with out the infant baptised there would not be one christian to day

[horsecamp]

the bible says baptism is meant for your children --are infants your children? if so than infant baptism is of the bible--------- acts2:38-39
the bible says in more than one place faith in Jesus is the only way for any one to get to heaven John 14;6 John 3:18
the bible says IN MANY PLACES infants can believe in JESUS MATHEW 21:15-16
PSALM 8:2 ------ LUKE 1 :45 -- 2 timothy 3;15 JUST TO MENTION A FEW places
the bible says baptism saves 1 peter 3:20-21
the bible says infants are sinful psalm 51:5
the bible says baptism washes away sins acts 22:16




now for what the bible does not say. it does not say one has to believe before baptism. ITS THE 12TH COMMANDMENT

it does not say one has to confess Jesus before baptism

it does not say preachers can tell for sure if some one is a true believer or not there fore they only baptize believers

it does not say baptize only the adults of all nations

it does not say Jesus is just kidding you about all the good things God gives in baptism.



it does not say don't baptize infants because Christ wouldn't have wasted his precious blood for them to.

If John the Baptist baptism was the Christian one, How come Aquila and Prisilla had to show Apollos the more perfect way. Because he only knew Johns baptism. Acts 18: 24--26.
And how come Paul had to RE-baptise the disciples at Ephesus, Acts 19: 1--5.

Please note, Jesus showed us the perfect example, He was the son of God before He was baptised, So God's way is,
First become a child of God, Then one can be baptised.

Infants cannot be baptised as they cannot believe, repent and chose to get saved. As most catholics prove they are not saved.
Plus, Baptism is by total immersion, Not by pouring or dabbing water on a childs forhead.

you forget to mention Jesus was baptized by John what your trying to do is use the bible against itself to prove your faulty points .

Johns baptism was a baptism of repentance so why would Jesus want that? because Jesus was about to take your and my place upon the cross for our sins winning us full forgiveness that cost us nothing but cost God everything his own Sons life blood.

still there was a difference between the baptism Jesus would institute in the great commission and Johns baptism.

because Jesus WOULD INSTITUTE A baptism THAT WOULD save by the holy spirit working through the COMMON ELEMENT of water and the Divine word of almighty God giving and strengthening faith in Jesus.

giving us assurance of what he won for us on the cross full and free forgiveness of sins with not one string attached.

we put on Jesus clothes of his righteousness in baptism. Gal 3:26

notice when paul placed his hands on them they were then given gifts by the holy spirit the gift of tongues and of proffesy later because of miss use of these gifts Paul had to down play these gifts even though he had them he admitted they were no longer that important because Christians miss used them.. what a difference
of what God says of baptism miss used or not baptism keeps its importance because its promises are eternal.

also
the bible says in many places infants can believe. so you don't know what your talking about when you say they cant believe as if you know more than God.

and your mixed up about THE timothy verse. ALSO good and faithful bible translation have to say infants when either Greek or Hebrew INDICATES infants
because that IS WHAT the text calls for and it can be no other.. The niv translators know they could not get away with YOUR WANA BE translation. even a good Baptist bible would have to say infants if they wanted to remain faithful to what the text says.

 

[Selene]

Interesting, but I have not ever seen this in scripture. I guess people can believe all kinds of things and that results in all kinds of beliefs. That does not make a certain
belief Christian.

How is it that you did not see it in Scripture?? It happened to Jesus at the Jordan River. The Holy Spirit did come down upon Christ and a voice from Heaven said, "This is my Son whom I am well pleased" (See Matthew 3:16-17).

It happened to Jesus and it happens to us when we follow Him. Christ resurrected from the dead. Do you not believe that you will also resurrect from the dead just as He did?? We believe that we will resurrect from the dead just as He did, and we are baptized just as He was baptized.

It is my concern that this particular doctrine is extra biblical and while it may satisfy those who loose an infant and while it may sound lovely, it does not bear resemblance
to the actual teaching concerning baptism that is found in scripture.

Repeating it constantly does not make it so. Believing it does not make it so. You cannot make a decision for Christ for another person and this teaching indicates that
if the parents have their infant baptized, the child is heaven bound. That is really a false teaching if it is not found in scripture. Men cannot make a better entrance into
heaven then the One already provided.

After Pentecost, this is what St. Peter said:

Acts 22:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

St. Peter calls on everyone to repent and be baptized and to receive the Holy Spirit. He said that it is not only for adults, but also for children. While it is true that babies or infants cannot repent; nevertheless, they have the original sin that was passed on from Adam and Eve. This sin is not a personal sin, but a sin that was inherited from Adam and Eve. It is true that the kingdom of God is made for children, but the Holy Bible ALSO says that nothing unclean can enter God's Kingdom (See Revelations 21:27). Thus, infants were baptized to remove the original sin that was passed down from Adam and Eve. What makes you think that baptism is only for "personal sins?"

Furthermore, households of people were baptized including servants. While it is true that the Holy Bible doesn't say that these household had infants, it ALSO did not say that there were no infants. Therefore, how can you claim that we are teaching something false when the Bible does not even specifically say whether there were infants in those household or not?

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:15 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

When Christ sent His Apostles with the instruction to baptize all nations, what makes you think that "all nations" does not include the infants?

