Infants, Soteriology, and Hell

[RICHinCHRIST]

I know... quite a bizarre topic heading. Let's try to think about how these three concepts are related.

If you saw my previous thread about infants who die prematurely, you might be able to see where I'm going with this.

Ever since I read Rob Bell's book, "Love Wins"... I have frequently thought about a chapter he entitled, "Does God Get What He Wants?" I think this is one of the strongest arguments for the UR position. If God really desires all people to be saved, then is He incapable of making that happen (even if it's after death)? I'm not too sure of the answer, but I think these three categories (Infants who die prematurely, the study of salvation, and hell) have an interesting cohesion when you analyze how they affect each other. My thoughts made me begin to question my own views a little bit.

Infants who Die

1) Calvinism - God chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. Babies or children who die are either elected to be saved, or elected to burn in hell forever, dependent on God's sovereign choice.

2) Non-Calvinism - Babies and children who die are innocent of God's wrath and go to be with the Lord forever.


Soteriology

1) Calvinism - God does not desire all people to be saved so He chose only a select few to inherit salvation. All non-elect people are incapable of coming to Christ to be saved, and God has no desire in drawing them even though He could.

2) Non-Calvinism - God loves all people and desires all to be saved. All people have the opportunity and capability to receive salvation through Christ by faith, if they choose.


Hell

1) Eternal Torment - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life are subject to an eternity of conscious torment. Their souls are immortal and there is no way they can escape or cease to suffer this horrendous future unless they repent and follow Christ before they die.

2) Conditional Immortality - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life aren't innately immortal, so they cease to exist or suffer after they have received justice. Whether their annihilation is instant or after a varying temporal punishment is debatable.

3) Universal Reconciliation - Those who do not follow Christ in this temporal life suffer a temporary sentence in hell which is meant to purify them and lead them to repentance. They have the hope of one day being fully reconciled to the Lord and saved by grace, even though they didn't repent before death.


How Does All This Tie Together?

First of all, we can see that Calvinism cannot jive with Universalism. God does not desire to save all people in one system, where He does in the other. Non-Calvinists could hold any view of hell and not contradict themselves, perhaps.

This is my question: In classical Arminianism, if God really desires all to be saved, and infants are saved, why does God allow people to live past the age of accountability if He foreknows that they will rebel against Him? This is especially pertinent if Eternal Torment or Conditional Immortality is true. However, if Universalism is true, it would make sense why God would allow people to live in rebellion against Him even though He foreknows it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my dilemma with the classical Arminianism view (which I currently hold):

a) God desires all to be saved
b) God foreknows who will reject Him
c) Those who will reject Him can be saved if they die before the age of accountability

Reality: Many die rejecting Christ

Conclusion: God has seemingly not cared strongly enough about saving those people, even though He could have done it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this is the case, how can it be said that God desires all to be saved? Calvinism is actually more logically consistent than this.

If God foreknows all things, and desires all to be saved, He should kill all children He foreknows will reject Him. If He does not take this opportunity to save them, then it seems He doesn't love them enough to spare them from the coming judgment. This is especially disheartening if eternal torment is true. In other words, Arminianism is guilty of the same portrayal of God's character as Calvinism (though not as repugnantly). If God really wants all people saved, which I believe He does, why would He not take advantage of the means by which He could accomplish His will?

It seems there are only a few logically consistent conclusions one can make:

1) Logically Consistent Calvinism - God doesn't desire all to be saved, so He eternally tortures those who have no choice but to reject Him. He also tortures babies who never got to reject Him yet. God only wills that the elect not perish. Forget about everybody else cause God doesn't care about them anyway!

2) Open Theism - God does not yet know the future decisions of people, so even though He wants all saved, He does not know who will be saved or who will not (so He is not obliged to intervene in killing people before the age of accountability).

3) Arminianistic Instant Annihilationism - Even though God desires all to be saved (and foreknows those who will reject Him), He allows people to live on in rejection of Him because He knows their punishment will be swift and nearly painless. He gave them a chance, but they missed their opportunity.

4) Arminianistic Universalism - God does foreknow all things, yet He is already planning on saving all people eventually, whether by His goodness in this life or His severity in the next. Therefore, His foreknowledge of those who reject Him does not thwart His desire to save all people.

Those are my thoughts. I should mention that I am speculating and just thinking out loud.

[mattrose]

Hey This is nicely organized thinking.... thanks for posting it.

While I remain open to all 4 of your concluding options, I find 1 & 4 to have the least biblical merit in my opinion. As for 2, I recently read Pinnock's 'Most Moved Mover' and have to admit I was impressed/intringued by open theism. As for 3, I do fall in the conditional immortality camp, but I haven't really delved into the specifics (instant or not).

But I think, right now, I would try to defend what you are saying is 'seemingly' illogical. I think your logic dictates that God's highest priority is getting individuals to heaven. If this were the whole goal, He probably would have just skipped this whole 'history' thing completely. Instead, it seems God values genuine relationship (freedom). Would it really be a 'free' environment if God just took notice of what was going to be freely chosen by certain individuals and wiped them out in advance? I think that's close to the opposite of freedom. I think God's overwhelming passion for genuine relationship necessitates that people be given the freedom to choose one way or the other. Genuine relationship is so valuable, in God's eyes, that He is willing to risk some or many people freely rejecting Him.

Of course, this is easier for me to stomach b/c I do take the CI view... so I may just be making your point (and I really am open to Open Theism too), but I do think there are some logical defenses for the idea that God, while knowing a negative outcome, would still wish it to play out.

[RICHinCHRIST]

But I think, right now, I would try to defend what you are saying is 'seemingly' illogical. I think your logic dictates that God's highest priority is getting individuals to heaven. If this were the whole goal, He probably would have just skipped this whole 'history' thing completely.

Hey Matt! If Eternal Torment doctrine is true, it would seem to be of eternal importance where people spend their infinite future (considering how horrific it would be). If CI is true, I could see what you mean. If UR is true, then this is His ultimate purpose and desire.

Instead, it seems God values genuine relationship (freedom). Would it really be a 'free' environment if God just took notice of what was going to be freely chosen by certain individuals and wiped them out in advance? I think that's close to the opposite of freedom. I think God's overwhelming passion for genuine relationship necessitates that people be given the freedom to choose one way or the other. Genuine relationship is so valuable, in God's eyes, that He is willing to risk some or many people freely rejecting Him.

Of course, this is easier for me to stomach b/c I do take the CI view... so I may just be making your point (and I really am open to Open Theism too), but I do think there are some logical defenses for the idea that God, while knowing a negative outcome, would still wish it to play out.

I think, if God foreknows the moral choices of mankind, it would not be a hindrance to human freedom if He wiped them out in advance. He would still know where their freedom would lead them (this is what foreknowledge means). It seems logically inconsistent (unless we become Open Theists). I'd have to say that God really doesn't desire to save that individual. Or, I'd have to say that the age of accountability doctrine is not true. This is possible, because we could say that God foreknows whether an infant will choose to follow Christ or not. We could say that some infants do experience hell (because God foreknew they would earn it for themselves if they had lived). I don't see how, 1) God desires all to be saved, and 2) Those who die before the age of accountability are always saved, can both be true and keep our view of the revealed character of God consistent. This is opening me to the possibility of Open Theism much more. However, this is merely on philosophical grounds. I haven't done the biblical homework to try to find the exegetical answers for an Open Future. I remain a classical Arminianist, but I confess I have some questions. I'm also not quick to become a Universalist purely on these grounds.

[steve7150]

This is my question: In classical Arminianism, if God really desires all to be saved, and infants are saved, why does God allow people to live past the age of accountability if He foreknows that they will rebel against Him? This is especially pertinent if Eternal Torment or Conditional Immortality is true. However, if Universalism is true, it would make sense why God would allow people to live in rebellion against Him even though He foreknows it.



He does desire all to be saved and i do think God's will, ultimately can not be prevented nor should we want it to be.
So the question boils down to what the meaning of salvation really is? We are to be saved from our sins and i think the lesson of scripture starting with creation is that we must experience evil. It's never explained why but there are hints like this verse which i think is prophetic, "knowing good and evil they have become like us." I see this as a prophetic statement that humanity must learn evil , because we learn by contrasts. So in knowing evil we learn love, in experiencing darkness we learn about light, hate vs love, selfishness vs giving and mercy and compassion.
So the process is happening and will continue until the cup is full and i believe the process of salvation will be completed at some point and then Jesus will hand the kingdom to his Father and God will be All in All.

