Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Original sin of infants Message-ID: Date: 21 Apr 91 06:15:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 28 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article dlester@cs.man.ac.uk (David Lester) writes: +To conclude: infant baptism is a tough question. If it wasn't we'd +have all agreed ages ago. And that, to me, seems to apply to most +of the controversial areas of our faith. If one applies the following reasoning to infants, then batism is pointless. In order to be 'saved' one must acknowledge one's state of needing grace and that Jesus is the one who will supply that grace. There are occasions in the Bible where individuals have been 'granted' grace, the thief on the cross, with out baptism. But how many instances are noted where someone by mere batism without understanding, belief, and faith, was saved. This whole thing also leads into such questions as is there some level of intellegence required to be 'saved'? I.e. does one have to know that one is in a state of 'sin' and needs and asks for the saving grace. Also what will happen to all those who have never heard the 'good word' as in most of the world population to date. There are instances in the Bible of 'anointment' were some child is dedicated to the service of the God. This however did not necessitate a continueous 'righteous' life, as in Samson. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu