Are babies going to populate "hell"?

[MennoSota]

Augustine believed re the pains of endless hell that those "of children dying unbaptized will be 'most mild of all'; but for all the chastisement will be eternal" (p.485).

(J.N.D. Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines")

Or will such children all be forced by Calvinistic irresistible grace into heaven, without being allowed to make a freewill choice for or against Christ? Are they the lucky lottery winners over those in "hell" who weren't so lucky as to die in infancy? Salvation is, then, just a matter of pure 100% luck. And the Sovereign Omnipotent God Who is Love is the lucky lotto winner dispenser. If He loves you, you win the lotto. If not, too bad, he decided to let you fry alive forever. And if He chose you to die in infancy & therefore win the lotto, He doesn't care about your freewill. You'll be forced like a robot or puppet to do His will.

Why do you despise God's grace and require human choice instead?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+12:16-23&version=ESV
2 Samuel 12:16-23 English Standard Version (ESV)
16 David therefore sought God on behalf of the child. And David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground, but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, “Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us. How then can we say to him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm.” 19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. And David said to his servants, “Is the child dead?” They said, “He is dead.” 20 Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes. And he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. He then went to his own house. And when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate. 21 Then his servants said to him, “What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while he was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” 22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

 

[glorydaz]

<sarcasm ignored>

Genesis 25:22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said,"Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.

The babies, Jacob and Esau struggled, jostled or wrestled within her...all words chosen by the Bible interpreters to hide and deny their sinfulness that is implicit in the word they reject, Strong's Concordance: ratsats: to crush to pieces. In this verse the Hithpoel form means to crush each other to pieces, that is, they were trying to murder each other in the womb! Of course, all orthodoxy which denies any life before the womb MUST deny that they had a life before the womb in which they became evil by their own free will decision ye GOD told their mother that they were fighting over the rights to primogeniture, ie the oldest would inherit everything, a fact that is glossed over with barley a glance so strong is the created on earth theory of our creation.

So this one story tells us that not only was at least one of the being evil, (one might have been fighting back yet remaining faithful to YHWH but I suspect both were being evil), proving that the foetus in the womb can indeed be evil BUT ALSO that they knew stuff that a foetus cannot have known unless they had learned it before they were conceived, ie sown Matt 13:36-39, while in Sheol before the creation of the physical unverse.​

:rotfl:

Ya got the makings of a movie there, son.

 

[Arthur Brain]

<sarcasm ignored>

Genesis 25:22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said,"Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.

The babies, Jacob and Esau struggled, jostled or wrestled within her...all words chosen by the Bible interpreters to hide and deny their sinfulness that is implicit in the word they reject, Strong's Concordance: ratsats: to crush to pieces. In this verse the Hithpoel form means to crush each other to pieces, that is, they were trying to murder each other in the womb! Of course, all orthodoxy which denies any life before the womb MUST deny that they had a life before the womb in which they became evil by their own free will decision ye GOD told their mother that they were fighting over the rights to primogeniture, ie the oldest would inherit everything, a fact that is glossed over with barley a glance so strong is the created on earth theory of our creation.

So this one story tells us that not only was at least one of the being evil, (one might have been fighting back yet remaining faithful to YHWH but I suspect both were being evil), proving that the foetus in the womb can indeed be evil BUT ALSO that they knew stuff that a foetus cannot have known unless they had learned it before they were conceived, ie sown Matt 13:36-39, while in Sheol before the creation of the physical unverse.​

What, do foetuses jostle around too much? Embryo's having a laugh?

Darned evil non elect zygotes!



:freak:

:rain:

 

[Lon]

Interesting how your Holy Book does not seem to provide a consistent answer. Would have thought your deity would be clearer.

This incredulous approach just has this looking trollish, J-dog. Try to up your game to participant or simply refrain from what is already disdained in your eyes? Just a thought, it is better than another meaningless imposed hiatus, no?

