I'm not saying you don't have to be baptized, jo kus. I'm saying you need to be a believer and then be baptized. The bible itself says to believe and be baptized. By itself, it doesn't get you into heaven if you aren't a believer. Simple enough? I'm not being arrogant, my dear. You need to read what I said more carefully. It's a command from God to BELIEVE and BE BAPTIZED--not as an infant but as one who understands what baptism really means. I was baptized as an infant and once again, immersed in water, as a believer. When you are immersed in water, your sins are washed away but you MUST be a believer. You can't just go through it as a rite and think you've made it.
No, I do not remember Ratzinger. I do not feel I am incorrect. This is the way most protestants feel about it, at least the evangelical ones.
Perhaps God comes to you through baptism but you HAVE to be a believer in order for that to happen. He doesn't come to just anyone or everyone. JUST THE BELIEVERS! He does not give universal forgiveness of sins just because you once got baptized as a baby.
"I'm not saying you don't have to be baptized, jo kus. I'm saying you need to be a believer and then be baptized."
OK. Perhaps I misunderstood all the other posts where you mention that Baptism is not necessary, but only faith is Jesus is necessary.
Correct me if I am wrong. Are you then in disagreement with those Christians who baptize infants, then? So baptism IS necessary?
OK. Infant baptism. Let's look to the Scriptures first, since we both agree on them.
Jesus says "Leave the children alone, and don't try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this" Mt19:14
I don't find anything where Jesus says that infants are NOT to be baptized. In the Acts, there are several times where whole families are baptized. This COULD include infants, but it doesn't say one way or the other.
Since the Bible does not say specifically one way or the other (although Jesus hints at it - isn't Baptism how we come to Him?), we must look at comparison. Paul compares circumcision to baptism. Both are rites that bring people into the People of God, Israel. Paul certainly recognized this, being a former devout Jew. He knew, too, that infants were circumcised. The Lord Himself was circumcised at 8 days. As a result, He was considered a child of God, a member of His people. The sign of circumcision from Abraham's time up to the time of Christ. Why did the Jews conduct circumcision when the child didn't believe in God yet? The parents stood in proxy for the child's as yet undeveloped faith. It was understood that the child would be raised in the faith (as Catholic babies are, as well).
Circumcision was the precedent for infant baptism. And if you read the writings of some of the earliest Christians, you will see that at LEAST before 200 AD, they were baptizing infants. This is a practice that goes back to the first Christians.
"Perhaps God comes to you through baptism but you HAVE to be a believer in order for that to happen"
I don't agree. You are depending on a work to bring God to your heart. The Spirit blows where He will. "You can do no good without Me" Jesus says. God is somehow mysteriously present to all, (His graces rain on all, good and evil alike - or if you prefer the parable of the sower of the seed - his word falls on ALL ground) allowing them to do good IF they submit to His unknown presence. Again, Romans 2:14-16 clearly shows that God writes His Laws on even the Gentile's heart. Baptism is not required for the Spirit to come. However, it IS required to become an heir of Christ, a child of the Kingdom. We normally can only enter the Kingdom of Heaven through water and the Spirit.
"He does not give universal forgiveness of sins just because you once got baptized as a baby."
Does it scandalize you that God gives a gift freely? Does one have to earn a gift first?
Brother in Christ