Why do several Protestant denominations refuse infant baptism, if baptism is a necessity (along with faith), to be saved? What if I'm of age, my baptism is scheduled for tomorrow, and some drunk driver ends up killing me? (I believe I made this thread before but it was quite a long time ago)
I've never got adult baptism, so I would like Protestants to explain this to me. that means lets keep intedenominational shitflinging to a minimum
I was never a baptist but I used to be church of Christ protestant and they said that if you died one minute before you were going to be baptized you would go to hell. In fact the preacher would center entire sermons on this to stress the importance of baptism. They reject infant baptism because they think that you can only accept God if you can understand good and evil and babies cannot so baptizing them is pointless.
t. recent orthodox convert
Well it isn't
I believe that's because some of them have been influenced by Baptists.
Cool hypothetical scenario. Only thing is that baptism is not what saves. Rather it is what you do after you are saved. See for example Acts 8:37 and Acts 2:41-42.
Did he read about the thief on the cross? Honest question.
Top kek!
Baptism represents a special covenant with God. Babes don't need a special covenant, they're innocent of evil until they come of age. Not everyone who gets saved should get baptized until they are really ready to commit their lives to God and out sin behind them. A baby simply can't make that covenant. Catholics baptizing babies makes them feel good but it doesn't protect the babe's soul.
What the winnie the pooh
If baptism is necessary to be saved then how do we explain the centurion and the thief?
baptism is not required. it is merely a symbolic act, such as the Lords supper.
Symbols, nothing more.
Infant Baptism is admitted to not be Biblical at all. In fact, the model of baptism(Jesus Christ) doesn't allow it. Jesus is our model for baptism. An infant cannot consent to Baptism. Here's why:
BIBLICALY SPEAKING, you have to become a disciple(student), believe, repent and embrace Jesus Christ before baptism. An infant cannot do that. An infant has no idea what is going on. Therefore, infant baptism is not recognized as Biblical.
An argument is made by some in favor of infant baptism. They refer to the instances where ‘households’ were baptized, such as the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas. (Ac 10:48; 11:14; 16:15, 32-34; 18:8; 1Co 1:16) They believe that this implies that small babies in those families were also baptized. But, in the case of Cornelius, those who were baptized were those who had heard the word and received the holy spirit, and they spoke in tongues and glorified God; these things could not apply to infants. (Ac 10:44-46) Lydia was “a worshiper of God, . . . and Jehovah opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things being spoken by Paul.” (Ac 16:14) The Philippian jailer had to “believe on the Lord Jesus,” and this implies that the others in his family also had to believe in order to be baptized. (Ac 16:31-34) “Crispus the presiding officer of the synagogue became a believer in the Lord, and so did all his household.” (Ac 18:8) All of this demonstrates that associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing, and glorifying God, things infants cannot do. At Samaria when they heard and believed “the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, they proceeded to be baptized.” Here the Scriptural record specifies that the ones baptized were, not infants, but “men and women.”—Ac 8:12.
A lot of protestants do not believe baptism is necessary for salvation. It all depends on a careful interpretation of John 3:5
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
Now, "born of water" could be (and probably is) a euphemism for physical birth. The reasoning is thus: Christ is talking about being born twice. Nicodemus says "How can you be born twice?" If being born of water meant baptism, and there was another birth of the Spirit, then you'd actually be born -three- times.
Clearly, from John 3:3, we are talking about two births, not three. Therefore, "born of water" is a euphemism for physical birth and born of spirit is being born-again in Jesus Christ. This is what many evangelicals believe.
HOWEVER- I also believe people should get baptized, and there may be spiritual power in it because Christ underwent it, and it's been a tradition for so long and it would be really dumb to go to hell over the technicality (although I do not understand my God to be one to judge on something like that). All the same, why risk it? Jesus did it, let's do it too, if nothing less than to honor the way he showed us.
But necessary for salvation… strictly speaking, probably not, but play it safe anyway, cause' its eternal life we're talking about here.
Play it safe argument applies to infant baptism too. It doesn't hurt anyone if it's ineffective, at worst it's a public ceremony to dedicate a baby to Christ, at best it actually has a saving effect. Either way, why not do it and hope it has spiritual impact?
Because it leads to people not being actually baptized. There are likely millions of unbaptized people right now who think they were baptized due to that deception.
