Another baptism debate
- Thread starter josiahrussell
- Start date
- Status
When Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ, how can that not be immersion?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Scripture citation would be helpful here.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Because just as Bill responded in the comment before yours, eis can mean different things. For example, there's nothing from keeping it from saying "into" or "to". Jesus went to the water and was baptized. That doesn't even necessarily mean he went into the water. He could've stood outside of the water or just His feet, etc. It can mean many different things. In the end, the passage doesn't say anything with any clarity about the mode of baptism of Christ.
On top of this, Christ's baptism doesn't necessarily help us understand Christian baptism except in a general meaning of what baptism can mean. In such a passage, we would learn what baptism communicates but not so much the actual action of baptism taken (i.e. mode).
If one wants to do their best to figure out the mode of baptism, it would be best to look at the theology surrounding baptisms and Scripture that concerns baptism throughout the Bible to show first what is baptism to communicate or be a 'sign' of. If you know what it ought to communicate, it will better help understanding the proper mode to communicate those truths.
A good book I have found in considering these things is "William the Baptist". Very basic book.
Last edited:
I have no problem with Jesus not being Immersed, but when Paul describes this act being done to Christians now, seems to indicate immersion mode .
Romans 6:1-4
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Please demonstrate from the passage below, your claim that "Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ" and that what Paul states can only mean immersion.
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
How is Paul's teaching here of the fellowship in death and fellowship in life we undergo with Our Lord in our baptism is in any way teaching something about the mechanics of baptism? You are asking the passage to bear more interpretative freight than it possesses.
Parmenas
Puritan Board Freshman
Jesus was buried in a sepulchre, not in a coffin six feet under the surface.
Matthew 27:59-60 Authorized (King James) Version
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
I believe affusion (and possibly aspersion, I have not decided on that yet) to be the only biblical, regular, and apostolic mode of baptism. Of course, I recognize immersion (or more properly submersion) as valid but highly irregular. I was baptized by immersion myself.
I might be reading too much imagery in this passage, but I see the going down in the water as us being immersed into the death of Christ by an act testifying to that fact, and being now raised up to new life in him by coming back up from the waters. This is why Baptists tend to see water Baptism has been the outward sign of an inward work already done by God to us, as the going down in water and back up is a witness to for new life in Christ.
Silas22
Puritan Board Freshman
David, I would commend to you the small book "William the Baptist". It helped me understand the Presbyterian view of baptism, and also explains the verses you mentioned.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Read it here:
http://www.covenantofgrace.com/william_the_baptist.htm
The particulars related to the passage in question are here:
http://www.covenantofgrace.com/william_the_baptist5.htm
http://www.covenantofgrace.com/william_the_baptist6.htm
The book comprises a conversation between William (W), a Baptist, and a Presbyterian pastor, Rev. Cowan (P). William has married a Presbyterian woman and some years into the marriage decides to meet with Rev. Cowan to discuss the mode and administration of baptism.
All in all, worth a read, despite some nits: claims sprinkling to be the exclusive mode of baptism, despite the historical Reformed position that sprinkling, pouring, or immersion are acceptable, with the first two modes generally preferred; overly focused upon the Holy Spirit's work (at the expense of our union with Our Lord) to answer "burial" theories used by Baptists. None of these detract from the presentation therein to explain and hopefully correct often held misunderstandings, especially related to the verses in question.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Indeed, you are importing imagery and presuppositions not supported by the text in question. Then you compound it by "I see the going down in the water". Where is "the going down in the water" being immersion as a "fact" in this passage? If you want to make a case for immersion, these verses are not the ones to use.
The good thing about this topic on water Baptism is that while I do indeed hold with Immersion as the mode best fitting the scripture viewpoint under the NC now, I also would see as being valid those who choose to do the mode that is normally associated with Presbyterians.
I would see this issue as one to discuss, but not to separate over, or to get upset .
I would see this issue as one to discuss, but not to separate over, or to get upset .
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Matthew 3:16
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mark 1:10
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Acts 8:39
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
The idea doesn't show immersion, per se. If one looks closely, it could just mean that the persons baptized walked out of the water.....For example, Matt 3 could read:
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, immediately walked out of the Jordan.....
as well Acts 8 helps-unless u want to hold to both people were baptized as this verse shows both came 'out of the water'.
The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 3:16–Ac 8:39.
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
As Baptists we ought to be among the first to jump up and down yelling "It's regeneration by the Spirit that seals and brings someone into the Covenant of Grace, not the mode of the sign- Dummy!"
Ironically, that unity I feel with my Presbyterian brothers is, to borrow a phrase from Ligon Duncan, so very much connected to the fact that we might be the last people on the planet to be able to have an honest theological disagreement.
This discussion on Baptism mode just highlights to me that we do have some honest disagreements on some areas of Covenant theology among us.
josiahrussell
Puritan Board Freshman
Seems to be a lot of debate between the mode of baptism. What would you call someone who believes in sprinkling for the infants of believing parents, and full immersion for adult new converts? That is how I have always understood it to be
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The debate is not so much over Covenant theology, but the debate is over the way we interpret scripture and the presuppositions that we bring to Scripture.
