Is paedo-immersion practised ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bernard_Marx

Puritan Board Freshman
Radar,

I don't know about Reformed circles but in other circles it is widely practiced. I know that among the Orthodox infants are immersed three times.

Interestingly enough before his Aldersgate experience Wesley was so legalistic that he would insist on doing this same practice.
 

Reena Wilms

Puritan Board Freshman
At some churches of the "brethern movement" (Darby)where they hold to infant baptism, they baptised that baby by immersion.

Ralph
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:c11a6c8821][i:c11a6c8821]Originally posted by TheonomyNZ[/i:c11a6c8821]
Baptism means immersion, so to refer to "baptism by immersin" is a redundancy. [/quote:c11a6c8821]

Ohh, thats right. I guess that is why there has never even been a question about whether immersion is mandated.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Bryan

Puritan Board Freshman
So what does the word Baptizmo mean? I have always been taught, and from what I have read, undstood it to mean immersion. So simply speaking linguisticly, did the word in Koine only mean to immerse?

Bryan
SDG
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:bde1d613c4][i:bde1d613c4]Originally posted by Bryan[/i:bde1d613c4]
So what does the word Baptizmo mean? I have always been taught, and from what I have read, undstood it to mean immersion. So simply speaking linguisticly, did the word in Koine only mean to immerse?[/quote:bde1d613c4]Yes, that is in fact what it meant. Check the lexicons, it's not a matter of any great controversy. Even Calvin admits that this was the practice carried out by the Apostles. i guess he didn't always hold to the regulative principle. :)

[Edited on 3/2/2004 by TheonomyNZ]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:246fd89796][i:246fd89796]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:246fd89796]
[quote:246fd89796]
[i:246fd89796]originally posted by Paul Manata[/i:246fd89796]

The greek word for supper MEANS evening meal, so do ALL you baptists take the Lord's supper in the evening?
[/quote:246fd89796]

[quote:246fd89796]
[i:246fd89796]Originally posted By Fred T. Greco[/i:246fd89796]

Ohh, thats right. I guess that is why there has never even been a question about whether immersion is mandated.
[/quote:246fd89796]

Whewwhoo! Yet more agreement between Fred and I.

-Paul [/quote:246fd89796]

{Enter cheezy beatbox beat}
Go Paul! Go Paul!

{Exit cheezy beatbox beat}
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
[quote:b43a306ca1][i:b43a306ca1]Originally posted by TheonomyNZ[/i:b43a306ca1]I have always been taught, and from what I have read, undstood it to mean immersion. So simply speaking linguisticly, did the word in Koine only mean to immerse?[/quote:b43a306ca1]Yes, that is in fact what it meant. Check the lexicons, it's not a matter of any great controversy. Even Calvin admits that this was the practice carried out by the Apostles. i guess he didn't always hold to the regulative principle. :)
[/quote]

Gee,

[size=2:b43a306ca1]I looked at Louw-Nida, and here is what I got:

[quote:b43a306ca1] bapti,zw ; katabapti,zw ; baptismo,j, ou/ m: to wash (in some contexts, possibly by dipping into water), with a view to making objects ritually acceptable - 'to wash, to purify, washing, purification.' bapti,zw: avpV avgora/j eva.n mh. bapti,swntai ouvk evsqi,ousin 'nor do they eat anything that comes from the market unless they wash it' Mk 7.4. It is also possible to understand bapti,swntai in Mk 7.4 as a middle form meaning 'to wash themselves.' katabapti,zw: See Mk 7.4 apparatus. baptismo,j: kai. a;lla polla, evstin a pare,labon kratei/n, baptismou.j pothri,wn kai. xestw/n kai. calki,wn kai. klinw/n 'and they follow many other rules which they have received such as to wash cups, pots, copper bowls and beds' Mk 7.4. [/size:b43a306ca1]
There is some doubt as to the precise extent to which bapti,zw, katabapti,zw, and baptismo,j in Mk 7.4 involve ritual cleansing, but the context would seem to imply this, particularly in view of the relationship of such washing to the rules followed by Jews in general and Pharisees in particular. [/quote:b43a306ca1]
[/size]
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:badc93fe6e][i:badc93fe6e]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:badc93fe6e]
The greek word for supper MEANS evening meal, so do ALL you baptists take the Lord's supper in the evening?[/quote:badc93fe6e]Paul, surely you don;t think the two are analogous examples? A supper at any time of the day is still LIKE an evening meal, the point is at very least that it IS a meal. the Greek New Testament does not (as far as I know) HAVE a word that means "lunch" or "breakfast." [i:badc93fe6e]deipnon[/i:badc93fe6e] covers them all. So another word could not have been used.

