Baptism

You're right. When I wrote the above I didn't have such a clear understanding of infant baptism.

Although I don't have a problem with infant baptism as a symbol of entering the covenant community, I can't see trading believer's baptism (with all it's scriptural support) for something that isn't stated clearly in scripture, like infant baptism.
Perhaps if you could practice both… but you can't. It's always one or the other.
"One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Ephesians 4:5

Why do you say that believer's baptism isn't legitimate? (I know that's maybe not how you would say it… but how do you write off believer's baptism?)

You're right. When I wrote the above I didn't have such a clear understanding of infant baptism. Although I don't have a problem with infant baptism as a symbol of entering the covenant community, I can't see trading believer's baptism (with all it's scriptural support) for something that isn't stated clearly in scripture, like infant baptism. Perhaps if you could practice both... but you can't. It's always one or the other. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Ephesians 4:5 Why do you say that believer's baptism isn't legitimate? (I know that's maybe not how you would say it... but how do you write off believer's baptism?)

In the reformed/Presbyterian model of infant baptism, only infants that have parents who are professing Christians are baptized, just like only Israelite children were circumcised. If someone joined the covenant community in the OT from the 'outside', they would then be circumcised - just as believers who are not from Christian families (or who have not yet been baptized) are baptized upon making profession of faith. That, they would say, is what we see in the NT. In the same way that all of Abraham's household (primarily adults) were circumcised upon the establishment of God's covenant with Abram in Genesis 17, it was primarily adults who were baptized upon the establishment of the new covenant. After Genesis 17, it was primarily infants who were circumcised, as well as outsiders who joined them, and similarly the early church baptized children of believers, as well as new believers who did not come from Christian families.
So, yes, Reformed Presbyterians do baptized believers upon profession of faith, primarily if they have never been baptized, or if they grew up in a non-Christian household. However, if a person has been baptized as an infant they don't consider it necessary to re-baptize them, though they usually will do so if the new convert wishes.

So what about the word “baptize” meaning to submerge? I’m assuming that infant baptism is sprinkling (but I’ve never seen it done myself).

So what about the word “baptize” meaning to submerge? I’m assuming that infant baptism is sprinkling (but I’ve never seen it done myself).

I have been baptized multiple times: by my brethren; by my friends; and by my superiors in stature. To throw someone underneath the watery depths is no great task.

I truly think an argument over splashing vs dunking is ridiculous.

@Deadpool:

Would you please clarify your post sir? I don't know you, I haven't been on MemVerse for a while so I'm not going to make any assumptions but I got an email update for this thread and happened to glance at it. Your post, as is stands is a mockery against Christ and is very blasphemous. I possibly could have misunderstood what your trying to say, but as it stands I'd like to rebuke your mocking of the serious matter of baptism. The lack of respect for the things of God as depicted in your post are very disturbing.

Noah is one of my friends here. He likes to make jokes… something you either have to get used to, or ignore. I'm sorry if his comments disturbed you.

Jokes a great. Jokes at the expense of a Biblical principle aren't. It's not right to mock the sacred things of the Bible, regardless of the intent.

Amara, what are your views on baptism?

I am not excusing what Noah said, but I know from watching other people on the threads that calling out faults on here only starts arguments. I would suggest that you ask for his email… then report him to authorities if you think it is still needed (Matthew 18:15-17). That is my suggestion.

EDIT: In my PP I meant to type "jokes ARE great", instead of "Jokes A great". I'm not that Southern yet.

Well, one thing I believe in, is full emersion. *Mark 1:10* says that he came out of the water, which I believe is full emersion. I also believe that infants should probably not be baptized (sprinkled). There is no record of Jesus being baptized when he was a baby, so I think that should be after someone has committed their life to Him, and believed in Him, therefore being saved. Those are some of my thoughts right now, but if you have questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

About emersion – couldn’t it be said he came up out of the water, as in onto dry land?

