AD from SpringBay, Catholics have always believed that we are saved by faith, but not by faith alone. I take it you will agree that babies do not have faith. And presumably you know that babies have original sin from Adam, as Rom 5 teaches. (The denial of original sin is one of the errors of the Pelagian heresy). So, it follows that babies cannot be saved by faith alone. Nor can people (of any age) who are neurologically incapable of understanding the Gospel. But these can be saved through baptism, even though they don't understand or believe.
The sacraments are means of grace. Through baptism, our sins are washed away, and we are buried with Christ, and joined to His body, the Church. See post #1298 for verses supporting these claims. The early Church Fathers agreed that baptism should not be witheld from babies. That shows that they did not view baptism as merely symbolic (in the Gnostic way of viewing the sacraments, but rather as efficacious. (Even Anglicans, and Lutherans and Presbyterians agree with Catholics on this point.)
Regarding the thief on the cross and the necessity of baptism, James Akin has a helpful discussion here .
baptism is definitely not worthless.
Well, at least it is not worthless. (/sarcasm)
I highly recommend it to all the believers out there.
Why? It is just a symbol, right?
The resurrection of Jesus saves us,
If the resurrection of Jesus saves us, then do you believe everyone is saved (i.e. are you a universalist)?
You use the label Gnostic rather loosely since the original Gnostics believed that Jesus was somehow less than human and more spiritual than fleshly. You might want to brush up on your church history.
One does not need to believe every single thing the early Gnostics believed to be a Gnostic. Once you start comparing Gnosticism with historic Christianity, you will see how Gnostic you are. As Newman says, "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant". This is in large part because one discovers the difference between Gnosticism and Christianity.
We do need a church.
Which one? Or, will anything which calls itself a "church" do?
We do need to do what Jesus taught (though I don't recall Him using any sacraments).
You don't recall the institution of the eucharist, on the night in which he was betrayed, where He said "Take, and eat. This is my body"? You don't recall Him commissioning the disciplines to baptize all nations?
-A8
The church fathers is an interesting appeal. I guess you are the one who doesn't know what to do with the verses you brought up. As opposed to the writers of the Bible, the church fathers are who exactly? I'm guessing you have an approved list of people I am allowed to cite. I had a feeling we would end up here and this is where we may remain. Remember, I told you that I am one of those who view the Bible as the sole rule of faith. And so the fact that only believers are baptised in scriptures is not persuasive? All believers are in heaven. Not all those who are in heaven have been baptised. Not everyone who has been baptised is in heaven.
There is no precedent in scripture for the Bishop of Rome to exercise authority over any other church. There is the remaining question of how do you know when an utterance by Christ is literal or figurative? Who told you this? There is also the unanswered question of where, in scripture, is authority to only a few to understand scripture while the laymen shouldn't worry their pretty little heads. And speaking of scripture and understanding it, which is more authoritative - scripture or the writings of the church fathers?
Now to those church fathers - I may know some little something here, though probably not to your level. The writers known as the Apostolic Fathers, Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, and the Pastor of Hermas, all required faith on the part of the candidate to be baptised. The earliest clear evidence of infant baptism is found in Tertullian who opposed it (AD 185). The first direct evidence in favor of it is found in the writings of Cyprian, in the Council of Carthage, in Africa, AD 253. The early councils of "the" church were all against infant baptism. For example, the Council of Laodicaea held in 360 AD demanded that those who are to be baptized must learn the creed by heart and recite it. Many of the early, prominent, Christians were not baptised in infancy. This includes Eusebius, emperor Constantine, Ephrem Syrus, and the great Augustine. Basil the Great, born of Christian parents, was baptised when he was 26. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo-Regis in North Africa (AD 353-430) was not baptised in infancy, though he did defend it. But this history is only useful. It is not necessary with the previous examples of scripture where only believers are baptised. At the very least, can you admit that faith/belief is more important than baptism? And someday maybe we'll get back to that catechism which started our whole dialog?