RE: [asa] Infant Baptism and Original Sin

From: John Walley <>
Date: Fri Mar 14 2008 - 08:23:00 EDT

IMHO, this discussion proves my point. Infant baptism (or not) is indeed an
important doctrinal issue in the church and I understand all the arguments
for and against it and what they imply and what they stand for. But this
shows that there are allowable differences of opinion within the church on
the issue and that it is at least possible to approach a reasonable position
on it that the majority of the church would agree with, thus the value of a
But whatever we choose to believe on infant baptism has little effect on the
world and what they think of us as opposed to YEC and other science-denial
beliefs. On these we have a higher standard to meet other than just the
bonds of peace within the body. We have to make sure we are reflecting
honesty, integrity and reality in our arguments to unbelievers and not
putting a stumbling block in front of them. So even more of a need for a

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 7:46 AM
Subject: [asa] Infant Baptism and Original Sin

Even more fundamentally, it touches on the very nature of original sin, and
whether sin is something inherited semi-biologically, whether it's something
acquired only after exposure to the truth by someone who is accountable for
his actions, or possibly some combination of the two. Which leads to how a
person comes to acquire original and actual sin; through biological or
social processes or both. Which can certainly influence one's range of
explanations for Adam and the origin of original sin.
I just read the interesting discourse which touched on this question,
between John A. McIntyre's "The Real Adam and Original Sin" and his critics
in the PSCF, June 2006 (
I think McIntyre has some good points, as do his critics. Note that Perry
Yoder's response has an incorrect link, it should be In particular on this
subject, Yoder responds,
"The abandonment of inherited sin, from my Mennonite tradition, causes
little difficulty. In this tradition, children are held to be in a state of
innocence until they come to the age of accountability. That is, children
are innocent until they themselves become responsible for their own choices
to do wrong. There is no "original sin" for which they need cleansing by
baptism as infants. Sin may be inevitable, part of the human condition, but
it is not logically necessary, imposed upon them, so to speak, through no
fault of their own."
Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 6:08 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Why couldn't you write your d*mn book more clearly?

I realize that this could take the discussion well out of the
science-religion area but it's already going that way.
Infant baptism is not an "obscure, internal doctrinal issue." What is at
issue is not just a procedural question about the best time to administer
baptism about about whether or not the baptism of an infant is valid. This
touches upon essential matters such as whether or not a person is a member
of the church.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Mar 14 08:24:26 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 14 2008 - 08:24:26 EDT