Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!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: 28 Apr 91 22:15:45 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 29 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article dvnspc1!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes: +>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. ... + +If you apply your reasoning, then you must come to the conclusion that infants +and the mentally defective cannot be "saved," since neither can acknowledge + +The Bible seems to paint a somewhat different picture of the place of +children in God's covenant community. Under the covenant God made with Yes, the NT does paint a different picture. It would seem to indicated that having no children is better. Paul seems to afford the 'weak' the ability to marry, presumably for the purpose of procreation. As for 'lineage' implies being in a state of 'grace'. I don't think you can really go to far with that. The NT seems to indicated as a 'saved' person you become an party to the convants, not by the act of being born to 'saved' parents. Furthermore the 'un-saved' are still spiritual gentiles. Given the marketing aspects of religion, believing your children to 'un-saved' is not acceptable. So you reason yourself to believe those near and dear to be saved, but would cast most of the world, being non-believers, into hell. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu