# Sprinkling vs Dunking



## steven-nemes

Does it matter?


----------



## Theognome

This is a strange question. 

I could understand Dunkin VS Winchell's, or Sprinkles VS Glazed, but I don't see a comparison here.

Theognome


----------



## Roldan

Theognome said:


> This is a strange question.
> 
> I could understand Dunkin VS Winchell's, or Sprinkles VS Glazed, but I don't see a comparison here.
> 
> Theognome



lol


----------



## Jon 316

A Presbyterian and a baptist were debating methods of baptism.

Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my ankles, would that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my knees, will that be enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: Up to my waist?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: What about up to my neck, if I get in to a pool up to my neck, surely that is enough?
Baptist: No.
Presbyterian: Right then, what about up to my ears? If I get wet up to my ears, that MUST be enough?
Baptist: NO! 
Presbyterian: I knew it! I was right all along! Its the top of your head which matters!!!


----------



## Knoxienne

Jon 316 said:


> A Presbyterian and a baptist were debating methods of baptism.
> 
> Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my ankles, would that be enough?
> Baptist: No.
> Presbyterian: If I get wet up to my knees, will that be enough?
> Baptist: No.
> Presbyterian: Up to my waist?
> Baptist: No.
> Presbyterian: What about up to my neck, if I get in to a pool up to my neck, surely that is enough?
> Baptist: No.
> Presbyterian: Right then, what about up to my ears? If I get wet up to my ears, that MUST be enough?
> Baptist: NO!
> Presbyterian: I knew it! I was right all along! Its the top of your head which matters!!!


----------



## Kim G

I'm a credo-baptist (for now . . . you know how that goes) but I have no preference concerning mode of baptism.


----------



## Poimen

Steven:

It depends who you ask.

For many if not most Baptists they would say that the meaning of the words 'baptize' or 'baptism' is 'immersion'. In order then to obey the command of the Lord one would, in this view, have to be immersed in order to have a real baptism.

For many if not most Presbyterians and Reformed the meaning of the word 'baptize' or 'baptism' is broader and includes the idea of washing, pouring and sprinkling. However many would argue that pouring or sprinkling best symbolizes the atonement of Christ and the outpouring (regeneration) of the Holy Spirit because the person is entirely passive in the event, therefore demonstrating in a visible or outward way the sovereignty of God in salvation. 

Broadly speaking then, it matters more for the Baptist than the Presbyterian.


----------



## Jon 316

I guess there is also the whole 'death and burial and resurection' symbolism associated with baptism. Although I am aware that Berkhof hammers this argument. But its definetly in Romans. I would say immersion communicates that aspect of ourt salvation more clearly than sprinkling.


----------



## CharlieJ

Jon 316 said:


> I guess there is also the whole 'death and burial and resurection' symbolism associated with baptism. Although I am aware that Berkhof hammers this argument. But its definetly in Romans. I would say immersion communicates that aspect of ourt salvation more clearly than sprinkling.



Romans 6:4-6 uses three συν- verbs to describe the relationship between Christ and the believer signified in baptism.

συνεταφημεν - buried with
συμφυτοι - planted with
συνεσταυρωθη - crucified with

Does it not seem arbitrary to insist that we must take the first verb as God's intention for how baptism is to be visibly portrayed, while ignoring the other two? Which mode visually looks like crucifixion? Also, Jesus was buried by being laid into a chamber hewed out of the side of a rock face. Baptism by immersion doesn't really depict that very well.


----------



## dannyhyde

I wrote an entire chapter on this issue in my book, [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Loves-Little-Children-Baptize/dp/0965398196/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235166767&sr=8-7"]Jesus Loves the Little Children[/ame].

Here is what Calvin said:
"Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.19).​
To answer the question of whether Romans 6 means we must be immersed to be "buried and raised" with Christ, at the end of my chapter I say the following:

To summarize, let us think about two questions. First, if immersion is necessary for a baptism to be valid, as it is said Romans 6 and Colossians 2 teach, then why isn’t putting on a new pair of clothes after coming out of the water necessary? After all, Paul says in Galatians 3:27, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Christ here is thought of as a garment enveloping the believer and symbolizing his new spiritual existence. This metaphor comes from the Old Testament where changing clothes represents an inward and spiritual change (cf. Isa. 61:10; Zech. 3:3f.). Furthermore, in Romans 6 Paul does not only speak of being united with Christ’s burial and resurrection, but also his crucifixion” (Rom. 6:6). How is this signified in immersion? The point being that baptism signifies so much more than just merely our burial and resurrection with Christ and that to only look at two of the images in Romans and Colossians is arbitrary. 

