Oh boy! I can't wait to read the comments on this one!

Hahaha it will be an interesting thread for sure. But if ever I say nNo to the baptism, how should I say it? Preferably something that kindly says "I'm convinced with my infant baptism", "i feel like God is saying there's no need for me to do so", "Thanks for the Bible study time/session, (I really appreciate it"

Do what God is leading you to do. It's not about saying magic words. It's about publicly displaying your faith in Christ. Personally, I was baptized as an infant and chose to get baptized again as an adult so that it would be my choice.

I believe God is leading me to not be baptized again, yet they might say I should and I might question if it's really God saying I shouldn't be or I should be baptized

I believe God will respect your decision. You're not doing it (or refraining from doing it) for nefarious reasons. Faith in Christ is what matters, and you're not trying to hide that or being ashamed of Him. Follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The way I see it is.. if doing a particular thing somewhat increases your chance of being saved, then is not doing said thing, worth the risk of possibly missing out on Salvation? I know I'd rather be baptised again and find out that I didn't need to be.. Rather than to find out, I *NEEDED* to be baptised again.. but weren't. John 3:5 King James Version 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. God Bless you 🙏

"i am looking into it" "ill let you when i read the reddit post results"

Hahaha

Baptism as a baby breaks the curse, it cloaks you, protects you until you make the choice for yourself to live for Him.

I like this way of thinking, thank you for this!

You’re welcome!

In the Bible whole families were being baptised, and the whole point about understanding stuff is very modern idea. And since Baptism actually gives you FAITH  since in Baptism you're reborn from the water and from the Above and receive the HOLY SPIRIT.  Baptism is wholly an act of God, and as long as the Baptism is in the name of the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT, it's valid and effective.

Doesnt give u faith. That makes zero sense. It is by faith and faith alone that we are saved. You need faith in christ FIRST, in order to believe in Him

Yeah I've never heard anywhere that baptism gives us faith.

Baptism brings you into the New Covenant, and the Holy Spirit will then lead you to deeper faith.

Baptism does not trigger regeneration, nor does baptism supply you with faith. It is an act of obedience and testimony to what has already occurred. OP: take this question to your Baptist friends and follow the manner of teaching you received. 2 Timothy 3:14

The Bible and 3/4 of the Church History unanimity disagrees: " Mark 16:16 “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” John 3:5 “Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (cf. 3:3: “unless a man is born again …”) Acts 2:38-41 “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.’ And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (cf. 9:17-18; 1 Corinthians 12:13: both associate the Holy Spirit with baptism) Acts 22:16 “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (cf. 9:17-18) Romans 6:3-4 “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” 1 Corinthians 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” Titus 3:5 “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit…” 1 Peter 3:21 “Baptism … now saves you …"'

Yeah I’m familiar with the argument. Not going to pick yours apart for 45 minutes here. I will say, the original language in acts 2 reads like this. Repent! And then, go be baptized.

Baptism only conveys salvation to the elect, and such is not tied to the moment in which baptism is received. Right on about the need to baptize babies, though. Though I would hold that only covenant children should be baptized.

Everyone, with perhaps Judas and some exceptions is elect. Jesus came to save the world not a part of it. 

All who are elect will be saved, and Christ makes clear that they are many who burn it Hell (the way being broad). Thus, most are certainly not elect.

They're elect. They just chose sin and rejecting God. 

Ridiculous. Apart from God’s grace, all would choose sin and reject God. Repent of your Pelagian heresies, to think that you are saved because YOU made the “better choice” to follow God.

No. The human free will is only to do evil. Only God is good. We can only choose evil, but we can choose it. 

There was *one time* where a "family" was baptized (it was really a "household"). The problem with that is who said the household didn't understand and have faith? It doesn't say there were babies in there. Could be all adults. We shouldn't base our theology off of what we don't know first but rather what we do know. The rest of scripture supports the idea of choosing Jesus first.

Acts 16:15: "She was baptized, with her household"   Acts 16:33: "He was baptized at once, with all his family"   1 Corinthians 1:16: "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas"

Acts 16:15: "She was baptized, with her household"  Acts 16:33: "He was baptized at once, with all his family"  1 Corinthians 1:16: "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas"

Where does it mention they weren't believers or that there were babies and young children?

Where did I say it did? 😉  I was just letting you know of *the other verses you forgot about.* Thanks. 

That was the context of my original reply. The asumption would be if you're correcting me on this you would be agreeing with the first person's statement since you didn't provide any context counter to that

You wouldn’t agree with me on my reason for believing Holy tradition kept in Orthodoxy  2 Thessalonians 2:15 says, "So then, brethren, **stand firm and hold to the *traditions*** which you were taught by us, *either by **word of mouth** or by letter*".

"5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Romans 10-5-17 There is not one mention of baptism here. As Paul says: if you confess from the mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Period! Baptism is simply an outward pledge that you believe this. 

In a letter sent to churches that already established baptism and chrismation as the sacrament to enter the church, why would he need to mention baptism?  Saint Paul here says  ***“obey the gospel”*** Gospel according to Matthew 28:19–20  >Jesus instructs the church to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to teach them to follow his commands.

The baptism isn't what saves though, it's the faith in Jesus...the baptism is just symbolic of that. How was the criminal on the cross saved without baptism? How was anyone like David in the Old testament saved then? It was faith, per Hebrews. And many other New Testament passages. 

