If all children go to Heaven and if Hell is forever then it seems that it's GOOD when children die, right?

[The Learner]

5. Secondly, taking account of the principle lex orandi lex credendi, the Christian community notes that there is no mention of Limbo in the liturgy. In fact, the liturgy contains a feast of the Holy Innocents, who are venerated as martyrs, even though they were not baptised, because they were killed “on account of Christ”.[3] There has even been an important liturgical development through the introduction of funerals for infants who died without Baptism. We do not pray for those who are damned. The Roman Missal of 1970 introduced a Funeral Mass for unbaptised infants whose parents intended to present them for Baptism. The Church entrusts to God’s mercy those infants who die unbaptised. In its 1980 Instruction on Children’s Baptism, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed that: “with regard to children who die without having received Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as indeed she does in the funeral rite established for them”.[4] The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) adds that: “the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved [1Tim 2:4], and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:14), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism”.[5]

6. Thirdly, the Church cannot fail to encourage the hope of salvation for infants who die without Baptism by the very fact that she “prays that no one should be lost”,[6] and prays in hope for “all to be saved”.[7] On the basis of an anthropology of solidarity,[8] strengthened by an ecclesial understanding of corporate personality, the Church knows the help that can be given by the faith of believers. The Gospel of Mark actually describes an occasion when the faith of some was effective for the salvation of another (cf. Mk 2:5). So, while knowing that the normal way to achieve salvation in Christ is by Baptism in re, the Church hopes that there may be other ways to achieve the same end. Because, by his Incarnation, the Son of God “in a certain way united himself” with every human being, and because Christ died for all and all are in fact “called to one and the same destiny, which is divine”, the Church believes that “the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22).[9]

7. Finally, when reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without Baptism, the Church respects the hierarchy of truths and therefore begins by clearly reaffirming the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin. Jesus Christ, in his existence for us and in the redemptive power of his sacrifice, died and rose again for all. By his whole life and teaching, he revealed the fatherhood of God and his universal love. While the necessity of Baptism is de fide, the tradition and the documents of the magisterium which have reaffirmed this necessity need to be interpreted. While it is true that the universal salvific will of God is not opposed to the necessity of Baptism, it is also true that infants, for their part, do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive grace. On the other hand, Baptism is administered to infants, who are free from personal sins, not only in order to free them from original sin, but also to insert them into the communion of salvation which is the Church, by means of communion in the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 6:1-7). Grace is totally free, because it is always a pure gift of God. Damnation, however, is deserved, because it is the consequence of free human choice.[10] The infant who dies with Baptism is saved by the grace of Christ and through the intercession of the Church, even without his or her cooperation. It can be asked whether the infant who dies without Baptism, but for whom the Church in its prayer expresses the desire for salvation, can be deprived of the vision of God even without his or her cooperation.https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[The Learner]

1. Historia Quaestionis
History and Hermeneutics of Catholic Teaching​

1.1 Biblical Foundations

8. A sound theological enquiry should start with a study of the biblical foundations of any ecclesial doctrine or practice. Hence, as regards the issue under discussion, the question should be asked whether the Holy Scriptures deal in one way or another with the question of the destiny of unbaptised children. Even a quick look through the New Testament, however, makes it clear that the early Christian communities were not yet confronted with the question whether infants or children who had died without Baptism would receive God’s salvation. When the New Testament mentions the practice of Baptism, it generally points to the Baptism of adults. But the New Testament evidence does not preclude the possibility of infants being baptised. In households (oikos) where Baptism is mentioned in the Book of Acts 16:15 and 33 (cf. 18:8) and 1 Cor 1:16, children may have been baptised along with adults. The absence of positive evidence may be explained by the fact that the New Testament writings are concerned mainly with the initial spread of Christianity in the world.

