>>18244825
>If children are automatically born in a state of innocence, and do not become accountable for their sin until the age of reason (ages 7 or 8), then how could you say that Adam's sin passed onto his descendants?
Not a Christians but being hereditary doesn't mean something must be present from birth, e.g. pubic hair.

>>18244870
Ok but the potential for secondary sex characteristics lies in the nature of the babe, it's just that they aren't an adult yet where those characteristics can be expressed outwardly. But many Baptist theologians argue that children are born wholly in a state of innocence, which is how they can justify Credobaptism against the view of original sin. But this leads to the central issue at hand, because if children are born innocent and can go to heaven automatically if they die then Jesus is not their savior. If they are born with original sin they by what means can they be saved? I suppose one could simply assert they are among the regenerated elect but this is extremely speculative and there is no direct scriptural basis for this. It's a mighty wager to take. This is a major dilemma Baptists face.

Wow that's really really interesting

>>18244887
>I suppose one could simply assert they are among the regenerated elect but this is extremely speculative and there is no direct scriptural basis for this. It's a mighty wager to take.
A lot of Baptists think faith precedes regeneration so they couldn't even take that route given that the entire basis of their theology is "reee you can't baptize babies because they don't have faith!!!!" You're basically correct that the Baptist tradition leads to Pelagianism.

woah a thread where protestants shit on other protestants for once

>>18244870
Pubic hair isn't hereditary, its genes are and are present from birth
>>18244887
>But many Baptist theologians argue that children are born wholly in a state of innocence
Now, to be fair while they are increasingly few in number there are Baptists who will grant we are conceived in sin and born strangers to the covenant of promise, and this argument seems non-applicable to them. However, these ones are inconsistent, since by their own admission there is no means by which their children could be reconciled to God except by the covenant of grace which they deny to them. And though it was opposing Arminianism, the Canons of Dort speak to this and reveal how a consistent Baptist cannot be Calvinistic: "Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy."
>>18244900
In many ways Baptist theology if consistent has destructive consequences. I think a large share of the blame for the degeneration of modernity can be laid at their feet. They began to imagine that sinners had a right to disbelieve, and objected to infant baptism as violating some right of theirs. We find nothing in scripture of God granting any right to unbelief, and it seems injurious to the holiness of God. But is it any wonder for society to have moved to rebellion against God and defiance of His will when they were lied to that they had a right to do such things?

>>18244825
Have you considered that Paul wasn't an apostle nor a spokesperson for God or Jesus Christ?

>>18244825
Adam's sin passed down to children because they get diseases or die. If Adam had not sinned kids would not die or get diseases.

Jesus saves the children. The children do not save themselves. Jesus simply picks them to go to heaven.

>>18244825
The children are saved by grace alone. God just brings them to heaven by grace

>>18244903
I've watched two rats fight before.

>>18245119
And how do you know grace is actually imparted to them? If there is no outward sign of their salvation, isn't this a bit ad hoc on your part? If you truly affirm the Augustinian formula that baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace, then why can't children be baptized? They already have grace according to you. Baptist theology is woefully inconsistent.

It's not impossible that God could do this for them. But there's no scriptural basis for it. Scripture is adamant that all are sinners, that all are in need of Christ's grace, and that our natures are fallen.

If we are all born innocent and without any stain, then why do children eventually go on to commit personal sin? There is a clear inclination in all of us to do bad. Even Augustine talked about how babes do display self centered behavior, when they violently cry to compel adults to satisfy their carnal desires, when toddlers throw tantrums when they can't get their own way. Whose to say even the babes are wholly without personal sin?

>>18244887
>if children ... can go to heaven automatically if they die then Jesus is not their savior
Not a baptist.
It is because Jesus is their savior that it's possible for them to go to heaven automatically.
He shed his blood for all men, not just a few as the apostle John writes. He purchased all men, false teachers too.

It's Jesus' decision, and his supremacy is not thwarted by anything.
Baptism is effective for salvation, but not being baptized alone can't stop Jesus from deciding to save an infant.

