[+Donny]

I think I got your name right.

1: baptism is for a person who is old enough to understand salvation, and is already saved.

Can you prove this?

what is the point in baptizing if they dont understand it? seems pointless to me.

What was the point of circumcision?

2: my church believes baptism is a symbol of obedience to God (not a nesecarry symbol, but still done anyways). this goes back to understanding it. a baby wont understand what it is. as they arnt old enough to have any understanding period. also, at that stage in a persons life they arnt old enough to know to ask Jesus to save them , and to repent of their sins. so really they arnt being saved or anything at that point, your just having a minister give your baby a free bath.

Can you prove it's just a symbol of obedience?

3: and the NUMBER ONE! ULTIMATE REASON!! that baptist dont baptize babies...............................it aint in scripture to baptize a newborn baby. just circumcision, an thats only for boys

Baptism is the sign of entrance into the Church, and since infants were always included in the covenant community in the OT, why should we exclude infants now? The number one, ultimate reason to be a paedobaptist is that the NT doesn't exclude infants from the visible church.

salvation, and baptism are a choice that in the end should be left to a person who knows what s/he are doing, and why. there is no POINT in forcing baptism on someone who doesnt understand it, and maybe later wont want it.

No one baptizes themselves, they are baptized. Baptism is a passive sacrament, where God (or the minister, representing God) baptizes the individual. You are turning this around and changing the meaning of the sacrament.
[/quote]

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Baptism is the sign of entrance into the Church

Where do you get this from?

[+Donny]

Baptism is a symbol of union with Christ (Romans 6; Galatians 3:27-28), being part of His body, the Church. Thus, it can be said to be a symbol of being a part of the Church, and because of it's nature (a one-time, entry sacrament), it is a symbol of entrance into the church.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

but as a sign of union with Christ would be unwarranted to the unregenerate.

[Andrei]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

but as a sign of union with Christ would be unwarranted to the unregenerate.

Define "union with Christ".

[Ted Logan]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Baptism is a symbol of union with Christ (Romans 6; Galatians 3:27-28),

Baptism in both cases is not indicated as a symbol, but the actual union itself. These passages refer not to water baptism, but baptism in the Holy Spirit.

[+Donny]

Even if that interpretation is correct, water baptism being a sign of spirit baptism would mean water baptism signifies that which spirit baptism grants, which is union with Christ. Thus, water baptism is a sign of union with Christ.

[celly_guitar]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Can you prove this?

Everyone in the NT who was babtized confessed with their mouth.
Infants who cannot speak cannot follow the Biblical pattern.

What was the point of circumcision?

The point of circumsision was to have a physical representation of faith. To show and remind one's self that one was set apart from the world as a jew.

Can you prove it's just a symbol of obedience?

-Therefore Go and make disciples of all nations, Babtizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19.
Jesus commanded them to Baptize. Therefore Baptism is obedience to Jesus command. Moreover it says to baptise disciples. How can an infant be a disciple?

Baptism is the sign of entrance into the Church, and since infants were always included in the covenant community in the OT, why should we exclude infants now? The number one, ultimate reason to be a paedobaptist is that the NT doesn't exclude infants from the visible church.

I disagree. The NT does not include infants in the church. The church is the group of believers. Infants are to young to believe because they do not have the abitity to and cannot profess faith. In the NT everyone who was Babtized by the Holy spirit already confessed with their mouth.

Baptism is not a symbol of enterence to the church it is a confession of faith and symbol of repentence. In the OT and during John the Baptist's time all it was was a symbol of repetence.

No one baptizes themselves, they are baptized. Baptism is a passive sacrament, where God (or the minister, representing God) baptizes the individual. You are turning this around and changing the meaning of the sacrament.

You are confusing Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the physical act representing to sin. In the physical babptism the Baptist performs the act to signify the believers belief. No salvation happens at Baptism. It is a symbol and a public confession of faith. Not salvation.

[+Donny]

Everyone in the NT who was babtized confessed with their mouth.
Infants who cannot speak cannot follow the Biblical pattern.

If you isolate the "biblical pattern" the NT then you possibly have a case, but you can't. As I said, in every single covenant prior to the New Covenant, households joined, not merely individuals. The covenants were made with people and their descendants. What makes you think this has change din the New Covenant? Keep in mind that the examples in the NT are not contrary to paedobaptism. New converts must profess faith, and if they do, their entire household enters into covenant, which is exactly what we see happening in the NT.

The point of circumsision was to have a physical representation of faith. To show and remind one's self that one was set apart from the world as a jew.

Okay, and tell me what is different about baptism that makes you think it shouldn't be applied to households, but instead on an individual basis.

-Therefore Go and make disciples of all nations, Babtizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19.
Jesus commanded them to Baptize. Therefore Baptism is obedience to Jesus command.

No, to baptize others is obedience. Furthermore, this doesn't prove that it is merely obedience.

Moreover it says to baptise disciples. How can an infant be a disciple?

Luke, can you check the Greek? Does baptize refer to the nations or disciples?

I disagree. The NT does not include infants in the church. The church is the group of believers. Infants are to young to believe because they do not have the abitity to and cannot profess faith. In the NT everyone who was Babtized by the Holy spirit already confessed with their mouth.

I am speaking of the visible church, not the invisible church. Yes, the invisible church is made up of only true believers, but we can't administer baptism based on this because we can't read the heart.

Baptism is not a symbol of enterence to the church it is a confession of faith and symbol of repentence. In the OT and during John the Baptist's time all it was was a symbol of repetence.