9. The lack of any positive teaching within the New Testament with respect to the destiny of unbaptised children does not mean that the theological discussion of this question is not informed by a number of fundamental biblical doctrines. These include:

(i) God wills to save all people (cf. Gen 3:15; 22:18; 1 Tim 2:3-6), through Jesus Christ’s victory over sin and death (cf. Eph 1:20-22; Phil 2:7-11; Rom 14:9; 1 Cor 15:20-28);

(ii) the universal sinfulness of human beings (cf. Gen 6:5-6; 8:21; 1 Kings 8:46; Ps 130:3), and their being born in sin (cf. Ps 51:7; Sir 25:24) since Adam, and therefore their being destined to death (cf. Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:22);

(iii) the necessity, for salvation, of the faith of the believer (cf. Rom 1:16), on the one hand, and of Baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Mt 28:19; Acts 2:40-41; 16:30-33) and the Eucharist (cf. Jn 6:53) administered by the Church, on the other hand;

(iv) Christian hope goes utterly beyond human hope (cf. Rom 4:18-21); Christian hope is that the living God, the Saviour of all humanity (cf. 1 Tim 4:10) will share his glory with all people and that all will live with Christ (cf. 1 Thess 5:9-11; Rom 8:2-5.23-25), and Christians must be ready to give an account of the hope they have (cf. 1 Pet 3:15);

(v) the Church must make “supplications, prayers and intercessions … for all” (1 Tim 2:1-8), based on faith that for God’s creative power “nothing is impossible” (Job 42:2; Mk 10:27; 12:24.27; Lk 1:37), and on the hope that the whole creation will finally share in the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:22-27).

 

[The Learner]

. There seems to be a tension between two of the biblical doctrines just mentioned: the universal salvific will of God on the one side, and the necessity of sacramental Baptism on the other. The latter seems to limit the extension of God’s universal salvific will. Hence a hermeneutical reflection is needed about how the witnesses of tradition (Church Fathers, the magisterium, theologians) read and used biblical texts and doctrines with respect to the problem being dealt with. More specifically, one has to clarify what kind of ‘necessity’ is claimed with respect to the sacrament of Baptism in order to avoid a mistaken understanding. The necessity of sacramental Baptism is a necessity of the second order compared to the absolute necessity of God’s saving act through Jesus Christ for the final salvation of every human being. Sacramental Baptism is necessary because it is the ordinary means through which a person shares the beneficial effects of Jesus’ death and resurrection. In what follows, we will be attentive to the way scriptural witnesses have been used in the tradition. Moreover, in dealing with theological principles (Chapter 2) and with our reasons for hope (Chapter 3), we will discuss in greater detail the biblical doctrines and texts involved.

1.2. The Greek Fathers

11. Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act.[11] Hence, not many Greek Fathers explicitly deal with the problem of the salvation of unbaptised children. They do, however, discuss the status or situation - but not the place - of these infants after their death. In this regard, the main problem they face is the tension between God’s universal salvific will and the teaching of the Gospel about the necessity of Baptism. Pseudo-Athanasios says clearly that an unbaptised person cannot enter the Kingdom of God. He also asserts that unbaptised children will not enter the Kingdom, but neither will they be lost, for they have not sinned.[12] Anastasius of Sinai expresses this even more clearly: for him, unbaptised children do not go to Gehenna. But he is not able to say more; he does not express an opinion about where they do go, but leaves their destiny to God’s judgment.[13]

 

[The Learner]

Alone among the Greek Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa wrote a work specifically on the destiny of infants who die, De infantibus praemature abreptis libellum.[14]The anguish of the Church appears in the questions he puts to himself: the destiny of these infants is a mystery, “something much greater than the human mind can grasp”.[15] He expresses his opinion in relation to virtue and its reward; in his view, there is no reason for God to grant what is hoped for as a reward. Virtue is not worth anything if those who depart this life prematurely without having practised virtue are immediately welcomed into blessedness. Continuing along this line, Gregory asks: “What will happen to the one who finishes his life at a tender age, who has done nothing, bad or good? Is he worthy of a reward?”[16] He answers: “The hoped-for blessedness belongs to human beings by nature, and it is called a reward only in a certain sense”.[17] Enjoyment of true life (zoe and not bios) corresponds to human nature, and is possessed in the degree that virtue is practised. Since the innocent infant does not need purification from personal sins, he shares in this life corresponding to his nature in a sort of regular progress, according to his capacity. Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes between the destiny of infants and that of adults who lived a virtuous life. “The premature death of newborn infants does not provide a basis for the presupposition that they will suffer torments or that they will be in the same state as those who have been purified in this life by all the virtues”.[18] Finally, he offers this perspective for the reflection of the Church: “Apostolic contemplation fortifies our inquiry, for the One who has done everything well, with wisdom (Psalm 104: 24), is able to bring good out of evil”.[19]

