Regardless, however, it is incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of modern textual critics regard Mark 16:9-20 as definitively an interpolation. There are also several other New Testament passages which are either probably or almost certainly interpolations, such as the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11). As such, I believe my point stands–that slight emendation of the text consistent with Apostolic Tradition was not taboo, and thus the present Protestant Bible did not simply fall out of the sky, but was carefully considered and compiled by an authoritative Church.

Not to say, of course, that the point would not stand even if ’twere incontrovertibly established that the Textus Receptus contains absolutely no emendations. The fact remains that the Church carefully defined the canon of Scripture in the first few centuries after Marcion, and this tangible authority is something notably absent from Protestant ecclesiology.

I just wish to make a brief objection to part of your statement, “There are several interpolations within even the canonical Scriptures (such as Mark 16:9-20, which appears in none of the earliest extant Mark manuscripts) that were later recognized by the Church as reflective of genuine Apostolic truth.”

Of all extant copies of Mark 16, only Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus do not contain Mark 16:9-20 (along with manuscript #304, a medieval manuscript which otherwise contains an unexceptional Byzantine text, with a running commentary). All the others, including Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Washingtonensis, and Codex Ephrem, and Codex Bezae, support the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20. So it is inaccurate to claim that “none of the earliest extant Mark manuscripts” contain Mark 16:9-20.

In addition, Codex Sinaiticus does not contain its original pages at the end of Mark (from 15:43 onward) and the beginning of Luke (1:1-1:56); its weight as a witness is slightly lessened as a result. And in Codex Vaticanus, the copyist left a unique prolonged blank space after Mark 16:8 — a blank space that included a fully blank column — as if he recollected that he had seen verses 9-20 in an exemplar other than the one from which he was copying.

Moreover, material from Mark 16:9-20 was utilized, in one way or another, by Justin Martyr (c. 160), Tatian (c. 172), the author of “Epistula Apostolorum” (c. 150), and Irenaeus (184). This very early patristic evidence should not be ignored.

Peace Be With You
Michael

“It is interesting that you constantly appeal to tradition when arguing with a person who does not hold tradition as valid for doctrine. ”

I’m not writing for your edification, even if you ARE the only person who ever comments.

It is quite frankly amazing to me that you are stubborn about Tradition, particularly with the Early Fathers. Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch were both personal disciples of the Apostle John, and personally knew several of the other Apostles. In fact, there is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that Ignatius as a child knew Christ.

And guess what? Their theology is extremely Orthodox. Hierarchical episcopal church structure, sacramental nature of baptism and Eucharist, everything. Both of them state for themselves that they were taught their doctrine directly by the Apostles.

If John, the beloved disciple, had told you that one had to be baptized to be saved, would you not believe him? Why, then, do you mistrust the statements of his own beloved disciples, both of whom gladly laid down their lives for the Christian faith?

And it doesn’t end there. The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, and indeed all other Apostolic-era documents attest to an Orthodox theological understanding. Surely it is not mere coincidence that such globally diverse Christian communities shared a very exactly common faith.

In the face of such firsthand, compelling evidence, there are really only three options for the Protestant to take:

1. Contend that every Christian taught by the Apostles had a theological understanding so flawed as to be well-nigh heretical (and, coincidentally, each one sharing the same theological understanding);

2. Contend for a relativistic understanding of Church history, asserting that the Early Fathers were correct *in their time* but that the Church has evolved beyond the need for its early, hierarchical doctrines, or;

3. Admit that the Early Fathers did indeed receive actual, correct, Apostolic doctrine, and that the Protestant worldview fundamentally misunderstands the Christian praxis.

“Baptism refers to an immersion into something, not specifically water. This is the first presupposition we must remove before we can argue this. By saying that baptism only refers in the Church to the ceremony of baptism in water, you rig the argument to end in your favor. By clear use of context, baptism refers only to an immersion into something for a brief period of time, and is used many times in the Bible to refer to something other than the ceremonial baptism in water.”

But only figuratively. No exegesis or scholarly work has ever seriously attempted to argue that “baptizo” is, on the whole, a reference to anything other than the Christian rite of baptism. The language and indeed the practice of the Church for two millennia attest to this. You’ll need more than a passing assertion if you expect your claim to stand.

“I’m getting very tired of these statements such as ‘this has been practiced since ancient times.’ Infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in the letters of the Apostles.”

