A null hypothesis: A proposal to those who believe in limbo

[ribozyme]

Of course, I do not believe in Limbo, nor do I even believe in the hypothesis that I am proposing. But I think this would be an interesting thought experiment for me. Personally, asking questions whether Limbo exists is pointless to me because such a matter cannot be investigated in any meaningful way.

Obviously, people who believe in Limbo (which for the purposes of this post will be the place of eternal natural happiness, without the beatific vision, that unbaptized infants, aborted fetuses, and miscarriaged fetuses go) believe that unbaptized babies go to Limbo because they were not cleansed of “original sin”. Well, it seems that not being baptized does not automatically preclude one from entering heaven. One can be baptized by proxy by the “baptism of desire”, and thus enter heaven without baptism in some cases. However, as the name “baptism of desire” implies, this requires volition, which an infant is unlikely to possess. I also feel it is appropriate to add that it was not the fault of the fetus or infant that they died before they were baptized (or born to a non-Christian family).

One null hypothesis is the hypothesis God would purge the “original sin” so they enter heaven, much like the process that allegedly occurs in so-called “purgatory”.

My other null hypothesis is that God will reincarnate the souls of deceased unbaptized infants into other newborns to give them a “fair chance” of going to heaven instead of sending them to Limbo. God does not remove “original sin” in this scenario as it is retained in the soul of the infant. Since God does not allow souls with “original sin” to enter heaven, he simply sends them into another body with “original sin”. In this case, “original sin” might be removed when that body becomes baptized.

The primary supposition behind both of these hypotheses is that God is willing to give every soul a chance to experience the beatific vision.

My challenge for those who support limbo is to refute both of those hypothesis and the supposition that is need to support it. I do not need to support those hypotheses because I do not even believe in them. I doubt my hypotheses can be falsified.

Ultimately, I hope this demonstrates that it is pointless to debate issues about the existence of limbo, purgatory, or whatever.

 

[Della]

Of course, I do not believe in Limbo, nor do I even believe in the hypothesis that I am proposing. But I think this would be an interesting thought experiment for me. Personally, asking questions whether Limbo exists is pointless to me because such a matter cannot be investigated in any meaningful way.

Well, I have to disagree with your basic assumption here. Of course limbo can be investigated in a meaningful way, just as any other theological idea can be. All one needs is reason added to what we know about God as revealed in Christ through his Church.

Obviously, people who believe in Limbo (which for the purposes of this post will be the place of eternal natural happiness, without the beatific vision, that unbaptized infants, aborted fetuses, and miscarriaged fetuses go) believe that unbaptized babies go to Limbo because they were not cleansed of “original sin”. Well, it seems that not being baptized does not automatically preclude one from entering heaven. One can be baptized by proxy by the “baptism of desire”, and thus enter heaven without baptism in some cases. However, as the name “baptism of desire” implies, this requires volition, which an infant is unlikely to possess. I also feel it is appropriate to add that it was not the fault of the fetus or infant that they died before they were baptized (or born to a non-Christian family).

I don’t know that I would personalize the concept of limbo by saying that people who believe in limbo would say… Limbo isn’t something we need to believe in so it doesn’t mean anything if one does believe in it or not.

From what we know of God, of his infinite mercy and justice, we can speculate that those infants and fetuses that die are given the chance to have a baptism of desire for God is perfectly capable of giving them the understanding of their need as they go from this life to the next. Now, that’s just my own idea, but it’s not unreasonable, and informed reason is the tool we are using here to explore this issue.

One null hypothesis is the hypothesis God would purge the “original sin” so they enter heaven, much like the process that allegedly occurs in so-called “purgatory”.

That is possible, as well. And it would be due to the redemption Christ gained for us on the cross, just as it was applied to Mary and the OT saints who lived before baptism was established (but prefigured) as the sacrament that cleanses us of original sin.

My other null hypothesis is that God will reincarnate the souls of deceased unbaptized infants into other newborns to give them a “fair chance” of going to heaven instead of sending them to Limbo. God does not remove “original sin” in this scenario as it is retained in the soul of the infant. Since God does not allow souls with “original sin” to enter heaven, he simply sends them into another body with “original sin”. In this case, “original sin” might be removed when that body becomes baptized.

This doesn’t seem reasonable or logical considering God’s nature and the teachings of his Church. God creates things and persons to be what they are–he doesn’t make them into different things from themselves just to get around a theological pickle.

The primary supposition behind both of these hypotheses is that God is willing to give every soul a chance to experience the beatific vision.

I agree because this statement is reasonable as well as matching what we know of God’s mercy and justice.

My challenge for those who support limbo is to refute both of those hypothesis and the supposition that is need to support it. I do not need to support those hypotheses because I do not even believe in them. I doubt my hypotheses can be falsified.