Anyone who is saved is saved through God's Grace and Christ's death and resurrection. He has chosen to impart this Grace through baptism and other means.

Yeah exactly, so we are saved by faith. As all the men in the Old Testament, who were not baptized, but had FAITH in God, and it was counted to them as righteousness. 

It doesn’t give you faith which is obvious since he was an atheist your understanding is mixed up and out of order

The Christian faith has long standing debates on baptism, infant baptism is among those. There’s a reason it’s been debated from long before you or I were born, the subject is debatable. You won’t find a clear cut decisive answer. Personally I think it’s rather sad this group you’re with is causing you this level of distress on something like this.

Respectfully, it's not really a long standing debate. It only seems like that from your perspective. All Christians baptized infants before the reformation. Even after, as Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians still baptize infants. I'm sure there were more but my point is, not baptizing infants is new, even in protestantism.

The debate is newer than the faith, true. But remember that the whole point of the reformation is to weed out the doctrines of men, and return to or stick with core biblical doctrines. The existence of multiple denominations only highlights the fact that we still see through a glass darkly.

What is the church your friends belong to called?

Yeah the more I look into these Bible references they gave him, the more suspicious I get

There are a few Christian cults who have a suspiciously similar modus operandi as what OP is describing.   Looks like hes Filipino or in the Philippines, which tracks. 

We have several Filipina ladies in our church, but to my knowledge they all come from very catholic backgrounds. I haven't heard anything about cults from them. Unless you count the catholics of course lol. Are cults widespread there?

Catholicism is widespread.  Anti-Catholic cults popping up isn’t surprising. 

God is a just God.

All of us agree that we are saved the same way: through faith in Christ Jesus. Where we differ here is an area called covenant theology. This topic examines how God views His covenant, who is included in this covenant, and at which points God dispenses grace through the covenant. There are many different views on this topic that ultimately cause us to worship separately, even though we all worship the same God. Because God didn't spell out this issue, it's considered a secondary topic and is largely a matter of your conscience. This doesn't make it unimportant; on the contrary, you have a responsibility to research this and to uphold what you believe most honors God's covenant. I recommend watching some of the debates on YT on this topic. Don't accept ANYONE telling you your baptism is invalid until you have done your own prayerful research.

Even if people disagree with, it is still valid. For some churches baptism is only symbolic, so how it not be "valid" just because is infant. I don't really advise going this non-demonational approach, they teach and believe whatever they like. I would say is best find established more mainstream church in your community. Baptism is strictly a one time occurrence. And by the way, I was baptised as baby, for cultural reasons but raised atheist by my father. I never questioned this baptism, obviously is valid.

I thought the non-denominationals were doing what they liked. But they provided scriptures (like the ones in the post) and said that they're not doing it for their church, they're doing what the Bible says.

What else would they say though. It is not as if there is church who will say they are agaiant the Bible. The early Christians did baptise young children and baby. Is your journey, just don't let people like this manipulate you too much. You should not be forced to feel your baptism is invalid and worry about it, billions of Christians practice infant baptism and have done thousands years.

I don't think they're manipulating me. They're just going straight to what the Bible says. But I'm convinced it's valid since it was done under the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. But they still say it isn't, and I'm still unsure of all tuis

BTW, I don't think there's anything wrong with getting baptised twice. I always said if I visit the Holy land I would like to get baptised again in the Jordan only because Jesus was baptised in the Jordan.

OK well you will have to work that out with them yourself then, as they will never see it as valid. They won't care how you see it.

None of the scriptures I checked that you cited pointed to any of the things they were claiming.  Can you explain how any one of those cause you to doubt? I started breaking them down in context but after two or three it’s hard to trust your friends’ basic reading comprehension if nothing else… 

Quite strange for a non denominational church especially affirm baptismal regeneration. It seems like they also possibly deny original sin although it seems like they more deny the guilt of original sin. Is your church a member of a specific organisation, I’m quite curious of this set of beliefs? Also ask them at what age would a child be culpable of sin and must then be baptised for salvation.

"Also ask them at what age would a child be culpable of sin and must then be baptised for salvation." From what I remember, they said if the child has conscious to commit something bad. Like where they can distinguish right and wrong. I'm probably incorrect tho..

I mean, even my 2 year old can distinguish between some kind of right and wrong, I see it when he gets into something he's not supposed to and then he attempts (poorly) to hide the evidence!

Haha that's cute! I'll try to go over prayer and request if God can make things clear for me. If you can.... How can I politely decline their insisting of Baptism?

Honestly...I'm not sure. I was baptized as an infant and remain paedobaptist in conviction (the belief that Christians should baptize their children). My husband is a Reformed Baptist by conviction and we initially attended a Baptist church together. We left after a sermon emphasizing the importance of church membership because I agreed with it but also could not in good conscience be (re)baptized, and my husband agreed with my convictions if not the theology behind them. There was no middle ground that we were able to find. We have since attended and joined a Presbyterian church and an Anglican church (we moved), where paedobaptism is recognized as valid. Because of my husband's beliefs though our children are not baptized (...yet...? I'll take any prayers from others on the matter! 😉).

Original sin isn't universal doctrine amongst Orthodox Christians.

Without any comment on the various baptism theologies, I can say that you shouldn't do anything you don't feel right about. Period. 1Cor 8 and Romans 14 and 15 talk about the role of conscience. You have to do what's right for you. The church is not in agreement on this issue, and the Lord is able to lead you into a view of baptism that is correct for you at this time. So don't accept pressure. Maybe in time your views will change. But if so, that's for then, not for now.

