[Dr. Worm]

None of you have successfully dealt with the load of scripture that I posted on the parallels between circumcision and baptism. That's what we've been waiting on. No one has adequately demonstrated that they are different.

*Waits with hands on hips and taps his foot*

Here is one of my problems with it. Yes, you have shown they are very similar. They have many parallels. But they are not the exact same thing. There are differences between them. If baptism was just the circumcision of the new covenant, no changes except the water instead of the knife, then females would not be baptised. Circumcision was only for male infants. Yet we baptise females these days too. They are very similar symbolically, yes. But you can see OT laws about circumcising infants. You see no such laws in the NT in regards to baptism. Anywhere. They don't exist. Not to mention that everyone in the NT that we see getting baptised did it as an adult after they believed. That to me makes it hard to say its wrong to wait until you're a believer before you get baptised. It seems you're trying to make scripture say something that just isn't there.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

thats what Ive said, and Luke, Brown 007s comments about the covenant I quoted showed a belief in a sort of baptismal regeneration by it entering the infant into a covenant relationship, which guarantees salvation until the covenant is broken.
Luke I've also proven, 1 the abrahamic covenant is in effect. 2God doesnt change through dispensations and 3also that baptism and circumcision arent the same.

"That's not accurate. It is my belief that all members of the covenant go to heaven."

What covenant? scripture please

" Those who at some point reject Christ are now covenant breakers who are cut off from the covenant and removed from the covenant family. So, if someone is born to believers, they are in the covenant family. Baptism is given as a seal of this covenant." If they later reject Christ (either outright or in their heart) they are cut off from the covenant until they repent and are regenerated."
This is a form of infant baptismal regeneration. No strawman here. They would have entered the covenant which guarantees entry into heaven per the previous quote. But Jesus says in John 14 No man comes to the father but by him. This belief says you can come to the father through a work done on your behalf by parents.

Now luke, to you I ask what do you see as being the point of infant baptism, since it doesnt save.

[Luke]

It is the covenant seal, just like circumscision. We apply it for all the reasons given in brown07's table.

(Dr. Worm)
Yes, you have shown they are very similar. They have many parallels. But they are not the exact same thing. There are differences between them. If baptism was just the circumcision of the new covenant, no changes except the water instead of the knife, then females would not be baptised. Circumcision was only for male infants. Yet we baptise females these days too. They are very similar symbolically, yes.

(Luke)
More importantly, we baptize Gentiles too. But we have explicit commands for these changes (not to mention the reasons behind them being evident).

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
If they are the same sign of the covenant why would one be commanded and the other an act of following the law for salvation, thats my point.

Since when was circumcsion for salvation? I thought we were saved by faith...

Romans 11 and ifyou think its the church, nope, its in contrast to the church. read it please.

ARe you honestly arguing for jewish salvation outside of Christ? I think you need to reread John 14.

Im saying they are different, as proven by a text that they are not synonymous. One was a sign of God's everlasting covenant to Abraham, which (God doesnt change, no ones had the guts to challenge this, yet it rules out dispensationalism cold.)

Again, that's not what the context or the purpose of Galatians. You're doing severe violence to the text with this eisegesis.

[/b]Ridleysown, in your view what is the purpose of infant baptism? [/B]

From An Outline of the Faith from the 1979 BCP:

What is Holy Baptism?

A Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his
children and makes us members of Christ's Body, the Church, and
inheritors of the kingdom of God.

Q What is the outward and visible sign in Baptism?

A The outward and visible sign in Baptism is water, in which the
person is baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit.

Q What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?

A The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in
his death and resurrection, birth into God's family the Church,
forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.

Q What is required of us at Baptism?

A It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and
accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

Q Why then are infants baptized?

A Infants are baptized so that they can share citizenship in the
Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

so baptism, not grace through faith saves you? thats what your quote says

[Ridley's Own]

Originally posted by BillSPrestonEsq
so baptism, not grace through faith saves you? thats what your quote says

Wrong-o. It is grace through faith; the baptism is the outward and visible sign of God's grace being poured out. Not a hard thing to grasp.

