If it does I'm covered because I was Sprinkled as an infant and Dunked as a Young Child.
Sprinkling vs Dunking
- Thread starter steven-nemes
- Start date
- Status
If it does I'm covered because I was Sprinkled as an infant and Dunked as a Young Child.
If it does I'm covered because I was Sprinkled as an infant and Dunked as a Young Child.
We are all covered because Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.
YXU
Puritan Board Freshman
My pastor preached a sermon on the mode of baptism, he is a very nice and humble teacher, if you have some time, I think it might be of a help. He argues against immersion as an invalid and wrong mode of baptism and defends sprinkling as the valid mode.
SermonAudio.com - The Mode of Baptism
SermonAudio.com - The Mode of Baptism
Rogerant
Puritan Board Freshman
Some important points here I would like to post that seemed to have been overlooked.
1. The only ones completely immersed in Baptism in the O.T. were the Egyptians and the Genesis flood victoms. And they were immersed in the judgment of God's wrath. "Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: They sank as lead in the mighty waters" Exodus 15:10 Also see Psalm 107:24-31 pertaining the angry sea being the source of God's judgment.
2. The righteous are not swallowed up, immersed in God's judgment in the O.T. They are carried accross the evil of the "sea". Noah and his family were protected in the Ark in the waters of judgment. The Israelites walked "on dry land" and were not consumed in God's wrath. Moses was carried accross the waters in an Ark. The Israelites walked accross the Jordan river "on dry land". Also the Ark was carried accross the Jordan by the Priests and their feet did not touch the waters! And behold, the "Commander of the Lords Army" is standing on dry ground in the promised land, after being carried accross the Jordon in the Ark! (also note! the waters stood up in a heap al the way back to "Adam"! Yes, the passing on dry land without being swallowed up, or immersed, in God's judgment goes all the way back to the first sinner, Adam!) Next, we have David being carried accross the Jordan and declared as King in 2 Samuel. Next we have Elijah striking the water of the Jordan, it is divided and He crosses over "on dry land" just before he is taken up to the promised land in the chariot.
3. In the N.T. we have Jesus revealing Himself on the mountain to his people by the breaking of bread and the feeding of the 5 thousand. (Christ IS REVEALED through the breaking of bread. see Luke 24) The people do not recognize Him as the messiah and God the Father gets angry. He whips up a storm on the "Sea of Galilee" in His anger. "For they considered not the miracle of the laoves: for their hearts were hardened" That is why they ended up in the storm of God's wrath, just like those who strainded at the oars in Jonah. But again, Christ walks accross as though "on dry land" accross the sea of God's wrath and was about to pass them by, just as he does in Luke 24!
3. Now Christ has gone before us in the sea or chasm of God's wrath. For He has gone to a place where we have never been before. (Joshua 3:4) He has been totaly immersed in the sea of God's righteous judgment! He has gone over the Jordon before us with a sacrafice "in hand". Just as God provided Jacob a sacrafice of atonement which he sends over the Jordon to Esau, to appease Esau's wrath. God sends His Son through the sea or chasm of God's wrath that separates us and Him!
4. Now, in "our Baptism" were are united or identified as being "in Christ" and His baptism. His baptism or immersion "in judgment". Therefore if we are identified and united "in Him" in his judgment, God recognized us as have already been judjed "in Christ".
5. Take note of Solomon's enormous "Sea" that he placed between the altar and the temple doors. This is the "Sea of God's judgment" In Revelation 20:13 we read, "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them" Here the sea is linked to the chasm of death and hell, and contains those who were swallowed up in judgment.
I am a paedo-baptist, but I do see the connection of being immersed in Baptism even though it means more than just being washed or being raised in resurrection. We are able to cross over the chasm of God's judement "on dry land" because of Christ's immersion. Yes, if we are preoccupied by the methodology of Baptism. Then immerse your baby, what do you think that the gag reflex is for in baby's anyway?
1. The only ones completely immersed in Baptism in the O.T. were the Egyptians and the Genesis flood victoms. And they were immersed in the judgment of God's wrath. "Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: They sank as lead in the mighty waters" Exodus 15:10 Also see Psalm 107:24-31 pertaining the angry sea being the source of God's judgment.
