Poll: Type of Baptism?

Discussion in 'Baptism' started by PointyHaired Calvinist, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. Paedo, Immersion

    4.0%
  2. Paedo, Triune Immersion

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Paedo, Sprinkling (Aspersion)

    14.1%
  4. Paedo, Pouring (Affusion)

    12.1%
  5. Paedo, "Just get 'em wet"

    26.3%
  6. Credo, Immersion

    24.2%
  7. Credo, Triune Immersion

    5.1%
  8. Credo, Sprinkling/Pouring

    1.0%
  9. Credo, "Just get 'em wet"

    3.0%
  10. Credo, but accept previous infant baptism

    4.0%
  11. Water baptism no longer applies

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. Other (Please Explain)

    6.1%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PointyHaired Calvinist

    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. :)
     
  2. PuritanCovenanter

    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.
     
  3. danmpem

    danmpem Puritan Board Junior

    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! :)
     
  4. christiana

    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!!
     
  5. Christusregnat

    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!!....
     
  6. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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)?
     
  7. Barnpreacher

    Barnpreacher Puritan Board Junior

    We baptize professing believers.
     
  8. Christusregnat

    Christusregnat Puritan Board Professor

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

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


     
  9. Zenas

    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.
     
  10. Dwimble

    Dwimble Puritan Board Freshman

    Bravo!

    I chose "all of the above", because I've spent the last few years building up an immunity to baptism arguments.
     
  11. JonathanHunt

    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!
     
  12. JonathanHunt

    JonathanHunt Puritan Board Senior

    As you wish...
     
  13. AV1611

    AV1611 Puritan Board Senior

    Paedo, "Just get 'em wet" :)
     
  14. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior


    :lol: That was pretty good.
     
  15. Archlute

    Archlute Puritan Board Senior

    I don't have a problem with any of the paedo practices, but prefer Triune affusion.
     
  16. Davidius

    Davidius Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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.
     
  17. kceaster

    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
     
  18. Me Died Blue

    Me Died Blue Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    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.
     
  19. Christusregnat

    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




     
  20. Christusregnat

    Christusregnat Puritan Board Professor

    Thanks Adam!

    Adam



     
  21. raekwon

    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.
     
  22. a mere housewife

    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 :).
     
  23. ManleyBeasley

    ManleyBeasley Puritan Board Junior

     
  24. Quickened

    Quickened Puritan Board Senior

    I voted for Credo, Immersion as my understanding has it
     
  25. Blueridge Believer

    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.
     
  26. tcalbrecht

    tcalbrecht Puritan Board Junior

    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.
     
  27. tcalbrecht

    tcalbrecht Puritan Board Junior

    Since it's a personal choice, does that also mean an individual can decline to be baptized altogether?
     
  28. Blueridge Believer

    Blueridge Believer Puritan Board Professor

    I don't think that they had that in mind. I sure they would insist upon one being baptized.
     
  29. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

    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. ;)
     
  30. SolaScriptura

    SolaScriptura Puritanboard Softy

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

Share This Page