But Jesus would have been circumcised so he wouldn’t have been baptized as a baby. He was also taken to the temple to be dedicated (Luke 2:27).

@seth - What do you think?

I possibly could have misunderstood what your trying to say, extremely possible. I would expect no less from a hick like you. JK! ;D
but as it stands I'd like to rebuke your mocking of the serious matter of baptism. The lack of respect for the things of God as depicted in your post are very disturbing. Because I pointed out that this bickering is ungodly, unnecessary, and potentially harmful?! That's _blasphemous?!_

@Deadpool:

Baptism should not be mocked and said to be something you and your friends do at a pool party. It is never right to show a lack of respect for the things of God. Regardless of other posters actions, (bickering in your words), its never right to mock a sacred commandment of God. That type of speech should never be heard from a professing Christian.

@Deadpool: Baptism should not be mocked and said to be something you and your friends do at a pool party. It is never right to show a lack of respect for the things of God. Regardless of other posters actions, (bickering in your words), its never right to mock a sacred commandment of God. That type of speech should never be heard from a professing Christian.

It wasn't a pool party. Pool party suggests partying.. EVIL!

Again, in jest.

My post was not blasphemous, it was only intended to show the ridiculousness of an argument over types of baptism.

Are you Jesse Snodgrass?

... then report him to authorities if you think it is still needed (Matthew 18:15-17). That is my suggestion.

Oh, thanks a lot, Sarah. Being more loyal to some redneck outsider than to your own kin!

JUST KIDDING!

Same with the offensive comment about Cowboy4Christ! I teaseth you!

I laugheth! :P 'Outsider' is someone I've known longer then I've known you, my own kin. Now, I want you to write me a page on what you really think about Baptism (to pay for all your teasing).

I laugheth! :P 'Outsider' is someone I've known longer then I've known you, my own kin. Now, I want you to write me a page on what you really think about Baptism (to pay for all your teasing).

okay!

I believe that Jesus said to get baptized after you are saved, though it does not save you. And since babies can't be saved, neither can they be baptized.

…………….

Is that a page?

I'll take it if you can find some scripture to support it. :)

I'll take it if you can find some scripture to support it. :)

"Repent, and be baptized!" from somewhere in the NT. I don't have the Bible program on this computer yet (its new) so i don't know where it is perzactly.

Oh the irony of you using the word "hick", …

Oh the irony of you using the word "hick", Abigail...

Because we live in Oklahoma. Sauroc, thou that hast been stuck in medieval styles of clothing, I would like to inform your majesty that we are CLASSY! in some small way.

your friend forsometimes,

Noah

;)

@Deadpool:

Do me a favor and do a little homework to see who's the "outsider". Click on my profile and then click on yours son, you'll see something called "date account created". You'll find out that this ole' boy had an account while you were still in kindergarten learnin' how to spell.

@Deadpool: Do me a favor and do a little homework to see who's the "outsider". Click on my profile and then click on yours son, you'll see something called "date account created". You'll find out that this ole' boy had an account while you were still in kindergarten learnin' how to spell.

Somebody is angry. Poor honey.

At least I learned how to spell, hick. And made it to the National Spelling Bee and was on ESPN.

I do not mean to hold up whatever skeleton of an accomplishment that is to prove my worth, father, but it does hurt me so that you cannot participate in some sort of hilarity. Do you think I did not consider that thou hast been on MV much longer that I have when I said that? Cannot you see the larger picture, and behold that you have taken offense and have swelled yourself up with pride over my aptness to tease?

You know that's one of the good things about being Deadpool. You can take burns and smile all the way through them!

So I'm guessing you're not Jesse…too bad. That would have been so awesome!

groans Oh please!

*groans* Oh please!