At least, however, The Lord's supper is a meal. But how is a tiny drip of water anything LIKE immersion? The New Testament has a word that DOES mean sprinkle, which could easily have been used - [i:badc93fe6e]rantizo[/i:badc93fe6e], appearing three times in Hebrews 9 and 10.

See what Calvin says in the [i:badc93fe6e]Institutes[/i:badc93fe6e], book 4, chapter 15, paragraph 19:[quote:badc93fe6e]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.[/quote:badc93fe6e]Now, this is not an argument of course. I quote this to point out that it is a historical novelty for Reformed folk to revise the meaning of the Greek terms for baptism, and to say that it doesn't mean immerse. What say ye of Calvin's opinion? Do you agree that a biblical ordinance can be waived, and subjected to the "liberty" of the church? or do you instead, like me, hold to the regulative principle?

In Christ,

Glenn Peoples
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:b851cb30a3][i:b851cb30a3]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:b851cb30a3]

Gee,

I looked at Louw-Nida, and here is what I got:

[quote:b851cb30a3] bapti,zw ; katabapti,zw ; baptismo,j, ou/ m: to wash (in some contexts, possibly by dipping into water), with a view to making objects ritually acceptable - 'to wash, to purify, washing, purification.' bapti,zw: avpV avgora/j eva.n mh. bapti,swntai ouvk evsqi,ousin 'nor do they eat anything that comes from the market unless they wash it' Mk 7.4. It is also possible to understand bapti,swntai in Mk 7.4 as a middle form meaning 'to wash themselves.' katabapti,zw: See Mk 7.4 apparatus. baptismo,j: kai. a;lla polla, evstin a pare,labon kratei/n, baptismou.j pothri,wn kai. xestw/n kai. calki,wn kai. klinw/n 'and they follow many other rules which they have received such as to wash cups, pots, copper bowls and beds' Mk 7.4. [/size]
There is some doubt as to the precise extent to which bapti,zw, katabapti,zw, and baptismo,j in Mk 7.4 involve ritual cleansing, but the context would seem to imply this, particularly in view of the relationship of such washing to the rules followed by Jews in general and Pharisees in particular. [/quote:b851cb30a3]
[/quote:b851cb30a3]Two comments. Firstly, I'd say that of all the lexicons I have used thus far, that is the one that [i:b851cb30a3]least[/i:b851cb30a3] explicitly says that it refers to immersion. Secondly, even from that lexicon it is clear enough that immersion or washing is a better understanding than the meagre sprinkling that takes place in Reformed circles (which is neither a dipping nor a washing). So I'm not sure what you think you've shown by quoting that here. Maybe you only used that lexicon because it was an electronic version you could paste from. :bouncing:

[Edited on 3/2/2004 by TheonomyNZ]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Glenn,

First, yes I did use an electronic resource that was easily available.

Second, if you want to "refute" a thousand years of able exegetes with a ipse dixit, so be it. But before you do, you need to explain how immerse is is the ONLY (yes ONLY, not even probable) translation in the cases such as John Murray has pointed out:

Leviticus 14:6, 51 (LXX); where a bird is "bapto" into the blood of another bird. There is not physically enough blood for this to be immersion

1 Samuel 14:27 (LXX); it would appear at least possible that Jonathan would simply dip the end of his rod in the honeycomb rather than immerse the entire rod in the honeycomb

Luke 11.38; it would again appear at least possible that Christ did not immerse his whole body before dinner

Mark 7:4; it would appear unlikely that the Jews would purify their couches by immersing them in giant tubs of water, but would rather sprinkle them with water and cleanse them (reflective of the purification in the Mosaic law by the sprinkling of the blood on the persons

Hebrews 9:10 refers to "various washings (baptisms)" in reference to the Levitical laws, and in at least one place the language used is very specific of sprinkling - Numbers 19:13

There is also clear illusion to the covering of the blood of Christ, which is referred to specifically as sprinkled (Heb 9:13, 14, 22; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2


Have at it!
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:2ee2b82af4][i:2ee2b82af4]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:2ee2b82af4]
Glenn,