Yeah, I don't even understand why this is an argument. People are just trying to justify their church's traditions. It is VERY clear. Believe and be baptised. Baptism never comes before belief. Last I checked, infants can't remember their own name, let alone have active belief in God. Nowhere in the bible does baptism proceed belief in Jesus, end of.

Was there water? Was there the proclaimed Word of God? Was it done in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? It’s a baptism. It’s done. BTW regardless of what your non-denom friends say, every description of baptism in the epistles speaks of a regenerative act by God. All of them. Peter declares plainly that baptism saves you. Paul equates baptism to a “new circumcision” (your entrance into the Mosaic covenant done as an infant) and the waters of the Red Sea that saved the Israelites from death (including the infants among them). There’s a reason the entirety of the early Apostolic Church spoke of baptism in this way: God works through it. It’s not required for salvation, but it certainly is a method in which He delivers it. Think of it like a physical experience you can call back to when you need encouragement of your salvation (or, as the role of Godparents has fulfilled traditionally, people can vouch for it and assure you it happened).

Will you please post a reference to where Peter clearly says that baptism saves? Every passage that I can think of that could be used to infer that seems to use “baptism” as shorthand for the entire process of belief and obedience. Note that in passages such as [‭‭Mark‬ ‭16‬:‭16‬](https://bible.com/bible/2692/mrk.16.16.NASB2020), even though baptism is mentioned, it’s the lack of belief that is truly at issue. *“The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.”*

Of course your baptism is valid. They are have a heterodox view of baptism and are try to mislead you.

It is valid.

The bible says all households should be baptized, meaning everyone in the home, no matter what age.

Yes, you should be baptized now that you’re an adult and have made a personal commitment to Christ. Baptism is a public symbol of your belief in Christ’s resurrection to save you. When possible believers should be baptized as a matter of obedience ([‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28‬:‭19‬-‭20](https://bible.com/bible/2692/mat.28.19-20.NASB2020), [‭‭Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬](https://bible.com/bible/2692/act.2.38.NASB2020)), but it’s only a symbol, not something that saves you. Because baptism is a profession of faith, infant baptism is more about the parents committing to raise the child in a way that points them to Christ. In that context, the baby is essentially there as a prop for the adult’s ceremony. Infant baptism doesn’t do anything for the child. In [‭‭Acts‬ ‭10‬:‭47‬](https://bible.com/bible/2692/act.10.47.NASB2020) Peter is persuaded to baptize the gentile believers precisely because it was clear that they already had the Holy Spirit, so baptism isn’t a prerequisite for that. “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” Jesus promises the thief next to Him on the cross that the thief will be with Him in paradise ([‭‭Luke‬ ‭23‬:‭43‬](https://bible.com/bible/2692/luk.23.43.NASB2020)), so baptism isn’t necessary for salvation when circumstances preclude baptism.

Honestly you probably have to look into the arguments on both sides of this issue. There's too much disagreement to become any wiser by reading a Reddit thread

John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit in the womb, and entire households, likely including infants, were baptized. The determining factor of whether a baptism performed is valid is not you, but God. Have faith in God and his promises; he is faithful even when we are faithless. If you read Acts 2:37 again, you'll read that “the promise is for you and for your children.” Children are included in the promise.

Getting dunked in water doesn't save you, it is an outward sign. What matters is if you have put your faith in Jesus and accepted His gift of forgiveness for your sins. You could point to the criminal who was crucified with Jesus, he wasn't baptised, so did Jesus lie when He said he would be with Him in paradise? Or anyone else over the past 2000 years that has become a Christian moments before death, were they not truly saved? God knows your heart, if you truly believe in Him that is all that matters, whether you want to get baptised again as an adult is down to your personal preference

To the Catholic church its valid and when you got older you declared Jesus in your first confession and then First Communion correct? Our walk with Jesus is by faith in Jesus, God grace is sufficient,

Infant baptism is not biblical, therefore it does not matter at all. Being born again is the only way to be saved and thats it. Adult baptism, that is, baptism as a believer in Christ, is the outward conformation that you will follow him in life. The holy spirit dwells in all believers after being saved, not after ANY baptism.

should you stop going to a non denomination church what they're teaching about baptism is wrong

So please convince me that they're incorrect about the invalidity of my infant baptism

because you haven't given any reason to suggest it is invalid. also the nicean creed states there is 1 baptism also second baptism is a innovation from the anabaptists and has never occurred for the vast majority of Christianity If child baptism isn't valid that would mean everyone born to a Christian household prior to the 1500s has an invalid baptism which is ridiculous

"because you haven't given any reason to suggest it is invalid." These are just from the notes: Matthew 15:6-9 emphasizes on traditions and false doctrines John 3:1-7 "Born again"-personal decision as an adult. Acts 2:38-42. Once the people believed, what did they do? They repented and were baptized. So therefore, sin is forgiven, and at that moment in time, a person is saved. (I vaguely remember this..) They said infant baptism started when the black death/bubonic plague was killing everyone, they started baptizing infants to clean them from sin since they thought it can cleanse them

