The Fate of Unbelieving Children

[agua.]

Nope, I do not feel any welts. I'm sure some men wish I did, present company excluded, but I'm tougher than that.:wink

However, seeing there are men who feel they would be in rebellion if they read what women write and maybe learn something from them, most of the time in the future I will refrain from posting, especially in formal Bible Studies.
But not to worry mate, if the Lord wants me to share as I was before He will lead me to a place where I am welcome to do that, even in a mixed gender Bible Study.

Ok not welts but a change has come. Oh well we'll see how it all pans out eh.

Php 3:13-14 KJV Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (14) I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

 

[Eugene]

Yes, I think this one is very good, too. Unfortunately some think David's son went to heaven because David was God's child.
So children of believers will go but not the children of sinners. I believe all children will go to be with our Lord because they are innocent of any sin of their own.

Yes, is anything too hard for our Lord? Absolutely not!

I had never heard that concerning nonbeliever's children; that may go in the direction of a non-believing spouse being sanctified because of the believing mate. I don't believe any child not knowing sin goes to hell.

1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." but to me this a picture of us as one with the Lord. For instance, I hope it's clear that a non-believing husband doesn't become saved because the wife is saved.

 

[Deborah13]

I had never heard that concerning nonbeliever's children; that may go in the direction of a non-believing spouse being sanctified because of the believing mate. I don't believe any child not knowing sin goes to hell.

1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." but to me this a picture of us as one with the Lord. For instance, I hope it's clear that a non-believing husband doesn't become saved because the wife is saved.

see post # 126

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Let me see if I understand this...

The question is whether or not a divine being sets small children on fire for billions of years if they do not reach an age at which they are capable of choosing whether or not to believe in said being. Is that right? And 20% of the voters here believe that this is in fact the case, that a divine being, the author of quantum physics is indeed going to set small children on fire ad infinitum so that they are tortured for billions, then trillions, then quadrillions of years - a time span incomprehensible to any person reading this. I suspect that should make Hitler quite jealous, as this divine being would make his holocaust seem like a daycare.

Then furthermore, another approximately 30% believe that these deceased children will be given a second chance at a future resurrection... as if small children ever had a chance. Not only would we be discussing infants, but also those that died in utero, even the zygotes and embryos which were absorbed unknowingly into the woman's body (likely equaling the world's population). And what sort of "second chance" is it to be given the option of choosing between the guy who just resurrected you and hell, as compared to the Mayan from antiquity who never heard the name "Yahweh," "Elohim," or "Yeshua," yet gets to burn for eternity nevertheless.

 

[Free]

The question is whether or not a divine being sets small children on fire for billions of years if they do not reach an age at which they are capable of choosing whether or not to believe in said being. Is that right? And 20% of the voters here believe that this is in fact the case, that a divine being, the author of quantum physics is indeed going to set small children on fire ad infinitum so that they are tortured for billions, then trillions, then quadrillions of years - a time span incomprehensible to any person reading this....yet gets to burn for eternity nevertheless.

That is not what the Bible teaches about hell and the eternal fate of anyone who goes there. It's a common belief, but it is not correct.

 

[chessman]

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed together fig leaves and they made for themselves coverings.

Hmm?
When do children age to the point that they begin to become aware they are naked?

 

[Deborah13]

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed together fig leaves and they made for themselves coverings.

Hmm?
When do children age to the point that they begin to become aware they are naked?

You are not serious are you? Nah...

 

[TimothyW]

I responded to the poll, "God is a just judge" and I think we can all agree that he is. We can trust God to do what is right concerning our children.

"The LORD is merciful and just and full of compassion" Psalm 116:5

 

[Blue-Lightning]

That is not what the Bible teaches about hell and the eternal fate of anyone who goes there. It's a common belief, but it is not correct.

Parts do and parts don't. "The worm dieth not" doesn't jive with the "destroy the body and soul," and it's okay to acknowledge it.

 

[chessman]

Parts do and parts don't. "The worm dieth not" doesn't jive with the "destroy the body and soul," and it's okay to acknowledge it.

Or one might consider how an ancient Hebrew would have understood a phrase (figure of speech) such as "The worm dieth not".

Isaiah 14:11 Your pride is brought down to Sheol,and the sound of your harps;maggots are spread out beneath you like a bed,and your covering is worms.

Isaiah 66:24 “And they shall go out and look at the corpses of the people who have rebelled against me,for their worm shall not die,and their fire shall not be quenched,and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Both are word pictures of death/destruction, not life or even torture.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

Or one might consider how an ancient Hebrew would have understood a phrase (figure of speech) such as "The worm dieth not".

