The Baby Salvation Loophole

[seanD]

Is the quality of a person important in Heaven, or does God just let in any slob who's made a belief confession or died as a child? Paul cites the quality of believers as being important for entrance in Heaven.

God ideally wants people in heaven who genuinely trust him. This is both logical and something that is demonstrated in how he interacts with his people throughout scripture. But as stated previously, there is a certain about of flexibility here (hence, Jesus' act of salvation of mankind even before he got that trust), which demonstrates both God’s sovereignty and his mercy, and is something that is a mystery for the most part.

[Whag]

God ideally wants people in heaven who genuinely trust him. This is both logical and something that is demonstrated in how he interacts with his people throughout scripture. But as stated previously, there is a certain about of flexibility here, which demonstrates God’s sovereignty, and is something that is a mystery for the most part.

You're just rationalizing it and chalking it up to the tired "god is mysterious" rap.

[seanD]

You're just rationalizing it and chalking it up to the tired "god is mysterious" rap.

You just don't like the idea of God's sovereignty, which is typical of us. We want to put God in a box with a set formula that's both predictable and easy to comprehend. Religious people do it too.

[Whag]

You just don't like the idea of God's sovereignty, which is typical of us. We want to put God in a box with a set formula that's both predictable and easy to comprehend.

More than that, I don't like those arguments because they're lazy and explain nothing. Sovereignty and God's mystery cover every theological sticking point. I suspect fear is behind this; since God is sovereign, he can even punish you for questioning and thought crime.

The inconsistency of the necessity of quality control in Heaven is the problem. God wants subjects He can "trust," you say, but there's a "why?" behind that claim. At some point, you're going to have to stop relying on time-worn Sunday school answers and scratch the surface of these inconsistencies. Why is it important that God quality check for trustworthiness in some cases and cross His fingers hoping for the best in other cases? Can you try to answer that without resorting to divine mystery?

[JimL]

Chalking it up to Gods sovriegnty diminishes Gods character. If murdered infants go to heaven, then there is no real justification for God to put the rest of us through the crucible of life on earth in order to get to heaven. And if you say that God being omniscient new the futures of the infants, knew that they would believe in and honor him, then he knows the same of all of us, and so again there would be no justification for the crucible of earthly life.

[seanD]

More than that, I don't like those arguments because they're lazy and explain nothing. Sovereignty and God's mystery cover every theological sticking point. I suspect fear is behind this; since God is sovereign, he can even punish you for questioning and thought crime.

The inconsistency of the necessity of quality control in Heaven is the problem. God wants subjects He can "trust," you say, but there's a "why?" behind that claim. At some point, you're going to have to stop relying on time-worn Sunday school answers and scratch the surface of these inconsistencies. Why is it important that God quality check for trustworthiness in some cases and cross His fingers hoping for the best in other cases? Can you try to answer that without resorting to divine mystery?

The fact that you somehow associate God's sovereignty with "thought crime" seems to reflect your own moral paranoia. I don't find that that equates to the idea of God's sovereignty at all. And your question depends on what doctrinal theology you hold (i.e. Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.), and even within those theologies, it isn't an easy question to answer. It's not just "time-worn Sunday school answers," it goes back as far as the beginning of man's relationship with God. The ancient authors of the bible often express this same conundrum throughout scripture -- "who can know the mind of God," "God's ways are not our ways," "his thoughts are not our thoughts," etc.

[Whag]

The fact that you somehow associate God's sovereignty with "thought crime" seems to reflect your own moral paranoia. I don't find that that equates to the idea of God's sovereignty at all.

If you look at a woman with lust, you've committed adultery. That's thought crime, since it involves no action other than thinking. It has nothing to do with paranoia.

And your question depends on what doctrinal theology you hold (i.e. Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.), and even within those theologies, it isn't an easy question to answer. It's not just "time-worn Sunday school answers," it goes back as far as the beginning of man's relationship with God.

Human-created religions are bound to have internal inconsistencies. "God's ways are mysterious" is a cop out to avoid the obvious alternative explanation that there's no internal logic here. Quality control in Heaven is important....except with it's not important. Saying that's simply "mysterious" is weak.

The ancient authors of the bible often express this same conundrum throughout scripture -- "who can know the mind of God," "God's ways are not our ways," "his thoughts are not our thoughts," etc.

Yes, the problem of internal inconsistency plagued many biblical authors, so they came up with a fix-all solution to quell natural doubt. Today, it's more of a punchline than an apologetic.

[Darth Executor]

If you look at a woman with lust, you've committed adultery.

No, it's a rhetorical device known as "hyperbole" that, at least around these parts, was taught in high school English class.

[Kane]

No, it's a rhetorical device known as "hyperbole" that, at least around these parts, was taught in high school English class.

Yeah, I'm not so sure that when Jesus spoke those words he was overshooting just for the fun of it. I think he knew exactly what he was saying: thinking equals doing, in the eyes of God.

So while you may enjoy the comfort of sloughing-off the words of Jesus as an exaggeration, it might do you well to take a more honest look at the somewhat insidious nature of your saviour's alleged pronouncements, and even if he made them at all. That particular passage has been flagged before as possibly being a later addition, possibly by some overly repressed religious scribe whose own projections now make up a tiny portion of conspicuously inspired Christian moral code.

