Yeah, that was the point. Hoping to avoid a time-consuming concordance battle. Off the top of my head, Jesus said in Matthew that children have guardian Angels and are particularly defended by God. That speaks to some special dispensation for children under the age of accountability.
God wants us to use our common sense as we trust in Him, like a child, btw, not spin our wheels in scripture battles (as per Paul's instruction) or denominationalism when it involves the non essentials of salvation or sin. The letter of law killeth, etc.
There never was a church that made me a better Christian -- only my personal relationship with Christ does me any good. That's my very forward (not "backhanded") "swipe" at denominationalism as well as a loose paraphrase of Lincoln's definition of being a Christian.
The Bible does not describe any "age of accountability", before which children are "exempt". Quite the opposite -- the Bible teaches that children are Sinners from Infancy (Psalm 58:3).
Thus, the logical presumption is that the children of Matthew 18:10 were among God's Elect whom He predestined to Heaven, and that is why they had guardian angels. There's no reason, for example, to believe that the Pharisees ever in their lives enjoyed the protection of guardian angels -- because Jesus taught that they were Children of Satan, not Children of God, and were predestined to Hell, not Heaven.
God wants us to use our common sense as we trust in Him, like a child, btw, not spin our wheels in scripture battles (as per Paul's instruction) or denominationalism when it involves the non essentials of salvation or sin. The letter of law killeth, etc. There never was a church that made me a better Christian -- only my personal relationship with Christ does me any good. That's my very forward (not "backhanded") "swipe" at denominationalism as well as a loose paraphrase of Lincoln's definition of being a Christian.
I'm still not sure what you mean by "denominationalism" -- does it have anything to do with a Presbyterian posting and defending an article by a Baptist? One would think that "denominationalism" would militate against that sort of thing.
On The Other Hand, if "anti-denominationalism" boils down to "no church with a descriptive name has anything to teach me" -- that sounds to me at least as intellectually restrictive and counterproductive as most any sort of "denominationalism" I can imagine...
As to Lincoln -- aside from speeches for public consumption, the man was practically an Atheist. Not really a guy to whom I would look for a definition of "Christian". (Not an attack on you, just my own personal opinion)