Are babies going to populate "hell"?

[Hawkins]

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

I didn't even remotely said he is. He's a Pharisee however. What I said is the hell concept back then. It's nothing do with Christians and whatsoever as back then there is no formally Christians (i.e., the Jewish concept before Christianity).

What I said that it's historically so which Jesus Himself never tried to correct but using it in His teachings and parables instead.

Luke 12:5 (NIV2011)
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

 

[Rosenritter]

Could you cite that "straight up" scripture?

Ecc 9:4-6 KJV
(4) For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
(5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
(6) Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Other passages also establish that the infant and the servant and master alike find peace in death and refuge from torment, that only the living (and not the dead) have being, that the dead cannot praise God. Old and New Testaments alike refer to death as sleep. Other descriptions include adjectives such as darkness and silence. And Old and New Testaments both confirm that man dies and is destroyed the same as the beast. Considering God defined death in the first couple chapters of Genesis as returning to the dust, stating that we are dust (not some non-essential portion of us, but actually us) this shouldn't be controversial.

 

[Rosenritter]

I didn't even remotely said he is. He's a Pharisee however. What I said is the hell concept back then. It's nothing do with Christians and whatsoever as back then there is no formally an Christians.

What I said that it's historically so which Jesus Himself never tried to correct but using it in His teachings and parables instead.

Christ's statements should be interpreted understanding an assumed knowledge of scripture, not an assumed foundation of Jewish fable.

 

[Hawkins]

Christ's statements should be interpreted understanding an assumed knowledge of scripture, not an assumed foundation of Jewish fable.

Luke 12:5 (NIV2011)
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

In contrary, if you have no knowledge about Jewish customs and early Jewish concepts, you have no way to correctly interpret the verses.Even early church fathers (Christians so they are) reckon the validity of those concepts.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/what-did-early-christians-believe-about-hell/


There is a continuity of such a concept from the Jews till our early church fathers. Jesus never denied or corrected such a concept.

 

[Rosenritter]

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

I don't think your argument there holds water.

Glorydaz, what are the statistical numbers of children that grow up and turn to the Lord? Of course that is a rhetorical question (for who can judge but God) but would you say it is safe to say it is less than 100%? Do you even feel confident in suggesting that it is likely greater than 50%? And let's not even talk in your hometown, let's consider Muslim countries as well. Are we even so optimistic to say 10%?

If your answer was anything less than 100% (meaning you are not a Universalist) then if "babies always go to heaven" is to be believed (AKA "Infant Universalism") then murdering the infant child is the supreme act of love. Slay 1000 infants in the abortion clinic and all 1000 go to heaven, save their lives and likely half of them or more will be destroyed (or tortured without end?) as wicked.

If eternal life was merely about being "innocent" then dumb sheep and puppies and bunnies would go to heaven, having no concept of sin nor ability to sin. Humanity is not innocent, death was pronounced on Adam and all his seed, regardless of age. Not having sinned yet is a matter of not yet having opportunity, and "Infant Universalism" is just another form of "Universalism" and another false way to God other than salvation by Jesus Christ.

I don't have the problem presented by "babies go to heaven" because I believe (as the Bible tells me) that the day is coming when the dead shall hear his voice and rise in the Judgment, and all shall stand before our God and Christ. I trust our God and Christ in that judgment, and should any and all of us in this forum.

 

[Rosenritter]

Luke 12:5 (NIV2011)
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

In contrary, if you have no knowledge about Jewish customs and early Jewish concepts, you have no way to correctly interpret the verses.Even early church fathers (Christians so they are) reckon the validity of those concepts.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/what-did-early-christians-believe-about-hell/

There is a continuity of such a concept from the Jews till our early church fathers. Jesus never denied or corrected such a concept.

I'm not sure you understand my meaning. It doesn't matter what Jewish fable or tradition says, Jesus was not Reforming the Jews the way Luther tried to Reform the Catholic church. That's not his starting point. If there is any intersection at all between the two that is interesting, but that's it.

If you want to speak of destruction of the wicked in hell, look to the Old Testament - that's already well defined there and needs no other support. That's the support that Jesus used, and when he spoke of destruction in hell fire, he quoted the Old Testament. Look there, that's our authority.

 

[Hawkins]

I'm not sure you understand my meaning. It doesn't matter what Jewish fable or tradition says, Jesus was not Reforming the Jews the way Luther tried to Reform the Catholic church. That's not his starting point. If there is any intersection at all between the two that is interesting, but that's it.

When Jesus applies the hell concept He's audience back then include the Jews with such a hell concept. From my understanding your advocate here is to say that you can deliver another interpretation without apply the same hell concept.

