the meaning of Baptism

[atpollard]

If by context you mean there isn't a specific statement where "Apostle 'X' took infant 'Y' and baptized him in the name of...", you'd be right. But it ignores another meaning of "context":

Show me how this verse does not fall under "interrelated conditions" (i.e. historical context):

The link above is for all the available translations. There is no exception for infants noted in any of them.
Straight from "God's word". All of them.

Acts 16:31-34 NASB
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of [fn]the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set [fn]food before them, and rejoiced [fn]greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

May we also conclude that an infant hearing the word of the Lord and being Baptized must also have a saving faith imparted at that moment as the entire household of the jailer did? They should then be free to join in the Lord's Table, should they not?

How much is it safe to infer from silence? (The fact that it does not specify whether or not there were any infants or children).

It actually returns to the original question of "what is baptism" ( not 'sprinkle' vs 'immerse', but the core reality of what is happening at baptism.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Acts 16:31-34 NASB
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of [fn]the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set [fn]food before them, and rejoiced [fn]greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

May we also conclude that an infant hearing the word of the Lord and being Baptized must also have a saving faith imparted at that moment as the entire household of the jailer did? They should then be free to join in the Lord's Table, should they not?

How much is it safe to infer from silence? (The fact that it does not specify whether or not there were any infants or children).

It actually returns to the original question of "what is baptism" ( not 'sprinkle' vs 'immerse', but the core reality of what is happening at baptism.)

The meaning of baptism was discussed. It was covered by John 3:5, Romans 6:3-9, Titus 3:3-7, and Peter's remark in 1 Peter 3.

 

[atpollard]

WHAT IS BAPTISM?

I have a question for those who believe that it is right to baptize "entire households" (which might happen to include babies). Please try not to read this as any sort of an attack, but just an honest question to help facilitate a discussion on What is Baptism.

Why are babies baptized?

Let's get the obvious answer out of the way: "Because God tells us to."

Acts 2:37-39 NASB
37 Now when they heard this, they were [fn]pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “[fn]Brethren, [fn]what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

We could argue about what Peter actually meant, but that will lead us nowhere but the same, well-worn ground. So just for the sake of Christian Fellowship and discussion, let's assume it commands exactly what you believe it commands and every place that the Bible talks about a household being baptized it may have included members of any age, including infants.

So I am not asking for 'Scriptural Support' for your position, but rather I am asking for your personal opinions to help me understand WHY God would command that a baby who cannot comprehend would be baptized.

So ... Why are babies baptized and what is this thing called baptism?
(I have heard a lot about 'what it is not').
Can anyone explain it to me from your point of view?

 

[atpollard]

The meaning of baptism was discussed. It was covered by John 3:5, Romans 6:3-9, Titus 3:3-7, and Peter's remark in 1 Peter 3.

It may have been discussed, but I suspect (from the last few pages of conversation) that no agreement was reached on the meaning.

 

[MennoSota]

Acts 16:31-34 NASB
31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of [fn]the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set [fn]food before them, and rejoiced [fn]greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

May we also conclude that an infant hearing the word of the Lord and being Baptized must also have a saving faith imparted at that moment as the entire household of the jailer did? They should then be free to join in the Lord's Table, should they not?

How much is it safe to infer from silence? (The fact that it does not specify whether or not there were any infants or children).

It actually returns to the original question of "what is baptism" ( not 'sprinkle' vs 'immerse', but the core reality of what is happening at baptism.)

Entire household does not necessarily mean 100% of the people. Second, there is literally NO mention of children. You have to infer children into the story by forcing the word "entire" to mean 100%. If the household has pets were the pets also baptized?
What people are doing with Acts 16 is to force the silence of the text to support their churches unsupported teaching on infant baptism. It is horrible hermaneutics to make an argument for baptismal regeneration from silence. It's just horrible.

 

[MennoSota]

It may have been discussed, but I suspect (from the last few pages of conversation) that no agreement was reached on the meaning.

Each passage was declared to be taken out of context as MCs desperate attempt to create a prooftext from thin air. Poof! There it is!

 

[atpollard]

The meaning of baptism was discussed. It was covered by John 3:5, Romans 6:3-9, Titus 3:3-7, and Peter's remark in 1 Peter 3.

Taking you at your word, some simple and direct questions:

John 3:5 NASB Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Does this mean every sprinkled baby has now been "born of water and the Spirit" and will enter the Kingdom of God?


