View Poll Results: Subject and mode of baptism?

Voters
99. You may not vote on this poll
  • Paedo, Immersion

    4 4.04%
  • Paedo, Triune Immersion

    0 0%
  • Paedo, Sprinkling (Aspersion)

    14 14.14%
  • Paedo, Pouring (Affusion)

    12 12.12%
  • Paedo, "Just get 'em wet"

    26 26.26%
  • Credo, Immersion

    24 24.24%
  • Credo, Triune Immersion

    5 5.05%
  • Credo, Sprinkling/Pouring

    1 1.01%
  • Credo, "Just get 'em wet"

    3 3.03%
  • Credo, but accept previous infant baptism

    4 4.04%
  • Water baptism no longer applies

    0 0%
  • Other (Please Explain)

    6 6.06%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 50

Baptism discuss Poll: Type of Baptism? in the Theology forums; Sorry if this has already come up. I would like to know what your views on not only persons baptized, but mode of baptism as ...

  1. #1
    PointyHaired Calvinist's Avatar
    PointyHaired Calvinist is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    764

    Poll: Type of Baptism?

    Sorry if this has already come up. I would like to know what your views on not only persons baptized, but mode of baptism as well.

    Paedo, Immersion - Philip Schaff (maybe)
    Paedo, Triune Immersion - Eastern Hetero... Orthodox
    Paedo, Sprinkling (Aspersion) - Most Presbyterians
    Paedo, Pouring (Affusion) - Some Presbyterians
    Paedo, "Just get 'em wet" - Presbyterian/Reformed
    Credo, Immersion - John MacArthur
    Credo, Triune Immersion - Brethren Churches
    Credo, Sprinkling/Pouring - John Smyth, early Anabaptists
    Credo, "Just get 'em wet" - Not sure about any of these
    Credo, but accept previous infant baptism - John Piper
    Water baptism no longer applies - Salvation Army
    Other (Please Explain)

    This came from the discussion about RB's rebaptizing (or properly baptizing, as the case may be) those baptized/dedicated as infants. Are all RB churches immersionist? Would they require an adult who had water poured on him to be immersed?

    I for one believe pouring is proper, since as John baptized with water, so Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire, which were poured out on us. I don't believe immersion or sprinkling (which I had done) are wrong, just less proper. Discuss. :-)
    Johnathan Tate
    Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA), Asheville, NC
    Husband of one, father of 4 (and a 5th on the way!)

  2. #2
    PuritanCovenanter's Avatar
    PuritanCovenanter is offline. The Norseman Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,558
    Blog Entries
    89
    For me it would involve situations that also are circumstancial. I would hold to an immersionists confessional Credo view as being the most biblical. But I also note that the word baptizo in the Septuagint also included pouring for ceremonial cleansing of homes and such. Some wheel chair bound people might not be able to be immersed so I wouldn't have a problem pouring for them as being biblical.

    When you mention triune immersion I take it you mean dipping them three times in each of the persons names. I for one do not think that is biblical since the word name is singular. I will vote credo immersion but note I am not stuck on the mode.

    Norseman Moderator

    Randy Martin Snyder
    RPCNA Covenanter's Blog

    "Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
    William Symington


    RSI FacebookReformation Society of Indiana
    Twitter RPCNACovenanter
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? -- Joining PB Politics and Government Forums

  3. #3
    danmpem's Avatar
    danmpem is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,375
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter View Post
    For me it would involve situations that also are circumstancial. I would hold to an immersionists confessional Credo view as being the most biblical. But I also note that the word baptizo in the Septuagint also included pouring for ceremonial cleansing of homes and such. Some wheel chair bound people might not be able to be immersed so I wouldn't have a problem pouring for them as being biblical.
    I'm not using this as any kind of grounds for one way or another, but there was a man a few years back who was wheel chair bound and was carried down to a swimming pool and baptized there. My pastors were so set on getting this guy immersed that they wouldn't let anything get in the way, and the guy seemed to love every minute of it!

  4. #4
    christiana's Avatar
    christiana is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,411
    We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!

    Soli deo gloria!!
    Nancy L./ www.foundersbaptist.org
    Spring, TX

    Your will, Lord Jesus Christ! Nothing more... nothing less... nothing else.

  5. #5
    Christusregnat's Avatar
    Christusregnat is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,157
    Households converted require baptism of adults and children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you!

    Children born in converted families require baptism as children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of me!