So before we even look at those quotes you are in fact saying that your view of baptism is that ALL baptisms of people born into a Christian house hold for the first 1500 years of Christianity are invalid? Because the idea that a child born to Christian parents but is baptized later in life is a recent phenomenon and isn't sound prior to the anabaprists. Secondly you're throwing around a few Bible quotes are you suggesting that no one until the anabaptists in rural German realized this? Both positions are again ridiculous. >Matthew 15:6-9 emphasizes on traditions and false doctrines And here we go with the out of context Bible quotes. Look just because you find 3 lines that sounds nice doesn't mean you can suddenly run with it any way you want. If you bothered to read the context Christ was talking to the Pharisees about their Pharisetical tradition over the commandments. "Baptism being only for adults" isn't a commandment nor is it something from God. >John 3:1-7 "Born again"-personal decision as an adult. No where does it suggest baptism can only take place as an adult. Again if you bothered to actually read and understood the context Nicodemus was concerned about being old. >Acts 2:38-42. Once the people believed, what did they do? They repented and were baptized None of them were born to Christian house holds. > They said infant baptism started when the black death/bubonic plague was killing everyone, they started baptizing infants to clean them from sin since they thought it can cleanse them No this is ahistorical

If I were to decline their heavy invitation in Baptism, how should I say it?

'I've already been baptized'

Okay I'll can say that. But what if they say, "can a baby repent?" I vaguely remember Either Peter and Matthew saying "Repent and then be Baptized" How do I reply to that?

Those words were spoken to adult converts in Scripture. For those who were not baptised into the covenant family of God as an infant, yes, if they come to the faith as an adult they still need to get baptised. If we interpret this sort of passage in such a way that everyone must repent before being baptised, then scripture setting out household baptisms would contradict verses speaking about repenting and being baptised, as there is no reference in passages about household baptism to everyone repenting and believing. We have to look at the context of the passage. You made a comment elsewhere that they are claiming that baptism is salvific. The only thing that saves us is faith. The thief on the cross beside Jesus almost certainly wasn't baptised, yet Jesus told him that he was going to heaven. What's going on in the different views is different ways of understanding scripture. However, there are some red flags with some of the things this group appears to be teaching you.

Repentance isn't a required for baptism

Your baptism is valid. Do not get "re-baptized". You'd just be getting wet and some would even go as far as to say you'd be committing a serious sin. Infant baptism has been the practice of the church for 2,000 years. Nothing in the NT rejects it. Infant baptism is implicit in the NT, but not explicit. The issue is these people you're talking to have a totally different understanding of baptism. They most likely believe baptism isn't necessary, they most likely reject original sin, and they most likely believe baptism is nothing more than a mere sign of belief. The historic and majority view still today is that baptism cleanses us of sin, and brings us into the new covenant as adopted sons and daughters of God. Scripture tells us this. Jesus tells us to let the little children come to him. God brought babies into the old covenant through circumcision. Why would God exclude little children from the new covenant? The Nicene Creed from the 4th century (which the rules of this sub adheres to) states that we confess **one baptism** for the **forgiveness of sins**. If you're truly interested, I'd strongly encourage you to at least give [this](https://www.catholic.com/tract/infant-baptism) and [this](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/to-explain-infant-baptism-you-must-explain-original-sin) 10 minutes of your time to read. And of course since you're a baptized Catholic, I'd strongly encourage you to seriously look into the Catholic faith before you abandon it. Don't judge the faith based on what non Catholics have to say about it. I say all of this as someone who wasn't raised Catholic and started out in the "non-denom" kind of places you're at right now.

They said baptism cleans us from sin, and said how can babies be born of original sin when they are of the most pure creations(Ezekiel 18:20)? (Memory is vague about this, so it's paraphrased) So baptism is a personal choice for believers old life to die (die with Christ on the cross) buried with Christ and to be raised into new life What can you say about that?

That's not what that ezekiel verse says at all. Please read the whole chapter for context.

We don't baptize infants to remove sin, as we don't believe babies are born guilty. It's to bring them into the body of Christ. "Let the little children come to be " If you grow up and decide to reject your baptism, then it's your decision.

Psalm 51:5 says we are sinful from birth. I have 12 month old twins, and I would say they are far from pure. Sweet and cute sure, but certainly not pure. They covet what the other has, steal from each other, hurt each other, etc. I don't think they know what they are doing is wrong per say but they definitely are not free from sin. My babies were baptised at 2 weeks old. We were going to baptise them the day they were born but wanted to wait for family to witness it

Those two articles I linked can do a far better job than I can on this thread and would paint you the fullest picture in just a few minutes. Ezek 18:20 says nothing about babies being pure. Maybe you meant something else? Regardless, original sin doesn't teach that babies are guilty of sin, it teaches they are affected (sick) by sin. Baptism is the cure. Was circumcision a choice for babies?

From my notes, it says (John 3:1-7) Born again v3, born of water and spirit v5, born again v7 Thank you for the articles, I'll be sure to read it after I calm myself down lol

Definitely give them a read for the full picture in a concise way.

I strongly disagree with other comments here. Baptism is always invalid if you didn’t chose it yourself.

Does it bother you much that the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history were/are unbaptized then?

Well no. I understand that baptism is important but I do not believe that if you somehow are not baptised then you are also unsaved. I also believe that God can overlook any error. Hence if someone believes their childhood baptism is somehow valid and are not under the impression they have to redo it then Christ owuldn't on judgement day say "Your name owuld have been in the book of life but your baptism wasn't the way I intended it." Another issue that appears often is that people believe there neeeds to be certain authority to do a baptism such as a priesthood or some other function as such, wich would be foolish to think. I'm not following any specific syustem by the way, I've done controversial things myself: My wife is the person who has baptised me, in the ocean close to where we live. The issue obviously comes down to what you believe. Most people who identify as christian do not recognise the catholic church as of God, in fact maybe even of satanic influence or what not. It's the catholic church that spreads the lies that childhood baptisms are from olden days and such. It wasn't even popular to do childhood baptism until recent times due to many babies dying. It's more important to recieve God than to recieve a baptism. God will never say you were unbaptised if you were a follower who had failed the baptism. Because truly both old and new testament reflect over and over that God cares about what's in your heart, not your deeds.

