|

|
|
|
Posts: 149
Joined: April 2013
|
|
|
|
Forums31
Topics8,484
Posts56,710
Members995
| |
Most Online4,295 May 22nd, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism
by Pilgrim - Mon Aug 17, 2026 2:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,138 Likes: 318
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 15,138 Likes: 318 |
Stucco,<br><br>Thanks for replying to my questions, albeit delayed, in a goodly fashion. I do appreciate your candor and explanation of your view. I shall not belabor this topic further, at least on my part, but for these few remarks:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]In reply to:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>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.<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><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.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I really to think that you are caught between a rock and hard place here [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img] for if you interpret Christ's blessing upon these children as salvation, then unless you are wanting to assert that salvation is "conditional", which I will assume you certainly have no desire to do, then of necessity these children whom Christ blessed were given/guaranteed salvation at that very moment and their "premature death" would be irrelevant. Do you see what I'm pointing out here? One could propose that Christ, at this time, gathered to Himself (discriminatory act vs. universal act) certain little children and blessed (bestowed salvation upon) them. And if this was the case, then there can be no other possible conclusion rendered than they (the children) were actually saved. However, whether or not this "blessing" equates to salvation or not, I will leave to your judgment.<br><br>For an excellent defense of your position as you have expressed here, I would refer you to New Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew by William Hendriksen, pp 719f. On my part, however, I find Hendriksen to unfortunately be in error, which is a rarity to be sure, IMHO . . .!! I would suggest that Hendriksen following the tradition of his denomination (CRC) and especially the teachings of Abraham Kuyper and Klaas Schilder, presumes a special status/position and salvation of covenant children. That the Continental Churches have held to this teaching for some time is indisputable. And, it has also been held by some in Presbyterian circles as well. So, it is not an isolated view which has been held by a few "odd ball individuals". My own position is well-known to the readers of these Forums and thus to them my objections to what you propose comes as no surprise. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] Simply put, I reject any form of "presumption/assumption" of salvation for anyone, including children whether they belong to believing or unbelieving parents. I do hold that covenant children are "holy", i.e., set apart from those of the world due to their being privileged to have been born to believing parents and are given the "means" by which God calls the elect to Christ (preaching/teaching of the Word, family piety, prayers of the saints, etc.). But their salvation is obtained in the same manner as all others, i.e., repentance and faith in Christ Jesus. And until there is evidence (fruit) of a living faith, there is no warrant to presume they belong to Christ and are partakers of His righteousness.<br><br>And lastly, from a personal note, This question as to whether a parent should have a "hope" (whatever that really means, e.g., a wish or expectation?) of salvation for a child who dies in infancy or very young years has been asked of me countless times after the death of my 11 year old son 20 years ago. My response then and which has not changed was/is, I have every expectation of " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?". My hope is in the efficacy of the atonement of the Lord Christ and that all for whom He died will be infallibly saved. As to WHO has been foreknown from eternity and predestinated to be saved by grace, I am not about to determine. ALL are born children of wrath and worthy of condemnation. Should my child(ren) be included in God's infinite mercy and grace, I will rejoice on that day when I see them standing before the throne. Should they not be included, then I shall also rejoice that God's justice has been perfectly rendered to each according to his/her works. No one is "worthy" but the Lamb.<br><br>Thanks again for the discussion. I truly enjoyed it. ![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/BigThumbUp.gif) <br><br>In His Grace,
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Wed Jul 30, 2003 5:18 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Jason1646
|
Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:00 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:08 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:32 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Pilgrim
|
Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:43 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Jul 31, 2003 12:29 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Pilgrim
|
Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:33 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:05 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Pilgrim
|
Thu Jul 31, 2003 5:50 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:23 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Aug 22, 2003 11:08 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Jul 31, 2003 12:35 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:38 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Stucco
|
Sat Aug 23, 2003 2:21 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:35 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Jason1646
|
Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:13 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Saved_n_kept
|
Sat Aug 23, 2003 10:01 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
willemina
|
Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:46 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Paul_S
|
Sat Aug 23, 2003 4:46 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Stucco
|
Thu Sep 04, 2003 3:34 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Paul_S
|
Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:21 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Sep 05, 2003 9:45 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Paul_S
|
Fri Sep 05, 2003 9:51 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Fri Sep 05, 2003 10:21 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Pilgrim
|
Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:58 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Stucco
|
Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:10 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Pilgrim
|
Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:44 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Stucco
|
Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:01 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Pilgrim
|
Fri Sep 05, 2003 12:54 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Stucco
|
Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:06 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Pilgrim
|
Wed Sep 17, 2003 2:32 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Stucco
|
Sat Sep 20, 2003 4:21 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Sun Sep 07, 2003 4:21 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
willemina
|
Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:08 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Ruth
|
Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:22 AM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
carlos
|
Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:11 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Sun Sep 07, 2003 5:26 PM
|
Re: Security, infant salvation, and universalism
|
Anonymous
|
Mon Sep 08, 2003 10:58 PM
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
74
guests, and
234
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|