Second, if you want to "refute" a thousand years of able exegetes with a ipse dixit, so be it.[/quote:2ee2b82af4]I can't let such gratuitous question beggng go unchecked. A thousand years of able exegetes have not said that baptism means sprinkling, or that the primary meaning is not dipping or washing. Was Calvin not an able exegete? Have the eastern orthodox [i:2ee2b82af4]never[/i:2ee2b82af4] understood the meaning of the greek language that is native to many of them? I'll grant that some within the Presbyterian camp have revised the meaning of the terms as they are used in connection with baptism, but that hardly means I'm rejecting all a thousand years worth of exegesis, any more than you are, since we both agree with [i:2ee2b82af4]some[/i:2ee2b82af4] of the exegetes over the last thousand years, and disagree with others.[quote:2ee2b82af4]But before you do, you need to explain how immerse is is the ONLY (yes ONLY, not even probable) translation in the cases such as John Murray has pointed out:[/quote:2ee2b82af4]If you pay slightly closer attention I have refered to immersion or washing, [i:2ee2b82af4]neither[/i:2ee2b82af4] of which is present in presbyterian paedobaptism.

Moreover, it is conceivable that in contexts that are greatly historically removed from the New testament references to baptism, perhaps other meanings were used more frequently. I presume you are familiar with Carson's work on exegetical fallacies. Have a look at what he notes about using technical meanings int he septuagint to determine the meaning of NT words.[quote:2ee2b82af4]Leviticus 14:6, 51 (LXX); where a bird is "bapto" into the blood of another bird. There is not physically enough blood for this to be immersion[/quote:2ee2b82af4]Granted. See my above comment. but also, one thing is (something) INTO another. At very least, dipping of SOME sort is required. But still, my above comment is my major response to this.[quote:2ee2b82af4]1 Samuel 14:27 (LXX); it would appear at least possible that Jonathan would simply dip the end of his rod in the honeycomb rather than immerse the entire rod in the honeycomb[/quote:2ee2b82af4]Granted, it is possible (probably, in fact) that he only dipped or immersed [i:2ee2b82af4]part[/i:2ee2b82af4] of his rod, rather than dipping it all the way.[quote:2ee2b82af4]Luke 11.38; it would again appear at least possible that Christ did not immerse his whole body before dinner[/quote:2ee2b82af4]Absolutely granted! But where it is not being used literally, it still means "wash," as noted by the lexicon. besides, the parts washed (hands) would have been immersed.
[quote:2ee2b82af4]Mark 7:4; it would appear unlikely that the Jews would purify their couches by immersing them in giant tubs of water, but would rather sprinkle them with water and cleanse them (reflective of the purification in the Mosaic law by the sprinkling of the blood on the persons[/quote:2ee2b82af4]WHAT? Couches??? LOL..... that's a KJV reference I assume. See what the other versions say:
[b:2ee2b82af4]NRSV[/b:2ee2b82af4], "and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles."
[b:2ee2b82af4]NIV[/b:2ee2b82af4]"When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles."
[b:2ee2b82af4]1901 American Standard version[/b:2ee2b82af4]"and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels."

So I'd scratch that one off your list.[quote:2ee2b82af4]Hebrews 9:10 refers to "various washings (baptisms)" in reference to the Levitical laws, and in at least one place the language used is very specific of sprinkling - Numbers 19:13[/quote:2ee2b82af4]I'll grant you a score of 1.
[quote:2ee2b82af4]There is also clear illusion to the covering of the blood of Christ, which is referred to specifically as sprinkled (Heb 9:13, 14, 22; 10:22; 12:24; 1 Peter 1:2[/quote:2ee2b82af4]The blood of Christ is "sprinkled" like the Old Testament sacrifices, sure. But what has that to do with baptism? Where is Baptism said to be like the sprinkling of Christ's blood?Baptism is compared to Christ's [i:2ee2b82af4]death and resurrection[/i:2ee2b82af4] in Romans 6.[quote:2ee2b82af4]What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.[/quote:2ee2b82af4]This surely favours immersion, does it not?

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Calvin's frankness and liberalness on this issue, as seen in the institutes?

In Christ

Glenn Peoples

[Edited on 3/2/2004 by TheonomyNZ]
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
[quote:d33589e1de]This surely favours immersion, does it not?[/quote:d33589e1de]

Not really. Christ was entombed, not burried. And he stayed in there 3 days. Are you really going to say your "presupposed" regenerate convertes stay under the water 3 days?? I'm guessing not.

When the 120 were baptized in the Spirit, did the Spirit touch them on their heads, or immerse them?

