If all children go to Heaven and if Hell is forever then it seems that it's GOOD when children die, right?
- Thread starter Patrick1966
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Still doesn't say babies go to Hell. That's YOUR perversion! Much more likely that those who say babies will burn in Hell are the ones who will burn in Hell.Before I answer, please ignore the "LIKE."
Now, read and weep: Romans 9:9-27....
09 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;
11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 ¶ What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
To God Be The Glory
Last edited:
Ask JunChosen. It's his/her Satanic comment.What passage in the Bible would lead someone to believe that?
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Since you're not Patrick it's odd you define Patrick's intent.This is a logical technique called a reductio ad absurdum argument where you take a denial of the conclusion the OP wants the reader to accept and show that it leads to absurd conclusions.
Except here the logical conclusion isn't merely absurd; it's absolutely horrible. "It was necessary to kill the child in order to save the child."
I'll leave it up to you the reader to figure out what Patrick wants you to conclude (or what he's arguing against).
Now, one of Patrick's assumptions which is key to his overall argument is that God will save babies (born or unborn) and children. JunChosen has chosen to address the overall argument by attacking this assumption, which has lead to an entertaining side-show between him and Jack.
Call it anything you like to avoid the observation, someone who asks if killing children to ensure instant Heaven isn't the natural conclusion to save them from Hell should they grow up and die in sin, misses the entire spirit,Holy Spirit, of the Gospel.
And draws a natural conclusion from this reader, to wonder if they have children. And consider their question and those children's Heavenly chances.
Enjoy your popcorn.
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Thanks Patrick. I was hoping to reach you as to how the OP can be interpreted given its context. I appreciate that you cannot understand this.
I'm always at peace. I hope you are too.
You will NOT find the words: "Babies go to Hell" written in Scripture. People go to hell BECAUSE they are SINNERS!!!
Romans 3:10 reads:
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." This verse is God's assessment of the human race and includes babies and children without exception!
STOP teaching the things of God where you have no knowledge of.
To God Be The Glory
Last edited:
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
Sure.............
Lets embrace Hamas when we meet them in heaven because we must love, forgive, and show mercy to those who are currently burning babies' alive. Burning women alive. Burning children alive. and cutting the heads off of other babies.
The head cutting is not so severe as it is quick. Perhaps the burning is a form of purification for those?
Over 20 Americans now are hostages.... as of 10-10-23
Patrick will probably give you the Scripture 1 Timothy 4:9-10 which reads:
9 This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe.
However; he failed to understand that ONLY the true believers will trust in the living God.
Also read,1 John 4:14
To God Be The Glory
Last edited:
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
No scripture states innocent babies go to Hell.
Why argue with that which does not refer to our Bible and God?
And you won't find the doctrine either. You made it up. Babies are not sinners.
Last edited:
I think it will relate to the nature of God. He is just and Mercy.
VIRTUE, ORIGINAL (Hebr. Zekut Abot, literally "merit of the Fathers"):
By: Joseph Jacobs
Table of ContentsA term invented by S. Levy as a contrast to the expression "original sin," and designating the specifically Jewish concept of the influence of the virtue of ancestors upon descendants. The doctrine asserts that God visits the virtues of the fathers upon the children for His name's sake and as a mark of grace; but it would appear, on the other hand, that the principle applies only when the children continue the piety of their parents. The Biblical basis for the doctrine is to be found in the second commandment (Ex. xx. 5), which states that God shows mercy unto thousands of generations that love Him and keep His commandments, and in Ps. ciii. 17-18, "the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them." Thus Isaac was promised a blessing because Abraham had kept God's commandments (Gen. xxvi. 2-5); and the doctrine is also formulated in the first benediction of the "Shemoneh 'Esreh," which is technically known as the blessing of "Abot," or "the Fathers." The concept is intimately connected with the idea of the covenant with the Patriarchs, to which an appeal is made in Ex. xxxii. 13; Lev. xxvi. 42, 44, 45; and Deut. vii. 12, while an allusion to it is contained in the phrase "his great name's sake" (I Sam. xii. 22; comp. Ezek. xxxvi. 21, 23), which recalls the covenant. It thus forms part of the concept of the Chosen People.
Result of Grace.
If the covenant is still kept with descendants, though they be unworthy, this is the result of God's grace ("ḥesed"); and it is possible that the original form of the expression was "ḥesed Abot" (= "grace of the Fathers." The Targum, however, uses "zekut" to translate the biblical Hebrew "zedakah" (comp. Gen. xv. 6; Deut. ix. 5, 6). The injunction of the second commandment is explained by the Targum and the Talmud (Sanh. 27b) on the principle that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children only when they imitate the deeds of their parents (see Rashi and Ibn Ezra ad loc.). This doctrine underlies the Jewish conception of life, drawing its inspiration from an idealized past (comp. "Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you," Isa. li. 2), and laying stress upon tradition and upon the ritual ceremonies intended to keep tradition alive. It is closely associated, moreover, with the idea of an organic or dynamic solidarity in Israel as a body existent through past, present, and future; and the principle that "all Jews are responsible one for another" is specifically connected in the Talmud with the idea of original virtue (Sanh. 27b; Shab. 39a; R. H. iii.).
VIRTUE, ORIGINAL - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Complete contents the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Just and merciful.Such a God would not send babies to Hell.
So true.
Judaism completely rejects the notion of original sin. According to Judaism, a child is born pure, completely free from sin. We pray daily "Oh G-d, the soul which you gave me is pure. You created it, you fashioned it, you breathed it into me."