Nor is adult-only baptism. Don’t be coy.

“It is always adults or accountable children who are baptized after they have been saved.”

Presumption unsupported by fact. Admittedly, infant baptism is equally without directly verbalized Scriptural support, but there is nothing denying it in principle.

“It is only several centuries after Christ that we start seeing infant baptism practiced.”

Incorrect. Polycarp of Smyrna states he was baptized as an infant. Justin Martyr, speaking of celibates, explicitly states that he knows people who have been celibate since their baptism as infants. Irenaeus in “Against Heresies” speak of infants baptized into Christ. All of these date from the early 2nd century A.D., and include sources that personally knew the Apostles and/or Christ.

“Icons and other traditions start almost half a millennia after Christ.”

Highly incorrect. The iconographic tradition, as an example, dates back to the earliest days of the Church. The catacomb churches contain Christian religious art dating back to at least the 2nd century A.D. During most of the 1st century, worship was held in houses or in synagogues. Most houses of that era would not survive two millennia, and the synagogues already had religious art in them (which comes as a surprise to most people unfamiliar with the rich tradition of Jewish religious art). As such, the presence of the earliest icons within the catacomb churches in no way means that Christian religious art was not practiced at an earlier date.

Veneration of relics can be dated back to the early 2nd century A.D., if not earlier, based on the martyrologies written by some of the churches at that time.

“In addition, mass baptisms such as the Phillipian Jailer’s family are certainly not evidence for this practice of infant baptism.”

Perhaps not, save by implication. Neither, however, can they be cited as proof against infant baptism.

“It is also hypocritical to practice infant baptism, as infants are not accountable to this seal of faith. Not only have innumerable men and women, baptized at birth, gone out and acted like the most detestable heathens imaginable, but it is never shown in records of early Christianity that baptism ever came before redeeming faith. Faith always came first. Then baptism.”

Show me the records of early Christianity that prove this. As I have just said, Polycarp, Justin, and Irenaeus all assert to the contrary, and there is no definitive evidence in the Scriptures to contradict them.

“This is an obvious fact that both the Orthodox and Catholics never seem to mention, because it clearly shows the tradition of infant baptism to be entirely useless and a waste of time.”

That some people depart from the faith of their fathers? In that case, teaching children the Scriptures, how to pray, etc., is “entirely useless and a waste of time,” since so many children brought up in Christian homes go on to become detestable heathens.

The efficacy of baptism is in no wise denied because of the failings of some of the baptized.

“The biggest problem with the Orthodox/Catholic traditional hierarchy is that if one tradition fails, the entire house of cards collapses. Infant baptism is by far one of the weakest ones of them all.”

Except there’s not a chink in the armour yet, Mr. “Infant Baptism Doesn’t Appear ‘Til Centuries After Christ.”

“Next, your conclusions from Jesus’ baptism read too much into these things. Christ, one of the Trinity, was being baptized. Not a simple believer. Obviously this would make His baptism rather special. You contradict yourself when you say that the Holy Ghost descends upon us when we’re baptized, and then turn around and defend the tradition of laying upon hands. Which is it?”

Both, to a degree. Orthodox doctrine would say that the Spirit purifies our souls in baptism and rests Pentecostally upon us in the laying on of hands.

“Christ’s baptism does not show baptism is necessary for salvation. On the contrary, if we use common sense, He shows that it is completely unnecessary in terms of salvation. Christ is the lord of the Universe and God Himself. You seem to imply Christ needed to be made righteous Himself by baptism. Preposterous. This passages shows that the ceremony was very special and important for the believer (and yes, a command from God) but it clearly shows that the ceremony did not save Jesus or bring him to righteousness. Jesus cannot be saved because He is God. He has no need to be saved.”

Christ was baptized “to FULFILL righteousness,” not to become righteous. Christ had no need to pray or to keep the Law, either, but He did so for the same reason He was baptized: to be a living example of the obedience of the righteous to the ordinances of God.

“Also, Jesus did not say baptism was necessary for salvation. He merely insisted that He be baptized by John, not that it was somehow necessary.”

That’s a feeble attack that deserves no reply. Christ wasn’t in the habit of doing or insisting on unnecessary things, last I checked.

“It is also strange, assuming that baptism is necessary for salvation, that Jesus, the savior of the universe, never baptized anybody. Ever. If it was necessary, why did he not baptize the adulteress? But he merely said “your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.””

