Innocent children going to hell

[DSJJ]

Need some help. My sister-in-law who is a free will baptist just came from church where their preacher announced that if children born out of wed lock were to die they would go to hell. She now is thinking her grandchildren might be bound for hell. Does anyone have anything to dispell this outlandish notion. I need quotes from scripture since that’s all she will base things on. It seems the preacher backed up his preaching with a bible quote but I’m not sure which one he used.

 

[fhansen]

Need some help. My sister-in-law who is a free will baptist just came from church where their preacher announced that if children born out of wed lock were to die they would go to hell. She now is thinking her grandchildren might be bound for hell. Does anyone have anything to dispell this outlandish notion. I need quotes from scripture since that’s all she will base things on. It seems the preacher backed up his preaching with a bible quote but I’m not sure which one he used.

Even from a purely logical viewpoint it makes absolutely no sense. Why would God single out children born out of wedlock? He created them after all-and everything God creates is good, according to Genesis.

 

[Church_Militant]

He’s nuts. The standing of infants with God is irrelevant to the marriage (or lack of) of their parents.

Even if his position had merit, it would still do nothing more than validate our own sacramental infant baptisms.

You need to give us the scripture this guy used because I have no doubt that given that we can refute his socks off.

 

[DSJJ]

I’ll try and find out the bible quote. Should I use things like…Jesus said “If I wouldn’t have told them then they woud have no sin but since I did their sin remains”. Wouldn’t children fall into the not knowing…

 

[The_Scott]

Why would God punish an innocent child for someone else’s sin?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Need some help. My sister-in-law who is a free will baptist just came from church where their preacher announced that if children born out of wed lock were to die they would go to hell. She now is thinking her grandchildren might be bound for hell. Does anyone have anything to dispell this outlandish notion. I need quotes from scripture since that’s all she will base things on. It seems the preacher backed up his preaching with a bible quote but I’m not sure which one he used.

The preacher needs to quote the Scripture where we have the authority to say who is and who isn’t going to hell. If we actually read Scripture, Christ commands to us to judge not. We know what leads to hell, but ultimately we never know the fate of a person. God is also not bound to the conditions He created for us humans for salvation. There is no salvation outside the Church but there are conditions where a person cannot be held to the same standard of those in the Church. If we examine verses like James 3:1, we see there are different levels of judgment based on the person’s position. A bishop will be judged more strictly then a priest and a lay person in the Church will be judged more strictly then those that do not have truth. Can a baby be judged to the same degree as you or I and still advocate God’s mercy? Another problem with Sola Scriptura, they not only throw out the Church they also throw out reason.

 

[Daizies]

I am guessing that your sister in law’s preacher used verses like these:

Exodus 20:5 (NIV) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Exodus 34:7 (NIV) maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

or one of the similar passages from Leviticus and Numbers.

My response would be from Ezekiel 18:1-30, especially verse 20:

20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

I hope this is of some help.

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1:
“But every one shall die for his own iniquity …”
- Jeremiah 31:30a
See that you
despise not one
of these little ones:

for I say to you,
that their angels in heaven
:angel1:
always
see the face of
My Father Who
is in heaven.
+
Even so it is
NOT
the will of your **
Father, Who is in heaven**,
that one of these little :thankyou: ones should perish.
- Jesus
*** - Matthew 18:10, 14***

. . . :coffeeread: . . . ****
CATECHISM
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Section Two
The Seven Sacraments of the Church

CHAPTER ONE
THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
**1261 **
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: **“Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”**64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Link: usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#art1+
But
Jesus
said to them:
Suffer the little children,
:flowers:
and forbid them not
to come to
me;
for the kingdom of heaven is for shaw: such. - Matthew 19:14

. . . all for Jesus+
*. . . thank You Lord for so wonderfully
and mercifully loving our little ones+
*​

 

[TimothyH]

He’s nuts. The standing of infants with God is irrelevant to the marriage (or lack of) of their parents.

Even if his position had merit, it would still do nothing more than validate our own sacramental infant baptisms.

You need to give us the scripture this guy used because I have no doubt that given that we can refute his socks off.

I betcha they used the fact that David and Bathsheba’s son died…

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” Nathan answered David: “For his part, the LORD has removed your sin. You shall not die, but since you have utterly spurned the LORD by this deed, the child born to you will surely die.” Then Nathan returned to his house. The LORD struck the child that the wife of Uriah had borne to David, and it became desperately ill. David pleaded with God on behalf of the child. He kept a total fast, and spent the night lying on the ground clothed in sackcloth. The elders of his house stood beside him to get him to rise from the ground; but he would not, nor would he take food with them. On the seventh day, the child died. (2 Samuel 12:13-18)

Personally, I’d forget about the guy and his socks. I’d save myself a whole bunch of time and effort and would forget about playing machine gun bible verse paintball games. I’d speak to the woman about mercy and forgiveness and grace and peace and healing and especially Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

-Tim-

 

[LightBound]

Was it the Westboro Baptist church?

 

[Jesus_123]

+Hi Tim . . .

There is . . . Sweet Light . . . later on in that same passage of Sacred :bible1: Scripture Tim . . . this . . . beautiful comforting passage . . . is often used at funerals for children . . . particularly infants who have gone home to be with the Lord . . . because it tenderly reveals . . . God’s Wonderful Merciful Love . . . for little ones . . .

:bible1:
But now that he is dead,
why should I fast?
Shall I be able to bring him back any more?
I shall go to him rather:
but he shall not return to me.
- 2 Samuel 12:23

For those who died before **Christ’s **death on the Cross . . . in the **Old :bible1: Testament **times it was revealed that there were two (2) levels of hell spoken of . . . as revealed in the **New :bible1: Testament Scripture about Lazarus the holy begger **. . . and an uncrossable chasm between them . . .