Shouldn’t we be consistent and follow all that these texts supposedly say?

Second, if the mode of immersion is necessary for baptism, then why not for the other New Covenant sacrament, the Lord’s Supper? After all, Jesus instituted his Supper at Passover (Matthew 26:17). Shouldn’t we, then, partake of this meal once a year on the Passover? He institutes it at night (Matthew 26:20). This would mean the end of our “first Sunday morning of every month” practice of communion. Jesus gave his disciples holy communion while reclining at a table (Matthew 26:20). Should we get rid of pews? It was celebrated in an upper room (Mark 14:15). So do our church’s need to be at least two stories tall? Jesus shared with his disciples a common cup (Matthew 26:27). Is this the end of individual plastic cups? As well, Jesus and his disciples most likely drank wine and ate the unleavened bread of the Passover.

These are important parallels to ponder so that we do not become overly divisive about the precise form of partaking of the sacraments. What is important is what they signify about Christ and his relationship to us and our relationship to his body, the Church.​


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Lloyd Sprinkle (Baptist) and the late Don Dunkerley (PCA) were speaking at the same event. 

Someone noted the odd humor of having a Baptist named “sprinkle” and a Presbyterian named “DUNKerley” in the same venue. 

When Dunkerley had opportunity to comment, he pointed out his name was “Dunk early”!

The candidate is more important than the mode.


----------



## Jon 316

CharlieJ said:


> Jon 316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess there is also the whole 'death and burial and resurection' symbolism associated with baptism. Although I am aware that Berkhof hammers this argument. But its definetly in Romans. I would say immersion communicates that aspect of ourt salvation more clearly than sprinkling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 6:4-6 uses three συν- verbs to describe the relationship between Christ and the believer signified in baptism.
> 
> συνεταφημεν - buried with
> συμφυτοι - planted with
> συνεσταυρωθη - crucified with
> 
> Does it not seem arbitrary to insist that we must take the first verb as God's intention for how baptism is to be visibly portrayed, while ignoring the other two? Which mode visually looks like crucifixion? Also, Jesus was buried by being laid into a chamber hewed out of the side of a rock face. Baptism by immersion doesn't really depict that very well.
Click to expand...


fair point... hmmm Berkhof kinda ruined that whole thought process for me a while back  shame pre berkhof I thought the argument was water tight...


----------



## charliejunfan

My Reformed Baptist friend told me to be consistant as a Paedo baptist I must baptize animals, cause animals were in the Ark that was baptized by the flood.


----------



## Jon 316

charliejunfan said:


> My Reformed Baptist friend told me to be consistant as a Paedo baptist I must baptize animals, cause animals were in the Ark that was baptized by the flood.



A reformed baptist would say that though... I guess it doesnt make him right... doh I'm supposed to be a baptist! hmmm


----------



## charliejunfan

John! Join the Dark Side!!!!


----------



## Ivan

Mode is not important.


----------



## refbaptdude

Ivan said:


> Mode is not important.



Ivan, seriously if it is not important then take it out of your church name!


----------



## refbaptdude

> Broadly speaking then, it matters more for the Baptist than the Presbyterian.



Daniel,

Of course it matters for the entire Eastern Church also

Orthodox Infant Baptism - AOL Video

and

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-GeqkQHJDI"]YouTube - Alexandra's Baptism 1[/ame]




Steve


----------



## Hippo

Ivan said:


> Mode is not important.



It is strange then that the confessional Baptist position is to refuse the Lord's Supper to those whose mode of Baptism differs from immersion.

I can understand the insistance on Baptism on profession, I have never understood any defensible justification for the mode being of equal importance.


----------



## A.J.

steven-nemes said:


> Does it matter?



What you believe about the mode of baptism does matter. 

If Baptists are right, then pouring and sprinkling are not valid modes. Those baptized by pouring or sprinkling are not validly baptized. But if Presbyterians are right, then Baptists are insisting something that is not found in Scripture. The latter are un-baptizing those whom the Bible recognizes as validly baptized. 

