Either way, baptism being a requirement for heaven is the more hotly debated amongst theologies, and if you ascribe to it, you need to also allow for baptisms for the dead. Otherwise God guaranteed 99% of the people on Earth are doomed to go to hell.

from what i know of the bible, baptism is a requirement, as it is there to bury your sinful body, (i believe in adult baptism since babies aren't capable of choosing to follow god), so how can it be optional?

if you are reborn, and your old life is dead, shouldn't you bury your sinful body, to be clean?

https://biblehub.com/niv/romans/6.htm

The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized and Jesus said he would be in heaven with him

We are saved by our faith not our actions. However, our faith should inspire our actions

Baptism is important but I’m pretty sure it’s not Omni important as far as getting into heaven is concerned

do you have jesus telling you that you will be in heaven, as you are dying on a cross??

pretty sure he was the only one with that option

What about all the faithful Jews who kept God’s commandments before Jesus introduced baptism?

Naw I’m not on the cross right now

i am also basing it on this: acts 2 ``37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.``

pre jesus is pre new covenant

That last bit is logically consistent

I totally agree with the fact that baby baptisms don’t count

I don’t necessarily have an issue with them being done as long as the emphasis is put on the parents bringing up their child in a Christ centered fashion

there is also this to account for children: ``For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.`` from 1 Corinthians 7:14

basically they get a lease so to speak until adulthood

The children are His

That’s one the reasons why “real ghost stories” (Real as in really demonic) In which the ghosts are depicted as children are outright blasphemy.

@Nutz So no one kept the commandments of God Romans 3:20 (Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.) and so the real purpose of the law is proving us all that we fall short of God's standard.

@Legalize , @yuma_8 , @DJ_Anuz, @A. Spader How can anyone discuss baptism without bring Mathew 28
"19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[b] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”"
Or the way is told in the long ending of Mark
Mark 16
"15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. "
So baptism is an order from Christ and by what I believe you should choose to do it instead of being done to you after you are made a disciple (One who learned about Christ). I know even in evangelical tradition there is a split Lutherans for instance baptize children.
I can get behind the idea that baptism wash away your sins. The same way I believe that a prayer asking for God forgiveness wash away my sins. Existence of sin at the moment of our death is no standard for salvation. Believing in the one who can take your place in the day of the judgement is.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation – The Biblical Evidence
It is interesting to note that Jesus did not baptize. "The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but His disciples" (John 4:1-2). If water baptism were necessary for salvation, wouldn't Jesus have baptized? Jesus presented Himself to the Jews as their Messiah with signs and Messianic miracles, but He did not baptize them.

The Apostle Paul only baptized a few. "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel -- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" (1 Corinthians 1:13-17).

https://www.allaboutgod.com/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation.htm

Source for further reading and consideration

good lord look at all this

@Nutz Jesus couldn't have told the thief on the cross that he was entering heaven.

Christ's words were "today you will be with me in paradise." Christ didn't enter heaven until after the resurrection, so it would be impossible for him to be in heaven with Christ that same day.

Also, we know that John the Baptist mentions that he would baptize by water, but later, one would come to baptize by fire. (That being Christ.) There would be several reasons why Christ wouldn't baptize people himself. (One being that people would argue their baptisms were more valid than if they were baptized by the disciples.)

Either way, I don't think Christ not performing baptisms himself have much baring on the requirement of baptism to enter heaven.

uhhh wat

that's.....absurd. Christ says the thief will be with him in paradise, he means it

Paradise doesn't have to mean heaven itself in this context.

It's still contradictory for Christ to tell the thief that he would, on that same day, be in heaven with Christ if Christ himself didn't enter heaven until several days later.

Except Christ is one of the three in one - The Father and Holy Spirit did not decend to hell

I don't buy the trinitarian view of God. It's too Pagan.

I need to study the exact use of 'paradise' in that verse more but it's not nessisarily contradictory

And it kind of invalidates Christ speaking to Mary after the resurrection.

Why does Christ need to ascend to the father if he already is the father and present with the father?

you're getting into theological questions you already completely reject the premise of

and questions I'm not really capable of arguing

That's because the trinitarian view is such a wormy way out of the fact that Christ (his physical body) didn't ascend to be with God until after the resurrection and therefore couldn't have entered heaven between death and resurrection.

okay so

You don't have to believe the scriptures (you already said you don't) but the fact that such an explanation is "wormy" doesn't make it inplausible

Then it makes Christ a liar when he speaks to Mary.

"Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my father in heaven."