In the history of the Church the position considered as orthodox for over 1900 years has been that baptism (following faith and repentance) results in the remission of sins (as well as entering Christ and His body, the Church and receiving the Spirit).  The Baptists began in the early 1600's to teach that a person's sins were forgiven through faith as soon as they believed.  (The Baptists in England presently maintain the orthodox view.)  However, one must be baptized (by immersion) in order to be a member of the Baptist Church.  Often, this baptism must also be done by a Baptist to be recognized as valid.  (Notice that, since most Baptist creed statements consider a person who believes to be a Christian, but not a Baptist, until after their baptism, then it is more difficult to be a Baptist then to be a Christian-- according to their requirements.)
    The Lutheran, Methodist, Evangelical Free, Anglican, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian Churches, while often sprinkling infants to supposedly remove Adam's sin, technically have beliefs similar to the Baptist Church.  The Charismatic Movement has also, unofficially, adopted a similar position concerning the need to baptize.  Additionally, a few other, smaller denominations which share the Charismatic viewpoint on spiritual gifts, have similar, official beliefs about baptism.
    在超過一千九百多年的教會歷史中，有關純正教義的觀點甚為一致，但有兩個主要宗派認為浸禮(是隨著信心和悔改)的為罪得赦免的結果(就如歸入基督和祂的身體---教會及領受聖靈)。浸信會在十六世紀初期開始教導人們當他們以信心相信時，一個人的罪便得赦免。無論如何，一個人必須受浸(經浸洗)才可以成為浸信會會友。同時，這浸禮必須由一個認可的浸信會成員施浸(注意:大多數浸信會信條認為一個人只要相信就能成為基督徒，但必須接受浸禮後才能成為浸信會會友，因此根據浸信會的要求 ─ 要成為一個浸信會信徒比成為一個基督徒更為困難。)
    路德宗、循理宗、自由福音派、安立甘(聖公會之一)、聖公會，和長老會等教會倡導替嬰兒施洗以洗去亞當的罪(原罪)，這與浸信會的信仰基本相似。靈恩運動非正式地採納了與浸信會對浸禮要求的相似觀點。此外，有少數其他規模較小的宗派亦認同靈恩運動對屬靈恩賜、浸禮的觀點。
 

I.

Given the doctrinal position, that baptism, based on faith in Christ and His sacrifice, does not effect the remission of sins and that therefore baptism is optional for the believing disciple, i.e. unnecessary for salvation, how do you reconcile that with: 如果這教義的觀點正確：浸禮基於在基督裡的信心和基督的犧牲，這浸禮不會有除去罪的效果，所以浸禮對相信的門徒來說浸禮是選擇性的(即非必要的)，就說是：不必要的或為救恩那麼你將如何把這觀點與下列各點諧協：   1.  Ananias' statement to Paul to "...arise, be baptized, and WASH AWAY YOUR SINS, calling on the name of the Lord."  (Acts 22:16) 亞拿尼亞對保羅的聲明「……起來，受洗，洗去你的罪，求告主的名。」(徒22:16)   2.  Peter's command to the believers in Cornelius' (gentile) household to be baptized—even after they had received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 10:48) 彼得吩咐在哥尼流(外邦人)家中的信徒受洗─即使在他們接受聖靈之後。(徒10:48)   3. According to Paul, whoever is baptized into Christ is baptized into His death and therefore (resultant condition) is buried with Christ by that baptism (in a figurative and/or spiritual sense). (Romans 6:3-5)  Additionally, having been buried with Him, we have "in baptism also been raised up with Him through faith". (Colossians 2:12) 按保羅所說，無論何人受洗歸入基督即是受洗歸入祂的死，所以 (因果關係) 藉浸禮與基督一同埋葬 (在象徵和/或屬靈的意義)。(羅6:3-5)  再者，已經與基督一同埋葬，「在浸禮中也因信與祂一同復活」 (西2:12)   4. According to Paul, being baptized into Christ is the (only) method of entering Christ and of "putting on Christ" (Gal 3:27).  The grammatical structure of this passage strongly implies the antithetical thought:  If someone has not been baptized into Christ, then that one HAS NOT "put on Christ".  Note 3:26 which, with 3:27, combines faith and baptism.  (Also, see II.6 below.) 按保羅所說，受洗歸入基督是(唯一)歸入基督與「披戴基督」的方法(加3:27)。這段經文在文法的結構上含有強烈的對偶思想：如果一個人不曾受洗歸入基督，則這人未曾「披戴基督」。注意 加3:26 是與 3:27 把信心與浸禮放在一起。(同時請留意以下第II部份第6點)   5. According to Peter, baptism DOES save us! (Though, not without prior faith & repentance.)  Since baptism "washes away [our] sins" (Acts 22:16), the guilt and blame of our sins are also cleansed, and through the entering in of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 19:1-6)  we are made holy and pure.  Thus, it is through baptism that we obtain a good conscience toward God; this baptism is a "figure" (antitypos) of the flood waters by which eight souls were saved by means of the ark ("by means of the resurrection of Jesus Christ").  In the same way baptism into Christ is able to save us.  (1 Pet 3:21) 根據彼得所說，浸禮真的可以救我們！(但是，一定先要有信心和悔改。)既然浸禮可以「洗去[我們]的罪」(徒22:16)，那麼因罪而來的罪責和羞愧都同樣洗清，並透過聖靈的進入我們?面 (徒2:38; 19:1-6)，我們就可以成為聖潔和純淨。這樣，透過浸禮，我們獲得無虧的良心來面對神；浸禮是個預表 (αντιτυποｓ) 洪水時期的洪水，有八個人因此進入方舟而得救。這好比我們受浸歸入基督得救。(彼前3:21)   6. There is only one baptism. (Eph 4:5)  Therefore, any metaphysical or metaphorical understanding of "baptism" must occur simultaneously with and include water baptism.  Also any baptism with or by the Holy Spirit. 只有一個浸禮(弗 4:5)，因此，任何形而上學的，或隱喻的所指的「浸禮」的發生必定同時包括了水的浸，和任何接受或通過聖靈的浸禮。   7. Romans 8:9 says that anyone without the Holy Spirit does not belong to Christ.  The only clear and unequivocal instructions God has given us concerning HOW and WHEN we receive the Spirit state, "Repent and..be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". (Acts 2:38)  [Acts 8:14-18 cannot be interpreted in the same way, since then each person who believes would need an apostle to lay hands on them in order to receive the Spirit.  However, unless we wish to maintain that God did not and has not "called" (Acts 2:39) the Gentiles/non-Jews, we must also conclude that the conditions of repentence and baptism apply equally to Jew and Gentile alike in order to receive the Holy Spirit.] 羅 8:9 說任何人沒有聖靈是不會屬於基督的。這是神唯一清楚且並不含糊的指示我們如何及何時接受聖靈。「悔改」與...藉基督的名受浸，以致你的罪得赦免，並你將接受聖靈的恩賜(徒 2:38) 。[徒8:14-18 不能用同樣的方式去解釋，因為那時每個信徒需要一個使徒按手在其身上才能接受聖靈。無論如何，除非我們希望維持：神並沒有及不曾「呼召」外邦人/ 非猶太人，那我們必須把悔改和浸禮同樣應用在猶太人與外邦人接受聖靈一樣。] Ephesians 1:13 is often used to support the idea of salvation and reception of the Holy Spirit immedi- ately after one believes.  It must be pointed out (though it should not need to be) that this is not the only verse in the New Testament that gives information concerning salvation and all such verses must be interpreted in terms that account for what the other verses teach.  In the case of Ephesians 1:13, Paul does NOT say that the Ephesian believers were "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise"  (cf Acts 2:38-39) immediately after they believed, but simply, only sometime afterwards.  Acts 2:38-39 tells us the most likely point in time.  Also, to confirm this likelihood, the writings of at least the first three centuries of the Church on the subject of baptism typically describe the believer as being sealed by the Holy Spirit in the waters of baptism.  Indeed, the idea of a believer being so "sealed" became a euphemism to refer to baptism. 以弗所書 1:13 常被用來支持救恩的理念及一個人相信後就即時得?聖靈的理論。這必須指出(雖不一定必要的)這節經文不是新約的唯一提供有關救恩的經文，並且所有這樣的經文要在其他經文的亮光下被解釋。在以弗所書 1:13 的情況下，保羅沒有說以弗所的信徒在他們相信後便立刻「受了聖靈應許的印記」(參：徒2:38-39) 徒2:38-39 告訴我們的重點是即時。