Is there the chance that children can go to Hell?

[LutheranDK]

---

Then like now, rest in the Divine Judgement of a MUST BE **fair ***** and just God, who has time and again gone to extremes to prove His love for and to be in relationship with us.

Bolding mine…

Just a question: “Fair” and “Just” by whose standards? Ours or Perfection’s?

 

[ralphinal]

I do - but my question STILL stands unanswered:
You obviously count on some kind of “age of reason”; until which there’s essentially a free pass, yet you (wisely, but I’m not sure that it’s logically sound…) do not want to set a fixed “date” or “year” for it.

Now, the question is no longer on WHEN that “age of reason” is (so I’m no longer asking you for a digit), but WHERE you got that…rather comfortable teaching from?

I think that the issue is that this is a poorly asked question (not a bad one, just needing some help).

If the OP means any children, that is one thing.

If they mean unbaptized children, it is another.

If they mean children who were baptized, it is different still.

Do you think that a baptized child who dies at 1 can go to hell? What about 2? How about 13?

 

[Bill_Pick]

I do - but my question STILL stands unanswered:
You obviously count on some kind of “age of reason”; until which there’s essentially a free pass, yet you (wisely, but I’m not sure that it’s logically sound…) do not want to set a fixed “date” or “year” for it.

Now, the question is no longer on WHEN that “age of reason” is (so I’m no longer asking you for a digit), but WHERE you got that…rather comfortable teaching from?

The Church teaching is “The age of reason”

 

[PJM]

=Shin;6001578]I do not know that saints you quoted taught that baptism of desire or blood was available for infants, especially the former – quite the opposite, since the age of reason was not reached I know of no case where that has been taught, but demonstrate it if you can from -authority-. The children who died in Old Testament times, the holy innocents, died under the Old Law, and so baptism did not apply to them. Ditto for the ‘good thief’.

Moreover these are not dogmas but theological speculations.

Moreover you say, ‘innocent’ but we are born in sin, and without original sin, there is in fact no need for Christ’s sacrifice, the gates of Heaven would be open by default. That is heresy.

You seem think that the saints, bishops, doctors, popes and Ecumenical Councils that have taught limbo are somehow deficient compared to your sentimental heart. They love somehow less, know God somehow less. Despite the fact that these many of these people walked and talked with God. Don’t put yourself in such a high place of judgement. We come to the Church to learn what God’s will is, not to tell Him what is fair and just.

We learn what is true from God, and accept it, rather than take what we think should be and dictate it.

Everyone in Heaven is perfectly happy, however many or few of their family are there with them. I think there are hardly any people who do not in fact have relatives in Hell or friends from earth there.

Moreover limbo or the paradise of the fathers is not such an unpleasant place, it is simply a different state of being that people in Heaven could communicate certainly believe.

***My dear friend in Christ

I’m by nature and choice one who nearly always adheres strictly to the Bible and Chruch teaching. However in this topic at hand I wounder if this approach is WWJD

If I were to ask you to describe the MESSAGE of the enire Bible in a single four-letter word, could we agree that the only word that one could reasonably apply might be “LOVE?”

It seems to me [subjective thought which again I try to avoid] that there are THREE Theological Virtues.

Faith [which you seem to have in abundance , Hope and Love. Paul tells us wisely that the “greatest of these is Love.” And it seems to me objectively speaking that one cannot LOVE without Hope?

So we can HOPE in God’s Love:thumbsup:[/COLOR]*

Love and prayers,

Pat**

 

[Xavierlives]

The Church officially teaches that there is salvation through “baptism by desire”. Accordingly, people preparing for baptism may be saved even though they did not receive the sacrament of baptism before death. If such a person should die before being baptized, they are not excluded from Heaven on a technicality. Instead, they are considered “baptized by desire”.

Baptism of desire (Latin Baptismus Flaminis) is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian ritual, because of death, nevertheless bring about the fruits of Baptism, if their grace of conversion included an internal act of perfect love and contrition which automatically cleanses the soul of all sin. Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church observes, “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259).