Don't 'oh please' me! It would have been awesome if he was Jesse! You cannot disagree! ;)

Well, one thing I believe in, is full emersion. *Mark 1:10* says that he came out of the water, which I believe is full emersion. I also believe that infants should probably not be baptized (sprinkled). There is no record of Jesus being baptized when he was a baby, so I think that should be after someone has committed their life to Him, and believed in Him, therefore being saved. Those are some of my thoughts right now, but if you have questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

About emersion – couldn’t it be said he came up out of the water, as in onto dry land? But Jesus would have been circumcised so he wouldn’t have been baptized as a baby. He was also taken to the temple to be dedicated (Luke 2:27). @seth - What do you think?

Well, I believe he went under the water. He was in the Jordan river. *Matthew 3:16* says he came out of the water, so to me that sounds like he was under the water, then came up. Then he went on dry ground. I hope that made sense!!

_IMMERSION_

@Deadpool: Do me a favor and do a little homework to see who's the "outsider". Click on my profile and then click on yours son, you'll see something called "date account created". You'll find out that this ole' boy had an account while you were still in kindergarten learnin' how to spell.

Somebody is angry. Poor honey. At least I learned how to spell, _hick._ And made it to the National Spelling Bee and was on ESPN. I do not mean to hold up whatever skeleton of an accomplishment that is to prove my worth, _father,_ but it does hurt me so that you cannot participate in some sort of hilarity. Do you think I did not consider that thou hast been on MV much longer that I have when I said that? Cannot you see the larger picture, and behold that you have taken offense and have swelled yourself up with pride over my aptness to tease? You know that's one of the good things about being Deadpool. You can take burns and smile all the way through them! So I'm guessing you're not Jesse...too bad. That would have been so awesome!

claps

Deadpooling at it's finest. Good job, bro. :)

@Deadpool: Do me a favor and do a little homework to see who's the "outsider". Click on my profile and then click on yours son, you'll see something called "date account created". You'll find out that this ole' boy had an account while you were still in kindergarten learnin' how to spell.

Somebody is angry. Poor honey. At least I learned how to spell, _hick._ And made it to the National Spelling Bee and was on ESPN. I do not mean to hold up whatever skeleton of an accomplishment that is to prove my worth, _father,_ but it does hurt me so that you cannot participate in some sort of hilarity. Do you think I did not consider that thou hast been on MV much longer that I have when I said that? Cannot you see the larger picture, and behold that you have taken offense and have swelled yourself up with pride over my aptness to tease? You know that's one of the good things about being Deadpool. You can take burns and smile all the way through them! So I'm guessing you're not Jesse...too bad. That would have been so awesome!

*claps* Deadpooling at it's finest. Good job, bro. :)

thanks bro! We try!

Well, one thing I believe in, is full emersion. *Mark 1:10* says that he came out of the water, which I believe is full emersion. I also believe that infants should probably not be baptized (sprinkled). There is no record of Jesus being baptized when he was a baby, so I think that should be after someone has committed their life to Him, and believed in Him, therefore being saved. Those are some of my thoughts right now, but if you have questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

About emersion – couldn’t it be said he came up out of the water, as in onto dry land? But Jesus would have been circumcised so he wouldn’t have been baptized as a baby. He was also taken to the temple to be dedicated (Luke 2:27). @seth - What do you think?

Well, I believe he went under the water. He was in the Jordan river. *Matthew 3:16* says he came out of the water, so to me that sounds like he was under the water, then came up. Then he went on dry ground. I hope that made sense!!

*_IMMERSION_*

Okay, I do NOT want to start an argument before I see you at Nationals, Noah! (afterward would be better) But… a couple things on that.

First, where does it say that He came up from under the water? It says that He came up from out of the water. There is a difference.

And the second thing, John the Baptist baptized with a proselyte baptism. This was the baptism used by the Jews for many years in bringing a Gentile into Judaism. Historically, this was done by sprinkling, so unless John did something the Bible doesn't say he did and rebelled against all tradition, he probably sprinkled as well. This wasn't the baptism of salvation - that could only come after Jesus' death. This was the baptism of repentance and humiliation. The Jews would have to humble themselves to take this baptism traditionally given to the Gentiles.

