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

Criley,<br> <br> I am afraid that I have to strongly disagree with you! The premise that we are all born "dead", meaning spiritually dead, is all to true! Because we are all children of Adam, his sin is our sin. Because Adam was the federal head of the human family, when he sinned, we sinned, and ALL humans reap the punishment and are born with sinful natures.<br><br> You are taking Rom 4:15 out of context, Paul is not talking about being born without sin, he is talking about righteousness by faith. "The law worketh wrath", means that we recognize wickedness and sin when the law shows us what is God's will. Before we know the law of God, we do what comes naturally to our sin nature, but do not recognize it is sin. Just because we do not realize that it is sin does not mean we are not guilty! We are responsible for our actions and will be called to account for all our words and deeds.<br> <br>It is in other places that Paul talks of our spiritual lives, for example Eph 2:1"And you He made alive, who were DEAD in trespasses and sins." And in Ps 51:5 "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." So, the premise that we are born dead in sin is true and we must be spiritually "born again" by faith in Christ.<br><br>In His Hands,<br>Ruth<br>

Criley,<br><br>We've had a discussion that covered your incorrect use of Romans 7. Please see the thread below.<br>Romans_7<br><br>in Christ,<br>Carlos

Hello Ruth,<br><br>I took nothing out of context at all. There is no contradiction with Eph 2 or Ps 51. <br><br>Fact: Paul said that he WAS alive WITHOUT the law. AFTER that the commandment came and THEN he died. Was Paul born with a sin nature (Ps 51)? Absolutely. But God does not impute sin without law. And until Paul KNEW the law and KNEW he was guilty before God, God did not impute sin to him. Paul became ALIVE again when he trusted Jesus Christ as his Saviour (Eph 2).<br><br>There is a contradiction with Calvinism, though, and that is what you rightly perceive.

criley,

Please allow me an opportunity to respond to your following statement:

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.

I think it is without question that every human being born with life is born alive. However, there is a difference between those who are 'physically' alive and those who are 'spiritually' alive. I agree with you that all babies are born with a sin nature, however, the fact that they have a 'sin' nature logically (and Biblically) concludes they are conceived, born and alive in the condemnation of sin. Why else would they have a sin nature if their nature is not immersed in 'sin' which is a transgression of God's law, be it commission or omission?

Our sin nature is the non-presence of spiritual life, proven by the fact that unless we receive spiritual life (clearly meaning we don't already have it) we will never see the Kingdom of God. We must be born-again. The term 'born-again' clearly assumes that life already exists but there must be another type of life that must be born-again (from above) or we shall all perish. John 3:16 plainly states that those who 'have' eternal life will not perish. Now, it must be obvious that if we are perishing without eternal life, we must have eternal in order to not perish. So, either all babies must receive eternal life or they will all perish. There is no difference between their need for eternal life and an adult's in order to not perish. John 10:28 states Christ 'gives' eternal life to those who will not perish. 1 Cor. 15:50 concludes this line of reasoning by simply stating that "[i]flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God[/i]", even though there is 'physical' life in both the flesh and blood.

God has imputed sin to all who are conceived in sin. So, unless you are willing to state that babies come into this world in sinless perfection, then they obviously are conceived in sin as stated in Psalm 51:5, which doesn't mean the Mother was sinning at the moment of conception. And if they have a 'sin' nature, they are obviously not conceived without inheriting the wrath of God upon them which necessitates even their need for a 'spiritual' re-birth in order to see/enter the kingdom of God.

Nowhere does Holy Scripture even remotely suggest that God does not impute sin to anyone who can't consciously understand the matter of sin. If you know of any such text, I would love for you to present it.

Sam

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>

Dear Paul,<br><br>I understand your pov better now.<br><br>I'm still working with this portion of Scripture (see my latest reply to Pilgrim) but I appreciate your comments.<br><br>May the Lord bless you and yours,<br><br>Stucco

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. <br><br>In His Grace,

Dear Pilgrim,<br><br>I have learned from and enjoyed this discussion, but I think that I too, shall let it rest for now.<br><br>Please accept my condolence. It is hard for me to think about such a burden as losing a child. You must have had to put Psalm 55:22 into practice many, many times. May the Lord continue to sustain you.<br><br>Stucco