Hi Stucco,<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I would not be uncomfortable sharing this passage and the hope that I think it brings, with those in grief over such a loss.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>The more I think about this passage, the more I wonder. Like you, I believe that there are many little ones in heaven, but not ALL. David Brown in his commentary on the Four Gospels states, "Did not the grave mistake of the disciples, which so "much displeased" the Lord Jesus, consist just in this, that they thought infants should not be brought to Christ,because only grown people could profit by Him?"<br>Nevertheless the PROMISE is to BELIEVING parents. Acts2;39 also see 1 Cor.7:14 The question that perplexes me is, were those children on whom the Lord bestowed such a particular blessing the children of believers?<br>Just a few thoughts.<br>In Him.<br>Brian.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Following this logic, as Gailmac stated in another post, then we should just kill our infants to ensure their salvation. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Gentlemen,<br><br>Though I do not hold the position that all infants are elect, I think you guys should abandon this kind of argumentation against that position. There is no "logical" necessity for someone holding that position to believe they should kill their infants. Such an action would also have to assume that the Lord had commanded parents: 1) That it is their duty to ensure the salvation of their children. 2) That such duty permits parents to commit grievous sins, such as murder, in order to ensure the outcome. I highly doubt that there are many people who believe in the universal salvation of infants that would also embrace such twisted logic, so the counter-argument does not hold.<br><br>Sincerely in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br>
Stucco,<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I'm not so sure that Mark 10:13-16 is being taken out of context as regards this topic.</font><hr></blockquote><p>One contextual element for this passage does not seem to have been mentioned yet in this discussion. The relevance of this element is essential to keep the conclusions we draw from the passage within proper bounds. The passage is frequently presented as a conflict between 2 parties (the disciples vs. Jesus) over the treatment afforded to a 3rd party (the infants/children), and the conclusions drawn often imply that Jesus' blessing applies indiscriminately to all children ever in existence.<br><br>The context of the passage, however, introduces a 4th party at the very outset:<blockquote>People were bringing little children to Jesus to have Him touch them, ... (Mark 10:13)</blockquote>These people bringing the babies/children, presumably parents and/or near relatives, were obviously coming in faith themselves. Consider the parallel between this incident and the bringing of the paralytic by friends whose faith Jesus recognized. In both incidents believers are bringing someone to the Savior who could not otherwise directly go to Him, whether due to infancy or infirmity.<br><br>The clear implication for the Mark 10 passage, which must be reflected in its interpretation, is that these infants/children blessed by Jesus, are clearly children of the believing, covenant community. As such, they will have already been hearing the word of God from their parents, and seeing the life-transforming power of the Gospel lived out in their parents' lives, from their earliest days!<br><br>The passage is therefore, along with reasons cited by others in this thread, most certainly not a blanket pronouncement of the innocence of all children, which the Scripture elsewhere explicitly denies.
Brian, I read that those children where BROUGHT to Him. Would a not believer BRING his or her child to Jesus [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]
My following remarks, although using your quote, are meant to address this discussion as a whole and not specific to your comment. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]"The kingdom of God belongs to such as these" -- these were little ones He was speaking of and little ones who die in infancy or early childhood, (or even in a state of retardation) would certainly be considered "such as these". Again, these particular little ones aren't being blessed by Jesus because they are inherently innocent but they are being blessed by Jesus because Jesus has chosen to bless them, and that is the key to any ones salvation, (God choosing to bless).
Paul_S brought up a very salient point when he most wisely considered the CONTEXT of the passage in question; i.e., Matt 19:13-15. What I would like to do is to delve into the exegesis of this text to see if it does, in fact, teach the salvation of little children based upon they being children. I think, going back to Paul's comments which rightly narrowed down the breadth of this incident to the children of those who had some interest in Christ, perhaps salvifically, perhaps not, but a certain interest nonetheless. The issue is, IMHO, does the language/grammar of the text support what some are contending, i.e., that children and/or narrowly, children of believers are given salvation because they are children and/or children of believers?
Matthew 19:13-15 (ASV) "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for to [of] such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence."