Just saying.

Here's something to discuss :).

Oftentimes, when someone becomes a Christian (especially a child), their parents will have them wait awhile to be baptized, just so that the parents are certain that the child truly was saved. I can see a lot of wisdom in this. I was saved when I was about five, and if I had baptized soon after, I really wouldn't have understood it very much, and I probably wouldn't have wanted to be baptized on my own initiative. When I was almost eleven, the Lord convicted me about how I needed to be baptized like Christ, so I was baptized about a month later.

Here's the flipside: when someone became a Christian in the Bible, as far as I can tell, they were baptized pretty much immediately. This is especially true with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). When he was saved, he said something like, "Here is some water. What prevents me from being baptized?" Instead of saying, "Let's wait a few months/years to see if you're really a Christian," Philip baptized him. Of course, it may be that at that time people weren't going to claim to be Christians and not be genuinely saved, but this wasn't necessarily true from Scripture.

I really don't know what I think, so I'm interested to hear your beliefs about this. Of course, there are many different sides to this. I live in an area where just about everyone claims to be a Christian, and there are tons of churches (not far from me, there are four churches all within one mile). I think that a lot of children claim to be saved, so when they see their friends being baptized, they decide that they want to be baptized too – not to identify themselves with Christ, but with their friends. On the other hand, if someone is saved and wants to be baptized, is it really Biblical to have them wait awhile? What do y'all think?

Good question! :) I'm interested in what answers you'll get!

One thing that's been pointed out to me is that the Ethiopian eunuch, while he was a very new believer, knew enough about Christianity that he himself asked to be baptised. He and Philip must have had quite a conversation! The eunuch was taught a lot about Christianity in a very short time. Sometimes people claim to be saved without really understanding the gospel. In that case, they need someone to take the time to talk with them and clearly explain what the Bible teaches. That doesn't have to take years and years, although it often does.
Another thing to note is that Christianity was not a popular religion in those days. Baptism was a serious commitment. It should not take years and years for salvation to be evident. There should be at least some immediate change.
I think that if a person understands the gospel and the commitment they are making, they should not have to wait to be baptised. Of course, whether a child really understands that can be hard to determine. I think that needs to be judged more on a case-by-case basis by a church's leadership.

Those are some good points, and I was thinking some of that too :). Just so y'all know, I probably won't be on MV for a couple of weeks, so I won't be able to reply to comments on this discussion.

When a child makes a profession of faith and asks to be baptised, I think it is important for his/her parents and other spiritual mentors to try to see how much the child really understands the Gospel, and what the motives are for wanting to be baptised.

I made a profession of faith at 7 and was baptised several weeks later. Thirteen years later, I can hardly even remember what my motives were for wanting to be baptised. I don't think I truly understood the Gospel at that time either, and there was no change in my life. When I was 12, God led me to a true understanding of the Gospel, He changed my heart, and I repented and trusted in Him alone.

I believe that my baptism helped give me a false assurance of salvation. I was a false convert, which is the most dangerous thing to be. I'm so grateful that God opened my eyes to the truth, but I worry for children who grow up in church (even good churches), and have a false assurance of salvation. It's easy for parents and Sunday school teachers to get so excited about a child professing faith that they don't examine their professions seriously enough.

We should encourage children who profess Christ, but I think that the waiting time for them to be baptised should be longer than for older people. Encourage them, but be very careful to not give them a false assurance of salvation.

@lady Mercy

May I ask what you mean by saying that you didn't understand the gospel? Do you mean that you hadn't repented or was it something else? Feel free to email me at heartfortheunsaved@gmail.com if you want.