[seanD]

Yeah, I'm not so sure that when Jesus spoke those words he was overshooting just for the fun of it. I think he knew exactly what he was saying: thinking equals doing, in the eyes of God.

So while you may enjoy the comfort of sloughing-off the words of Jesus as an exaggeration, it might do you well to take a more honest look at the somewhat insidious nature of your saviour's alleged pronouncements, and even if he made them at all. That particular passage has been flagged before as possibly being a later addition, possibly by some overly repressed religious scribe whose own projections now make up a tiny portion of conspicuously inspired Christian moral code.

It would be kind of hard for a skeptic (at least one that wasn't ignorant about the fact he was contradicting his own argument) to argue that those words weren't Jesus', being that they're in the context of a series of teachings that one could easily interpret as being pro-Judaism in some cases.

[ZackMartin]

Yeah, I'm not so sure that when Jesus spoke those words he was overshooting just for the fun of it. I think he knew exactly what he was saying: thinking equals doing, in the eyes of God.

I always understood the passage as saying that thoughts and feelings can be morally relevant, as well as actions. I think that is right.

I think the hyperbolic part is claiming that thinking about something is just as bad as doing it. Would Jesus have really endorsed the view that thinking about murdering someone is as bad as actually murdering him? I don't think that was likely to have been his actual position. I think the passage is really arguing against those who think that mere thoughts, not acted upon, are morally irrelevant or morally neutral.

Of course you can read this in some kind of "just one more thing to feel guilty about" mindset. But you don't have to read it that way.

So while you may enjoy the comfort of sloughing-off the words of Jesus as an exaggeration, it might do you well to take a more honest look at the somewhat insidious nature of your saviour's alleged pronouncements, and even if he made them at all. That particular passage has been flagged before as possibly being a later addition, possibly by some overly repressed religious scribe whose own projections now make up a tiny portion of conspicuously inspired Christian moral code.

I'm not sure this idea is inherently insidious; maybe some people's use of it is insidious, but we have to distinguish an idea in itself from the way some people use that idea.

As to whether Jesus actually said this - I'm doubtful about efforts to work out what Jesus said or didn't say. I think it is most likely he said some but not all of the sayings attributed to him, but I'm not sure we can say with any great likelihood which specific things he did say and which specific things he didn't.

[seanD]

I always understood the passage as saying that thoughts and feelings can be morally relevant, as well as actions. I think that is right.

I think the hyperbolic part is claiming that thinking about something is just as bad as doing it. Would Jesus have really endorsed the view that thinking about murdering someone is as bad as actually murdering him? I don't think that was likely to have been his actual position. I think the passage is really arguing against those who think that mere thoughts, not acted upon, are morally irrelevant or morally neutral.

Of course you can read this in some kind of "just one more thing to feel guilty about" mindset. But you don't have to read it that way.

I'm not sure this idea is inherently insidious; maybe some people's use of it is insidious, but we have to distinguish an idea in itself from the way some people use that idea.

As to whether Jesus actually said this - I'm doubtful about efforts to work out what Jesus said or didn't say. I think it is most likely he said some but not all of the sayings attributed to him, but I'm not sure we can say with any great likelihood which specific things he did say and which specific things he didn't.

Cut off your hand or pluck out your eye lest it leads you to sin was meant to get them to see how important it was to live a perfect moral life as God is perfect, otherwise there was no hope for them outside the law. Jesus was using hyperbole to get a people that had only known, lived and breathed a law from birth to death to accept him as their only other alternative for salvation. Jesus was not only the epitome of what the law was meant to incorporate but the solution for the fact that the law failed to achieve what it was meant to fully achieve in man.

[seanD]

Cut off your hand or pluck out your eye lest it leads you to sin was meant to get them to see how important it was to live a perfect moral life as God is perfect, otherwise there was no hope for them outside the law. Jesus was using hyperbole to get a people that had only known, lived and breathed a law from birth to death to accept him as their only other alternative for salvation. Jesus was not only the epitome of what the law was meant to incorporate but the solution for the fact that the law failed to achieve what it was meant to fully achieve in man.

That should be "within the law."

[Whag]

No, it's a rhetorical device known as "hyperbole" that, at least around these parts, was taught in high school English class.

I assume that Paul similarly used that device when stressing the importance of making every thought captive to Christ. How does a Christian apply that to his thought life given such wide room for interpretation?

[Darth Executor]

Yeah, I'm not so sure that when Jesus spoke those words he was overshooting just for the fun of it.

He's not overshooting, hyperbole is quite common and its purpose is to emphasize a point.

I think he knew exactly what he was saying: thinking equals doing, in the eyes of God.

Not at all, He was saying that thinking leads to doing.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Jesus is also not talking about actual eyes, arms and legs, He is talking about things that we enjoy but lead to sin. A man who thinks about having sex with another man's wife, for example, might think his thoughts are harmless but the thoughts could eventually turn into obsession and action so it is better to stop entertaining them before it gets to that point, even if he thinks they're just harmless fantasies.