Baptists see the mode of immersion as essential to the valid administration of baptism. They say that it is the only consistent mode with the Bible's depiction of baptism's symbolism which is an identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12). Presbyterians on the contrary do not see the mode as essential. Though they accept immersion as a valid mode, they see pouring and sprinkling as the proper modes. They contend that baptism (the sign) must be consistent with the thing it signifies, namely, the pouring out/falling upon of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2, 10 and 11; cf. Titus 3) and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (Hebrews 9-10).


----------



## Croghanite

refbaptdude said:


> Broadly speaking then, it matters more for the Baptist than the Presbyterian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> 
> Of course it matters for the entire Eastern Church also
> 
> Orthodox Infant Baptism - AOL Video
> 
> and
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-GeqkQHJDI"]YouTube - Alexandra's Baptism 1[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve
Click to expand...


oh my....


----------



## refbaptdude

> Here is what Calvin said:
> "Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.19).



Of course Calvin also said:

John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15) 

John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John
John 3:22-23
22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. _*From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water;* though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule._ So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.


----------



## Jon 316

Ok, just to remain true to my baptist colors...



> Acts 8: 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch *went down into the water*, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they *came up out of the water,* the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.



Perhaps one of the only bible texts to describe something of the event of baptism??


----------



## refbaptdude

> Good catch. Although this only proves that Calvin was not dealing with all of the issues.



Rob,

How do you explain the practice of the entire Eastern Church (Greek Orthodox, etc)?

Rob the post that you deleted needs to deal with the practice of the Eastern Church, your not dealing with all the issues ; )

Thanks


----------



## uberkermit

refbaptdude said:


> Good catch. Although this only proves that Calvin was not dealing with all of the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> How do you explain the practice of the entire Eastern Church (Greek Orthodox, etc)?
> 
> 
> Rob the post that you deleted needs to deal with the practice of the Eastern Church, your not dealing with all the issues ; )
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...


I don't need to explain their [Greek Orthodox] practice. They are not exactly my model of orthodoxy, nor are they yours, I would presume. The fact that they practice such things proves little to me. Neither they, nor the Baptists get down to the text when the gospel writers use the words for wash and baptise interchangeably. (c.f. Matthew 15:2 and Luke 11:38)

I did delete the post, as I thought twice about inciting more debate over a very much debated subject.


----------



## refbaptdude

And I guess the words of Calvin and Luther mean little to you also?

Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word." 

Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).

Unfortunately it is a much debated issue.

Your brother in Christ


----------



## A.J.

Jon 316 said:


> Perhaps one of the only bible texts to describe something of the event of baptism??



Hi John. I don't think the text describes immersion. Does it not say that _both_ Philip and the eunuch were involved in the going down and the coming up out of the water? 



> And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they *both went down into the water*, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when *they came up out of the water*, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. - Acts 8:38-39 (ESV)



If this teaches that the recipient of baptism was immersed, then does this not mean that the one who administered baptism was immersed as well?


----------



## Michael Doyle

> Acts 8: 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.



Hi John, I believe first off, it is highly unlikely there was a body of water with significant depth in the middle of the desert as is spoken in v. 26


> "Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place,"


 that would allow for full immersion.


----------



## Jon 316

Michael Doyle said:


> Acts 8: 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi John, I believe first off, it is highly unlikely there was a body of water with significant depth in the middle of the desert as is spoken in v. 26
> 
> 
> 
> "Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would allow for full immersion.
Click to expand...


oh dear, everything I have been taught about full immersion seems to be based upon a lot of assumptions.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

John,
Be patient with yourself. I think you've recently come into a Calvinistic frame of reference, and that can be a period of great excitement, as well as great turmoil. As a baptized believer, I don't think you need to stress over the issue of baptism at present.

What I think is good is when everyone (everyone!) stops, takes a step back, and realizes that no one (no one!) just reads the Bible like a virgin, "and if you just read it as simple and straightforward you'll have to agree that I'm right!" Someone is bound to come along, and point out difficulties that in-house discussions frequently gloss over.

Their points don't have to be true or correct criticisms; however, we do well to realize they just did us a favor. Being a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Methodist, or a Presbyterian (etc.) isn't just a matter of "a clear reading of Scripture." Those words are simply a cudgel to beat up people who have sincere disagreements with us. When we realize that other people might actually have some biblical grounds for their disagreement, however mistaken, it ought to make us more humble and patient.


----------



## ww

steven-nemes said:


> Does it matter?



If it does I'm covered because I was Sprinkled as an infant and Dunked as a Young Child.