>they are born with original sin they by what means can they be saved
If Jesus says so.
He isn't a machine, doesn't have to give the same output every time only when a certain input is punched in.

Calvinism is heresy for many reasons, in this case because it reduces Christ's agency to nothing more than a legal servitor of the letter of the law, rather than spiritual administrator with full powers to bind and loose as he sees fit from all sins. And not only that, he also delegates this power to his church. Respecting the binding and loosing operations of his chosen apostles.

>>18245074
Belief or unbelief isn't a right. It's a state of being.
You don't choose to exercise belief. It's just what happens.

Belief in God is a gift, nobody would say "unbelief is not a right" if they knew the nature of gift giving in this sense.
You don't have a right to belief, it's a free gift and can only be gotten as a gift.

Faith is different from belief in an important way, because acting in a faithful manner to the commandments of the new covenant necessarily involves the individual agency.
Obedience requires free will and agency to be coherent.
An important distinction between the Latin words "credere" (credo, creed, belief) and "fide" (fidelity, faith) there.
One does not involve agency of any kind, the other depends on it. And yet both are connected.

Your legalism has clouded your discernment.
Baptism doesn't make you believe. It can, but that's not a universal feature.

>>18245165
You're going to burn in hell for all eternity Calvinist scum baby dipper. No better than a Romanist. Baby dippers all go to hell. You will burn. Enjoy burning. Tick tock!
>>18244825
>They are not real Protestants
We were never Protestants in the first place. Jesus founded the first Baptist congregation in 33 AD.

>>18245181
>It is because Jesus is their savior that it's possible for them to go to heaven automatically.
Then if baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace, why can't they be baptized? Also you're implicitly denying the perseverance of the saints. Why do adults need to be saved then if they were already saved at birth? You want to teach perseverance of the saints, or "OSAS" as you call it, but then you say babes can lose salvation once they commit personal sin and need to be saved again? Your entire theology is full of contradictions! The Baptist heresy has led many to damnation.

>>18244903
It's a papist false flag kek

>>18245165
Tantrums are imperfect and from original sin but God forgives all sins of children under 7 because they don't know better. God isn't cruel

Kids aren't baptized because baptism has to be from faith and choice. No baby can have faith. In the Bible it was adults getting baptized not babies. You are pledging your allegiance to God. Baptism is meaningless unless you choose it freely

>>18245192
I'm not a baptist.
Baptists are heretics too.

Baptism obliterates sin through a direct infusion of Christ's own faith and righteousness into the body and soul of the recipient, through the pouring out of grace freely as a gift, which is not merited by nature or by works.

What you call "perseverance of the saints", "osas", "assurance", etc is heresy.

>Why do adults need to be saved then if they were already saved at birth?
You are starting to see why the heretical doctrine of assurance is incoherent.
People can fall to temptation and sin mortally, which means they fall from a state of grace. Just as Adam and Eve were originally in the direct presence of God, and thus in a state of grace, but then disobeyed God and fell from grace.

Perseverance doesn't mean that you are saved no matter what you do, that the elect are free to sin as much as they like and true (not imputed) righteousness does not matter to.
It means you personally persevere in the faith until the end when you finally overcome, when the good fight is won.
Never cease from the vigil, because you do not know the day or the hour Christ will come like a thief. If those who watch over his house are found unready, it will be a day of reckoning.

>>18245192
It's not a contradiction because before 7 God chooses their salvation. They are not freely choosing it. OSAS refers to when you freely choose salvation. If you're truly saved it's like knowing the sky is blue. You can't go back unless you never really believed

>>18245230
Belief and faith are not synonymous.
You don't get to choose salvation, you can't choose to believe. If you think you can force yourself to believe anything you're delusional.

That is Christ's choice.
He judges the works of *all* men.

But especially he holds Christians to a high standard, and then again some Christians in positions of authority to a yet higher standard. James writes that teachers in particular are subject to a stricter judgement. Because Christians have been given the knowledge of truth in the gospel, and to whom much is entrusted more will be asked.