Romans 6:3-9 NASB
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become [fn]united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [fn]in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old [fn]self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be [fn]done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is [fn]freed from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, [fn]is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.

Does this mean every sprinkled baby has now been "baptized into Christ Jesus", "baptized into His death", "walk in the newness of life", united with Him in death and Ressurection, the baby's old self has been crucified so the baby is no longer a slave to sin, and the baby is now confident he/she will now live with Christ?


Titus 3:3-7 NASB
3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs [fn]according to the hope of eternal life.

Does this mean every sprinkled baby has now been washed and regenerated and renewed by the Holy Spirit and has been justified by God's grace and made an heir to eternal life?


1 Peter 3:21 NASB Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [fn]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Does this mean every sprinkled baby now has a "good conscience"?

I am not mocking. Do you believe that all of these consequences of "baptism" contained in the verses which you chose to define "baptism" all fully apply to every infant exactly as they would apply to every genuine believer with what James would call a faith that saves (not a dead faith)?

If not, then there is something more to your definition of baptism.

 

[atpollard]

Entire household does not necessarily mean 100% of the people. Second, there is literally NO mention of children. You have to infer children into the story by forcing the word "entire" to mean 100%. If the household has pets were the pets also baptized?
What people are doing with Acts 16 is to force the silence of the text to support their churches unsupported teaching on infant baptism. It is horrible hermaneutics to make an argument for baptismal regeneration from silence. It's just horrible.

So MennoSota,
What is baptism?

I don't mean the scripture verses. That horse has been beaten to death. Forget about the "baby" question for a moment. I really do think that it is a red herring. The argument comes down to what we 'baptist' leaning Christians see as baptizing people who don't believe. Babies are just an obvious symptom. At the core seems to be a basic difference in sotierology.

So pretend that it is just you and I sitting in a local diner just talking over a hot or cold drink. So what is this baptism thing really all about?

I know for a fact that a person can get "saved" without getting baptized. I was. So let's set aside the conversation about the Holy Spirit removing that heart of stone that we have ... that cold, hard, dead heart that is incapable of allowing God's Word to take root and it incapable of loving our neighbor and is an enemy of God (just like Romans talks about) ... and replacing it with a heart of flesh ... that is now alive, and capable of loving and is fertile soil for God's Word and that wants to please God (has the law written on it). Like Corrie TenBoom says "God does as he pleases and he does it right well."

So let's talk about getting dunked in a river or poured from a bowl or sprinkled on a death bed. Why? What is happening? It's just us baptists talking among ourselves.

I have heard people talk about it as "symbolic". I get that there is a ton of symbolism involved in almost everything God does in the Bible. You can't attend a Southern Baptist Adult Education Class on the Baptist Faith and Message and not learn about symbolism. However, just between us, I an pretty sure that there is more to the water than just symbolism. Less than a prerequisite for Salvation, but more than just a symbolic gesture.

What do you think?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Entire household does not necessarily mean 100% of the people. You have to infer children into the story by forcing the word "entire" to mean 100%.

What meaning of "entire" do you suggest?

Second, there is literally NO mention of children.

There is also literally no exception noted. But if one must force "entire household" to no longer mean "100% of the people", then I guess the horrible hermeneutics would lie with you.

 

[MennoSota]

So MennoSota,
What is baptism?

I don't mean the scripture verses. That horse has been beaten to death. Forget about the "baby" question for a moment. I really do think that it is a red herring. The argument comes down to what we 'baptist' leaning Christians see as baptizing people who don't believe. Babies are just an obvious symptom. At the core seems to be a basic difference in sotierology.

So pretend that it is just you and I sitting in a local diner just talking over a hot or cold drink. So what is this baptism thing really all about?

I know for a fact that a person can get "saved" without getting baptized. I was. So let's set aside the conversation about the Holy Spirit removing that heart of stone that we have ... that cold, hard, dead heart that is incapable of allowing God's Word to take root and it incapable of loving our neighbor and is an enemy of God (just like Romans talks about) ... and replacing it with a heart of flesh ... that is now alive, and capable of loving and is fertile soil for God's Word and that wants to please God (has the law written on it). Like Corrie TenBoom says "God does as he pleases and he does it right well."

So let's talk about getting dunked in a river or poured from a bowl or sprinkled on a death bed. Why? What is happening? It's just us baptists talking among ourselves.