同樣地，至少最初的三個世紀的教會有關浸禮文獻說明信徒接受聖靈的印記的象徵是接受水禮。確實的，這種想法一個信徒被聖靈的「蓋印」與浸禮有關，便成了一個委婉的說法。   8. The Ephesian (gentile or Jewish proselyte) believers did not know the Holy Spirit before being baptized in the name of Jesus, though they had believed in Him.  (Acts 19:1-5) 以弗所人(外邦人或猶太改革宗)的信徒雖然相信耶穌，在奉他的名受洗之前，他們並不知道有聖靈的存在。(徒19:1-5)   9.  The eleven were instructed to teach all peoples (ethnoi) to do everything Christ had commanded them.  He had just finished commanding them to baptize [the believers of] all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19-20) 那十一個徒被指示凡基督所吩咐的εθνοι，都教訓萬民遵守；他又吩咐他們奉，父、子、聖靈的名給[凡相信的]萬民施浸(太 28:19-20)。 10. The grammatical structure of Acts 2:38 and  Matthew 26:28 are IDENTICAL, the only difference being that the word "baptism" is used in Acts and the words "shedding of blood" are used in Matthew.  Therefore, if baptism does not produce remission of sins, but is only a "sign of obedience because sins are already removed," then Christ's shedding of his blood also does not remove sins, but is only a sign that our sins have been removed previously! 徒2:38 及 太26:28 的文法結構相同，分別只在使徒行傳用了「受浸」，而馬太福音則用「流出來的血」。這樣看來，如果 徒2:38 中所說的浸禮，只是一個「順服的記號因罪巳被除去」，那麼，基督流出來的血也不能除罪，而只是一個記號 (因罪早巳除去)。 A recent interpretation of Acts 2:38-39 teaches that Peter was instructing people who had already, for some time, believed.  That this view is a recent invention can be easily verified by anyone willing to investigate the historical interpretations of this passage.  This view contradicts both the plain meaning of Peter's speech, as well as the historical explanations.  Verse 37 clearly indicates that Peter is addressing believers.  But that they had not believed BEFORE hearing the first part of Peter's sermon is just as clear from vs 37, not to mention the rest of the context.  In simple words, Peter is not talking to people saved for some time, but to newly repentant converts. 有 徒 2:38-39 的一個近代的詮釋指彼得所教導的是一些信了一段時間的人。任何人願意去研究有關這段經文在歷史上的詮釋，便容易地鑑證這種說法只是一個近代的發現，而非傳統的詮釋。事實上，這種說法也反駁彼得的簡單講辭之內容和歷代對這段經文的解釋。第37節清楚地說出彼得正在向信徒演說。就算我們不從上下文來解釋，第37節也明顯地指出這些人在聽彼得第一部份講章之前還沒有相信。簡單而言，彼得不是向一些已經相信了一段時間的人演說，而是對一些剛剛悔改的人而說的。 11. For those who place their dependence only in the blood of Jesus and the grace of God, attention should be given to Hebrews 10:19-22, where the writer irrevocably joins the sprinkling of Jesus' blood and the "washing of our bodies with pure water" at the time of baptism. 那些只依靠耶穌的血和神的恩典的人，便會注意希伯來書10:19-22所說的話，其作者確切的、不能改變地把耶穌所灑的血與「身體用水洗淨」同時用在浸禮中。 12. For those who say that "faith only" saves and that baptism is a "work" attention should be given to James 2:24, which is the only place in the entire Bible where the words:  "by faith only" occur and they are there preceded by the negating  "NOT."  Neither does this conflict with Paul's teaching in Rom 4. Paul's argument is against those who depend upon some imagined merit attached to obedience of the Mosaic Law, a position still held by Orthodox Jews today. James' argument is against those who think that charitable deeds are not a necessary part of a faithful Christian life.  As James points out, and Paul verifies, Abraham's obedience was NOT to any commandment to be found in the Law given to Moses, for the Law was not yet given. Neither is baptism any part of that Law, nor is it an act which the believer does, but is something done TO him.  