"Then there appeared to them divided
tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them." Acts 2:3 "Sat upon?" Interesting for being "baptized in the Spirit."

John baptized in the Jordan. Ever been there? Its quite shallow. Its moving water, which is the point, as the Didache also points out.

How are the dead baptized? Now I'd like to see that.

Not even the first Anabaptists immersed. They poured and sprinkled. The deabte on this did not come about until much later.

"Concerning baptism, the mode of baptism was not important, though the subjects of baptism were vitally important. (For example: in the trial of fourteen Anabaptists, February 7, 1525, Marx Bosshard testified that Hans Bruggbach of Zumikon, after the reading of a portion of the New Testament in a meeting, "confessed and deplored big sins, and requested, as a sign of his conversion, to be sprinkled in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; whereupon Blaurock sprinkled him." (Darauf habe ihn Blaurock bespritzt, Egli, Actensammlung.)



[Edited on 2-3-2004 by webmaster]
 

luvroftheWord

Puritan Board Sophomore
The author of Hebrews refers to OT ceremonial washings as "baptisms". These washings were done by pouring or sprinking, as can be shown by a simple reference to the OT books of Leviticus and Numbers. This point should at least lead us to believe that immersion is not the REQUIRED interpretation of the word [i:bd3e776678]baptizo[/i:bd3e776678]. If it is, then the author of Hebrews flubbed up, because OT ceremonial washings weren't baptisms after all.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Glenn,

So I see... everytime that a form of baptizo is used other than refer to a baptism, it is being used "in another lexical sense" and cannot shed light on the definition. Only when it is used with respect to Christian "baptism" can we look at the context of the text. Ohh... and of course we all know that baptism means immersion.

But wait, how do we know that? Do we look at other uses of the word? No, that's right, we can't. But we can look at the passages in question. But if they are in question, how do we determine? Oh my! Now my head is spinning. Oh, that's right, you say that is how they are used. That's right, you say look at lexicons. But when I look at lexicons, including [u:0b071c1de6]the[/u:0b071c1de6] classic that has absolutely NO axe to grind - L&S, it simply gives me a transliteration: "baptism." And it does give other meanings, including to wash, to immerse, etc. But I can't look there, remember? Because it is not being used in its technical "baptism" sense. Wow - incredible logic there you have. As I said , nothing more than fancy [i:0b071c1de6]ipse dixit[/i:0b071c1de6]. Please don't try and play lexigraphical games with me. I'm not a Greek amatuer.

Now this quote is hillarious:
[quote:0b071c1de6]Moreover, it is conceivable that in contexts that are greatly historically removed from the New testament references to baptism, perhaps other meanings were used more frequently. I presume you are familiar with Carson's work on exegetical fallacies. Have a look at what he notes about using technical meanings int he septuagint to determine the meaning of NT words.
[/quote:0b071c1de6]

So I should look at Carson to avoid misusing the Septuagint to help me determine the [b:0b071c1de6]Greek[/b:0b071c1de6] meaning of NT words? Are you serious here? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply cited quickly rather than deliberately tried to mislead others here by quoting Carson COMPLETELY out of his context. Why? Here is what Carson is actually talking about, and it has nothing to do with using the LXX to shed light on the Greek semantic domain of Greek words:

[quote:0b071c1de6]the weaknesses in Hatch's method, which sought to establish the meanings of Greek words by simple recourse to their Hebrew equivalents...This is not to say that the Septuagint had no influence on New Testament writers. Far from it: the influence was profound. But it is to say that it is methodologically irresponsible to read the meaning of a [b:0b071c1de6]Hebrew word into its Greek equivalent [/b:0b071c1de6]without further ado. (Carson p.63)[/quote:0b071c1de6]

As for the point about Mark 7:4, if you would look, you would have known that this is a textual issue. The reason that NASB and NIV don't have "couches" or "tables" (klima ) is because the critical text excises them. Even if we were to grant (a big task in and of itself) that the MT is incorrect here (and ignore the context that the Jews did in fact "purify by baptism" their furniture) we would have to answer the fact that every Baptist up until the late 19th-20th century would have had to ignore Mark 7:4.

Matt has already made the point about the burial of Christ. It really surprises me the number of people who actually state that Christ was buried like we bury our dead. That concept of being submersed into the ground was completely foreign to Greco-Roman culture. It quite simply NEVER happened.