Baptism is something God does for us, not the other way around.

[Luke]

(BillSPrestonEsq)
so baptism, not grace through faith saves you? thats what your quote says

(Luke)
I will resume this debate when you decide to stop tackling this strawman over and over again...

[seungk5]

ok guys, this is it.

you guys said many times, god haven't commanded it.
so y do it?
doesnt save the infant or anything, god never commanded it
it's just some tradition with no points?
tell me the point of infant baptism, cause i dont see a single one in the bible.

second, if you think circumcision is just like baptism and its' compared new covenant. think about paul's writing against circumcision how it's not necessary at all. than the same way baptism is not necessary at all?
only reason baptism is necessarry is it's symbolic of becoming christian and borning new/ god's command.

so u guys tell me
point of infant baptism
if it's like circumcision than y do it? paul says u dont need to be circumcised so why do u have to do it?

one last point.
u keep asking people for bible verse.
it's ur turn to show us a bible verse and type it in here.
where does god says or command that infant baptism is necessary?
you guys admited your self it's not god's command.......
so why do it, it wont save a child, it wont make a child grow up and become a holy person.
i can baptise my child and he can be as bad as he wants, baptism wont help him espeacially when child doesnt know what is going on

[Ridley's Own]

Seung,

Most, if not all of your questions have already been asked and adequetly answered. If you would read the thread, you wouldn't have to ask these.

[Dr. Worm]

Ridley - just because you think they have been adaquately answered in no way means that they have been adaquately answered. The fact that he is still asking means either that he hasn't read the thread, is just plain ignoring you, or has not been satisfied with any of the answers presented thus far. Personally, I have not been satisfied with any of the answers so far, and feel that my questions about infant baptism have not been adaquately addressed. Maybe you paedobaptists (is that the right word?) are correct, but just because you're right doesn't make up for the fact that you've done a piss poor job of explaining yourselves. I don't know how well seungk5 has followed the thread, but I have read every post, with a very open mind, and have not been convinced of your position even slightly. Perhaps instead of ignoring his questions, you could try explaining yourself slightly differently.

[seungk5]

Wrong-o. It is grace through faith; the baptism is the outward and visible sign of God's grace being poured out. Not a hard thing to grasp.

Baptism is something God does for us, not the other way around.


baptism is something God does for us hmmmm...
i agree with that but does God does it for the infants? lol
the infants doesnt know what's going on?

so u are saying God baptizes infants and he never NEVER says in the bible that it's necessary? lol

[ThePlaidRanger]

Originally posted by seungk5
ok guys, this is it.

you guys said many times, god haven't commanded it.
so y do it?
doesnt save the infant or anything, god never commanded it
it's just some tradition with no points?
tell me the point of infant baptism, cause i dont see a single one in the bible.

We've said several times - because we weren't commanded to change the time of application of the covenantal seal.

second, if you think circumcision is just like baptism and its' compared new covenant. think about paul's writing against circumcision how it's not necessary at all. than the same way baptism is not necessary at all?
only reason baptism is necessarry is it's symbolic of becoming christian and borning new/ god's command.

so u guys tell me
point of infant baptism
if it's like circumcision than y do it? paul says u dont need to be circumcised so why do u have to do it?

Once again, circumsision is not necessary because it was replaced by baptism!

one last point.
u keep asking people for bible verse.
it's ur turn to show us a bible verse and type it in here.
where does god says or command that infant baptism is necessary?
you guys admited your self it's not god's command.......
so why do it, it wont save a child, it wont make a child grow up and become a holy person.
i can baptise my child and he can be as bad as he wants, baptism wont help him espeacially when child doesnt know what is going on

We've already said that God doesn't command infant baptism. The burden of proof is on you, however, to show why the time of administration of the covenantal seal should change with no command given to that effect. Even though the burden of proof is on you, brown07 posted a veritable mountain of verses for you to read and try to offer alternate explanations for, and you haven't addressed a single one. We have more than fulfilled our obligation to proof.