Circumcision did not save anyone...it was a sign of God's people being set apart for Him. We are to circumcise our hearts...that is, not be a part of the world just as
the Israelites were not to be a part of the pagan nations they were surrounded by.

I consider the above false teaching...I understand it is Catholic. I know you will respond. Please do. But if you want to know what my response is, just reread this post.

Thanks

Colossians 2:11-12 shows that St. Paul compared circumcision to baptism. Yes, we are to circumcise our hearts. And this circumcision of hearts made by Christ is "baptism." There is only one baptism (See Ephesians 4:5)......a baptism of water and spirit. It is the water that cleanses sins and the spirit that sanctifies. Also, according to the Holy Bible, baptism can save. Why? Because baptism came from God. It never came from man, and what comes from God can bring salvation.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. [fn] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


Furthermore, history shows that the Early Christians of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth centuries and so on practiced both infant and adult baptisms. According to these historical documents:

Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

In the third century, there was even a debate as to how old an infant should be baptized. Some say on the eighth day, which is the same day as the Jewish circumcision:

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

 

[jiggyfly]

with out the infant baptised there would not be one christian to day

Which infant are you referring to?

 

[Martin W.]

Selene .... not to disagree with you or anything .... but I have a couple of questions

-- if a baby is baptized as a (Catholic) is that an assurance they will go to heaven , or is something else required ?

What I mean is if that baby spent their adult life in the Mafia , are they still considered Catholics (Christians)

I have always had a problem trying to figure that one out.

Thanks

ps:
I also have problems understanding Baptists who claim that (adult) baptism is what cleanses them from sin

When I was baptized (as an adult) I felt it was done as an outward sign of an inner cleansing

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

yes but to give the answers took many years of listening to objections of Baptist theologians and then reading Scriptures
for its answers and also hearing from the witness of ..early church fathers that were alive at the time of the apostles. even checking out relics left by early Christians that gave witness to infant baptism.

I think we would all agree that the Roman church has kept Christianity (somewhat) intact for 1900 years ..... but are you saying it is because they baptized babies?

 

[horsecamp]

yes baptism is absent of law and is pure gospel and its also because from the priests mouth the Gospel was also given in reading the the bare word to their congregation .And the Lords supper ALSO PROCLAIMED God forgiveness of the ungodly

Lutheranism is just a return to the church catholic that once not only had the highest reguard for the sacraments of baptism and the lords supper But for the bible also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8rAkjL58co

Infant baptism replaced circumcision. In the Old Testament, circumcision is the sign that they are God's people. All male child at 8 days old were circumcised. Even the servants of the Israelites were circumcised. Anyone who was not circumcised was cut off from God's chosen people. According to St. Paul, baptism replaced circumcision. Baptism is not only about removing the original sin passed down by Adam and Eve, it is also being part of God's family.

Colossians 2:11-12 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh [fn] was put off when you were circumcised by [fn] Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

In this biblical verse above, St. Paul compared circumcision to baptism. The circumcision by Christ not made by human hands is baptism. Infants were baptized by the Early Christians since the first century not only to remove the original sin, but to allow them to become a part of God's family. Just as circumcision was a sign to show that the Israelites were God's chosen people, so is baptism used as a sign showing that we are God's family.

I Just remembered one of Luthers funnier but true quotes about being baptised and our sinful nature the old adam in us all. That never can be converted to Christ.

Baptism unites us to christ and drowns the old adam our sinful natures in us .. but as luther said "we soon learn that old rascal
can swim".

 

[Selene]

Selene .... not to disagree with you or anything .... but I have a couple of questions

-- if a baby is baptized as a (Catholic) is that an assurance they will go to heaven , or is something else required ?

What I mean is if that baby spent their adult life in the Mafia , are they still considered Catholics (Christians)

I have always had a problem trying to figure that one out.

Thanks

ps:
I also have problems understanding Baptists who claim that (adult) baptism is what cleanses them from sin

When I was baptized (as an adult) I felt it was done as an outward sign of an inner cleansing

The only sin an unbaptized baby has is Original Sin. Babies don't have any personal sins because they are too young to commit any personal sins of their own. The two reasons Catholics baptize infants is to remove the original sin that they inherit from Adam and Eve and to incorporate them into God's family as members of the Body of Christ.

When the child grows up to be an adult and becomes a member of the mafia and do all the things that the mafia does (murder, drugs, theft, etc.), these are not Christian things to do. Their behavior is not Christian. The only time I ever heard the former Pope John Paul II speak about Hell was to the Mafia in Sicily. His message to them was that there is a hell if they don't change their ways. A similar message was given by the Apostle Paul when he spoke to the Corinthians about their bad behavior. There are good and bad people in the Church. In fact, in every church they are good and bad people. Most of us struggle with sin while some of us relish in their sin. Therefore, it's their behavior that determines their fruit. Those who repents from their sins are the true Christians while those who are unrepentant are not Christians.