13. Gregory of Nazianzus does not write about the place and status after death of infants who die without sacramental Baptism, but he enlarges the subject with another consideration. He writes, namely, that these children receive neither praise nor punishment from the Just Judge, because they have suffered injury rather than provoked it. “The one who does not deserve punishment is not thereby worthy of praise, and the one who does not deserve praise is not thereby deserving of punishment”.[20] The profound teaching of the Greek Fathers can be summarized in the opinion of Anastasius of Sinai: “It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands”.[21]

14. On the one hand, these Greek Fathers teach that children who die without Baptism do not suffer eternal damnation, though they do not attain the same state as those who have been baptised. On the other hand, they do not explain what their state is like or where they go. In this matter, the Greek Fathers display their characteristic apophatic sensitivity.

1.3. The Latin Fathers

 

[The Learner]

15. The fate of unbaptised infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. Pelagius questioned whether St. Paul's letter to the Romans really taught that all human beings sinned “in Adam” (Rom 5:12) and that concupiscence, suffering, and death were a consequence of the Fall.[22] Since he denied that Adam's sin was transmitted to his descendants, he regarded newborn infants as innocent. Pelagius promised infants who died unbaptised entry into “eternal life” (not, however, into the “Kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5]), reasoning that God would not condemn to hell those who were not personally guilty of sin.[23]

16. In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.[24] He appealed to the Lord's precept, John 3:5, and to the Church's liturgical practice. Why are little children brought to the baptismal font, especially infants in danger of death, if not to assure them entrance into the Kingdom of God? Why are they subjected to exorcisms and exsufflations if they do not have to be delivered from the devil?[25] Why are they born again if they do not need to be made new? Liturgical practice confirms the Church's belief that all inherit Adam's sin and must be transferred from the power of darkness into the kingdom of light (Col 1:13).[26]There is only one Baptism, the same for infants and adults, and it is for the forgiveness of sins.[27] If little children are baptized, then, it is because they are sinners. Although they clearly are not guilty of personal sin, according to Romans 5:12 (in the Latin translation available to Augustine), they have sinned “in Adam”.[28] “Why did Christ die for them if they are not guilty?”[29] All need Christ as their Saviour.

17. In Augustine's judgement, Pelagius undermined belief in Jesus Christ, the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5), and in the need for the saving grace he won for us on the Cross. Christ came to save sinners. He is the “Great Physician” who offers even infants the medicine of Baptism to save them from the inherited sin of Adam.[30]The sole remedy for the sin of Adam, passed on to everyone through human generation, is Baptism. Those who are not baptized cannot enter the Kingdom of God. At the judgement, those who do not enter the Kingdom (Mt 25:34) will be condemned to hell (Mt 25:41). There is no “middle ground” between heaven and hell. “There is no middle place left, where you can put babies”.[31] Anyone “who is not with Christ must be with the devil”.[32]

18. God is just. If he condemns unbaptised children to hell, it is because they are sinners. Although these infants are punished in hell, they will suffer only the “mildest condemnation” (“mitissima poena”),[33] “the lightest punishment of all”,[34] for there are diverse punishments in proportion to the guilt of the sinner.[35]These infants were unable to help themselves, but there is no injustice in their condemnation because all belong to “the same mass”, the mass destined for perdition. God does no injustice to those who are not elected, for all deserve hell.[36] Why is it that some are vessels of wrath and others vessels of mercy? Augustine admits that he “cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation”. He can only exclaim with St. Paul: “How inscrutable [God's] judgments, and untraceable his ways!”[37] Rather than condemn divine authority, he gives a restrictive interpretation of God's universal salvific will..[38] The Church believes that if anyone is redeemed, it is only by God's unmerited mercy; but if anyone is condemned, it is by his well-merited judgment. We shall discover the justice of God's will in the next world.[39]