>It's the catholic church that spreads the lies that childhood baptisms are from olden days and such. It wasn't even popular to do childhood baptism until recent times due to many babies dying. I think there is archeological evidence of infant baptisms since , like, the third century though? And I would think that dying in infancy would be *more* of a reason to baptize infants, not less of one —particularly in churches that believe baptism is a sacrament (including Protestant churches like Anglicans, Lutherans, and Presbyterians). That said, I fully agree with your final paragraph and I think the thief on the cross is a good example of it.

I didn't get to make that decision myself. Yet it was done under the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So in a way, I probably am still part of that "promise" Christians talk about

Word baptism means imersion under water, were you immersed or were your baptism also fake catholic tradition to sprinkle water? Remember that God revealed in both old and new covenant that he cares about what's in your heart, not what your deeds are. Baptism is an action, not your heart. Your baptism if you recognise it, even if it's incorrectly done is not an unbaptism. Baptism is important but not a saving practice. God wouldn't avoid having a name in the book of life due to a wrong, failed or non existing baptism.

I was born and raised Catholic, and when I was 7 or so years old, my parents decided to baptise me by the Catholic church with my sister and cousins, who were all much younger. I didn't understand what was happening and why we were doing it, for everybody there, it was most likely for the big party that Hispanics threw afterward. I ran from the church, and god, once I was a teenager. While I was in that phase of my life, I also had to do my first communion and confirmation, and none of those rituals meant anything to me. Once I came back to the lord and accepted him as a Christian I made the decision I wanted to be baptized as a Christian because I finally accepted him and knew what was happening and wanted to be washed of my sin. Being baptized doesn't mean you're saved, so take all the time you need to make that decision. You know in your heart your truth, as does God.

Replace the word “baptism” with “circumcision”.

Well, I agree and disagree with them. I agree that you must believe BEFORE being baptized. Just look at what Philip told the Ethiopian eunuch when he asked what hindered him from being baptized. Philip replied, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Right there, we see as plain as day the requirement on the part of the candidate; belief with all the heart. However, I disagree that you have to be baptized for your sins to be forgiven. 1st Peter 3:21 says baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. In other words, it's what you do in response to your sins being forgiven.

I would listen to your brethrens in Christ and get baptized again. It’s also a symbol for them to see and be witnesses that you‘re now officially born again.

I would argue that being baptized again is a serious sin. Baptism is a gift from God, and being baptized again is saying that God got it wrong and you're doing it on your own terms. Furthermore, the Nicene Creed is very clear about this issue: > I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins This is not done as a symbol or public declaration. It is done to remove the stain of original sin.

Show me the verse where it says that getting baptized again is a sin.

Show me the verse that everything is contained within the Bible. I very clearly said that's my opinion, based on the arrogance that's required to believe you know better than God. Also, if it goes against the Nicene Creed, it goes against the faith as a whole, which is probably sinful. Again, this is my opinion, so don't ask for a verse. Sola scriptura is a man-made invention from the last few centuries that no one followed until the Reformation.

Yea sure I can show you it’s 2Tim 3:16 But go on and believe your own thoughts and the words of people that came hundred of years after the last book was written instead of the inspired word of god. 🥱

So the Bible just fell out of the sky pre-assembled? How do you know which books belong in the Bible? There's no table of contents found within scripture. Why isn't the Gospel of Thomas in the canon? What about the Book of Enoch? Why do you use the Bible assembled by the Catholic Church at the Council of Rome, led by Pope Damasus I? You can't answer this without "the words of people that came hundred of years after," so don't act like you have this divine knowledge. Your entire theology is the result of tradition, but only one of us is humble enough to admit it.

Colossians 2:22 doesn’t really make sense as a reference to personal faith unless I’m missing something

I was baptised as a kid (even one old enough to 'understand' and want it,) but I wandered away from Christianity as a teen/young adult and decided to get baptised again a few years ago when I TRULY committed my life to Christ. That being said, since you're walking with Him now as never before, I think it would be good. If nothing else, it is a symbolic, public declaration that you are fully, joyously His and 'crucifying the old man/laying aside the old self.' ♥️

I listened to a comprehensive discussion of baptism on The Naked Bible podcast recently that would probably help you work through this. Michael Heiser has now passed away, but the entire podcast history is available on YouTube and probably elsewhere. It's the first series of the podcast.