Look here:

Psalm 24:1 1 Corinthians 10:26

Genesis 18:25 Romans 3:5

 

[Rosenritter]

1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

If a child is born to a family which has a believing mother or father then that baby will be saved.

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

A baby can not believe, so if it dies without a believing mother or fatther it will just lay in rest. No judgment, good or bad.

By that same interpretation, an unbelieving wife would go to heaven if she dies while her believing husband is still alive, no judgment, good or bad.

 

[Rosenritter]

The following words of the Lord Jesus about "little children" prove that He did not believe that little children will populate hell:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'" (Mt.19:13-14).​

At another place we see the Lord Jesus speaking about children and here the same truth can be seen:

"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.18:1-4).​

We can also see that children are also described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward"​

(Ps.127:3).

Sorry to splash cold water on this parade, but if you are imagining such an absurd scenario as people living while dead in consuming fire that doesn't consume, then you should also consider that if you kept a baby in hell for a few years it would grow up and not be a baby anymore. The original question itself is already fatally flawed.

 

[Rosenritter]

There's a serious flaw apparent in that "babies go to heaven" premise if anyone stops to think what it would really mean to act in faith if that were really to be believed.

Because if you really believe that "babies go to heaven" but they might not (and probably will not) if they mature, then you should be pro-abortion and try to kill as many of these children as possible before they can grow up and be destined for hell.

 

[Hawkins]

Hell is an ancient Jewish concept, while "no children in hell" walks hand in hand with this concept. So "we don't know" may be a more suitable answer in terms of how the children will be handled.

It is natural that immature humans are not subject to judgment, while our New Covenant is only available to those who has a will to choose. Babies don't have a full capability to make such a choice. Children thus can't be judged until they are capable of choosing the New Covenant.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sorry to splash cold water on this parade, but if you are imagining such an absurd scenario as people living while dead in consuming fire that doesn't consume, then you should also consider that if you kept a baby in hell for a few years it would grow up and not be a baby anymore. The original question itself is already fatally flawed.

I am arguing infants who die will not find themselves in hell!

 

[ok doser]

So "we don't know" may be a more suitable answer in terms of how the children will be handled.

that works for me :idunno:

 

[Hawkins]

that works for me :idunno:

Accept that we don't and can't know everything.

 

[Lon]

There's a serious flaw apparent in that "babies go to heaven" premise if anyone stops to think what it would really mean to act in faith if that were really to be believed.

Because if you really believe that "babies go to heaven" but they might not (and probably will not) if they mature, then you should be pro-abortion and try to kill as many of these children as possible before they can grow up and be destined for hell.

"If" it were granted to men to take lives. There is still that. A good many Christians believe children go to heaven, but with conviction? There are still a good many variables before we could ever get to your conclusion. :e4e:

 

[Rosenritter]

Hell is an ancient Jewish concept, while "no children in hell" walks hand in hand with this concept. So "we don't know" may be a more suitable answer in terms of how the children will be handled.

It is natural that immature humans are not subject to judgment, while our New Covenant is only available to those who has a will to choose. Babies don't have a full capability to make such a choice. Children thus can't be judged until they are capable of choosing the New Covenant.

The Old Testament biblical concept of hell is a place of silence where the infant of days and the slave and the master and the ruler alike go down into silence, no longer in trouble, at rest. While there may be all sorts of various folk lore from sources outside the Bible (and the Jews were subject to pagan influences throughout their history) the scripture should be our standard of truth, rather than cultural traditions.

 

[Rosenritter]

I am arguing infants who die will not find themselves in hell!

Agreed. No one finds themselves in hell, as we're told straight up that the dead aren't capable of knowledge that they are dead.

 

[Rosenritter]

that works for me :idunno:

We aren't told how anyone particular age or cultural or ethnic group are handled. We are told what happens with the saints of God, and then we are told that the rest of the dead will be judged, those who are written in the book of life into life, and those who are not in the book of life to be destroyed.

