The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Re-baptism by any other name is still "re-baptism"

Pergamum · #12 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.

The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.

I know this has gone round and round and round on other threads, but baptizo is simply not EXCLUSIVELY immerse - perhaps the use is predominantly immerse, but there are other usages.

If it's only "immerse" then why did the Didache, the earliest (or among them) of church documents, prescribe pouring as a perfectly good alternative to immersion?

Hmmm...Todd the Didache says also to do it in running water and in warm water and views pouring not so much as an alternative but as an exception if you don't have either cold or warm water...ie. lack of water entirely it seems(sort of like Jesus stating the ideal of marriage but the exception of divorce)....

Here is the transaltion:

Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

But do not let your fasts be with the hypocrites.