Re-baptism by any other name is still "re-baptism"

[Kevin]

I refrained from posting this in an other thread because my comment was not germain to the OP, however...

I just want to point out that "re-baptism" IS "re-baptism"!

The common dodge of calling re-baptism a *non re-baptism* since the first one is no baptism at all, but what we are doing is a *true* scriptual baptism. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

I know we all like to claim that our practice is the "biblical way". I refer to the practice of infant baptism as the "biblical practice" in conversations & sermons.

However it is more than a little disingenious to claim that we are not engaged in "re-baptism" when in fact there can be no other name for the practice. It is fair game to claim that the previous baptism is nul, or irregular, or heretical, but claiming that it never happened is just silly.

Just my about a personal pet pieve.

 

[Pergamum]

Kevin: Aren't you begging the question too?

If a Baptist believes that baptizomai means "dip" and is to be done for believers only, then a sprinkling of an infant is not a dipping at all and thus cannot be called a baptism. We should NOT therefore call such a thing re-baptism at all bt merely true baptism because we are to only have one faith and one baptism.


Whether it is your personal pet peeve or not, you are also engaged in trying to win the argument through winning the terminology and so many baptists will not accept your pet peeve and could put forth their own pet peeve of presbyterians calling non-baptism baptism. A mere sprinkling by any other name is just dousing your baby after all and bears no resemblance to the explicit examples of the New Testament.

Rantizo in the NT, if I am not wrong here, refers to blood but never water and especially not the waters of baptism in the NT.

 

[Kevin]

Pergy,

Baptism is a theological term used in the christian religion to refer to a variety of rituals.

My point is that the game of definition that we all play with the term does little to advance either understanding of each other or the scripture.

 

[Pergamum]

I think this "game" is essential since presbyerians call the Greek word for Dipping as something other than dipping.

Do bread and wine mean bread in wine or are they merely the technical designations for a theological term, that we can exchange for coke and potato chips? Many of the reformed push for wine in communion instead of grape juice (a tight interpretation of the permissible elements) and yet advocate a loose interpretation of the correct administration of the other ordinance - baptism. This does not appear consistent.

 

[Kevin]

You know of course that the word has several meanings of which "dip" is one?

My point is this; try to prove that "dip" is the correct definition. Don't pretend that only a handful of evangelicals posses the sacrament of baptism & the entire rest of the church (militant & triumphant) is just splashing water about.

 

[Pergamum]

dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.

The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.

 

[Kevin]

dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.

The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.

Only if you count the west, and ignore the east. And ignore all of those in heaven.

 

[holyfool33]

I never had that problem I was baptized a Mormon so I *had* to be rebaptized because the first baptism was scriptural. My pastor never tried to say that I was not being rebaptized. Because I had been baptized before but unscripturally so I needed to be rebaptized

 

[servantofmosthigh]

I refrained from posting this in an other thread because my comment was not germain to the OP, however...

I just want to point out that "re-baptism" IS "re-baptism"!

The common dodge of calling re-baptism a *non re-baptism* since the first one is no baptism at all, but what we are doing is a *true* scriptual baptism. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

I know we all like to claim that our practice is the "biblical way". I refer to the practice of infant baptism as the "biblical practice" in conversations & sermons.

However it is more than a little disingenious to claim that we are not engaged in "re-baptism" when in fact there can be no other name for the practice. It is fair game to claim that the previous baptism is nul, or irregular, or heretical, but claiming that it never happened is just silly.

Just my about a personal pet pieve.

If I were a Presbyterian (I once was for 27 years of my life), I would wholeheartedly agree with you because infant baptism IS baptism from that perspective.

Now that I'm a Baptist (for the recent 11 years of my life), I wholeheartedly disagree with you because infant baptism IS NOT baptism from this perspective.

I hope this helps... Maybe not... I'm retiring from this subject... There's more important matters to discuss. Kevin, if you think I'm rebaptizing your former Presbyterians joining our church, well, the only thing I can say is: I'm not...

 

[toddpedlar]

dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.

The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.

I know this has gone round and round and round on other threads, but baptizo is simply not EXCLUSIVELY immerse - perhaps the use is predominantly immerse, but there are other usages.

If it's only "immerse" then why did the Didache, the earliest (or among them) of church documents, prescribe pouring as a perfectly good alternative to immersion?

 

[smhbbag]

However it is more than a little disingenious to claim that we are not engaged in "re-baptism" when in fact there can be no other name for the practice. It is fair game to claim that the previous baptism is nul, or irregular, or heretical, but claiming that it never happened is just silly.

So if you use a paedo definition of baptism, then the credobaptist perspective is silly? Is this news?

 

[Pergamum]

dip, immerse or fully cover in water seems to be the jist of the word.

The Presbyterians have guarded soteriology better than any branch of Christianity and I thank God for you all. Ecclesiology is a lesser doctrine. Credobaptists are not a handful but the majority of Christianity, credobaptism and immersionism IS the majority view of Christians today.

I know this has gone round and round and round on other threads, but baptizo is simply not EXCLUSIVELY immerse - perhaps the use is predominantly immerse, but there are other usages.