    Immerse does not mean to baptise, and baptise does mean immerse... wait what's that thing over there?!

    Nevermind... it was nothing!

    So, it depends.

    The second, and only slightly less well known, is THIS, never enter a battle of wits with a Presbyterian when washing's on the line!! A HA HA! A HA HA! A HA HA HA!!....
    Adam B., Old Dominion, PCA

    Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile

  6. #6
    Romans922's Avatar
    Romans922 is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,296
    What is the difference between aspersion and affusion?

    And for most/some presbyterians when baptizing do you "grab" the water and sprinkle/pour 1x or 3x (doing it 1x per name for each of the 3 persons of the Godhead)?
    Elder Andrew Barnes (PCA)
    Christ Presbyterian Church (Kansas City, MO)
    Sermon Audio
    Twitter

  7. #7
    Barnpreacher's Avatar
    Barnpreacher is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by christiana View Post
    We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!

    Soli deo gloria!!
    We baptize professing believers.
    Ryan Barnhart
    Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls and one on the way
    4th year student at Whitefield Bible College - B.A. Bible
    2nd year student at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary - MDiv

  8. #8
    Christusregnat's Avatar
    Christusregnat is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,157
    I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:

    We baptize those that God professes to be believers!



    Quote Originally Posted by Barnpreacher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by christiana View Post
    We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!

    Soli deo gloria!!
    We baptize professing believers.
    Adam B., Old Dominion, PCA

    Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile

  9. #9
    Zenas's Avatar
    Zenas is offline. Snow Miser
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,191
    I chose the closest one, which was Paedo via whatever mode.

    However, I also fully ascribe to credo via any mode when an adult comes to the faith.
    The following users found this post helpful:



    Andrew
    Member, Independent Presbyterian Church (PCA)

  10. #10
    Dwimble's Avatar
    Dwimble is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post
    Households converted require baptism of adults and children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you!

    Children born in converted families require baptism as children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of me!

    Immerse does not mean to baptise, and baptise does mean immerse... wait what's that thing over there?!

    Nevermind... it was nothing!

    So, it depends.

    The second, and only slightly less well known, is THIS, never enter a battle of wits with a Presbyterian when washing's on the line!! A HA HA! A HA HA! A HA HA HA!!....
    Bravo!

    I chose "all of the above", because I've spent the last few years building up an immunity to baptism arguments.

  11. #11
    JonathanHunt's Avatar
    JonathanHunt is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,892
    I voted triune immersion believing it to be 'Ad Trinitatem' - in the name of the trinity. I did not mean to vote for a triple dunking!
    Jonathan Hunt

    Pastor, Morton Baptist Church Thornbury, South Gloucestershire, United Kingdom since 2012

    Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence. -- Thomas Elsworth

    *Please note* I've been a member of this board for over ten years. Things I wrote in 2004 and intervening years do not neccessarily represent my attitudes or positions now. Thank you!

  12. #12
    JonathanHunt's Avatar
    JonathanHunt is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwimble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post
    Households converted require baptism of adults and children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you!

    Children born in converted families require baptism as children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of me!

    Immerse does not mean to baptise, and baptise does mean immerse... wait what's that thing over there?!

    Nevermind... it was nothing!

    So, it depends.

    The second, and only slightly less well known, is THIS, never enter a battle of wits with a Presbyterian when washing's on the line!! A HA HA! A HA HA! A HA HA HA!!....
    Bravo!

    I chose "all of the above", because I've spent the last few years building up an immunity to baptism arguments.
    As you wish...
    Jonathan Hunt

    Pastor, Morton Baptist Church Thornbury, South Gloucestershire, United Kingdom since 2012

    Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence. -- Thomas Elsworth

    *Please note* I've been a member of this board for over ten years. Things I wrote in 2004 and intervening years do not neccessarily represent my attitudes or positions now. Thank you!

  13. #13
    AV1611 is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,791
    Paedo, "Just get 'em wet"
    Richard
    CofE
    UK

  14. #14
    Archlute's Avatar
    Archlute is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post
    Households converted require baptism of adults and children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of you!

    Children born in converted families require baptism as children, so clearly I cannot choose the wine in front of me!

    Immerse does not mean to baptise, and baptise does mean immerse... wait what's that thing over there?!

    Nevermind... it was nothing!

    So, it depends.

    The second, and only slightly less well known, is THIS, never enter a battle of wits with a Presbyterian when washing's on the line!! A HA HA! A HA HA! A HA HA HA!!....