----------



## Turtle

whitway said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it does I'm covered because I was Sprinkled as an infant and Dunked as a Young Child.
Click to expand...


We are all covered because Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.


----------



## YXU

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


----------



## Rogerant

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?


----------



## VictorBravo

Rogerant said:


> 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.



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

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!


----------



## Rogerant

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.


----------



## christiana

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!


----------



## VictorBravo

Rogerant said:


> 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.



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. . . .


----------



## Rogerant

Yes, I believe that *All* scripture is God breathed. But I do not believe that the Septuagent translation is God inspired. Nor do any of the confessions including the WCF or the 3 forms of unity.


----------



## DMcFadden

refbaptdude said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mode is not important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan, seriously if it is not important then take it out of your church name!
Click to expand...


[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

It seems like the historic Particular Baptists viewed immersion as necessary to the due administration of baptism.



> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, *is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance*. (LBC 29.4)


----------



## refbaptdude

TaylorOtwell said:


> It seems like the historic Particular Baptists viewed immersion as necessary to the due administration of baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, *is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance*. (LBC 29.4)
Click to expand...


And the 1644 confession declares:


> The way and manner of the dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under water: it being a sign, must answer the thing signified, which are these: first, the washing the whole soul in the blood of Christ: Secondly, that interest the Saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection; thirdly, together with a confirmation of our faith, that as certainly as the body is buried under water, and riseth again, so certainly shall the bodies of the Saints be raised by the power of Christ in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ. [The word Baptizo, signifying to dip under water, yet so as with convenient garments both upon the administrator and subject, with all modesty.]


----------



## Matthias

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

TaylorOtwell said:


> It seems like the historic Particular Baptists viewed immersion as necessary to the due administration of baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, *is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance*. (LBC 29.4)
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Peairtach

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.


----------



## Skyler

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

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

> Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."
> 
> Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).
> 
> Unfortunately it is a much debated issue.
> 
> Your brother in Christ



If only the debate were that easy.


----------



## Rogerant

*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?


----------



## relostuff

*Wet them and then Train them up in the ways of the Lord.*



refbaptdude said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mode is not important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan, seriously if it is not important then take it out of your church name!
Click to expand...


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

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-----



Rogerant said:


> 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?



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

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.


----------



## Marrow Man

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.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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.


----------



## Gator_Baptist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 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.



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

Gator_Baptist said:


> 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.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I did find this in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under Baptism (Lutheran).



> I. The Term
> 1. The Derivation
> The word “baptism” is the Anglicized form of the Greek báptisma, or baptismóš. These Greek words are verbal nouns derived from baptı́zō, which, again, is the intensive form of the verb báptō̌. “Baptismos denotes the action of baptı́zein (the baptizing), baptisma the result of the action (the baptism)” (Cremer). This distinction differs from, but is not necessarily contrary to, that of Plummer, who infers from Mar_7:4 and Heb_9:10 that baptismos usually means lustrations or ceremonial washings, and from Rom_6:4; Eph_4:1 Pet Eph_3:21 that baptisma denotes baptism proper (Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes)).
> 2. The Meaning
> The Greek words from which our English “baptism” has been formed are used by Greek writers, in classical antiquity, in the Septuagint and in the New Testament, with a great latitude of meaning. It is not possible to exhaust their meaning by any single English term. The action which the Greek words express may be performed by plunging, drenching, staining, dipping, sprinkling. The nouns baptisma and baptismos do not occur in the Septuagint;* the verb baptizō occurs only in four places*, and in two of them in a figurative sense (2Ki_5:14; Judith 12:7; Isa_21:4; Ecclesiasticus @@31 (34):25). Wherever these words occur in the New Testament, the context or, in the case of quotations, a comparison with the Old Testament will in many instances suggest which of the various renderings noted above should be adopted (compare Mar_7:4; Heb_9:10 with Num_19:18, Num_19:19; Num_8:7; Exo_24:4-6; Act_2:16, Act_2:17, Act_2:41 with Joe_2:28). But there are passages in which the particular form of the act of baptizing remains in doubt. “The assertion that the command to baptize is a command to immerse is utterly unauthorized” (Hodge).
> 3. The Application
> In the majority of Biblical instances the verbs and nouns denoting baptism are used in a lit sense, and signify the application of water to an object or a person for a certain purpose. The ceremonial washings of the Jews, the baptism of proselytes to the Jewish faith, common in the days of Christ, the baptism of John and of the disciples of Christ prior to the Day of Pentecost, and the Christian sacrament of baptism, are literal baptisms (baptismus fluminis, “baptism of the river,” i.e. water). But Scripture speaks also of figurative baptisms, without water (Mat_20:22; Mar_10:38; Luk_12:50 = the sufferings which overwhelmed Christ and His followers, especially the martyrs - baptismus sanguinis, “baptism of blood”; Mat_3:11; Mar_1:8; Luk_3:16; Act_1:5; Act_11:16 = the outpouring of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which was a characteristic phenomenon of primitive Christianity - baptismus flaminis, “baptism of wind, breeze,” i.e. “spirit”). Some even take Mat_21:25; Mar_11:30; Act_18:25; 1Co_10:2 in a synecdochical sense, for doctrine of faith, baptism being a prominent feature of that doctrine (baptismus luminis, “baptism of light”).