[Homer]

RICHinCHRIST,

1) Logically Consistent Calvinism - God doesn't desire all to be saved, so He eternally tortures those who have no choice but to reject Him. He also tortures babies who never got to reject Him yet. God only wills that the elect not perish. Forget about everybody else cause God doesn't care about them anyway!

4) Arminianistic Universalism - God does foreknow all things, yet He is already planning on saving all people eventually, whether by His goodness in this life or His severity in the next. Therefore, His foreknowledge of those who reject Him does not thwart His desire to save all people.

There is a similarity in that both #1 and #4 are deterministic systems that override free-will. In #1 God arbitrarily regenerates people who then can not resist Him. In #4 God severely and relentlessly torments them until they repent; it is absurd to say they exercise their free-will while being "water-boarded" endlessly for thousands of years.

Suppose you are a young man looking for a good wife who will truly love, esteem and value you. You have a friend who is involved in a project to develop robots. Your friend informs you that his project has advanced to the point that they can make a robot "wife" for you. The robot will be indistiguishable from the real thing. In addition, this robot can be programmed to always do just what you want and act just as a real wife would in regard to "loving" you. And any time you choose you can fine tune the robot's response. Would you be pleased with this robot as a wife or would you choose a real one who, though imperfect, loved you of her own free choice?

I think God has more than a one-track mind. He wants all to be saved, but He has other values such as free-will. And justice. I know, universalists will bring up the old "finite sin/finite punishment" argument. I do not think our finite minds are capable of judging what the proper punishment for sin against God is. Does one act of sin long ago in a garden seem to warrent suffering and death for billions of people? But that's a fact so we accept it.

[mdh]

RICHinCHRIST,

1) Logically Consistent Calvinism - God doesn't desire all to be saved, so He eternally tortures those who have no choice but to reject Him. He also tortures babies who never got to reject Him yet. God only wills that the elect not perish. Forget about everybody else cause God doesn't care about them anyway!

4) Arminianistic Universalism - God does foreknow all things, yet He is already planning on saving all people eventually, whether by His goodness in this life or His severity in the next. Therefore, His foreknowledge of those who reject Him does not thwart His desire to save all people.

There is a similarity in that both #1 and #4 are deterministic systems that override free-will. In #1 God arbitrarily regenerates people who then can not resist Him. In #4 God severely and relentlessly torments them until they repent; it is absurd to say they exercise their free-will while being "water-boarded" endlessly for thousands of years.

Homer,

I do not believe you are being fair. I do not think most who would hold to "Arminianistic Universalism" would consider that God's severity came in the form of thousands of years of water-boarding. Is it not true that you currently view eternal punishment and conditional immortality as possible? In your view, if eternal punishment is true, would that be God "water-boarding" forever? I am sure that is not what you believe.

If God allows us to receive the natural consequences of our actions, continuing into the next life, that would not be water-boarding. If it is not a violation of free-will to have people reap what they sow in this life and some repent, why is it a violation of free-will for this to continue into the age to come?

Blessings to you!
Mike

[steve7150]

I think God has more than a one-track mind. He wants all to be saved, but He has other values such as free-will. And justice. I know, universalists will bring up the old "finite sin/finite punishment" argument. I do not think our finite minds are capable of judging what the proper punishment for sin against God is. Does one act of sin long ago in a garden seem to warrent suffering and death for billions of people? But that's a fact so we accept it.Homer







Exactly where in scripture does it say God values free will at least in this present evil age, and if we do why did Jesus say "you can do nothing without me"? Paul had a will and he hated Christ yet when Christ revealed himself to Paul, and Paul actually for the first time could then make a free will choice it took a few seconds for him to choose Christ. Paul had been an unbeliever whose mind had been blinded by the devil as Paul said himself (2nd Cor 4.4) yet when he physically saw Christ his spiritual eyes and his mind were unblinded and he made the choice any sane person will make if they have the same opportunity as Paul. Since God is not a respecter of persons i think that time will come for all.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I think God has more than a one-track mind. He wants all to be saved, but He has other values such as free-will.

