CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (04/01/91)
This message comes from Ake Eldberg who is a Lutheran minister in Sweden. Recently, a minister of my church suddenly declared that he was unable to use the Swedish Church's official Book of Prayers at infant baptism. It was against his conscience to do so, because the service contains references indicating that the infant is tainted with original sin and needs to be forgiven. He said: A child is the creation of God. It has only just come into this world. It has never committed any sin whatsoever. It is pure. Sin requires a choice, and the infant doesn't have one. Thus, references to forgiveness of sin in the baptismal rite imply that sins are inherited, that the child is blamed for what other people (the parents?) have done. But if God created this child, and it hasn't had any opportunity to commit any sins -- doesn't that mean that God must have supplied the sinfulness in the first place. And if God deliberately creates us with sin, what right does he have to blame us for it? The newspapers here quickly caught on, and the priest has received an overwhelming support from the general public. The priest devised his own, alternative prayers to replace those containing references to original sin, and parents are now starting to demand that these be used at their baptisms. For instance, where the official rite has "God, thou who alone can save us from all evil, forgive N all sin, liberate him/her from the powers of darkness, write his/her name in the book of Life, and keep him/her forever in thy Light", the priest uses something like "Bring him/her into the Light of Jesus Christ". Attempts from the Church to defend the traditional standpoint have been weak, badly phrased, garbled by the media, and met with a total lack of understanding by the public. It is now being demanded that the outdated, primitive belief in original sin be stricken from the Christian teaching. I would be interested to hear from anyone on this newsgroup who has any idea on how one might convinvingly explain the idea of original sin to modern, half-secularized parents who come with their child to a priest and want it baptized. Since messages on soc.religion.christian only get here once per 2 weeks, if ever, I would appreciate an email CC of your postings on this subject. Your brother in Christ, Ake Eldberg
hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu (04/01/91)
I'm not sure how much help I can be here, as my ideas may not be quite the classical Reformed ones, but let me try. In some sense I agree with your parents, in that I don't quite believe in inherited guilt. However I do believe in total depravity, which may work out to being the same thing. That is, I believe that even outwardly good acts proceed from motivations that are at best mixed, and that's the best case (i.e. there are too many times when what we do isn't even outwardly good). Why God chose to do things this way is a mystery to me. Why would he choose to bring his people out of an imperfect humanity through grace, rather than creating us as angelically perfect beings in the first place? This is the mystery that Paul describes in Rom 11:32: that God has consigned all mem to disobedience, so that he may have mercy on all. I am afraid I see your parents' problem as being based on a somewhat romantic view of children, sort of an "innocent savage" view. Certainly infants don't commit murder, and other things that we think of as major sins. But I believe they are still imperfect, and rely on the grace of God. No doubt their degree of responsibility is different than an adult's, and the way grace operates in them is also different. But the idea that they don't need forgiveness and grace seems to me inconceivable. Where I might agree with your parents is that I find it hard to understand the idea that there is sort of guilt that children inherit that has to be forgiven. I believe children need forgiveness as much as adults do. But it's because that's part of living as imperfect beings in God's grace, not because they have to get out from under the guilt of Adam's sin. The fact that death came into the world through Adam (I Cor 15;21ff, among other references) doesn't mean to me that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, but rather that we inherit a human nature damaged by sin, which causes us to sin as well. I have no problem at all with the prayer you quote. It doesn't even seem to me to refer to original sin. It says to forgive the child all sin. I don't see any reference to forgiving inherited guilt. To me baptism is entry into a Christian community where forgiveness is a continuing thing. Baptism represents crucifying our sinful nature with Christ. This is an ongoing process. To think of baptism as one-time forgiveness of just past sins seems a return to the superstition of the early church, where people weren't baptized until the end of their lives, because they were afraid that sins after baptism were harder to forgive. To me baptism represents an initiation into a life that we live in the continuous presence of God's forgiveness, not just a one-time experience of it. Similarily with the liberation of from the powers of darkness.
