# You are Immersed into Christ



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 9, 2010)

Hi:

When Paul speaks of being baptized into Jesus Christ he means just that, Romans 6:3-6.

The Greek word (often referred to by credo-baptists) is: ἐβαπτίσθημεν (ebaptistemen - verb, indicative, aorist, passive, 1st Person, plural). The word can be used for dipping, but the primary meaning of it is to immerse, to submerge, a permament putting together of two things. And, like all words, it is the context that determines the meaning of it.

Baptism unites us to Christ, vs. 3, being thus united to Christ we follow Him in His death and resurrection, vs. 4-6. Credo-baptists are reading mode in this verse. If the mode, dipping, is being discussed by Paul, then what is the significance of being plunged into water?

It is not the death of Christ that is being figured here, but union with Him, because that is the first thing which Paul points out:

*Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ...*

The plunging into water (baptism) is supposed to figure our union with Christ, then taking the child of God out of the water would figure being taken out of union with Christ. Thus, dipping would not figure the nature of Baptism correctly. Baptism is correctly done by sprinkling or pouring which signifies the Work of the Spirit of God in uniting us to Christ far more correctly:

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will *pour out of my Spirit *upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will *pour out in those days of my Spirit*; and they shall prophesy.

Acts 10: 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was *poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost*. 

The Credo-baptist makes the error of assigning the effects of baptism as the matter of it - putting the cart before the horse - as the old proverb goes. The matter of baptism is being united to Christ, according to Paul, and, because of this union with Christ we receive the benefits of being dead to sin, and alive to Jesus Christ.

By saying that Baptism makes us "dead to sin, and alive to Christ" is simply not correct. Our union with Christ (which is what Baptism signifies) makes us dead to sin, and alive to Christ. Paul is using the word "Baptism" here not in its literal sense (which would contradict just about everything he says), but in its typical sense - of being immersed (united) into Christ.

Since this immersion (uniting) to Christ is permament, then the idea that Paul is referring to dipping does not fit the context of the passage. Therefore,

You are immersed into Christ.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2010)

Robert Letham, in his book on "The Westminster Assembly" notes that the divines, in their _Annotations_, wrote the following comments about Romans 6: 


> _"In this phrase the Apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of Baptisme, which was, to dip the parties baptized, and as it were to bury them under the water for a while, and then to draw them out of it, and lift them up, to represent the buriall of our old man, and our resurrection to newnesse of life."_



Letham, on page 115 quoting D20064.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 9, 2010)

Hi:

That is very interesting. But, one has to base their views on sound Biblical exegesis, and not the opinions of men - however holy and ancient they may be. I would guess that is why the Westminster Divines came down on sprinkling or pouring as the correct means rather than dipping.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 9, 2010)

I would recommend B.B. Warfield's article on _The archaeology of Baptism_, which discusses early church writings on the practice along with artistic depictions of it and the like.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2010)

Yes, they affirmed that sprinkling was the correct mode and then voted on whether dipping was also an acceptable mode. 

The initial vote supported dipping as an acceptable mode by 25-24 and then the next vote reversed that by the same margin. Finally,after some discussion the final vote affirmed that dipping was an acceptable mode.

Given the Annotations about the "ancient practice" of baptism by immersion (to better symbolize death and new life as per Romans 6), do you know of any other annotations that would have caused the divines not to follow in these same ancient practices as the Apostle? 

Was it mostly due to the fear of being labeled Anabaptist? Or do the notes on the Westminster Assembly say why they would depart from dipping even though they affirm its use by the ancients?

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 PM ----------

Tim, can you find a link to that article?


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 9, 2010)

Pergy, I read it the old fashioned way (in a volume of Warfield's _Works_), but I'll see if I can find online.

Found it --> here's a link: http://tinyurl.com/yf6km5k


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 9, 2010)

By my lights, I cannot see that "baptizo" properly means "immerse", or by a transference (which would be a necessary movement from concrete to abstract idea) to *mean* an indissoluble union. Baptism is an _act_ that results in new _conditions_ that newly characterize the thing or person baptized. And according to those changes, that person or object has been "baptized."