    That was pretty good.
    Archlute

  15. #15
    Archlute's Avatar
    Archlute is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,175
    I don't have a problem with any of the paedo practices, but prefer Triune affusion.
    Archlute

  16. #16
    Davidius is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    4,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post
    I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:

    We baptize those that God professes to be believers!



    Quote Originally Posted by Barnpreacher View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by christiana View Post
    We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!

    Soli deo gloria!!
    We baptize professing believers.
    So God professes that all children of Christian parents are believers?

    *****

    I chose Other because I don't believe in just baptizing infants or just baptizing believers. I like Bill Shishko's term, oikobaptism, that is, baptizing professing adults and their households. And although I'd prefer sprinkling or pouring, I think either of those is fine, and acknowledge the validity of immersions.
    Davidius
    Husband of Emily
    Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
    Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

  17. #17
    kceaster's Avatar
    kceaster is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,097
    Blog Entries
    1
    I chose "other".

    The Holy Spirit determines who He baptizes and by whatever means He effectually works...

    ...if we're really talking about baptism.

    If we're simply mentioning the outward sign, then credo/paedo sprinkling or pouring.

    In Christ,

    KC
    Heb 13:20-21

    Kevin C. Easterday
    Ruling Elder and Pastoral Intern of Westminster PCA (Licentiate), Jacksonville, FL
    Husband to Tina (August 13, 1988), Father to Kamden (21) and Kolton (20)
    Federal Theology Website
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  18. #18
    Me Died Blue's Avatar
    Me Died Blue is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    And although I'd prefer sprinkling or pouring, I think either of those is fine, and acknowledge the validity of immersions.
    Exactly. The "just get 'em wet" option in the poll is really the only one that does justice to the Westminster Confession, since the latter explicitly (and I would say Scripture as well, though implicitly) denies any greater or lesser propriety between either pouring or sprinkling, and likewise acknowledges the validity or immersing. From the confessional paedo view it's really pretty simple.
    Chris


    A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

    My Facebook Here

    Chris Blum
    Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Petersburg, KY

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  19. #19
    Christusregnat's Avatar
    Christusregnat is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,157
    Davidius,

    Yes, I believe that God's revealed declaration is that all of our children are saints. Whether the secret purpose of God is in accordance with this revealed declaration is irrelevant for how the church ought to consider our children.

    I think of the Deuteronomy 29:29 formulation.

    Also, it's interesting that even when God specifically told certain saints about His secret will, they still acted and thought about their children based on God's revealed declarations. I think of Abraham still including Ishmael in the rite of circumcision, and Isaac still treating Esau as one of God's chosen people, and seeking a blessing for him. Also, Abraham prayed "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" when specifically told that Ishmael had been rejected. All that to say, yes, I think that God professes that all of our children are believers. Not in the feeble sense of a human profession of faith, but in the mighty power of His revealed Word.

    Cheers,

    Adam




    [quote=Davidius;428941]
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post
    I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:

    We baptize those that God professes to be believers!



    Quote Originally Posted by Barnpreacher View Post

    We baptize professing believers.
    So God professes that all children of Christian parents are believers?

    QUOTE]
    Adam B., Old Dominion, PCA

    Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile

  20. #20
    Christusregnat's Avatar
    Christusregnat is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,157
    Thanks Adam!

    Adam



    Quote Originally Posted by Archlute View Post


    That was pretty good.
    Adam B., Old Dominion, PCA

    Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile

  21. #21
    raekwon's Avatar
    raekwon is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,892
    I voted "Paedo - Just get 'em wet". I personally find immersion to be preferable whenever practicable (ie: professing adults and children who haven't previously been baptized), but confessionally (and biblically), any mode is fine.
    Rae W. | Ruling Elder @ Grace Central Presbyterian Church (PCA) | Columbus, OH
    Vintage73

  22. #22
    a mere housewife's Avatar
    a mere housewife is offline. Not your cup of tea
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,688
    Human faith is not feeble; it overcomes the world. Nor is God's declaration of someone as a believing saint divorced from this human reality. I think that speaking of God's declaring all baptised infants to be 'believers' is unhelpful. God declares the infants of believers to be 'sanctified' or 'holy'.

