Very controversial question to pose.

[valueallhumanlife2008]

That is truly disturbing WhiteWings.  Such tales were very common during the middle ages and throughout the protestant reformation.  Today though, most Christians sugarcoat their belief in eternal torment.  If it's what they believe, why not come straight out and say it like it is?

[HappyBoy!]

This sounds like the quote WhiteWings refers to.

"The fifth dungeon is the red hot oven. The little child is ...

This is another disturbing one, but if you want to read it, the rest is here:  http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/hell-fire.htm  Search the page for "red hot oven".   I've heard it quoted in more detail sounding more like what WhiteWings said rather than just the excerpt here.

There are plenty of other similar quotes  :mshock:

[DeeDee]

 I just read some

:mshock: x 1000

[DeeDee]

I posed that if the eternal punishment message is true then Christians should never have kids, for the risk of not knowing if your kids will "get saved" is much too high and that if their child dies "after the age of accountability"  without making that decision, then they are responsible for their child going to hell. These parents made the free will choice to have a child and the child had no choice in the matter to be given this life and subjected to that risk.

Been thinking about this again. It reminds me of that same view many Christians (ET based) hold when asked how would they feel in Heaven knowing that many are suffering in hell. Many answer in the following ways;

1.) We would become so much like God that we would hate sin and be glad to know   that those who did not come to repentance are getting their "just reward".

2.) God will make us forget about the ungodly when we are in heaven. Whether it be family or friends we will simply not remember they existed.

So with that in light, I would think that many (ET christians) when posed with the question of "would'nt it be unfair to have kids if they are at risk of ET" would simply answer something like;

1.) The bible forbids contraceptives  :laughing7:

2.) If my child is meant to be in hell its God's will  :dontknow:

There will always be 1000 arguments back.

Blessings
Dee

[Doc]

But....if ET were true, then aren't missionaries doing a dis-service as well, when they go tell "pagans/heathens" about Jesus who've never heard before?  Again, that's IF they go to hell once they've heard His name and don't believe, then wasn't their hearing about Jesus unfortunate for them?

I was raised to believe a doctrine popular in many religious systems called "Original Sin."  It is that people inherited Adam's sin and it's guilt so are by nature children of wrath.  You deserve to be ceaselessly tortured for ever just for being born here as a human being.  This in their minds is an incentive to evangelize those that have never heard.  Some might believe; other wise, they're all already heading to permanent hell.

What I keep being so dazzled by is the seeming impossiblity to get those indoctrinated into this and other parts of their systematic theologies to prove these doctrines by saying them in the actual quoted words of Scripture (verified from the original languages.)  They can't seem to comprehend the request.  Yet they mouth the words, "We believe the Bible.  We teach only what the Bible says."  Of course, the Bible doesn't teach "Original Sin" or a lot of other commonly accepted traditions of men.

Without verifying to my personal satisfaction the legitimacy of presuppositional apologetics I see a functional validity in that approach because of these strongholds.  (Rather than the humanistic ideal of reason defining man inherited from the Enlightenment, presuppositionalism's man is a creature of faith.  All ultimate claims are based on one's beginning assumptions rather than rational conclusions.)  How are we to overcome those claiming God's approval for beliefs based in human authority and are actually in rebellion against God and His authority?

Great point in this post.
I was just thinking recently about how indoctrinated we've been (those of us growing up in the church) to think about things a certain way. Very hard to overcome indeed. The problem with systematic theologies is that they're all based on man's reason, and are our feeble attempts to understand a somewhat incomprehensible God.

[rosered]

Great point in this post.
I was just thinking recently about how indoctrinated we've been (those of us growing up in the church) to think about things a certain way. Very hard to overcome indeed. The problem with systematic theologies is that they're all based on man's reason, and are our feeble attempts to understand a somewhat incomprehensible God.

  exactly!  :thumbsup: the doctrines/teachings of  men ..

  we need  the Holy Spirit  for guidance  and help and comfort ,direction

  Jesus said would dwell with us forever John 14;16
  Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[Andromeda_Organa]

One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.

[martincisneros]

One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.

Misogynistic?  Golly.  I thought they were Catholic.

[firstborn888]

One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.

Religion in general has not been too kind to women, has it...  :sigh:

[Andromeda_Organa]

One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.