Attention should also be given to Titus 3:5 which, while confirming that it is not performing acts that the Law requires ("works of righteousness") that save us, at the same time affirms that "He saved us [who believe] through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit."  While it is true that the Greek word that Paul uses for "washing" is based on LUO and not BAPTIZO, it must be asked what other washing he could possibly be referring to, except baptism?  This also testifies, as do the earliest writings of the Church bishops, that baptism effects a regeneration. For those who do not understand what "regeneration" means, see John 3:5! 那些說「只因?信」得救及浸禮是一項「工作」的人，便會留意「只因?信」在全本聖經中只見於雅各書 2:24 所說的「只因?信」，且是加上了「不是」(即「不是只因?信」)。這跟保羅在羅馬書四章的教訓並沒有衝突。保羅是反對以為倚靠遵守摩西律法可以獲得額外功績的人，這仍為今日正統的猶太人所重視。雅各反對的是：認為行善不是基督徒信仰生活所必須的。就便是雅各所指出，保羅則確認。亞伯拉罕的順服不是從摩西的律法而來，因律法還沒有賜下。浸禮不是律法的一部份，也不是信徒的作為，而是向他成就某些事情。我們也應注意提多書3:5 說明浸禮並不是基於律法的要求(「公義的作為」)使我們得救；與此同時，提多書也肯定的說出「他救了我們[那相信的]是通過重生的洗和聖靈的更新」。如果這是真的，保羅所用的「洗」的希臘文是用λυο而非βαπτιζω，試問除了浸禮外，還有其他的「洗」可作參考嗎？這也證明就如早期教會主教/監督的作品所言，浸禮就是重生。誰不明白何謂「重生」，請看約翰福音3:5 ！ 13. This view also does not conflict with Eph 2:8, since the "gift of God" is neither His grace, nor faith.  Both "grace" and "faith" are feminine nouns in the Greek language, whereas "that" and "gift" are both neuter.   Therefore, since the gender endings do not agree, then the "gift of God" must refer to something that has a neuter gender.  This requirement can be easily met by either of two words which mean  "salvation" or "the bringing of salvation" and which also fit the context of the  passage.  This passage cannot and does NOT  teach that "faith" is a gift of God. (Comparison should be made with Acts 2:38--"the gift of the Holy Ghost")這觀點與 弗2:38 並沒有衝突，因為「神的恩賜」不是指祂的恩典或信心。「恩典」和「信心」在希臘文中都是陰性的名詞，而「那」和「恩賜」都是中性的字。由於字尾性別的不一致，所以「神的恩賜」必須是指一個中性的字。有兩個詞則符合這個要求，就是「得救」或「得救本乎是」，並且也符合上下文。  這段經文不能與不是指「信心」是神的一種恩賜的。(可比較徒 2:38 ──「聖靈的恩賜」)。 14. As early as the beginning of the second century (within the time period of the apostles' teaching) the erroneous doctrine of infant baptism arose on the grounds that infants were born sinful--as Augustine and Calvin were later to expound.  If the apostles had not taught baptism was the means to obtain remission of sins for believers in Christ, the (erroneous) doctrine of infant baptism could not have begun, at least not so early. 第二世紀初(使徒教導時代)嬰兒浸禮的錯誤教義巳經出現，這基於人認為嬰兒生來有罪── 後來由奧古斯丁和加爾文作解釋。 如果使徒未有教導過浸禮表示是在基督裡的信徒會獲得赦罪，嬰兒浸禮的(錯誤)教義不應是在那麼早初的時期出現的。 15. The same goes for the doctrine of old-age baptism which occurred only barely later in time.  The belief was partly based on the idea that you should wait as long as possible before being baptized on the grounds that the passions die down with age and you would be less likely to sin.  Gregory and Basil fought strongly against delay in being baptized once faith was professed.  This was coupled later with the idea that any sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven (Shepherd of Hermas).  These ideas could NOT have arisen so early in such a well-defined form (and been so widely followed), if they were not based upon an Apostolically provided connection between baptism and the remission of sins. 同樣，年老受浸的教義不久亦出現。這信念部份是基於盡量延遲受浸的思想，認為慾望會隨年齡逝去，這樣好像減少犯罪一樣。貴格利和巴西流強烈反對因在相信主之後而拖延受浸。這個思想不久與受浸後無赦免的思想混合(黑馬牧人書)。若不是基於使徒有關浸禮和赦罪的教訓，這些思想就不會在很早期巳有一個清楚的立論(及被廣泛追隨)。

II.

