From R.C. Sproul....

Ivan · #1 (**permalink**) 07-19-2009, 06:11 PM

Interesting:

Buried with Christ | Ligonier Ministries

charliejunfan · #2 (**permalink**) 07-19-2009, 07:06 PM

The only thing is, wasn't Christ buried IN and not DOWN?
Wouldn't torpedo baptism be the most accurate since throwing someone underneath the water parallel to the surface would be more like Christ's burial?

Just something to think about

Scott1 · #3 (**permalink**) 07-19-2009, 08:28 PM

Interesting, as always when reading Dr. Sproul.

I was not aware Mr. Calvin commended immersion baptism. Does anyone know if he practiced baptism by immersion, and if so, did he do it this way for both adults and infants?

**DMcFadden** · #4 (**permalink**) 07-19-2009, 09:23 PM

Actually, in the 1559 Institutes, Calvin suggested that it doesn't matter what mode you use ("is not of the least consequence"). However, he admitted that it is "evident" that the early church baptized by immersion.

In the Beveridge volume, the Reformer's words are rendered:

Quote:

Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church. IV.15.19

Book Four (15.19) in the Battles' translation reads:

Quote:

But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water — these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.

Backwoods Presbyterian · #5 (**permalink**) 07-19-2009, 09:39 PM

Yet another reason I prefer Beveridge.

Reformed Thomist · #6 (**permalink**) 07-19-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Actually, in the 1559 Institutes, Calvin suggested that it doesn't matter what mode you use ("is not of the least consequence"). However, he admitted that it is "evident" that the early church baptized by immersion.

In the Beveridge volume, the Reformer's words are rendered:

Quote:

Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church. IV.15.19

Book Four (15.19) in the Battles' translation reads:

Quote:

But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water — these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize” means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.

Interesting...

I wonder whether, granted that opting for one method or the other "is not of the least consequence" in terms of the validity or effectiveness of the sacrament, still one method is more proper than the other and so should be observed to the exclusion of the other just in virtue of that fact (even though, technically, both methods 'get the job done').

**DMcFadden** · #7 (**permalink**) 07-20-2009, 01:15 AM

If you go very far in studying it, I think that you will find that most credo baptists tend to gravitate to immersion as the preferred or only valid mode. For them the emphasis is upon discontinuity with the OT rituals and patterns. The vast majority of defenders of paedo baptism will similarly argue in favor of the logic of sprinkling in deference to continuity with OT rituals. Both sides will generally offer lipservice to the potential validity of the arguments for other modes. However, at this stage in the debate, few on either side will show Calvin's detachment respecting mode.

Incidentally, some of the earliest Baptists were non-immersionists. And, many Baptist theologians will go out of their way to explain that the Baptist view is more about the proper candidates for baptism (believers) rather than the mode. Nevertheless, I cannot remember reading a defense of credo baptism that did NOT also conclude that the biblical meaning of baptism was best represented by immersion.

refbaptdude · #8 (**permalink**) 07-21-2009, 08:24 AM

Quote:

The vast majority of defenders of paedo baptism will similarly argue in favor of the logic of sprinkling in deference to continuity with OT rituals.

Dennis,

Not necessarily the vast majority, the entire eastern church(Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek, etc) to the best of my knowledge practices “immersion only” paedobaptism. And there are branches within the Roman church that continue to maintain immersion. My nephew was immersed in the Roman Catholic church. The Reformers were also clear about what was the ancient mode of the church.

Examples:

You may have to hit "refresh" on your browser to get the first video to work.

Orthodox Infant Baptism - AOL Video

Baptism

http://www.stspeterandpaulchurch-stl...ptism-full.jpg

While the arguments can continue, in actuality the catholic mode of the Church is “immersion”.

John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)

John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John- The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule.

Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."

Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).

Cardinal Gibbons (Roman Catholic) -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)

Conybeare and Howson (Episcopalians) --commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."

John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

George Whitefield -commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION

Scott1 · #9 (**permalink**) 07-21-2009, 08:38 AM

Does anyone know...

1) Calvin's Institutes (Beveridge) says "diversity of climates," (Battles) "diversity of countries."

a) anyone care to comment on the difference

b) as it looks like a big difference in translation, any general comments on which translation is better?

2) Were infants baptized by immersion also- was that the historic reformed position?