Also feeble. Christ is never recorded singing a hymn, either. Yet it is universally acknowledged that hymning God with praise is an acceptable and noble method of worship. You’re second-guessing God.

“Jesus constantly put the emphasis on faith in God. Not in baptism or sacraments.”

You forget that He was a rather strong advocate of keeping the commandments and laws of God. Methinks your Protestantism is poisoning your memory.

“That was His stated “work of God.” This is a gross and contrived extrapolation for the purpose of enhancing your argument that defies any common sense concerning interpreting the Bible.”

The simple facts remain that 1) God was pleased when Christ was baptized, 2) The Spirit of God descended upon Christ only and immediately after His baptism, and 3) Christ insisted on being baptized. All three of these present serious ramifications as to the importance of baptism.

“You also don’t note the symbolic use of baptism by Christ Himself. In Luke, Christ Himself said (long after His ceremonial baptism had been completed) that He had a “baptism” to complete and was straightened until He accomplished it. This can be nothing but a reference to His Crucifixion, which is what saved us all. The baptism that Paul refers to is Christ’s Death and Crucifixion, His “baptism.””

Yes, His baptism in the blood of martyrdom.

“Not the ceremony done by John, the purpose of which was merely to glorify the Lord and declare His righteousness. (That’s what Christ’s ceremonial baptism accomplished. That’s how it’s used today.)”

You totally twist the passage to arrive at that interpretation. TOTALLY. If baptism glorifies God and declares His righteousness, WHY DID JOHN THINK CHRIST WAS BEYOND BAPTISM? John had no qualms about praising and glorifying God… if baptism was purely a way of glorifying the Lord, one would think he’d have jumped at the chance, ne? The explanation for his actual reaction is quite simple: Baptism is for the remission of sin, and hence, the sinless Christ was far beyond any need of baptism by John. Nevertheless, Christ insisted on it, as a sign that all men, no matter how righteous, need baptism.

“This symbolic use of “baptized into His death” makes perfect sense when we realize that the Crucifixion was Christ’s “baptism” into which we were also “baptized.” There’s no way we Christians also participated in Christ’s Death. That was His burden alone, put upon himself for us. None of us actually died when Christ was crucified. This is a symbolic passage.”

Exactly. Our baptism represents the death of the old man and the birth of the new. We are baptized into the saving blood of Christ’s death.

“The 1st Peter passage is so ridiculously taken out of context. Noah was not saved by water. Think! Go beyond what your eyes immediately read. The water is what killed everything on the face of the earth. Anybody in the water was drowned and dead. The ark is what saved Noah, not the water. The water was God’s judgment, which does NOT save. It condemns.”

Don’t argue with me, argue with Peter. He’s the one who said Noah was “saved through water.”

“This is the same with the Law. The Law never saved people. It condemned them. The only way to be saved by the Law was to follow it to the letter for one’s entire life, which is impossible for yoomans to do. ( ) Everyone righteous in both the Old Testament and the New Testament are united in their salvation neither by baptism, nor circumcision, nor keeping of temporary precepts and tradition, but by simple faith in God.”

Faith involves doing as God says. Your sola fide argument flops, since baptism is a commandment of God and therefore the faithful in Him will be baptized.

“To get back on point, try using some sense in reading Peter’s passage. Water did not save Noah. Noah was saved through (passing through) the water, ie, God’s judgment.”

The Greek for “through” is “dia,” which means “by means of.” The KJV renders it a bit more specifically and says Noah and Co. were “saved by water.” Therefore, sorry to burst your bubble, but Peter is saying that water saved Noah.

” By the way, Noah was not made righteous by going in the Ark. He’d already found faver in the sight of the Lord through his faith. He was saved from physical death in the Flood, not from spiritual death. More symbolism here. The ark was God’s grace. We were saved by Christ’s death, not by baptism. It is not “baptism doth now save us.” It is “baptism doth now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This is symbolically referring to Christ’s baptism on the Cross. Christ was baptized in the wrath of God for sin and took it all for us. The ark took all the wrath of the water for Noah.”

Your interpretation is flawed because the water saved Noah (according to Peter), but in addition to that, of course baptism saves us by Christ’s resurrection. Simply taking a bath doesn’t save our souls; it is the *sacramental* quality of the action that is efficacious for salvation.