If it's only "immerse" then why did the Didache, the earliest (or among them) of church documents, prescribe pouring as a perfectly good alternative to immersion?

Hmmm...Todd the Didache says also to do it in running water and in warm water and views pouring not so much as an alternative but as an exception if you don't have either cold or warm water...ie. lack of water entirely it seems(sort of like Jesus stating the ideal of marriage but the exception of divorce)....

Here is the transaltion:


Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

But do not let your fasts be with the hypocrites.

 

[Pergamum]

Furthermore, the Didache seems to speak of immersion as the priority and ideal, since sprinkling is spoken of as a clear "last ditch" exception.


Finally, you are right baptizo does not always mean explicitly immersion or dipping but can also refer to a ritual washing or bathe...best done by....err.....immersion or dipping.

 

[Pergamum]

p.s. by Ad 100 or so when the Didache was written baptismal regeneration was already creeping in. We can only draw so much out of this pious fraud.

 

[Archlute]

The discussion regarding the meaning of the term "baptizo" has already run its course several times on this board, if I remember correctly. Each time, the four volume work by Dale on the use of that term as found in Classical, Jewish, Biblical, and Patristic writings has been pointed out. Having read them, I think that they do a pretty good job of showing what you can pick up in even a single lexicon such as that by Liddell-Scott-Jones, namely, that "baptizo" and its cognates have been used to display a variety of actions other than dipping/immersing/etc. There really can be no argument against this understanding once the sources have been studied.

 

[Pergamum]

Adam:

So what I am hearing you saying is, "Anyone that knows anything knows that we have already decided that the baptists are stupid. So don't waste our time because it is already proven."

 

[Archlute]

If you'd like to read it that way.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Adam:

So what I am hearing you saying is, "Anyone that knows anything knows that we have already decided that the baptists are stupid. So don't waste our time because it is already proven."

I think a more charitable reading would be that the insistence in this thread that to Baptize means only to immerse cannot be established by the lexical studies.

...a sprinkling of an infant is not a dipping at all and thus cannot be called a baptism.

Or perhaps you meant to imply that paedobaptists were "stupid"?

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, alternative meanings besides immerse can be given for baptizo...

There is dipping,

There is the ritual washings....which I would guess would be easiest done by immersion.


There is dyeing....and immersing something in dye usually works better than sprinkling or pouring dye on something.

There is the sense of something being totally covered up, as in Nebadchadnezzar's case of being baptized with the dew of the morning if I remember right.

Submersion, wetting and purifying might also be alternate meanings...



Listen... the OP was a pet peeve which was adequately answered. No need to fight the same old tired battle again.

 

[toddpedlar]

Furthermore, the Didache seems to speak of immersion as the priority and ideal, since sprinkling is spoken of as a clear "last ditch" exception.


Finally, you are right baptizo does not always mean explicitly immersion or dipping but can also refer to a ritual washing or bathe...best done by....err.....immersion or dipping.

except in the case of dining couches...

 

[toddpedlar]

p.s. by Ad 100 or so when the Didache was written baptismal regeneration was already creeping in. We can only draw so much out of this pious fraud.

Yes, enough to know that pouring was an acceptable alternative.

 

[Pergamum]

There are exceptions to marriage too, but whole denominations do not get divorced and argue for divorce as an acceptable alternative. There is a difference between an alternative and an exception in dire straits. The Diache allowed pouring as an exception when water was not available. Why are we drawing teachings from the Didache anyway? How do you sprinkle someone with running water?

I am withdrawing.

This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....

Good day gentlemen and God bless.

 

[toddpedlar]

We're not drawing any teachings, but insight into how people in the early church understood that the verb "baptizo" could be undertaken.

Seems that pouring was an option (whether the sect who the Didache comes from was heretical or not isn't all that important) to satisfy what was meant by 'ritual washing', er, baptizing.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

There are exceptions to marriage too, but whole denominations do not get divorced and argue for divorce as an acceptable alternative. There is a difference between an alternative and an exception in dire straits. The Diache allowed pouring as an exception when water was not available. Why are we drawing teachings from the Didache anyway? How do you sprinkle someone with running water?

I am withdrawing.

This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....

Good day gentlemen and God bless.

Brother, may I offer some encouragement and peace in this...

Adam Myer's argument is based on the Presbyterian view of the matter. His argument and presupposition are laid in a way that places Baptists in a defensive posture, not in a way that could take into account Baptist history, ecclesiology and theology on this subject.

In other words, he's referring to historical lexicons that the Magisterial Reformers (paedobaptists) had embraced but English Baptists had denounced only on the issue of Baptism because the English Baptists had viewed that the Magisterial Reformers were dead wrong on this matter by not tying Baptism to the reforming of the entire church.

So I just want to encourage you to not be flustered because you felt you couldn't respond adequately. Given the way Myer laid his conclusive argument (There really can be no argument against this understanding once the sources have been studied), it does not give Baptists a fair way of answering because he's referring to the sources that Baptists had rejected on the topic of Baptism from the start.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This thread began as a rant and a pet peeve and can only go further downhill.....

