How Tenuous is Your Salvation

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Interesting views, thanks for posting them. It's certainly a difficult topic for it seems that the bible isn't totally clear on the matter. I wouldn't disagree that it's a Conventional relationship in the process, but wouldn't that have an element of Calvinism in that particular view? I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but may be something to be considered.

Ha, I knew somebody was going to bring that up sooner or later! lol

Actually, I am not talking about the Calvinist view of covenant, ie the covenant of Works vs the Covenant of grace, etc. I am not sure that approach is even biblical.

By covenantal I meant the following:

1. Noah found grace in the eyes of God, so He saved Noah and his family.

2. God called Abraham, made a covenant with him, which included Abraham's family.

3. Ditto with Isaac and Jacob.

4. God called the extended family-nation of Jacob, then numbering in the millions, to Sinai and made a covenant with them. This covenant included their families, their children.

5. When Jesus met with Zacchaeus the Lord said 'salvation is come to this house', not just 'to this man'.

6. Paul and Silas told a gentile 'believe on the Lord and you will be saved, and your whole house'.

7. Paul taught 'but now your children are holy'.

All this seems to indicate the Old Testament pattern of 'household salvation' is continued in the NT, that is to say, God's covenant is not just with individuals, but with families, households. The Covenant is that God will have a people, which includes their families.

Now, it's true many Reformed people see much of the same thing, and therefore conclude (erroneously, in my opinion) that paedobaptism is the way to go, but I am not really looking at it from a Reformed position, just what I see in the bible about God's covenantal dealings with people (and their families).

[Esaias]

Wow, I just found an article by Watchman Lee (I think) on this very subject -

http://www.neve-family.com/books/nee...Salvation.html

God's promise of salvation takes the household as a unit, not the individual as a unit. If a newly saved person sees this from the very beginning, he will be spared many headaches, and he will gain much benefit for himself. When God saves man, He takes the whole family, rather than an individual, as a unit.

Concerning eternal life, the Bible takes an individual, not a household, as the unit. However, concerning salvation, it shows that men are saved household by household. The unit of salvation is the household. We want to spend a little time to consider several portions of the Word. This will show us clearly that salvation is for the whole household. We can inquire of God according to these words. We can deal with Him not only for ourselves individually but also for our whole family.

...

In the Bible, both on the positive side and on the negative side and both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, all records show clearly that God deals with man by households. Brothers, we need to take care of how we live before God, because what we do individually can affect our whole household.

Much more at the link.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Interesting take on the subject. But what about the issue of holiness? I quoted a verse earlier where Paul says 'otherwise your children were unclean, but now they are holy'.

How does that play into Romans 7?

I would say that since the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (set apart, able to experience the blessings of God) by the believing spouse, but is NOT SAVED, I don't think we can say that having sanctified children in the sense of 1 Corinthians 7 means that they are "saved' because of the saved parent.

Rather, I see it a matter of worrying that a married couple, one saved, the other not, caused some concern over whether or not the children were some kind of un-acceptable to God spiritual half-breeds.

Consider Ezra 10:1-5,

1. Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore.
2. And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
3. Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
4. Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it.
5. Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware.

The Corinthians had obviously written to Paul with certain concerns (1 Corinthians 7:1), one of which I assume had to do with saints married to sinners and the status of their children.

Since the Corinthian assembly began as a synagogue (Acts 18), I would guess that the Jewish elders and leaders (e.g. Crispus, Gaius, Stephanas) were familiar with Ezra 10 and were worried that the saved saints might have to disown their unsaved spouses and children in order to be pleasing to God.

Paul's response is no; they are sanctified (not saved or born again) but accepted by God as legitimate family members to the saved spouse. The peace of God that comes with His presence in the life of the believing spouse is welcome in the home and as long as the unbelieving spouse is pleased to dwell with the saint, many of the rich blessings of God (supernatural protection, divine favor, and etc.) would fall to the family as well (i.e. unsaved spouse and children).

But otherwise, the children don't need to be saved, as in rescued from sin, death, and hell. They are morally pure, innocent and heaven-bound, up until their name gets blotted out of the Book of Life at the onset of the law of sin reviving and slaying them, as it were, spiritually speaking (at which point, salvation is necessitated since they are now fallen, just like Adam [in Adam all die, and etc.]).