Why not resurrect a second dead post and give some lutheran perspective. (this is a bit of a book and I do apologize)

-Infant Baptism

1. I believe that sin, righteousness, and faith are first spiritual things rather than intellectual ones, although the intellect, like the hands, cannot be unaffected by the state of the soul.
2. If this is true, then we cannot say that infants are incapable of faith, and ought to be barred from baptism because of their small intellectual capacity.
3. I also believe that the capacity of faith or the lack thereof, or even the presence or absence of faith do not affect the validity of a baptism.(although it does affect the reception of baptism)

{This third point deals with one of the main differences historically on this question. Is baptism something done by the candidate, or is it something done to them? If an unbeliever is baptized, does their unbelief make the baptism not a baptism?

A big part of my reason for holding this third point is from the great commission where we get the words of institution for Christian baptism, namely 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'. When Jesus tells the disciples to baptize 'in the name of' the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, what he is saying is 'do this on the authority of' or 'as a representative of' God, in the same way as if a king would send a messenger to a band of rebels and declare amnesty 'in the name of' the king. The context of the words of institution of baptism, the great commission, I believe also touches on the question of whether baptism is something done to or by the candidate. The great commission describes how to make a disciple, not how to be a disciple. These taken together(there's more but, length) I believe show that baptism is something that God does(using a human minister) and that it is something done to you in order to make you a disciple. An illustration also on the question of validity from the context, teaching is something which is done to you and if it is good and true teaching, it remains good and true teaching even if you ignore it or reject it, although you lose the benefit of said teaching.}

{I will try to be a bit more succinct for the sake of space}

1. I believe that baptism saves you in the same way that the gospel saves you, because I believe that baptism is the gospel presented in a different manner.

{As a lutheran I believe that there are three means of grace. The word, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. There is one gospel and fount of grace which is the person and work of Christ, and I believe that this good news is presented in the word as well as in the sacraments which are the word of God connected with visible elements ie the water, the bread, and the cup. The word is a promise for all, the sacrament is a promise for you. Going back to the previous point of validity with the idea of baptism being gospel, Christ still died for you even before you were brought to believe it. To keep this less long, read these verses and let them simply mean what they say to get an idea what I am talking about as a 'promise for you': Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:12, and 1 Peter 3:21.}

{so much for succinct}

1. Infants also are in need of salvation(I know there is another thread relating to this so I will only touch it briefly). If sin is deeper than the mind, then it would make sense that even infants need salvation in Christ. Also Psalm 58:3 'The wicked are estranged from the womb, they go astray from birth, speaking lies.'

Holding that infants are under sin and capable of faith, we preach the gospel to them from the beginning.

-The Proper Mode
Holding that baptism is a sacrament, the word and promise of God connected with a visible element, the value, benefit, and baptismness of baptism lies principally in the word and promise of God and not the element. As such, while water is necessary for it to be a baptism, having more or less water does not make it more or less a baptism because the power does not come from the water, but from the word connected to the water.

This is a brief explanation and hardly gets into everything, but hopefully it will serve as a helpful introduction to the lutheran view of the subject.

Hello! I’ve been meaning to respond to this for a while, but life has kept me busy, so I’m only now getting around to responding. I don’t have much time right now, so my answer won’t be super long or thorough, but I wanted to get a response to you now so you didn’t have to wait any longer. ;)

"I believe that baptism saves you in the same way that the gospel saves you, because I believe that baptism is the gospel presented in a different manner."

First, what is the gospel? And what is baptism? The Gospel is Jesus – the good news. That Jesus came to this world, lived a perfect life, died on the cross as our substitute, rose 3 days later, and is now sitted at the right hand of the Father. That sinners can be washed clean from their sins by the blood of Jesus. That those in Satan’s domain are freed by Jesus’ blood and are now followers of God. Baptism is the act of submerging/sprinkling someone in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, please tell me, how is baptism the Gospel presented in a different manner? The gospel is not baptism, the Gospel if the good news of Jesus Christ.

