Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 22, 2014, 06:56:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Questions on Christianity: (New Question on page 3)  (Read 3275 times)
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« on: March 24, 2011, 03:25:37 AM »

I sent this in a PM to Butterbean but I think I'll post it here to ask others, and also reply to her answer here.

I think it'll be easier to do it this way. According to Christianity, the following premises are true:

P1: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God"
P2: All who die in their sins go to hell
P3: Those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior become saved
P4: All and only the saved go to heaven when they die

Isn't it true, by definition, that babies who die must go to hell? They were alive human beings, born in their original sin, came short of the glory of God, yet never accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and they died. I'm using babies here as an example, but you can put in mental patients (although I'm pretty sure back in bible times they would have understood a mental patients someone who was evil and had "demons") or babies that die in the womb, etc etc.

If babies who die DO go to heaven, then one of the above premises must be false. If Premise 1 is true, and the baby was born into sin, and the baby still went to heaven, then Premise 2 and 4 have to be false. But if sinners can go to heaven, then why become saved? If the baby was NOT born into sin, then premise 1 has to be false, and the idea of "original sin" is false.

It seems to me that accepting the above premises to be true, and then saying that young babies, babies that die in the womb, mental patients, etc etc all go to heaven is inconsistent. Saint Augustine said that of course babies who die go to hell, because we all deserve hell due to original sin so we're in no position to complain. Even if Saint Augustines is consistent with the above premises, can we really make ourselves believe this is fair?

Butterbean replied in part of her PM response to this question, that if babies go to hell, what kind of just God is that? I think this is why Christians don't believe babies go to hell. They think it would be fair if babies did not go to hell. But I think most people only believe this because they want it to be true, not because they have evidence to believe it is true. I don't think most people, apart from St. Augustine, can say with full 100% confidence that it is okay for dead babies to go to hell. Then once you get into the whole "why aren't they held responsible like others are?" then that can get into a huge sociological argument about why others should not be held responsible (other religion followers, those who never heard of Jesus, those who have not had good teachers of Jesus, parents are anti-christian, etc etc)

Perhaps I've steered off track, but maybe this makes sense somewhat.
Report to moderator   Logged
theonlyone
Time Out
Getbig IV
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 2283


Hollywood is no Fedor Dostoevsky


« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2011, 04:15:59 AM »

"Listen, mother," said the elder. "Once in olden times a holy saint saw in the Temple a mother like you weeping for her little one, her only one, whom God had taken. 'Knowest thou not,' said the saint to her, 'how bold these little ones are before the throne of God? Verily there are none bolder than they in the Kingdom of Heaven. "Thou didst give us life, O Lord," they say, "and scarcely had we looked upon it when Thou didst take it back again." And so boldly they ask and ask again that God gives them at once the rank of angels. Therefore,' said the saint, 'thou, too, O Mother, rejoice and weep not, for thy little son is with the Lord in the fellowship of the angels.' That's what the saint said to the weeping mother of old. He was a great saint and he could not have spoken falsely. Therefore you too, mother, know that your little one is surely before the throne of God, is rejoicing and happy, and praying to God for you, and therefore weep, but rejoice."


 Feodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
 Hope this helps
Report to moderator   Logged

Mother Russia>USA
theonlyone
Time Out
Getbig IV
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 2283


Hollywood is no Fedor Dostoevsky


« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2011, 05:20:11 AM »

"It is regrettable that no Dostoevsky lived near him." -- Nietzsche on Jesus Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged

Mother Russia>USA
theonlyone
Time Out
Getbig IV
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 2283


Hollywood is no Fedor Dostoevsky


« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2011, 05:39:49 AM »

 You see, sir, when the Son of God was nailed on the Cross and died, He went straight down to hell from the Cross, and set free all sinners that were in agony. And the devil groaned, because he thought that he would get no more sinners in hell. And God said to him, then, ‘Don’t groan, for you shall have all the mighty of the earth, the rulers, the chief judges, and the rich men, and shall be filled up as you have been in all the ages till I come again.’ Those were His very words...”

Feodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov

Report to moderator   Logged

Mother Russia>USA
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2011, 07:45:26 AM »

You have in no way addressed my concern  Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged
theonlyone
Time Out
Getbig IV
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 2283


Hollywood is no Fedor Dostoevsky


« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2011, 07:51:40 AM »

You have in no way addressed my concern  Undecided

 You have written it all wrong in 1'st place. Why?
 
Report to moderator   Logged

Mother Russia>USA
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2011, 07:55:26 AM »

Also in my PM was about King David and his baby that died...here is the scripture:

2 Samuel 22-23
He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’  But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”



Report to moderator   Logged

R
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2011, 07:59:50 AM »

Magoo, you may want to read this:

(from www.gotquestions.org)

Question: "Where do I find the age of accountability in the Bible? What happens to babies and young children when they die?"

Answer: The concept of the "age of accountability" is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the "age of accountability,' that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into Heaven. Is the concept of an age of accountability biblical? Is there such a thing as an "age of innocence"?

Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin. Inherited sin is that which is passed on from our parents. In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception, he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam's original sin.

Each person, infant or adult, stands guilty before God; each person has offended the holiness of God. The only way God can be just and at the same time declare a person righteous is for that person to have received forgiveness by faith in Christ. Christ is the only way. John 14:6 records what Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, except through Me.” Also, Peter states in Acts 4:12, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” Salvation is an individual choice.

What about babies and young children who never reach the ability to make this individual choice? The age of accountability is a concept that teaches those who die before reaching the age of accountability are automatically saved, by God’s grace and mercy. The age of accountability is a belief that God saves all those who die before reaching the ability to make a decision for or against Christ. Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability, based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.

With the above in mind, also consider this: Christ's death is presented as sufficient for all of mankind. First John 2:2 says Jesus is “the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” This verse is clear that Jesus' death was sufficient for all sins, not just the sins of those who specifically have come to Him in faith. The fact that Christ's death was sufficient for all sin would allow the possibility of God’s applying that payment to those who were never capable of believing.

The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21-23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving, mourning, and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David's mourning ended. David's servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.” David's response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” David's response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child, but that he could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see the child (in heaven), though he could not bring him back.

Although it is possible that God applies Christ's payment for sin to those who cannot believe, the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject about which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. God’s applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His love and mercy. It is our position that God applies Christ's payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic. Of this we are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever He does is always right and good.
Report to moderator   Logged

R
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2011, 08:01:07 AM »

From the same site:

Question: "Do mentally ill people go to heaven? Does God show mercy to those who are mentally retarded, challenged, disabled, or handicapped?"

Answer: The Bible does not specifically say whether or not mentally ill people go to heaven. However, there is some biblical evidence that anyone who is not able to make a decision for salvation is covered by Christ’s death. This is similar to how it is commonly believed that children are automatically taken to heaven when they die until they reach the point in which they are able to make a decision for or against Christ. David had a child die, and he comforted himself with the thought, “Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). David knew that he would see his child in heaven one day. From that statement, we can assume that babies and young children were, by God's grace, covered for salvation by Christ’s death.

We can postulate from this that mentally retarded people are covered by this principle as well. The Word of God does not specifically say this, however. Knowing the love, grace, and mercy of God, this would seem consistent with His character. Any person who is mentally challenged to the extent that he could not be aware of his sinful state and believe in Christ for salvation, is in the same category as a child and it is not unreasonable to assume that person is saved by the grace and mercy of the same God who saves babies and small children.

As in everything, however, we must be careful not to be dogmatic about any issue the Bible does not specifically address. We do know that Jesus receives as His own all that the Father has given to Him and He will lose none of them along the way (John 6:39). Jesus said of these “And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand” (John 10:28). We can take comfort in knowing that our God’s plan is always perfect, He always does what is right and just, and His love and mercy are infinite and everlasting.

Recommended Resource: Safe in the Arms of God: Words from Heaven About the Death of a Child by John MacArthur.