Evidently, then, baptism could bring about a union of two things, so that quite properly Paul could say that baptism has created a "union" between us and Christ. Hence, baptized "into" Christ. But to think, thereby, that "Christ" is the "substance" by which we are baptized, is to mix up what Paul is driving at. In physical terns, the "substance" by which we are baptized is water. Spiritually, the "substance" (if we can speak thus reverently) is Holy Spirit, "poured out".

In its most concrete expression, I believe the most fitting English synonym would be "to whelm." Not that it would be an _*appropriate*_ synonym, in every case, because even the Gk term already carried in its own era a semantic range of meaning; the range of a word's meaning cannot be so tied to its etymology or one "orignal sense" that its contextual meaning may only be reckoned with reference to that root-idea. Doesn't work in English; won't work in Greek either.

The imagery of "baptism into the death or burial of Christ" is no peaceful image. It is a image of devastation. It is the image of being swept away by a flood of insurmountable, unsurvivable power and crushing force. It is the image of a terrifying drowning.

Consider this: if waterboarding is so bad, that it breaks hard men in minutes, just because they THINK they are being drowned under controlled conditions; then to be swept away KNOWING, in the flood of God's judgment, must be terror upon terror. So, Peter represents baptism, 1Pet.3:20-21.

Jesus Christ was "overwhelmed" by the judgment of God. He even called his impending crucifixion his coming "baptism". What was brutal on Christ is gentle on those who are "in him." We go through death and burial with him, locked up in the saftey of the ark of Christ. Peter and Paul are of one mind in this. This is what it means to be united to Christ in his death and burial by baptism. And remember too, we are also raised with him.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2010)

Robert Letham (page 115 again), states that the _Annotations_ commissioned by Parliament define baptidso as "to dip," in the course of which reference is made to the ancient practice of baptism as immersion.


----------



## Iconoclast (Feb 9, 2010)

Rob,
You noted this:


> Baptism unites us to Christ, vs. 3, being thus united to Christ we follow Him in His death and resurrection, vs. 4-6


 Only Spirit baptism can do this. If you follow this consistently through you would be a credo baptist.
Unbelievers are not united to Christ. water cannot do this. Unbelievers are not alive in Him. Again water cannot do this. You are in Adam, or *In Christ*.
Water baptism unites no one to Christ, no one. Only the Spirit does this work, period, Romans 8:9.

Let me borrow Bruces last paragraph;


> Jesus Christ was "overwhelmed" by the judgment of God. He even called his impending crucifixion his coming "baptism". What was brutal on Christ is gentle on those who are "in him." We go through death and burial with him, locked up in the saftey of the ark of Christ. Peter and Paul are of one mind in this. This is what it means to be united to Christ in his death and burial by baptism.


 If it is Spirit baptism being spoken of ,yes absolutely we can agree and ultimately all must agree.

Rob you err here when you say this; 


> The Credo-baptist makes the error of assigning the effects of baptism as the matter of it - putting the cart before the horse - as the old proverb goes. The matter of baptism is being united to Christ, according to Paul, and, because of this union with Christ we receive the benefits of being dead to sin, and alive to Jesus Christ.


 You are speaking of water baptism-...... the credo baptist sees correctly that Spirit baptism comes first then the water.
Reading what you wrote*the effects of baptism* shows clearly your error.
This is the place in the discussion where the padeo says- that the credo is confused about the sign and the thing signified. Not at all. We just understand that Spirit baptism comes first in the Nt.economy.

Again you wrote;


> The word can be used for dipping, but the primary meaning of it is to immerse, to submerge, a permament putting together of two things. And, like all words, it is the context that determines the meaning of it.