As for Calvin, "even Homer nods." Unless you would like to take Calvin whole? If I am not allowed to disagree with one statement of Calvin (against the overwhelming strain of Reformed theologians), then I suppose you will take:

[quote:0b071c1de6] Let us now discuss the arguments by which some furious madmen cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God. And, first, feeling themselves pressed beyond measure by the resemblance between baptism and circumcision, they contend that there is a wide difference between the two signs, that the one has nothing in common with the other. They maintain that the things meant are different, that the covenant is altogether different, and that the persons included under the name of children are different. When they first proceed to the proof, they pretend that circumcision was a figure of mortification, not of baptism. This we willingly concede to them, for it admirably supports our view, in support of which the only proof we use is, that baptism and circumcision are signs of mortification. Hence we conclude that the one was substituted for the other, baptism representing to us the very thing which circumcision signified to the Jews. In asserting a difference of covenant, with what barbarian audacity do they corrupt and destroy Scripture? and that not in one passage only, but so as not to leave any passage safe and entire
(Calvin, IV, xvi, 10).[/quote:0b071c1de6]

and
[quote:0b071c1de6]
Though I am unwilling to annoy the reader with the series of conceits which Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists, nay, the great honour of this crew, when girding himself for battle, deemed, when he adduced them, to be specious arguments, it will be worth while briefly to dispose of them.605 He pretends that as the symbols of Christ are perfect, they require persons who are perfect, or at least capable of perfection. But the answer is plain. The perfection of baptism, which extends even to death, is improperly restricted to one moment of time; moreover, perfection, in which baptism invites us to make continual progress during life, is foolishly exacted by him all at once. (Calvin, IV, xvi, 31).[/quote:0b071c1de6]
and
[quote:0b071c1de6]
They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed-viz. spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God.
(Calvin, IV, xvi)[/quote:0b071c1de6]

But I tire of this...
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:e4971735e7][i:e4971735e7]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e4971735e7]
So I see... everytime that a form of baptizo is used other than refer to a baptism, it is being used "in another lexical sense" and cannot shed light on the definition. Only when it is used with respect to Christian "baptism" can we look at the context of the text. Ohh... and of course we all know that baptism means immersion.[/quote:e4971735e7]Fred, I don't mind that we don't agree. But we'll make a deal, I will not attempt to moick you by charicaturing and misrepresenting you, and I ask that you do the same for me.

Where did I ever say that when the word is used other than in reference to baptism, it never means dip, wash or immerse? When did I ever say it only means dip or immerse in reference to baptism? You ignore everything I say, and create a ridiculous straw man for the burning.[quote:e4971735e7]Please don't try and play lexigraphical games with me. I'm not a Greek amatuer.[/quote:e4971735e7]I was gracious in my disagrement with you, and you respond by attributing motives and breathing such hostility??? I'm surprised - and disappointed. maybe you have had dealings with people in the past when one (or both) parties were looking for a fight, but please do not do it with me.[quote:e4971735e7]Now this quote is hillarious....[/quote:e4971735e7]I incorrectly referred to a work by Carson, when I was actually thinking of a comment made by Moises Silva. My mistake. His point is that we must be wary of making a New Testament Greek word mean something by simply taking its current usage in another historical context and insisting that the meaning is the same in Koine Greek in the first century. He goes so far as to say (for the sake of emphasis), " 'historical considerations are irrelevant to the investigation' of the state of Koine Greek at the time of Christ." (Moises Silva, [i:e4971735e7]Biblical Words and their meaning: An introduction to Lexical Semantics[/i:e4971735e7], 38)