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

Marrow Man said:


> 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

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.


----------



## AThornquist

Gator_Baptist said:


> 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?



Good debate would give a lot more fact with evidence and a whole lot less one line assertions. And I say that in all kindness, brother.


----------



## Marrow Man

Gator_Baptist said:


> 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 are free to debate all you wish, as long as you consider a couple of things:

1) Scripture does not _clearly_ teach immersion. In fact, I would argue that Scripture is indifferent about the mode. The meaning of baptism points more to our union with Christ and any debates about the "true mode" of baptism makes the focus not Christ but a quantity of water. You may not be intending this way, but to some it is going to sound a tad arrogant.

2) Avoid throwing around words like "Romanism" at other PB members. That will likely get you banned rather quickly.

I say this with moderator (and not Presbyterian) hat firmly on -- please treat the opinions of others on the PB with respect. Do not post a comment that is bound to insult a large portion of members on this PB. As I said, debate and discuss as you wish, but remember that you are discussing these matters with Christian brothers and sisters. Do not come in looking for a fight.


----------



## Gator_Baptist

Prufrock said:


> Gator_Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


OK. That makes a little more sense, and it certainly helps the paedo position, but it is far from convincing me that the Apostles were talking about sprinkling.

How do we know that the divinely inspired use of the word baptiso is the same as its uninspired usages? Shouldn't we seek divinely inspired sources to interpret the meaning of the divinely inspired word baptiso?


----------



## toddpedlar

Gator_Baptist said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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*_
Click to expand...


"this change"? 

The problem is that in saying things this way you are have already
closed the door to any alternative other than your accepted position.


----------



## JM

I do believe the mode is important, as Bavinck points out, "baptism was a momentous and life-changing event for the believer."

In the missionary context of the early church, the rebirth signified by baptism was a momentous and life-changing event for the believer. Moving beyond this context, as the church began baptizing infants and children, the connection between baptism and regeneration had to be modified. In Western Catholicism, regeneration was increasingly understood in terms of the infusion of sacramental grace at the time of baptism. In the Eastern Church, a similar result was achieved but thought of in terms of implanting a new seed of immortality. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics vol. 4 pg. 30​


----------



## Prufrock

Gator_Baptist said:


> OK. That makes a little more sense, and it certainly helps the paedo position, but it is far from convincing me that the Apostles were talking about sprinkling.
> 
> How do we know that the divinely inspired use of the word baptiso is the same as its uninspired usages? Shouldn't we seek divinely inspired sources to interpret the meaning of the divinely inspired word baptiso?



McLeod, of course we need to understand what baptism is from scripture. But citing non-immersion uses of the word is a quick way to point out that the word does _not_ strictly and only have the meaning "immerse."

If you would like to read a good thread on strictly the meaning of the term, read this one. I am pretty sure that this thread dealt well with the issue.

Bottom line -- if the Baptist starts from Romans 6 and _assumes_ that the image of burial is the basis of baptism, then you will be set in your ways. We start from other scriptures, and understand baptism in that light. It will be a matter of who can better exegetically defend their claim.


----------



## Gator_Baptist

Marrow Man said:


> Gator_Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 are free to debate all you wish, as long as you consider a couple of things:
> 
> 1) Scripture does not _clearly_ teach immersion. In fact, I would argue that Scripture is indifferent about the mode. The meaning of baptism points more to our union with Christ and any debates about the "true mode" of baptism makes the focus not Christ but a quantity of water. You may not be intending this way, but to some it is going to sound a tad arrogant.
> 
> 2) Avoid throwing around words like "Romanism" at other PB members. That will likely get you banned rather quickly.
> 
> I say this with moderator (and not Presbyterian) hat firmly on -- please treat the opinions of others on the PB with respect. Do not post a comment that is bound to insult a large portion of members on this PB. As I said, debate and discuss as you wish, but remember that you are discussing these matters with Christian brothers and sisters. Do not come in looking for a fight.
Click to expand...


