Is Baptism Essential for Salvation into Heaven?

[Muffled]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

First of all, you are making an assumption about the thief that cannot be substantiated by the scriptures. There are plenty of baptized men and women in prison today. The thief may or may not have been baptized. More importantly, you are overlooking -- as most Christians do -- that vicarious baptism was being practiced in the ancient Church and that Paul used this fact as an argument in support of the Christian belief in the resurrection of us all.

The thief took an important first step towards salvation. The process was not complete without baptism.

Well, why don't you start by providing me with your evidence that they are one and the same. When you've done that, I'll give you mine to show that they aren't.

Even if what you say is true the baptism would have to have been by John the Baptist because baptism in the name of Jesus didn't happen until later.

And if you say that the Baptism of John is sufficient then why did Paul see it as otherwise when he met poeple who only had that baptism.

That doesn't mean that vicarious baptism was sanctioned by God only that man's idea was to practice it. (similar to infant baptism which is also man's idea)

How can you get more complete than being in Paradise?

This is off topic. If you have argued this before I would be happy to look at the thread.

[sojourner]

contrast this statement

I'd say that a child incapable of making the decision is incapable of participating in the community.

with this statement

A child can participate or not whether they've taken part in the sacrament or not. Any distinction between a baptized child and an unbaptized one is based on the choice to treat them differently, not on any inherent difference between them.

Wait! I thought you just said that a child incapable of making a decision is incapable of participating...

So far, I've seen religious opposition to same-sex marriage in every country where it's been enacted or suggested. Locally here in Canada, most of the loud objections to same-sex marriage came from the Catholic Church, which is the largest Christian denomination in the world, and in his open letter stating opposition to same-sex marriage, the Archbishop of Toronto cited Church principles that apparently apply worldwide.

the Pope has not soken ex cathedra on this matter, so I'd say he's just as fallible as anyone else. In this particular case, I disagree with him.

Are all the world's major religions expressions of divine truth?

And if so, is it really the best thing to raise a child to believe that all but one are not expressions of divine truth?

Teaching one religion exlusively does not imply that all other religions are seen as wrong.
Taekwondo does not negate Kendo.

I think if you looked at things from the other side, from the point of view of someone who holds to believer's baptism, you would see it as a question of whether a child "belongs to the Church" or "belongs to God" without an intermediary.

If one belongs to God, one belongs to the Church.

Maybe I didn't use the best terminology; the Mormons and Baptists claim their baptized members "Christian" in the same way... but you get my point, right?

No, I don't.

... if it's to be done. You still haven't demonstrate that it has to be done, though, IMO.

I never claimed that it had to be done.

most religions do, IMO.

IMO -- the best reason to refute your arguement. Your opinion draws a generality that does not, necessarily, exist.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

but it's not essential because you say we are all going back "from whence we came" anyhow....

The purpose of the Church isn't to get a ticket to heaven. The purpose of the Church is to provide a means of fellowship and ministry. The Church serves to reflect the kingdom of God in the physical world.

[sojourner]

(similar to infant baptism which is also man's idea)

Not in the way you imply. It's the Church's idea, which formulates doctrine covenantally. God and humanity working in concert for the benefit of all.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by sojourner

contrast this statement

with this statement

Wait! I thought you just said that a child incapable of making a decision is incapable of participating...

A babe-in-arms is incapable of participating in a religious community. As children get older, they gain more ability to participate... and with that, they gain the ability to refuse to participate in proportion to their ability to do so.

Originally Posted by sojourner

the Pope has not soken ex cathedra on this matter, so I'd say he's just as fallible as anyone else. In this particular case, I disagree with him.

And in the meantime, in practice, do you think that the Church allows its members to conduct themselves as they see fit? The Pope may not have spoken ex cathedra about same-sex marriage specifically, but what do you think would happen to the priest and lay members involved if a same-sex couple were married in a Catholic church?

Originally Posted by sojourner

Teaching one religion exlusively does not imply that all other religions are seen as wrong.

Well, that depends on the religion, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by sojourner

No, I don't.

My point is that in many religions generally and many Christian denominations specifically, a child can participate in the social and communal aspects without being formally declared a member or a believer. We can see that infant baptism is not necessary to create a community of faith, because there are many, many examples of communities of faith that don't use it.

Originally Posted by sojourner

I never claimed that it had to be done.

You've claimed that it should be done, and that it's a good thing to do.

Originally Posted by sojourner

IMO -- the best reason to refute your arguement. Your opinion draws a generality that does not, necessarily, exist.

Are you trying to imply that most religions do not portray themselves as the sole or best way to acheive some desired goal?

[sojourner]

A babe-in-arms is incapable of participating in a religious community.

Untrue! I've seen many, many babies participate fully in baptism, time and time again.

And in the meantime, in practice, do you think that the Church allows its members to conduct themselves as they see fit?

No, I don't. That's one reason why I'm not RC!

what do you think would happen to the priest and lay members involved if a same-sex couple were married in a Catholic church?

Benedict's head would explode? It's not my place to say. I only know what would happen in my own denomination.

Well, that depends on the religion, doesn't it?

I suppose. but it's certainly not inherent in Xy.

My point is that in many religions generally and many Christian denominations specifically, a child can participate in the social and communal aspects without being formally declared a member or a believer. We can see that infant baptism is not necessary to create a community of faith, because there are many, many examples of communities of faith that don't use it.

I will argue that there is more to Christian fellowship than simply the social and communal (as we normally think of that term) aspects. Christian fellowship is, by definition, the fellowship of believers, or followers. That, by definition, entails having been baptized.
I could argue that true Christian fellowship is not possible where all members are not formally baptized. But I think it depends upon the denomination and how they understand themselves. For those who espouse infant baptism, it is invaluable to Christian fellowship. and it's wrong for those who don't practice it to tell us that infant baptism is wrong, not valid, not real, not authorized, etc. It might not work for you, but it works for thousands of others.

You've claimed that it should be done, and that it's a good thing to do.

Which is a different claim than a claim of necessity.

Are you trying to imply that most religions do not portray themselves as the sole or best way to acheive some desired goal?

I'm implying that any given religion is best for the person who adheres to it.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by sojourner