19. The Council of Carthage of 418 rejected the teaching of Pelagius. It condemned the opinion that infants “do not contract from Adam any trace of original sin, which must be expiated by the bath of regeneration that leads to eternal life”. Positively, this council taught that “even children who of themselves cannot have yet committed any sin are truly baptised for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration they may be cleansed from what they contracted through generation”.[40] It was also added that there is no “intermediate or other happy dwelling place for children who have left this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, eternal life”.[41] This council did not, however, explicitly endorse all aspects of Augustine's stern view about the destiny of infants who die without Baptism.

 

[The Learner]

20. So great was Augustine's authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion. Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. He cites Job 14:4-5 (LXX), John 3:5, and Ephesians 2:3 on our condition at birth as “children of wrath”.[42]

1.4. The Medieval Scholastics

21. Augustine was the point of reference for Latin theologians throughout the Middle Ages on this matter. Anselm of Canterbury is a good example: he believes that little children who die without Baptism are damned on account of original sin and in keeping with God's justice.[43] The common doctrine was summarized by Hugh of St. Victor: infants who die unbaptised cannot be saved because (1) they have not received the sacrament, and (2) they cannot make a personal act of faith that would supply for the sacrament.[44] This doctrine implies that one needs to be justified during one's earthly life in order to enter eternal life after death. Death puts an end to the possibility of choosing to accept or reject grace, that is, to adhere to God or turn away from him; after death, a person's fundamental dispositions before God receive no further modification.

22. But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine's “mildest punishment” as the privation of the beatific vision (carentia visionis Dei), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties.[45] This teaching, which modified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the privation of the vision of God.[46] This position led the theological reflection of the thirteenth century to assign unbaptised infants a destiny essentially different from that of the saints in heaven, but also partly different from that of the reprobate, with whom they are nonetheless associated. This did not prevent the medieval theologians from holding the existence of two (and not three) possible outcomes for human existence: the happiness of heaven for the saints, and the privation of this celestial happiness for the damned and for infants who died unbaptised. In the developments of medieval doctrine, the loss of the Beatific Vision (poena damni) was understood to be the proper punishment for original sin, whereas the “torments of perpetual hell” constituted the punishment for mortal sins actually committed.[47] In the Middle Ages, the ecclesiastical magisterium affirmed more than once that those “who die in mortal sin” and those who die “with original sin only” receive “different punishments”.[48]

23. Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptised children feel no pain at all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus).[49] The contribution of this last theological thesis consists especially in its recognition of an authentic joy among children who die without sacramental Baptism: they possess a true form of union with God proportionate to their condition. The thesis relies on a certain way of conceptualising the relationship between the natural and the supernatural orders, and, in particular, the orientation to the supernatural; it must not be confused, however, with the later development of the idea of “pure nature”. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, insisted that faith alone allows us to know that the supernatural end of human life consists in the glory of the saints, that is, in participation in the life of the Triune God through the beatific vision. Since this supernatural end transcends natural human knowledge, and since unbaptised children lack the sacrament that would have given them the seed of such supernatural knowledge, Aquinas concluded that infants who die without Baptism do not know what they are deprived of, and hence do not suffer from the privation of the beatific vision.[50] Even when they adopted such a view, theologians considered the privation of the beatific vision as an affliction (“punishment”) within the divine economy. The theological doctrine of a “natural beatitude” (and the absence of any suffering) can be understood as an attempt to account for God’s justice and mercy regarding children who did not commit any actual fault, thus giving more weight to God’s mercy than in Augustine’s view. The theologians who held this thesis of a natural happiness for children who died without Baptism manifest a very lively sense of the gratuity of salvation and of the mystery of God's will that human thought cannot fully grasp.

