Are babies going to populate "hell"?

[ttruscott]

What, do foetuses jostle around too much?

So "trying to crush each other to pieces" means to jostle in all good fun to you. Very good, now I know. Carry on...good luck with that.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

The husband has a lot of responsibility for the consequences for the things the wife does.

Numbers 30:10-14 10 And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her. 13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. 14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

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

Where did you get the idea that a dead baby has the ability to grow up?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul speaks of two states, both bodily. The present flesh and blood body is our current state, and our spiritual body from heaven is our second state. "Naked" or "unclothed" is not an applicable state, and no where does Paul say that we shall ever be found (or aware) in such a state. It's like using zero as a placeholder, it doesn't represent anything, or more accurately, it represents the lack of anything.

Then why does Paul speak of the possibility of being found "naked"?

 

[Rosenritter]

Then why does Paul speak of the possibility of being found "naked"?

He doesn't speak of a possibility, he speaks of such as being an impossibility.

2Co 5:3 KJV
(3) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

It would seem that he is specifically dispelling any notions that some might have imagined that we would be without a body: thus he says we have our body now, and we will have our spiritual body then, but we shall not be found naked.

 

[ttruscott]

Ya got the makings of a movie there, son.

So you think something is wrong, eh? But won't tell me what you think these verses really mean in case you can 't? Maybe get your friends [Arthur Brain, Grosnick Marowbe, JudgeRightly] to chip in; they are so supportive as long as it is only scorn they have to give and not exegesis.

I'm curious how these plain words must be distorted to become what you claim they mean...if you even bother with a claim.

 

[glorydaz]

My car is oil, metal, and fire, but it doesn't mean that any of it functions when the portions are dissolved from each other either.

A human being is not a car.

​

Did you notice whose spirit that belongs to? It isn't an individual spirit, it belongs to God who gave it. Just as in Genesis, where breath plus dust equals man. Yet in that same passage he told Adam he was dust. The spirit only gave Adam life. God takes back his own spirit which is the life.

Except Paul makes it clear the body, soul, and spirit are our own.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

I think you're confusing man's spirit with the breath of life. There is a difference.

Unless you are trying to use Ecclesiastes to say that all people go to heaven on death? Because it makes no distinction between good and evil there.

Even evil people are composed of body, soul, and spirit. I'm not trying to use Ecclesiastes for anything more than I've already said. God's record of man's arguments.

Here's a counter-clue: "under the sun" is a metaphor, it isn't actually about a literal sun or the daytime.

​

It's actually about what is observable by man. Just as men can do no more to us than kill the body.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 12:4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He doesn't speak of a possibility, he speaks of such as being an impossibility.

2Co 5:3 KJV
(3) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.

It would seem that he is specifically dispelling any notions that some might have imagined that we would be without a body: thus he says we have our body now, and we will have our spiritual body then, but we shall not be found naked.

No, he is speaking of the state after physical death and before putting on an heavenly body.

What body do you think that a Christian who died hundreds of years ago has on now?

 

[Rosenritter]

Where did you get the idea that a dead baby has the ability to grow up?

I think she means that if one were to spare the life of the child, it might turn to God of its own will. The problem is that we know realistically that many do not, even the majority do not. Would you gamble the life of your child on a lucky die roll? If not for its life, what about its eternal life? Thus, if I were to truly believe as Glory says she does, I would have to murder the lives of the children I loved.

This obvious problem in "babies go to heaven" isn't going to go away by ignoring it. It is evidence that the whole doctrine and premise is fatally flawed. We say Calvinism is flawed when its proofs resort to circular logic, but "babies go to heaven" has far worse potential.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I think she means that if one were to spare the life of the child, it might turn to God of its own will. The problem is that we know realistically that many do not, even the majority do not. Would you gamble the life of your child on a lucky die roll? If not for its life, what about its eternal life? Thus, if I were to truly believe as Glory says she does, I would have to murder the lives of the children I loved.

This obvious problem in "babies go to heaven" isn't going to go away by ignoring it. It is evidence that the whole doctrine and premise is fatally flawed. We say Calvinism is flawed when its proofs resort to circular logic, but "babies go to heaven" has far worse potential.

Oh.
Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, he is speaking of the state after physical death and before putting on an heavenly body.

What body do you think that a Christian who died hundreds of years ago has on now?

Psa 146:2-4 KJV
(2) While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
(3) Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
(4) His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

They have no thoughts or being, they will have thought and being when they are raised from the dead. They shall be clothed upon, but never found naked.

 

[Rosenritter]

Oh.
Thank you for the clarification.

Glory has heart but I think her eyes glaze over with misty tears so she may not see as clearly when she worries about children.

 

[ttruscott]

When I declared that elect babies go to heaven and reprobate babies go to Sheol on death, (which no one saw fit to exegete and correct me upon), I was speaking of babies only from the point of view of a foetus or infant as presented in a human form.

Such new humans are called babies so they are "babies" when Christ and the devil sow them into the world as Matt 13: 36-39 tells us they do (again, no exegesis is offered to explain my error) which can't refer to our creation as the devil can't create. BUT, since every person created in HIS image was created at the same time (at least 6000 years ago) sinners born into the world as a 'baby' are NOT new creations but are a 6000 year old sinners well addicted to evil and only his / her body is new.