John the Baptist's baptism is not the same as Christian baptism. Besides, this appeal doesn't prove that it is merely a sign of repentance.

You are confusing Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the physical act representing to sin. In the physical babptism the Baptist performs the act to signify the believers belief. No salvation happens at Baptism. It is a symbol and a public confession of faith. Not salvation.

I never said that baptism, in itself, saves anyone. I don't understand your response here.

[psalm63adam]

Originally Posted by +Donny

Luke, can you check the Greek? Does baptize refer to the nations or disciples?

I'm not Luke, but the Greek says (translated into English):

Going therefore disciple ye all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

So I don't know if it's really that clear. Discipling is the first action it looks like, so it would seem that one would baptize those who were discipled.

[celly_guitar]

Originally Posted by +Donny

If you isolate the "biblical pattern" the NT then you possibly have a case, but you can't. As I said, in every single covenant prior to the New Covenant, households joined, not merely individuals. The covenants were made with people and their descendants. What makes you think this has change din the New Covenant? Keep in mind that the examples in the NT are not contrary to paedobaptism. New converts must profess faith, and if they do, their entire household enters into covenant, which is exactly what we see happening in the NT.

The Old covenent was given to Abrahams's desendents. The New convenent was given to the 12 disciples and their 'desendents' are other believers. The new convenant is to the family of God that we join at conversion, not the earthly family.

If when a man professes faith why dosn't the rest of his family magicaly convert? What is the new convenent?

Okay, and tell me what is different about baptism that makes you think it shouldn't be applied to households, but instead on an individual basis.

Baptism is a symbol of repentence and confession of faith. Not joining the visable church.

No, to baptize others is obedience. Furthermore, this doesn't prove that it is merely obedience.

Why would jesus tell us to Baptise disciples if he didn't want disciples to be baptised? Furthermore if God is wants you to be Baptized is it then obeidience?

I am speaking of the visible church, not the invisible church. Yes, the invisible church is made up of only true believers, but we can't administer baptism based on this because we can't read the heart.

You are right. We cannot read the heart. But chances are that if someone confesses with thier mouth then they are saved. Why would we want the unsaved as baptised members of the visable church?

John the Baptist's baptism is not the same as Christian baptism. Besides, this appeal doesn't prove that it is merely a sign of repentance.

Why mearly a sign of repentence? Because repentence is between you and God privatly. I'm not saying that you shouldn't tell others about your struggles but they are not what forgives you.
[/quote]
I never said that baptism, in itself, saves anyone. I don't understand your response here.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by +Donny

No one baptizes themselves, they are baptized. Baptism is a passive sacrament, where God (or the minister, representing God) baptizes the individual.

You said that God baptizes the individual. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The physical Baptism is a symbol of repentence and faith. It is a proclemation of that.

[Demon_Hunter]

im stickin with my original argument (in the "10 reasons im a baptist" thread).

and im agreeing with celly.

"Baptism is the sign of entrance into the Church" - donny

what if they dont want to be a member of the church. once again your forcing something on someone who may or may not want it later on.

and like i said earlier, it amounts to nothing more then having a priest give your baby a free bath.

[+Donny]

The Old covenent was given to Abrahams's desendents. The New convenent was given to the 12 disciples and their 'desendents' are other believers. The new convenant is to the family of God that we join at conversion, not the earthly family.

Two problems with this.

1) The OT promise was never merely by birth. This is the point made by Paul in Romans 9-11.
2) Entrance into the New Covenant visible community, the visible church, is not by faith/belief because we can't see faith/belief. You aren't really dealing with my argument, because I am speaking of the visible church, not the invisible.

If when a man professes faith why dosn't the rest of his family magicaly convert? What is the new convenent?

I don't understand your question here. Perhaps my comments on the visible church will answer this.

Baptism is a symbol of repentence and confession of faith. Not joining the visable church.

What does the fact that it is the former make it impossible to be the latter? Circumcision was both.

Why would jesus tell us to Baptise disciples if he didn't want disciples to be baptised?

I don't claim the latter, so this is a strawman.

Furthermore if God is wants you to be Baptized is it then obeidience?

Yes, but the Great Commision doesn't prove it. That's all I was pointing out.

You are right. We cannot read the heart. But chances are that if someone confesses with thier mouth then they are saved. Why would we want the unsaved as baptised members of the visable church?

The question is not what we want but what the Bible teaches. There were always unbelievers in the visible church before the New Covenant, and there still are. That's part of the visible church.

Why mearly a sign of repentence? Because repentence is between you and God privatly. I'm not saying that you shouldn't tell others about your struggles but they are not what forgives you.

I fail to see how this establishes that baptism is only a sign of repentance and not anything else.

You said that God baptizes the individual. This is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The physical Baptism is a symbol of repentence and faith. It is a proclemation of that.

I agree that water baptism is a symbol of baptism of the Spirit, which are both passive. We don't baptize ourselves, we are baptized.

[+Donny]

So I don't know if it's really that clear. Discipling is the first action it looks like, so it would seem that one would baptize those who were discipled.

So we should only teach them after baptizing them?

[+Donny]

what if they dont want to be a member of the church. once again your forcing something on someone who may or may not want it later on.

Then they can leave later on. What if an Israelite child didn't want to be a Jew?

and like i said earlier, it amounts to nothing more then having a priest give your baby a free bath.

If you have that low a view of baptism, fine, then why are you complaining that we baptize our children?