Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ASC105@psuvm.psu.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Infant Baptism Message-ID: Date: 9 Nov 90 05:39:06 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Penn State University Lines: 32 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu There is no need for infant baptism at all. The bible does not support this practice. The bible gives a clue to what happens to an infant when he/she dies. This is found in 2nd Samuel 12. When King David committed adultery with another man's wife, the woman became pregnant. The infant died from sickness as a result of David's sin. After he heard that the child was dead, he said that he could not bring the child back, but that he will go to the same place where the child went. This place was NOT hell, since David had a righteous heart before the Lord. Infant baptism will not send the baby to hell. Neither does it do anything to help them into the kingdom of God since that is already taken care of. Jesus in Mark 10 said that the kingdom of God was of such people as LITTLE CHILDREN. In Jesus' Name Allen S. Cheung (Jesus is Lord) [Note that in most cases infant baptism is not done because people feel it is specifically needed to save infants from going to hell. Rather, baptism is a sign of our entry into the Church. Becoming fully Christian involves two things: God's call and our response. The Baptist tradition uses baptism as a sign of the latter, and believes that a full response can be made only as an adult commitment. Other traditions use baptism as a sign of the beginning of the process, and believe that our true membership in the Church begins with God's call, which happens even before we are born. The Episcopalean rubics comment (as those knowing them might expect) that it is good for the Church to have both traditions of baptism, since both aspects are worth celebrating. --clh]