The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlternativeDavid
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

guarnateed salvation of infants is unjust

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
AlternativeDavid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 531 times Debate No: 60385
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Many Christians hold the view that unborn and born infants and children who die before the age of reason or eternal responsibility are guaranteed access to heaven. For instance, Dr. William Lane Craig has famously stated the following, When justifying the slaughter of the Canaanites:

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation.

It seems obvious that if a child/infant dies before they are responsible for accepting salvation they should not be condemned to Hell, but that they should be automatically granted salvation also seems equally unjust.

How, in this view, is God just by automatically saving all infants/children who die before they can be held responsible?
AlternativeDavid

Con

Hi, I look forward to a good debate.

Definitions

Just: Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions


I argue that it is perfectly just that babies get a free ticket to heaven.

God is omnipotent

If God is omnipotent, that means He knows everything that is going on. He can watch each baby, and therefore when judging time comes, He knows that the baby has not done anything wrong. Therefore He does not have to waste his precious time deciding if the baby gets into heaven.

Babys are sinless

Babies cannot commit sin because they cannot know they're commiting sin.

"The Bible clearly teaches that the only certain way to heaven is through Jesus (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). We are confident that God will not hold anyone accountable for any knowledge he did not receive. At the same time, the Bible emphatically states that Christ is the only sure way to salvation. Anyone who has heard of the saving grace of Jesus, and rejects it, would be thumbing his nose at God (John 3:36)." [1]

In conclusion, I argue that babies get automatic salvation because they can't know about God, much less reject his word. How can one be punished if he doesn't know the consequences of his actions?

[1] http://www.gospel.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i'm not saying they should be punished. or saved. it's just unjust for either situation. annihilation would almost be more 'neutral' and arguably just. but again not arguing either.

don't get me wrong, it would be loving for God to save them, and possible. but they just got the advantage of dying young. everyone else gets judged for their actions. they get the full enchilada of heaven just for never reaching the age of reason.

plus, it would almost seem to promote people going around killing infants, cause they all get heaven. not that anyone should condone such horrific acts, and there's surely something to be said about not doing that even if they get heaven.
AlternativeDavid

Con

"They just got the advantage of dying young. Everyone else gets judged for their actions. they get the full enchilada of heaven just for never reaching the age of reason."

Shouldn't this be enough to get into heaven? They were robbed of their ability to have a life, and therefore get first dibs on heaven. As they are completely sinless creatures, they are the only people that truly deserve salvation. Everybody sins after the age of reason, but babies never sinned.

"Annihilation would almost be more 'neutral' and arguably just."

No it wouldn't be just. Can you imagine being a mother/father and watching your child be shot by a mad man? 50 years later, you get judged sent up to heaven, and your baby isn't there. You know your baby committed no sins, and therefore it should be there. Annihilation of the baby would not only be unjust to it, but to it's family.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i can acknowledge that annihilation probably wouldn't be that great. it was just an idea

but at this point all we can do is repeat our points, so i rest my case.
AlternativeDavid

Con

Closing statement: I argue that it would be unjust to not immediately allow babies into heaven. They are sinless and deserve to be treated as such.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
dairygirl4u2cAlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had much stronger and better explained arguments, showing that sinless beings should be saved
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
dairygirl4u2cAlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sinless = just.
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Robert_Weiler
dairygirl4u2cAlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO arguments for the resolution were weak. She failed to show the supposed injustice. CON made a strong argument, and was the only one to use a source.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cAlternativeDavidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't seem too sure of her position and didn't exactly rebut David; and as always, her spelling is terrible