If forever punishment is true and if all dead babies go to Heaven...

[Beth77]

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come.

Yes, entirely ignore the scriptures above about God getting what he wants and cherry pick the scriptures that prove that Jesus fails and ends up torturing them forever.

 

[NextLevel]

The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come.

I think that one may reasonably hope that all men are saved; but Sacred Scripture does not teach that all people will be saved in my opinion. That view appears to be inconsistent with the numerous passages in the New Testament that warn about the possibility of damnation.

Regardless, if you are correct then none of us have anything to worry about, no? Party on . . .

It seems that your view is the same as Hans Urs von Balasar, if I am not mistaken?

Also, is it your view that God desires that people do things like murder, and commit adultery and robbery? These seem to be clear instances to me of things that God does not desire, but he allow them to occur.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Falls somewhat short of Biblical demonstration of the error in the following:

Keeping in mind that we are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3),
born with the guilt of the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-14),
which is removed only by faith in and trust on the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sin (Ro 3:25).

Why do you not quote any scripture? You expect people to take your word for it that those scriptures say what you claim they saw? Let's actually take a look at them and see if they say what you claim.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Where does this say that someone is guilty of sin from birth? Nowhere. What it means is that we have a natural tendency to sin, which everyone knows, but no one is guilty of sin before they ever sin. That's complete nonsense.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Where does this say that someone is guilty of sin from birth? Nowhere. All passages like this mean is that everyone will eventually sin if they live long enough to do so. You are reading things into scripture that are not there.

Also, Paul said that he was not dead in sins until he knew what sin was.

Romans 7:9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

Paul himself would not agree with Calvinists when they would try to say he was dead in sins from birth.

 

[RDKirk]

...could a loving parent justify killing their infant child in order to ensure that their child spends forever in Heaven?

Conversely, is it reckless and unloving for a parent to allow their offspring to reach the age of accountability and risk that they will spend forever being tortured by Jesus in Hell?

These ridiculous questions demonstrate the illogical doctrine of forever punishment. Right?

By definition, a "ridiculous question" demonstrates nothing.

Except, perhaps, the foolishness of the person proposing it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

My point was this: Just as your beliefs are not shaken by the fact that others view them as nonsense, my beliefs are also not shaken by the fact that you view them as nonsense.

I agree that Christians should have a better understanding of what is complete nonsense. I note that a majority of Christians throughout history have believed in infant baptism. What conclusion can you draw from the fact that Christians have a better understanding and a majority of Christians have believed in infant baptism?

I was talking about what SHOULD be the case. It's like we are not even speaking the same language here.

I believe that God desires all people to be saved, just as Sacred Scripture states.

So do I, but he makes man responsible to choose whether to repent or not. God does not force anyone to do anything.

Personally I hold a more of a "Molinistic" view here (although I cannot say that it is correct). I suspect that God "previews" how children would have responded to grace if they had lived to be an adult, and bases his decision on how they would have responded if given the opportunity to accept the gospel.

Or perhaps it could be that God orders the world in a way such that those people who would have never accepted the gospel are not given an opportunity to hear it in the first place.

But that is conjecture. I simply do not know what happens to infants because it has not been revealed to us.

I agree. They have done nothing to make them guilty. But their parents may have (see below).

No one is guilty of anyone else's sin but their own.

Well, there might be a reason.

Let's take a look at 2 Samuel 12.

David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child who is born to you shall die.” Then Nathan went to his house.​

​

And the Lord afflicted the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and he became sick. David therefore sought God on behalf of the child. And David fasted and went in and lay all night on the ground. 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. On the seventh day the child died.​

​

What did the child do to cause him to be afflicted by God?

That was a punishment against David for his sin. Nowhere does it say that the child was guilty of anything. I believe the child went to heaven afterwards. Or, I guess at that time it would've been to the place that Jesus called "Abraham's bosom" or "Abraham's side" (Luke 16:22).