Dear Pilgrim,<br><br>Sorry for the delayed response. Had intended to respond many times but always got sidetracked reading. You know the old Presbyterian doctrine of procrastination?<br><br>Not that I expect to change anyone's mind on this but....<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Does this text in Matthew mention anything about "little ones who have died"?.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I was quoting from Mark, but Matthew will work as well. No, there is no specific mention, but Jesus does indicate that children are the "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (that one is from Matthew). Now it is certainly true that one begins and can have assurance of eternal life upon believing in Jesus Christ, but in this case of our Lord speaking about the kingdom of heaven and in Mark He even speaks of "entering the kingdom," well, you couple that with the fact that the conversation seems to be based upon the heavenly realm (in verse 16, the next fellow on the scene inquires directly about eternal life). The overall gist is that He is speaking of that portion of eternity which follows death. "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement.<br> <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Does this text make any sort of discrimination among "little ones"? e.g., children of believers or non-believers?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I don't think so. As I pointed out to Paul in another post, this seemed to take place amongst a mixed group. That is why I said earlier that I thought the text could be used as a source of hope for all parents who lost a child. Paul does rightly point out however, that it is much more likely that the ones who brought their children were believers, but still, to me the real point here isn't the state of belief of the parents who brought them. It doesn't matter who leads someone to Christ (humanly speaking) because it is only God who will draw someone to Christ effectively, (John 6:44).<br> <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I don't know. I suppose some would offer Acts 16:31 as an example but I'm not sure I would say it is a guarantee. I would say that it would certainly be a source of great hope to believing parents who lost a child, wouldn't you? That is basicly what I'm saying about the text we are discussing (but perhaps in a wider sense). I never offered it as a guarantee, but as a source of hope.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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).</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>No. IMO, that is a dangerous line of thinking. They are given membership into the corporate (visible) Church. Membership in the visible church is no guarantee of anyone's eternal salvation. It is those that belong to the invisible church that have the guarantee, because the invisible church is made up of the elect of God.<br> <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>God is not obligated to save anyone. The entire human race could be sent to hell and that would be a righteous judgement by God. Anyone who doesn't go to hell is recieving mercy rather than justice. Did I indicate otherwise in this thread?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]... 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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Mark 10:16 says "And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them." The infallible and inerrant Word of God preserves that blessing, not me. Does that mean Jesus is obligated to bless in the exact same manner from then on? No. Did He always heal the blind in the exact same manner? Would you not agree that God can and does use general means to bring about particular ends?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] But most importantly, I asked what the essence of this "blessing" was?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Okay. In this text Jesus, by His words and actions, isolated out of a group of people a select few (little children) and used them as an example of a group ("of such is the kingdom of God") that He chooses to bestow His love upon. It is upon this that I said there is a strong hope (not guarantee) that when a child dies and is before the Lord to be judged, that he/she will be seen as "of such" and will thereby receive the mercy of our Lord. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>No, these children were an example of those whom Christ would choose to save because He loved them. But since you are playing what if here, I'll say this. When our Lord and Savior takes someone in His arms and blesses them and uses them as an example of the types that will enter the kingdom of heaven, I think that is pretty significant. So yes, I think I could assume that if these kids left the described scene and got ran over by a chariot and killed, that most likely they would be receiving mercy from the one who had just blessed them.<br> <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>I'm not sure I follow you here, so i won't try to defend it. But I will say this. In order to defend your position I think you made some subtle but important changes to what I said. I noticed that in a few areas you slipped the word "guarantee" in where the gist of my original post was based on "hope". IMO that is an important distinction.<br><br>Anyway, one of us might or might not have it right, but I know the Word of God is right. I appreciate your input and will continue to prayerfully consider this portion of Scripture. Pray for me, so that if I'm wrong the Lord will show me and I won't lead any astray.<br><br>May the Lord bless you and yours,<br><br>Stucco <br><br> <br><br><br> <br><br><br><br>