Some teach that as soon as you believe in Jesus, you are saved. Others would say as soon as you have repented.  Others, as soon as you have confessed Jesus as Lord and have confessed your sins.  Consider the following: 有些教導認為：只要你一相信耶穌，你就得救了。其他則認為當你悔改時，就可得救；亦有的認為你承認耶穌為主，並承認己罪時，就可得救。那麼請你考慮下列各點：    1.  Is it possible to be saved without being "in Christ" ? (Galatians 3:27)  Then Noah could be saved without being in the ark.  There is NO scripture that says we enter Christ (or that Christ or the Holy Spirit enters us) when we believe.  If there is a single scripture that tells us HOW and WHEN we enter Christ, then there is no need to guess or interpret other scriptures in order to know.  Such a scripture exists.  Actually, there are two.  They are Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6:3.  They are the only verses that clearly state how    and when we enter Christ.  Contextually and exegetically, Matthew 28:19 ("into the name of...") is equivalent. 我們有能力不「在基督裡」便可得救的可能嗎﹖(加 3:27) 那麼挪亞就不用進入方舟就獲救了。沒有經文指出: 當我們相信時，我們便歸入基督 (或是基督或聖靈進入我裡面) 。若果有一處經文告訢我們「如何」與「何時」歸入基督，我們就毋須猜度或解釋其他經文以致明白其中意義了；這樣的經文是存在的，就是 加3:27 和 羅6:3，而這是唯一的經文清楚說明我們「如何」，與「何時」歸入基督。從上下文與詮釋學來看，這些經文與 太28:19 「奉……的名」的意義相同。  2.  Some hold that faith has a greater importance than other elements in the process or plan of salvation.  While true that without faith the other elements are useless, it should be asked that, without faith why would a person perform the other parts?  But if repentance is absolutely necessary, then it cannot be said that faith is the most important; only that it has priority.  The same can be said for any of the other elements (confession, baptism, continuance of faith, etc.). 有的認為信心比較其他因素在得救的過程或救贖計劃中來得重要。若這是真的，沒有信心則其他因素便無用了，既然只需要信心，為何一個人需要覆行其他部份呢﹖但如果悔改是絕對需要的，則不能說信心是最重要的因素了，而是先後次序而巳。同樣地這可推論任何其他因素(認罪、浸禮、持守信心、諸如此類。)  3.  Is it possible to enter Christ and the kingdom of God without your sins being forgiven?  Without repentance? Without confessing Jesus as Lord? 你的罪不曾被赦免，而你可以歸入基督和進入神的國度，這有可能嗎﹖毋須悔改﹖不需認耶穌為主﹖  4.  If repentance is necessary for salvation  (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 3:19), then belief is not enough.  If belief alone is enough, then repentance is not necessary.  Can a person be saved who has faith but no repentance?  How about a person who believes the gospel, but refuses to confess Jesus as Lord? 如果悔改對救恩來說是必須(路 13:3,5; 徒 3:19)，則信心就顥然不足夠，那麼悔改就不是必須了。 一個人能只憑信心得救而不需悔呢﹖一個人怎能相信褔音，卻拒絕承認基督為主呢﹖  5.  If our sins are forgiven and/or removed as soon as we believe, then why did Paul have to be baptized to "wash away" his sins three days after he believed, repented and confessed Jesus as Lord? (Acts 22:16) 如我們相信時，我們的罪立刻被赦免和/或被除掉，那麼，為何保羅需要在其相信後三天仍要受浸洗去他的罪，並要悔改承認耶穌為主呢﹖(徒 22:16)  6.  If we become God's children as soon as we believe  (John 1:12), why does Paul stipulate that it was only those "who were baptized into Christ" who were sons of God "through faith in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-27)?  [Anyone reading these verses in the Chinese Bible needs to be very aware that an important word in the Greek version has NOT been translated at the beginning of vs 27.  The word "gar" which means "for" or "because" also occurs at the beginning of vs 26, and is usually translated in most Chinese versions.  To omit the word from vs 27 disconnects what follows from vs 26, which seems to make vs 27 start a new idea.  This completely changes the meaning of Paul's thought in the Greek!] 如果我們在相信時，便即時成為神的兒女(約1:12)，為何保羅說只有那些「受洗歸入基督」的人，「憑信在基督耶穌裡」的人才是神的兒子(加 3:26-27)。 [任何人用中文聖經讀這些經文時應十分留意在第27節開始的一個非常重要的希臘文詞與未被翻譯就是 γαρ ── 表示「為」或「因為」──這詞同樣用於第26節的開始，且常在中文譯本裡被譯出來。如不與第26節相連，而在第27節省略了此詞，就以為第27節是開使了一個新的意念了。這就完全改變了保羅在希臘原文中的思想了！]  7.  