 A permanent putting together of two things- What is permanent about sprinkled water? Even taking your view of water as a sign/ by itself it is not permanent! Unless the Spirit grants new birth later on.
in the context of all of romans 6 clearly it is describing actual converted persons vs16,17.
It is not speaking of what might be , but of what is. You are studying the languages. What is first? the indicitives, or the imperatives?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 9, 2010)

*Quote by Robert*


> You are immersed into Christ.



And as others have pointed out, we are baptised not only into Christ's burial and resurrection, but into everything that He has done for us. How everything Christ has done for us is symbolised by immersion in water is a mystery.


----------



## refbaptdude (Feb 9, 2010)

Now that the end to which the Lord had regard in the institution of baptism has been explained, it is easy to judge in what way we ought to use and receive it. For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. *These things, I say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed, immersed, and surrounded with water.* For this analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments—viz. that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual, just as if they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its efficacy, but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us. Nor does he merely feed our eyes with bare show; he leads us to the actual object, and effectually performs what he figures.

John Calvin - The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book 4, Chap 15, Pt 14.


----------



## MW (Feb 9, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> Or do the notes on the Westminster Assembly say why they would depart from dipping even though they affirm its use by the ancients?


 
The Annotations on Acts 8:38 shows an acknowledgment of both modes, sprinkling and dipping, with the view that "the effect is all one" and "the vertue of the sacraments consisteth not in the quantity of elements, but in the power of God's ordinance."

Immersionists recognise that quantity is not an issue in the Lord's supper and are content to take a mouth full of bread and wine rather than a whole meal, but they insist on a whole bath for washing.


----------



## Michael (Feb 9, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Immersionists recognise that quantity is not an issue in the Lord's supper and are content to take a mouth full of bread and wine rather than a whole meal, but they insist on a whole bath for washing.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 9, 2010)

Thank you, Anthony, for that kind reply:

I hope that all is going well with you, and with my former Church there on Long Island?

If I asked you the question on proving that the mode of Baptism is, as the Baptist Confession says, "Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance." Would you turn to Romans 6 as a proof-text for your position? Just about every Baptist I know would do so.

You say that I am speaking of water baptism? Not really. If I am talking about water baptism, then it is because Credo-baptists see water baptism in this passage: "buried with Him in baptism..." 

The problem is really on your side - if the Scriptures here are talking about Spirit Baptism, which is what I believe it is saying, then how does your mode of baptism follow the Work of the Holy Spirit? Is one "put into" Christ and then "taken out" of Him?

You ask the question:



> A permanent putting together of two things- What is permanent about sprinkled water? Even taking your view of water as a sign/ by itself it is not permanent! Unless the Spirit grants new birth later on.


Need I rewrite the Scripture passages that I provided to prove sprinkling/pouring as the Biblical means of typifying the Work of the Spirit? Why did you ignore such passages in my OP? They answer perfectly your question. Come now, Anthony, do not be disingenuous in your remarks.

Pergamin:

Are you going to exegete Scripture for me - or - are you going to rely on the opinions of men?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Or do the notes on the Westminster Assembly say why they would depart from dipping even though they affirm its use by the ancients?
> ...



If it is acknowledged that "the ancients" used dipping, why the departure from ancient practice?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 10, 2010)

Want a true honest answer??? 


http://www.puritanboard.com/f123/exegetical-basis-immersion-only-baptism-54351/


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2010)

Do you think dipping fell out of favor due to those who did it (i.e., the Anabaptists)?


----------



## MW (Feb 10, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> If it is acknowledged that "the ancients" used dipping, why the departure from ancient practice?


 
There was no departure from ancient practice if the ancients also used sprinkling, as noted previously. Since it was a matter of indifference, the choice of sprinkling would have been obvious as most safe for infants, most comfortable in colder climates, and most convenient and decent to be done in the church setting.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2010)

But there are compiled quotes that seem to testify that immersion was the ancient practice.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 10, 2010)

Please remember some Anabaptist were put to death unjustly for their beliefs just as the Romans were put to death also by the reformers. I would say that there was error on both sides. If need be I can show where Calvin and Luther understood the Greek term to mean immersion. But that isn't the whole of the story in my estimation. There is something about death, burial, and resurrection that means something other than a sprinkling. Just my humble opinion


----------



## MW (Feb 10, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> But there are compiled quotes that seem to testify that immersion was the ancient practice.