St. Augustine also distinguishes between the sacrament of Baptism and the turning of the heart to God. He teaches that if either of these conditions cannot be secured, the other will be sufficient. A baptized Child is saved, without turning its heart to God, should it die before coming to the age of reason, and a man who turns his heart to God is saved without water baptism, provided he in no way despise the sacrament. [17]
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that “baptism is necessary for salvation.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ss. 1257) [1]. It moreover teaches that baptism confers the forgiveness of sins by virtue of the enactment of the sacrament itself: “(b)y Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.” (ss. 1263). For Catholics, baptism is a unique, unrepeatable act; no one who has been baptized validly can receive the full pardon conferred by the sacrament a second time. (ss. 1272) Given these doctrines, it is a matter of serious concern for the Catholic Church if a believing Christian does not receive a valid baptism.

The doctrine of baptism of desire seeks to address some of the implications of these teachings. It holds that those who come to faith in the Catholic Church as adults and become catechumens before receiving baptism nevertheless are admitted to salvation even though the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Non-Christians who seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience can also be saved without water baptism; they are said to desire it implicitly. (cf. Catechism, 1260)

Martyrdom
Similarly, those who die as martyrs in a persecution of Christians are also judged by Roman Catholicism to have acquired the benefits of baptism without actually undergoing the ritual; this is the “baptism of blood” (baptismum sanguinis) (ss. 1258). Because the Catholic Church practises infant baptism, these issues seldom arise except for adult converts to Catholicism who were not baptised as children. The Catholic Church officially professes uncertainty about the fate in the afterlife of infants who die before baptism, observing that “the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God” (ss. 1261). Today, it is most commonly accepted that children who die in infancy or who are aborted are admitted into heaven.

While for infants, baptism is the sole means of salvation, (as they cannot make an act of faith, which requires the use of reason), yet it may be rightly affirmed ask if “regardless of the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, are there not other means [than that of water] of providing for it? The Fathers [of the Church] admit to baptism of blood or martyrdom, and in a certain measure the baptism of desire, as a means of replacing the baptism of water."[3]

Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. Baius (in a proposition condemned by Pope V) also taught that charity was not always joined to the remission of sins.” He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.”

So is the Columbine student, Cassie Bernall who declared she believed in God, considered a martyr?

 

[Shin]

***My dear friend in Christ

I’m by nature and choice one who nearly always adheres strictly to the Bible and Chruch teaching. However in this topic at hand I wounder if this approach is WWJD

If I were to ask you to describe the MESSAGE of the enire Bible in a single four-letter word, could we agree that the only word that one could reasonably apply might be “LOVE?”

It seems to me [subjective thought which again I try to avoid] that there are THREE Theological Virtues.

Faith [which you seem to have in abundance , Hope and Love. Paul tells us wisely that the “greatest of these is Love.” And it seems to me objectively speaking that one cannot LOVE without Hope?

So we can HOPE in God’s Love:thumbsup:[/COLOR]***

Love and prayers,

Pat

Yes, we never know what happened in the very end… there is always hope. I have come on a bit too strong on some parts of this I think.

 

[ralphinal]

So is the Columbine student, Cassie Bernall who declared she believed in God, considered a martyr?

Not to derail, but I thought that was an urban legend. A good one, but one none the less

 

[LutheranDK]

The Church teaching is “The age of reason”

Sighs…
Will you then please answer the question in another way:
If this “age-of-reason”-business is the teaching of the RC church (a subject on which there seems to be a kind of difference of opinion here?), then where did IT get it from?
In other words: What is this teaching based on??

 

[LutheranDK]

Not to derail, but I thought that was an urban legend. A good one, but one none the less

Yes and no: The witness mistook another girl (who was also killed) for Cassie.

But anyway: Yes! If answering the question “Do you believe in Jesus?” with a “Yes” at the expense of your life does not make a martyr, then no such person exits…*

*Assuming that we’re talking about ACTUAL Christians, and not JWs, Mormons, etc…

 

[ralphinal]

Yes and no: The witness mistook another girl (who was also killed) for Cassie.

But anyway: Yes! If answering the question “Do you believe in Jesus?” with a “Yes” at the expense of your life does not make a martyr, then no such person exits…*

*Assuming that we’re talking about ACTUAL Christians, and not JWs, Mormons, etc…

As to the martyr point, I agree.

The actual girl in question, according to the FBI and other reports, was not killed when she said “Yes.”

In some ways, that is a better story

 

[Bill_Pick]

Sighs…
Will you then please answer the question in another way:
If this “age-of-reason”-business is the teaching of the RC church (a subject on which there seems to be a kind of difference of opinion here?), then where did IT get it from?
In other words: What is this teaching based on??