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
First, a definition is in order. “The concept of the ‘age of accountability’ is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the ‘age of accountability’ that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into heaven.”1
www.jewishawareness.org
Birth and the First Month of Life - Judaism 101 (JewFAQ)
Learn about Jewish customs relating to birth, naming, circumcision, adoption, and redemption of the firstborn.
www.jewfaq.org
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews (as it is to Christian sects such as Baptists and Assemblies of G-d). Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam's sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.
Judaism's Rejection of Original Sin
Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
First, a definition is in order. “The concept of the ‘age of accountability’ is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the ‘age of accountability’ that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into heaven.”1
Bar Mitzvah and the Age of Accountability | Jewish Awareness Ministries
By Ken Overby Does Scripture address what is referred to as “the age of accountability”? How can a parent discern when a child reaches that age? Why do Rabbis set 13, bar mitzvah age, as the age when a child becomes a responsible adult under the Mosaic covenant? When Jesus met with the experts of
www.jewishawareness.org
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*
The International Theological Commission has studied the question of the fate of un-baptised infants, bearing in mind the principle of the “hierarchy of truths” and the other theological principles of the universal salvific will of God, the unicity and insuperability of the mediation of Christ, the sacramentality of the Church in the order of salvation, and the reality of Original Sin. In the contemporary context of cultural relativism and religious pluralism the number of non-baptized infants has grown considerably, and therefore the reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become urgent. The Church is conscious that this salvation is attainable only in Christ through the Spirit. But the Church, as mother and teacher, cannot fail to reflect upon the fate of all men, created in the image of God, and in a more particular way on the fate of the weakest members of the human family and those who are not yet able to use their reason and freedom.
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.
The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. However, none of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable— to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ.
Finally, an observation on the methodology of the text is necessary. The treatment of this theme must be placed within the historical development of the faith. According to Dei Verbum 8, the factors that contribute to this development are the reflection and the study of the faithful, the experience of spiritual things, and the teaching of the Magisterium. When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood. Only when seen in light of the historical development of theology over the course of time until Vatican II does this specific question find its proper context within Catholic doctrine. Only in this way - and observing the principle of the hierarchy of truths mentioned in the Decree of the Second Vatican Council Unitatis redintegratio (#11) – the topic can be reconsidered explicitly under the global horizon of the faith of the Church. This Document, from the point of view of speculative theology as well as from the practical and pastoral perspective, constitutes for a useful and timely mean for deepening our understanding this problem, which is not only a matter of doctrine, but also of pastoral priority in the modern era.
* PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission. In order to prepare for this study, a Committee was formed comprised by Most Rev. Ignazio Sanna, Most Rev. Basil Kyu-Man Cho, Rev. Peter Damien Akpunonu, Rev. Adelbert Denaux, Rev. Gilles Emery, OP, Msgr. Ricardo Ferrara, Msgr. István Ivancsó, Msgr. Paul McPartlan, Rev. Dominic Veliath, SDB (President of the Committee), and Sr. Sarah Butler, MSTB. The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission. The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved in forma specificaby the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.
Introduction
1. St Peter encourages Christians to be always ready to give an account of the hope that is in them (cf. 1 Pet 3:15-16).[1] This document deals with the hope that Christians can have for the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. It indicates how such a hope has developed in recent decades and what its grounds are, so as to enable an account of that hope to be given. Though at first sight this topic may seem to be peripheral to theological concerns, questions of great depth and complexity are involved in its proper explication, and such an explication is called for today by pressing pastoral needs.
2. In these times, the number of infants who die unbaptised is growing greatly. This is partly because of parents, influenced by cultural relativism and religious pluralism, who are non-practising, but it is also partly a consequence of in vitro fertilisation and abortion. Given these developments, the question of the destiny of such infants is raised with new urgency. In such a situation, the ways by which salvation may be achieved appear ever more complex and problematic. The Church, faithful guardian of the way of salvation, knows that salvation can be achieved only in Christ, by the Holy Spirit. Yet, as mother and teacher, she cannot fail to reflect on the destiny of all human beings, created in the image of God,[2] and especially of the weakest. Being endowed with reason, conscience and freedom, adults are responsible for their own destiny in so far as they accept or reject God’s grace. Infants, however, who do not yet have the use of reason, conscience and freedom, cannot decide for themselves. Parents experience great grief and feelings of guilt when they do not have the moral assurance of the salvation of their children, and people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian. From a theological point of view, the development of a theology of hope and an ecclesiology of communion, together with a recognition of the greatness of divine mercy, challenge an unduly restrictive view of salvation. In fact, the universal salvific will of God and the correspondingly universal mediation of Christ mean that all theological notions that ultimately call into question the very omnipotence of God, and his mercy in particular, are inadequate.
3. The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation. The necessary reconsideration of the theological issues cannot ignore the tragic consequences of original sin. Original sin implies a state of separation from Christ, and that excludes the possibility of the vision of God for those who die in that state.
4. Reflecting on the question of the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, the ecclesial community must keep in mind the fact that God is more properly the subject than the object of theology. The first task of theology is therefore to listen to the Word of God. Theology listens to the Word of God expressed in the Scriptures in order to communicate it lovingly to all people. However, with regard to the salvation of those who die without Baptism, the Word of God says little or nothing. It is therefore necessary to interpret the reticence of Scripture on this issue in the light of texts concerning the universal plan of salvation and the ways of salvation. In short, the problem both for theology and for pastoral care is how to safeguard and reconcile two sets of biblical affirmations: those concerning God’s universal salvific will (cf. 1 Tim 2:4) and those regarding the necessity of Baptism as the way of being freed from sin and conformed to Christ (cf. Mk 16:16; Mt 28:18-19).
Similar threads