 
We are discussing the issue as dealt with by the Westminster Assembly, and I have shown that the selfsame Annotations which you adduce for regarding immersion as an ancient practice also maintain that sprinkling was used in the church. That being the case, there is no basis for alleging the Assembly were departing from ancient practice when they allowed for sprinkling.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 10, 2010)

Hay Martin:

The thread you pointed me to does not provide an exegetical basis for Credo-baptism. You simply state, "buried with Him in baptism..." Such is not exegetical, but, simply a statement. You have to show how this statement connects with your view of the mode of baptism.

When Paul states prior to this that you are "baptized into Christ" he is showing that baptism unites us to Christ. *Because* of this union with Christ we participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, being baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ *is a result of* being united to Christ by baptism.

The Credo-baptist exegesis of this passage strains the meaning of it to the point of eisegesis.

Blessings brother!

Rob


----------



## refbaptdude (Feb 10, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If it is acknowledged that "the ancients" used dipping, why the departure from ancient practice?
> ...



Armourbearer, then why does the entire Eastern Church continue to practice immersion? Is it not cold in the east, and is it not in inconvenient in the east to practice immersion?

I think it is obvious that the church in the west departed from the normative mode of baptism (immersion), and the Reformers likewise affirmed this was the case.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 10, 2010)

refbaptdude said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...


 
Pergamum and refbaptdude:

Do you really want to showcase the Eastern Church as an example of Reformed Orthodoxy?

You are standing on the sand of human opinion and practice. Where is your New Testament exegesis?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## refbaptdude (Feb 10, 2010)

Robert,



> Where is your New Testament exegesis?



Randy posted above the link for the exegetical basis for immersion.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 PM ----------

I depart from this discussion with a word from our friend RC Sproul.

Blessings




> Buried with Christ
> 
> by R.C. Sproul
> 
> ...


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 10, 2010)

There were other ways of baptism apart from immersion and simple sprinkling or pouring E.g. sitting or standing in the water and having the water poured or sprinkled over you. This would not satisfy hardline baptists who believe that each part of the body must be touched by water even the cephalic orifices. Nor would it satisfy superstitious Jews in their ceremonial ablutions.

When one has a bath it isn't usually by immersion and by distressing the cephalic orifices but by sitinng in the water and pouring or sprinkling it over one. Did the Lord really intend that the cephalic orifices be distressed when we bathe or are baptised?


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 10, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> There were other ways of baptism apart from immersion and simple sprinkling or pouring E.g. sitting or standing in the water and having the water poured or sprinkled over you. This would not satisfy hardline baptists who believe that each part of the body must be touched by water even the cephalic orifices. Nor would it satisfy superstitious Jews in their ceremonial ablutions.
> 
> When one has a bath it isn't usually by immersion and by distressing the cephalic orifices but by sitinng in the water and pouring or sprinkling it over one. Did the Lord really intend that the cephalic orifices be distressed when we bathe or are baptised?


 
Agreed. The link to the Warfield article (posted in # 6 above) points out that the early church fathers used the term "immerse," but the archeological evidence (such as in the photos posted) indicates something far different that the way the word "immerse" is pictured today. Either the ECF were in constant contradiction between word and practice, or else the word "immerse" is not quite as clear as some have made it out to be.