So, what are my thoughts on baptism? Baptism is for believers, those who have trusted in Christ as their Savior, repented of their sin, have counted the cost and follow Jesus. Baptism, while should be done in obedience to the Scripture, is not what saves you. It is not the Gospel in another form. Baptism is done as a public proclamation that one has been set free from death, saved by Jesus’ blood, and are going to follow Him. Baptism cannot save you as it is just water, it is the blood of Jesus Christ that saves one. That all being said, I also think that baptism is being submerged in water, not sprinkled with water.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts. :)

I very much like what you said biblebee. In many ways I agree, too. Baptism is a beautiful sign, but it is not what gives salvation. In my life I have come across all kinds of baptism - babies, believers, dipping, splashing, dunking, sprinkling. I think that people get too caught up on things like this and make a bigger deal out of it that God intended. It's just a pothole Satan put to try to split up the unity in Christ.
So I have a question, would you leave a church over the issue of baptism if the group did not agree with what you think about it? This is something I really don't understand…

Babies don't have a choice in the matter, therefore it has no meaning for them. They will not remember it either.

@biblebee I forgot about this forum, but was reminded about it and so, I thought I would respond to your question a year later. As to the question of how baptism is the gospel presented in a different manner, I would point you to Romans 6:3-7 which states:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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. 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. 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. For one who has died has been set free from sin." (Rom 6:3-7 ESV)

Nowhere does Paul say that baptism 'represents' our having already died with Christ previously, rather he talks about this as happening by baptism. Being united with Christ in His death that we would also be united with Him in His resurrection certainly sounds like salvation talk to me, at least a certain aspect of salvation.

Also, in Acts 2 the Apostle Peter promises the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who are baptized and repentant. Repentance is necessary, someone who is baptized but unrepentant doesn't have the forgiveness of sins any more than someone who hears the gospel and is unrepentant. But, the fact remains that Peter calls those who would be forgiven to baptism. He does not call them to be baptized because they have been forgiven, but rather "for the forgiveness of your sins". The word 'for' literally meaning 'into'.

As I mentioned above, outside of repentant faith baptism is not rightly received. This is not because of any problem with the baptism, rather the problem is the lack of repentant faith.

So, how is baptism the gospel? It unites us with the death of Christ so that we would also be united with His resurrection, and it carries the promise of the forgiveness of sins.

@Inspirationmemory We did not have any say in being born the first time, why would being born again be any different? I agree that if being baptized is primarily the act of the one being baptized, then the choice of the infant would matter. But the Bible does not talk about baptism as something done 'by' the person being baptized, rather, baptism is described as something done 'to' the person being baptized. If an infant is in a burning building, they have no choice in whether or not a fireman carries them out to safety. The fact that they didn't have a say in the matter, does not however, mean that it doesn't mean anything to them.

As for not remembering it, in the Lord's Supper we eat and drink 'in remembrance' of Christ. None of us 'remembers' Christ in the sense of having memories of Him. But this does not hinder us from 'remembering' Him in the Supper. In the same way, one who has been baptized as an infant can 'remember' their baptism without having memories of the event.

If I may.

Baptism is indeed an important part of a Christian's salvation, inasmuch as it is an important part of a Christian's sanctification. The broad term salvation includes many things in Scripture, which I would summarize as: justification, regeneration, and sanctification. (It seems all too common for the evangelical mind to forget about the last of these three, as if its inclusion into the term salvation would somehow make us Catholics.) Actually, I should probably add a fourth term to my summary: glorification. Salvation is a process, as we see in Philippians 2:12, and in a way we won't be fully saved until our deliverance from this world through death.

I don't even think it's an exaggeration to say that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. Anything that God commands the Christian to do should be considered necessary. But I must also maintain that baptism is not necessary for our justification or for our regeneration. Justification is the application of Christ's redemptive work to the sinner, accomplished through grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. Regeneration is the supernatural changing of our hearts from stone to flesh performed by the Holy Spirit. Baptism plays no part in these. Sanctification, however, being the ongoing and cooperative transformation of our being into the image of God, does include baptism. Indeed, baptism is necessary for a full sanctification, and thus for the full salvation of Philippians 2:12.

