Of course not. But we have John 3:5 obligating us to baptize everyone. Christ can still save an unbaptized but that would be done extraordinarily. We have to do our part, and leave Christ's part to Christ.
This directly contradicts scripture, so I would like to ask how you would square this requirement against Eph. 2:8-9?
Where is the contradiction? In infant baptism, the faith of the sponsor (the parents, typically) supplies the faith, ad the sacrament of the water and the prayers supplies the grace.
under the Catholic view, it would not be "just" to forever penalize a baby if his family did not get him baptized before it was too late.
Yes, the parents who delay the baptism in effect are telling Christ to please save the baby even though they did not get around to baptize him, in the event of his death. It is presumptious and wrong. Of course we believe in the mercy and justice of Christ and hope that the baby would still be saved extraordinarily; however the scripture does not say so explicitly, and it does compel us to baptise explicitly in John 3:5, and others.
This is not unlike any sacrament. While these things are mystical, they are not magical amulets; it is always Christ Who works through the sacrament, and of course He can also work outside of the sacrament. We lead sacramental lives not because there is something magical in the water, bread, wine, and the oil, but because Christ asked us to do these things in His name.
John 3:5 : Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
I AM a Baptist, so there is no way I am against Baptism, I am very much in favor of it. :) However, it is not at all crystal clear that this verse requires Baptism for salvation. Here is what Ryrie says about it:
"Various interpretations have been suggested for the meaning here of "water": (1) it refers to baptism as a requirement for salvation. However, this would contradict many other NT passages (Eph. 2:8-9); (2) it stands for the act of repentance that John the Baptizer's baptism signified; (3) it refers to natural birth (specifically, the fluid released when the amniotic sac breaks prior to labor); thus it means "unless one is born the first time by water and the second time by the Spirit"; (4) it means the Word of God, as in 15:3; (5) it is a synonym for the Holy Spirit and may be translated, "by water, even the Spirit." One truth is clear: the new birth is from God through the Spirit."
I can "buy" more than one of these, but the first one does contradict other NT scripture.
FK: "This directly contradicts scripture, so I would like to ask how you would square this requirement against Eph. 2:8-9?"
Where is the contradiction? In infant baptism, the faith of the sponsor (the parents, typically) supplies the faith, ad the sacrament of the water and the prayers supplies the grace.
I don't believe that faith by proxy is scriptural. The story of the paralytic is ambiguous. Who is the "their" of "their faith"? That could go either way. Plus, the whole idea makes man not responsible for his sin. Under faith by proxy, justification can be achieved by who you know, not what you believe. That concerns me.