2 places in scripture seem to indicate that baptism is NOT a requirement for salvation. Jesus said to the theif on the cross "today you shall be with me in paradise"
That is because the New Covenant and the Sacrament of Baptism as the entrance rite into the covenant [color:"FF0000"]WAS NOT INITIATED YET ! ! ! [/color] The thief on his cross was a circumcized member of the Old Covenant community. Therefore, he was already "in covenant with God" and simply had to repent (which he did with his statement of faith) and believe, returning to his covenantal vows of circumcision.
then in 1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.
Unbelievable. You rip a single verse out of context of the chapter and what St. Paul is saying and expect to make a whole doctrine of this. I am not trying to be nasty, but do you realize that this is what the JW's, Mormons, and a host of other cults do?
The great issue here which begins in verse 10 is the strife and divisions which were in the Corinthian parish. In verse 14 he goes on to state that he did indeed baptize some people, but the bigger picture is that he is trying to show that there should be no clannish arguments over who is of what sect of being baptized.
Furthermore, God has various jobs for various peoples. To say that St. Paul is not primarily concerned with baptism is not to say that baptism is not important -- it is to say that the primary calling of St. Paul was preaching. Baptism was given to others. And God had a purpose for doing that.
It doesn't fit that if baptism IS required for salvation, that Paul would then say: 'Christ didn't put me on a mission to baptize... my mission is to preach the Gospel-- that is the power of God unto Salvation...' ( my transliteration of that verse).
Sometimes I see baptism as less a 'ritual' and more of an internal action. The phrase 'buried with him in baptism' ( while some would use this as evidence of 'dunking, not sprinkling') speaks to me of my identification with his death , burial and ressurection.
No, baptism is much more than that. All human beings are members of Adam's family and are born separated from God by Adam's disobedience. God has initiated a rite by which we are adopted into the family of God. How then can one be saved if one insists upon remaining in the family of Adam rather than to enter the kingdom of God?
I even looked at the RCC, I loved their liturgy-- but realized I had sharp differences with them, and couldn't join with a clear conscience).
ever try a Byzantine Liturgy? Closest thing you will find to heaven on earth, especially the Christmas and Pascha Liturgy.
Baptism is intrinsically linked to salvation, but it is not a pre-requisite, or necessity. Either God saves alone, or God doesn't save at all. Outward baptism is an obediant response to his command.
Wrong. Look at the ordinance of circumcision in the Old Covenant. It truly made one a member of the kingdom of God. Are you saying that in the New Covenant, are you saying that baptism does less? Hardly.
Yet both of my children have been baptized by their Grandfather. I have stood before the congregation, and professed my faith in Christ, and claimed the promises of Christ for my children, until such time as they are old enough to claim them for themselves.
Well, see now, that is covenantal. Baptism makes one a member of the covenantal kingdom, but ulitmately, one must "confirm" that decision for themselves. The Jews had the ritual of Bar Mitzvah. The Church has the ritual of confirmation, a time when the baptized child takes for him/herself the oaths/sacntions of a covenant relationship with God.