One of those levels was called** “Abraham’s Bosom” **(Paradise) . . . this is what the sweet . . . **Psalmist of God **. . . King David . . . knew and spoke of when he shared he would go to his little son . . . but his little son couldn’t come back to him here on earth . . . below is the passage in the **New :bible1: Testament sharing the two level nature of hell . . . the upper level of which . . . no longer exists . . . since Christ Jesus took all those waiting souls resting in Father Abraham’s Bosom to heaven with him **. . . after **His **atoning death on the Cross . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
THE HOLY :bible1: BIBLE
Luke 16:19-31

[19] There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day. [20] “And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores,” [21] Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. [22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels :angel1: into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. [23] And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: [24] And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. [25] And **Abraham **said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise **Lazareth **evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

Bishop Challoner’s Douay Rheims Commentary: [22] Abraham’s bosom: The place of rest, where the souls of the saints resided, till Christ had opened heaven by his death.

[26] And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. [27] And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren, [28] That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. [29] And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. [30] But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. [31] **And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead. **​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary our Mother+
. . . thank you Blessed Holy Mother Church+
. . . thank you Blessed St. Jerome+​

 

[Ignatius]

Need some help. My sister-in-law who is a free will baptist just came from church where their preacher announced that if children born out of wed lock were to die they would go to hell.

Everyone born, both in and out of wedlock, is going to die eventually.

 

[aquinasg]

It is Church dogma that children must be baptized in order to go to heaven:

Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

We just don’t know if they are mysteriously baptized by Christ or Mary or angels or someone from heaven before they die. [If there is a “limbo”, according to Church (see the two quotes I provided to prove this in the “burnt babies” thread) teaching they suffer there.]

The Church use to assume that they are NOT baptized mystically:

Pope Sixtus V, whose Constitution Effrænatam of 29 October 1588:
“For who would not detest a crime (abortion) as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has** excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God**? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.”

The Church **now **says that non-baptized babies MAY go to Heaven, but to reconcile the new Catechism with previous dogma, it must be assumed that the new Catechism means “baptized by us, the Church militant”. Unfortunately, the Catechism is at times ambiguous.

 

[thistle]

It is Church dogma that children must be baptized in order to go to heaven:

Pope St. Innocent, 414: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

We just don’t know if they are mysteriously baptized by Christ or Mary or angels or someone from heaven before they die. [If there is a “limbo”, according to Church (see the two quotes I provided to prove this in the “burnt babies” thread) teaching they suffer there.]

The Church use to assume that they are NOT baptized mystically:

Pope Sixtus V, whose Constitution Effrænatam of 29 October 1588:
“For who would not detest a crime (abortion) as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has** excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God**? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.”

The Church **now **says that non-baptized babies MAY go to Heaven, but to reconcile the new Catechism with previous dogma, it must be assumed that the new Catechism means “baptized by us, the Church militant”. Unfortunately, the Catechism is at times ambiguous.

From a priest who is also a Catholic educator I asked about this:

QUOTE
These past Popes you have quoted have not said what happens to infants who have not been baptised. What they were saying is that there is no way except baptism for US to communicate supernatural life to a child. However, God can communicate that life to the child in other ways and the Catechism presents possibilities for this, namely the great mercy of God and Jesus’ tenderness towards children.
The main point of these past Popes statements is to emphasise the importance of baptism. Since we are obliged to do all we can to bring God’s grace to our children, we are under grave obligation to baptise them as soon as possible. The Catechism also makes this point. The past statements do not elaborate on what might happen if children die before they are baptised. This is the very point developed and explained by the Catechism. The Catechism does NOT contradict previous Popes’ statements. It merely progresses on from a point they did not develop because their point was to always baptise children as soon as possible, especially in danger of death.
UNQUOTE

 

[aquinasg]

These past Popes you have quoted have not said what happens to infants who have not been baptised.UNQUOTE

That’s just not true. WORDS MEAN THINGS, SENTENCES MUST MAKE SENSE.

Pope St. Innocent "without the grace of Baptism…idiotic.”

Trent “needing to be cleansed by the **laver **of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, **SINCE **(that is the proper sense of that word ) **no help **can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism…"

Its all in plain English.

There are plenty of prest and educators who don’t know how to read properly. With all due respect for a priest, have him try to explain away Pope Sixtus V. If babies die without someone on earth or heaven baptizing them, they do NOT go to heaven, but to punishment (yes, the Church teaches that)

 

[aquinasg]

(yes, the Church teaches that)

And you should know where the Chuch teaches that since I provided the two sources before, and I think your the one Thistle who is deleting my posts. Sorry, but I don’t see why I am not free to express myself

 

[aquinasg]

Catechism of Trent:

“If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that **unless they are regenerated **to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: ‘Unless anyone be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’”

“past papal statements do not elaborate on what might happen if children die before they are baptised.”

Ye right

 

[aquinasg]

"The punishment for original sin is the loss of the beatific vision”-- Pope Innocent III, incorparated into his canon law

“The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.” (Pius VI Auctorem Fidei)

 

[Oneofthewomen]

And you should know where the Chuch teaches that since I provided the two sources before, and I think your the one Thistle who is deleting my posts. Sorry, but I don’t see why I am not free to express myself

Express yourself, yes.
Misrepresent Church teaching, no.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments

 

[aquinasg]

That has reference to baptism of desire. But you ignored the quotes I provided which say this doesnt apply to infants. Again, someone from heaven woud have to baptize them before they died