Report to moderator   Logged

R
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2011, 08:15:59 AM »

I've quoted below the key points that I took from the articles posted by Butterbean, if I've misinterpreted then please correct me and I'll reread them closer. The first two quotes are from the first article, the third is from the 2nd article. And the quote after my first response is from the first article.

  "A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ"

  "It is our position that God applies Christ's payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior"

  "there is some biblical evidence that anyone who is not able to make a decision for salvation is covered by Christ’s death"

Response: This contradicts the notion that we need missionaries to tell the world about Jesus. If responsibility for salvation ONLY comes once someone hears about Jesus, then isn't it best to never tell anyone about Jesus? That way, nobody will have heard, therefore nobody will reject, and therefore everyone will go to heaven. Why tell your children about Christ if it is better if they never hear it, as opposed to hearing it along with the option of them rejecting it once they hear it?

2nd issue
"Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this"
Response: Did David hear from God that this was so? It does appear to be comforting, but that doesn't mean it is true. I believe that's why people automatically assume that the type of God that they believe in wouldn't do it, therefore God wouldn't do it. I believe David, along with others, are comforted by this, but I have yet to see any truth than just intuition that a loving God wouldn't allow it.



Report to moderator   Logged
superman.cd
Getbig II
**
Gender: Male
Posts: 89


Evybody Gidown!!!- The Oak!


« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2011, 08:30:20 AM »

If i made a creation and automatically damned 90 percent to a hell because they could not find the right religion wouldn't that make me worse than hitler? If i wipe out 90000 japanese people in a single day when i could have stopped it doesn't that make me not a god of love. If i have the power to stop evil and do not, does that not make me a coward. If i take my best servant and torture him for life just to prove to my worst enemy that he will stay with me does that make me a terrible friend and a gullable enemy? There is no proof whatsoever that the bable is true and in fact it leans towards suggestions that the world is flat, slavery is o.k, and women shouldn't have rights!! He's a fucking tyrant this yaweh!
Report to moderator   Logged

Maynard is GOD!!
superman.cd
Getbig II
**
Gender: Male
Posts: 89


Evybody Gidown!!!- The Oak!


« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2011, 08:32:30 AM »

IF GOD IS LOVE, AND LOVE IS NOT JEALOUS, AND GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD, Then God must not be love, therefore a liar, therefore not righteous.
Report to moderator   Logged

Maynard is GOD!!
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2011, 09:32:46 AM »


Response: This contradicts the notion that we need missionaries to tell the world about Jesus. If responsibility for salvation ONLY comes once someone hears about Jesus, then isn't it best to never tell anyone about Jesus? That way, nobody will have heard, therefore nobody will reject, and therefore everyone will go to heaven. Why tell your children about Christ if it is better if they never hear it, as opposed to hearing it along with the option of them rejecting it once they hear it?





I don't see how that accountability theory applies to people like you and me...that are able to understand.

And we are commanded to preach the Gospel. 

I also believe that God can reach people w/o using other people as well.  He is God after all!  I can't remember the name of the book..a true story where a guy and some missionaries went to a remote tribe and the tribe killed them all..and later the guy's family and the other familiy members went in  to the same tribe and told them about Jesus.  They said, "Jesus.   That's what you call Him."  So it was that they knew Jesus before anyone shared Him w/them  ...He will reveal Himself to people if He wants imo.


Romans talks about how nature reveals God's majesty as well.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Report to moderator   Logged

R
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2011, 09:36:10 AM »


2nd issue
"Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted over this"
Response: Did David hear from God that this was so? It does appear to be comforting, but that doesn't mean it is true. I believe that's why people automatically assume that the type of God that they believe in wouldn't do it, therefore God wouldn't do it. I believe David, along with others, are comforted by this, but I have yet to see any truth than just intuition that a loving God wouldn't allow it.