1) that he should lay his hands on them, and pray: What exactly was it that these people were wanting from Jesus for their children? If one should say that it was salvation, then it is incumbent upon them that it be established that the laying on of hands and prayer was the established practice for bestowing salvation upon children. I am of the opinion that there is no such precedent to be found in the O.T. where God either instructed Israel to do such or certain leaders took upon themselves to establish the practice. So, what exactly is the significance of the laying on of hands and prayer in regard to children? 2) for to [of] such belongeth the kingdom of heaven. This is an interesting portion of the text due to the different ways which the translators have rendered it, as I have indicated by emphasizing, to [of]. The word found in the Greek text is toioutos which can be understood to mean, depending upon the context, "truly this, i.e. of this sort (to denote character or individuality):--like, such (an one). [Strong: 5108] Other Greek lexicons concur with this meaning. This being the case, it would appear that the text should be rendered, of such type as these, which would be further confirmed by a collolary text where Jesus had earlier spoken to His disciples that to enter the kingdom of God, one needs to be first converted and then become as little children. Thus, I would agree with those commentators who interpret this to mean that for one to be saved, he must become as those children whom Christ blessed in the text being discussed. To expand on this a bit, we ask what does it mean to become as a little child? Some of the answer might be that one must be dependent, helpless, trusting and open. I think all of these traits are legitimate and would come under the rubric of "denying oneself". (cf. Matt 16:24 Notice this too was spoken by Jesus previous to this event) Thus, these little children who were brought to Christ are paradigmatic in that as they are in their fleshly state so must those who desire salvation become in their spiritual state. Lastly, on this point, if the kingdom belongs to these children, what of adults? 3) And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. Again, it must be determined what the significance is in regard to this laying on of hands. If one is to posit that it equates to salvation, then this presents several questions and difficulties.
[*]If the laying on of hands and a blessing by Jesus be needed for children to be saved, how are children saved since the resurrection? Unless one is willing to subscribe to some sacerdotal system, no man has the power nor authority to grant salvation to himself, never mind another.[*]Is this event to be taken as a universal precedent? If so, then it certainly is something foreign to all that preceded it. For in the O.T. there were millions of infants and children, who with their unbelieving parents; covenant members I might point out, who perished by the direct judgment of God against them. Thus, from the historical record of Israel we can see that being a "covenant member", even having the sign of the covenant cut into one's flesh, is no guarantee of being in God's favor; i.e., salvation. Secondly, the Jews living during the time of Christ were at one time covenant children, yet were adamant in their rejection of Him. Thirdly, we know from our own experience, that there are many "covenant children" who grow up and who exhibit no signs of spiritual life; some even denying Christianity itself. Thus, if these little children are believed to have been saved at this place, then one would have to admit that a child can apostate from the faith and lose their salvation. (This sounds remniscent of what Shepherd, the Monroe 4, N.T. Wright, et al are teaching! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rolleyes.gif" alt="rolleyes" title="rolleyes[/img] )[*]Is there any inference to be seen in this passage that it includes infants who die in infancy? If not, where is the warrant to extract from the text a doctrine which teaches that infants who die in infancy have been regenerated and saved by the blood of Christ? I believe that the WCF X:III speaks correctly when it says that elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated . . . etc. But, they the Confession doesn't refer to this passage for support.[/LIST]So, my conclusion is that there is much that has been imposed upon this text by those who hold to a presupposition that infants and particularly small children are regenerated and saved by virtue of their physical age which has no warrant whatsoever.