 

[glorydaz]

So you think something is wrong, eh? But won't tell me what you think these verses really mean in case you can 't? Maybe get your friends [Arthur Brain, Grosnick Marowbe, JudgeRightly] to chip in; they are so supportive as long as it is only scorn they have to give and not exegesis.

I'm curious how these plain words must be distorted to become what you claim they mean...if you even bother with a claim.

I believe they are quite plain words. Here we have a woman who had never been pregnant. One baby is active enough....I was sure my son was playing football in there and had broken a rib. Can you imagine what twins would be like? They had no ultrasound back in those days.

Gen. 25:21 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.​

Two babies moving around in the womb. They were not ripping each other apart or doing anything else that was abnormal. One was probably stronger, as twins often are.

Gen. 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. 23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.​

BEHOLD...there were twins.

Gen. 25:24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.​

It was merely an opportunity for a prophecy concerning how two brothers interacted and became two heads of nations. Esau is Edom. Genesis 36:1

 

[glorydaz]

Glory has heart but I think her eyes glaze over with misty tears so she may not see as clearly when she worries about children.

Right, I'm the only believer who believes children go to be with the Lord when they die.

You do know that soul sleep is a cult belief, don't you? Not that I'd dare to suggest you belonged to a cult...you might have yourself a little hissy fit. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

Oh.
Thank you for the clarification.

She's wrong and you call it clarification?

Not good GO.

 

[Rosenritter]

Right, I'm the only believer who believes children go to be with the Lord when they die.

You do know that soul sleep is a cult belief, don't you? Not that I'd dare to suggest you belonged to a cult...you might have yourself a little hissy fit. :chuckle:

I take back what I said about heart, you still have more than enough venom in your serpent fangs.

 

[genuineoriginal]

When I declared that elect babies go to heaven and reprobate babies go to Sheol on death, (which no one saw fit to exegete and correct me upon), I was speaking of babies only from the point of view of a foetus or infant as presented in a human form. Such new humans are called babies so when Christ and the devil sow them into the world as Matt 13: 36-39 tells us they do (again, no exegesis is offered to explain my error) which can't refer to our creation as the devil can't create.

Two parables back to back that refer to sowing seed into a field.

Matthew 13:18-19,23 18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.​

Matthew 13:37-38 37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;​

The people that received seed into the good ground in the first parable are those that hear the word of the kingdom and understand it, these are the children of the kingdom in the second parable.
The people that received seed by the way side in the first parable are those that have the word of the kingdom taken away by the wicked one, these are the children of the wicked one in the second parable.

BUT, since every person created in HIS image was created at the same time (at least 6000 years ago) so sinners born into the world as a 'baby' is NOT new creation but is a 6000 year old sinner well addicted to evil and only his / her body is new.

That is foolishness that is not supported by the Bible anywhere.

 

[genuineoriginal]

She's

Rosenritter's avatar looks like a male to me.
(I watch a lot of anime. :chuckle

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

Where did you get the idea that a dead baby has the ability to grow up?

I think she means that if one were to spare the life of the child

Thank you for the clarification.

She's wrong and you call it clarification?

Are you saying you believe dead babies can grow up (my original statement) or are you saying that babies can grow up if you spare their life (Rosenritter's clarification)?

 

[glorydaz]

That's taken completely into consideration. If you understand love, you understand that true love is when one is willing to sacrifice his life for another. "Scarcely for a righteous man will one die" (Romans 5:7) yet we are given an example of Christ who laid down his life for us. Now look at Moses, who was willing to have his name blotted out of the book of life if it might save the children of Israel:

Spoiler

Exodus 32:31-32 KJV
(31) And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
(32) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

"Yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die..." (Romans 5:7) and if someone really did care about the eternal fate of hundreds of children, and if they understood the sacrifice of Christ that gave his life for many, why wouldn't they take whatever punishment God might deliver upon them if it would save the souls of hundreds?

The scriptural account against murder was considered. The question that remains is twofold: first, does she really believe what she said? and second, does she love these unknown children enough to lay down her life for theirs and receive punishment in their place, her life for many?

The absurdity arises because the "babies go to heaven if they die" theory places man in the position to be a replacement savior for Jesus, where man is able to force God to save by circumstance where God otherwise would not, and the second absurdity where murder grants eternal life. Infant salvation is a totally false doctrine as thus demonstrated.

If you want to show it true somehow, you have to remove the demonstrated problem. Assume that I were to both BELIEVE Glory's doctrine and be willing to LAY DOWN MY OWN LIFE to save a thousand unborn children. It is reasonable to assume at least 10 of those unborn would be damned and forever tortured should they be allowed to grow up, at least under your belief.

So answer this: if they are murdered in infancy, do they suddenly NOT go to heaven, just because they were killed by someone with the intent of saving their souls? If ten of those children would "go to hell" if allowed to mature, how many "go to hell" if they are killed instead? Answer the numbers please.

You're thinking like a humanist here.

The book of life refers to the death of the body...not the spirit or the soul. Not the inner man at all, but the outer man.



The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. Children have no sin. They didn't inherit sin from Adam, as the Calvinists claim. Sin is accounted to those who choose evil over good.

Isaiah 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

Isaiah 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Deuteronomy 1:39 - Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.​