David had access to Nathan who was a Prophet.  I don't know about you, but I would be asking all kinds of questions to get answers about my baby as well as other things.
Report to moderator   Logged

R
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2011, 09:49:06 AM »

I don't see how that accountability theory applies to people like you and me...that are able to understand.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I think it applies directly. Babies and mental patients aren't held accountable because they aren't capable of rejecting Jesus, correct? (according to the two articles you posted). That means that if someone isn't capable of rejecting Jesus, then they are not held accountable. Therefore someone who has never heard of Jesus are also not capable of rejecting Jesus, therefore are not held accountable. So why tell someone about Jesus? The Native Americans did not believe in Jesus, so they did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, therefore they were not saved. IF they were allowed entrance into heaven, then unsaved people can go into heaven, but this is false isnt it? If they were allowed entrance into heaven, then why should anyone have told them about Jesus. If they were not allowed entrance into heaven, then how is it fair considering that they never got a chance to reject Jesus?

A better question regarding whether or not babies automatically go to heaven. If they do automatically go to heaven, and it's a good thing to go to heaven. Then whynot kill all the babies? They all will go to heaven. If we don't kill all the babies, then only a small portion of them will go to heaven with the majority going to hell.

One of the premises that I posted in my first post must be false if babies go to heaven. Which one is false?
Report to moderator   Logged
theonlyone
Time Out
Getbig IV
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 2283


Hollywood is no Fedor Dostoevsky


« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2011, 11:01:31 AM »

Then whynot kill all the babies? They all will go to heaven. If we don't kill all the babies, then only a small portion of them will go to heaven with the majority going to hell.

"You are talking and speechifying away, but tell me, would you kill 154 or 356 babies yourself?"
"Of course not! I was only arguing the justice of it... It's nothing to do with me...":
"But I think, if you would not do it yourself, there's no justice about it... Let us have another game."

"Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Report to moderator   Logged

Mother Russia>USA
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2011, 11:59:29 AM »

I think it applies directly. Babies and mental patients aren't held accountable because they aren't capable of rejecting Jesus, correct? (according to the two articles you posted). That means that if someone isn't capable of rejecting Jesus, then they are not held accountable. Therefore someone who has never heard of Jesus are also not capable of rejecting Jesus, therefore are not held accountable. So why tell someone about Jesus?

Until it is proven, the theory of Age of Accountability is just that..a theory.  It makes sense to me though.

We are commanded to spread the Gospel.

The Native Americans did not believe in Jesus, so they did not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, therefore they were not saved. IF they were allowed entrance into heaven, then unsaved people can go into heaven, but this is false isnt it? If they were allowed entrance into heaven, then why should anyone have told them about Jesus. If they were not allowed entrance into heaven, then how is it fair considering that they never got a chance to reject Jesus?



How do you know the Native Americans did not believe in Jesus?

Report to moderator   Logged

R
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2011, 12:05:32 PM »


A better question regarding whether or not babies automatically go to heaven. If they do automatically go to heaven, and it's a good thing to go to heaven. Then whynot kill all the babies? They all will go to heaven. If we don't kill all the babies, then only a small portion of them will go to heaven with the majority going to hell.

Who (other than abortion doctors) and crazy people are going to kill all these babies?

I doubt you really are saying you want to end human life on earth which is what would happen eventually if you killed all the babies.   

I can see that you are saying it would be better to die as a baby and go to heaven than live a full life and reject Christ and be separated from God for eternity, but you are also saying that you want to take people's choice away to accept or reject Christ as Savior.

Do you choose to reject Him as Savior?  If so, do you want that choice to be taken away from you?

Report to moderator   Logged

R
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2011, 12:24:53 PM »


One of the premises that I posted in my first post must be false if babies go to heaven. Which one is false?

Magoo, I think we all assume that babies are incapable of accepting or rejecting Christ or even acknowledging their sin nature.

I think we also assume things along the lines that they have the attention spans of goldfish for awhile and don't have a real clue to the world around them in the way we do.

But how do we know for sure what anyone other than ourselves are thinking?



Yes, the bible seems clear about original sin to me.

But here is a passage that might give you some comfort regarding John the Baptist:


Luke 1:14-15:

He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.