 

[Alanforchrist]

the bible says baptism is meant for your children --are infants your children? if so than infant baptism is of the bible--------- acts2:38-39
the bible says in more than one place faith in Jesus is the only way for any one to get to heaven John 14;6 John 3:18
the bible says IN MANY PLACES infants can believe in JESUS MATHEW 21:15-16
PSALM 8:2 ------ LUKE 1 :45 -- 2 timothy 3;15 JUST TO MENTION A FEW places
the bible says baptism saves 1 peter 3:20-21
the bible says infants are sinful psalm 51:5
the bible says baptism washes away sins acts 22:16




now for what the bible does not say. it does not say one has to believe before baptism. ITS THE 12TH COMMANDMENT

it does not say one has to confess Jesus before baptism

it does not say preachers can tell for sure if some one is a true believer or not there fore they only baptize believers

it does not say baptize only the adults of all nations

it does not say Jesus is just kidding you about all the good things God gives in baptism.



it does not say don't baptize infants because Christ wouldn't have wasted his precious blood for them to.

you forget to mention Jesus was baptized by John what your trying to do is use the bible against itself to prove your faulty points .

Johns baptism was a baptism of repentance so why would Jesus want that? because Jesus was about to take your and my place upon the cross for our sins winning us full forgiveness that cost us nothing but cost God everything his own Sons life blood.

still there was a difference between the baptism Jesus would institute in the great commission and Johns baptism.

because Jesus WOULD INSTITUTE A baptism THAT WOULD save by the holy spirit working through the COMMON ELEMENT of water and the Divine word of almighty God giving and strengthening faith in Jesus.

giving us assurance of what he won for us on the cross full and free forgiveness of sins with not one string attached.

we put on Jesus clothes of his righteousness in baptism. Gal 3:26

notice when paul placed his hands on them they were then given gifts by the holy spirit the gift of tongues and of proffesy later because of miss use of these gifts Paul had to down play these gifts even though he had them he admitted they were no longer that important because Christians miss used them.. what a difference
of what God says of baptism miss used or not baptism keeps its importance because its promises are eternal.

also
the bible says in many places infants can believe. so you don't know what your talking about when you say they cant believe as if you know more than God.

and your mixed up about THE timothy verse. ALSO good and faithful bible translation have to say infants when either Greek or Hebrew INDICATES infants
because that IS WHAT the text calls for and it can be no other.. The niv translators know they could not get away with YOUR WANA BE translation. even a good Baptist bible would have to say infants if they wanted to remain faithful to what the text says.

[1] The Greek word for, "Children" In Acts 2: 39, Is, "Teknos", Meaning children of the age of understanding, They could be as old as an adult, It means, One born in their family.
If Acts 2: 39 ment infants, The Greek word would be, "Brethos", So we can see that infant baptism ISN'T scriptural.

As for Matt 21: 15, The Greek word is "Pais", Meaning a lad or a boy, It isn't, "Brethos", An infant.
As for 2 Tim 3: 15, It simply means, Formt he very start, You have you have know the scriptures.

[2] Peter never said baptism saves, He knew it didn't, He was baptised but he knew he wasn't saved at that time,
Peter said baptism is only a figure, A type of baptism.
As for Acts 22: 16. baptism is just a symbol of washing away sins, Paul was already saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost before he was baptised in water. Acts 9: 6--17.

[3]Of cause the Bible says we have to believe befor baptism. Mk 16: 16. And repent first, Acts 2: 38.
How can an infant believe and repent??.

Baptism DOESN'T save or put us in right standing with God. It is the rebirth that does that.

You are leaning to your own understandings, Instead ot the Bible.

How is it that you did not see it in Scripture?? It happened to Jesus at the Jordan River. The Holy Spirit did come down upon Christ and a voice from Heaven said, "This is my Son whom I am well pleased" (See Matthew 3:16-17).

It happened to Jesus and it happens to us when we follow Him. Christ resurrected from the dead. Do you not believe that you will also resurrect from the dead just as He did?? We believe that we will resurrect from the dead just as He did, and we are baptized just as He was baptized.


After Pentecost, this is what St. Peter said:

Acts 22:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

St. Peter calls on everyone to repent and be baptized and to receive the Holy Spirit. He said that it is not only for adults, but also for children. While it is true that babies or infants cannot repent; nevertheless, they have the original sin that was passed on from Adam and Eve. This sin is not a personal sin, but a sin that was inherited from Adam and Eve. It is true that the kingdom of God is made for children, but the Holy Bible ALSO says that nothing unclean can enter God's Kingdom (See Revelations 21:27). Thus, infants were baptized to remove the original sin that was passed down from Adam and Eve. What makes you think that baptism is only for "personal sins?"

Furthermore, households of people were baptized including servants. While it is true that the Holy Bible doesn't say that these household had infants, it ALSO did not say that there were no infants. Therefore, how can you claim that we are teaching something false when the Bible does not even specifically say whether there were infants in those household or not?

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:15 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

When Christ sent His Apostles with the instruction to baptize all nations, what makes you think that "all nations" does not include the infants?




