My argument is that the remission of sins refers to the repentance, not the baptism. However, I can understand how you could take it the other way. Now, for further clarification, we look to different sources. You look to Tradition and I look to other scripture. If your hierarchy's position is correct then it appears that Peter and Paul had drastically different ideas about the meaning of Baptism:
1 Cor. 1:14-17 : 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel;not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
According to Paul, Christ DID NOT send him to baptize. So, Paul must have believed that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel and make believers who were all going to hell because their sins were not remitted? Somehow, I find this hard to believe. If Baptism is SOOOOO crucial to salvation, then how can Paul not even remember whether or when he had baptized?
If Paul held the Catholic view, then he purposely left hundreds or thousands of people dangling over hell because he did not want to risk their misunderstanding about in whose name to be baptized. No, Paul reasoned that it would be better to let them all walk around fully guilty in their sins before God, even though they were believers. I can't buy it. This makes no sense if baptism really means what your hierarchy says it does.
I find your disbelief concerting on this issue, as the Bible clearly points out that Baptism is THE point when we become children of God and enter into a relationship with the Lord.
Becoming a child of God is very important to me as well. I look to passages like this one for guidance:
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
God's children, those who are born of God, are NOT those who are baptized, they are those who believe in His name. This is being born again, to believe.
[continuing:] "For we are buried with him by baptism into death, that just as the Christ was raised up from the dead to the glory of the Father, likewise we also walk in newness of life." Romans 6:4
This supports baptism for the remission of sins??? Let's look at the very next verse:
Rom. 6:5 : If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.
So now we know that anyone who is baptized is saved and will rise to have eternal life in heaven. So much for cooperation, so much for free will, so much for sanctification, so much for the sacraments. I will admit this is a much easier ticket this way. :) OTOH, PERHAPS Paul is talking about the Baptism of the Spirit, which ONLY happens to believers.
FK: "... Paul says that he received the Gospel directly from Christ, not from any man, ..."
One could just as easily say that Paul's reception of the Gospel came from Christ through the Apostles. The Gospel, technically, is from God.
Yes, the Gospel is from God. We are talking about how Paul learned it. Let's see the actual passage:
Gal. 1:11-12 : 11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
That seems to cut out the other Apostles as sources for Paul's learning, does it not?
[FK on the assertion that Mary's sinlessness is not mentioned in the Bible because it was uncontroversial and everyone already knew it, therefore, no need to clarify with a mention in scripture:] "So everyone was SURE that Mary never sinned, but not everyone was sure about Jesus, such that Paul had to mention it??? Does that make sense?"
... I would think that Mary was the most popular Christian during the Apostolic Age, since she must have had a lot of stories to tell about Christ. I think people would know and respect her very highly. The sinless part probably comes after the first generation.
I have no problem with people respecting her highly, but "most popular". She sounds like she would have made a good Beatle. :) How could Mary possibly have been more popular among Christians than the Apostles themselves, who did all the teaching and preaching? If the sinless part came after the first generation, do you see any possibility for legend-building here?
There are many definitions of baptism in the NT, which is no small source of confusion. Baptism is, however, a remission of sins no matter how you look at it — whether it is "washing of" sins, "whether it is "dying and resurrecting" into a new life (covenant with God), whether it is justification and conversion (and talking in tongues) by the Spirit, whether it is by repentance (and absolution), whether it is simple "adoption" of the soul by God, etc. — in every case it is an act of God that is wholly independent of our intellect, maturity, worldly righteousness, or anything else that we are or can be, anything else that we do or can do, anything that we can think or wish. It is a will of God, a gift, that mysteriously (sacramentally) establishes our relationship with God. It is a mystery no matter how you look at it, and cannot earn it or "qualify" for it.
Just because we perform an act (immersion, pouring, reciting) does not of itself guarantee it, and it does not make it real or even manifest to our senses. We do not see the Spirit descending, we do not hear God's voice "through the clouds" a nd we do not get a "certificate" signed by God that now, indeed, with our act of repentance, washing, praying, etc. God has adopted us. We believe that God in His mercy does. So your repentance is no more a guarantee that God now accept you than the "empty" sacraments of the Apostolic Church because God is not subject to your intellectual acceptance (or rejection) of Him — God is the way He is whether we believe, disbelieve, know or don't know: He pardons whomever He wills.
So, the ceremonies, whether by water or by profession of Sinner's Prayer, are not "works" by which we earn or rate acceptance by God, but are mere petitions in good faith by the believers that He accept us. Obviously, faith in God is needed to make the petition to God, but it does not mean that a soul being baptized must also believe and profess Gospel; only those making that petition. We can petition God to accept and have mercy on any soul, whether intellectually mature or mentally handicapped.
Thus, we place our faith in the prayers of the Church as petitions of the faithful which does not require the soul being baptized to be intellectually mature. However, in your case, the Protestants place a precondition on God's ability to accept us, based on our intellectual maturity! Not only is God forced to wait for us to grow up, but is actually forced to wait for us to repent to give us a chance! Talk about making God subject to necessity!
So, when you look at things outside the box, you begin to see that your rituals and your tradition are exactly what you criticize in others, and then some.
"Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." [Rom 6:11]
Tell me, FK, are you dead to sin? Are you prepared to declare that you no longer sin? If not, then I say to you that you have not been saved, not yet anyway, because until you are dead to sin (theosis) and sin no more, you cannot be alive in Christ.
And if you are like most of us, you can only hope, by honestly cleaving to God as best as you can all your life, even if you honestly fail, that God will have mercy on us and save us in the end.
Being dead to sin does not require intellect or belief. Mentally retarded, infants and children are all dead to sin, without knowing or professing Jesus Christ as their God.
"How could Mary possibly have been more popular among Christians than the Apostles themselves, who did all the teaching and preaching? If the sinless part came after the first generation, do you see any possibility for legend-building here?"
___________________________
If Mary was indeed so much more than the vessel the LORD used to be among us why is no SCRIPTURE attributed to her?