2. The righteous are not swallowed up, immersed in God's judgment in the O.T. They are carried accross the evil of the "sea". Noah and his family were protected in the Ark in the waters of judgment. The Israelites walked "on dry land" and were not consumed in God's wrath. Moses was carried accross the waters in an Ark. The Israelites walked accross the Jordan river "on dry land". Also the Ark was carried accross the Jordan by the Priests and their feet did not touch the waters! And behold, the "Commander of the Lords Army" is standing on dry ground in the promised land, after being carried accross the Jordon in the Ark! (also note! the waters stood up in a heap al the way back to "Adam"! Yes, the passing on dry land without being swallowed up, or immersed, in God's judgment goes all the way back to the first sinner, Adam!) Next, we have David being carried accross the Jordan and declared as King in 2 Samuel. Next we have Elijah striking the water of the Jordan, it is divided and He crosses over "on dry land" just before he is taken up to the promised land in the chariot.
3. In the N.T. we have Jesus revealing Himself on the mountain to his people by the breaking of bread and the feeding of the 5 thousand. (Christ IS REVEALED through the breaking of bread. see Luke 24) The people do not recognize Him as the messiah and God the Father gets angry. He whips up a storm on the "Sea of Galilee" in His anger. "For they considered not the miracle of the laoves: for their hearts were hardened" That is why they ended up in the storm of God's wrath, just like those who strainded at the oars in Jonah. But again, Christ walks accross as though "on dry land" accross the sea of God's wrath and was about to pass them by, just as he does in Luke 24!
3. Now Christ has gone before us in the sea or chasm of God's wrath. For He has gone to a place where we have never been before. (Joshua 3:4) He has been totaly immersed in the sea of God's righteous judgment! He has gone over the Jordon before us with a sacrafice "in hand". Just as God provided Jacob a sacrafice of atonement which he sends over the Jordon to Esau, to appease Esau's wrath. God sends His Son through the sea or chasm of God's wrath that separates us and Him!
4. Now, in "our Baptism" were are united or identified as being "in Christ" and His baptism. His baptism or immersion "in judgment". Therefore if we are identified and united "in Him" in his judgment, God recognized us as have already been judjed "in Christ".
5. Take note of Solomon's enormous "Sea" that he placed between the altar and the temple doors. This is the "Sea of God's judgment" In Revelation 20:13 we read, "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them" Here the sea is linked to the chasm of death and hell, and contains those who were swallowed up in judgment.
I am a paedo-baptist, but I do see the connection of being immersed in Baptism even though it means more than just being washed or being raised in resurrection. We are able to cross over the chasm of God's judement "on dry land" because of Christ's immersion. Yes, if we are preoccupied by the methodology of Baptism. Then immerse your baby, what do you think that the gag reflex is for in baby's anyway?
Except there was also Naaman in 2 Kings 5:14. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word for "plunge" or "dip" as "baptized."
Just a point of info.
christiana
Puritan Board Senior
The way I see is that if the paedos are wrong they're disobedient.
How could the credos be wrong when they've gone the whole way?
My former pastor never failed to say, 'buried with Christ in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life'. I never tired of hearing those words and those being baptized were eager to be totally buried in baptism!
How could the credos be wrong when they've gone the whole way?
My former pastor never failed to say, 'buried with Christ in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life'. I never tired of hearing those words and those being baptized were eager to be totally buried in baptism!
Rogerant
Puritan Board Freshman
Rather than translations or texts that some would question their divine authority, why don't we go to the word itself and how it is used. Strongs 2881:
In the documented directions for the method of ceremonial washing of lepers. Lev 14:1 "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: 3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; 4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: 6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip (2881) them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field"and 16:"16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD: 17 And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering: 18 And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD."
And for sin offering washings Le 4:6 And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
And note: Ex 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip (2881) it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.
Do you believe that anyone who heard this command believed that they were to immerse the entire piece of hyssop or just the end to paint the door lintels?
I don't think that we are in 2 Kings to exegete a new method for the ceremonial cleaning for leprosy. The fact that human origins translated the word used as "dip" in every other usage of the word, to an idea of totally "immersing" is weak at best. I don't think that you can force that into the text.
Dear Christiana: If paedo's are going to be charged with improper methodology on the method of Baptism, we must look at the texts of law that deal with the methodology for the cleansing from sin. (which leprosy symbolizes). The book or ceremonial tutorial of the methodology is Leviticus. The gospels and the book of Acts are not to be read as a ceremonial or a how to for dummies for methodology. The book of Acts is a historical book. It is not a book of how to's for ceremonial law. The book of Leviticus is.
And regarding the disobedience when it comes to when we baptize our children, I believe that it was Moses in whom the Lord was seeking to kill for not given his son the sign of the covenant.
Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
In the documented directions for the method of ceremonial washing of lepers. Lev 14:1 "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest: 3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; 4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 5 And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: 6 As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip (2881) them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water: 7 And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose into the open field"and 16:"16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the LORD: 17 And of the rest of the oil that is in his hand shall the priest put upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the blood of the trespass offering: 18 And the remnant of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall pour upon the head of him that is to be cleansed: and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD."