“The ceremony Baptism is meant to symbolize and remember this fact and to glorify God. That’s it.”

Nope.

“Another note: antiupon is used in reference to a symbol. The Holy of Holies was a symbol and a glimpse of heaven, not heaven itself. This shows clearly that baptism is a symbol: a symbol of God’s death which saves us, not the saving itself.”

And yet the power of God was in the Holy of Holies, just as it is in baptism. Baptism prefigures our resurrection, but it is not the resurrection itself. It is, however, a nonetheless essentially spiritual and powerful act.

“The whole baptism is necessary for salvation thing is a holdover from a Judaic concept which Paul himself destroys utterly in Romans. They confuse a command of righteousness with the act of salvation itself. Just because everybody who is saved gets baptized does not mean baptism is necessary for salvation. It’s an ironic reversal of the “this first, so it must of caused this, which comes later” logical misconception. The newly converted Jews were still asking Paul: “well, isn’t circumcision necessary for salvation? Everyone who was ever righteous was circumcised!”

Which is actually not at all true. Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue” does an *excellent* job of proving why circumcision is unnecessary and how it is essentially different in quality from baptism. You should read it.

“All your quotes concerning the necessity of baptism are again interpreted already to suit your favor. You forget that people who suposedly believe and are supposedly saved by baptism aren’t actually saved. Baptism is a symbol. The actual salvation, as said consistently throughout the Old and New Testaments, is by faith in God. That is the remission of sins.”

Then why does the Scripture say that we should “be baptized for the remission of sins?”

“How do you know water is referring to baptism? There’s absolutely no contexual reason for such an interpretation. Baptism wasn’t even mentioned by Jesus in the conversation iwth Nicodemus, and God is not the author of confusion. “Whoops, I left that out, Nicodemus! Sorry! Forgot to clearly say that water = baptism, even though it cost you your soul. Sorry!” Water is used so many times in the Bible as a symbol for regeneration and rebirth. It is the same in all those other passages. John uses it many times himself.

More notes: Jesus also automatically assumes Nicodemus knows what he’s talking about. “Do you not know these things?” But the baptismal ceremony was completely alien to the Jews. God is not the author of confusion. Christ was not trying to confuse Nicodemus and twist words in some vague reference to a ceremony that he could not have comprehended and had not yet been implemented. These facts mean that Jesus simply COULD NOT have meant baptism when he said “born of water.” He was referring to something else already in the Judaic scriptures. This was a reference, which Nicodemus, being a Pharisee, very well knew, to Ezekiel 36:25, a prophetic verse referencing the Messiah and telling of the new covenent with God, using water as a symbol of the new birth. This was a very famous and well-known verse amongst the Jews, and would be recognized among them instantly.

“The requirements for salvation do not change. God has not switched the requirements of salvation in one era, then changed them again in another. It is always the same. This weird idea that the requirements of salvation have changed over the course of history is ludicrous and completely not of God. Everyone must be born again in order for him to receive salvation. This is a 絶対条件. None can escape it. Which means everyone who has ever been saved must have been born again in the same way. But waaaait, people received salvation from God thousands of years before baptism was initiated. Abraham did, and it is clearly stated that his faith in God is what saved him. What should we draw from this?”

You’re blowing smoke at this point. Confession of Christ is declared to be necessary for salvation, but Abraham never confessed Christ. The “requirement for salvation” has always been obedience in faith of God’s ordinances. The ordinances have changed from time to time, but the obedience has not.

“Consider: ‘What must I do to be saved?”

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, you and your entire household.””

Whoops! According to what you just said, everyone pre-Christ just got damned…

“Baptism said to be necessary for salvation? Uh, no. Asked him directly what was necessary for salvation and didn’t get baptism as a response. A big problem for your doctrine. It happens MANY times in the New Testament. Baptism is always symbolic of this faith.”

Belief involves faith in the saving power of baptism. Duh.

“If the ceremony of baptism is a commandment of God, but not necessary to salvation, then all the references to it in the Bible make sense.”

