Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:When we die, at ANY stage, our spirit returns to God.
That is no different from children of infants of course.
There is only ONE hat decides who is saved and that is Our Judge.
No human can make that call, no "point-of view" can speak for Him.
God decides through Christ.
When a baby dies, it's spirit returns from where it came.

Since God knows what each of will choose, do you think it possible that God will judge babies on what He knows they will do later in life?

I'm having trouble with that thought.

Christian2 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:When we die, at ANY stage, our spirit returns to God.
That is no different from children of infants of course.
There is only ONE hat decides who is saved and that is Our Judge.
No human can make that call, no "point-of view" can speak for Him.
God decides through Christ.
When a baby dies, it's spirit returns from where it came.

Since God knows what each of will choose, do you think it possible that God will judge babies on what He knows they will do later in life?

I'm having trouble with that thought.

We have free will, God knows all possible outcomes of our decisions since he sees ALL ( there are a few different views on how God does this).
God has no hand in a child's death.

Also, God knows what will happen to us. That's not to say he observes the infinite possibilities of what could be. In C.S. Lewis's "Problem of Pain", he says that there are some things that he believes are inherently impossible. I think God judging someone on what might have happened doesn't inherently make any sense. He sees what we will do because He is outside time, but not infinite amounts of lifetimes for each person. If a baby dies before they have the choice to follow Him, he sees them die, not what he/she would've done if they hadn't died. That's just speculation, though, based on what I read in PofP.

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." - Psalm 51:5 NIV

David could be using hyperbole but I don't think so. One serious problem with believing babies are innocent is that the reality is not only that they frequently die but that that they often suffer in horrible ways short of death. If they are innocent, a just God could not allow harm to them could he? No, Adam sinned and has the head of our race we all became sinners. Consider that Jesus had no human father and so did not have Adam as the head of his family so he did not inherit this sinful nature. We did.

I think the case can be made that covenant children go to heaven, those with a Christian parent and before some level of maturity. I don't know specifically what age or maturity level that would be. The way David talks about his lost child indicates that he believes the child went to Heaven, but that was a covenant child. As far as non-covenant children, I don't think we know. He could save all of them but the Bible doesn't difinitively say so. If he did, I might not rail against abortion so harshly.

This (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-te ... nt-baptism) quotes what some ancient Christians write about infant baptism because they believe infants need baptism. I agree with them. For me, the quotations support the Catholic Church's teachings about Limbo, too.

I don't write "Roman Catholic Church," by the way, because some parts of the Catholic Church are Eastern, not Roman. There are Ukrainian Catholics who attend their own kind of Divine Liturgy, Maronite Catholics go to Maronite Divine Divine Liturgies, and other kinds of Catholic attend other kinds of liturgy. In the Roman part of the Catholic Church, Catholics go to the Masses that many of you probably have been to. Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and so forth are members of the Catholic Church. But Roman rituals are much different from non-Romans ones. The Roman, Ukrainian, Maronite, and other parts of the Catholic Church are not different denominations.

well i don't think baptism has anything to do with going to heaven but it is a outward expression of faith so it does matter if a baby is baptize or not

Bill McEnaney wrote:This (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-te ... nt-baptism) quotes what some ancient Christians write about infant baptism because they believe infants need baptism. I agree with them. For me, the quotations support the Catholic Church's teachings about Limbo, too.

I don't write "Roman Catholic Church," by the way, because some parts of the Catholic Church are Eastern, not Roman. There are Ukrainian Catholics who attend their own kind of Divine Liturgy, Maronite Catholics go to Maronite Divine Divine Liturgies, and other kinds of Catholic attend other kinds of liturgy. In the Roman part of the Catholic Church, Catholics go to the Masses that many of you probably have been to. Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and so forth are members of the Catholic Church. But Roman rituals are much different from non-Romans ones. The Roman, Ukrainian, Maronite, and other parts of the Catholic Church are not different denominations.

Limbo is not dogma.

Limbo is not dogma.

Byblos, maybe in 5 point Catholicism, or hyper-Catholicism, limbo is dogma.

RickD wrote:

Limbo is not dogma.

Byblos, maybe in 5 point Catholicism, or hyper-Catholicism, limbo is dogma.

Limbo never has been dogma. On 20 April, 2007, a Vatican theological commission determined that Limbo never existed. Benedict XVI ''gave his benediction'' to the commission's findings. Perhaps belief in Limbo is a holdover from paganism, just as elements of Voodoo persist in Haitian Christian beliefs & rituals.

FL