Poll: Type of Baptism?

Subject and mode of baptism?


  • Total voters
    99
Status
Not open for further replies.

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
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. :)
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

danmpem

Puritan Board Junior
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! :)
 

christiana

Puritan Board Senior
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!!
 

Christusregnat

Puritan Board Professor
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!!....
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
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)?
 

Zenas

Snow Miser
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.
 

Dwimble

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
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!
 

JonathanHunt

Puritan Board Senior
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...
 

Archlute

Puritan Board Senior
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!!....


:lol: That was pretty good.
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:

We baptize those that God professes to be believers!
:lol:


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? :think:

*****

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.
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
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
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
 

Christusregnat

Puritan Board Professor
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




I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:

We baptize those that God professes to be believers!
:lol:


We baptize professing believers.

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

QUOTE]
 

raekwon

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
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 :).
 

ManleyBeasley

Puritan Board Junior
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




I'll see your profession, and raise you a snooty presbyterian comment:

We baptize those that God professes to be believers!
:lol:

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

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
 

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
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.
 

tcalbrecht

Puritan Board Junior
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.
 

tcalbrecht

Puritan Board Junior
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?
 

Blueridge Believer

Puritan Board Professor
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.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
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. ;)
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
By the way... I was just kidding about that fire hose thing... I'd never employ a fire hose for baptismal purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top