The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptised

 

[The Learner]

The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptised

Way too long to post it all.

 

[The Learner]

posted to nhere lol

 

[Truthnightmare]

posted to nhere lol

Just reading through, but I don’t believe hell is forever .

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Am I wrong but this is a RCC thought? The question on what happens to unbaptized babies... which would account for all to the age of consent.

Well, I had no idea that the RCC was a believer in baptism saves...... For that is exactly what
all this long diatribe is describing.

I also had no idea they were so in line with the cofC (church of Christ) in this. (You cant be save without a baptism once you are of age......)

 

[Truthnightmare]

Am I wrong but this is a RCC thought? The question on what happens to unbaptized babies... which would account for all to the age of consent.

Well, I had no idea that the RCC was a believer in baptism saves...... For that is exactly what
all this long diatribe is describing.

I also had no idea they were so in line with the cofC (church of Christ) in this. (You cant be save without a baptism once you are of age......)

Doesn’t that mean a person on there death bed, that can’t move can’t be saved?

 

[Aunty Jane]

There seems to be something to the hierarchy of authority in a family.
The husband being the head, with the wife coming next and then the children.
The whole family being under the "umbrella" of authority.

Yes, even Jesus has a “head” over him....his Father. (1 Cor 11:3) So there is an order to family responsibility....as head of the family, the husband is subject to Christ, who is then subject to God.
If everyone answers to a higher authority in the spirit of headship rather than dictatorship, then the arrangement works well in love.

In the Garden of Eden story, Eve ate first and Adam followed.
But Adam took the rap.

The scriptures tell us that Eve was “thoroughly deceived”, whereas Adam wasn’t. She, in her disobedience would rightly forfeit her life as the penalty was clearly stated....but as family head, Adam had the responsibility to remain subject to his “head”, who at that time was to God directly.

Often wondered what would have happened if Adam had refused.

If Adam had obeyed God’s command, even though he would lose his wife, his loyalty to God, and faith in him as the Creator of all that they enjoyed in the garden, should have motivated him to make a hard choice, but he allowed his heart to intervene......it is apparent that a very different outcome would have resulted if he had put loyalty to God first.
Perhaps another mate would have been provided and Eve’s disobedience would have been the example of what happens when we disobey....?

God is a rewarder of those who obey him, but Adam allowed his loyalty to be divided and as a result, he chose badly, so sin and death resulted for all who descended from him.

The one thing that seems to be a revolving door in this discussion is the widely held assumption that humans have an immortal soul and therefore it must find a place to exist after death....either in “heaven” or in “hell” as if these are the only two options.

The truth of the matter is, that the Bible does not teach that the soul is immortal, so that when a person dies, there is no conscious entity that survives the death of the body. Original Jewish belief as outlined in their scripture was that death ended this life and that “sheol” would house the dead until the resurrection took place. (Eccl 9:5, 6, 10)

So what was sheol to a Jew? It was simply the grave.....a place of rest, like a sleep from which God could awaken that soul and restore them to this life, under the rule of God’s Messiah in his kingdom. (Like Lazarus. John 11:11-14)

When Jesus came, he refined their view of the resurrection to add a new dimension to it. Some would be chosen for life in heaven, given the role of rulers and priests in that heavenly arrangement. (Rev 20:6)
This “heavenly calling” (Hebrews 3:1) was first manifested among 120 who received the gift of the holy spirit at Pentecost. These then received valid confirmation of their choosing for that role. But it was understood that their subjects would be earthly. John’s revelation stated that God would be with “mankind” and re-establish his first purpose for the human race. (Rev 21:2-4) Those who would rule them, would do so from heaven...the place where Jesus said he was going to “prepare a place for them”.

So, from the outset, this whole thread is based on a false premise......there is no “heaven or hell” scenario outlined in the Bible at all. There is only “life or death”....
Deut 30:17-20...
“But if your heart turns away and you do not listen and you are enticed and bow down to other gods and serve them, 18 I tell you today that you will certainly perish. . . . I take the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; and you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving Jehovah your God, by listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

They were the only options.....and all who die, including children have paid sin’s wages. Jesus sacrifice then redeems them so that a resurrection will restore their life on earth. (John 5:28-29)
The Bible makes a distinction between those who have committed forgivable sins, and those who have sinned in an unforgivable way.

