Why does it matter? Sola scriptura, friend, makes you the pope and the church all in one!
Even though I think I've heard of that before, I always think that is an interesting comparison
The only comparison between Jewish circumcision and Baptism is that both represent a covenant with God. The people were not sure if the number of days used by the Jews was significant or not. That's why they asked if it had to be on day 8 after the birth. But, as usual, Christianity is but a pale reflection of Judaism, which is evident from St. Justin Martyr's dismissal.
I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world
That would imply the pre-existance of souls, which is a Gnostic belief -- of which St. Paul has been suspect, at least in his earlier beliefs.
I would say the elect are the elect whether or not they have been baptized or even said the sinner's prayer
Baptism is one Sacrament that is recognized by all Christian assemblies as an absolute necessity to be Christian. Those who are not in the Church usually consider it a nominalist symbol, just like the breaking of the bread. Those who are not Christian can indeed be God's elect, but anyone, believer or not, who is not in covenant with Christ is not a Christian.
Even while holding my current beliefs, I sanctioned both of my [then] infant children being baptized in other churches for family reasons...They have both since been baptized as believers
Anabaptism (which is what you did) was considered vehement heresy by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and especially by the Reformed movements. You need to read up on Anabaptists, who were eventually destroyed -- especially by the Lutherans. It all goes back to the understanding of baptism as a Sacrament and not a mere ritual.
One thing however, that was amazing is that Anabaptists were way ahead of their times in terms in some ways. They were the founders of pacifism, believing in non-violence and opposing war. In fact, in Germany in the 16th century it was said that if a man does not drink excessively, and does not abuse his family and servants, he is probably an Anabaptist!
"Believe" comes first, just as in Matthew, plus notice the clear implication that not being baptized does not equal condemnation
Baptism is for the remission of sins. What St. Mark is saying is that whoever is baptized and believes will be saved. Therefore it is not enough to just believe (sola fide is not enough). Those who do not believe, even if they are baptized, will not be saved. So, baptism and faith go hand in hand; but those who are baptized and cannot believe (infants) are not condemned because it is not their fault.
Acts 18:8 : Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized
Entire household includes children/infants. Those who believe but are not baptized will want to be baptized. That does not mean infants cannot be baptized. Christ did not say baptize only those who believe.
I have also noticed your comments that baptism is good only until the next sin. That's why we have confession/repentance and communion -- it's a renewal of our state of being baptized because we certainly do not keep it holy and clean.
Not this born again Bible believer.
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
A man old enough to be the ruler of the synagogue wouldn't have infants!!!!
KOSTA: That would imply the pre-existance of souls, which is a Gnostic belief -- of which St. Paul has been suspect, at least in his earlier beliefs.
No, that more than implies, that declares that God ordains from eternity who are His and whom He will save by His grace through giving faith in Jesus Christ.
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" -- Ephesians 1:4-5"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:10
And this is at least the second time on this forum you've maligned Paul as some kind of "gnostic."
I guess when you relegate Scripture to second place, especially when that Scripture doesn't fit your Platonic perspectives, it's easier to toss claims of gnosticism onto the head of perhaps the greatest Apostle God created.
Thankfully, he surmounted worse insults in preaching the word of God.
And thus, by the grace of God, Paul turned West.
So you don't consider Presbyterians to even be Christians?
Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 28. V. " V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
If the truth of Sola Scriptura makes me a pope, then you should really listen to me more. :)
[Pope Forest I:] "I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world."
That would imply the pre-existance of souls, which is a Gnostic belief -- of which St. Paul has been suspect, at least in his earlier beliefs.
I just said what I meant, as plainly as I could. God's elect are ordained from the beginning. Dr. E. then kindly fully backed that up with scripture in her 6554 .
Why do you have so much antipathy toward Paul? Is it because he argues against so many of your personal beliefs?
Baptism is one Sacrament that is recognized by all Christian assemblies as an absolute necessity to be Christian.
You know very well that's not true. Many Christians do not define their Christianity by the deeds they do to earn it. These Christians hold that their Christianity is centered on their belief in Christ.
Anabaptism (which is what you did) was considered vehement heresy by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and especially by the Reformed movements. You need to read up on Anabaptists, who were eventually destroyed -- especially by the Lutherans.
I can live with that! :) I can understand the view of the Catholics and Orthodox, perhaps because of the Anabaptists' view, like mine, that there are no salvational effects in baptism. From what I know of the Anabaptists, they were pretty openly hostile to RC baptism after the Reformation, and all of their members had to be re-baptized. Perhaps this brought some wrath upon them. :) But I don't have any such hostility about it. Let's face it, I doubt a true Anabaptist of the time would have allowed what I allowed with my own children, given my beliefs at the time.
Baptism is for the remission of sins. What St. Mark is saying is that whoever is baptized and believes will be saved. Therefore it is not enough to just believe (sola fide is not enough). Those who do not believe, even if they are baptized, will not be saved.
Well, of course I do believe that sola fide is enough. If Baptism is for the remission of sins, and future sins have to be dealt with by a priest, then what did Christ do for us exactly? I "think" your view is that Baptism wipes out the problem of "original sin", and I would say that is taken care of, except for the remnant, at the point of belief.
In your view, what exactly happens at the point of belief? I mean, I would use verses like 2 Cor. 5:17 and apply that to the point of belief, and you appear to say that it would be describing Baptism. Surely, there are people who "go through the motions" in all churches, but are not truly believers. Surely there are people who take the sacraments regularly who are not truly believers. Is there any change that occurs in the new believer? Sometimes, it just seems like the sacraments get most of the emphasis, and belief itself sort of takes a back seat.
Those who believe but are not baptized will want to be baptized. That does not mean infants cannot be baptized. Christ did not say baptize only those who believe.
Christ does not say so explicitly, but neither does He say TO baptize infants. "Household" is an ambiguous term, and this verse (Acts 18:8) says that the whole household BELIEVED. Infants cannot believe. Nevertheless, it is a fair matter of debate. But I do agree with you that any true believer will want to be baptized if he has not already been baptized. I see it as an obedience, and a true believer wants to obey.