I agree that He has more than a one-track mind. But what I'm saying is that the infinite intelligence and foreknowledge of God doesn't override free-will. If God knows in advance that someone will reject Him and burn in hell forever, why not just spare the poor sap and wipe him out in advance and let him go to heaven? If God has the power and knowledge to do that, why would He not take advantage of that? The only reason I can think of is that He doesn't really desire enough that all be saved. If He did care, then surely He would intervene. If He doesn't care enough, then God is either a Calvinist, an Arminian who delights in eternally torturing people even though He could have saved them from it, a fire which will consume His enemies (in a relatively short period of time in comparison with eternity), or He does not yet know the future moral decisions of people. If He doesn't intervene due to a greater purpose He has in mind, then He is a universalist. Or, children go to heaven or hell based upon His foreknowledge of their free choices. The last possibility is that children, infants, or the unborn just simply do not exist in eternity (and I doubt that). Are there any other possibilities?

I do not think our finite minds are capable of judging what the proper punishment for sin against God is.

I think our minds are very capable. God said it was death. We can hypothesize about all the different possibilities of what 'death' means, but that would be based upon our presuppositions on our specific view of hell. I do not have any suppositions, so I'm open to the possibility of all three being true. If eternal torment is true, however, I think it must be very different than we imagine it. If eternal torment is true, it must be 'beyond our understanding' because no sympathetic person can think about the proposition of it for any lengthy period of time without questioning the morality of it.

Does one act of sin long ago in a garden seem to warrent suffering and death for billions of people? But that's a fact so we accept it.

At least there will be an end to that suffering and death! That's a fact too!

[Homer]

HI Mike,

You wrote:

I do not believe you are being fair. I do not think most who would hold to "Arminianistic Universalism" would consider that God's severity came in the form of thousands of years of water-boarding. Is it not true that you currently view eternal punishment and conditional immortality as possible? In your view, if eternal punishment is true, would that be God "water-boarding" forever? I am sure that is not what you believe.

In response to what I had written:

In #4 God severely and relentlessly torments them until they repent; it is absurd to say they exercise their free-will while being "water-boarded" endlessly for thousands of years.

You are correct, that is not what I believe. I was speaking metaphorically of what Rich alluded to (His severity) and what one prominent universalist on this site makes clear - that the "correction" will amount to a severe burning in hell experience, as he has said, of thousands of years.

If EP is true, I believe it will most likely be in the form of an eternal separation from God, and any influence of God. A real "outer darkness", and a "hell" indeed.

If it is not a violation of free-will to have people reap what they sow in this life and some repent, why is it a violation of free-will for this to continue into the age to come?

Because of the unrelenting aspect of the torture. How can this possibly be considered a free-will response? It may be a response but it is absurd to say it is free. Even the courts can see this. Any confession resulting from weeks of torture would be thrown out.

I know Steve has said, and as I recall you agree, that the teaching of hell is an impediment to belief. I say universalism is, and Origen agreed, as have many "no-hellers" who came to see hell as a useful tool. Thus they seem to preach the "fires of hell" more than anyone.

From the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

Origen (186-253), taught that all the wicked would be restored after they had undergone severe punishment and had received instruction from angels and then from those of higher grade (De principiis, I. vi. 1-3). He also raised the question whether after this world there perhaps would be another or others in which this instruction would be given (De principiis, II. iii. 1), and interpreted Paul’s teaching respecting the subjection of all things to God as implying the salvation of the “lost” (De principiis, III. v. 7). These beliefs and speculations he based on Bible statements (especially on Ps. cx. 1; I Cor. xv. 25 sqq.), but declared that the doctrine would be dangerous to disseminate (Contra Celsum, vi. 26).

God bless you!

[RICHinCHRIST]

Homer quoted Origen...

From the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:

Origen (186-253), taught that all the wicked would be restored after they had undergone severe punishment and had received instruction from angels and then from those of higher grade (De principiis, I. vi. 1-3). He also raised the question whether after this world there perhaps would be another or others in which this instruction would be given (De principiis, II. iii. 1)...

I've also thought about this possibility. I've wondered if there might be other worlds that God will create in which we will have some dominion over. I've thought that it's possible that God might annihilate the wicked and then re-create them and give them another chance to be saved in a different world. Perhaps even our own world is much later on in the overall timeline of many other universes which God has created in the past. I realize that this is all speculation and heady philosophy (and even seems to sound almost like reincarnation). I've never mentioned these thoughts to anyone else because I've always thought they were probably not worth sharing (considering their speculative nature). But I think it's probable that there will be many things we will learn about God and His ways which surprise us when we spend eternity with Him. If we don't think we'll be surprised were probably not open-minded enough!