Being a Christian entails responsibilities and obligations, a mission.
These are things which the Christian has that the heathen has not been charged with, and the Christian can expect to be held to them and account for every errant word on the last day with this in mind. That they had foreknown these things, which were even written for their benefit, that they repent and make straight their ways.


8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

...

23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;

24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

>>18245268
Then how can a baby go to heaven? Babies can't have faith.

>>18245281
Ask Jesus.
It's ultimately his call.

You don't have the same excuse a baby does.
So do better.

Jesus expects you to do better than a baby can, he expects you to do better than a heathen.
Because you have his teachings, the gospel commission, an entire church that he left to help you.

>>18244825
Whole post falls apart when considering Reformed Baptists, who believe the same thing as other Reformed Christians regarding the salvation of children. Only Arminian Baptists are semi-Pelagian - because they are Arminian, not because they are Baptists.

1689 London Baptist Confession ch. 10.3
>Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how He pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Westminster Confession (Presbyterian) ch. 10.3
>Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
Savoy Declaration (Congregationalist) ch. 10.3
>Elect infants dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

>>18245720
Reformed Baptist theology is inherently contradictory though as has already been pointed out.

>>18245744
You have provided no evidence that it is contradictory, just the usual confusion of the sign of grace with the grace itself. Infants and young children cannot be subjects of baptism because they are not capable of doing any of the acts required in Scripture to receive the ordinance:
>confession of their sins (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5)
>having Christ preached to them (Acts 8:35)
>confession of their belief that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:36-37)

>>18245296
My point is babies have no faith so they have to be saved a different way than adults. People over 7 can understand faith, babies and toddlers can't so they need a different way of being saved so the age of accountability counts. They are not losing their salvation as the age in the typical way. They are just losing former protections

File: 2c90cd8b7.png (628 KB, 676x738)

628 KB PNG

>>18245074
Why are you still making these threads, anon?

>by their own admission there is no means by which their children could be reconciled to God except by the covenant of grace which they deny to them.
Hmm, interesting. Can you actually quote a real person saying/admitting this? It seems you're just making this up in your mind, anon.

>the Canons of Dort speak to this and reveal how...
Anything from the Bible to compare this to?

>I think a large share of the blame for the degeneration of modernity can be laid at their feet.
It's because of those who (falsely) claim to be Jews. They are behind all of it, along with satan. Pic related.

For all I know, you're working for the satanists who call themselves Jews falsely, anon.

>>18245192
>Also you're implicitly denying the perseverance of the saints. Why do adults need to be saved then if they were already saved at birth?
God already knows who will live long enough to sin. You think He didn't know?

>You want to teach perseverance of the saints, or "OSAS" as you call it,
Those are two different things.

>>18245226
>If those who watch over his house are found unready, it will be a day of reckoning.
Paul wrote, "But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

If you are relying on yourself instead of God, it will be a day of reckoning for you. You may end up as one of those people who was pointing to his own works and saying "Lord, Lord" in Matthew 7:22. But Christ never knew them.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
- Matthew 7:21-23

>>18244825
Is anyone else getting really sick of seeing these images of gaunt, old reformers take up space in the catalogue? Calvinists claim to be staunch iconoclasts. So why do they feel the need to preface everything they say and do online with an austere portrait of this or that 16th century theologian? As if the image itself were to somehow act as validation. Can their ideas not stand on their own? Are they hoping to surreptitiously demoralise their opponents?

These are genuine questions. I want to understand what compels our resident Reformer to do this on /his/ and on /lit/.

>>18245775
None of those verses you cited prescribed the conditions you listed as normative for being a candidate of baptism.

Your doctrine of grace is theologically inconsistent. If the infants are within the grace of God, and are not innocent of their natures, as you say, then surely the imputed righteousness of Christ belongs also to them. If this is the case then:
1. This would seem to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints if you hold that adult converts are in need of salvation from their personal sins.
2. Baptism, being the sign and seal of the covenant of grace just as circumcision was for the children of Israel (Romans 4:11-12, Colossians 2:11-12), ought then to be applied to infants, seeing that they share in this grace as you say.