Psa 51:5 KJV
(5) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

No one is born with the right to eternal life, and any doctrine that a particular race or skin color or sex or age has the right of salvation is in error. There's only one individual that I know of that we are told the specific results of his judgment in advance (Ezekiel 28:12-19, Isaiah 14:4-24, Revelation 20:10). Everyone else hasn't yet stood in the judgment. We aren't told their result because God himself hasn't judged them yet, and as such we shouldn't speak for God concerning any individual.

 

[Hawkins]

The Old Testament biblical concept of hell is a place of silence where the infant of days and the slave and the master and the ruler alike go down into silence, no longer in trouble, at rest. While there may be all sorts of various folk lore from sources outside the Bible (and the Jews were subject to pagan influences throughout their history) the scripture should be our standard of truth, rather than cultural traditions.

No. The hell concept back in Jesus' days is a Pharisaic concept which Jesus Himself never tried to correct but making use of it in His teachings and parables instead.

Josephus (the Pharisee) tried to explain what hell is to the Greeks.

An Extract Out of Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades:
1. Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the of the good things they see, and rejoice in the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region, wherein the light of this world does not shine; from which circumstance, that in this region the light does not shine, it cannot be but there must be in it perpetual darkness. This region is allotted as a place of custody for souls, ill which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one's behavior and manners.
2. In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared for a day afore-determined by God, in which one righteous sentence shall deservedly be passed upon all men; when the unjust, and those that have been disobedient to God, and have given honor to such idols as have been the vain operations of the hands of men as to God himself, shall be adjudged to this everlasting punishment...

 

[Bright Raven]

NO!

 

[Rosenritter]

No. The hell concept back in Jesus' days is a Pharisaic concept which Jesus Himself never tried to correct but making use of it in His teachings and parables instead.

Josephus (the Pharisee) tried to explain what hell is to the Greeks.

An Extract Out of Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades:
1. Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the of the good things they see, and rejoice in the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region, wherein the light of this world does not shine; from which circumstance, that in this region the light does not shine, it cannot be but there must be in it perpetual darkness. This region is allotted as a place of custody for souls, ill which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one's behavior and manners.
2. In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared for a day afore-determined by God, in which one righteous sentence shall deservedly be passed upon all men; when the unjust, and those that have been disobedient to God, and have given honor to such idols as have been the vain operations of the hands of men as to God himself, shall be adjudged to this everlasting punishment...

1. Josephus was not a Christian, Josephus is not inspired nor inerrant, and is only useful for confirming what constitutes Jewish belief, which may be any mixture of fable and truth

2. Regardless of anyone's own ideas or mythologies or folk tales, scripture takes precedence over Jewish fables (Titus 1:14)

3. The only time Jesus did borrow a non-Jewish perspective was for the setting of a parable that even mocked the concept and blended multiple scenarios together, a parable for the purpose of condemning the Pharisees and foreshadowing the acceptance of the Gentile in their place, not as a contradiction of all previous scripture.

4. All instances of Christ's teaching concerning death and hell was consistent with death being as a sleep, and the judgment of hell fire being a place that burned up the wicked, in agreement with all other scriptures that tells us that the wicked are reduced to ash and shall be no more.

Regardless, you wouldn't have these absurd problems such as "do babies go to hell" and its inevitable corollary "abort as many babies as you can to send them to heaven" if you stuck with the Biblical teaching in the first place.

 

[glorydaz]

Agreed. No one finds themselves in hell, as we're told straight up that the dead aren't capable of knowledge that they are dead.

Could you cite that "straight up" scripture?

 

[glorydaz]

There's a serious flaw apparent in that "babies go to heaven" premise if anyone stops to think what it would really mean to act in faith if that were really to be believed.

Because if you really believe that "babies go to heaven" but they might not (and probably will not) if they mature, then you should be pro-abortion and try to kill as many of these children as possible before they can grow up and be destined for hell.

What about a baby's ability to grow up and turn to the Lord?

I don't think your argument there holds water.