sandlewood

I don't mean to wander off on a tangent, but I think there are some Christians who are not overly worried with a family member being sent to Hell. They believe that in heaven God will wipe their memories of that person so they won't be distressed. I read this in a thread somewhere...I think at the Baptist Board. There’s a bible verse to support it, although I don’t remember which it is anymore. The weird thing is that these Christians don’t seem to be mad that God is going to wipe their memories. Whatever God does is ok I guess.

slh

So it would seem we would need a rundown of the major sects and their stance on this issue.

Catholic = babies go to limbo (unchristened)

Baptist = babies go to hell

Presbyterians = ??

etc.

Undercurrent

One is reminded of the classic sitcom joke where one person sits inside the house, while another person, locked out, looks in the the window. The first person says, "I can't stand to seem him suffer like this," and draws the blinds.

m.

Tercel

Hi Stephen T-B,
First of all you need to specify which doctrine of Original Sin you are talking about. There are two main views: The "Reformed" or Calvinist view holds tha Original Sin includes "guilt" as well as separation from God and loss of righteousness, while the rest of Chirstianity holds that it doesn't include guilt and is simply a separation from God and loss of original righteousness.

However part of the Calvinist position is that God choses who is saved and who is not. So I suppose a Calvinist might allow that God might chose to save all babies. Alternatively they might argue that those who die as babies are not among the Elect and God preserves the Elect until they know him. Whatever, I'm not a Calvinist and I think their theology's silly.

As far as the rest of Christianity goes, its primarily divided into those who think baptism is necessary for salvation and those who don't. Those that don't are probably happy to assign babies to heaven as a general rule. Even those who think baptism is a necessity might well make an exception for those who have not had the chance to be baptised.

<strong>Kevin Dorner</strong>,
<strong>According to Christian doctrine, they are humans at conception.</strong>
"Christian doctrine" in general holds this to be the case, does it? Which Ecumenical council pronounced this to be the case? I must have missed it.
I think what you mean is that some Christian denominations (and I wouldn't have a clue which -though at a guess I suppose the Catholics do) believe this to be the case.
Personally, I don't see how it's possible to what what is the case on this matter.

<strong>slh</strong> writes:
<strong>Baptist = babies go to hell</strong>
I sincerely doubt that that is the case. (I've been going to Baptist Churches for the past 15 years or so and I've never heard that one before)

Stephen T-B

Thank you Tercel for that guidance.
Actually, I was being a bit duplicitous when posing the original question and bringing in babies (which I was taught go to Purgatory - an old-fashioned term for Limbo).
I actually wanted the excuse to have a good ol’ rant about one of Christianity’s most loathsome doctrines, which I sort of assume comes from the story of the Fall. In other words, until Adam and Eve ate that apple, there was no sin. They ate it, and whooosh! - there it was, all over the place.
It seems very strange to me that god, having made Adam and presumably known therefore all about human nature - and let’s remember, god knows EVERYTHING - should have put an apple tree in the garden and told him not to eat its fruit.
I mean, everyone knows that if you tell someone “don’t do so-and-so” they’ll go right ahead and do it first chance they’ve got. It’s human nature. So god knew he was inviting Adam to eat that apple; he knew, furthermore that Adam would it, and when he did, god said OK chum, because of what you just did, I’m going to send every un-baptised human being which will ever be born straight to purgatory where they will languish until the end of the world.
Mean or what?
What does it say about this god we’re supposed to worship and adore?

ansarthemystic

Actually if a baby is able to get to heaven without accepting Jesus(AS)the christ as their Savior, then all of the christian assertions to that effect are wrong. If babies, without any actual sin, must suffer eternal torment in Hell for the actual sins of others, then the omni-benevolent, merciful assertions of the attributes of god are also false.

Peace and blessings

Bree

As far as Baptist churches go (and I used to be a Baptist) the criteria for the hell-bound is this: if you know what you are doing is wrong (and therefore is a sin) then you are willfully committing sin and therefore will go to Hell if you have not accepted Jesus in your heart.

For example, if Mom tells Son at 4 that it is a sin to hit Baby Sister and Son does it anyway out of spite, then that is a sin and Son will go to Hell unless he asks Jesus for forgiveness.

This was always the example used for me.

Amos

Original sin makes reference to a fallen state of mind and all those who are not baptized in the Catholic Church will go to a place called Limbo. The inference here is that Catholic baptism is necessary which is true in that Communion with the Saints is needed to enter heaven. The Catholic Church does recognize non-Catholic baptisms as valid but still holds that non-Catholics can not enter heaven.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

Christian doctrine? You may distinguish between protestant and Catholic here but not just lump it all under Christian.

Babies are not humans at conception but are created in the image of God and therefore not human. We are created equal but not born equal.

Amos

If God is the God of the living, heaven and hell are also for the living and therefore Catholic baptism can protect infants from the fires of hell because hell is not for Catholics and heaven is for Catholics only. Note, this does not mean that Catholics cannot go to hell nor does it mean that all Catholics go to heaven.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>