    I loved the Presbyterian with washing on the line :-).
    Heidi
    Indianapolis, IN

    'I cannot live like Jesus, example though he be
    For he was strong and selfless, and I am tied to me.
    But I have asked my Jesus
    To live his life in me . . . '

  23. #23
    ManleyBeasley is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,274
    [quote=Christusregnat;429043]Davidius,

    Yes, I believe that God's revealed declaration is that all of our children are saints. Whether the secret purpose of God is in accordance with this revealed declaration is irrelevant for how the church ought to consider our children.

    I think of the Deuteronomy 29:29 formulation.

    Also, it's interesting that even when God specifically told certain saints about His secret will, they still acted and thought about their children based on God's revealed declarations. I think of Abraham still including Ishmael in the rite of circumcision, and Isaac still treating Esau as one of God's chosen people, and seeking a blessing for him. Also, Abraham prayed "O that Ishmael might live before thee!" when specifically told that Ishmael had been rejected. All that to say, yes, I think that God professes that all of our children are believers. Not in the feeble sense of a human profession of faith, but in the mighty power of His revealed Word.

    Cheers,

    Adam




    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post
    I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:

    We baptize those that God professes to be believers!


    So God professes that all children of Christian parents are believers?

    QUOTE]
    The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.

    OLD COV--physical infant is circumsized
    NEW COV--spiritual infant (newly saved believer) is baptized
    [B]Manley Beasley[/B]
    Southern Baptist Convention
    Fayetteville, Arkansas

    [B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

  24. #24
    Quickened's Avatar
    Quickened is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,049
    I voted for Credo, Immersion as my understanding has it
    Brian E
    Member Falls OPC
    Menomonee Falls, WI

    Quote Originally Posted by Psalm 28:7
    The Lord is my Strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusts, and I am helped; my heart exults, and with my song i give thanks to Him.

  25. #25
    Blueridge Believer's Avatar
    Blueridge Believer is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,076
    While I believe the credo position is most likely correct, I personally subscribe to the Free Presbyterian postion. This borrowed from thier website:

    6a. Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.
    Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
    Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
    James Farley
    Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
    Grandfather to Owen and Claire
    Member and precentor of Psalms at Grace Reformed Presbyterian, Dublin Va.

  26. #26
    tcalbrecht's Avatar
    tcalbrecht is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post
    The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.

    OLD COV--physical infant is circumsized
    NEW COV--spiritual infant (newly saved believer) is baptized
    There seems to be a fundamental disconnect here insofar as circumcision came through Abraham, not Adam. And Abraham circumcised more than his physical offspring. Circumcision was never a purely matter of genetics.

    The physical to spiritual does not fit exactly fit all the data we have in the Bible.

    First of all, OT circumcision was not strictly physical in nature. Physical circumcision was intended to be an external display of an inward circumcision of the heart (spiritual, Deut. 10:16).

    Secondly, NT baptism is not purely spiritual. Like circumcision, there is a physical dimension that represents the spiritual.
    Tom Albrecht
    Zeltenreich URCNA, New Holland, PA.

    "When I find the time, I'm going to sit down and write the social history of bourbon."

  27. #27
    tcalbrecht's Avatar
    tcalbrecht is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist View Post
    While I believe the credo position is most likely correct, I personally subscribe to the Free Presbyterian postion. This borrowed from thier website:

    6a. Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.
    Since it's a personal choice, does that also mean an individual can decline to be baptized altogether?
    Tom Albrecht
    Zeltenreich URCNA, New Holland, PA.

    "When I find the time, I'm going to sit down and write the social history of bourbon."

  28. #28
    Blueridge Believer's Avatar
    Blueridge Believer is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,076
    Quote Originally Posted by tcalbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist View Post
    While I believe the credo position is most likely correct, I personally subscribe to the Free Presbyterian postion. This borrowed from thier website:

    6a. Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration.
    Since it's a personal choice, does that also mean an individual can decline to be baptized altogether?
    I don't think that they had that in mind. I sure they would insist upon one being baptized.
    Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
    Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
    James Farley
    Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
    Grandfather to Owen and Claire
    Member and precentor of Psalms at Grace Reformed Presbyterian, Dublin Va.

  29. #29
    SolaScriptura's Avatar
    SolaScriptura is offline. Puritanboard Softy
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    7,127
    Paedo, "just get 'em wet."