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (04/02/91)
The question of "are infants sinners at birth" hinges in its reply on what is the definition of sin. There are at least two viable definitions of sin: 1) Sin is a state of separation from God which all humans experience, and are born into, as a result of Adam's sin. The so-called "bad acts" we commit are a result of this separation from God. 2) Sin is a knowing, conscious act of disobedience against God. Clearly infants fall under case (1) but not case (2). Apart from this, even given that infants are original sinners under case (1) I have yet to be convinced that baptism is a magic talisman against original sin, nor that such a talisman is necessary. The key question to be answered is the following: Does being born with a sinful nature necessarily mean that one has committed sin just by being born? Steve Timm
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/03/91)
In article <Apr.2.03.24.26.1991.19590@athos.rutgers.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes:
Apart from this, even given that infants are original sinners under
case (1) I have yet to be convinced that baptism is a magic talisman
against original sin, nor that such a talisman is necessary.
The key question to be answered is the following: Does being born
with a sinful nature necessarily mean that one has committed sin
just by being born?
The gifts of God's grace are not something that belongs to human beings
by nature. He has to bestow them. And it is necessary to have these
gifts to enter Heaven. That's why unbaptized infants need to be
baptized. Baptism is the Sacrament that infuses these graces.
There's no question of a personal sin on the part of the infants. It's
a question of a set of gifts that Adam forfeited as head of the human
race, that have to be given back to each individual in order to allow
entry into Heaven.benning@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (04/05/91)
->The question of "are infants sinners at birth" hinges in its reply ->on what is the definition of sin. There are at least two viable ->definitions of sin: ->1) Sin is a state of separation from God which all humans experience, ->and are born into, as a result of Adam's sin. The so-called "bad acts" ->we commit are a result of this separation from God. ->2) Sin is a knowing, conscious act of disobedience against God. ->Clearly infants fall under case (1) but not case (2). ->Apart from this, even given that infants are original sinners under ->case (1) I have yet to be convinced that baptism is a magic talisman ->against original sin, nor that such a talisman is necessary. An old argument. Baptism is a sign of repentance. How can an infant repent of anything? Infant baptism is just a Gentile form of circumcision. Today, Baptism is an empty tradition practiced by many as a ritual. Real baptism is done by someone who is making a public confession of becoming a Christian. Babies have no choice in the matter. Just as I can't impute righteousness to my children by any act of my own, neither can I save my child by "Baptizing" him or her. I can "dedicate" my children through the act of infant baptism, "Lord, I make a public proclamation to bring this child up in a way that he knows You..." but the act itself has no biblical basis unto salvation. Otherwise, we Christians could just throw water onto everyone in the world, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why mess with evangelism if we have this method available? > QUESTION: -The key question to be answered is the following: Does being born -with a sinful nature necessarily mean that one has committed sin -just by being born? -Steve Timm *********************** >ANSWER: Being born with a sinful nature is not in itself a sinful act. However, since we are born with imputed sin we are all born sinners. The term "Total Depravity" is used to describe our natures. The term doesn't describe the actual *degree* of evil in an individual, but it applies to the FIELD OF OPERATION. We are unable to think pure righteous thoughts or perform pure righteous acts. It is also *Total* in the sense that without divine help the deprivation is irreversible. Theologians give no "age" that this condition begins. We are all born with it. Therefor, we are born sinners, but the act of being born is not a sinful act. I sight (my) children as examples. I can't remember ever having to teach them to be selfish, lie, cheat, steal, act rebelious, or any of the other acts regarded as part of our sinful nature. This is just of the original equipment that comes with the package. Bruce Benning -------------Religion may inform and reform------------- ----------but only Messiah Jesus can Transform---------- [May I suggest that it is a serious offence against Christian charity to call other people's ways of being Christians "empty rituals". It's absolutely true that infant baptism has the danger of parents doing it as some sort of cultural practice. Our church turns down many requests of this kind. Possibly we accidentally allow some as well: we can't see into people's hearts. But for many parents, and as they grown, children, baptism is an very important thing. One thing that past discussions has made clear is that baptism is a complex symbol, connected with many aspects of the Christian experience. Paul uses it as a symbol of being crucified with Christ. It is a sign of being incorporated into his body. It is a sign of repentance. It is also a sign of God's call to us. My own view of Christianity, which comes from the Reformed approach, emphasizes God's grace rather than our decision. I believe that God calls people from the beginnning of their lives, and that even though their response as children is less explicit than adult response, they are still part of his body. I believe that Christ's death is applicable to children, and that in some manner they are also "buried with him in baptism into death" (Rom 6:4), even though they don't respond as an adult does. I respect the baptist tradition, and appreciate the emphasis it makes on a "decision for Christ". But I would repectfully request not being told that my practices are "empty". --clh]