Isaiah 14:11 Your pride is brought down to Sheol,and the sound of your harps;maggots are spread out beneath you like a bed,and your covering is worms.

Isaiah 66:24 “And they shall go out and look at the corpses of the people who have rebelled against me,for their worm shall not die,and their fire shall not be quenched,and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Both are word pictures of death/destruction, not life or even torture.

Sheol and hell are not same - sheol simply means the grave. The ideas about the afterlife from the last of the Hebrew bible scrolls to the writings of the New Testament change greatly.

http://www.ntwords.com/hell.htm

I agree that there are parts of the bible which support a destructive death (your examples are of a death sans any afterlife). However, there are also parts of the bible which support eternal torture. And then there are parts that support temporary torture as well.

Different authors, different opinions, different centuries, different theologies...

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Sheol and hell are not same - sheol simply means the grave. The ideas about the afterlife from the last of the Hebrew bible scrolls to the writings of the New Testament change greatly.

http://www.ntwords.com/hell.htm

I agree that there are parts of the bible which support a destructive death (your examples are of a death sans any afterlife). However, there are also parts of the bible which support eternal torture. And then there are parts that support temporary torture as well.

Different authors, different opinions, different centuries, different theologies...

I whole heartily reject this liberal belief, basically makes the Bible useless and not authoritative as it is merely the opinions of men about who God possibly might be.

At face value it seems that some texts support one belief, but upon closer inspection one eventually comes to see that some times the face value of these texts do not support what we thought.

I myself and others here have addressed in depth the passages that supposedly support Eternal Conscious Torment and demonstrated a superior exegesis that shows that the ECT interpreters either overstate their case, or ignore the type of literature and therefore interpret extremely literally.

Liberalism pretty much gives up seeking harmony and embraces doubt which basically leaves one merely culturally Christian, but spiritually dead.

I was very close to becoming a Liberal Christian myself at one point due to my studies, but I persevered and made myself aware of scholarship that goes beyond the Liberal sector and also that deviated a bit from the standard Protestant Evangelical beliefs and have been quite happy ever since.

I just don't see how one can truly embrace Christ while rendering the Scriptures powerless and almost useless. Not necessarily saying that one HAS to embrace inerrancy, but there are two sides to the extreme.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

That is not what the Bible teaches about hell and the eternal fate of anyone who goes there. It's a common belief, but it is not correct.

correct, and thank you for replying quickly to this. it still surprises me daily how many people are afraid of eternal fire, or wish it or think it applies to others (instead of having a heart after (seeking) God, that all would be saved (though most aren't) )....

honestly, in english, it is practically impossible to understand. looking into the Hebrew helped me and others greatly, and simplified /simplifies a lot of the mental 'confusion' in reading english and other translation, or helps to when seeking God.(not when not seeking God)

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I whole heartily reject this liberal belief, basically makes the Bible useless and not authoritative as it is merely the opinions of men about who God possibly might be.

You should probably reject beliefs based on their truthfulness, not on their implications. It might make us all feel a little better if gravity was simply Earth's desire to hug us, but obviously that's not the case. And the desire to believe something based on its factual nature rather than our desired outcomes is a very conservative position.

At face value it seems that some texts support one belief, but upon closer inspection one eventually comes to see that some times the face value of these texts do not support what we thought.

You provide no specifics.

I myself and others here have addressed in depth the passages that supposedly support Eternal Conscious Torment and demonstrated a superior exegesis that shows that the ECT interpreters either overstate their case, or ignore the type of literature and therefore interpret extremely literally.

Haven't looked at what you've posted. My position is that there are multiple positions in the compilation we call the bible in regards to an afterlife.

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46)
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt 10:28)

One of these statements represents eternal punishment (limitless), while one represents eternal destruction (limited punishment). And that's just within Yeshua's own teachings in a single gospel.

Liberalism pretty much gives up seeking harmony and embraces doubt which basically leaves one merely culturally Christian, but spiritually dead.

I'm interested in facts, not titles.

I was very close to becoming a Liberal Christian myself at one point due to my studies, but I persevered and made myself aware of scholarship that goes beyond the Liberal sector and also that deviated a bit from the standard Protestant Evangelical beliefs and have been quite happy ever since.

Easy on the run-on sentences. That said, why should anyone care about your happiness in regards to what is true versus what is not true? One should only care about what is validated in regards to the truth, not whether you find it more or less comforting.

I just don't see how one can truly embrace Christ while rendering the Scriptures powerless and almost useless. Not necessarily saying that one HAS to embrace inerrancy, but there are two sides to the extreme.