And I think you are making a faulty assumption here, which I refuted in my opening comments.

Ultimately, I hope this demonstrates that it is pointless to debate issues about the existence of limbo, purgatory, or whatever.

Same here, please read my opening comments.

 

[mosher]

One null hypothesis is the hypothesis God would purge the “original sin” so they enter heaven, much like the process that allegedly occurs in so-called “purgatory”.

On face value this cannot be argued since there is nothing to say that God cannot do this.

My other null hypothesis is that God will reincarnate the souls of deceased unbaptized infants into other newborns to give them a “fair chance” of going to heaven instead of sending them to Limbo. God does not remove “original sin” in this scenario as it is retained in the soul of the infant. Since God does not allow souls with “original sin” to enter heaven, he simply sends them into another body with “original sin”. In this case, “original sin” might be removed when that body becomes baptized.

Reincarnation is contrary to Catholic doctrine and denies that each human person is unique and individual in body and soul as the natural state of man is that he is body-soul. Thus a soul cannot have two bodies.

Also, the basic refutation of both positions are that they are arguments from silence. Arguments from silence are at first invalid arguments and as a result indefensible.

 

[Pug]

The primary supposition behind both of these hypotheses is that God is willing to give every soul a chance to experience the beatific vision.

Assuming you mean that God does go out and give every soul a personal chance to experience the beatific vision, why do you expect me to agree to that supposition?

One null hypothesis is the hypothesis God would purge the “original sin” so they enter heaven, much like the process that allegedly occurs in so-called “purgatory”.

I do not consider those processes to be similar. Purgatory applies only to temporal punishments. It does not confer sanctifying grace. In general, infants would not ever go to Purgatory. They have no personal sins and no debt of temporal punishment. Perhaps you merely mean that God would just forget about the original sin thing. I don’t think you mean that a regular human person could suitably expiate original sin through suffering a little.

There is a reason we think Jesus died for our sins. We think Jesus ransomed us by his sacrifice on the cross. We could not offer a suitable sacrifice to redeem ourselves, but he could, being the Son of God. A Catholic ought not agree to the idea that we could do in Purgatory what Christ did for us on the cross. A non-Catholic might think we would agree to that, but they are confused on that point. Of course, I know you may not be requiring this explication, but this answer needs to be made on a board like this one, I think, lest a lurker misunderstand. I know you said “God would purge”, but I don’t know how specific you were being.

Also, as does mosher, I see no reason to accede to reincarnation. It is foreign to Catholic doctrine.

 

[ribozyme]

Also, the basic refutation of both positions are that they are arguments from silence. Arguments from silence are at first invalid arguments and as a result indefensible.

Hmmm… we could say the same about limbo too. It’s not even mentioned in the Bible.

 

[tdgesq]

One null hypothesis is the hypothesis God would purge the “original sin” so they enter heaven, much like the process that allegedly occurs in so-called “purgatory”.

what in the world. So you propose a null hypothesis that we are all supposed to accept as true until it is falsified - even though nobody here, including you, believes it. That is truly silly, even for those who believe that a null hypothesis can assure truth simply because it cannot be statistically disproven.

I doubt my hypotheses can be falsified.

You doubt it. You just doubt it! It can never be falsified according to you. By what system or criterion could it ever be falsified? You don’t believe there is a system that can investigate it in a meaningful way. So how does one even begin to falsify it?

Ultimately, I hope this demonstrates that it is pointless to debate issues about the existence of limbo, purgatory, or whatever.

No, but it does demonstrate that some things are pointless.

 

[Chris_W]

Personally, asking questions whether Limbo exists is pointless to me because such a matter cannot be investigated in any meaningful way. .

Why can it not be investigated in any meaningful way? Deductive reasoning is not a “meaningful” method of investigation?

Still, the “experiement” may still become interesting.

You seem to object to the idea of limbo. I wonder why that is. I would suppose it is because you find something about it that seems unfair or merciless…the poor infant doomed to limbo thru no fault of its own. If that is the core of your objection, then to some extent I agree with you (as I will discuss in a minute). But to deny something exists, or moreover that it isn’t even worth considering, solely because of our emotional reaction to the concept seems a bit inadequate to my intellect.

I would say that we can take what we do know about God with some certainty and apply it to the problem at hand to deduce what may make sense.

In the case of limbo, there seems something a bit unfair about the way it is often described (where it would seem a person never stood a chance of reaching the beatific vision in Heaven). That said, I also know that God is merciful, and that God created each of us to share in His love, that God is justice in perfection, and (significantly I think) that we are created with a conscience which helps us discern right from wrong.