If you believe that Israel and the church are substantially the same thing and that the Scriptures present a harmonious continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament then you will probably be a Presbyterian.
If you believe that Israel and the church are substantially different and that the scripture presents a disharmony and disunity between the old and New Testament then you will probably be a Baptist.
Just a side note to all of this the Greek word
For church " kuriakon " never once appears in the scripture.
One contributing factor to the debate is the substitution of the words church and synagogue in place of congregation and assembly.
Many Baptists would tend to see the church in the wilderness as being the called out for God, but not the church proper itself.
Think the problem is that it seems, at least to my understanding,is that there is not a totally continuity nor a total discontinuity between Israel and the church on the scriptures, hence the 2 positions here.
Think the problem is that it seems, at least to my understanding,is that there is not a totally continuity nor a total discontinuity between Israel and the church on the scriptures, hence the 2 positions here.
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
The problem I have with that view of the Church is that Israel was in the wilderness as an act of judgment and a punishment for their collective sin. The analogue is just not there.
Your point is well taken, as I was just suggesting that the term for the church used in the OT is not an exact correspondence to the church of the NC/NT.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
You guys have said before that the New Covenant cannot be broken? Where do you support the view that it is unbreakable?
There's other references but just looking at the many passages in Hebrews suggests that the covenant may be broken.
For example, two passages,
Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Heb 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
And let's not forget Matthew 3:10, 7:19, John 15:2, and 15:16.
The first passage would be speaking of those who were giving a mere profession of being saved by trusting Christ, but that they showed their real natures by in the end turning away and never were saved, as being like Judas in the assembly.
The second case were those who wanted to have both Jesus and also keep up OT sacrifices, to keep both sides, but the author makes it clear that if one goes back to attempt to be saved under OT sacrificial system, there is no real salvation for them apart from death of Jesus as atonement for sin, for His death was/is the only sacrifice that really atones for sins...
Neither passage states that one really in the NC has broken it, just warnings to those who are not really saved to watch out and to make sure they are saved.
Last edited:
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
This book of Hebrews is written to whom?
Sorry, I won't be commenting anymore. None of this concerns the question of the OP anymore.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
David,
How does one "go back to being saved under the OT system"? This sentence seems to have both biblical and systematic issues............
At the risk of butting into the conversation of two other people, if I may add two cents here... (I'm not even clear who is advocating what above; I just want to shine some light and defend a particular position, so I'm riffing on the quote, not necessarily berating the writer)
Israel is called out to the wilderness originally for their good; Ex.5:1 for example states this plainly. Remaining in the wilderness for 40yrs was collective judgment, rather than for a short probation lasting but a couple years.
For those who accede to the doctrine of the Covenant of Works, and Israel's national function as a lively sign to the whole world, this is an important point. Israel in the wilderness is emblematic of the church's sojourning separated from the world (which is Egypt) but still in the world (the wilderness) and not yet in heaven, symbolized by Canaan. The relatively short period of testing/probation turned into a lengthy ordeal, which was a form of judgment on the whole, but ultimately for the good of the elect.
We can draw numerous parallels. In terms of the original Edenic probation, the wilderness is an untamed world, while the camp of the saints is an Eden of order within it, and Israel begins right with God. And--again, almost immediately--falls from this blessed condition (Ex.32). And all of us their natural children have been in the wilderness now for quite some time.
Recall, as Jesus will later recapitulate the life of the nation by his life (e.g. Mt.2:15); so Israel recapitulates the story of the world. And in this manner, by light of Sinai (which essentially, substantively subsists--as it must ever since the fall--in the Covenant of Grace) one sees proof of the first Covenant of Works.
Our first parents are redeemed, as are all their elect offspring; but at the same time they struggle and eventually die in their flesh. Israel's exodus generation also dies off. Even the most saintly of them die (as did Moses) only glimpsing their heavenly home by faith.
Meanwhile, the church-in-the-world/wilderness is trained and disciplined for the duration. This time is not wasted. Yes, there is the feeling the effect of our first parents' error, compounded by our personal transgressions. We face the prospect of death in our flesh, if our generation is not the one appointed cross the Jordan walking dry-shod.
The reality of being in the wilderness is: we aren't in heaven yet. Heaven is in our midst, however; God is with us to lead us and dwell with us. He is purging and cleansing his church, making it fit for glory. And eventually, Jesus leads us in there, all of us (even those of ages past--as in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with Moses and Aaron) in solidarity.
So, I argue that the church-in-the-wilderness (Israel of old) does serve as an important analogue for the church of the present hour.
jomawh
Puritan Board Freshman
I've sincerely never thought of it that way, thank you.
Jews who were now debating whether to stay with Jesus, or to go back to Judaism and the sacrificial system.
- Status
