Paedo-Baptism Answers Trine Baptism

[David073]

What are your thoughts concerning trine baptism (the applying of water thrice upon the head)?

I’ve heard others making a case for it by saying it’s akin to the mode of baptism and is to be left up to the discretion of the session; that it was the widely accepted general consensus in the early post-apostolic church; and that the didache makes mention of it and since it’s the earliest witness of the church’s baptismal practice it is lawful.

Personally, I don’t see any of the reasons stated as being satisfactory in light of scripture. It seems to me that it is allowing tradition or history to dictate how the water is to be applied and not the scripture. This would appear to not only violate sola scriptura, but also the scriptural principle of worship. I think trine baptism was seemingly an overreaction to the various heretical sects that came about regarding the triunity of the godhead, and isn’t the more appropriate way to apply the water. I don’t believe trine baptism to be an invalid form, just not appropriate.

 

[Pomopu]

If baptism were analogous to baking a cake, this question would be like this . . A dash of vanilla, is it 10 or 20 milliliters? So I think it is silly to stand against trine baptism. Personally, I'm satisfied with the witness of the church of all history on this one. Not just antiquity but ubiquity makes me buy into trine baptism; all the men be doing it, as the kids say, for all of the times of church history, on the whole. Sounds like a deviation from it would be more a self-righteous act of placing oneself outside the church catholic, for no really significant reason, other than, I guess, being a unique minority hyper-fixating on a dash of vanilla. Calvin didn't care about the mode. I'll be no stricter than Calvin.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yeah, it is adiaphora. Some ministers say "... in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and THEN apply water... some apply water at "the Father" and again at "the Son" and again at "the Holy Spirit"... some (like me) dip hand into the water, bring hand to their head, and apply the water onto the head, in one motion, AS I'm saying the Trinitarian formula.

 

[Wilhelmus à Broccoli]

The Didache (which predates the Arian controversy) recommends it if running and/or standing water is not available. I'd describe it as abnormal but precedented.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a paedobaptist but this answer is not an inherently credobaptist answer. It was information I thought might be helpful.)

 

[David073]

If baptism were analogous to baking a cake, this question would be like this . . A dash of vanilla, is it 10 or 20 milliliters? So I think it is silly to stand against trine baptism. Personally, I'm satisfied with the witness of the church of all history on this one. Not just antiquity but ubiquity makes me buy into trine baptism; all the men be doing it, as the kids say, for all of the times of church history, on the whole. Sounds like a deviation from it would be more a self-righteous act of placing oneself outside the church catholic, for no really significant reason, other than, I guess, being a unique minority hyper-fixating on a dash of vanilla. Calvin didn't care about the mode. I'll be no stricter than Calvin.

I understand your point, but again wouldn’t the allowance of a majority consensus in the early church be allowing outside sources to dictate a command of God? Should we not allow the scriptures to speak for themselves on the matter? Again I don’t think that trine baptism is invalid by any means, just odd. To me it’s the same as if a Presbyterian session chose to perform all baptisms by immersion. It’s still valid, just odd and lacks scriptural support.
[automerge]1747082463[/automerge]

Yeah, it is adiaphora. Some ministers say "... in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and THEN apply water... some apply water at "the Father" and again at "the Son" and again at "the Holy Spirit"... some (like me) dip hand into the water, bring hand to their head, and apply the water onto the head, in one motion, AS I'm saying the Trinitarian formula.

Wouldn’t the thrice application of water communicate a thrice baptism? Also couldn’t the trine application communicate three essences rather than the triune nature of God, being baptized into the singular name of the Lord?

 

[Pomopu]

Wouldn’t the thrice application of water communicate a thrice baptism?

It wouldn't, anymore than the triple, quadruple, or quintuple click of a turn signal on a car at an intersection indicates one is turning three, or four, or five times.

 

[David073]

It wouldn't, anymore than the triple, quadruple, or quintuple click of a turn signal on a car at an intersection indicates one is turning three, or four, or five times.

That’s apples to oranges though. The the applying of water is actually performing the desired action, whereas turning on the turn signal isn’t actually performing the desired turning action.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I understand your point, but again wouldn’t the allowance of a majority consensus in the early church be allowing outside sources to dictate a command of God? Should we not allow the scriptures to speak for themselves on the matter? Again I don’t think that trine baptism is invalid by any means, just odd. To me it’s the same as if a Presbyterian session chose to perform all baptisms by immersion. It’s still valid, just odd and lacks scriptural support.
[automerge]1747082463[/automerge]

Wouldn’t the thrice application of water communicate a thrice baptism? Also couldn’t the trine application communicate three essences rather than the triune nature of God, being baptized into the singular name of the Lord?

You can imagine meaning all you want, but that’s just it: vain imagination.

The Orthodox have done threefold immersion for more than 1500 years, no sweat.

So just relax and chill. The most important thing is the Gospel. As long as it is administered by a minister and attended by the proclamation of the Word and the person gets wet and the triune formula is used… find something else to worry about. Cheers!

 

[J.L. Allen]

Most of the baptisms I've seen (since becoming reformed) have been trine baptisms.

And along the lines that Ben has said, it's small potatoes. Just like holding the baby yourself or having a parent hold the child.

 

[David073]

You can imagine meaning all you want, but that’s just it: vain imagination.

The Orthodox have done threefold immersion for more than 1500 years, no sweat.

So just relax and chill. The most important thing is the Gospel. As long as it is administered by a minister and attended by the proclamation of the Word and the person gets wet and the triune formula is used… find something else to worry about. Cheers!

It seems I’ve struck a chord which wasn’t my intention. I’m just stating what’s apparent. Once again, I’m not saying it’s invalid just weird. Thanks for giving me your thoughts though I appreciate it.

 

[MW]

To be Reformed means that the mode is secondary to the sacrament's covenantal meaning. The fact other communions place primary importance on the mode and come up with innovations (however long they have been practised) is a good reason for us to avoid them. It has been the practice of the Reformed to keep it simple and distance ourselves from elaborate ceremonies.

 

[Pomopu]

That’s apples to oranges though. The the applying of water is actually performing the desired action, whereas turning on the turn signal isn’t actually performing the desired turning action

There is closer analogy to Leviticus 16:19, one which doesn't involve cars: "He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites." How many times was it "consecrated?" Once, right? On the day of atonement, there were not 7 atonements. Yet he sprinkled 7 times. So too, a baptism is one baptism, despite three applications of the water.

Here's another, perhaps more apropos comparison: How many times must a knife run over the skin to circumcise a male child? More than once, that's for sure.

 

[David073]

There is closer analogy to Leviticus 16:19, one which doesn't involve cars: "He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites." How many times was it "consecrated?" Once, right? On the day of atonement, there were not 7 atonements. Yet he sprinkled 7 times. So too, a baptism is one baptism, despite three applications of the water.

Here's another, perhaps more apropos comparison: How many times must a knife run over the skin to circumcise a male child? More than once, that's for sure.

Thank you brother. This does more to satisfy my questions. I’ll have to study more, but thank you once again

 

[Pomopu]

Thank you brother. This does more to satisfy my questions. I’ll have to study more, but thank you once again

yeah man I mean your approach is genuine and humble and biblical so that's laudable and you'll have to update us whenever you come to a decision on it.