Babies/children going to hell?

[Radagast]

Popularity doesn't prove truthfulness. Look at what the Psalmist wrote, it is not what the NIV translator wrote. That's just the fact.

Well, the translators of the NIV, HCSB, CSB, NLT, NRSV are providing accurate English translations of what the original Hebrew says. The whole of Psalm 51 is a confession of sin; verse 5 says that that sinfulness began at conception.

Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me. (CSB)

What David is not doing, in the middle of his repentance, is talking about sins committed by his mother.

 

[Radagast]

Could you find the exact quote for us?

That would be:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16, CSB)

 

[Radagast]

The Catholic Church does not think that children before that age go to hell. It used to think they would go to Limbo if unbaptized and Heaven if baptized, but Limbo, which was pure speculation, has lately been junked.

As I understand it, Limbo was always thought of as a special zone within Hell. In Dante's Inferno, it is the 1st circle.

In general, however, Christianity does not put too much emphasis on exact conditions within Hell, or variations in those conditions; the idea is to avoid Hell.

With regards to infants, the message of the Church was primarily to reassure Christians that their children who died in infancy would go to Heaven. Too much speculating on what God will do with other infants borders on the impious. That is, after all, up to Him.

 

[Serving Zion]

Well, the translators of the NIV, HCSB, CSB, NLT, NRSV are providing accurate English translations of what the original Hebrew says. The whole of Psalm 51 is a confession of sin; verse 5 says that that sinfulness began at conception.

Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me. (CSB)

What David is not doing, in the middle of his repentance, is talking about sins committed by his mother.

I see that we are not united in spirit. Let the OP also see that we are representing Christianity in different ways.

Those translations you quote are all full of distortions.

That would be:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16, CSB)

OP, could you confirm whether this is the scripture you were producing? Thank you

 

[Radagast]

Those translations you quote are all full of distortions.

Not true.

 

[JohnClay]

....OP, could you confirm whether this is the scripture you were producing? Thank you

Actually I was quoting a Lutheran song, which in turn would be quoting that scripture.
My Songs - All Together Now - Father welcomes

 

[JohnClay]

....It's interesting to observe the values in your sense of justice. You are saying that the offensiveness of the punishment is reduced because the afflictions are less severe (which has it's own logical problems).

I'm not sure of any specific scriptural support but I think the severity of the punishment would vary from person to person. So Hitler and Satan would suffer more than a non-Christian person who did good deeds.

I rather judge that it is injustice to condemn an innocent.

But if they inherit origin sin when they're conceived, they aren't really innocent. Unless they only inherit origin sin when they are a child?

Would you clarify for me, do you think the ones who are defiantly doing wrong (ie not babies!) Should be permitted to reside eternally with those who make every effort to repent?

I don't think anyone should suffer eternally - except perhaps Satan and his angels.

I also want to show you that God did not desire to torment them, but their torment comes because of regret and awareness that it is too late to make a change - there is no source for comfort in that place .. not that love can desire to impose it upon them, it was their own choice because they loved sin more than truth.

God has a choice as to whether they suffer eternally or end their existence eventually. Eternity is an infinite times more than a trillion years.

 

[JohnClay]

....I showed you that the scripture you believed (from the NIV) is lying - they are saying that Psalms 51:5 says something that it actually doesn't say. What I would assume from this, is that you haven't realised that the NIV is lying and chosen to dismiss it's translation and the argument it supports ...

I think normally to be classed as a "lie" the person saying it has to be aware that they not speaking the truth. I mean if a child said that a baby comes out of a mother's belly button and believes this, that isn't a "lie". (edit: maybe it is debatable)

 

[Serving Zion]

Actually I was quoting a Lutheran song, which in turn would be quoting that scripture.
My Songs - All Together Now - Father welcomes

Ok, well it's a miracle if anyone can see clearly these days! (Matthew 13:11).

It's an interesting expression through that song, to say that baptism and belief leads to salvation .. and for that, to tie in with Mark 16:16, I have to ask "what exactly are we required to believe in order to be saved?" .. to which I am offering John 8:32, John 6:63, and 1 John 4:1. Many false teachers introduced destructive heresies, many followed their pernacious ways, and as a result the way of truth has been maligned. That was said some 1500 years before the English translations began appearing .. now why does a new translation come about? Only because they believe all other translations can be improved upon. Why is that? .. and, what kind of guarantee is there, that a newer translation is in fact better?

For this reason I say be wary, you are what you eat, and it is your life that pays the cost for the beliefs you form. Beliefs determine our behaviours, and it is our actions that we are judged for, not our beliefs! (2 Corinthians 5:10, Matthew 25:40).

 

[Serving Zion]

I'm not sure of any specific scriptural support but I think the severity of the punishment would vary from person to person. So Hitler and Satan would suffer more than a non-Christian person who did good deeds.