And if we look to the ancients for guidance, there are other practices that would need to be weighed: lengthy periods of instruction (up to 3 years!) for catechumens before baptism could be administered, baptism in the nude, infant baptism, etc. I'm assuming everyone on the PB would have a problem with the first two, and most of those looking to "immerse" arguments would have a problem with the third as well.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 10, 2010)

refbaptdude said:


> Robert,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hi:

It is odd. I ask for an exegetical basis for Romans 6:1ff, and I get a mass of human opinions thrown my way? Martin's thread does not take context into consideration, and, because of this, it borders on eisegesis. The R.C. Sproul quote above is simply his opinion without any exegetical work done on the text - he does not even quote from the text - but simply alludes to it!

As far as I like R.C. Sproul - he is a human being - and, therefore, fallible.

Credo-baptists pride themselves on how "Biblical" they are - even make jokes about not finding a Bible at a paedo book table. Yet, if we look at the "booktable" above all I see are references to the early church, eastern orthodoxy, various Reformed men who practice sprinkling (Calvin, Sproul, etc). It makes me wonder about Credo-baptist motivations and presuppositions.

Baptism unites us to Christ, and, because of this uniting we are buried with Him and raised with Him. Is there a Credo out there who can give me an exegetical basis for their view on Romans 6 that takes in the context?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 10, 2010)

Maybe you are looking in the wrong place for what you are asking. Maybe our attempts are missing the mark. Water is not even mentioned in the text. So is Romans 6 a text even about water baptism? I am not sure it is. Is it a picture of what Baptism is. I would say it is. 

Here is John Gill. You can either agree or disagree with him. 



> Rom 6:3 Know ye not that so many of us as, You must know this, you cannot be ignorant of it, that whoever
> 
> were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death: and therefore must be dead to sin, and consequently ought not to live, nor can they live in sin. This does not suppose, that some of this church were baptized persons, and others not; but that some might be baptized in water who were not baptized into Christ: there is a difference between being baptized in water in the name of Christ, and being baptized into Christ, which believers in their baptism are; by which is meant, not a being brought by it into union with Christ, which is either secretly from eternity, or openly at conversion, and both before the baptism of true believers; nor a being brought by it into the mystical body of Christ the church, for this also is before it; but rather it designs a being baptized, or a being brought by baptism into more communion with Christ, into a participation of his grace and benefits; or into the doctrine of Christ, and a more distinct knowledge of it: the power of which they feel upon their hearts, and so have really believed in Christ, heartily love him, and make a sincere profession of him; though rather the true meaning of the phrase "baptized into Christ", I take to be, is to be baptized purely for the sake of Christ, in imitation of him, who has set us an example, and because baptism is an ordinance of his; it is to submit to it with a view to his glory, to testify our affection for him, and subjection to him, without laying any stress or dependence on it for salvation; such who are thus baptized, are "baptized into his death"; they not only resemble Christ in his sufferings and death, by being immersed in water, but they declare their faith in the death of Christ, and also share in the benefits of his death; such as peace, pardon, righteousness, and atonement: now this proves, that such persons are dead to sin, who are so baptized; for by the death of Christ, into which they are baptized, they are justified from sin; by the death of Christ, their old man is crucified, and the body of sin destroyed; besides, believers in baptism profess themselves to be dead to sin and the world, and their baptism is an obligation upon them to live unto righteousness.
> 
> ...



Be Encouraged Rob.


----------



## Iconoclast (Feb 10, 2010)

Rob,
I hope you are doing well also. The last time we chatted I think it was on a similar thread. Allow me to interact with your posts in more detail now. You asked the following in your response;


> Need I rewrite the Scripture passages that I provided to prove sprinkling/pouring as the Biblical means of typifying the Work of the Spirit? Why did you ignore such passages in my OP? They answer perfectly your question. Come now, Anthony, do not be disingenuous in your remarks.


 I ignored the references because I believe there are bigger fish to fry. I have no problems with the verses you cited from Acts in reference to the Spirits being poured out. I think there were other issues that need to be addressed in the OP.
I am glad we agree that Romans 6 is primarily speaking of Spirit Baptism.
I see how you view the work in a different way however. Let me react to your statements, and perhaps you could expand or clarify them for me as time permits. let me start with the easy ones first.
You asked me this;


> If I asked you the question on proving that the mode of Baptism is, as the Baptist Confession says, "Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance." Would you turn to Romans 6 as a proof-text for your position? Just about every Baptist I know would do so.