I have heard people talk about it as "symbolic". I get that there is a ton of symbolism involved in almost everything God does in the Bible. You can't attend a Southern Baptist Adult Education Class on the Baptist Faith and Message and not learn about symbolism. However, just between us, I an pretty sure that there is more to the water than just symbolism. Less than a prerequisite for Salvation, but more than just a symbolic gesture.

What do you think?

Baptizo means "to immerse."

What value is there in immersing a person in water and holding them under. God cannot be saying that immersion in water has a miraculous redemptive purpose.
Baptizo can also mean to dip. Yet again, what miraculous event does God declare when we dip a person in water? Well, perhaps it's the incantation that creates the miracle. Say "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and...poof...the water becomes miraculous?! That would be similar to the teaching that we actually eat Jesus muscle (flesh) and drink his blood through magical incantation.
But, perhaps the physical actions we do are merely reflecting what God has already done in heaven. Recall that the earthly temple is an image of the temple in heaven.
Baptism does not have regenerative properties so it must be an image of what God has already accomplished in heaven.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Baptizo means "to immerse."

What value is there in immersing a person in water and holding them under. God cannot be saying that immersion in water has a miraculous redemptive purpose.
Baptizo can also mean to dip. Yet again, what miraculous event does God declare when we dip a person in water? Well, perhaps it's the incantation that creates the miracle. Say "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and...poof...the water becomes miraculous?!

No. There's nothing miraculous about the water. It holds no special properties. Water is water. The Apostle Paul, however, answers your first objections quite well:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection...

Show that Paul was not suggesting some redemptive purpose in baptism.

 

[user1234]

Please stop suggesting that members are not saved. Not the first time. Thanks.

Members? Simply agreeing with someones self-assessment or admittance isnt really suggesting anything, is it?

Should we make the assumption that a person is saved because they're a member here? I'm not understanding the harm of sharing the gospel on a christian site. A person can say no thanks or yes I'm interested or Praise the Lord, I'm already saved.

The bible says that we're ALL unsaved, until we're saved by Jesus.
Isnt it proper to agree with the bible so we can give a person the good news,
rather than disagree, assume a person is saved, and neglect sharing it?

 

[MennoSota]

No. There's nothing miraculous about the water. It holds no special properties. Water is water. The Apostle Paul, however, answers your first objections quite well:



Show that Paul was not suggesting some redemptive purpose in baptism.

Romans 6 is a great example of the word baptizo not being used to express baptism by water. Look at the context.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

If the baptism is physical then the death must also be physical, as well as the resurrection. But, that is silly to suggest we literally, physically, die, are buried, and rise with Jesus on the cross at Golgotha. So then, since it's not a physical death, burial and resurrection it is also not a physical water baptism that Paul is talking about.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Romans 6 is a great example of the word baptizo not being used to express baptism by water. Look at the context.

If the baptism is physical then the death must also be physical, as well as the resurrection. But, that is silly to suggest we literally, physically, die, are buried, and rise with Jesus on the cross at Golgotha. So then, since it's not a physical death, burial and resurrection it is also not a physical water baptism that Paul is talking about.

Of course we don't physically die. Just as we don't undergo a physical circumcision of the heart. Yet Paul states that:

"...he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;"

Your conclusion falls on fallacious reasoning in assuming that if 'A' is true then 'B' must be true - ruling out any other option that 'B' could possibly be, as it doesn't stand up to your sense of reason. And that's nothing against you, it just doesn't add up for you.

I would question that, if circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, why can't the same be true for an act such as baptism (i.e. in the spirit), and not a mere "outward sign" such as is circumcision? Just something for consideration.

 

[MennoSota]

Of course we don't physically die. Just as we don't undergo a physical circumcision of the heart. Yet Paul states that:

"...he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;"

Your conclusion falls on fallacious reasoning in assuming that if 'A' is true then 'B' must be true - ruling out any other option that 'B' could possibly be, as it doesn't stand up to your sense of reason. And that's nothing against you, it just doesn't add up for you.

I would question that, if circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, why can't the same be true for an act such as baptism (i.e. in the spirit), and not a mere "outward sign" such as is circumcision? Just something for consideration.

