Evangelicals, do you consider those of us who practice infant baptism to be "unsaved"?

Question

November is Missions Month in many evangelical churches, and so I am attributing the large number of "born again" related questions to this fact. (Yes, I realize that October is another popular month for this designation.)

And so my question is this: If I don't agree with your belief that the *manner* in which God gives us salvation is by calling us to the sinner's prayer and a born-again experience, am I just as unsaved as a person who denies the Gospel?

And if not, then why are we being targeted?

ecterbob, I'm talking about manner of conversion. Most churches that practice infant baptism, including Lutherans, believe that baptism is the manner of conversion.

C, God rescued me from my sin through baptism, and through the instruction of my parents, pastors, and teachers He gave me the grace to develop a love for Him and the desire to serve Him with all my heart. Though I can point to times and events where this had especially significant meaning, there is no specific, clearly identifiable point of salvation other than my baptism. I was not baptized as an infant, but was too young to genuinely understand what was happening.

A clarification: The "Missions Month" comment was really tangential. I've simply noticed a definite increase in the past few weeks, in the number of questions asked about being born again, contrasting it with the concept of salvation through baptism. I attributed that to the popularity of November as a "Missions Month" in some churches, but it's really beside the point.

Answer 1

there is nothing wrong with babtizing babies. However it is only to be done as a dedication. Meaning the parents are dedicating the baby to god promising that they would teach the child about god.
I don,t undestand why you seem confused about salvation it is so simple John 3:16. You must believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sin. I don,t undestand why that is so difficult. We are all sinners before we get saved and after and god knew that , thats why he send his son so we have a chance to be forgiven and all we have to do is believe that he died for us and rose again if you can,t believe that then you are missing the whole picture. Then why would Jesus have to die?Think anout it !!! The bible is very clear !The ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus that,s why god sent him and I,am sorry my friend but if you don,t believe that then you are not saved.Again the bible says ....I,am the way , the truth and the light noone will come to the father except through me !!!!!Pretty clear message there don,t you think ?After you except this you are saved and the bible tells us we should be babtized. It is not commanded in the bible to be babtize , but we should get babtized to make a public confession adn to show our faith.During babtizing you will go under the water representing the death of Jesus and when you come up it shows his resurection and therefor your new life as a saved person. Again it is so very clear in the bible .Works do not get us to heaven it,s as simple as that only the blood of Jesus that was shed for you and me on the cross. Please, don,t let satan confuse you.Many Blessings to you my friend, Nicole

Answer 2

There is some dispute over this, as infant baptism is fairly common in modern Christianity and therefore there is a motive for justifying it. The basis of infant baptism's justification seems to be the portions in Acts where it says the "whole house" was baptized. However, that may be a too literal reading of those passages. Compare passages where "all of Judea" was supposedly going out to see John the Baptist. What is meant is that John the Baptist was getting a lot of attention but it doesn't mean every single individual went to see him. In the same way, baptism of a "whole house" (the Philippian jailer and Cornelius, both in Acts), doesn't mean that everyone right down to the infants was baptized. Where it is clear who is being baptized, it is evident that the baptism happens upon a person's making a decision to be baptized. At Pentecost, Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch and other places, all involve adults making conscious decisions. Nowhere do we have a clear example of someone bringing their infant to be baptized. The best we can say is that infant baptism is a possibility in some accounts. Those who say it has no scriptural support are on firmer ground. Some suggest that baptism is to the New Testament what circumcision was to the Old. However, this is not stated in the New Testament anywhere and requires much inferring with little concrete evidence of such a continuity. Add in the fact that baptism is considered a sign of repentance, of a change of life etc. and all elaborate arguments aside, the simplest and best interpretation appears to be believer's baptism, which excludes infants as being unable to make such a choice. One argument states that we don't see anything excluding the teaching. One Anabaptist writer sardonically said that neither do we see teachings excluding baptism of livestock. The fact that it is not specifically condemned does not de facto make it acceptable practice. This is a matter which has generated much discussion and arguments for both sides, so I cannot end the debate here. EDIT: Catholics are at least consistent, they believe that baptism saves ya. So baptize 'em young and if'n they grow up and kill granma they's at least goin' to heaven, all other evidence to the contrary.