Colossians 2:11-12 shows that St. Paul compared circumcision to baptism. Yes, we are to circumcise our hearts. And this circumcision of hearts made by Christ is "baptism." There is only one baptism (See Ephesians 4:5)......a baptism of water and spirit. It is the water that cleanses sins and the spirit that sanctifies. Also, according to the Holy Bible, baptism can save. Why? Because baptism came from God. It never came from man, and what comes from God can bring salvation.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. [fn] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,


Furthermore, history shows that the Early Christians of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth centuries and so on practiced both infant and adult baptisms. According to these historical documents:

Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

In the third century, there was even a debate as to how old an infant should be baptized. Some say on the eighth day, which is the same day as the Jewish circumcision:

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

The Greek empheis for Saved, In Mk 16: 16, Is on the "Believing", NOT baptism.
The Greek meaning for 1 Pet 3: 21, Is, Baptism is only a figure, A type of salvation, [As Peter says], "Not the thing that saves".
As for 1 Cor 1: 14-16, In v14 Paul said he baptised none of them Yet in 1 Cor 4: 15, Paul said it was through his Ministry that they were saved, So Paul knew that baptism DOESN'T save, He knew it doesn't because he was saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost, But he wasn't baptised in water at that time.

As for Act 2: 38, according to the orginal Greek text,This is the way the people would have heard and understood Peter.
"Repent for the remision of sins, And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, AND THEN YOU CAN BE BAPTISED".

A little more knowledge of the Bible and the Greek Bible texts, And people will know the truth.

 

[Selene]

[1] The Greek word for, "Children" In Acts 2: 39, Is, "Teknos", Meaning children of the age of understanding, They could be as old as an adult, It means, One born in their family.
If Acts 2: 39 ment infants, The Greek word would be, "Brethos", So we can see that infant baptism ISN'T scriptural.

As for Matt 21: 15, The Greek word is "Pais", Meaning a lad or a boy, It isn't, "Brethos", An infant.
As for 2 Tim 3: 15, It simply means, Formt he very start, You have you have know the scriptures.

[2] Peter never said baptism saves, He knew it didn't, He was baptised but he knew he wasn't saved at that time,
Peter said baptism is only a figure, A type of baptism.
As for Acts 22: 16. baptism is just a symbol of washing away sins, Paul was already saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost before he was baptised in water. Acts 9: 6--17.

[3]Of cause the Bible says we have to believe befor baptism. Mk 16: 16. And repent first, Acts 2: 38.
How can an infant believe and repent??.

Baptism DOESN'T save or put us in right standing with God. It is the rebirth that does that.

You are leaning to your own understandings, Instead ot the Bible.

The Greek empheis for Saved, In Mk 16: 16, Is on the "Believing", NOT baptism.
The Greek meaning for 1 Pet 3: 21, Is, Baptism is only a figure, A type of salvation, [As Peter says], "Not the thing that saves".
As for 1 Cor 1: 14-16, In v14 Paul said he baptised none of them Yet in 1 Cor 4: 15, Paul said it was through his Ministry that they were saved, So Paul knew that baptism DOESN'T save, He knew it doesn't because he was saved and baptised in the Holy Ghost, But he wasn't baptised in water at that time.

As for Act 2: 38, according to the orginal Greek text,This is the way the people would have heard and understood Peter.
"Repent for the remision of sins, And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, AND THEN YOU CAN BE BAPTISED".

A little more knowledge of the Bible and the Greek Bible texts, And people will know the truth.

My friend, you make it so easy to get into Heaven. So, all you need to do is believe in Jesus Christ and that's it.....you get to go to Heaven. You make it sound so easy, but what did Jesus Christ Himself say?

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."


It sounds to me that it takes much more than simply saying "I believe in Jesus Christ" to get into Heaven. You put so much emphasis on the Greek word rather than on the message that Christ is trying to tell you. You even ignore the fact that the Early Christians of the first century actually practice infant baptism, and these were people who knew the Apostles.

 

[Niki]

SELENE:

How is it that you did not see it in Scripture?? It happened to Jesus at the Jordan River. The Holy Spirit did come down upon Christ and a voice from Heaven said, "This is my Son whom I am well pleased" (See Matthew 3:16-17).

It happened to Jesus and it happens to us when we follow Him. Christ resurrected from the dead. Do you not believe that you will also resurrect from the dead just as He did?? We believe that we will resurrect from the dead just as He did, and we are baptized just as He was baptized.

I didn't see 'it' because 'it' isn't there. How a doctrine of infant baptism can be formed from Jesus baptism in the Jordan is the real question IMO. We receive the Holy Spirit
at salvation and some believe there is another infilling having to do with empowerment for service for Christ.

Infant baptism is a doctrine that is not in the Bible. We do not receive the Holy Spirit when we are baptized. The Bible does not teach that. Jesus also walked on water.
Should we have a go at that as well> Ridiculous. Sorry, but it is. I'm not aiming that at you personally...but at a doctrine that is not in scripture and uses text that has
nothing to do with infants, receiving the Holy Spirit or any other mentioned in your post. Baptism is not even required for salvation. That is also false teaching. Was the
thief on the cross baptized or did he simply believe in Jesus as the Christ?

Baptism is an outward expression of our inward faith and it does not save us. Only faith in Christ and what He accomplished on the cross for the remission of our sins
points to salvation. Baptism is symbolic of our death in Christ and rebirth into new life. And even so, we are not automatically suddenly sinless. That, is also false
teaching.

Telling someone you are surprised that they did not see something that YOU say is there is simply a way of trying to sound like you have some sort of superior interpretation.

You don't.