 Yes I would turn to Romans 6 but not for the reasons you cite in the OP/


> The plunging into water (baptism) is supposed to figure our union with Christ, then taking the child of God out of the water would figure being taken out of union with Christ. Thus, dipping would not figure the nature of Baptism correctly. Baptism is correctly done by sprinkling or pouring which signifies the Work of the Spirit of God in uniting us to Christ far more correctly:


 Rob.... I think your premise is wrong. Immersion in water symbolizes death, *not union*. as I have posted before;
In the day of Noah the ungodly perish in water....full immersion/not sprinkling 1pet3:20-21
In the time of Moses the ungodly perish in water....full immersion/not sprinkling 1cor10
Those with Noah were rightly related to the judgment by water/the answer of a good conscience toward God
Those with Moses were rightly related to the judgment by water/they were said to be baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
Clearly the immersion in water was death. Yet The baptism speaks of union with the living.In each case Those in the Ark, and those baptized into Moses come through the judgment and death of the water.
We in Christ by Spirit baptism come through the judgment and seperation of death, alive in newness of life.
So when you state the following;


> The plunging into water (baptism) is supposed to figure our union with Christ, then taking the child of God out of the water would figure being taken out of union with Christ. Thus, dipping would not figure the nature of Baptism correctly


 This makes no sense at all. No one can ever be seperated from the love of God, which is *In Christ*Rom8:39
I see this as a strawman then because it does not represent any baptist that I know. The mode then can be immersion.
The unseen work of the Spirit is demonstrated by the obediance of faith in believers baptism, the answer of a good conscience to God.
could you re-word this alleged error a bit more;


> The Credo-baptist makes the error of assigning the effects of baptism as the matter of it - putting the cart before the horse - as the old proverb goes. The matter of baptism is being united to Christ, according to Paul, and, because of this union with Christ we receive the benefits of being dead to sin, and alive to Jesus Christ.


 The effects of baptism as the matter of it? just reword this so I do not mis-understand your statement.

In the Op you say this next;


> By saying that Baptism makes us "dead to sin, and alive to Christ" is simply not correct. Our union with Christ (which is what Baptism signifies) makes us dead to sin, and alive to Christ.


 Using your quote here ....Rob.....Which baptism are you speaking of?
If you are speaking of Spirit baptism your first statement is false.
And if your second statement is about Spirit baptism as then *only credo baptism speaks accurately to this justified condition.*


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 10, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> There were other ways of baptism apart from immersion and simple sprinkling or pouring E.g. sitting or standing in the water and having the water poured or sprinkled over you. This would not satisfy hardline baptists who believe that each part of the body must be touched by water even the cephalic orifices. Nor would it satisfy superstitious Jews in their ceremonial ablutions.
> 
> When one has a bath it isn't usually by immersion and by distressing the cephalic orifices but by sitinng in the water and pouring or sprinkling it over one. Did the Lord really intend that the cephalic orifices be distressed when we bathe or are baptised?


 
Wow, the "let's not stress the cephalic orifice argument"! That's a new one for me.


However, I am intrigued by the pictures. In what year were they taken and do you have more. I would love to start a thread dealing specifically with the art depicting baptism and what mode the people depicted use. Thanks for the pics, do you have more?

---------- Post added 02-11-2010 at 12:00 AM ---------- Previous post was 02-10-2010 at 11:59 PM ----------




CalvinandHodges said:


> refbaptdude said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...


 
They spoke Greek, and still do. baptism comes from a Greek word.


Rome was not much better than the greeks.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 10, 2010)

Pergy, the article by Warfield details the various drawings, etc., and their dates, If I recall correctly.


