toldailytopic: How does God handle babies when they die?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So charges a coward who has run away from a challenged intellectual, spiritual, and exegetical debate from yours truly.

Indeed. It is one thing to attempt to make plenty of hay appealing to the crowds as does Krsto, but few are willing to stand still in a controlled environment and defend that which they believe.

Nang, yours is a unique challenge as I know of no Godly woman who has conducted a one on one at TOL. It would be an interesting discussion to view and edifying to be sure. That said, Krsto's denial of the Trinity has already placed him at the disadvantage of one demonstrably ill-equipped to properly interpret Scripture. All his loud cavils about proper exegesis, given his egregious position on the Diety of our Lord, should at least give one pause.

AMR

 

[Arthur Brain]

Indeed. It is one thing to attempt to make plenty of hay appealing to the crowds as does Krsto, but few are willing to stand still in a controlled environment and defend that which they believe.

Nang, yours is a unique challenge as I know of no Godly woman who has conducted a one on one at TOL. It would be an interesting discussion to view and edifying to be sure. That said, Krsto's denial of the Trinity has already placed him at the disadvantage of one demonstrably ill-equipped to properly interpret Scripture. All his loud cavils about proper exegesis, given his egregious position on the Diety of our Lord, should at least give one pause.

AMR

And yet supporting the notion that God would intentionally send babies to eternal suffering where they wouldn't even have a concept of what 'proper exegesis' is, or the notion of others being 'demonstrably ill equipped to properly interpret scripture' doesn't give you any pause?

How about you take a look in the mirror AMR? Erudite you may be but what does that actually count for? Are you even willing to entertain the notion that you could just possibly be wrong at all regarding your doctrine?

:think:

 

[alwight]

I have answered it in the past and will no doubt have to do so time and again given the short memories herein. All non-elect, even if they are infants, have but one eternal destiny--Hell.

There are none worthy, no not one, unless you think our Lord, and the Apostles speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, were very confused on the matter of the depravity of unregenerate mankind.

Original sin alone is enough to justify God's actions. We are at enmity with God from birth unless God and God alone intervenes. That He saves anyone should be the greater question.

AMR

You seem to be someone who has set themselves up in their own mind at least as a font of religious knowledge.
Your username “Ask Mr. Religion” rather suggests that all things religious will be part of your vast wealth of knowledge.
However what is the truth I wonder?

You are perhaps a fraud who knows next to nothing about religious belief at all other than the puritanical Calvinistic nonsense that you, it seems, were unfortunate enough to have been steeped in and indoctrinated into?

But what do you actually know of “religion” AMR, perhaps less than I do?
You are a fake and a fraud imo whose username probably should have been "Ask Mr. Calvin."
You seem happy to paint a picture of non-elect infants; well I also have a picture of you raised in a different culture as an austere Islamic Mullah, deeply knowledgeable of all things Islam but with little concept or desire for anything else. IOW A born rigid believer in whatever, a one trick pony, because you can't actually think for yourself.

 

[chrysostom]

You seem to be someone who has set themselves up in their own mind at least as a font of religious knowledge.
Your username “Ask Mr. Religion” rather suggests that all things religious will be part of your vast wealth of knowledge.
However what is the truth I wonder?

You are perhaps a fraud who knows next to nothing about religious belief at all other than the puritanical Calvinistic nonsense that you, it seems, were unfortunate enough to have been steeped in and indoctrinated into?

But what do you actually know of “religion” AMR, perhaps less than I do?
You are a fake and a fraud imo whose username probably should have been "Ask Mr. Calvin."
You seem happy to paint a picture of non-elect infants; well I also have a picture of you raised in a different culture as an austere Islamic Mullah, deeply knowledgeable of all things Islam but with little concept or desire for anything else. IOW A born rigid believer in whatever because you can't actually think for yourself.

nobody liked Calvin either
and
now I know why

 

[chrysostom]

I will never forget how upset amr got when he found out I didn't believe in hell but accepted the second death

so don't try to take hell away from him
it may be the foundation of his belief system

 

[bybee]

I will never forget how upset amr got when he found out I didn't believe in hell but accepted the second death

so don't try to take hell away from him
it may be the foundation of his belief system

That is a sad truth. Or so it would appear.

 

[Traditio]

children, infants, babies and the unborn

children, infants, babies and the unborn

We have to believe that whatever God did, He did it with Supreme Love and Supreme Compassion:

"Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God. [8] He that loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is charity" (1 John 4:7-8).

 

[Traditio]

Alright! A bit of [historically] Catholic dialectic:

Original sin is that whereby the human race lost the original justification possessed by Adam and Eve. Human nature now exists in a fallen state. AMR and the calvinists err in appealing to original sin to justify the torment of infants, since original sin merely indicates a general fallen state of humanity. It's not personal sin.

