Is infant baptism biblical, /his/?

>>2808576
Baptism saves you.

No, and it should be illegal and chastised with skinning alive.

>>2808591
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

>>2808613

Baptism doesn't save

>>2808581
Faith alone saves you

>>2808576
Doesn't matter whether its biblical or not, it's church teaching, and the church is the truth you hippy

>>2808630
>>2808632
Baptism is a profession of faith.

>>2808648
>and the church is the truth you hippy
Which of the forged documents say this?

>>2808649

Baptism must only be done out of your own volition.

Nobody is well baptized because people get turbo-baptized at childhood.

Another joke in the silly history of the shitty religion of the demiurge.

>>2808669
Care to back that up with scripture? Because 1 Peter teaches that baptism now saves us.

>>2808576
Considering how the apostles baptized entire households, which would include children, yes. It is also clearly established in tradition, the only major thinker opposing it (to my knowledge) being Tertullian, and even he did not reject infant baptism.

What is an innovation is the Trinitarian baptismal formula; the early Christians baptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone.

>>2808698
>Care to back that up with scripture?

I don't belong to your religion, though I've read the bible and it is very clear that baptism must be done with faith.

>>2808718
>[18] And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Unitarians are demons
>>2808725
Baptism is a profession of faith that saves us.

>>2808698
>Evil is allowed to exist so that Man can choose to be saved of his own volition
>Man is forced to be saved at birth by baptism

>>2808718
>What is an innovation is the Trinitarian baptismal formula; the early Christians baptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Matthew 28:19

>>2808738
Why would you not want to be saved?

>>2808737
>>2808745
Later innovations. I am not a Unitarian, Jesus was, by way of the incarnation, wholly divine. We are instructed to perform baptism in one name, who in the apocryphal (but also early) Shepard of Hermas, who is God. In the bible, we are told to baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus = God. Matthew is a later addition, by those attempting to instill their own doctrine, or to further strengthen doctrine to the detriment of scripture.

>>2808666
O Luther, son of Satan, I need not to prove a thing to you, for it would be throwing pearls before swines

>>2808576
This arises only because of the development of doctrine. Once church heads got into disputes with each other for control of the church the question inevitably arose as to what happened to people who died without being baptized. The church being unyielding in their doctrine and all had to develop a view that would be consistent with the mission of the church. Divergent Protestant denoms want to pretend they're
holier-than-thou by acting like they discovered the truth more than a thousand years after the fact.

>>2808858
Matthew is decades older than the Shepard of Hermas

No, it is a tradition that began in the Roman empire after christianity became the religion under Constantine. Essentially, after everyone got baptised, it was seen socially unfashionable to NOT be baptised (Because Romans were vain mother fuckers), and children began to be baptised at birth.

>>2811334
Christianity was adopted under Theodosius, not Constantine