If we are saved as soon as we believe, then why did Jesus say that NO one can enter God's kingdom without being born of water AND Spirit? (John 3:5) That this is a reference to baptism is testified to by every commentary on this verse for over 1800 years of the Church's history.  (see also 1 John 5:8 and Titus 3:5) 如果我們相信便即時得救，那麼為何耶穌說沒有人能不從水和聖靈生而可以進入神的國度﹖ (約3:5)這節經文在超過1800年的基督教歷史中，一直被每一本註釋書引用為受浸的經文呢﹖(參：約壹 5:8) Some believe that Jesus' mention of water in John 3:5 is a reference to the liquid of the womb which is "broken" at a baby's birth.  While the words that follow in verse 6 would seem on the surface to confirm this interpretation, a moment's reflection would show how foolish this is.  If Jesus were really intending to say such a thing, then he would in effect be telling Nicodemus, "a teacher of Israel," an old and very learned person, the supremely profound truth that, without first being born into the world as a human, there is no opportunity to enter God's kingdom.  Did Nicodemus really need to be told that without physical birth, and therefore existence, there is no way to enter the kingdom? 有人相信耶穌在 約 3:5 提及的水是與一個嬰兒從母腹的子宮中「破水」而出。這個字從第 6節看來似乎肯定了這個解釋，但若你再三思想便知道這是愚不可及的。如耶穌真的有意這樣只明，那麼他何必告訴尼哥底母──「以色列人的教師」， 一個滿有學問的長者，這奧妙的真理── 一個人如未從母胎而生到世上來，就沒有機會進入神的國了。難道尼哥底母真的需要知道沒有肉身的出生就不能存在，就沒有途徑進入神的國了？  8.  Some people object to including baptism as a requirement of salvation when they tell the gospel on the grounds that the gospel should be simple, i.e. easy to understand.  On that basis then, we should leave out confession-of-Jesus-as-Lord as a complication of the simple message that faith/belief alone saves!  So too, repentance!  But if confession and repentance are included, why not include baptism also, since the apostles clearly did so.  And really!  Is it that much more complicated??? 有些人反對浸禮為得救的必要條件，這基於他們傳褔音時要使褔音簡單化，例如：容易明白。在此基礎上，我們可以把承認耶穌為主也刪除，只有信心/ 相信這簡單的信息，我們就能得救了。因此，悔改也可刪掉了。但如果承認與悔改是包括在褔音裡面，為何浸禮卻不被包括在其中呢﹖而這正是使徒們所清楚說明的。真的! 這就更複雜了﹖﹖﹖  9.  Some people object to the necessity of baptism by referring to the thief on the cross (Lk 23:42-43).  However, the thief could just as easily have been baptized [even into Jesus' name], as not.  The only clear and relevant observation that may be made in his case is that he died on the other side of the cross, i.e. under the dominion of the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. 有些人反對浸禮為得救的必要條件，引用了在十字架上的強盜為例證。(路23:42-43) 當然要那強盜即時受洗[就算是歸入基督的名]是不可能的。顯然在他的情況可以這樣看，就是他死在十字架的另一邊，即是說他受舊的約所束綁，而不是受新的約所限制。

Following the early widespread practice of infant baptism and the foundation of inherited, original sin laid down by Augustine, many Protestants of the Reformation churches and the Reformed churches defend the baptizing of infants on the basis of a similarity between the Old Testament rite of circumcision and the New Testament rite of baptism.  They hold that as circumcision admitted the infant (male) to the covenant privileges without the infant manifesting faith, so baptism of the infant or child of a believing parent (or godparent) admits the infant to the (physical) privileges of the new covenant.  In the case of the child of a believing parent [1 Cor 7:14], he is supposedly already holy, which is interpreted to mean devoid of any taint of inherited sin.  Therefore, even supposing that proxy faith is acceptable scripturally (let alone, Divinely), the reason for baptizing the child becomes "because they are forgiven" (i.e. holy);  "because they are already part of the family of God,"  NOT: "in order for their sins to be remitted through faith in Jesus Christ."  For such a child, faith is not then, or later, a real issue [Calvin], since they are forever sealed by Divine decree; baptism is only an outward sign of what already has taken place.  [Interestingly, this only applies for the child of a believing parent; for other children, as for the children of Gentiles, there is no such easy road into heaven.]