You are trying to twist words instead. In Jewish concept it's not a destruction of hell, but a place for eternal torment. It makes not much sense of Jesus to say that fear someone who can destruct hell after your death.

Luke 12:5 (NIV2011)
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

 

[glorydaz]

Ecc 9:4-6 KJV
(4) For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
(5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
(6) Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Other passages also establish that the infant and the servant and master alike find peace in death and refuge from torment, that only the living (and not the dead) have being, that the dead cannot praise God. Old and New Testaments alike refer to death as sleep. Other descriptions include adjectives such as darkness and silence. And Old and New Testaments both confirm that man dies and is destroyed the same as the beast. Considering God defined death in the first couple chapters of Genesis as returning to the dust, stating that we are dust (not some non-essential portion of us, but actually us) this shouldn't be controversial.

Yes, that's what I thought. Ecclesiastes is very interesting because those are not God's arguments, but God's record of man's arguments. Those things man observes "under the sun". "13 This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it SEEMED great unto me..."

Returning to dust is referring to our physical body alone.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Glorydaz, what are the statistical numbers of children that grow up and turn to the Lord? Of course that is a rhetorical question (for who can judge but God) but would you say it is safe to say it is less than 100%? Do you even feel confident in suggesting that it is likely greater than 50%? And let's not even talk in your hometown, let's consider Muslim countries as well. Are we even so optimistic to say 10%?

If your answer was anything less than 100% (meaning you are not a Universalist) then if "babies always go to heaven" is to be believed (AKA "Infant Universalism") then murdering the infant child is the supreme act of love. Slay 1000 infants in the abortion clinic and all 1000 go to heaven, save their lives and likely half of them or more will be destroyed (or tortured without end?) as wicked.

If eternal life was merely about being "innocent" then dumb sheep and puppies and bunnies would go to heaven, having no concept of sin nor ability to sin. Humanity is not innocent, death was pronounced on Adam and all his seed, regardless of age. Not having sinned yet is a matter of not yet having opportunity, and "Infant Universalism" is just another form of "Universalism" and another false way to God other than salvation by Jesus Christ.

I don't have the problem presented by "babies go to heaven" because I believe (as the Bible tells me) that the day is coming when the dead shall hear his voice and rise in the Judgment, and all shall stand before our God and Christ. I trust our God and Christ in that judgment, and should any and all of us in this forum.

Since I know you're an open theist (or at least, you oppose the settled view, I know that I can present you with this idea and you won't reject it out of hand.

Consider this:

When a baby dies, he is transported to Heaven, because, as Paul says in Romans 7:9, children are alive to God prior to the age of accountability (which varies from person to person), and allowed to "get his bearings," so to speak. He is allowed to live with God apart from any influence that might turn him away from his Creator, most likely until he reaches the age of accountability. At that point, he is presented with two clear options, the first being to choose God, to love Him, and is shown what that will be like, and the second being to reject Him, and instead live apart from God for all eternity, and is shown what that will be like.

I honestly don't know what the ratio is for people who die before that age of accountability for choosing God versus choosing separation from God, though I imagine it's much, much higher than 50%.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

First consider actual tiny babies in Heaven. We can only assume that Adam and Eve were made (virtually instantly) with mature, adult bodies in Paradise. I could argue from that vantage point that the new heavens and earth would be populated with persons with who also had mature, adult bodies.

Augustine once said about the age of those in their glory:
For even the world’s wisest men have fixed the bloom of youth at about the age of thirty; and when this period has been passed, the man begins to decline towards the defective and duller period of old age.

Rather, it is probably safer to say (Deut. 29:29) those in Heaven will be just what they need to be there to be able to intelligently fulfill their role as a kingdom of priests to our God.

It makes no more sense that we would be eternally an embryo or infant than that we would be perpetually aged. So we can't say more than that but we know that there we will lack no joys or blessings that we have here; whatever is different there than here (e.g., neither marrying nor giving in marriage), we will lack nothing there than we enjoy here (every joy of marriage here will be perfected and transcended there). After all, the eldest among us are not much more than babes before the Ancient of Days.

1John: 3.2, Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.

As for Hell, I suspect the same applies, but in the absolute negative sense.

So we can't say more than that but we know that in Hell all will lack joys or blessings that were previously granted on earth; whatever is different there than here (e.g., neither marrying nor giving in marriage), those in Hell will lack everything there than they enjoyed on earth (every joy of marriage will be corrupt and transcended in Hell).

AMR

 

[glorydaz]

Glorydaz, what are the statistical numbers of children that grow up and turn to the Lord? Of course that is a rhetorical question (for who can judge but God) but would you say it is safe to say it is less than 100%? Do you even feel confident in suggesting that it is likely greater than 50%? And let's not even talk in your hometown, let's consider Muslim countries as well. Are we even so optimistic to say 10%?