    And the great thing is that since I am a de facto one man court of the church, I get to decide when where and how I baptize. So if I'm feeling like immersing, I can. If I wake up and I feel like pouring... I can. If I wake up and feel like using a fire hose... well, you get the picture.
    Ben
    Chaplain, US Army
    Columbia, SC
    TE Potomac Presbytery, PCA
    www.thebenaddiction.com

    "Whenever I'm about to do something, I think, 'would an idiot do that?' And if they would, I do not do that thing." -- Dwight Schrute

    "I've been so thoroughly trained that I don't even need to think before I speak." -- Harry Crumb

  30. #30
    SolaScriptura's Avatar
    SolaScriptura is offline. Puritanboard Softy
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    7,127
    By the way... I was just kidding about that fire hose thing... I'd never employ a fire hose for baptismal purposes.
    Ben
    Chaplain, US Army
    Columbia, SC
    TE Potomac Presbytery, PCA
    www.thebenaddiction.com

    "Whenever I'm about to do something, I think, 'would an idiot do that?' And if they would, I do not do that thing." -- Dwight Schrute

    "I've been so thoroughly trained that I don't even need to think before I speak." -- Harry Crumb

  31. #31
    ManleyBeasley is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by tcalbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post
    The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.

    OLD COV--physical infant is circumsized
    NEW COV--spiritual infant (newly saved believer) is baptized
    There seems to be a fundamental disconnect here insofar as circumcision came through Abraham, not Adam. And Abraham circumcised more than his physical offspring. Circumcision was never a purely matter of genetics.

    The physical to spiritual does not fit exactly fit all the data we have in the Bible.

    First of all, OT circumcision was not strictly physical in nature. Physical circumcision was intended to be an external display of an inward circumcision of the heart (spiritual, Deut. 10:16).

    Secondly, NT baptism is not purely spiritual. Like circumcision, there is a physical dimension that represents the spiritual.
    When speaking of the physical to spiritual element I'm speaking of the Old vs New Covenants not refering to the fact that both circumcision and baptism are physical (they have to be because they are testaments to the 2 covenants; 1 being flesh, 1 being spiritual). The first being a covenant of works (and so of flesh) the second being a covanent of grace. The law was given over time with Abraham (circumcision represented the Law in Galations) and ultimately going through Moses. At the same time the Cov of grace was being established through promises to Abraham, David,etc and was fully revealed through the coming of Christ and the completion of the NT. Both Covenants (grace and works) always co-existed and grew in revelation (though grace took longer for the full revelation)

    Circumcision was commanded for the infants of the Jews because of their bloodline (though certainly others were circumcized when they converted). Their flesh circumcision (law) was seperate from the heart circumcision (grace). Regeneration is where the new covenant starts in a person and so baptism is for the believer.
    [B]Manley Beasley[/B]
    Southern Baptist Convention
    Fayetteville, Arkansas

    [B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

  32. #32
    Christusregnat's Avatar
    Christusregnat is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,157
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post

    The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.

    OLD COV--physical infant is circumsized
    NEW COV--spiritual infant (newly saved believer) is baptized
    Manley,
    This division of OT=physical and NT=spiritual is not biblical. For instance, when Paul argued about spiritual circumcision in Galatians, he used Isaac as the instance of God's spiritual children: the children of promise. Also, when Paul discusses the sign of circumcision in Romans 4, he clearly demonstrates that it was a sacrament of spiritual significance, to be received by faith alone. It signified regeneration, God's choice of us, and His eternal convenant blessing of being God to us and our children. If you are concerned about that icky physical land stuff, see Romans 4 where Paul tells us Abraham was promised the world, and not just Canaan. Also, Jesus tells us that we will inherit the earth, and Solomon tells us that the wicked lay up treasures for the righteous. Physical, physical, physical. All through the bible.

    Babies circumcised on the 8th day were not considered to be "in Adam", they were considered to be "in Christ". To argue otherwise is to seek another way of salvation in the OT, which (frankly) seems to be the most logical choice for those that argue against including our infant seed in God's holy church. Anything you argue against infant baptism may be argued against circumcision. The problem with this procedure is that the NT grounds its doctrine of salvation through Christ's work in Moses and the prophets. Dispose of infants in the church now, dispose of justification by faith alone as an OT doctrine. Can't have it both ways. That is, unless you choose not to think through the logic of your position.

    Cheers,
    Adam B., Old Dominion, PCA

    Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile

  33. #33
    FrielWatcher is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    754
    I am still in debate about this one, but I voted Credo "just get 'em wet". Yet, I was baptized in the LCMS church as an infant, my brother was baptized Roman Catholic, and my sister was baptized PC(USA). I could have voted Paedo "just get 'em wet" too.