And for sin offering washings Le 4:6 And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
And note: Ex 12:22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip (2881) it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.
Do you believe that anyone who heard this command believed that they were to immerse the entire piece of hyssop or just the end to paint the door lintels?
I don't think that we are in 2 Kings to exegete a new method for the ceremonial cleaning for leprosy. The fact that human origins translated the word used as "dip" in every other usage of the word, to an idea of totally "immersing" is weak at best. I don't think that you can force that into the text.
Dear Christiana: If paedo's are going to be charged with improper methodology on the method of Baptism, we must look at the texts of law that deal with the methodology for the cleansing from sin. (which leprosy symbolizes). The book or ceremonial tutorial of the methodology is Leviticus. The gospels and the book of Acts are not to be read as a ceremonial or a how to for dummies for methodology. The book of Acts is a historical book. It is not a book of how to's for ceremonial law. The book of Leviticus is.
And regarding the disobedience when it comes to when we baptize our children, I believe that it was Moses in whom the Lord was seeking to kill for not given his son the sign of the covenant.
Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
christiana
Puritan Board Senior
When did this change?
2 Timothy 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Who decided all those things you mentioned above after God Himself said what 2 Timothy says? Must have been the same men who devise all the other rules of the day!
2 Timothy 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
Who decided all those things you mentioned above after God Himself said what 2 Timothy says? Must have been the same men who devise all the other rules of the day!
Nah, I wasn't trying to exegete anything, just observing that we can't say with complete certainty that the word "baptize" as immersion never applied to someone (except the condemned) in the OT. Whether we think the Septuagint is a fraud or the real deal, it seems fairly straightforward that "baptize" historically and to educated Jews at least sometimes means immerse.
I was assuming that Naaman was following Elisha's directions to wash his entire flesh. The shift in the verb from רחץ (rachats) used by Elisha to the טבל (tabal) describing what Naaman did seems to imply to me zeal in the procedure. Of course, I grant that maybe he dipped his foot, and then his hand, and then his head, and then his back, and then his front, etc., until his entire flesh had been cleaned, and then did it all over again six more times. . . .
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
[Sorry, hit the thanks key instead of the quote key. My bad!]
Ivan does NOT have any word for the mode of baptism in his church name. All Christians (other than a couple of odd groups) believe in baptizing.
While there most baptists today insist upon immersion as the mode, that was not true of early baptists who sprinkled. Doctrinally, the issue has more to do with the candidate than the mode, the who rather than the how.
TaylorOtwell
Puritan Board Junior
It seems like the historic Particular Baptists viewed immersion as necessary to the due administration of baptism.
refbaptdude
Puritan Board Freshman
Matthias
Puritan Board Junior
Just because the Baptist confessions take a position on the mode of immersion, does not have to imply that all confessional Baptists automatically assume other modes are invalid. I can say this, because as a Reformed Baptist, I know that Baptism is a sign, and that nothing "magical" is actually taking place. If I see the signs of true conversion being acted out in the life of the individual, then I trust the condition of the heart was right at the time of baptism regardless of the mode. Although I believe immersion has the most weight as far as being Biblical, I also believe a baptism can take place using a mudpuddle if that is all that is available.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'm not arguing with the LBCF, merely making an historical point. My church requires dunking. However, it was not always so that Baptists stipulated mode.
Last edited:
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Probably not too important.
In the early church some may have stood in the water while having it poured or sprinkled over them, which is different from the way it is often done in either modern baptist or paedobaptist congregations,
We don't read of people being immersed in Christ's blood or of them being immersed in the Spirit, but we do read of the Spirit being poured out ( e.g. Acts 10:45) and of sprinkling (e.g. Isaiah 52:15; Ezekiel 36:25; Heb.12:24; I Peter 1:2).
The text that speaks of us being buried with Christ by baptism also speaks of us being planted together in the likeness of his death. How is the crucifixion signified by immersion?
The reality is that regeneration, washing in Christ's blood and baptism in the Spirit, all of which water baptism is a sign and seal, involve the believer being engrafted into all that Christ has done for us including His birth, life, crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascension and session.
Furthermore the style of immersion that modern baptists use does not signify the limited imagery of being engrafted into Christ's burial and resurrection, because Jesus was in a tomb with a door.
In the early church some may have stood in the water while having it poured or sprinkled over them, which is different from the way it is often done in either modern baptist or paedobaptist congregations,
We don't read of people being immersed in Christ's blood or of them being immersed in the Spirit, but we do read of the Spirit being poured out ( e.g. Acts 10:45) and of sprinkling (e.g. Isaiah 52:15; Ezekiel 36:25; Heb.12:24; I Peter 1:2).