As far as circumcision goes, if your best proof is what the early church fathers taught...according to Catholic dogma, then really, you simply need to understand that is
incorrect. Scripture does not state what you are trying to make it state, no matter how many dead men you quote. The word of God is living and active and sharper
then any two edged sword and it just does not state what you inserted from Catholic dogma. It has nothing to do with Catholicism or being Protestant...it simply has
to do with correct interpretation and does not matter as the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ...no church or religion saves ANYONE!!

 

[Alanforchrist]

My friend, you make it so easy to get into Heaven. So, all you need to do is believe in Jesus Christ and that's it.....you get to go to Heaven. You make it sound so easy, but what did Jesus Christ Himself say?

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."


It sounds to me that it takes much more than simply saying "I believe in Jesus Christ" to get into Heaven. You put so much emphasis on the Greek word rather than on the message that Christ is trying to tell you. You even ignore the fact that the Early Christians of the first century actually practice infant baptism, and these were people who knew the Apostles.

Thats because salvation is easy, one just believes in Jesus, get born again and live for Jesus.

 

[Selene]

SELENE:


I didn't see 'it' because 'it' isn't there. How a doctrine of infant baptism can be formed from Jesus baptism in the Jordan is the real question IMO. We receive the Holy Spirit
at salvation and some believe there is another infilling having to do with empowerment for service for Christ.

Infant baptism is a doctrine that is not in the Bible. We do not receive the Holy Spirit when we are baptized. The Bible does not teach that. Jesus also walked on water.
Should we have a go at that as well> Ridiculous. Sorry, but it is. I'm not aiming that at you personally...but at a doctrine that is not in scripture and uses text that has
nothing to do with infants, receiving the Holy Spirit or any other mentioned in your post. Baptism is not even required for salvation. That is also false teaching.

There are many things that are not in the Bible, but that does not mean that it is false. There is nothing in the Bible saying that we should brush our teeth, but we do it anyway. How do you know that George Washington was the first President of the United States? You know it from historical records. The Early Christians of the first, second, and third century also kept historical records; therefore, we know for a fact that infant baptism was practiced by the Early Christians since the first century, and the only thing you can say is that they are wrong? So, you are now claiming to know much more than the Early Christians of the first century??

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

As St. John testified, there were many things that Jesus did that were not recorded down. Just because they were not recorded down does not mean that it was not important for everything that our Lord did was important.

Furthermore, infant baptism is not even going against the Bible? How is it going against it?

I agree that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. But what good is believing in Jesus Christ when one cannot even imitate the simple things in His footsteps such as getting themselves baptized?

Baptism is not even required for salvation. That is also false teaching. Was the
thief on the cross baptized or did he simply believe in Jesus as the Christ?

Baptism is an outward expression of our inward faith and it does not save us. Only faith in Christ and what He accomplished on the cross for the remission of our sins
points to salvation. Baptism is symbolic of our death in Christ and rebirth into new life. And even so, we are not automatically suddenly sinless. That, is also false
teaching.

You say that baptism does not save? Now, this goes against what scripture says:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. [fn] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Yes, Christ died for our sins, but have you noticed that in the Bible, the Apostles continued to baptize even after Christ ascended into Heaven? These are the facts which anyone can find in the Holy Bible:

Fact 1: Baptism is found only in the New Testament.
Fact 2: God sent St. John the Baptist to baptize for the forgiveness of sins.
Fact 3: Jesus allowed Himself to be baptized.
Fact 4: Christ allowed His disciples to continue the practice of baptism, even after St. John the Baptist was killed (John 4:1-2).
Fact 5: Christ told His Apostles to go out and baptize all nations.
Fact 6: After Christ ascended into Heaven, the Apostles continued to baptize.

In light of all this, it seems to me that baptism is important. And the reason why it is important is actually found in your own answer. You stated that baptism is symbolic of our death in Christ and rebirth into new life. This is somewhat correct.

For Catholics, baptism means "to be born again into a new life." Christ said that one must be born of water and spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). He was referring to baptism........which YOU state is symbolic of our death and rebirth into new life. For a Catholic, baptism is not symbolic. The Spirit is REAL. We are baptized in the same way Christ was baptized at the Jordan River......with water and spirit.

Was the
thief on the cross baptized or did he simply believe in Jesus as the Christ?

Now here, you are simply assuming that the thief on the cross was NOT baptized when the Bible doesn't even say whether he was baptized or not. You're only making the assumption that he was not baptized......just like you would make the assumption that there were no infants in the "households" of those people who were baptized.

Scripture does not state what you are trying to make it state, no matter how many dead men you quote. The word of God is living and active and sharper
then any two edged sword and it just does not state what you inserted from Catholic dogma. It has nothing to do with Catholicism or being Protestant...it simply has
to do with correct interpretation and does not matter as the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ...no church or religion saves ANYONE!!

I agree that correct interpretation is important. So, what made you interpret that the thief on the cross was not baptized when scripture says nothing about it?

Thats because salvation is easy, one just believes in Jesus, get born again and live for Jesus.