If your answer was anything less than 100% (meaning you are not a Universalist) then if "babies always go to heaven" is to be believed (AKA "Infant Universalism") then murdering the infant child is the supreme act of love. Slay 1000 infants in the abortion clinic and all 1000 go to heaven, save their lives and likely half of them or more will be destroyed (or tortured without end?) as wicked.

I never try to explain away God's mercy and grace. When babies haven't the ability to choose evil over good, they are innocent. No matter the circumstances.

Why are the rest of us given life when we have sinned for years? Because of God's mercy and grace and nothing more.

If eternal life was merely about being "innocent" then dumb sheep and puppies and bunnies would go to heaven, having no concept of sin nor ability to sin.

Maybe they will. They aren't created in the image of God, though, so I can't say for sure.

Humanity is not innocent, death was pronounced on Adam and all his seed, regardless of age.

Jesus was of Adam's "seed", and He did die PHYSICALLY.

Not having sinned yet is a matter of not yet having opportunity, and "Infant Universalism" is just another form of "Universalism" and another false way to God other than salvation by Jesus Christ.

Children are born with faith and it's only sin that separates us from God.

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.​

I don't have the problem presented by "babies go to heaven" because I believe (as the Bible tells me) that the day is coming when the dead shall hear his voice and rise in the Judgment, and all shall stand before our God and Christ. I trust our God and Christ in that judgment, and should any and all of us in this forum.

Yes, shall not the judge of the whole world do right? Perhaps all those babies that died before they could sin are here....

Rev. 6:9-10 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
​

 

[Rosenritter]

When Jesus applies the hell concept He's audience back then include the Jews with such a hell concept. From my understanding your advocate here is to say that you can deliver another interpretation without apply the same hell concept.

I don't recall Jesus taking specific time out of his way to correct every errant doctrine held by Pharisee or Sadducee. When they came to him with a challenge like the Sadducee did with the Resurrection, that's when he dealt with it and he dealt with it definitively. If your argument is that the fables and traditions should replace the scripture and render them null and void then you do greatly err.

You are trying to twist words instead. In Jewish concept it's not a destruction of hell, but a place for eternal torment. It makes not much sense of Jesus to say that fear someone who can destruct hell after your death.

Luke 12:5 (NIV2011)
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.[/QUOTE]

Your commentary of "makes not much sense" shows an a want of knowledge of the teaching of the resurrection of the dead, a doctrine which Christ specifically said was preached as early as the books of Moses. In that day then and this day now, you might be killed through any number of means or by any number of people and they might kill the body. But it is the Judge of the Quick and the Dead that you should fear, who in the Judgment and Resurrection has the power to completely destroy you in hell in such finality for which there is no further resurrection.

If you deny the holy scriptures and instead fill your ears with Jewish fable, you will get false doctrine and conundrums such as this "baby in hell" problem.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes, that's what I thought. Ecclesiastes is very interesting because those are not God's arguments, but God's record of man's arguments. Those things man observes "under the sun". "13 This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it SEEMED great unto me..."

Returning to dust is referring to our physical body alone.

You need to send God a memo, because he was the one that told Adam that we are dust. He did not say "you are spirit, and your dust shall return to the earth." Better hurry and send him a correction that he can publish.

Oh, and by the way, Ecclesiastes is inspired scripture, and also speaks of the coming Judgment. "Just man's words" eh?

 

[Rosenritter]

Since I know you're an open theist (or at least, you oppose the settled view, I know that I can present you with this idea and you won't reject it out of hand.

Consider this:

When a baby dies, he is transported to Heaven, because, as Paul says in Romans 7:9, children are alive to God prior to the age of accountability (which varies from person to person), and allowed to "get his bearings," so to speak. He is allowed to live with God apart from any influence that might turn him away from his Creator, most likely until he reaches the age of accountability. At that point, he is presented with two clear options, the first being to choose God, to love Him, and is shown what that will be like, and the second being to reject Him, and instead live apart from God for all eternity, and is shown what that will be like.

I honestly don't know what the ratio is for people who die before that age of accountability for choosing God versus choosing separation from God, though I imagine it's much, much higher than 50%.

If you substituted "when a baby dies, he is transported to Heaven" for "when a baby dies, it is resurrected in the last day" and then proceeded with your scenario I would acknowledge that God does not put any limits on himself for how long the judgment lasts, or how long it might take to judge any one person. This would also be more consistent with other scriptures such as "In Adam all die" and "In Christ all shall be made alive, but each in their own order..." This might also be consistent with prophetic passages of the new heavens and the new earth where "there shall be no more an infant of days" but "the child shall die one hundred years old." As such where it is not specifically excluded or spoken against it might be so.

