A beloved brother in the Lord has put some questions with regard to this, which it may be helpful to many to see clearly answered. As I doubt not Scripture furnishes the answer, I give those questions with a little more than usual detail.
He asks, “Does not such a statement as, that in John 3:33Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3) (Except a man be born again, He cannot see the Kingdom of God) take in the whole human race, not excepting children? Could, ‘of such is the Kingdom of God’ be an objection to such an application?” He adds, “I can see little foundation for children being saved, simply because Jesus died for the world, and they have not committed transgression. I suppose that idea is a remnant of the old doctrine of Jesus having put away the Adamic transgression.’ I do not see Scripture state it that way.”
Now with regard to the latter point first: it is plain, if we take Scripture that those who have not committed sin, cannot at any rate come up for judgment in the day of judgment. It is not for the possession of an evil nature that men will be judged, but “according to their deeds.” And people are very conscious of the difference between these two things, and of their responsibility with regard to them. Men acknowledge easily that they are sinners, and will plead even their nature as their excuse for sin; but all feel, notwithstanding, the shame and guilt of having committed this or that sin in particular. They have the sense of responsibility as to that, and that they need not have done it, however bad their nature.
The solemn account rendered before the judgment seat could never then be rendered by an infant. Nor will he be condemned for the evil nature only, or for Adam’s sin, which was not, nor is ever stated to be, his.
Yet it remains true that a being with an evil nature cannot enter into heaven, or (if that were possible) enjoy the presence of God there. The youngest babe must be born again undoubtedly, just as any other. The only ‘question can be, is there assurance from Scripture that this is the case with every infant dying such?
Now our Lord’s words” (if such is the kingdom of God,” have been already quoted, and are familiar to us. There again there is more than one question likely to be raised. First, perhaps, what is the kingdom of God? And secondly, how far do the words, “Of such is it,” carry us?
Now I apprehend, a common cause of mistake lies in confounding the different aspects of this Kingdom in the present and the future. The parables of Matthew and Mark teach its that the Kingdom of God, or of heaven, now in the time of the Lord’s absence, covers the whole ground of what we commonly call Christendom. Into it evil men do enter. But when the Lord comes He gathers out of His Kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and to that Kingdom which follows, (still the Kingdom of God) the Lord’s words to Nicodemus alone apply. The reference in “born of water and of the Spirit,” is to Ezekiel’s promise of God sprinkling clean “water” upon Israel, and putting His “Spirit” within them, preparatory to their entering the Kingdom in millennial days (Ezek. 36) Our Lord says (John 3:1212If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? (John 3:12)) that it is of “earthly things” He is speaking there. Of course the same is just as true of those who are to inherit the heavenly portion of that Kingdom.
But when in Mark 10:14,14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:14) He says, “Of such is the Kingdom of God,” there is no need precisely to define, whether he is speaking of the present or future Kingdom. It is plain, if they could be, according to the Lord’s mind, in the present Kingdom, they could not but be in the Kingdom of the future. It is on this ground as showing His gracious mind toward them, that He takes them up in His arms and blesses them. Could He bless and put them in His Kingdom here, and exclude them from His Kingdom of glory?
Assuredly not; for in the case of the exclusion of any, it is their contrary will He blames. He would have all men to be saved. Now where there is no contrary will to be supposed, will His will fail? Does not the “all men.” of 1 Timothy 2:44Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4) extend as far as the Lord’s, words in John 3:33Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3)?
If any raise question as to “of such,” and will set limits there, — if they say it is of people who resemble children He is alone speaking; I can only ask, why then did He say, “Suffer them to come unto me, for of such, &c.” Why did He bless them? and where else is “of such” used in such a way, as to exclude the things or persons which furnish the resemblance? It would seem somewhat childish to ask, are not little children “such as” little children?
As to Jesus having “put away the Adamic transgression,” we can say something better, for with John we know Him as “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” Not the sins of the world, as some think; that is not true; but sin as a hindrance to God’s, taking up and blessing any one anywhere. There is no hindrance to the blessing of any one, but, alas, in his own will. And this is after all just the point with rife, and where the truth and character of God seem concerned in our maintaining it; if the “Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was kid,” and these little ones are “lost,” yet with no barrier of their own will to hinder their salvation, can the will be wanting upon His part?