So? Tell them to get baptized again. That's the benefit of the mainstream + baptists.
Also- here's the problem with adult baptism argument: are you arguing an adult with the mental faculties of a child can never get to heaven? Which IQ, precisely, allows baptism to take? Or is it puberty- could we inject a child with testosterone or estrogen, and then baptize them?
It leads to problematic questions, and Christ just wasn't a legalist when it came to entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
You have to be born again in the spirit for sure, but it seems incongruous and Pharisetical to require specific rituals when he spends the whole New Testament pointing out how slavish obedience to ritual is meaningless.
They were under the old covenant. The new covenant didn't start until Jesus said "it is finished" and gave up his spirit.
How'd they get to heaven under the old covenant when there wasn't a heaven promised under the old covenant?
Now THAT is silly. The Centurion was, presumably, a pagan, for Paddington Bear's sake
It's not baptized again though. It's baptized for the first time. And maybe you missed the part that salvation is by grace through faith. It is not based on what ordinance you followed, those are expected of people who are already saved.
Salvation was always promised.
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
You're reading an awful lot into Genesis 3:15…
I'd be careful there, virtually all ardent paedobaptist denoms like the Presbyterians (bless you guys) would rather implode than assert that physical baptism saves or justifies.
It's called the protevangelium for a good reason. Read Hebrews 11 sometime.
galatians 3:16
john 13:18
No, actually he isn't. Christ was always the seed in that context.
Have you ever heard of "sola fide"?
Most Protestants practice infant baptism
Why do people think Campbellites are Protestant?
What are they then
I brought that up to my father once and he brought up some passage about John the Baptist baptizing a bunch of people and said that the Good Thief must have been baptized by him prior to his execution.
Prots play lawyer with the scriptures, much like the jews can use the torah or the talmud to justify literally anything they do, the protestants do mostly the same thing. When the scriptures are taken out of historical context they can be twisted and convoluted to mean almost anything.
Because they are. All non-apostolic denominations are protestant.
Anabaptists
This is the kind of meaningless definition that leads people to unironically say things like "Muslims are Protestant"
Whoa, pal. I don't like muslims either, but there's no need for such vitriolic hate on this board.
But they are.
LOL, the pot calling the kettle black here. When you have mounds of books to explain a couple verses of scripture, what do you think the Catholic church is doing?
1) Orthodox, not catholic
2) Writing books to clarify the original meaning of scripture is infinitely better than twisting them and interpreting them to mean whatever you are comfortable with
Well, yeah, not as bad about the lawyering then,
Though the spirit is right, I think you'll find that's always what each side claims it is doing.
Mark16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
What's the point of baptizing if babies can't believe anyway?
That's not what Jesus taught at all though.
Are you denying Christs teaching?
John 3:3-7
So born of water is physical, born of the Spirit is born again. Notice that the original Greek says born again in verse 3 and verse 7, but it says "born" in verse 5 and 6, signifying the fact that each birth is one birth. And the birth of the Spirit is therefore the "born again" because you were already born the of water the first time when you were physically born.
Verse 5 is in the context of explaining what exactly "born again" means, from verse 3.
Assured salvation in case of death
What if the child isn't in an age of being able to know the concept of a God or knowing anything about Jesus and isn't baptized?
That's assured Hell if you ask me.
Abortions go to hell confirmed.
Where do they go then?
*cough* 1 Peter 3:21 *cough*
Job 3:16-19
Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.
The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.
Yup. It's us protestants who are wrong here I'm sure, totally convinced me. Truly it's nearly the act of being immersed in water that saves one soul. No need to repent, nor believe, nor be a disciple of our Lord; just get dunked in water and it's all good.
hello.
Do you REALLY think that being baptised and an unbeliever will save your soul?
Baptism was always a sign of your repentance and acceptance of Christ, a sign of the washing away of your sins. It isn't the baptism that saves you, it is your persistent faith.
If you, as a babe, are baptised but have no faith, what good is it?
If you choose, however, as an adult to follow and obey Christ, and are baptised, what a blessing that baptism will represent for you.
We protties insist that only a believer can make a statement or pledge of faith and thus be baptised.
Also
>IF
>must have been
Of course, because that's the only way it makes sense in your errant theology.
< … thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."
my-o-my, how far we have fallen from truth . . .