The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Security, infant salvation, and universalism

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I did say that when the Lord Jesus states, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for such is the Kingdom of God." That it would be almost silly to think that a little one who had died (providentially) would be viewed by Jesus as being anything other than "such".</font><hr></blockquote><p>And I have consistently answered against such a view that it is presumptuous at best as the text you are using simply doesn't teach anything of the sort. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] Please review my questions that I listed in regard to this text. For example,<ul>[*]Does this text in Matthew mention anything about "little ones who have died"?.</li>[*]Does this text make any sort of discrimination among "little ones"? e.g., children of believers or non-believers?</li>[*]Apart from this text, does Scripture give any indication that "covenant children" are given a "special dispensation" whereby if they die, they are guaranteed salvation?</li>[*]Are "covenant children" who are given physical life the recipients of some "special dispensation or promise" that they are going to be saved? (cf. Rom 9:8-13; Jh 1:12, 13; et al).</li>[*]Is God/Christ under some obligation to save infants which He providentially removes from this earth? Are they not equally included in the noetic effects of the Fall and thus are born "children of wrath" and subject to judgment?</li>[/LIST]<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Also, I believe you are really stretching here about the laying on of hands being a requirement for all salvific blessings. The taking them up in His arms and blessing them are certainly important in that it leaves no doubt what so ever as to who the recipients of this blessing is, (the children). There is no reason to limit Jesus to having to lay hands on His elect as a means of saving them. Why would there possibly be a precedent required? The whole thing is Jesus choosing to bestow a blessing on them. Not the technique in which He did it.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I believe that there was no "stretching" upon my part at all. And again, I asked you to exegete the text and then justify your selectivity in preserving Christ's "blessing" and not the manner in which He did the blessing. But most importantly, I asked what the essence of this "blessing" was? Further, to make your case, you would have to assert, IMHO, that this "blessing" was an indication of the bestowal of salvation upon these children. And if that is maintained, then either EVERY child which Christ "blessed" would have been infallibly saved, or they all would have had to die in their infancy. I am of the mind to think that neither of these propositions can be defended.<br><br>I'll let you take it from here. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,