[renee819]

Esaias and Votivesoul, This is great teaching. I have often wondered about that scripture and knowing and seeing that blessings do come on the household where one or both parents are saved, yet we know that when a child reaches the age of accountability, they must make the decision themselves.

What is the age of accountability? Who knows? I believe it may be different ages as children mature in different stages. When it is 'time' then God starts dealing with them. And they have to make the decision.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ha, I knew somebody was going to bring that up sooner or later! lol

I've been dancing around it for quite a while now and just couldn't contain myself anymore.

Actually, I am not talking about the Calvinist view of covenant, ie the covenant of Works vs the Covenant of grace, etc. I am not sure that approach is even biblical.

By covenantal I meant the following:

1. Noah found grace in the eyes of God, so He saved Noah and his family.

2. God called Abraham, made a covenant with him, which included Abraham's family.

3. Ditto with Isaac and Jacob.

4. God called the extended family-nation of Jacob, then numbering in the millions, to Sinai and made a covenant with them. This covenant included their families, their children.

5. When Jesus met with Zacchaeus the Lord said 'salvation is come to this house', not just 'to this man'.

6. Paul and Silas told a gentile 'believe on the Lord and you will be saved, and your whole house'.

7. Paul taught 'but now your children are holy'.

All this seems to indicate the Old Testament pattern of 'household salvation' is continued in the NT, that is to say, God's covenant is not just with individuals, but with families, households. The Covenant is that God will have a people, which includes their families.

Now, it's true many Reformed people see much of the same thing, and therefore conclude (erroneously, in my opinion) that paedobaptism is the way to go, but I am not really looking at it from a Reformed position, just what I see in the bible about God's covenantal dealings with people (and their families).

Let's take the familial view of salvation and apply it to a real bible situation, the death of the child of David and Bathsheba. Being only a few days old, would this child be saved (not go to hell, be eternally with God, ect) because he was a son of David, part of David's household? Conversely, those infants who were non-covenantial households would be lost (go to hell, burn, ect.). The result would be that the vast majority of children who died in the epochs of time will be, or are in, hell (eternally apart from God, buring in a pit, ect) simply because most were unfortunately born into the wrong family.

In this view, there would be a point in time where the child of a covenantial household, after reaching a certain maturity in life, would have to choose for himself/herself to enter into a covenantial relationship with God else their children would be lost (not be in heaven, not be with God, burn, ect). Salvation for an individual, for a period of time, would be dependent on the choices of someone else in other words.

I'm not saying this isn't scriptural for you've certainly made a case for it by the multiple scripture references in your response, but it certainly opens the door for many other questions.

[renee819]

God is a good and righteous God. And I can not believe that any baby or child below the age of accountability would be sent to hell.

And even those that are above that age, I believe that God will judge them, according to their maturity, "works."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Let's take the familial view of salvation and apply it to a real bible situation, the death of the child of David and Bathsheba. Being only a few days old, would this child be saved (not go to hell, be eternally with God, ect) because he was a son of David, part of David's household?

I tend to think yes, the child will rise in the resurrection and will receive the promises, because he was included in the covenant. However, I am careful to be dogmatic about it because I do not know how this child would have turned out if it had lived, but I do believe God would have a much clearer view of that and the child's eternal destiny would be decided by God's view of the child.

Conversely, those infants who were non-covenantial households would be lost (go to hell, burn, ect.). The result would be that the vast majority of children who died in the epochs of time will be, or are in, hell (eternally apart from God, buring in a pit, ect) simply because most were unfortunately born into the wrong family.

Well, I think the supposition here involves an unwarranted assumption. Namely, that a person's birth is a matter of chance. You said 'unfortunately born into the wrong family'. Nobody is born into the 'wrong family', because nobody is born or conceived apart from the direct Providence of God. I believe the bible is clear on this - God forms each person in the womb, God controls the womb, therefore each person who is conceived is conceived in accordance with the will of God. Nobody comes into existence by 'chance'. In fact, there is no such thing as 'chance' (ie random events). God's Providence extends to all things.

