/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>649977

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

>if baptism is a necessity (along with faith), to be saved?

>if baptism is a necessity

Well it isn't

>>649977

>Why do several Protestant denominations refuse infant baptism,

I believe that's because some of them have been influenced by Baptists.

>What if…

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.

>>649992

>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.

Did he read about the thief on the cross? Honest question.

>>649989

>A Baptist answering a Protestant 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.

>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.

What the winnie the pooh

If baptism is necessary to be saved then how do we explain the centurion and the thief?

>>649977

baptism is not required. it is merely a symbolic act, such as the Lords supper.

Symbols, nothing more.

>>649977

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:

>Matt. 28:19: “Go therefore and MAKE DISCIPLES. . . baptizing them.”

>Acts 8:12: “When THEY BELIEVED Philip . . . they proceeded to be baptized, both men and women.”

>(Acts 2:38) Peter [said] to them: “Repent, and let each one of YOU be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of YOUR sins, and YOU will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.

>(Acts 2:41) Therefore those WHO EMBRACED HIS WORD heartily were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added.

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.

>“The practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. . . . That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus [c. 140-203 C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”—Augustus Neander, History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, 1864, p. 162.

>>649977

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.

>>650159

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?

>>650173

>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.

>>650181

>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.

>>650101

>how do we explain the centurion and the thief?

They were under the old covenant. The new covenant didn't start until Jesus said "it is finished" and gave up his spirit.

>>650195

How'd they get to heaven under the old covenant when there wasn't a heaven promised under the old covenant?

>>650195

Now THAT is silly. The Centurion was, presumably, a pagan, for Paddington Bear's sake

>>650192

>So? Tell them to get baptized again. That's the benefit of the mainstream + baptists.

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.

>>650199

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.

>>650252

You're reading an awful lot into Genesis 3:15…

>Why do several Protestant denominations refuse infant baptism, if baptism is a necessity (along with faith), to be saved?

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.

>>650422

It's called the protevangelium for a good reason. Read Hebrews 11 sometime.

>>650422

galatians 3:16

>Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

john 13:18

>I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

No, actually he isn't. Christ was always the seed in that context.

>>649977

>if baptism is a necessity (along with faith), to be saved?

Have you ever heard of "sola fide"?

>I would like Protestants to explain this

Most Protestants practice infant baptism

>>649992

Why do people think Campbellites are Protestant?

>>650624

What are they then

>>650038

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.

>>650624

Because they are. All non-apostolic denominations are protestant.

>>650705

Anabaptists

>>650744

>All non-apostolic denominations are protestant

This is the kind of meaningless definition that leads people to unironically say things like "Muslims are Protestant"

>>650748

>muslims are protestant

Whoa, pal. I don't like muslims either, but there's no need for such vitriolic hate on this board.

>>650748

>All non-apostolic denominations are protestant

But they are.

>>650744

>Prots play lawyer with the scriptures

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?

>>650765

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

>>650819

>1) Orthodox, not catholic

Well, yeah, not as bad about the lawyering then,

>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

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?

>>650011

>>650102

That's not what Jesus taught at all though.

>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. John 3:5

Are you denying Christs teaching?

>>652479

John 3:3-7

>Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

>Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

>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.

>That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

>Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

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.

>>650874

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.

>>652512

Abortions go to hell confirmed.

>>652513

Where do they go then?

>>650011

*cough* 1 Peter 3:21 *cough*

>>652514

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.