Personal sin, on the other hand, is that whereby each individual commits a moral wrong and separates himself from God. Personal sin carries both personal guilt and the need to be punished for it. Personal sin, strictly speaking, is that which is punished in Hell.

Babies, whereas they are born into original sin, are not born with any personal sin. Therefore, if they die unbaptised, they can't be punished for anything. That would be unjust. I believe that St. Augustine says that unbaptised babies go to Hell, but I also believe that he qualifies this by saying that their condition is so mild that it's not particularly unpleasant.

This isn't necessarily an unreasonable position, if we remember that Hell is ultimately separation from God. Through Adam, all men have been separated from God. Therefore, one might indeed reason, all men deserve Hell. It must be pointed out, however, that this must be qualified: "but the punishments must still be according to your deeds." Babies aren't personally evil; therefore, even if they go to Hell, they cannot be punished.

That said, it's still an unpalatable position.

For this reason, in the middle ages, a middle state called "limbo" came to be postulated. Suppose it's unfair for babies to go to Hell. They still don't deserve to go to Heaven. Nobody deserves Heaven. Heaven is a supernatural gift of grace; it's something that exceeds what properly belongs to human nature. Well, there's just gotta be something in the middle, right?

Babies don't deserve Hell. Hell is the degradation of human nature, and babies have done nothing to degrade themselves. Babies also don't deserve Heaven. Heaven is a supernatural gift of grace over and beyond human nature. We shouldn't necessarily conclude that all babies receive these supernatural gifts of grace; otherwise, there would be no point in baptising babies.

There must, so many of the medievals concluded, be a middle state which properly belongs to human nature as it stands on its own. Some middle state which neither is the degradation of human nature (Hell) or the supernatural gift over and beyond it (Heaven), but rather a state where babies are made as happy as human nature in its "natural" state permits. This is called "limbo."

As a Platonist, I've come to see certain problems with this doctrine (it's clearly an Aristotelian advance), but I don't think that it can be ruled out altogether.

If nothing else, it helps to put things into perspective, namely, exactly what issues are at stake.

 

[bybee]

Alright! A bit of [historically] Catholic dialectic:

Original sin is that whereby the human race lost the original justification possessed by Adam and Eve. Human nature now exists in a fallen state. AMR and the calvinists err in appealing to original sin to justify the torment of infants, since original sin merely indicates a general fallen state of humanity. It's not personal sin.

Personal sin, on the other hand, is that whereby each individual commits a moral wrong and separates himself from God. Personal sin carries both personal guilt and the need to be punished for it. Personal sin, strictly speaking, is that which is punished in Hell.

Babies, whereas they are born into original sin, are not born with any personal sin. Therefore, if they die unbaptised, they can't be punished for anything. That would be unjust. I believe that St. Augustine says that unbaptised babies go to Hell, but I also believe that he qualifies this by saying that their condition is so mild that it's not particularly unpleasant.

This isn't necessarily an unreasonable position, if we remember that Hell is ultimately separation from God. Through Adam, all men have been separated from God. Therefore, one might indeed reason, all men deserve Hell. It must be pointed out, however, that this must be qualified: "but the punishments must still be according to your deeds." Babies aren't personally evil; therefore, even if they go to Hell, they cannot be punished.

That said, it's still an unpalatable position.

For this reason, in the middle ages, a middle state called "limbo" came to be postulated. Suppose it's unfair for babies to go to Hell. They still don't deserve to go to Heaven. Nobody deserves Heaven. Heaven is a supernatural gift of grace; it's something that exceeds what properly belongs to human nature. Well, there's just gotta be something in the middle, right?

Babies don't deserve Hell. Hell is the degradation of human nature, and babies have done nothing to degrade themselves. Babies also don't deserve Heaven. Heaven is a supernatural gift of grace over and beyond human nature. We shouldn't necessarily conclude that all babies receive these supernatural gifts of grace; otherwise, there would be no point in baptising babies.

There must, so many of the medievals concluded, be a middle state which properly belongs to human nature as it stands on its own. Some middle state which neither is the degradation of human nature (Hell) or the supernatural gift over and beyond it (Heaven), but rather a state where babies are made as happy as human nature in its "natural" state permits. This is called "limbo."

As a Platonist, I've come to see certain problems with this doctrine (it's clearly an Aristotelian advance), but I don't think that it can be ruled out altogether.

If nothing else, it helps to put things into perspective, namely, exactly what issues are at stake.

Good post Trad. Thanks

 

[Nang]

Nang, yours is a unique challenge as I know of no Godly woman who has conducted a one on one at TOL.