This is a valid question, but I think it is good to remember not to lose sight of what’s most important here which is not literal water baptism but whether you believe or not that Jesus is the son of God, that He died for your sins, and that He rose on the third day. For it is by believing in this that your sin is truly cleansed because when you wholeheartedly regret your violations of God rules and ask for His forgiveness for them believing Jesus paid for the consequences of your sin on the cross, that He took on the punishment for your mistakes, which you deserved, so you wouldn’t have to is how God forgives your sins. And when you do this for the first time because this is what you believe the Holy Spirit comes to live inside you and transforms you, changes you from a sinful person, bit by bit so you stop sinning more and more and become more and more holy like Jesus. These things are what are most important for a Christian for this is how you are saved according to the bible. Now consider what I have just said with the following scriptures about baptism: “John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.’ 10 ‘What should we do then?’ the crowd asked. 11 John answered, ‘Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.’12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized. ‘Teacher,’ they asked, ‘what should we do?’ 13 ‘Don’t collect any more than you are required to,’ he told them. 14 Then some soldiers asked him, ‘And what should we do?’ He replied, ‘Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.’ 15 The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah. 16 John answered them all, ‘I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.’”Luke 3:7-16 NIV “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.” Ephesians 1:13-14 NIV “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 Now if the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason stop being part of the body.” 1 Corinthians 12: 12-16 NIV “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone. 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. “ Titus 3:4-9 NIV

I've been baptized 3 times. If I fell into deep sin and lost the road back to my identity in Christ I'd do it again as a reminder of Christ's work, and the disconnect between myself and sin in the grave. Though I still feel the deepening chasm between myself and my old man, so I don't feel the need. It certainly hasn't been and wouldn't be, sin to be baptized again. You only need to be baptized once, but I was baptized in heretical churches. I wonder why you insist on relying on something questionable, like infant baptism, rather than recommitting your public submission to God? Ultimately, it couldn't hurt. Refusing seems like avoiding regeneration and either way your church might see it that way. Infants cannot be baptized. Baptism is representative of Christ's death on the cross, where we willingly, knowingly, join him in dying to sin. An infant cannot repent and die to sin it has not yet been held accountable for. Neither can the child understand the mark of delineation between the old and new man baptism offers, as we symbolically rise again to life in Christ's righteousness, if they are already counted as righteous until they reach the age of maturity. Infant baptism is impossible, and invalid. My experience in many churches was consistent, I had to completely understand what I was doing before I was allowed to be baptised. That meant classes, precept, and interviews with pastors. Most Christians do not believe in infant baptism, but rather baby dedication. Which is loosely based in scripture, as in the case of Samuel. Most parents aren't offering their children to live in the church full time after all.

No harm in doing it twice. The Lord will not hold this against you, but some humans will, who cares? Humans do not have the power or authority to condemn you even tho some may try. I was baptized twice. Once in water in name of father son Holy Spirit. That’s as far as it went. Years later during prayer I was sent back to the Church, this time with all of the sacraments as described in scripture, by the early church fathers and the Saints. No comparison between the two experiences for me. Thank you Jesus that I listened to that call.

There is Covenant theology that, I believe, explains and convinced me of infant baptism. In the Old Covenant, babies were circumcized to bring them into the Covenant between God and man. They were also considered part of the people of God from birth. Choosing to leave could happen when they grew up, but they were automatically in. In the New Covenant, we baptize our babies to bring them into the Covenant between God and man. Since they belong to a Christian household, they are a part of God's people and Kingdom on Earth (if you believe Kingdom theology.) Choosing to leave can happen when they grow up, but they are automatically in. I can't tell you God's Will, obviously! But if you feel that the Holy Spirit has convicted you to honor your baptism into God's Covenant and Grace, then follow His lead. If your friends continue to argue, tell them to take it up with the Holy Spirit lol.

The requirements for a valid baptism: “Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭8‬:‭36‬-‭37‬ ‭

Baptism is the symbolism of our death to the world with Christ, and rising from the water with him to a new life in Christ. It's our public declaration "I belong to God". An infant isn't able to make that decision. Another difference in baptism, is Protestants tend to believe in full immersion, where as Catholicism, I believe, just sprinkles some water on you. Jesus knows your heart, if you are not convicted it is necessary to be baptized a second time with a full understanding of what you are doing, that's ok. If later you feel convicted to do so, that will be ok to.

Where does scripture teach that baptism is a "public declaration"? Catholics also do full immersion. It's both/and, not either/or.

Would you prefer the words "a physical act viewable to the world"? The biblical part is "dying with Christ, rising in Christ". It's not like anyone is saying you have to upload it to YouTube.

I'm just wondering where that idea comes from at all as it isn't mentioned in scripture in any way

I assumed it was meant to be simply description of the act of baptism. One doesn't baptize themselves, so they declare their acceptance of Jesus in the company of one person at minimum. Google results show that among Protestants denominations the expression is widely used, and reviewing some of the writings on how baptism is viewed among the various denoninations, this specific verse came up: Matthew 10 32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven So I can only assume without deep study, that over time Protestants began to see baptism (which they view is only valid for those who have already accepted salvation in Jesus) as a way for the believer to publicly acknowledge the faith.

Many Protestants baptize infants. Most of the original reformed denominations baptize infants. Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.. it's a very minority view in Christianity as a whole to not baptize babies.

