I refrained from posting this in an other thread because my comment was not germain to the OP, however...

I just want to point out that "re-baptism" IS "re-baptism"!

The common dodge of calling re-baptism a *non re-baptism* since the first one is no baptism at all, but what we are doing is a *true* scriptual baptism. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

I know we all like to claim that our practice is the "biblical way". I refer to the practice of infant baptism as the "biblical practice" in conversations & sermons.

However it is more than a little disingenious to claim that we are not engaged in "re-baptism" when in fact there can be no other name for the practice. It is fair game to claim that the previous baptism is nul, or irregular, or heretical, but claiming that it never happened is just silly.

Just my about a personal pet pieve.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

Kevin: Aren't you begging the question too?

If a Baptist believes that baptizomai means "dip" and is to be done for believers only, then a sprinkling of an infant is not a dipping at all and thus cannot be called a baptism. We should NOT therefore call such a thing re-baptism at all bt merely true baptism because we are to only have one faith and one baptism.


Whether it is your personal pet peeve or not, you are also engaged in trying to win the argument through winning the terminology and so many baptists will not accept your pet peeve and could put forth their own pet peeve of presbyterians calling non-baptism baptism. A mere sprinkling by any other name is just dousing your baby after all and bears no resemblance to the explicit examples of the New Testament.

Rantizo in the NT, if I am not wrong here, refers to blood but never water and especially not the waters of baptism in the NT.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Pergy,

Baptism is a theological term used in the christian religion to refer to a variety of rituals.

My point is that the game of definition that we all play with the term does little to advance either understanding of each other or the scripture.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

I think this "game" is essential since presbyerians call the Greek word for Dipping as something other than dipping.

Do bread and wine mean bread in wine or are they merely the technical designations for a theological term, that we can exchange for coke and potato chips? Many of the reformed push for wine in communion instead of grape juice (a tight interpretation of the permissible elements) and yet advocate a loose interpretation of the correct administration of the other ordinance - baptism. This does not appear consistent.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

You know of course that the word has several meanings of which "dip" is one?

My point is this; try to prove that "dip" is the correct definition. Don't pretend that only a handful of evangelicals posses the sacrament of baptism & the entire rest of the church (militant & triumphant) is just splashing water about.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

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.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Only if you count the west, and ignore the east. And ignore all of those in heaven.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

I never had that problem I was baptized a Mormon so I *had* to be rebaptized because the first baptism was scriptural. My pastor never tried to say that I was not being rebaptized. Because I had been baptized before but unscripturally so I needed to be rebaptized

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

If I were a Presbyterian (I once was for 27 years of my life), I would wholeheartedly agree with you because infant baptism IS baptism from that perspective.

Now that I'm a Baptist (for the recent 11 years of my life), I wholeheartedly disagree with you because infant baptism IS NOT baptism from this perspective.

I hope this helps... Maybe not... I'm retiring from this subject... There's more important matters to discuss. Kevin, if you think I'm rebaptizing your former Presbyterians joining our church, well, the only thing I can say is: I'm not...

__________________
Will Shin
Rockville, MD

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?

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


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

So if you use a paedo definition of baptism, then the credobaptist perspective is silly? Is this news?

__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen

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.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Furthermore, the Didache seems to speak of immersion as the priority and ideal, since sprinkling is spoken of as a clear "last ditch" exception.


Finally, you are right baptizo does not always mean explicitly immersion or dipping but can also refer to a ritual washing or bathe...best done by....err.....immersion or dipping.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

p.s. by Ad 100 or so when the Didache was written baptismal regeneration was already creeping in. We can only draw so much out of this pious fraud.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

The discussion regarding the meaning of the term "baptizo" has already run its course several times on this board, if I remember correctly. Each time, the four volume work by Dale on the use of that term as found in Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings has been pointed out. Having read them, I think that they do a pretty good job of showing what you can pick up in even a single lexicon such as that by Liddell-Scott-Jones, namely, that "baptizo" and its cognates have been used to display a variety of actions other than dipping/immersing/etc. There really can be no argument against this understanding once the sources have been studied.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Now waiting on the November accessions board, because I'm still waiting on the West Coast recruiting staff!
Evergreen PCA
Salem, Oregon

Adam:

So what I am hearing you saying is, "Anyone that knows anything knows that we have already decided that the baptists are stupid. So don't waste our time because it is already proven."

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

If you'd like to read it that way.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Now waiting on the November accessions board, because I'm still waiting on the West Coast recruiting staff!
Evergreen PCA
Salem, Oregon

I think a more charitable reading would be that the insistence in this thread that to Baptize means only to immerse cannot be established by the lexical studies.

Or perhaps you meant to imply that paedobaptists were "stupid"?

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

Yes, alternative meanings besides immerse can be given for baptizo...

There is dipping,

There is the ritual washings....which I would guess would be easiest done by immersion.


There is dyeing....and immersing something in dye usually works better than sprinkling or pouring dye on something.

There is the sense of something being totally covered up, as in Nebadchadnezzar's case of being baptized with the dew of the morning if I remember right.

Submersion, wetting and purifying might also be alternate meanings...



Listen... the OP was a pet peeve which was adequately answered. No need to fight the same old tired battle again.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

except in the case of dining couches...

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


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

Yes, enough to know that pouring was an acceptable alternative.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


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