(We understand, though, that no one will be fully sanctified in this life. Some vestige of the old man will always remain. Thus if full and perfect sanctification were required to get to heaven, we would all be excluded. Thankfully, we get to heaven on the grounds that we are legally sinless (thanks to our justification in Christ), not literally sinless. We'll all get to heaven with a complete justification, but a very incomplete sanctification. Some Christians will even go to heaven with a sanctification so incomplete that it lacks baptism. So when I say that baptism is a necessary part of salvation, I'm not saying that it's a prerequisite of being a true Christian.)

Here's Romans 6:3-4 with the necessary context of 6:1-2. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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."

First let's establish that there is a very real question as to whether or not the baptism spoken of even refers to water baptism. Matthew Poole says, "Baptized into Jesus Christ: to be baptized into Christ, is either to be baptized in the name of Christ; see Acts x. 48, and xix. 5; or else it is, incorporated, ingrafted, or planted into Christ, and so to be made members of his mystical body by baptism." John MacArthur takes this second position (or a similar one): "Paul is actually using the word 'baptized' in a metaphorical sense, as we might in saying someone was immersed in his work, or underwent his baptism of fire when experiencing some trouble. All Christians have, by placing saving faith in him, been spiritually immersed into the person of Christ, that is, united and identified with him…" This all seems quite plausible, as Paul goes on to speak of union with Christ in the next paragraph (5-11).

Even if the baptism Paul speaks of is water baptism, he doesn't seem to be claiming that this baptism is what creates union between us and Christ. Note too that Paul speaks of Christians as being dead to sin in verse 2, before baptism even enters the picture. Thus, we see baptism as representative of something that has already happened. Paul brings up baptism to illustrate to his readers their death to sin in a way that they can easily identify with, having been baptized themselves. Being buried beneath the water in baptism represents death to sin, and rising from the water represents newness of life, things which are in reality accomplished by the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Here's what Luther says of verse 3, "He speaks here in figurative language to clearly and forcibly impress this matter upon us; ordinarily it would have been sufficient for him to ask: 'We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?' that is to say, Inasmuch as ye have been saved from sin through grace, it is not possible that grace should command you to continue in sin, for it is the business of grace to destroy sin. Now, in the figurative words above quoted, he wishes to vividly remind us what Christ has bestowed upon us. He would say to us: Do but call to mind why you are Christians — you have been baptized into Christ. Do you know why and whereunto you have been baptized, and what it signifies that you have been baptized with water? The meaning is that not only have you there been washed and cleansed in soul through the forgiveness of sins, but your flesh and blood have been condemned, given over unto death, to be drowned, and your life on earth to be a daily dying unto sin. For your baptism is simply an overwhelming by grace — a gracious overwhelming — whereby sin in you is drowned; so may you remain subjects of grace and not be destroyed by the wrath of God because of your sin. Therefore, if you let yourself be baptized, you give yourself over to gracious drowning and merciful slaying at the hands of your God, and say to him: Drown and overwhelm me, dear Lord, for gladly would I henceforth, with thy Son, be dead to sin, that I may, with him, also live through grace."
TL;DR Paul speaks figuratively of baptism which signifies our cleansing and the death of the flesh.

Of course, as a sacrament, baptism is more than a symbol. It is a means through which God mystically communicates grace to our souls. But we must unambiguously maintain that baptism accomplishes neither justification nor regeneration.

I believe born again is done by the word of God, at that point in their life the baby cannot intelligently receive the word of God into their lives. I have no fear that parents cannot put children into the arms of Jesus and they can rest safely there until the time they can chose to follow Jesus or Satan. I believe God asks us to choose who we will serve. I would not like to have to "remember" I was forced to be a Christian as a child, but instead be able chose to follow Jesus because I love to do so.

Correct.