 

[Rosenritter]

I never try to explain away God's mercy and grace. When babies haven't the ability to choose evil over good, they are innocent. No matter the circumstances.

In denying "original sin" you are still left the problem that if you actually believed what you are saying, you would support mass scale abortions and genocide in direct proportion to the estimated "lost soul" ration of any particular culture's adult population.

Jesus was of Adam's "seed", and He did die PHYSICALLY.

Which means Adam is really dead, not just in a metaphorical sense.

Yes, shall not the judge of the whole world do right? Perhaps all those babies that died before they could sin are here....

Rev. 6:9-10 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
​

Slain children and infants are not usually slain for the word of God or for their testimony, even if you were to interpret that as a literal event in the midst of all that metaphorical imagery. And we're still left with the problem for which I've heard no solution, that if "Baby Universalism" is true than those who slay them from the womb would be among those that show many the way to righteousness, and will shine brighter than the firmament.

When a proposed theory when allowed to reach its full conclusion leads to a absurdity, it demonstrates that there's something wrong with an initial premise. I know you don't really believe babies go to heaven, or your actions would follow suit.

 

[ok doser]

When a proposed theory when allowed to reach its full conclusion leads to a absurdity, it demonstrates that there's something wrong with an initial premise.

not necessarily

it could mean that the process used to reach the full conclusion is flawed, or that there's a factor not taken into consideration

to demonstrate:

I know you don't really believe babies go to heaven, or your actions would follow suit...

...because your process assumes that her actions would naturally follow from your premise, and so your conclusion is that her belief is false

I would argue that since her belief is not false, there's something wrong with your process or your premise, or that your premise is based on incomplete information


one factor that you're not taking into account is the scriptural prohibition against murder

 

[glorydaz]

You need to send God a memo,

because he was the one that told Adam that we are dust. He did not say "you are spirit, and your dust shall return to the earth." Better hurry and send him a correction that he can publish.

I guess God told Paul a bit more. Haven't you heard? Man is not only body, but body, soul, and spirit. 1 Thessalonians 5:23

Man's body was formed from the dust of the ground. The Scripture speaks of man with more than just a body of flesh. It speaks of a spirit formed within him.

Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Ecc. 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.​

Oh, and by the way, Ecclesiastes is inspired scripture, and also speaks of the coming Judgment. "Just man's words" eh?

I said, "God's record of man's arguments"....perhaps I need to send YOU a memo.

The clue is "under the sun". From what man can see and understand.

Ecclesiastes 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

Ecclesiastes 2:11Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labour that I had laboured to do: and, behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 2:17 Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me: for all is vanity and vexation of spirit.​

Pretty hopeless, don't you think?

Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter. 2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. 3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.​

 

[glorydaz]

In denying "original sin" you are still left the problem that if you actually believed what you are saying, you would support mass scale abortions and genocide in direct proportion to the estimated "lost soul" ration of any particular culture's adult population.

That's nonsense, but it does cause me to give God all the more glory for taking the innocents to be with Him. And, I would never support mass scale abortions any more than I'd commit suicide to be with the Lord before He called me home.

There are unnumbered examples of God using horrible evil things that bring forth good. Abortions fit in here....

Genesis 50:20
20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.​

Which means Adam is really dead, not just in a metaphorical sense.

Which means his BODY is in the grave, but his spirit awaits resurrection of his body.

Slain children and infants are not usually slain for the word of God or for their testimony, even if you were to interpret that as a literal event in the midst of all that metaphorical imagery. And we're still left with the problem for which I've heard no solution, that if "Baby Universalism" is true than those who slay them from the womb would be among those that show many the way to righteousness, and will shine brighter than the firmament.

Wrong, all those unborn babies stand as a witness against this world of sin. Their testimony will be heard at the Great White Throne Judgment.

When a proposed theory when allowed to reach its full conclusion leads to a absurdity, it demonstrates that there's something wrong with an initial premise. I know you don't really believe babies go to heaven, or your actions would follow suit.

Then you're not quite as smart as I thought you were. :chuckle:

Why would I stop what the Lord allows? That's nothing but a lack of faith. I see it as a great MERCY here in this world of sin.

 

[jamie]

When a baby dies, he is transported to Heaven

The grave is not heaven.

The baby will be resurrected as a baby when the dead are raised.

 

[glorydaz]

The grave is not heaven.

The baby will be resurrected as a baby when the dead are raised.

And that's your opinion. Nothing else.