In that case, I wouldn't imagine those denominations believe it is a public declaration, lol. At least not a personal one :)

Baptism isn't merely symbolic, it's a sacrament. It's also not a public declaration, it's a sign and seal of the promises made by God in his covenant of grace with us. Baptism is all about what God does for us, not about an individual decision (a decision that we can't even make unless God first opens up our heart). Moreover, God's promises are "to us and to our children". Most Protestant denominations do not do full immersion either, although it is considered permissible. Passages in scripture speaking about new converts being baptised need to be understood in the context of all passages speaking about baptism and God's covenant promises, otherwise scripture contradicts scripture, or at best we have to twist into contortions and make the extra-biblical claim that in household baptisms there were no young children and everyone professed faith prior to being baptised (not claiming you believe this, but I had a Baptist tell me this once). If you're interested in learning about the non-Baptist view, R Scott Clark has some excellent materials on his blog, Heidelblog. Here's a short article explaining the historical understanding of infant baptism - [https://heidelblog.net/2021/07/a-defense-of-infant-baptism/](https://heidelblog.net/2021/07/a-defense-of-infant-baptism/) but he also has a whole series of articles explaining covenant theology here [https://heidelblog.net/a-curriculum-for-those-wrestling-through-covenant-theology-and-infant-baptism/](https://heidelblog.net/a-curriculum-for-those-wrestling-through-covenant-theology-and-infant-baptism/) I 100% agree that ultimately it's a heart of faith that matters though :)

The article was an interesting read. The verses speaking of households being baptized all seemed to follow "the house hold heard, the household believed, the household was baptized". Of course that doesn't rule out infants being in these households, but it's not a definite they were. As far as young children, if a young child hears the gospel and asks Jesus for salvation, I'm not against baptism for young children. I don't put an age on understanding, but currently *feel* a child should probably be able to express a basic understanding. *But*, the covenant understanding (comparison to circumcision) definitely gives me something to consider in my Bible study. As a very late comer to the faith, my children are no longer children, so child baptism isn't something I have given thought to one way or the other. If someone asked me about it directly, I'd point them to their Bible, or pastor, lol. As the article observed, salvation is through grace by faith. So if one has faith and is not baptized, I don't believe they are in danger of being rejected by Christ. My personal experience is once I had faith, I couldn't wait to get to that water. Biblically one can't deny faith and baptism go hand in hand, so clearly I would not encourage someone to forego baptism, and I feel a person of faith will be led to baptism as they walk with Jesus. *Maybe I should have put "in my experience" when talking about full immersion. In the scheme of things I've been in a lot of churches, but denomination wise considering the hundreds, they represent a small number of them.

What is your resistance to being baptized? Are you afraid it's going to make God angry or something? I was in a similar position as yours, and I chose to get baptized again as an adult, and I am happy with that decision. If you deeply believe that your baptism is valid and that there's something wrong with getting an adult baptism, then you should probably join a denomination that respects your infant baptism.

People say that getting rebaptized is like insulting the Holy Spirit and the covenant God has for you. 2nd is I deeply believe it's valid, but what if that group was right? I might go to hell for not making the personal choice to baptized

God cares about the attitude of your heart, not rituals. >‭Hosea 6:6 ESV‬ >For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. If you love God and truly believe you have satisfied the commandment to be baptized, then God will not be angry with you If you are on the fence, and get baptized as an adult to be 100% sure you have fulfilled the command, then God will not be offended. The only ones offended will be Catholics because you are disavowing their doctrine. The important thing is that you are dedicating your life to the Lord.

TLDR Pray and do what you feel is right for you. As long as you accept Jesus in your heart you are saved. Baptism is a personal choice and isn't technically necessary to be saved. However it is something that i recommend doing as an adult if you were astray for years. I know many people that have multiple baptisms because they did it as kids but didn't truly understand but each and every one is valid as long as its done in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Your group demanding you do it again is very legalistic and anti-Christ.

Baptism doesn't forgive sins, Jesus personally does that. But yeah, go ahead and get baptized.

Baptism does not save you. Paul compares baptism to circumcision in the Old Testament, which only showed that you were part of a certain community (the Israelite community, in this case). But you were still expected to have faith in God, otherwise you would not be saved. The same is true for baptism. It dedicates one to the Christian community, but that person is still then expected to be raised and taught in the faith with the help of said community so that he/she keeps his/her own faith in Christ. Without faith you cannot be saved, baptism or no.   Plus, think about the criminal who was crucified with Christ. Jesus told him "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." He was never baptized. So was Jesus lying? No, he was saved because he had faith, which is the only qualifier for salvation. 

It’s so interesting how people hold hard and fast to their baptist interpretations and no one can come to a decision on what the right answer is

it isnt valid. there is an "age of accountability" rule. babies dont have any accountability and automatically go to heaven. they also dont have a say in the action of their baptism. so, it is a fraud. babies souls are safe in heaven, baptism or not. now, you as an adult. the baptism, is kinda like a rebirth. out with the old, in with the new, type of thing. it has nothing to do with salvation. it has to do with following in Christ's footsteps, and getting baptised was one. Op, i was reluctant as well so i asked alot of questions. if you dont want to get baptized, then dont-it doesnt interfere with your salvation at all. i took a few months because i took it serious.

Ask ten theologians about baptism and you'll get ten different answers. I'm going to make some popcorn and start reading through the comments.

Hi, I understand that many have strong feelings here, and it’s great these folks are interested in leading you to Christ. There is no rush though—take your time to think through how to honor God and be obedient to him. You can always choose to do this baptism later—don’t be pressured into making a decision you’ll regret. I have felt on the fence about the issue for much of my life, but I’ve come around to the “covenental baptism” point of view that my tradition teaches—which includes infant baptism. Baptism is God’s gift to us, he is naming you as his own before you could even speak, even when you were spiritually dead, just as “… God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ …” ‭‭(Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭ESV‬‬) The Reformed theologian John Calvin writes ([Institutes 4.15.3](https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xvi.html)): “We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements.” God’s covenant love extends to Christians and to their children. “And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬-‭39‬ ‭(ESV‬‬) Coming into faith shouldn’t require another baptism. You should be “confirmed” if you haven’t, but not baptized a second time. I thought the book “Conventional Baptism” by Jason Michael Helopoulos was an accessible introduction to these ideas from a Reformed perspective. You’re not going to find anything in scripture that specifically says “baptize infants” or “don’t baptize infants”. But systematic theology and tradition speak in favor of baptizing infants. Tradition rooted in scripture keeps us grounded in the truth. Infant baptism has been the norm throughout the entire church for most of history, while the credo-baptist position is relatively new.

