Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think the Aristotle reasoning was promoted most by Protestants in an effort to accuse the Church of changing doctrine.
The Church has always taught that the Sacrament of Baptism makes one a Christian. It is a free gift from God that does not require anyone to work by first doing something. Many who are not Baptized call themselves Christians, which is against scripture and Church teaching.
I'm not aware of many Christians not being baptized. Rather in my 50+ years of experience, most (like 95-99% of) Christians across the board are baptized. If you're talking about false in name only Christians, they fall in with the unsaved. So it's most unsaved people are not baptized. Not sure what unsaved non-christians have to do with the topic.
Baptism is part of all mainstream churches and all mainstream churches baptize using the Trinitarian formula. Your denomination
Which Christians from the mainstream churches are not baptized?
True Christians do have different theology which separates the churches.
I think that the attribution for your signature is incorrect because the earliest reliably documented form of the saying comes from Rupertus Meldenius, a relatively obscure 17th‑century Lutheran theologian (real name: Peter Meiderlin). He wrote it in 1627 in a tract titled: “Paraenesis votiva pro pace ecclesiae ad theologos Augustanae confessionis”
But not all Baptize with the proper intention. Some view Baptism not as a salvific Sacrament but as a mere gesture. Scripture and Church teaching says that is invalid.
I'm not the authority, Scripture and the Church is. Pay attention.
See my answer above
The real question is validly Baptized.
No. You really have no clue. In my denomination baptism is an outward profession of faith of what has already happened internally which is why we do not baptize infants. We believe that baptism is the result of regeneration and faith. The intent is fully biblical.
You seem to put yourself as the authority. You have no say on which Christian from the mainstream churches is Christian and who is not.
Not to you.
Where?
All baptisms of Christians in mainstream churches are valid.
Hmm, proper intent may be lacking.
All I have is Scripture and His Church's teaching, which is what I post.
It depends.
Nope and you are still not the authority.
You have the interpretations of your denomination. And you are still not the authority.
On what? Your denomination is not the only game in town you know.
Christ has only One Church, or in your words, there is only one game in town.
Jesus is not showing us he was previously lying when he says "the flesh is of no avail." The flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ is far different than things of "the flesh" of which man is told to not make so important.
You're so intentionally vague you know that intent can't be establish.
That's what those who hold unconventional views always say.
But you won't say what it depends on. Probably because saying it outright would violate site rules.
So you're saying unless one is a Roman Catholic they are of a false church, are false christians, have a false baptism etc, right? Now do you mean the present day RCC or the pre-Vatican II RCC?
It's that they are not validly baptized. But he won't and or can't say what that means. I know the RCC teaches that Trinitarian baptism, whether it be administered by the RCC or a Protestant Christian is valid. So he seems to be off on some unconventional tangent.
You’ve been 