The inconsistencies in your theology are glaring. If you admit that all the little children are among the elect, then you deny them the Kingdom of God (Matthew 19:14). If you say that the children are born innocent then you contradict scripture which says we are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Your teaching has some striking similarities to the Roman Catholic Immaculate Conception doctrine, where they teach Mary was preserved from original sin at her conception. Let me ask you a question: When does the grace of God get applied to children after their conception? Does it happen at the conception itself? Are they immaculately conceived? Or does it happen some time after? Are miscarried babies before a certain point damned?

Fact of the matter is you are a heretic. You are not a real Protestant and you do NOT belong to the Reformed tradition. You are no different from those Anabaptist heretics that Zwingli fought so hard against. You are damned heretics is what you are.

>>18246621
You're retarded. Enjoy hell.

File: architect.jpg (52 KB, 1280x720)

52 KB JPG

>person A makes a claim
>person B attempts to refute the claim
>at a certain point, rather than engaging with the refutation or the claim, either person A or person B will resort to ad hominem, mudslinging, and a vacuous restatement of their opening argument
Theological discussions on 4chan have never been helpful.

>>18247008
I am person A. Person B attempted to refute me. I then refuted their refutation. Person B has been vacuously restating their opinions and not addressing my points. I am currently winning this debate and slaying heretics.

>>18247033
Why did you feel the need to tell me this?

>>18247038
Just to remind you who is winning and who is losing in this thread currently just in case you didn't want to read all the back and forth. Currently the Reformed side is winning and the Baptists are losing. The Baptists tried to pull a slight of hand by saying there are Reformed Baptists, which is true technically speaking, but their theology has been demonstrated to be inconsistent and at odds with traditional Reformed theology. They cannot properly be said to belong to the true Reformed camp (Continental, Presbyterian, Congregationalist) and they are nothing but a cheap rehash of the Anabaptist heresy with a few sprinkles of truth on top. Most Baptists are not Reformed anyway and the majority of Baptists do hold to some type of semi-Pelagianism since that is the logical consequence of their heresy about baptism.

>>18247043
You still haven't denied that you're working for the synagogue of satan.

>>18244903
this was actually pretty common in my country's history. everyone knows about the Catholic vs protestant stuff here but barely anyone knows about the Protestant on Protestant stuff that went on between different sects.

>>18247059
You are antichrists.

>Therefore establish your courage, good brethren. The hypocrisy of the Roman pope has been brought brought into the light; now we must war with hypocrisy itself. And you must do this with the less delay the more you see those apostles of the devil [Anabaptists], although they promise I know not what salvation, seeking nothing but disturbance and the confusion of affairs, both human and divine, and destruction. So much about their division and betrayal of the church. They have gone out from us, for they were not of us." - Ulrich Zwingli, Refutation of the Tricks of the Baptists (1527)

>>18247043
In so far as Baptists deviate from so-called "reformed" theology, they separate themselves from heresy. Regardless of whether or not they are still heretics, so long as they have abandoned the false teacher Calvin they are closer to the truth.

General Baptists > Particular Baptists

>>18245777
You are either a heretic or a non-Christian trying to cause confusion.
Which is why you made yet another thread about babies going to hell even though this one still exists.

>>18247377
The Baptist position is not supported by the scriptures. You and the Arminians are the enemies of grace, the spirit of Rome lives in you! Harken to your heresiarch Pelagius, the seed of the devil.

>>18247405
Unhinged.

>>18247405
Pelagius' heresy was peanuts compared to the filth of Calvin.
Even the Arians were less damaging to Christendom in the long run.

He never deliberately split the church, they had apostolic succession and Athanasius recommended that upon repenting they retain their sees.
Neither one of these are true of Calvin or Luther.

File: 741B.jpg (13 KB, 424x561)

13 KB JPG

>>18247419
>Even the Arians were less damaging to Christendom in the long run.
None of these heresies were actually "damaging" to God or His church, it was simply those who are not of God and who rejected the truth demonstrating it. That's what it is today as well.

