your speculative belief then okay. That's not how I read what you said before, but I may have misread you.

I don't know what exactly the function of the word "eternal" is in that verse. But notice that it says they are set forth as an example, or a proof (Gk. deigma) of the judgment of eternal fire, which doesn't necessarily mean that the fire that fell on them was eternal fire, since there's a difference between a sign or proof of a thing and the thing itself. But if you mean to say that the word "eternal" doesn't always mean "eternal," then I agree, it doesn't always mean that. On the other hand, if you're saying that it never means that, then I disagree, it clearly sometimes does. It seems like special pleading to me to say that any time it's talking about eternal life it really means eternal, but any time it's talking about eternal punishment, it doesn't.

If someone dies and never comes back to life is he eternally dead? The Bible talks about the "second death". Your interpretation seems to be that at the second death someone doesn't actually die. Ummm...okay. I guess special pleadings go both ways.

Where does God say that?

I've already covered that. You just don't accept what was written as written. I'm okay with that.

I didn't mention torturing it. Nor did I say that God tortures babies. I didn't even bring the term "torture" into the discussion. You did.

Right. That's the premise of the entire discussion. Read the thread title again before responding. Someone being "burned forever" is torture. If you are defending that premise then you are defending torture. If you disagree with the premise that God burns babies in hell forever then you really have no reason to be debating me on this. I actually started this thread for SF, but he hasn't engaged it. That's fine.

The Bible does use the word "torture" and similar words for the fate of the wicked. How exactly we are to take that I don't know. I assume that it's analogical language. And how it would relate to the differing punishments of different people, I also don't know. All I meant was that I would not be unjust in treating a mosquito to the fate that is right for mosquitoes, whether the mosquito had actually sucked my blood or not. Similarly, God would not be unjust to treat murderers, fornicators, idolaters, and so on, to the fate that is right for them even if he didn't let them live long enough to commit the acts that such people commit. We have no right to think that there is anything about us to endear us to God any more than a mosquito.

Again, bad analogy IMO. Killing mosquitoes has nothing to do with "justice" and everything to do with self defense. If you want a real analogy, then go with "Minority Report" where people are locked up for "pre crime".

Yes it does.
Ezekiel 18:2 talks about when God does do that, saying:

Huh? You read Ezekiel 18:2 and came to the conclusion that God punishes children in hell for their parents sins? That....makes....no...sense.

And then v. 3 talks about a coming situation in which that will no longer obtain:
In those days they shall no longer say: "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge

What part of "But all shall die for their own sins" do you not understand? Teeth set on edge != burning in hell.

 

[jllundqu]

Okay. I should qualify this as "some Calvinists". But I'm calling all of you out because some of you who believe otherwise have not stood up for the honor of Yaweh against the insane charge made by Sola_Fide.

And yes, it is insane. Calvinists agree with others that God is limited by the fact that He can't do something that goes against His nature. Well burning a baby forever in hell goes against His nature. And the blaphemous idea that God "needs" people to burn forever to "satiate His wrath" can be found nowhere in the Bible. Sola_Fide just made that up out of thin air. There is much Biblical evidence that hell doesn't last forever anyway. Even some Calvinist acknowledge this. But even if you believe that, the idea that a baby, who has yet to have a sinful thought, could be sent by a loving God to burn in hell is simply a lie straight from Satan to discredit God. And don't give me some crap about "Well God can do whatever the hell He wants". No He can't. Not if the Calvinist claim that God doesn't go against His own nature is true. It's pagans that believe that their gods are able to do whatever level of evil humans are capable and somehow it's good because it's God.

The Bible makes it clear.

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.

Children do no burn in hell for the sins of their parents. And that includes our ultimate parent Adam. Those who go to hell will end up their for their own sins. Even if you believe God dictates who will and will not be saved, the idea that He punishes someone for what they did not do is simply unbiblical. And no, questioning the insanity of those who think God burns little babies forever to satiate His wrath is not "questioning God". It is questioning people who sink so spiritually low that they act like they are God. Religious fanatics who have murdered in the name of their god and/or convinced their followers to do so are quick to say "Don't question God" when people are merely questioning them.

I'm more of a Deist/Neo-Pagan kinda guy... no need for pointless religious bickering where I'm sitting. I believe a 'god' exists.... that's as far as I go.

 

[erowe1]

Teeth set on edge != burning in hell.

Correct. Nothing in Ezekiel 18 is about Hell.

If someone dies and never comes back to life is he eternally dead? The Bible talks about the "second death". Your interpretation seems to be that at the second death someone doesn't actually die. Ummm...okay. I guess special pleadings go both ways.

I'm not sure what it means to "actually die." But whatever the second death is, it's the same as the lake of fire, which is described in Revelation 20:10 as being tormented forever and ever.

 

[jmdrake]

Correct. Nothing in Ezekiel 18 is about Hell.



I'm not sure what it means to "actually die." But whatever the second death is, it's the same as the lake of fire, which is described in Revelation 20:10 as being tormented forever and ever.

Ezekiel 28 is seen by most as a dual prophecy referring to the "king of Tyre" and to Lucifer. Here is the ending of both.

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

 

[loveableteddybear]

I feel like a real wuss for backing out of this convo, the shop got really busy.