Religion in general has not been too kind to women, has it...  :sigh:

No, it hasn't, but many atheists have been misogynistic as well. *cough Sigmend Freud cough*

[firstborn888]

One thing I've noticed is many of the perpetuators of ET were also extremely misogynistic.

Religion in general has not been too kind to women, has it...  :sigh:

No, it hasn't, but many atheists have been misogynistic as well. *cough Sigmend Freud cough*

And I assume Darwinism considers women to be inferiorly evolved? Yet there are more women than men  :omg:

[tm55]

Here are two powerful quotes by universalist Thomas Allin, which speak to the subject of belief in ET and the decision to bear children.   They are from his book, Christ Triumphant , written back in 1890 --

"If [ET is] true, can this strange fact be explained--that nobody acts as if he believed it?  I say this, for any man who so believed, and who possessed but a spark of common humanity--to say nothing of charity--could not rest, day or night, so long as one sinner remained who might be saved. ... No society, no individual, can possibly act, or has in fact acted, on such a creed, in the real business of life.  It is simply impossible:  who would dare so much as to smile, if he really believed endless torments were certain to be the portion of some member of his household--it may be of himself?  Marriage would be a crime, and each birth the occasion of an awful dread."

and ...

"Whenever human beings exist, in what form of community it matters not, in what climate or under what conditions of life whatsoever, there is found everywhere a deep spontaneous belief, call it feeling, instinct, what you please, that connects the marriage tie and the birthday with joyful associations, with mirth and gladness.  Now why is this--has it no meaning? ... Is it possible that our Heavenly Father should bid His creatures everywhere to rejoice with a special joy at the marriage feast, at the natal hour, if these births were in fact destined to add largely to the ranks of hell?  As you think it over, take with you these words of Jesus Christ...'joy that a man is born into the world.'  Dwell on these words, that you may grasp all they convey. ... It is a joy that a man--any man--should be born into the world (John 16:21).  See how wide the words are. ... Can I believe that our Father bids any mother's heart to stir with joy at the sight of her infant, while he knows that this infant is destined to be, will be, in fact, shut up into endless torment and sin?"

[firstborn888]

Marriage would be a crime, and each birth the occasion of an awful dread."

That's right. The insanity of the doctrine of ET is numbing to the senses.

[rosered]

Marriage would be a crime, and each birth the occasion of an awful dread."

That's right. The insanity of the doctrine of ET is numbing to the senses.

  Wow , this all reminds me of a preacher  who used this verse to  say the same thing!  that death would be the rejoicing seeing them go saved  rather  and  the  new baby  as misery for fear of the things to come
  kind of twisted that one up huh?  :msealed: :mblush:

Ecc 7:1 A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

[firstborn888]

Ecc 7:1 A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

I use that verse to show that the Genesis 3 account is what all the OT writers knew and believed. 

[firstborn888]

Here's reformed theologian (AKA Calvinist) John MacArthur, Jr. explaining children/babies and hell:

"Now, listen. Salvation then is by grace completely apart from works. Damnation is by works completely apart from grace. Infants have no sinful works to fill the books and condemn them. So I say this, if a baby dies, that baby is elect. Instant heaven.

Let me read you something in closing, written in 1907 by R. A. Webb. Listen to this: "If a dead infant were sent to hell on no other account than that of original sin, there would be a good reason to the divine mind for the judgment because sin is a reality, but the child's mind would be a perfect blank as to the reason of its suffering. Under such circumstances, it would know suffering, but it would have no understanding of the reason for its suffering. It could not tell itself why it was so awfully smitten and, consequently, the whole meaning and significance of its sufferings, being to it a conscious enigma, the very essence of the penalty would be absent, and justice would be disappointed, cheated of its validation."

Yes, children are born sinners--their death proves that--but never being able to understand the truth and therefore consciously reject it and choose rebellion, they have no record against them in the books of God and they then constitute a marvelous and vast opportunity for sovereign grace to operate, apart from any works at all.

So here's a final summary: all children who die before they reach the condition of accountability, by which they convincingly understand their sin and corruption and embrace the gospel by faith, are graciously saved eternally by God through the work of Jesus Christ, being elect by sovereign choice, innocent of willful sin, rebellion, and unbelief, by which works they would be justly condemned to eternal punishment. (Get the tape if you want that again). So, when an infant dies, he or she is elect to eternal salvation and eternal glory. So, dear one, if you have a little one that dies, rejoice! Count not your human loss; count your eternal gain. Count not that child as having lost, but having gained, having passed briefly through this life, untouched by the wicked world, only to enter into eternal glory and grace. The true sadness should be over those children of yours who live and reject the gospel. Don't sorrow over your children in heaven; sorrow over your children on earth, that they should come to Christ. This is your great responsibility, your great opportunity".

