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.
Precisely. Well-said.
at the point of belief
The important thing about a "point of belief" is that it is simply a moment in our growing awareness of the grace God has bestowed upon us through faith in Jesus Christ. It's what the Apostles urged one another to remember and proclaim, to preach Christ crucified and our salvation by the finished work of Christ.
But we were always His sheep. God has loved us, personally and specifically, from before the foundation of the world. He just chooses to let us in on it at a time of His good pleasure. 8~)