[seungk5]

i read over it, i am still not satisified.
not commanded by god, than it becomes tradition.
infant baptism is just tradition than....

Q What is the inward and spiritual grace in Baptism?

A The inward and spiritual grace in Baptism is union with Christ in
his death and resurrection, birth into God's family the Church,
forgiveness of sins, and new life in the Holy Spirit.

it says here, it means forgiveness of our sins, when we are babys? and didn't even accept christ we are forgiven? only if we accept christ our sins are forgivened.... and baby cant accept christ

Q What is required of us at Baptism?

A It is required that we renounce Satan, repent of our sins, and
accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

and infants did all this how? they renounced satan when they are infant? repented their sins when they are infants? gasp! genius babys lol and how did they accept jesus and their lord and savior when they are infants?

Q Why then are infants baptized?

A Infants are baptized so that they can share citizenship in the
Covenant, membership in Christ, and redemption by God.

share citizensihp in the covenanct, membership in christ?
i think they can do that when they grow up?
just cause they get baptised doesnt mean they are gonna be 100 holy person later on their life. i know people who are baptised but still sins. so infant baptism means almost nothing. i am not saying it's 100 percent wrong, it's just like a tradition type of thing, it's ok but it's not really necessary. espeacially when God didnt say it. if it was needed and very important i think god would have said it in the bible. if god wanted to change some stuff in the bible he would have.

[Mithrandir]

well... i dunno about the latest discussion, but i have a question about the original question and responses...

so almost everybody who responded to the original question said the kid shouldn't have been baptized...

my question is this:
if we accept infant baptism...
Does it make any sense to refuse a child baptism? Given that the Covenent is open to everyone by faith, not just those raised by believers... and the child of unbeliever has, in theory at least, the same chance as the child of a believer to come to faith... then how can we refuse the sign of the promise to a child? How can they be shut out of the "covenent family" on the basis of their parents lack of faith? Obviously the baptism won't save them... but if the child of a believer can be baptized and walk away from that faith...

Anyway... the refusal just doesn't quite make sense to me.. and I thought I'd see if you guys had any more to say on why the child should be refused baptism... (again, assuming that we accept infant baptism)...

[Dr. Worm]

For the record, I am partially confused about baptism. I do not adhere to either side (ana or paedo?).

We've said several times - because we weren't commanded to change the time of application of the covenantal seal.

In every instance we see of NT baptism, is it done to adults after they believe, or infants before they believe? Honestly, I'm asking you. I don't know. But if I remember right, every single NT instance of baptism has been of adults after they believed. And if I am right about that, I'd think that you have some stretching to do to prove infant baptism over baptism of adults after belief.

Once again, circumsision is not necessary because it was replaced by baptism!

I think you're missing his point. Circumcision was part of the law. Galatians 5:6 says [color=blue]"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value, the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."[/color=blue] His point was not that circumcision does not matter because it has been replaced by baptism. His point could probably have been better made by Bryan. If I could borrow the line from you, Bryan, circumcision is about as useful for salvation as I am for modeling underwear. This, I think, sums up Paul's point quite nicely. So, to rephrase Seungk5's question: If circumcision had no real effect on salvation whatsoever, baptism now has no effect on salvation whatsoever. Still, the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. So why bother getting baptised?

The burden of proof is on you, however, to show why the time of administration of the covenantal seal should change with no command given to that effect. Even though the burden of proof is on you, brown07 posted a veritable mountain of verses for you to read and try to offer alternate explanations for, and you haven't addressed a single one. We have more than fulfilled our obligation to proof.

Are there examples of people getting baptised in the NT? Were those people believing adults or unbelieving babies? I'll look through scriptures for this, but if they were believing adults, I'd consider that fairly strong evidence of a changing in the time of administration of the covenantal seal. For the sake of appeasing you, I'll address brown07's mountain shortly.