Also, God says this: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

This tells me every ethnic group, culture, race, tribe, family, etc is where they are by the direct, Providential appointment of God. Again, there is no 'fortune' or chance involved. These two facts together - that nobody comes into existence apart from the will of God, and that no nation/tribe/etc exists apart from the will of God (including their location and the times of their existence) - combine to tell me that any child conceived or born, regardless of when or where or to whom, was conceived or born by the will of God.

Now, either all children everywhere have an age of accountability, before which they are innocent and therefore 'in the Book of Life', or else only the children of the Covenant are. In either case, whichever one it turns out to be, it is undoubted that (however the case may be) is the best arrangement of things. Obviously God is all-wise and loving, and therefore whatever arrangement He has made is the best for all concerned. Might not be the best as we want it to be, but then we are not as wise as God.

I would like to think all children everywhere at all times are 'saved' prior to an age of accountability. But I cannot help but notice a few facts:

1. Adults, morally accountable, who live where the gospel has never been mentioned, apparently 'have no hope'. Are they saved anyway? If so, then bringing the gospel to them is the worst thing that could be done, for it exposes them to eternal condemnation. If they are not, then we are faced with exactly the same dilemma - are people who cannot possibly hear and believe the gospel saved anyway?

2. The bible is clear - the gospel must be preached to all creatures. Therefore there is a need for the gospel to be preached to all. And if all need to have the gospel, then all need to be saved. And if all need to be saved, then all the people living in the 'unreached world' are lost until they hear and believe the gospel.

3. If an exception is made for all children and infants, then how can the exception not be righteously required of all adults as well who have no opportunity and thus no ability whatsoever to hear and believe the gospel, such as some tribesman living in 'darkest Africa' or whatnot?

Again, I am not saying I have the answers. In the end, unless we determine the Bible makes a clear statement, we have only our reasonings and speculations, and are left with relying on God to 'sort it all out' as He sees fit.

In this view, there would be a point in time where the child of a covenantial household, after reaching a certain maturity in life, would have to choose for himself/herself to enter into a covenantial relationship with God else their children would be lost (not be in heaven, not be with God, burn, ect). Salvation for an individual, for a period of time, would be dependent on the choices of someone else in other words.

Hmm, I see where you are going with that (I think) but do we not run the risk of another error, if we make salvation too dependent on our own choice? While I believe in personal responsibility, and the need to 'choose Christ' I also am afraid of running afoul of God's sovereignty in this matter. Salvation is eminently the work of God, depending entirely upon his making Atonement for our sins, making grace available to us, etc.

Now, suppose a child's salvation is dependent on their parents (until the child reaches the magical age of 'accountability', whatever it may be). What then? Does it remove responsibility from any adult who is accountable for their actions? A parent is responsible for their children as far as feeding them, clothing them, etc. And a parent is accountable for their child's actions (up to a point). Would it somehow impugn either the character of God, the nature of grace, or the element of personal responsibility for those who can actually have responsibility for themselves?

I'm not saying this isn't scriptural for you've certainly made a case for it by the multiple scripture references in your response, but it certainly opens the door for many other questions.

Also, I want to be clear - the covenant 'household salvation' concept I am exploring here does not, as far as I know, assert that anyone is guaranteed salvation just because mom or dad is saved...each will of course have to make their own decision.

As soon as a person thinks 'well, my parents are christians so I must be one too, which means I am saved' they are probably already at a point at which they must make their own decision to believe and follow Christ.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I tend to think yes, the child will rise in the resurrection and will receive the promises, because he was included in the covenant. However, I am careful to be dogmatic about it because I do not know how this child would have turned out if it had lived, but I do believe God would have a much clearer view of that and the child's eternal destiny would be decided by God's view of the child.

Yes, I agree that the child was probably saved. Could it be that not only David's child, but the children of the pagan tribes living at that time, including those here in America, would be saved according to God's view of them? Personally, I think so. It could just be my personal bias concerning children though and not scripturally sound.

Well, I think the supposition here involves an unwarranted assumption. Namely, that a person's birth is a matter of chance. You said 'unfortunately born into the wrong family'. Nobody is born into the 'wrong family', because nobody is born or conceived apart from the direct Providence of God. I believe the bible is clear on this - God forms each person in the womb, God controls the womb, therefore each person who is conceived is conceived in accordance with the will of God. Nobody comes into existence by 'chance'. In fact, there is no such thing as 'chance' (ie random events). God's Providence extends to all things.