This helps me to see that God could be filling whatever infants He wants w/His Holy Spirit while they are still in the womb if He wants.....maybe He does it for all the ones that He knows will die before having the opportunity to accept/reject Christ.
Report to moderator   Logged

R
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2011, 01:40:07 PM »

Until it is proven, the theory of Age of Accountability is just that..a theory.  It makes sense to me though.

How do you know the Native Americans did not believe in Jesus?



I think the age of accountability is inconsistent with the "All have sinned and come short of the glory of god", "Due to original sin, all are condemned to hell since birth", "Unless you accept Jesus as your savior, you will die in your sins and go to hell". If age of accountability is true (meaning that all humans under age X (as in babies) or all humans who have conditions W, Y, or Z (mental patients, those who have not heard, etc) automatically get a free pass), then unsaved people can go to heaven, not all have come short of the glory of God, not all are condemned to hell since birth, and a person does not have to accept Jesus to go to heaven. However, most Christians are unwilling to admit these to be true.

I know Native Americans did not believe in Jesus because I've read about their religions. Now if you want to get into Bertrand Russell's "The only certainty in life is uncertainty" then yes I'm willing to admit that it is only not probable that they believed in Jesus. The native Americans were killed unless they "converted"; the Spanish in the early 1500s would get off their ships, read a passage in Spanish to the native Americans saying "Unless you convert to Christianity, you will be killed" leading obviously to the slaughter of millions of non-spanish speaking people. Also going by the few that learned to speak both english and their native tongues who translated their tribes creation stories obviously did not lead to the conclusion that a man by the name of Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind in Jerusalem. Since they had their own creation story and their own dieties, by definition then, they had to believe in "false gods", according to Christianity. Anyone who believes in false gods goes to hell, right?
Report to moderator   Logged
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2011, 01:46:09 PM »

Who (other than abortion doctors) and crazy people are going to kill all these babies?

I doubt you really are saying you want to end human life on earth which is what would happen eventually if you killed all the babies.   

I can see that you are saying it would be better to die as a baby and go to heaven than live a full life and reject Christ and be separated from God for eternity, but you are also saying that you want to take people's choice away to accept or reject Christ as Savior.

Do you choose to reject Him as Savior?  If so, do you want that choice to be taken away from you?



There was a woman a couple of years ago, who said a voice in her head told her to kill her 3 children (all under the age of 5 I believe) because if she didn't then they would grow up to be evil, but if she did, then her babies would go to heaven. Let's imagine that 1 out of the 3 children would have said at the age of 14 "Screw it, i like being evil, i'm going to reject it". If what she believed was true, and she obviously did what she did out of love, then was it morally permissible for her to do that?

In response to your last line. This is a separate issue that I would like to keep separate from this thread but I will answer it. If people's choice prevents them from being saved, then what good is the choice? I've said this before. If free will is the end result of people being unsaved and going to hell, then yes by all means let's remove free will. Why should we respect free will when it's that horrible? It's more important to go to heaven than to have the pride in saying "I have chosen option B", right?
Report to moderator   Logged
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2011, 02:00:54 PM »

Magoo, I think we all assume that babies are incapable of accepting or rejecting Christ or even acknowledging their sin nature.

I think we also assume things along the lines that they have the attention spans of goldfish for awhile and don't have a real clue to the world around them in the way we do.

But how do we know for sure what anyone other than ourselves are thinking?

Yes babies are incapable of accepting or rejecting Christ, and acknowledging their sin nature. That's not the dispute.

The question is, According to Christianity, is the fact that a person is incapable of accepting or rejecting Christ or acknowledging their sin nature, take away the responsibility they have to be saved to go to heaven? I'm saying according to the teachings in the Bible that I know, the answer is no. All have original sin, all are born in original sin, all who die in their sins without accepting Jesus go to hell. Now some might wish to add a huge clause to that saying "well...it's only fair if babies, or mental patients, or those that never heard about Jesus, or those that were told false things about Jesus, or those who were otherwise misled about Jesus (by other religions for example), etc all get free passes" but that is highly inconsistent to the use of the word "all" in the bible.