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-242.htm

Calvinism is a special brand of ET. In their view - God pre-planned this whole salvation and damnation thing and who goes where and is thrilled with the outcome. But - look at the sickness of the the statement I put in bold. Even if the baby through original sin deserved hell, it's lack of knowing WHY it was suffering would cheat justice  :mshock: :mshock: :mshock:   therefore - heaven it is.

Now there's some mighty fine logic for ya'  :sigh:

[WhiteWings]

Calvinism is a special brand of ET.

I guess they all attended to 'special schools'  :laughing7:

In their view - God pre-planned this whole salvation and damnation thing and who goes where and is thrilled with the outcome. But - look at the sickness of the the statement I put in bold. Even if the baby through original sin deserved hell, it's lack of knowing WHY it was suffering would cheat justice  :mshock: :mshock: :mshock:   therefore - heaven it is.

They seem to regret the mental capacity of the baby isn't high enough to fully enjoy the suffering.  :flamebreath:
But still there is a very good reason for that.
God knew the baby would become really bad and ended up in hell anyway. Because the child died early God spare mankind of the crimes the baby would commit. The baby didn't commit the crimes so gets a less harsh punishment in hell.
That's another variation on the theme.
So basicly a win-win situation  :sigh:

I imagine them waiting is a big room with: Waiting room for the doomed to be judged.
They look through the window to the other room of saved people and see their very heritic JW neighbor having a chat with the also elected Hitler and Stalin.
I wonder how they would think about of elect then  :Chinscratch:
Passing judgement is always easier than recieving it...

[firstborn888]

I imagine them waiting is a big room with: Waiting room for the doomed to be judged.
They look through the window to the other room of saved people and see their very heritic JW neighbor having a chat with the also elected Hitler and Stalin.
I wonder how they would think about of elect then  :Chinscratch:
Passing judgement is always easier than recieving it...

Well, here's where it gets even more weird. In Calvinism it's ALL by grace and election but living in sin is a sign that you are not elected. So you need to "make your calling and election sure". If there is not grace in your life to overcome sin then there is.... well... not grace in your life (and that real bad news).  So basically you end up working your butt off to prove it's all by the grace given you and not of works  :sigh: all the while hoping it's a good enough sign for assurance of your election.

I've even seen Calvinists do congratulatory cyber high fives like: "Mornin' dude! Ain't it GREAT to be the elect?!!" *slap* and the reply comes "Yup, and wouldn't it suck to be the non-elect??!"

[WhiteWings]

Something to read about Calvinism: http://www.digitalministries.us/steve_gregg/text/calvinism.pdf

The Distinctive Points of Calvinism and of Arminianism
The Doctrine of Human Free Will: A Historical Survey (or "how the 'Non-Calvinistic' beliefs of the first four centuries were replaced by 'Calvinistic' beliefs")
The Sovereignty of God in Scripture (as opposed to man-made theological systems)
What came first: Regenerating Grace or Saving Faith?
Total Depravity and Inability
The Election of God: Its Ground and Its Scope
Is Faith a Meritorious Good Work?
Double Predestination: Could God Unconditionally Elect Some Without Unconditionally Reprobating the Rest?
Did God Decree That Men Should Sin?

And some more chapters in this 26 page pdf

[HappyBoy!]

Here's reformed theologian (AKA Calvinist) John MacArthur, Jr. explaining children/babies and hell:

"Now, listen. Salvation then is by grace completely apart from works. Damnation is by works completely apart from grace. Infants have no sinful works to fill the books and condemn them. So I say this, if a baby dies, that baby is elect. Instant heaven.
....

Wonder if he's pro-life or pro-choice?  I would be almost certain he is pro-life, which is logically inconsistent with the above statement.  Yet another irony.

[reFORMer]

Although John MacArthur, Jr has in recent years show more affinity with Calvinism, seemingly through Puritan writers, it has been primarily around the doctrine of "Limited Atonement."  (I have enjoyed the Puritans.  For a start you could try Gurnall's The Christian In Complete Armor.  Thomas Watson's book The Ten Commandments is esteemed by many to be the best on the subject.  He's probably my favorite author.  Rich!!!)