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (04/05/91)
In article <Apr.2.03.24.26.1991.19590@athos.rutgers.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: >There are at least two viable definitions of sin: This is because there are two types of sin. Conveniently, one is essentially a noun, and one a verb. >1) Sin is a state of separation from God which all humans experience, >and are born into, as a result of Adam's sin. The so-called "bad acts" >we commit are a result of this separation from God. This is the "noun." >2) Sin is a knowing, conscious act of disobedience against God. And this is the "verb." It should really read "Sinning is a knowing..." The "noun" is the *result* of the verb. Any action which results in increasing that separation is sinning, is a sinful act. But, as you yourself note, "all humans. . . are born into [sin] as a result of Adam's sin." This is what the Catholics and some more conservative Protestants refer to as "Original Sin," the initial separation from God, with which we are born and which we can not bridge by any act of our own wills. >Clearly infants fall under case (1) but not case (2). Correct. >Apart from this, even given that infants are original sinners under >case (1) I have yet to be convinced that baptism is a magic talisman >against original sin, nor that such a talisman is necessary. It isn't a "talisman." It is a symbolic act, intended as an acceptance of Christ's sacrifice, and specifically intended to begin the process of healing the rift between human and God by *permitting* God (who will not violate our freewill unless invited) to create that bridge, without which we can never reach God by our own actions and will. Given that, it seems that the most loving thing a parent can do for a child is to baptise him/her in the name of Jesus and of His Father and of the Holy Spirit, to give that child the chance to reach God even if he/she dies before reaching the age where s/he can make conscious decisions to sin or not to sin. >The key question to be answered is the following: Does being born >with a sinful nature necessarily mean that one has committed sin >just by being born? No. As I said above, they are really two words, and one is the result of the other. Because we are a fallen race, we have some of that "result" even before we individually begin to commit sin. KUWAIT: First there is a country, then there is no country, then there is. The Roach
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/08/91)
In article <Apr.5.03.46.53.1991.9820@athos.rutgers.edu> benning@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
An old argument. Baptism is a sign of repentance. How can an infant
repent of anything? Infant baptism is just a Gentile form of circumcision.
Today, Baptism is an empty tradition practiced by many as a ritual.
Real baptism is done by someone who is making a public confession of
becoming a Christian. Babies have no choice in the matter. Just as I can't
impute righteousness to my children by any act of my own, neither can I
save my child by "Baptizing" him or her. I can "dedicate" my children through
the act of infant baptism, "Lord, I make a public proclamation to bring this
child up in a way that he knows You..." but the act itself has no biblical
basis unto salvation. Otherwise, we Christians could just throw water onto
everyone in the world, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. Why mess with evangelism if we have this method available?
To answer your question, we can't just hose everyone down, because,
unlike an infant, an adult has to have the will to be baptized. That's
what missionary work is for: producing the dispositions.
Your theology of baptism is a Reformation one. Keep in mind that there
are about 1,000,000,000 people who have another theology on the matter.
For them, Baptism is one of the primary means of grace. Through the
outward symbolism, God imparts grace into a person's soul, wiping out
the effects of the Original sin, in so far as they prevent a final
destination of Heaven. In such a theology, baptizing babies is required
by the very nature of Baptism.benning@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (04/09/91)
In article <Apr.7.23.02.53.1991.29321@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) writes: > In article <Apr.5.03.46.53.1991.9820@athos.rutgers.edu> benning@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > > An old argument. Baptism is a sign of repentance. How can an infant > repent of anything? Infant baptism is just a Gentile form of circumcision. > Today, Baptism is an empty tradition practiced by many as a ritual. > Real baptism is done by someone who is making a public confession of > becoming a Christian. Babies have no choice in the matter. > Your theology of baptism is a Reformation one. Keep in mind that there > are about 1,000,000,000 people who have another theology on the matter. > For them, Baptism is one of the primary means of grace. Through the > outward symbolism, God imparts grace into a person's soul, wiping out > the effects of the Original sin, in so far as they prevent a final > destination of Heaven. In such a theology, baptizing babies is required > by the very nature of Baptism. If I may clairify my position. I do believe in baptism. My gripe is that when I became a believer, I rejoined the Church my parents went to. It is a Methodist Church. I wanted to be baptised as a sign to everyone that I was born again, and that I was commiting my life to G-d through our Lord Jesus and the new life he gave me. But they said "Your parents baptised you when you were a child, so we can't perform the baptism again." Three times I begged them to allow me this opportunity, but each time I was lovingly denied. That is my gripe. If the infant baptism was worth all it is made out to be, I wouldn't have waited 26 years to know and obey Jesus. I do believe that if I died during my years of rebellion (14-21) I would not be saved any more by the baptism my parents gave me, than my "good works" or my lucky rabbits foot. Perhaps it is just a personal problem on my part. To our moderator, I apologize for the appearance of rejecting all forms of baptism as "empty" because I don't. This is not the case. I just believe that infant baptism is of little use and has no Biblical base. Bruce Benning -----------Religion may Inform and Reform--------------- -------But only Messiah Jesus can Transform-----------