I think most people will admit that it is not fair if ________ go to hell while _______ go to heaven. Those blanks can be filled with hundreds of things. If Christianity is true, consider the following. Is it really fair that me and you butterbean were born in a country with a church on every corner while a native american male aged 18 who died in 1500 haiti trying to protect his children from the invading army, who happened to believe in the sun god or an array of gods, or the turtle creation story, all because of the fact that he was told this by his peers and parents since the day he was born and never had any conflicting stories from the outside, went to hell?

Most of us would say "no that's not fair, so he'll go to heaven because a fair god would put him in heaven." St. Augustine would say "We are in no position to judge what is fair or not, that is God's domain and not ours. We all deserve eternity of hell due to original sin so we are in no position to complain who goes where. "
Report to moderator   Logged
Butterbean
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 19451


« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2011, 02:29:32 PM »

Magoo, I did a google on "do babies go to hell" and this site (www.essentialchristianit y.com) has an interesting commentary regarding original sin versus sins the person actually commits.....

Check this out:

We believe that Scripture does indeed teach that all persons who die in infancy are among the elect. This must not be based only in our hope that it is true, but in a careful reading of the Bible. We start with the biblical affirmations we have noted already. First, the Bible reveals that we are "brought forth in iniquity,"(1) and thus bear the stain of original sin from the moment of our conception. Thus, we face squarely the sin problem. Second, we acknowledge that God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. We do not deserve salvation, and can do nothing to earn our salvation, and thus it is all of grace. Further we understand that our salvation is established by God’s election of sinners to salvation through Christ. Third, we affirm that Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is the sole and sufficient Savior, and that salvation comes only on the basis of His blood atonement. Fourth, we affirm that the Bible teaches a dual eternal destiny – the redeemed to Heaven, the unredeemed to Hell.

What, then is our basis for claiming that all those who die in infancy are among the elect? First, the Bible teaches that we are to be judged on the basis of our deeds committed "in the body."(2) That is, we will face the judgment seat of Christ and be judged, not on the basis of original sin, but for our sins committed during our own lifetimes. Each will answer "according to what he has done,"(3) and not for the sin of Adam. The imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt explains our inability to respond to God without regeneration, but the Bible does not teach that we will answer for Adam’s sin. We will answer for our own. But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not.

One biblical text is particularly helpful at this point. After the children of Israel rebelled against God in the wilderness, God sentenced that generation to die in the wilderness after forty years of wandering. "Not one of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land which I swore to give your fathers."(4) But this was not all. God specifically exempted young children and infants from this sentence, and even explained why He did so: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good and evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it."(5) The key issue here is that God specifically exempted from the judgment those who "have no knowledge of good or evil" because of their age. These "little ones" would inherit the Promised Land, and would not be judged on the basis of their fathers’ sins.

We believe that this passage bears directly on the issue of infant salvation, and that the accomplished work of Christ has removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy. Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.




Report to moderator   Logged

R
Mr. Magoo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9794


THE most mistaken identity on getbig


« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2011, 02:43:24 PM »

"But what about infants? Have those who die in infancy committed such sins in the body? We believe not."

 "Knowing neither good nor evil, these young children are incapable of committing sins in the body – are not yet moral agents – and die secure in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ."


I disagree with the first line. I think children below the age of 13 can commit sin. Saint Augustine said that even he was over greedy when being breastfeed and he felt this was a sin. I think any parent of more than one children under the age of 5-6 will admit to seeing jealously, anger, and pride existing in those children.

In regard to the second line. I think children are capable of committing sins in the body, regardless of whether they understand what they are doing is considered "sin" in the moral sense. Even if they are not moral agents, I think it can be said they are still capable of being immoral. "If someone is immoral without the knowledge of being immoral, are they still responsible for being immoral" I believe opens the can of worms that has already been opened.

I would like to say thank you for spending the time to actually look this stuff up from sources, as opposed to me who do nothing but sit around and think to myself all day lol.
Report to moderator   Logged
Reeves
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1926



« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2011, 05:49:54 PM »

If you would like, I believe that I can answer some, if not all of your questions.  Being atheist I can readily understand why you might not desire this. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!