Of course it does. Baptism remits both actual and original sin. To believe it does not, is to believe that baptism is not required, as some Protestants do. You are using the same argument, that is, that Jesus’ Atonement has taken care of all sin, no baptism is required. Why would you believe baptism is required for actual sin, but not for original sin?
Because Christ took care of ‘original sin.’
It is sufficient that baptism take care of ‘actual sin.’ If baptism were required for everyone, then infants who die unbaptized MUST go to hell—no ‘leaving it up to God’ allowed.
We all sin, those of us who have come to understand the difference between right and wrong; it is the nature of having choices. Sometimes we make the wrong ones. Just as it is the nature of a child learning to walk to fall down—it may be possible for a toddler to learn to walk without falling, but as far as I am aware, nobody has managed it–it is the nature of man, when learning about right and wrong, to choose the wrong from time to time. Baptism is about THAT, and about choosing Christ.
Some people figure that this inevitable thing in all human life–that we will all sin–as ‘original sin’ defined. However, it’s not. If it were original sin, then it would apply to everybody before they make their first mistake–and it doesn’t.
Even those who struggle with the problem of where unbaptized infants are coming to understand it; “leave it up to God?’ The God who said 'suffer the little children to come unto Me?” The One who said “of such is the Kingdom of Heaven?”
No…original sin…was the first one; the one that caused the death of all, the one that put mankind on the free will road to Him. THAT sin was atoned for in full, I believe, by the infinite and eternal sacrifice of Jesus. He literally bought us with it. We are all going to be resurrected, aren’t we? Every single person who has ever been born?
Now? We have only our own sins with which to deal, and Christ as the only Path to God, and repentance plus baptism the only way to Him.
