# Luke 18:15-17



## 5solasmom (Mar 7, 2006)

Luke 18:15-17 

15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "œLet the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."



Can an argument be logically construed to say that Christ is NOT saying the kingdom belongs to these *actual* infants whom He is speaking of here, but rather to those "œlike them" "“ and therefore excluding the actual infants/children right there with Him from belonging to the kingdom themselves?

This is a genuine question. I am really trying to see this from the angle that Jesus is NOT saying the Kingdom belongs to infants and children.

[Edited on 3-7-2006 by 5solasmom]


----------



## Steve Owen (Mar 7, 2006)

Hello Dawn,


> Can an argument be logically construed to say that Christ is NOT saying the kingdom belongs to these actual infants whom He is speaking of here, but rather to those "œlike them"


Clearly it can. Our Lord does not say, "For to _them_ belongs the KoH", but "to _such_......". He then goes on to qualify his statement, saying that one must receive the kingdom *'like a child.'* We must set aside our pride and our intellectualism and receive the word in trusting faith, like a child. 1Cor 1:17-2:5 seems relevant here.

Were these children truly saved or not? If our Lord prayed for them then doubtless they were. But many children who profess faith when they are young do not continue in their profession. Often they will say they believe because Mummy and Daddy tell them that's what they should do.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 7, 2006)

Dawn,

I think Martin shows that an argument can be logically construed to infer just about anything from a Scripture.

If your Covenant Theology is already decided then this verse will not overthrow it. Of course, notice the amount of qualifying that some systems have to go through to fit passages within their system:

1. Why, er, um, it is "such" as them...he's not actually referring to the kids per se.

2. Oh yeah and look here the main point is that we should be like children because they have no pride or intellectualism. Christ doesn't actually say that, ahem, but that sure does sound nice. Gosh, isn't it nice how much we can learn from pagan infants and little children about how trusting they are? Why they also have no bladder or bowel control, take toys from other kids, throw temper tantrums, and are just about the most selfish people on the planet. Er, um, where was I? Oh yeah, he's only referring to the things I just inferred from the passage because, well, I just think so.

3. Oh, he doesn't say to them belongs the KOH either. That's right, see no clear statement. Might be in some kingdom but Christ has to spell it out.

4. Oh, can't be sure if they're saved but maybe just this once He saved a child by a special dispensation of prayer for them. Now that's He's not here any more He's not interceding for children anymore. You see it's the child's profession that's important. Profession is key. Why without profession then Christ's prayer will have no power.

5. Oh, and Mommy and Daddy tell children to obey. That's not faith. That's blind obedience. Wait a second, I told you earlier that Christ was using them as an example of faith. Forget everything I just said.

6. For that matter, don't worry about my argument. The important thing to remember before anything is said is that profession must precede baptism. If you believe passages are leading you in a different direction then you're misreading the passage.


----------



## Peters (Mar 28, 2006)

Good job, Rich. But what do you _really_ think about Martin?

I see no reason why one would think that those actual children were not blessed. But Jesus is certainly using the occasion to teach the nature of a person who recieves the kingdom also.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 28, 2006)

Dawn,
I'm not interacting with any of the posts here, except yours (in fact I skipped most of what was written above).

Scripture tells us that God has, and presumably still does, save some children even from the womb, giving them saving faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Jeremiah and John the Baptist were both "saved" in utero, and David was "made to hope while on [his] mothers breast." And don't forget his infant son who died. And others are saved even before they know how lost they were. They learn of the lost condition of sinners, and of hope in Christ alone as soon as they start learning anything, and they never abandon that faith.

Jesus also recognized that many of these infants and children belonged to faithful, believeing parents. The males had been obediently given the sign of visible inclusion in God's covenant blessings. Truly it was said of them that the Kingdom of heaven belonged to such. Outwardly, who could say otherwise _about any single one of them,_ election being an invisible quality. Jesus himself makes no distinctions regarding who of this gathering he will bless. He indeed is saying that it is fitting that he bless them all, for the blessing in one sense or more belongs to them.

Which (if any) were non-elect and did not receive any real internal blessing? We do not know, nor are we intended to know. And likewise, we presbyterians baptize by commandment, and not by any presumptions whatever.


----------



## 5solasmom (Apr 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> 
> 
> Jesus also recognized that many of these infants and children belonged to faithful, believeing parents. The males had been obediently given the sign of visible inclusion in God's covenant blessings. Truly it was said of them that the Kingdom of heaven belonged to such. Outwardly, who could say otherwise _about any single one of them,_ election being an invisible quality. Jesus himself makes no distinctions regarding who of this gathering he will bless. He indeed is saying that it is fitting that he bless them all, for the blessing in one sense or more belongs to them.
> ...



Thank you for your insight on this. I had not even considered the issue that at least SOME were elect for certain, which ones we do not know, but that Christ prayed for and blessed them ALL.


----------