dlester@cs.man.ac.uk (David Lester) (04/10/91)
In article <Apr.9.03.53.44.1991.5684@athos.rutgers.edu> benning@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > I just believe that infant baptism is of little use and has no Biblical base. > > Bruce Benning The part about "no Biblical base" may or may not be correct, depending on how you interpret the word Biblical. I agree that there is (essentially) no scriptural authority for infant baptism, but even for protestants such as you and me, this is not the end of the matter. There is also the matter of the worship of the early Christians. Baptism was very important to them, as was the Eucharist. We would therefore expect that our services are an echo of the earliest Christian worship. This is indeed the case with Baptism. Have you ever wondered why Trinitarian Orthodoxy is the way it is? It is an attempt to answer the question: what does it mean, when we "baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"? It is as near certain as these things get that those are the words used by the Apostles when they baptised. And who did they baptise? Again, to me it seems highly likely that it was everyone. The Apostles were faced with a similar problem to that which my vicar faces today: "You've told me I should be baptised, you've told me that the end of the world is soon, so what will happen to my baby?" Remember, we are not talking here so much about "what if the baby dies", as "when Christ returns in all his glory, will my baby be left behind". I find it very hard to believe that infant baptism didn't occur in Apostolic times. 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. {\it in nominie Patrie, Filie, et Spiritue Sanctie} David Lester (Manchester University). I'll try to put fingers to keyboard about the development of the doctrine of "Original Sin". (It's an instructive, but long story, and includes many interesting features, such as social justice in the Roman Empire.)
fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) (04/10/91)
In article <Apr.9.03.53.44.1991.5684@athos.rutgers.edu> benning@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > If I may clairify my position. I do believe in baptism. My gripe is that > when I became a believer, I rejoined the Church my parents went to. It is > a Methodist Church. I wanted to be baptised as a sign to everyone that I > was born again, and that I was commiting my life to G-d through our Lord > Jesus and the new life he gave me. But they said "Your parents baptised > you when you were a child, so we can't perform the baptism again." Three > times I begged them to allow me this opportunity, but each time I was > lovingly denied. That is my gripe. Hmmmm... Sounds to me what you're looking for is some ritual sign of your reconciliation with the Church. Catholics have exactly that -- the Sacrament of Reconciliation, aka: Penance, Confession. I've even seen this as a public ceremony -- a returning Catholic who was given absolution as part of the Easter Vigil (the confession was private and had been made earlier.) Since the most ancient disciplines of Lent are associated with the already baptised repenting and returning to the Church, this actually works pretty well liturgically. > If the infant baptism was worth all > it is made out to be, I wouldn't have waited 26 years to know and obey > Jesus. I do believe that if I died during my years of rebellion (14-21) > I would not be saved any more by the baptism my parents gave me, than my > "good works" or my lucky rabbits foot. Perhaps it is just a personal > problem on my part. Or, those of us folks who believe in the real effects of Grace would argue that the effect of Baptism (cleansing from Original Sin) was what brought you back to Faith. As for your theoretical damnation -- lots of teenagers are a real pain in the neck to their parents during adolescence, and yet the parents do not forsake their children -- did your parents disown you between 14 and 21? "If you, with all your sins, know how to give your children good things, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him." (Lk 11:13) cathy :-) -- Cathy Fasano, aka: Cathy Johnston, cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu, fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu "If there's no solution, then it isn't a problem." -- Evening Shade
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.9.03.53.44.1991.5684@athos.rutgers.edu> benning@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes:
If I may clairify my position. I do believe in baptism. My gripe is that
when I became a believer, I rejoined the Church my parents went to. It is
a Methodist Church. I wanted to be baptised as a sign to everyone that I
was born again, and that I was commiting my life to G-d through our Lord
Jesus and the new life he gave me. But they said "Your parents baptised
you when you were a child, so we can't perform the baptism again." Three
times I begged them to allow me this opportunity, but each time I was
lovingly denied. That is my gripe. If the infant baptism was worth all
it is made out to be, I wouldn't have waited 26 years to know and obey
Jesus. I do believe that if I died during my years of rebellion (14-21)
I would not be saved any more by the baptism my parents gave me, than my
"good works" or my lucky rabbits foot. Perhaps it is just a personal
problem on my part.