Dear Paul,<br><br>Judging by the text immediately before and after, I see no reason to assume that all those bringing their children were true believers. We know from back in verse 10:1, that "...multitudes were gathered to Him..." The conversation then is one between Jesus and the Pharasees. There is nothing to indicate that the "they" who brought little children to Him were all believers. We also know that in the verse immediately following Jesus' blessing the children, the next person to approach Him was certainly not a believer. that is seen in verse 22, "But he was sad at this word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possesions." So, in the midst of the multitudes and sandwiched in between 2 conversations with those who we can be pretty certain weren't true followers, we are to assume that all who brought their children to Jesus were true believers. I suppose one can assume it if he wishes, afterall every Baptisim is an assumption of belief, but I see no clear cut evidence to support your contention in this part of Scripture. <br><br>Even if we grant the assumption that it was believers bringing their children to the Lord, there is nothing to indicate they were bringing them for reasons beyond temporal blessings. In chapter 9 Jesus had cast out a particularly obstinate deaf and dumb spirit from a man's son and after that as they came to Capernaum there is yet another incident of Jesus taking a child in His arms. Again no indication of who the child's parents were. My point being that in all these cases there is no mention of anyone asking Jesus to bless the children in an eternal sense. But it is Jesus Himself who turns the conversation directly to the Kingdom of God. <br><br>Let me again clarify--I do not believe that children who die are saved because of their innocence relative to other humans. And, I did not say I would open this portion of Scripture and state absolutely that all who die as children are saved. I did say, and still do, that this passage gives me a very high hope that all who die young are very likely to be elect. You can turn the Scriprure upside down, stand it on its head and shake it--but it is still our Lord and Savior who immediately after speaking of how one can only enter the Kingdom of God, then holds them in His arms and blesses them.<br><br>Stucco
Dear Pilgrim,<br><br>I don't think that I ever said infants, or small children were regenerated and saved by virtue of their physical age. 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". Please see my reply to Paul in regards to this being limited to the children of believers.<br><br>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.<br><br>Sincerely,<br>Stucco <br><br>
<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,
Concerning the (presumed parents) being "true believers":
I stand corrected for having used the phrase [color:blue]"obviously coming in faith". That was presumptuously strong. It would be more appropriate, I feel, to say that the people bringing the children were "more likely to have been coming in faith than for other reasons." That's what I should have said in the earlier post.
That emendation, however, does not change my major point, and your interpretation does not seem at all likely to me. Although you correctly point out the wide variety of motive in the multitudes, I feel faith is the most probable motive for the bringers of these children. Is it really likely that a Pharisee, wanting to entrap and kill Jesus, would nevertheless bring his child to be blessed? Would the miracle-mongers be content, after enduring the disciples' rebuke, with a mere blessing instead? I think not. Coupled with this, the pattern is so similar to what we see through the Gospels, where one brings another to the Lord (either physically or by proxy) and the "bringer" is commended for his faith, that I have to conclude that true faith was a dominant element.
What in the world does your rejoinder have to do with the current topic and/or passage?[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/dizzy.gif" alt="dizzy" title="dizzy[/img]
Having just read the passage in Acts before reading your post , the two contain interesting similarities - to my poor overactive mind at least.<br><br>howard
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Having just read the passage in Acts before reading your post , the two contain interesting similarities - to my poor overactive mind at least.</font><hr></blockquote><p>So, just to interject a bit of humor (hopefully) here, may I assume then, that one must "see" in the Acts passage the parents of the soldiers actually brought their now grown "children" to Jesus for the purpose of having Him bless them? Would that be one of the "interesting similarities"? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br>Now, back to the more mundane yet serious side of this topic. In my mind, it makes no difference whatsoever if the parents of the children came in faith, with a spurious faith, or a hatred of Christ. The passage doesn't speak to that issue directly or even implicitly. We may offer conjectures as to the spiritual state of these people who came to Christ with their children, but again, there is nothing IN THE TEXT that would indicate anything certain about this. And, if I may take this opportunity to point out again, no one has bothered to answer few if any of my other questions, which appear in my two replies to Stucco. Can one with certainty, show that this "blessing" given by Jesus to these children was salvific? And if it was, then doesn't the text then prove too much as He "blessed" all who came to Him and thus would that not mean that ALL children who are brought to Jesus (I'm not sure how one today does that, unless someone wants to equate that historical act to baptism?) without exception are "blessed" and thus saved, whether they die or not?<br><br>In His Grace,
It is incorrect to start with the premise that infants are born "dead." They are born with a sin nature, but they are not born dead. God does not impute sin to an infant, or to anyone else who cannot comprehend the fact that they are guilty before God.<br><br>Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.<br>Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.<br><br>Paul stated that he was ALIVE ....WITHOUT the law. But when he came under the law, HE DIED.<br><br>So accordingly, the infant who dies does not have sin imputed to him. Nor does the retarded person who never understood he was guilty before God.<br><br>But for most of us, we come to the point in our lives when we KNOW we have sinned against a holy and righteous God. And THEN our sin IS imputed to us. And as happened to Paul, we were once alive without the law, but when the commandment came we died.<br><br>And that is why Jesus said ye must be born again.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