The baptism Paul is talking about is our immersion into Christ. Water is not even what is being discussed in Romans 6. Therefore water baptism cannot be the subject. The subject must be the work of God the Spirit in immersing (baptizo) us into Christ.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

The baptism Paul is talking about is our immersion into Christ. Water is not even what is being discussed in Romans 6. Therefore water baptism cannot be the subject. The subject must be the work of God the Spirit in immersing (baptizo) us into Christ.

Expositors would disagree. Here are some that are interesting on the topic:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/6-3.htm

I found this quote to be rather telling:

But this death to sin, on which the whole argument turns, raises a question. It is introduced here quite abruptly; there has been no mention of it hitherto. When, it may be asked, did this all-important death take place? The answer is: It is involved in baptism.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/egt/romans/6.htm

 

[MoreCoffee]

WHAT IS BAPTISM?

I have a question for those who believe that it is right to baptize "entire households" (which might happen to include babies). Please try not to read this as any sort of an attack, but just an honest question to help facilitate a discussion on What is Baptism.

Why are babies baptized?

Let's get the obvious answer out of the way: "Because God tells us to."

Because the apostles taught us to. They taught us by example. Their example was followed by the bishops who succeeded them. The following generations followed the example they had from their predecessors in the role of bishop.

Acts 2:37-39 NASB
37 Now when they heard this, they were [fn]pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “[fn]Brethren, [fn]what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

We could argue about what Peter actually meant, but that will lead us nowhere but the same, well-worn ground. So just for the sake of Christian Fellowship and discussion, let's assume it commands exactly what you believe it commands and every place that the Bible talks about a household being baptized it may have included members of any age, including infants.

So I am not asking for 'Scriptural Support' for your position, but rather I am asking for your personal opinions to help me understand WHY God would command that a baby who cannot comprehend would be baptized.

Infants are baptised because we want to include them in the covenant. God included infants in the covenant with Abraham and repeated their inclusion when the law came. Many Calvinists think of the new covenant as a renewal and expansion of the covenant made with Abraham. We agree with that to a degree. Abram was blessed by God because he believed God. After believing God for many years it was said of Abram "And he believed the LORD; and this was reckoned it to him as righteousness". Years later, after Abram was renamed to Abraham, God told Abraham to circumcise his household, himself and his offspring - you are no longer to be called Abram; your name is to be Abraham, for I am making you father of many nations. ... And I shall maintain my covenant between myself and you, and your descendants after you, generation after generation, as a covenant in perpetuity, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. ... This is my covenant which you must keep between myself and you, and your descendants after you: every one of your males must be circumcised. You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that will be the sign of the covenant between myself and you. So we reason that since God included the children of his people in the old covenant he would also include children of believers in the new covenant. Paul does link baptism and circumcision as signs of covenant membership - In him you have been circumcised, with a circumcision performed, not by human hand, but by the complete stripping of your natural self. This is circumcision according to Christ. You have been buried with him by your baptism; by which, too, you have been raised up with him through your belief in the power of God who raised him from the dead. [Colossians 2:11-12]

So ... Why are babies baptized and what is this thing called baptism?
(I have heard a lot about 'what it is not').
Can anyone explain it to me from your point of view?

Baptism is being born of water and the Spirit. Baptism is the cleansing water of rebirth and renewal in the Holy Spirit. Baptism is dying with Christ and rising to new life in Christ. It is union with Christ. And it is the means by which God saves us in Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It may have been discussed, but I suspect (from the last few pages of conversation) that no agreement was reached on the meaning.

I am not seeking agreement about what baptism means. I do not expect it. I am pleasantly surprised when Lamm and others agree with what I've said about the meaning of baptism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Taking you at your word, some simple and direct questions:

John 3:5 NASB Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Does this mean every sprinkled baby has now been "born of water and the Spirit" and will enter the Kingdom of God?

No. Catholics do not sprinkle. But forgetting the method of applying the water for the moment it means that every baptised person - of age and infants too - is born of water and the Spirit and God willing will enter the kingdom of God.

Romans 6:3-9 NASB
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become [fn]united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [fn]in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old [fn]self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be [fn]done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is [fn]freed from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, [fn]is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.

Does this mean every sprinkled baby has now been "baptized into Christ Jesus", "baptized into His death", "walk in the newness of life", united with Him in death and Ressurection, the baby's old self has been crucified so the baby is no longer a slave to sin, and the baby is now confident he/she will now live with Christ?