There are the “righteous and the unrighteous” who are brought back to life, (Acts 24:15) but the incorrigibly wicked will never see life again. “Gehenna” (translated as “hell” in most Bibles) is a place of no return.....not a place of conscious torment in flames.....that is an ugly satanic lie. What purpose would it serve? It is contrary to God’s perfect justice and argues with his righteous personality. All punishments under God’s law were to act as a deterrent to the offender and others. Those who stole or cheated their fellow man were forced into service to compensate them for their losses. But a person who deliberately took someone’s life, paid with their own.

The big picture is not acknowledged here at all. If there is no “heaven or hell” we don’t need to invent places for the dead to go.....neither children nor adults.

 

[Aunty Jane]

We are speaking about unsaved babies, right? This needs to be clarified because you mistook me of being Aunty who is a JW!

Jack is obsessed with JW’s for some reason.....everyone who believes contrary to what he has been taught to accept as truth, must be a JW.....go figure....

 

[JunChosen]

And you won't find the doctrine either. You made it up. Babies are not sinners.

First, read Romans 3:10 to understand if babies are not sinners. To you the doctrine does not exist because the Holy Spirit has NOT opened your spiritual eyes and ears.

Once again I urge you to pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom that you may understand what God has conveyed, concerning about unsaved infants.

Psalms 58:3-8.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Doesn’t that mean a person on there death bed, that can’t move can’t be saved?

Naw, if you are Catholic in good standing a priest will administer last rights.

But technically you are correct... if this is true.

 

[Jack]

To you the doctrine does not exist because the Holy Spirit has NOT opened your spiritual eyes and ears.

Once again I urge you to pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom that you may understand what God has conveyed, concerning about unsaved infants.

Psalms 58:3-8.

To God Be The Glory

It's YOUR doctrine! Not Bible. It's a PERVERTED doctrine that babies burn in Hell!

 

[BlessedPeace]

Naw, if you are Catholic in good standing a priest will administer last rights.

But technically you are correct... if this is true.

Going with the death bed can't move state of a person, and that question, they can't be saved?

If they're a Catholic in good standing they'll receive last rites? That means or implied they're not saved unless or until last rites are given?

 

[JunChosen]

You won't answer my question because you know you're wrong. Babies are not wicked 'rattlesnakes' as you say! Has anyone here ever seen a wicked baby? Of course not! And neither have you. If babies are wicked there would be lots of evidence. You're making this all up. Why would you do such a WICKED thing?

You can't "see" that babies are spiritually wicked because you read the Bible like it's an ordinary book and with human logic. But the Bible is spiritual and therefore must be spiritually discerned.

God has given us such an example in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We find that Abraham pleaded to God that if there were ten righteous, would He still destroy the cities? God said no He will not destroy the cities if there ten righteous.

Common sense tells us that there should at least be more than ten righteous (babies) living at that time. But history says otherwise. because God did destroy the cities, meaning that there were no ten righteous.

Do you still believe babies are innocent? Why can't you believe it is God who wrote Psalms 58:3-8?

To God Be The Glory

 

[Aunty Jane]

Going with the death bed can't move state of a person, and that question, they can't be saved?

If they're a Catholic in good standing they'll receive last rites? That means or implied they're not saved unless or until last rites are given?

Didn't Jesus prove that all it takes is genuine repentance in order for even a serious sinner to be saved?

Where will I find priests giving "last rites" in the Bible? And for that matter, where will I even find Christian "priests" officiating on earth?
Having no earthly Temple means there could be no earthly priesthood. The priesthood of the elect is served in heaven.