----------



## MW (Feb 10, 2010)

refbaptdude said:


> Armourbearer, then why does the entire Eastern Church continue to practice immersion? Is it not cold in the east, and is it not in inconvenient in the east to practice immersion?



We were discussing the Westminster Assembly. The practice of the Eastern Church has nothing to do with it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Feb 11, 2010)

Iconoclast said:


> Rob,
> I hope you are doing well also. The last time we chatted I think it was on a similar thread. Allow me to interact with your posts in more detail now. You asked the following in your response;
> 
> 
> ...


*

Hello Anthony:

Please do not ignore the Scripture citations in the future - especially when they answer the questions you raise. Thanks.

Your Credo-baptist position makes you confused on what Paul is saying in Romans 6. This is because Paul is speaking about Baptism in the Spirit (Regeneration, or, Effectual Calling), and the Credo-baptist insists on thinking this passage is about Water baptism. The very words of this text are a part of the Credo-baptist water baptism: "buried with Him in Baptism..."

Also, I am not using this text as a proof-text for Infant Baptism. We both agree that adult believers are to be baptized. We do not agree that the infant children of adult believers should be baptized as well. Infant baptism is proved in other passages of Scripture. I am addressing the rather poor exegesis that Credo-baptists make regarding this passage.

Paul's statement that we are "Baptized into Christ" means that Baptism unites us to Jesus Christ. Only Spirit baptism (regeneration) does this effectively. Being united to Christ you then follow where Christ has gone - into His death, and, into His resurrection. The Credo-baptist has confused the essence of baptism (regeneration) with the effects of baptism (death and resurrection). It is from this view that the Credo-baptist derives his views concerning Water baptism as dipping.

Since Baptism of the Spirit is another term for union with Christ (regeneration) I am glad that you agree that dipping "makes no sense at all." In dipping the believer is plunged into the Spirit (represented by the water), and then he/she is taken out of the water. Whereas the Scriptures everywhere depict the Spirit of God as being poured out upon the Church (I refer you to those passages of Scripture cited earlier that you ignored). There are two things you should consider here:

1) The believer is not being put into the Spirit - as dipping signifies. But, just the opposite, the Spirit is being given to the believer in regeneration. This is consistent with Reformed theology - the Spirit of God must first enter into a person, and make him/her regenerate before he/she can believe in Jesus. Baptism by sprinkling/pouring beautifully illustrates the Work of the Spirit in regeneration.

2) The use of the word immersion here is typological rather than literal. You are immersed (merged, united) to Christ, and, because of this immersion you are united to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Being immersed into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is an effect of being immersed in Him. In other words: You must first be immersed into Christ before you are immersed into the effects of this union (death and resurrection).

To put it simply: The matter of Spirit baptism is union with Christ. The effects of Spirit baptism is becoming dead to sin and alive to Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Rob

PS: By the way, in the case of Noah and Moses the people of God were never touched by water - only the unbelievers were immersed! 

-RPW*


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 11, 2010)

*Quote from Pergy*


> > Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
> > There were other ways of baptism apart from immersion and simple sprinkling or pouring E.g. sitting or standing in the water and having the water poured or sprinkled over you. This would not satisfy hardline baptists who believe that each part of the body must be touched by water even the cephalic orifices. Nor would it satisfy superstitious Jews in their ceremonial ablutions
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. From now on the paedobaptists will be able to add the distressed cephalic orifices argument to their arsenal of arguments against the necessity of immersion  

I do have some pics of the Apostle Paul baptising in Corinth. But they'll cost you.

All you need to do is to google an images search for "early christian baptism(s)" or something like that.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 12, 2010)

I don't know if Eastern Orthodox churches (always?) baptise by immersion.

I remember seeing the baptism of a baby in an Eartern Orthodox church on TV. 

The nude and rather plump baby was placed with his lower-half sitting in the water in rather large font while - if I remember correctly - water was splashed onto his upper-half. 

I don't think he looked too happy at being man-handled by the priest.


----------