The Church has said year after year a person that has been baptism well not go to hell if it has not reach the age of reasoning, I do not know the age of reason is But God does.
I do not think a person at the age of 3 years old is going to hell,its not in me to tell God what to do,the age of reason may be 12 or 13
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU KNOW

 

[LutheranDK]

The Church has said year after year a person that has been baptism well not go to hell if it has not reach the age of reasoning, I do not know the age of reason is But God does.
I do not think a person at the age of 3 years old is going to hell,its not in me to tell God what to do,the age of reason may be 12 or 13
CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU KNOW

I do not know the answer to the question I asked you - of course.
Now, I don’t have that problem because I don’t consider the “age of reason” as anything else than a comfortable way of avoiding VERY painful questions…

You still have not answered me - please do: If this is indeed the official teaching of the RC church, then where does the church get it from?

 

[Shin]

I do not know the answer to the question I asked you - of course.
Now, I don’t have that problem because I don’t consider the “age of reason” as anything else than a comfortable way of avoiding VERY painful questions…

You still have not answered me - please do: If this is indeed the official teaching of the RC church, then where does the church get it from?

The reason why there is an ‘age of reason’ is because to be able to sin you have to be a reasoning being. If you do not know what you are doing, you are not culpable for what you are doing.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I do not know the answer to the question I asked you - of course.
Now, I don’t have that problem because I don’t consider the “age of reason” as anything else than a comfortable way of avoiding VERY painful questions…

You still have not answered me - please do: If this is indeed the official teaching of the RC church, then where does the church get it from?

Please tell me you do not think that a child at age 6 is going to hell,I will say The Catechism of the Cathloic Church…We are talking about not being Baptism

 

[LutheranDK]

Please tell me you do not think that a child at age 6 is going to hell,I will say The Catechism of the Cathloic Church…We are talking about not being Baptism

I could say to you: “Please tell me you do not think that a child at age 13 (14, 15, etc) is going to hell.”

The difference? “Cuteness factor”:

Everyone is actually going to hell. If someone doesn’t, it’s because they’re Christians.

 

[ralphinal]

I could say to you: “Please tell me you do not think that a child at age 13 (14, 15, etc) is going to hell.”

The difference? “Cuteness factor”:

Everyone is actually going to hell. If someone doesn’t, it’s because they’re Christians.

I asked this before, but I think it was missed.

A baby is baptized. Ok. That one is safe. Now, at what point are they able to sin again?

At what point do their own actions possibly damn them?

 

[Bill_Pick]

I could say to you: “Please tell me you do not think that a child at age 13 (14, 15, etc) is going to hell.”

The difference? “Cuteness factor”:

Everyone is actually going to hell. If someone doesn’t, it’s because they’re Christians.

nograceandglory

NO

 

[Xavierlives]

Yes and no: The witness mistook another girl (who was also killed) for Cassie.

But anyway: Yes! If answering the question “Do you believe in Jesus?” with a “Yes” at the expense of your life does not make a martyr, then no such person exits…*

*Assuming that we’re talking about ACTUAL Christians, and not JWs, Mormons, etc…

But the original story, as I recall, was that she was praying something like, “God, please don’t let me die” and one of the shooters asked her, “do you believe in God?” Where she replied, “Yes.” She was then shot and killed. I also think I remember she was shot in the head at close range.

The point I am making is, if she died for her belief in God (without a public profession or Baptism or whatever), is that considered a martyr in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

 

[LutheranDK]

I asked this before, but I think it was missed.

A baby is baptized. Ok. That one is safe. Now, at what point are they able to sin again?

At what point do their own actions possibly damn them?

As I explained earlier - we are not sinners because we commit sin, we commit sin because we are sinners.
So by definition, a human being = going to hell.

The only exception possible is to be Christian.
It’s not our actions in and of themselves that condemn us, it’s what we ARE that condemn us. The actions are merely symptoms of the disease.

Now, could you answer my question?

 

[LutheranDK]

The point I am making is, if she died for her belief in God (without a public profession or Baptism or whatever), is that considered a martyr in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

I don’t know whether or not the RC church would consider such a person a martyr.
It should, but if it does I don’t know.