They were right in not baptizing you again; it has to do with Church
history. The decision was made in the early Church that baptism cannot
be repeated. I will just give a little info on this:
There was a controversy in the early Church around the mid 3rd century.
Two of the major contenders were St. Cyprian, an African bishop, and
Pope St. Stephen. The problem at that time was what to do with people
converting from heresy, etc., who had already been baptized. Were they
to be baptized again? The decision of St. Stephen was: "Let them
innovate in nothing, but keep the traditions."
By the way, there is also evidence that infant baptism has been
practiced from early times.
[I've seen suggestions (I can't find a reference) that rebaptism was
practiced when someone converted from groups that did not believe in
the Trinity, presumably because of the requirement for baptism in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's frustrating not to
find details, but as I recall, Arians were (sometimes?) rebaptized.
--clh]jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (04/21/91)
In article <Apr.10.04.10.13.1991.10969@athos.rutgers.edu> 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.edutom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.21.02.15.29.1991.19768@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: > >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. ... 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 need of saving grace. And you cannot say that the infant is "innocent," for the Bible teaches us that the wicked "are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." (Ps. 58:3) 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 Abraham, believers and their children were included in the covenant by virtue of the faith of the father. The covenant was between God and Abraham, along with his children (Gen. 17:10). Now, from the New Testament we now that all those who believe in Christ are the children of Abraham because we share the faith of Abraham (Gal. 3:7). Since we share in the faith and blessings of Abraham, does it not make sense that our children also share in those blessings? As Peter told the crowd, "For the promises are to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off." (Acts 2:39). There are several instances where entire households were baptized as a result of the faith of the head of the house (Acts 16:15,33; 18:8) We are told that the children of even one believing parent are "made holy" instead of being "unclean." (I Cor. 7:14) Why would Paul tell the Corinthian believers that their children need to be "made holy?" And if our children also share in the blessings of Abraham, should they not receive the sign of the covenant? If there is a covenant, should their not be a sign of identification? It would seem from the NT that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Identification with the covenant community comes about when one is baptized. As we are told in Colossians 2, spiritual circumcision is closely related to spiritual baptism. Those who have truly believed have experienced the circumcision of the foreskin of the heart (Deut. 10:16), and have received the washing of the Spirit (cf. Ezekiel 36:26). And water baptism is the outward sign of the inner reality of "Christ in you." The need many folks have for something short of baptism for their children is evident by the number of churches that engage in infant "dedication." This is a quaint practice unsupported by the Scriptures, esp. the NT. It is loosely based on the "dedication" of some OT saints such as Samuel by his mother Hannah, but has significant differences. (For instance, how many Christians who dedicate their children leave them at the Temple?) For many Christians infant baptism remains the most appropriate means by which we acknowledge that our children are blessed by God because of our faith, and that the New Covenant is between God and our families. In this we totally identify with our father Abraham. -- Tom Albrecht
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.23.30.14.1991.11109@athos.rutgers.edu> 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.edutblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/02/91)
In article <Apr.28.18.15.44.1991.20093@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >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. I believe you're reading a bit too much into Paul, (but many people do, [even me ;-)]). Paul it seems to me thought that the second coming was right around the corner, and that Marriage would serve only as a distraction. He also made it quite clear that it was *his opinion* that people were better off to not marry. I certainly don't believe that Paul had anything against children, (as you seem to imply). >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. I'll go along with you there. >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. While I think that your comparison of Religion to Marketting is crass, I'll agree with you to an extent. I don't however feel that what an individual wants to believe and what his/her church teaches are one in the same. Personally, I can't imagine God keeping Mahatma Ghandi out of Heaven because he wasn't a Christian. He did have great respect for the teachings of Christ, and I would say he led a holy life. I'm constantly trying to get Ghandi into heaven on a technicality. Many people disagree with me, personally, I'd like a chance to meet the great soul himself, (now if I can only get *myself* into Heaven on a technicality ;-). Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton