But I would add that <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">baptism is a work of God </span> that is necessary to salvation. Mark 16:16. <span style="background-color:#FF0000">Infants are saved through baptism</span>. Acts 2:38, 39.
However, <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">bringing an infant to baptism and administering baptism are human works</span> <span style="background-color:#FF0000">that do not save any child. </span>Eph. 2:8,9.
No, no, a 1000 times NO, Infants are NOT saved by baptism! They receive the covenant sign and seal through baptism! They become covenant members, not saved members! Grace ALONE, not grace + baptism.
They are saved when they are given faith whether before, in, or after baptism. But, according to your logic that would also violate grace ALONE, i.e., grace + faith.
Quote
You quote Mark 16:16, a verse for adults who can "believe" NOW, but infants believe LATER.
Why do you say Mark 16:16 is for adults only when the preceding verse says we are to preach to all creatures? God's command to preach and baptize applies to infants as the text clearly teaches.
Quote
Moreover, if you read the verse again and you will see it actually disproves what you assert;
Mark 16:16 (ASV) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.
Does the verse say he that believeth not and is not baptized shall be condemned, or merely he that believeth not?
It says faith and baptism are necessary to salvation. It says that lack of faith damns but not lack of baptism. No exceptions on account of age are given in the text.
Quote
The emphasis in verse 16 of the ending is not on baptism but on the exercise of faith [by an adult], exactly as in Matthew; cf. also John 3:16, 18, 36.
Again, there is nothing in the context of those verses that would exclude infants. Are you saying that adults are saved by exercising faith and that infants can not be saved through faith alone?
Quote
On the other hand, the [adult] who by God’s sovereign grace has surrendered himself to Christ will also gratefully accept the sacrament of baptism as a sign and seal ... baptism follows faith, as also in Acts 2:41; 16:31–34, and everywhere. (Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker)
What do surrendering one's self or accepting baptism have to do with salvation? How can you relate God's sovereign work of salvation as described in Mark 16:16 and similar verses with human works that save no one?
Quote
Now look above. You have TWO contradictory statements. Choose you this day? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
There is nothing contridictory about my statements. I carefully separate God's work in salvation from human works that contribute nothing to salvation.
Either be saved by grace only through faith only for the sake of Christ only or be saved by human works you equate with salvation (i.e., exercising faith, surrender, accepting baptism).
Quote
Why did not the thief on the cross get an emergency baptism? After all he was in the presence of the One who could walk on water. Certainly if it was all so essential that baptism had to be added to grace for salvation to be "true," Jesus would have baptized him. What example of emergency baptism do you find in the Bible?
The thief was denied baptism by the Roman soldiers just as believing and regenerate infants are denied emergency baptism by theologically-impaired Calvinists and Baptists.
The thief was saved through the preached word which is also necessary to salvation. Rom. 10:13-17. Examples of emergency (non-ministerial) baptism were provided by you in an earlier post.
Quote
How do you perform a baptism on a stillborn child, who never sees the light of day? Would you murder a mother to baptize a dying fetus?
There is no clear command to baptize the dead. I would not break one command (Thou shalt not kill) to obey another.