As I said, you make it sound so easy. But I will go with what Christ says.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I am not a promoter of Infant baptize as a salvation tool (wrong word) ... and would question how a baby can receive the holy Spirit

Yet I must acknowledge that John the Baptist had the holy Spirit when he was still in Elizabeth's womb ... or at least it is inferred to in

Luke 1:41
Luke 1:15

That's not to say we can claim the same for our babies ... but it is something to consider (babies can have The Spirit).

 

[Niki]

There are many things that are not in the Bible, but that does not mean that it is false. There is nothing in the Bible saying that we should brush our teeth, but we do it anyway. How do you know that George Washington was the first President of the United States? You know it from historical records. The Early Christians of the first, second, and third century also kept historical records; therefore, we know for a fact that infant baptism was practiced by the Early Christians since the first century, and the only thing you can say is that they are wrong? So, you are now claiming to know much more than the Early Christians of the first century??

Well at least you admit that infant baptism is not in the Bible. That's a step in the right direction !

As St. John testified, there were many things that Jesus did that were not recorded down. Just because they were not recorded down does not mean that it was not important for everything that our Lord did was important.

Furthermore, infant baptism is not even going against the Bible? How is it going against it?

I agree that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. But what good is believing in Jesus Christ when one cannot even imitate the simple things in His footsteps such as getting themselves baptized?

Are you inferring that Jesus baptized infants?

One can only be saved when they make a personal DECISION to accept Jesus as their Savior. An infant cannot make decision and the parents cannot make that decision for the child.

Are you saying that unless a person is baptized salvation is not good? That sounds like you might believe that there are two things necessary for salvation. That, is
not in the Bible either.

You say that baptism does not save? Now, this goes against what scripture says:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. [fn] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Are you saying that it takes two things to be saved ? Are you saying that Christ's work on the cross was not complete? I get that impression in your response.

It seems you are confusing belief in Baptism with belief in Salvation through Christ alone. I hope you would not think that.,

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11Jesus is

“ ‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’a

12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

Did Peter forget baptism and baptism for infants? He does not mention baptism at all! I think I will accept the words of Peter...I thought Catholics took Peter's words
very seriously? I think Peter should have mentioned baptism if he thought it would save someone...

In light of all this, it seems to me that baptism is important. And the reason why it is important is actually found in your own answer. You stated that baptism is symbolic of our death in Christ and rebirth into new life. This is somewhat correct.

The Bible indicates its importance; it does not add it to salvation. Did Jesus need to be saved? Is that why He was baptized? It was an act of obedience...John himself said that
One was coming who would baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit...is that baptism important? Water does not give power but the Holy Spirit does according to scripture and according
to John who baptized our Lord Himself!

To state that a person receives the Holy Spirit at baptism is a fallacy. Jesus did not receive the Holy Spirit when he obey and was baptized. Jesus IS God! The decent of the Spirit of
God was to indicate God's approval. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and told the disciples that he had to return to the Father to send the Holy Spirit. If everyone receives the Holy Spirit
when they are baptized, then you must believe that everyone that John baptized received the Holy Spirit? So I guess you must believe that because you cannot believe people
receive the Spirit at baptism but the people John baptized did not even though Jesus did and it seems you may believe this is an indication of infant baptism?

Now here, you are simply assuming that the thief on the cross was NOT baptized when the Bible doesn't even say whether he was baptized or not. You're only making the assumption that he was not baptized......just like you would make the assumption that there were no infants in the "households" of those people who were baptized.

Oh the irony.

I agree that correct interpretation is important. So, what made you interpret that the thief on the cross was not baptized when scripture says nothing about it?

Dear sister in Christ. There is no room for interpretation in the depiction. Interpretation has to do with the original language...not our imaginations. The Bible does not say he was
baptized...the Bible does not say "The thief on the cross who had been baptized by John asked Jesus to remember him and Jesus said He would."

That, would be adding to scripture. We should not add to the word of God. That, creates cults, sects and doctrines of devils.....doctrines of devils, according to the Bible, is
false teaching.

 

[Selene]

Well at least you admit that infant baptism is not in the Bible. That's a step in the right direction !

I never said that infant baptism is not in the Bible. There is a hint of infant baptism in the Bible unless you can prove to me that those "whole households" that were baptized did not have any infants in them.

However, you claim that it isn't biblical.....which makes me wonder how then can you accuse Catholics of teaching false things. How do you accuse someone of teaching false things you believe is not mention in the Bible?

Are you inferring that Jesus baptized infants?

One can only be saved when they make a personal DECISION to accept Jesus as their Savior. An infant cannot make decision and the parents cannot make that decision for the child.

I never said that Jesus baptized infants nor do I make such an inference. YOU say that one has to make a personal decision to accept Jesus as their Savior in order to receive the Holy Spirit?? According to the Bible, John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit when he was only a baby in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

So, you see......John the Baptist already received the Holy Spirit even when he was in his mother's womb. Did John the Baptist make a personal decision to accept Christ when he was in his mother's womb?? No, of course not. An unborn baby cannot make any personal decision; yet, here you have in scripture that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit when he was only an infant in his mother's womb. If God can do this.....what makes you think He is incapable of sending the Holy Spirit when an infant is baptized??

Did Peter forget baptism and baptism for infants? He does not mention baptism at all! I think I will accept the words of Peter...I thought Catholics took Peter's words
very seriously? I think Peter should have mentioned baptism if he thought it would save someone...