  34. #34
    ManleyBeasley is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post

    The promises God gives to the Jews and their physical children translate to a spiritual family now. We WERE of Adam and now we are of Christ. Does this mean we are physically/genetically of Christ's blood line? No we are born again. Jesus said "What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Our children in the covenant are our spiritual children or children according to the gospel. As John said it brought him joy when his "children walked in truth". That being said, the promises are promises to a spiritual family not physical. We Credos DO believe in baptizing infants, SPIRITUAL infants. New born Christians.

    OLD COV--physical infant is circumsized
    NEW COV--spiritual infant (newly saved believer) is baptized
    Manley,
    This division of OT=physical and NT=spiritual is not biblical. For instance, when Paul argued about spiritual circumcision in Galatians, he used Isaac as the instance of God's spiritual children: the children of promise. Also, when Paul discusses the sign of circumcision in Romans 4, he clearly demonstrates that it was a sacrament of spiritual significance, to be received by faith alone. It signified regeneration, God's choice of us, and His eternal convenant blessing of being God to us and our children. If you are concerned about that icky physical land stuff, see Romans 4 where Paul tells us Abraham was promised the world, and not just Canaan. Also, Jesus tells us that we will inherit the earth, and Solomon tells us that the wicked lay up treasures for the righteous. Physical, physical, physical. All through the bible.

    Babies circumcised on the 8th day were not considered to be "in Adam", they were considered to be "in Christ". To argue otherwise is to seek another way of salvation in the OT, which (frankly) seems to be the most logical choice for those that argue against including our infant seed in God's holy church. Anything you argue against infant baptism may be argued against circumcision. The problem with this procedure is that the NT grounds its doctrine of salvation through Christ's work in Moses and the prophets. Dispose of infants in the church now, dispose of justification by faith alone as an OT doctrine. Can't have it both ways. That is, unless you choose not to think through the logic of your position.

    Cheers,
    Read my second response, I may have put it up while you were typing this. I'm not saying OT =flesh and NT =spirit (I'm not a dispensationalist). I'm saying OT had 2 covenants, works and grace and the NT has 2 covenants, works and grace. Circumcision was a law. All of the ceremonial Laws were shadows of the Cov of grace.

    Babies circumcized on the 8th day were being obedient (with thier parents help) to the Law (their school master) just as they would later be obedient to a list of ceremonies that point to Christ. Their having faith had nothing to do with it. Many who had no faith still participated in the law. To baptize infants seems to make the cov of grace behave like the cov of works (not in regards to salvation). To enter the covenant of works we only have to be born. To enter the covenant of grace we must be reborn.
    [B]Manley Beasley[/B]
    Southern Baptist Convention
    Fayetteville, Arkansas

    [B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

  35. #35
    Christusregnat's Avatar
    Christusregnat is offline. Puritanboard Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,157
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post

    Read my second response, I may have put it up while you were typing this. I'm not saying OT =flesh and NT =spirit (I'm not a dispensationalist). I'm saying OT had 2 covenants, works and grace and the NT has 2 covenants, works and grace. Circumcision was a law. All of the ceremonial Laws were shadows of the Cov of grace.

    Babies circumcized on the 8th day were being obedient (with thier parents help) to the Law (their school master) just as they would later be obedient to a list of ceremonies that point to Christ. Their having faith had nothing to do with it. Many who had no faith still participated in the law. To baptize infants seems to make the cov of grace behave like the cov of works (not in regards to salvation). To enter the covenant of works we only have to be born. To enter the covenant of grace we must be reborn.
    Manley,

    Indeed, you were typing as I was; hate it when that happens

    Anywho, circumcision was not part of the covenant of works. Circumcision was a covenant of free mercy, of free forgiveness of sins, and of God's choosing those who could not choose Him.

    Paul argues against circumcision, not because of the nature of circumcision per se, but because of the judaizers' abuse of it. He actually argues in favor of the grace of circumcision in Romans 4:

    9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
    The Jews distorted circumcision, and if you assume that they were right about their opinion, then you join in their error. You may disclaim being a dispensationalist, but it is only because (as I stated previously) because you are not thinking through your position. Please see where I specifically discussed the argument against infant baptism being an argument against circumcision in the OT, etc. I don't think you answered that particular portion:

    Babies circumcised on the 8th day were not considered to be "in Adam", they were considered to be "in Christ". To argue otherwise is to seek another way of salvation in the OT, which (frankly) seems to be the most logical choice for those that argue against including our infant seed in God's holy church. Anything you argue against infant baptism may be argued against circumcision. The problem with this procedure is that the NT grounds its doctrine of salvation through Christ's work in Moses and the prophets. Dispose of infants in the church now, dispose of justification by faith alone as an OT doctrine. Can't have it both ways. That is, unless you choose not to think through the logic of your position.
    Cheers,
    Adam B., Old Dominion, PCA

    Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabile

  36. #36
    ManleyBeasley is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Christusregnat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post

    Read my second response, I may have put it up while you were typing this. I'm not saying OT =flesh and NT =spirit (I'm not a dispensationalist). I'm saying OT had 2 covenants, works and grace and the NT has 2 covenants, works and grace. Circumcision was a law. All of the ceremonial Laws were shadows of the Cov of grace.

    Babies circumcized on the 8th day were being obedient (with thier parents help) to the Law (their school master) just as they would later be obedient to a list of ceremonies that point to Christ. Their having faith had nothing to do with it. Many who had no faith still participated in the law. To baptize infants seems to make the cov of grace behave like the cov of works (not in regards to salvation). To enter the covenant of works we only have to be born. To enter the covenant of grace we must be reborn.
    Manley,

    Indeed, you were typing as I was; hate it when that happens

    Anywho, circumcision was not part of the covenant of works. Circumcision was a covenant of free mercy, of free forgiveness of sins, and of God's choosing those who could not choose Him.

    Paul argues against circumcision, not because of the nature of circumcision per se, but because of the judaizers' abuse of it. He actually argues in favor of the grace of circumcision in Romans 4:

    9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
    The Jews distorted circumcision, and if you assume that they were right about their opinion, then you join in their error. You may disclaim being a dispensationalist, but it is only because (as I stated previously) because you are not thinking through your position. Please see where I specifically discussed the argument against infant baptism being an argument against circumcision in the OT, etc. I don't think you answered that particular portion:

    Babies circumcised on the 8th day were not considered to be "in Adam", they were considered to be "in Christ". To argue otherwise is to seek another way of salvation in the OT, which (frankly) seems to be the most logical choice for those that argue against including our infant seed in God's holy church. Anything you argue against infant baptism may be argued against circumcision. The problem with this procedure is that the NT grounds its doctrine of salvation through Christ's work in Moses and the prophets. Dispose of infants in the church now, dispose of justification by faith alone as an OT doctrine. Can't have it both ways. That is, unless you choose not to think through the logic of your position.
    Cheers,
    I'm arguing a very old argument that predates dispensationalism by many years.

    I thought I did answer the argument you made about arguing against infant baptism being an argument against circumcision. It is presupposing the argument. I'm only arguing against circumsionion if infant baptism is right. That can't be used because thats what is debated. People in the OT were saved by grace through faith. Circumcision was a sign of faith in the same way all the ceremonial law was: a shadow of the cov of grace.
    [B]Manley Beasley[/B]
    Southern Baptist Convention
    Fayetteville, Arkansas

    [B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

  37. #37
    tcalbrecht's Avatar
    tcalbrecht is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post
    When speaking of the physical to spiritual element I'm speaking of the Old vs New Covenants not refering to the fact that both circumcision and baptism are physical (they have to be because they are testaments to the 2 covenants; 1 being flesh, 1 being spiritual). The first being a covenant of works (and so of flesh) the second being a covanent of grace. The law was given over time with Abraham (circumcision represented the Law in Galations) and ultimately going through Moses. At the same time the Cov of grace was being established through promises to Abraham, David,etc and was fully revealed through the coming of Christ and the completion of the NT. Both Covenants (grace and works) always co-existed and grew in revelation (though grace took longer for the full revelation)

    Circumcision was commanded for the infants of the Jews because of their bloodline (though certainly others were circumcized when they converted). Their flesh circumcision (law) was seperate from the heart circumcision (grace). Regeneration is where the new covenant starts in a person and so baptism is for the believer.
    Again, the Abrahamic covenant under which circumcision was instituted was under the covenant of grace, not works. Don’t confuse the terms covenant of works and covenant of grace with old covenant and new covenant. They are not parallel differentiations.

    The Scriptures on this subject are accurately represented in the WCF:

    5. This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

    6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same [covenant of grace], under various dispensations.