Again, your admonition that we place the value of implications above the value of the facts is lacking. It is akin to saying one should not teach true things which are harsh lest the harsh things bother us. I suspect, however, that if a doctor told you that you are cancer-free, while in fact you were terminally ill, you might be happy in the short term, while feeling greatly deceived as you found out otherwise. Perhaps you would want to be told you're completely healthy, when in fact you are dying, but I and some number of others would want the truth regardless of how it made us feel.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

correct, and thank you for replying quickly to this. it still surprises me daily how many people are afraid of eternal fire, or wish it or think it applies to others (instead of having a heart after (seeking) God, that all would be saved (though most aren't) )....

honestly, in english, it is practically impossible to understand. looking into the Hebrew helped me and others greatly, and simplified /simplifies a lot of the mental 'confusion' in reading english and other translation, or helps to when seeking God.(not when not seeking God)

The teachings about hell are not in Hebrew.

 

[WIP]

I responded to the poll, "God is a just judge" and I think we can all agree that he is. We can trust God to do what is right concerning our children.

"The LORD is merciful and just and full of compassion" Psalm 116:5

 

[chessman]

However, there are also parts of the bible which support eternal torture.

I just demonstrated how your example of "The Worm Dieth Not" is in fact better Biblical support for death/destruction than it is eternal conscious torture. I assume, since you mentioned that phrase/verse, you felt it was one of these so-called texts that support ECT.

I personally like to learn from my past misconceptions. It's called Theology (study of God) for a reason.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

I just demonstrated how your example of "The Worm Dieth Not" is in fact better Biblical support for death/destruction than it is eternal conscious torture. I assume, since you mentioned that phrase/verse, you felt it was one of these so-called texts that support ECT.

I intended "worm dieth not" to be understood as an eternal torment doctrine (I was specifically thinking of Southern Baptists when I typed the phrase). I later posted a scriptural reference to eternal punishment: Mattew 25:46. It is quite definitive and explicit in its support of an eternal punishment. Your references to Isaiah were dismissed on my part because they are discussing sheol ("the grave"), and not to an afterlife. The destruction they refer to is simply the decomposition of physical corpses, as an afterlife was not widely accepted within Judaism at the time of Isaiah.

I personally like to learn from my past misconceptions. It's called Theology (study of God) for a reason.

I suspect you're enjoying this conversation.

 

[chessman]

I suspect you're enjoying this conversation.

Sure. You could be right and I'm wrong. I'd like to correct myself if that's the case.

I intended "worm dieth not" to be understood as an eternal torment doctrine (I was specifically thinking of Southern Baptists when I typed the phrase).

I'm interested in facts, not titles.

The title of my church is Southern Baptist.

Your references to Isaiah were dismissed on my part because they are discussing sheol ("the grave"), and not to an afterlife. The destruction they refer to is simply the decomposition of physical corpses,

I'm aware of that. I didn't post them as a final judgment passage. My point was that the phrase "worm dieth not" is a word picture of death/destruction in the mind of anyone familiar with Isaiah.

So when Jesus then comes along and does in fact use it with regard to the final punishment of the wicked, why change it's meaning?

As for "eternal punishment", I can think of no better description than a "second death" that's permanent this time.

 

[Blue-Lightning]

The title of my church is Southern Baptist.

I suspect the title of your church is something different, and the denomination it belongs to is "Southern Baptist Association." It would be odd to find a church with the actual name "Southern Baptist." I wouldn't quibble over such semantics, were you not juxtaposing it with my prior statement that I'm not interested in titles (and I'm not).

I'm aware of that. I didn't post them as a final judgment passage. My point was that the phrase "worm dieth not" is a word picture of death/destruction in the mind of anyone familiar with Isaiah.

For people familiar with the passage, that is usually correct.

So when Jesus then comes along and does in fact use it with regard to the final punishment of the wicked, why change it's meaning?

The passage in Isaiah almost certainly isn't referring to your conceptualization of Jesus in any way. For example, in the very same prophecy we're discussing, the writer says: “Those who dedicate and purify themselves to enter the groves eating meat from pigs, vermin, and rats, will perish together.” But I doubt that you think eating pork is sufficient for people to become a "horror to all mankind", as are the corpses whose worms never die. That's likely because you don't have the same theological beliefs as Isaiah - in his worldview, those who literally break the laws of the Pentateuch literally become a horror to humanity, worthy of becoming physical corpses with physical worms gnawing upon them forever.

Do you believe that those who eat a ham sandwich are a horror to society, and should become slain corpses of perpetual rot?

As for "eternal punishment", I can think of no better description than a "second death" that's permanent this time.

Non-existence isn't as much punishment as eternal torture... not that I'd want a divine being eternally torturing anyone. I can just think of better descriptions of "eternal punishment" if given the task.