This is reflecting what you imagine hell to be. Could you explain why you believe they would suffer more severely than, [less-of-an-evil person]?

But if they inherit origin sin when they're conceived, they aren't really innocent. Unless they only inherit origin sin when they are a child?

That's the problem when you believe the doctrine of Original sin. It leads all the way to apostasy (it cannot be reconciled with a concept that God is love, that He is righteous in judgement).

No, truly, there is no scriptural indication that a baby born after the fall is somewhat different in spirit than a baby born before the fall.. because the fact is that the power of life and death are in the tongue. Words of the devil's spirit bring forth death, whereas words of The Holy Spirit brings forth life. This is how Ecclesiastes 7:29 fits with Romans 7:9, to show that sin "spreads" to us because we live in a world that sin has entered into.

I don't think anyone should suffer eternally - except perhaps Satan and his angels.

Me too. I think that's a hallmark of justice (Leviticus 24:20). It is interesting you say that Satan and his angels should suffer eternally .. could you explain why you think that is a fitting punishment for them?

God has a choice as to whether they suffer eternally or end their existence eventually. Eternity is an infinite times more than a trillion years.

Yes, you are right, and may I show that Revelation 14:11 could be used to support that view?

I think normally to be classed as a "lie" the person saying it has to be aware that they not speaking the truth. I mean if a child said that a baby comes out of a mother's belly button and believes this, that isn't a "lie". (edit: maybe it is debatable)

What would you rather call it? If it is not the truth, then it is not of the spirit of truth but the father of lies. In my mind, the fact that the statement gives an untrue message, makes it a lie. For the one to be named a liar, they need to be aware that they are making a statement that leads the reader away from the truth. So we would have to ask why they chose to deviate so severely from what was written, because it goes beyond the scope of improving grammar. It is a plain and visible distortion of the message.

 

[Lukaris]

As far as infants & children, it seems that the early Christians did believe in innocence. It seems that later on, things became more complicated. There is an ancient account given by a man named Aristides to the emperor Hadrian ( 125 AD). The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher

In chapter 15, Aristides notes his observations of the early Christians & mentions that they held infants & children to be basically innocent. It is not a long letter (about 10 pp. printed). Aristides later became a Christian & is referred to as St, Aristides.

As far as heaven & hell, the Lord says in John 5:22-30 that the good go to heaven & the bad to hell. I take this to mean that there were the good Christians & non Christians & bad Christians & non Christians in their earthly life. How it all works out, God knows.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do Christians here believe something like that?

Yes -- we Independent Fundamental Baptists call it the: Age of Accountability.

1. An infant has salvation by grace through ignorance.
2. Said infant reaches the age of accountability and is now lost.
3. Said lost person receives Jesus Christ as his Savior and now has salvation by grace through faith.

What age is involved?

It's not a set age; it goes by spiritual understanding.

A mentally retarded person would reach the age of accountability later in life than someone who isn't mentally retarded.

To make it easier for me to understand what you believe could Christians please answer:

In the following, who do you believe are probably saved?

Depends on spiritual understanding, but assuming full mental capacity:

Definitely: 1 ... 2 ... 3

Depends: 4 ... 5 ... 6 ... 7

 

[JohnClay]

This is reflecting what you imagine hell to be. Could you explain why you believe they would suffer more severely than, [less-of-an-evil person]?

Based on my idea of justice. In our courts, a person found guilty of many very severe crimes gets a worse punishment than a person found guilty of one trivial crime. If a person that has 1000 evil points gets the same punishment as someone with 100 evil points or 10 evil points or 1 evil point then it would be fair for even someone virtually innocent (0.00001 evil points) to also receive the full punishment in hell. I thought it is obvious why Hitler and Satan should receive a greater punishment than say the non-Christian Dalai Lama or a nice Muslim woman who rejected Jesus.

That's the problem when you believe the doctrine of Original sin. It leads all the way to apostasy (it cannot be reconciled with a concept that God is love, that He is righteous in judgement).

I don't think the idea that most people are going to hell eternally can be reconciled with God being love either. If he needs to punish people that is ok, but I don't think it should be eternally or with equal severity.

No, truly, there is no scriptural indication that a baby born after the fall is somewhat different in spirit than a baby born before the fall..

I thought Psalm 51:5 for example was very clear.

Me too.

You agree that "I don't think anyone should suffer eternally"? Then is eternal hell injust?

I think that's a hallmark of justice (Leviticus 24:20).

I think a limited amount of sin deserves a limited amount of punishment. But maybe sinning against an infinitely holy God deserves an infinite punishment?

It is interesting you say that Satan and his angels should suffer eternally .. could you explain why you think that is a fitting punishment for them?

Well they were born immortal and it was obvious to them what their rejection of God would mean. On the other hand many people find it hard to believe that God even exists.

Yes, you are right, and may I show that Revelation 14:11 could be used to support that view?