I hope to intelligently speak about the issue of "total depravity," as it's the only way I understand the Gospel, soon.

 

[Toxic]

Everyone gets so crazy over mythology. Evolve already. Geeze.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Everyone gets so crazy over mythology. Evolve already. Geeze.

I just grew my gills.

 

[FreeHampshire]

Calvinism is probably the most absurd branch of Christianity in existence. A fringe, man-made cult created by a known murderer that just figured out what "pre-destination" was and took it to an absurd extreme. Just another Augustinian-worshiping heresy.

 

[FreeHampshire]

Yep, this is all just Augustinian nonsense. So far, no one has found the Augustinian view of original sin in the bible. Hint: it isn't there. The Jews never believed one carries a generational sin that goes back to Adam. The Catholic Church never believed in this view until post-schism. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects your view on the original sin to this day. Humans are not born in sin or with sin and cannot be held accountable for ancestral actions. They are born with the consequence of Adam's sin. That's it. You Calvinists and Catholics in this thread and just making things up.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Romans 5:12 Hampshire

 

[jmdrake]

Romans 5:12 Hampshire

Romans 5:13 teddybear

 

[Christian Liberty]

I know Sola has rejected the view that every infant who dies is saved, but has he ever explicitly said that they are all damned?

"Calvinists" take different views on this. I can, however, think of two things that every 5-point Calvinist should be able to agree on.

1. Due to the fact that all human beings are conceived dead in Adam, if God did send an infant to Hell, or even all of them, he would not be unjust. As sinful human beings, all infants, along with every single person ever to exist, deserves to go to Hell.

2. Any infant for whom Christ died will be saved.

The Bible isn't really all that clear beyond that. I've seen 1 Samuel 12:23 to argue that all infants, or at least all infants with believing parents, are saved. That's a plausible thought but not conclusive, IMO. Matthew 19:14 is also a plausible argument about children who die being saved, but again, its not conclusive, and at any rate, I see no good reason at all that children could not have personal faith. Infants shouldn't be able to (Although I believe God could supernaturally cause them to) but I see no reason why a child could not.

The Bible is really too ambiguous on this to say, IMO. Ultimately, I find it hard to believe that there aren't any elect who die as infants, but the Bible isn't completely clear on it. So I'd ultimately leave it to God, hope that they are saved, but not claim to know for sure.

BTW: I see no Biblical evidence for any kind of a "third destination" I think its pretty clear that infants go to either heaven or hell just like anyone else.

 

[Theocrat]

Are Babies Immaculate?

Okay. I should qualify this as "some Calvinists". But I'm calling all of you out because some of you who believe otherwise have not stood up for the honor of Yaweh against the insane charge made by Sola_Fide.

And yes, it is insane. Calvinists agree with others that God is limited by the fact that He can't do something that goes against His nature. Well burning a baby forever in hell goes against His nature. And the blaphemous idea that God "needs" people to burn forever to "satiate His wrath" can be found nowhere in the Bible. Sola_Fide just made that up out of thin air. There is much Biblical evidence that hell doesn't last forever anyway. Even some Calvinist acknowledge this. But even if you believe that, the idea that a baby, who has yet to have a sinful thought, could be sent by a loving God to burn in hell is simply a lie straight from Satan to discredit God. And don't give me some crap about "Well God can do whatever the hell He wants". No He can't. Not if the Calvinist claim that God doesn't go against His own nature is true. It's pagans that believe that their gods are able to do whatever level of evil humans are capable and somehow it's good because it's God.

The Bible makes it clear.

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.

Children do no burn in hell for the sins of their parents. And that includes our ultimate parent Adam. Those who go to hell will end up their for their own sins. Even if you believe God dictates who will and will not be saved, the idea that He punishes someone for what they did not do is simply unbiblical. And no, questioning the insanity of those who think God burns little babies forever to satiate His wrath is not "questioning God". It is questioning people who sink so spiritually low that they act like they are God. Religious fanatics who have murdered in the name of their god and/or convinced their followers to do so are quick to say "Don't question God" when people are merely questioning them.

Jmdrake, where in Scripture does it teach that babies never sin? If you are affirming that, then you are putting babies in the same category as Jesus Christ, Who was sinless on this Earth.

 

[Petar]

Jmdrake, where in Scripture does it teach that babies never sin? If you are affirming that, then you are putting babies in the same category as Jesus Christ, Who was sinless on this Earth.

Yeah, I bet that Jesus never took a shit in his diaper either; what a great human-being.

 

[eduardo89]

Jmdrake, where in Scripture does it teach that babies never sin? If you are affirming that, then you are putting babies in the same category as Jesus Christ, Who was sinless on this Earth.

A baptised baby has no sin. They are unable to commit any personal sin due to their lack of understanding, and since baptism cleanses the soul of original sin, they are in a state of sinlessness.

With regards to an unbaptised baby, I would trust in God's infinite mercy and hope they are saved, but we have no assurance of that.

 

[matt0611]

Yeah, I bet that Jesus never took a shit in his diaper either; what a great human-being.

Uhh I don't think crapping your diaper as a baby is a sin. I think you'd have a hard time trying to make a case for that by using the Bible.