Does Silva state the case too strongly? perhaps. But at very least it should serve as a waring against flipping straight from the Septuagint to the NT, asserting thatthe usage of a specific word in the former will be determinative for its meaning in the latter.
[quote:e4971735e7]As for the point about Mark 7:4, if you would look, you would have known that this is a textual issue. The reason that NASB and NIV don't have "couches" or "tables" (klima ) is because the critical text excises them.[/quote:e4971735e7]Excises? Well, I think you mean that some texts do not contain them, so they were not inserted into the critical text.[quote:e4971735e7]Even if we were to grant (a big task in and of itself) that the MT[/quote:e4971735e7]The Masoretic Text? Oh yeah, the version of Mark in the Old Testament! (Majority text, I know, I know!)[quote:e4971735e7]... is incorrect here (and ignore the context that the Jews did in fact "purify by baptism" their furniture) we would have to answer the fact that every Baptist up until the late 19th-20th century would have had to ignore Mark 7:4.[/quote:e4971735e7]hardly. To suggest that the "baptist" view is [i:e4971735e7]built[/i:e4971735e7] on the clear lexical evidence that the Greek term under question here literaly means "dip" or "immerse" is shortsighted at best. This is merely a piece of supporting argument.[quote:e4971735e7]Matt has already made the point about the burial of Christ. It really surprises me the number of people who actually state that Christ was buried like we bury our dead.[/quote:e4971735e7]Nice try, but please, if I don;t state a position, then don;t attribute it to me. Or at very least, ASK me if it is my view before you attribute it to me. I said that baptism is a picture of Christ's [b:e4971735e7]DEATH[/b:e4971735e7] and resurrection, not burial under the ground and resurrection (unless I mispoke, but I don't recall doing so, and I can't see what I typed while I'm typing this post. The picture of dying and rising again can easily be portrayed by immersion, and clearly NOT by sprinkling.[quote:e4971735e7]If I am not allowed to disagree with one statement of Calvin (against the overwhelming strain of Reformed theologians), then I suppose you will take[/quote:e4971735e7]On the contrary, you may disagree with him. that's why I asked you a question as to whether you agree with his liberal approch or not. Why would I care that you disagree with him?

In a like manner, I have no problem disagreeing with the gratuitous assertions of Calvin that you posted :) Where did you get the impression that I have some kind of loyalty to Calvin? It just confirms that you will disagree with the "experts" when they disagree with you, and I do likewise. (e.g. Calvin, as well as Luther, Wesley and Whitefield, among others who believed the Greek term indicated immersion, but who felt at liberty to do otherwise than had been ordained).

As it turns out, my first thread was really said in jest for the sake ofbeing provocative. That's not to say I don't believe that the ordinance of baptism is to be done by immersion, and that this is indicated by the primary meaning of [i:e4971735e7]baptizo[/i:e4971735e7]. Any of the Lexicons, including the one you cited, will give "to dip" or "to immerse" as a primary meaning before moving on to things like ceremonial cleansings. (e.g. Thayer does this, Arndt and Gingrich's massive volume does this, as does the more modest Analytical Greek Lexicon, which refers to reader to its entry uner [i:e4971735e7]bapto[/i:e4971735e7].) I'm aware that there are occasions when it mans less than this, but it may be observed that the primary meaning entails dipping or immersing. Moreover, this is not simply the opinion of the baptist "innovators," it has been known by the eastern church since its earliest days.


And webmaster, you ask how the dead are baptised? They weren't. People were baptised [i:e4971735e7]on behalf[/i:e4971735e7] of the dead.


In Christ

Glenn Peoples

[Edited on 3/2/2004 by TheonomyNZ]
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
[quote:43e8ab73ce]
And webmaster, you ask how the dead are baptised? They weren't. People were baptised on behalf of the dead.
[/quote:43e8ab73ce]

I'm aware of that. Oftentimes people take the idea of those "dead" as burial, again, as already alluded to, and would have meant that as the person is buried so we should bury people in water for them - but that would make little sense since we would never unbury the dead, so likewise, Baptism would be the death of our converts. The church would quickly diminish!
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Yes, we do disagree on the mode of baptism on this forum. Imagine that. Get over it already.

There are more important things to be discussing.

Phillip
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Phillip, I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't spend [i:800f569916]too much[/i:800f569916] time discussing issues such as the mode of baptism, especially once each other's views and reasons are evident. But also keep in mind that such discussion can always be healthy as well, even if it [i:800f569916]has[/i:800f569916] already been discussed, as long as it is done with the purpose of further sharpening, challenging and building up each other's faith. But again, I totally agree that it should not be given too much emphasis after a certain point.

Chris
 

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
I thought this appropriate.

A Presbyterian ask a Baptist, "Does it count if I only go in the water up to my waist?"
NO.
"Up to my shoulders?"
NO
"Up to my forehead?"
NO.
"So you're saying it's the top of my head that really counts."

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by raderag]
 

Harrie

Puritan Board Freshman
I have this little book of Jay E. Adams called "The Meaning and Mode of Baptism". He argues that sprinkling instead of immerson is the only right mode for baptism.

Maybe some people here read it, what do you think of it?
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Its a good little book, but there are lots of PB books that press for sprinklinging as the normative mode. Most of the early prutian writers, and Anabaptist writers fro that matter during the Reformation, said that mode was the norm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top