Also, God says this: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

This tells me every ethnic group, culture, race, tribe, family, etc is where they are by the direct, Providential appointment of God. Again, there is no 'fortune' or chance involved. These two facts together - that nobody comes into existence apart from the will of God, and that no nation/tribe/etc exists apart from the will of God (including their location and the times of their existence) - combine to tell me that any child conceived or born, regardless of when or where or to whom, was conceived or born by the will of God.

I don't disagree. This certainly has a Calvinistic element to it and that's not a bad thing. It's simply how it is.

Now, either all children everywhere have an age of accountability, before which they are innocent and therefore 'in the Book of Life', or else only the children of the Covenant are. In either case, whichever one it turns out to be, it is undoubted that (however the case may be) is the best arrangement of things. Obviously God is all-wise and loving, and therefore whatever arrangement He has made is the best for all concerned. Might not be the best as we want it to be, but then we are not as wise as God.

I would like to think all children everywhere at all times are 'saved' prior to an age of accountability. But I cannot help but notice a few facts:

1. Adults, morally accountable, who live where the gospel has never been mentioned, apparently 'have no hope'. Are they saved anyway? If so, then bringing the gospel to them is the worst thing that could be done, for it exposes them to eternal condemnation. If they are not, then we are faced with exactly the same dilemma - are people who cannot possibly hear and believe the gospel saved anyway?

2. The bible is clear - the gospel must be preached to all creatures. Therefore there is a need for the gospel to be preached to all. And if all need to have the gospel, then all need to be saved. And if all need to be saved, then all the people living in the 'unreached world' are lost until they hear and believe the gospel.

3. If an exception is made for all children and infants, then how can the exception not be righteously required of all adults as well who have no opportunity and thus no ability whatsoever to hear and believe the gospel, such as some tribesman living in 'darkest Africa' or whatnot?

Again, I am not saying I have the answers. In the end, unless we determine the Bible makes a clear statement, we have only our reasonings and speculations, and are left with relying on God to 'sort it all out' as He sees fit.

Excellent points. Furthermore, if it takes the gospel and individual, personal, believing to be saved, then the majority of mankind is lost. If the majority of mankind isn't lost, then it doesn't take the gospel, on an individual, personal basis to be saved. Either view results in troubling conclusions.

Hmm, I see where you are going with that (I think) but do we not run the risk of another error, if we make salvation too dependent on our own choice? While I believe in personal responsibility, and the need to 'choose Christ' I also am afraid of running afoul of God's sovereignty in this matter. Salvation is eminently the work of God, depending entirely upon his making Atonement for our sins, making grace available to us, etc.

That sounds R.C. Sproul-ish. One of my favorite preachers, by the way. Do you attend a Reformed church?

Now, suppose a child's salvation is dependent on their parents (until the child reaches the magical age of 'accountability', whatever it may be). What then? Does it remove responsibility from any adult who is accountable for their actions? A parent is responsible for their children as far as feeding them, clothing them, etc. And a parent is accountable for their child's actions (up to a point). Would it somehow impugn either the character of God, the nature of grace, or the element of personal responsibility for those who can actually have responsibility for themselves?

Great questions of which I have no real answers. If a child's salvation is dependent upon the actions of the parent that would result in an unjust God relegating billions of children to hell (whatever that means) because of the failure of someone else. The idea of redemption would play a part in this in some way, I believe, whereby God does reconcile some, or all, to Himself. If all children, no matter the actions of their parents, are initially reconciled to God, then for them to be lost would require some future action on their part. But, as you pointed out, what if those children never heard the gospel to reject it?

What if God picked certain ones to redeem, knowing that they would live to accept Him at some point in time thereby continuing their salvation which began when they were born (or before?). The result of this would be billions of babies, children, in hell because God didn't chose them. God, in His sovereignty, chose some, didn't chose others. Is this actually what the bible teaches? Could be.

Also, I want to be clear - the covenant 'household salvation' concept I am exploring here does not, as far as I know, assert that anyone is guaranteed salvation just because mom or dad is saved...each will of course have to make their own decision.