    WCF, Chapter 7
    The "dispensational" aspect of the COG under the older covenant was not different than under the new wrt the members of the covenant, believers and their household (Acts 2:39). Both were spiritual in that they ultimately pointed to the same spiritual truth. Both had physical signs to point to the spiritual truth, the necessity of circumcision of the heart -- that circumcision being sovereignly administered by the divine hand. But under neither covenant was circumcision of the heart an individual prerequisite for application of the physical sign.
    Tom Albrecht
    Zeltenreich URCNA, New Holland, PA.

    "When I find the time, I'm going to sit down and write the social history of bourbon."

  38. #38
    Solus Christus's Avatar
    Solus Christus is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by SolaScriptura View Post
    Paedo, \"just get 'em wet.\"

    And the great thing is that since I am a de facto one man court of the church, I get to decide when where and how I baptize. So if I'm feeling like immersing, I can. If I wake up and I feel like pouring... I can. If I wake up and feel like using a fire hose... well, you get the picture.


    You may be onto something here Ben.
    Ed Asano
    Member, Center Grove Presbyterian (PCA)
    Edwardsville, IL

    Lord, I am willing to --
    Receive what you give,
    Lack what you withhold,
    Relinquish what you take.

  39. #39
    Roldan's Avatar
    Roldan is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by christiana View Post
    We baptize believers, immersed, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to live eternally with Him!

    Soli deo gloria!!
    So basically you guys have symbolized a symbol, that just seems really odd to me. no offense
    Richard W. Roldan "Ricky"
    Member and Teacher of Iglesia Presbiteriana Reformada Berea (PCA)
    Winter Haven, FL./ Under Care of the Southwest Presb.(PCA)

    http://urbanreformed.com

    " I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel," Paul

  40. #40
    ManleyBeasley is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by tcalbrecht View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley View Post
    When speaking of the physical to spiritual element I'm speaking of the Old vs New Covenants not refering to the fact that both circumcision and baptism are physical (they have to be because they are testaments to the 2 covenants; 1 being flesh, 1 being spiritual). The first being a covenant of works (and so of flesh) the second being a covanent of grace. The law was given over time with Abraham (circumcision represented the Law in Galations) and ultimately going through Moses. At the same time the Cov of grace was being established through promises to Abraham, David,etc and was fully revealed through the coming of Christ and the completion of the NT. Both Covenants (grace and works) always co-existed and grew in revelation (though grace took longer for the full revelation)

    Circumcision was commanded for the infants of the Jews because of their bloodline (though certainly others were circumcized when they converted). Their flesh circumcision (law) was seperate from the heart circumcision (grace). Regeneration is where the new covenant starts in a person and so baptism is for the believer.
    Again, the Abrahamic covenant under which circumcision was instituted was under the covenant of grace, not works. Don’t confuse the terms covenant of works and covenant of grace with old covenant and new covenant. They are not parallel differentiations.

    The Scriptures on this subject are accurately represented in the WCF:

    5. This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

    6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same [covenant of grace], under various dispensations.

    WCF, Chapter 7
    The "dispensational" aspect of the COG under the older covenant was not different than under the new wrt the members of the covenant, believers and their household (Acts 2:39). Both were spiritual in that they ultimately pointed to the same spiritual truth. Both had physical signs to point to the spiritual truth, the necessity of circumcision of the heart -- that circumcision being sovereignly administered by the divine hand. But under neither covenant was circumcision of the heart an individual prerequisite for application of the physical sign.
    The core issue is taking the external signs of the OC and trying to make them comepletely congruent with the new. Though inwardly both covenants express the same spirit outwardly there are clear differences. The very ideal of the NC is that it can't be broken. The application that is given by paedo-baptists is under the assumption that the NC like the OC can be broken. The infant who is baptized may "break the covenant" like many circumcized Jews did in the OC. This is not possible according to the text in Jeremiah 31.

    Jeremiah 31:31-34 "'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'".

    The NC is being given because the OC was broken. The NC (clearly seen here) cannot be broken (since this is the solution to the OC breakability). This passage is clearly speaking of regeneration. "I will put my law on their minds and write it on their hearts", "I will be their God, and they will be my people", "they will ALL know Me" "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more". This is a discription of the NC and clearly describes regeneration. The forgiveness of sins is the result of being in this NC. Do baptized infants of believing parents have automatic forgiveness? I know you don't believe that. The NC is for the regenerate and belief is certainly the first fruit of regeneration which equals believers baptism as far as I can see.
    [B]Manley Beasley[/B]
    Southern Baptist Convention
    Fayetteville, Arkansas

    [B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72