Except “baptism now saves you,” “be baptized for the remission of sins,” etc…

“Finally, “if you love me, keep my commandments” is also being misused. Keeping my commandments is obviously a part of faith. We all understand this. But it does not say keeping commandments is what saves us, which is where you err. Keeping commandments alone does not save us. People have kept commandments all their lives and still been condemned. The Bible is very clear about this. Faith is the root cause of it all. Faith is required. Faith is not only believing in God’s existence, but loving Him and keeping His commandments out of that faith, not in a hope that keeping them will save us. The law does not save us. Paul states this outright. Neither does baptism, which is also a commandment. It is an act of love done out of a desire to glorify God and declare your righteousness. God counts our actions if we do it out of love and faith instead of due to a begrudging requirement or an effort to earn one’s salvation.”

Precisely. Salvation is not forensic. However, one cannot love God without keeping His commandments. The two are inextricably entwined.

“Protestants still baptize people. The apostles still baptized people. Just because people mistake this interpretation and don’t baptize themselves (which is wrong. It is clearly a commandment from God, and most Protestants teach this.) means people are abusing it, not that the doctrine itself is wrong. However, merely because people transgress those commandments doesn’t mean they won’t receive salvation. A person who is not baptized is not condemned to hell.”

I’m unsure as to this. But I’ll let it slide.

“But you say, how can this be? My parents aren’t baptized, and yet they profess to be Christian. But a person who holds true faith will want to be baptized not because it is a command, or a requirement for salvation, but out of the love of God. It is emotional, not but it’s clear that even an unconfessed or ignorant transgression does not bring damnnation when one is saved. I’ve done transgressions in my life that I no doubt can’t remember and cannot confess to God, but I am still saved.”

Where there is no law, there is no sin. Having received the command to be baptized, however, and refusing baptism, is sinful.

“Salvation is not dependent upon man’s acts, but God’s grace alone. Once you understand this, even an unbaptized Christian can be forgiven and considered saved by a baptized Christian, though that state of not being baptized should not be acquiesced to. The baptized Christian should urge the unbaptized to be baptized, not out of requirement or fear of damnation, but out of a true desire to express one’s love for God and one’s righteousness.”

Well-put. That doesn’t refute the necessity thereof, unfortunately for you.

Secondly, a quote from a Church father is not the foundation to base a doctrine on. Show me a quote from Christ himself, the Apostles, or the Scriptures that states that baptism saves us. It is interesting that you constantly appeal to tradition when arguing with a person who does not hold tradition as valid for doctrine.

Baptism refers to an immersion into something, not specifically water. This is the first presupposition we must remove before we can argue this. By saying that baptism only refers in the Church to the ceremony of baptism in water, you rig the argument to end in your favor. By clear use of context, baptism refers only to an immersion into something for a brief period of time, and is used many times in the Bible to refer to something other than the ceremonial baptism in water.

I’m getting very tired of these statements such as ‘this has been practiced since ancient times.’ Infant baptism is nowhere mentioned in the letters of the Apostles. It is always adults or accountable children who are baptized after they have been saved. It is only several centuries after Christ that we start seeing infant baptism practiced. Icons and other traditions start almost half a millennia after Christ. In addition, mass baptisms such as the Phillipian Jailer’s family are certainly not evidence for this practice of infant baptism.

It is also hypocritical to practice infant baptism, as infants are not accountable to this seal of faith. Not only have innumerable men and women, baptized at birth, gone out and acted like the most detestable heathens imaginable, but it is never shown in records of early Christianity that baptism ever came before redeeming faith. Faith always came first. Then baptism. This is an obvious fact that both the Orthodox and Catholics never seem to mention, because it clearly shows the tradition of infant baptism to be entirely useless and a waste of time. The biggest problem with the Orthodox/Catholic traditional hierarchy is that if one tradition fails, the entire house of cards collapses. Infant baptism is by far one of the weakest ones of them all.

Next, your conclusions from Jesus’ baptism read too much into these things. Christ, one of the Trinity, was being baptized. Not a simple believer. Obviously this would make His baptism rather special. You contradict yourself when you say that the Holy Ghost descends upon us when we’re baptized, and then turn around and defend the tradition of laying upon hands. Which is it?

Christ’s baptism does not show baptism is necessary for salvation. On the contrary, if we use common sense, He shows that it is completely unnecessary in terms of salvation. Christ is the lord of the Universe and God Himself. You seem to imply Christ needed to be made righteous Himself by baptism. Preposterous. This passages shows that the ceremony was very special and important for the believer (and yes, a command from God) but it clearly shows that the ceremony did not save Jesus or bring him to righteousness. Jesus cannot be saved because He is God. He has no need to be saved.