Did you forget this one?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46479

I used to have a "One on One" banner that reflected my efforts, but it is gone.

Nang

 

[Krsto]

Indeed. It is one thing to attempt to make plenty of hay appealing to the crowds as does Krsto, but few are willing to stand still in a controlled environment and defend that which they believe.

Nang, yours is a unique challenge as I know of no Godly woman who has conducted a one on one at TOL. It would be an interesting discussion to view and edifying to be sure. That said, Krsto's denial of the Trinity has already placed him at the disadvantage of one demonstrably ill-equipped to properly interpret Scripture. All his loud cavils about proper exegesis, given his egregious position on the Diety of our Lord, should at least give one pause.

AMR

You think you are qualified to make a judgement regarding another person's Christology AMR? What makes you think so? Being online and not in meatspace you can make yourself out to be whatever you want, even erudite, but I just haven't seen any evidence that you actually are. Others seem to think you are but I just wonder why they do?

 

[Krsto]

Alright! A bit of [historically] Catholic dialectic:

Original sin is that whereby the human race lost the original justification possessed by Adam and Eve. Human nature now exists in a fallen state. AMR and the calvinists err in appealing to original sin to justify the torment of infants, since original sin merely indicates a general fallen state of humanity. It's not personal sin.

Personal sin, on the other hand, is that whereby each individual commits a moral wrong and separates himself from God. Personal sin carries both personal guilt and the need to be punished for it. Personal sin, strictly speaking, is that which is punished in Hell.

Babies, whereas they are born into original sin, are not born with any personal sin. Therefore, if they die unbaptised, they can't be punished for anything. That would be unjust. I believe that St. Augustine says that unbaptised babies go to Hell, but I also believe that he qualifies this by saying that their condition is so mild that it's not particularly unpleasant.

This isn't necessarily an unreasonable position, if we remember that Hell is ultimately separation from God. Through Adam, all men have been separated from God. Therefore, one might indeed reason, all men deserve Hell. It must be pointed out, however, that this must be qualified: "but the punishments must still be according to your deeds." Babies aren't personally evil; therefore, even if they go to Hell, they cannot be punished.

That said, it's still an unpalatable position.

For this reason, in the middle ages, a middle state called "limbo" came to be postulated. Suppose it's unfair for babies to go to Hell. They still don't deserve to go to Heaven. Nobody deserves Heaven. Heaven is a supernatural gift of grace; it's something that exceeds what properly belongs to human nature. Well, there's just gotta be something in the middle, right?

Babies don't deserve Hell. Hell is the degradation of human nature, and babies have done nothing to degrade themselves. Babies also don't deserve Heaven. Heaven is a supernatural gift of grace over and beyond human nature. We shouldn't necessarily conclude that all babies receive these supernatural gifts of grace; otherwise, there would be no point in baptising babies.

There must, so many of the medievals concluded, be a middle state which properly belongs to human nature as it stands on its own. Some middle state which neither is the degradation of human nature (Hell) or the supernatural gift over and beyond it (Heaven), but rather a state where babies are made as happy as human nature in its "natural" state permits. This is called "limbo."

As a Platonist, I've come to see certain problems with this doctrine (it's clearly an Aristotelian advance), but I don't think that it can be ruled out altogether.

If nothing else, it helps to put things into perspective, namely, exactly what issues are at stake.

There is some truth in what you are saying, especially as opposed to Calvinism, but can you give me a good reason why a Christian should be a Platonist? Did Plato give us some truth Jesus and the apostles didn't know by which we understand that a person has to go somewhere after death? I don't see immortality of all souls as something taught or even implied in scriptures but rather something we are seeking as believers.

 

[Traditio]

There is some truth in what you are saying, especially as opposed to Calvinism, but can you give me a good reason why a Christian should be a Platonist? Did Plato give us some truth Jesus and the apostles didn't know by which we understand that a person has to go somewhere after death? I don't see immortality of all souls as something taught or even implied in scriptures but rather something we are seeking as believers.

Truth is truth regardless of the source.

 

[some other dude]

nobody liked Calvin either

Not true!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Did you forget this one?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46479

I used to have a "One on One" banner that reflected my efforts, but it is gone.

Nang

Thanks for the correction! Kudos to you! I recall that one now. The one on one banner is only active during the one on one discussion.

AMR

 

[bybee]

Not true!

I love Calvin!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Others seem to think you are but I just wonder why they do?

Well, as already noted, your powers of discernment are questionable, so you need not wonder. :AMR:

AMR

 

[fool]

So;
What did we come up with?

 

[some other dude]

From the mind of man?

Lots of hopes and wishes.

 

[Arthur Brain]

From the mind of man?

Lots of hopes and wishes.

Plenty of doctrines and dogma come from the minds of men also....