Considering those attributes, I can make a few conclusions about which I am fairly certain:

1. If it would be merciless for the infant to miss the opportunity you and I have been given (to choose Heaven), then God will not allow it because He is merciful
2. God would not create a person, giving life and designing the person in His image and likelness where the fulfillment of the design of that person is to know and love God, if the person was to have no chance to know and love God.
3. If it would be unjust, then it would not happen, since God is justice in perfection.
4. If my conscience has a reaction against the way limbo is presented, and since God gave me the consience to discern right from wrong, then I must conclude either I am misunderstanding the presentation of it, or the presentation is wanting in its thoroughness.

Okay, with all that said I can arrive at several secondary conclusions, which to my knowledge do not contradict Catholic teaching (else someone may correct me):

1. A place like limbo may in fact exist (I have no reason to think it cannot)
2. Limbo may not be a permanent place.
3. Infants may have an opportunity to choose God at the instant of death though we cannot comprehend quite what may happen in that process.
4. God is external to time, so there may be other factors I cannot even consider (for instance, could baptism of desire occur if the desire to have the child baptized exists in the heart of the parents?..after all, it is the parent who decide to baptise an infant of a few weeks old as well (not the will of the infant)).

The primary supposition behind both of these hypotheses is that God is willing to give every soul a chance to experience the beatific vision. .

I do accept that supposition.

Ultimately, I hope this demonstrates that it is pointless to debate issues about the existence of limbo, purgatory, or whatever.

Again I must wonder why you “hope” to demonstrate the pointlessness and thus perhaps reduce dialogue about the concept of limbo. If the idea of a place like limbo feels unfair to you, then perhaps what you need is in fact more debate about it. It is possible to be at peace with the issue, ribozyme. And for me peace of mind is much more satisfying than calling an unresolved issue “pointless”.

If it were truely pointless would you have written about it here? Would you have said the following?

I also feel it is appropriate to add that it was not the fault of the fetus or infant that they died before they were baptized (or born to a non-Christian family)…

You make a valid point here in my opinion. If your understanding of it (or the way it has been presented to you) just doesn’t seem right to you, you may be correct. Your investigation into it is a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

ribozyme,
I would like to understand what you mean by what you say.
A NULL hypothesis is used in statistics, often is made fun of, and is a single hypothesis formulated such that the alternate is inferred from the formulation.

You have two of them, and I see no statistical information in either of them. So, why are you using that terminology?

One can be baptized by proxy by the “baptism of desire”, and thus enter heaven without baptism in some cases.

If one has a baptism of desire at the moment of death – they are baptised. That is why it is called BAPTISM of desire, just as there is BAPTISM of blood. Perhaps you could clarify?
eg. who is the proxy which is baptized for the infant?

If you are here to just make fun of the website – try the water cooler.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hmmm… we could say the same about limbo too. It’s not even mentioned in the Bible.

Actually, there is a reference to limbo in the bible – a place not heaven , not hell, where punishment is not being inflicted. Jesus refers to it as the ‘bosom of Abraham’ where people waited to enter heaven BEFORE jesus suffered and died on the cross.
To snuggle in Abrahams bosom was a comfort.

Presently Limbus Paternum is no longer possible since Jesus emptied it during the three days he spent in the tomb, and now the gates of heaven (including Purgatory) are open.

 

[RyanL]

Hmmm… we could say the same about limbo too. [Purgatory is] not even mentioned in the Bible.

I would stay away from Biblical arguments about Purgatory if I were you. Purgatory is both described within and inferred from the text itself.

Rest assured, there is sufficient data within the Bible to establish the theological concept of Purgatory; there is insufficient data within the Bible to establish ‘reincarnation’.

Are you willing to withdraw your reincarnation hypothesis?

God Bless,
RyanL

P.S.,
I agree with Huiou regarding the Water Cooler.

 

[mosher]

Hmmm… we could say the same about limbo too. It’s not even mentioned in the Bible.

Incorrect. The teaching on Limbo is the logical conclusion to three dogmas. The first dogma is that “Baptism is necessary for salvation” and the second is “Those who depart this life with Original Sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God” and the third is “At the moment of death all merit ceases.” It is merely finding room for those who still have Original Sin, do not qualify for the legitimate extraordinary means of salvation that we are aware of but yet have not committed any actual sin in their life. For this reason Limbo is not in any way an argument from silence.

This is opposed to your propositions as they stem from no dogma or explicit biblical or theological teaching.

 

[jmcrae]

Incorrect. The teaching on Limbo is the logical conclusion to three dogmas. The first dogma is that “Baptism is necessary for salvation” and the second is “Those who depart this life with Original Sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God” and the third is “At the moment of death all merit ceases.” It is merely finding room for those who still have Original Sin, do not qualify for the legitimate extraordinary means of salvation that we are aware of but yet have not committed any actual sin in their life. For this reason Limbo is not in any way an argument from silence.

