kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
I used Matthew 22:1-14 last evening in an exhortation. It struck me yesterday that this parable is being used to show many things, i.e. the relationship between God and physical Israel, the kingdom, eschatological judgment, just to name a few.
I view this parable as not only an object lesson for false assurance (do not think that just because you're children of Abraham, you're saved), but I also view it as the universal call of the gospel and discipleship.
My question is this: If this does talk about the gospel and how it is preached to all those who are in the highways, and it is an eschatological view of the wedding feast of the Lamb, how did the children get there?
I know, I know, where's the reference to children being at this feast? It is obvious to me that elect infants and children would be at the Table of the Lord in Heaven. Perhaps that's a big assumption, perhaps not. But if there are elect infants and children who died as children, why would they not be at the eschatological wedding feast? And if so, how did they get there without those who had called and invited them? Is the wedding one of the Son of God to His Bride? If it is, then children are a part of that bride. Why is it, then, that most evangelical churches not consider children to be members? I know the Church of God (Anderson) that I grew up in does not.
I am by no means saying that these infants and children cannot supernaturally be invited to the Table of the Lord by the Holy Spirit of God, but what of ones who had actually heard the gospel? What of the ones who had been taught and discipled but who had not made a profession of faith? What of the ones who are not discipled because they have not professed faith? God definitely knows something we don't if there are children in the body of Christ whom we exclude.
The implications of this parable is that as the universal call of the gospel goes forth, we preach it to everyone indiscriminately. Do we waste our time on those who make excuses, who do not want to accept the invitation? I think God gives us knowledge in that area so that we do not waste our time. But this also means that we make disciples of our children. We teach them to know the Lord, to call upon His name. We invite them to the wedding feast of the Lamb.
It doesn't mean they'll be saved or that they have wedding clothes fit for this feast. But it also doesn't mean that we give them false assurance by allowing them to believe that God will save them if it is His will to do so. It doesn't mean that we give false assurance when we tell them of the promises of God to His elect.
This flies in the face, In my humble opinion, of those who wait for a profession of faith in order to give assurances of God's salvation. And to me, this passage shows, even though it is pure implication, that children are included in the covenant and should be brought up as disciples of Jesus Christ. If our Lord invites them and bids them come, why would we keep them away until we're sure of their profession?
Any thoughts?
In Christ,
KC
I view this parable as not only an object lesson for false assurance (do not think that just because you're children of Abraham, you're saved), but I also view it as the universal call of the gospel and discipleship.
My question is this: If this does talk about the gospel and how it is preached to all those who are in the highways, and it is an eschatological view of the wedding feast of the Lamb, how did the children get there?
I know, I know, where's the reference to children being at this feast? It is obvious to me that elect infants and children would be at the Table of the Lord in Heaven. Perhaps that's a big assumption, perhaps not. But if there are elect infants and children who died as children, why would they not be at the eschatological wedding feast? And if so, how did they get there without those who had called and invited them? Is the wedding one of the Son of God to His Bride? If it is, then children are a part of that bride. Why is it, then, that most evangelical churches not consider children to be members? I know the Church of God (Anderson) that I grew up in does not.
I am by no means saying that these infants and children cannot supernaturally be invited to the Table of the Lord by the Holy Spirit of God, but what of ones who had actually heard the gospel? What of the ones who had been taught and discipled but who had not made a profession of faith? What of the ones who are not discipled because they have not professed faith? God definitely knows something we don't if there are children in the body of Christ whom we exclude.
The implications of this parable is that as the universal call of the gospel goes forth, we preach it to everyone indiscriminately. Do we waste our time on those who make excuses, who do not want to accept the invitation? I think God gives us knowledge in that area so that we do not waste our time. But this also means that we make disciples of our children. We teach them to know the Lord, to call upon His name. We invite them to the wedding feast of the Lamb.
It doesn't mean they'll be saved or that they have wedding clothes fit for this feast. But it also doesn't mean that we give them false assurance by allowing them to believe that God will save them if it is His will to do so. It doesn't mean that we give false assurance when we tell them of the promises of God to His elect.
This flies in the face, In my humble opinion, of those who wait for a profession of faith in order to give assurances of God's salvation. And to me, this passage shows, even though it is pure implication, that children are included in the covenant and should be brought up as disciples of Jesus Christ. If our Lord invites them and bids them come, why would we keep them away until we're sure of their profession?
Any thoughts?
In Christ,
KC