I don't understand how you have done anything but contribute to the degeneration of dialogue here. Whatever the motive of Kevin was, it seems a bit duplicitous to quote on the one hand that "baptism can mean only this..." and then get bent out of shape when person presents a refutation that says it cannot be established. In other words, you got angry that Adam was as forceful about the opposite of what you have asserted so forcefully.

Your response to my post? To be even more forceful in insisting that the word can only mean what you said it could mean.

 

[tcalbrecht]

 

[Kevin]

Just to be clear...

I avoided commenting in any other thread so as to not derail any conversation that was taking place about the diferences we have over the doctrine of baptism.

However, begging the question is never a good form of argument. To say that "we don't rebaptise, because no one but us knows how to baptise" may make you feel good, but it is not a legitimate argument.

Please, by all means, disprove Dale, overturn the entire rest of christendom, explain Hebrews chapter 9, show why the septuigent was wrong, but (please) don't just say "I'm right because you are wrong".

 

[Kevin]

Kevin: Aren't you begging the question too?

If a Baptist believes that baptizomai means "dip" and is to be done for believers only, then a sprinkling of an infant is not a dipping at all and thus cannot be called a baptism. We should NOT therefore call such a thing re-baptism at all bt merely true baptism because we are to only have one faith and one baptism.


Whether it is your personal pet peeve or not, you are also engaged in trying to win the argument through winning the terminology and so many baptists will not accept your pet peeve and could put forth their own pet peeve of presbyterians calling non-baptism baptism. A mere sprinkling by any other name is just dousing your baby after all and bears no resemblance to the explicit examples of the New Testament.

Rantizo in the NT, if I am not wrong here, refers to blood but never water and especially not the waters of baptism in the NT.

Sorry I did not respond to this sooner.

No, I am not begging the question. To "beg the question" means to assume what is in dispute. What is in dispute is "re-baptism", if in your definition of the terms you define away you opponents position you have begged the question.

I have not done that. I disagree with your view & I will (& have) argued against it, but that is not the same thing at all.

 

[servantofmosthigh]

Just to be clear...

I avoided commenting in any other thread so as to not derail any conversation that was taking place about the diferences we have over the doctrine of baptism.

However, begging the question is never a good form of argument. To say that "we don't rebaptise, because no one but us knows how to baptise" may make you feel good, but it is not a legitimate argument.

Please, by all means, disprove Dale, overturn the entire rest of christendom, explain Hebrews chapter 9, show why the septuigent was wrong, but (please) don't just say "I'm right because you are wrong".

Kevin, allow me to answer this by use of an example.

Let's say that I want to change my U.S. citizenship to another country, but in order to do so, I need to serve in their military. I inform them that I've already served in the military of my country, but while they do accept some countries' military service as fulfilling theirs, they do not recognize the U.S. military service as fulfilling theirs. Thus, in order to become a citizen of their country, I must serve in their military. If not, I should remain in the U.S. or consider another country.

Likewise, as a paedobaptist, you may feel your baptism is legitimate. But if for some reason you wish to join my church, you will need to be baptized according to our ecclesiological standard because we do not recognize your church's baptism. In your view, it's rebaptism. In our view, it's not. Now, if you don't like it, stay in your church. Don't come to my church. Or consider another church that's open to your baptism.

Hope this helps.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to be clear...

I avoided commenting in any other thread so as to not derail any conversation that was taking place about the diferences we have over the doctrine of baptism.

However, begging the question is never a good form of argument. To say that "we don't rebaptise, because no one but us knows how to baptise" may make you feel good, but it is not a legitimate argument.

Please, by all means, disprove Dale, overturn the entire rest of christendom, explain Hebrews chapter 9, show why the septuigent was wrong, but (please) don't just say "I'm right because you are wrong".

Kevin, allow me to answer this by use of an example.

Let's say that I want to change my U.S. citizenship to another country, but in order to do so, I need to serve in their military. I inform them that I've already served in the military of my country, but while they do accept some countries' military service as fulfilling theirs, they do not recognize the U.S. military service as fulfilling theirs. Thus, in order to become a citizen of their country, I must serve in their military. If not, I should remain in the U.S. or consider another country.

Likewise, as a paedobaptist, you may feel your baptism is legitimate. But if for some reason you wish to join my church, you will need to be baptized according to our ecclesiological standard because we do not recognize your church's baptism. In your view, it's rebaptism. In our view, it's not. Now, if you don't like it, stay in your church. Don't come to my church. Or consider another church that's open to your baptism.

Hope this helps.

I do want to note an irony here for Baptists to remember as somebody just got a lot of face shots recently.

Essentially what Will stated was that infant baptism is no baptism at all. Just Remember not to get too bent out of shape the next time a Dutch Reformed person makes a similar remark about your ordinances.

The difference between Presbyterians and Baptists, perhaps, is that we see one Kingdom of Christ and not your Kingdom and our Kingdom.

This is why we recognize your baptisms as legitimate. Either we're citizens in the same Kingdom or we are not.