BTW see the section in the following link: "Doesn't Revelation 14 tell us that people will be tormented forever?" (halfway down the page)
Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

What would you rather call it?

Maybe just say you disagree rather than say they're lying.

 

[Radagast]

Based on my idea of justice. In our courts, a person found guilty of many very severe crimes gets a worse punishment than a person found guilty of one trivial crime.

Well:

(1) the key sin is rejecting God. Everyone who rejects God is 100% guilty of rejecting God.

(2) We don't get to impose our ideas of justice on God. It's actually the other way around.

(3) If there are such things as "evil points," only God know how many you truly deserve, given your situation and nature (because only God know the heart). It may be that the violent murder I committed is less severe in God's eyes than the deliberate lie you told the other day. Only God knows what was going through our minds at the time: "If you are a nice person -- if virtue comes easily to you -- beware! Much is expected from those to whom much is given. If you mistake for your own merits what are really God's gifts to you through nature, and if you are contented with simply being nice, you are still a rebel: and all those gifts will only make your fall more terrible, your corruption more complicated, your bad example more disastrous. The Devil was an archangel once; his natural gifts were as far above yours as yours are above those of a chimpanzee." (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, IV, 10).

Edit: obviously, both the murder and the lie here are hypothetical.

 

[Radagast]

I thought Psalm 51:5 for example was very clear.

Indeed. There isn't actually any serious debate about what the Hebrew of that verse means.

 

[JohnClay]

Well:

(1) the key sin is rejecting God. Everyone who rejects God is 100% guilty of rejecting God.

So a faithful Mormon or a faithful Muslim rejects God to the same degree as a devil worshipper or Christopher Hitchens or Satan?

(2) We don't get to impose our ideas of justice on God. It's actually the other way around.

Where did I get my moral sense that people should get different punishments? I thought a sense of morality is meant to come from God. You mentioned Dante's Inferno earlier - I think that involves different punishments.

BTW I think there are different levels of status and reward in the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[Radagast]

So a faithful Mormon or a faithful Muslim rejects God to the same degree as a devil worshipper or Christopher Hitchens or Satan?

That kind of depends on to what extent they are rejecting Jesus (in most cases, I would say yes). Being faithful in itself is not a positive. Faithful worshippers of Moloch definitely go to Hell.

I thought a sense of morality is meant to come from God.

Indeed. The morality in your head is a distorted version of God's idea of morality. And for that reason, you can't use the morality in your head to try to judge God.

You mentioned Dante's Inferno earlier - I think that involves different punishments.

Well, the Inferno is an allegory, rather than an actual description of punishments in Hell.

BTW I think there are different levels of status and reward in the kingdom of Heaven.

What is your religion?

 

[JohnClay]

That kind of depends on to what extent they are rejecting Jesus (in most cases, I would say yes). Being faithful in itself is not a positive. Faithful worshippers of Moloch definitely go to Hell.

There could be people that are more borderline - e.g. backsliders or people think that works will justify them.

Indeed. The morality in your head is a distorted version of God's idea of morality. And for that reason, you can't use the morality in your head to try to judge God.

So I can't say that I find some things that seem to be immoral in the Bible like Deuteronomy 20:16-18 and Numbers 15:32-36 because only God can judge?

Well, the Inferno is an allegory, rather than an actual description of punishments in Hell.

So equal punishments for everyone? If I was Satan and knew I couldn't be saved but would only be punished like the best behaved unsaved human, maybe I'd want to do everything I could to be self-centered. Maybe there is no scriptural support for different levels of hell but is there clear support that everyone gets the same level of punishment?

What is your religion?

I wrote "I think there are different levels of status and reward in the kingdom of Heaven" based on things like Matthew 6 and verses about the "first" and the "last". I don't have a religion at the moment.

 

[Radagast]

There could be people that are more borderline

God decides, and I believe that from His point of view it's black and white.

So I can't say that I find some things that seem to be immoral in the Bible

You can say whatever you want. But as the prophet Isaiah points out, the clay jar doesn't get to criticise the potter who made it.

So equal punishments for everyone?

I didn't say that at all (I was making a commentary about the literary nature of the Inferno).

But one of the punishments of Hell is simply to be the person you are. For ever. The exact nature of that punishment clearly differs from person to person.

 

[JohnClay]

...You can say whatever you want. But as the prophet Isaiah points out, the clay jar doesn't get to criticise the potter who made it.

I find it hard to have that mindset. I like my views to be known. If I had enough fear then I could change.

But one of the punishments of Hell is simply to be the person you are. For ever.

Is that the plot of C. S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce"? (I know a little about it). Is there any biblical support that being who you are is meant to be the punishment?

The exact nature of that punishment clearly differs from person to person.

Then a person that loves themself (who is evil or nice) might have a better time than a self-critical person that is trying to be a do-gooder.