He did mention baptism, which is the reason why you ignored this very Scripture below written by St. Peter:

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. [fn] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[Alanforchrist]

There are many things that are not in the Bible, but that does not mean that it is false. There is nothing in the Bible saying that we should brush our teeth, but we do it anyway. How do you know that George Washington was the first President of the United States? You know it from historical records. The Early Christians of the first, second, and third century also kept historical records; therefore, we know for a fact that infant baptism was practiced by the Early Christians since the first century, and the only thing you can say is that they are wrong? So, you are now claiming to know much more than the Early Christians of the first century??

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

As St. John testified, there were many things that Jesus did that were not recorded down. Just because they were not recorded down does not mean that it was not important for everything that our Lord did was important.

Furthermore, infant baptism is not even going against the Bible? How is it going against it?

I agree that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. But what good is believing in Jesus Christ when one cannot even imitate the simple things in His footsteps such as getting themselves baptized?



You say that baptism does not save? Now, this goes against what scripture says:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. [fn] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Yes, Christ died for our sins, but have you noticed that in the Bible, the Apostles continued to baptize even after Christ ascended into Heaven? These are the facts which anyone can find in the Holy Bible:

Fact 1: Baptism is found only in the New Testament.
Fact 2: God sent St. John the Baptist to baptize for the forgiveness of sins.
Fact 3: Jesus allowed Himself to be baptized.
Fact 4: Christ allowed His disciples to continue the practice of baptism, even after St. John the Baptist was killed (John 4:1-2).
Fact 5: Christ told His Apostles to go out and baptize all nations.
Fact 6: After Christ ascended into Heaven, the Apostles continued to baptize.

In light of all this, it seems to me that baptism is important. And the reason why it is important is actually found in your own answer. You stated that baptism is symbolic of our death in Christ and rebirth into new life. This is somewhat correct.

For Catholics, baptism means "to be born again into a new life." Christ said that one must be born of water and spirit in order to enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). He was referring to baptism........which YOU state is symbolic of our death and rebirth into new life. For a Catholic, baptism is not symbolic. The Spirit is REAL. We are baptized in the same way Christ was baptized at the Jordan River......with water and spirit.


Now here, you are simply assuming that the thief on the cross was NOT baptized when the Bible doesn't even say whether he was baptized or not. You're only making the assumption that he was not baptized......just like you would make the assumption that there were no infants in the "households" of those people who were baptized.


I agree that correct interpretation is important. So, what made you interpret that the thief on the cross was not baptized when scripture says nothing about it?


As I said, you make it sound so easy. But I will go with what Christ says.

If you went by what Jesus said, You would find salvation easy..GET IT RIGHT.
But the Christian life isn't salvation, It comes after one is saved. The Christian life can be a challenged somtimes.
There are people persucuting us, We have the devil trying to devour us, But thank God He gives us the victory.

 

[Selene]

If you went by what Jesus said, You would find salvation easy..GET IT RIGHT.
But the Christian life isn't salvation, It comes after one is saved. The Christian life can be a challenged somtimes.
There are people persucuting us, We have the devil trying to devour us, But thank God He gives us the victory.

If it's so easy, then why did Jesus say that it's much easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle rather than someone to enter Heaven? If it's so easy, then why did Jesus say that the road to life is narrow and small and so very few people find it?

 

[mjrhealth]

With God its about choices and decisions. A baby is incapable of making any form of decision, Child baptism is just another "tradition", come about through men misinterpreting the bible to there own end. Jesus received the Holy Spirit because "HE " choose to be baptised. There is no such thing as original sin. We are born into a sinfull world, how can a child who has done nothing and incapable of making and decisions be sinful. All children belong to Christ, baptised or not, and only He and God know when one is capable of choosing to be baptised or not. No one can make that decision for anyone.The world is full of religious tradition and false doctrines but people love it that way.

In all His Love

 

[Niki]

With God its about choices and decisions. A baby is incapable of making any form of decision, Child baptism is just another "tradition", come about through men misinterpreting the bible to there own end. Jesus received the Holy Spirit because "HE " choose to be baptised. There is no such thing as original sin. We are born into a sinfull world, how can a child who has done nothing and incapable of making and decisions be sinful. All children belong to Christ, baptised or not, and only He and God know when one is capable of choosing to be baptised or not. No one can make that decision for anyone.The world is full of religious tradition and false doctrines but people love it that way.

In all His Love

THIS ^^^^^^

I never said that infant baptism is not in the Bible. There is a hint of infant baptism in the Bible unless you can prove to me that those "whole households" that were baptized did not have any infants in them.

However, you claim that it isn't biblical.....which makes me wonder how then can you accuse Catholics of teaching false things. How do you accuse someone of teaching false things you believe is not mention in the Bible?

A hint? Is there a 'hint' of Jesus dying for us or is it plain and easy enough for a child, not an infant because they cannot even lift their little heads without help, to understand.

Infant baptism is a tradition...not a doctrine of scripture. The responsible person does not major on minors...that, is the basement floor of most cults.

Don't put words in my mouth Selene...that isn't very "Christian" The devil is the accuser...we are discussing something here and for you to throw in this word, demonstrates
that you becoming hostile. Kindly keep it nice.