The text that speaks of us being buried with Christ by baptism also speaks of us being planted together in the likeness of his death. How is the crucifixion signified by immersion?
The reality is that regeneration, washing in Christ's blood and baptism in the Spirit, all of which water baptism is a sign and seal, involve the believer being engrafted into all that Christ has done for us including His birth, life, crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascension and session.
Furthermore the style of immersion that modern baptists use does not signify the limited imagery of being engrafted into Christ's burial and resurrection, because Jesus was in a tomb with a door.
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
I have no problem with sprinkling, pouring, or dunking. At our church we "dunk" because there is a baptistry in the building from when it was owned by a Church of Christ congregation, so we use that. I know other churches that we are close to sometimes sprinkle or pour as well, when they don't have a baptistry--especially in winter when the ponds are frozen. 
the Internet
Puritan Board Freshman
Clearly Paul just used the 8 inch tall 4.5 litre water pitcher in the kitchen to baptize the jailer and his family - totally immersed the lot of them he did. We do agree the NT times were times of miracles don't we?
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
If only the debate were that easy.
Rogerant
Puritan Board Freshman
Immersion only?
Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, "Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am batized with?" And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, "Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized;"
Are we to try to force the the idea of immersion only into every usage of the word baptize and baptism? Or does the word carry more meaning than the idea of believers baptismal methodology?
Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, "Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am batized with?" And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, "Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized;"
Are we to try to force the the idea of immersion only into every usage of the word baptize and baptism? Or does the word carry more meaning than the idea of believers baptismal methodology?
Wet them and then Train them up in the ways of the Lord.
Good Point But I think some churches call themselves Baptist just to not be called something else. Most SBC churches have a Baby Baptism just with out the water. I really think the whole Baptism thing is a red heron, I was told how Bad those PCA, OPC, and PRC people were for Baptiste babies, and remember they are Calvinist.
I have seen the light...... I am reformed and I like the Church Government of the PRC.
Dunk or Sprinkle?? Do what you may but Please Train up your Kids in Lord, Teach them the way of the Lord, and Grace well do the rest.
Good Point But I think some churches call themselves Baptist just to not be called something else. Most SBC churches have a Baby Baptism just with out the water. I really think the whole Baptism thing is a red heron, I was told how Bad those PCA, OPC, and PRC people were for Baptiste babies, and remember they are Calvinist.
I have seen the light...... I am reformed and I like the Church Government of the PRC.
Dunk or Sprinkle?? Do what you may but Please Train up your Kids in Lord, Teach them the way of the Lord, and Grace well do the rest.
Gator_Baptist
Puritan Board Freshman
The question I have for the sprinklers out there is why isn't the sacrament called Rantism? You know Rantizo the Greek word for "to spinkle." Why don't you just convert all the way over and just call the sacrament Rantism instead of Baptism?
I am of the opinion that sprinkling violates sola scriptura, and makes an appeal to church authority as a means to change the mode of baptism, even though scripture clearly establishes the mode of baptism as immersion. Even Calvin admitted that the church made this change on the basis of church authority.
This appeal to church authority to overthrow the mode of baptism that is clearly established in scripture reeks of Romanism in my opinion. True Biblical baptism is by immersion.
-----Added 6/16/2009 at 08:22:04 EST-----
Saying that Baptism = immersion is not forcing by any means. It comes from the Greek word Baptizo meaning "to immerse." It would have been called Rantizo if sprinkling was being implied.
I am of the opinion that sprinkling violates sola scriptura, and makes an appeal to church authority as a means to change the mode of baptism, even though scripture clearly establishes the mode of baptism as immersion. Even Calvin admitted that the church made this change on the basis of church authority.
This appeal to church authority to overthrow the mode of baptism that is clearly established in scripture reeks of Romanism in my opinion. True Biblical baptism is by immersion.
-----Added 6/16/2009 at 08:22:04 EST-----
Saying that Baptism = immersion is not forcing by any means. It comes from the Greek word Baptizo meaning "to immerse." It would have been called Rantizo if sprinkling was being implied.
Prufrock
Arbitrary Moderation
McLeod, I don't deny that you may have deep convictions regarding baptism; but until you understand the reasoning behind the paedobaptist position of sprinkling a bit better, I would recommend sticking to sincere questions instead of such bold assertions regarding why we do what we do.
Also, if it really were just as simple as saying, "Isn't it obvious? -- baptizo means immerse," I am quite certain that there would not be a centuries-long argument over the matter.