MadArthurt is a racial dispensationalist.  How much he merges with certain Calvinist ideas remains to be seen.  In the past, possibly the main reason the racial dispensationalists, ie., Arminianists and Calvinists ever relate to each other is the threat from low views of Biblical Inspiration, Redaction (editing) Criticism, and so on.  They unite in the common enemy of what has become the norm in Roman Catholic and Old-line Protestant seminaries that used to be known as German higher textual criticism.

They have other affinities.  During the Reformation of the 1500's the Calvinists figured that since the Roman Church had miracles they must all be spurious and threw the baby out with the bathwater.  MadArthurt has an available book he wrote against spiritual gifts.  Both camps are anti-supernaturalists, though racial Dispensationalists might claim otherwise.  They say that not only the miraculous, but much of Scripture as well is not for us, but for another people: the racial Jew.  The "signs following" confirmed to their racially Jewish audience of the first century that the writings of the N.T. were actually the oracles of God and Scripture just as the O.T. writings were.  Then they ceased.  So they may be called "Cessationists" along with the Reformed churches.  These miracles will begin again, according to Dispensationalism, when the Church is out of the way via the "Rupture."  God will then turn to the people He really loves, the racial Jew, and provide signs that they would believe, followed by a Jewish Millennium.  I say there is no promise to a race of people.  God's chosen people are known by the fact that He gives them the Holy Spirit.

Dispensationalisms entire view of the future is not only unBiblical, it is seriously warped.  I recently heard MadArthur say that the Bible talks about hell much more than heaven, a lie so obvious it gets hard to believe somebody like him can be so ignorant.  They get financially rewarded for preaching ceasless torture for ever.  Without it, a lot of them would be out of a job.  Racial Dispensational Eschatology is worth a lotta bucks too!  Why they are so intolerant of any searching out of other views is hard to understand.  They commonly throw you out of their synagogues as evil and pronounce anathemas against you if you're not aligned with their peculiar views about the close of this age.  They add to foam at the mouth and turn purple if you don't believe in Hell for ever and ever.  I know by repeated 1st hand experience.

[Doc]

Yeah, Reformer; I hear you. Even my pastor who is generally very level-headed, wise and spirit led turns into a near raving lunatic (totally out of character for him) when it comes to this stupid doctrine of eternal torment/ separation. The hold of tradition is so strong on him in this area, he can't even see it.

I mentioned in another thread that he did a four week sermon series against universalism when he found out I was exploring it and sharing it with others.

Unbelievable.

[Kevin]

The re-in-forcing: verse,

1st John 02:27
this ties in to John 14: 26.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,
and ye need not that any man teach you:
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie,
and even as it hath taught you,
ye shall abide in him.
______________________________________

Great point in this post.
I was just thinking recently about how indoctrinated we've been (those of us growing up in the church) to think about things a certain way. Very hard to overcome indeed. The problem with systematic theologies is that they're all based on man's reason, and are our feeble attempts to understand a somewhat incomprehensible God.

  exactly!  :thumbsup: the doctrines/teachings of  men ..

  we need  the Holy Spirit  for guidance  and help and comfort ,direction

  Jesus said would dwell with us forever John 14;16
  Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[rosered]

The re-in-forcing: verse,

1st John 02:27
this ties in to John 14: 26.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,
and ye need not that any man teach you:
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie,
and even as it hath taught you,
ye shall abide in him.
______________________________________

Great point in this post.
I was just thinking recently about how indoctrinated we've been (those of us growing up in the church) to think about things a certain way. Very hard to overcome indeed. The problem with systematic theologies is that they're all based on man's reason, and are our feeble attempts to understand a somewhat incomprehensible God.

  exactly!  :thumbsup: the doctrines/teachings of  men ..

  we need  the Holy Spirit  for guidance  and help and comfort ,direction

  Jesus said would dwell with us forever John 14;16
  Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Great  Kevin  :icon_flower:, yes this too , wow 

  1Corinth 2 10For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,

13which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.



14But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

15But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.

16For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
they  witness/testify of   the same things ''all things''

[rosered]

Ecc 7:1 A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

I use that verse to show that the Genesis 3 account is what all the OT writers knew and believed. 

  Hi Firstborn888

  I read Gen 3   and you have a great point , it was the day they ate  of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and  that brought death !