Well, if redemption is a two-step process, and neither step involves belief, then how does a believer who is never baptized in his entire life go to heaven? I know there are special dispensations for such things as the pygmy problem, but there are tons of Christians out there who do not believe baptism is salvational, and are never baptized. Do you think God makes that many exceptions, or are most of them lost BECAUSE their sins were never remitted through a proxy baptism?
BTW, what church was John the Baptist a part of when he did his baptisms? How does the Church now get credit for effecting the work of Jesus on the cross? How could JTB effect work that hadn't been done yet?
It is by Baptism, when the believer takes on, in faith, the works of Christ into his heart.
Except this rarely happens in practice, right? In normal practice there is no believer, there is no faith, and there is no "taking" into the heart. These are supplied on the side, and are wholly apart from the baptizee. It seems an odd situation for something so important to take place.
The Spirit worked within Paul, prompting him to believe in Christ and to accept Baptism. It is only with his Baptism does Paul's sins become remitted. Thus, we personally are saved through Baptism, normally.
And by "personally saved", you mean unto that person is no longer saved.
A person is not formally Christian if he is not baptized, ESPECIALLY if he is aware of it! This person is rejecting what is clearly in Sacred Scriptures - that baptism remits sins and brings us into contact with the Paschal Mystery of Christ's Redemptive Work. Of course, I do not judge what God will do with such people. But one wonders why they are not baptized...
Do you think God makes that many exceptions, or are most of them lost BECAUSE their sins were never remitted through a proxy baptism?
I don't know if there is a proxy baptism for an adult. That is reserved for infants, although Paul talks about baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians. Not sure what he means except applying Christ's work to the already dead. I don't think Christianity has accepted this as doctrine, although there it is...
BTW, what church was John the Baptist a part of when he did his baptisms? How does the Church now get credit for effecting the work of Jesus on the cross? How could JTB effect work that hadn't been done yet?
The same Church that believing and faithful Jews of the OT and Christians of the NT and subsequent later Christians are part of. There always has been only one Church, when broadly defined as the People of God. This Church is catholic (not Roman!) in that it is universal. The Jews were the visible manifestation of this in the OT, and the Catholic Church is the visible manifestation of it now - although there are many sheep outside its visible doors.
Except this rarely happens in practice, right? In normal practice there is no believer, there is no faith, and there is no "taking" into the heart. These are supplied on the side, and are wholly apart from the baptizee. It seems an odd situation for something so important to take place.
That's where we have Confirmation, which is normally a teenager "confirming" the sacrament of Baptism under his own volitional desires. The graces received are strengthened, but no new mark is placed on the Christian.
And by "personally saved", you mean unto that person is no longer saved.
Not sure what that means...
Regards
The Johannine baptism was not the same as the baptism onto remission of sins that Christian churches perform. The confusion between the two was anathemized by Trent.
Canons On BaptismCanon 1. If anyone says that the baptism of John had the same effect as the baptism of Christ,[8] let him be anathema.