I never said that Jesus baptized infants nor do I make such an inference. YOU say that one has to make a personal decision to accept Jesus as their Savior in order to receive the Holy Spirit?? According to the Bible, John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit when he was only a baby in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

So, you see......John the Baptist already received the Holy Spirit even when he was in his mother's womb. Did John the Baptist make a personal decision to accept Christ when he was in his mother's womb?? No, of course not. An unborn baby cannot make any personal decision; yet, here you have in scripture that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit when he was only an infant in his mother's womb. If God can do this.....what makes you think He is incapable of sending the Holy Spirit when an infant is baptized??

Well, you know, if Jesus did not baptize infants, then why do you want to baptize them? So, if Jesus cousin John was filled with the Spirit of God in the womb, does that mean
every child should be? I think there may be a problem of understanding the difference between MEANT FOR EVERYONE and THIS IS AN EXCEPTION.

By your logic, I suppose we should all walk on water and eat locusts. Joking aside, an exception is not a general practice. Most of us know that and that would be why
we do not make a major doctrine out of a one time event or exceptional occurrence when we find it in the Bible. Anyone can read that Jesus told the disciples He had to
return to heaven so the Father could send the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost and was made available to all believers. Really.

If God can do this.....what makes you think He is incapable of sending the Holy Spirit when an infant is baptized??

Actually, why would you think He does? Again, you are looking at an exception and claiming it is the truth for everyone when it is not. God is capable certainly, but that is
obviously not His choice because if every infant were filled with the Holy Spirit the world would not suffer from sin as it does. Infant baptism precludes choice yet God Himself
says "Choose they day whom you will serve." Infants cannot do that. Which you actually really do understand unless you have seen them walking up for communion with
their diaper hanging out. (humor)

He did mention baptism, which is the reason why you ignored this very Scripture below written by St. Peter:

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. [fn] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Well of course we read about baptism. We just don't read about John immersing newborns in the river Jordan. Nor do we read about Peter doing it either. Nor do we read about
Peter even one time mentioning that anyone should do that to their child. It is simply not in Scripture.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:9
"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" This is the only verse that says "baptism now saves you." But, is it teaching that we must be baptized in water to be saved? No. But, but to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context.

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him," (1 Pet. 3:18-22, NASB)

Baptism is symbolic. Remarkably though, even if baptism did save (which it does not) a person still must CHOOSE. Once again we are left with the dilemma of an infant
not being able to choose.

 

[Alanforchrist]

If it's so easy, then why did Jesus say that it's much easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle rather than someone to enter Heaven? If it's so easy, then why did Jesus say that the road to life is narrow and small and so very few people find it?

That has nothing to do with salvation, But the man's lack of wanting it badly enough to give his money away.
If a person isn't willing to receive the new life that Jesus wan't to give us, Then it is hard for that person to get to heaven.

THIS ^^^^^^



A hint? Is there a 'hint' of Jesus dying for us or is it plain and easy enough for a child, not an infant because they cannot even lift their little heads without help, to understand.

Infant baptism is a tradition...not a doctrine of scripture. The responsible person does not major on minors...that, is the basement floor of most cults.

Don't put words in my mouth Selene...that isn't very "Christian" The devil is the accuser...we are discussing something here and for you to throw in this word, demonstrates
that you becoming hostile. Kindly keep it nice.


Well, you know, if Jesus did not baptize infants, then why do you want to baptize them? So, if Jesus cousin John was filled with the Spirit of God in the womb, does that mean
every child should be? I think there may be a problem of understanding the difference between MEANT FOR EVERYONE and THIS IS AN EXCEPTION.

By your logic, I suppose we should all walk on water and eat locusts. Joking aside, an exception is not a general practice. Most of us know that and that would be why
we do not make a major doctrine out of a one time event or exceptional occurrence when we find it in the Bible. Anyone can read that Jesus told the disciples He had to
return to heaven so the Father could send the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit descended on the Day of Pentecost and was made available to all believers. Really.


Actually, why would you think He does? Again, you are looking at an exception and claiming it is the truth for everyone when it is not. God is capable certainly, but that is
obviously not His choice because if every infant were filled with the Holy Spirit the world would not suffer from sin as it does. Infant baptism precludes choice yet God Himself
says "Choose they day whom you will serve." Infants cannot do that. Which you actually really do understand unless you have seen them walking up for communion with
their diaper hanging out. (humor)


Well of course we read about baptism. We just don't read about John immersing newborns in the river Jordan. Nor do we read about Peter doing it either. Nor do we read about
Peter even one time mentioning that anyone should do that to their child. It is simply not in Scripture.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:9
"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" This is the only verse that says "baptism now saves you." But, is it teaching that we must be baptized in water to be saved? No. But, but to rightly understand it, we need to look at its context.

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him," (1 Pet. 3:18-22, NASB)

Baptism is symbolic. Remarkably though, even if baptism did save (which it does not) a person still must CHOOSE. Once again we are left with the dilemma of an infant
not being able to choose.

Peter never said baptism saves, He said it is a figure, A type of salvation, The Greek says, baptism isn't the thing that saves, It is just a figure of salvation.
One has to be already saved to be baptised, Not the other way around.