Also, if it really were just as simple as saying, "Isn't it obvious? -- baptizo means immerse," I am quite certain that there would not be a centuries-long argument over the matter.
Marrow Man
Drunk with Powder
I would also add that since the primary governing standards of the PB are the Westminster Standards (which supports both sprinkling and pouring), you have just essentially equated the PB with Romanism. Not a good move. 
Gator,
If I am not mistaken, in the septuigent the word baptizo is also used in ceremonial cleansing upon houses and in other situations where it is impossible to immerse in a tub of water or river.
If I am not mistaken, in the septuigent the word baptizo is also used in ceremonial cleansing upon houses and in other situations where it is impossible to immerse in a tub of water or river.
Gator_Baptist
Puritan Board Freshman
I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. I however stay loyal to the Textus Receptus in all regards, but that is for a totally different thread. I really don't want to open that can of worms at this time.
Prufrock
Arbitrary Moderation
I did not know that. Thanks for sharing. I however stay loyal to the Textus Receptus in all regards, but that is for a totally different thread. I really don't want to open that can of worms at this time.
McLeod, Randy is not saying that the LXX is scripture; he is pointing out that the Jews of around the NT era used the word baptizo to mean things other than immerse.
I did find this in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under Baptism (Lutheran).
I just post this to say that scholarship varies. I myself hold to immersion if at all possible. I can say that I would consider pouring or sprinking an alternative if it is of necessity.
I also appreciate the Textus Receptus a tad bit more than most. And Prufrock is correct, I am just trying to show how the word is used during the time of....
I just post this to say that scholarship varies. I myself hold to immersion if at all possible. I can say that I would consider pouring or sprinking an alternative if it is of necessity.
I also appreciate the Textus Receptus a tad bit more than most. And Prufrock is correct, I am just trying to show how the word is used during the time of....
Gator_Baptist
Puritan Board Freshman
I would also add that since the primary governing standards of the PB are the Westminster Standards (which supports both sprinkling and pouring), you have just essentially equated the PB with Romanism. Not a good move.
I guess not...
I am very new to the board and I am still learning the nature of it. I am very sorry if I crossed the line there. I thought that since Baptists are allowed on here that this would be something open for debate. Is that correct or am I incorrect?
You know that Jude calls for people to be able to defend the faith. I would be very open if the paedo-baptists were able to convince me that the Textus Receptus teaches sprinkling as the preferred mode of Baptism.
I think it is a very valid point to make that an appeal to church authority to overturn something that is established in scripture is a violation of Sola Scriptura.
Based on my understanding this change in and of itself was made with righteous intentions that are based on scriptural principles. Is this correct or am I misunderstanding the paedo position?
Prufrock
Arbitrary Moderation
McLeod, baptists are most certainly allowed; but you will quickly learn that PaedoBaptists have actually thought about these things before, too. The problem which Tim was pointing out was that you asserted that Presbyterians based their views off of tradition rather than scripture, and claimed that the Confession smacked of Romanism in this.
I am highly confused as to what you mean by "convince me that the Textus Receptus teachings sprinkling." Textual bases have nothing to do with it; please see the explanation of why Randy cited the LXX above.
The Reformed believe sprinkling to be either the or a proper mode of baptism from scripture; we understand the picture of the covenant people being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, even as Israel was sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices when her covenant was established; and of which the Old Testament washings were symbolic, etc. We can demonstrate this exegetically. Whether the baptist agrees with our paedo exegesis is one thing, but I am quite certain that most sober-minded baptists present will acknowledge the consistency and legitimacy of paedobaptist, covenantal exegesis.
In short, yes, it's probable that you don't quite understand the paedobaptist perspective.
Again, the PuritanBoard is a great place to learn; and if you have questions which you would like to ask to sincerely learn why we paedos tick the way we do, please start a thread and fire away with the questions.
I am highly confused as to what you mean by "convince me that the Textus Receptus teachings sprinkling." Textual bases have nothing to do with it; please see the explanation of why Randy cited the LXX above.
The Reformed believe sprinkling to be either the or a proper mode of baptism from scripture; we understand the picture of the covenant people being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, even as Israel was sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices when her covenant was established; and of which the Old Testament washings were symbolic, etc. We can demonstrate this exegetically. Whether the baptist agrees with our paedo exegesis is one thing, but I am quite certain that most sober-minded baptists present will acknowledge the consistency and legitimacy of paedobaptist, covenantal exegesis.
In short, yes, it's probable that you don't quite understand the paedobaptist perspective.
Again, the PuritanBoard is a great place to learn; and if you have questions which you would like to ask to sincerely learn why we paedos tick the way we do, please start a thread and fire away with the questions.
- Status