But not as an infant, a child. If they're chosen, they will make that decision at the predestined (there, I said it!) time according to the view of some.

As soon as a person thinks 'well, my parents are christians so I must be one too, which means I am saved' they are probably already at a point at which they must make their own decision to believe and follow Christ.

Yes, but if that's the case, the plan of salvation suddenly changes from a familial covenant salvation (and I don't totally disagree with that view) to a salvation plan which is individual instead of familial. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not, but it's not part of mainstream soteriology, IMO.

That was a great, well thought out, response, Esaias. I appreciate you taking the time to consider the issue and post your views.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

That sounds R.C. Sproul-ish. One of my favorite preachers, by the way. Do you attend a Reformed church?

I have serious problems with Reformed doctrine, however I find them to be the only ones in any significant way promoting the Sovereignty of God in all things. Although I disagree with their views on election and predestination and 'original sin', limited atonement, etc, I find them to be spot on with regards to the theonomic nature of God's government and His claims on nations and peoples, I tend to agree with the Regulative Principle of Worship (although I disagree somewhat with them on how that is to be understood, or applied) and applicability of the law of God to show people their need of Christ and as a benchmark for identifying sin.

If I wasn't what I am, I would probably be Reformed Covenanter (although I'd have to wrestle with the Solemn League and Covenant, and the National Covenant in their relations to my belief that America's War for Independence was a 'just war', but that's another issue... lol)

[renee819]

Now I know this is going to sound, “far out.” But since so far, none of us knows for sure, I don't see anyplace in the Bible where it is certain, therefore we can only take what is written and I suppose we will come up with different assumptions.

We have heard so often, two places to go to, 'heaven or hell.' But that is not true.
We know there is another place, “The New Earth.” And where is the “Outer Darkness?”

Esaias wrote,

I would like to think all children everywhere at all times are 'saved' prior to an age of accountability. But I cannot help but notice a few facts:

1. Adults, morally accountable, who live where the gospel has never been mentioned, apparently 'have no hope'. Are they saved anyway? If so, then bringing the gospel to them is the worst thing that could be done, for it exposes them to eternal condemnation. If they are not, then we are faced with exactly the same dilemma - are people who cannot possibly hear and believe the gospel saved anyway?

That is the argument that one of my sons used against sending foreign missionaries.

2. The bible is clear - the gospel must be preached to all creatures. Therefore there is a need for the gospel to be preached to all. And if all need to have the gospel, then all need to be saved. And if all need to be saved, then all the people living in the 'unreached world' are lost until they hear and believe the gospel

.

I believe this.

3. If an exception is made for all children and infants, then how can the exception not be righteously required of all adults as well who have no opportunity and thus no ability whatsoever to hear and believe the gospel, such as some tribesman living in 'darkest Africa' or whatnot?

Again, I am not saying I have the answers. In the end, unless we determine the Bible makes a clear statement, we have only our reasonings and speculations, and are left with relying on God to 'sort it all out' as He sees fit

Right, we don't have the answers, and God will sort it all out. One thing we can do, is weed out the false doctrines.

Even though God created us, I believe that because He withdrew His Spirit from Adam, every child that has been born since then, (except Jesus) is born with a dead spirit, therefore is a child of the Devil, until they are 'born again.' No one has to teach a child to sin, it is in them from the beginning.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it

.

Why would Jesus call the Jews, sons of the Devil, that were trying to obey the Law? Because they were not born again? If the Jews that claimed God as their Father, were still the sons of Satan, what about the rest of the world?

Now back to my other point. If there was just Heaven and Hell, there would be no reason for the Judgment. God could just say, You sheep enter in to heaven. You goats, you are lost.

We have no way of knowing what the Judgment or outcome will be like.

Another hard to understand scripture,

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel

.

And this does not mean that I am saying there are other ways to be saved. There is only One Gospel, and only those that are born again, go with God, however, God's ways are so much higher than our ways that as we can see, there are many things that we can not know. But I am very sure that our good God, is not going to send any babies to hell.

Remember there is a new earth, and millions of planets. And God will judge each individual even by the secrets and thoughts of our hearts. And this is beyond my comprehension.