The criminal who hung alongside Jesus at Calvary, acknowledged at that he and his partner in crime were guilty, and deserving of death, but Jesus was innocent. So this one asked for Jesus to remember him when he got into his kingdom and Jesus reply was "truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)

Was this thief going to be with Jesus in heaven that day? The answer is clearly NO! Jesus was in his tomb for three days and nights, so it was impossible for him to be with Jesus anywhere that day. Also Jesus did not return to heaven for 40 days after his resurrection. So what was Jesus promising this repentant criminal? A place in heaven? NO! He told the man that he would be with him in "paradise".

Where is paradise? Where was the first paradise where God put humans in the first place? God planted that garden and it was always his intention to have the human race live forever on earth. It was the devil who prevented Adam and Eve from enjoying their paradise home and spreading its boundaries all over the earth till the whole world looked like the garden of Eden. It was he who put up the roadblocks to their continuing life in paradise, though all he could do was tempt them, he showed us his methods.....target the younger and less experienced.....and use emotional leverage to seal the deal.

The criminal died and was probably buried somewhere, but he did not go to heaven or hell.....he was promised a resurrection in the earthly paradise to come.....he will be among the 'unrighteous' who will get to learn more about the man who died alongside of him, and whose life was sacrificed on his behalf. Jesus will call him from his grave, as he will all the dead as he promised. (John 5:28-29) He will have much to learn.

The devil has no new tricks, because the old ones have been working very well for him since our beginnings. Human nature does not change, regardless of what time period we live in.

 

[Taken]

If all children go to Heaven and if Hell is forever then it seems that it's GOOD when children die, right?​

All Natural born “bodies” shall die. (God requires that).

Regardless of AGE, God Already KNOWS “IF” an individual WILL “by their Heartful Truth”, choose Him…or Not.

Fact: God “searches”, or otherwise TESTS, observes, reveals to mankind, that EVERY individual naturally born ALIVE, has their TRUTH in their Heart, examined BY GOD.

Regardless of WHEN their BODY DIES, Regardless of “IF” man heard, knew what their Hearts Thoughts WOULD Choose…
God Knows…and ACTS accordingly.

* Hell IS a Complex PLACE.
……Divisions, Levels
* Hell HAS accommodated;
…..Saved souls of manKIND.
* Hell DOES accommodate;
…..Unsaved souls of manKIND
* Hell SHALL accommodate;
…..Body’s of Unsaved souls of manKIND
* LIFELESS (without its Blood) Body’s and
That body’s LIFELESS (without Gods Breath) Soul and Body’s SHALL be DESTROYED IN HELL. BURNED, ASH, Forgotten and Remembered no more.

* Hell HAS, DOES, SHALL … accommodate;
…..Angelic Unholy (Against God) Spirits.
* They ARE Spirits and SHALL NEVER DIE.
* Those Alive, Living, Spirits SHALL forever REMAIN Alive, Continually ONLY IN FIRE, Which SHALL NOT KILL them, Nor IS there ever an OPTION for THEM to LEAVE.

* The FIRE does NOT burn them to ASH.

* IMAGINE “forever”, ONLY Seeing Fire, ONLY Smelling the putrid smell of burning Sulfur (Brimstone), ONLY Hearing the crackle of Fire, ONLY Tasting the Heat of a sulfur Fire, ONLY Feeling the Heat of Fire….FOREVER, with NO RELIEF, NO ESCAPE.

* THEY SHALL BE Remembered…as the SMOKE of their Hell Habitat/Forever Estate, shall Rise up and be seen ON Earth.

* While Living UNSAVED souls of men, IN HELL, DO experience the same EFFECTS As a DEMONIC Angel IN Hell…it’s TEMPORARY

* A mans Body without BLOOD (life), Knows, Feels, NOTHING.
* A mans Soul without GODS BREATH (life), Knows, Feeling NOTHING.
* A mans LIFELESS body, LIFELESS soul…
Knows, Feels NOTHING….WHICH SHALL burn to ash AFTER receipt of His judgement and Sentencing.

AND BTW, the Division of Hell appointed for Living Souls of men, IS already Overcome by Christ Jesus’ … The Swallowing UP of Hell, IS the VICTORY that shall follow AFTER no mortals exist, judgements, sentencing.

Glory to God,
Taken