[metmom]

Because the argument was that baptism saves, not that lack of baptism condemns.

What an epic fail......

If one weren't condemned, then one wouldn't need saving, couldn't be saved, now would one?

Being *saved*, by default implies being in a condition that needs remedy.

If I'm not condemned, then I don't need saving.

Now, about that logic stuff.......

[annalex]

About that logic: Christ tells you: if you (plural, “every creature”) have A and B you (plural) will be saved, and if you (plural) have no A you (plural) will be condemned.

So if you have A but no B, there is no rule. One of you may or may not be saved. One of you may or may not be condemned. There is no general rule.

So therefore A+B are sufficient for salvation and A is necessary but not sufficient: we are not saved by faith alone even though faith is necessary.

This is why people of other faiths MAY be saved if they cling to righteousness; Baptized people of Catholic faith are guaranteed salvation so long as they remain of Catholic faith. You, personally, may be saved by your works of faith, but since you expend so much energy slandering the Catholic Faith I hope someone else sees your good works, for I on this forum can’t.