Modern JWs are basically a version of Arians. While they are brutally wicked, they aren't "damaging" God's people in any way. We do try to help these people as they oppose themselves, but they can't do anything to us. We are saved.

>inb4 b-but Luther was le excommunicated
>this means he was justified in creating a counter church

Arius was excommunicated too, would he have been justified in starting a counter church?
Absolutely not.

Luther was a priest, Arius was likewise a priest, both were excommunicated for refusing to stop teaching heresy.
But Arius was a better person because he never created a counter church to promulgate his heresy.

I suspect the thought would have never even crossed his mind, what occupied him was the continued propagation of his heresy within the existing church.
Whereas Luther publicly burned an official document of the church in which he was instructed to stop teaching heresy because he was in open rebellion against legitimate pastoral leadership.

When he was excommunicated, he formed a counter church with the cooperation of secular magnates thirsty for power. Which so called "protestant" rulers would pretend to appoint their own ministers.
Who could see this and pretend the so called "reformation", which has split from itself countless times under hundreds of different denominations, was not a more dire heresy than even the error of Arius?
Arius' error did not result in anything close to that disastrous.

>>18247440
>JWs
>brutally wicked
They aren't.
Refusing to serve in a nation's military is not wicked.

They are in dire error, to the point where it's debatable of their baptisms are valid, but to say they are brutally wicked is not true.
Maybe their practice of shunning the disfellowed is wrongheaded and cruel, but these aren't vandals or violent people.

>none of these heresies were actually "damaging" to God or His church
They are.
It's the cause of endless confusion, division, the separation of many from the same church Christ founded and entrusted in perpetuity to the apostles and their own successors.

File: 1643656533044.jpg (121 KB, 507x338)

121 KB JPG

>>18247469
>to say they are brutally wicked is not true.
See the following:

"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
- 1 John 2:22-23

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
- Matthew 13:47-50

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha."
- 1 Corinthians 16:15

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

>>18247419
>Even the Arians were less damaging to Christendom in the long run.
Absolute heresy.

>>18246621
>None of those verses you cited prescribed the conditions you listed as normative
Acts 8:36-37 objectively states that you cannot be baptised without a confession of faith.The real issues is that you want to retain the papisticla doctrine of infant baptism, to soothe your own conscience with regard to your children.
>1.
The whole point seems to bewray a belief you have that baptism itself actually expiates sins, which is salvation by works, not by grace. Correct me if I'm misreading you.
>just as circumcision was
So you only baptise males? You baptise slaves that don't even believe in God? You remove the foreskin as part of it? The regulations around the OT ordinance are irrelevant when considering baptism.
>If you say that the children are born innocent
We don't, those are the Arminian Baptists. You are arguing against someone else. Try reading through the London Baptist Confession before you make more of a mockery of yourself.

>>18247818
>Acts 8:36-37 objectively states that you cannot be baptised without a confession of faith.The real issues is that you want to retain the papisticla doctrine of infant baptism, to soothe your own conscience with regard to your children.
First of all Acts 8:36-37 contains no prescription about what the standards are for someone to be baptized, it is narrative. I'm not saying we cannot gleam any theology about baptism from Acts, but the verse you cite is simply not normatively laying down what ought to be done and what ought not to be done in baptism. Would you say that a baptism is invalid where the candidate does not publicly confess Jesus before the congregation? Because that's not what Jesus says constitutes a valid baptism (Matthew 28:19).
Second of all verse 37 is not even present in all manuscripts, it's absent in the oldest manuscript traditions and is not in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus, and the majority of Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine text type. It did find its way into the Textus Receptus but this was due to influence from the Vulgate on Erasmus as even your own Reformed Baptist theologians admit ("The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?", James White pg. 110)
Third of all the corporate nature of the sacrament, its initiation of the candidate into the invisible catholic Church as the sign and seal of the new covenant of grace, sufficiently grants that the faith of the parents and other believers sanctify the sacrament of baptism, making it efficacious for elect infants (Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 7:14).

