Sprinkling vs Dunking

[AThornquist]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.