No. Catholics do not sprinkle. But forgetting the method of applying the water for the moment it means that every baptised person - of age and infants too - is baptised into Christ's death, rises to new life in Christ's resurrection, and is united to Christ. Thus just as Christ is no slave of sin but has overcome all sin so too is every person born from above in baptism - of age and infants too.

A note of explanation, so we do not talk at cross purposes. Being in Christ means that the faithful have every virtue and grace that Christ has because they are in Christ. This is not a claim to personal experience and personal possession of all the perfections that Jesus Christ has but because the faithful are in Christ they receive all that he has including his eternal life. I know it is often said by some here that as a Catholic I supposedly believe in works righteousness and that somehow I think one earns salvation or merits it by one's own effort even though that effort is aided by grace but that is not what I believe nor is it what the Catholic Church teaches. The faithful have eternal life in Christ and righteousness in Christ and every perfection in Christ yet the faithful in this life grow in grace, walk in obedience, do good works that merit reward, and hope with expectation to see God face to face as Jesus Christ does thus in this life all the rewards and perfections are hoped for and eagerly anticipated but are not yet present they become present in the resurrection at the last judgement when Christ will say to the faithful "Well done, good and trustworthy servant; you have shown you are trustworthy in small things; I will trust you with greater; come and join in your master's happiness."

Titus 3:3-7 NASB
3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. 4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs [fn]according to the hope of eternal life.

Does this mean every sprinkled baby has now been washed and regenerated and renewed by the Holy Spirit and has been justified by God's grace and made an heir to eternal life?

No. Catholics do not sprinkle. But forgetting the method of applying the water for the moment it means that every baptised person - of age and infants too - is now washed, regenerated and renewed by the Holy Spirit, is justified by God's grace, and made an heir to eternal life, in Christ. (see A note of explanation above)

1 Peter 3:21 NASB Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [fn]for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Does this mean every sprinkled baby now has a "good conscience"?

I am not mocking. Do you believe that all of these consequences of "baptism" contained in the verses which you chose to define "baptism" all fully apply to every infant exactly as they would apply to every genuine believer with what James would call a faith that saves (not a dead faith)?

Every baptised person - of age and infants too - is included in everything I said in the answers above. Faith is present for those of age who are baptised and faith will come (God willing since faith is God's gift of grace) to every infant that God calls. We do not claim anything as our own. Even when we have done everything commanded we can say no more than that we are unprofitable servants of God and have done no more than what was required by God. There is no personal glory in any of our works, beliefs, acts of faith, or acts of contrition. In everything it is God who gives and we respond with grateful praise of him and his glory and goodness - those of age and infants too.

If not, then there is something more to your definition of baptism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So MennoSota,
What is baptism?

I don't mean the scripture verses. That horse has been beaten to death. Forget about the "baby" question for a moment. I really do think that it is a red herring. The argument comes down to what we 'baptist' leaning Christians see as baptizing people who don't believe. Babies are just an obvious symptom. At the core seems to be a basic difference in sotierology.

So pretend that it is just you and I sitting in a local diner just talking over a hot or cold drink. So what is this baptism thing really all about?

I know for a fact that a person can get "saved" without getting baptized. I was. So let's set aside the conversation about the Holy Spirit removing that heart of stone that we have ... that cold, hard, dead heart that is incapable of allowing God's Word to take root and it incapable of loving our neighbor and is an enemy of God (just like Romans talks about) ... and replacing it with a heart of flesh ... that is now alive, and capable of loving and is fertile soil for God's Word and that wants to please God (has the law written on it). Like Corrie TenBoom says "God does as he pleases and he does it right well."

So let's talk about getting dunked in a river or poured from a bowl or sprinkled on a death bed. Why? What is happening? It's just us baptists talking among ourselves.

I have heard people talk about it as "symbolic". I get that there is a ton of symbolism involved in almost everything God does in the Bible. You can't attend a Southern Baptist Adult Education Class on the Baptist Faith and Message and not learn about symbolism. However, just between us, I an pretty sure that there is more to the water than just symbolism. Less than a prerequisite for Salvation, but more than just a symbolic gesture.

What do you think?

I liked this post. I like that you wrote it. I like that the central question of the thread is seen and is being addressed between yourself and your baptist brother (my brother too even if he doesn't like to think it or say it) and I like that you want an answer. I need not agree with every theological nuance in it but I really do appreciate that the question is recognised and asked. God bless you my brother.