Answer 3

One of the most nagging questions in Christianity is whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation. The answer is a simple, "No." But you might ask, "If the answer is no, then why are there verses that say things like ‘. . .baptism that now saves you . . . ‘ (1 Pet. 3:21, NIV) and ‘ . . . Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins . . ." (Acts 2:38, NIV

Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12).
One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that works were necessary?

Answer 4

First, baptism does not save you. Works do not save you...only faith in Christ.

Second, I go to an evangelical church (I'm Baptist), and we do not believe in infant baptism. Baby dedications are fine, where the parents and church agree to raise the infant in a godly environment.

Accepting the Lord into your heart is being born-again (necessary for justification before God the Father, forgiveness of sins, and salvation) is an individual decision for each of us, and infants do not yet have the wherewithal to do so.

Those who practice it, like Presbyterians, are certainly taking baptism out of context. Whether or not they are saved is between them and the Lord.

Answer 5

This is one of the biggest issues that my friends and I have. I see my baptism as God coming into me and it was all His doing and none of my own. Mine came as I grew and matured into my faith, and even that is more God than me! My Baptist friends see it, as many have already stated, as something merely symbolic and of their own doing and not God's. It's in the same argument as "letting Jesus into your heart". I never had to let Him in, He's always been there, from the moment of my baptism.
I've only had one person out and out say I was not "saved" and would thus be burning in Hell. Others, who have seen how I live my life and how I walk my daily walk, have just chosen to disagree with the teaching but admit that I am "saved", but not through my baptismal grace.

Until other protestant denominations accept the True Presence of Christ in Baptism and in the Lord's Supper, I'm afraid it's just an unending battle.

Answer 6

Personally, I don't share this criteria, but I would never dare to say that people who do this are "unsaved."
I understand that those who baptise infants hope to somehow "seal" the child for the church. In my personal worldview, God has no grandchildren. One hopes that these children grow up with strong Christian values but it does place a double burden on the parents.

As for "missions month"--I've never heard of such a thing. Every day is a day of grace.

Answer 7

If baptizing infants was all there was to being saved there would be no need for faith, belief, and obedience, and Christ would not have had to die on the cross. Baptism is only part of the process of rebirth, along with repentance and public confession of Christ as your savior.

Answer 8

Anon. Lutheran I am confused by your question. Are you asking about the manner of baptism or the manner of conversion?

Answer 9

There are no "degrees" of salvation. One is either saved or unsaved. God's plan for salvation is simple. His commandments point us to our need of a Savior; once we recognize our sin and our need of a Savior, repent of our sins, and put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross and rose again on the third day -- then we will be saved. We will be born again in the spirit, becoming new creations in Christ, given freedom from sin and the promise of eternal life through Christ. Salvation is a free gift offered to us by God, because of His love for us. We cannot earn it. We do not deserve it. We can do nothing on our own to merit it. All we can do is respond to God's calling, repent and put our faith in Christ.

Baptism in no way saves. It is an outward act of obedience symbolic of the inward change. Baptism of an infant does nothing for the infant as that baby is not capable of making a decision for or against Christ.

My belief is based solidly on Scripture. It is God who has told us how to be saved through His Word. If you disagree with that, it is not me with whom you disagree, but the LORD. If that is not your belief, does your belief come from your church and its traditions? And, if so, is your church's traditions more important than Scripture? If there is a conflict between church tradition and Scripture, which gets thrown out? The tradition or Scripture?

Those of us who are born again believers in Christ are called to seek and save that which is lost. There is only one way to God -- coming to Him through Christ. If you have not repented of your sins and put your faith in Christ, I urge you to do so today. There are many who are religious, who will say to the Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, did we not cast out demons in your name, did we not do wonders in your name. And He will say to them that He never knew them and to depart from Him. If you haven't been saved, then you are facing a Christless eternity. God doesn't desire that for you, which is why He sent His Son to die on the cross for your sins.

Answer 10

Love the "Blues Man Luther" avatar!