Infants in hell

[Agent47]

Please try and briefly support your answer, preferably scripturally


Romans 5:12 (KJV)
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

[Salty]

Dr Jeffress, ( FIrst Bap, Dallas) preached that very subject this past weekend.
Was trying to find the message on line - unable to do so - would appreciate if someone else could find it)

Is a baby guilty of the The unpardonable sin? That sin is like a final rejection of the Holy Spirit, which results in blasphemy against Him, and it cuts the cord forever from being drawn to Jesus.

I do not believe a Baby can commit the unpardonable sin.

 

[Agent47]

Great point. But I'd ask, is the baby guilty of any sin let alone the unpardonable sin?

Is a baby guilty of the The unpardonable sin? That sin is like a final rejection of the Holy Spirit, which results in blasphemy against Him, and it cuts the cord forever from being drawn to Jesus.

I do not believe a Baby can commit the unpardonable sin.

 

[TCassidy]

I do not believe a Baby can commit the unpardonable sin.

I don't believe anyone, today, can commit the unpardonable sin as it was a sin that saw Christ, in the flesh, do a miracle and attribute the power to do so to Satan.

 

[Agent47]

And to those appealing to God's Mercy and Love, why not appeal to His Justice?

And secondly, why do babies need mercy? Are they born condemned?

 

[Agent47]

This is a fresh perspective on unpardonable sin. I know this is off topic but what is your understanding of John's 'sin unto death'?

I don't believe anyone, today, can commit the unpardonable sin as it was a sin that saw Christ, in the flesh, do a miracle and attribute the power to do so to Satan.

 

[JonShaff]

I don't believe anyone, today, can commit the unpardonable sin as it was a sin that saw Christ, in the flesh, do a miracle and attribute the power to do so to Satan.

Agree, and I'll add, they attributed the work of the HOLY SPIRIT (working in the incarnate Christ) to the devil.

 

[Bluefalcon]

First Head of Doctrine.
Divine Election and Reprobation
As all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death, God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin, according to the words of the apostle: That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God (Rom. 3:19). And: For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). And: For the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)

According to Calvinism, on what basis should God, before the foundation of the world, elect all infants who would die in infancy to eternal life? God, according to Calvinism, would be just and holy to damn them all to hell just cause they sinned in Adam, since as "all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death."

 

[Alcott]

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” [Matthew 15:13-14].

Your question was about infants, but if this is so of children, some old enough to have deliberately done some nasty things, certainly it would include infants.

 

[Agent47]

So is it safe to say infants are automatically Elected to eternal life?

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” [Matthew 15:13-14].

Your question was about infants, but if this is so of children, some old enough to have deliberately done some nasty things, certainly it would include infants.

 

[Agent47]

Let me try and break down your logic;

1. Election is Sovereign Divine appointment to eternal life
2. Infants have/get eternal life

Conclusion
Infants are Elect

But this would mean all humanity is born Elect, then some perish in infanthood while still Elect, while the rest grow up and of these, a few keep their Election while the rest lose it.

Taken further, abortion may in a twisted way be justified as it guarantees infants of eternal life.

Either this or dead infants are hell fodder. And if they are, we question why God damns the innocent.

I will repeat a question I raised earlier. Why do dead infants get God's mercy and Love...especially Mercy? Why do they need Mercy?

I think they'd only need Mercy if they are born/conceived guilty and worthy of eternal damnation but God mercifully spares them. But even then we are still left wondering why Mercy and not Justice? Is it because Mercy is more palatable to us?

According to Calvinism, on what basis should God, before the foundation of the world, elect all infants who would die in infancy to eternal life? God, according to Calvinism, would be just and holy to damn them all to hell just cause they sinned in Adam, since as "all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death."

 

[Alcott]

So is it safe to say infants are automatically Elected to eternal life?

Let the words of Jesus stand.

But this does develop into a problem... that if you let a child grow into an adolescent or adult, you are risking eternal damnation for that one, whereas if you kill the child while still a child, that's a guarantee of eternal life in the kingdom, for of such is the kingdom. And then there is being born to grace and thus falling from grace-- or else it's universalism.

So, what is it?
1) A child is conceived 'saved' and can never be damned?
2) A child is conceived "safe," but at some time falls from that safety and is subject to damnation unless later saved?
3) A child is conceived in danger of damnation, so must become saved when able to understand, and if death comes in infancy/childhood there can be no salvation?
4) Universalism-- all souls will be reconciled to God (or all individuals have the same fate)-- is true.
5) else.... there are almost unlimited 'systems' of belief on this; some try to conform to scripture, some don't care.

 

[Agent47]

A good teacher once told me to always try and follow my beliefs to their logical conclusion.

If infants have eternal life then they are Elect, else they are damned. If either of these gives you theological nightmares then you ought to revise your theology.

God damning infants over sin they can't even comprehend is repugnant to all I know about God.

I maintain infants inherit corruption but not guilt from Adam. As such,they don't need baptism,repentance or anything to usher them to heaven. The corruption eventually leads them to sin and from here hell except they repent.

Let the words of Jesus stand.

But this does develop into a problem... that if you let a child grow into an adolescent or adult, you are risking eternal damnation for that one, whereas if you kill the child while still a child, that's a guarantee of eternal life in the kingdom, for of such is the kingdom. And then there is being born to grace and thus falling from grace-- or else it's universalism.

So, what is it?
1) A child is conceived 'saved' and can never be damned?
2) A child is conceived "safe," but at some time falls from that safety and is subject to damnation unless later saved?
3) A child is conceived in danger of damnation, so must become saved when able to understand, and if death comes in infancy/childhood there can be no salvation?
4) Universalism-- all souls will be reconciled to God (or all individuals have the same fate)-- is true.
5) else.... there are almost unlimited 'systems' of belief on this; some try to conform to scripture, some don't care.

 

[Salty]

I maintain infants inherit corruption but not guilt from Adam. As such,they don't need baptism,repentance or anything to usher them to heaven. The corruption eventually leads them to sin and from here hell except they repent.

Baptism has nothing to do with getting into heaven.

 

[Agent47]

True, it was just an example of things infants don't need to have eternal life. They need nothing

Baptism has nothing to do with getting into heaven.

 

[Salty]

True, it was just an example of things infants don't need to have eternal life. They need nothing

That would be like saying an infant does not need a eyes to have eternal life

NNE needs baptism for eternal life.

 

[Agent47]

Except water baptism has been erroneously held by some to save. It's not a farfetched example. Infant baptism stemmed from this belief

That would be like saying an infant does not need a eyes to have eternal life

NNE needs baptism for eternal life.

 

[StefanM]

God damning infants over sin they can't even comprehend is repugnant to all I know about God.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, but does anyone fully comprehend the significance of his or her first sin?

 

[StefanM]

Let me try and break down your logic;

1. Election is Sovereign Divine appointment to eternal life
2. Infants have/get eternal life

Conclusion
Infants are Elect

But this would mean all humanity is born Elect, then some perish in infanthood while still Elect, while the rest grow up and of these, a few keep their Election while the rest lose it.

Technically, all this would require is that infants God knew would die in infancy are elect. Those who would grow past infancy wouldn't fall in this category.

 

[Agent47]

Big difference between presumptuous sin and inherited sin.

Whether comprehension is necessary for sin to be justly punishable or not, a damned infant did nothing and they can't even comprehend that 'nothing' yet they land in hell for it.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, but does anyone fully comprehend the significance of his or her first sin?