宗教改革時的教會許多更正教徒(抗羅宗)和更正教會為嬰兒施洗是建基於早期流行的嬰兒洗禮及繼承的基礎，及奧古斯丁所奠立的原罪論，他們認為嬰兒洗禮是跟舊約的割禮儀式和新約的浸禮儀式相似。他們認為替嬰兒進行(男性)割禮是承認嬰兒不需要表示其信心便享有盟約的特權； 同樣地替已信主的父母(或教父)、之嬰兒或兒童施洗則是承認嬰兒(在肉身上)有新約的特權。 如照林前7:14所說，一個信主的父母之孩子是已經聖潔的，即是說其在承繼而來的罪上毫無玷污。 因此，即使這樣的假設「因為他們已被赦免了」(即是聖潔的)：「因為他們已是神家?的一員」；而不是：「因為在基督?有信心而使他們的罪得以除掉」這樣的一個孩童，自其被神聖的命令所蓋印後，信心對他來說並非當時或後來的真正癥結[加爾文]；浸禮只不過是已成就的事之外顯記號而已。[有趣的是：這種承繼式的禮儀只適用於父母信主的孩童；至於其他孩童，如外邦人的孩子，就沒有這樣一條容易進入天堂的途徑了。]

On this basis, there is common ground between those who baptize infants and those who baptize (older) believers upon a profession of faith, (but NOT in order for their sins to be removed, and who refuse to baptize infants).  In both cases, the purpose of baptism is held to be merely a (useless but commanded) ritual and sign of what God has already done inwardly.  That such a teaching and belief contradicts the New Testament as well as the blunt, consistent teaching of the early Church is a fact of history that is not open to dispute or reinterpretation.
在這基礎上，嬰兒施洗與信徒(成長的)受洗者均有一個共同基礎── 信心的宣稱。在這兩種情況下，浸禮的目的純粹是一個記號(象徵)(即無效用而只是一個吩咐)── 神已經內在完成了。這種教導及信念不客氣地牴觸了新約聖經和早期教會的一貫教導── 一個不是應公開爭論或再詮釋的歷史事實。

Incidentally, the door at which Jesus stands and knocks (Rev 3:20) is most likely the door of the Laodicean church, since the context of the passage was a letter of warning addressed to the believers of the Laodicean church, and NOT to people being told the gospel for the first time.  [To use this verse for evangelism ignores every principle of sound Bible exegesis.]
附帶說明：耶穌站?與敲叩的那道門 (啟 3:20) 是老底嘉教會的門十分相似，根據上下文，這是一封警告老底嘉教會信徒的函件，而不是對那些首次聽聞褔音的人而說的。[ 運用這節經文去傳褔音會令其他可靠且有力的聖經註釋原則受虧損]

If ALL of the N.T. scriptures are applied to the question of the necessity of baptism in order to have one's sins remitted and to be saved, what other conclusion can be reached than Peter's answer to the Jews on the day of Pentecost or his question concerning the new Gentile converts a few years later.  Let us, therefore, not only obey Jesus merely because He commanded, but for the reasons he instructed the Apostles, which they passed on to us in the scriptures.  Let us also teach what the Apostles taught...ALL of it, just as Jesus commanded them!
如果全部新約的經文都應用在浸禮能夠使人的罪得赦和得救為必須的問題上，還有甚麼結論能夠比彼得在五旬節對當時猶太人所給的答案，或者是在幾年以後對那些轉信基督的外邦人所關心的問題。因此，讓我們不單只是為了聽從耶穌的命令，還要按?聖經所記載且傳與我們的理由：祂指示使徒的所行的真理。我們同樣要遵行使徒所教訓……全部的教訓，就如耶穌命令他們的一樣。