[MarMema]

Perhaps meaningful. I was thinking about it myself as I read through the thread, but then it's one of my favorite arguments against "no salvation for unbaptized infants".

[mike182d]

Perhaps meaningful. I was thinking about it myself as I read through the thread, but then it's one of my favorite arguments against "no salvation for unbaptized infants".

True, but that depends upon your understanding of baptism. The early Church believed in several forms of baptism: baptism by water, baptism by blood, and baptism by desire. Under persecution of the Roman Empire, there were Christians who would die before being baptised, but either were killed before they had a chance to or died as martyrs for the faith, professing their beliefs. While the theif of the cross was never "baptised" by water, he was being crucified. Given the early Church's understanding of baptism, it would have qualified as baptism by desire in the absence of a means of baptising him.