Also, Jesus did not say baptism was necessary for salvation. He merely insisted that He be baptized by John, not that it was somehow necessary. It is also strange, assuming that baptism is necessary for salvation, that Jesus, the savior of the universe, never baptized anybody. Ever. If it was necessary, why did he not baptize the adulteress? But he merely said “your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more.” Jesus constantly put the emphasis on faith in God. Not in baptism or sacraments. That was His stated “work of God.” This is a gross and contrived extrapolation for the purpose of enhancing your argument that defies any common sense concerning interpreting the Bible.

You also don’t note the symbolic use of baptism by Christ Himself. In Luke, Christ Himself said (long after His ceremonial baptism had been completed) that He had a “baptism” to complete and was straightened until He accomplished it. This can be nothing but a reference to His Crucifixion, which is what saved us all. The baptism that Paul refers to is Christ’s Death and Crucifixion, His “baptism.” Not the ceremony done by John, the purpose of which was merely to glorify the Lord and declare His righteousness. (That’s what Christ’s ceremonial baptism accomplished. That’s how it’s used today.)

This symbolic use of “baptized into His death” makes perfect sense when we realize that the Crucifixion was Christ’s “baptism” into which we were also “baptized.” There’s no way we Christians also participated in Christ’s Death. That was His burden alone, put upon himself for us. None of us actually died when Christ was crucified. This is a symbolic passage.

The 1st Peter passage is so ridiculously taken out of context. Noah was not saved by water. Think! Go beyond what your eyes immediately read. The water is what killed everything on the face of the earth. Anybody in the water was drowned and dead. The ark is what saved Noah, not the water. The water was God’s judgment, which does NOT save. It condemns. This is the same with the Law. The Law never saved people. It condemned them. The only way to be saved by the Law was to follow it to the letter for one’s entire life, which is impossible for yoomans to do. ( ) Everyone righteous in both the Old Testament and the New Testament are united in their salvation neither by baptism, nor circumcision, nor keeping of temporary precepts and tradition, but by simple faith in God.

To get back on point, try using some sense in reading Peter’s passage. Water did not save Noah. Noah was saved through (passing through) the water, ie, God’s judgment. By the way, Noah was not made righteous by going in the Ark. He’d already found faver in the sight of the Lord through his faith. He was saved from physical death in the Flood, not from spiritual death. More symbolism here. The ark was God’s grace. We were saved by Christ’s death, not by baptism. It is not “baptism doth now save us.” It is “baptism doth now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This is symbolically referring to Christ’s baptism on the Cross. Christ was baptized in the wrath of God for sin and took it all for us. The ark took all the wrath of the water for Noah. The ceremony Baptism is meant to symbolize and remember this fact and to glorify God. That’s it.

Another note: antiupon is used in reference to a symbol. The Holy of Holies was a symbol and a glimpse of heaven, not heaven itself. This shows clearly that baptism is a symbol: a symbol of God’s death which saves us, not the saving itself.

The whole baptism is necessary for salvation thing is a holdover from a Judaic concept which Paul himself destroys utterly in Romans. They confuse a command of righteousness with the act of salvation itself. Just because everybody who is saved gets baptized does not mean baptism is necessary for salvation. It’s an ironic reversal of the “this first, so it must of caused this, which comes later” logical misconception. The newly converted Jews were still asking Paul: “well, isn’t circumcision necessary for salvation? Everyone who was ever righteous was circumcised! That means we must be circumcised or we’re not saved! Hurry! Let’s circumcize everybody!”

Paul shakes his head and points directly to Abraham, the father of the Jews. He explicitly states in Romans that *gasp* contrary to thousands of years of Judaic tradition and theological thought, circumcision never saved anybody. Ever. Abraham, the father of the Jews, was saved and declared righteous before he was circumcised. This little passage had lay quietly in the Pentateuch for thousands of years completely ignored by dogmatic Jews. They did not have the wits to see that circumcision was a seal, a sign of righteouness before the world, commanded by God to declare their righteousness and glorify Him, but not necessary for salvation.

Circumcision and Baptism are eerily similar in both their functions and how they’re miconceptualized. Just as circumcision didn’t mean salvation, as millions of Jews throughout history were circumcised and turned wholly away from God to their destruction and damnation, so have people baptized, either at infancy or adulthood, never entered into salvation. If baptism cannot save infants, it cannot save anyone.

All your quotes concerning the necessity of baptism are again interpreted already to suit your favor. You forget that people who suposedly believe and are supposedly saved by baptism aren’t actually saved. Baptism is a symbol. The actual salvation, as said consistently throughout the Old and New Testaments, is by faith in God. That is the remission of sins.

How do you know water is referring to baptism? There’s absolutely no contexual reason for such an interpretation. Baptism wasn’t even mentioned by Jesus in the conversation iwth Nicodemus, and God is not the author of confusion. “Whoops, I left that out, Nicodemus! Sorry! Forgot to clearly say that water = baptism, even though it cost you your soul. Sorry!” Water is used so many times in the Bible as a symbol for regeneration and rebirth. It is the same in all those other passages. John uses it many times himself.

More notes: Jesus also automatically assumes Nicodemus knows what he’s talking about. “Do you not know these things?” But the baptismal ceremony was completely alien to the Jews. God is not the author of confusion. Christ was not trying to confuse Nicodemus and twist words in some vague reference to a ceremony that he could not have comprehended and had not yet been implemented. These facts mean that Jesus simply COULD NOT have meant baptism when he said “born of water.” He was referring to something else already in the Judaic scriptures. This was a reference, which Nicodemus, being a Pharisee, very well knew, to Ezekiel 36:25, a prophetic verse referencing the Messiah and telling of the new covenent with God, using water as a symbol of the new birth. This was a very famous and well-known verse amongst the Jews, and would be recognized among them instantly.

The requirements for salvation do not change. God has not switched the requirements of salvation in one era, then changed them again in another. It is always the same. This weird idea that the requirements of salvation have changed over the course of history is ludicrous and completely not of God. Everyone must be born again in order for him to receive salvation. This is a 絶対条件. None can escape it. Which means everyone who has ever been saved must have been born again in the same way. But waaaait, people received salvation from God thousands of years before baptism was initiated. Abraham did, and it is clearly stated that his faith in God is what saved him. What should we draw from this?

Consider: ‘What must I do to be saved?”
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, you and your entire household.”

Baptism said to be necessary for salvation? Uh, no. Asked him directly what was necessary for salvation and didn’t get baptism as a response. A big problem for your doctrine. It happens MANY times in the New Testament. Baptism is always symbolic of this faith.

If the ceremony of baptism is a commandment of God, but not necessary to salvation, then all the references to it in the Bible make sense.

Finally, “if you love me, keep my commandments” is also being misused. Keeping my commandments is obviously a part of faith. We all understand this. But it does not say keeping commandments is what saves us, which is where you err. Keeping commandments alone does not save us. People have kept commandments all their lives and still been condemned. The Bible is very clear about this. Faith is the root cause of it all. Faith is required. Faith is not only believing in God’s existence, but loving Him and keeping His commandments out of that faith, not in a hope that keeping them will save us. The law does not save us. Paul states this outright. Neither does baptism, which is also a commandment. It is an act of love done out of a desire to glorify God and declare your righteousness. God counts our actions if we do it out of love and faith instead of due to a begrudging requirement or an effort to earn one’s salvation.

Protestants still baptize people. The apostles still baptized people. Just because people mistake this interpretation and don’t baptize themselves (which is wrong. It is clearly a commandment from God, and most Protestants teach this.) means people are abusing it, not that the doctrine itself is wrong. However, merely because people transgress those commandments doesn’t mean they won’t receive salvation. A person who is not baptized is not condemned to hell.

But you say, how can this be? My parents aren’t baptized, and yet they profess to be Christian. But a person who holds true faith will want to be baptized not because it is a command, or a requirement for salvation, but out of the love of God. It is emotional, not but it’s clear that even an unconfessed or ignorant transgression does not bring damnnation when one is saved. I’ve done transgressions in my life that I no doubt can’t remember and cannot confess to God, but I am still saved.

Salvation is not dependent upon man’s acts, but God’s grace alone. Once you understand this, even an unbaptized Christian can be forgiven and considered saved by a baptized Christian, though that state of not being baptized should not be acquiesced to. The baptized Christian should urge the unbaptized to be baptized, not out of requirement or fear of damnation, but out of a true desire to express one’s love for God and one’s righteousness.

A grudging heart takes all the meaning out of ceremony.

I’m not going to respond to this, probably. I’ve been typing this for three hours.

Must…eat…something…