I could see how the Romanism comment could really be taken the wrong way, and I apologize to all that I offended. It was just what came in my head at the time and I just wasn't thinking before I posted. I will try to be more thoughtful of others when I post from now on.


----------



## Marrow Man

Maybe the eyes are tired or I'm just dull at this hour, JM, but where does that quote from Bavinck say anything about the importance of mode?


----------



## JM

Marrow Man said:


> Maybe the eyes are tired or I'm just dull at this hour, JM, but where does that quote from Bavinck say anything about the importance of mode?



 Apologies. That would be my eyes that are tired and I'm always dull.


----------



## Marrow Man

Gator_Baptist said:


> I could see how the Romanism comment could really be taken the wrong way, and I apologize to all that I offended. It was just what came in my head at the time and I just wasn't thinking before I posted. I will try to be more thoughtful of others when I post from now on.



The humbleness of your response is greatly appreciated. I myself have been guilty (on other boards) of posting first and asking questions later. I found (long before I became a mod) that the PB runs a much tighter ship, and that was greatly appreciated. I didn't want you to get off to a rough start or for the thread to derail either.

Thanks again for the willingness to reconsider and to post an apology.


----------



## ww

With the talk of Baptist Successionism, the Textus Receptus, and Infant Baptism being "Roman Catholic" I thought I may have stumbled into the wrong Discussion Board. Good to know it was an _*faux pas *_and an apology was offered and accepted.


----------



## Iconoclast

> 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.
> __________________
> Richard
> communicant member, FCoS
> Perth, Scotland UK



Richard,
Does Jonah inside the fish immersed in the depths of water better show the imagery of "being planted" together in the likeness of His death?
The fish was not a tomb with a door. Nevertheless;


> 39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
> 
> 40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
> 
> 41The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
> 
> 42The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this



The Romans 6 teaching shows our saving union with Christ, by Spirit baptism.
This explains the other verses usually cited as this one


> Rogerant 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?



Any proper baptism has reference to being rightly related to the judgment being spoken of/ 1Pet 3:21 1Cor 10


----------



## A.J.

Gator_Baptist said:


> OK. That makes a little more sense, and it certainly helps the paedo position, but it is far from convincing me that the Apostles were talking about sprinkling.
> 
> How do we know that the divinely inspired use of the word baptiso is the same as its uninspired usages? Shouldn't we seek divinely inspired sources to interpret the meaning of the divinely inspired word baptiso?



McLeod, it might surprise you to know that paedobaptists believe in sprinkling as a mode of baptism primarily and ultimately because of the way the _divinely inspired Bible itself_ *uses its own terms*. For a look into the Reformed arguments for sprinkling, see http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/why-sprinkling-random-board-49394/. That thread was started just a week ago, and it would be better to ask your questions there. Look especially at the exegetical evidence Pastor Bruce Buchanan (*Contra_Mundum*) presents there. Thanks.


----------



## galactic reformer

christiana said:


> 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 did they baptise people in NT days?


----------



## reformedminister




----------



## galactic reformer

galactic reformer said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 did they baptise people in NT days?
Click to expand...


Mistake. Scratch BAPTISM and insert BURY.

How did they bury people in the NT times? How was Jesus buried? Clarification made...LOL.


----------



## jogri17

most presbyteriens would accept immersion as a valid form of baptism. we just think your sinning by not baptizing your kids!


----------



## Skyler

Hmm. Nowadays, when we bury someone, it's usually by sprinkling, isn't it? We dig a hole, then sprinkle the dirt on top of the casket.

...hmm...


----------



## ExGentibus

Honestly, I never understood why Romans 6:4 would have anything at all to do with the _mode_ of baptism rather than its meaning.


----------



## Whitefield

Skyler said:


> Hmm. Nowadays, when we bury someone, it's usually by sprinkling, isn't it? We dig a hole, then sprinkle the dirt on top of the casket.
> 
> ...hmm...



It's either that or full casket immersion in flowing dirt.


----------