This is why, at this point in my life, anyway, I believe that Limbo is the best of all the possible theories.

It is repugnant to think that infants endure the pains of Hell, but it is difficult to understand how they could get to Heaven without baptism, unless we decide (without any evidence to support this idea) that God was only kidding about that whole Original Sin thing, and that, in reality, people can only be punished for their own actual mortal sins. (Which in turn would mean that Jesus died in vain on the Cross, since there was nothing for him to die for - the Temple system of animal sacrifices for actual sins was working just fine, after all.)

 

[Nullasalus]

This is why, at this point in my life, anyway, I believe that Limbo is the best of all the possible theories.

It is repugnant to think that infants endure the pains of Hell, but it is difficult to understand how they could get to Heaven without baptism, unless we decide (without any evidence to support this idea) that God was only kidding about that whole Original Sin thing, and that, in reality, people can only be punished for their own actual mortal sins. (Which in turn would mean that Jesus died in vain on the Cross, since there was nothing for him to die for - the Temple system of animal sacrifices for actual sins was working just fine, after all.)

Personally, I think the problem is that people tend to think of heaven and the glorification/resurrection as an utterly perfect state. I’m not sure where the assumption of an egalitarian afterlife comes from - or at least, ‘egalitarian heaven and hell’. Perhaps there are degrees. Or maybe all would be baptized on their resurrection - if I understand my apostle’s creed right, everyone will be resurrected, no matter their fate.

 

[dbacks5439]

I must say, I am disappointed with several responses. Ribozyme states that Limbo and/or Purgatory are/is not mentioned in the Bible, and yet I’ve seen no one offer one biblical verse to support it. Therefore, I must take up the task to answer this erroneous statement.

   Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 
               
          These verses talk about Jesus saying, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The Greek for opponent that is used here is refered to as the devil. See 1 Peter 5:8. If we have not dealt with Satan and sin in this life, we will be put in a temporary prison until we've paid our debt to God.

          Matt. 5:48

                   "Be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect." We are sinful beings who have a broken nature. This nature can be fixed and purified through the process of Purgatory.

            Luke 16:19-31 

         This is my last example from the mouth of Jesus. In this story, we have a rich man who did not live as Christ lived, but was still saved. How do we know that he was saved, even though he was in a place of torment. Well, the story also involved a poor man who died and went to Heaven. We see him alongside with Abraham. The rich man cried out asking them for mercy, but they could not do anything about it. He then asks them to warn his relatives and friends, so that they don't have to suffer as he is. The rich man shows compassion! Compassion is a grace from God, and in hell we are forever separated from God's grace. This man is in purgatory, for even though he is suffering, he still has God's grace, and therefore will join with the poor man and Abraham at some point in the future.

        1 Cor. 3:10-15

                Paul is talking about how works are tested with fire after we die. The fire can only burn up venial sins (bad works), while leaving behind the good works (gold). He goes on to say that the person will be saved, but only through fire. Well, no one in Heaven has venial sins and no one in Hell has salvation, so the fire that one must go through must be Purgatory.

      
             These are several examples of Purgatory. There are many more, but for time's sake I'll stop here. Hope this helps!!

 

[jmcrae]

These are several examples of Purgatory. There are many more, but for time’s sake I’ll stop here. Hope this helps!!

This thread has nothing to do with Purgatory - we are talking about the Limbo of Infants.

Purgatory is a transitional state of purification between the earth and Heaven. Unbaptized infants, regardless of where they end up, will never go through Purgatory, since they cannot have ever committed and then been forgiven of any actual sins, nor had any attachments to actual sin.

The Limbo of Infants is based on the idea that Hell is made up of various regions, corresponding to the amount of actual sin committed by the residents there. Limbo would be the top region, where those who had never committed any actual sin, but were also never washed of Original Sin, would go. It’s just a theory, and there is literally nothing in either Scripture or Tradition to either support or refute it.

But that was an excellent defense of Purgatory, though - I hope you don’t mind if I save it on my hard drive.

 

[mosher]

The Limbo of Infants is based on the idea that Hell is made up of various regions, corresponding to the amount of actual sin committed by the residents there. Limbo would be the top region, where those who had never committed any actual sin, but were also never washed of Original Sin, would go. It’s just a theory, and there is literally nothing in either Scripture or Tradition to either support or refute it.

This is where I would make a subtle distinction. I would not say that there is nothing in the Sacra Doctrina (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium). Rather it just seems that there is nothing explicit. However, it was taken up by nearly all of the Church Fathers at one time or another and even in council and addressed by Popes. So, it is more correct to say that it is in there but not explicitly. I think that if we took the time to explore its position in the Sacra Doctrina instead of trying to disprove it then we would have greater return for our money (so to speak).