>>18247818
Continued from above...
>So you only baptise males? You baptise slaves that don't even believe in God? You remove the foreskin as part of it? The regulations around the OT ordinance are irrelevant when considering baptism.
Great, so you admit that you're openly challenging Paul's direct comparison between baptism and circumcision? You just declared yourself an enemy of the scriptures. If you accept the scriptures though, by your own logic you should stop baptizing females. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 3:28).
>We don't, those are the Arminian Baptists. You are arguing against someone else. Try reading through the London Baptist Confession before you make more of a mockery of yourself.
The London Baptist confession is a mockery of the Reformed faith and it is heretical. The Westminster Confession is superior.

You are an Anabaptist heretic. Recant of your heresy.

>>18247377
I'm not a non Christian it's just logical. There is an age of accountability because under a certain age you can't seek faith on your own or don't understand faith. Can a baby have faith? No so that means salvation by faith happens above the age of accountability. Once saved always saved refers to freely chosen faith

>>18247405
It's supported by scripture and logic. Christ said let the little children come to me. He loved kids and would never send them to hell. Babies can't have faith so it's logical babies get saved with the age of accountability.

>>18247818
>The whole point seems to bewray a belief you have that baptism itself actually expiates sins, which is salvation by works, not by grace. Correct me if I'm misreading you.
Absolutely false and a sacrilegious statement you have made about the sacrament! Scripture declares that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21), and I follow the scriptures. You are confusing the Romish dogma of baptismal regeneration with sacramentalism, which are two different things. Baptism is the means of grace, washing away sins (Acts 22:16), and is a visible sign of regeneration and justification leading to sanctification which are prior to it (1 John 2:29, 1 John 5:1, Ephesians 2:38). God calls all of his elect to baptism, and communicates his grace to us in it, through sacramental union. The sacrament itself does not effect grace, but it's mystically linked to it in a mysterious way, and the Holy Spirit applies what baptism signified only to elect individuals. You have turned faith itself into a work, "Solo Fide" is a false and heretical doctrine. True Protestants believe in "Sola Fide" and your doctrine is a gross misunderstanding of this historic confession.

As we see above the Baptist is getting hammered by an actual sophisticated theology, because they have none, and cannot defend their heresy.

>>18247897
Babies can't have faith. They can't understand faith so babies need another method of salvation. It's just logic. Babies are saved by grace not by faith

>>18247904
Scripture contradicts you as have been thoroughly demonstrated above. I believe in Sola Scriptura so I will follow what the scriptures teach.

baptists are semi-pelagic because they spend half of the year at sea where they feed on krill

>>18247904
Sola Fide btfo

>>18247907
babies do not know right or wrong and are therefore innocent.
any further disagreement is just you being disingenuous.
you're trying to find fault because you want to, not because it's actually there.

File: Irenaeus_Acts_8_37_box.png (435 KB, 739x458)

435 KB PNG

>>18247860
>It did find its way into the Textus Receptus but this was due to influence from the Vulgate on Erasmus
See pic.
>(Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Corinthians 7:14).
Try learning what those scriptures mean before citing them.

>>18247907
Where does scripture say babies can have faith? Where does scripture baptize babies?

File: 1736153882589337.jpg (332 KB, 1200x1200)

332 KB JPG

>>18247892
>Scripture declares that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21)
In 1 Peter 3:21 he says baptism is a "figure" of that which saves. What saves us is the resurrection of Jesus Christ according to 1 Peter 3:21.

>Baptism is the means of grace, washing away sins (Acts 22:16)
Strange how you omit the entirety of the verse, anon. It says "calling on the name of the Lord" in that verse as well. Why omit this?
>(1 John 2:29, 1 John 5:1,
Those are about being born again, which our Lord and Savior referred to in the Gospel of John, chapter 3.

As it says, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
- John 1:12

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."
- 1 Peter 1:23

So you see, a person becomes born again, and hence saved, by the word of God. That is what 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 5:1 are referring to. I hope you can come to a saving knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

>>18248016
Sola fide applies to adults not to children or babies. They are saved by grace alone not faith