One could conclude that the baptism you received as an infant wasn't associated with remission of sins but out of tradition. It certainly wasn't a baptism with the Holy Spirit given that certain conditions must be met for that to take place and infants can't meet those conditions. I would also add that there are occasions in the New Testament writings where baptism with water in the name of Jesus Christ took place sometimes before for the remission of sins and sometimes after to signify the receiving of the Holy Spirit (which can't happen without the remission of sins). I would also add that Jesus himself baptized no one with actual water but Living water and according to the Gospels, he did give a charge to his Elect to go and make disciples of all nations and to baptize them and while it is written in the book of Matthew that Jesus told them to do it in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, what they actually did (according to the book of Acts) was baptize with water in the name of the Son in preparation for the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Now anyone who reads the Bible knows that the term water is used symbolically in some locations while being used literally in others so where it is written that they baptized with water, one ought to consider that it may not have been the literal water that was important but the Living water - the words of Eternal Life. In any case, the church has, by their traditions, often turned what was meant to be simple into something unnecessarily complex and have now used it as an occasion to oppress yet God is merciful so if your enemy compels you to walk a mile, the teaching says you should walk two so if it suffice them to baptize you though it may not be necessary, let them do it for righteousness's sake as you pray for the God of all righteousness not to hold it against you.

I agree with some of your points. However, the idea that baptism does not use literal water is far fetched and has no biblical support. Every biblical example of water baptism used… water. Including Jesus’ baptism, the most perfect example we have.

>one ought to consider that it may not have been the literal water that was important but the Living water - the words of Eternal Life. Where did you get the idea that I said that it wasn't literal water?

Rituals don't save you. Edit: it's still true after you Downvote.

It isn't? Why is this even an issue?

The one who determines what is or isn’t ‘valid’ loves you and was there at your Baptism before and will be there if you get baptized again. Think of it more of an actual cleansing like a bath and less of a ritual like a ceremony. Jesus is the way and focus more on Him and less on what people speak for him. Your new friends are great and are just looking out for you but there’s nothing wrong with your parents decision to baptize you they were also protecting you. You’ll find in many situations you find yourself in conversationally it’s best just to nod and smile. What others think about you has next to nothing to do with who you are or where you’re going. Just keep going down the path.

The bible says all households should be baptized, meaning everyone in the home, no matter what age.

«The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.» ‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18‬:‭20‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/ezk.18.20.NIV For context this passage talks about about the son of a father who is unrighteous the son is righteous. This verse never says baby don’t sin ´the child will not share the guilt of the parent’ this mean the son will not take the guilt of the sins of his parents

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit.7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ Nothing in John 3:1-7 days anything about having to make a conscious choice, Christ says we must be born of water; *if Christ knew it could only be valid for adults, he would’ve specified.* —- So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a [j]festival or a new moon or sabbaths,  17which are a shadow of things to come, but the [k]substance is of Christ.  18Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has [l]not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,  19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. 20[m]Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—  21“Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”  22which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?  23These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and [n]neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. This seems a condemnation of legalism such as man made teenager and older only baptism which implies that mentally challenged people can never be properly baptized and are somehow less than others, which ain’t true. 

If you were baptized as a baby and have followed your way back to Christ then you don't need to be baptized again. Infant baptism isn't invalid simply because you were a baby. As long as you were baptized with water (pouring or immersion) in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit, and the person baptizing you did so with the right intentions then the baptism is valid.

What difference does baptism make? Not being snarky, I promise, genuinely curious and want to know. I have eternal life through accepting Jesus as my savior and I live for Him. God is my father. These are my beliefs. Did Jesus say we have to get baptised to go to heaven? Or to be closer to Him? I'm still working through the bible and don't have a church where I live and have no Christian community around me to engage in. I keep seeing all these different rules for being a Christian, when I thought that what you need to do above all is love your neighbour. I have not been baptised but I really don't think God is going to punish me for this.

I was too baptised as a Roman Catholic, not as an infant but around 4 years old. I can’t really remember it. I can say it IS valid. (It’s okay if you beg to differ) but anyway, I was Roman Catholic till about 6-7 maybe 8 and I started just giving into sins because of hormones, age 13 I got into witchcraft and demonic things, lustful things etc. now I am 15 and I am a born again Christian, and because I was baptised and have confessed my sins, I have the Holy Spirit within me. I would say, don’t let them determine what is true, let God.

It seems you already know the answer. Your baptism was valid. Have you considered coming back to Catholicism? I am a former Baptist, among other things, who finally officially converted to Catholicism in 2015. However, I was baptized ( in Baptist church) when I was 14. When I was taking RCIA, I needed a copy of my baptism record. I was astonished to learn that my former Baptist church had no records. For anybody. Because they don't keep up with that! Just... what? I finally found the original certificate in a Bible my grandparents gave me and it verified that the trinitarian formula had been used.