Children Questions

Australian Questions to Follow Up the E-book

Regarding the status of children’s salvation... the e-book states, “This is not to be confused with ‘the children are therefore saved because of the parent.’ This is NOT the case, as MANY other scriptures, old and new covenants, portray clearly.”

I do not wish to engage in contentiousness (to the gain only of the enemy), but rather would seek to dialogue with you on this and seek unity. I have always understood from scriptures such as 1Cor.7:14 that children of even only one sanctified parent are holy before the Lord. This is not and must not be, of course, an “out clause” for “training our children in the way they should go, so that when they are old they will not depart from it” and every other exhortation to guide the precious younger lambs in the Way of life. I hear afresh and take to heart your admonition to encourage our children constantly to make their own personal, historical and supernatural decision to follow Jesus personally, and to confront them with sin... but can we not trust the message in 1Cor.7:13? Aren’t children saved automatically if they have a saved parent?

Thanks,

You said: “...scriptures such as 1Cor.7:14 that children of even only one sanctified parent are holy before the Lord.”

I just have a second here, so bear with the speed in which I must say these things.... but you have TOTALLY misunderstood this Scripture in 1Cor.7, and there IS no “such as”! : ) Who told you that this Scripture has anything to do with Salvation??!! Whoever told you that does not know the Scriptures or the Power of God. It is totally errant in both logic and the Greek language. If you read that Scripture to declare that a child is SAVED (rather than “sanctified” as it actually says), then the UNBELIEVER IS SAVED TOO by the presence of the Believer. And surely we can figure out that THIS can’t be so! Read it again. This is an inescapable and yet ridiculous conclusion! It is the same word in the Greek! Now how can THAT be??!! Obviously, it cannot, and your definition of “sanctified” (“made holy”) must then be incorrect. It CANNOT mean “saved” (and it doesn’t), or else the unbelieving spouse would also be “Saved”!

Soooooo, what DOES the word ACTUALLY mean, if the unbelieving spouse and the children BOTH have the same word attached to them (“sanctified” or “made holy” because of the Believing adult in the home)? IT MEANS “SET APART”—just as it always has. It means that God is willing to bless and protect the entire household (not SAVE them all!) because of the Chosen one in the home. He gives his Grace, His favor, and kindness and provision to the ENTIRE home for the sake of the Saved one. This has always been His Way. “For the sake of Abraham, I Will....” “For the sake of David, I Will....” But in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM is a child “SAVED” because of another (Eze.18; Jn.1:12-13). NOT of physical descent, NOT of a father’s faith OR sin.

Love, H

Hey there, thanks for sharing this ;(. We have smelled this SAME aroma in many folks who’ve rubbed shoulders together for years here in the area. This is a common error being taught in these parts. Hope this will be a bit like a brisk, bracing slap of good ole Aqua Velva... which smells much better... and wakes ya up a bit....

Love, M

We’ll see how they deal with Truth that doesn’t make them warm and fuzzy.... I may be their enemy now for telling them the Truth, but it wasn’t like I had a choice. That was a terribly dishonest approach to the Scriptures that they were taught, whoever did that to them. It reminds me of a “sermon” I heard at a “Street Preaching Conference” one time. The famous guy “speaking” quoted Acts 1:1 out of the KJV, “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began to both do and teach.” And then he spent forty-five minutes jumping up and down talking about TREATIES. The “former treaty” and the new “treaty,” instead of treatise—“extensive written discourse” (of course). I was SO appalled by all of the “amens,” and SO disappointed by how men can take God’s Words and twist them to make their own points that it took me days to recover from the shock. And this improper use of the word “sanctified” that they were speaking of, and the neglect of the fact that the unbelieving spouse is ALSO “covered” by this word (and yet CANNOT be saved, be definition) is even more dangerous (though not as humorous!) as the Acts 1:1 example.

Well, you are loved....

His Arms around you, H

5/14/2002